The Mahatma gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (mNREGA)

Executive Summary

Around three per cent of Indias population has worked under the NREGA.

More than 1,00,00 villa es are i!ple!entin the NREGA. "urin #00$%0& each villa e spent at an avera e of Rs ',00,000 for creatin *ears, each district has spent around Rs -- crore. si( productive assets like water conservation structures )onl* co!pleted works till "ece!+er #00&,. In the last two

Man* villa es are reapin the +enefits of usin NREGA !one* for productive purpose like water conservation. .ut there are !an* !ore villa es which have not +een a+le to do so.

Govern!ents are approachin the NREGA as a purel* wa e e!plo*!ent pro ra!!e thus ne atin the develop!ent potential of NREGA for a lar e portion of Indias rural population.

MNREGA and Rural E!plo*!ent in /un0a+1 An Evaluative 2tud* of 3oshiarpur "istrict with 4pportunities And 5hallen es1
Mahat!a Gandhi National Rural E!plo*!ent Guarantee Act )MNREGA, #006 is a uni7ue polic* intervention +* the 2tates for providin 8livelihood securit*8 to the resource poor people in rural India. 9nder this Act, the Govern!ents are le all* +ound to provide 100 da*s uaranteed !anual e!plo*!ent on local pu+lic works to ever* rural unskilled adult )0o+%card holder, who is willin to work at the prevailin !ini!u! statutor* wa e rate.In the a+sence of e!plo*!ent the* would +e paid une!plo*!ent allowance. Econo!ic and /olitical :eekl* in its editorial of #$ ;anuar* #00< ter!ed the Act as one of the !ost creative initiatives of our ti!es in the field of social polic*. It further sa*s that thou h the 5o!ptroller and Auditor General )5AG8s, /erfor!ance Audit Report on MNREGA pro ra!!e should +e viewed as a useful stocktakin of the procedural pro+le!s re ardin i!ple!entation of the Act *et it should not +e allowed to da!pen the initiative. .oth 2hah )#00&, and Mathur )#00<, see a reat potential in MNREGA for providin 8+i %push8 in India8s re ions of distress. Accordin to 5AG report, onl* =.# per cent of re istered households have +een provided work for 100 da*s. >he E/: editorial, however, points out that onl* around 66 per cent of re istered households have actuall* accessed MNREGA e!plo*!ent. >herefore, the percenta e of the re istered households accessin 100 da*s is not an indicator of the health of the pro ra!!e. >he 5AG report also points that out of 61= of the surve*ed Gra! /ancha*ats &- have not co!pleted the distri+ution of 0o+ cards. Nevertheless, it !eans -=' )<6.6< per cent, pancha*ats have actuall* co!pleted the task of distri+utin the 0o+ card. >he i!ple!entation of MNREGA in all the districts in all the stats in India, with effect fro! April 1, #00<, would, however, place the +i est challen e +efore the Indian de!ocrac*. >he polit*, e(ecutive, 0udiciar* and civil societ* would have to +e sensiti?ed to attain MNREGA8s funda!ental o+0ective of providin 8livelihood securit*8 to the underprivile ed, !ore so to the ./@ population in rural India. >hou h the period of two *ears is not sufficientl* enou h to evaluate the perfor!ance of such a i antic pro ra!!e in a vast countr* like India, *et, a stock takin e(ercise is !ust. >he present paper is an atte!pt to evaluate the i!ple!entation and effectiveness of the Act in /un0a+ in this

