APPRAISAL OF NREGA IN THE STATES OF...

i

APPRAISAL OF NREGA IN THE STATES OF

MEGHALAYA AND SIKKIM

A PROJECT REPORT

(Submitted by)

Prof. B.PANDA, Prof. A.K.DUTTA and Prof. S.PRUSTY

As members of

PROFESSIONAL INSTITUTIONAL NETWORK

NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE ACT (NREGA)

Districts: North Sikkim, East Sikkim, South Sikkim, East Khasi Hills, Ri Bhoi, East

Garo Hills South Garo Hills and West Garo Hills.

Meghalaya and Sikkim

August 2009

Rajiv Gandhi Indian Institute of Management

Shillong-793014

ii

BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

Certified that this Project Report “AN APPRAISAL OF NREGA IN

THE STATES OF MEGHALAYA AND SIKKIM” is the bonafide

work of Prof.B.Panda, Prof.A.K.Dutta and Prof.S.Prosty of IIM

Shillong.

Prof.B.Panda

PROJECT DIRECTOR

iii

Indian Institute of Management

Shillong-793014

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the findings of this Project Report “APPRAISAL OF

NREGA IN THE STATES OF MEGHALAYA AND SIKKIM” have been

shared with the Governments of Sikkim and Meghalaya.

Prof. B.PANDA

PROJECT DIRECTOR

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page No.

List of Abbreviations & Nomenclatures v

Executive Summary vii

Chapter I: Background & Context of NREGA in the State 1

Chapter II: District Selection Criteria & District Profile 8

Chapter III: Sample Size & Research Methodology 22

Chapter IV: Findings & Analysis 28

Chapter V: Inferences 104

(a) Good Practices, Innovations/Case Studies/Narratives

& Practices for Replication

(b) Constraints identified

(c) Other Inferences

Chapter VI: Remedial Action, Recommendations & Future Interventions 113

List of Tables & Figures 117

References & Other Sources 122

Survey Questionnaires & Annexure 124

v

List of Abbreviations & Nomenclatures

1. NREGA - National Rural Employment Guarantee Act

2. UPA- United Progressive Alliance

3. NER- North East Region

4. GSDP- Gross State Domestic Product

5. HDI-Human Development Index

6. NREGS- National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme

7. MREGS- Meghalaya Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme

8. VEC -Village Employment Council

9. AEC- Area Employment Council

10. CC- Community Coordinators

11. BEC- Block Employment Council

12. DEC -District Employment Council

13. DRDA- District Rural Development Agency

14. EGS -Employment Guarantee Scheme

15. NSDP- Net State Domestic Product

16. GOI- Government of India

17. IIT- Indian Institute of Technology

18. IIM- Indian Institute of Management

19. GP- Gram Panchayat

20. CD -Community Development

21. CRD -Community and Rural development

22. PRI- Panchayat Raj Institution

23. PIN -Professional Institutional Network

vi

24. MRD -Ministry of Rural development

25. PO- Project Officers

26. DC- District Coordinator

27. NGO -Non Governmental Organisation

28. GS- Gram Sabha

29. BDO- Block Development Officer

30. SHG -Self Help Group

31. BPL- Below Poverty Line

32. TA- Travel Allowance

33. MIS - Management Information System

vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-MEGHALAYA

Selection Criteria

Sl No

District

Phase

Significant Positive Impact Identified(detail)

And/or Constraints Identified(details)

Discussed with State Govt.

Other Indicators Analysed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 East Khasi Hills

II

Creation of supplementary income, Ensuring social safety, Improvement of primary and secondary activities. Knowledge empowerment, Enhancement of food security, Women Empowerment, Improvement in the health status of women, Reduction in rural-urban migration, overcoming the problem of tragedy of commons, Social empowerment of women.

Delay in the payment, Inadequate availability of facilities at worksite, Discontinuation of work because of lack of funds, Most of the stakeholders fail to perceive that NREGA is a process of development but not an end in itself, lack of any governmental provision of financial support to the different line officers who provide technical expertise to the NREGA work, Irregular flow of funds.

Yes

Geo-socio-cultural factors, Phase of operation of the programme

2 South Garo Hills

I

Knowledge empowerment, Women Empowerment, Enhancement of food security, Reduction in rural-urban migration. Reduction in school-drop out cases, improvement in rural infrastructure, improvement in standard of living,

Demand and supply gap in the number of work-days. Delay in payment after the work is over, Inadequate availability of facilities at work site, Most of the stakeholders fail to perceive that NREGA is a process of development but not an end in itself, lack of any governmental provision of financial support to the different line officers who provide technical expertise to the NREGA work.

Yes


viii

3 West Garo Hills

I

Knowledge empowerment, Ensuring social safety, Improvement in standard of living, Enhancement of food security, Women empowerment, Overcoming the tragedy of commons, Improvement in physical infrastructure, Improvement in school enrollment.

Demand and supply gap in the number of work-days, Delay in payment after the work is over, Inadequate availability of facilities at work site, Most of the stakeholders fail to perceive that NREGA is a process of development but not an end in itself, lack of any governmental provision of financial support to the different line officers who provide technical expertise to the NREGA work, Irregular flow of funds.

Yes


4 Ri Bhoi II

Creation of supplementary income, Ensuring social safety, Improvement of primary and secondary activities. Knowledge empowerment, Enhancement of food security, Women Empowerment, Improvement in the health status of women, Social empowerment of women.

Yes


5 East Garo Hills

III

Knowledge empowerment, Ensuring social safety, Improvement in standard of living, Enhancement of food security, Women empowerment, Improvement in standard of living, Improvement in physical infrastructure.

Yes


ix

District Sample Size

Block Surveyed (Total No of Blocks)

GP/AECs Surveyed (Total No of GPs)

Village Surveyed

Works Surveyed

Tools Used

Practices for Replication Remedial Actions and Recommendations

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

East Khasi Hills

2(8) 8 8 8 80/34

Structured

Questionna

ire, Focus

group

discussion,

Personal

interview &

interaction,

Case &

situation

study

(i) Realising through NREGA works, the three dimensions of sustainable development i.e. economic sustainability (through development of market place, tourist centre, land productivity enhancement), social sustainability( through participation of workers, social capital creation) and environmental sustainability(through orange plant cultivation and rejuvenation , land terracing) (ii) Good leadership of BDO, (iii) convergence of the institution of private property with the interventionist ethos and practices of NREGA and overcoming tragedy of commons.

(i)Involment of the civil society in awareness creation,(ii)Stakeholders of the programme particularly the programme officers(BDOs)/GP/Block PRI heads be imparted a short course on “The Theory and Practice of Development and NREGA”,(iii) The owner to bear a fraction of cost of total expenditure when the work is being done in private property, (iv) Strengthening the institution of BDO/GP head for maximising convergence,(v) Incentives to line officers for maximising convergence,(vI) Scientific job demand forecasting to make the flow funds normal,(vii) increase in administrative cost, (ix) recruit class XII pass local youths and train them for two/three months by the government engineers and employ them for work measurement and supervision.

x

South Garo Hills

2(4) 8 8 8 80/34

Structured

Questionna

ire, Focus

group

discussion,

Personal

interview &

interaction,

Case &

situation

study

(i)Involvement of the civil society in awareness creation,(ii)Stakeholders of the programme particularly the programme officers(BDOs)/GP/Block PRI head be imparted a short course on “The Theory and Practice of Development and NREGA”, (iii) Strengthening the institution of BDO/GP head for maximising convergence,(iv) Incentives to line officers for maximising convergence,(v) Scientific job demand forecasting to make the flow funds normal,(vi) increase in administrative cost, (vii) recruit class XII pass local youths and train them for two/three months by the government engineers and employ them for work measurement and supervision.

West Garo Hills

2(8) 8 8 8 80/34

Structured

Questionna

ire, Focus

group

discussion,

Personal

interview &

interaction,

Case &

situation

study

(ii) Good leadership of Deputy commissioner & BDO (iii) convergence of the institution of private property with the interventionist ethos and practices of NREGA and overcoming tragedy of commons.

(i)Involvement of the civil society in awareness creation,(ii)Stakeholders of the programme particularly the programme officers(BDOs) and GP/Block PRI heads be imparted a short course on “The Theory and Practice of Development and NREGA”, (iii) Strengthening the institution of BDO/GP head for maximising convergence,(iv) Incentives to line officers for maximising convergence,(v) Scientific job demand forecasting to make the flow funds normal,(vi) increase in administrative cost, (vii) recruit class XII pass local youths and train them for two/three months by the government engineers and employ them for work measurement and supervision.

xi

Ri Bhoi 2(3) 8 8 8 80/34


East Garo Hills

2(5) 8 8 8 80/34

(ii) Good leadership of Deputy commissioner & BDO


xii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-SIKKIM

SL.No DISTRICT PHASE SELECTION CRITERIA

Significant Positive Impact Identified(detail) And/or Constraints Identified(details)

Discussed with State

Govt

Other Indicators Analysed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 East II

Creation of supplementary income, Ensuring social safety, Improvement of primary and secondary activities. Knowledge empowerment, Enhancement of food security, Women Empowerment, Improvement in the health status of women, Reduction in rural-urban migration, Reduction in school drop-out, overcoming the problem of tragedy of commons, Financial inclusion.

Delay in the payment, Inadequate availability of facilities at worksite, Discontinuation of work because of lack of funds, Most of the stakeholders fail to perceive that NREGA is a process of development but not an end in itself, lack of any governmental provision of financial support to the different line officers who provide technical expertise to the NREGA work, Irregular flow of funds.

Yes

Phase of operation of the programme

2 North I

Knowledge empowerment, Women Empowerment , Enhancement of food security. Improvement in women' health status, Financial inclusion, Reduction in rural-urban migration. Improvement in school-drop out cases, Improvement in school enrollment, improvement in rural infrastructure, Better cooperation between people and administration

Demand and supply gap in the number of work-days. Delay in payment after the work is over, Inadequate availability of facilities at work site, Most of the stakeholders fail to perceive that NREGA is a process of development but not an end in itself, lack of any governmental provision of financial support to the different line officers who provide technical expertise to the NREGA work.

Yes


3 South II

Knowledge empowerment, Improvement in standard of living, Enhancement of food security, Women empowerment, Financial Inclusion, Reduction in school-drop out cases, Improvement in physical infrastructure

Demand and supply gap in the number of work-days, Delay in payment after the work is over, Inadequate availability of facilities at work site, Most of the stakeholders fail to perceive that NREGA is a process of development but not an end in itself, lack of any governmental provision of financial support to the different line officers who provide technical expertise to the NREGA work, Irregular flow of funds.

Yes


xiii

Sample Size

DISTRICTS

Block Surveyed (Total No of Blocks)

GP/AECs Surveyed

Village Survey

ed

Works Survey

ed

No of workers

/Non-workers

Tools Used

Practices for Replication

*Remedial Actions and Recommendations (Most of the districts need similar actions and recommendations. Hence reported in one cell)

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

East * 2 8 8

80/36

Structured Questionnaire, Focus group

discussion, Personal interview &

interaction, Case & situation study

(i) Realizing through NREGA works, the three dimensions of sustainable development i.e. economic sustainability (through development of market place, tourist centre, land productivity enhancement), social sustainability( through participation of workers, social capital creation) and environmental sustainability(through orange plant cultivation and rejuvenation , land terracing) (ii) Good leadership of BDO, (iii) convergence of the institution of private property with the interventionist ethos and practices of NREGA and overcoming tragedy of commons.

(i)Involvement the civil society in awareness creation,(ii)Stakeholders of the programme particularly the programme officers(BDOs)/GP/Block PRI heads be imparted a short course on “The Theory and Practice of Development and NREGA”,(iii) The owner to bear a fraction of cost of total expenditure when the work is being done in private property, (iv) Strengthening the institution of BDO/GP head for maximizing convergence,(v) Incentives to line officers for maximizing convergence,(vI) Scientific job demand forecasting to make the flow funds normal,(vii) increase in administrative cost, (ix) recruit class XII pass local youths and train them for two/three months by the government engineers and employ them for work measurement and supervision.

North * 2 8 8

80/36 Structured Questionnaire, Focus group discussion, Personal interview & interaction, Case & situation study


xiv

South * 2 8 8 80/36

Structured Questionnaire, Focus group discussion, Personal interview & interaction, Case & situation study

(i)Involvement of the civil society in awareness creation,(ii)Stakeholders of the programme particularly the programme officers(BDOs) and GP/Block PRI heads be imparted a short course on “The Theory and Practice of Development and NREGA”, (iii) Strengthening the institution of BDO/GP head for maximising convergence,(iv) Incentives to line officers for maximising convergence,(v) Scientific job demand forecasting to make the flow funds normal,(vi) increase in administrative cost, (vii) recruit class XII pass local youths and train them for two/three months by the government engineers and employ them for work measurement and supervision.

*In Sikkim the two tier system of Panchayat Raj exits. Thus, GPs are just below the Zilla Parishads. Hence, one GP includes more than one

revenue block.

1

CHAPTER- I

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT OF NREGA IN THE STATE

Promotion of economic development in developing countries has been the

biggest challenge to national governments, international organizations, national and

international non-government bodies, academic communities and policy makers etc.

Underdevelopment in these economies manifests itself in a number of forms and

dimensions and most of these forms and dimensions act and react upon each other.

Two of the important and fundamental manifestations of underdevelopment happen to

be unemployment and poverty, endemic in rural areas, which are the causes of

manifestation and perpetuation of other forms of underdevelopment like inequality,

illiteracy, dehumanization, lack of empowerment, malnutrition, environmental

degradation etc. Successive governments in independent India have introduced a

number of employment generation and poverty eradication schemes with varied

degrees of success in conformity to the prevailing theories and models of development.

With the evolving and changing paradigm of development, development practices in the

form of developmental intervention strategies have also been tried to keep pace. In

conformity to the current thinking on development i.e. promotion of sustainable

development through capability enhancement and participation, a multitude of

innovative developmental interventionist programmes have been introduced in the

developing world by governments of the day.

One such path breaking and fundamental programme in independent resurgent

India has been rural employment creation and its guarantee through the National Rural

Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA), introduced and implemented by the UPA

Government of India. People across regions, religions, sexes have welcomed this

programme and have high expectations from it. It is hypothesized that this programme

would simultaneously create employment and sustain it, ensure sustainable livelihoods

and in the process would empower the poor rural population through its innovative

process of implementation. Notified on 7th September, 2005, this programme is

2

fundamentally different from earlier wage employment providing programmes with

respect to its right-based approach that makes it mandatory for the central government

of the day to ensure up to one hundred days of guaranteed wage employment in a

financial year to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled

manual labour. The choice of works suggested in the Act addresses causes of chronic

poverty like drought, deforestation and soil erosion, so that the process of employment

generation is maintained on a sustainable basis. The Act has been implemented in a

phased manner. In Phase-I, it was introduced in 2006 for the most backward districts of

the country. An additional 130 districts were included in Phase-II in 2007-2008 and the

remaining 274 rural districts of the country were brought under NREGA in Phase-III in

2008-2009.

Meghalaya i.e. the abode of the clouds, is one of the eight sister states that

together constitute the North Eastern Region (NER) of India. A hilly state with an area of

22429 sq. kms and a population of 23 lakhs, it is predominantly inhabited by tribal

people (86 % of the total population). It was carved out as a separate state from the

erstwhile undivided Assam on the 21st January 1972 with Shillong as the capital. During

the last 37 years of attaining statehood, the administrative units of the state have

undergone reorganization several times. Presently, the state is divided into seven

administrative districts, eight sub-divisions and thirty nine community development

blocks. Geographically and culturally, the state can be broadly divided in to two distinct

regions i.e. the Khasi-Jaintia Hills region having the districts of East Khasi Hills, West

Khasi Hills, Ri Bhoi and Jaintia Hills and the Garo Hills region having the districts of

West Garo Hills, East Garo Hills and South Garo Hills.

This tribal state has its own socio-economic characteristics against which

NREGA was implemented. A list of some such characteristics is presented below in

table1.1 and analyzed subsequently.

3

Table 1.1: Socio-Economic Indicators of Meghalaya

Sl.

No Ref. Year Item Meghalaya India

1 2001 Area (Sq. Kms) 22429 3287263

2 2007 No of Districts 7 600

3 2007 No of Community & Rural Development Blocks 39 5612

4 2001 No of Villages 5782 593731

5 2001 Population (in Lakhs) 23.18 10286.10

6 2001 Population Density (per Sq. Kms) 103.38 325

7 2001 Sex ratio 972

933

8 2001 Literacy 62.6 65.38

9 2001-02 Gross Enrollment Ratio 94.26 96.30

10 2001-02 Drop-Out Ratio 76.99 39.00

11 2003-04 Percentage of Forest Cover 75.08 20.60

12 2009 Installed Power Generating Capacity (MW) 288.08 149391.91

13 2006-07 Percentage of villages electrified 74 -----

14 2005-06 Percentage of households electrified 34 -----

15 2007 CD Ratio (Commercial Banks) 36.86 -----

16 2007 Death Rate ( Per ‘1000) 7.5 7.4

17 2007 IMR (Per ‘1000) 56 55

18 2004 Road Density (Per ’100 sq Km) 43.25 81.22

19 1999-00 Percentage of Population below Poverty line 33.9 26.1

20 1999-00 Percentage of Population below Poverty line (Rural) 40 27.1

21 2002 Percentage of BPL Families 48.90 36.15

22 2007 HDI 0.550 0.619

23 2001 Workforce participation rate (Persons) 41.47 39.26

24 2001 Workforce participation rate (Males) 47.76 51.93

25 2001 Workforce participation rate (Females) 35.02 25.68

26 2001 Percentage of workers engaged in agriculture (Rural) 75.61 70.63

27 2001

Percentage of rural workers engaged in non-farm

activities 24.39 29.37

28 2006-07 Per capita NSDP at current prices 24766 29642

Source: (i) Census of India, 2001, (ii) Indiastat.com, (iii) Basic Statistics of NER, NEDFI, (iv) Directorate of

Economics and Statistics, Meghalaya.

4

A look at some of the characteristics of the above table reveals that the level of

poverty in Meghalaya is higher than the country’s average. The fact that the primary

sector contributes close to one third of the GSDP and in terms of employment to two

thirds of the workers, strengthens the belief that there is disguised unemployment and

underemployment in the rural sector of the economy. Further, the percentage of

workers engaged in rural non-farm activities is much lower than the all India average.

This speaks of the low degree of employment diversification in the rural economy of

Meghalaya. The HDI rank of the state lies below the all India average. The primary

school drop-out rate is significantly higher than the all India situation. Thus, considering

this high degree of poverty, disguised unemployment and underemployment, slow level

of employment diversification in rural Meghalaya and high rate of school drop outs vis-à-

vis the country, the necessity to initiate a programme like NREGS was all the more

necessary in the state of Meghalaya.

Since Meghalaya is having a special category status and part-IX of the

constitution does not apply to it, the NREGA envisaged a provision whereby the state

can mandate local councils/authorities to undertake the corresponding responsibilities of

PRI institutions. As per this provision and more specifically as per section 4 of this Act,

the state government framed a scheme known as Meghalaya Rural Employment

Guarantee Scheme (MREGS) and the same was notified on 28th July 2006 after

obtaining clearance from Government of India. After an amendment, the scheme was

renamed NREGS: Meghalaya. This scheme stipulated the formation of four non-profit

voluntary bodies (VEC, AEC, BEC and DEC) at four levels for the operationalisation of

the NREGS.

Village Employment Council (VEC) is constituted at the level of each village

consisting of every male and female heads of each household in a village. The VECs for

the implementation of NREGA are the equivalents of the Gram Sabha and thus are

vested with the powers and functions of the Gram Sabha as envisaged in the Act. The

next layer in the hierarchy happens to be the AEC which is constituted at the cluster

level comprising of villages within a 2.5km radius. An AEC can have in it, at least one

5

VEC. The council consists of 3 (three) elected representatives from each VEC i.e. one

male, one female and the village traditional headman/Nokma of the village under the

jurisdiction of the AEC. These three members from each VEC are elected at the VEC

level by the VEC members in the attendance of 70% of the VEC members and the

programme officer or his representative. The total number of AEC members should not

exceed 20 and 30% of the members must be women. AEC members elect one

chairperson and a secretary in the presence of PO or his representative. Social

agreement signed by the VEC and AEC governs their functioning. For the purpose of

NREGA, AEC is the equivalent of the Gram Panchayat and it executes/supervises the

NREGS works through respective VECs. The AECs identify/select community

coordinators (CC) to assist them in their functioning i.e. providing secretarial assistance

in maintaining books and accounts and they are provided with the required training

under the scheme to function as Rozgar Sahayak/Field Assistant.

The third layer in the hierarchy happens to be the Block Employment Council

(BEC) at the level of each block which is the notified name of the Block Selection

Committee for the purpose of NREGA. BEC finalises and approves block level plan

which consists of consolidated shelf of projects to be taken up in the block in addition to

performing such other functions as may be assigned by the DEC and the state council.

Twenty five per cent of the total entitled allocation of works are identified by the BEC but

are implemented with the help of VECs.

At the level of the district, the District Employment Council (DEC) is the authority

for planning and implementation of the scheme. The governing body of DRDA is notified

and works as the DEC. The DEC is required to approve the District Employment

Guarantee Scheme Plan, which includes the consolidated Block EGS plans, its own

proposals and project proposals received from other line departments. It is also vested

with the responsibility of reviewing the programme implementation, supervision and

6

monitoring of projects taken up at the level of the district and blocks and performing

other works as may be assigned by the State Council.

Although with the formation of the VECs and AECs, the contours for

implementation of the NREGS in the state of Meghalaya became theoretically a

possibility; empowering these institutions and building the capacity of their functionaries

to meet the challenges of implementation of NREGS was a challenge. In the absence of

the culture of panchayat raj, it was naturally a time taking affair to bring in such ethos

and practices and fine tune it with the works of preparing a shelf of projects and get

them approved at the level of the VECs, AECs, BECs and DECs. Although the districts

of South Garo Hills and West Garo Hills were notified by Government of India for

implementation of NREGA in phase I with effect from 1st April 2006, the scheme could

finally take off in November 2006. In phase II, the districts of East Khasi Hills, Jaintia

Hills and Ri Bhoi were brought in to the NREGA Map of the state in the year 2007-08.

Finally, East Garo Hills and West Khasi Hills were notified to be covered in phase-III

with effect from 1st April 2008.

Sikkim again had its own socio-economic characteristics against which NREGA

was implemented. A list of some such characteristics is presented below in table 1.2

and analyzed subsequently. The table below reports some of the socio economic

indicators in Sikkim. A look at some of the characteristics of the above table reveals that

the level of poverty in Sikkim is higher than the country’s average. The percentage of

workers engaged in rural non-farm activities is much higher than the all India average;

however the per capita NSDP is much lower than the all India average. The HDI rank of

the state lies below the all India average. The PRI system in the state is considered as

one of the best in the country. NREGA is a programme formulated to be implemented

through the PRI system. So it is hypothesized that this good PRI system in Sikkim

would help in the better implementation of NREGS and would ensure better results in

the field. Besides, considering the high degree of poverty, underemployment and the

perfect PRI system in Sikkim, the necessity to initiate a programme like NREGS was all

the more necessary in the state.

