IMPLEMENTATION OF MGNREGA: PERSPECTIVE AND ISSUES

Transcription

1 IJRDMS Volume 10 Number 2 December 2016 pp IMPLEMENTATION OF MGNREGA: PERSPECTIVE AND ISSUES O. P. Singh * Abstract: Enactment of MGNREG Act and subsequent policies and programmes of the government have produced vast effects in the field of rural development and implement the right to employment. The implementation of MGNREGA came as a relief to vulnerable classes of society as it guaranteed not only wage employment for the present, but also created enough capital assets to get employed in future. MGNREGA promises 100 days of employment at the minimum wages. MGNREGS can also promote pro-poor growth. Employment generation has been one of the most important issues for the government of India since independence. However, the government was unable to create enough job opportunities to absorb the increasing population. Ignorance of agriculture, excessive encouragement to capital intensive industrialization, dependence on public sector, sidelining private sector and inconsistent attention to the labour intensive activities gradually formed an economic structure with high and increasing supply of labour and slowly progressing demand for labour. The resultant effect was that the unemployed labour force swelled beyond proportions. Thus, implementation of MGNREGA has promised to provide livelihood security to marginalised, poor and weaker sections of society through 100 employment in rural areas. Against this background, present paper attempts to review the emerging perspective of the national programme and highlighting the pertinent issues. Indian society is highly stratified. This stratification has resulted into glaring inequalities among different social groups. This age-old social stratification is the result of the prevailing caste system, which has segregated the Dalits (SCs, STs and the OBCs) from the rest of the society to such an extent that they had been denied in the past even the basic human needs and the rights that are required to ensure one s bare existence. The caste system has created and sustained an unequal opportunity structure, which is an anathema to the egalitarian principles, which are the basis of a modern democratic society. What is worse, it intensifies and perpetuates the sufferings and servitude of the disadvantaged groups by reducing their access to developmental benefits. Importantly, the SCs came to be placed at the lowest rungs of the hierarchical caste order from where there was no scope for upward mobility. Moreover, religious injunctions blunt even the limited scope for resistance. Thus, the power and privilege accorded to the upper castes in the Varna social order, in course of time, resulted in the appropriation of wealth and resources. Since wealth, power and resources were under their disposal, they could have more resources and these resources could be converted into power and power ensured acquisition of resources. In the ultimate analysis, * Associate Prof., Deptt. of Community Medicine and Public Health, K. G. Medical University, Lucknow.

2 114 O. P. Singh the resources, wealth, power, position, privileges, higher status, authority, education, employment, services, land and labour got concentrated in the hands of upper castes. The Scheduled Caste population, according to 2011 Census, was crores constituting 16 percent of the total population of India. In terms of absolute numbers, Scheduled Castes are primarily concentrated in Uttar Pradesh (3.51 crores), West Bengal (1.9 crores), Andhra Pradesh (1.3 crores) Tamil Nadu (1.2 crores), and Bihar (1.2 crores). These States, together, account for percent of the total Scheduled Caste population of the country. Punjab occupies first position in terms of percentage of Scheduled Castes to the State population (28.85 percent) followed by Himachal Pradesh (24.72 percent), West Bengal (23.02 percent), Rajasthan (17.29 percent) and Madhya Pradesh (14.55 percent). The tribal population of the country, as per 2011 census, is crore, constituting 8.6 percent of the total population. About percent of them live in rural areas and percent in urban areas. Broadly the STs inhabit two distinct geographical areas the Central India and the North- Eastern Area. More than half of the Scheduled Tribe population is concentrated in Central India, i.e., Madhya Pradesh (14.69 percent), Chhattisgarh (7.5 percent), Jharkhand (8.29 percent), Andhra Pradesh (5.7 percent), Maharashtra (10.08 percent), Orissa (9.2 percent), Gujarat (8.55 percent) and Rajasthan (8.86 percent). The other distinct area is the North East (Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, Manipur, Meghalaya, Tripura, Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh). Among States, Mizoram has the highest proportion of Scheduled Tribes (94.43 percent) and Uttar Pradesh has the lowest proportion of Scheduled Tribes (0.57 percent). The Ministry of Rural Development, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act aims at enhancing livelihood security of households in rural areas of the country by providing at least one hundred days of guaranteed wage employment in a financial year to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work. The Mahatma Gandhi NREGA has become a powerful instrument for inclusive growth in rural India through its impact on social protection, livelihood security and democratic governance. Mahatma Gandhi NREGA is the first ever law internationally that guarantees wage employment at an unprecedented scale. The Act came into force on February 2, 2006 and was implemented in a phased manner. In Phase I it was introduced in 200 of the most backward districts of the country. It was implemented in an additional 130 districts in Phase II The Act was notified in the remaining rural districts of the country from April 1, 2008 in Phase III. All rural districts are covered under Mahatma Gandhi NREGA. The Central Government bears the 75 percent of the cost of material, wages of skilled and semiskilled workers while the State Government bears the remaining 25 percent of the cost. Enactment of MGNREG Act and subsequent policies and programmes of the government have produced vast effects in the field of rural development and implement the right to employment. The literature review carried out above reflects that though some researchers have done study on MGNREGA most of those are confined to economic aspect only. It is not comprehensive. Very few people have emphasized on implementation aspects of MGNREGA. Social aspects are not much highlighted. The first Millennium Development Goal (MDG) of Eradicating Extreme Poverty and Hunger aims at reducing the proportion