conte(t. >he Act was i!ple!ented in onl* one district of /un0a+, na!el*, 3oshiarpur, w.e.f. the financial *ear #00$%0&. >his is also an atte!pt to stud* the socio%econo!ic +ack round of the 0o+%seeker households and of those who ot e!plo*!ent under the Act. >he perspective of the card%holders, those who et e!plo*!ent and that of the /ancha*ats shall also +e studied. >he entire pri!ar* data and infor!ation has +een collected throu h the MNREGA 2ite. In all 10 villa es, fro! each of the 10 develop!ent +locks, were rando!l* selected. 4ut of each villa e, 10 +eneficiaries were rando!l* selected fro! each of the sa!pled villa es. It is i!portant to note that there is a widespread i!pression that /un0a+ is a ver* prosperous state. 3owever, all is not well with /un0a+. >he sheen of reen revolution is no !ore there. Rather the adverse effects of the reen revolution had started surfacin since the last a+out two decades. As such the rural /un0a+ in eneral and a rarian econo!* in particular, is passin throu h a serious crisis )Ghu!an, #00<,. A riculture sector has +een e(periencin a deceleration for the last a+out two decades in ter!s of sta natin *ield and risin cost. >he trend rowth rate of per hectare net return, over operational costs in wheat and padd* co!+ined, at constant prices, was !inus #.1< per cent per annu! durin the decade of 1''0s. In the case of cotton, it was !inus 1-.#- per cent )Ghu!an, #001,. >he ever shrinkin net inco!e, led to increasin econo!ic distress which in turn resulted in far!ers8 suicides in /un0a+. 9ne!plo*!ent in eneral and rural une!plo*!ent in particular has +eco!e a serious pheno!enon in /un0a+. It is !ore the so in view of the shrinkin e!plo*!ent opportunities in a riculture in particular and rural econo!* in eneral. 4ut of the total workers in /un0a+ nearl* &0 per cent are en a ed in rural sector. Aurther out of the total rural workers =1.6 per cent are cultivators, ##.0 per cent are a ricultural la+ourers, =.1 per cent are en a ed in household industr* and -=.- per cent are other workers. >he proportion of a ricultural workers )cultivators B la+ourers, in all the workers in /un0a+ has declined fro! 66.# per cent in 1''1 to ='.- per cent in #001 )G4I, #001,. In fact, a ricultural sector in eneral and rural sector in particular have +een pushin out the surplus workers for the last a+out two decades in /un0a+. In the a+sence of e!plo*!ent eneration in non%a ricultural sectors, these surplus workers have no place to o. It has +een esti!ated fro! the cost of cultivation data that 1#.<6 lakh )10.0< lakh cultivators and #.&& lakh la+ourers, workers are surplus in a riculture and livestock. >otal !an%da*s e!plo*!ent in crop%

rearin declined fro! -< crore !an da*s in 1'<=%<- to -= crore !an da*s in 1''$%'&, accordin to esti!ates enerated fro! cost of cultivation data )Gill, #00#,. >he la+our a+sorption capacit* of a riculture in /un0a+ has +een e(periencin a ne ative trend rowth rate ).halla, 1'<&,. >he fact of the !atter is that rowth rate of e!plo*!ent in a riculture was 0ust 0.0# per cent durin 1''=%'- and 1'''%#000 in India. >he e!plo*!ent elasticit* in a riculture durin the sa!e period was 0.01 )G4I, #00#,. As per the /un0a+ Govern!ent esti!ates )G4/, 1''<,, 10.-0 lakh persons )6.<- lakh educated and -.6$ lakh uneducated, in the 1<%#6 *ears a e roup were une!plo*ed in /un0a+ in 1''<. In the a+sence of ver* low rowth rate of e!plo*!ent this !i ht have one a+ove #0 lakhs now. >he e!plo*!ent rowth rate in /un0a+ durin Ninth and >enth Aive Cear /lans was far +elow the rowth rate of la+our force. A ver* hi h proportion of hired la+our +* the a riculture sector in India consists of casual la+our. >he proportion of casual la+our in total hired la+our has crossed '0 per cent durin 1''0s as co!pared to $0 to <0 per cent in 1'&0s, in !a0or states of India. >he share of hired la+our in total hired la+our in /un0a+ a riculture increased fro! #' to &1 per cent in 1'&0s to $< to <- per cent in 1''0s )Gill and Ghu!an, #001,. *ear. A little !ore than 1$ per cent casual la+ourer could find work onl* for < to 10 da*s a !onth. Another &' per cent et work for 10 to #0 da*s a !onth. 4n an avera e the a ricultural la+ourers in /un0a+ et Rs. &= per da*, whereas non%a ricultural la+ourers earn Rs. '6 per da* )Ghu!an, et. al., #00&,. As re ards rural workers, workin partiall* in a riculture and partiall* in non% a ricultural sectors, the avera e wa e earnin s are Rs. && per da*. In fact, the a ricultural la+ourers are also co!!ittin suicides in /un0a+, !ainl* due to their poor econo!ic conditions and outstandin loan. >he avera e a!ount of outstandin loan of the deceased a ricultural la+ourers was Rs. 6&1#1 per household )2in h, Gurpreet, #00<,. It is si nificant to note that the proportion of a ricultural workers in total rural workers declined fro! &=.6 per cent in 1''1 to 6=.6 per cent in #001 )G4I, #001,. >his !eans -$.6 per cent of rural workers are in the non%a ricultural sector.3owever, the e!pirical studies do not support such a hi h percenta e of rural workers in non%a ricultural sector in /un0a+. Accordin to one of those studies )Ghu!an, #006, nearl* 1$ per cent of the "ue to shrinkin e!plo*!ent opportunities in a riculture, these casual la+ourers are a+le to work for a lesser nu!+er of da*s in a riculture in a

