Submitted toMs Ruchi Dubey

Submmited byYash Lahoti9th A

NREGA 2005: Towards Changing

Face of Development

Why NREGA and Why in 2005?Economic; Political and Constitutional Contexts of NREGA: 1. Economic: Skewed growth and lopsided development in the

liberalisation phase

(a) Jobless growth: disjunction between growth in GDP and employment(b) Income without distribution: high growth rate in GDP per capita with

poor distribution

Consequences: a) Rising personal (income), sectoral and regional inequality in the

reform phaseb) Issue of sustainability of the growth rate

Why in 2005? Answer lies in political contexts

2. Political Contexts:(a) Voting out of “India Shining” ( BJP-led NDA govt.) in 2004

parliamentary elections

(b) Voting out of icons of reform: Chandra Babu Naidu in Andhra Pradesh and SM Krishna in Karnataka (Voted out by the rural voters)

NREGA depending on following laws :

3. Constitutional Contexts: Implicit and Explicit Provisions:

(a) Article 21: right to live and liberty:-- Right to life includes right to livelihood, as laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Olega Tellis Vs. Mumbai Municipal Corporation case.

(b) Artcile 39 (a): “ … right to livelihood..”

(c) Article 41: right to work

(d) Preamble of the Constituion: “ …to secure to all its citizens: justice, social, economic and political…”.

Objectives of the Act ?(a) Primary Objective: To provide a minimum livelihood

(income) security to the rural households

The Act states:“To provide for the enhancement of livelihood security of the households in rural areas of the country by providing at least one hundred days of guaranteed wage employment …”

(b) Secondary objectives:• To reduce distress migration;

• Creation of durable community assets in rural areas;

• Invigorating civic and community life and enlivening of PRIs;

• Empowerment of rural women;

• Overall development of the rural economy;

• Promotion of inclusive growth and development; and

• Multiplier effects on the economy.

Different from the previous Employment and Public Works Programme

Main deficiencies in the previous programmes:• Schemes formulated and implemented by the bureaucracy;• Little involvement of the local community in selection and implementation;• Centralized character;• Absence of social monitoring;• Wastages of resources, leakages and corruption;• Supply-driven scheme, i.e. employment on the basis of supply; • Inadequate employment generation;• Inability to provide minimum livelihood security;• Cheating and delay in wage payment;• Lack of amenities to workers;• Low participation of women;• Employment opportunities inflexible to workers’ demand.

NREGS: Five major departures from the erstwhile

employment programmes 1. Originates from an Act of Parliament; others from executive fiat.

2. Irreversible and can be terminated only by another Act of Parliament.

3. Primary objective to provide minimum livelihood security than to generate rural employment and community assets.

4. Overall thrust on entitlement to:

a) Incomeb) Workers rights (minimum wages and compensation)c) Working conditions (four facilities at worksites) 5. The first major experiment in decentralized participatory

development through institutions of local governance (PRIs).

How is it working?: Mixed results:Points to celebrate:

1. Massive scale of coverage:• Entire rural population; more than two-thirds of the total

population of India; and in states like Bihar 90 % of the total population

• More than 50 million households are availing ( more than the population of many countries)

• Community assets created in almost every village in one stroke. ( .65 million villages in India) .

• Gives employment for 100days.

Snapshot of employment generation

1 

Employment generated and provided

2009-10

2008-09

2007-08

2006-07

2

No. of HHs provided employment in million 52.58 45.11 33.90 21.01

3 Average persondays per HH 54 48 42 43

4

% share of SC population30 29 27 25

5 % share of ST population 21 25 29 36

6 % share of other population 49 45 43 38

7 % share of women 48 48 43 41

Cont.

