CONTENTS

Certificate by the Supervisor Declaration by the Candidate Acknowledgement List of Tables Abbreviations

CHAPTER I II III IV V VI

TITLE INTRODUCTION REVIEW OF LITERATURE NREGA PROFILE METHODOLOGY DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS BIBLIOGRAPHY ANNEXURE

PAGE NO. 9 18 24 48 57 70 75 79

ABBREVIATIONS

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

APL BDO BPL DRDA GDP EGS MNREGA REP UNDP

Above Poverty Line Block Development Officer Below Poverty Line District Rural Development Agency Gross Domestic Product Employment Guarantee Scheme Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act Rural Employment Program United Nations Development Program

CHAPTER I

The Mahatma

Gandhi

National

Rural

Employment

Guarantee

Act (MNREGA) is an Indian job guarantee scheme, enacted by legislation on August 25, 2005. The scheme provides a legal guarantee for one hundred days of employment in every financial year to adult members of any rural household willing to do public work-related unskilled manual work at the statutory minimum wage . The Central government outlay for scheme is 40,000 crore (US$8.88 billion) in FY 2011-12. This act was introduced with an aim of improving the purchasing power of the rural people, primarily semi or un-skilled work to people living in rural India, whether or not they are below the poverty line. Around one-third of the stipulated work force is women. The law was initially called the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) but was renamed on 2 October 2009 as Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. The act directs state governments to implement MNREGA "schemes". Under the MGNREGA the Central Government meets the cost towards the payment of wage, 3/4 of material cost and some percentage of administrative cost. State Governments meet the cost of unemployment allowance, 1/4 of material cost and administrative cost of State council. Since the State Governments pay the unemployment allowance, they are heavily incentivized to offer employment to workers.

Workflow of NREGA First a work is proposed by the gram Panchayat, then they get the required approvals for this work, after this the work is allocated to the registered workers. As the work progresses the person gets his 144 Rs every day. The fund is jointly borne by the center and state governments jointly in the ratio 90:10 . The fund is paid by the Post Office or some other agency.

The differences between MNREGA and other Wage Employment Programmes (WEPs) Other Wage Employment Programmes
Programme

Issue
Status

MNREGA
Statute

Focus Process

Infrastructure

Employment generation

Supply led. Works opened by Demand-based. Application by implementing agencies & then Wage seekers for employment and labour is engaged then works are opened Any one can be engaged as labour None Only Job Cards holders that apply for employment Employment within 15 days of demand, Payment within 15 days of work

Labour Time frames

Duration of Employment

Dependent on duration of work Legal Guarantee of as many days of by implementing agency employment as a job card holder applies for, subject to maximum 100 days Any work No 60:40 ratio of wage -material -25% State share -75% Centre share -Fixed Allocation to State -Fixed share to each PRI tier: 20%-ZP 30%-IP 50%-GP 60:40 ratio of wages and material Permissible works:

Nature of works

Financial Support

-Demand Based. -No fixed allocation to State -No fixed allocation to PRI.

The following Table 1 portrays the timeline of MNREGA whereby the scheme got its modifications during the years of its running.
AUG 2005 NREGA legalized FEB 2006 APR 2007 130 more districts included. APR 2008 OCT 2008 16 FEB 2009 MOU with the postal department. Oct 2009

Came in to force in 200 districts.

Universalization

of the scheme.

wage transactions through banks/ post offices.

name changed to MNREGA

Table 1: The Timeline of MNREGA Source: www.nrega.nic.in

As the Table 1 depicts, when the scheme got first introduced in 200 most backward districts of the country in February 2006, it was proposed to have this scheme extended to the remaining districts only after five years, after seeing the popularity of the scheme. But the very next year itself the scheme was extended further to 130 more districts and within months after that the scheme got universalized by bringing the entire country under its purview and got soon named after Mahatma Gandhi (in October 2nd 2009) to make the scheme more reachable to the masses and thus became Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA) for life.

The Act mandates 33 percent participation for women. There is much that the MNREGA promises from the perspective of womens empowerment as well. Priority should be given to women in the allocation of work in such a way that at least one-third of the beneficiaries shall be women. [Schedule II, Para 6, NREGA] Most boldly, in a rural milieu marked by stark inequalities between men and women in the opportunities for gainful employment afforded as well as wage rates MNREGA represents action on both these counts. The act stipulates that wages will be equal for men and women. By generating employment for women at fair wages in the village, MNREGA can play a substantial role in economically empowering women and laying the basis for greater independence and selfesteem.

Rural unemployment Unemployment in the agricultural sector is the most serious aspect in the Indian economy. First of all, there is open unemployment among the landless agricultural workers. With the decline of cottage industries and handicrafts, the rural population has no alternative means of livelihood. They have to fall back on the agricultural sector, which is clearly overcrowded. There is also considerable disguised unemployment in the agricultural sector. It means that more people are neglected in the agricultural operators than required. In technical language the marginal productivity of many hands in agricultural sector is zero. Another dimension of real unemployment is the problem of seasonal unemployment among the Indian farmers. Agriculture by its very nature is activity. For a significant part of the year, the Indian farmers are out of work. In the absence of supplementary sources of employment, they have to remain unemployed during stack agricultural season. Women Empowerment The word empowerment is used in many different contexts and many different organizations. For example, literature about empowerment is found in the fields of education, social work, psychology, in U.S. radical politics in the 1960s and community development groups in the north and south, as well as in the work of feminists and development organizations. Empowerment has become the buzz word for the last to decades. It is a process of building capacities, of creating an atmosphere, which enables people to fully utilize their creative potential in pursuance of a quality of life. Empowerment gives women the capacity to influence in decision making process,

