MGNREGA_SAMEEKSHA

Recommendations

Info

Income and Livelihood Security 7 other work during the time MGNREGA work was performed. The figure was 14 per cent for Rajasthan and 2 per cent for Madhya Pradesh. 14 It is also important to observe the average number of days when work other than MGNREGA was available. In the case of Andhra Pradesh other work was available on an average for 16 days (at a wage rate of Rs 74/day), whereas MGNREGA work was available for 20 days (at a wage rate of Rs 89/ day). Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan demonstrated similar trends with MGNREGA providing more number of days of work at a higher average per day wage rate. 15 The findings for Andhra Pradesh were confirmed by the longitudinal study in Medak district (mentioned above). It was found that around 67 per cent of the households said they use MGNREGA as a source of income when no other work was available. 16 Monthly Per Capita Expenditure Monthly per capita expenditure has been used as a proxy indicator to measure the impact of MGNREGA on poverty levels of a household. The impact is likely to be positive if the increase in income has translated into an increase in expenditure, particularly on food and essential items, of the household. It follows from a study conducted in Andhra Pradesh that the MGNREGA has caused a significant increase in monthly per capita consumption expenditure of around 10 per cent for households. Expenditure on non-food consumables increased significantly by around 23 per cent. Expenditure on transportation decreased significantly due to the MGNREGA by around 65 per cent. This was most likely because the MGNREGA stipulates that employment be provided within 5 kilometres (kms) of the residence of participants. 17 Similar expenditure patterns were apparent in Rajasthan, as per another study. The wage-seekers were spending their additional wages from MGNREGA mainly on food (50 per cent), clothing (20 per cent), education (10–15 per cent) and health care (10 per cent). 18 Another longitudinal study surveyed the same 2,500 households in Andhra Pradesh in 2004, before MGNREGA, and in 2006 and 2008, after the implementation of MGNREGA. It found that participation in MGNREGA had a significant and positive impact on consumption expenditure, intake of energy and protein and asset accumulation. 19 MGNREGA seems to provide poor households the ability to withstand economic shocks and deal with inflation. In a study conducted in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Odisha, most sample households reported that had MGNREGA not been implemented in the study areas, most of the households would not have had the capacity to purchase enough foodgrains. 20 Impact on Food Security, Savings and Health Outcomes Studies on poverty suggest that deprivation across a wide range of nutrients (calories, micro-nutrients, etc.), can lead to a poverty trap where low nutrition leads to low productivity which in turn leads to low wages and then to low nutrition, thus completing a vicious cycle. Depending on how net transfers from MGNREGA are spent, their nutritional implications may be significant. 21 MGNREGA has contributed to ensuring a higher intake of food and food availability. In Andhra Pradesh, a study compared the number of meals foregone by households and found that this number had reduced significantly as a result of MGNREGA. Those who worked in the programme gave up 1.6 fewer meals per week. 22 A few research studies also observe that MGNREGA 14 NSSO, Survey of MGNREGA, New Delhi: National Sample Survey Organisation, 2010–11. 15 Ibid. 16 Engler and Ravi, Workfare as an Effective Way to Fight Poverty. 17 Ibid. 18 V. S. Babu and K. H. Rao, ‘Impact of MGNREGS on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes: Studies Conducted in 8 States’, Hyderabad: National Institute of Rural Development (NIRD), 2010. 19 K. Deininger and Y. Liu, ‘Poverty Impacts of India’s National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme: Evidence from Andhra Pradesh’, Selected Paper Prepared for Presentation at the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, Denver: Colorado, 2010. 20 K. Banerjee and P. Saha, ‘The NREGA, the Maoists and the Developmental Woes of the Indian State’. Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 55, no. 28, 10 July 2010. 21 Jha, Gaiha and Pandey, ‘Net Transfer Benefits under India’s Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme’. 22 Engler and Ravi, Workfare as an Effective Way to Fight Poverty.