2. Well-targeted through self targeting

a) Most of the beneficiary households are traditionally marginalised, economically vulnerable and most deserving candidates for any social protection measure

Land category-wise Distribution of Benefited Households

  Bihar Jharkhand

Landless 80.41 29.95

> 0.5 acres 13.65 28.38

0.5 to 1 acres 3.16 20.63

1 to 2.5 acres 2.04 13.72

2.5 to 5 acres 0.37 6.18

5 to 10 acres 0.37 1.15

Above 10 acres 0 0

Occupation-wise Distribution of Benefited Households

  Bihar Jharkhand

Self-employed in agriculture 5.01 21.88

Casual labourers in agriculture 77.99 40.21

Casual labourers in non-agriculture 15.6 34.45

Self-employed in small business 1.02 2.2

Self-employed in large business/Salaried 0.09 0.73

Others 0.28 0.52

Total 100 100

cont.

3. Providing Income Security

Income of NREGA Beneficiary from Various Sources in Bihar

Agri Lab39%

Non Agri Lab22%

Animal2%

Business2%

Const & other6%

Agri9%

Others0%

NREGA8%Remittance

8%

Trad Services1%

Salaried & pension3%

Cont. Various sources of Income and share of NREGS

Various Sources of HH Income

Dairy

1%

Non-agriculture

wages

45%

Agriculture wages

11%NREGA

19%

Sale of Fruits and

vegetables

0%

Sale of agricultural

products (grains)

2%

Rent of any type

0%

Others

13%

Old age/ widow

pension

0%

Other pensions

2%

Remittances

7%

Contribution of NREGS in total Income of the HH

Various Sources of Earnings

(share in %)

Dungarpur Gaya Kangra Ranchi Total

Agricultural wages 2.22 34.1 0.84 14.46 10.54

Non-agricultural wages 42.98 42.34 43.62 45.46 43.8

Sale of agricultural products 0.67 3.25 0.07 5.36 2.04

Dairy 0.7 0.61 0.62 2.25 1.02

Sale of fruits and veget. 0.0 0.0 0.87 0.64 0.45

Rent of any type 0.0 0.0 0.08 0.0 0.03

Old age/ widow pension 0.24 0.1 1.06 0.0 0.44

Other pension 0.0 0.0 5.58 2.03 2.4

Remittances received 21.37 2.42 4.86 1.15 7.47

Others 4.86 4.31 24.5 12.45 13.35

NREGA 26.95 12.86 17.9 16.19 18.46

4. Food security and consumption effectsConsumption items (per cent)

Dungarpur Gaya Kangra Ranchi Total

Food grains 87.4 75.5 80.2 79.8 80.6

Other food items 93.2 77.3 89.6 84.4 86

Liquor 7.8 14.5 0.9 11 8.6

Education 44.7 1.8 52.8 28.4 31.5

Fuel and fodder 22.3 12.7 10.4 2.8 11.9

Medical expenses 74.8 60.9 43.4 37.6 54

Transport and communication 6.8 6.4 1.9 6.4 5.4

Clothes 72.8 66.4 71.7 69.7 70.1

Recreation 1 14.5 1.9 20.2 9.6

Loan repayment 4.9 8.2 8.5 11.9 8.4

Savings / lending 6.8 3.6 33 11.9 13.8

Marriages/Social ceremonies 2.9 2.7 15.1 4.6 6.3

Household durables 1 3.6 6.6 4.6 4

Land and other productive assets 0 0 0 0 0

Cattle 1 0.9 0 0.9 0.7

Others 0 0.9 1.9 5.5 2.1

Cont.

5. Decrease in indebtedness6. Reduction in distress migration

B. Macro level effects:Economic:1. Impact on rural wages and labour market2. Increased rural infrastructure3. Increased productivity of small and marginal farmers due to land

development and increased irrigation capapcity4. Multiplier effects greater Social:1. Women’s empowermrent2. Strengthening of the participatory development process3. Transparency, accountability becoming part of the public works

programme

Difficulties and challenges

1. Realization of low persondays2. Regional variations in implementation3. Yet to become fully demand based4. Quality of assets in some cases5. Non-fulfilment of others entitlements6. Low level of quality awareness7. Poor capapcity of local institutions in some states

Prospects

1. Right to work has entered into the imagination of the common man

2. Complete political consensus

3. Resource constraint is no longer an argument

4. Civil society playing very active role

Thanks!!!