planning, implementation and evaluation by integrating them into the political system. Womens empowerment is not only empowerment but also crucial if development is to be sustainable. In india economic reforms based on globalization, liberalization and empowerment of women by 33% reservation in areas such as Panchayat Raj are opening new vistas for the development of women and in improving their status. Womens participation in nations development is not merely a question to provide some special concession to them. A nation or society goes ahead only through the contribution of all its members. Pushing women into the backyard drags behind the society Household Economics Till recently, intra-household affairs were considered outside the domain of mainstream economics that deals mainly with market institutions. With the assertion of feminist economics, and emergence of bargaining (Folbre 1986; Becker 1981) and cooperation-conflict (Sen 1990, 1996) models, the notion of household being a non-market institution has been challenged. It is argued that the perception of the family as an undifferentiated unit where cooperation, harmony and altruism define relations between members camouflages the real nature of household affairs (Folbre 1986; Sen 1990). It is also contended that the notion of human behavior guided by self-interest in the market and altruism in family/household relations, is inconsistent. Male-female intra-household relations, then, are (also) defined by their differential bargaining power, and in turn, determined by their differential access to economic, political and social resources. Property ownership and access to paid employment opportunity outside the household, apart from other factors, increases the bargaining capacity

of a woman by giving her a better fallback position (Agarwal 1994). Since, in India and elsewhere, male family members have greater control over property and other economic resources, including access to paid employment, they enjoy better bargaining positions inside their households. Moser (1993) holds that womens ability to earn outside their households increases their own selfperception of their contribution to the household, and this has similar effects. The paid employment opportunity under NREGS holds similar prospects for rural women in India, who have little control over economic resources, and face social and other disadvantages in accessing paid employment outside the home. The concept of empowerment gained prominence with the feminist movement in the 1980s. There are various views and perceptions on empowerment (Luttrell et al 2009). To some, it is a process and to others, it is an outcome. Many consider it to be both a process and an outcome. The process approach emphasizes organizational capacity building that enhances the access of disadvantaged groups to the process of development, while the outcome approach emphasizes increased access to economic resources. To Kabeer, empowerment refers to the expansion in peoples ability to make strategic life choices in a context where this ability was previously denied to them. The present study takes a broader view of empowerment and defines it both as a process and as an outcome that alters the position of women inside and outside their households; with this altered position, women are able to realize a better individual and social life.

MNREGA: Women Participation! Womens participation in MGNREGA points at some unique and often contradicting aspects. First, states not known for womens participation in workforce are reporting a high number of women joining the programme. Take Kerala, where women account for about 15 per cent of the workforce. Under the Act they take up 79 per cent of the employment created. Two other states, Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan, with low share of women in workforce have 82 per cent and 69 per cent women workers under MGNREGA, respectively. Second, poor states with greater casual labour potential, like Odisha, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, report low women participation (22-33 per cent). This is contradictory to the assumption that poverty forces women to take up casual jobs. Third, it is believed that states with labour-intensive farming like paddy cultivation pull more women into workforce. The MGNREGA data shows the opposite in paddy-intensive Odisha and West Bengal. Certain aspects of the Act must be contributing to the contradictory trends. Under the Act, a household is guaranteed 100 days of manual employment in a year. Adult members can share this guarantee and the wage is same for man and woman. This prompts household-level labour budgeting. While men migrate to towns and cities, women are left behind to work under MGNREGA. The Act increases household income since earlier women used to get less wages than men. Women take up this opportunity as economic freedom. More than wage parity the Act focuses on water conservation. It allows members belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities to take up work in their own fields and get paid for that. Women participating in the programme are reviving their degraded farms or making provision for water through other works.

More than 90 per cent of woman workers are farm labourers or cultivators. A substantial part of their work is unpaid because they work in their farms. MGNREGA has changed this. Now parts of womens non-paid jobs, like land levelling and digging a pond in their farms, are paid for. In drought-prone districts, like Warangal in Andhra Pradesh and Ahmednagar in Maharashtra, community members say this has attracted women to the programme.

NREGA in Bihar It is more than a year since the NREGA came into effect and 10 months since the NREGS was formally launched. But in Bihar the scheme is yet to take off; it appears to be undergoing prolonged birth pangs. Out of the 200 districts that were selected for the first phase of implementation of this scheme, 23 are from Bihar. As far as the remaining 15 districts from Bihar that were originally listed, the Bihar government had promised to implement the scheme in these districts with the states own resources. Thus, 38 districts were to be covered under the NREGS in Bihar. The official announcements by the central and state governments generated considerable interest among the social activists, for after all, the potential was to be created for at least one person from each poor household in these districts of Bihar to be guaranteed employment for 100 days under the scheme, which if realised would to an extent help tide over the problem of food insecurity. What then is holding back the state government from implementing the NREGS? It would be wrong to state that the Bihar government has not done anything with regard to implementing this scheme. The commissioner-cum secretary of the rural development department of the Bihar government, in his letter dated January 18, 2006, had issued directives to the concerned authorities

about the implementation of the NREGS in the 38 districts of Bihar, specifying that the unspent amount of Rs 5,025 lakh from the Sampurna Gramin Rozgar Yojna be utilised for implementing the NREGS in the 15 districts where the state government had promised to finance the scheme on its own. But, at the ground level, there has been practically nothing done till date. Yes, the chief minister distributed a few job cards at public functions and reiterated the resolve of his government to implement the scheme in all the districts of the state. The reality on the ground is however quite different. When people go to submit their application for an MNREGA job card, the mukhiya or the panchayat president sends them away saying that he has no orders to receive the application. This is the case in Barh block of Patna district. In Araria district, when development activists asked the block development officer (BDO) about the issue of NREGA job cards, he flatly refused saying that there is no order from above about this. There is no BDO for the last few months in Chennari block of Rohtas,where not only the NREGS is not taking off the ground, no other development work is underway. According to the state government, there is no

