impact of mahatma gandhi national rural …€¦ · (gupt a et al., 2011) was also improved. the...

Minor Research Project in Social Sciences

UGC MINOR PROJECT MRP (H)-0978/13-14/KLCA020/UGC-SWRO

IMPACT OF MAHATMA GANDHINATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT

PROGRAMME ON RURAL LIVELIHOODAND AGRICULTURE SECTOR OF ADAT

GRAMA PANCHAYAT

Final Report by the Principal Investigator to the UGC(19th June, 2014 to 18th December 2015)

by

DR. RAJESH KPG DEPARTMENT OF ECOOMICS,

ST ALOYSIUS COLLEGE, ELTHURUTH,THRISSUR

MARCH 2017

CERTIFICATE

I hereby declare that the UGC Minor Project entitled “Impact of Mahatma Gandhi

National Rural Employment Programme on Rural Livelihood and Agriculture

Sector of Adat Grama Panchayat ” is an authentic record of the research work

carried out by me and that no part of this work has been presented for the award of

any degree in any other University.

THRISSUR, Dr. RAJESH K15 March, 2017 (Principal Investigator),

Assistant ProfessorPG Department of Economics,

St Aloysius College, Elthuruth,Thrissur

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to place on record the deep sense of gratitude and heartfelt thanks to Dr. (Fr). Babu

Paul CMI, Principal, St Aloysius College, Elthuruth, Thrissur for the invaluable guidance

and encouragement rendered throughout this work.

I express my deep sense of gratitude to all the teachers of the Department of Economics,

St Aloysius College, Elthuruth, Thrissur for their constant encouragement and for the

facilities extended for the research work.

I am grateful to organizations like Planning Board, CDS Thiruvananathapuram, Central

Library of Calicut and Cochin University for allowing me access to their libraries.

I express sincere thanks to Ms.Ambika, accountant cum data entry operator and other

staffs of Adat Panchayat, for their timely support. Equally I am thankful to Mr.Rajendran,

President of Adat Cooperative Bank and the ward members of the panchayat for their

inputs and their active involvement in the discussions.

Last, but not least, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my wife Ramya and

daughter Rithika for their prayers and unflinching support for completion of this work.

Dr Rajesh K.

ii

Contents

Acknowledgements i

Contents ii

List of figures iv

List of Tables v

Chapters

1. Design of the Study

1.1.Introduction 1

1.2.Literature Review 3

1.3.Rationale of the Study 4

1.4.Objectives 5

1.5.Conceptual Framework of the Study 5

1.6.Methodology and Data Base 6

1.7.Scope of the Study 6

1.8.Limitations of the Study 7

1.9.Plan of the Thesis 7

2: An Overview of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural

Employment Programme 8

2.1. Introduction 8

2.2. Origin of MGNREGA 8

2.3. Analysis of MGNREGS in India-A Macro Scenario 13

2.4. MGNREGS in Kerala 20

2.5. MGNREGS in Thrissur 23

2.6. Summary 24

3: Evaluation of MGNREGS in Adat Panchayat 28

3.1. Introduction 28

3.2. Adat Panchayat-Basic Features 28

3.3. Present Status of Agriculture in Adat Panchayat 31

iii

3.4. Implementation of MGNREGS in Adat Panchayat 32

3.5. Evaluation of the Performance of MNREG Programme 33

3.6. Comparing the Performance of MHNREGS of Adat Panchayat with

Puzhakkal Taluk, Thrissur District and Kerala 40

3.7. Summary 42

4: Impact of MGNREGS on the Rural Livelihood of Adat Panchayat 46

4.1. Introduction 46

4.2. Methodology 46

4.3. Analysis of Field Survey Results 47

4.4. Summary 57

5: Summary of Findings and Conclusion 61

5.1. Summary of Findings 61

5.2. Conclusion 71

Appendices 72

References 75

iv

List of Figures and Graphs

No Title Page NoFigure 3.1 Map of Adat Panchayat 30

Figure 3.2 Seasonal variation of employment demand (2011-12 to2015-16)

37

v

List of Tables

No Title Page NoTable 2.1 Fund allocation towards MNREGS in India 14Table. 2.2 Overview of the performance of MGNREGA in India 15Table 2.3 Details of demand employment and worked (2015-16) 17Table.2.4 Wage rate of MNREGS (over the period) 19Table. 2.5 Status of MGNREGA in Kerala 20Table 2.6 District wise performance of MNREGS in Kerala (2015-16) 22Table.2.7 Evaluation of MGNREGS in Thrissur 23

Table 3.1 Basic details of Adat Grama Panchayat 29Table 3.2 Political/Geographical features of Adat 30Table 3.3 Details of the employment details (2011-12 to 2015-16) 34Table 3.4 Details of the provision of 100 days of employment (2011-12

to 2015-16)35

Table 3.5 Employment demand in Adat (2011-12 to 2015-16) 36Table 3.6 SC/ST participation in MGNREG scheme (2011-12 to 2015-

16)37

Table 3.7 Employment status of SC/ST community of Adat (2011-12 to2015-16)

38

Table 3.8 SC Household worked less than 15 days (201-12 to 2015-16) 39Table 3.9 Comparison the efficiency on the basis of selected variables 40Table 4.1 Religion wise classification of the respondents 47Table. 4.2 Caste/gender wise classification workers 48Table 4.3 Education details of the respondents 49Table 4.4 Age wise distribution of MGNREGS workers 49Table 4.5 Number of members in the family 50Table 4.6 Number of earning members 51Table 4.6 Details of Workers Houses 52Table 4.7 Major source of income of the house hold 53Table 4.8 Number of days of employment 53Table 4.9 Changes before and after the implementation of MGNREGS 54Table 4.10 Level of satisfaction of MGNREGS workers 55Table 4. 11 Reasons for opting MNREGS jobs 56

1

Chapter 1

Design of the Study

1.1. Introduction

India is a country with vast majority of the workers depending on the informal

sector for livelihood. Almost 86% of the total workers belong to informal sector (GIDR,

2014). However, their share in national output is only 50% approximately. 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 and Breman, as quoted in GIDR). Their vulnerability is extended

by the necessity to remain mobile due to the saturation and lack of demand in the primary

agricultural sector. They generally have to work outside the place of their birth and face

many uncertainties due to unfamiliar conditions, work expectations and job profile

(Kannan and Breman, as quoted in GIDR). Since seventies, the Government of India has

been experimenting special schemes for rural development such as Integrated Rural

Development Programme (IRDP1), National Rural Employment Programme (NREP2),

1 The Integrated Rural Development Programme is a self-employment program intended to raise theincome-generation capacity of target groups among the poor. It started in the year 1979. The target groupconsists largely of small and marginal farmers, agricultural labourers and rural artisans living belowthe poverty line. The scheme has been merged with another scheme named Swarnajayanti GramSwarozgar Yojana (SGSY) since 01.04.1999.

2 The NREP was launched in October 1980 and became a regular plan programme from April 1981. Theprogramme was expected to generate additional gainful employment in the rural areas, to the extent of300-400 million man days per annum, create durable community assets and improve nutritional statusand living standards of the poor.

2

Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme (RLEGP3) and Javahar Rozgar

Yojana (JRY4) , etc. to tackle the problem of unemployment and poverty through

employment generation and asset creation. The initiation of these schemes did produce

steady increases in employment generation though the rate of growth of employment

continued to somewhat lag behind that of the growth of the labour force. National Rural

Employment guarantee Scheme (NREGS5) is, one among them, relatively a recent

novelty embedded within the broad framework of poverty eradication in India. It 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 (GOI, 2015)6.

The MGNREGA has become a powerful instrument for inclusive growth in rural India

through its impact on social protection, livelihood security and democratic governance

(Ibid). The World Bank has recently acclaimed this program as the only insurance for

3 Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme was introduced on August 15, 1983, with theobjective of (a) improving and expanding employment opportunities for the rural landless with a view toproviding guarantee of employment to at least one member of every landless household up to 100 days ina year and (b) creating durable assets for strengthening the infrastructure so as to meet the growingrequirements of the rural economy.

4 Jawahar Rozgar Yojna was launched on April 1, 1989 by merging National Rural Employment Program(NREP) and Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme (RLEGP). The main objective of the yojanawas to generate additional gainful employment for the unemployed and under-employed persons in ruralareas. The other objective was the creation of sustained employment by strengthening rural economicinfrastructure and assets in favour of rural poor for their direct and continuing benefits.

5 Later, in 2009, it has been renamed as Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act(hence forth MGNREGA or MGNREGS). The new name was unveiled on the birth anniversary of MahatmaGandhi, on October 2, 2009, with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to commemorate the 50th anniversaryof the launch of Panchayati Raj.

6 Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005-Report to the People, 2nd February2013, Ministry of Rural Development, Department of Rural Development, Government of India.

3

India (The Hindu, 2015) to eradicate rural poverty and unemployment, by way of

generating demand for productive labour force in villages.

1.2. Literature review

The following section explains literature on Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment

Programme. This analysis is essential for an understanding of MGNREGA. Though there

are numerous field and micro studies are available, very few large scale surveys existing

to understand the precise impact of MGNREGA.

MGNREGA often describe as a mechanism to provide an alternative source of

livelihood through employment generation (Khan and Salluja, 2008: Hirway et al, 2009,

IIT Madras, 2009, Dey and Bedi, 2010) which will have an impact on reducing

migration (Bordoloi, 2011; Jacob, 2008) restricting child labor, reduction of rural urban

migration, agricultural and livelihood vulnerability reduction (Esteves et al., 2013,

Ranaware et al., 2015) alleviating poverty, and making villages self sustaining through

productive assets creation such as road construction, cleaning up of water tanks, soil and

water conservation work, etc (Aggarwal et al., 2012; CSE, 2008). Among the various

activities being promoted under MGNREG Scheme ranges from water harvesting, soil

conservations, environment security and biodiversity and environment conservation

(Tiwari et al., 2011, Sebastian and Azeez, 2014). Corruption in rural employment

programe (Dreze, 2007, Mathur, 2009) and the mismanagement of MGNREGS funds

(Nayak, Behera, and Mishra, 2008) which demanded for an effective monitoring

(Mathur, 2007). Aadhaar-Enabled Payments for NREGA Workers was observed as one

of the method to curb this mismanagement (Bhatti, 2008). Recent research also shows

that corruption levels have steadily declined over time. The effective utilization of funds

4

(Gupta et al., 2011) was also improved. The rural impact of MGNREGA is crucially

depends on the way of implementation by the local bodies (Jacob and Varghese, 2006)

The study regarding the effectiveness of MGNREGA in Kerala context are less in

number. Sustainable rural development of Kerala legitimately demands an in depth study

of its impact on rural economy. The present study is an attempt in this direction. It is

expected to fill the gap in information.

1.3. Rationale of the study

MGNREGA is generally considered as a unique weapon to activate and empower

the rural poor. Many economists consider it as ‘revolutionary’ steps, which not only

provide the employment but also reduce the tendency of migration. It also acts as a major

weapon to empower the rural women. However, in the debate over the costs and benefits

of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, the most

controversial and unsettled issues is its effect on agricultural labour market. Whatever be

there as its social benefits, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme may have

had a negative impact on productivity through rising wages without a commensurate

increase in output, and also shifted jobs from more productive areas like agriculture to

less productive (India Today, 2013). Notwithstanding this scenario, the state has very

little information on the precise impacts of MGNREGA. Sustainable rural development

of Kerala legitimately demands an in depth study of its impact on the local economy. The

present study is an attempt in this direction. It is expected to fill the gap in information

needed for planned and controlled development of rural development in the state.

5

1.4. Objectives

The overall objective of this study is to understand the long term impact of the

MGNREGA in Adat Panchayat of Thrissur district. This study specifically aims to:

a) To find out the economic impact of MGNREGA in terms of income, number

days of employment guaranteed and the changes in the standard of living of

the people.

b) To identify the impact of rural livelihood particularly on agriculture sector.

1.5: Conceptual framework of the study

The term livelihood indicates making a living. According to Chambers and

Conway (1992) a livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (both material and social

resources) and activities required for a means of living. It encompasses people’s

capabilities, assets, income and activities required to secure the necessities of life. The

household is the basic economic decision making unit in rural society. It is essential to

understand householders’ livelihood strategies in order to make sense of what they are

doing and understand how they perceive opportunities for change. A livelihood is

sustainable when it enables people to cope with and recover from shocks and stresses

(such as natural disasters and economic or social upheavals) and enhance their well-being

and that of future generations without undermining the natural environment or resource

base. Livelihood studies show that increasing numbers of people opt for strategies

characterised by multi-tasking and income diversification. Such diversification is

pervasive and enduring, and is a common feature of both urban and rural livelihoods

(Ellis, as cited in De Haan, 2007). The nature of diversification can vary widely,

according to who undertakes it. For higher-income groups it is often an accumulation

6

strategy aiming at maximising profits by investing across sectors, but for the poor it is

often a survival strategy, a way of minimising risk and stabilising income, and usually

involves low-skilled, low-paid and often temporary employment (Tacoli, 2002). Most

livelihoods strategies rely heavily on agriculture, as many depends agriculture for their

livelihood. Majority of Adat panchayat’s people depend on agriculture and allied works.

