Enriching the Lives of Marginalised Sections: Case of MGNREGS in Composite Andhra Pradesh,India

Abstract

The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) initiated in 2006 is essentially a reaction to the jobless growth witnessed in the post-1991 reforms period. The Scheme seeks to improve the livelihoods of the marginalised sections in rural areas by generating wage employment. The article is an attempt to examine if the Scheme is really benefitting these sections as envisaged. Our village survey data of composite Andhra Pradesh (AP) brings to the fore the fact that the socially lowly placed scheduled castes (SCs), scheduled tribes (STs) and other backward castes (OBCs) were well represented among the beneficiaries of the Scheme, female participation in the Scheme was way beyond expectations, the Scheme was indeed the mainstay of the illiterate and the little educated that look for manual labour, and the otherwise rarely preferred elderly of the labour market found place in the Scheme and they could make significant contribution to earnings of poor households. It further throws up the finding that the Scheme was an important employment avenue to reckon with in the rural labour market and therefore, it increased the bargaining strength and the reservation wage rate of the labour force. Briefly, the Scheme contributed to inclusive growth.

Keywords

Marginalised sections MGNREGS inclusive growth rural labour market bargaining strength composite AP

Introduction, Objectives and Methodology

In the economic history of this country, July 1991 is a landmark for it was then that we witnessed the initiation of economic reforms in right earnest. Notwithstanding the reversals in a few years, the reforms have taken the economy on to a higher growth path. But the growth of gross domestic product (GDP) has simultaneously not helped the growth of rural employment. This has occasioned a change in the concern of the policymakers from one of rapid growth to growth that is inclusive—to growth that enriches the rural poor in particular.

This brings us to another landmark in the economic history of India. Realising the need to arrest the setback to rural employment, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government initiated the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS: now called the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme [MGNREGS]) in 2006. The article is an attempt to examine if the Scheme is aiding inclusive growth; if the Scheme is benefiting the marginalised sections of the countryside.

For the MGNREGS to contribute to inclusive growth, it should (a) reach the marginalised sections in the countryside and (b) increase the bargaining strength of the marginalised sections in the rural labour market. The article envelops these two dimensions of the MGNREGS and is based on primary data.

The composite state of Andhra Pradesh (AP) is the ‘Universe’ of the primary study. The survey was extended to cover 8 villages of the state. We chose 2 villages each from North Coastal Andhra (NCA), South Coastal Andhra (SCA), Rayalaseema (RS) and Telangana (See Table 1 for details on the sampling units). While selecting the villages for the study, due representation was given to wet and dry land villages. The Management Information System (MIS) data of the MGNREGS was used to select the villages. The survey was conducted during the months of July–August 2014. The landless beneficiaries of the MGNREGS constituted our ‘Sampling Frame’ from which we selected the ultimate sampling units, the ‘Units of Observation’ to achieve our objective. We selected, from the sampling frame of each of the survey villages, a random sample of 20 landless beneficiaries. In all, we worked with a sample of 160 landless (20 from each of the 8 survey villages) beneficiaries (Table 1).

In selecting the propositions for testing, priority is given to those that are clearly relevant, even if widely attended to already in the earlier writings, for policy and those that are relatively unattended in the literature. To be specific, the study probes into the phenomenon of the significance of MGNREGS works to the socially lowly placed households, females, the elderly and the illiterate. While drawing conclusions the study pits the composition of household members against the composition of the household workers engaged in the MGNREGS. Also, it delves into the relative significance of MGNREGS works and non-MGNREGS works to the household workers in respect of employment and wage income. Data here is aggregated at the level of the selected districts as they diverge significantly.

Table 1.

The Sample

Selected Regions/ Districts	Selected Mandals	Selected Villages	No. of LL Beneficiary HHs of MGNREGS Selected
North Coastal Andhra: Visakhapatnam (VSP)	Chodavaram	Adduru Rayaparajupeta	40
South Coastal Andhra: East Godavari (EG)	Ambajipeta	Pulletikurru Gangalakurru	40
Rayalaseema: Ananthapur (ATR)	Nallamada	Nallamada Donnikota	40
Telangana: Khammam (KHM)	Tekulapalle	Bodu Gollapalle	40
All	4	8	160

Source: Field survey.

Notes: LL: landless; HHs: households.

In Section 2, we provide a review of the literature on history, attributes and impact of the MGNREGS. In the subsequent Sections 3 and 4, we analyse the village survey data. More specifically, Section 3 assesses the reach of the Scheme, by looking at the social and demographic features of the sample households; and Section 4 studies the impact of the Scheme on the bargaining strength of the sample households, by looking at the data on the relative significance of the manual employment generated in the survey villages in the MGNREGS and outside. Section 5 concludes the discussion.

