Evaluation the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guranttee

Programme (MGNREGP):
A Comparative Study of Haryana and Rajasthan
Introduction:
The conservative neo-liberal policies argue that most of economic activity should be left
in the hands of the private sector, marking the public or the government sector as inefficient and
un-profitable. In this regard NREGA is a landmark legislation that has been made as; it is a step
towards the realization of wage employment as a right. Several studies have proved that this act
has not only enabled generation of productive assets but has also led to higher food and income
security for landless workers and other vulnerable sections of the rural poor(Ravi,s., Engler, M.
(2009)), protecting environment, empowering rural women, reducing rural-urban migration and
fostering social equity etc (Pankaj, A. K. (2008)).
However NREGA has been faced with problems both at the implementation and policy
levels. Problems like unavailability of the provision of work on demand, creation of
unproductive assets, problems in wage calculations and payments, unscrupulous grievance
redressal through social audits, access for all etc, but also in the form of the incentives it provides
have not been able to counter the gigantic impacts on Neo-liberal policies in the labour market.
There also has been a parallel rise in unemployment which has created a growing reserve of
cheap and unorganized labour that can be used as per market terms and conditions.
Neo-liberal policies have impacted adversely on the employment scene in developing
countries in multiple ways. First, a high rate of growth is achieved through a jump in technical
progress leading to increasingly capital intensive technologies, which is accompanied by
declining employment intensity. Second, growth of exports of labour intensive products has
increased employment, albeit of poor quality. Third, import of cheap goods under liberalization
has resulted in closure of local production units, resulting in loss of jobs. Fourth, liberalization
has frequently intensified gender inequalities in the labour market, further deteriorating womens
position in the labour market. Finally, opening of economies has exposed developing countries
to global competition as well as to the global volatility, leading to increased employment
insecurity, uncertainties, and vulnerability.
Thus, in 2005 MNREGA was brought in by the then UPA government to solve the ever
increasing effects brought about in the labour market by the adoption of the market based
capitalistic policies. It is a comprehensive plan for employing millions of rural unskilled labour
force. Thus, for the first time, rural communities have been given not just a development
programme, but also a regime of rights. The security of the additional income to the rural
1

workers provided by the MNREGA will strengthen their bargaining power, which in turn will
make it possible to raise the urban floor-wage of unskilled workers.
The immediate objective of NREGA is to overcome deprivations faced by households by
providing them work at guaranteed wage rates, the larger objective of the act was to address the
social and power relations in the society. NREGA absorbs around 4.51 crores of rural unskilled
wage labour, wherein the male labour force constitutes around 52% and women around 48% for
the Financial Year (FY) 2008-09 (MNREGA Report to the people, 2006-10).

Review of Literature:
Since the implementation of MGNREGA in India several works were carried out to
check out the implementation process and impact assessment of the scheme on various socioeconomic development indicators and women employment.
Pankaj K.A. 2008 measured the implementation of NREGA in term of institutional
aspects such as PRIs, project staff, civil society organization, peoples participation and social
mobilization in Bihar and Jharkhand. Further, study measured the impact of NREGA on
employment, livelihood security, migration, local wages and labour market conditions,
community assets and rural infrastructure. The study concluded that people are unaware about
the detail of the scheme. The role of modern media and government officials are relatively
insignificant. The participation of people is very low because of unawareness.
However, the impact assessment report is quite positive from the Bihar and Jharkhand.
The study inferred that NREGA is well-targeting in both states in the sense of employment
generation. Most of the beneficiaries belonged to the most vulnerable and deserving section.
Further, study shows that income of the households increasing but not at the substantial level.
But it is important to know that beneficiaries are using this increased income for meeting their
basic necessities.
On the issue of community asset creation study states that a large number of assets
created in both states in 2007-08 and they are in immense use in the study area. But the quality of
the assets is very low due to insufficient technical supervision. Further, the selection of site for
the work and maintenance is another problem.
A Survey of 20 districts from throughout the India is conducted by Programme
Evaluation Organisation (PEO), Planning Commission 2008. The study inferred that people
are facing problems on issuance of job cards. One-tenth of the people revealed that ten percent
of the eligible adult members of the family are not included in the job card. The job card is in the
possession of Gram Panchayat (GP) officials in most of the districts of eastern region and only
during the season of works, the job cards are handed over to the beneficiaries for their
signature/thumb impression. Further, People are not getting job in the stipulated 15 days time
period. Neither they have got any unemployment allowance as stipulated in the act. The income
level of the households is increasing. Now they are shifting from the low earning level to
2

