Transmigration is a domestic migration policy in Indonesia that subsidizes families from urbanized regions to move to less-urbanized regions in order to achieve goals of population balance, development, and social integration. The merits of transmigration are heavily disputed by two contrasting knowledge claims: developmentalism and case-study-based constructivism. The developmental worldview argues it is an essential tool for population management and regional development. In contrast, the case-study-based constructivist worldview proposes that the program creates social segregation and inequality in peripheral regions. Given the limited evidence on the impacts of transmigration, this thesis assesses how participating households fare, with the important caveat that the program impacts the receiving regions as well. Using household panel data in Indonesia, I find that the households participating in the transmigration program experienced an accumulation in family wealth and an increase in expenditure in comparison to similar households. However, I find that the households with a long-term and larger share of the member participating in the transmigration program experienced similar socioeconomic status with the transmigrant households with short-term and lesser participation. The research findings raise more critical questions on the policy's equity and efficiency. On equity, the findings show a substantial material well-being disparity of households who have and who do not have access to the program. On efficiency, the findings show that the policy is inefficient because transmigrant loyal participation in the program does not affect the household economy and the cost of the policy is higher than the measured returns in the household economy.