Transcript NREGA: Towards Changing Face of Development

NREGA 2005: Towards Changing Face of
Development
By
Ashok Pankaj
(Senior Fellow)
Institute for Human Development
Delhi
12th October 2010
Johannesburg
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)
(b)
Jobless growth: disjunction between growth in GDP and employment
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 phase
b)
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)
Cont.
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 Erstwhile Employment and
Public Works Programme
Main deficiencies in the erstwhile 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)
b)
c)
Income
Workers rights (minimum wages and compensation)
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)
Snapshot of employment generation
1
Employment generated
and provided
2009- 2008- 2007- 200610
09
08
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
30
29
27
25
% share of SC population
4
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
0
0
Above 10 acres
Occupation-wise Distribution of Benefited Households
Bihar
Self-employed in agriculture
Jharkhand
5.01
21.88
77.99
40.21
Casual labourers in nonagriculture
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
Casual labourers in
agriculture
cont.
3. Providing Income Security
Income of NREGA Beneficiary from Various Sources in Bihar
Remittance
8%
Salaried & pension
3%
NREGA
8%
Others
0%
Agri
9%
Animal
2%
Business
2%
Trad Services
1%
Const & other
6%
Non Agri Lab
22%
Agri Lab
39%
Cont. Various sources of Income and share of
NREGS
Various Sources of HH Income
Agriculture wages
NREGA
Others
11%
Non-agriculture
19%
wages
13%
45%
Remittances
7%
Sale of agricultural
products (grains)
Other pensions
2%
2%
Old age/ widow
pension
0%
Sale of Fruits and
Rent of any type
0%
vegetables
0%
Dairy
1%
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 effects
Consumption 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
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
Recreation
Cont.
5. Decrease in indebtedness
6. Reduction in distress migration
B. Macro level effects:
Economic:
1.
Impact on rural wages and labour market
2.
Increased rural infrastructure
3.
Increased productivity of small and marginal farmers due to land
development and increased irrigation capapcity
4.
Multiplier effects greater
Social:
1.
2.
3.
Women’s empowermrent
Strengthening of the participatory development process
Transparency, accountability becoming part of the public works
programme
Difficulties and challenges
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Realization of low persondays
Regional variations in implementation
Yet to become fully demand based
Quality of assets in some cases
Non-fulfilment of others entitlements
Low level of quality awareness
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!