dearth of financial resources for implementing the scheme. In accordance with the implementation schedule, the central government released its share of the required expenditure in the month of April. As per the directives given by the national director of the NREGS dated April 25, 2006, the amounts released for the implementation of the scheme in the districts chosen by the central government are as given in the table. As can be seen, Rs.405 crore has been released for implementation of the NREGS to be used by the government of Bihar. But for all practical purposes, implementation of the scheme is yet to begin. What is intriguing is that even eight months after the money has been released nothing has been done as yet. In fact, 60 per cent of the allotment is for making payment to the workers and 40 per cent of the amount is for the material

component. Thus, over Rs.162 crore is available during the current financial year for the material component. Similarly, the bigger districts of Bihar have been granted about Rs.8 crore for the material component and Rs.12 crore for wages. What then is holding the state government, the politicians and the officials from implementing this scheme remains a mystery. According to one of the politicians, the scheme was made operational from February 2006. But due to the moral code of conduct imposed during the Panchayat elections in Bihar, this scheme could not be implemented. The election got over only in June and we were getting ready to implement the scheme but the rains came and no progress could be made. Now we are all set to implement the scheme and will make a formal announcement on October 2, Gandhi Jayanti Day. But October has passed and nothing as yet is being done. It is significant to note that even the State Employment Guarantee Council has not yet been constituted. Due to political wrangling, appointments to this council, which would have ensured the implementation of the scheme, have been delayed. Even the district programme officers and block programme officers have not been appointed, though there are resources available for this purpose. Till date, work has been started at very few places. In some districts it was observed that wage payments was lower than what was stipulated and there were also report of delayed payments for the work undertaken under NREGP. In most of the cases inadequate worksite facilities were present. Apart from drinking water no other facility, like crche, first aid or shade were available at the worksites. Also no unemployment allowance payment yet. The chief minister reportedly said to the officials that if unemployment wages were paid in any block that amount would be deducted from the concerned officials salary- this he said in front of TV cameras-(He probably meant that work should be provided to everyone who demands and he wont bear any laxity on this account)-but the result is that officials are trying to discourage application for jobs.

Effects Prior to launching NREGA, the national coalition government emphasised its potential to stimulate rural growth through the establishment of productive physical assets and the influx of funds through wages. It is too early to assess the impact of NREGA on growth and poverty reduction at this juncture, but experiences from the earlier Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Scheme can give a broad idea of possible impact. It is widely agreed that the benefits of the Maharashtra programme have been secondary and indirect rather than direct. It has, for instance, raised agricultural wages in Maharashtra by making labourers reluctant to accept anything less than the official minimum wage. A similar trend is already being observed with districts using NREGA. Another indirect benefit is that it has acted as insurance for rural workers against unemployment, although the increase in employment and income generated may not be substantial. Furthermore, it has stabilised income for rural households as more work has been provided in the agricultural off-period (April to July). There is evidence that this has assisted income-smoothing among the poor and reduced their need to make adjustments by cutting down on food expenditure, sale of livestock, or resorting to taking expensive loans. There is conflicting evidence over how far the assets created by public works benefit the poor: some support the notion of substantial contributions to agricultural productivity from which the poor also benefit; others argue that the location of the assets has tended to benefit those in wealthier households with irrigation facilities, since their wells have been recharged through the various structures created or rehabilitated. Lastly, there is some evidence that the Maharashtra project has engaged women in positive ways and helped to enhance their independence. As with NREGA, the project has had problems in reaching tribal areas and other geographical pockets of poverty.

One view, rarely heard, is that whilst the provision of some local employment is potentially important, the easy availability of work under NREGA may discourage rural workers from seeking work in rapidly growing areas of the economy. This may, in turn, reduce the potential pace of economic transformation, and lower the prospects of workers gaining new skills. In this way, NREGA, as a means of social protection, may ultimately work against economic growth.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Venkata Reddy (1989) The problem of surplus population subsisting on land and the consequential increase in rural unemployment and under employment leading to poverty in India has been stressed by several competent authorities since the report of the famine commission of 1880. However the evaluation reports point out certain gaps. Element of unproductive works undertaken in the scheme, lack of continuity of works under the scheme the absence of agency to prepare blueprints for different type of works on continuous basis, lack of effective revision over the works undertaken, leading to corrupt practices, shortages of farm wage labour due to concurrent EGS with adverse effect on agricultural operations. There was no authoritic information about the employment seekers on there was no adequate knowledge of the nature of works witch should receive priority under the EGS. At district level of entire work relating to planning, implementation, supervision etc. will be the responsibility of the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA). The review of NREP shows that the employment generation target has been consistently achieved. Dr. V.K.R.V.Rao says how supply of buffalo to an agricultural labor without provision of fodder and marketing facilities and knowledge to look after it will only result in milch buffalo changing hands. This in fact has been the experience on the field of many schemes for giving employment to agricultural laborers. Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh has expressed that this employment guarantee act must be transparent, peoples programme. He envisages a collaborative partnership of the Central and State Governments and of the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) to translate the spirit of the act on ground. Voluntary sector, welcoming this spirit is getting prepared to support the efforts being made by the state governments, at the same time to keep watch that the Act

should not get weak due to the malpractices & corruption at the stage of implementation. Ashok Kumar Mishra (1996), through the study on National Rural Employment Programme in Siwan. The programme to make employment to mostly in rural areas, a good number of well intended programme. He argued that the menace of full or partial unemployment and its off shoot in poverty can be seen and experienced anywhere and everywhere. The study recommended that the official machinery by itself cannot remove it. Narasima Rao (2000) has presented a panoramic view of rural revolution which has been slowly, steadily and silently taking shape in India. It is an in-depth study of over hundred years of rural development in the country and analyses the problems and prospects of rural development form economic, political, historical administrative and sociological points of view and offers solution of relevance to planners, administrators bankers and voluntary agencies engaged in the vast field of rural development programmes. NABARD (2003) visualizes the farmers clubs as a federated system of multipurpose cooperative organization formed by the farmers themselves for the purpose of carrying out a number of functions such as the promotion of farmers interest, improvements of their knowledge and skills, increase in their farm production and incomes, betterment of their living condition and overall development of the rural economy. Basu (2002), We start with the presumption that rural labour markets in India do not conform to the classic competitive labour markets of economics textbooks. If they did, the arguments for the NREGA would be weaker. However, in our view agricultural labour markets in India exhibit a range of hiring arrangements, from sharecropping to seasonal spot wage-labour demand and a variety of creditlabour-land contracts in between.

