National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005

History

The Planning Commission later approved the scheme and the same was adopted on national scale.

Starting from 1960, the first 30 years of experimentation with employment schemes in rural areas taught few important lessons to the government like the ‘Rural Manpower Programme’ taught the lesson of financial management, the ‘Crash Scheme for Rural Employment’ of planning for outcomes, a ‘Pilot Intensive Rural Employment Programme’ of labour-intensive works, the ‘Drought Prone Area Programme’ of integrated rural development, ‘Marginal Farmers and Agricultural Labourers Scheme’ of rural economic development, the ‘Food for Work Programme’ (FWP) of holistic development and better coordination with the states, the ‘National Rural Employment Programme’ (NREP) of community development, and the ‘Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme’ of focus on landless households.

On 1 April 1989, to converge employment generation, infrastructure development and food security in rural areas, the government integrated NREP and RLEGP into a new scheme JRY. The most significant change was the decentralization of implementation by involving local people through PRIs and hence a decreasing role of bureaucracy.

On 2 October 1993, the Employment Assurance Scheme (EAS) was initiated to provide employment during the lean agricultural season. The role of PRIs was reinforced with the local self-government at the district level called the ‘Zilla Parishad’ as the main implementing authority. Later, EAS was merged with SGRY in 2001.

On 1 April 1999, the JRY was revamped and renamed to JGSY with a similar objective. The role of PRIs was further reinforced with the local self-government at the village level called the ‘Village Panchayats’ as the sole implementing authority. In 2001, it was merged with SGRY.

In January 2001, the government introduced FWP similar to the one initiated in 1977. Once NREGA was enacted, the two were merged in 2006.

On 25 September 2001 to converge employment generation, infrastructure development and food security in rural areas, the government integrated EAS and JGSY into a new scheme SGRY. The role of PRIs was retained with the ‘Village Panchayats’ as the sole implementing authority. Yet again due to implementation issues, it was merged with Mahatma Gandhi NREGA in 2006.

The total government allocation to these precursors of Mahatma Gandhi NREGA had been about three-quarters of ₹1 trillion (US$15 billion).

Overview

The NDA government has decided to provide 150 days for rain hit areas.

The registration process involves an application to the Gram Panchayat and issue of job cards. The wage employment must be provided within 15 days of the date of application. The work entitlement of ‘120 days per household per year’ may be shared between different adult members of the same household.

The law also lists permissible works: water conservation and water harvesting; drought proofing including afforestation; irrigation works; restoration of traditional water bodies; land development; flood control; rural connectivity; and works notified by the government. The Act sets a minimum limit to the wage-material ratio as 60:40. The provision of accredited engineers, worksite facilities and a weekly report on worksites is also mandated by the Act.

Furthermore, the Act sets a minimum limit to the wages, to be paid with gender equality, either on a time-rate basis or on a piece-rate basis. The states are required to evolve a set of norms for the measurement of works and schedule of rates. unemployment allowance must be paid if the work is not provided within the statutory limit of 15 days.

The law stipulates Gram Panchayats to have a single bank account for NREGA works which shall be subjected to public scrutiny. To promote transparency and accountability, the act mandates ‘monthly squaring of accounts’. To ensure public accountability through public vigilance, the NREGA designates ‘social audits’ as key to its implementation.

The most detailed part of the Act (chapter 10 and 11) deals with transparency and accountability that lays out role of the state, the public vigilance and, above all, the social audits.

For evaluation of outcomes, the law also requires management of data and maintenance of records, like registers related to employment, job cards, assets, muster rolls and complaints, by the implementing agencies at the village, block and state level.

The legislation specifies the role of the state in ensuring transparency and accountability through upholding the right to information and disclosing information proactively, preparation of annual reports by CEGC for Parliament and SEGCs for state legislatures, undertaking mandatory financial audit by each district along with physical audit, taking action on audit reports, developing a Citizen's Charter, establishing vigilance and monitoring committees, and developing grievance redressal system.

The Act recommends establishment of ‘Technical Resource Support Groups’ at district, state and central level and active use of Information Technology, like creation of a ‘Monitoring and Information System (MIS)’ and a NREGA website, to assure quality in implementation of NREGA through technical support.

The law allows convergence of NREGA with other programmes. As NREGA intends to create ‘additional’ employment, the convergence should not affect employment provided by other programmes.

Independent Academic Research

Hello Academic research has focused on many dimensions of the NREGA: economic security, self-targeting, women's empowerment, asset creation, corruption, how the scheme impacts agricultural wages. An early overall assessment in the north India states suggested that NREGA was "making a difference to the lives of the rural poor, slowly but surely."

The evidence on self-targeting suggests that works though there is a lot of unmet demand for work.

One of the objectives of NREGA was to improve the bargaining power of labour who often faced exploitative market conditions. Several studies have found that agricultural wages have increased significantly, especially for women since the inception of the scheme. This indicates that overall wage levels have increased due to the act, however, further research highlights that the key benefit of the scheme lies in the reduction of wage volatility. This highlights that NREGA may be an effective insurance scheme. Ongoing research efforts try to evaluate the overall welfare effects of the scheme; a particular focus has been to understand whether the scheme has reduced migration into urban centers for casual work.

