Why the ‘One Nation One Ration Card’ Scheme Still Falls Short in Practice

Before the implementation of the “One Nation One Ration Card” or ONORC scheme, ration cards in India were geographically locked to a single fair price shop, creating a significant barrier for India's massive population of internal migrants. When workers moved across districts or states in search of livelihoods, they were effectively cut off from Public Distribution System benefits, often resulting in hunger and exclusion. 

The ONORC scheme seeks to correct this inequity by enabling nationwide portability of food entitlements. Using technology to integrate and digitise the PDS, it allows beneficiaries to claim their grain allocations from any FPS in the country—recognising their right to food with dignity, regardless of location.

That is the theory. But how well does ONORC work in practice? New research offers valuable insights by examining how the portability of welfare benefits influences internal migration patterns in India. Combining audit evidence with a large-scale randomised controlled trial, the study explores whether improving awareness about ONORC alters migrants’ beliefs and behaviour.

System Failures
Although ONORC aims to make PDS benefits fully portable, several technical and administrative frictions have limited its effectiveness. The research highlights issues such as biometric authentication failures, inconsistent stock management, and poor awareness among FPS dealers.

To probe these problems, the researchers conducted an audit across 14 Indian cities, surveying 575 migrants and 2,000 ration shop owners, and deploying “mystery shoppers” who attempted to claim rations using out-of-district or out-of-state cards.

The audit revealed that ONORC remains only partially operational. While most shop owners said migrants could access rations at their outlets, frequent stockouts and electronic verification errors regularly disrupted transactions. Roughly half of the dealers admitted prioritising local customers during shortages, and around 40% of migrants who tried to use their ration cards failed at least once. These findings expose continuing administrative and technological bottlenecks that restrict the scheme’s reach despite its nationwide rollout.

Building on these findings, the researchers implemented a cluster-randomised controlled trial involving 62,000 households across 18 states. Households were randomly assigned to receive two kinds of information: basic details about the ONORC scheme and its intended portability benefits, and messages about barriers to its use (such as authentication failures and stock shortages). 

Initially, the intervention raised beliefs about portability both within and across states, indicating that awareness was low. But four months later, treated households showed less belief in ONORC’s portability than the control group. This reversal occurred because concurrent government awareness campaigns increased general knowledge of the scheme, while the experimental messages about implementation barriers undermined trust in its reliability. 

The authors thus distinguish between awareness and trust: the intervention strengthened the former but weakened the latter.

The study then examined how ONORC influences migration behaviour. Overall migration rates remained unchanged. However, treated households were less likely to send members to urban areas and more likely to send them to rural destinations. This suggests that food security concerns weigh more heavily on potential urban migrants, who face higher costs and weaker support networks.

Eight months later, these effects disappeared, implying that the deterrent impact on urban migration was temporary. The study also found a small, statistically marginal rise in income but no significant change in consumption. This is consistent with the notion that short-term urban migration yields limited gains for vulnerable households.

Policy Implications
This new research contributes to our broader understanding about migration and social protection by highlighting the role of welfare portability in shaping migration incentives. It shows that administrative frictions in welfare systems can influence where people move, not just whether they migrate. 

Enhancing the reliability and perceived credibility of welfare portability can improve labour mobility and help narrow rural–urban income gaps. Conversely, incomplete or unreliable implementation may deter movement towards opportunity-rich urban areas.

Ultimately, the promise of ONORC rests less on its technological design than on trust—trust in the state’s capacity to deliver entitlements consistently and without friction.

* Views are personal