Ashok Pankaj (2003), Womens empowerment was not among the original intentions of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA), and is not among its main objectives. However, provisions like priority for women in the ratio of one-third of total workers (Schedule II (6)); equal wages for men and women (Schedule II (34)); and crches for the children of women workers (Schedule II (28)) were made in the Act, with the view of ensuring that rural women benefit from the scheme in a certain manner. Vaidyanathan (2005) the standing committees recommendations on the NREGP call for basic changes in the concept and design envisaged in the draft bill. They are essential, indeed imperative, if the programme is to be effective and thus deserve strong support. It should be obvious however that concurrence of the state governments and their willingness to abide by the operational implications of the legislation are essential. The most serious lacuna in the report is that it sidesteps the problems involved in ensuring that this precondition is met. World Bank (2005) Estimates show that 80 per cent of Indias population lives below the international poverty line of $2 a day. India has rank 80th in this list of 94 countries. The 61st round NSS data cited in the 2007 report of the National Commission of Employment in the Un organized Sector (NCEUS) provide an almost exact confirmation of the World Bank estimates. The NCEUS report shows that 77 per cent of Indias population 836 million people have a per capita, consumption expenditure of less than or equal to Rs.20 per day [roughly $2 in purchasing power parity terms). According to Dr. Navjyoti Jandu (2007), NREGA is the first ever law internationally, that guarantees wage employment at an unprecedented scale. The primary goal of NREGA is to create a strong social safety net for vulnerable groups by providing a fall-back employment source, when other employment

sources are scarce or inadequate. It strives to strengthen the natural resource base by providing work focused on water conservation, land development and drought proofing, thus reducing migration by rural poor households in the lean period. It acts as a model of governance reform anchored on the principles of transparency and accountability by serving as growth engine for sustainable development of agricultural economy. Reetika Khera (2009), in her article, the battle for employment gaurentee, said First, there are, in many areas, tenacious social norms against women working outside the home. In Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, we met women who said that they had not been able to register as workers under the NREGA22 and were told that this programme was not for them. Hindu (2010),I think, eventually, civil society will learn not to rely on the state for redressal of its grievances. The state does not exist to either grant human rights or to guarantee human rights. You have to fight your own fight to have them and when they are violated you have to fight and you have to fight absolutely neutrally you have to fight for the human rights of the bad guys as well

CHAPTER III

Profile of NREGA
In August 2005, Parliament passed the landmark legislation, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (hereafter NREGA). The NREGA is a national law funded largely by the central government and implemented in all states, which creates a justifiable right to work for all households in rural India. Under the NREGA, rural households have a legal right to get not less than 100 days of unskilled manual labor on public works in each financial year. The enactment of the NREGA in 2005 came about partly as a result of a sustained campaign by academics and activists across India. Significant efforts were made by campaign groups to highlight the crisis of food and work availability being faced by large numbers of the rural poor in India. The NREGA, as finally enacted, was a diluted version of the citizens draft.1 Nevertheless it signified a huge step forward as a social security mechanism for the rural poor. The Gram Panchayat has been assigned a pivotal role in implementation of the Act, being responsible for almost every planning, management and supervisory function at the village level. The nature of works that may be taken up under the Scheme can significantly contribute to development of the natural resource base and increase the productive asset holdings of communities and households in rural areas (the Act allows for development works on private land holdings of SC and ST households). With proper planning and implementation, the returns are expected to multiply manifold, and create conditions conducive for practice of agriculture, agro-forestry and other land-based activities. As with other natural resource management projects, more significant are the long-term impacts at the macro-level increased ground water recharge, arrested soil erosion, increased biomass production, and so on benefits which are not confined to the inconsequential laborer or the rural community alone.

Over the last couple of years, several senior bureaucrats and field functionaries have been heard rattling off the troubles they are confronting on account of NREGA, which they believe is a hindrance to real development of the nation and its people. During a recent discussion, one officer of the forest department went on to suggest that if the government really cared for development, there should be a direct transfer of funds to the BPL households, without expectation of any work in return; he is not the only one who believes that NREGA is breeding inefficiency in labor markets and corruption among the Gram Panchayats; laborers are getting into the habit of shirking work, and more important activities such as departmental tree plantations and watershed works are being hampered. There may be some truth in his allegations, but one needs to take a step back to assess the situation with a degree of objectivity and prudence. Despite some weaknesses, the NREGA is a remarkable legislation under which local administrations are legally bound to provide work on demand to any worker or group of workers who apply for work, within 15 days of receipt of a work application4 on public works operated under the NREGA. Though the list of permissible works under the NREGA is quite restricted, there is ample scope for undertaking projects that provide economically useful assets. In the event that the local administration fails to provide work, an unemployment allowance is to be paid to the workers. The NREGA promises not less than 100 days of work to all households in rural India in each financial year where adults in the household are willing to undertake unskilled manual labour at the statutory minimum wage. There are several provisions of the Act which are of special interest to women workers. First, the Act mandates that at least one-third of the workers should be women. This combined with the fact that the Act places no restriction on how each households quota of 100 days is shared within the household, means that