Number of casual labours, that too in the informal sector, is also plenty in numbers.

Therefore, impact of MGNREGS on these sectors need to be addressed.

1.6. Methodology and data base

The methodology followed in this study is both descriptive and analytical to find

out the nature of employment guarantee scheme.

Both primary and secondary data was collected for this study to find out the long

term impact of MGNREGA in Adat Panchayat. Primary data have been collected by

interviewing various stakeholders in MGNREGA, such as panchayat officials, farmers

and MGNREGA workers. A structured questionnaire was used to find out the responses

of MGNREGA workers. Respondents were selected on a random basis i.e., twenty from

each villages of the panchayat. The primary survey was conducted during January, 2015

to December, 2015.

The secondary data have been mostly extracted from the official web site of

government (http://www.nrega.nic.in/) and other publications of Government of India

(GOI) and Government of Kerala (GOK).

1.7. Scope of the study

The study is predominantly descriptive in nature, which gives a bird’s eye view of

this sector. The study area is limited to the political limits of Adat panchayat of Thrissur

7

district. The focus of this study is predominantly to trace the economic and social

development and to identify the changes in the standard of living of the poor.

1.8. Limitations of the study

Major limitation of the study was reluctance of the workers in giving proper

responses.

1.9. Plan of the thesis

This thesis is presented in five chapters including this introductory chapter, i.e.,

design of the study. This chapter introduced the concepts of literature review, the

rationale of the study, objectives, methodology and data base, scope of the study and

limitations of the study. The plan of the thesis is also furnished in this chapter.

Chapter two presents the development of MGNREGS in India, Kerala and

Thrissur. Chapter three provides the assessment of the performance of MGNREGS in

Adat. Chapter four summarizes the impact of MGNREGS on the Rural Livelihood of

Adat Panchayat. Chapter five gives the summary of findings of the various chapters and

the conclusions.

8

Chapter 2

An Overview of Mahatma Gandhi National RuralEmployment Programme

2.1. Introduction

The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) is the most significant

act in the history of Indian polity in many ways like grass-root level participation of

every citizen and beneficiary through democratic process, multi-layered social audit and

transparency mechanism by involvement of civil society, comprehensive planning at

village level towards sustainable and equitable development etc. The objective of this

chapter is to provide an overview of MGNREGS in India. This chapter begins with an

introduction of MGNREGS, its mandate, objectives and the salient features of this act. It

is followed by an evaluation of the MGNRGS programme in India and Kerala.

Subsequently district wise performance of MGNREGS is also given. The last section

provides the summary of this chapter.

2.2. Origin of MGNREGA

As it explained in the previous chapter, the government has been experimenting

with various programmes in the country to uplift the living and employment standards of

the poor. It was on the basis of these programmes that the government enacted the

National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) to reinforce the commitment

towards livelihood security in rural areas. NREGA marks a paradigm shift from the

previous Wage Employment Programmes (WEPs) and the Act was enacted by legislation

on 25 August 2005, which was later renamed as Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment

Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). This act was brought about by the UPA coalition

9

government supported by the left parties. Dr. Jean Drèze, a Belgian born economist, at

the Delhi School of Economics, has been a major influence on this project.

The Act was implemented in phased manner. The Act was notified in 200 rural

districts in its first phase of implementation (with effect from 2 February 2006). In FY

2007–08, it was extended to an additional 130 rural districts. The remaining districts were

notified under MGNREGA with effect from 1 April 2008. Since 2008, MGNREGA has

covered the entire country with the exception of districts that have a hundred per cent

urban population (MRD, 2012). The scheme provides a legal guarantee for at least 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 of 120 (US$2.20) per day in 2009 prices. If they fail to do so the

Government has to pay the salary at their homes. With its spread to over 625 districts

across the country, the flagship program of the UPA Government has the potential to

increase the purchasing power of rural poor, reduce distress migration and to create

useful assets in rural India. Also, it can foster social and gender equality as 23% workers

under the scheme are Scheduled Castes, 17% Scheduled Tribes and 50% women.

2.2.1. Mandate and Objectives

The mandate of the Act is to provide 100 days of guaranteed wage employment in

a financial year (FY) to every rural household1 whose adult members volunteer to do

unskilled manual work (MRD, 2012)

1 A household is defined as members of a family related to each other by blood, marriage or adoption,and normally residing together and sharing meals.

10

The objectives of the programme include (Ibid)

• Ensuring social protection for the most vulnerable people living in rural India

through providing employment opportunities,

• Ensuring livelihood security for the poor through creation of durable assets,

improved water security, soil conservation and higher land productivity

Strengthening drought-proofing and flood management in rural India,

• Aiding in the empowerment of the marginalized communities, especially

women, Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), through the

processes of a rights-based legislation,

• Strengthening decentralised, participatory planning through convergence of

various anti-poverty and livelihoods initiatives,

• Deepening democracy at the grass-roots by strengthening the Panchayati Raj

Institutions (PRIs)2

• Effecting greater transparency and accountability in governance.

MGNREGA has become a powerful instrument for inclusive growth in rural India

through its impact on social protection, livelihood security and democratic governance.

(Ibid)

2.2.2. Salient Features of the Act

The salient features of the act have been given by the UNDP (2015) as follows.

Registration: Adult members of a rural household willing to do unskilled manual work

may apply for registration either in writing, or orally to the local Gram Panchayat (hence

forth GP). The unit for registration is a household. Under the Act, each household is

2 Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) are systems of local governance in rural India at three levels ofadministration: village, block and district.

11

entitled to a 100 days of employment every year. FRA beneficiaries3 are entitled to 150

days of employment (PIB, 2014). In states like Rajasthan, communities like the Sahriyas

have been given an entitlement of 200 days.

Job Card: After due verification of place of residence and age of the member/s (only

adult members are eligible for employment), the registered household is issued a Job

Card (JC). A JC is to be issued within 15 days of registration. Each JC has a unique

identification number. The demand for employment in the GP, or at block level has to be

made against the JC number. Job Cards are also supposed to be updated with days of

work and payment made to the beneficiary as and when the work is undertaken.

Application for Work: A written application seeking work is to be made to the GP or

Block Office, stating the time and duration for which work is sought. The GP will issue a

dated receipt of the written application for employment, against which the guarantee of

providing employment within 15 days operates.

Unemployment allowance: In case employment is not provided within 15 days, the state

(as per the Act) will pay an unemployment allowance to the beneficiary.

Provision of Work: While allocating work, the below mentioned considerations are

followed: Work is provided within 5 kilometres (kms) radius of the village. In case, work

is provide beyond 5 kms, extra wages of 10 per cent are payable to meet additional

transportation and living expenses. Priority is awarded to women, such that at least one-

3 Tribal people who have become rightful owners of forest land under the Forest Right Act (2006). Themove will benefit about eight lakh people in the states like Jharkhand, Odisha, Chhattisgarh and AndhraPradesh; the additional 50 days of employment beyond the stipulated 100 days under the MahatmaGandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) will be applicable to those individuals whogot pattas under Forest Rights Act, FRA (2006). Approximately, 14 lakh individual and community titleshave been distributed under FRA 2006. Of these around 8 lakh individual titles have been given in AndhraPradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Orissa. It is these individuals who will be able to claim the benefit of150 days (PIB, 19th January, 2014)

12

third of the beneficiaries under the Scheme are women. At least 50 per cent of works, in

terms of cost, are to be executed by the GPs.

Wages: Wages are to be paid as per the State-wise Government of India (GOI) notified

MGNREGA wages. Payment of wages has to be done on a weekly basis and not beyond

a fortnight in any case. Payment of wages is mandatorily done through the

individual/joint bank/post office beneficiary accounts.

Planning: Plans and decisions regarding the nature and choice of works to be undertaken

in a financial year (henceforth FY) along with the order in which each work is to be taken

up, site selection, etc. are all to be made in open assemblies of the Gram Sabha

(henceforth GS) and ratified by the GP. Works that are inserted at Block and District

levels have to be approved and assigned a priority by the GS before administrative

approval can be given. The GS may accept, amend or reject them.

Cost Sharing: This is a cost sharing scheme with the centre bearing the full cost of

wages of unskilled labour, 75 percent of the cost of material and wages for skilled/semi-

skilled labour, and a part of the administrative expenses. The state governments have to

bear the remaining costs of material and wages, and administrative costs, along with the

costs of unemployment allowance payable to those who cannot be provided wage

employment within 15 days of application (Gupta et al., 2011)

Worksite Management: To ensure that the workers are directly benefitted under the

Scheme, the Act prohibits the use of contractors or machinery in execution of the works.

The Act is not to be diluted and wage employment is the main focus, MGNREGA

mandates that in the total cost of works undertaken in a GP, the wage expenditure to

13

material expenditure ratio should be 60:40. Worksite facilities such as crèche, drinking

water and shade have to be provided at all worksites.

Transparency and Accountability: Transparency and accountability in the programme

is ensured through the following: Social audit, to scrutinize all the records and works

under the Scheme are to be conducted regularly by the GS. Grievance redressal

mechanisms and rules have to be put in place for ensuring a responsive implementation

process.

All accounts and records relating to the Scheme should be available for public

scrutiny. The scheme is implemented through collaborative partnership right from Grama

Sabha to Central Government Community participation by way of (i) Grama Sabha, (ii)

local vigilance & monitoring committees, and (iii) Self Help Groups (SHGs), and ensures

active role by Civil Society Organisations. At official level, the scheme was embedded

with inbuilt monitoring & evaluation mechanism at every layer of implementation

including online monitoring through Monitoring and Information System (MIS).

2.3. Analysis of MGNREGS in India: A macro scenario

MGNREGA started with an initial outlay of Rs.11300/- (Rs113 billion) in year

2006–07. Since then, the funding has been increased. The usefulness and the fund flow

to MGNREGS was often a topic of debate even for the former union ministers for finance

Mr.P.Chidambaram and rural development Mr. Jairam Ramesh. It might be one of the

reasons that adversely affect the fund flow.

Since, it is implemented as a demand-driven programme and financial allocations

under the scheme do not lapse each financial year and is carried forward to the

subsequent fiscal. The following table explains the same.

14

Table 2.1: Fund allocation towards MNREGS in India

Year Total Outlay (TO) Wage Expenditure

(% of total)

2006–07 11300 66

2007-08 12000 68.5

2008-09 30000 69.3

2009-10 39100 70

2010-11 40100 68

2011-12 40000 68.4

2012-13 33000 75.3

2013-14 33000 73

2014-15 31000 80.4

2015-16 34,699 85.4

2016-17 38,500 ---

Source: http://www.nrega.nic.in (2016)

Table 1 clearly shows that the government has made a tremendous increase in the

fund flow. Within a span of five years the fund allocation increased more than 3 folds.

At the same time, the wage expenditure was almost remains same (i.e. around 70%)

throughout these periods. It was also noted that the fund flow increased up to 40100 crore

in 2010-11. Since then the fund flow starts to reduce up to 31000 crore in 2014-15. From

2015-16 onwards the fund flow starts to increase. In 2015-16 it was estimated at 34,699

crore and in 2016-17 it was proposed as 38,500 crore.

The overview of the performance of MGNREGA can be analysed on the basis of

the total job card issued, employment provided to household, women participation,

average person-days per employed household etc. which is given in table 2.2.

15

Table. 2.2: Overview of the performance of MGNREGA in India

2006-07

(200distric

ts)

2007-08

(330distric

ts)

2008-09

(615rural

districts)

2009-10

(619rural

districts)

2010-11

(626distric

ts)

2011-12

(626distric

ts)

2012-13

(626distric

ts)

2013-14

(632distric

ts)

2014-15

2015-16

Total JobCard issued 3.8 6.48 10.01 11.25 11.98 -- -- -- --

13.3

Employment

provided tohousehold(in Crore) 2.1 3.39 4.51 5.26 5.49 5.04 4.99 4.79 4.1 4.8

Person

days(in

Crore)

Total 90.5 143.6 216.3 283.6 257.2 216.4 230.5 220.4166.2

235.2

SCs 22.9 39.4 63.4 86.5 78.8 47.7 51.2 50.337.2

52.37

STs 32.9 42.1 55.0 58.7 53.6 39.6 40.1 38.6128.2

41.6

Women 36.4 61.2 103.6 136.4 122.8 103.8 118.3 116.4

91.2

129.8

Averageperson-days

peremployedhousehold 43 42 48 54 47 34 44.9 45.3

39.7

47.9


It can be observed from the table that there is a wide disparity exists between jobs

cards issued and the employment provided. The above table made it clear that

MGNREGA has generated only 2.10 crore household employment in its first year i.e., in

2006-07. It increased up to 5.49 crore in 2010-11 and then starts to reduce up to 4.14 in

2014-15. By the end of the 2015-16 financial year it was able to provide 4.818 crore

households employment by generating 235.1832 crore person days.

The MGNREGA stipulates that works must be targeted towards a set of specific

rural development activities such as: water conservation and harvesting, afforestation,

rural connectivity, flood control and protection such as construction and repair of bank

16

payments, etc. MGNREGA appeared to be a major source of employment for rural poor,

particularly for categories such as distressed families from SCs and STs.