3 Implementation of Mgnrega: Perspective and Issues 115 of people whose income is less than $1 between 1990 and 2015 by half. India s 11 th Five Year Plan, reiterating the country s commitment to the MDGs, has set socio-economic targets for inclusive growth and development. These include reducing the headcount ratio of consumption poverty by 10 percentage points, raising real wage rates of unskilled workers by 20 percent and creating 70 million new work opportunities. The Government of India has adopted a multifaceted development strategy that promotes economic growth and also addresses the needs of the poor by ensuring their basic rights. The Ministry of Rural Development has a gamut of targeted programmes from providing direct employment, self employment, social security, housing, building rural infrastructure and managing land resources to alleviating poverty. In this context, workfare programmes have been important interventions. Through short term employment, these programmes provide income transfers to poor households during critical times such as lean agricultural seasons, and enable consumption smoothening. Evolving the design of the wage employment programmes to more effectively fight poverty, the Union Government formulated the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) in 2005, a paradigm shift from earlier programmes. With its legal framework and rights-based approach, MGNREGA provides employment to those who demand it. Notified on September 7, 2005, it aims at enhancing livelihood security by providing at least 100 of guaranteed wage employment in a financial year to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work. The Act covered 200 districts in its first phase, implemented on February 2, 2006, and was extended to 330 additional districts in All the remaining rural areas have been notified with effect from April 1, As per the Indian government s Census 2001, rural India constitutes 72.2% of Indian population of which around 33 percent population is under the poverty line. If India has to realize it s promised growth and development, it is imperative that this multitude of people be able to earn their livelihood in a sustainable way. This is the very objective with which the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act was passed in the year 2005 with an objective of providing 100 days of employment in way of manual labour which uses unskilled labour and with the help of that, create sustainable community assets. But like many of the other acts before it, this one also raises many questions over the execution of the scheme and loopholes in the act itself. All adult members of a rural household willing to do unskilled manual work have the right to demand employment. After verification, the Gram Panchayat will issue a Job Card with photograph of all adult members of the household willing to work under the program. Job Cardholder can apply for work to the Gram Panchayat which will issue him/her a dated receipt of the work application. Employment will be provided by the Gram Panchayat within 15 days of work application, failing which unemployment allowance will be paid. Disbursement of wages has to be done on weekly basis and not beyond a fortnight. Wages will be paid at the wagerate to the wage earners through their Bank/Post office accounts. A ratio of 60:40 for wage and material costs should be maintained at GP level. No contractors/and no labour-displacing machinery shall be used in execution of works. Panchayati Raj Institutions will have a

4 116 O. P. Singh principal role in planning, monitoring and implementation. At least one-third of the workers should be women. Water conservation and water harvesting including contour trenches, contour bunds, boulder checks, gabion structures, underground dykes, earthen dams, stop dams and spring shed development ; drought proofing including afforestation and tree plantation; irrigation canals including micro and minor irrigation works; provision of irrigation facility, dug out farm pond, horticulture, plantation, farm bunding and land development; renovation of traditional water bodies including desilting of tanks; land development; lood control and protection works including drainage in water logged areas including deepening and repairing of flood channels, chaur renovation, construction of storm water drains for coastal protection and rural connectivity to provide all weather access, including culverts and roads within a village, construction of Bharat Nirman Rajiv Gandhi Sewa Kendra as Knowledge Resource Centre at the Block level and as Gram Panchayat Bhawan at the Gram Panchayat level. wherever necessary are the permissible activities under MGNREGA. Agriculture related works, such as, NADEP composting, vermin-composting, liquid bio-manures; livestock related works, such as, poultry shelter, goat shelter, construction of pucca floor, urine tank and fodder trough for cattle, azolla as cattle-feed supplement; fisheries related works, such as, fisheries in seasonal water bodies on public land; works in coastal areas, such as, fish drying yards, belt vegetation; rural drinking water related works, such as, soak pits, recharge pits and rural sanitation related works, such as, individual household latrines, school toilet units, Anganwadi toilets, solid and liquid waste management are also included in the activities of the scheme. Alleviation of poverty through employment generation using rural works has had a long history in India which began in the 1960s. There were few notable precursors to the MGNAREGA Act which were based on the theme of alleviating rural poverty through creating employment in rural areas. These were Food for Work Programme of 1977 and three years later National Rural Employment Programme which was introduced in In 1989, the above programmes were merged into Jawahar Rozgar Yojana implemented through panchayats for the first time. In 1999 the programme was revamped and rechristened as Jawahar Gram Swarojgar Yojna; reinforcing the role of panchayats with greater autonomy as sole implementing authority. In 1993, Employment Assurance Scheme, specifically targeting job creation for rural areas in lean agricultural months was launched. In 2001 government merged the Employment Assurance Scheme and Jawahar Gram Swarojgar Yojna to converge employment generation, infrastructure development and food security in rural areas, the government integrated Assurance Scheme and Jawahar Gram Swarojgar Yojna into a new scheme Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana, village panchayats being sole implementing authority. All these programmes suffered from poor coverage, wrong targeting and coherence among multiple agencies. In 2006, the government integrated Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana of 2001 and Food for Work Programme introduced in 2001, into a new scheme called Mahatma Gandhi National Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). It has been argued that provision of employment to the rural poor is not an exclusive step;