History, Attributes and Impact of MGNREGS—A Review

Debate on MGNREGS

The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA), later christened the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) was passed in the legislature on 25 August 2005 and it came to be implemented starting 2 February 2006. The MGNREGS was first initiated in 200 most backward districts of the country and was later on extended, in 2007, to 130 more districts before it covered all the rural districts in the country from 1 April 2008. The MGNREGS sought to provide 100 days of guaranteed wage employment in a financial year to a rural household whose members were ready to do unskilled manual work. In the process, the Scheme envisaged, on one hand, to make a dent in rural poverty by enhancing the wage income of the poor and, on the other, to take up capital works that had the potential to transform village India, like water conservation, drought proofing, flood protection, minor irrigation, land development and rural connectivity.

In the run up to the enactment of the MGNREGA in 2005 and in the subsequent years, there had been a lively debate (see Khera, 2011) in and outside the legislature as to the desirability and provisions of the Act. Critics argued that the MGNREGS was unlikely to make any dent in poverty even as it became a liability to the government (Kannan, 2005). It was argued that the financial implications of the MGNREGS were enormous and it was very difficult to sustain the Scheme that involved a commitment to the tune of about ₹300 billion in annual budget. Fiscal deficit would shoot up if the Scheme was implemented and it would conflict with the Fiscal Responsibility and Management Act (as cited in Shah, 2004).

As to the Act’s provision of 100 days of employment per rural household per year, it was opined that the ceiling made little sense if the objective of the Scheme was to end poverty. Such a rationing of employment days would hurt the poorest of the poor more than anybody (Shah & Mehta, 2008). The problems associated with offering minimum wage rate to the participants of the Scheme were voiced. One view was that the targeting performance of the Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS) of Maharashtra, which was the precursor to the MGNREGS, deteriorated subsequent to 1988 because of the doubling of the wage rate under the EGS. Countries which successfully implemented schemes of the type worked with low wage rates (Dogra, 2005; Kannan, 2005). Only low wages would make self-targeting of the Scheme automatic. They would also make the Scheme sustainable (Hirway, 2004).

Experience with the top-down approach of the past in the selection of works and beneficiaries had not been encouraging. The assets created under the Scheme would be of poor quality, if contractors took over the implementation of the Scheme, as had happened under Sampoorna Gramin Rozgar Yojana (SGRY). Corruption would be rampant, minimum wages would not be paid, machine labour would be given priority, monitoring would be poor, women would not get employment as mandated and money would be spent to benefit the local elite.

The supporters of the Scheme were vociferous and argued that the Scheme involved a budget to the tune of less than 2 per cent of the GDP and it should be implemented for it would work as a safety net in the era of liberalisation that could hurt the poor. For the growth to be inclusive it was necessary that wage employment programmes were implemented. It was contended that the wages fixed under the Scheme should be minimum wages and such wages would mitigate poverty of the participants of the Scheme as also benefit the non-participants, for the market wages of casual labour would increase following the implementation of the Scheme (see Dutta et al., 2012). Because the Scheme was to be implemented by Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRIs), it would contribute to democratic decentralisation, it would not undermine the interests of the community in general and the poor in particular. The Scheme was also expected to empower the poor as their incomes would receive a boost and they would participate in decision making through Gram Sabha (Hirway, 2004; Shah, 2004; Unni & Raveendran, 2007).

Attributes of MGNREGS

The key attributes of MGNREGS may be noted (see Shah et al., 2012). The Scheme is expected to act as a safety net to the rural poor’s livelihoods, especially during the lean agricultural months. By guaranteeing employment to the poorest of the poor under the Scheme, India has done something that has no parallel in the world. This is a rights-based scheme and seeks to provide employment within 15 days to whoever demands wage employment. The Scheme envisages self-targeting as only the poor who are willing to put in unskilled manual work tend to participate in it. In the event when a person seeking wage employment could not be provided the employment, he or she will be eligible for unemployment allowance, which is some proportion of minimum wages payable under the law. The minimum wages are state-specific and there is a provision to pay extra wages of up to 10 per cent, if the work site is not within 5 km radius of the place of residence of the worker. There is a provision under the Scheme to provide worksite facilities to workers like creche, drinking water and first aid. Another important feature of the Scheme that goes to empower women is that it confers equal wages for male and female workers. Also, wages for the work done are to be paid within 15 days. Under the present arrangement the wages are paid through multiple channels, including banks. It is hoped that the Scheme will not only augment the livelihood opportunities to the poorest of the poor but also mitigate their need for migration in search of wage employment.

The Scheme envisages creating labour intensive work in rural areas and the wage-material ratio of work is fixed at 60:40. The works under the Scheme are not to be assigned to contractors. The projects undertaken are to be decided by the Gram Sabha through a process of decentralised participatory planning. To eliminate or reduce leakages the Right to Information (RTI) Act provides for transparency and accountability by way of social audit of the works carried out under the Scheme.