there is ample scope for womens participation in NREGA works. Second, the wage earned is equal for both men and women. Besides this, the NREGA also provides for childcare facilities at the worksite when more than five children under six years of age are present at the worksite. This is an important provision given that, in large parts of the country, there are no childcare arrangements (e g, functional anganwadis) for working women. The Act The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 provides for enhancement of livelihood security of the households in rural areas of the country by providing at least one hundred days of guaranteed wage employment in every financial year to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work. The Act has been notified in all the rural areas in the country. By providing employment to those who seek it, this Act has emerged as one of the largest social safety net providing employment to 4.51 crore rural households in 2008-09 and providing employment to more than 3 crore households in the current financial year. The Act has thus opened up opportunities to the rural households to obtain local employment, enhance their wage earning and through their labour to create rural assets which contribute to development of the rural economy. The association of the name of Mahatma Gandhi with National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 will reinforce the Acts thrust towards equity and inclusiveness, especially of the deprived groups and socio-economically marginalized communities. The provisions of the Act of public accountability, through social audit and Right to Information will get central focus with the association of Mahatma Gandhis name, reflecting his ideals of the sovereignty of the public in a democracy. The Act is premised on rural households volunteering to do unskilled manual labour

and the association of Mahatma Gandhis name with it underscores the dignity of labour. It is, therefore, considered befitting that the said Act bears the name of the Father of the Nation Mahatma Gandhi as it is a concrete expression of his development vision. Accordingly, the title of the said Act is proposed to be amended as the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act.

Salient features The programme was unique in many aspects that helped to achieve the support of various stake holders. Some of its salient features are:

Wholesome Package

It is an employment programme coupled with a rural upliftment scheme to create social equity, an empowerment scheme and a crucial public investment method to create durable assets.

Strong Legal Framework

The State is made legally binding to satisfy the right to work and wage payment within 15 days as per this scheme. State Governments are liable to pay unemployment allowance to wage seekers if it fails to provide employment within the stipulated time.

Demand Driven

Resource transfer under NREGA is based on the demand unlike the other employment programmes and thus provides another critical incentive to states to leverage the act to meet employment needs of the poor.

Decentralized Planning

The programme strengthens decentralization and deepens the processes of democracy by giving a pivotal role to the Panchayati Raj Institutions in planning, monitoring and implementation.

Women Empowerment

At least one-third of the beneficiaries shall be women who have registered under the scheme making them independent and increasing their overall awareness.

Transparency and Accountability

Social audits by the Gram Sabhas, mandatory disclosure of muster rolls, public accessibility of all documents and account, regular updating of job cards infuses transparency and accountability in governance.

Grievance Redressal Mechanism

The scheme lays emphasis on responsive implementation process. All accounts and records related to the scheme are available for public scrutiny.

Information and C ommunication Technology(ICT)

Centralization of data because of its wide scale has been resolved through web enabled Management Information System.

Acceptability of the Act When the act was passed, there was a fairly strong consensus that this was an initiative that would have the potential to transform rural India. The national coalition government described NREGA as revolutionary, and maintained that it would impact on poverty in a major way by building infrastructure and enhancing

growth in rural areas. The National Advisory Council, which prepared the draft bill, was also convinced that the act would cause a major decline in rural poverty. Many development professionals and writers on rural development and decentralization referred to the act as a historic piece of legislation. A large part of civil society, including the Right to Food Campaign, welcomed NREGA because the rights-based platform of the programme could make a difference to rural livelihood security by guaranteeing 100 days of employment. NREGA was also internationally recognised as an outstanding initiative seeking to safeguard the right to work, which forms a part of the Indian Constitution. However, as the programme has unfolded, certain questions are being raised. Many, including some of those involved in drafting the bill, now recognise that much still needs to be done to support the rights of the poor, and to defend them against corrupt officials. The financing of the scheme continues to be an issue of debate. Criticism is also mounting from civil society: many argue that the poor implementation of NREGA makes beneficiaries believe that it is no better than other government schemes that have had little impact on poverty. Although NREGA is a flagship project of the governing coalition, there is much political rivalry over the scheme. Ironically, the act has been far more successful in, for example, Rajasthan (a state ruled by the opposition party, the BJP) than in some of the states ruled by national coalition members. Dreze believes that this kind of competition is healthy, and may ultimately serve to enhance the overall success of the programme. Though the Act has been passed and implemented, the issue that remains pertinent is the implications of such a large and open-ended commitment for managing the revenue and fiscal deficits especially in the context of the obligations under the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act. Based on available data, we tried to examine the NREGA-induced fiscal strain in the current fiscal year by comparing the budget burden of other employment

programmes (self- and wage employment) prior to the NREGA and NREGA allocation. Though the central government mobilizes around 10 per cent of GDP as revenue, and the size of the government expenditure measured as a percentage of GDP is around 15 per cent, direct expenditure on rural employment constituted 0.2 per cent of GDP in 1996-97, which declined to 0.13 per cent of GDP in 2001, at a time when human deprivation increased in rural India. Thereafter, although there was an increase in the direct expenditure on rural employment to 0.40 per cent of GDP, it tended to decline and fell to 0.33 per cent of GDP in 2006-07, even with the introduction of the NREG programme. In other words, in the past without the NREGA, the government had allocated a higher amount of resources in terms of proportion of GDP for rural employment programmes in India. In terms of the share in the central governments budget, the NREG scheme has made no difference to government expenditure on rural employment programmes (REP).

Targeting NREGA is currently the biggest self-targeting programme in India, open to all rural people who are willing and able to undertake manual labour in their village. An increasing number of employment-generation programmes initiated by the Indian government are self-targeting on the principle that only the poorest will be interested in manual work for low wages. While the evidence suggests that self-targeting can work well under certain circumstances, it is not clear that NREGA is sufficiently well-implemented to minimize errors of inclusion and exclusion and to prevent leakage of funds more generally.