7

Table 1.2: Socio-Economic Indicators of Sikkim

Sl No Ref. Year Item Sikkim India

1 2001 Area (Sq. Kms) 7096 3287263

2 2007 No of Districts 4 600

3 2001 No of Villages 453 593731

4 2001 Population in Lakhs 5.40 10286.10

5 2001 Population Density (per Sq. Kms) 76 325

6 2001 Sex ratio 986 933

7 2001 Literacy 68.80 65.38

8 2001-02 Gross Enrollment Ratio 96.30

9 2001-02 Drop-Out Ratio 26.29 39.00

10 2003-04 Percentage of Forest Cover 47 20.60

11 2009 Installed Power Generating Capacity(MW) 95.70 149391.91

12 2006-07 Percentage of villages electrified 90 ---

13 2005-06 Percentage of households electrified 70 ---

14 30.06.2007 CD Ratio (Commercial Banks) 50 ---

15 2007 Death Rate ( Per ‘1000) 5 7.4

16 2007 IMR (Per ‘1000) 33 55

17 2004 Road Density (Per ‘1000 sq Km) 258 81.22

18 1999-00 Percentage of Population below Poverty line 36.55 26.1

19 1999-00 Percentage of Population below Poverty line (Rural) -- 27.1

20 2002 Percentage of BPL Families --- 36.15

21 2007 HDI 0.532 0.619

22 2001 Workforce participation rate (Persons) 40.44 39.26

23 2001 Workforce participation rate (Males) 57.6 51.93

24 2001 Workforce participation rate (Females) 39.6 25.68

25 2001 Percentage of workers engaged in agriculture (Rural) 7.81 70.63

26 2001 Percentage of rural workers engaged in non-farm

activities

92.19 29.37

27 2006-07 Per capita NSDP at current prices 18822 29642

Source: (i) Census of India, 2001, (ii) Indiastat.com, (iii) Basic Statistics of NER and NEDFI.

8

CHAPTER-II

DISTRICT SELECTION CRITERIA & DISTRICT PROFILE

It has been more than two years that phase-I of NREGA have come in to effect.

Since this programme is comprehensive both in terms of its coverage with explicit and

implicit objectives, it is time proper to go for initial independent institutional evaluation of

the process of implementing, that would subsequently lead to more of research studies,

case studies, evaluation and impact assessment studies and concurrent monitoring &

appraisals being undertaken to enhance the efficacy of this programme. Further, this

initiative would also facilitate the development of a network to conduct rapid assessment

in order to identify the positive impacts-direct and multiplier, constraints, deviations and

deficiencies of the programme. This would help in taking up corrective actions on the

part of the authorities in the implementation and redesign of the scheme.

2.1 District Selection Criteria: Meghalaya

Keeping this and the socio-economic profile of Meghalaya in view, five districts

have been identified for quick appraisal. These districts are: East Khasi Hills, Ri Bhoi,

West Garo Hills, East Garo Hills and South Garo Hills. The selections of the districts

have been done as per the suggestions of the Ministry of Rural Development,

Government of India, in consultation with the state Government. After the first round

table of the Ministry of Rural Development, GOI with IITs, IIMs and Agricultural

Universities on 1st August 2008, we had formal discussions and consultations with the

state governments of Meghalaya and Sikkim at various levels including the

Commissioner and secretaries of Departments of Rural Development. The

variables/factors which were taken into consideration in selecting the districts in

Meghalaya were: (i) Phase of Implementation of the Scheme (ii) Performance of the

districts (in terms of person days and link and chain impacts) with in the phase of

implementation (iii) Constraints/Challenges observed and (iv) Geographical and cultural

representation. However, the first three variables were the primary factors to which the

last one was factored-in automatically even without any deliberate treatment. On the

basis of such a deliberate design, the districts of South Garo Hills (in Phase-I), East

9

Khasi Hills (in Phase-II) were selected as good performing districts and the districts of

West Garo Hills (Phase I), Ri Bhoi (Phase-II) and East Garo Hills (Phase III) were

selected as poor performing districts. However, it needs to be mentioned here that in

the selection of the districts, the selection as good performer and poor performer was a

relative criterion and was further limited to with-in phase selection only. The last criterion

of geographical and cultural representation was automatically built in to the selection

process as among the selected districts, two (2) districts belonged to the Khasi-Jaintia

Hills region (East Khasi Hills and Ri Bhoi) and the rest three (South Garo Hills, West

Garo Hills and East Garo Hills) belonged to the Garo Hills region.

Table 2.1: Variables/Factors and Selection of Districts in Meghalaya

DISTRICT PHASE

I

PHASE

II

PHASE

III

RGF RPF RMC RLC

South Garo Hills � � �

West Garo Hills � � �

East Garo Hills � �

East Khasi Hills � � �

Ri Bhoi � � �

NB. RGF: Relatively good performance, RPF: Relatively poor performance, RMC:

Relatively more constraints, RLC: Relatively less constraints.

2.2 District Selection Criteria: Sikkim

In the context of Sikkim, a slight change in the criteria of selection of districts was

resorted to. Here the primacy of variables of performance and constraints were

maintained. No district was selected from phase III, since the NREGS implementation

was in its infancy in the only district (West District) under phase III and it was felt after

discussion with the concerned state government, that effective appraisal on issues of

importance like multiplier effect and convergence would not be possible at this juncture.

Since the total number of districts was four (4) only, out of which one district i.e. North

10

District belonged to phase I, this was automatically selected. It is with respect to the

East district and South district- both of which belonged to phase II of implementation of

NREGS, that the performance variable was combined with the phase criterion and

constraint variable in selecting the districts. This has been deliberately done so as to get

the best of comparison with respect to the strengths, weaknesses and challenges of the

working of the scheme in the state of Sikkim. A schematic representation of the district

selection for the state of Sikkim on the basis of the assigned variables/factors is given

below:

Table 2.2: Variables/Factors and Selection of Districts in Sikkim.

DISTRICT PHASE

I

PHASE

II

PHASE

III

RGF RPF RMC RLC

NORTH � �

EAST � � �

SOUTH � � �

NB. RGF: Relatively good performance, RPF: Relatively poor performance, RMC: Relatively more constraints, RLC: Relatively less constraints.

Based on the nature and dynamics of the villages in Meghalaya/Sikkim and also

while ensuring that larger representation is maintained, the districts were selected

primarily as per the provisions of the project and based on their performances. Some of

these districts are those that have indicated or experienced positive impacts on the

various levels of social implications and some which have experienced constraints in

the optimal performance of the scheme. The same procedure has been followed in the

selection of VEC/GP. While following the Ministry’s guidelines for surveying three

ongoing works, and one completed in the four villages, the parameter of selecting some

villages with positive impacts and some with constraints have been maintained to the

extent possible even at this level.

11

2.3 District Profile: Meghalaya

As mentioned above, from Meghalaya five districts have been selected. This

selection is a complete representation of the diversity within the socio-economic and

cultural dynamics of the state of Meghalaya.

2.3.1 Profile: South Garo Hills

The South Garo Hills district lies in the southern part of the state of Meghalaya

and was created on 18th June, 1992. The district is hilly with difficult terrain with it’s

headquarter at Baghmara, the only town in the district. The district is situated between

25˚10’ and 25˚35’N latitudes and 90˚15 and 91˚0’E longitude. It covers an area of 1887

sq. Km. It is bounded in the North by East Garo Hills, in the East by the West Khasi Hills

district, in the West by West Garo Hills district and in the South by Bangladesh.

Table 2.3: Socio-Economic Profile of South Garo Hills District

Variable/Factor Value

Area in Sq. Kms 1887

Total Population 100980

Population Males 52007

Population Females 48973

Population-Rural 92337

Population-Urban 8643

Total ST Population 96616

ST population as a % of total Population 95.68

Number of Households 17900

Average HH size 6

Sex ratio 942

Literacy rate-Persons 55.00

Literacy rate-Males 61.52

Literacy rate-Females 48.02

Source: Census of India 2001.

12

District Administration: The district has only one subdivision i.e. Baghmara and this is

also the district headquarter of the district. It has 4 CD Blocks and 627 villages.

2.3.2 Profile: West Garo Hills

West Garo Hills is an administrative district in Garo Hills of the state of

Meghalaya in India. The district headquarters is located at Tura. The district occupies

an area of 3714 km² and has a population of 515,813 (as of 2001).

Tura has a mixed population of Garos or Achiks (as they prefer to call

themselves), Bengalis, Nepalis, Assamese, members of other ethnic groups such as the

Hajongs, Rabhas and Koches, Mizos and a fair sprinkling of South Indians in the

Catholic Church, the teaching profession and the paramilitary forces.

Table 2.4: Socio-Economic Profile of West Garo Hills District











Average HH size 5

Sex ratio 968




Source: same as in table 2.3

13

District Administration: The district has only 2 subdivisions. It has 8 CD Blocks and

1537 villages.

2.3.3 Profile: East Garo Hills

East Garo Hills district was upgraded from a sub-division to a full fledged district

in 1976, after the erstwhile Garo Hills District was reorganised with a view to bring the

administration closer to the people. The District is bounded by South Garo Hills on the

south, West Garo Hills on the west, East Khasi Hills on the East and the state of Assam

on the north. The district headquarter-complex of the district, christened as

Williamnagar after the name of Captain Williamson A. Sangma the founder Chief

Minister of the State of Meghalaya. Williamnagar is located on the vast plain lands along

the bank of the Simsang River, at Simsanggre. These plain lands are in a sense

historical, as it was here that the Garos made their last major resistance to the British

intrusion into Garo Hills during the year 1837. The legendary Garo leader Pa Togan

Nengminja Sangma was felled by the British, in a skirmish, at Chisobibra, quite close to

Williamnagar, on 12 December 1837.

Table 2.5: Socio-Economic Profile of East Garo Hills District











Average HH size 6

Sex ratio 966





14

District Administration: The district has only one subdivision i.e. Resubelpara. It has 5

CD Blocks and 888 villages.

2.3.4 Profile: East Khasi Hills

The Khasi Hills district was divided into two districts, viz the East Khasi Hills

district and the West Khasi Hills district on 28th October 1976. On June 4th, 1992, East

Khasi Hills district was further divided into two administrative districts of East Khasi Hills

district and Ri-Bhoi district.

Table 2.6: Socio-Economic Profile of East Khasi Hills District











Average HH size 5

Sex ratio 981





Shillong is the district headquarters of East Khasi Hills district. The district

consists of 8 Community and Rural Development blocks at present. East Khasi Hills

District forms a central part of Meghalaya and covers a total geographical area of 2,748

15

Sq. Kms. It lies approximately between 25°07” & 25°41” N Latitude and 91°21” & 92°09”

E Longitude. The northern portion of the district is bounded by the plain of Ri-Bhoi

District gradually rising to the rolling grasslands of the Shillong plateau interspersed with

river valleys, and then falls sharply in the Southern portion forming deep gorges and

ravines in Mawsynram and Shella-Bholaganj, bordering Bangladesh. The district is

bounded by the Jaintia Hills District to the east and the West Khasi Hills District to the

west.

District Administration: The district has only one subdivision. It has 8 CD Blocks and

962 villages.

2.3.5 Profile: Ri Bhoi

Ri-Bhoi is an administrative district in the state of Meghalaya in India. The district

headquarters is located at Nongpoh. The district was upgraded from a sub divisional

level to a full fledged district on 4 June 1992. The new district was carved out from the

erstwhile East Khasi Hills. The district lies between 90°55’ to 91°16’ latitude and 25°40’

to 25°21’ longitude. It is bounded on the north by Kamrup District and on the East by

Jaintia Hills and Karbi Anglong district of Assam and on the West by West Khasi Hills

district. There are three C and RD Blocks and one administrative unit at Patharkhmah,

and the number of villages is 561.

The district covers an area of 2448 km² with a population of 192,795 as per 2001

census. The headquarters of the district is at Nongpoh located at 53 km away from the

state capital Shillong and 50 km from Guwahati. This district is characterized by rugged

and irregular land surface. It includes a series of hill ranges which gradually slopes

towards the north and finally joins the Brahmaputra Valley. The important rivers flowing

through this region includes the Umtrew, Umsiang, Umran and Umiam. The region is

still poor in transport and communication facilities. The National Highway No.37

originating from Jorabad to Shillong passes through the district.

16

Table 2.7: Socio-Economic Profile of Ri Bhoi District











Average HH size 6

Sex ratio 941





District Administration: The district has 3 CD Blocks and 570 villages. In all the

districts, general administration and judiciary vests with the respective deputy

commissioner of the district. In the absence of PRI institutions, the traditional institutions

do a few of the jobs normally entrusted to PRI institutions.

2.4 District Profile: Sikkim

As mentioned above, from Sikkim three districts have been selected. This

selection is a complete representation of the diversity within the socio-economic and

cultural dynamics of the state of Sikkim.

2.4.1 Profile: North Sikkim

17

North Sikkim is a district of the Indian state of Sikkim. Its capital is Mangan. The

district of North Sikkim has total area coverage of 4226 sq. km. It is the largest of the

four districts of Sikkim. The region has many power projects and enjoys almost

uninterrupted electricity. Roads however, are in a poor condition owing to the frequent

landslides. Most of North Sikkim is restricted to travelers and permits are needed to visit

these areas. The area, which shares a sensitive border with the People's Republic of

China, is heavily patrolled by the Indian army.

Most of the people of the state reside near Mangan, the district headquarters

which is about 3,950 feet above sea level. Further north the elevation increases with the

vegetation turning from temperate to alpine to tundra. Temperatures range from about

25° to below -40° in the extreme high reaches where the altitude is in excess of 6,000

metres. Kanchenjunga is the highest peak at over 8,000 m, straddling its eastern border

with Nepal.

District Administration

There are two sub-divisions in the north district, fifty three Revenue block, one

hundred three Panchayat ward and twenty Panchayat units. The district is headed by a

Deputy Commissioner who is over all in-charge of the administration in the particular

district. He has to perform triple functions as he holds three positions: at once he is the

Deputy Commissioner, the district Magistrate and the Collector. As a Deputy

Commissioner he is the executive head of the district with multifarious responsibilities.

As the District Magistrate he is responsible for maintaining the law and order situation in

the district. As the Collector he is the Chief Revenue Officer of the district, responsible

for revenue collection and recovery. The Police administration in the district is under the

control of Superintendent of Police.

18

Table 2.8: Socio-economic Profiles of North Sikkim District

Variable/ Factor Value

Area in square kms 4226 sq.km

Total Population (2001 census) 41030






ST Population as a % of Total Population 53.06


Average HH size 4

Sex Ratio 752

Literacy rate-Persons 23572

Literacy rate-Males 15461

Literacy rate-Females 8111

Source: (i) Census of India, 2001, (ii) Indiastat.com, (iii) Basic Statistics of NER and NEDFI.

2.4.2 Profile: East Sikkim

19

East Sikkim is one of the four administrative districts of the Indian state of Sikkim.

Geographically, East Sikkim occupies the south-east corner of the state. The capital of

East Sikkim is Gangtok, which is also the state capital. It is the hub of all administrative

activity in the state. Popular tourist locales are the Tsongmo Lake, Baba Mandir and the

Nathula Pass. The Nathula Pass formed the offshoot of the ancient Silk Route which

connected Lhasa to India. The pass and the famous Baba Mandir are open to Indian

nationals only. To enter this region a special pass — The Inner Line Permit has to be

obtained one day prior to departure. This pass is made through local tourist offices.

Other tourist areas include Gangtok and the famous Phodong Monastery north of

Gangtok and the internationally famous Rumtek monastery. People in East Sikkim are

mostly of Nepali ethnicity, arriving in search of jobs after the British appropriated the

state in the 19th century. Other ethnicities include the Bhutias, the Tibetans and the

Lepchas. Nepali is the predominant language in the region.

Table 2.9: Socio-Economic Profile of East Sikkim District

Variable/ Factor Value

Area in square kms 964

Total Population (2001 census) 245040





ST Population as a % of Total Population 18.5

Sex Ratio 844



20



District Administration

The civilian region is administered by a district collector, appointed by the Union

Government and the military area by a Major General. Military wise, the district is a very

sensitive area with the Indian army having control over most areas east of Gangtok and

near its borders with People's Republic of China and Bhutan. Visitors to this region are

restricted and just a few areas are open to tourists in the areas east of Gangtok. There

are three sub-divisions, one thirty four Revenue blocks, two seventy three panchayat

ward and fifty panchayat units.

2.4.3 Profile: South District

South district is the 2nd largest populated district next to East district of Sikkim.

South district though having a smaller area is more thickly populated and is more open

and fairly well cultivated. Namchi is the Administrative headquarters of South district. It

is a small town which is accessible from the neighboring state of West Bengal. South

district offers spellbinding views and excellent treks to Interesting trekking places.

Namchi is 90 Km away from Gangtok the state capital, and 100 Km away from Siliguri

the nearest railway and airway stations.

Namchi is growing fast into a tourist resort as many new tourist attractive places

are developed with all facilities for movement, communications, lodging, fooding at

reasonable rates. The statue Guru Padmasambhava constructed and installed atop

Samdruptse (the Wish fulfilling Hill) near Namchi in South Sikkim which is 135 ft. is the

tallest Statue of Guru Rinpoche in the World. The statue is much taller than the famous

bronze Buddha at Kamakura, Japan which stands 42 ft. high and has a circumference

of 97 ft.

District administration

21

There are two sub-divisions, one forty five revenue blocks, two fifty five

Panchayat ward and forty five Panchayat units in the south district of Sikkim. The district

is headed by a Deputy Commissioner who is over all in-charge of the administration in

the particular district. He has to perform triple functions as he holds three positions: at

once he is the Deputy Commissioner, the district Magistrate and the Collector. As a

Deputy Commissioner he is the executive head of the district with multifarious

responsibilities. As the District Magistrate he is responsible for maintaining the law and

order situation in the district. As the Collector he is the Chief Revenue Officer of the

district, responsible for revenue collection and recovery.

Table 2.10: Socio-economic profile of South Sikkim District


Area in Sq. Kms 750








Number of Households

Average HH size

Sex ratio (Females for 1000 males) 927

Literacy rate-Persons 74614

Literacy rate-Males 42895

22

Literacy rate-Females 31719



CHAPTER–III

SAMPLE SIZE & RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Primarily, NREGA is a right based demand driven wage employment programme

in rural India. It is still in its infancy. However, the scope of its multiplier effects as is

apparently perceived, discussed and documented in a number of instances both by

government and non-government agencies, beneficiaries and other stake holders, is felt

to have gone beyond the expectations of the initiators of the programme.

Simultaneously, sections of our civil society, for whatever reasons, have started asking

questions about some aspects of its implementation. Even questions like “Is the

programme worth its huge expenditure undertaken by the GOI?” are being asked by

some sections of media and the Not for Profit Sector. The Ministry of Rural

Development, GOI, has been very prompt in establishing all the probable and feasible

safeguards and transparency mechanisms to make it one of the most effective

programmes of rural development-in all senses of the term “development”. In addition to

its own evaluation and appraisal mechanisms, it has enlisted and engaged a number of

reputed institutions-both in government and private sector to help in every aspect of fine

tuning this programme including appraisal and evaluation. One such endeavor is the

Professional Institutional Network (PIN) under which institutes like IITs and IIMs have

been entrusted with the responsibility of providing a quick appraisal of the scheme.

Keeping this objective of the Ministry in view, these institutions in consultation with the

ministry decided upon the broad framework of their appraisal including methodology

and sample selection, with enough of flexibility to devise them taking in to consideration

the regional specificities and other imperatives as realized by them.

Although a number of factors and variables were considered by us in deciding

the sampling methodology, we zeroed in factors such as (i) geographical, cultural and

socio-economic specificities, (ii) phase of operation of the programme, (iii) immediate

23

impact factors (person days), (iv) Link and chain impacts (social empowerment,

financial inclusion, social capital formation, environmental sustainability, food security,

distress migration mitigation) and (v) Time frame. A sampling design was developed

taking in to consideration these factors.

3.1 Sample Methodology: Meghalaya

As mentioned earlier, Meghalaya is basically divided in to two geo-socio-

economic and cultural regions i.e. Khasi-Jaintia Region and Garo Region. Out of the 7

districts in the state, in the first stage purposive sampling, 5 districts were purposively

selected with reference to the guidelines given by MRD in consultation with the

concerned officers of the states and with reference to the above 5 factors discussed.

The selected sampled districts constitute about 71 % of the total number of

districts in the state. The selected districts are (i) South Garo Hills (Phase I), (ii) West

Garo Hills (Phase-I), (iii) East Garo Hills (Phase-III), (iv) East Khasi Hills (Phase II) and

(v) Ri Bhoi (phase II). Of these 5 districts, the districts of East Khasi Hills and Ri Bhoi

belong to the Khasi Hills Region and the rest three belong to the Garo Hills region. In

Meghalaya the Garo region is comparatively underdeveloped vis-à-vis the Khasi region

in terms of major infrastructural facilities available, quality of life and per capita income.

NREGS was thus implemented in phase-I in two of the districts of this region and

thereafter in one of the other remaining district in phase-III. Further, during discussion

with the officers of the state, it was felt that the constraints to implement the programme

in the form of wage payment, financial inclusion, and information dissemination were

more in the Garo Hills Region. Therefore, it was felt to select all the three districts of

Garo Hills Region and two more districts from Khasi-Jaintia region for our appraisal. In

the second stage, from each district, two (2) blocks were purposively selected on the

basis of the twin criteria of progress (immediate impact and link effect) and constraints.

In the third stage, from each block, four AECs were selected from each block and from

each AEC one village was selected. In the fourth stage, from each selected village, one

work was selected. The whole exercise was undertaken in such a manner that of the 4

selected works in total from a block, three (3) were ongoing and one (1) work was

completed. In the last stage, from each work, 10 workers were selected at random for

24

administration of a structured questionnaire through personal interview. Keeping in

view, the demand for work under NREGA and the population of the AECs and VECs,

selecting 10 workers (stakeholder-I) from each work was reasonable. Similarly from

each village (work) at least 2 AEC/VEC members (stake holder-II) and 2 third party

members (stakeholder-III) were selected depending on their availability on the days of

the survey for administration of separate sets of structured questionnaire. Finally in

each block, at least one structured questionnaire was administered to either the BDO or

any of his designated officers (stake holder-IV) along with personal interview. At the

district level, the project directors, and deputy commissioners and at the state level the

commissioner-cum-secretary, Rural Development Department and the nodal officer of

the state for implementation of NREGA were all interviewed with open ended questions

in a discussion mode by the survey team members which included at least one

coordinator. Altogether for the state as a whole, 400 stakeholders-I, 80 stakeholders-II,

80 stakeholders-III and 20 stakeholders-IV were surveyed/interviewed. This 20

stakeholders-IV includes 10 BDOs or his designated officers. They were administered a

structured questionnaire along with personal open ended discussion session with the

team members. The other 10 stakeholders include 5 project officers (PO, DRDA), 3

district coordinators (DCs), the secretary-cum-commissioner, Community and Rural

Development Department, Govt. of Meghalaya.

The following diagram describes the sample selection.