Impact of MGNREGS

It took some time for the Scheme to get popular among eligible workers. Studies have shown that officials entrusted with the implementation of the Scheme, including village secretary, are the people who are primarily responsible for dissemination of the provisions of the Scheme. It has also come to be known that there is general lack of interest among the members of the Gram Panchayats (GPs) in the Scheme as they do not get any honorarium for planning, monitoring and implementing it. Further, rural elite seems to have no interest in the Scheme for it undermines their power as the beneficiaries get empowered by it. Rich farmers have no interest in the Scheme for it increases the bargaining power of the labourers who work on their farms.

A Scheme of this scale with its focus on the length and breadth of the country and on mitigating the woes of the voiceless poor cannot but have some limitations. There are studies which bring out the disturbing trends, deviations and inefficiency in implementing the Scheme. Few examples found from various studies conducted in different parts of the country are given below. In many villages the number of days of employment provided under the Scheme, as a rule, is much less than 100 days per household, and, therefore, migration of labour, for want of sufficient employment in the villages, is not contained by any significant degree as envisaged while formulating the Scheme. Unemployment allowance needed to be paid to those who are not provided work within 15 days of seeking work is never really paid. Actual wages paid under the Scheme fell well short of the minimum wages prescribed under the law (Shankar & Gaiha, 2012). There is inordinate delay in the payment of wages to those who work under the Scheme. Job cards and muster rolls are doctored to include non-workers. The RTI Act supposed to support the Scheme has not really helped to bring to book the officials and Panchayat leaders erring in the execution of works. The works taken up under the Scheme are of low quality. There is rationing of work in poorer states and in the process, women suffer more than men (Dutta et al., 2012).

Number of days of employment provided under the Scheme is on the decline over time. Corruption is rampant. Decline in migration seems to have been exaggerated. The probability of participation in the scheme was noted in the southern states to be lower for the target population of the poor than for the non-poor (Shankar & Gaiha, 2012). There is non-availability of useful projects (Jha et al., 2008; Jha & Gaiha, 2012). Women workers are yet to make their voice heard among officials and in the Gram Sabha, that is, their community participation is yet to increase substantially and they experience physical and emotional strains (Pankaj & Tankha, 2010). There is rationing of jobs and there is middle-class bias as the households near the poverty line are more likely to receive the jobs they seek than poor households (Liu & Barrett, 2013).

Notwithstanding these limitations, the MGNREGS is among the relatively well implemented schemes of the government. Studies conducted by the government and by the independent agencies bear this out. Evaluation studies carried out on a large scale show up several pluses of the Scheme. The Scheme is contributing to inclusive growth by reaching the poor, the scheduled castes (SCs), the scheduled tribes (STs), the other backward castes (OBCs) and the women. It facilitates enforcement of minimum wages in the market for casual labour, thus benefiting the non-participants. There is an increase in the bargaining position of the labourers and their reservation wage got enhanced. This is particularly so for female labour. Of the total employment 48 per cent goes to women. Self-targeting objective of the Scheme is achieved (Alha & Yonzon, 2011; Banerjee & Saha, 2010; Dutta et al., 2012; Jha et al., 2008; Liu & Barrett, 2013; Shankar & Gaiha, 2012).

The Scheme is observed to help natural resource management (NRM) in the country in line with the objectives. Out-migration of labour has declined in the countryside. Mainstream work has increased because of productive use of assets created under the Scheme. The livelihoods of the poor have got bettered. There is consumption smoothing (Hirway, 2010). The additional income derived from land due to the MGNREGS works has gone into agricultural investment and consumption (Banerjee & Saha, 2010).Women empowerment was not among the original objectives. But the Scheme has benefited women in myriad ways. They have more employment, higher wages; the rationing of women workers is only to a small degree. Women have gained as individuals (Pankaj & Tankha, 2010).

The Study Proper: Reach of MGNREGS

Coverage of SC, ST, and OBC Households

If the Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) conducted in the chosen villages of the states are any guide, the SC-, ST- and OBC-beneficiaries figure predominantly in the Scheme. Our randomly selected sample of beneficiaries confirms the impressions we gathered in FGDs. Thus, in the districts of Ananthapur and Visakhapatnam, the SCs and OBCs accounted for the whole of the beneficiary households of the MGNREGS (Table 2). It may be noted that, in the two districts, the proportion of SCs among the sample beneficiaries was much more than their proportion among the village households.