8 MGNREGA Sameeksha has had an impact on the health of the beneficiaries. As per the longitudinal study in Medak in Andhra Pradesh (mentioned earlier), the health outcomes impacted by the programme include a significant reduction of 12 per cent in the incidence of reported depression and improvements in mental health indicators. Consequently, post MGNREGA, health expenditure has decreased by Rs 8 per capita. 23 The programme also raised the probability of holding savings for a rural household by 21 per cent and the per capita amount saved increased by around Rs 19. 24 In assessing the impact of MGNREGA on poverty, it is important to also look at the interplay between MGNREGA and market wages. Literature suggests that workfare programmes like MGNREGA, that can put upward pressure on agriculture wages, are likely to be some of the most effective ways of improving the welfare of the poorest. 25 Research suggests that welfare costs of economic crises and weather shocks are disproportionately large for the poor who lack the means to protect themselves from adverse income and employment shocks. This could further reinforce existing inequalities, create persistent poverty and hurt the pace of poverty reduction. Through its impact on income, consumption, food security and employment, MGNREGA appears to be helping in protecting the poor and vulnerable. For instance, according to a secondary analysis of MGNREGA data from Andhra Pradesh, a study observed that MGNREGA provides income for poor households when they most need it, i.e. when they are hit by adverse weather conditions. Each millimetre (mm) in deficit rainfall suffered by a subdistrict was correlated with nearly Rs 20 in additional MGNREGA wages per working age person, while each extra day of rain went with reduced MGNREGA wages per working age person by slightly over Rs 7. 26 There is, however, a need for concrete and rigorous research on the issue as well, as only a few studies look at this aspect. MGNREGA and Market Wages The MGNREGA notified wages have increased across States since 2006, Maharashtra observing the highest increase of over 200 per cent, and Kerala the lowest at 31 per cent. 27 A majority of the research suggests that MGNREGA has led to an increase in agriculture wage rates. A study estimates that MGNREGA boosts the real daily agricultural wage rates by 5.3 per cent. The wage effect is equal for both men and women and is in favour of unskilled labour. Thus, MGNREGA may also be indirectly benefitting poor households through the increase in private sector wages. MGNREGA entitles every worker to wages at the GoI notified, State-wise wage rate, for each day of work. The MGNREGA notified wage rates have increased across States over the years, with some states like Maharashtra registering an increase of over 200 per cent. The MGNREGA wage is higher than the legal minimum agriculture wage in 19 States (see Table 1.1). Research studies have attempted to analyse if this increase is causing an upward pressure in market wages. A majority of the literature supports this claim. Based on NSSO 64th Round Survey during agricultural year 2008–09, both male and female workers reported earning an average of Rs 79 per day for work under the Act. These earnings are 12 per cent higher than the average daily earnings for casual workers. 