25

Fig1: MEGHALAYASample Selection Methodology

DISTRICT 1

BLOCK 1

AEC 1

V1

W1

AEC2

V2

W2

AEC3

V3

W3

AEC4

V4

W4

BLOCK 2

AEC1

V1

W1

AEC2

V2

W2

AEC3

V3

W3

AEC4

V4

W4

DISTRICT 2 DISTRICT 3 DISTRICT 4 DISTRICT 5

V: Village, W: Works

3.1.1 Methodology and Tools: Meghalaya

To make the appraisal process comprehensive and effective, four (4) stake

holders were identified. Besides, the NREGA workers (stake holder I), the other

stakeholders are : the AEC and VEC officials and functionaries (stake holder II), third

party which includes people like school teachers, NGO officials, traders and

shopkeepers etc. working in the village area(stake holder III) and the officers and

officials at the district, and block levels (stake holder-IV). Both quantitative and

qualitative tools were used to collect information and analyse the situation. The

quantitative tool used was four different structured questionnaires administered to the

above four different stake holders (attached to the appendix section of the report) .The

questionnaires are having the property of inherent consistency, cross verification of

important issues in appraisal and provision for recording independent opinion. They

were all administered by trained field investigators, supervised by trained field

assistants and research supervisors. In a number of occasions, the coordinators of the

programme were also present when the questionnaires were being filled in. All the field

investigators, research staff and research supervisors were imparted a three days

26

comprehensive training by the coordinators of the programme in IIM Shillong on

different aspects of this appraisal including the nitty-gritty of the questionnaires to be

filled up, qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection etc.

The qualitative methods used by the investigators and supervisors are, (i)

perceived observation, (ii) Focus group discussion (iii) Personal interview and

interaction,(iv) case and situation analysis. All these collected data, information, inputs

were analysed with the help of quantitative and qualitative tools of data analysis. Simple

statistical tools like percentages, tables, diagrams are used to present the quantitative

data analyzed. Primarily, the method of case study i.e. case and situation analysis was

adopted to analyze the qualitative data so generated.

3.2 Sample Methodology: Sikkim

Out of the 4 districts in the state, in the first stage purposive sampling, 3 districts

were purposively selected with reference to the guidelines given by MRD in consultation

with the concerned officers of the state and with reference to the factors discussed in

the beginning of this chapter. The selected sampled districts constitute about 75 % of

the total number of districts in the state. The selected districts are (i) North District

(Phase I), (ii) East District (Phase-II), (iii) South District (phase-II). Since Sikkim has a

two tier PRI system, in the second stage, from each district, two (2) Gram Panchayats

were purposively selected on the basis of the twin criteria of progress(immediate impact

and link effect) and constraints. These two GPs encompass more than two revenue

blocks. In the third stage, from each GP, four villages were selected. In the fourth stage,

from each selected village, one work was selected. The whole exercise was undertaken

in such a manner that of the 4 selected works in total from a GP three (3) were ongoing

and one (1) work was completed. In the last stage, from each work, 10 workers were

selected at random for administration of a structured questionnaire through personal

interview. Keeping in view, the demand for work under NREGA and the thin population

level of the GPs and Villages in Sikkim, selecting 10 workers from each work was

considered reasonable. Similarly from each village (work) at least 2 GP/GS members

(stake holder-II) and 2 third party members were selected depending on their availability

on the days of the survey for administration of separate sets of structured questionnaire.

27

These selected villages belong to some revenue blocks. Finally in each block, at least

one structured questionnaire was administered to either the BDO or any of his

designated officers (stake holder-IV) along with personal interview. At the district level,

the project officer (PD, DRDA), and deputy commissioners and at the state level the

commissioner-cum-secretary, Department of Community and Rural Development and

the nodal officer of the state for implementation of NREGA were all interviewed with

open ended questions in a discussion mode by the survey team members which

included at least one coordinator. Altogether for the state as a whole, 240 stakeholders-

I, 48 stakeholders-II, 48 stakeholders-III and 11 stakeholders-IV were selected for

survey/interview. This 11 stakeholder-IV includes 6 BDOs or his designated officers.

They were administered a structured questionnaire along with personal open ended

discussion session with the team members. The other 5 stakeholders include 3 project

officers (PO, DRDA), the secretary-cum-commissioner, Rural Development Department,

Govt. of Sikkim and the joint Director, of the same department who is also the nodal

officer, for NREGA implementation in the state. An open ended discussion was held by

our survey team with these five officers on different aspects of NREGA. The following

diagram describes the sample selection.

Fig 2: SIKKIMSample Selection Methodology

DISTRICT 1

GP

V1

W1

V2

W2

V3

W3

V4

W4

GP

V1

W1

V2

W2

V3

W3

V4

W4

DISTRICT 2

DISTRICT 3

GP: Gram Panchayat, V: Village, W: Works

28

3.2.1 Methodology and Tools: Sikkim

The methodology and tools used to undertake the survey work in Sikkim was the same

as in Meghalaya. The only difference is that the GP and Gram Sabha officials

constituted stake holder-II.

CHAPTER-IV

A. FINDINGS & ANALYSIS-SIKKIM

4.1General and Procedural: Positive Impact

4.1.1 Awareness

� Amongst the four stake holders, 95 % of the workers (stakeholder-I), 100% of the

Gram Panchayat and Gram Sabha Members (stakeholder-II), 100% of the Third

party (stake holder-III) and 100% of the District/Block Officers/Officials (stake

holder-IV) are aware of the basic provisions of the NREGA. This speaks about

the efficiency of the state government in creating the required first hand

information on NREGA.

� All the four stakeholders are aware of the fact that there is existence of ‘vigilance

committee’, which mostly hears complaints, shares the information, and resolves

conflicts.

29

� The two important stakeholders i.e. the workers (stakeholder-I) and Gram

Panchayat and Gram Sabha members (stakeholder-II) are fully aware of the

information regarding the budget sanctioned to the village and they are also

assured of no corruption in NREGA works so far.

4.1.2 Demand Process

� All sampled members of stakeholder-I, II and III agree that the registration was

free and easy.

� Eighty percent of the sampled workers agreed that Job cards were given within

15 days of registration.

� Eighty Percent (80%) of the respondents agreed to the fact that the job card was

issued within 15 days of their application. However, 81% of the workers did

specify their required demand of employment.

� Gram Sabha and Gram Panchayat partially guarantee the applicants regarding

the fulfillment of their demand. This was verified when 69% of the respondents

agreed to a question that they received assurance from gram-panchayat

regarding their job demand.

� Eighty four percent (84%) of the workers agreed to have got around 100 days of

employment per year.

� All the workers work 8 hrs per day.

� All the workers are getting employment opportunity within maximum 5 km range

from their village.

4.1.3 Work Process

� Ninety five percent (95 %) of the stakeholder I and II are happy with the choice of

works and they feel that the works taken up are useful for their area.

30

� All the four stakeholders opined that there is no discrimination of wage rate

among male and female workers.

� Most of the NREGA work includes plantation, road connectivity, afforestation,

and irrigation.

� All the payments are made through banks or post offices. In eighty percent (80%)

of the works, the banks and post offices are present within 5 km radius of the

worksite.

� 65% of the workers have joint account in banks or post offices with husband or

wife as the co-signatory. 90% of the workers are happy with the bank process

and procedures.

4.1.4 Execution

� In all cases, the muster rolls are properly maintained.

� All the surveyed four categories of stakeholders opine that there is no evidence

of contractors and middle men. This has also been confirmed during our team’s

focus group discussion.

4.1.5 Records

� Muster roll entries match with the job cards in all cases.

� Asset Register is maintained in all the cases.

4.1.6 Training and Staff

� Gram Rozgar Sewak is available for each gram-Sabha

31

4.2 District wise General and Procedural Positive Impact:

Table 4.1: Workers’ perception on processes and immediate Impact of NREGS-

district wise

Districts Sl. No

Hypothesis

East North South Average

1 Receipt of job card within 15 days of application

58.00 95.00 89.00 80.68

2 Workers Indicate during application the number of job-days required

67.00 82.00 94.00 81.00

2 Gram panchayat provides written receipt of their application for NREGA work which indicates ensuring work within 15 days

26.00 94.00 88.00 69.33

3 NREGA provides 100 days of employment

70.00 94.00 88.00 84.00

4 NREGA work is within 5 km range of worker’s village

80.00 68.00 80.00 76.00

32

5 People are aware of NREGA work coming to their locality

68.00 83.00 92.00 81.00

Source: Field Data

From table 4.1, it is evident that in some of the immediate requirements,

processes and impacts of NREGA, the East district is the laggard district in comparison

to the North and South districts. These tabular findings are presented in the form of bar-

graphs below:

58% percent of the workers in East district of Sikkim have agreed that they

received the job cards within 15 days of application vis-à-vis 73% in North and 95% in

south district (Figure 4.1). The poor response in East district may be because of the

delay in administrative process of issuing job cards or irregular availability of funds for

NREGA works, which does not provide job cards within 15 days of application.

Figure 4.1: District-wise Receipts of Job Card within 15 days of application

33

Figure 4.2: Workers indicating the requirement of number of job-days during

application

82% of NREGA worker in North and 94% in South districts of Sikkim agreed that

they indicated their job requirements during the time of application, which might imply

that the people of North and South districts are in need of more employment as

compared to East district where only 67% of the workers indicate their requirements.

The people of East district may be having other sources of income because of which

they may not be indicating their requirement for NREGA work. Working in NREGA may

be a secondary choice for them.

Figure 4.3 represents the response of workers to a question “whether the Gram

Panchayat provides a written document ensuring job grant within 15 days of the

application”. 88% in South district and 94% in the North district agreed that they are

getting assurance from the GP that they will be provided jobs within 15 days of their

application. However, in East district only 26% of the workers agreed to this. The reason

may be because of the non-availability of NREGA jobs in the pipeline, which in turn may

34

be because of lack of proper co-ordination and planning with readiness for NREGA

works or may be because of non-availability of funds.

Figure 4.3: Written assurance from GP ensuring job within 15 days of application

Figure 4.4 provides the response of the workers to a question “whether NREGA

provides 100 days of annual job guarantee?”. On an average, more than 84% of the

workers have reported that they are able to get 100 days of annual employment in the

NREGA scheme. This figure is the highest in the north district of Sikkim.

35

Figure 4.4: District-wise findings whether workers get 100 days of annual

employment in NREGA scheme”

Figure 4.5: Distance of NREGA work from the workers’ village

36

The distance of work-site from the residents of the workers has an effect on the

productivity of the NREGA work. On an average 76 % of the respondents opined that

they get work within 5 km range of their village (Fig 4.5).

Figure 4.6: Workers’ response on NREGA work coming to their locality

Figure 4.6 represents the district wise findings of workers’ response regarding

their awareness of availability of NREGA work. On an average, 81% of the workers in

three selected districts of Sikkim reported that they are well aware of the availability of

NREGA work. This indicates the transparency of the Government machinery of Sikkim

regarding implementation and execution of works under NREGA.

4.3 Extended and Chain Impact: District wise

Table 4.2 below reports the workers’ perception on link and Chain impact of NREGS

37

Table 4.2: Workers’ Perception and Link & Chain Impact of NREGS

Districts Sl. No

Hypothesis


1. Improvement of primary and secondary activities of workers after working in NREGA

84.00 73.00 95.00 84.00

2 NREGA has added sufficiently to the family income of workers

63.00 62.00 69.00 64.67

3 Workers are paid through banks/post offices 74.00 98.00 44.00 72.00

4 Workers have banks/post offices within 5 km in their locality

68.00 92.00 85.00 81.67

5 Opened up ACs in bank/Po because of NREGA

80.00 98.00 100.00 92.67

6 Working together in a group under NREGA; people are able to obtain different information pertaining to their society, the state, and the country

89.00 94.00 100.00 94.33

7 Gathering of more information from co-workers on health related issues(For women workers)

92.00 95.00 100.00 95.67

8 Accessing health facilities better after working in NREGA(Women informants)

92.00 93.00 96.00 93.67

9 NREGA helps the people in purchasing low cost asset for their family

31.00 73.00 62.00 55.33

10 Better life style is achieved by working together in NREGA

95.00 100.00 100.00 98.33

11 NREGA provides food security to the workers

88.00 94.00 92.00 91.33

Source: same as in table 4.1 above

4.3.1 Creation of Supplementary Income:

More than 84% of the workers agreed that, NREGA has given them additional

income, as result of which, their primary and secondary activities have improved.

Primary activities refer to the primary occupation of the workers like farming, agricultural

labour, small business, etc. Secondary activities are those activities that add to the

income of the people besides their primary activities. By working in NREGA, the

workers have been able to improve their primary and secondary activities because of

38

their extra income and savings from NREGA. The Figure 4.7 represents the proportion

of people who agreed to the above said hypothesis in different districts of Sikkim.

Figure 4.7: District-wise findings of Sikkim regarding “Improvement of primary

and secondary activities of workers after working in NREGA”

This findings read with the (i) finding with respect to 65 % worker saying that

NREGA has sufficiently added up to their household income and (ii) third party finding of

80 % informants agreeing to the fact that the standard of living of the people who

worked in NREGA has improved during the last three years, reconfirms strongly the

hypothesis that NREGA has supplemented the income of the worker households.

4.3.2 Ensuring Food Security:

About 91.3 percent workers who worked/working in NREGA opined that they

have been able to arrange their households’ daily food requirements after working in

NREGA. This coupled with the other finding that 86 % of the workers feel that they are

comfortable in having sufficient food after working in NREGA establishes the positive

correlation between Food Security and NREGA.

39

4.3.3 Financial Inclusion:

Financial inclusion and social empowerment are closely related. One of the

stipulations of NREGA is that the payment for the work should be made through bank

/post office accounts. In the context of Sikkim, on an average 72 % of the workers are

paid their wages through banks/post offices. In North district, about 98 % of the workers

are paid through banks/post offices. Figure 4.8 shows the district wise situation with

regard to payment of such wages.

Figure 4.8: District-wise findings of Sikkim regarding workers’ mode of payment

Figure 4.9: Workers have opened up bank/post office accounts because of

NREGA

40

Further, about 93 % of the workers opined that they have opened up accounts in

banks and post offices because of NREGA. This figure goes to 100% in South district

and 98% in North district. This amply vindicates the fact that NREGA has been

instrumental in bringing the poor to the world of banking and organized financial

institutions like post offices. This also enhances their level of confidence and acts as a

source of social and economic empowerment.

4.3.4 Reduction in Information Asymmetry and Knowledge Empowerment:

NREGS provides a platform or forum for workers to gather at one place and

helps in sharing various information regarding their village, block, state, country, and

surrounding environment, which helps in increasing general awareness of workers. 94

% of the workers for the state agreed that their information base has been increased

because of NREGS (Figure 4.10). 100 % of the workers in South district agreed that

their knowledge and information base has increased because of working together under

NREGA. About 96% of women workers surveyed are of the opinion that they have been

able to gather information on health related problems through interaction with their

coworkers while working in NREGS. Around 94 % of the women workers felt that they

have been able to access health facilities better after working in NREGA.

Figure 4.10: Impact of NREGS on knowledge empowerment of workers

41

4.3.5 Social Empowerment and Confidence Building:

About 93 percent of the workers surveyed feel happy after communicating with

bank officials. This figure is more than 90 % for all the three surveyed districts of Sikkim.

Similarly, 92% of the workers conveyed the message that their confidence level has

increased after working in NREGA and interacting with the government officials.

4.4 District wise Findings: A Third Party Perspective

Table 4.3: Results of district wise findings of responses of third-party

stakeholders in Sikkim

Districts Sl. No

Hypothesis East North South Average

1 2006-2008 has shown good development in standard of living in rural area

93.00 94.00 93.00 93.30

2 NREGA is boon to the society 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

3 NREGA has bought socio-economic changes in the village level

100.00 94.00 100.00 98.00

4 Improvement in the life of women folk because of NREGA

93.00 88.00 93.00 91.30

5 Implementation of NREGA scheme has brought better co-operation between people and administration

71.00 88.00 100.00 86.30

6 NREGA has helped in curbing migration of people from village to outside

100.00 94.00 28.00 74.00

7 NREGA scheme is a better alternative for them who don’t have any other job in hand

71.00 94.00 100.00 88.30

8 There is perceived positive impact of NREGA on child education enrolment

64.00 82.00 64.00 70.00

9 The school drop-out problem in villages is slightly improved

71.00 76.00 78.00 75.00

10 Good communication system has been developed in villages because of NREGA

71.00 82.00 100.00 84.30

11 A common forum is created for people who work in NREGA together

64.00 58.00 100.00 74.00

Source: same as in table 4.1 above

42

The survey team also went to different stakeholders in the village and collected

information regarding the NREGS and its impact through a structured questionnaire.

The consolidated summary of the responses are presented in Table 4.4.1. The results

are shown in the form of Bar-graph and the analyses of the results are also carried out.

4.4.1 Improvement in Standard of Living:

More than 90% of the third-party stakeholders reported that there has been

significant development in the standard of living of the people in the rural areas during

2006-2008 (Figure 4.11). They perceive that this is because of the implementation of

NREGS in the rural areas. More than 90% of third-party stakeholders in all the three

districts agreed that NREGS is a boon to the society and it has been able to change the

socio-economic status of people in the village as well as improve the life of women folk

in the rural areas.

Figure 4.11: Improvement in standard of living during 2006-2008

43

4.4.2 Building of Mutual Trust: The Essence of Community Living

More than 70% Third-party stakeholders in East (71%), North (88%), and South

(100%) districts of Sikkim reported that NREGS has brought better co-operation

between people and Govt. administration (Figure 4.12). This also indicates positive

impact of NREGS providing better governance in the rural areas.

Figure 4.12: Third-party Stakeholders: whether NREGS helps in bringing better

co-operation between people and Govt. administration.

4.4.3 Reduction in Distress Migration:

Another induced impact of NREGS is expected to curb rural-urban migration.

When the Third-party stakeholders were asked a question whether NREGS has curbed

migration of people from rural to urban area in search of employment; more than 90% of

them in East and North agreed to it, however, only 28% of the Third-party stakeholders

in South district of Sikkim agreed (Figure 4.13). That means; in South district the

positive impact of NREGS in curbing rural-urban migration is poor. In South district of

Sikkim, the men are not attracted to the NREGS works because of the low wage

payment compared to other jobs in urban areas. Hence, most of the men in South

district move towards urban area in search of work, where the wage rate is higher.

44

Figure4.13: District-wise findings of Sikkim: perception of third-party

stakeholders regarding impact of NREGS in curbing rural-urban migration

Figure 4.14: Perception of third-party stakeholders, whether NREGS is better

alternative source of income to those who have no other job

45

4.4.4 Source of Off-Season employment:

71% of the Third-party stakeholders in East, 91% in North, and 100% (Figure

4.14) in South district agreed that NREGS is definitely providing a better source of

income when people are having no jobs at all. This indicates that the purpose of

creating employment through NREGS is achieved in the three districts of Sikkim.

Figure 4.15: District-wise findings of Sikkim: perception of third-party

stakeholders regarding positive impact of NREGS on child education

4.4.5 Increase in School Enrollment and Reduction in Drop-out Rate

Because of 100 days guaranteed wage employment in rural areas, the

supplementary income of the rural family, which was generally coming earlier from child

employment, could be avoided because of NREGA. Hence NREGS has helped the

children going to school rather than working for supplementary income to the family. To

test this effect, we have asked a question to the Third-party stakeholders, whether

NREGS has positive impact in child education enrolment. 64% of them in East and

South and 82% of them in North district agreed to this (Figure 4.15). Further working in

46

NREGS also reduced school drop-out cases in rural areas. 71% of the Third-party

stakeholders in East, 76% in North, and 78% in South district of Sikkim reported that

there is slight reduction in school drop-out rate (Figure4.16).

Figure 4.16: Perception of third-party stakeholders regarding impact of NREGS on

school drop-out cases

Figure 4.17: District-wise findings of Sikkim: perception of third-party

stakeholders regarding impact of NREGS on communication development.

47

4.4.6 Improvement in Physical Infrastructure:

71% of the Third-party stakeholders in East, 82% in North, and 100% in South

district of Sikkim (Figure 4.17) reported that there is definitely improvement in

communication in rural areas because of NREGS. This is because; most of the works

taken up include road and foot-path construction.

Figure 4.18: Perception of Third-party Stakeholders, whether NREGS provides a

common forum to the workers.

4.4.7 Social Capital Building

NREGS provides a common place for the people to work together for 8 hours.

This provides a common forum for the people in rural areas. Besides working together,

this forum is supposed to create among the workers the spirit of social cohesion. To

examine the hypothesis; we have asked a question to the Third-party stakeholders,

whether a common forum is really created because of NREGS. 64% of the respondents

in East, 58% in North, and 100% in South district (Figure 4.18) agreed to this. Sitting

together in the work-site for having lunch is the most effective time that provides a forum

48

to the workers. This vindicates our earlier finding of enhancement of knowledge and

information base of the workers in the rural areas through NREGS.

4.5. Stakeholder’s-II perception on positive impact: Sikkim

Table 4.4: Findings from Gram Panchayat Officials’ Perspective on positive

impacts of NREGA

Sl No

Information Options Sikkim Analysis

A. Less than 50. 13.33 B. More than 50 60.00 C. More than 100 26.67

1. How many people applied for manual

labour under NREGA?

D. More than 200 0.00

More than 50 number of people applied for

NREGA job in most of the village

A. Yes 80.00 2. Have all of them been employed? B. No 20.00

80% chance is that anybody is applying is

going to be been employed

A. Lack of Fund 100.00 B. Limited nos. of

Job Cards being given

0.00

C. No proper planning

0.00

3. If No, state the reasons.

D. Others (Specify) 0.00

100% chance is that they may not be

employed because of lack of fund

4. How many households belonging to BPL

category have been employed under

NREGA?

86.67 86.67% HHs are BPL

A. Plantation 13.33 B. Afforestation 0.00 C. Road

Construction 13.33

5. What are the kinds of work that have been done in your village under the NREGA

Scheme? D.Land Development (irrigation, footpath etc) 93.33

Around 93% of the NREGA work is

executed for Land Development.

A. Yes 93.33 6.

Are Job Cards freely given?

B. No

6.67

There is 93% chance of getting the job card

freely A. Yes 100.00

7.

Do job cards have photograph of the

household members registered?

B. No 0.00 All the job cards are

with photographs

49

A. Yes 85.71 8. Are applications

submitted for employment?

B. No

14.29

86% village stakeholders agreed that there has to be

written application for seeking jobs

A. Yes 85.71 9 Is dated receipt issued by Gram Panchayat?

B. No 14.29 86% village

stakeholders agreed that Gram Panchayat issue receipt of the

application A. Yes 100.00 10

Were Gram Sabhas convened to select

works?

B. No 0.00 All the places reported

that Gram sabha is involved in the

selection of work. A. Yes 100.00 11 Have priorities of Gram

Sabha been maintained in the formulation of GP

development Plan?

B. No 0.00 All the Gramsabhas

keep the GP development plan as the first priority while deciding any NREGS

work. A. Yes 100.00 12 Are local people happy

with the choice of works?

B. No 0.00 All the local people are happy with the choice of work i.e. No conflict among the villagers

A. Yes 84.62 13 Do the village has an approved shelf of

projects of at least five works with technical and financial estimates ready

to start when employment demand is

received?

