Are Estimates of Irregular Migration Intentions Biased? Evidence from a Double List Experiment in Ethiopia

While the study of international migration has benefited from the use of direct surveys to measure aspirations to migrate, little attention has been paid to potential sensitivity biases that could lead to measurement errors (i.e., underreporting) when eliciting irregular migration intentions. In contexts where migration through irregular pathways is clandestine, dangerous, and concealed from family members to avoid interference, prospective migrants may hesitate to disclose their true intentions. Thus, the question arises: Are direct survey estimates underreporting intentions to migrate through irregular pathways? This article presents evidence from a double-list experiment in rural Central Ethiopia in 2022. Drawing on a sample of 5,302 respondents, this study compares estimates of intentions to migrate irregularly obtained through a traditional direct question vs. a less intrusive double list experiment. While the main results indicate no significant differences between the double list experiment and the direct question in the prevalence of irregular migration intentions, further analysis reveals heterogeneous sensitivity biases with respect to respondent subgroups. Taken together, the results suggest that direct measures of irregular migration intentions can be reliable.