rural workers in /un0a+ )= villa es in = districts, are in non%a ricultural sectors. In fact, the a ricultural sectors has started pushin a+sor+in those workers. At the sa!e ti!e, 7ualit* of education in overn!ent owned rural schools in /un0a+ is e(periencin a serious set +ack and the education iven +* private schools is not afforda+le +* a ver* hi h proportion of rural population. Accordin to Ghu!an, et. al. )#00&,, $' per cent of the total rural households and '0 per cent of the rural a ricultural la+our households do not have even a sin le !e!+er with an education upto !atric.>he proportion of rurall* educated students in hi her education is declinin . Accordin to a recent stud* )Ghu!an, et. al., #00$,, the proportion of rural students in the universities of /un0a+ was onl* - per cent durin the acade!ic%session #006%0$. In the +ack drop of for oin scenario, the relevance of MNREGA cannot +e !ini!i?ed. In /un0a+, it has +een i!ple!ented in 3oshiarpur "istrict w.e.f. April, #00$. 3oshiarpur is the onl* district, out of #0 districts of /un0a+, which was selected for the i!ple!e ntation of MNREGA. >he district is predo!inantl* a rural district with <0.== per cent rural population and <1.'- per cent rural workers. Accordin to the 5ensus #001, the district has a total population of 1-.&< lakh and the se(%ratio is 7uite hi h1 '=6 fe!ales for 1000 !ales. 5o!pared to it, the se( ratio in /un0a+ is <&-. It is interestin to note that nearl* <0 per cent !ale population and a+out '0 per cent of fe!ale population in district 3oshiarpur lives in rural area, as is evident fro! ta+le 1. 2i!ilarl*, the proportion of rural workers in district 3oshiarpur is nearl* <# per cent. >he correspondin proportion of fe!ales is appro(i!atel* <' per cent. A+out &' per cent !ain workers and '- per cent !ar inal workers in district 3oshiarpur are rural workers. >he correspondin proportion of !ale and fe!ale !ar inal workers is '# per cent and '$ per cent, respectivel*. >he share of rural !ar inal workers in the total rural workers in the district is also hi her than the avera e of /un0a+. 2uch a hi h proportion of !ar inal rural workers in the district are e(pected to +e +enefited +* MNREGA. >he cultivators with ver* tin* operational holdin s and the a ricultural la+ourers would also et +enefit under MNREGA in view of the ever shrinkin e!plo*!ent opportunities in the a ricultural sector. >he proportion of !ar inal operational holdin s in 3oshiarpur is !ore than dou+le )#$.&# per cent, than that in the la+our out and non%a ricultural sector are not

/un0a+ )1#.=1 per cent,. >he proportion of s!all operationl holdin s in the district is #=.-' per cent whereas in /un0a+ their proportion is 1&.=6 per cent )G4/ #00$,.

>he !ar inal and s!all far!ers, alon with rural workers, particularl* the !ar inal workers, are e(pected to supple!ent their inco!e +* workin under uaranteed e!plo*!ent sche!es. >hou h the district has hi hest literac* rate in the state *et it is econo!icall* +ackward. Its econo!ic +ackwardness is !ainl* due to its topo raph*. >he 2hivalik 3ills, fro! North%East and 2outh%East ali n!ent, run throu hout the len th of the district. >he foothill plains and flood plains of the river .eas constitute the re!ainin part of the district. >he hill track known as 8DAN"I8 area cover rou hl* one%half of the district. In fact, the variant topo raph* has +een the !ain cause for the econo!ic +ackwardness of the district. >he district consists of 10 develop!ent +locks. 4ut of 1-#$ villa es 1='$ are inha+ited villa es which have 1=1& ra! pancha*ats. >he total nu!+er of households is #.=6 lakhs in the district. >he nu!+er of pancha*ats per +lock per +lock varies fro! <# to 1$< across the +locks. >he nu!+er of 0o+ card holder households in the district was -###6 +* March end #00<, which is #0 per cent of the total households, as shown in ta+le #. Across the ten develop!ent +locks, the proportion of 0o+ card holder households to total households, ran es fro! 10.<& per cent )3oshiarpur%II +lock, to #-.&& per cent )3oshiarpur E I +lock,.

>he proportion of ./@ households to total households is &.<6 per cent in the district and across the +locks it varies fro! 6.#1 per cent )"asu*a +lock, to 1-.$' per cent )3oshiarpur%I +lock,. >wo +locks E >anda and Mahilpur see! to +e an e(ception. >he proportion of ./@ households to 0o+%card%holder households was -=.$$ per cent in the district and across the +locks it varied fro! #0.&0 per cent )"asu*a +lock, to <<.'6 per cent in )Garhshankar +lock,. 3ere a ain >anda and Mahilpur see! to +e an e(ception, as is clear fro! ta+le #. It is si nificant to note that all the +locks of district 3oshiarpur are 7uite low in ter!s of their rankin a!on other +locks of /un0a+. >a+le #, shows that the hi hl* developed +lock of

3oshiarpur )>anda, ranks =1 in /un0a+, in the descendin order. >he second hi hest developed +lock of the district ranks $# in /un0a+ and the least developed +lock in the district ranks 10' in the state of /un0a+. >he low level of develop!ent of the district and the develop!ent +locks hi hli hts the fact that the proper i!ple!entation of MNREGA would help the poor households.