B. No 15.38 . There is 85% chance

that every village is always ready with at least 5 works with

technical and financial estimates to start.

A. Yes 100.00 14 Have only the permissible works been

taken up? B. No 0.00

The works being carried out so far is

under the provision of types of permissible

jobs defined in NREGA.

A. Yes 100.00 15 Are the works taken up useful? B. No 0.00

All the works are useful

A. Good 73.33 B. Satisfactory 26.67 C. Bad 0.00

16 What does the quality of work looks like?

D. Can't Say 0.00

There is 73.3% chance is that the work under NREGS is 'good' and 26.67% chance is that the work is satisfactory

A. Yes 26.67 17

Are workers without job cards working on work

B. No 73.33 There is only 26.67% chance that a worker without job card can be allowed to work in

50

sites? the worksite. A. Yes 100.00 18 Are works in progress

being technically supervised regularly? B. No 0.00

It has been agreed by the GP officials that all

the works are technically supervised

A. Yes 100.00 19 Does a Muster Roll entry match with the job cards

especially in term of days worked?

B. No 0.00 All the muster-roll

entry match with the job cards in terms of

days worked A. Yes 100.00 20 Does a Muster Roll entry

match with the job cards especially in term of

amount paid? B. No 0.00

All the muster-roll entry match with the job cards in terms of

amount paid A. Yes 86.67 21 Is work completed

recorded in the Asset Register?

B. No 13.33 86.67% of GP officials

agreed that asset register keeps the information of work completed and the assets purchased

A. Yes 86.67 22 Is Gram Rozgar Sewak available for each Village/Dorbar?

B. No 13.33 87% of GRS is

available in almost all villages

A. Yes 100.00 23 Is there a technical assistant (junior

engineer) for a group of Village/Dorbar to

supervise, measure?

A. No 0.00 JE is available for all the villages for the

technical supervision of work

A. Yes 93.33 Gram Rozgar Sewak

B. No 6.67

A. Yes 92.86 Panchayat Secretary (if he is handling NREGA)

B. No 7.14

A. Yes 78.57 Sarpanchs/Ward

members B. No 21.43

A. Yes 93.33

24 Have the following been trained?

Vigilance Monitoring Committe

e Members

B. No 6.67

Except a few of the Sarpanchs, more than

90% of the GP officials including

Gram Rozgar Sewak, Panchayat Secretary

(if he is handling NREGA), and

Vigilance Monitoring Committee Members are perceived to be trained regarding

NREGA and NREGS.

A. Yes 100.00 25 Have works been

inspected by district/Block /State

functionaries?

B. No 0.00 All the works under NREGS have been

inspected by State/District/Block

functionaries

51

A. Yes 100.00 26 Has social audit of all works been

done? B. No 0.00

Social audit has been done for all the works

A. Yes 100.00 27 Was the Gram Sabha and the

workers involved? B. No 0.00

Gram Sabha was involved everywhere for during social audit

A. Yes 100.00 28 Do you receive

information regarding the

sanction budget for your village

B. No 0.00

There is transparency between Block and

GP level regarding the money sanctioned for

NREGS work

A. At a Time 84.62 29 If yes, do you receive the entire budget amount

sanctioned to your village?

B. In installments

15.38

There is 84.62% chance that the

budget sanctioned will come at a time.

A. Yes 86.67

B. No 13.33

30 Is there any mate being recruited

through NREGA?

B. No 33.33

There is 86.67% chance that you will find mate recruited through NREGA

A. Yes 92.86

31 Has the NREGA scheme been a boon

to the locality? B. No

7.14

93% of the GP officials considers

NREGA as a boon to the society

A. Infrastructural Development 73.33

B. Seasonal Employment to the people 66.67

32 What are the kinds of development

taking place since the implementation

of the scheme?

C. Social cohesion 73.33

More than 60% of the GP officials agree that

infrastructural development,

Seasonal employment and social cohesion have taken place in

the village.

Source: Field Data

52

4.6 General and Procedural Constraints

4.6.1 Workers’ Perception: Constraints

Table 4.5: Workers’ Perception and Constraints

Districts Sl. No

Hypothesis


1 Availability of facilities at worksite

35.0 88.0 31.0 51.3

2 Sometimes people have to wait long time ( 15-30 days) for payment after work is over

21.0 37.0 80.0 46.0

Source: Field data

Figure 4.19 provides the response of workers regarding availability of facilities at the

worksite. 49% of the workers responded that there were no facilities like childcare,

drinking water, shades, etc. available in NREGA work site. In East and South district

only 65% and 69% respectively agreed that different facilities are not provided at the

worksite.

Figure 4.19: District-wise findings of Sikkim on availability of different facilities at

the worksite

46 percent of the workers agreed that they had to wait more than 15 days to

receive the payment for their work. Long delay has been perceived by the workers in

South district (80% workers agreed) related to the payment after NREGS work is over.

53

This may be because of procedural delay in the process or non availability of sufficient

and timely fund flow. However, in East and North district, only 21% and 37% of the

workers respectively (Figure 4.20) responded that there is delay in payment.

Figure 4.20: Delay in Wage Payment.

Table 4.5: District wise findings of responses on constraints of third-party

stakeholders in Sikkim

4.6.2 Third Party Perception: Constraints

Table 4.6: Third party perception on constraints

Districts Hypothesis

East North South Average 1 Most of the third party are not aware of the

amount of money sanctioned to their village 78.0 64.0 57.0 66.3

2 General complaint by people regarding NREGA

B. Work have to be discontinued due to lack of fund

57.1 23.5 42.9 41.2

C. Wages not received within the stipulated time

14.3 82.4 71.4 56.0

3. There is community development occurred in the village through the forum created in NREGA leading to formation of social groups

7.0 29.0 64.0 33.3

4. There is no financial institution among the villagers created because of NREGA

71.0 88.0 85.0 81.3

Source: field data

54

57% of the Third-party stakeholders in East and 42% in South district reported

that there is pause of NREGS work in their locality because of irregular fund-flow

(Figure 4.21). In addition to this, 82% of the Third-party stakeholders in the North district

and 71% in South district claimed that there is delay in wage payment. There could be

procedural delay in North and South districts in wage payment, which causes delay in

wage payment.

Figure 4.21: District-wise findings of Sikkim regarding perception of Third-party

Stakeholders about various types of complaints regarding NREGA

The common forum created in the NREGS work-site is supposed to lead to the

formation of different social groups. Only 33% of the third party stakeholders surveyed

opined that working in NREGA has led to formation of social groups. Only 7% and 29%

of the Third-party stakeholders in East and North district respectively agreed to such a

possibility. However, no formal social groups like clubs, committee, etc, so far have

55

been reported in any of the districts. This may be because of less lead time. In the

future, different social groups may be expected to come up with time. Different social

groups also include financial institutions like micro-finance groups or co-operatives.

However, no financial institutes have yet been formed in the rural areas (Figure 4.22).

Figure 4.22: Perception of Third-party Stakeholders regarding impact of NREGS

in creating financial institutions in the rural area.

56

4.6.3 Stakeholder-II Perception: Constraints

Table 4.7: Findings from Gram Panchayat Officials’ Perspective on constraints

Sl No

Information Options Response Analysis

1. Are photographs free of

cost?

A. Yes

78.57

There is only 21% chance that worker has to pay for the

photographs 2.

Who has custody of job cards?

A. Workers 71.43 There is 28.57% chance that job card

has been under a different custody

other than the card holder

A. Yes 13.33 7. Are minors on Job Cards? B.No 86.67

There is only 13.3% chance that a minor

can get job in NREGS

3. List of approved works on public display in

Village

53.33 Around 47% of the works are not under

public display A. Yes 53.33

B. No 40.00

4. Are complaints register available at GP level?

C. Don’t know 6.67

There is around 47% chance that you will not find

complaint register at GP level

A. Yes 46.67 5. If there is a mate, has she /he undergo any

training? B. No 53.33

53% chance is that the mate recruited has not undergone

formal training regarding NREGA

and NREGS Source: same as in table 4.1

4.7 Case Study

Two blocks namely Duga and Khamdong in East District of Sikkim were identified

for case-study analysis. These two blocks were purposively selected after thorough

discussion with the concerned state government officers. These blocks had experienced

good innovative practices in NREGA works and some efficient management practices

too. Our personal observation in the first visit tempted us to take them subsequently as

57

case studies in regard to evaluate the link and chain impacts of NREGS in these blocks.

The summary of the case studies are presented as follows.

CASE 1: DUGA BLOCK

Our research team comprising of Prof. B.Panda, Prof. S. Prusty, of IIM Shillong.

Dr. Sandip, Joint Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Govt. of Sikkim and

nodal Officer, NREGA and a few research staff visited Duga Block on 24.02.2009. We

were given a warm welcome by the BDO and his team of Officers including some

elected representatives of the Gram Panchayat and Block. After an initial introductory

and briefing session at the block office by the BDO and his Officers, we proceeded to

visit some of the worksites where works were going on and have been completed under

NREGA.

Figure 4.23: Administrative Block Office of Duga Block

1. Works Visited and Good Practices: General good practices in Duga block of

Sikkim were found to be development of minor irrigation channels, rejuvenation of old

orange orchards.

58

a. We first visited one ongoing work i.e. rejuvenation of an old orange orchard at Ralong

Ward. The orchard belongs to a private person and was not currently productive

because it was old and not properly maintained. The particular owner was also not able

to rejuvenate the orchard to its productive form because of his financial infeasibility. The

village Gram-Sabha decided to rejuvenate the orchard through the intervention of

NREGA scheme and the proposal was accepted by the higher NREGA implementing

authority. Rejuvenation work involved the cleaning of the fungus attack and taking

management practices to prevent the insect attack to the orange plants. The work was

found to be interesting in terms of economic development. On the day of visit we found

18 workers working in this orchard. We had thorough discussion on different aspects of

impact of this work with the (i) workers, (ii) the Gram Sabha and GP members, (iii)

Some other residents of this village (iii) The BDO, Assistant Engineer and Horticulture

Officer of the Block.

Figure 4.24: NREGS Information Display of Orange Rejuvenation

Work

59

2. We observed/studied the following positive impacts

a. Best Practices: Rejuvenation of private orchards which was a common

source of livelihood to most of the people in that particular village.

b. Innovations:

(i) Fusion of employment generation through NREGA and technical empowerment

of villagers/workers through the expertise provided by the Horticulture officer.

(ii) Convergence among the various (i) line departments like Horticulture,

Community & Rural development, irrigation (ii) convergence of minds, (iii) convergence

of skills.

(iii) The rejuvenation in a private land by other villagers showed the development of

community feelings among the villagers. This is social capital creation.

(iv) The spillover benefits of this work under NREGA are visible in this particular

work and is acknowledged by all the stakeholders. When the private asset like orchard

is rejuvenated by the help of the community, the direct benefit obviously goes to the

particular owner of the asset. However, when this particular type of work is replicated for

different people having orchards or other works, then everybody is benefitted and the

community as a whole is benefitted. The consequential benefits like preserving green

cover, avoiding soil erosion accrue to everyone residing in the village and nearby.

(v) Community deciding to work for individual and subsequent replication also leads

to the creation of social assets in form of community cohesion and trust. This was

gracefully acknowledged by every villager.

(vi) This kind of experimentation helps in avoiding the tragedy of commons problem

visible in the mainland. Public assets/properties are prone to destruction because of

neglect of common man in maintaining it. When the workers under NREGA work in

private orchards, the ownership of the property is well taken care of. The convergence

of the institution of private property with the interventionist ethos and practices of the

Government in the form of NREGA ensures that the property is well taken care of along

60

with employment generation and social capital building and reduction in moral hazard

in community living.

3. Role of Leadership: The leadership quality of BDOs was the major factor for the

successful implementation of NREGA work. Following are the major leadership

characteristics found in the BDO of this studied block, which made all the difference to

his work.

� Punctuality

� Full of Motivation

� Pleasant Personality

� Good Communication Skill and Rapo-building

� Committed

� Indentifying with the community

� Belief in the primacy of team spirit

� Working with Passion

4. Constraints: We observed a few constraints like: (i) lack of any governmental

provision of financial support to the different line officers who provide technical expertise

to the NREGA work, which sometimes reduces the enthusiasm and dampens the spirit

of the line officers.

CASE2: KHAMDONG BLOCK (Figure 4.25)

61

We visited Khamdong Block on 27.03.2009. Accompanied by the BDO Mr.

Karma Lepcha, we visited a number of ongoing and completed worksites. Our

observation is as follows:

:

Figure 4.25: Administrative Block Office of Khamdong Block

1. Good Practices: General good practices in Khamdong block were diversified in

nature. Those include the land development through terracing, rejuvenation of old

orange orchard, plantation, and market place and tourist centre development.

2. Overcoming Tragedy of Commons Problem: Land development work was

undertaken in village Makha in Khamdong block. The land belonged to an individual and

was basically rocky and of poor quality in nature without any productive capacity. The

owner of the land is also poor without having any alternative source of employment. The

Gram-Sabha decided to develop the land and make it productive such that the owner

will be able to cultivate crops there. Since the ownership rests with the owner, the

62

tragedy of commons problem is taken care of. On the other hand, the benefits in terms

of soil erosion, land stability and flood control accrue to the community as a whole.

Figure 4.26: Completed Land Development work under NREGS

63

Figure 4.27: New Orange Orchard Plantation under NREGS in Dung Dung

Village.

3. Orange Plantation and Rejuvenation of Old Orange Orchard: We visited a

completed NREGA work in village Dung Dung in Khamdong block of Sikkim

where the plantation of new orange plant was completed (Figure 4.27). The old

orchard was infringed with young orange plants keeping in view of the

depreciation of old plants and ensuring future productivity of the orchard.

4. We observed/studied the following positive impacts

a. Best Practices: Rejuvenation of private orchards which was a common source of

livelihood to most of the people in that particular village.

b. Innovations:

(i). Fusion of employment generation through NREGA and technical empowerment

of villagers/workers through the expertise provided by the Horticulture officer.

(ii). Convergence among the various (i) line departments like Horticulture,

community and Rural Development, Irrigation and Flood Control (ii) convergence of

minds, (iii) convergence of skills.

(iii).The rejuvenation in a private land by other villagers showed the development of

community feelings among the villagers. This is social capital creation.

(iv).The spillover benefits of this work under NREGA is visible in this particular

work and is acknowledged by all the stakeholders. When the private asset like orchard

is rejuvenated by the help of the community, the direct benefit obviously goes to the

particular owner of the asset. However, when this particular type of work is replicated for

different people having orchards or other works, then everybody is benefitted and the

64

community as a whole is benefitted. The consequential benefits like preserving green

cover, avoiding soil erosion accrue to everyone residing in the village and nearby.

(v). Community deciding to work for individual and subsequent replication also leads

to the creation of social assets in form of community cohesion and trust. This was

gracefully acknowledged by every villager.

(vi). This kind of experimentation helps in avoiding the tragedy of commons

problem visible in the mainland. Public assets/properties are prone to destruction

because of neglect of common man in maintaining it. When the workers under NREGA

work in private orchards, the ownership of the property is well taken care of. The

convergence of the institution of private property with the interventionist ethos and

practices of the Government in the form of NREGA ensures that the property is well

taken care of along with employment generation and social capital building and

reduction in moral hazard in community living.

5. Role of Leadership: The leadership quality of BDOs was the major factor for the

successful implementation of NREGA work. Following are the major leadership

characteristics found in the BDO of this studied block, which made all the difference to

his work.

• Punctuality

• Full of Motivation

• Pleasant Personality

• Good Communication Skill and Rapo-building

• Thinking out-of-the box

• Visionary

• Committed

65

• Indentifying with the community

• Belief in the primacy of team spirit

• Working with Passion

6. Constraints: We observed an important constraint i.e. lack of any governmental

provision of financial support to the different line officers who provide technical expertise

to the NREGA work, which sometimes reduces the enthusiasm and dampens the spirit

of the officers.

7. Development of market place (Figure 4.28): We visited a completed NREGA work

in Khamdong block of Sikkim where a market place is developed through the

intervention of NREGA.

Figure 4.28: Board showing Development of Market Place under NREGS in

Khamdong Block

i. Best Practices: Creation of market place and platform for tourist

attraction.

66

ii. Innovations: Fusion of employment generation through NREGA,

creation of common market place and promotion of tourism, which

gives a holistic cascading effect of NREGA work.

iii. Constraints: As such no such extraordinary constraints were found.

4.7.1 General Findings from the Case Study

Best Practices: The following best practices were observed

1. Development of minor irrigation channels for irrigation purposes in public area.

2. Rejuvenation of private orange orchards for enhanced productivity.

3. Land development for creation of public physical platform for multipurpose use like

playground, public functions, market place, etc.

4. Land development through terracing.

5. Creation of new orange orchards by putting new orange plants in the old orchards.

6. Development of market place for a common platform for buying and selling of

commodities.

Innovations

1. Fusion of employment generation and technical empowerment of villagers.

2. Convergence among various line departments of administration for the purpose of

socio-economic development.

3. Community feeling is created among the villagers as they worked together for the

direct benefit of their fellow villager.

67

4. Indirect way of externalization of benefits through asset developments in the private

properties.

5. Creation of social cohesion and social capital.

6. Avoiding tragedy of commons dilemma.

7. Cultural sustainability through creation of land development.

8. Prevention of soil erosion and enhancing land stability through terracing which

enhances environmental sustainability.

9. Creation of common market place which enhances the salebility of commodities

which reduces the middle-men interference and increases the profitability in turn leads

to financial sustainability.

10. The market place also attracts tourists which promotes the tourism and revenue

generation from tourism.

Constraints

1. Lack of administrative financial support to the different line officers of the block who

have a positive role in the efficient execution of work, which sometimes affects their

motivation.

2. Lack of technical expertise in the planning and executing the work sometimes

reduces the technical quality of the work.

In general, some other constraints were observed.

1. The supervision of NREGA works also found to be not well managed because of lack

of proper training of the supervisor.

2. The stakeholders are not aware of the full and comprehensive objective of NREGA,

i.e. why-, what for- NREGA, which is needed to be understood by them for success of

the scheme in long-term future.

68

Comparison between NREGA works in Duga Block and Khamdong Block shows

that in both cases the dynamic leadership of the BDOs has made the NREGA works

very successful. However, there is one factor that has made a little difference to the

impact density and that is the visionary and out of box thinking attribute of the

Khamdong BDO. The way he has linked up NREGA works and the three elements of

sustainable development i.e. economic sustainability (through development of market

place, tourist centre, land productivity enhancement), social sustainability (through

participation of workers, social capital creation) and environmental sustainability

(through orange plant cultivation, land terracing) is praiseworthy and needs to be

replicated in other north eastern states having similar geo-socio-economic conditions.

He has used NREGA as process of development unlike some others who use it as an

end in itself.

B. FINDINGS & ANALYSIS-MEGHALAYA

4.8 General and Procedural: Positive Impact

4.8.1 Awareness

� Amongst the four stake holders, 55% of the workers (stakeholder-I), 65% of the

AEC and VEC Members (stakeholder-II), 60% of the Third party (stake holder-III)

and 95% of the District/Block Officers/Officials (stake holder-IV) are aware of the

basic provisions of NREGA.

� The two important stakeholders i.e. the workers (stakeholder-I) and AEC/VEC

Members (stakeholder-II) are fully aware of the information regarding the budget

sanctioned to the village and they are also assured of no corruption in NREGA

work so far.

4.8.2 Demand Process

69

� All sampled members of stakeholder-I, II and III agree that the registration was

free and easy.

� Sixty percent of the sampled workers agreed that Job cards were given within 15

days of registration.

� Sixty percent (60%) of the respondents agreed to the fact that the job card was

issued within 15 days of their application. However, 50% of the workers did

specify their required demand of employment.

� VEC and AEC partially guarantee the applicants regarding the fulfillment of their

demand. This was verified when 72% of the respondents agreed to a question

that they received assurance from VEC/VEC regarding their job demand.

� Fifty percent (50%) of the workers agreed to get around 100 days of employment

per year.

� 48 percent of the workers report to work 8 hrs per day.

4.8.3 Work Process

� Ninety five percent (95%) of the stakeholder I and II are happy with the choice of

works and they feel that the works taken up are useful for their area.

� All the four stakeholders opined that there is no discrimination of wage rate

among male and female workers.

� Most of the NREGA work includes land development, plantation, road

connectivity and irrigation.

4.8.4 Execution

� In all cases, the muster rolls are properly maintained.

� All the surveyed four categories of stakeholders opine that there is no evidence

of contractors and middle men. This has also been confirmed during our teams

focus group discussions.

70

4.8.5 Training and Staff Records

� Muster roll entries match with the job cards in all cases.

� Asset Register is maintained in all the cases.

� Gram Rozgar Sewak is available for each VEC, but due to shortage of staffs

sometimes one Gram Rozgar Sewak is left in charge of more than one VEC.

4.9 District wise General and Procedural Positive Impact: Worker’s

Perception

Table 4.8: Workers’ Perception on processes and immediate Impact of NREGS-

District wise

Districts Sl. No

Hypothesis

South Garo Hills

West Garo hills

East Garo Hills

East Khasi Hills

Ri Bhoi Average

1 Receipt of job card within 15 days of application

48.53 38.57 40.00 73.75 97.65 59.70

2 Workers Indicate during application the number of job-days required

47.06 32.86 32.50 58.75 77.65 49.76

3 Gram Panchayat provides written receipt of their application for NREGA work

67.65 77.14 85.00 50.00 82.35 72.42

71

which indicates ensuring work within 15 days


57.3 25.7 20.0 57.5 89.0 49.90

Source: Field Data

From the table above, it is evident that in some of the immediate requirements,

processes and impacts of NREGA, East Garo Hills district is the laggard district in

comparison to the other districts. This can be attributed to the fact that in this district

NREGA has just been started, i.e. towards the later part of 2008. These tabular findings

are presented in the form of bar-graphs below:

73% to 98 % percent of the workers in East Khasi Hills district and Ri Bhoi district

of Meghalaya have agreed that they are receiving the job cards within 15 days of

application vis-à-vis 49% in South Garo Hills, 39% in West Garo Hills and 40% in East

Garo Hills district (Figure 4.29). The poor response in Garo Hills region may be because

of the delay in administrative process of issuing job cards or irregular availability of

funds for NREGA works, which does not provide job cards within 15 days of application.

Figure 4.29: District-wise Receipts of Job Card within 15 days of application

72

Figure 4.30: Workers indicating the requirement of number of job-days during

application

78% NREGA worker in Ri Bhoi and 59% in East Khasi Hills districts of

Meghalaya agreed that they indicate their job requirements during the time of

application, which might indicate that the people of Ri Bhoi and East Khasi Hills districts

are in the more need of employment in compared to districts in Garo Hills region which

reports a very low percentage less than 50% of the workers indicate their requirements.

73

Figure 4.31: Written assurance from GP ensuring job within 15 days of application

Figure 4.31 represents the response of workers to a question “whether the Gram

Panchayat provides a written document ensuring job grant within 15 days of the

application”. Except for East Khasi Hills district with 50%, more than 65 % of the

workers in the remaining districts agreed that they are getting assurance from the GP

that they will be provided jobs within 15 days of their application. The low response in

East Khasi Hill district may be because of the non-availability of NREGA jobs in the

pipeline, which may be because of lack of proper co-ordination and planning with

readiness for NREGA works or may be because of non-availability/irregular availability

of funds.