marginally higher income level. Beneficiaries distributed their income in both food and non-food
items.
Singh S. P., Nauriyal D. K., 2009 prepared a report for the IIT, Roorkee, based on the
three districts of the Uttarakhand. Study found that there is demand-side and supply-side
constraints in ensuring 100 days job guarantee. Supply-side constraints emanate from the lack of
interest on the part of Gram Pradhans and officials, inadequate and less-trained staff and lack of
effective participation of Gram Sabha. The demand-side limitations emanate from the lack of
awareness among workers. Field survey of the study reported that many of the workers did not
know that NREGS guarantees 100 days of employment to a rural household, as a matter of right,
thus, the Scheme is target-oriented and supply-driven, not demand driven as envisaged in the
Act. Study concluded that NREGS is not bringing any significant improvement in the income
and employment generation. Further, the study found a perceptible difference in the quality of
assets created in the sample districts. In the hill districts viz., Champawat and Tehri, the quality
and durability of the assets created under NREGS were found to be far superior to those in the
district of Haridwar.
A report Implementation of NREGA: The Rajesthan Experience (2009) Prepared
by Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan
conclude that Rajasthan experiencing a great success in the implementation of scheme. Public
participation especially from the weaker and marginalized section is very high in Rajasthan.
Wage rates are improving in agricultural and other sector due to NREGA.
Khera R. 2009; in his article Group Measurement of NREGA work: The Jalore
Experiment confirmed that implementation of NREGA in Rajasthan is very good but people
are not paid statutory minimum wages as stipulated in the act. The wage rate is very low in
Rajasthan.
A another study conducted by India Centre for Research in Rural and Industrial
Development, (CRRID) and sponsored United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),
India in 2009 in the three selected districts of Himachal Pardesh, Haryana and Punjab, inferred
that the all three states have a high proportion in the employment providing as per the demand of
the employment. But despite this, there is another fact, the demand of employment in sample
districts are very low. Moreover, from the household who demanded employment only a few
persons are getting one hundred day employment. The condition in district of Himachal pardesh
is better than the Haryana and Punjab. However, the study shows that the economic condition of
the wage earners has improved. Further, the study also shows contradictory result on women
empowerment. It was reported that two sample district of Haryana (i.e. Sirsa) and Punjab (i.e.
Hoshiarpur) shows improvement in womens condition due to participation in MNREGA.
3

However, the impact of MNREGA on women in one district of Himachal Pardesh (i.e. Sirmaur)
was not satisfactory.
The above review shows that, there are wide variations across states, within states and
across districts in the performance of MNREGA. The present study will seeks to explore through
field work, the reason behind the gaps in implementation and performance of the scheme. The
area of the present study is Haryana and Rajasthan. These states are selected for a number of
reasons. While Rajasthan shows a very high proportion of work days generated for both men and
women (rural development and panchayati raj department, government of Rajasthan (2009),
Khera , R. (2009) ), Haryana is a contrast with very low share of man and women. Rajasthan
leads the country in the total number of work days generated, has a number of active civil society
groups that have engaged with the programme, and has a prior history of large scale public works
programmes popularly known as famine works. Haryana is one of the more prosperous states
in the country due to its fertile agriculture land, but situation of Rajasthan is different from
Haryana. The NREGS is being implemented in the pockets of deprivation that are present even
in this relatively rich state. Between them, the two states are dissimilar in many ways and it is
expected that this diversity will help to build a more nuanced picture than possible through a
focus on one state alone.
Further, Some of the above mentioned studies infer that NREGA is improving the
condition of rural poor including women and also creating good quality assets (Pankaj A. K.
2008, CRRID, 2008, Khera R. 2009). But some have inferred it is not creating any significant
differences (Singh S. P., Nauriyal D. K., 2009, CRRID, 2008).

Objectives:
Therefore, keeping all these things in mind the focus of the present study is to examine
the multiple impacts of MNREGS work, particular in food security, saving and health outcomes.
The main objectives of the study are:
1. To evaluate MNREGS performance in terms of implementation in Haryana and
Rajathan. Especially to identify the time lag between commencement of work and
payment of wages and the source of delay in the wage payment chain.
2. To assess the impact of MNREGS works on consumption (food security), income,
saving and health.
3. To evaluate the role of MNREGS in the empowerment of women.
4. To suggest measures to improve the efficiency of the systems and processes and
ensure sustainable impact of the scheme on the peoples livelihood in particular and
overall development of rural economy in general.
4