Another important aspect of NREGA is the potential for women's empowerment by providing them opportunities for paid work. One third of all employment is reserved for women, there is a provision for equal wages to men and women, provision for child care facilities at the worksite - these are three important provisions for women in the Act. More recent studies have suggested that women's participation has remained high, though there are inter-state variations. One study in border villages of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat studied the effect on short term migration and child welfare. and found that among children who do not migrate, grade completed is higher. The same study found that demand for NREGA work is higher, even though migrant wages are higher.

On asset creation, there have not been too many detailed studies. A few focusing on the potential for asset creation under NREGA suggest that (a) the potential is substantial and (b) in some places it is being realized and (c) lack of staff, especially technical staff rather than lack of material are to blame for poor realization of this potential. Others have pointed out that water harvesting and soil conservation works promoted through NREGA "could have high positive results on environment security and biodiversity and environment conservation" A study conducted by researchers at the Indian Institute of Science and other collaborators attempts to quantify the environmental and socio-economic benefits of works done through the NREGA

Corruption in government programmes has remained a serious concern, and NREGA has been no exception. According to recent estimates, wage corruption in NREGA has declined from about 50% in 2007-8 to between 4-30% in 2009-10. Much of this improvement is attributable to the move to pay NREGA wages through bank and post office accounts. Some of the success in battling corruption can also be attributed to the strong provisions for community monitoring. Others find that "the overall social audit effects on reducing easy-to-detect malpractices was mostly absent".

A few papers also study the link between electoral gains and implementation of NREGA. One studies the effect in Andhra Pradesh - the authors find that "while politics may influence programme expenditure in some places and to a small extent, this is not universally true and does not undermine the effective targeting and good work of the scheme at large." The two other studies focus on these links in Rajasthan and West Bengal. Several local case studies are also being conducted to identify the regional impacts of NREGA.

Assessment of the act by the constitutional auditor

The second performance audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of Indiacovered 3,848 gram panchayats (GPs)in 28 statesand 4 union territories (UTs)from April 2007 to March 2012.This comprehensive survey by the CAG documents lapses in implementation of the act.The main problems identified in the audit included: a fall in the level of employment, low rates of completion of works (only 30.3 per cent of planned works had been completed), poor planning (in one-third of Gram Panchayats, the planning process mandated by the act had not been followed), lack of public awareness partly due to poor information,education and communication IEC) by the state governments, shortage of staff (e.g., Gram Rozgar Sewaks had not been appointed in some states) and so on.Notwithstanding the statutory requirement of notification, yet five states had not even notified the eight-years-old scheme. The comprehensive assessment of the performance of the law by the constitutional auditor revealed serious lapses arising mainly due to lack of public awareness, mismanagement and institutional incapacity. The CAG also suggested some corrective measures.

Even though the mass social audits have a statutory mandate of Section 17 (as outlined in Chapter 11 of the NREGA Operational Guidelines), only seven states have the institutional capacity to facilitate the social audits as per prescribed norms. Although the Central Council is mandated to establish a central evaluation and monitoring system as per the NREGA Operational Guidelines, even after six years it is yet to fulfill the NREGA directive. Further, the CAG audit reports discrepancies in the maintenance of prescribed basic records in up to half of the gram panchayats (GPs) which inhibits the critical evaluation of the NREGA outcomes. The unreliability of Management Information System (MIS), due to significant disparity between the data in the MIS and the actual official documents, is also reported.

To increase public awareness, the intensification of the Information, Education and Communication (IEC) activities is recommended. To improve management of outcomes, it recommended proper maintenance of records at the gram panchayat (GP) level. Further the Central Council is recommended to establish a central evaluation and monitoring system for "a national level, comprehensive and independent evaluation of the scheme". The CAG also recommends a timely payment of unemployment allowance to the rural poor and a wage material ratio of 60:40 in the NREGA works. Moreover, for effective financial management, the CAG recommends proper maintenance of accounts, in a uniform format, on a monthly basis and also enforcing the statutory guidelines to ensure transparency in the disposal of funds. For capacity building, the CAG recommends an increase in staff hiring to fill the large number of vacancies.

For the first time, the CAG also included a survey of more than 38,000 NREGA beneficiaries. An earlier evaluation of the NREGA by the CAG was criticized for its methodology.

Evaluation of the law by the government

Ex-Prime Minister of India Manmohan Singh released an anthologys of research studies on the MGNREGA called "MGNREGA Sameeksha" in New Delhi on 14 July 2012, about a year before the CAG report. Aruna Roy and Nikhil Dey said that "the MGNREGA Sameeksha is a significant innovation to evaluate policy and delivery". The anthology draws on independent assessments of MGNREGA conducted by Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs), Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and others in collaboration with United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) published from 2008 to 2012. The Prime Minister said:

The Mahatma Gandhi NREGA story in numbers is a story worth telling... the scheme scores high on inclusivness...no welfare scheme in recent memory has caught the imagination of the people as much as NREGA has ... under which ₹1,10,000 crore (about USD$25 billion) have been spent to pay wages to 1,200 crore (12 billion) people.

