Studies of the impact of migration on sending households (e.g., Dean Yang, 2004; Alejandra C. Edwards and Manuelita Ureta, 2003) have largely neglected the fact that certain allocations can only be imperfectly monitored when household members are not coresident (see Ralph Chami et al., 2003, for an exception). In this case, allocations can be coordinated only to the extent that they can be verified, and household decision making may not be fully cooperative. The existence of such behavior among household members would suggest that expanding opportunities for migration will have different effects on expenditure patterns than simply increasing the amount of income received by the household. Changes in earned income and the potential to earn income will affect bargaining among spouses, but noncooperative behavior will have an additional effect on the final distribution of household resources. With the

Rainfall measures may be imperfect proxies for floods, given factors such as upstream water balance, proximity to rivers, and topography. We check the robustness of flooding-migration relationships by combining nationally-representative survey data with measures of flooding derived from weather stations, gridded products, and remote sensing tools. Linear probability models reveal that extreme flooding is negatively associated with out-migration. Rainfall-based proxies produce results qualitatively similar to those using the satellite-based measure of inundation, but only the latter is able to discern non-monotonic effects throughout the distribution. Moreover, estimates differ widely across areas, suggesting that households respond differently to rainfall and flooding.