Early reports on NREGA suggest that the implementation of the scheme needs to improve if the poor are to be reached effectively. Dungarpur district of Rajasthan is a role model for effective targeting, in part due to an exceptionally strong public administration. In most other locations, social status, social networks, nepotism, religion and politics have influenced access to the scheme, and wealthier sections of local society are, in some cases, manipulating the implementation of NREGA in much the same way as they do with other government initiatives. Social audits have revealed discrepancies between the numbers of job cards issued at the panchayat level and the number of people working, suggesting that numbers have been inflated to generate more funds than needed, which are then embezzled by local officials. A delay in the distribution of cards is also common, which suggests that people are unable to work even though employment may be available. The overall assessments of the effectiveness of self-targeting within the Maharashtra Rural Employment Guarantee Programme a forerunner to NREGA also present a mixed picture: some argue that it is low-income, lowasset households and female agricultural laborers who have benefited most from the scheme, but others have observed that the benefits have been concentrated in certain geographical pockets and that low awareness of entitlements and provisions have resulted in the exclusion of undeveloped tribal areas. This is consistent with the argument that the poor need to be empowered to demand their rights for any form of targeting to be effective. The right to work embedded in NREGA makes it unique, and if efforts are made to help the poor in recognizing and articulating this right, these may ultimately prove to be equally, or perhaps even more important, than the principle of self-targeting.

Social impact

NREGAs became a path-breaker by changing the notion of viewing social protection as a right of citizenship. The concept of guaranteed social minimum where entitlement extends beyond just cash and food transfers, and that is based on citizenship and not philanthropy, took root. Rural Empowerment: Guarantee, says the notable Economist Mahindra Dev, is the key word in NREGA. For the first time, it makes it possible for the rural people to demand that they are to be given a job, even if it is only at the floor rate of wages. The NREGA is also an outstanding example of how the RTI Act can be woven into the fabric of the delivery system and the whole legal and governance paradigm. By providing competitive but minimum wage rates with 100% compliance to all labor laws and benefits, NREGS has succeeded in eliminating 2nd tier contractors who often exploit laborers by either under-paying them or flouting labor laws and exploiting the poor.

Impact on Women: The Act mandates 33 percent participation for women. The Scheme has till 2009, attracted participation of about 49% from women as compared to previously implemented Jawahar Rozgar Yojana that had around 20% participation of women. The highest percentage has been observed in Tamil Nadu (80%) and Rajasthan (67%).Clearly, womens empowerment, one of the auxiliary objectives of NREGA, is being met with stellar success. About 79% of the women collect their wages on their own and keep it to themselves. Impact on other Marginalized Groups:

Self targeting in nature, the Programme has high levels of participation of marginalized groups like SC/ST (57%) till 2009. The scheme has managed to create awareness amongst remote tribal areas. This increased awareness is bound to have far-reaching effects in the long run.

Impact on the social fabric of society: A major success for NREGS is the fact that it has brought down the levels of distress migration from rural to urban areas. As a result, the net standard of living has seen an increase across the social spectrum in both rural and urban areas. Financial Inclusion of the poor: Besides the legal guarantee of 100 days of work in a financial year, NREGA households are also assured of basic minimum income per day. Post-NREGA, there has been a revision of minimum wages across the country in last three years, and the national average daily wage rate has increased from Rs.75 to Rs.80 in FY08-09. Higher incomes are expected to raise household savings, accelerating economic diversification and household investments in human capital. Impact on Agriculture & Rural Economy: Evidence through independent studies indicates enhancement of agricultural productivity (through water harvesting, check dams, ground water recharging, moisture content improvement, and micro-irrigation), stemming of distress migration, increased access to markets and services through rural connectivity

works, supplementing household incomes. The completion of the various development schemes has increased the fertility of agricultural lands and increased the water table too helping farmers who are now comparatively less dependent on the monsoons. Functional Literacy Development: The Government of India United Nations Development Programme launched a project in support to operationalization of the NREGA, the Ministry of Rural Development and UNDP are working towards improving functional literacy of the target population through various schemes such as films to train stakeholders. This programme is currently running functional literacy interventions in 13 villages. This has met with significant success especially among women who are now able to comprehend the entries on their job cards and bank books and be better informed.

Survey This paper presents some findings related to women NREGA workers from a field survey conducted in December 2010 in Bihar, Patna District. The survey involved unannounced visits to a random sample of 6 worksites, spread over the sample district. Interviews were conducted with a random sample of 50 NREGA workers currently employed at these worksites. The random sample of workers was drawn from the muster rolls of a currently ongoing worksite under the NREGA. The survey was aimed at understanding the impact NREGA has had in the lives of workers who are currently working under the programme. The survey was focused on women specifically. The interviews with women workers provided insights into the significance of NREGA work for these women and highlighted the transformative potential of the NREGA in enhancing economic and social security. Though the potential of this programme is substantial,

implementation varies across states. In a mosaic of chequered implementation however, many narratives from women workers tell a significant story about the benefits of the NREGA. We highlight this significance of NREGA work for women workers and make the case that attention must be paid by the government towards effective implementation to ensure that these important benefits are not scuttled. NREGA in Bihar It is more than a year since the NREGA came into effect and 10 months since the NREGS was formally launched. But in Bihar the scheme is yet to take off; it appears to be undergoing prolonged birth pangs. Out of the 200 districts that were selected for the first phase of implementation of this scheme, 23 are from Bihar. As far as the remaining 15 districts from Bihar that were originally listed, the Bihar government had promised to implement the scheme in these districts with the states own resources. Thus, 38 districts were to be covered under the NREGS in Bihar. The official announcements by the central and state governments generated considerable interest among the social activists, for after all, the potential was to be created for at least one person from each poor household in these districts of Bihar to be guaranteed employment for 100 days under the scheme, which if realised would to an extent help tide over the problem of food insecurity. What then is holding back the state government from implementing the NREGS? It would be wrong to state that the Bihar government has not done anything with regard to implementing this scheme. The commissioner-cum secretary of the rural development department of the Bihar government, in his letter dated January 18, 2006, had issued directives to the concerned authorities about the implementation of the NREGS in the 38 districts of Bihar, specifying that the unspent amount of Rs 5,025 lakh from the Sampurna Gramin Rozgar Yojna be utilised for implementing the NREGS in the 15 districts where the state