74

Figure 4.32: District-wise findings whether workers get 100 days of annual

employment in NREGA scheme

Figure 4.32 provides the response of the workers to a question “whether NREGA

provides 100 days of annual job guarantee?”. 89% of workers in Ri Bhoi district have

reported that they are able to get 100 days of annual employment in the NREGA

scheme. This figure is the highest compared to other districts. West Garo Hills and East

Garo Hills districts reports less than 26 % workers are engaged in NREGA works for the

total 100 days. This can be due to the fact that sometimes works had to be discontinued

due to the non availability of materials.

75

4.10 Extended and Chain Positive Impact: District wise


Districts Sl. No

Hypothesis

South Garo Hills

West Garo hills

East Garo Hills

East Khasi Hills

Ri Bhoi Average

1. Improvement of primary and secondary activities of workers after working in NREGA

68.00 45.70 46.30 65.00 85.00 62.00

2 NREGA has added sufficiently to the family income of workers

31.00 27.10 20.00 62.00 94.00 46.82


55.88 75.71 65.00 58.75 41.18 59.30

4 Working together in a group under NREGA; people are able to obtain different information pertaining to their society, the state, and the country

83.80 90.00 87.50 76.30 65.00 80.52

5 Gathering of more information from co-workers on health related issues(For women workers)

38.20 38.60 22.50 62.50 76.00 47.56

6 Accessing health facilities better after working in NREGA(Women informants)

16.18 25.71 12.50 56.25 77.65 37.66

7 NREGA helps the people in purchasing low cost asset for their family

13.20 22.90 13.80 35.00 39.00 24.80

8 Better life style is achieved by working together in NREGA

64.70 62.90 61.00 65.00 93.00 69.30

9 NREGA provides food security to the workers

50.00 67.10 61.30 73.80 81.00 66.60


76

4.10.1 Creation of Supplementary Income:

More than 62% of the workers agreed that, NREGA has given them additional

income, as result of which, their primary and secondary activities have improved. By

working in NREGA, the workers have been able to improve their primary and secondary

activities because of their extra income and savings from NREGA. The Figure 4.33

represents the proportion of people agreed to the above said hypothesis in different

district of Meghalaya.

Figure 4.33: District-wise findings of Meghalaya regarding “Improvement of

primary and secondary activities of workers after working in NREGA”

More than 50% of the informants agree that the standard of living of the people

who worked in NREGA has improved during the last three years in South Garo Hills,

East Khasi Hills and Ri Bhoi districts, which reconfirms strongly the hypothesis that

NREGA has supplemented the income of the worker households.

77

4.10.2 Ensuring Food Security:

About 67 % workers who worked/working in NREGA opined that they have been

able to arrange their households’ daily food requirements after working in NREGA. This

coupled with the other finding that 67 % of the workers feel that they are comfortable in

having sufficient food after working in NREGA establishes the positive correlation

between Food Security and NREGA.

4.10.3 Reduction in Information Asymmetry and Knowledge Empowerment:

NREGS provides a platform or forum for workers to gather at one place and

helps in sharing various information regarding state, country, and surrounding

environment, which helps in increasing general awareness of workers. 81 % of the

workers for the state agreed that their information base has been increased because of

NREGS (Figure 4.34). More than 80 % of the workers in Garo Hills Region agreed that

their knowledge and information base has increased because of working together under

NREGA. About 48% of women workers surveyed are of the opinion that they have been

able to gather information on health related problems through interaction with their co

workers while working in NREGS. Around 38 % of the women workers felt that they

have been able to access health facilities better after working in NREGA.

Figure 4.34: Impact of NREGS on knowledge empowerment of workers

78

4.11 District wise Findings: A Third Party Perspective on positive

impacts

The survey team also went to different stakeholders in the village and collected

information regarding the NREGS and its impact through a structured questionnaire.

The consolidated summary of the responses are presented in Table 4.10. The results

are shown in the form of Bar-graph and the analyses of the results are also carried out.

4.11.1 Improvement in Standard of Living:

More than 82 % of the Third-party stakeholders reported that there has been

significant development in the standard of living of the people in the rural areas during

2006-2008 (Figure 4.35). They perceive that this is because of the implementation of

NREGS in the rural areas. More than 100% of Third-party stakeholders in all the three

districts agreed that NREGS is a boon to the society and it has been able to change the

socio-economic status of people in the village as well as improve the life of women folk

in the rural areas.

Figure 4.35: Improvement in standard of living during 2006-2008

79

Table 4.10: Results of district wise findings of responses of third-party

stakeholders in Meghalaya

Districts

Hypothesis South

Garo

Hills

West

Garo

Hills

East

Garo

Hills

East

Khasi

Hills

Ri

Bhoi Average

1 2006-2008 has shown good

development in standard of

living in rural area

60.00 68.75 80.00 100.00 100.00 81.75

2 NREGA is boon to the

society 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

3 NREGA has bought socio-

economic changes in the

village level

100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

4 Improvement in the life of

women folk because of

NREGA

40.00 81.25 100.00 90.00 66.67 75.58

5 Implementation of NREGA

scheme has brought better

co-operation between

people and administration

50.00 52.17 46.67 50.00 50.00 49.77

6 NREGA has helped in

curbing migration of people

from village to outside

80.00 43.75 40.00 50.00 33.33 49.42

7 NREGA scheme is a better

alternative for them who

don’t have any other job in

hand

80.00 100.00 87.50 100.00 66.67 86.83

8 There is perceived positive

impact of NREGA on child

education enrolment

40.00 53.33 28.57 22.22 66.67 42.16

9 The school drop-out

problem in villages is

slightly improved

0.00 37.50 26.67 11.11 66.67 28.39

10 Good communication

system has been

developed in villages

because of NREGA

0.00 76.92 84.62 33.33 100.00 58.97

11 A common forum is created

for people who work in

NREGA together

40.00 50.00 71.43 33.33 33.33 45.62

Source: Field Data

80

4.11.2 Building of Mutual Trust: The Essence of Community Living

Except for East Garo Hills with 47 %, about 50% Third-party stakeholders in all

the other districts of Meghalaya reported that NREGS has brought better co-operation

between people and Govt. administration (Figure 4.36). This also indicates positive

impact of NREGS providing better governance in the rural area.

Figure 4.36: Third-party Stake holders: whether NREGS helps in bringing better

co-operation between people and Govt. administration.

4.11.3 Reduction in Distress Migration:

Another induced impact of NREGS is expected to curb rural-urban migration.

When the Third-party stakeholder were asked a question whether NREGS has curbed

migration of people from rural to urban area in search of employment; 50 % of them

agreed to it Fig (4.37).

81

Figure 4.37: District-wise findings of Meghalaya: Perception of Third-party

Stakeholders regarding impact of NREGS in curbing rural-urban migration

4.11.4 Source of off-season employment:

100% of the Third-party stakeholders in West Garo Hills and East Khasi Hills

agreed that NREGS is definitely providing a better source of income when no one is

having any jobs at all. This indicates that the purpose of creating employment through

NREGS is achieved in the five districts of Meghalaya.


Stakeholders, whether NREGS is better alternative source of income that has no

other job

82

4.11.5 Increase in School Enrollment and Reduction in Drop-out Rate

Because of 100 days guaranteed wage employment in rural areas, the

supplementary income of the rural family, which was generally coming earlier from child

employment, could now be avoided because of NREGA. Hence NREGS has helped the

children go to school rather than working for supplementary income for the family. To

test this effect, we have asked a question to the Third-party stakeholders, whether

NREGS has positive impact on child education enrolment. 67% of them in Ri Bhoi

district agreed to this (Figure 4.39). Further working in NREGS also reduced school

drop-out cases in rural areas. Again 67% of the Third-party stakeholders in Ri Bhoi

district of Meghalaya reported that there is slight reduction in school drop-out rate

(Figure 4.40). However the figures reported are not so significantly large in other

districts, this can be due to the fact that most of the workers do not get work for the full

100 days as sometimes work had to be discontinued due to non availability of materials.

Also the wages at Rs70 per day is quite low.


Stakeholders regarding positive impact of NREGS on child education

83


Stakeholders regarding impact of NREGS on school drop-out cases


Stakeholders regarding impact of NREGS on communication development.

84

4.11.6 Improvement in Physical Infrastructure:

100% of the Third-party stakeholders in Ri Bhoi, 85% in East Garo Hills, and

77% in West Garo Hills districts of Meghalaya (Figure 4.41) reported that there is

definitely improvement in communication in rural areas because of NREGS. This is

because; most of the works taken up include road, foot-path construction and land

development.

NREGS provides a common place for the people to work together for 8 hours.

This provides a common forum for the people in rural areas. Besides working together,

this forum is supposed to create among the workers the spirit of social cohesion. To

examine the hypothesis; we have asked a question to the Third-party stakeholders,

whether a common forum is really created because of NREGS. 71% of the respondents

in East Garo Hills, 50% in West Garo Hills, 40 % in South Garo Hills (Figure 4.42)

agreed to this. Sitting together in the work-site for having lunch is the most effective time

that provides a forum to the workers. This vindicates our earlier finding of enhancement

of knowledge and information base of the workers in the rural areas through NREGS.


Stakeholders, whether NREGS provides a common forum to the workers.

85

4.12 Stakeholder II Perception on the positive impacts

Table 4.11: Findings from Village Authorities Perspective on positive impacts of

NREGA-Meghalaya

Sl No

Information Options Percentage Agreed

Analysis

A. Less than 50. 10.61

B. More than 50 24.24

C. More than 100 31.82

1. How many people applied for manual

labour under NREGA?

D. More than 200 33.33

More than 50 number of people

applied for NREGA job in most of the

village

A. Yes 92.42 2. Have all of them been employed?

B. No 7.58

92% chance is that anybody who is

applying is going to be employed

3. How many households belonging to BPL category have been employed under

NREGA?

89.39 Almost 90% people are BPL

A. Plantation 25.76

B. Afforestation 3.03

C. Road Construction

69.70


Scheme?

D. Land Development (irrigation, footpath etc)

77.27

Around 77% of the NREGA work is

executed for Land Development type

of work.

A. Yes 93.85 5. Are Job Cards freely given?

B. No 6.15

There is 94% chance of getting the job card freely

A. Yes 4.55 6. Are minors on Job Cards?

B. No 95.45

There is only 4.55% chance that a minor

can get job in NREGS

A. Yes 96.92 7. Do job cards have photograph of the

household members registered?

B. No 3.08

About 97% of the job cards are with

photographs

8. Are photographs free A. Yes 96.88 There is only 3.13%

86

of cost? B. No

3.13

chance that worker has to pay for the

photograph A. Workers 93.75 9. Who has custody of

job cards? B Others

(Specify) 6.25

There is 6.25% chance that job card

has been under a different custody than card holder

A. Yes 95.38 10. Are applications submitted for employment? B. No

4.62

95% village stakeholders agreed that there has to be written application for seeking jobs

A. Yes 100.00 11. Were Gram Sabhas convened to select

works? B. No

0.00

All the places reported that Gram sabha is involved in

the selection of work.

A. Yes 96.72 12. Have priorities of Gram Sabha been maintained in the formulation of GP

development Plan?

B. No

3.28

About 97% of the Gram Sabhas keep the GP development

plan as the first priority while deciding any

NREGS work. 13. Are local people

happy with the choice of works?

A. Yes 100.00 All the local people are happy with the choice of work i.e. No conflict among

the villagers. A. Yes 85.48 14. Do the village has an

approved shelf of projects of at least five works with technical

and financial estimates ready to

start when employment demand

is received?

B. No

14.52

There is 85.5% chance that every village is always

ready with at least 5 works with technical

and financial estimates to start.

A. Yes 100.00 15. Have only the permissible works been taken up? B. No

0.00

The works being carried out so far is under the provision

of types of permissible jobs

defined in NREGA. A. Yes 100.00 16. Are the works taken

up useful? B. No 0.00 All the works are

useful

17. What does the quality A. Good 65.15 There is 65.2%

87

B. Satisfactory 33.33 of work looks like?

C. Bad

1.52

chance that the work under NREGS is ‘good’ and 33.3% chance is that the

work is satisfactory. 18. List of approved works

on public display in Village

86.36 Around 86.4% of the works are under

public display A. Yes 18.18 19. Are workers without

job cards working on work sites? B. No

81.82

There is only 18.2% chance that a

worker without job card can be allowed

to work in the worksite.

A. Yes 87.88 20. Are works in progress being technically

supervised regularly? B. No

12.13

It has been agreed by the Village

authorities that about 87.9% of the

works are technically supervised

A. Yes 89.39

21. Does a Muster Roll entry match with the

job cards especially in term of days worked?

B. No 10.61

90 % of the muster-roll entry match with

the job cards in terms of days

worked A. Yes 93.94 22. Does a Muster Roll

entry match with the job cards especially in term of amount paid?

B. No

6.06

94% of the muster-roll entry match with

the job cards in terms of amount

paid A. Yes 81.25 23. Is work completed

recorded in the Asset Register? B. No

18.76

81.25% of GP officials agreed that asset register keeps

the information of work completed and

the assets purchased

A. Yes 86.15 24 Is Gram Rozgar Sewak available for

each Village/Dorbar? B. No 13.85

86.15% is available in almost all villages

A. Yes 90.77 25. Is there a technical assistant (junior

engineer) for a group of Village/Dorbar to

supervise, measure?

B. No

7.69

91% of the GP Officials agreed that JE is available for all the villages for the

technical supervision of work

A. Yes 100.00 26. Have works been inspected by B. No 0.00

All the works under NREGS have been

88

district/Block /State functionaries?

inspected by State/District/Block

functionaries A. Yes 84.75 27. Has social audit of all

works been done? B. No

15.25

Social audit has been done for

almost all the works. Only 15.25% of the works is left where social audit is still

yet to be done A. Yes 96.55 28. Was the Gram Sabha

and the workers involved? B. No 3.45

97% of the Gram Sabha was involved everywhere during

social audit A. Yes 34.92

B. No 63.49

29. Are complaints register available at

GP level?

B. Don’t Know 1.59

There is around 63% chance is that

you will find complaint register at

GP level

A. Yes 87.88 30. Do you receive information regarding the sanction budget

for your village B. No

12.12

There is 88% transparency

between Block and GP level regarding

the money sanctioned for NREGS work

A. At a Time 10.00 31. If yes, do you receive the entire budget

amount sanctioned to your village?

B. In installments 90.00

There is 90% chance that the

budget sanctioned will come at a time.

A. Yes 54.10 32. Is there any mate being recruited

through NREGA? B. No 45.90

Only 54% chance is that you will find

mate being recruited through NREGA

A. Yes 98.46 33. Has the NREGA scheme been a boon

to the locality? B. No 1.54

98.46% of the GP officials considers NREGA as a boon

to the society A. Infrastructural

Development 63.64

B. Seasonal Employment to the people

90.91

C. Social cohesion

72.73

34. What are the kinds of development taking

place since the implementation of the

scheme?

D. Other (specify)

4.55

91% of the village authorities agree that NREGA has been a source of

employment to the people.64% agree that it has bring in

infrastructural development

89

Table 4.11 above represents the findings from the Gram Panchayat officials. They

stated that more than 200 numbers of people applied for NREGA job in most of the

villages. Out of the total number of people applied, there is 92% chance that anybody

who is applying is going to be employed. In NREGA work almost 90% of the households

are below the poverty line. 95% village stakeholders agreed that there has to be a

written application for seeking jobs.

There is 94% chance of getting the job card freely and they also agreed that

there is only 3.13% chance that worker has to pay for the photograph. About 97% of the

job cards are with photographs. Most of the job cards are with the workers except for

6.25%who agrees that job cards may have been under the custody of others. There is

only 4.55% chance that a minor can get job in NREGS. There is only 18.2% chance that

a worker without job card can be allowed to work in the worksite.

All the stakeholder-II reported that Gram sabha is involved in the selection of

work. The village officials agreed that around 45% of the NREGA work is executed for

Land Development.. About 97% of the Gram Sabhas keep the GP development plan as

the first priority while deciding any NREGS work. All the local people are happy with the

choice of work i.e. no conflict among the villagers and the works are useful. There is

85.5% chance that every village is always ready with at least 5 works with technical and

financial estimates to start. The works being carried out so far is under the provision of

the types of permissible jobs defined in NREGA. There is 65.2% chance that the work

under NREGS is ‘good’ and 33.3% chance is that the work is satisfactory. .Around

86.4% of the works are under public display. It is also agreed by the Village authorities

that about 87.9% of the works are technically supervised. 90 % of the muster-roll entry

matches with the job cards in terms of days worked. 94% of the muster-roll entry

matches with the job cards in terms of amount paid. 81.25% of GP officials agreed that

asset register is kept where information on work completed and the assets purchased

are recorded. Also 91% of the GP Officials agreed that Junior Engineer is available for

all the villages for the technical supervision of work. According to the Gram Panchayat

Officials 87.30% of the Gram Rozgar Sewak, 79.37% of the Panchayat Secretary (if he

is handling NREGA) and 66.67% of the Sarpanchs are perceived to be trained on

90

NREGA processes and procedures. All the works under NREGS have been inspected

by State/District/Block functionaries. Social audit has been done for almost all the

works. Only 15.25% of the works is left where social audit is still yet to be done, this

may be due to the fact that in some of the villages work have just started. 97% of the

Gram Sabha members were involved during social audit. There is 88% transparency

between Block and GP level regarding the money sanctioned for NREGS work and

about 90% chance that the budget sanctioned will come at a time. 98.46% of the GP

officials consider NREGA as a boon to the society

4.13 General and Procedural Constraints

4.13.1 Workers Perception: Constraints

Table 4.12: Workers perception and constraints

Districts Sl. No

Hypothesis

South Garo Hills

West Garo hills

East Garo Hills

East Khasi Hills

Ri Bhoi Average


57.3 25.7 20.0 57.5 89.0 49.90

2 NREGA work is within 5 km range of worker’s village

11.76 25.71 11.25 51.25 18.82 23.75

3 People are aware of NREGA work coming to their locality

14.71 37.14 37.50 50.00 82.35 44.34

4 Workers are paid through banks/post offices

0.00 0.00 1.25 2.50 0.00 0.75


55.88 75.71 65.00 58.75 41.18 59.30

6 Opened up ACs in bank/PO because of NREGA

1.47 7.14 3.75 26.25 23.53 12.43

Source: Field data

91

In the figure below West Garo Hills and East Garo Hills districts reports less than

26 % workers are engaged in NREGA works for the total 100 days. This is due to the

fact that sometimes works had to be discontinued due to the non availability of

materials.

Fi

gure 4.43: District-wise findings whether workers get 100 days of annual employment in

NREGA scheme

Figure 4.44: Distance of NREGA work from the workers’ village

92

The distance of work-site from the residents of the workers has effect on the

productivity of the NREGA work. On an average 76.25 % of the respondents opined that

they get work more than 5 km range of their village. Except for East Khasi Hills district,

less than 26% of the workers in the other districts agree that NREGA works are within 5

kms range from the village

Figure 4.45 represents the district wise findings of workers’ response regarding

their awareness of availability of NREGA work.

Figure 4.45: Workers’ response on awareness of NREGA work coming to their

locality

On an average, only 44% of the workers’ in five selected districts of Meghalaya

reported that they are well aware of the availability of NREGA work. South Garo Hills

with 14.71 % reports the least awareness of NREGA, however this is understandable

since it is the first district in the state of Meghalaya where NREGA was first

implemented.

93

In the context of Meghalaya, on an average 0.75 % of the workers are paid their

wages through banks/post offices. In almost all the districts wages are paid directly to

the workers by the AEC and VEC members.

Figure 4.46: Workers have opened up bank/post office accounts because of

NREGA

Further, about 12.43 % of the workers opined that they have opened up accounts

in banks and post offices because of NREGA.

4.13.2: Third Party Perception on constraints

• In almost all the districts of Meghalaya, most of the men are not attracted to the

NREGS works because of the low wage payment ( i.e..Rs. 70/ per 8 hours) of

work compared to other jobs in urban areas. Hence, most of the men move

towards urban area in search of work. Thus NREGA has not made a huge impact

in reducing migration of male folks from the villages to the urban areas.

94

• South Garo Hills reports 0% impact of NREGS on improvement of the

communication system of the villages. This may be due to the poor quality of

roads constructed there.


Stakeholders regarding impact of NREGS on communication development.

4.13.3 Stakeholder-II perception: Constraints

According to stakeholder II, (i) in 40% of the cases Gram Panchayat does not issue

receipt of the application, (ii) 50% of the Vigilance Monitoring Committee members are

perceived not be trained regarding NREGA and (iii) about 89% of the mates recruited

have not undergone any formal training regarding NREGA .

95

Table 4.13: Findings from village authorities perspective on constraints

Sl No

Information Options Percentage Agreed

Analysis

A. Lack of Fund 60.00

B. Limited nos. of Job Cards being given

0.00


0.00

1

Reasons for not being able to

employ as yet all those who applied for NREGA

work D. Others (Specify)

40.00

There is 60% chance that the workers are not yet employed

because of lack of fund

A. Yes 59.09 2 Is dated receipt

issued by Gram

Panchayat?

B. No

40.91

40% village stakeholders

agreed that Gram Panchayat does

not issue receipt of the application

A. Yes 50.88 3 Have the following

been trained?

Vigilance Monitoring Committee Members

B. No 49.12

According to the Gram Panchayat

50% of the Vigilance Monitoring Committee

members are perceived not be trained regarding

NREGA . A. Yes 15.15 4 Has the

mate recruited

undergone training

A. No

87.88

About 89% of the mates recruited has not undergone any

formal training regarding NREGA

and NREGS

4.14 Case Study of Khadarshnong Laitkroh Block in Meghalaya:

96

One block namely Khadarshnong Laitkroh Block in East Khasi Hills District of

Meghalaya was identified for case-study analysis. Khadarshnong Laitkroh Block is a

newly created Community and Rural Development Block in Meghalaya. NREGA can be

said to have really made an impact on the lives of the people of the Block.

The summary of the case study is presented as follows.

I. Contribution towards Restoration of Deforested Land

A visit to one of the worksite reveals in village Swer on which the worksite is located

has been facing a lot of environmental degradation due to earlier quarrying activities

of the villagers. Before introduction of NREGA, the main source of livelihood of the

people was quarrying of earthen sand. Most of the men were either working in the

quarries or were working outside the village. This activity has led to deforestation on

a large scale, loss of fertility of land where the lands are no longer fertile for

agricultural purposes. It can be said that this activity has led to a change in the

topography of the village itself (see picture below)

Figure 4.48 Village topography

97

However with the introduction of NREGS in the village, most of the villagers are no

longer working in the quarries but are engaged in NREGS work. Our study team visited

the work site on 20th April 2009 at a time when terracing of land was going on. The main

idea was to try and protect the remaining land by going for other activities such as

farming. Since the land has become barren it will involve a lot of money in rejuvenating

it and bring it back to its earlier form. NREGS proved to be a blessing in disguise for the

villagers. NREGS has been able in providing an alternative source of income for the

villagers as well as an opportunity in rejuvenating the land.

