Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | A boon in the rural landscape: Data shows that the MGNREGA is doing more to create employment than many have argued recently -Neelakshi Mann, Varad Pande & Jairam Ramesh

A boon in the rural landscape: Data shows that the MGNREGA is doing more to create employment than many have argued recently -Neelakshi Mann, Varad Pande & Jairam Ramesh

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Feb 18, 2013   modified Modified on Feb 18, 2013
-The Times of India

Few government programmes are as debated in this country as the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). Introduced by the UPA government in 200 backward districts in 2006, and extended to the entire country by 2007-08, MGNREGA has become a fact of life in rural India; on an average around 25% of rural households seek employment under the scheme annually.

In recent times, it has become almost fashionable to critique the programme. But data suggests that recent criticisms on the scheme's employment generating potential and inclusiveness are inaccurate in their understanding of the programme.

A recent report in this newspaper suggested that there has been a decline in the work generated under MGNREGA since 2009-10, ie, less people are getting employed, and the scheme is in some way "losing its appeal".

To begin with, 2009-10 cannot be used as a base year for such a comparison, since the year registered one of India's worst droughts in recent times. It is actually no surprise that 2009-10 recorded MGNREGA's highest demand generating 284 crore persondays. This corroborates the theory that the scheme, by its very design, is a demand-driven programme that provides employment to poor households when they most need it, eg, when they are hit by adverse weather shocks.

In fact, a study conducted in 2009 in Andhra Pradesh found that during drought, each mm of deficit rainfall suffered could be correlated with around Rs 20 in additional MGNREGA wages. So the fact that MGNREGA demand was the above average in a drought year, speaks to its success rather than its failure.

Drawing a comparison bet-ween 2011-12 and 2012-13 (more 'normal' years), the persondays of employment provided has remained stable (150 crore persondays by December 2011, rising to 153 crore persondays by December 2012).

The same report also claimed that it is the upper caste poor who are dominating employment under the scheme and that dalits (SCs), adivasis (STs) and women are in some way being excluded.

Let us examine this claim. Even before looking at the numbers, there seems to be nothing wrong with the idea that the poor, irrespective of their caste, are seeking employment under the scheme. By its very design, MGNREGA does not differentiate between castes, or for that matter between the BPL and APL households (a classification which is fraught with inclusion and exclusion errors). The act indicates no cap on the number of households who can seek employment, and is open to any rural household willing to undertake unskilled manual work. In this way, it is a self-targeting, non-discriminatory programme for all rural Indians.

This aside, data clearly suggests that a large segment of the beneficiaries belong to SC and ST communities; the participation of SCs and STs in the total persondays generated has ranged from 40-60% annually.

Perhaps even more impressively, women have been a major beneficiary; the proportion of women persondays in FY 2011-12 was 49% (up to December 2011) and 53% in 2012-13 (up to December 2012), thus actually showing an increase. Overall, research indicates that MGNREGA is an important work opportunity for women who would have otherwise remained unemployed or underemployed - probably because it incorporates gender-sensitivity in its design, ensuring that work is provided within five km and ensuring wage parity, a fact validated by the National Sample Survey Organisation's 66th round survey.

Admittedly, the data reflects a decrease in the participation of SCs and STs from 50% in 2010-11 to 40% in 2012-13 (up to December 2012). While this trend needs further evaluation, it is important to note that this decline may not necessarily be a bad thing - it may indicate that MGNREGA beneficiaries have voluntarily moved away from the scheme to more productive activities.

For instance, MGNREGA allows for works such as land development, horticulture, irrigation etc to be taken up on the private lands of individual farmers belonging to the SC, ST, BPL and small & marginal farmers (SMF) communities. Interestingly, 50% of those who benefited from works on their lands, did not seek MGNREGA employment in the following years. This may indicate that these households have moved to farming on their land once their land has been made more productive through MGNREGA work.

A recent evaluation from Madhya Pradesh suggests that due to MGNREGA works taken up on lands of small farmers, cultivated area of these households increased by 15%. If this is indeed a broader trend, it would be something to celebrate rather than condemn.

This is not to say that everything is perfect with the scheme. There are undoubtedly challenges of implementation, instances of corruption, and questions about the quality of the assets created. These are well noted, and it is in response to these that the government is moving towards the second generation of MGNREGA ( MGNREGA 2.0), with an expanded list of works, greater focus on local level capa-city building, more accountabi-lity through institutionalised social audits and local level audits, greater stress on the use of technology and more flexibi-lity for states.

The new operational guidelines for MGNREGA, incorporating many of these reforms, have just been released and can be found on the scheme's website. But while a lot more needs to be done to make it more effective, MGNREGA, contrary to the wisdom of its naysayers, continues to create a positive impact on the rural economy and the livelihoods of marginalised rural Indians.

Jairam Ramesh is the Union minister for rural development and Mann and Pande work with the ministry of rural development.

The Times of India, 18 February, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/A-boon-in-the-rural-landscape-Data-shows-that-the-MGNREGA-is-doing-more-to-create-employment-than-many-


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close