government had promised to finance the scheme on its own. But, at the ground level, there has been practically nothing done till date. Yes, the chief minister distributed a few job cards at public functions and reiterated the resolve of his government to implement the scheme in all the districts of the state. The reality on the ground is however quite different. When people go to submit their application for an NREGA job card, the mukhiya or the panchayat president sends them away saying that he has no orders to receive the application. This is the case in Barh block of Patna district. In Araria district, when development activists asked the block development officer (BDO) about the issue of NREGA job cards, he flatly refused saying that there is no order from above about this. There is no BDO for the last few months in Chennari block of Rohtas,where not only the NREGS is not taking off the ground, no other development work is underway. According to the state government, there is no dearth of financial resources for implementing the scheme. In accordance with the implementation schedule, the central government released its share of the required expenditure in the month of April. As per the directives given by the national director of the NREGS dated April 25, 2006, the amounts released for the implementation of the scheme in the districts chosen by the central government are as given in the table. As can be seen, Rs.405 crore has been released for implementation of the NREGS to be used by the government of Bihar. But for all practical purposes, implementation of the scheme is yet to begin. What is intriguing is that even eight months after the money has been released nothing has been done as yet. In fact, 60 per cent of the allotment is for making payment to the workers and 40 per cent of the amount is for the material component. Thus, over Rs.162 crore is available during the current financial year for the material component. Similarly, the bigger districts of Bihar have been granted about Rs.8 crore for the material component and Rs.12 crore for wages. What then is holding the state government, the politicians and the officials from implementing this scheme remains a mystery. According to one of the politicians, the scheme was made

operational from February 2006. But due to the moral code of conduct imposed during the Panchayat elections in Bihar, this scheme could not be implemented. The election got over only in June and we were getting ready to implement the scheme but the rains came and no progress could be made. Now we are all set to implement the scheme and will make a formal announcement on October 2, Gandhi Jayanti Day. But October has passed and nothing as yet is being done. It is significant to note that even the State Employment Guarantee Council has not yet been constituted. Due to political wrangling, appointments to this council, which would have ensured the implementation of the scheme, have been delayed. Even the district programme officers and block programme officers have not been appointed, though there are resources available for this purpose. Till date, work has been started at very few places. In some districts it was observed that wage payments was lower than what was stipulated and there were also report of delayed payments for the work undertaken under NREGP. In most of the cases inadequate worksite facilities were present. Apart from drinking water no other facility, like crche, first aid or shade were available at the worksites. Also no unemployment allowance payment yet. The chief minister reportedly said to the officials that if unemployment wages were paid in any block that amount would be deducted from the concerned officials salary- this he said in front of TV cameras-(He probably meant that work should be provided to everyone who demands and he wont bear any laxity on this account)-but the result is that officials are trying to discourage application for jobs. Effects Prior to launching NREGA, the national coalition government emphasised its potential to stimulate rural growth through the establishment of productive physical assets and the influx of funds through wages. It is too early to assess the

impact of NREGA on growth and poverty reduction at this juncture, but experiences from the earlier Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Scheme can give a broad idea of possible impact. It is widely agreed that the benefits of the Maharashtra programme have been secondary and indirect rather than direct. It has, for instance, raised agricultural wages in Maharashtra by making labourers reluctant to accept anything less than the official minimum wage. A similar trend is already being observed with districts using NREGA. Another indirect benefit is that it has acted as an insurance for rural workers against unemployment, although the increase in employment and income generated may not be substantial. Furthermore, it has stabilised income for rural households as more work has been provided in the agricultural off-period (April to July). There is evidence that this has assisted income-smoothing among the poor and reduced their need to make adjustments by cutting down on food expenditure, sale of livestock, or resorting to taking expensive loans. There is conflicting evidence over how far the assets created by public works benefit the poor: some support the notion of substantial contributions to agricultural productivity from which the poor also benefit; others argue that the location of the assets has tended to benefit those in wealthier households with irrigation facilities, since their wells have been recharged through the various structures created or rehabilitated. Lastly, there is some evidence that the Maharashtra project has engaged women in positive ways and helped to enhance their independence. As with NREGA, the project has had problems in reaching tribal areas and other geographical pockets of poverty. One view, rarely heard, is that whilst the provision of some local employment is potentially important, the easy availability of work under NREGA may discourage rural workers from seeking work in rapidly growing areas of the economy. This may, in turn, reduce the potential pace of economic transformation, and lower the prospects of workers gaining new skills. In this way, NREGA, as a means of social protection, may ultimately work against economic growth.

Attractiveness of NREGA employment for women NREGA workers (men and women alike) belong to the most disadvantaged groups. As Table 2 above shows, a large majority (over 70%) were from the scheduled castes (SCs) and scheduled tribes (STs) and most NREGA labourers were illiterate (82% in the case of women). Many female respondents said the work provided under the NREGA opened up a new opportunity for them. The wider acceptability of NREGA work derives from several factors: it is locally available, being government work there is regularity and predictability of working hours, less chance of work conditions being exploitative and work is considered socially acceptable and dignified. Last (but not the least), it is better paid than other work. These attractive features of NREGA for women are discussed below. The Act stipulates that work be provided locally, within five km of the residence. This makes participation in NREGA work logistically feasible for women. Since they continue to bear the main responsibility of household work, travelling any distance for paid work makes this task more difficult for them. Apart from the fact that NREGA work is provided in the village itself, the fact that women work in groups and that work is provided by the government helps to make NREGA work socially acceptable. Other reasons why NREGA work was regarded acceptable are pertinent. NREGA promises the statutory minimum wage. Even in cases where the minimum wage is not paid (as is often the case, especially in Rajasthan) NREGA wages imply a substantial jump in the earning potential for women (see Table 2). As per survey data, the average wage earned by women in the private labor market ranged between Rs.47 and Rs.58 per day, for agricultural and other casual labor, respectively.