The table also shows that the percentage of men worked were more in 2012-13

and 2013-14. But in the next two years, the number of women workers were slightly

ahead than that of men workers. The participation rate of both SC and ST varied across

the year. Throughout the period both SC/ST maintained the same percentage, i.e., around

22.5% and 18% respectively. For both SC and ST, the participation was maximum in

2009-10. For SC the participation was minimum in the year 2006-07 and for ST it was in

2014-15. Participation of women workers were increasing over the period. The

nationwide average person days per employed household did not show any particular

trend, which was maximum, i.e., 54, in the year 2009-10 and was minimum, i.e., 34, in

the year 2011-12.

The major objective of the MGNREGS is ‘to provide for the enhancement of the

livelihood security of the households in rural areas by providing at least 100 days of

guaranteed wage employment’ in a year. Therefore, the main indicator of progress and

performance of employment under MGNREGS are household demanded employment,

household provided employment and the households are getting hundred days of

employment in a year. The statewide situation in India (2015-16) is given in the below

table.

17

Table 2.3: Details of demand employment and worked (2015-16)

State NameTotal job

cardsissued

Totalhouseholdsdemanded

work

Totalhouseholds

worked

Totalhouseholdsreached 100

day limit

Andaman And Nicobar 50135 2728 2686 1Dadra & Nagar Haveli 3549 0 0 0Daman & Diu 0 0 0 0Lakshadweep 8147 147 121 3Nagaland 423498 418268 417474 1551Andhra Pradesh 9384314 3962826 3583112 583491Arunachal Pradesh 204170 192775 182028 1924Assam 4500334 1668380 1512614 45780Bihar 13099817 1923514 1552251 63871Chhattisgarh 3910817 2611958 2179083 242605Goa 31769 5976 5909 21Gujarat 3512345 642401 557110 19256Haryana 763781 199620 168724 3597Himachal Pradesh 1165234 466743 422309 20077Jammu and Kashmir 1211282 702936 651338 34755Jharkhand 3634590 1271417 1127235 174902Karnataka 5560768 1662976 1237164 133328Kerala 3185213 1664788 1505664 165962Madhya Pradesh 8041317 3024279 2702477 225659Maharashtra 7765176 1420861 1275348 218496Manipur 536394 480921 473653 1Meghalaya 479878 374867 368372 48680Mizoram 187332 193991 193943 0Odisha 6653048 2228087 1997705 197536Puducherry 68100 37658 32736 6Punjab 1164243 528947 473725 7461Rajasthan 9890682 4688290 4220873 468720Sikkim 84925 67505 65454 9733Tamil Nadu 8387672 6090359 6048033 839121Tripura 610725 580232 570339 304867Uttar Pradesh 15841047 6310908 5460068 187234Uttarakhand 1138146 588369 545380 19973West Bengal 12196625 6500392 6112660 411531Total 123695073 50513119 45645588 4430142


18

By the FY 2015-16, the country could provide almost 12.36 crores of job cards.

Though there are 5.05 crores of households demanded for work, only 4.56 crores of

peopled engaged in work. However, only 44.30 lakhs of people could complete 100 days

of employment in 2015-16. The table made it clear that nowhere in the country the

household demand of employment equals to the actual days of employment generated.

The household who enjoyed 100 days of employment are very less across the country.

Among the states, Tamil Nadu (8.39 lakhs), Andhra Pradesh (5.83 lakhs) and Rajasthan

(4.68 lakhs) stood at the first positions in providing 100 days of employment. At the same

time, it is worthwhile to note that no household from Mizoram completed 100 days of

employment, whereas one household from Manipur and 6 household from Union territory

Pondichery completed 100 days of employment. The situation of Kerala is also not better,

though there was 1664788 households demanded for employment, the state could

generate 1505664 days employment.

2.3.1. Wage structure of the MGNREGA

As observed earlier, that the MGNREGA scheme provides provision for equal

wages for men and women without any discrimination to adult members of any rural

household willing to do public work-related unskilled manual work at the statutory

minimum wage of 120 (US$2.20) per day in 2009 prices. If they fail to do so the

Government has to pay the salary at their homes. The compensation was different from

states to states across the year. Details of the wage rate are given below.

19

Table.2.4: Wage rate of MNREGS (over the period)

Name of thestate/Districts

Minimumwages

(2005-06)

As on 1April,2009

As on1stApril,2012

As on 1stApril,2016

1 Assam 62 79.6 136 1822 Andhra Pradesh 80 80 137 194

3 Arunachal Pradesh 57 65 124 1674 Bihar 68 89 122 167

5 Gujarat 50 100 134 NA6 Haryana 95 141.02 191 259

7HimachalPradesh(NSA) 70 100 126 NAHimachal Pradesh(SA) 70 100 157 NA

8 Jammu & Kashmir 45 70 131 NA9 Karnataka 63 82 155 224

10 Kerala 125 125 164 24011 Madhya Pradesh 59 91 132 159

12 Maharashtra 47 69 145 NA13 Manipur 66 81.4 144 NA

14 Meghalaya 70 70 128 163

15 Mizoram 91 110 136 NA16 Nagaland 66 100 124 NA

17 Orissa 55 70 126 17418 Punjab 101 98.1 166 21819 Rajasthan 73 100 133 18120 Sikhim 85 100 124 NA

21 Tamil Nadu 80 80 132 20322 Tripura 60 85 124 NA23 Uttar Pradesh 58 100 125 17424 West Bengal 67 75 136 176

25 Chhattisgarh 59 75 132 16726 Jharkhand 76 92 122 167

27 Uttarakhand 73 100 125 NA

28 Goa 110 158 208Andaman &Nicobar(ND) NA 130 178 243Andaman &Nicobar(AD) NA 139 189 243

20

30 Dadra & Nagar Haveli NA 108 157 NA

31 Daman & Diu NA 102 136 NA

32 Lakshadweep NA 115 151 NA33 Puducherry NA 80 132 NA

34 Chandigarh NA 140 189 248Source: http://www.nrega.nic.in (2016)

As the table shows, on an average the average wage rate of MGNREGA increased

from Rs.70 in 2005-06 to Rs.197 in 2016-17. Wages for unskilled workers under the

Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NGNREGS) have

been increasing slowly by the government, despite demands from many states for a major

increase in the wages to attract workers under the key scheme.

2.4. MGNREGS in Kerala

Kerala is a home to 2.76% of India's people i.e., 3, 33, 87,677 with 1, 60, 21,290

males and 1, 73, 66,387 females. In Kerala, National Rural Employment Guarantee

Scheme was launched in 5th February 2006 in two districts and subsequently grounded in

the remaining 12 districts on 1 April 2008.

Table. 2.5: Status of MGNREGA in Kerala

Category 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Employment provided tohousehold (in lakhs) 15.26 15.24 13.8 15.06Person days(in lakhs)

Total (in lakhs) 16.65 16.43 15.13 16.93% of SCs 13.82 14.65 16.2 15.96% of STs 2.72 3.01 3.5 3.63

% of Women 85.23 85.6 87.03 84.81

Average person-days peremployed household 54.89 56.83 42.65 49.26


21

Kerala is a tiny state in India with a very high rate of unemployment in the

country. Almost 23.30 lakh households have registered under the scheme and 15.06 lakhs

household got employment under the scheme in 2015-16. Unlike the national scenario,

women participation is very high with 85 percent of the total beneficiaries under the

scheme. The employment provision was similar from 2012-13 to 2015-16 except in

2014-15. It was 15.26 in 2012-13, 15.24 in 2013-14, 13.8 in 2014-15 and 15.06 in 2015-

16. This change was reflected in the total person day’s employment, though not in the

same proportion. It was 16.65 lakhs in 2012-13, 15.13 in 2013-14, 15.13 in 2014-15 and

16.93 in 2015-16. A district wise analysis, provide a better picture about the evaluation

of MGNREGS in Kerala.

2.4.1: District wise performance of MGNREGS

There are 14 districts in Kerala, whose economic profile is different from each

other. Kasargod, Wayanad, Palakkad and Idukki are generally termed as backward

districts in the state. Palakkad and Idukki are the biggest districts in the state. Majority of

SC/ST people of the state also resides in these districts and Wayanad. District wise

performance of MGNREGS for the recent years have been given in the below table.

Palakkad and Wayanad were the two districts that were selected among the 200 districts,

where the programe has implemented since its inception. In the next year two more

districts, Idukki and Kasargod were also included. In 2008 onwards, it implemented to

the entire districts of Kerala.

22

Table 2.6: District wise performance of MGNREGS in Kerala (2015-16)

Sl No District

Cumulative no.of HH

Demandedemployment

Cumulative noof HH provided

employment

Cumulative noof HH

completed 100days

Phase I1 Palakkad 188389 172020 131232 Wayanad 71661 63667 7604

Total Phase I 260050 235687 20727Phase II

3 Idukki 109593 103341 88294 Kasargod 70290 61936 10587

Total Phase II 179883 165277 19416Phase III

5 Alappuzha 142171 136746 187756 Ernakulam 96064 86982 107867 Kannur 97790 88287 39648 Kollam 160424 138012 160609 Kottayam 72310 64156 4095

10 Kozhikode 155091 140015 1198911 Malappuram 122360 108619 1601112 Pathanamthitta 58371 54119 549013 Thiruvananthapuram 201154 186075 1985514 Thrissur 119120 101689 18794

Total Phase III 1224855 1104700 125819Total 1664788 1505664 165962


Table 6 made clear that among the 14 districts in Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram

district stood at first in terms of the household demanded for the employment and the

household provided the employment in 2015-16. The district also stood at first in the

provision of number of 100 days of employment to its people, which were followed by

Thrissur and Alappuzha. However, Pathanamthitta, Kasargod, Wayanad and Kottayam

were the districts that performed poorly in implementing MNREGS scheme.

23

2.5: MGNREGS in Thrissur

Thrissur is popularly known as the cultural capital of Kerala State. The District

comprises of a single revenue division consisting of five Taluks, 254 villages, one

Corporation and six Municipalities. There are 16 Community Development Blocks and

88 Grama Panchayat in the District. The performance of MGNREG scheme as per the

community development block is given in the table given below.

Table.2.7: Evaluation of MGNREGS in Thrissur

BlockJob

CardIssued

EmploymentDemanded

EmploymentOffered

EmploymentProvided

No ofFamiliescompleted 100days

Household Persons

Household Persons

Household Persons

Anthikkad 14683 6420 7235 6420 7235 5432 6158 1144

Irnjalakkuda 9266 3774 4175 3772 4173 3421 3757 682

Ollukkara 16024 6023 6935 6023 6935 5477 6210 1688

Kodakara 22607 12691 14028 12690 14024 10225 11209 1914

Chalakkudy 17416 7590 8751 7590 8751 6790 7761 1192

Chavakkad 12491 7111 7718 7110 7717 6222 6759 1275

Cherppu 9373 4117 4517 4116 4516 3733 4071 1285

Chovvannur 20098 9716 10491 9714 10488 8422 9015 1569

Thalikkulam 16313 7257 7628 7257 7628 4522 4781 1945

Puzhaykkal 12223 4864 5444 4864 5443 4223 4675 703

Pazhayannur 21784 13453 14597 13452 14594 11998 12885 1061

Mathilakam 26974 11243 12289 11238 12282 9037 9953 967

Mullassery 9682 4051 4591 4050 4590 3640 4134 655

Mala 16351 7699 8454 7699 8450 6730 7419 1321

Vadakkanchery 21330 9832 11037 9831 11035 8748 9685 476

Vellangallur 11757 3279 3588 3276 3580 3069 3334 917

TOTAL 258372 119120 131478 119102 131441 101689 111806 18794


24

The response seems to be different from each community block in the district.

Like the national and state scenario, in the district also there is a clear difference between

the employment demanded by households and the persons were provided employment. In

Vellangallur block, this difference in 2015-16 was just 210 where as at Kodakara this

difference was maximum at 2466. Comparing the other parts of the districts, the

difference of Puzhakkal block panchayat was less in terms of this difference. In the case

of families, who were completed 100 days of employment, Thalikkulam and Kodakara

block performed better in the district, in this criteria the performance of Puzhakkal seems

to be poor.

2.6. Summary

The objective of this chapter was to provide an overview of MGNREGS in India.

This chapter begins with an introduction of the origin of MGNREGS. This national wage

employment program began on 25th August, 2005 in 200 selected districts of India. Jean

Dreze was the person who played a major role in shaping this program. The act was

implemented in phased manner. According to the mandate of act, it provides 100 days of

wage employment to each household in a year. Those who require job should register

their name in the local/panchayat offices, and they will be given job card. Each job card

holder needs to provide an application for employment. From a family, anyone can

register for employment; however the total working days for the household will not

exceed 100. The provision of work should be implemented within the 5 kms within 15

working days. The Government of India bears the 100% wage cost of unskilled manual

labour and 75% of the material cost, including the wages of skilled and semi-skilled

25

workers. Transparency and accountability rules were also formulated and use to modify

in order ensure the efficiency.

The centre allocated Rs.11,300 crore in the year 2006-07, which increases up to

40,100 crore in 2010-11 and from there it starts to decline. The amount allocated for the

year 2016-17 is 38,500. Total job card issued in the year 2006-07 was just 3.78 crore,

however, by the end of 2015-16, it increased up to 13.29 crore. The employment

provided to the household in the year was only 2.1 crore, where it increased up to 4.8

crore in 2015-16. The number of workers has increased up to 27.82 crore in 2015-16.