Figure 4.49 land rejuvenation work going on in Swer Village

Also NREGS allows them to preserve their age old cultural practice. One of the

practices in the village is that the land belongs to the entire village. NREGS works allow

98

them to continue with the practice of working together where the benefits will accrue to

all the households in the village.

II. Women empowerment:

An interaction with the workers, members of AEC and VEC at one of the worksite in this

village also reveals that the divorce rates are very high. NREGS has been able to make

most of the women independent and empower them to face the destitution caused by

such unilateral divorce of women by the men with some degree of independence and

confidence. Six of the women workers out of the 10 workers selected for survey in this

worksite, narrated the whole situation before the study team when the latter engaged

them in a focused group discussion.

III. Check on Distress Migration

This has also helped the poor women not to migrate to nearby villages and

towns in search of wage employment along with their children.

IV. NREGS has also proved to be a boon indirectly to some SHGs in the block. They

were not able to repay back loans borrowed from the bank because of default on the

part of some members. But, by working under this scheme and earning, the defaulters

are now back in their feet and are able to repay back the borrowed amount. This has

strengthened the SHGs.

V. This exercise has also brought in improvement in the physical environment of the

area through land terracing.

VI. This is a classic example of promoting the three elements of sustainable

development i.e. (i) environmental sustainability (via land terracing and overcoming

environmental degradation caused by sand quarrying), (ii) Social sustainability(

through women empowerment, lessening of the impact of divorce and arresting distress

99

migration, social capital formation) and (iii) economic sustainability( through wage

income generation).

C. A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF NREGA FINDINGS: MEGHALAYA

AND SIKKIM

4.15 District wise General and Procedural Positive Impact:

Table 4.14: Workers’ Perception on processes and immediate Impact of NREGS-

Meghalaya and Sikkim

Sl. No

Hypothesis Sikkim Meghalaya

1 Receipt of job card within 15 days of

application

80.7 59.70

2 Workers Indicate during application

the number of job-days required

81.0 49.76

2 Gram panchayat provides written

receipt of their application for

NREGA work which indicates

ensuring work within 15 days

69.3

72.42

3 NREGA provides 100 days of

employment

84.0 49.90

4 NREGA work is within 5 km range of

worker’s village

76.0

23.75

5 People are aware of NREGA work

coming to their locality

81.0

44.34

100

Source: Field Data

4.16 Extended and Chain Impact: District wise


Sl.

No

Hypothesis

Sikkim

Meghalaya

1. Improvement of primary and secondary

activities of workers after working in NREGA

84.0 62.00

2 NREGA has added sufficiently to the family

income of workers

64.7 46.82

3 Workers are paid through banks/post offices 72.0 0.75

4 Workers have banks/post offices within 5 km

in their locality

81.7 59.30

5 Opened up ACs in bank/Po because of

NREGA

92.7 12.43

6 Working together in a group under NREGA;

people are able to obtain different information

pertaining to their society, the state, and the

country

94.3

80.52

7 Gathering of more information from co-

workers on health related issues(For women

workers)

95.6

47.56

8 Accessing health facilities better after working

in NREGA(Women informants)

93.6 37.66

9 NREGA helps the people in purchasing low 55.3 24.80

101

cost asset for their family

10 Better life style is achieved by working

together in NREGA

98.3 69.30

11 NREGA provides food security to the workers 91.3 66.60

Source: Field Data

4.17: Third Party Response

Table 4.16: Results of findings of responses of third-party stakeholders in Sikkim

and Meghalaya

Hypothesis

Sikkim Meghalaya

1 2006-2008 has shown good development in

standard of living in rural area

93.3 81.75

2 NREGA is boon to the society 100.0 100.00

3 NREGA has bought socio-economic changes

in the village level

98.0 100.00

4 Improvement in the life of women folk because

of NREGA

91.3 75.58

5 Implementation of NREGA scheme has

brought better co-operation between people

and administration

86.3

49.77

6 NREGA has helped in curbing migration of

people from village to outside

74.0 49.42

7 NREGA scheme is a better alternative for

them who don’t have any other job in hand

88.3 86.83

8 There is perceived positive impact of NREGA

on child education enrolment

70.0 42.16

9 The school drop-out problem in villages is

slightly improved

75.0 28.39

102

10 Good communication system has been

developed in villages because of NREGA

84.3 58.97

11 A common forum is created for people who

work in NREGA together

74.0 45.62

Source: Field Data

4.18 Stakeholder II Response

Table 4.15: Findings from Gram Panchayat Officials’ Perspective in Sikkim and

Meghalaya

Sl No Information Options Sikkim Meghalaya

A. Less than 50.

13.33 10.61

B. More than 50

60.00 24.24

C. More than 100

26.67 31.82

1 How many people applied for manual labour under NREGA?

D. More than 200

0.00 33.33

A. Yes 80.00 92.42 2 Have all of them been employed? B. No 20.00

7.58 A. Lack of

Fund 100

60.00 B. Limited

nos. of Job Cards being given

0.00

0.00 C. No proper

planning 0.00

0.00

3 If No, state the reasons.

D. Others (Specify)

0.00 40.00

4 How many households belonging to BPL category have been employed under NREGA?

86.67 89.39

A. Plantation 13.33 25.76

B. Afforestation 0.00 3.03

5 What are the kinds of work that have been done in your village under the NREGA Scheme?

C. Road 13.33 69.70

103

Construction D.Land

Development (irrigation, footpath etc) 93.33 77.27

A. Yes 93.33 93.85 8 Are Job Cards freely given? B. No 6.67 6.15 A. Yes 13.33 4.55 10 Are minors on Job Cards? B. No 86.67 95.45

A. Yes 100.00 96.92 11 Do job cards have photograph of the household members registered? B. No 0.00 3.08

A. Yes 78.57 96.88 12 Are photographs free of cost? B. No 21.43 3.13

A. Workers 71.43 93.75 13 Who has custody of job cards? B Others

(Specify) 28.57 6.25 A. Yes 85.71 95.38 14 Are applications submitted for

employment? B. No 14.29 4.62 A. Yes 85.71 59.09 15 Is dated receipt issued by Gram

Panchayat? B. No 14.29 40.91 A. Yes 100.00 100.0

0 17 Were Gram Sabhas convened to

select works? B. No 0.00 0.00

A. Yes 100.00 96.72 18 Have priorities of Gram Sabha been maintained in the formulation of GP development Plan?

B. No 0.00 3.28

A. Yes 100.00 100.00

19 Are local people happy with the choice of works?

B. No 0.00 0.00

A. Yes 84.62 85.48

20 Do the village has an approved shelf of projects of at least five works with technical and financial estimates ready to start when employment demand is received?

B. No

15.38 14.52 A. Yes 100.00 100.0

0 21 Have only the permissible works

been taken up? B. No 0.00

0.00 A. Yes 100.00 100.0

0 22 Are the works taken up useful?

B. No 0.00 0.00 A.Good 73.33 65.15

B. Satisfactory

26.67 33.33

23 What does the quality of work looks like?

C. Bad 0.00 1.52

104

D. Can't Say 0.00 24 List of approved works on public

display in Village 53.33 86.36

A. Yes 26.67 18.18

25 Are workers without job cards working on work sites?

B. No 73.33 81.82 A. Yes 100.00 87.88 26 Are works in progress being

technically supervised regularly? B. No 0.00 12.13 A. Yes 93.33

89.39

27 Does a Muster Roll entry match with the job cards especially in term of days worked? B. No 6.67 10.61

A. Yes 100.00 93.94 28 Does a Muster Roll entry match with the job cards especially in term of amount paid?

B. No 0.00 6.06

A. Yes 86.67 81.25 29 Is work completed recorded in the Asset Register? B. No 13.33

18.76 A. Yes 86.67 86.15 30 Is Gram Rozgar Sewak available for

each Village/Dorbar? B. No 13.33 13.85 A. Yes 100.00

90.77 31 Is there a technical assistant (junior

engineer) for a group of Village/Dorbar to supervise, measure?

B. No 0.00

7.69 A. Yes 93.33 87.30 Gram Rozgar

Sewak B. No

6.67 12.70 A. Yes

92.86 79.37

Panchayat Secretary (if he is handling NREGA) B. No

7.14 20.63 A. Yes

78.57 66.67 Sarpanches/Ward members

B. No

21.43 33.33 A. Yes

93.33 50.88

32 Have the following been trained?

Vigilance Monitoring Committee Members B. No

6.67 49.12 A. Yes 100.00 100.0

0 33 Have works been inspected by

district/Block /State functionaries? B. No 0.00 0.00

A. Yes 100.00 84.75 34 Has social audit of all works been done? B. No 0.00 15.25

105

A. Yes 100.00 96.55 35 Was the Gram Sabha and the workers involved? B. No 0.00 3.45

A. Yes 53.33 34.92 B. No 40.00 63.49

36 Are complaints register available at GP level?

B. Don’t know 6.67 1.59 A. Yes 100.00 87.88 38 Do you receive information

regarding the sanction budget for your village

B. No 0.00 12.12

A. At a Time 84.62 10.00

39 If yes, do you receive the entire budget amount sanctioned to your village?

B. In installments 15.38 90.00

A. Yes 86.67 54.10 40 Is there any mate being recruited through NREGA? B. No 13.33 45.90

A. Yes 46.67 15.15

41 If yes, has she /he undergo any training?

B. No 33.33 87.88

A. Yes 92.86 98.46 42 Has the NREGA scheme been a boon to the locality?

B. No 7.14 1.54 A.

Infrastructural Development 73.33 63.64

B. Seasonal Employment to the people 66.67 90.91

C. Social cohesion 73.33 72.73

43 What are the kinds of development taking place since the implementation of the scheme?

D. Other (specify) 66.67 4.55

Comparison between both the states with respect to the positive impacts relating to the

processes and practices and chain and link impacts, shows that although both the

states have done well in many a dimensions, the performance of Sikkim vis-à-vis

Meghalaya is better. This may be broadly because of the small size of population in

Sikkim compared to Meghalaya and the existence of the PRI institutions in Sikkim much

before the NREGA was introduced in Sikkim. Meghalaya till date does not have the PRI

system and the new structure that has been created through MREGA is just 3 years old.

It takes time for the new system to establish itself and get integrated with the local

practices and ethos and government institutions.

106

CHAPTER V: INFERENCES

Based on our findings and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data in the

previous chapter and through inter state and intra state comparisons, we draw the

following inferences.

1. The practices and processes of implementation of NREGA in the state of Sikkim are

largely transparent across regions. This is primarily due to the well conceived in- built

transparency and monitoring mechanisms of the Act and subsequent improvements in

it. Sikkim Government’s transparent governance system integrated with a well

developed PRI model has also contributed to the better implementation of the scheme

in that state. In Meghalaya, the commitment of the Government to implement the

scheme is obvious. In the absence of PRI institutions, Meghalaya Government’s effort

to operationalise NREGA in the state by notifying Meghalaya Rural Employment

Guarantee Scheme(MREGS) and developing a framework of administrative action and

guidelines that integrates the local cultural and governance system, has added strength

to the smooth and transparent implementation of the scheme. However, in comparison

to Sikkim, it needs further improvements.

2. NREGA has ensured a strong social safety net for the vulnerable rural poor in the

hilly tribal states of Sikkim and Meghalaya. It has brought in significant income

diversification in the rural economies of both these states. This inference is strongly

established when we find that about 87% of the workers working in NREGA are from

BPL category. This has been possible because of the supplementary income and off-

season employment that the predominantly tribal people earn by working in NREGA.

The economies of the both these states happen to be predominantly agrarian. However,

since, the cultivation practices are traditional, irrigation infrastructure is much

107

underdeveloped (vis-a.vis the country) and the cultivable land–man ratio is very low; the

rural areas in these states have a long spell of agricultural off-season. Wage

employment through NREGA has thus become a boon for the rural people of these two

states.

3. NREGA has brought in reasonable degree of financial inclusion to the rural people

in Sikkim. This is confirmed when we find about 72 % of the workers in Sikkim are paid

their wages through banks/post offices and about 92 % workers in Sikkim opened up

their bank/post office accounts because of working in NREGS.

4. One of the poignant and most visible link impacts of NREGA is promotion of women

empowerment. The provision of equal wages for men and women in the Act, the

opportunity to share information during the course of work in NREGS work site (94% in

Sikkim and 81% in Meghalaya), the opportunity and necessity of interacting with the

bank/post office/government officials have all in a fundamental way empowered the

rural tribal women by enhancing their confidence level and by ensuring some degree of

financial independence. In the context of Meghalaya which although happens to be a

matrilineal society, did not have the PRI institutions as it belongs to the sixth schedule

area. In the traditional institutions like Durbars women are not allowed to have political

representation. The NREGA stipulation of mandatory involvement of PRI institutions

and at least 30 % reservation of women in such institutions provided the ground for the

Meghalaya Government to enact MREGS that has given boost to women empowerment

in this state. The maiden institutions of AECs and VECs created under MREGS are now

being used by a number of departments of Meghalaya Government to implement many

of their developmental programmes.

5. Working in NREGA has given an opportunity to workers particularly women workers

to share information among fellow workers. (94 % workers in Sikkim and 81% in

Meghalaya). This has led to Knowledge Empowerment in the tribal society.

6. Similarly, NREGA has also brought in improvement in the health status of the

women workers. About 96% of women workers surveyed are of the opinion that they

have been able to gather information on health related problems through interaction

108

with their co-workers while working in NREGS. Around 94 % of the women workers in

Sikkim and 38% in Meghalaya felt that they have been able to access health facilities

better after working in NREGA. About 96% of women workers in Sikkim and 48% in

Meghalaya surveyed are of the opinion that they have been able to gather information

on health related problems through interaction with their coworkers while working in

NREGS. 42 % of the women workers in Sikkim and 36 % in Meghalaya spent some

amount of their wages on their own health related expenditures. This has been

reconfirmed from the focused group discussion that we had in the village Salabipera in

Dalu block and Swer in Khadarshnong block in Meghalaya. About 40 of the women

workers confided that they spent some amount of their wage income in meeting health

related expenditures.

7. There has been a improvement although marginal in school enrollment after

introduction of the NREGS in their areas as stated by 40 % and 70% of the stakeholder-

III respectively in the states of Meghalaya and Sikkim. There has also been a reduction

in the school drop out rate as 25% and 75% of the stakeholder-III in the states of

Meghalaya and Sikkim respectively have stated that there has been a slight reduction in

the school drop out rate.

8. Another visible impact of NREGA has been arresting of distress migration from

rural areas. The impact is significant in the state of Sikkim. 74% of Third Party

stakeholders in the states of Sikkim agreed that NREGS has curbed migration of people

from rural to urban area in search of employment. Narratives of workers at the micro

level both in Sikkim and Meghalaya in the Nongthymmai Umthangding, Laitkroh and

Swer villages of Khadarshnong block indicate this finding. In this village in the worksite

visited by the study team, 6 women workers out of 10 workers selected at random,

explained how NREGA has become a boon to them in overcoming their destitution

caused by the unilateral divorce of them by their husbands and forcing them earlier to

migrate to nearby towns/villages in search of employment so as to bring up of their

children.

9. NREGA has helped in creation of social capital and reduction in information

asymmetry & moral hazard in rural society. When workers work in the field, they share

109

their sufferings, experience etc. with each other that create the element of sharing,

caring, togetherness and fellow feeling. With the introduction of mundane material

development, some of these virtues and values central to tribal community living were

slowly and silently disappearing. NREGA has again brought back to practice the

centrality of communal leaving in tribal societies of these states. This is observed in all

the districts of Sikkim and Meghalaya and is explicit in the three case studies we did in

Rollang village of Dunga Block & Makha village of Khamdong Block in Sikkim and Swer

village in Khadarshnong Laitkroh Block in Meghalaya. This practice has also reduced

the level of information asymmetry and moral hazard in these societies paving the door

for better implementation of development and growth programmes by government and

non-government agencies including NGOs and SHG promoting organizations.

10. NREGA has facilitated Convergence. It has provided and made it imperative for

line Departments like RD, Horticulture, Irrigation & Flood Control to work together to

maximize the linkage effect.(Observed in some worksites, pl refer the case studies

cited in chapter iv). However, this is not noticed in all the worksites. The success of

convergence depends on the leadership and passion of the programme officer at the

block level i.e. BDO. The two case studies undertaken in Sikkim make it amply clear.

11. Another subtle impact of NREGA that is observed through case studies is

overcoming the tragedy of commons problems. Public assets/properties are prone to

destruction because of neglect of common man in maintaining it. When the workers

under NREGA work in private orchards/land, the convergence of the institution of

private property with the interventionist ethos and practices of the Government in the

form of NREGA ensures that the property is well taken care of along with employment

generation and social capital building (Case Study: Rolang Village, Duga Block and

Makha Village in Khamdong Block in Sikkim)

Finally, NREGA has the potential to promote sustainable development through

participation. Three of the case studies that we have undertaken in the blocks of Duga

and Khamdong (Sikkim) and Khadarshnong Laitkroh (Meghalaya) add credence to this

inference of ours. The way the BDO of Khamdong Block in Sikkim has linked up

110

NREGA works and the three elements of sustainable development i.e. economic

sustainability (through development of market place, tourist centre, land productivity

enhancement), social sustainability( through participation of workers, social capital

creation) and environmental sustainability(through orange plant cultivation, land

terracing) is praiseworthy. Similarly, Khadarshnong Laitkroh case is also a classic

example of promoting the three elements of sustainable development i.e. (i)

environmental sustainability (via land terracing and overcoming environmental

degradation caused by sand quarrying), (ii) Social sustainability( through women

empowerment, lessening of the impact of divorce and arresting distress migration,

social capital formation) and (iii) economic sustainability( through wage income

generation).

NREGA was initiated as a short-term intervention strategy for creation of

employment in the rural society wherever there is no such scope. However, ultimate

long-term success of NREGA lies in creating the required economic, social, and

environmental empowerment and social capital in the rural society so that it graduates

from one stage of development to next higher stage [in line with Stage Theory of

Development]. Hence, each and every stakeholder of NREGA should imbibe this

theory.

5.1 Models and Practices that have brought these positive impacts

The following models and practices are responsible for the positive impact of the

NREGA.

1. In the absence of PRI institutions, Meghalaya Government’s effort to operationalise

NREGA in the state by notifying Meghalaya Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme

(MREGS) and developing a framework of administrative action and guidelines that

integrates the local cultural and governance system is an innovation that has added

strength to the smooth and transparent implementation of the scheme.

111

2. The perfect integration of the PRI institution with the Govt. administration in Sikkim

that saves on conflict but maximizes on convergence.

3. The practice of allowing NREGA workers to work in private lands/orchards and its

consequential convergence of the institution of private property with the interventionist

ethos and practices of the Government in the form of NREGA.

4. Convergence of schemes and skills among various line departments of administration

and dovetailing them with NREGA for the purpose of sustainable development

5. Fusion of employment generation and technical, social and financial empowerment of

villagers.

6. The leadership quality and passion of the programme officers i.e. BDOs and their

exhibition of values of vision, identification with the community, pleasant personality,

good communication and team spirit.

5.2 Good Practices that can be replicated elsewhere.

1. Meghalaya Government’s endeavor and sincerity to operationalise NREGA in the

state in the absence of PRI, by notifying Meghalaya Rural Employment Guarantee

Scheme (MREGS) and developing a framework of administrative action and guidelines

that integrates the local cultural and governance system, is an innovation that can be

replicated in other VIth Schedule states of the North East with suitable local

modifications.

2. The perfect integration of the PRI institution with the Govt. administration in Sikkim

that saves on conflict but maximizes on convergence, can be emulated in other tribal

hilly NER states.

3. The way the BDO of Khamdong Block in Sikkim has linked up NREGA works and the

three dimensions of sustainable development i.e. economic sustainability (through

development of market place, tourist centre, land productivity enhancement), social

112

sustainability( through participation of workers, social capital creation) and

environmental sustainability(through orange plant cultivation and rejuvenation , land

terracing) is praiseworthy and needs to be replicated in other north eastern states

having similar geo-socio-economic conditions.

4. The practice of allowing NREGA workers to work in private lands/orchards in Sikkim

and its consequential convergence of the institution of private property with the

interventionist ethos and practices of NREGA can be replicated in other hilly tribal

regions of the country. This practice has simultaneously taken care of the tragedy of

commons problem and has reestablished the primacy of community feeling and caring

in tribal society.

5.3 Issues for further research

1. Jhum/shifting cultivation is still practiced in both the states of Meghalaya and Sikkim.

We could not study the impact of NREGA on shifting cultivation/jhum. Can NREGS be

an instrument of overcoming shifting cultivation? Jhum/shifting cultivation has a relation

with environmental and social sustainability. How can through NREGS the problem of

environmental degradation be overcome by overcoming jhum-cultivation, increasing the

Jhum cycle simultaneously ensuring social and economic sustainability; is an important

research problem that can be taken up for further in-depth analysis.

2. Detailed analysis of NREGA and its impact on agriculture in the NER.

3. NREGA and its impact on Rural Non-Farm Employment (RNFE) in the NER

4. Developing models for estimating the quality of NREGS work.

5..Developing a performance measurement system to measure the productivity of

NREGS workers.

5.4 Constraints

113

1. The success and continuity of NREGA depends upon the degree of complete

convergence realized. This requires convergence of skills, schemes and minds

brought about by team work at the level of the Block and Gram Panchayat/AEC.

However, lack of administrative and financial support to the different line officers of

the block who play a positive role in the convergence of NREGA and efficient

execution of work, affects their motivation. Interaction with the line officers, at the

block level reveal that their TA bills are not paid to them by their parent departments

for years together.

2. The actual focus, provisions and objectives of NREGA have not been understood by

the different stake holders of the programme including many of the official/officers.

Most of the stake holders take NREGA as an wage employment programme. They

fail to perceive that it is a process of development but not an end in itself.

3. NREGA is a right based demand driven programme. It requires adequate flow of

funds all through the year in response to the job demand. However, flow of funds is

not normal. It is skewed towards the first few months and finishing two months of the

financial year. In such situation, the officers/GP/AEC officials in charge of

implementation of the programme find it difficult to implement the programme

properly.

4. Meghalaya and Sikkim happen to be hilly and high cost economies. Amount of 4%

given as administrative cost is insufficient to employ technical people for

measurement and supervision in such economies. The technically qualified people

are not interested to work in interior villages with Rs. 4000-5000 per month.

5. NREGA is world’s largest rural development programme in terms of financial

commitment and coverage. It requires adequate and sufficient time on the part of

the implementing officers. However, it is observed that supervising and

implementing officers like BDOs, Project Directors and district collectors are

overburdened with other administrative and developmental works. These officers,

114

thus, do not find enough time for this programme, which affect its quality of

implementation and monitoring.

6. Absence technical staff at the block/GP/AEC level hampers quality of work,

measurement of work and undertaking of MIS.

7. Payment through banks/Post Offices is difficult in interior places as the coverage of

them is very limited and the distance of the villages to the nearest PO/Bank is far off. In

case of some villages in districts of East Garo Hills and South Garo Hills of Meghalaya,

the nearest PO/Bank Branch is about 50 KMs away from the villages of the workers.