On NREGA, the average wage earned was Rs.85, clearly a huge increase over other wage opportunities. Some women stated they did not engage themselves in agricultural wage labour earlier because they would have been paid too little and it was not worth their while to go out and work for a pittance. The prospect of earning a substantial wage within the village in some cases might swing acceptability in favor of women. The fact that NREGA work is offered by the local government rather than by a private employer in some ways frees potential women workers from caste and community-based strictures related to who they can and cannot work with.15 Further, being government work, the hours of work are clearly stated and are limited to eight hours in a day (in the case of daily wage work). Fixed working hours often cannot be expected in the case of other work. This is of special concern for women who combine any paid work with household work. NREGA employment is therefore considered relatively safe in the sense that it is thought that there are some checks and balances in place to prevent harassment of workers. Moreover, NREGA employment offers a new sense of independence: for instance, Gita (Sirohi district, Rajasthan) said she would have stayed at home or worked on her own fields had NREGA work not been available. She considered working on the NREGA (government) worksite because she did not have to go through a potentially embarrassing and humiliating conversation to ask anyone in the village for work.

Area of concern This section focuses on three areas of concern with respect to women and their access to work under NREGA. First, in spite of the relative accessibility of NREGA for women, major barriers remain.

Second, there has been a thrust (from the government) towards payment of wages through banks. Some issues related to bank payments are discussed here. Finally, the low rates of participation of women in gram sabhas are discussed. In many areas, there are tenacious social norms against women, working outside the home. In Sasaram, we met women who said that they had not been able to register as workers under the NREGA22 and were told that this programme was not for them. In Sitapur district, there was a significant amount of hostility to female participation in NREGA, both from gram panchayat functionaries and male relatives. Names of adult women were excluded from job cards and it was commonly stated that women cannot work on worksites, that they are too weak, and that it is socially unacceptable for them to undertake this work. The widespread prevalence of these opinions related to female labour was reflected in the fact that only 5% of the randomly sampled workers in Sitapur district, Uttar Pradesh were women. The reason for this bias seems to be partly related to the difference in the statutory minimum wage earned under the NREGA, and the local market wage rate (especially for women). This combined with the fact that men and women earn the same wage has created resistance to the participation of women by men who want to maintain privileged access to this (relatively high paid) work. Takdiri (Sitapur district, Uttar Pradesh) pointed out that she had been turned away from several worksites and that when there is an excess of workers women are the ones who are turned away. It may be pointed out that problems in accessing work highlighted by Takdiri are in themselves illegal in that all workers who seek work have a right to work and must be provided work by the government as per law. Moreover, as against the legal provisions of the NREGA, work in most places is not demand driven. Instead, in most places work is started at the initiative of the local government23 and can be in limited supply at any given time. This is also the case for many respondents to the current survey. For many people facing difficult economic circumstances the certainty of accessing work when sought is critical as is regularity of payment.24

However, women being turned away from work, especially in these circumstances is a matter of concern. Second, the continued illegal presence of contractors is a significant negative factor affecting the availability of work and its benefits for women. On worksites where contractors were involved, 35% of women workers said they were harassed, as compared to only 8% on contractorfree worksites.25 Besides, as mentioned above, the conditions of work at worksites run by contractors tend to be more exploitative (Table 5). It is quite likely that the complete absence of contractors is one of the factors that contributes to the high participation of women in Rajasthan. In Rajpur block (Badwani district, Madhya Pradesh), for instance, work was being implemented by contractors in four out of five works visited. Women workers who the survey team spoke with said the contractor would come to the village and ask for names of able-bodied men to work on the site. If women asked for work, their pleas were ignored. Importantly, since the legal entitlement to get work on demand is not understood by many, this turning away of women workers does not meet with opposition from the village community in fact, male workers engaged by the contractors thought the turning away of women was perfectly justified. In Udaipur block (Surguja district, Chhattisgarh), Bodhsai from Marya Panchayat said women and girls are subjected to verbal abuse by the contractor and women workers are often told they do not work fast enough. Third, another big hurdle inhibiting the participation of women is the lack of childcare facilities. The Act requires that when there are more than five children under the age of six present at a worksite, a female worker be appointed to take care of them. We did not find childcare facilities being provided anywhere. (Only 3% of the worksites had childcare facilities, and these need to be taken with a pinch of salt because at least two were cases of window dressing.) The lack of these facilities can be crippling for women, especially for those with breastfeeding infants who cannot be left behind for long hours. Most women who

have children do not bring them to the worksite as it is not seen as a safe place for them: apart from the dangers of being left untended in the open, women are also worried about the heat and sometimes they are harassed when they spend time with the child (e g, to breastfeed the child). However, leaving the child at home is not without its problems: sometimes the child is left unsupervised, breastfed children are fed once in the morning and left alone until evening when the mother returns which has a significant adverse impact on the health of the child. Meanwhile, the mothers spend their day in anxiety worrying about the childs safety at home. What is encouraging is that four out of every five women said that if some childcare facilities are provided they would bring their child to the worksite. Fourth, in some states productivity norms are too exacting, because the schedule of rates is yet to be revised in line with NREGA norms. To illustrate, in Jharkhand the standard task for a days work at the time of the survey was digging 110 cubic feet (in soft soil), which is far too much. Certain types of NREGA work also limit the participation of women. This applies, for instance, to the construction of wells on private land. The nature of this work is such that women stop being employed as soon as digging has reached a certain depth. Fifth, delayed payments also come in the way of participation of poor women. Delays in wage payments make things particularly difficult for single women, who cannot afford to wait for work and wages as they are the sole earners in the family. When the wages do not come on time, they are often forced to return to previous, less preferred forms of employment. For example, Shanti Devi ( Koderma, Jharkhand), said that at the mine where she worked before, she was paid on a daily basis whereas she has to wait for a month for her NREGA wages.