In the present proposed study to determine the effective implementation of scheme demand side
and supply side variables will be analyzed. In the demand side variables, the awareness of the
people and the peoples will for participating in the scheme will be examined. On the other hand,
in the supply variables, the role of Gram Panchayats (GPs) or Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs)
and other officials will be measured.
To analyze the peoples participation in the scheme study will focus on the some
important variables such as, landholdings and monthly per-capita consumption expenditure
adjusted after deducting the monthly per-capita income from NREGS, sex of head of the
household, household size, social group, religion, location proximity and political participation.
To analyze all these binary response model will be constructed. This is written as,
NREGSi = + 1landholdi + 2mpceiadj + 3rhhscorei + Xi + ei.(1)
Where, NREGSi = 1 if house hold i is participating in NREGS and 0 otherwise,
landholdi = Total land holding of the household i measured in acres,
mpceiadj = Adjusted monthly per-capita consumption expenditure ,
rhhscorei = 1 if the household is a BPL and 0 otherwise,
Xi = is vector of all other determinants of participation in NREGS including head of the
household, household size, social group, religion, location proximity and political participation
etc.
ei = is the random error term.
The impact of changes in the independent variables on the probability of NREGS
participation is estimated by assuming a standard normal distribution. The coefficient 1, 2, 3,
indicate the impact of a change in the corresponding independent variable on the probability
participating in NREGS. If coefficient 1 and 2<0 then participation in NREGS declines with
size of land holding and monthly per-capita income.
In the analysis of role of supply side in the effective implementation of NREGS the
efficiency of the implementing government institution should be measured. Here, efficiency of
5

the implementing government institutions in the sense, they are able to deliver a job and make a
subsequent wage payments within the statutory 15 day limit as outlined in the NREG Act-2005.
The main aim is to identify the time lag in terms of days between the date of start of work and
the date on which payment is made. To fulfill the role as a safety net it is expected that the
programme should deliver better coverage both in money and person-days during this period.
This examination should be possible by the taking responses from both official and beneficiaries
by the surveys and focus group discussions.
To analyze the impact of NREGA on different socio-economic variables, simple
comparison between participants and non-participants will not be a useful empirical strategy as
economic outcome such as consumption expenditure, saving , income and employment (number
of days worked under NREGS) will be simultaneously determined. To account for the
simultaneous relation between household economic status and the number of days worked under
the NREGS Instrumental Variable (IV) estimation technique should be used. The basic idea is to
find variables which exert a strong influence on the number of days worked under the NREGS
scheme but which do not have a direct effect on outcome of interest, while the main challenges is
to find suitable instruments.
Data source:
1. House hold survey:
House hold survey will be conducted on the basis of multi-stage stratified random
sampling. Care will be taken to undertake an in-depth study by random sampling. During
the selection of beneficiaries, care will be taken to provide space for the inclusion of
those entering at different stages of implementation of the scheme.
2. Worksite Visits:
Worksites will also be surveyad to assess the availability of worksite facilities, issuance
of job cards to the workers, verification of muster rolls, payment of wages, the location of
quality and construction and the usefulness of the scheme.
3. Focus group discussions:
Focus group discussions with the villagers, workers and representatives of PRIs and
NGOs will also held. Discussions will also held with the key officials involved in the
implementation to learn their views and the difficulties faced in implementation.
4. Secondary data:
6

Secondary data will be collected from the NREGAs official web site and from the related
departments.

Refrences:
1. Khera, R. (2009), Group Measurement of NREGA work: The Jalore Experiments.
http://www.cdedse.org/pdf/work180.pdf
2. Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Gurantee Act, 2005; Report to the people
(2nd Fab. 2006 2nd Fab. 2010), Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.
3. Pankaj, A. K. (2008), Process, Institutions and Machanisms of Implimentation of
NREGA: Impact Assessment of Bihar and Jharkhand. Institute for Human Development.
4. Programme Evaluation Organisation (PEO), Planning Commission, (2008) All India
Report on Evaluation of NREGA: A Survey of Twenty Districts. Institute of Applied
Manpower Research, Delhi.
5. Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan (2009),
Implementation of NREGA: The Rajasthan Experience. Implementation of NREGA23.10.08.pdf
6. Singh, S. P., Nauriyal, D.K. (2009), System and Process Review of Impact Assessment of
NREGS in the State of Uttarakhnd. Districts: Tehri, Champawat, Haridwar. Month July
2009. Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee.
7. UNDP (2009), Appraisal of impact assessment of NREGS in selected districts of
Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana. Districts: Hoshiarpur, Sirsa, Simaur, Period
July-August 2009. India Centre for Research in Rural and Industrial Development,
(CRRID) Chandigarh.