8. One of the important objectives of NREGA is to promote financial inclusion and

empower workers socially and economically. To realize this objective and to make the

payment system transparent, NREGA stipulated for 100% payment through banks/post

offices. Although the problem of wage payment through banks/POs is difficult in some of

the interior Gram Panchayats/villages in Meghalaya as stated above, this practice of

non-payment through banks/post offices has become a norm rather than an exception

in the state of Meghalaya. When only 0.75 per cent of workers responded that they

were paid their wages under NREGA through banks/post offices, this vindicates our

above statement. This surely limits the realization of the objective of financial inclusion

of NREGA.

115

CHAPTER VI- RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE

INTERVENTIONS

6.1 Meghalaya and Sikkim:

1. Since the level of awareness on the processes, practices and long term objectives of

NREGA is comparatively low, we suggest the involvement of the civil society in creating

the required awareness among the rural population about NREGA. Meghalaya

compared to other north eastern states, has a reasonably sound base of civil society

and the same can be associated with NREGA awareness creation and monitoring. This

awareness creation should not only be confined to the NREGA processes and practices

but include the understanding that NREGA is an intervention in contemporary rural

development practice.

2. Most of the stakeholders of NREGA including workers, AEC/VEC/GP functionaries,

officers and officials at the block level do not realize that NREGA is meant to be an

effective process of development but not an end in itself in the form of wage

employment. To make it happen, we suggest that these important stakeholders of the

programme particularly the programme officers (BDOs)/AEC/GP heads be imparted a

116

short course on “The Theory and Practice of Development and NREGA”. The course

should have some (i) elements of development theory that includes current thinking on

development( like sustainable development, participation and role of institutions (ii) an

understanding of development practice that relate and flow from these theories

including role of democratic decentralization, (iii) an explanation of how NREGA is an

intervention in development practice and finally (iv) an understanding of the dynamics

of rural development through NREGA that provide insight to read and rewrite the theory

and practice of rural development. The essential investigation of the course should be

to link up NREGA with capability enhancement, sustainable development and

participation.

3. In both the states of Meghalaya and Sikkim, NREGA works can be and are

permitted to be undertaken in private lands and orchards. However, we find that the

owners of the land do not contribute any thing monetarily towards the effort of the state

in the form of NREGA work to develop the land/rejuvenate the orchard. We therefore,

suggest that some amount of the expenses should be borne by the owner of the

land/orchard, in cases where NREGA works are undertaken in private property to avoid

the free rider problem. The exact amount should be decided by the Gram Sabha/VEC in

consultation with the programme officer/his officers.

4. To realize the full potential of NREGA as a process of rural development,

convergence of schemes, skills, and minds is a necessity. The three case studies we

have undertaken make it amply clear that for maximizing the linkage effect,

convergence is a must. Ideally, we suggest the critical level at which the convergence

should happen is the GP for Sikkim and AEC for Meghalaya. The head of the PRI at the

GP/AEC and the BDO (both in Meghalaya and Sikkim) are the institutions who

command the respect of the other line officers. Although we feel that the BDOs are

overburdened with other works, but considering NREGA to be central to rural

development and the centrality of the institution of BDO in the block hierarchy, it is the

best suited institution to promote convergence through commanding the services of

other line officers. Any other separate institution created for NREGA implementation at

the block level may not command the respect as that of the BDO. Once the PRI

117

institutions are strengthened, and become the central agency of rural development, the

role of the BDO can be taken over by the PRI head at the GP/ AEC level. Both the

Sikkim and Meghalaya Governments should work towards strengthening of the

institution of GP head (Sikkim) and AEC head (Meghalaya).Till it happens, we suggest

the strengthening of the institution of BDO in line with the model of the deputy

commissioner at the district level.

5. Further, convergence requires team work on the part of the different line officers at

the block level led by the BDO. As it was observed that lack of administrative and

financial support by their respective departments and also the office of the BDO is the

major constraint for motivation of line officers, there should be proper facility and

incentive to be provided by the administration that motivates the line officers towards

achieving convergence.

6. The flow of funds should be adequate and normal. It should take in to account the

seasonal nature of job demand and other factors that significantly affect the demand for

job. Job demand forecasting can also be done at the district level by taking in to

consideration important factors that affect demand for NREGA works. Scientific

forecasting exercises can be undertaken by the local universities/research institutions.

Funds flow can thus be regulated accordingly.

7. Amount of 4% provided as administrative cost needs to be raised to 10% in states

like Meghalaya and Sikkim as the cost of transportation of materials, the cost of travel

and the cost of employment of technical personnel is very high in these hilly states

compared to the states in the plains.

8. To overcome the problem of shortage of technical staff , in addition to increasing

remuneration associated with this post, the district programme coordinator can recruit

local youths with class XII pass certificates and train them for two/three months by the

government engineers of the district/block/divisions and then employ them for

measurement and technical supervision of NREGA work.

118

6.2 Meghalaya Only:

1. Payment of wages in cash should continue in villages which are far off from post

offices /Banks trough AECs/VECs. However, we suggest the introduction of bike-cum-

barefoot satellite banking system by the postal department/banks. The postal

department is undertaking innovative expansion in its activities. We find that in

Meghalaya home delivery of letters/documents are not undertaken in remote rural

areas. This is the right time that a model like bike-cum- barefoot satellite banking with

postal article delivery can be combined by the postal department and the job can be

undertaken by the modern postman. This delivery, collection of postal articles along with

banking can be undertaken in remote areas once or twice in a week. Further, the postal

department being a government organisation has the trust of the people, unlike other

small private players.

2. In Meghalaya, in addition to NREGA, a number of developmental schemes are being

implemented. One such scheme is the boarder area development programme being

implemented in boarder districts of the state. We suggest the convergence between this

scheme and NREGA.

3. The substitute of PRI framework that has been introduced in the state of Meghalaya

through MREGS is in its infancy. The members of the AEC and VECs need to be

continuously provided trainings on the necessity, practices, procedures, objectives and

achievements of PRI institutions and their relevance for a movement and programme

like NREGS. A short course “MREGS, Rural Development and NREGA” needs to be

tailor-made for this category of stakeholders that should incorporate elements and

practices on democratic decentralization, rural development and NREGA.

119

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table No. Title Page No.

Table 1.1 socio-Economic Indicators of Meghalaya 3

Table 1.2 socio-Economic Indicators of Sikkim 7

Table 2.1 Variable/Factors and Selection of Districts in Meghalaya 9

Table 2.2 Variables/Factors and Selection of Districts in Sikkim 10

Table 2.3 Socio-Economic Profile of South Garo Hills District 11

Table2.4 Socio-Economic Profile of West Garo Hills District 12

Table2.5 Socio-Economic Profile of East Garo Hills District 13

Table2.6 Socio-Economic Profile of East Khasi Hills District 14

Table2.7 Socio-Economic Profile of Ri Bhoi District 16

Table2.8 Socio-Economic Profile of North Sikkim District 18

Table2.9 Socio-Economic Profile of East Sikkim District 19

Table2.10 Socio-Economic Profile of South Sikkim District 21

Table4.1 Worker’s perception on processes and immediate impact of NREGS District wise

31

Table4.2 Worker’s perception and Link and Chain impact of NREGS 36

Table4.3 Results of district wise findings of responses of third party stakeholders in Sikkim

40

Table4.4 Worker’s perception and Constraints 47

Table4.5 Results of district wise findings of responses of third- party stakeholders in Sikkim

51

Table4.6 Findings from Gram Panchayat Officials’ Perspective: Sikkim 52

Table4.7 Worker’s perception on processes and immediate impact of NREGS district wise

55

120

Table4.8 Worker’s perception and link and chain impact of NREGS 69

Table4.9 Results of district wise findings of responses of third-party stakeholders in Meghalaya

73

Table4.10 Findings from village authority’s perspective-Meghalaya

77

Table4.11 Worker’s perception on processes and immediate impact of NREGS- Meghalaya and Sikkim

83

Table4.12 Worker’s perception and link and chain impact of NREGS

88

Table4.13 Results of findings of responses of third party stakeholders in Sikkim and Meghalaya

93

Table4.14 Findings from Gram Panchayat official’s perspective in Sikkim and Meghalaya

97

Figure Sl. No Title Page

No.

Figure 4.1 District- wise Receipts Workers of Job cards within 15 days of

application

32

Figure4.2 Workers indicating the requirement of number of job-days

during application

32

Figure 4.3 Written assurance from GP ensuring job within 15 days of

application

33

Figure 4.4 District-wise findings whether workers get 100 days of annual

employment in NREGA scheme”

34

Figure 4.5 Distance of NREGA work from the workers’ village 34

Figure 4.6 Workers’ response on NREGA work coming to their locality 35

Figure 4.7 District-wise findings of Sikkim regarding “Improvement of

Primary and Secondary activities of workers after working in

NREGA”

37

121

Figure 4.8 District-wise findings of Sikkim regarding workers’ mode of

payment

38

Figure 4.9 Workers have opened up bank/post office accounts because

of NREGA

38

Figure 4.10 Impact of NREGS on knowledge empowerment of workers 39

Figure 4.11 Improvement in standard of living during 2006-2008 41

Figure 4.12 Third-party Stakeholders: whether NREGS helps in bringing

better co-operation between people and Govt. administration.

42

Figure4.13 District-wise findings of Sikkim: Perception of Third-party

Stakeholders regarding impact of NREGS in curbing rural-

urban migration

43

Figure 4.14 Perception of Third-party Stakeholders, whether NREGS is

better alternative source of income to those who have no

other job

43

Figure 4.15 : District-wise findings of Sikkim: Perception of Third-party

Stakeholders regarding positive impact of NREGS on child

education

44

Figure 4.16 Perception of Third-party Stakeholders regarding impact of

NREGS on school drop-out cases

45

Figure 4.17 District-wise findings of Sikkim: Perception of Third-party

Stakeholders regarding impact of NREGS on communication

development.

45

Figure 4.18 Perception of Third-party Stakeholders, whether NREGS

provides a common forum to the workers.

46

Figure 4.19 District-wise findings of Sikkim on availability of different

facilities at the worksite

51

Figure 4.20 District-wise findings of Sikkim on delay of wage

payments

52

Figure 4.21 District-wise findings of Sikkim regarding perception of Third

party Stakeholders about various types of complaints

regarding NREGA

53

Figure 4.22 Perception of Third-party Stakeholders regarding impact of

NREGS in creating financial institutions in the rural area.

54

122

Figure 4.23 Administrative Block Office of Duga Block 56

Figure 4.24 NREGS Information Display of Orange Rejuvenation Work 57

Figure 4.25 Administrative Block Office of Khamdong Block 60

Figure 4.26 Completed Land Development work under NREGS 61

Figure 4.27 New Orange Orchard Plantation under NREGS in Dung Dung

Village.

61

Figure 4.28 Board showing Development of Market Place under NREGS

in Khamdong Block

64

Figure 4.29 District-wise Receipts of Job Card within 15 days of

application

70

Figure 4.30 Workers indicating the requirement of number of job-days

during application

70

Figure 4.31 Written assurance from GP ensuring job within 15 days of

application

71



72

Figure 4.33 District-wise findings of Meghalaya regarding “Improvement of

Primary and Secondary activities of workers after working in

NREGA

74

Figure 4.34 Impact of NREGS on knowledge empowerment of workers 75

Figure 4.35 Improvement in standard of living during 2006-2008 76

Figure 4.36 Third-party Stake holders: whether NREGS helps in bringing

better co-operation between people and Govt. administration

78

Figure 4.37 District-wise findings of Meghalaya: Perception of Third-party

Stakeholders regarding impact of NREGS in curbing rural-

urban migration

79


Stakeholders, whether NREGS is better alternative source of

income that has no other job

79


Stakeholders regarding positive impact of NREGS on child

education

80

123

Figure 4.40 District-wise findings of Meghalaya: Perception of Third-party Stakeholders regarding impact of NREGS on school drop-out cases

81



development

81


Stakeholders, whether NREGS provides a common forum to

the workers.

82



89

Figure 4.44 Distance of NREGA work from the workers’ village 89

Figure 4.45 Workers’ response on awareness of NREGA work coming to

their locality

90

Figure 4.46 Workers have opened up bank/post office accounts because

of NREGA

91



development

92

Figure 4.48 Village topography 94

Figure 4.49 Land Rejuvenation work going on in damaged land in swer

village

95

124

References

1. Ambasta, P., P.S. Vijay Shankar and Mihir Shah, “Two Years of NREGA: The

Road Ahead”, EPW, 23 rd February, 2008.

2. Bapat,Jyotsna (2005), Development Projects and Critical Theory of Environment,

Sage Publications, New Delhi.

3. Dreze, J. et al. (2006), Employment Guarantee Act: A Primer, NBT, New Delhi.

4. Dreze, Jean and Reetika Khera, “Battle for Work”, Frontline, Vol. 26, No. 01, Jan

03-16, 2009.

5. Dreze,jean and Christian Oldiges “ Work in Progress”, Frontline, Vol.26, Issue IV,

Feb.14-27, 2009.

6. GOI (2004), Guidelines on Convergence with National Rural employment

Guarantee Scheme, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, New

Delhi.

7. GOI (2006), “NREGA 2005 Operational Guidelines”, Ministry of Rural Development, New Delhi.

8. GOM (2008), Annual Administrative Report 2007-2008, Community and Rural

Development Department, Government of Meghalaya.

125

9. Government of Meghalaya (2009), Statistical Hand Book of Meghalaya,

Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Shillong

10. Govt. of Meghalaya(2008), Annual Administrative Report 2007-08 NREGS:

Meghalaya, Community And Rural Development Department,Shillong.

11. Hayami, Yujiro (2001), Development Economics, From the Poverty to the Wealth

of Nations, Oxford University Press, New York.

12. Lama, P. Mahendra ed.(2000), Sikkim-Society, Polity, Economy and

Environment, Indus Publishing Co, New Delhi.

13. Mohanty, B.,“Working of NREGA - Voices from Panchayats”, Mainstream, Vol XLVII, No 15, March 28, 2009.

14. Narayanan, Sudha , ‘Women’s Work and Children’, Economic and Political

Weekly, March 1, 2008.

15. Panda, B. “Rural-Non Farm Employment in India's North-East- Facts,

Significance and Policy Implications” Journal of NEICSSR,vol.24, No.1, 2000,

Shillong,India, p.p. 15-21.

16. Panda, B. and Umdor, S.(2007) : “Economic Infrastructure in North East India- An Analysis”, Man & Development, Vol. XXIX, No-1, PP. 113-130, March, CRRID, Chandigarh

17. Rao, KS (2004), ‘Poverty Alleviation-Results of an Impact Assessment Study” in

Bhatt, M. S. Ed ‘Poverty Alleviation and Food Security in India Problems and

Policies’, Aakar Books, New Delhi.

18. Thirlwall, A.P. (2006), Growth and Development with Special Reference to

Developing Economies, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

126

Annexure-I

Questionnaires

A. Questionnaire for Stakeholder-I

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE WORKERS/WAGE SEEKERS:

Name of Investigator: ______________________ Date: _________________

Name of the Worker: ______________________________________________

127

Are you a BPL Card holder? Yes No

A. Name of State: __________________________________________________

B. Name of the District: ____________________________________________

C. Name of the Block: ______________________________________________

D. Name of the Hima:_______________________________________________

E. Name of the Village: _____________________________________________

1. How many members of the family do you have? -----------------------------

Sl.

No.

Name Relation Sex Age Occupation Is it Under

NREGA

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Primary

(6)

Secondary

(7)

(8)

128

2. Were you able to improve your “primary/secondary” activity after getting

employment under NREGA?

A. Yes

B. No

3. If Yes: Specify

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

________

What is the improvement during the last two years?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

________

4. Since when have you been employed under the NREGA (Job Card)?

A. 2006 B. 2007

C. 2008 D. Last one month

5. Are you aware of the processes and practices of NREGA?

A. Yes B. No

6. Did you get your job card within 15 days of application?

A. Yes B. No

C. More or less D. None of us got it within that stipulated time

6. While applying did you state the timing and the number of days that you are willing

to work?

129

A. Yes

B. No

C. Never being told about that

D. In any case we will all get 100 days in a year so not necessary to mention that.

7. Did you get any receipt from the Gram Panchayat stating that they have receive

your application against which the guarantee of providing employment within 15

days?

A. Yes

B. No

C. Don’t know about any receipt

D. Still in the process

8. If No, did you receive any unemployment allowance for the period when you have

not been employed?

A. Yes B. No

C. Don’t expect D. In the process

9. How many days in a year are you being employed under the NREGA?

A. 100 days B. More than 100 days

C. 3 months D. Less than 25 days

10. For how many hours in a day do you have to work?

A. 8 hours B. More than 8 hours

C. Less than 8 hours D. Depends on the nature of the work.

11. Do you have the following facilities available at the worksite?

A. Shade for the Periods of rest

B. First-aid kit

C. Drinking Water

D. Child Care facility

E. None of the above

12. How far is your worksite from your residence?

A. Within 5 Km. B. More than 5 Km.

130

C. Less than 1 Km. D. Adjacent to my residence.

13. How many people in the village have been given job card?

A. All the unemployed villagers

B. All those who have willingly applied

C. Half of those who have applied

D. Less than half of those who have

14. Are there any female workers in the worksite?

A. yes B. No

15. If yes, is the wage rate same for both male and female?

A. yes B. No

16. How is the male/female work force participation under this scheme?

A. Equal

B. No of Males> no of females

C. No of Males< no of females

17. What kind of work are you being asked to do under this scheme?

A. Plantation B. Road Connectivity

C. Afforestation D. Irrigation

18. Were you aware of the work before it came to your locality?

A. Yes B. No

19. If Yes: How? (Give reasons)

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

____

20. How are you being paid?

A. Through the bank/ Post Office

B. Village Employment Council

131

C. Directly by the local authority

D. Any other

21. Is your account an individual account or joint account?

__________________________________________________________________

__

22. If joint account who is your co-signatory?

A. Husband B. Wife

C. Parents D. Others

23. Do you think wages from NREGA has added sufficiently to your family income?

A. Yes B. No

24. How much are you being paid per day?

A. Rs.70/- B. Less than Rs.70/-

C. More than Rs. 70/- D. Depends on the kind of work

25. If the payment is made directly to the worker then, the place of payment is:

A. Worksite B. Durbar/Community Center

C. Market place D. Any other (specify)

26. Do you have to wait long for payment, after the end of the working period?

A. Yes B. No

C. Sometime D. Jobs given for 100 days at a stretch

27. If yes, for how many days?

A. Less than 15 days B. More than 15 days

C. More than a month D. Not yet receive the previous year’s payment

28. Were all the workers paid together, or separately?

132

A. Together

B. Separately

C. Depends on the workers availability

D. Don’t know

29. Is the payment details (including name and amount paid) made known to the

public?

A. Always

B. Sometimes

C. Never made known to the public

D. Don’t know

30. Do you have an account in the bank/post office?

A. Yes

B. No

C. I have but never uses it

D. Still in the process of getting one bank account

31. Do you have any ATM Card?

A. Yes B. No

32. If Yes,

Specify:_______________________________________________________

33. What is the distance of the nearest bank/post office from your place of residence?

A. Within 5 Km. B. More than 5 Km.

C. More than 20 Km. D. There is a mobile bank

34. How many times do you visit the post office/bank?

A. Whenever the payment is made through the NREGA

B. Whenever needed

C. Once in 6 months

D. Never

35. Where from do you get money to deposit in your account?

133

A. NREGA B. Pension

C. Relatives D. Government grants

E. Other

36. Are you happy communicating to the bank officials?

A. Yes

B. No

C. Depends on the bank officials

D. Don’t know

37. Do you need to wait for a long time in the bank to deposit or withdraw money?

A. Always B. Sometime

C. Never D. Don’t Know

38. Do you know the procedures to be followed in the bank/post office?

A. Yes

B. No

C. If it is written in our mother tongue

D. Don’t know

39. (23) Do you have any of the following complaints regarding the payment of wages?

A. Delays in wage payments

B. Paid less than the minimum wage

C. Paid less than what you are made to sign for

D. Task is too much

E. Problems in accessing post office/bank accounts

F. Other (Please

Specify)_______________________________________________

40. NREGA work undertaken so far, is it related to any of these?

A. For the whole village

B. For particular household

C. Both

134

41. Does the muster roll come regularly to the worksite to provide necessary

instruction/assistance?

A. Yes B. No

C. Not very regular D. Never

42. Do you have to sign the Official Muster Roll after/while taking your wages certifying

your receipt?

A. Yes B. No

C. Not right away D. Never

43. Does the official Muster Roll indicates the amount that you receive?

A. Yes

B. No.

C. Have never sign any register

44. Are you being informed by the Work coordinator about the different information and

instruction?

A. Yes

B. No

C. Don’t know about the existence of a work coordinator

D. Informed by the village authorities only

45. What is the mode of information?

A. Through Notice Board

B. P.A system

C. Direct communication

D. Other (specify)

46. Is there a “Vigilance Committee” formed for the worksite?

A. Yes

B. No

C. May be

D. Have never heard of any committee

135

47. If yes, specify the work of the Vigilance Committee.

A. Payment distribution

B. Information Sharing

C. Hearing Complaints

D. Resolve conflicts

48. Do you think or find any evidence, or hear any complaints, of the involvement of a

contractor at the worksite?

A. Yes

B. No

C. Don’t’ know

D. Possible

49. Do you think or find any evidence, or hear any complaints, of the use (at any time)

of labour-displacing machines at the worksite?

A. Yes

B. No

C. Sometimes when required

D. Never.

50. Do you have any evidence, or complaints of corruption of any kind from this NREGA

scheme?

A. Yes

B. No

C. Don’t know

D. Don’t care as long as we get employment.

51. (a) Are you aware of how much money coming from the block and how much is

spent?

A. Yes

B. No

(b) If yes, how did you come to know about it?

A. I have seen the muster roll register

B. I heard it from my fellow

136

C. I heard it from the village head

D. Others (Specify) ____________________________________________

(c) Have you checked the muster roll register on statements of amounts sanctioned

and expenses incurred?

A. Yes

B. No

(d) Were you allowed to check that muster roll whenever you want?

A. Yes

B. No

52. Do you listen to various programmes in the radio?

A. Yes

B. No

C. Don’t have radio

D. Not interested

53. If yes name one programme you like most.

__________________________________________________________________

__

54. Do you watch Television?

A. Yes

B. No

C. Don’t have a television

D. Not interested

55. If yes, name the programme you like most.

137

__________________________________________________________________

__

56. Do you get mobile coverage in your village?

A. Yes

B. No

C. Only in some areas

D. No mobile so don’t know

57. If yes, do you have a mobile connection?

A. Yes

B. No

58. If yes, since when ______________________________________________

59. Do you always attend the nearby festivals/ market (hat) festivals.

A. Yes

B. Sometime

C. No

60. If No, why?

__________________________________________________________________

__

61. Do you think working together in a group under NREGA; you are able to obtain

different information pertaining to your society, the state and the country?

A. Yes

B. No

62. Do you feel that in the last two years or less you have been able to enhance your

ability to purchase or own any new asset in your family?

A. Yes

138

B. No

C. Some small/ low cost assets only

D. Don’t want to reveal

63. If yes, it is possible to mention some new assets purchased through the income

from NREGA?