28 Another comprehensive time series of rural wage data (both agricultural and nonagricultural) put together by the Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation indicates that the advent of MGNREGA has resulted in a significant structural break in rural wage increases. Between 1999 and 2005, pre-MGNREGA, nominal wages in the rural economy grew at an average annual rate of 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 E. Berg, S. Bhattacharyya, R. Durg and M. Ramachandra, ‘Can Rural Public Works Affect Agriculture Wages: Evidence from India’, Centre for the Study of African Economies (CSAE), Working Papers WPS/2012–15, 2012. 26 Doug Johnson, ‘Can Workfare Serve as a Substitute for Weather Insurance? The Case of NREGA in Andhra Pradesh’, Working paper 32, Chennai: Institute of Financial Management and Research (IFMR), 2009. 27 Kerala’s wage was high to begin with at Rs 125 in 2006. 28 C. Imbert and J. Papp, ‘Equilibrium Distributional Impacts of Government Employment Programs: Evidence from India’s Employment Guarantee’, Paris School of Economics, 2011.
Page 2 and 3: MGNREGA Sameeksha ‘I will give yo
Page 4 and 5: MGNREGA Sameeksha An Anthology of R
Page 6 and 7: Contents List of Tables, Figures an
Page 8 and 9: Tables, Figures and Boxes Tables A:
Page 10 and 11: Foreword I In his famous talisman,
Page 12: Foreword xi There has been public c
Page 16 and 17: Abbreviations ADS AEO APL APO ATM B
Page 18: Abbreviations xvii RTI SAU SBI SC S
Page 21 and 22: 2 MGNREGA Sameeksha Coverage The Ac
Page 23 and 24: 4 MGNREGA Sameeksha Table A An Over
Page 25: 6 MGNREGA Sameeksha per capita expe
Page 29 and 30: 10 MGNREGA Sameeksha Figure 1.1 Nom
Page 31 and 32: 12 MGNREGA Sameeksha Line (APL) pop
Page 33 and 34: 14 MGNREGA Sameeksha Box 1.1 MGNREG
Page 35 and 36: 16 MGNREGA Sameeksha Micro-level da
Page 37 and 38: 18 MGNREGA Sameeksha 2 Gender and S
Page 39 and 40: 20 MGNREGA Sameeksha Scheme logisti
Page 41 and 42: 22 MGNREGA Sameeksha male workers.
Page 43 and 44: 24 MGNREGA Sameeksha the importance
Page 45 and 46: 26 MGNREGA Sameeksha women need to
Page 47 and 48: 28 MGNREGA Sameeksha Table 3.1 Tota
Page 49 and 50: 30 MGNREGA Sameeksha the farmers ca
Page 51 and 52: 32 MGNREGA Sameeksha a conceptualis
Page 53 and 54: 34 MGNREGA Sameeksha Work on Privat
Page 55 and 56: 36 MGNREGA Sameeksha Rajasthan, Guj
Page 57 and 58: 38 MGNREGA Sameeksha 4 Environmenta
Page 59 and 60: 40 MGNREGA Sameeksha While effectiv
Page 61 and 62: 42 MGNREGA Sameeksha to a range of
Page 63 and 64: 44 MGNREGA Sameeksha efficiently se
Page 65 and 66: 46 MGNREGA Sameeksha force where mo
Page 67 and 68: Table 5.1 Month-wise Person-days Ge
Page 69 and 70: 50 MGNREGA Sameeksha Increase in Ba
Page 71 and 72: 52 MGNREGA Sameeksha labour, 42 the
Page 73 and 74: 54 MGNREGA Sameeksha 6 Governance a
Page 75 and 76: 56 MGNREGA Sameeksha Panchayati Raj
Page 77 and 78:
58 MGNREGA Sameeksha the year prior
Page 79 and 80:
60 MGNREGA Sameeksha reasons for de
Page 81 and 82:
62 MGNREGA Sameeksha Table 6.2 Stat
Page 83 and 84:
64 MGNREGA Sameeksha Figure 6.1 Mai
Page 85 and 86:
66 MGNREGA Sameeksha states, includ
Page 87 and 88:
68 MGNREGA Sameeksha soil. The cost
Page 89 and 90:
70 MGNREGA Sameeksha A summary of t
Page 91 and 92:
72 MGNREGA Sameeksha employment pro
Page 93 and 94:
74 MGNREGA Sameeksha Table 7.1 Expa
Page 95 and 96:
76 MGNREGA Sameeksha The new Guidel
Page 97 and 98:
78 MGNREGA Sameeksha of MGNREGA, fr
Page 99 and 100:
80 Bibliography Ambasta, P., ‘MGN
Page 101 and 102:
82 Bibliography different regions,
Page 103 and 104:
84 Bibliography Abstract: At the re
Page 105 and 106:
86 Bibliography market. The questio
Page 107 and 108:
88 Bibliography cent) and on non-fo
Page 109 and 110:
90 Bibliography vulnerability. As a
Page 111 and 112:
92 Bibliography Abstract: IIM Shill
Page 113 and 114:
94 Bibliography Jameel Poverty Acti
Page 115 and 116:
96 Bibliography Abstract: The impac
Page 117 and 118:
98 Bibliography than 50 per cent in
Page 119 and 120:
100 Bibliography This adverse produ
Page 121 and 122:
102 Bibliography Planning Commissio
Page 123 and 124:
104 Bibliography some extent, in sh
Page 125 and 126:
106 Bibliography Abstract: The evid
Page 127 and 128:
108 Bibliography studies indicate t
show all

MGNREGA_SAMEEKSHA

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?