The discrepancy between the number of job cards, number of household employed and

the number of workers is primarily due to two factors. Firstly, the validity of job card is

for five years. Since, 2010-11, there was no process of renewing the validity. All those

who have registered for job cards counted cumulatively. Secondly, the household who

have job cards are not fully and effectively utilizing the facility of employment scheme.

Therefore, the total number of active workforce is just 10.56 crore in India in 2015-16.

Among the 27.82 crore workers in 2015-16, 19.55% of them belongs to SC

category and 15.03 % of them are from 15.03%. In other words, 5.43 crore SC and 4.18

crore ST people possess MGNREGS job cards. Among the active workers, 10.56 crore,

the percentage of SC and ST are respectively 20.74 and 16.41% or 2.19 crore and 1.73

crore respectively. In other words, even the registered SC and ST population are also not

using the MGNREG scheme properly. Many people consider it as a part time activity,

they accept it only if they are unable to find a better employment. The average person’s

day per household was maximum at 55 in 2009-10 and minimum at 34 in 2011-12.

26

Moving to the states scenario, the maximum number of job cards was issued in

Uttar Pradesh (1.58 crore) followed by Bihar (1.30 crore) and West Bengal. However, the

maximum number of people demanded for employment were in West Bengal (65 lakhs),

followed by Uttar Pradesh (63 lakhs) and Tamil Nadu (60 lakhs). Among the states in

India, maximum households were worked in West Bengal (61 lakhs), which was

followed by Tamil Nadu (60 lakhs) and Uttar Pradesh. The situation of Kerala was also

not much different. Though there are 16.64 lakh household demanded for work, only

12.37 households only engaged in work.

In India, only 44.3 lakhs people completed 100 days of employment in 2015-16.

Tamil Nadu was the state which could offer maximum number of employment to its

people i.e., 8.39 crore. It was followed by Andhra Pradesh (5.83 crore) and Rajasthan

(4.68 crore). However in Mizoram, there are not even a single household could complete

the 100 days of employment. The number for Manipur is only one and for Union territory

Puthchery it was six. In Kerala, only 1.66 lakh persons in the state completed 100 days of

employment.

The wage structure revises annually. It differs from states to state. The national

average wage was Rs.70 in 2005-06 and it increased up to 197 in the year 2016-17.

Similarly, the wage structure of Kerala was also revised from Rs.125 in 2005-06 to

Rs.240 for the financial year 2016-17.

The pattern of employment demanded and employment received in the state differ

annually. In 2012-13, employment provided in Kerala was 15.26 lakh people. However,

it decreased to 15.06 in 2015-16. The total persons worked in 2012-13 were 16.65 lakh in

2012-13 and 16.93 in 2015-16. There are ups and downs in the case of SC/ST

27

participation in employment program. The work participation of SC population ranged

between 15.85% of the total to 17.37% during 2012-13. Similarly, during the same period

participation of ST population ranged between 2.63% to 3.87% of the total work force.

The outstanding feature of the state is the participation of woman workers in the

employment program. It was 85.23% in 2012-13, increased up to 87% in 2014-15. The

participation of women in 2015-16 it is reported to 84.8%. However, the overall average

days of employment provided per household shows a decreasing trend, i.e., 54.89 in

2012-13 to 49.26 in 2015-16. The highest number of wage employment demanded and

provided was reported from Thiruvanthapuram, which was followed by Thrissur and

Alappuzha. However, the performance of Pathanamthitta, Kasargod, Wayanad and

Kottayam performed badly in terms of employment provision. Kannur district performed

poorly in ensuring 100 days of employment in the district.

The response of Thrissur district also shows the clear difference between the

employment demanded by households and the persons were provided employment. In

Vellangallur block, this difference in 2015-16 was just 210 where as at Kodakara this


difference of Puzhakkal block panchayat was less. In the case of families, who were

completed 100 days of employment, Thalikkulam and Kodakara performed better in the

district, in this case criteria the performance of Puzhakkal seems to be poor.

28

Chapter 3

Evaluation of MGNREGS in Adat Panchayat

3.1. Introduction

The previous chapter made it clear that the role of MGNREGS in India, Kerala

and Thrissur district. The objective of this chapter is to summarise its overall evaluation

in Adat Panchayat. The first section provides a brief idea about the socio-economic

profile of Adat Panchayat which was followed by the present status of agriculture in the

Panchayat. After that, performance of the MGNREGS is given in terms of employment

demanded, employment provided, details of 100 days of employment demand,

employment and income generation of the people including the SC/ST population. Prior

to the summary part, a separate section is given to compare the efficiency of MGNREGS

of Adat Panchayat with Puzhakkal taluk, Thrissur district and Kerala state on the basis of

selected variables. Last section provides the summary of this chapter.

3.2. Adat Panchayat: Basic features

Adat is a small beautiful Panchayat located in Puzhakkal Block in Thrissur district

in Kerala. Adat Grama Panchayat started functioning at the end of the Ninenteeth Centry.

Originally Adat belonged to Cochin Princely state. After independence and the

reorganization of state in 1956, Adat became a reorganized village in Kerala state. It

comprised of four villages like Puzhakkal, Puranattukara, Chittilappilly and Adat.

Agriculture base of the Panchayat is very strong. Hindus, Christians and Muslims live

amicably in this Panchayat. Adat village with 3 hills such as Adat hill, Vilangan hill and

Chetti hill. These hills are surrounded by paddy fields and plane area. The Socio-

economic features of the Panchayat are summarised in table 3.1.

29

Table 3.1: Basic details of Adat Grama Panchayat

Items ObservationsArea 23.22 sq.km.

Wards 18Total Population 31973

Male 15372Female 16601

SC/ST family 3045Density 1389

Literacy rate 94.12

Source: Village Vikasana Sahayi, 2012

Total population of the Panchayat is 31,973 which are spanned across 18 wards.

The SC/ST population is around 30% of the total population. From the table above, it can

be seen that the Panchayat maintain literacy rate at par with the state average, however

the density is above the states and national average. The density of the state is 869

whereas that of India it is 424 in 2011 census.

According to the geography of the Panchayat, hilly regions characterized by tough

soil and platy regions have the soil which is suitable for the paddy cultivation. The major

activity of the Panchayat is agriculture. Coconut and arecanut are the main plantation

crops in Adat panchayt and these crops are depending on underground water. There are

much ecological diversity in the fields of vegetables, stem root varieties, crops, pulses,

herbs and spices.

Political and geographical status is given in table 3.2.

30

Table 3.2: Political/Geographical features of Adat

Block Panchayat Puzhakkal

Villages Puranattukara, Puzhakkal, Adat,

Chittilappilly

Taluk Thrissur

Assembly constituency Wadakanchery

Loksabha Constituency Aalthur

Source: Village Vikasana Sahayi, 2012

The north side of the Panchayat is Kaiparambu and Vengidangu and Tholur

Panchayats in West, Thrissur corporation, Arimpur Panchayat in west and in east

Thrissur corporation, Kolazhy Panchayat. The figure 3.1 shows the geography of Adat

Panchayat.

Figure 3.1: Map of Adat Panchayat

31

3.3. Present Status of agriculture in Adat Panchayat

Most of the people of Adat Panchayat are depending agriculture for their

livelihood, directly or indirectly. Items like paddy, areca nut, coconut, plantain and

vegetables are the main agricultural yields from Adat. All the area in this Panchayat

(excluding 10 and 11 wards) are yielding “puncha” farming. The Panchayat has been

successful in marketing their own rice-which is purely organic- under the brand name of

“Adat Rice”, which is available throughout the state.

However, at present the increasing cost of production and scarcity of labour force

leads them to leave from the fields. Conversion of paddy land for the construction of

house and other buildings reasoned to deterioration of paddy farming. At the time of

establishment of Krishibahavan in 1987 there were 143 hector “virip”, 242 “mundakan”

and 1535 hector “puncha” paddy cultivation and in “puncha” farming limited to 1101.62

hector in 2012. As of now, there are 3000 acres of cole land is cultivating in this

Panchayat. The total area was subdivided into various summits (locally known as

paadashekharam) and it was working under the guidance of Adat Farmers cooperative

bank. The total labour force required for agriculture, according to the bank was 35

persons/acre. In other words, it is 105000. The present wage rate is Rs.750/- for males

and 500 for females. However, at present the Panchayat is successfully implemented

large scale mechanization (Tractor, triller, sow machines etc.) in the agriculture sector,

therefore it could reduce the number of workers in this sector. At the same time, many

marginal farmers, especially those belong to SC/BPL family use MGNREGS workers in

to their agricultural land. MGNREGS project did not adversely affect the agriculture

32

sector of the panchayat. As per the Census 2011, the main agricultural labourers

population person are 440, out of which 194 are females.

3.4. Implementation of MGNREGS in Adat Panchayat

The Panchayat implemented MGNREGS scheme in 2008-09, when there were

only 17 wards. Then the number increased up to 18. As per the government instruction

the Panchayat appointed two temporary staff (One accountant and an Overseer to take

care of the scheme.) in the beginning. Later, the number of staffs increased up to four as

the total expenditure towards MGNREGS exceeds 60 lakhs. At present there are four

staffs (two Accountants cum Data Entry Operator, one Assistant Engineer and an

overseer) in the MGNREGS division of the Panchayat. All are appointed on an annual

contract basis.

The Panchayat strictly follows the guidelines to implement this scheme. The

funding procedure was changed into EFMS (Electronically Fund Management Scheme)

scheme since August 2013. Prior to that, the Panchayat suffered the issues like delaying

payment. Like others, the Panchayat receives application for job card annually. So far

the Panchayat was successful in providing job cards and employment within 15 days.

Therefore, the Panchayat could not provide any unemployment allowance to any of the

job seeker.

Each family will be given one job card and under a card any number of members

can be registered. But the total working days should not exceed 100 days of employment

under each card. The Panchayat disburse the amount through bank account, i.e., Union

Bank of India, Adat Branch. In the early stages of the program many people registered

33

without a proper account. However, for the past four years the Panchayat made it

compulsory to have a bank account for each applicant.

The master plan for the implementation of the MGNREGS program was carried

out every year well in advance. Major works include agriculture and allied works,

anganwady works, canal and well construction etc. Next preference will be given to the

people who are in SC or BPL (Below Poverty Line) category. Many of the marginal

farmers of the panchayat under this category utilized this facility. As per the present rule,

APL (above poverty line) family can also apply for MGNRE workers in their land.

However, it should be signed and forwarded by Panchayat Secretary. The Panchayat

receive many such applications annually. Therefore, throughout the year, they never

faced the problem of finding the employment. Apart from that, they engage convergence

works also. The Assistant Engineer and the overseer are evaluating the worksite

performance. But in practice, what happening is that, they are basically evaluating the

workers physical presence, than physical output. Because in a day, the Panchayat

provides employment to various wards, so practically it is not easy for them watch each

and every state of production.

3.5: Evaluation of the performance of MGNREG program

As observed earlier, the Panchayat implemented MGNREG scheme in the year

2008-09. According to the MGNREGS official site, accessed on March 2016, so far, the

Panchayat issued 2,287 job cards and the total number of workers is reported to be 2,578.

Table 3.3 explains the details from 2011-12 to 2015-16.

34

Table 3.3: Details of the employment details (2011-12 to 2015-16)

Year

No ofRegistrations

JobcardsIssued

Employmentdemanded Employment provided

Households Persons Households PersonsPersondays

2011-12 845 845 609 628 609 628 375512012-13 1818 1818 921 992 817 864 434372013-14 2088 2088 1020 1075 939 975 464262014-15 2183 2183 920 1008 920 1008 177022015-16 2282 2282 794 897 726 814 34576


Table 3.3 shows the details of job cards, employment demanded and the details of

employment provided. The number of registrations and the job cards are given in the

cumulative form. It can be seen that all the people who have registered are given job

cards. There is a discrepancy between the number of job cards issued and the number of

employment demanded by the households. That means not all who have received job

cards demanding for employment. It implies that, those people are able to find a better

employment than the employment provided through the employment guarantee scheme.

Throughout the year, the number of workers who have demanded for and employment

provided were more than that of the number of households. It directly implies that from

all family, more than one person is engaged in this employment program. Except two

years, i.e., in 2011-12 and 2014-15, all other years, all the people who had demanded for

employment were not ready to undertake employment. Neither the employment

demanded (for households it ranged between 609 to 1020) nor the person’s days who

engaged in employment (ranged between 628 and 1008) reveal any trend. Similarly the

total person days also ranged throughout the period. It was 37,551 in 2011-12, it went up

to 46426 in 2013-14, but reduced up to 17702 in 2014-15. However, it was increased up

to 34576 in 2015-16. Though in 2014-15, number of people engaged in employment was

35

maximum (1008) the total working days was meager comparing from 2011-12 to 2015-

16. Similar trend, though differ in rates, was observed throughout the nation. It seems

issues regarding the funding disbursement were found to be the prime reason for the

same. The provision of 100 days of employment is one of the prime objectives of

MGNRE Scheme. The number of families who have completed 100 days of employment

will give a better picture about the job card holders.