>a+le =, presents the social profile of the /ancha*at heads and !e!+ers in all the ten sa!pled villa es. 4ut of ten heads )sarpanches, seven are !ale and three are fe!ales. Aurther, four, five and one are fro! eneral, scheduled and +ackward caste, respectivel*. It is satisfactor* to note that all the heads are educated and two are raduate. 4ut of the re!ainin , five are !atriculate and three are havin ele!entar*

level education. .ut for two !e!+ers all the /ancha*at !e!+ers are literateFeducated. Nearl* -0 per cent out of the! are havin education +etween 10 and 1# standard. districts of /un0a+ )$'.'6 per cent,. In ter!s of se( ratio, $# per cent /ancha*at !e!+ers are !ale and =< per cent are fe!ales. A+out -- per cent !e!+ers are fro! scheduled caste whereas -1 per cent are fro! eneral caste. >he re!ainin 16 per cent +elon to the +ackward caste. A cursor* look at ta+le 1 and = !akes it clear that the proportion of scheduled caste /ancha*at heads and !e!+ers in the sa!pled villa es is !uch hi her than the proportion of scheduled caste population in rural population of district 3oshiarpur. As MNREGA is ai!ed at eneratin e!plo*!ent for unskilled la+our and there+* reducin the povert* incidence, we have also tried to look at the povert* incidence in the sa!pled villa es. 4ut of 100 sa!pled 0o+ card holder households, '= per cent are ./@, as is clear fro! ta+le -. It !eans the A/@ households are havin little interest in the e!plo*!ent opportunities, enerated under MNREGA. 4nl* & per cent of the 0o+ card holder households in the sa!ple are fro! the A/@ households. Even these & per cent households are 0ust on the !ar in of povert* line. In 60 per cent of the sa!pled villa es not even one 0o+ card holder household is havin A/@ status. It is worth !entionin that the literac* rate in 3oshiarpur district )<1.-0 per cent, is hi hest a!on all other

In ter!s of se(, 6& per cent 0o+ card holders are !ale and -= per cent are fe!ale, as is clear fro! ta+le -. :ith re ard to a e, onl* =6 per cent are in the a e roup of 1< to =6 *ears whereas $6 per cent are in the a e roup of =$ to $6 *ears. In three sa!pled villa es '0 to 100 per cent 0o+ card holders are in the latter a e roup.

>a+le 6 also reveals that &6 per cent of the 0o+ card holders +elon to scheduled caste households whereas 1$ per cent and ' per cent, respectivel*, are fro! the eneral caste and the +ackward caste. In four of the sa!pled villa es, 100 per cent card holders +elon to scheduled caste. In another two villa es, '0 per cent are scheduled caste and in one villa e <0 per cent +elon to scheduled caste. As per official infor!ation of the "istrict /ro ra!!e 5oordinator )#00&,, $6.# per cent +eneficiaries were fro! the scheduled caste households in the entire district. >he re!ainin #1.= per cent and 1=.6 per cent were fro! +ackward and eneral caste, respectivel*.

>a+le - also hi hli hts that a ver* hi h proportion )&1 per cent, of the 0o+ card holders are literate and onl* #' per cent are illiterate. In view of the hi h literac* rate in the district, even #' per cent illiterate 0o+ card holders see! to +e ver* hi h. >he avera e fa!il* si?e of the sa!pled 0o+ card holders is 6.# persons per households, shown in ta+le -. Across the villa es it varies fro! 6 persons to 6.$ persons. Gilla e .assi 3asatkhan see!s to +e an e(ception as the avera e fa!il* si?e in that villa e is 0ust =.-. >a+le 6 reveals the occupation of 0o+ card holders, the a e and se( of the workers who actuall* reported for work under MNREGA and nu!+er of da*s the household ot e!plo*!ent under MNREGA. >hou h #= per cent of the 0o+ card holders are cultivators, *et, it is si nificant to note that their land ownership is 0ust ne li i+le, ran in fro! 0.1= acres to half an acre. >heir land holdin can neither enerate sufficient a!ount of e!plo*!ent for all the !e!+ers in the household nor can the* sustain the!. As such the* have offered the!selves to work under MNREGA. It is si nificant to note that in one of the villa es, the proportion of cultivator 0o+ card holders is as hi h as <0 per cent. Nevertheless, on an avera e && per cent 0o+ card holders in all the sa!pled villa es to ether are a ricultural la+ourers. 5o!pared with the proportion of a ricultural la+ourers )1'.'1 per cent, in the rural workers in district 3oshiarpur, this && per cent share of a ricultural la+ourers under MNREGA is ver* si nificant. It is si nificant indicator that a ricultural sector is una+le to provide round the *ear e!plo*!ent to the la+our. 4ut of 100 sa!pled 0o+ card holder households, 1#$ persons actuall* reported for work under MNREGA, durin the two *ears period of its operation, as is clear fro! ta+le $. A!on the! $=.6 per cent and =$.6 per cent were !ales and fe!ales, respectivel*. per cent and #-.'6 per cent, respectivel*, in the entire district. As per official infor!ation, prepared +* the district coordinator the proportion of !ales and fe!ales was &6.06 Aurther, -1.= per cent of the workers were in the a e roup of 1<%=6 *ears whereas 6#.- per cent were +etween =$%$6 *ears. It is interestin to note that $.- per cent )all !ale, were a+ove $6 *ears of a e. In the a+sence of social securit* and livelihood people with such a ripe a e are co!pelled to do work. In ter!s of work force definition, these old a e persons should not enter into workforce.

