National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme: How Effective?
*Saumitra Mohan

National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme (NREGA) has been in operation for over two years and is being implemented in half the districts of this country. And if the government’s declaration is to be believed, then NREGA is going to be extended to cover all the remaining districts from 1st April, 2008.

NREGA is one of the flagship poverty alleviation programmes of the UPA government and has been taken very well across the country. However, the programme does require some structural and conceptual modifications to be better able to realise its objectives in the light of experience gained during its operation for over two years.

It is very well known by now that almost all the selected districts where NREGA has been implemented have not been able to utilise the financial allotment made for the purpose. Not only this, none of the districts could realise the target of providing 100 days of employment to the job card holders even though funds for the programme have never been a constraint.

A regional variation in terms of utilisation of allotted amount has been observed as some states have availed of larger amounts compared to many others. The utilisation per district has been more than Rs. 100 crore in Rajasthan (115) and Madhya Pradesh (103) and has been reasonably high also in Chhattisgarh (61) and Assam (85). On the other hand, this was less than Rs. 25 crore in Gujarat (14), Maharashtra (18) and Tamil Nadu (25).

The objective of 100 days of employment was not achieved in any state. However, the per district person days of employment and households provided employment were comparatively high in Madhya Pradesh (1.6 lakh households, 68 days), Chhattisgarh (1.7 lakh households, 54 days), Orissa (0.7 lakh households, 57 days) and Rajasthan (two lakh households, 83 days). In West Bengal and Tamil Nadu although three lakh and 1.2 lakh households, respectively worked under the NREGA, they could do so only for 14 and 26 days, respectively. In Gujarat and Maharashtra, only 30,000 and 40,000 households per district availed of the employment guarantee.

The reason for non-realisation of this objective is said to be the availability of work at higher wages in the private sectors than the one provided under NREGA, resulting in less utilisation of the allotted funds. This explanation may be acceptable for the relatively developed states, but definitely not for states like Bihar, Uttar Pradesh or West Bengal which are not so developed. These states definitely should have been able to utilise more money providing more number of employment rather than a poor average of 15 to 20 days.

One feels that as the Indian economy grows at the sizzling rate of over nine per cent, there shall be more people attracted to work at the more attractive market wage rates than the minimum wage of Rs. 75 as provided under NREGA. Since no state has been able to provide hundred days of employment, there is definitely a need to take the required corrective measures to reach the said target.

Also, it is advisable that the Central government get more daring and remove the ceiling of 100 days and make it a completely demand driven employment guarantee scheme to be available throughout the year. With states unable to realise even 100 days of employment, the drain on government resources is not going to be something beyond its reach, more so when more work at higher wages are likely to be available in the private sector in times to come, given the way our economy seems to be performing.

Knowing that employment would be available for asking in the villages itself, the wage labourers will be less motivated to head towards the urban areas for earning higher wage employment thereby not only reducing pressure on urban amenities and infrastructures, there shall be enough work left for the urban workers. As there shall be less of them available, it is likely that the urban wage labourers would get higher and more rewarding wages, thereby reducing the need for the government to formulate any such wage employment guarantee programme for the urban workers.

Since one of the objectives of the scheme is not only to provide guaranteed employment in the rural areas to discourage rural-urban migration, but also to create gainful assets in the countryside, it is advisable for the government to keep revising the minimum wages from time to time to reflect the market wages. If this does not happen, people would not feel encouraged to stay back in the villages to work for NREGA schemes thereby reducing the opportunities to create basic amenities and civil assets in the rural areas.

Though the government argues that NREGA being a demand driven programme, people should be willing to do the work at the government approved rates, which is the minimum wage sufficient to sustain a household per day. If the people are getting work for higher wages elsewhere, they should go ahead and do it. This would result in saving of government money which can go in for utilisation in bigger and better schemes rather than on NREGA schemes which are basically earthworks and do not, as such, create permanent assets.

During rainy season and other such busy seasons which may vary from state to state, people get higher wages in the rural areas itself thereby leaving very few volunteers for wage employment works in the countryside thereby resulting in less utilisation of the NREGA money. But one would say that less or more utilisation of NREGA allotment should not be a criterion to judge the success of the programme. Less utilisation may also mean that there is less demand for such work in that particular area, which should actually be seen as a development indicator as that means people are getting work at higher wages elsewhere.