5 Implementation of Mgnrega: Perspective and Issues 117 but has multi faceted effects on the economy. Unemployment is strongly correlated with poverty, thus, provision of gainful employment will help reduce the number of poor. Further, the provision of incomes enables livelihood security, decision making and bargaining power to the poor. The socially marginalized and ostracized communities are rejuvenated to fight for themselves. Local savings are boosted. Distress migration, constituting a significant proportion of migration in India, can be reduced considerably and its ill effects can be evaded. Besides, there are positive effects on physical and mental health also. By absorbing surplus labour in productive activities, pressure on agriculture reduces considerably which further boosts agricultural productivity. Thus, provision of gainful long term employment can result in many constructive spill-over effects on the society. Employment generation has been one of the most important issues for the government of India since independence. However, the government was unable to create enough job opportunities to absorb the increasing population. Ignorance of agriculture, excessive encouragement to capital intensive industrialization, dependence on public sector, sidelining private sector and inconsistent attention to the labour intensive activities gradually formed an economic structure with high and increasing supply of labour and slowly progressing demand for labour. The resultant effect was that the unemployed labour force swelled beyond proportions. As a consequence, the government faced serious pressure to make the education sector more robust and responsive to the current trends along with encouraging more labour intensive activities to absorb the skilled and the unskilled. Provision of gainful and productive employment to the citizens of any country is one of the fundamental duties and responsibilities of the government. This duty becomes all the more important in developing countries like India owing to majority of rural population, excessive dependence on agriculture, high levels of poverty and unemployment and weak occupational structure. Public Works Programs are seen as the best solution to such problems. Firstly, they increase the employment opportunities within the country and help absorb the increasing labour force and reduce the pressure on agriculture. Secondly, they also add to the productive potential within the country and contribute towards capital formation. MGNREGA would ensure at least six outcomes firstly, that the employment guarantee would not merely provide relief in times of distress, it would also be a move towards long-term drought and flood-proofing of Indian agriculture; secondly, this would shift the economy on to a more sustainable growth path, less vulnerable to the vicissitudes of nature; thirdly, this growth will be a more effective instrument for reducing poverty because we now know that the impact of growth on poverty is higher in areas where social infrastructure is more developed; fourthly, the number of people who depend on a state sponsored employment guarantee would steadily decline over time; fifthly, the expenditure incurred on the employment guarantee would be non inflationary because it will spur agricultural growth upon whose foundation a whole range of sustainable livelihoods could be built; and sixthly by fuelling successive rounds of private investment, it will also set up a multiplier of secondary employment opportunities (Shah, 2007). MGNREGA activities solely focus on generation of employment through creation of durable assets. For instance, construction of concrete roads within the villages connecting them to urban centres,

6 118 O. P. Singh towns or major roads would employ unskilled labourers and also improve transportation within and outside the villages. Similarly, construction of buildings for schools, colleges, hospitals or industries will encourage further socio economic development signalling long term employment. Wells constructed under MGNREGA, although via a lot of corruption and malpractices, helped farmers irrigate their lands adequately, take multiple crops in a year, use water for drinking, bathing and washing activities and raise their incomes substantially. The success of MGNREGA should be judged not by the large number of unskilled manual labour which is coming out to dig roads, but to be able to say that we have created sustainable rural livelihoods through the rejuvenation of water, land and forests. In fact, water conservation has been a top agenda in many of the MGNREGA activities. The basic thought process underlying MGNREGA is to create employment opportunities for the rural and semi- urban unskilled poor in course of development of sustainable assets related to land, water and forests, whereby, after the construction activities are completed, the workers can engage themselves in agriculture to take advantage of the good quality land and water. Some of them can also engage in forest related activities. India is a country with vast majority of the workers depending on the informal sector for livelihood. Most of these workers are either casual in nature or are self-employed. These workers have no security, no legal contract, no health benefits and other benefits extended to the workers of the formal sector (Kannan, K.P. and J. Breman). The MGNREGA works are largely focused on land and water resources, which include: water harvesting and conservation, soil conservation and protection, irrigation provisioning and improvement, renovation of traditional water bodies, land development and drought proofing. These MGNREGS works have the potential to generate environmental benefits such as ground water recharge, soil, water and biodiversity conservation, sustaining food production, halting land degradation and building resilience to current climate risks such as moisture stress, delayed rainfall, droughts and floods (Tiwari et al., 2011; MoRD, 2012). Many authors are of the opinion that improvement in agricultural productivity is not directly related to environmental sustainability. Further, the impact of MGNREGA on water harvesting and soil reclamation should be examined in a water scarce region. During and after rainfall seasons, the water content in the soil and ground will obviously be higher irrespective of the presence or absence of MGNREGA. Most studies relating MGNREGA and environment have focused on qualitatively superior regions for their study. However, these regions will represent a good quality environment only. In such cases, the actual impact of MGNREGA on environment is uncertain. Only a comprehensive analysis evaluating environment standards pre and post MGNREGA will be able to give a clearer picture of actual impacts of MGNREGA on environment (Kumar, 2011). MGNREGA activities solely focus on generation of employment through creation of durable assets. The case of Ratu block in Ranchi district of Jharkhand is a typical example of how MGNREGA can help create durable assets for the economy. Wells constructed under MGNREGA, although via a lot of corruption and malpractices, helped farmers irrigate their lands adequately, take multiple crops in a year, use water for drinking, bathing and washing activities and raise their incomes