As per official infor!ation prepared +* the "istrict /ro ra!!e 5oordinator )#00&, '1.= per cent workers were in the a e roup of 1< to 60 *ears and 1.# per cent was of !ore than $6 *ears in the entire entire district. >he re!ainin &.6 per cent workers were in the a e roup of 61 to $6 *ears. >he proportion of fe!ale workers, under MNREGA, in each a e roup is lower than the !ale workers, as is evident fro! ta+le 6. 3owever, keepin in view their lower work participation rate and their low proportion )$.60 per cent, ta+le 1, in the rural a ricultural workers, the proportion of fe!ale la+ourers is 7uite hi h. A!on st all, the 1#$ workers #-.$ per cent !ale and 1$.& per cent fe!ale are in the a e roup of 1<%=6 *ears. >he proportion of !ales in total workers in this a e roup is 6'.$ per cent. In the a e roup of =$%$6 *ears, =#.6 per cent are !ales and 1'.< per cent are fe!ales. >he proportion of !ales within this a e roup is $#.1 per cent. It is si nificant to note that all the workers in the a e roup of a+ove $6 *ears are !ale. It is clear fro! the

fore oin discussion that the proportion of fe!ale workers oes on declinin with the advancin of a e. >a+le 6 also hi hli hts that all the ten sa!pled pancha*ats could enerate e!plo*!ent for -6<& da*s durin #00$%0& and for 1$-- da*s durin #00&%0<. >his !eans &=.$ per cent !anda*s of e!plo*!ent were enerated in the first *ear of the i!ple!entation of the Act and onl* #$.- per cent in the followin *ear. 4n an avera e ever* person who was called for work could et work, worked for -'.-6 da*s in a period of two *ears. At this rate, per person work availa+ilit* co!es out to +e #-.&= !an da*s in a *ear. >hus, on an avera e the pancha*ats could achieve nearl* one% fourth of the stipulated tar et of e!plo*!ent eneration under MNREGA. >he official statistics, however, sa* that =& da*s e!plo*!ent was iven to each household, who applied for work, in the entire district durin #00$%0& )Mathur, @alit, #00<,. Even this has a catch in the sense that the nu!+er of workers called for work !a* +e far less than the nu!+er of workers willin to work. 4ur field in7uir* and o+servations revealed that there was no !echanis! to call the workers for work. >he /ancha*at head used to call the workers for work as and when desired. >his had an ele!ent of pick and choose fro! a!on the workers havin 0o+ cards. No pu+lic notice was displa*ed for the kind and availa+ilit* of work. .esides, there was no !echanis! for the workers to infor! a+out the availa+ilit* for work. In fact, the level of awareness a+out MNREGA and ri hts of workers was ver* ver* low. Not even a sin le a!on the sa!pled 0o+ card holders, was aware a+out the une!plo*!ent allowance in the a+sence of non%availa+ilit* of work within the stipulated period. At the sa!e ti!e, no worker knew what the statutor* !ini!u! wa e rate was. >he 0o+ card holders also did not know that the* are to appl* for work. >he* si!pl* knew that once the* have 0o+ card, the* would +e called for work +* the /ancha*at head. No sa!pled worker even declined the work offer. At the sa!e ti!e the* denied an* +ri+e for ettin the 0o+ card or work. As re ards wa e rate, it varied +etween Rs. '0 to Rs. '6 per da* across the sa!pled villa es, which co!es out to +e Rs. '#.60 on an avera e. >he annual avera e earnin s per household, fro! e!plo*!ent under MNREGA, thus ca!e out to +e Rs. ##<&.6= )'#.60 ( #-.&=,. In so!e of the sa!pled villa es, the a!ount of annual earnin s of a household under MNREGA is far +elow than this overall avera e as eneration of e!plo*!ent was ver* ver* scant*. .esides, the avera e nu!+ers of workers called for work are 0ust 1#.$ workers per villa e in two *ears.

