Information and Participation in Social Programs

Abstract

Participation in social programs, such as clubs and other social organizations, results from a process in which an agent learns about the requirements, benefits, and likelihood of acceptance related to a program, applies to be a participant, and, finally, is accepted or rejected. We propose a model of this participation process and provide an application of the model using data from a social program in Mexico. Our empirical analysis illustrates that decisions at each stage of the process are responsive to expectations about the decisions and outcomes at the subsequent stages and that knowledge about the program can have a significant impact on participation outcomes. JEL codes: I38, D83, program participation, take-up, information acquisition, targeting, undercoverage, leakage Social programs around the world often rely on the voluntary participation of those deemed deserving. Available evidence, however, shows an enormous variation in the "take-up" rate, that is, the rate of participation by eligible individuals in social programs.

Non-take-up of student financial aid—A microsimulation for Germany

“…A lack of knowledge and high complexity of claiming the bene ts, by contrast, increases claiming costs. A large strand of the literature casts doubt on the assumption of perfectly informed students (Be inger et al, 2012;Loyalka et al, 2013;Herber, 2015), emphasizes the complexity of federal aid applications (Dynarski and Sco -Clayton, 2006;Dynarski and Wiederspan, 2012), and shows that information de cits drive non-take-up of other social bene ts (Coady et al, 2013).…”

Finding the Poor vs. Measuring their Poverty: Exploring the Drivers of Targeting Effectiveness in Indonesia

“…Most studies use a single survey to identify intended and actual recipients, i.e., who is poor and who is receiving government benefits. However, as argued by Coady et al (2013), relying solely on household self-reporting of beneficiary status does not allow for a full understanding of what happens at the multiple stages of the targeting process, before benefits are delivered to households. Our findings relate to those of Coady and Parker (2009) and Coady et al (2013), who consider a three-step, program-specific targeting process comprising information, self-selection to apply, and ranking stages.…”