7 Implementation of Mgnrega: Perspective and Issues 119 substantially. MGNREGA has helped in improving the overall work conditions in districts (Aggarwal 2012, Gupta et al. 2012). A case study of Mayurbhanj district (Odisha), carried out in October 2007 narrates the impacts of infusing banking technology into MGNREGA. Ever since the date of implementation of MGNREGA scheme, various social scientists have made attempt to study the impact of MGNREGA scheme and also its implementation procedures. Khan, Ullah and Salluja (2007) have discussed the direct and the indirect effects of MGNREGA on employment generation and poverty reduction in a local area. For this, a detailed survey was done in a poor agricultural village with 400 households, nearly 2500 people. The survey recorded income and expenditure levels by type of household including large, small and marginal farmers, agricultural labour etc. The survey also recorded production activities undertaken by the inhabitants. This village study reveals that most people do not access the scheme, as they haven t heard of the programme. They would like a more proactive role of the panchayat in deciding the infrastructure to be constructed. Almost everyone wants more work from the 10 scheme and better facilities at the work place. There is enough evidence of fudging and mismanagement of records Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, Chennai (2009), Evaluation of National Rural Employment Guarantee Act: In Districts: Cuddlore, Dindugal, Kanchipuram, Nagai, Thiruvallar, State: Tamil Nadu reveals the impact of MNREGA in the state of Tamil Nadu by taking 5 districts into account. In each districts 4 GPs were chosen. Action for Food Production (AFPRO), New Delhi (2009), Infrastructure Development and Beyond: Exploring the Scope for Sustainable Livelihood Support under NREGA has recognized the need to learn from work carried out in MGNREGS and its effectiveness for sustainable livelihood support at the community level, AFPRO carried out a study in Chainpur Block, District Gumla, Jharkhand. An assessment was done of 37 works in 28 villages and 10 Gram Panchayats in Chainpur block. Works covered out included ponds, wells, roads, check dams, earthen bunds, land leveling sites and guard walls. Works were selected on random basis from different years of MGNREGA implementation since Areas for improvement at village-level were related to effective participation of villagers/beneficiaries in the decision-making process, selection of need-based Schemes, and increasing the ownership of infrastructure created under the Scheme. The need to give priority to selection of smaller structures for soil and water conservation has also been highlighted in the recommendations. Giving better tools to workers, orientation of functionaries, coordination among line departments, etc. are some of the other measures suggested. Administrative Staff College of India (2009), Quick Appraisal of NREGA in Andhra Pradesh, ASCI conducted a study to understand MGNREGS s processes, procedures and impact. The study was oriented towards identifying good practices that could be up scaled for strengthening the programme. Research was undertaken in six blocks of three districts Anantpur, Adilabad and Guntur of Andhra Pradesh. The positive findings of the study included, increase in groundwater in Anantpur as a result of the assets created, improved agricultural yields across all three districts and reduction in migration. The study also showed the problems the programme faced including delays in wage payment and poor quality of assets.

8 120 O. P. Singh Bank payments of MGNREGA wages have already been introduced in a number of districts, and are likely to be used more widely in the near future (Vanaik 2008, Siddhartha, 2008). While the rushed transition to bank payments created a certain amount of confusion and chaos, the prospects of effective use of banks as a payment agency for MGNREGA seem reasonably good (Adhikari and Bhatia, 2010). Central Institute of Fisheries Education (2009), A Study Report on Appraisal on MGNREGA Programme in Thane and Akola Districts of Maharashtra undertook an assessment of MGNREGA in two districts of Maharashtra, Thane and Akola. The positive findings included significant representation of women and SCs and STs in MGNREGS works, increased employment opportunities, etc. The constraints identified were unemployment allowance not paid, delay in wage payments, lack of worksite facilities, etc. Babu, V. S., and K. H. Rao (2010) studied the Impact of MGNREGA on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Studies were undertaken by NIRD in Tripura, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Mizoram, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal to highlight issues related to MGNREGA and Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in each of the States. The studies also elaborate issues of MGNREGA implementation; for example, awareness levels among beneficiaries, etc. Other impacts of the Scheme with regard to agriculture wage and migration have also been noted. Bordoloi, J. (2011) looks at the Impact of MGNREGA on Wage Returns, Food Security and Rural- Urban Migration Assam. The study was carried out in five districts of Assam to study the impact of MGNREGA on wage differentials and migration as well as to assess the Scheme s processes and procedures. MGNREGA does not have a significant impact on migration because it is unable to meet the demand from wage seekers. On the positive side, the Scheme has reduced gender differentials in wages, a majority of beneficiaries perceive the assets created under MGNREGA as beneficial. Bordoloi, J. (2011) Impact of NREGA on Wage Returns, Food Security and Rural-Urban Migration Assam was carried out in five districts of Assam to study the impact of MGNREGA on wage differentials and migration as well as to assess the Scheme s processes and procedures. MGNREGA does not have a significant impact on migration because it is unable to meet the demand from wage seekers. On the positive side, the Scheme has reduced gender differentials in wages, a majority of beneficiaries perceive the assets created under MGNREGA as beneficial. Engler, M., and S. Ravi, (2012) Workfare as an Effective Way to Fight Poverty: The Case of India s NREGS, Social Science Research. This study analyses the impact of India s Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) on households. In particular, the authors have studied the impact of the programme on food security, savings and health outcomes of households. They followed 1064 rural households from 200 villages of Medak district, Andhra Pradesh over two years. In the early stage of the programme, several households that applied for work were denied employment due to shortage of work. They exploited this exogenous variation to calculate triple difference estimates of the impact of the programme. Their results indicate that the NREGS significantly increased the monthly per capita expenditure on food by Rs 25.8 (9.6 per cent) and on non-food consumables by Rs (23 per cent). The programme also improved food security by a significant reduction in the number of meals foregone by households per week. The programme raised the probability