64. Health Remarks:

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

______

65. Have you been able to organize yourselves in a better way due to your frequent

meeting s with each other?

A. Yes

B. No

66. Are you able to gather more information regarding health care / facilities through

your co-workers due to the better relationship that has been developed since you

started working under NREGA?

A. Yes

B. No

67. Have you been able to access to health facilities better after the implementation of

the NREGA Scheme?

A. Yes

B. No

68. If Yes, how?

139

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

______

69. How many times a month you visit for healthcare check-up?

A. 1-2 time

B. 3-4 times

C. More than 5 times

D. Not at all

70. Do you use a portion of the wages towards meeting your health related

expenditure? (For women workers)

A. Yes B. No

71. Do you think this NREGA Scheme should be continued in the days to come?

A. Yes

B. No

72. If Yes, state reasons.

A. ________________________________________________________________

B. ________________________________________________________________

C. ________________________________________________________________

D. ________________________________________________________________.

73. If No, state reasons.

A. ________________________________________________________________

B. ________________________________________________________________

140

C. ________________________________________________________________

D. ________________________________________________________________

74. Are you able to arrange your daily food for your family?

A. Yes B. No

75. Whether you feel comfortable in having sufficient food after working in NREGA?

A. Yes B. No

76. Are you able to spend more on your childrens’ education after working in NREGA?

(For those who have school going children)

A. Yes

B. No

Remarks:

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

__________________

141

B. Questionnaire for Stakeholder-II

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE LOCAL STAKE HOLDERS

Name of the investigator:

___________________________________________________

Date __________

Name of the village:

___________________________________________________

Name of the Hima:

___________________________________________________

Name of the Block:

___________________________________________________

Name of the District:

___________________________________________________

Name of the State: ___________________________________________________

No. of houses

Population Total working population

Total working population under

NREGS

142

Male Female Male Female Male Female

1. How many people applied for manual labour under NREGA?

A. Less than 50. B. More than 50.

C. More than 100. D. More than 200.

2. Have all of them been employed?

A. Yes B. No

3. If No, state the reasons.

A. Lack of fund.

B. Limited nos. of Job Cards being given.


D. Other

(specify)_____________________________________________________

4. How many households belonging to BPL category have been employed under

NREGA?

_______________________________________________________________

______


Scheme?

143

A. Plantation

B. Afforestation


D. Land Development (irrigation, footpath etc.)

6. How has the kind of work undertaken in your village help improve the livelihood

of the people?

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

____________________________


A. Yes B. No

8. Are wage seekers able to register freely and easily for job cards?

A. Yes B. No

9. What is the time gap between registration and issue of Job Card?

________________________________________________________________________

10. Are Job Cards freely given?

A. Yes B. No

11. Are there cases of job cards being obtained at a price?

A. Yes B. No

144

12. Are minors on Job Cards?

A. Yes B. No

13. Do job cards have photograph of the household members registered?

A. Yes B. No

14. Are photographs free of cost?

A. Yes B. No

15. Who has custody of job cards?

A. Yes B. No

16. Are applications submitted for employment?

A. Yes B. No

17. Is dated receipt issued by Gram Panchayat?

A. Yes B. No

18. Is work allotted in 15 days?

A. Yes B. No

19. Were Gram Sabhas convened to select works?

A. Yes B. No

20. Have priorities of Gram Sabha been maintained in the formulation of GP

development Plan?

A. Yes B. No

21. Are local people happy with choice of works?

A. Yes B. No

22. Do the village has an approved shelf of projects of at least five works with

technical and financial estimates ready to start when employment demand is

received?

145

A. Yes B. No

23. Have only the permissible works been taken up?

A. Yes B. No

24. Are the works taken up useful?

A. Yes B. No

25. What does the quality of work looks like?

A. Good B. Satisfactory

B. Bad D. Can’t say

26. List of approved works on public display in Village/Dorbar

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________

27. Are workers without job cards working on work sites?

A. Yes B. No

28. Are works in progress being technically supervised regularly?

A. Yes B. No

29. Are the workers earning the full task rate notified in the Schedule of rates (SOR).

A. Yes B. No

30. Is the task rate earned equal to the minimum wages?

A. Yes B. No

31. Are separate wage rates applicable to NREGA works?

A. Yes B. No

32. Are they the same as the notified minimum wages for agricultural laborers’?

A. Yes B. No

146

33. Is the Schedule of rates (SOR) applied to NREGA also applied to similar works executed by unskilled manual labour that does not use contractor and machinery?

A. Yes B. No

34. Is an exclusive SOR applied to NREGA?

A. Yes B. No

35. Does a Muster Roll entry match with the job cards?

A. Yes B. No

36. Does a Muster Roll entry match with the job cards especially in term of days worked?

A. Yes B. No

37. Does a Muster Roll entry match with the job cards especially in term of amount paid?

A. Yes B. No

38. Is work completed recorded in the Asset Register?

A. Yes B. No

39. Is Gram Rozgar Sewak available for each Village/Dorbar?

A. Yes B. No

40. Is there a technical assistant (junior engineer) for a group of Village/Dorbar to supervise, measure?

A. Yes B. No

41. Have the following been trained?

• Gram Rozgar Sewak (Yes /No)

• Panchayat Secretary (if he is handling NREGA) (Yes /No)

• Sarpanches/Ward members (Yes /No)

• Vigilance Monitoring Committee Members (Yes /No)

42. Have works been inspected by district/Block /State functionaries?

A. Yes B. No

43. Does the VMC monitor and certify works completion?

147

A. Yes B. No

44. Has social audit of all works been done?

A. Yes B. No

45. Who did social audit? ________________________________________________

46. Was the Gram Sabha and the workers involved?

A. Yes B. No


A. Yes B. No

48. Are complaints disposed?

A. Yes B. No

49. Do you have to appoint a work coordinator from the village itself?

A. Yes B. No

50. If No, then who appoints?

A. BDO / Gram Sevak

B. The Basan / Hima officials

C. The MLA’s / his agents

51. How is he paid?

A. Through the scheme

B. Through the village council

C. Any other (Specify)

52. Do you receive information regarding the sanction budget for your village

A. Yes B. No

148

53. If yes, do you receive the entire budget amount sanctioned to your village?

A. At a time

B. In installments

54. If No, who is the implementing agency of the scheme

A. Village individual

B. BDO/Gram sevak

C. MLA’s agents

D. The local administration

55. Is there any mate being recruited through NREGA? (Yes / No)

If yes, has she /he undergo any training? (Yes / No)

If yes, for how many days?

________________________________________________

56. Has the NREGA scheme been a boon to the locality?

A. Yes B. No

57. What are the kinds of development taking place since the implementation of the

scheme?

A. Infrastructural Development

B. Seasonal employment to the people

C. Social cohesion

D. Other (specify)

149

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

______________

58. What is the difference seen before and after the implementation of the scheme?

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_____________________

59. (a) “Different schemes comes to your locality from the Block headquarter”.

A. Do you propose for the same to the block

B. Block directly sanctions the scheme to the village.

(b) If A, how do you make the proposal

A. Through meeting in the village

B. Through my own perception regarding requirement of scheme

60. Do you think the amount of wages given by the NREGA scheme is a better

alternative in case of having no employment either?

A. Yes

B. No

150

61. After the implementation of NREGA scheme, how is the relationship between

the local authorities (headman and village council) and the general public has

changed?

A. It has brought in better cooperation.

B. People have been comfortable with the authorities in discussing the various

issues

C. Conflicts among the residence have erupted.

D. Any other improvement.

62. Has the authority been able to connect the villagers better since the

implementation of the scheme?

A. Now, it’s easier to pass on the information to the villagers because of their

frequent intimation.

B. The use of Board/PA system has made the communication easier.

C. Little change

D. No change

63. Do you think people from your village now do not search for employment outside

the village anymore because of NREGA?

A. No need to work outside the village anymore.

B. Some still do

C. People move out more than before

D. Still the same

151

64. Has the mode of communication (e.g. Bus service or taxi service etc) to your

village improved in the last 2 years?

A. Yes

B. No

C. It will improve soon

D. Not at all

65. If yes, do you think implementation of NREGA scheme has contributed to the

communication development?

A. Yes B. No

66. Do you think the Block officials/ District officials /State Govt. officials have

started visiting your village and adjacent village frequently now than before?

A. Very much B. Little

C. Not at all D. Worse

67. Is there any new organization, association formed directly or indirectly through

the involvement of people in the NREGA Scheme?

A. Yes B. No

68. Are there any new financial institutions being set up in the village?

A. Yes B. No

69. Do you consider disabled persons while providing the work?

A. Yes B. No

70. What are the types of work has been implemented under NREGA?

A. Afforestation

152

B. Plantation

C. Irrigation

D. Road connectivity

E. Others

71. During last 2 years how many projects are completed?

Type of work No. during last

2 years

How those structure are used

Plantation

Afforestation

Irrigation

Road

connectivity

Others

72. If yes, can you name some?

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

153

_______________________________________________________________

_____________________

73. Do you think this scheme should be continued in the days to come?

A. Yes B. No

74. If yes, state three reasons.

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

____________________________

75. If no, state three reasons.

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

____________________________

76. Is the 2.4 % amount sanctioned for implementation of the work sufficient?

A. Yes B. No

77. What is the percentage of BPL household employed under NREGA?

_______________________________________________________________

_______

154

78. Do people communicate/ talk about NREGA in mass media?

A. Yes B. No

79. Are there any NREGA works implemented in private property?

A. Yes B. No

80. If yes, does the owner of the property bears some of the expenditures?

A. Yes B. No

81. Remarks:

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

_________________________________

C. Questionnaire for Stakeholder III

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THIRD PARTY STAKE HOLDERS

Name of the Investigator: _________________________. Date: _____________

Name of Informant: ____________________________________.

155

Name of the Village: ____________________________________

Name of the Hima: _____________________________________

Name of the Block: _____________________________________

Name of the District: ____________________________________

Name of the State: ______________________________________

1. What is the main occupation of people in your village

A. Cultivator B. Agricultural Labourer

C. Construction D. Others (specify) _____________________

2. Have you heard of NREGA?

A. Yes B. No


A. Yes B. No

4. How did you come to know about it?

A. Through neighbors B. Through fellow colleagues

C. Through Village Authorities D. Through Media

5. Is the main occupation of the people related with NREGA?

A. Yes

B. No

C. Any other (Specify)…………………….

6. Do you know anyone belonging to the BPL category employed under NREGA?

A. Yes

156

B. No

7. What are the kinds of work that have been done in your village under NREGA

Scheme?

A. Plantation

B. Afforestation


D. Land Development (irrigation, footpath etc.)

E. Others Specify…………………..

8. How has the standard of living of the people in your village change in the last 2 years

because of their involvement with NREGA?

A. Improved

B. More or Less Same

C. People have become worse-off

D. Can’t say

8. How has the kind of work undertaken in your village help improve the livelihood of

the people?

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

________

9. Is the work coordinator from the village itself?

A. Yes B. No

10. Do you have any idea about the sanction budget for your village?

A. Yes B. No

11. Is there any mate being recruited through NREGA?

157

A. Yes B. No

12. Is she from the village itself?

A. Yes B. No

13. Has the NREGA scheme been a boon to the locality?

A. Yes B. No

14. Is there any changes being seen in the villages after the implementation of the

NREGA Scheme?

A. Yes B. No

If Yes indicate the kind of changes witnessed in the past two years.

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

15. Do you think the women folk have been uplifted because of the implementation of

NREGA?

A. Yes B. No

If Yes, indicate the improvement that is seen among the women folk:

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

16. Is there any irregularity on the part of the village administration in the way the

scheme is being carried out in the villages?

A. Yes B. No

158

17. What are the general complaints being received from the people regarding the

NREGA scheme?

A. Less wages

B. Work having to be discontinued due to lack of fund

C. Wages not received within the stipulated time

D. Other (specify)_________________________________________________

18. What are the kinds of development taking place since the implementation?

A. Infrastructural development

B. Seasonal employment to the people

C. Social cohesion

D. Other (specify

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________

19. What is the difference seen before and after the implementation of the scheme?

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

___

20. After the implementation of NREGA scheme, how is the relationship between the

local authorities (headman and village council) and the general public has changed?

A. It has brought in better cooperation

B. People have been comfortable with the authorities in discussing the various

issues

159

C. Conflicts among the residence have erupted

D. Any other improvement

21. Do you think people from your village now still continue to search for employment

outside the village?

A. Yes B. No

If No, is it because most of them are employed under NREGA?

A. Yes B. No

22. Do you think the amount of wages given by the NREGA scheme is a better

alternative in case of having no employment either?

C. Yes B. No

23. How the NREGA scheme is different from previous employment generation

schemes.

A. No difference.

B. More transparent process.

C. Enhance integrated development to the locality.

D. People are more involved as if they work for their own asset creation.

24. How has the enrollment of children in primary schools change in the last two years?

A. Increase significantly

B. Slight increase

C. Remains same

D. Decrease

160

25. How has the drop-out of children in primary schools change in the last two years?

A. Significantly Improved

B. Slightly improved

C. More or less the same

D. Increased

26. Has the mode of communication (e.g bus service or taxi service etc) to your village

improved in the last two years?

A. Yes B. No

If yes, do you think implementation of NREGA scheme has contributed to the

communication development?

A. Yes B. No

27. Do Block official/District officials/State Govt. officials visit your village?

A. Yes frequently

B. Yes, sometimes

C. No

D. Can’t say

28. Do you think a common forum is being created for the women in because of

NREGA?

A. Yes B. No

29. Is there any new organization, association formed directly or indirectly through the

involvement of people in the NREGA Scheme?

A. Yes B. No

161

If yes, can you name some?

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

________

30. Are there any new financial institutions being set up in the village?

A. Yes B. No

If yes, can you name some?

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______

31. Have you heard of any disabled persons working under NREGA?

A. Yes B. No

32. Do you think this scheme should be continued in the days to come?

A. Yes B. No

If yes, state three reasons

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

162

______________________________________________________________________

______

If No, state three reasons

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______

34. Remarks: Suggestions/Problems

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______

33. Rate the extent of achievement of following social indicators because of NRGEA in

your locality.

Indicators Very

Highly

Improved

Highly

Improve

d

Improve

d

Slightly

Improved

Not

Improved

Food Security

Women

163

Empowerment

Convergence

among various

institutions

Poverty

Income generation

Quality of Life

Community

Building

Asset Creation

Health Status

General Remarks:

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

__________

D. Questionnaire for Stakeholder IV

Questionnaire for Block/District Officials

1. How many Blocks/ Villages are there within this District/Block?

________________________________________________________________

_____

164

2. How many villages under this Block have been covered under the NREGA

scheme?

Covered under the

District/Block

No. of Villages

2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

No of villages

covered under the

NREGA Scheme

3. How many people in the Block/ District have been employed under the NREGA

scheme?

People 2006-‘07 2007’08 2008-‘09

Men

Women

Total


A. Yes B. No

5. Are the Sarpanch/Ward members/ Headmen/ Local authorities aware of the key

provisions and procedures of the Act?

A. Yes B. No

6. Did your authority organize an orientation programme for the Sarpanch/Ward

members/Headmen before the implementation of the scheme?

A. Yes B. No

7. Was Local Durbar held to inform the local population regarding the NREGA

scheme?

A. Yes B. No

165

8. What is the percentage of BPL families in the District/ Block?

_____________________________________________________________________

9. Do all those who apply get the work under the NREGA?

A. Yes B. No

10. How many household belonging to BPL category has been employed under NREGA?

_____________________________________________________________________

11. If not, what are the criteria for the selection of workers in case of more applicants?

-_____________________________________________________________________

12. Are there needy households who do not know about NREGA?

A. Yes B. No

13. Are the wage seekers aware of the key provisions and procedures of the Act?

A. Yes B. No

14. Are wage seekers able to register freely and easily for job cards?

B. Yes B. No

15. What is the time gap between registration and issue of Job Card (Should not be more than two to three weeks and not more than a month)?

____________________________________________________________________

16. Are Job Cards freely given?

B. Yes B. No

17. Are there cases of job cards being obtained at a price?

B. Yes B. No

18. Are minors on Job Cards?

B. Yes B. No

166

19. Do job cards have photograph of the household members registered?

B. Yes B. No

20. Are photographs free of cost?

B. Yes B. No

21. Who has custody of job cards?

B.

22. Do the village has an approved shelf of projects of at least five works with technical and financial estimates ready to start when employment demand is received?

B. Yes B. No

23. Have only the permissible works been taken up?

B. Yes B. No

24. Are the works taken up useful?

B. Yes B. No

25. What does the quality of work looks like?

C. Good B. Satisfactory

D. Bad D. Can’t say

26. List of approved works on public display in Village/Dorbar

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

27. Are workers without job cards working on work sites?

B. Yes B. No

28. Are works in progress being technically supervised regularly?

B. Yes B. No

29. Are the workers earning the full task rate notified in the Schedule of rates (SOR).

167

B. Yes B. No

30. Is the task rate earned equal to the minimum wages?

B. Yes B. No

31. Are separate wage rates applicable to NREGA works?

B. Yes B. No

32. Are they the same as the notified minimum wages for agricultural laborers’?

B. Yes B. No

33. Is the Schedule of rates (SOR) applied to NREGA also applied to similar works executed by unskilled manual labour that does not use contractor and machinery?

B. Yes B. No

34. Is an exclusive SOR applied to NREGA?

B. Yes B. No

35. Does a Muster Roll entry match with the job cards?

B. Yes B. No

36. Does a Muster Roll entry match with the job cards especially in term of days worked?

B. Yes B. No

37. Does a Muster Roll entry match with the job cards especially in term of amount paid?

B. Yes B. No

38. Is work completed recorded in the Asset Register?

B. Yes B. No

39. Is Gram Rozgar Sewak available for each Village/Dorbar?

B. Yes B. No

40. Is there a technical assistant (junior engineer) for a group of Village/Dorbar to supervise, measure?

B. Yes B. No

41. Have the following been trained?

168

• Gram Rozgar Sewak (Yes /No)

• Panchayat Secretary (if he is handling NREGA) (Yes /No)

• Sarpanchs/Ward members (Yes /No)

• Vigilance Monitoring Committee Members (Yes /No)

42. Have works been inspected by district/Block /State functionaries?

B. Yes B. No

43. Does the VMC monitor and certify works completion?

B. Yes B. No

44. Has social audit of all works been done?

B. Yes B. No

45. Who did social audit? ___________________________________________________

46. Was the Gram Sabha and the workers involved?

B. Yes B. No


B. Yes B. No

48. Are complaints disposed?

B. Yes B. No

49. How much are the beneficiaries being paid for their manual labour under the scheme?

A. As per the State Government’s Labour rule

B. Less than the specified amount

C. More than the specified amount

D. Depends from place to place

50. In case the applicant cannot be absorbed within 15 days of his or her application, does the state government ensure that he or she is given an unemployment allowance?

51. Do you receive the required amount of fund as per the plan budget submitted by your authorities?

169

A. Yes B. No

52. How many new financial institutions have been set up in the village? ______________

53. If yes, the mode of receipt:

A. All at a time

B. Installment basis

C. After spending the previous budget only

D. After the completion of the work

E. Randomly

54. How much of the budget is being spent for the procurement of required materials and infrastructure?

A. Forty percent from the total budget

B. Less than forty percent from the total budget

C. More than forty percent from the total budget

D. Depends on the nature of work undertaken

55. What is the budget for the following year?

2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

56. Is the District Officials having any long term plan for the proper implementation of the scheme?

A. Yes B. No

57. If yes, Can you kindly provide us a copy of the plan?

58. What is the amount spent towards other activities than workers daily wages?

Activities 2006-‘07 2007-‘08 2008-‘09

170

59. Is there any changes being seen in the villages after the implementation of the

NREGA Scheme?

A. Yes B. No

60. If yes indicate the kind of changes witnessed in the past two years.

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

_______________

61. Do you think the women folk have been uplifted because of the implementation of

NREGA?

B. Yes B. No

62. If yes, indicate the improvement that is seen among the women folk:

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

63. Is there any irregularity on the part of the village administration in the way the

scheme is being carried out in the villages?

B. Yes B. No

64. If Yes, Specify:

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

171

65. What are the kinds of work undertaken under the NREGA scheme?

A. Plantation B. Road connectivity

C. Afforestation D. Water harvesting

66. How do you decide different schemes to different villages?

A. Based on our perception about the requirements

B. Randomly distribute the work

C. Based on the proposal/letter from the village head

D. Instruction from the high authority

67. Mention five top difficulties encountered by your office while implementing the

NREGA scheme:

A. ______________________________________________________________

B. ______________________________________________________________

C. ______________________________________________________________

D. ______________________________________________________________

E. ______________________________________________________________

68. Does the block/district administration have enough staff to carry the work meant

for the implementation of the scheme?

A. Yes B. No

69. If no, how many staffs do you require for the better implementation of NREGA

scheme?

________________________________________________________________

70. Do you get sufficient skilled/technical applicants according to the need of the

NREGA scheme?

A. Yes B. No

172

71. Do you think the production of sufficient technical experts will help in fulfilling the

technical requirements?

A. Yes B. No

72. Is the block/District authority able to dispose of all complaints and act against any

problem that arises within the jurisdiction?

73. Is there a proper coordination between the State and the District Officials to

ensure proper implementation and smooth functioning of the NREGA scheme?

74. What are the general complaints being received from the people regarding the

NREGA scheme?

E. Less wages

F. Work having to be discontinued due to lack of fund

G. Wages not received within the stipulated time

H. Other

(specify)_______________________________________________________

____

75. Do the District Officials witness any changes in the attitude and livelihood of the

beneficiaries in the rural areas?

A. Yes B. No.

76. If Yes, please specify:

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

77. Do you have computers with internet facilities in your office?

A. Yes B. No

78. Is there any computer Operator/ Assistance appointed by the Government in your

office?

A. Yes B. No

79. What is the mode of communication to the villages covered under this block

Development Office?

173

A. Bus B. Taxi

C. Ropeway D. Other (specify)

80. If there is any motor connectivity, what is the frequency of operation?

81. How many of the Block/District officials or employees are involved in the

implementation of the NREGA scheme? ___________________________

82. How many jobs have been created indirectly because of the implementation of the

NREGA scheme?

________________________________________________________________

83. Is there any contractual appointment made for the purpose of the NREGA

scheme?

A. Yes B. No

84. If Yes, How many?

________________________________________________________________

85. Is any new institution being created in the villages and block after the

implementation of the scheme?

A. Clubs B. Associations

C. Village Councils D. Unions

86. Is the 2.4 % amount sanctioned for implementation of the work sufficient?

A. Yes B. No

87. Do people communicate/ talk about NREGA in mass media?

B. Yes B. No

88. Are there any NREGA works implemented in private property?

B. Yes B. No

174

89. If yes, does the owner of the property bears some of the expenditures?

A. Yes B. No

90. If there is any surplus fund from the previous year’s budget, do you carry it

forward to the next year’s plan?

91. Remarks:

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

175

Annexure-II

(Maps)

THE NORTH EAST

176

MEGHALAYA

177

SIKKIM

178

Date post:	17-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	buianh
View:	213 times
Download:	1 times

APPRAISAL OF NREGA IN THE STATES OF...

Documents