Tag
13 cards
Access to remittance labeling significantly increased the weekly remittance probability (+1.1 percentage points, p < 0.05) and log remittance amount (+0.093, p < 0.10) for above-median income migrants, but had no statistically significant impact on below-median income migrants (+0.2 percentage points, p > 0.10).
Access to automated in-app labeling and messaging (via free SMS, WhatsApp, or Messenger) [1] caused a statistically significant reduction in household phone and communication expenditures (-0.344 log points, p < 0.05) [7, 8].
Access to remittance labeling produced a statistically significant negative effect on household educational expenditures (-0.432 log points, p < 0.05 in full sample; -0.448 log points, p < 0.10 in above-median baseline remittance subsample).
Female migrants in the treatment group showed a statistically significant increase in the weekly probability of sending a remittance (+0.011, p < 0.10) and log amount sent (+0.082, p > 0.10), whereas male migrants showed a non-significant increase (+0.006, p > 0.10) and log amount sent (+0.045, p > 0.10).
Captured 137,927 weekly observations while eliminating date overlaps and memory gaps across 30 follow-up weeks.
Baseline survey data demonstrates that migrants favor long-term investment (education, housing) while beneficiaries favor immediate consumption; unmonitored preference asymmetry reduces baseline remittances (averaging 1,311 AED per month) below potential capacity.
Treatment interaction by parental beneficiary status produced no statistically significant heterogeneity in overall remittance probability (+0.003 effect size for non-parents, p > 0.10; +0.001 for parents, p > 0.10).
Remittance labeling feature adoption was statistically significant with a 4.2% weekly usage probability (t = 47.701, p < 0.001), averaging 0.054 labeled transfers per week and a winsorized average labeled remittance amount of 687.57 PhP per week (t = 30.389, p < 0.001) [13, 14].
Highlights that traditional aggregate training evaluations obscure underlying mechanisms, recommending cross-randomization of sub-modules to isolate distinct cognitive and behavioral channels.
Remittance labeling produced no statistically significant increase in household spending on migrant-designated priority items (-0.200 log points, p > 0.10) or total household expenditures (+0.039 log points, p > 0.10), while education expenditures significantly declined (-0.432 log points, p < 0.05) [24, 25].
While 27.1% of migrants signed intent forms, operational delays—such as schools lacking bank accounts or taking 2–3 weeks to produce invoices—resulted in only 21 actual transactions being completed (a 4.3% final execution rate among eligible participants).
In the low-baseline remittance subsample, access to labeling caused a statistically significant increase in log medical expenditures (+0.862 log points, p < 0.01), whereas total household expenditures showed no significant change (+0.088 log points, p > 0.10).
Low-baseline remitters increased remittance amounts (+174.94 PhP/week, p < 0.05), yet recipient spending on migrant priority items showed no significant increase (-0.200 log points, p > 0.10), indicating potential treatment attenuation over longer time horizons.