5o!putin it to the *earl* avera e, it co!es out to +e 0ust $.= workers per villa e. 4n this count, the perfor!ance of MNREGA see!s to +e far +elow its stipulated perfor!ance. At the top of it, not even a sin le worker was iven an* une!plo*!ent allowance. In fact workers were not even aware a+out such provision in the Act. National Rural E!plo*!ent Guarantee Act, #006, lar el* +inds the 2tate to provide 100 da*s uaranteed e!plo*!ent to all those unskilled rural workers who are willin to work at the statutor* !ini!u! wa e rate. In the a+sence of work there is a le al provision for une!plo*!ent allowance. In view of this, we have tried to work out how !an* workers, who were actuall* called for work, have +een a+le to et work for statutor* 100 da*s in a *ear. >a+le $ presents the eneration of e!plo*!ent under MNREGA, in the sa!pled villa es, durin #00$%0& and #00&%0<. 4nl* 1& households, who were called for work, could co!plete 100 da*s e!plo*!ent, as is evident fro! ta+le &, and that too, durin #00$%0&. No household could co!plete 100 da*s e!plo*!ent durin #00&%0<. 4nl* two households could et e!plo*!ent +etween '1%'' da*s in #00$%0& and no one in #00&%0< could have work in this +racket. 2i!ilarl*, no sa!pled household could et e!plo*!ent +etween 61%$0 and &1%<0 da*s durin #00&%0<. 3owever, #1 households could et work +etween 61%$0 da*s and 10 households +etween &1%<0 da*s in #00$%0&. Aurther, five households could et e!plo*!ent +etween -1%60 da*s in #00$% 0&, whereas onl* one household could et e!plo*!ent in #00&%0<. As re ards e!plo*!ent +etween =1%-0 da*s onl* two and ei ht households could et e!plo*!ent durin #00$%0& and #00&%0<, respectivel*. >here were, however, #- households who could et work +etween #1%=0 da*s durin #00$%0&. 5o!pared to it, onl* two households could et work for this +racket durin #00&%0<. >he nu!+er of households, who could et work +etween 11%#0 da*s, was 1= and #& durin #00$%0& and #00&%0<, respectivel*. As re ards work availa+ilit* +etween 1%10 da*s, 10 to 11 households could et e!plo*!ent durin #00$%0& and #00&%0<, respectivel*. It is, thus, clear that onl* 1& per cent households fro! a!on st the sa!pled households could et work for 100 da*s in #00$%0& and another # per cent for '1 to '' da*s. >he 6- per cent households could et work up to 60 da*s durin the sa!e *ear. >he perfor!ance of MNREGA, durin #00&%0<, was 7uite disappointin . It was revealed +* the concerned pancha*ats that the pro+le! of finance and eneration of work are the !ost serious li!itations of MNREGA. It is

i!portant to note that si( households in #00$%0& and 61 households in #00&%0< could not et work even for a sin le da*.

>he official data of .lock "evelop!ent and /ancha*at 4fficer "asu*a, however, revealed that in 1' of the 1-# villa es in the +lock, 1#6 households did work for 100 or !ore da*s, fro! April #00$ to =1 "ece!+er #00&. >his see!s to +e a ood perfor!ance. 3owever, in view of the total nu!+er of villa es, total 0o+ card holders and the ti!e period of #1 !onths, this does not see! to +e a ver* ood perfor!ance. .* convertin these da*s to 1# !onths avera e, one finds out of 1#6 households #- households could co!plete one hundred or !ore da*s. +etween <0 to '' da*s in a *ear. >he a+ove achieve!ent of the pancha*ats of these villa es needs an appreciation, when co!pared to other pancha*ats. 3owever, in ter!s of villa es it co!es out to +e 1=.=< per cent and out of the 0o+ card holders )66.61,. 4nl* 0.-= per cent households could co!plete one hundred or !ore da*s of work in a *ear. >he share of those who could co!plete works da*s >hese households are located in four villa es. Another 1' households, located in si( villa es worked