However, one does find it surprising when one sees that work demanded is significantly less even in those areas where people living below the poverty line are more than the usual and are not demanding work under NREGA. So, it does feel that there has not been done enough ground work for creating awareness about the programme. It has been observed that people are still not aware of the fact that they can demand work under NREGA as a matter of their right. Most of them are still not aware of their right to demand unemployment allowance as a result of implementing agency’s failure to provide the work within the statutory fifteen days of the receipt of petition demanding such a wage employment.

Surprisingly, almost no unemployment allowance has been paid any where in the country. There have also been failures on the part of the respective government agencies to provide the demanded work within fifteen days, thereby defeating the very objective of NREGA. Not only this, no government official has yet been penalised for having failed to realise the programme objectives as there is provision for the same.

Under NREGA, there is in-built mechanism to check corruption and leakage of government money by means of better supervisory and monitoring arrangements. The same is supposed to be ensured by way of regular monitoring and muster roll checking. The provision of keeping an account of job demanded and provided through the specially designed individual job cards is also supposed to be a major anti-corruption tool.

However, it was believed that these very arrangements were reasons for a general apathy among the programme implementing agencies to implement the scheme effectively as there was almost negligible scope for siphoning of government money as was available earlier during Swarnjayanti Gram Rojgar Yojna (SGRY) days.

But as they, human ingenuity knows no bounds. The vested interests immediately discovered newer ways to sabotage the programme and got onto the gravy train. If some newspaper reports are to be believed, not only many fake job cards have come to notice of the monitors, but also there have been many reports where it has been found that implementing agencies or political parties have got a good number of job cards deposited in their custody and are using the same for nefarious purpose of minting money illegally. Not only this, employment to job card holders is still being given more as an obligation, than as a matter of right.

It has been found that by means of such fake cards, the vested interests have ensured siphoning of government money by making fake entries into the muster roll and the daily attendance sheet. It has also been noticed that job cards have not been issued to all those who wanted it and applied for it, but only to those who are loyal to a particular political party or could grease some palms.

Also, the wage is supposed to be paid as per the quantum of work done by the individual labourers. However, the same has been noticed to be paid at a flat rate irrespective of the efficiency or work quantum standards, thereby rewarding a hare and a tortoise equally, something which goes against the purported objective of the scheme. Also, the muster rolls are supposed to be publicly read to ward off corruption, but the same is not being done, thereby giving rise to suspicion of foul play.

Also, the basic work site amenities as are supposed to be there as per the programme guideline are usually not found to be available. There have not been any crèche for children of working women, or provisioning of any first aid boxes or potable water as ought to be there. The stock argument proffered is that people feel that employment created through such works are less strenuous and villagers object to the fact that some people can earn their wages without putting in any hard labour. What they fail to realise is that such works can accommodate not only the physically handicapped people, but the same works can be rotated among the beneficiaries, if the handicapped or such other people are not readily available.

It is also being felt by many that the material-wage ratio of 40-60 should be hiked to be 50-50 and this ceiling should be flexible enough to be applicable only at the district level so as to allow for taking up bigger and better schemes, thereby allowing scope for use of machines as well where extremely necessary, rather than being completely banned as is envisaged presently.

If NREGA has to be successful in realising its programme objectives, then these concerns and problems, as mentioned above, need to be addressed sooner rather than later. One just hopes that with regular monitoring, social auditing and proper accounting coupled with some positive changes required in the light of experience gained during its operation for over two years, NREGA can really become an effective answer to many of the problems for India’s poor masses.
*Saumitra Mohan is an IAS officer presently working as an Additional District Magistrate, Hooghly in West Bengal.
(The views expressed here are author’s personal views and do not reflect those of the Government.)
Address for correspondence:
Saumitra Mohan, IAS, Additional District Magistrate, Office of the District Magistrate, Hooghly-712101.
E-mail: saumitra_mohan@hotmail.com.
Phone: 033-26806456/26802043(O)/26802041(R).
Fax: 033-26802043.
Mobile: 91-9831388803/9434242283.