Minister of Rural Development Jairam Ramesh says in the 'MGNREGA Sameeksha':

It is perhaps the largest and most ambitious social security and public works programme in the world. ... soundness and high potential of the MGNREGA are well established ... . That, at any rate, is one of the main messages emerging from this extensive review of research on MGNREGA. It is also a message that comes loud and clear from the resounding popularity of MGNREGA—today, about one-fourth of all rural households participate in the programme every year.

Meanwhile, the social audits in two Indian states highlight the potential of the law if implemented effectively.

Further the Minister says:

MGNREGA’s other quantitative achievements have been striking as well:

1. Since its inception in 2006, around ₹1,10,000 crore (about USD$25 billion) has gone directly as wage payment to rural households and 1200 crore (12 billion) person-days of employment has been generated. On an average, 5 crore (50 million) households have been provided employment every year since 2008.
2. Eighty per cent of households are being paid directly through bank/post office accounts, and 10 crore (100 million) new bank/post office accounts have been opened.
3. The average wage per person-day has gone up by 81 per cent since the Scheme’s inception, with state-level variations. The notified wage today varies from a minimum of ₹122 (USD$2.5) in Bihar, Jharkhand to ₹191 (USD$4) in Haryana.
4. Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) have accounted for 51 per cent of the total person-days generated and women for 47 per cent, well above the mandatory 33 per cent as required by the Act.
5. 146 lakh (14.6 million) works have been taken up since the beginning of the programme, of which about 60 per cent have been completed.
6. 12 crore (120 million) Job Cards (JCs) have been given and these along with the 9 crore (90 million) muster rolls have been uploaded on the Management Information System (MIS), available for public scrutiny. Since 2010–11, all details with regard to the expenditure of the MGNREGA are available on the MIS in the public domain.

Save MGNREGA

'Save MGNREGA' is a set of demands proposed during the joint meeting of the national leadership of CITU, AIAWU, AIDWA and AIKS in New Delhi. The agenda was to discuss the dilution of MGNREGA scheme by the new government. Following demands were proposed:

1. Government of India should increase the Central allocation for the scheme so that number of workdays can be increased to 200 and per day wage can be increased to Rs. 300.

2. Job card to be issued for everyone who demands job, failing which, after 15 days employment benefits should be given.

3. Minimum 100 days of work should be ensured to all card holders

4. Minimum wage act should be strictly implemented. Delay in wage payment should be resolved.

5. MGNREGA should be extended to urban areas.

6. Gram Sabhas should be strengthened to monitor proper implementation of the scheme and also to check corruption.

New Amendments Proposed in 2014

Union Rural development Minister, Nitin Gadkari, proposed to limit MGNREGA programmes within tribal and poor areas. He also proposed to change the labour:material ratio from 60:40 to 51:49. As per the new proposal the programme will be implemented in 2,500 backward blocks coming under Intensive Participatory Planning Exercise. These blocks are identified per the Planning Commission Estimate of 2013 and a Backwardness Index prepared by Planning Commission using 2011 census. This backwardness index consist of following five parameters - percentage of households primarily depended on agriculture, female literacy rates, households without access to electricity, households without access to drinking water and sanitation within the premises and households without access to banking facilities.

Both proposals came in for sharp criticism. A number of economists with diverse views opposed the idea of restricting or "focussing" implementation in a few districts or blocks.

In the November 2014 cabinet expansion, Birender Singh replaced Nitin Gadkari as rural development minister. Among the first statements made by the new minister was an assurance that NREGA would continue in all districts. Around the same time, however, NREGA budget saw a sharp cut and in the name of 'focusing' on a few blocks the programme has been limited to those blocks.

New Amendments Proposed in 2017

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley announced Rs. 48,000 crore to be allocated to the MGNREGA as a part of 2017 Union budget of India.

Controversies

A major criticism of NREGA is that it is making agriculture less profitable. Landholders often oppose it on these grounds. The big farmer’s point of view can be summed up as follows: landless labourers are lazy and they don’t want to work on farms as they can get money without doing anything at NREGA worksites; farmers may have to sell their land, thereby laying foundation for the corporate farming.

The workers points of view can be summed up as: labourers do not get more than Rs. 80 in the private agricultural labour market, there is no farm work for several months; few old age people who are jobless for at least 8 months a year; when farm work is available they go there first; farmers employ only young and strong persons to work in their farms and reject the others and hence many go jobless most of the time.

Corruption

NREGA has been criticised for leakages and corrupt implementation. It has been alleged that individuals have received benefits and work payments for work that they have not done, or have done only on paper, or are not poor. In 2014-15, only 28% of the payments were made on time to workers. Following the allegations of corruption in the scheme, NDA government ordered a re-evaluation of the scheme in 2015.