9 Implementation of Mgnrega: Perspective and Issues 121 of holding savings for a rural household by 21 per cent and the per capita amount saved increased by Rs The health outcomes impacted by the programme include a significant reduction of 12 per cent in the incidence of reported depression and improvements in mental health indicators. There were no significant changes in physical health outcomes. The authors also found out what was the alternative time use of households if NREGS did not exist. The results show that in the initial years, the programme predominantly attracted non-agricultural labour (78 per cent). This was because NREGS participation was concentrated in the dry summer months when agricultural labour work is scarce. Over time, however, we note that the programme is predominantly attracting households that would have participated in agriculture labour (55.3 per cent) if the NREGS did not exist. This suggests broader labour market distortions where NREGS is not just viewed as an employment assurance during slack agriculture season but as an alternative to agriculture labour work. The United Progressive Alliance government s much touted flagship program under the National Rural Employment Act is aimed at countering some of the developmental woes of the Indian state in the backward regions. The Maoists are active in some of the most backward areas and the government has been accusing them of stalling development. Hence, the current solution, as operationalzed by the government, is to flush out the anti-develop mentalists by force and then proceed with development. We examine these issues through a case study of the MGNREGA in Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, and Odisha. The districts chosen were from the first 200 where the MGNREGA has been implemented from 2006 onwards and are also under the influence of the Maoists (Banerjee and Saha, 2010). It has been proved in many studies that MGNREGA does influence consumption, savings and health patterns positively; therefore, the focus henceforth should be on improved implementation (Harish et.al, 2011). A study conducted in some villages of Gujarat revealed that MGNREGA has not been implemented in three of the four villages which they surveyed. The job cards to be issued were never distributed. The village head asserted that the availability of ample opportunities for employment was a major reason behind the failure of MGNREGA. A personal survey brought out the loopholes in policy making associated with the implementation. Nearly 61 of the 81 sanctioned schemes were only on paper. The social auditors and the officials concerned were bribed to submit a positive report, workers were asked to sign in the musters but were never called for work and those who tried to defy were threatened. The authorities generally extracted more money than what was earmarked for the program under false pretexts (Breman, 2013). In Gujarat, the average employment under MGNREGA worked out to be about days per worker. However, in the initial year of implementation, this figure was only 7.9, indicating that MGNREGA did not make much impact initially. Among women, this figure was slightly higher at 9.5, indicating more female participation in Gujarat. However, the number of unemployed was also higher among females as compared to males across all districts and among participating and non participating households. OBC households, landless and low income groups had a larger share of employment days in MGNREGA. In Gujarat, a new feature emerges with 60 percent ST and 53 percent ST households in both participating and non participating categories. Nearly

10 122 O. P. Singh 38 percent of the participants in Gujarat belonged to marginal land holding (Chhabra et al., 2009). Andhra Pradesh, which was considered to be a relatively progressive state agriculturally, was in a serious crisis by late 1990 s. This coupled with other pressures forced many farmers to commit suicide (Reddy, 2013). There has been substantial increase in terms of job card provision, work assignment and person days of employment per household in the districts covered in the first phase. However, the districts covered in the later phases have not shown such a significant trend. This could be due to two reasons: i) the first phase districts had a head start in implementing the program and the time factor could have helped in improving the performance, ii) the first phase districts were more backward, with more poor willing to do physical labour while the later phase districts were more developed, where the demand for physical work might have been less, resulting in differential performance (Reddy, 2013). In Odisha, MGNREGA was implemented in three phases. The work participation rate in the districts covered in the first phase was higher than in other districts, while literacy rate remained lower. Further, employment provided as a percentage of job cards issued remained at a low level which might be technically construed as demand for work. In terms of demand for work, the districts covered in the third phase performed better than the first and second phase districts. Although women s participation rate seemed to increase every time, it was observed that the really needy BPL population, which composed of a large share in the total population, was completely neglected by MGNREGA. Part of this can be attributed to the lack of awareness among the beneficiaries (Kumbhar, 2013). There are wide variations in different indicators of MGNREGA performance across different districts of Uttar Pradesh. Women participation in MGNREGA activities was fair during the first phase but has declined thereafter, the share of SC and ST participation is also not satisfactory-a very small percent of the households have been provided 100 days of employment. The utilization of sanctioned funds has been to potential with a near 100 percent record. Other problems like shortage of staff, delays in wage payments, inefficiency in management of works and financial manipulations have also blemished the performance of MGNREGA in Uttar Pradesh (Chhabra et al., 2009). In order to understand the working of MGNREGA in Kerala, it is essential to understand the dynamics of Panchayati Raj in the State as it is the panchayats who have been responsible for the spread and implementation of social security programs. The Aryanad Panchayat, formed in 1953, is located around 40 kms from Trivandrum city, the capital of Kerala. The panchayat is actively engaged in improving the conditions of the people of Kerala, discussions on developmental issues, making people, especially women, empowered and aware about their rights and carry out many developmental works in Kerala. Another distinct feature of this panchayat is that women members are more than male members (Kannan and Jagajeevan, 2013). Emphasis has also been laid to ensure that economic growth is inclusive and reaches the weaker sections of our society, especially the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and the Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and minorities. MGNREGA has generated sufficient volumes of employment to provide the means for uplift of large numbers of the population, Workforce participation of marginalized groups has been high with approximately