+etween <0 to '' in the total 0o+ card holders is 0.=- per cent. If this is the perfor!ance of one of the +est perfor!in +locks then one could easil* uess the perfor!ance of other +locks. Results of our stud* of 100 households in 10 villa es )>a+le $, have a!pl* displa*ed the scenario. Perspective of the beneficiary households in the sampled villages MNREGA is a ood sche!e for providin !anual e!plo*!ent to the unskilled adult !e!+er in the rural households. If i!ple!ented properl*, it would certainl* help the unskilled une!plo*ed rural people and would i!prove their econo!ic condition. In stead of providin 100 da*s e!plo*!ent to one adult !e!+er in the household, in a financial *ear, all the eli i+le adults in a household should +e iven e!plo*!ent and that too for the whole *ear. In the a+sence of work, the workers should +e iven une!plo*!ent allowance as provided in the Act. "ue to i norance of the people the overn!ent officials and pancha*ats did not ive an* une!plo*!ent allowance to the eli i+le workers. >here should a proper s*ste! to ive infor!ation a+out the work, wa e rate and other such thin s. Ever* worker should +e infor!ed a+out the work once heFshe puts an application for hisFher availa+ilit* for work. >he practice of callin workers for work +* the pancha*at head should +e stopped with. >here should +e a+solute transparenc*. Monitorin and social audit of the workers under MNREGA are !ust. Al!ost, all the sa!pled households were, however, satisfied with MNREGA as the* were ettin a hi her wa e rate than the* were ettin fro! the contractors. At the sa!e ti!e the* were of the view, that so!ethin is +etter than nothin . Perspective of the Panchayats Al!ost ever* pancha*at su ested that there is a need to include !ore works in the list of works provided +* the 9nion Govern!ent. >he nature and t*pe of such works should +e as per the re7uire!ents of the villa eFre ion. 2o!e of the pancha*ats su ested so!e works such as school +uildin s, pancha*at hars and villa e li+rar* +uildin , etc. /ancha*ats were also of the view that it is difficult to e!plo* skilled workers at overn!ent approved rates, as the* are !uch +elow the !arket rates. As such there is a need to revise the wa e rate of such workers to !ake it co!para+le with the !arket rates in the re ionFstate. Nearl* all the pancha*ats were also of the view that $01-0 ratio for la+our and !aterial cost should +e reversed as the !aterial cost co!ponent is ettin hi her and hi her due to risin

prices. 2o!e of the pancha*at heads were of the view that the nature and 7ualit* of the work under MNREGA is not up to the e(pectations and aspirations of the la+ourers in a rich state like /un0a+. 2o!e of the! were also havin the apprehension that how would the* create work for all these 0o+ card holders who are willin to work under MNREGAH At the sa!e ti!e, the* were of the view that provision and suppl* of financial resources should +e evenl* spread over the whole *ear rather than confined to certain specific !onths of the *ear. A ood nu!+er of pancha*at heads were of the view that the* should +e iven so!e !onetar* allowance for shoulderin responsi+ilit* of MNREGA. >he official !achiner* should +e !ore cooperative to the pancha*at heads and to the people.A

Concluding Remarks
>he perfor!ance of MNREGA in district 3oshiarpur has not +een ver* encoura in durin the first two *ears of its i!ple!entation. Most of the e!plo*!ent was enerated in #00$%0&. >he achieve!ent of the Act in ter!s of annual avera e da*s of e!plo*!ent per household has +een nearl* 1Fof the the !ini!u! 100 da*s e!plo*!ent. 4ut of 1#$ workers who were called for work onl* 1& could co!plete the 100 da*s nor!s of e!plo*!ent in two *ears period. :hile co!!entin on the failure of MNREGA in Maharashtra, "atar )#00&, pointed out that the sche!e could not et !o!entu! +ecause overn!ent !achiner* is paral*?ed. 2uch sche!es can onl* work if there is or ani?ed social and political pressure fro! the rural poor on the e(ecutin !achiner*. >he people need to +e educated in the new ethos and +uilt their capacit* to !ana e funds, +uild assets with an opportunit* to create livelihood for the!selves. In fact for MNREGA to +e a+le to reali?e its potential, the role of civil societ* or ani?ations is critical. .ut this calls for a new self%critical politics, +alance and restraint )2hah, #00&,. A!on st the 100 sa!pled households '= were +elow povert* line and &6 were scheduled caste. 5learl*, the resource poor households in the rural area are the !ost tar eted roup under MNREGA. As re ards the wa e rate iven to workers under MNREGA e!plo*!ent it was not less than the statutor* !ini!u! wa e rate in the "istrict. 4n an avera e, a worker was iven Rs. '#.60 per da*. Assu!in that ever* household, willin to work under MNREGA, is a+le to et 100 da*s e!plo*!ent in a *ear even then the !onthl* per capita inco!e fro! MNREGA co!es out to +e Rs. 1-<.#-. It is to +e noted that the povert* line in India was Rs. =#&.60 per !onth per capita for rural India in 1'''%#000 )Manna, #00&,. In view of the current povert* line even the 100 da*s e!plo*!ent under MNREGA does not help the households to cross the povert* line. Nevertheless, the pro ra!!e can +e a reat a ent for socio%econo!ic uplift!ent and providin livelihood securit* to the poorest of the poor in rural India, if i!ple!ented earnestl*. >he e!plo*!ent and earnin s under MNREGA should +e treated as additional avenues for such households. >he e(istin rural e!plo*!ent should not +e transferred under MNREGA. >he e(ecutin !achiner* and the +eneficiaries under MNREGA need to +e sensiti?ed a+out the

funda!ental o+0ectives of MNREGA.

