Abstract
Since the commencement of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS)—India’s ambitious rights-based employment generation initiative and the world’s largest public works programme—in 2006, its implementation has been the teething trouble. Various studies and reports by numerous government agencies, non-government organisations and independent scholars alike have underlined the implementation bottlenecks and challenges that lie before this mega-rural employment programme which simultaneously aims at social security, infrastructural development, strengthening of grassroots institutions and the empowerment of people, especially the poor.
Unmet demands, a low realisation of entitlements, especially of employment and wages, weak and variegated capacities of local institutions, the feeble enforcement of transparency and accountability provisions, a poor quality of infrastructure created in some places and leakages have been the recurring themes of these studies. Some of them have simultaneously emphasised the various socioeconomic effects of the programme, especially its contribution to the livelihood security of the poorest people, impact on local wages and through local on national wages, the huge contribution to community infrastructure and individual assets creation, strengthening of democratic decentralisation, women’s participation and empowering the poor. Further, the issue of inter-state and intra-state variations in the implementation of the programme has also been given adequate attention in some of these studies.
Contemporary Practices of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme is an outcome of a review of the administrative performances of districts selected for the Excellence in MGNREGS Administration award by the Government of India. It reiterates problems that face the implementation of this programme, but with a departure. Unlike most of the other studies on MGNREGS, heavily loaded with statistics, tables and graphs, this is written in a narrative framework placing centre stage the voices of the MGNREGS workers. People’s experiences—good and bad—have been cited directly in the study and have been given adequate prominence. The use of participatory research and ethnographic methods is another distinct feature of this study.
The research was conducted by a team of experts led by K. B. Saxena, a distinguished retired civil servant, who has spent years in implementing India’s anti-poverty programmes with a commitment to the cause of the poor and the most marginalised sections of the society. It is based on field reports from 19 districts located in 12 states. The observations were collected from almost all the blocks of the selected districts in 2011–2012.
The study has been structured into three chapters. The first chapter gives an overview of the findings with a focus on implementation bottlenecks and non-realisation of the entitlements, namely, employment, wages and worksite facilities. It begins with the analysis of the role of Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRIs) and poignantly points out that except for the well-known case of Kerala, in most of the states visited by the study team, weak PRIs were unable to implement the programme effectively. While on the one hand, these institutions were weak, on the other hand, the bureaucracy was, in effect, controlling the implementation processes. This was despite the Act and programme guidelines which state that only the PRIs should be nodal agencies for implementation, to the extent that 50 per cent of the funds under the scheme are to be allotted to Gram Panchayats (GPs). Indeed, the work emphasises that in a number of states, the centralisation of the implementation process was hampering the main goal of the Act, that is, its objective of strengthening grassroots institutions. However, much more importantly, this has restricted people’s participation in the planning and implementation processes and resulted in the weak enforcement of transparency and accountability provisions. The study suggests that the allocation of the MGNREGS works to the line departments, which was the practise in a number of districts, went against the intention of the Act. The line departments were practically circumventing the role of the PRIs and reducing any accountability to the people.
Other important findings in this chapter relate to the recognition of low employment days and low wages that have been there since the commencement of the programme. The problem of unmet demands is slowly and subtly frustrating the objectives of the Act. It has been emphasised here that because of unmet demands and low employment generation, distress migration prevailed in many places, as was the dependence of people on local moneylenders and landlords for meeting basic consumption needs. The liberation of the rural poor is thus incomplete.
Like many others studies, this one also points out that a huge unmet demand continues to be concealed in official statistics. It was found that generally officials did not issue the receipts of demand for work circumventing the necessary protocol of registering this process. The punitive provisions of an unemployment allowance and its financial burden to be shared by state governments have been the main factors that motivate state officials at the local level not to register demand for job. Further, a rationing of employment days and supply-based employment generation was being practiced. An important finding of this study has been unearthing the largely unnoticed phenomenon of cancelling and the non-renewal of job cards which has been occurring on a large scale in some places. The study highlights: ‘Across the states, one could sense that the genuine demand for work was getting suppressed. In Thrissur District … nearly 60 per cent job cards, including those of SCs, had been slashed in 2011–12—either cancelled or not renewed …’ (p. 15). The implications of this are more serious: the objectives of the Act are nullified as the whole process is cyclical. If people do not get job under MGNREGS, they will look for jobs elsewhere. This, in turn, allows the officials to say that people are not available for work under MGNREGS.
The second chapter addresses thematic issues and the third gives us a brief report on each selected district. Among the important themes covered under chapter two are employment generation and unmet demands, wage payment and difficulties, the planning and implementation processes, quality of assets, governance and shortage of staff, water bodies and land development, women’s participation and empowerment and issues of equity. Although most of these issues have been addressed by other studies also, this study adds value by giving attention to the issue of equity, especially in the process of job creation, selection of work and assets generation. Chapter three also contains district-wise reports, which substantiates the contents of the first two chapters.
Undoubtedly, this report is a useful addition to the increasing literature on MGNREGS. It is useful essentially because of its approach, candid explanations about the weakness of implementation and most importantly its focus on unexplored dimensions such as equity. However, while it documents some of the good practices adopted by implementing agencies at the state, district, block and GP levels, it is silent on the positive impact this programme has made which makes the study a little lopsided.
Notwithstanding the weak enforcement of entitlements especially of employment and wages, the impact of this programme is unmistakable. To reiterate a few positives: the self-selection of beneficiaries has been hugely successful. The programme is also well-targeted, working with minimal administrative efforts. Wherever the programme has been successful in providing adequate employment days, its impact on beneficiaries has been remarkable. Additionally, the participation of women has been unprecedent. In most of the states, the PRIs were dormant until the arrival of MGNREGS which has now energised them. A small example mentioned in this report illustrates the point—a Gram Rozgar Sevak leaving his job to contest the post of a GP head. Post MGNREGS, GP elections across all states have become much more meaningful.
What causes concern, however, is that even after 8 years of the scheme’s implementation, basic administrative issues have not been sorted out. A low level of awareness, problems relating to job cards distribution, delays in the payment of wages, poor monitoring and weak enforcement of the accountability provisions are some of the problems which should have been put in place in the initial years of the programme itself.
This study, by reiterating the problems of implementation, underscores the necessity of dealing with basic administrative issues. Otherwise, as this study indicates, the poor will turn away from this people-centric programme which will be a great blow to the objectives of the Act and to a historic movement towards a rights-based development approach.