11 Implementation of Mgnrega: Perspective and Issues percent SC/ST in each financial year since its inception. Women workforce participation has also surpassed the statutory minimum requirement of one-third participation. In , women participation was 43 percent, which has increased to 48 percent in By securing livelihoods, the MGNREGA also mitigates seasonal/distress migration which has been a significant source of employment and income for a large proportion of rural population. Absence of adequate socio-economic infrastructure is one of the major causes of low level development among the developing economies. Provision of basic infrastructure can provide improved quality of life to people including the poor and improved employment opportunities. There are several flagship programs by the Central Government in this area. Bharat Nirman/ Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana National Health Mission, Sarva Shiksha Abhlvan, Total Sanitation Program, Indira Awas Yojana etc. In spite of these programs, there are several infrastructure facilities which are left out and there are several gaps in the programs at the district and below district levels. The MGNREGS can fill in these gaps and also supplement these programs. MGNREGS can also promote pro-poor growth. One of the major characteristics of the rapid economic growth experienced by the Indian economy during recent decades is the highly unbalanced structural transformation of the economy. Though the overall average annual growth rate has been around eight percent (reaching nine percent in the last years of the Eleventh Plan), the rate of growth of agriculture has been two percent per year in the Ninth Plan and 1.7 percent in the Tenth Plan. Also, agriculture, which contributes less than 20 percent to the national GDP, houses about 57 percent of the workforce, implies very low average labor productivity as compared to the other sectors. Since a majority of the cultivated area is rain-fed, depending on the erratic behaviour of the monsoon (thanks to the low level of assured water supply through irrigation), agriculture is also unstable and uncertain. Consequently, the highest incidence of poverty as well as vulnerability in India is observed to be on the agricultural population - mainly marginal and small farmers and also agricultural laborers. The incidence of rural poverty in India therefore is much higher than that of urban poverty. A person s livelihood refers to their means of securing the basic necessities -food, water, shelter and clothingof life. Livelihood is defined as a set of activities, involving securing water, food, fodder, medicine, shelter, clothing and the capacity to acquire above necessities working either individually or as a group by using endowments (both human and material) for meeting the requirements of the self and his/her household on a sustainable basis with dignity. Household is defined as members of a family related to each other by blood, marriage or adoption, and normally residing together and sharing meals. Beneficiaries means the head of a household or any of its other adult members who has applied for employment under the scheme. Person-day in the context of MGNREA scheme is defined as one day of work. Monthly Per Capita Expenditure means gross expenditure in a month for a house hold or a person. The implementation of MGNREGA came as a relief to vulnerable classes of society as it guaranteed not only wage employment for the present, but also created enough capital assets to get employed in future. MGNREGA promises 100 days of employment at the