In our field trip in Ananthapur district we perceived that there was uneasy calm there, for three reasons. One, wages payable to the participants of the MGNREGS to a tune of ₹13 million had been pending for over 3 months. There were a couple of instances when the Mandal level officials were locked up in their office premises for hours by irate MGNREGS labour demanding payment of the wages. The abnormal delay in the wage payment was noted to adversely affect household consumption and land investment, besides the saving activity of women’s saving groups. Second, farm operations had not really taken off for want of rains. Large tracts of rain-fed lands were prepared for sowing but the sowing was unlikely with no rains in the monsoon months of June and July. The weatherman was saying that there was no prospect of rains in the near future either. The land where the groundnut crop was sown by a few farmers was likely to wither away for even the minimum moisture that was needed to sustain the crop was lacking. And this meant that the demand for labour was at its lowest ebb. This brings us to the third reason. There were few moves for employment creation under the MGNREGS and other employment avenues in the region were absent. Thus, the labourers were left with no option but to migrate to cities far and near out of distress.

Table 2.

Beneficiary Households by Caste Category: Percentages

District	SCs	STs	OBCs	OCs	All
VSP	40.0	0.0	60.0	0.0	100.0 (40)
EG	65.0	2.5	32.5	0.0	100.0 (40)
ATR	50.0	0.0	50.0	0.0	100.0 (40)
KHM	5.0	52.5	42.5	0.0	100.0 (40)
All	40.0	13.8	46.2	0.0	100.0 (160)

Source: Field survey.

Note: Figures in brackets are the absolute number of sample households.

The conditions in the rural parts of the district of Visakhapatnam were not as bad, but bad nevertheless. Here too, the poor viewed the Scheme as godsend and wished it to be continued in the present form. The MGNREGS works that were undertaken in the district were development of the rain-fed lands of small and marginal farmers (SMF), de-silting of channels, tanks and canals and digging of trenches. Cashew plantations were being developed in the survey villages as part of the Scheme on a large scale. Mango trees were also planted along with cashew under the Scheme. There were about 300 households in the village and about 100 of them had already worked for 100 days under the Scheme. They were ready to work for more days. But the possibility of generating work for more than 100 days was bleak.

In the developed East Godavari district, where 90 per cent of the lands of the survey villages were irrigated under canals and bores, the response to the Scheme was lukewarm. No doubt, here too the SCs and OBCs constituted an overwhelmingly large proportion among the beneficiaries (Table 2). Nevertheless, their dependence on it, viewed from the Scheme’s significance in the total employment generated in this double-cropped region, was relatively less. In the backward Khammam district too, where STs and OBCs predominate among the sample beneficiaries (Table 2) the response to the Scheme was indifferent. It is so, not so much because the labourers here had alternative employment opportunities in abundance as in East Godavari, but because there was undue delay in the payment of wages under the Scheme in the district. Here pebble bunding, bund plantation with teak saplings were among the more important activities carried out under the Scheme. Other works carried out included bush clearance, land levelling, kuntas (rainwater harvesting structure [RWHS]: ponds/tanks), horticulture development with mango gardens and ‘sapota’ (chikoo/chiku) plantation and de-silting. Many labourers voluntarily kept themselves out of the MGNREGS works. The wages accruing to the labourers under the works were low and this fact together with the delay in the payment of wages and the availability of the non-MGNREGS work of some significance was responsible for the lack of interest in the MGNREGS work among the labourers.

The erstwhile combined state of Andhra Pradesh used to be in the forefront in the implementation of the MGNREGS and SCs and STs were a significant force behind its implementation. But now in the changed political context at the Centre, these communities might not be able to influence policy to their advantage and press for a forceful implementation of the Scheme. The scourge of delay in the payment of wages seems to hurt and divide even the diehard supporters of the Scheme in the Ananthapur district. The participants of the Scheme in the district lamented that their move to stall operations in the Mandal Revenue Office (MRO), as a response to the delay in payment of wages, also did not bear fruit. Is this a pointer to future dilution of the Scheme that acts as a safety net for the lowly placed? Fortunately, the union budgets of National Democratic Alliance (NDA) Government with ample allotments for the Scheme set aside some of the apprehensions that had been voiced about the continuation of the Scheme.

Table 3.

MGNREGS Workers and HH Members in Beneficiary HHs by Sex: Percentages

District	MGNREGS Workers In Sample HHs			Members In Sample HHs Aged 6 Yrs and Above
District	Males	Females	Total workers	Males	Females	Total members
VSP	42.19	57.81	100 (64)	46.67	53.33	100 (105)
EG	27.78	72.22	100 (54)	50.39	49.61	100 (129)
ATR	48.84	51.16	100 (86)	48.51	51.49	100 (134)
KHM	39.34	60.66	100 (61)	47.37	52.63	100 (114)
All	40.75	59.25	100 (265)	48.34	51.66	100 (482)

Source: Field survey.

Notes: Figures in brackets are the total number of MGNREGS workers/members aged 6 years and above; HHs: households.

