Government Scheme Overload? Take-up and Targeting in a Multi-Scheme Context

Policy Context

Governments in developing countries often provide a wide array of social protection programs, yet take-up remains persistently low. While prior research has focused on improving enrollment in individual schemes, much less is known about how people navigate complex welfare systems as a whole. This gap is especially important in settings where beneficiaries face dozens of overlapping entitlements and must decide not only whether to apply, but also which programs to prioritize.

This project studies this challenge in India, where the central government administers more than 800 welfare schemes each year. Internal migrants are a particularly vulnerable group within this system. Many migrate from rural areas to work as daily wage laborers in cities and are eligible for over 30 benefits, yet most have not applied for or received these entitlements. The project examines whether exposure to many schemes helps individuals target benefits that best match their needs, or instead overwhelms them and depresses overall take-up. By focusing on how the quantity of available programs shapes decision-making, the study highlights the role of behavioral constraints in social protection systems and their implications for effective targeting.

Study Design

The project implemented a pilot study in Delhi NCR with more than 2,000 internal migrants, using randomized variation in how welfare information was delivered. NGO offices were assigned to one of three arms. In all arms, frontline workers first assessed migrants’ eligibility across multiple government schemes.

In the single-scheme treatment arm, frontline workers shared information about one eligible program. In the multi-scheme treatment arm, workers shared information about several eligible programs at once. In the control group, workers provided information on additional schemes at their own discretion. This design isolates the effect of information quantity while holding constant the process of eligibility assessment.

The pilot measured how many schemes migrants attempted to access and ultimately availed. Building on these results, the project is refining its design for a larger-scale intervention that will further examine how the number of schemes presented affects both the quantity and quality of benefits accessed. Planned follow-up phone surveys with informal migrant workers and frontline staff will collect additional data on welfare outcomes and implementation dynamics.

Results and Policy Lessons

Evidence of Scheme Overload

The pilot provides evidence of scheme overload. Migrants who received information about multiple schemes attempted fewer applications than those who received information about a single scheme. On average, individuals in the multi-scheme arm availed 0.17 fewer schemes, which translates into an estimated 498 fewer availed benefits across the study sample.

These findings suggest that presenting too many options at once can reduce engagement with welfare systems, even among highly vulnerable populations with substantial unmet needs. Rather than enabling more tailored choices, increased choice complexity appears to discourage action.

Implications for Welfare Design

The results point to an important tradeoff in social protection delivery. While comprehensive information may seem beneficial, excessive choice can undermine take-up. The project underscores the value of simplifying beneficiary pathways and carefully structuring how information is delivered. Ongoing work will explore whether staged or prioritized information can improve both access and targeting, helping governments translate large welfare budgets into meaningful support for intended recipients.