12 124 O. P. Singh minimum wages. Firstly, it provides wages corresponding to the stipulated minimum level set by the government of that district. Secondly, as Gram Panchayats are the main officials managing and supervising MGNREGA, chances of manipulation decrease as there is the condition of proximity. Thirdly, MGNREGA entitles that wages should be paid immediately after completion of the work. Fourthly, the presence of job cards enables that wages go to the needy and deserving only. Numerous cases can be cited where MGNREGA wages has helped families not only survive extreme poverty but also to maintain their livelihood. Aged physically challenged and extremely poor people who were incapable to migrate to urban areas for work have found sufficient employment through MGNREGA and they are able to earn for their families. Women, especially widowed and single mothers, have also benefitted greatly through MGNREGA. They can take of their house work and family; at the same time, they can also earn money through simple works in MGNREGA. Such cases have been recorded in many districts. Some families have also been able to save money earned through MGNREGA for other basic needs like health and medicines. The importance of MGNREGA stems from the fact that targets the marginalized communities while providing employment opportunities. The guidelines under MGNREGA clearly specify that preference will be given to SC, ST, OBC, women and other backward communities in the activities of MGNREGA. Very few employment-related programs have actually made such direct attempt to address the needs and problems of the socially backward communities. Although the performance of MGNREGA in the participation of marginalized communities is uneven across districts, there is no denying the fact that MGNREGA has helped many of the backward families to improve their living standards by becoming gainfully employed. The implementation of MGNREGA might provide the necessary impetus required to boost our economy. MGNREGA came as a relief to the misery of the labourers. They were guaranteed 100 days work for the entire household at minimum wages at a distance of 5 kms from their houses. MGNREGA targeted SC, ST and backward communities the most which was another advantage for the poor. It was believed that MGNREGA will generate sufficient rural employment within the rural areas and curb distress migration. Further, the provision of minimum wages will raise the bargaining power of the labourers and reduce wage exploitation. Awareness regarding benefits will breed a consciousness to fight for their rights among the labourers, who will demand transparency and accountability from the officials. Overall, MGNREGA will ensure that the rural poor are able to come out of poverty and fend a decent living for themselves. References Adhikari, A. and K. Bhatia (January 2010), MGNREGA Wage Payments: Can We Bank on the Banks?, Economic and Political Weekly, vol. xlv no.1, Aggarwal, A., A. Gupta and A. Kumar (September 2012), Evaluation of MGNREGA Wells in Jharkhand, Economic and Political Weekly, vol. Xlvi no 35. Aiyar, Y. and S. Samji (January 2006). Improving the Effectiveness of National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, Economic and Political Weekly.

13 Implementation of Mgnrega: Perspective and Issues 125 Azam, M. (May 2012), The Impact of Indian Job Guarantee Scheme on Labor Market Outcomes: Evidence from a Natural Experiment, Discussion paper series Acharya, S. (2004). Regulations, Economic Development and Labour in India, Policy and Society, vol. 23, no. 2. Banerjee, K. and Partha Saha (July 2010), The MGNREGA, the Maoists and the Developmental Woes of the Indian State, Economic and Political Weekly, vol. xlv no 28. Baulch, B., Weber, A. and Wood, J. (2008), Social Protection Index for Committed Poverty Reduction Volume 2: Asia. Manila: ADB. Bhagat, R. B. (2009), Internal Migration in India: Are the Underclass More Mobile?, Conference Paper, Marrakech: 26th IUSSP General Population Conference. Bhatti, B. (December 2012), ADHAAR-Enabled Payments for MGNREGA Workers, Economic and Political Weekly, vol. xlvii no Chhabra, S., R. L. Raina and G. L. Sharma (2009), A Report on the Management of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, LBSIM, New Delhi. Dandekar and Sathe, M. (1980), Employment Guarantee Scheme and Food for Work Program, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 42, no. 34. DBSS (2008), Household Data of Barai Kalyanpur Village. DBSS, Diocese of Agra. Desai, S. and A. Dubey (2011), Caste in 21st Century India: Competing Narratives, Economic and Political Weekly 46(11). Devi Prasad Kotni, V. V. (March 2012), Prospects and Problems of Indian Rural Markets, ZENITH International Journal of Business Economics & Management Research, Vol. 2, Issue 3. Dey, S. and Bedi, A. (2010), The National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme in Birbhum, Economic and Political Weekly, XLV (41). Dreze J. (2007), NREGA: Dismantling the Contractor Raj The Hindu, 20th November. Dreze, J. and Khera, R. (2009), The Battle for Employment Guarantee. Frontline 26(1), 3 January. Dreze, J., Khera, R. and Sidharth (21 October, 2007), MGNREGA in Orissa: Ten Loopholes and the Silver Lining. Interim Report. Dutta, P. et al. (2012), Does India s Employment Guarantee Scheme Guarantee Employment?, Economic and Political Weekly, vol. xlvii no 16. Fan, S., Hazell, P. and Thorat, S. (1999), Linkages between Government Spending, Growth and Poverty in Rural India, International Food Policy Research Institute, Research Report no Ghose, A. K. (2011), Addressing the employment challenge: India s MGNREGA,Employment Working Paper No. 105, International Labour Organisation (ILO, Geneva). Gladson, D. (2008), Plougher cut- Impact of MGNREGA, Tehelka Magazine, 5(37): Government of Uttar Pradesh (2012), Report of the Comptrollor and Auditor General of India on Performance Audit of MGNREG Scheme for year 2012, CAGI, Uttar Pradesh. Guru, G. (ed.) (2000), Dalits: Reflections on the Search for Inclusion. New Delhi: Sage Publications. Harish, B.G., et al. (2011). Impacts and Implications of MGNREGA on Labour Supply and Income Generation for Agriculture in Central Dry Zone of Karnataka, Agricultural Economics Research Review, Vol. 24.