Coverage of Women

The MGNREGS is meant so much for women. Across the country, women participate in the Scheme with enthusiasm and with the result their proportion among the beneficiaries is in excess of the mandatorily fixed norm of 33 per cent and is close to 50 per cent. There is even evidence that the womenfolk substitute MGNREGS work for non-MGNREGS work, because it is more dignified and because it can be taken up at one’s own pace. Our survey testifies the importance of the Scheme for women. Of the total MGNREGS workers in the sample households, females formed 59.25 per cent and males 40.75 per cent. Importantly, females’ proportion among MGNREGS workers was more than their proportion in household members aged 6 years and above (Table 3).

In the districts of Visakhapatnam, East Godavari and Khammam, females’ proportion among the beneficiaries was far in excess of 50 per cent. It is also that the proportion of females among MGNREGS workers was much more than their proportion in household members aged 6 years and above in the three districts. In the backward Ananthapur, they constituted about 50 per cent both among the beneficiaries of the Scheme and in the sample household members aged 6 years and above (Table 3). Men in the district banked on the Scheme for employment to a greater extent than in the other districts of study and being more vocal of the two sexes, they might press for the continuation of the Scheme with vigour. Ananthapur is among the districts where the MGNREGS was implemented in its first phase. Because it is in an arid zone and backward and because there is pressure for its continuation, the Scheme should be implemented, more than in any other district, in Ananthapur.

Coverage of the Aged

What does the Scheme hold for the elderly, those over 60 years of age? It is widely acknowledged that it is to their advantage. While the elderly people are generally not welcome into the labour market, MGNREGS does not discriminate them from the other workers. In poor households, such as those engaged in the Scheme, this counts very much because, for the households, even a modicum of addition to their earnings brought in by the aged means a great deal to make ends meet. The survey villages testify this general phenomenon. The proportion of the MGNREGS workers aged over 60 years was more than the proportion of the members of that age in the sample households in the survey districts except in Ananthapur (Table 4). Absolute numbers of the aged are revealing. Of the 31 household members aged over 60 years that figured in the survey, 23 (74%) were found employed in the Scheme.

Coverage of the Illiterate and those with Primary Education

The MGNREGS is meant to target the poor, who by definition are prepared to do manual labour and have little or no education. The Scheme in the survey villages confirms to this expectation. All the four survey districts put together, over four-fifths (85.66%) of the workers engaged in the Scheme were either illiterate or had completed only primary education. The situation in the individual districts was also in line with this observation. Compared to this, the proportion of illiterates and those with primary education, among the landless household members aged 6 and above, was lower and formed about two-thirds (66.18%) (Table 5).

Table 4.

MGNREGS Workers and HH Members in Beneficiary HHs Aged above 60 Years: Percentages

District	MGNREGS Workers Aged Over 60 yrs	HH Members Aged Over60 yrs
VSP	7.81 (64)	4.76 (105)
EG	20.37 (54)	10.08 (129)
ATR	3.49 (86)	4.48 (134)
KHM	6.56 (61)	6.14 (114)
All	8.68 (265)	6.43 (482)

Source: Field survey.

Note: Figures in brackets are the total number of MGNREGS workers.

Table 5.

Illiterates and Those with Primary Education among MGNREGS Workers and HH Members: Percentages

District	Among MGNREGS Workers	Among HH Members
VSP	89.06 (64)	80.00 (105)
EG	85.18 (54)	55.81 (129)
ATR	86.05 (86)	70.90 (134)
KHM	81.97 (61)	59.65 (114)
All	85.66 (265)	66.18 (482)

Source: Field survey.

Note: Figures in brackets are the total number of MGNREGS Workers/members aged 6 years and above; HH: households.

Among the household members aged 6 years and above, 29.67 per cent were noted in the survey to be students. Considering that the sample households were all landless, the observed proportion of students is quite high. This finding corroborates the observation in the FGDs that MGNREGS workers spent considerable sums on education. Other than the students, non-workers in the households were few and far between. About half of the household members worked as agricultural labour, besides being engaged in the MGNREGS.

In the above, we analysed the social and demographic characteristics of the beneficiaries of MGNREGS while addressing the proposition that the Scheme is inclusive, and as envisaged, is self-targeting and is acting as a safety net to the lowly placed. In the bargain we find support to the proposition and the Scheme is fulfilling the safety net function adequately—the Scheme is reaching the marginalised sections. Thus, we noticed that: (a) the socially lowly placed SCs, STs and OBCs were well represented among the beneficiaries, (b) the women members of households participated in the Scheme enthusiastically, (c) the Scheme was indeed the mainstay of the illiterate and the little educated that look for manual labour, and (d) the otherwise little preferred elderly of the labour market found place in the Scheme and therefore could make significant contribution to household earnings of the poor.

Moreover, the Scheme occasioned many mainstream effects in that: (a) it enabled women to become active participants in SHGs and thus empowered them, (b) it contributed to the cause of education of children, and (c) it seemed to enhance the capacity of the otherwise poor households in supporting and educating their young till such time they secured productive employment outside the MGNREGS.