3.5.1. Details of the provision of 100 days of employment

Details of the provision of 100 days of employment in Adat panchyat is given

below the table.

Table 3.4: Details of the provision of 100 days of employment (2011-12 to 2015-16)

Year

Employmentdemanded

Employment provided

No offamilies

completed100 days

work

% of 100days workcompletedfamilies/

Emp.demanded

HH

% of 100 dayswork

completedfamilies/

Emp.demanded

provided HHHouseholds Households2011-12 609 609 190 31.20 31.202012-13 921 817 289 31.38 35.372013-14 1020 939 327 32.06 34.822014-15 920 920 27 2.93 2.932015-16 794 726 111 13.98 15.29


Table 3.4 made it clear that the number of families who had completed 100 days

of employment were less in number. It is not showing any particular trend. It was only 27

in 2014-15, and was 327 in 2013-14. In the year 2015-16 also, the number seemed to be

only 111. In order to make a better analysis, the percentage of number of families

completed 100 days of work and household who have demanded for employment was

calculated. It was almost stable in the period 2011-12 to 2013-14, however deep fall

36

reported in 2014-15. The performance in 2015-16 was also not better comparing the

previous period. The percentage of number of families completed 100 days of work and

the household who have provided the employment were also shows a similar trend to that

of employment demanded.

It is interesting to look in to the demand of employment scheme irrespective of

the seasons. Table below shows the details of five years across various months.

Table 3.5: Employment demand in Adat (2011-12 to 2015-16)

Month 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16April 0 229 336 63 16May 323 571 542 592 478June 424 545 622 185 546July 403 658 717 206 539August 444 617 608 335 454September 382 622 586 178 348October 477 617 619 97 346November 526 596 631 477 389December 540 547 650 421 439January 518 566 511 418 538February 506 504 395 383 463March 468 393 319 272 387Total days 5011 6465 6536 3627 4943

Average 417.58 538.75 544.67 302.25 411.92Source: http://www.nrega.nic.in (2016)

Table 3.5 shows the demand for employment program throughout the year.

Except in 2013-14, all other years, the month of April marked a low rate of employment.

The data did not provide any seasonal connection with respect to any months. Up to

2013-14, the trend was positive; however it went down in 2014-15. The rate in 2015-16

was also not better comparing the earlier period. For a better understanding the same

details have been reproduced in a following figure. Comparing the population of Adat

37

Panchayat (29,336) the monthly average demand for employment come around 1.5% of

the Panchayat’s population.

Figure 3.2 : Seasonal variation of employment demand (2011-12 to 2015-16)

Another major objective of MGNREG scheme is to provide employment to the

weaker sections (SC and ST) of the society. Table 3.6 provides the details of the same.

Table 3.6: SC/ST participation in MGNREG scheme (2011-12 to 2015-16)

YearJob cardsIssued

Employment demanded Employment providedTotal

SC ST Other SC ST Others2011-12 845 253 0 592 13913 0 23638 375512012-13 1818 759 0 1052 15983 0 27454 434372013-14 2088 784 0 1304 16851 0 29575 464262014-15 2183 799 0 1384 6631 0 11071 177022015-16 2282 813 1 1468 13939 0 20637 34576


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

38

From the above table it is clear that both category of people SC and others, shows

an increasing trend in employment demanded. However, the same trend could not

observe in the acceptance of employment provided. Like the previous observations, there

was a setback in 2014-15, and it was not rectifies in 2015-16 fully as compare with the

previous years. It is to be noted that, only one ST family who resides Adat registered and

demanded for job cards and jobs in 2015-16, did not accept the work. Table 3.7 provides

a table which provides a better idea regarding the SC participation in employment.

Table 3.7: Employment status of SC/ST community of Adat (2011-12 to 2015-16)

YearSC

Number of days ofEmployment provided

Total

Percentage of SC

out ofthe total

employment

provided

SC Familiescompleted100 days

employment

Total no ofHHs

completed100 days ofemployment

SC STOther

s2011-12 253 13913 0 23638 37551 58.86 64 --

2012-13 759 15983 0 27454 43437 58.22 102 289

2013-14 784 16851 0 29575 46426 56.98 112 327

2014-15 799 6631 0 11071 17702 59.90 10 27

2015-16 813 13939 0 20637 34576 67.54 36 111Source: http://www.nrega.nic.in

The table 3.7 made an interesting observation that, though there are ups and

downs in the number of employment days, the percentage of participation of SC out of

the total employment seemed to be more or less stable until 2014-15. The year 2015-16

marked a 12% rate of growth than the previous growth. However, the number of SC

families completed 100 days of employment was too less except in 2012-13 and 2013-14.

While comparing the families who have completed 100 days of employment, the SC’s

contribution is only less than 35% throughout the period.

39

In order to understand the SC/ST involvement in employment scheme it is also

important to note the number of persons working less than 15 days. Based on the

secondary data, an analysis on made the households who have provided employment and

the SC households who worked less than 15 days. Following table provide the details of

the same.

Table 3.8: SC Household worked less than 15 days (201-12 to 2015-16)

Year

Employmentprovided

Householdworked less

than 15

Persons daygenerated

% of HHworked less

than 15 days /Emp. demanded

provided HHHouseholds

2011-12 609 95 458 15.592012-13 817 268 1186 32.82013-14 939 366 1329 38.92014-15 920 405 2429 442015-16 726 214 1056 29.47


The common trend that observed from the secondary data and the field survey

was that, all the households who have received job cards are not involving in the

employment program. Therefore, though demand is increasing, employment provision

does not show any increasing trend. At the same time, the number of SC households

working less than 15 days shows an increasing trend up to 2014-15. The rate was less

decreased up to 29.47 in 2015-16, but the person’s day generated was too low comparing

the rest of the period. It shows that MGNREGS was not sufficient enough to attract

people of different strata throughout the year.

40

3.6: Comparing the performance of MGNREGS of Adat Panchayat

with Puzhakkal Taluk, Thrissur district and Kerala

The efficiency of MGNREG scheme can be understand with the help of some

selected variables like average days of employment provided per household and the

percentage of payments generated within 15 days.

Table 3.9: Comparison the efficiency on the basis of selected variables

Selected variables Area 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Average days ofemployment provided

per household

Kerala 54.89 56.83 42.65 49.26Thrissur 48.93 51.42 43.49 52.15

Puzhakkal 46.4 52.01 31.83 48.26Adat 93.69 93.21 89.61 87.43

Percentage ofpayments generated

within 15 days

Kerala 43.13 19.52 15.5 18.56Thrissur 57.99 36.68 27.02 27.45

Puzhakkal 61.51 49.4 20.9 32.79Adat 66.85 75.65 26.56 30.67

Percentage ofexpenditure onagriculture and

agriculture alliedworks

Kerala 97.76 97.82 97.08 97.55Thrissur 98.65 98.93 97.45 97.65

Puzhakkal 99.46 98.36 98.93 99.28

Adat 97.86 95.34 96.55 98.89


Table made it clear that, though there is a slight decline over the year’s i.e., from

2012-13 to 2015-16, the average days of employment provided per household in Adat

Panchayat is almost double than Puzhakkal taluk, Thrissur district and the state average

throughout the year. During the same period, the state average was ranging from 56.83 in

2013-14 to 42.65 in 2014-15, whereas in the case of Thrissur district it ranged from 43.49

in 2014-15 and 52.15 in 2015-16. In Puzhakkal taluk, it ranged from 31.83 in 2014-15

41

and 52.01 in 2013-14. According to MGNREGS website, the country also showed a

similar trend.

At the same time, percentage of payments generated within 15 days, was better in

Adat except the year 2014-15. In 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2015-17 the Panchayat’s

performance was better than the state/district/taluk level performance. Throughout the

period the state average was least, which was followed by the district level. But in 2014-

15, the district level performance was better than the block level. But it can be seen that

payments generation of Adat Panchayat shows a declining trend, i.e., from 66.85 in 2012-

13 to 30.67 in 2015-16. In the year 2014-15, the movement was further lower, which was

only 26.56%. While comparing the national figure (NREGS website), it is interesting to

see that the national average was higher than state level. National level performance was

even better than the district level, except in the year 2014-15. Except in 2012-13, all the

other years the performance of taluk was lower than that of the national level. Adat

Panchayat’s performance was far better than the national level in 2012-13 and 2013-14

(66.85, 75.65 as against 50.9, 50.9), but performed poorly in 2014-15 and 2015-16

(26.56, 30.67 as against 26.85, 37.31).

Agriculture and agriculture allied works was one of the major area across the

country, where the MGNREGS workers found their employment. Across the state, the

percentage of expenditure on agriculture and agriculture allied works seemed to be

unique, that is more than 95%. The state’s average ranged between 97 and 98% and the

district average ranged between 97.45 to 98.93%. Puzhakkal taluk performed far better

than the district/state/Adat Panchayat throughout the period. For Puzhakkal taluk, it

42

ranged from 99.28 in 2014-15 to 99.46 in 2012-13, whereas for Adat Panchayat, it ranged

from 95.34% in 2013-14 to 98.89% in 2015-16.

3.7: Summary

The objective of this chapter was to summarise MGNREGS local economic

impact of Adat Panchayat. Adat is a small panchayat consisting of four villages. Total

population 31,973 spanned across its 18 wards. Around 30% of the people belong to

SC/ST category. The panchayat is known for its agriculture sector and at present there are

3000 acres of agriculture cultivation. The panchayat following and they implemented

high level of mechanization. At present, Farmers Cooperative Bank of Adat leading the

farmers and they are following group farming to an extent. Since, they have implemented

high level of mechanization; MGNREGS did not affect the agriculture sector inversely.

At the same, some marginal farmers especially those belong to SC and BPL family

employ MGNRE workers in their agricultural field regularly.

The performance of the MGNREGS was given in terms of employment


employment and income generation of the people including the SC/ST population. There

is a discrepancy between the number of job cards issued and the number of employment

demanded by the households. That means not all who have received job cards demanding

for employment. It implies that, those people are able to find a better employment than

the employment provided through the employment guarantee scheme. Throughout the

year, the number of workers who have demanded for and employment provided were

more than that of the number of households. It indicates that from all family, more than

one person engaged in this employment program. Neither the employment demanded (for

43

households it ranged between 609 to 1020) nor the person’s days who engaged in

employment Adat (ranged between 628 and 1008) reveal any trend. The provision of 100

days of employment is one of the prime objectives of MGNRE Scheme. The number of

families who have completed 100 days of employment is not showing any particular

trend. It was only 27 in 2014-15, and was 327 in 2013-14. In the year 2015-16 also, the

number seemed to be only 111. In order to make a better analysis, the percentage of

number of families completed 100 days of work and household who have demanded for

employment was calculated. The percentage of number of families completed 100 days

of work and the household who have provided the employment were also shows a similar

trend to that of employment demanded.

The demand for employment program did not provide any seasonal connection

with respect to any months. Comparing the population of Adat Panchayat (31,973) the

monthly average demand for employment come around 1.5% of the Panchayat’s

population.

Both category of people SC/ST and others, shows an increasing trend in

employment demanded. It is to be noted that, only one ST family who resides Adat

registered and demanded for job cards and jobs in 2015-16, did not accept the work.

Though there are ups and downs in the number of employment days, the percentage of

participation of SC out of the total employment seemed to be more or less stable until

2014-15. While comparing the families who have completed 100 days of employment,

the SC’s contribution is only less than 35% throughout the period.



44



working less than 15 days shows an increasing trend up to 2014-15. It shows that

MNREGS was not able to attract people of different strata throughout the year.

A separate section was given to compare the efficiency of MGNREGS of Adat

Panchayat with Puzhakkal taluk, Thrissur district and Kerala state on the basis of selected

variables. The average days of employment provided per household in Adat Panchayat

is almost double than Puzhakkal taluk, Thrissur district and the state average throughout

the year. At the same time, percentage of payments generated with 15 days, was better in





payments generation of Adat Panchayat shows a declining trend, i.e., from 66.85 in 2012-


only 26.56%. While comparing the national figure it is interesting to see that the national

average was higher than state level. National level performance was even better than the

district level, except the year 2014-15. Except in 2012-13, all the other year the

performance of taluk was lower than that of the national level. Adat Panchayat’s

performance was far better than the national level in 2012-13 and 2013-14 (66.85, 75.65

as against 50.9, 50.9), but performed poorly in 2014-15 and 2015-16 (26.56, 30.67 as

against 26.85, 37.31).

45





district average ranged between 97.45 to 98.93%. Puzhakkal taluk performed slightly

better than the district/state/Adat Panchayat throughout the period. For Puzhakkal taluk, it


from 95.34% in 2013-14 to 98.89% in 2015-16.