>he state

overn!ent !ust appoint whole ti!e

pro ra!!e officers who !ust +e dedicated, co!!itted and honest persons. >hou h the Act is historical polic* intervention +* the 2tate, *et !uch needs to +e done +e*ond that. >here is a need to adopt a holistic approach to address the socio%econo!ic pro+le!s of the rural people in India. Given the li!ited capacit* of a riculture to a+sor+ additional la+our force, the develop!ent of rural non%far! sector is sine 7ua non for transfor!in the rural societ* and econo!*. >he rural education and health !ust +e the top !ost a enda of Indian de!ocrac*.

References :
.halla 2hiela )1'<&,, I>rends in E!plo*!ent in Indian A riculture, @and and Asset "istri+utionI, I;AE, Gol. -#, No. -, pp. 6-<%-'. "atar, 5hha*a )#00&,, IAailure of National Rural E!plo*!ent Guarantee 2che!e in MaharashtraI, EPW , Gol. 6#, No. =-, pp. =-6-%6&. "istrict /ro ra!!e 5oordinator 3oshiarpur )#00&,, Impact of MNREGA in District Hoshiarpur, Punjab: From Februar !""# to Februar !""$ . Editorial )#006,, I:ake%up 5all on Rural E!plo*!ent GuaranteeI EPW , 6=, No. -, p. 6%$. Ghu!an, Ran0it 2in h )#001,, I:>4 and Indian A riculture1 5risis and 5hallen esI, Gol. 1=, No. #, 5RRI", 5handi arh. Ghu!an, Ran0it 2in h )#006,, IRural Non%Aar! E!plo*!ent 2cenario1 Reflections fro! Recent "ata in /un0a+I, Economic an% Po&itica& Wee'& , Gol. 60, No. -1, pp. --&=%--<0. Ghu!an, Ran0it 2in h, et. al. )#00$,, Rura& (tu%ents in the )ni*ersities of Punjab , /un0a+i 9niversit*, /atiala. Ghu!an, Ran0it 2in h, et. al. )#00&,, (tatus of +oca& A,ricu&tura& +abour in Punjab , co!!issioned and pu+lished +* the /un0a+ 2tate Aar!ers 5o!!ission, Govern!ent of /un0a+. Ghu!an, Ran0it 2in h )#00<,, I2ocio%Econo!ic 5risis in Rural /un0a+I, EPW , Gol. 6=, No. &, pp. 1#%16. Gill, 2ucha 2in h )#00#,, IA riculture, 5rop >echnolo * and E!plo*!ent Generation in /un0a+I, in ;ohl 2.2. and 2.D. Ra* )eds.,, Future of A,ricu&ture in Punjab , 5RRI", 5handi arhJ pp. 6$%$<. Gill, 2ucha 2in h and Ran0it 2in h Ghu!an )#001,, I5han in A rarian Relations in India1 2o!e Reflections fro! Recent "ataI, I-+E , Gol. --, No. -, pp. <10% <#$. Govern!ent of India )#00#,, .enth Fi*e /ear P&an !""!0!""$ , Gol. I, p. 1&$. Govern!ent of India )#00#,, 1ensus of In%ia !""2 , 2eries -, /un0a+, paper E = of #001, Distribution of Wor'ers an% Non03or'ers4 Govern!ent of /un0a+ )1''<,, Econo!ic Advisor, Report on )nemp&o e% Persons 5A,e Group 26078 ears9 Desirous of see'in, Emp&o ment in Punjab , unpu+lished, 5handi arh, 1''<. Govern!ent of /un0a+ )#00$,, (tatistica& Abstract of Punjab . Manna, G.5. )#00&,, I4n Glo+alisin the /overt* @ine for /overt* Esti!ates in IndiaI, EPW , Gol. 6#, No. =0, pp. =10<%=116. Mathur, @alit )#00<,, IE!plo*!ent Guarantee1 /ro ress 2o farI, EPW , Gol. 6#, "ece!+er #', #00& to ;anuar* -, #00<, pp. 1&%#0. 2hah, Mihir )#00&,, IE!plo*!ent Guarantee, 5ivil 2ociet* and Indian "e!ocrac*I, EPW , Gol. 6#, No. -6 and -$, pp. -=%61. 2in h, Gurpreet )#00<,, Farmers (uici%es in Punjab: A (ocio0Economic Ana& sis , M./hil. "issertation )unpu+lished,, /un0a+i 9niversit*, /atiala