The Study Proper: MGNREGS and the Bargaining Strength of Labour Force

For the MGNREGS to contribute to inclusive growth, it should boost the bargaining power and therefore the reservation wage rate of casual labourers. For the bargaining strength to increase, the Scheme should generate employment of considerable degree. And when the demand for labour increases in the countryside it would get reflected in the wages commanded by the labour force in non-MGNREGS works. We show below (a) the employment generated under MGNREGS works, (b) the employment under non-MGNREGS works and (c) the relative significance of MGNREGS and non-MGNREGS in employment, wages and wage income to the households in the survey districts.

Employment Generated Under MGNREGS

As for the employment dimension of MGNREGS we look in our survey data of 2013–14 at the (a) number of days of employment generated under the Scheme during the year on an average per household, and (b) distribution of the employed days between males and females.

MGNREGS Employment per Household

One of the yardsticks for measuring the effectiveness of the MGNREGS is the number of person days of employment generated per household in a year—how close is the number to the mandated 100 days? The number of days of employment under the MGNREGS, on an average per household, in the year 2013–14, worked out to 80.51 days (Table 6).

What is important for our purpose is the fact that many households in the survey villages worked for full 100 days under the Scheme. Such households were many in arid Ananthapur and the least in irrigated East Godavari. Barring in one village (Pulletikurru of the East Godavari district), the number of days of employment generated under the Scheme was more in the sample villages than at the state level. Thus, for the sample villages under consideration, the MGNREGS meant a great deal and it made a big difference in the lives of the poor. This was much more so in Ananthapur, for, in the villages of the district, almost all the sample households reported to have worked full 100 days in the Scheme during the year (Table 6). In fact, they wanted the cap on the maximum number of days of employment to be removed from the statute.

MGNREGS Employment and Share of Women

It is generally opined that the larger the share of women days in the person days of employment generated under MGNREGS, the more welcome it is. It is considered so because such a situation contributes to the empowerment of women, and because, in as much as it is usually more difficult for women to secure gainful employment, their coverage under the MGNREGS adds to the total number of employed days. The present study, however, gives the impression that the more the male workers opted to work under the MGNREGS the more would be the number of days of employment generated under it in a locality. For realising the objective of generating the mandated 100 days of employment per household per year it appears that a preponderance of male workers is important. Male workers seem to succeed where women workers fail, in pressing for guaranteed employment.

Table 6.

Manual Employment Under MGNREGS and Non-MGNREGS During 2013–2014

District	Employment under MGNREGS		Employment under Non-MGNREGS
District	Avg. No. of Days per HH	Of which % Share of Females	Avg. No. of Days per HH	Of which % Share of Females
VSP	75.68	61.91	185.88	50.30
EG	71.38	78.98	181.75	43.19
ATR	99.50	53.77	237.93	53.47
KHM	75.48	68.93	144.00	47.66
All	80.51	64.82	187.39	49.06

Source: Field survey.

On an average for the four districts of study, the proportion of days employed under the MGNREGS in respect of women was much more than for men (Table 6). While it is mandated that at least one-third of the employment generated should go to women, in reality, they accounted for about two-thirds (64.82%). This phenomenon of women workers’ preponderance in MGNREGS employment was to be found in all the districts of study. However, their significance in Ananthapur, though high in itself at a little over 50 per cent, was relatively less compared to other districts. In the district, men competed with women for the MGNREGS employment almost on an equal footing because, they lacked alternative employment opportunities in their surroundings.

In the above we noted that the male workers’ proportion among MGNREGS workers was more in the Ananthapur district compared to their proportions in the other districts. This seems to have contributed to a larger share of male person days of the MGNREGS work in the district. The preponderance of men among the Scheme’s workers in the district might be one reason why there was a mass movement for prompt payment of wages there. In East Godavari district, the proportion of female person days was the highest in total person days of employment generated under the MGNREGS. Note that this is the district where, as revealed in our FGDs, the demand for work under the Scheme was the least. Men in the district did not evince much interest in the Scheme. The interest men take in the MGNREGS is what seems to shape the number of days of employment generated under the Scheme.

Manual Employment Under Non-MGNREGS Works

Here, we consider two dimensions, viz., (a) The number of days of employment other than MGNREGS employment during the reference year on an average per household, and (b) the distribution of the manual non-MGNREGS employed days between males and females. Mention should be made of the reports that, in the Ananthapur and Khammam districts, the non-MGNREGS work was performed by labourers with all seriousness and they exhibited no laxity, both before and after the initiation of the MGNREGS. However, in East Godavari and in particular Visakhapatnam, it is noted that work ethic in the survey villages suffered with the onset of the MGNREGS.