46

Chapter 4

Impact of MGNREGS on the Rural Livelihood

of Adat Panchayat

4.1. Introduction

The term livelihood encompasses people’s capabilities, assets, income and

activities required to secure the necessities of life. The household is the basic

economic decision making unit in rural society. The previous chapter made an

overview of the MGNREGS in Adat Panchayat. It was also come to know from the

previous chapter, that MGNREGS did not affect agriculture adversely. However to

understand the changes in the rural livelihood, it is important to analyse the changes

in the demographic-socio-economic profile of MGNREGS Workers. A field survey

was conducted to understand the same and the observations are presented in this

chapter. This chapter starts with a brief idea of the methodology followed in the field

survey. Followed by these, the MGNREGS workers survey results are presented

under various headings to cover variety of information ranging from their age,

education, major source of income etc. and so on. Last section provides the summary

of this chapter.

4.2. Methodology

In accordance with the objectives of the study, four villages of Adat

panchayat, namely Puzhakkal, Puranattukara, Chittilappilly and Adat were selected

for the study. Twenty workers from each spot were interviewed at random over a

period of six months from October 2014 to March 2015. A structured and validated

questionnaire was used to interview the MGNREGS workers. The investigator

47

himself interviewed the workers by visiting each spot in every month. Children

below the age of 18 were excluded from the interview. The following section presents

the demographic and visitation profiles of the tourists.

4.3. Survey results

To understand the various aspects of socio-economic profile of the

beneficiaries, the study collected information from various angles that include the

region wise, caste wise data, age of the data, nature of houses, number of

employment, level of satisfaction etc. It is important to identify the socio-economic

aspects of the beneficiaries of the panchayat to understand the extend of MGNREGS.

4.3.1. Religion wise classification

As a first step to understand the socio-economic aspects of the workers, the

results are classified on the basis of the religion, which is given in table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Religion wise classification of the respondents

Villages Hindu Muslim Christian Total

Puzhakkal 13 0 7 20

Puranattukara 16 0 4 20

Chittilappilly 17 0 3 20

Adat 11 0 9 20

Total 54 0 23 80

Source: Field Study (2014-15)

Table made it clear that, majority of the workers are from Hindu community

and in the field survey we could not find any people from the Muslim community

who are engaged in this scheme. However, around 30% of the Christians are engaged

through this program. MGNREGS targets the people of marginal sections of the

society, which is given in the table below.

48

Table. 4.2: Caste/gender wise classification workers

Villages

Hindu Christian

BPL HHSC ST Women SC ST Women

Puzhakkal 7 -- 11 2 - 6 16

Puranattukara 5 -- 14 0 - 4 14

Chittilappilly 6 - 14 1 - 3 17

Adat 9 -- 10 5 - 6 16

Total 27 -- 49 8 - 19 63

Source: Field Survey (2014-15)

Table made it clear that majority of the MGNREGS workers are from BPL

(Below Poverty Line) families. It directly implies that the scheme served its basic

objective that is a tool to reduce rural poverty. Similarly, 85% of the workers are

women. One third of the beneficiary of them scheme are belong to SC category and it

is interesting to note that, though there are 77 ST people (as per the 2011 census) none

of them engaged in MGNREGS activities. In 2015, one family registered for job

cards, however did not accept any employment.

4.3.2. Educational status of the workers

As per the 2011 Census, the literacy rate of the panchayat is 88%. Here

classification is made according to illiterate, U P School education, High School

education and above 10th standard. Three workers reported that they have studied up

to graduation. All those who claimed their education above 10th standard are young

comparing the rest of the workers.

49

Table 4.3: Education details of the respondents

Villages IlliterateL P

school 5-10 stdAbove

10Total

Puzhakkal 3 12 5 0 20

Puranattukara 1 8 9 2 20

Chittilappilly 2 9 7 2 20

Adat 2 7 8 3 20

Total 8 36 28 7 80


Table shows that 10% of the workers are illiterates and 80% of them are

studied up to 10th class. Though majority of them claimed educated up to U P School,

most of them discontinued their studies after 3rd or 4th or 5th standard. It was observed

from the field survey that the age and education level of the workers are inversely

related.

4.3.3. Age wise classification

As per the rule, the minimum permitted age of participation is MGNREGS

scheme is 18. The age wise details of workers has been divided into six sub points by

the government in their official data, same classification has been taken for the

analysis of primary data. Table 4.4 explains the observations from the field.

Table 4.4: Age wise distribution of MGNREGS workers

Villages 18-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-80 Above 80 Total

Puzhakkal 2 3 4 5 5 1 20

Puranattukara 2 2 5 8 3 0 20

Chittilappilly 3 2 3 7 4 1 20

Adat 1 4 3 9 3 0 20

Total 7 12 15 29 15 2 80


Similar to official data, people from the age group of 51-60 are maximum

which was equally followed by the age 41-50 and 61-80. There are people, with age

group of 80, though there number is too less. Similarly there are people in the age

50

category of 18 to 30. From the previous table it is clear that, majority are women, so

most of them are consider this as an option for their livelihood activities.

4.3.4. Number of members in the family

The state of Kerala is well known for its achievements in family planning. But

the common feature observed in the marginal sections of people is that the increasing

number of dependents in their family. Family details of Adat Panchayat is given in the

below table.

Table 4.5: Number of members in the family

Villages One child 2-3 3-4 Above 5 Total




Adat 0 5 11 4 20

Total 3 14 40 20 80


Majority of the respondents’ siblings got married and changed their residence.

Still, half the family consists the number of members between 3 to 4. It was followed

by the members above five. All of them are married, however 19 women, who are

living as the head of the household, reported that they are either widows or separated.

For them, MGNREGS is an important source of their livelihood.

5.3.5. Number of earning members in the family

The number of people earning is differ from family to family. Most of the

people of their family reported to be employed, though they are engaging in casual

jobs such as catering, cleaning, sales man, security jobs etc. The response from the

panchayat is given below.

51

Table 4.6: Number of earning members

Villages One 2-3 3-4 Above 5 Total




Adat 5 8 7 0 20

Total 19 42 16 0 80


It is interesting to note that, families of more than half of the workers are

engaged in various kinds of employment. When they were asked about the monthly

average income, most of them reported that even though their son is employed, they

do not contribute anything to the family. Rather they spend that money exclusively for

themselves. Therefore, we left the attempt of calculating the per capita income. Many

of them reported that they were struggling to manage Rs.5000/- even in a month.

4.3.6. Area of land and house

One of the important variables to understand the economic status of the

workers is that of the information regarding the land they possess. The entire

respondents, who had participated the survey, reported that they own land, those

which is less. The details have been furnished in the following table.

Table 4.5: Area of land posses

Villages Below 4 cents 4-7 cents 7-10 Above 10Puzhakkal 13 5 1 1



Adat 12 6 2 0

Total 48 21 8 3


52

Most of the people own the land up to seven cents. However, 10% of them are

reported that they have land up to 10 cents and 2.4% of them hold land more than 10

cents. Each of the household has one house. The size of each house is less than 1000

sq ft. The details of the houses are given in the following table.

Table 4.6: Details of Workers Houses

Villages Area (house) Floor Roof500 sq ft Below

1000 sq ft Tile Cement Concrete OthersPuzhakkal 14 6 4 16 9 11

Puranattukara 15 5 4 16 11 9

Chittilappilly 14 6 5 15 11 9

Adat 13 7 3 17 10 10

Total 56 24 16 64 41 39


Though, the workers have a house, the condition of the house is not good.

Many of them made various alterations over the time. Some of them constructed their

house during the recent period, through the help of Indira Awas Yojana (IAY). The

Government provide Rs. 3 lakhs to the SC/ST people and Rs.2 lakhs for others. The

primary reason is that, apart from the financial assistance from the government, each

household can demand 90 days of labour to construct their house. It will be given on

the basis of construction i.e., various levels of construction after verifying the

progress of the house. The common practice is that, household who want to construct

a house under this scheme, get registered and two to three members from the family

demand for employment. They work for themselves with the MGNREGS

remuneration. Through this methods, as per the present rate each household can claim

annually Rs.21,600/- (90X240). Among the respondents, 18 people already availed

such facility.

53

On the basis of the roofs, houses are divided into two, concrete and others.

There are 41 houses with the roof of concrete and others including the roof with

coconut palm leaves.

4.3.7. Major source of family

Sources of income of the family are shown below.

Table 4.7: Major source of income of the house hold

VillagesMGNREGS

only AgricultureMGNREGS

+Casual labour OthersPuzhakkal 2 6 11 1



Adat 11 2 5 2

Source: Field survey (2014-15)

More than half of the households are involving in different types of casual

labourers. For majority of the aged people (60 and above) MGNREGS is the only

source of income.

4.3.8: Number of employment days

Assurance of 100 days of employment is the salient feature of MGNREG

scheme. The details of number employment days are given below. This was the

details of the financial year 2013-14.

Table 4.8: Number of days of employment

VillagesBelow 15

days 15-50 50 and above 100 daysPuzhakkal 4 8 6 2



Adat 6 8 4 2

Total 27 26 22 5


54

In the previous table, though some of them claimed MGNREGS is the sole

source of revenue of their household, the employment details contradicts the same.

The persons who worked less than 15 days are more than that of the people who

worked up to 50 days, 50 and above and complete 100 days of employment. When

they were asked the reasons, most of them reported that they suffered due to poor

health. The reason is partially true with the old age people. But the interaction with

the other people and the officials, it came to know that, most of the households they

just want to get it registered and they are not ready to go for employment. It was

supported by the details of number of active workers.

4.3.9. Facilities of the households before and after joining MGNREGS

The workers participated in the field survey observed that their family status

improved while engaged in these schemes. However, it doesn’t mean that the change

is only due to this scheme. Because each family the persons are engaged in various

kinds of activities, though not in regular.

Table 4.9: Changes before and after the implementation of MGNREGS

Variables Before AfterHouse construction/modification 42 68Electricity 36 44Drinking water/well 30 35Education of their Children’s 26 34Gold -- 8Bank account 4 80

Television 26 54Cable connection 9 20Refrigerator 6 31Electric iron box 13 34Fan 6 58Telephone/Mobile 33 78

Vehicle(two/ three wheeler) 25 41Saving behaviour 18 22


55

MGNREGS is generally considered as a unique weapon to empower the rural

poor. The significant change was observed in the case of house construction

/modification and the case of bank account. MGNREGS played a crucial role in the

financial inclusion of the panchayat. Their saving behaviour did not improve much.

However, the number of beneficiary under each category marked an increasing trend

after the implementation of this scheme.

4.3.10. Level of Satisfaction

The information on the level of satisfaction was further divided into two,

about MGNREGS and the overall household change. About the MGNREGS, three

variables were identified such as remuneration, working conditions and the behaviour

of officials. Overall household change was observed on the basis of changes in living

conditions, financial condition of the family, improved educational facility, increased

acceptance in society and the personality development. Each of these observations,

have been rated on a five point liket scale, from highly satisfied to least satisfied.

Table 4.10: Level of satisfaction of MGNREGS workers

Variables Highlysatisfied

Moderatelysatisfied

Satisfied Lesssatisfied

Leastsatisfied

About MGNREGSRemuneration 15 15 10 17 23Working conditions 21 28 21 4 6Behaviour of officials 46 24 10 0 0

Overall changeBetter living conditions 28 16 26 10 0Financial condition of thefamily

32 36 3 3 6

Improved educationalfacility

32 27 14 7 0

Acceptance in the society 16 19 33 6 6Personality development 42 17 13 8 0

Source: Field study (2014-15)

Majority of the respondents expressed high satisfaction towards the behaviour

of officials. The satisfaction towards working conditions was mixed in nature.

56

However, most of the respondents are not happy with the remuneration. The workers

have a feeling that, they have improved their personality after engaging this scheme.

Many of them were previously not exposed to bank, but have to take bank account for

the registration. Though there are varying degrees of satisfaction, the workers

expressed positive response towards all other variables such as acceptance in the

society, better living conditions, financial condition of the family and the improved

educational facility of the their children.

4.3.11. Reason for opting MGNREGS jobs

The previous table made it clear that many of the workers are not engaging

100 days of employment and not satisfied with the remuneration, etc. There was

another question asked about the reason for opting MGNREGS jobs. Here many of

them mentioned reasons more than one as per their options. The responses, thus

obtained are summarised (code is given in brackets) as Easy to get (A), Government

Jobs (B), Lack of technical knowledge (C) , Lack of other employment (D), Poor

Health conditions (E), Near to home (F) and Own house construction (G).

Table 4. 11: Reasons for opting MNREGS jobsVariables A B C D E F G

A. 80 80 32 30 54 18 18

B. 80 80 -- -- 36 12 --

C. 32 -- 22 16 36 -- --

D. 30 -- -- 30 6 -- --

E. 54 36 36 6 24 12 --

F. 18 45 -- -- 12 18

G. 8 8 -- -- -- 18 18


57

All the respondents have an opinion that the job is easy to get and it is a

government jobs, hence they feel proud to be part of this scheme. According to some,

it was a part time job, as they engaged only if they could not find any other better

jobs. It is also important to note that many people reported that they preferred this

employment, mainly because of their poor health conditions. There are 22% of the

people who undertook the job for their own house construction.

4.4. Summary

The objective of this chapter was to understand the impact of MNREGS in the

rural livelihood of Adat Panchayat. The results of the field survey were explained in

this chapter. The survey results of MGNREGS workers were presented under various

headings to cover variety of information ranging from their age, education, major

source of income etc. and so on.