14 126 O. P. Singh Harris, J.R. and M.P. Todaro (1970), Migration, Unemployment and Development: A Two Sector Analysis, American Economic Review 60(1). Hirway, I., M. R. Saluja and B. Yadav (2006), Analyzing Multiplier Impact of MGNREGA Works through Village SAM Modeling. Indian Institute of Science, (2013), Environmental Benefits and Vulnerability Reduction through Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Synthesis Report. Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, Chennai (2009), Evaluation of National Rural Employment Guarantee Act: In Districts: Cuddlore, Dindugal, Kanchipuram, Nagai, Thiruvalallur: State: Tamil Nadu, May. Jacob, N. (2008), The Impact of MGNREGA on Rural-Urban Migration: Field survey of Villupuram District, Tamil Nadu, CCS Working Paper No. 202, Summer Research Internship Programme 2008, Centre for Civil Society. Jain, S.P. (2001), Emerging Institutions for Decentralized Rural Development, NIRD Publication, Hyderabad. Kannan, K.P and J. Breman (2013), The Long Road to Social Security: Assessing the Implementation of National Social Security Initiatives for the Working Poor in India, Oxford University Press. Karalay, G.N. (2005), Integrated Approach to Rural Development: Policies, Programmes and Strategies, Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi. Kareemulla, K., Sriniva Reddy, K., Rama Rao, C. A., Shalander, K. and Venkateswarlu, B. (2009), Soil and water conservation works through national rural employment guarantee scheme (NREGS) in Andhra Pradesh An analysis of livelihoods impact. Agricultural Economics Review, Vol. 22. Kashyap, C. L. (1989), Management and Planning of Rural Development in India, Sterling publishers, New Delhi. Kerr, J. (2002), Watershed Development, Environmental Services and Poverty alleviation in India, World Development Report, Vol. 30, No. 8. Khan, A. U. and Saluja, M.R. (2007), Impact of MNREGA on Rural Livelihoods, Paper Presented in 10th. Khera, R. (August 2008), Empowerment Guarantee Act, Economic and Political Weekly. Khera, R. (February 2011), The UID Project and Welfare Schemes, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. xlvi 38 no 9. Khosla, R. (March 2011), Caste, Politics and Public Good Distribution in India: Evidence from NREGS in Andhra Pradesh, Economic and Political Weekly, vol. xlvi no 12. Kumar, D. et al. (August 2011), Employment Guarantee and its Environmental Impact: Are the Claims Valid?, Economic and Political Weekly, vol.. xlvi no 34. Mathur, L. (2007), Employment Guarantee: Progress So Far, Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 42 no. 52. Mehrotra, S. (August 2008), MGNREGA Two Years On: Where Do We Go from Here?, Economic and Political Weekly, August 2. MGNREGA (2012), Operational Guidelines 2012", Govt. Of India, Ministry of Rural Development, Department of Rural Development (MG NREGA-I Division), Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi, 29th September.

15 Implementation of Mgnrega: Perspective and Issues 127 MGNREGA (2012), Report to the People, Ministry of Rural Development, Department of Rural Development, Government of India, New Delhi, 2nd February. Ministry of Rural Development (August-September 2006), Implementing the Employment Guarantee Act, A Survey in Chitradurga District, Karnataka. Mohsin, N. (1985), Rural Development through Govt. Programmes, Mittal Publications, Delhi., Vol. 42 (52). Ojha, G.P. (February 2012), Dalit Women s Livelihoods Accountability Initiative-India, UN Women Fund for Gender Equality. Pankaj, A. (2008), The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act: Guaranteeing the Right to Livelihood, Institute of Human Development, New Delhi. Pankaj, A. and R. Tankha, (July 2010), Empowerment Effects of the NREGS on Women Workers: A Study in Four States, Economic and Political Weekly. PCI (2008), Eleventh Five Year Plan , Volume I Inclusive Growth. New Delhi: CI. Bhatia, B. and J. Drèze (July 2006). Employment Guarantee in Jharkhand: Ground Realities, Economic and Political Weekly. Ramesh, G. and Krishnakumar, T. (2009), A study in Karimnagar District in Andhra Pradesh, Kurukshetra, 58(2). Ravallion, M. (February 2012), Corruption in the MGNREGS Assessing an Index, Economic and Political Weekly, vol. xlvii no 8. Roy, A. and N. Dey (2011), The Wages of Discontent, in The Battle for Employment Guarantee, ed. R. Khera, New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Sahoo, A. and T. tenraa, (year not vailable), Competitive pressure and return to Skills on the Indian Households: A General Equilibrium Approach, Tilburg University, Netherlands. Sankaran, K. (February 2011), MGNREGA Wages: Ensuring Decent Work, Economic and Political Weekly, vol. xlvi no 7. Seth, Navneet (2015), MGNREGA: It s Implication In India: A Overview, International Journal of Science Technology & Management, Volume No.04, Special Issue No.01, February. Shah, M. (November 2007), Employment Guarantee, Civil Society and Indian Democracy, Economic and Political Weekly. Shankar, Raghuraman (2009), MGNREGA is a promise half-kept, Times of India: 13 September. Sharma, R. (January 2010), MGNREGA in Water Management, Observer Research Foundation seminar series, vol. 1. Sharrif, A. (2009), Assessment of Outreach and Benefits of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme in India, Indian Journal of Labour Economics, vol. 52, no. 2. Solinski, T. (2004), MGNREGA and Labour Migration in India: Is village life what the rural poor want?, The South Asianist Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1. Tankha, R and A. Bhaskar (September 2008), International Seminar on National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme in India, Impacts and Implementation Experiences, Institute for Human Development and Centre de Science Humaines, New Delhi. Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), (2005). Report of farmer suicides in Maharashtra. Prepared on the direction of Mumbai High Court, Mumbai.