Manual Employment per Household Under Non-MGNREGS Works

The landless labour participated in non-MGNREGS employment on a large scale in and around the villages under survey. In fact, this employment avenue was far more important than MGNREGS employment for the households in all the districts. In the aggregate for all the districts, the number of days of employment per year under this avenue was 187.39 per household. If we consider the data district-wise, we find that Ananthapur recorded the highest number of days of non-MGNREGS employment per household in the year at 237.93. The non-MGNREGS employed days per household in and around the villages under survey were 185.88, 181.75 and 144.00 in Visakhapatnam, East Godavari and Khammam respectively. One reason for the highest number of non-MGNREGS employed days in Ananthapur was the number of manual workers in the households there. The workers numbered the highest in the district among the four districts (Table 6). And the reason for the lowest number of days in Khammam should be attributed to migration. In fact, it was only in this district we noticed workers migrating to distant places in search of work even after MGNREGS. Our survey data and the FGDs clearly bring out that migration had come to an absolute halt following MGNREGS in Ananthapur (At the time of finalisation of this report there was again a spurt in distress migration with the indifference of authorities towards MGNREGS) and Visakhapatnam. There had never been any migration in East Godavari. However, in Khammam, migration continued, though got moderated due to the MGNREGS. Low wages accruing under the MGNREGS and the delay in payment of the wages seemed to have contributed to labourers migrating to distant places in the district.

Manual Non-MGNREGS Employment and Share of Women

It is abundantly clear that, for the four districts together, women were about as active as men in non-MGNREGS work (Table 6). The variations across the districts were not much to warrant special focus. The proportion of women days of the employment was more than male days in Kharif season in all the districts of study. What is however important was the significance of women in summer months in the non-MGNREGS work. At a time when the MGNREGS work was in full swing, they preferred the work to the non-MGNREGS work. This is along the expected lines. MGNREGS work being more dignified and rewarding, besides being less taxing, they preferred it.

Relative Significance of MGNREGS and Non-MGNREGS

In Employment

Of the total number of days worked under both the MGNREGS and non-MGNREGS works, the latter accounted for 69.95 per cent in the aggregate for the four districts (Table 7). That is, about 30 per cent of the employed days of the workers were generated under the MGNREGS. This is an indication of the importance of the Scheme in the lives of the landless households. This adds to the demand for casual labour and this in the bargain raises the bargaining strength and the reservation wage rate of the labour.

Table 7.

Total Number of Days Employed per HH during 2013–2014 and the Shares of MGNREGS and Non-MGNREGS

District	Avg. No. of Days Employed Per HH under MGNREGS and Non-MGNREGS	of Which % Share of Employment under MGNREGS	of Which % Share of Employment under Non-MGNREGS
VSP	261.56	28.93	71.07
EG	253.13	28.20	71.80
ATR	337.43	29.49	70.51
KHM	219.48	34.39	65.61
All	267.90	30.05	69.95

Source: Field survey.

Note: HH: Household.

In Wage Income

It is important to note that the average wage rate in non-MGNREGS employment was higher than in employment under MGNREGS, that too by a big margin. Thus, the former was ₹157 while the latter was only ₹124 (Table 8). Moreover, the higher average wage rate prevailed in all seasons.

This point at the fact that the non-MGNREGS’s share in total wage income (under both MGNREGS and non-MGNREGS) was more than its share in total number of employed days. Put differently, the share of non-MGNREGS in total days employed was 69.95 per cent while its share in total wage income was more at 74.73 per cent (Tables 7 and 9). Particularly interesting are the inter-district variations. The share of non-MGNREGS wage income in irrigated East Godavari was the highest at 78.82 per cent and lowest in arid Ananthapur at 68.18 per cent (Table 9). In other words, the MGNREGS relatively speaking assumed the least importance in the former district and the most importance in the latter. This explains why the response of the workers of East Godavari to the MGNREGS was lukewarm—they had relatively less to lose if the MGNREGS was neglected. Note, however, that if the MGNREGS is withdrawn, it would lessen the employment and income of the households for sure, because work under the Scheme complements the non-MGNREGS work and not substitute it.

Table 8.

Wage Rates Accrued under MGNREGS and Non-MGNREGS (in ₹)

District	Avg. Wage Rate underMGNREGS	Avg. Wage Rate underNon-MGNREGS
VSP	136	166
EG	128	187
ATR	137	123
KHM	90	166
All	124	157

Source: Field survey.

Table 9.

Total Wage Income (₹) per HH during 2013–2014 and the Shares of MGNREGS and Non-MGNREGS

District	Avg. Wage Income per HH under MGNREGS andNon-MGNREGS	of which % Share of Wage Income from MGNREGS	of which% share of Wage Income fromNon- MGNREGS
VSP	41,204	25.06	74.94
EG	43,065	21.18	78.82
ATR	42,921	31.82	68.18
KHM	30,651	22.12	77.88
All	39,460	25.27	74.73

Source: Field survey.