The ultimate objective of the program is to provide the basic minimum

requirements to the lower strata of the society. Majority of the workers are from BPL

and Scheduled Caste community. Hindus were dominating and the rest of them were

Christians. It is interesting to note that the field survey could not find out any people

from the Muslim community who are engaged in this scheme.

In Adat Panchayat also, almost 85% of the workers are women; it further

guaranteed that the amount directly goes to the household. This situation is common

in Kerala. Many of the workers, especially above 51, are seemed to be widows or

divorced. In many families more than half of them are engaged in various kinds of

employment, however they don’t contribute anything to the family income. They

spend that money exclusively for themselves. It limited the calculation of average

monthly income of the household. Many of them reported that, were struggling to

58

manage Rs.5000/- even in a month. It forces the women to engage in the scheme or in

other words MGNREGS played a significant role in their lives.

In the panchayat, though one third of the beneficiaries are belong to SC

category and none of ST family engaged in MGNREGS scheme. The living

conditions of ST people might be better than that of SC in the panchayat. In 2015, one

ST family registered for job cards however did not accept any employment.

Most of the MGNRE workers had a low level of education. Though majority

of them claimed educated up to U P School, most of them discontinued their studies

after 3rd or 4th or 5th standard. It was observed from the field survey that the age and

education level of the workers are inversely related.

All the workers have reported to own a house, although the condition of the

house is not good. The land area and the size of house are also too small. Almost 60%

of them were staying in a small house within four cents of land. Many of them made

various alterations over the time. Some of them constructed their house during the

recent period, through the help of Indira Awas Yojana (IAY). The Government

provide Rs. 3 lakhs to the SC/ST people and Rs.2 lakhs for others. The primary reason

is that, apart from the financial assistance from the government, each household can

demand 90 days of labour to construct their house. Among the respondents, 18

people availed such facility already.

It is important to note that around half of the respondents, MGNREGS provide

a part time job. They have been involved in different types of casual labourers where

they can earn more. However, for majority of the aged people (60 and above),

MGNREGS is the only source of their income. Most of them are physically and

technically weak. Due to the health conditions they are not able to do any work.

59

Though some of them claimed MGNREGS is the sole source of revenue of

their household, the employment details contradict the same. The persons who

worked less than 15 days are more than that of the people who worked up to 50 days,

50 and above and complete 100 days of employment. Health issues are reported to be

the major problem that prevents the worker to engage 100 days of employment. The

reason is partially true with the old age people. But the interaction with the other

people and the officials, it came to know that, most of the households they just want

to get it registered and they are not ready to go for employment. It was supported by

the details of number of active workers. In Adat, as per the recent data, May 2016, the

active jobs cards are 1,185 whereas the total number of job cards issued is 2,287, i.e.,

51.8%.

MGNREGS is generally considered as a unique weapon to active and

empowers the rural poor. All the respondents’ have a bank account. Thus MGNREGS

played a crucial role in the financial inclusion of the panchayat. Many of them

modified/constructed house for themselves. In terms various changes, including the

facilities enjoyed through the consumer-able good, MGNREGS marked a positive

change.

Though the workers were happy with the behaviour of officials, they were

unhappy about the rate of remuneration. Though the MGNREGS wage rate of the

state is far ahead than the national level, the general wage rate for casual

labourers/agricultural labourers are far ahead than that of MGNREGS. This might be

cause of dissatisfaction by many. The satisfaction towards working conditions was

mixed in nature.

The workers have a feeling that, they have improved their personality after

engaging this scheme. Many of them were previously not exposed to bank, but have

60

to take bank account for the registration. Though there are varying degrees of

satisfaction, the workers expressed positive response towards the variables such as

acceptance in the society, better living conditions, financial condition of the family

and the improved educational facility of the their children.


government jobs, hence they feel proud to be part of this scheme. According to some,

it was a part time job, as they engaged only if they could not find any other better

jobs. It is also important to note that many people reported that they preferred this

employment, mainly because of their health conditions as it does not require much

technical skill. Almost 22% of them availed MGNREGS scheme for their own house

construction.

In a nutshell, it can be concluded that, though the number is less, MGNREGS

played an important role of sustaining and empowering the livelihood of the weaker

sections, especially the women households.

61

Chapter 5

Summary of Findings and Conclusion

5.1. Summary of findings

Chapter one outlined the theme and background of the study, need for the study,

its objectives, methodology and data base, scope of the study and the limitations of the

study. The plan of the thesis was also presented in this chapter.

The objective of the second chapter was to provide an overview of MGMREGA

in India. This national wage employment program began on 25th August, 2005 in 200

selected districts of India. Dr Jean Dreze was the person who played a major role in

shaping this program. The act was implemented in phased manner. According to the

mandate of this act, it provides 100 days of wage employment to each household in a

year. Those who require job should register their name in the local/panchayat offices, and

they will be given job card. Each job card holder needs to provide an application for

employment. From a family, anyone can register for employment; however the total

working days for the household will not exceed 100. The provision of work should be

implemented within the 5 kms within 15 working days. The GOI bears the 100% wage

cost of unskilled manual labour and 75% of the material cost, including the wages of

skilled and semi-skilled workers. Transparency and accountability rules were also

formulated and use to modify in order ensure the efficiency.

The centre allocated Rs.11,300 crore in the year 2006-07, which increases up to

40,100 crore in 2010-11 and from there it starts to decline. The amount allocated for the

year 2016-17 is 38,500. Total job card issued in the year 2006-07 was just 3.78 crore,

however, by the end of 2015-16, it increased up to 13.29 crore. The employment

62

provided to the household in the year was only 2.1 crore, where it increased up to 4.8

crore in 2015-16. The number of workers has increased up to 27.82 crore in 2015-16.

The discrepancy between the number of job cards, number of household employed and

the number of workers is primarily due to two factors. Firstly, the validity of job cards is

for five years. Since, 2010-11, there was no process of renewing the validity. All those

who have registered for job cards counted cumulatively. Secondly, the household who

have job cards are not fully and effectively utilizing the facility of employment scheme.

Therefore, the total number of active workforce is just 10.56 crore in India in 2015-16.

Among the 27.82 crore workers in 2015-16, 19.55% of them belongs to SC

category and 15.03 % of them are from 15.03%. In other words, 5.43 crore SC and 4.18

crore ST people possess MGNREGS job cards. Among the active workers, 10.56 crore,

the percentage of SC and ST are respectively 20.74 and 16.41% or 2.19 crore and 1.73

crore respectively. In other words, even the registered SC and ST population are also not

using the MGNREG scheme properly. Many people consider it as a part time activity, as

they accepted it only if they were unable to find a better employment. The average

person’s day per household was maximum at 55 in 2009-10 and minimum at 34 in 2011-

12.

Moving to the states scenario, the maximum number of job cards was issued in

Uttar Pradesh (1.58 crore) followed by Bihar (1.30 crore) and West Bengal. However, the

maximum number of people demanded for employment were in West Bengal (65 lakhs),

followed by Uttar Pradesh (63 lakhs) and Tamil Nadu (60 lakhs). Among the states in

India, maximum households were worked in West Bengal (61 lakhs), which was

followed by Tamil Nadu (60 lakhs) and Uttar Pradesh. The situation of Kerala was also

63

not much different. Though 16.64 lakh household demanded work, only 12.37

households only engaged in work.

In India, only 44.3 lakhs people completed 100 days of employment in 2015-16.

Tamil Nadu was the state which could offer maximum number of employment to its

people i.e., 8.39 crore. It was followed by Andhra Pradesh (5.83 crore) and Rajasthan

(4.68 crore). However in Mizoram, there are not even a single household could complete

the 100 days of employment. The number for Manipur is only one and for Union territory

Puthchery it was six. In Kerala, only 1.66 lakh persons in the state completed 100 days of

employment.

The wage structure revises annually. It differs from states to state. The national

average wage was Rs.70 in 2005-06 and it increased up to 197 in the year 2016-17.

Similarly, the wage structure of the Kerala state was also revised from Rs.125 in 2005-06

to Rs.240 for the financial year 2016-17.

The pattern of employment demanded and employment received in the state differ

annually. In 2012-13, employment provided in Kerala was 15.26 lakh people. However,

it decreased to 15.06 in 2015-16. The total persons worked in 2012-13 were 16.65 lakh in

2012-13 and 16.93 in 2015-16. There are ups and downs in the case of SC/ST

participation in this employment program. The work participation of SC population

ranged between 15.85% of the total to 17.37% during 2012-13. Similarly, during the

same period participation of ST population ranged between 2.63% to 3.87% of the total

work force. The outstanding feature of the state is the participation of woman workers in

the employment program. It was 85.23% in 2012-13, increased up to 87% in 2014-15.

The participation of women in 2015-16 was reported to 84.8%. However, the overall

64

average days of employment provided per household shows a decreasing trend, i.e., 54.89

in 2012-13 to 49.26 in 2015-16. The highest number of wage employment demanded and

wage employment provided was in Thiruvanthapuram, which was followed by Thrissur

and Alappuzha. However, Pathanamthitta, Kasargod, Wayanad and Kottayam performed

badly in terms of employment provision. Kannur district performed poorly in ensuring

100 days of employment in the district.

The response from Thrissur district also shows the clear difference between the

employment demanded by households and the persons were provided with employment.

In Vellangallur block, this difference in 2015-16 was just 210 where as at Kodakara this


performance of Puzhakkal block panchayat was better in terms of this difference. In the

case of families, who were completed 100 days of employment, Thalikkulam and

Kodakara performed better in the district, in this case criteria the performance of

Puzhakkal seems to be poor.

The objective of third chapter was to summarise MGNREGS local economic

impact of Adat Panchayat. Adat is a small panchayat consisting of four villages. Total

population of the panchayat is 31,973 and which is spanned across its 18 wards. Around

30% of the people belong to SC/ST category. The panchayat is known for its agriculture

sector and at present there are 3000 acres of agriculture cultivation. The panchayat

following and they implemented high level of mechanization. At present, Farmers

Cooperative Bank of Adat leading the farmers and they are following group farming to an

extent. Since, they have implemented high level of mechanization; MGNREGS did not

affect the agriculture sector inversely.

65

The performance of the MGNREGS was given in terms of employment


employment and income generation of the people including the SC/ST population. There

is a discrepancy between the number of job cards issued and the number of employment

demanded by the households. That means not all who have received job cards demanding

for employment. It implies that, MGNREGS workers are those people who are unable to

find a better employment than the employment provided through the employment

guarantee scheme. Throughout the year, the number of workers who have demanded for

and employment provided were more than that of the number of households. It indicates

that from all family, more than one person engaged in this employment program. Neither

the employment demanded (for households it ranged between 609 to 1020) nor the

person’s days who engaged in employment Adat (ranged between 628 and 1008) reveal

any trend. The provision of 100 days of employment is one of the prime objectives of

MGNRE Scheme. The number of families who have completed 100 days of employment

is not showing any particular trend. It was only 27 in 2014-15, and was 327 in 2013-14.

In the year 2015-16 also, the number seemed to be only 111. In order to make a better

analysis, the percentage of number of families completed 100 days of work and

household who have demanded for employment was calculated. The percentage of

number of families completed 100 days of work and the household who have provided

the employment were also shows a similar trend to that of employment demanded.

The demand for employment program did not provide any seasonal connection

with respect to any months. Comparing the population of Adat Panchayat the monthly

average demand for employment come around 1.5% of the Panchayat’s population.

66

Both category of people SC/ST and others, shows an increasing trend in

employment demanded. It is to be noted that, only one ST family who resides Adat

registered and demanded for job cards and jobs in 2015-16, did not accept the work.

Though there are ups and downs in the number of employment days, the percentage of

participation of SC out of the total employment seemed to be more or less stable until

2014-15. While comparing the families who have completed 100 days of employment,

the SC’s contribution is only less than 35% throughout the period.





working less than 15 days shows an increasing trend up to 2014-15. It shows that

MGNREGS was not sufficient enough to attract people of different strata throughout the

year.

A separate section was given to compare the efficiency of MGNREGS of Adat

Panchayat with Puzhakkal taluk, Thrissur district and Kerala state on the basis of selected

variables. The average days of employment provided per household in Adat Panchayat

is almost double than Puzhakkal taluk, Thrissur district and the state average throughout

the year. At the same time, percentage of payments generated with 15 days, was better in





67

payments generation in Adat Panchayat shows a declining trend, i.e., from 66.85 in 2012-


only 26.56%. While comparing the national figure it was interesting to see that the

national average was higher than state level. National level performance was even better

than the district level, except the year 2014-15. Except in 2012-13, all the other year the

performance of taluk was lower than that of the national level. Adat Panchayat’s

performance was far better than the national level in 2012-13 and 2013-14 (66.85, 75.65

as against 50.9, 50.9), but performed poorly in 2014-15 and 2015-16 (26.56, 30.67 as

against 26.85, 37.31).





district average ranged between 97.45 to 98.93%. Puzhakkal taluk performed slightly

better than the district/state/Adat Panchayat throughout the period. For Puzhakkal taluk, it


from 95.34% in 2013-14 to 98.89% in 2015-16.

The objective of fourth chapter was to understand the impact of MNREGS in the

rural livelihood of Adat Panchayat. The results of the field survey were explained in this

chapter. The survey results of MGNREGS workers were presented under various

headings to cover variety of information ranging from their age, education, major source

of income etc. and so on.