The non-MGNREGS wage rate was also the highest in East Godavari at ₹187 and it was the least in Ananthapur at ₹123; on an average for the four districts it was ₹157 (Table 9). This is not to undermine the importance of the MGNREGS for the landless workers in the survey districts. It is asserted in FGDs that the Scheme certainly helped in keeping the non-MGNREGS wage rates high. Also, the wage income from the MGNREGS both in absolute and relative terms was certainly not insignificant. With the initiation of the MGNREGS the bargaining strength of the casual labour force, especially of women, increased. With the result, real wages of the labour force increased substantially. This contributes to inclusive growth. But what seem to also matter are the initial conditions. Our study bears ample testimony to this. Wages of casual labour increased no doubt. But, in the backward Ananthapur the wage rate under non-MGNREGS works at ₹123, was much lower than that in the developed East Godavari at ₹187.

Conclusions

The MGNREGS initiated in 2006 is an unparalleled strategic intervention to better the livelihoods of the rural poor. Towards this end it provides them with gainful employment. Our sample survey spread over eight villages of the composite AP reveals that the Scheme benefits the vulnerable sections; the socially lowly placed SCs, STs, OBCs, women, the elderly, the illiterate and, more generally, the poor. Additionally, the Scheme contributes to a healthy growth of SHGs, and to the spread of education. The Scheme serves the safety-net function admirably where it is particularly important, viz., in the backward regions, in the sense that the employment generated under it is more in the regions. There is the indication that the number of days of employment generated under the Scheme is more in the regions where the proportion of males in the labour force is more. Thus, if males take the Scheme seriously, more days of employment is created under it. The demand factor plays a role in the generation of employment under the MGNREGS.

Annually, about 30 per cent of the employed days of the beneficiaries are generated under the MGNREGS. This suggests at the importance of the Scheme to the livelihoods of the poor. The average wage rate under the non-MGNREGS is higher than that under the MGNREGS, that too by a big margin. It is clear from the study that the non-MGNREGS wage rate is what it is because of the higher bargaining strength that the workers came to command with the initiation of the MGNREGS. The study thus supports the hypothesis that the Scheme has improved the livelihoods of the lowly placed in society, aided employment growth and impacted positively on the wage rate and thus contributed to inclusive growth.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: This study was made possible through Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR), New Delhi.

References

Alha

Yonzon

(2011). Recent developments in farm labour availability in India and reasons behind its short supply. Agricultural Economics Research Review , 24(Conference Special), 381–390.

Banerjee

Saha

(2010). The NREGA, the Maoists and the developmental woes of the Indian state. Economic and Political Weekly , 45(28), 42–47.

Dogra

(2005). Rural employment schemes: Rhetoric and reality. Economic and Political Weekly , 40(18), 1809–1810.

Dutta

Murgai

Ravallion

van de Walle

(2012). Does India’s employment guarantee scheme guarantee employment? Economic and Political Weekly , 47(16), 55–64.

Hirway

(2004). Providing employment guarantee in India: Some critical issues. Economic and Political Weekly , 39(48), 5117–5124.

Hirway

(2010). NREGA after four years: Building on experiences to move ahead. Indian Journal of Labour Economics , 53(1), 113–135.

Jha

Gaiha

(2012). NREGS: Interpreting the Official Statistics. Economic and Political Weekly , 47(40), 18–21.

Jha

Gaiha

Shankar

(2008). Reviewing the National Rural Employment Guarantee programme. Economic and Political Weekly , 43(11), 44–48.

Kannan

K. P.

(2005). Linking guarantee to human development. Economic and Political Weekly , 40(42), 4518–4522.

10.

Khera

R. (Ed.)

. (2011). The battle for employment guarantee . Oxford University Press.

11.

Liu

Barrett

C. B.

(2013). Heterogeneous pro-poor targeting in the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. Economic and Political Weekly , 48(10), 46–53.

12.

Pankaj

Tankha

(2010). Empowerment effects of the NREGS on women workers: A study in four states. Economic and Political Weekly , 45(30), 45–55.

13.

Shah

Mehta

A. K.

(2008). Experience of the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Scheme: Are there lessons for NREGS. Indian Journal of Labour Economics , 51(2), 197–212.

14.

Shah

(2004). National Rural Employment Guarantee Act: A historic opportunity. Economic and Political Weekly , 39(50), 5287–5290.

15.

Shah

Mann

Pande

(2012). Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, MGNREGA Sameeksha: An analogy of impact studies on the Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, 2006–2012 . Orient Black Swan.

16.

Shankar

Gaiha

(2012). Has the NREGS reached the rural poor? Seminar , 629(629), 68.

17.

Unni

Raveendran

(2007). Growth of employment (1993–94 to 2004–05): Illusion of inclusiveness. Economic and Political Weekly , 42(3), 196–199.