68

The ultimate objective of the program is to provide basic minimum requirements

to the lower strata of the society. Majority of the workers were from BPL and Scheduled

Caste community. Hindus were dominating and the rest of them were Christians. It is

interesting to note that the field survey could not find out any people from the Muslim

community who are engaged in this scheme.

In Adat Panchayat almost 85% of the workers are women; it further guaranteed

that the amount directly goes to the household. This situation is common in Kerala.

Many of the workers, especially above 51, are seemed to be widows or divorced. In

many families more than half of them are engaged in various kinds of employment,

however they don’t contribute anything to the family income. They spend that money

exclusively for themselves. It limited the calculation of average monthly income of the

household. Many of them reported that, were struggling to manage Rs.5000/- even in a

month. It forces the women to engage in the scheme or in other words MNREGS played

a significant role in their lives.

In the panchayat, though one third of the beneficiaries are belong to SC category

and none of ST family engaged in MGNREGS scheme. The living conditions of ST

people might be better than that of SC in the panchayat. In 2015, one ST family

registered for job cards, however did not accept any employment.

Most of the MGNRE workers had a low level of education. Though majority of

them claimed educated up to U P School, most of them discontinued their studies after 3rd

or 4th or 5th standard. It was observed from the field survey that the age and education

level of the workers are inversely related.

69

All the workers have reported to own a house, although the condition of the house

is not good. The land area and the size of house are also too small. Almost 60% of them

were staying in a small house within 4 cents of land. Many of them made various

alterations over the time. Some of them constructed their house during the recent period,

through the help of Indira Awas Yojana (IAY). The Government provides Rs. 3 lakhs to

the SC/ST people and Rs.2 lakhs for others. The primary reason is that, apart from the

financial assistance from the government, each household can demand 90 days of labour

to construct their house. Among the respondents, 18 people availed such facility already.

It is important to note that around half of the respondents, MGNREGS provide a

part time job. They have been involved in different types of casual labourers where they

can earn more. However, for majority of the aged people (60 and above), MGNREGS is

the only source of their income. Most of them are physically and technically weak. Due

to the health conditions they are not able to do any work.

Though some of them claimed MGNREGS is the sole source of revenue of their

household, the employment details contradict the same. The persons who worked less

than 15 days are more than that of the people who worked up to 50 days, 50 and above

and complete 100 days of employment. Health issues are reported to be the major

problem that prevents the worker to engage 100 days of employment. The reason is

partially true with the old age people. But the interaction with the other people and the

officials, it came to know that, most of the households they just want to get it registered

and they are not ready to go for employment. It was supported by the details of number of

active workers. In Adat, as per the recent data, May 2016, the active jobs cards are 1,185

whereas the total number of job cards issued is 2,287, i.e., 51.8%.

70

MGNREGS is generally considered as a unique weapon to active and empowers

the rural poor. All the respondents’ have a bank account. Thus MGNREGS played a

crucial role in the financial inclusion of the panchayat. Many of them

modified/constructed house for themselves. In terms various changes, including the

facilities enjoyed through the consumer-able good, MGNREGS marked a positive

change.

Though the workers are happy with the behaviour of officials, they were unhappy

about the rate of remuneration. Though the MGNREGS wage rate of the state is far

ahead than the national level, the general wage rate in Kerala for casual labourers/

agricultural labourers are far ahead than that of MGNREGS. This might be cause of

dissatisfaction by many. The satisfaction towards working conditions was mixed in

nature.

The workers have a feeling that, they have improved their personality after

engaging this scheme. Many of them were previously not exposed to bank, but have to

take bank account for the registration. Though there are varying degrees of satisfaction,

the workers expressed positive response towards the variables such as acceptance in the

society, better living conditions, financial condition of the family and the improved

educational facility of the their children.


government jobs, hence they feel proud to be part of this scheme. According to some, it

was a part time job, as they engaged only if they could not find any other better jobs. It is

also important to note that many people reported that they preferred this employment,

71

mainly because of their health conditions as it does not require much technical skill.

Almost 22% of them availed MGNREGS scheme for their own house construction.

In a nutshell, it can be concluded that, though the number is less, MGNREGS

played an important role of sustaining and empowering the livelihood of the weaker

sections, especially the women households.

5.2. Conclusion

The overall objective of this study was to understand the long term impact of the

MGNREGS in Adat Panchayat of Thrissur district. This study specifically aims to find

out the economic impact of MNREGS in terms of income, number days of employment

guaranteed and the changes in the standard of living of the people. It was found that,

MGNREGS provide an effective tool against rural poverty, especially those household

headed by women and those age is more than 50. However the beneficiaries are less in

number. Majority of the people of Adat panchayat did not avail the facility fully and

effectively, rather consider MGNREGS is a source of part time earning. People availed

this facility only if they are unable to find any other employment. But the old people, who

do not undertake various kinds of job, consider this as a government job and it is easy to

get and feel to be part of this national employment programme. However, they were not

happy with the remuneration. The primary reason for their dissatisfaction is that the

remuneration seems to be less comparing the general wage rate of the state.

The rural livelihood of women household positively related to MGNREGS,

however, the number is less. Since, Adat practiced large scale mechanization,

MGNREGS did not affect agriculture sector. At the same the marginal farmers of the

panchayat who belongs to SC and BPL family make use of MGNREGS workers.

72

Appendices

Schedule of Minor Project

IMPACT OF MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENTPROGRAMME ON RURAL LIVELIHOOD AND AGRICULTURE SECTOROF ADAT GRAMA PANCHAYAT

Principal Investigator : Dr Rajesh K, PG Department of Economics, StAloysius College, Elthruth, Thrissur

1. Name of the respondent :2. Ward No/village :3. Head of the family/job card holder :4. Religion/gender/economic category of the respondent

Hindu Muslim Christians OthersSCSTWomenGeneralAPLBPL

5. Educational status of the workers

No education 1-4th Std 4-7th Std 7-10th Std Above SSLC(pls specify)

6. Age of the respondents

18-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-80 Above 80

7. Number of earning members in the family

One/Alone 2-3 3-4 Above 5

73

8. Housing Facilitiesa) Area of land

Below 4 cents 4-7 cents 7-10 cents Above 5 cents

b) Size of the house and the type of roof and floor

Area (house) Floor RoofUp to 500sq ft

500-1000sq ft

Tile Cement Concrete Others

9. Major source of family

MGNREGS only Agriculture MGNREGS +casual labour

Others (plsspecify)

10. Number of employment days under MGNREG scheme

Below 15 days 15-50 days 50 and above 100 days

11. Changes before and after the involvement in MGNREGS

Variables Before AfterHouse construction/modificationElectricityDrinking water/wellEducation of their Children’sGoldBank accountTelevisionCable connectionRefrigeratorElectric iron boxFanTelephone/MobileVehicle(two/ three wheeler)Saving behaviour

74

12. Level of satisfaction of the MGNREGS workers

Variables Highlysatisfied

Moderatelysatisfied

Satisfied Lesssatisfied

Leastsatisfied

About MGNREGSRemunerationWorking conditionsBehaviour of officials

Overall changeBetter living conditionsFinancial condition of thefamilyImproved educationalfacilityAcceptance in the societyPersonality development

13. Reasons for opting MGNREGS jobs (mark the major preferences)

Reasons 1 2Easy to getGovernment JobsLack of technical knowledgeLack of other employmentPoor Health conditionsNear to homeOwn house construction

75

References

Aggarwal, A., Aashish Gupta, Ankit Kumar, 2012 , ‘Evaluation of NREGA Wellsin Jharkhand’, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 48(35).

Bordoloi , 2011, Impact of NREGA on Wage Rates, Food Security and Rural UrbanMigration – A Study in Assam, Agro-Economic Research Centre for North EastIndia, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, Assam.

Chambers, R., & Conway, G., 1991, Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Conceptsfor the 21st Century, Retrieved February 3, 2010,(http://www.smallstock.info/reference/IDS/dp296.pdf)

De Haan, Leo, 2007, ‘Studies in African Livelihoods: Current issues and futureprospects’, African Alternatives, 9.

Dey, S. and Bedi, A., 2010, 'The National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme inBirbhum’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 45 (41).

Dreze J., 2007, ‘NREGA: Dismantling the contractor raj’, The Hindu, 20th November

Esteves, T., K V Rao, Bhaskar Sinha, S S Roy, Bhaskar Rao, Shashidharkumar Jha, AjayBhan Singh, Patil Vishal, Sharma Nitasha, Shashanka Rao, Murthy I K, RajeevSharma, Ilona Porsche, Basu K, N H Ravindranath, 2013, “MGNREGA forEnvironmental Service Enhancement and Vulnerability Reduction: RapidAppraisal in Chitradurga District, Karnataka”, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol68 (52)

GIDR, 2014, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Programme in India: AReview of Studies on its Implementation Performance, Outcomes and Implicationson Sustainable Livelihoods across States, GIDR, Gujarat.

Gupta, M., Anit Mukherjee, Tapas K. Sen and R. Srinivasan, 2011, ImprovingEffectiveness and Utilisation of Funds for Selected Schemes through SuitableChanges in Timing and Pattern of Releases by the Centre : A Report of ResearchProject sponsored by the Planning Commission of India, National Institute ofPublic Finance and Policy, New Delhi

Hirway, I, M.R.Saluja and Bupesh Yadav, 2012, Analysing Multiplier Impact of NREGAWorks through Village SAM Modelling, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol56(49)

76

Hirway, I., Saluja M.R., and B.Yadav, 2013, Analysing Multiplier Impact of NREGA

Works through Village SAM Modeling, Paper Presented in 10th

SustainableDevelopment Conference on Sustainable Solutions: A Spotlight on South AsianResearch, Islamabad, Pakistan, December10-12.

India Today, 14th February, 2013. Jairam Ramesh, Chidambaram lock horns over efficacyof MGNREGA, (http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/rural-job-scheme-mnrega-upa-government-chidambaram-jairam-ramesh-agricultural-labour/1/250129.html).

IIT ., 2009, Evaluation of National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) in TamilNadu, RTBI, IIT Madras, Chennai.

Jacob, A., and Varghese, R., 2006, ‘NREGA Implementation – I: Reasonable Beginningin Palakkad, Kerala’, Economic and Political Weekly December 2, 2006

Jacob, N., 2008, The Impact of NREGA on Rural-Urban Migration: Field survey ofVillupuram District, Tamil Nadu, CCS Working Paper No. 202, SummerResearch Internship Programme 2008,Centre for Civil Society, Chennai.

Khan, A. U. and Saluja, M.R., 2007, Impact of MNREGA on Rural Livelihoods, Paper

Presented in 10th

Sustainable Development Conference on Sustainable Solutions:A Spotlight on South Asian Research, Islamabad, Pakistan, December10-12.

Mathew K Sebastian, P A Azeez., 2014, ‘MGNREGA and Biodiversity Conservation’,Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 49 (10)

Mathur L., 2007, ‘Employment Guarantee: Progress So Far’, Economic and PoliticalWeekly, Vol. 42 (52)

Mathur, L., 2009, ‘Silent but Successful Initiative’, The Hindu. 1st March.

Nayak, N.C., Bhagirath Behera and Pulak Mishra, 2011, Payments for EnvironmentalServices: Issues and Implications for India, Economic & Political Weekly, 56(20):64-68.

MRD, 2012, MGNREGA Sameeksha, An Anthology of Research Studies on the MahatmaGandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, 2006–2012, edited andcompiled by Mihir Shah, Neelakshi Mann and Varad Pande, Ministry of RuralDevelopment, Government of India, New Delhi: Orient BlackSwan.

PIB, 2004, Centre issues directive for 150 days work under MGNREGA for STs in ForestAreas, 19th January, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.(http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=102603)

77

Ranaware, K., Upasak Das, Ashwini Kulkarni, Sudha Narayanan, 2015, ‘MGNREGAWorks and Their Impacts : A Study of Maharashtra’, Economic & PoliticalWeekly, Vol l(13).

Tacoli, Cecilia, 2002, ‘Changing rural-urban interactions in sub-Saharan Africa and theirimpact on livelihoods: Summary’, Working Paper Series on Rural-UrbanInteractions and Livelihood Strategies, Working paper 7, International Institutefor Environment and Development (IIED).

Tiwari, R., H I Somashekhar, V R Ramakrishna Parama, Indu K Murthy, M S MohanKumar, B K Mohan Kumar, Harshad Parate, Murari Varma, Sumedha Malaviya,Ananya S Rao, Asmita Sengupta, Ruth Kattumuri, N H Ravindranath, 2011,‘MGNREGA for Environmental Service Enhancement and VulnerabilityReduction: Rapid Appraisal in Chitradurga District, Karnataka’, Economic &Political Weekly, 46(20).

UNDP India , 2015, MGNREGA Sameeksha II, An Anthology of Research Studies (2012-2014), UNDP India, New Delhi, 2015.

Village Vikasana Sahayi, Adat Panchayat, 2012.

www.nrega.nic.in (accessed through out the period)

impact of mahatma gandhi national rural …€¦ · (gupt a et al., 2011) was also improved. the...

Documents