MGNREGA_SAMEEKSHA

Recommendations

Info

Labour Market and Migration 47 a parallel increase in non-farm activity in the same villages such that it is difficult to segregate the effect of non-farm pull factors, spread of education and the MGNREGA factor. 13 An analysis of the quantum of MGNREGA works provided across the year also indicates a powerful seasonal fluctuation, with a disproportionately higher share of works being done during the agricultural off-season. The month-wise employment data under MGNREGA during FY 2010–11 indicates that it is in the lean agricultural season (April–June and January–March), that around 70 per cent of persondays of work were generated. 14 While this does not factor in migration of labour during an agricultural lean season to other places, it does suggest that the impact of MGNREGA on labour markets may be limited at best (see Table 5.1). Some studies, however, have found a change in the composition of the labour force that participates in MGNREGA, implying a more direct impact of the Scheme on the labour market. The results of a longitudinal study of over 1064 rural households 15 from 200 villages of Medak district, Andhra Pradesh over two years, showed that in the initial years, MGNREGA predominantly attracted nonagricultural labour (78 per cent). This was because participation in the programme was concentrated in the dry summer months when agricultural labour work was scarce. Over time, however, the programme was seen to be attracting households that would have participated in agricultural labour (55 per cent). This suggests broader labour market distortions where MGNREGA is not just viewed as an employment assurance during slack agricultural seasons but as an alternative to agricultural labour work. 16 The NSSO panel survey on MGNREGA confirms the findings with regard to the constitution of MGNREGA labour force; for the states of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, among the households that participated in MGNREGA work, a round within the survey observed that about 84 per cent, 80 per cent and 61 per cent were ‘agricultural labour’ households or ‘self employed in agriculture’ households. 17 Synthesising results from studies across 12 states, findings suggest that it is difficult to generalise the impact of MGNREGA on labour markets and that the impact may vary from place to place. They argue that for MGNREGA to have a major impact on farm labour markets, it is critical that the volume of work offered under the scheme is substantial during the peak agricultural season. They note that the impact of MGNREGA was additive, expanding the labour market by attracting new labour to the workforce in Dholpur, Rajsamand and Bikaner (Rajasthan); Idukki and Trivandrum (Kerala); West Sikkim (Sikkim); and Chitoor (Andhra Pradesh). In Palakkad, however, where the plantation economy demands farm labour throughout the year, MGNREGA offered nearly 100 days of work and the Scheme’s impact on the labour market was substitutive; it drew a sizeable, mostly female, workforce away from agriculture and to make up, farm wages had to go up 50–70 per cent. 18 The study 19 also outlined four distinct situations of MGNREGA’s (demand, supply and market wages) interaction with the labour market (see Table 5.2). These categories may be explained as follows: • Insignificant Impact: In places where the volume of MGNREGA work is small compared 13 J. Kajale and S. Shroff, ‘Impact of NREGA on Wage Rates, Food Security, an Rural Urban Migration in Maharashtra’, Pune: Gokhale Instute of Politics and Economics, Agro-economic Research Centre, Report Submitted to the Ministry of Agriculture, 2011. 14 Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD), ‘Report of the Committee on Revision of MGNREGA Operational Guidelines’, New Delhi, Submitted to the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, 2012. 15 A household is defined as members of a family related to each other by blood, marriage or adoption, and normally residing together and sharing meals. 16 M. Engler and S. Ravi, Workfare as an Effective Way to Fight Poverty: The Case of India’s NREGS, 2012, Retrieved from Social Science Research Network: http://ssrn.com/paper=1336837, accessed on 15 May 2012. 17 National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO), Survey of MGNREGA, 2010–11. 18 T. Shah, S. Verma, R. Indu and P. Hemant, ‘Asset Creation through Employment Guarantee?: Synthesis of Student Case Studies in 9 states of India’, International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Report submitted to the Ministry of Rural Development/UNDP, 2010. 19 Verma, ‘Labour Market Dynamics in Post-MGNREGS Rural India’.
Table 5.1 Month-wise Person-days Generated in FY 2010–11** April May June July August September October November December January February March Total State Per- %age Per- %age Per- %age Per- %age Per- %age Per- %age Per- %age Per- %age Per- %age Per- %age Per- %age Per- %age Person- son- son- son- son- son- son- son- son- son- son- son- sondays days days days days days days days days days days days days (In (In (In (In (In (In (In (In (In (In (In (In (In Lakh) Lakh) Lakh) Lakh) Lakh) Lakh) Lakh) Lakh) Lakh) Lakh) Lakh) Lakh) Lakh) Andhra Pradesh 706.5 23 1001 33 677.5 23 206.5 7 76.3 3 32.8 1 29 1 22.2 1 21.9 1 23.4 1 53.9 2 157.2 5 3008.2 Assam 42.6 10 28.8 7 18.2 4 14.3 3 21.4 5 28.3 7 29.3 7 41.6 10 59.3 14 51.1 12 48 11 50.7 12 433.7 Bihar 115.3 11 141.3 14 117.5 11 63.8 6 57.8 6 70.4 7 56 5 59.2 6 91.9 9 98.4 10 96.2 9 65.6 6 1033.5 Chhattisgarh 213.7 20 296.2 27 155.5 14 14.1 1 8.1 1 10.4 1 21.4 2 19.7 2 34.8 3 106 10 118 11 94.5 9 1092.5 Gujarat 83.8 18 123.8 27 49.4 11 18.3 4 13 3 10.6 2 14.3 3 19.7 4 29.2 6 38.9 8 33.2 7 27.4 6 461.7 Haryana 3.2 4 2.9 3 2.6 3 2.9 3 4.3 5 5.1 6 6.8 8 8.7 10 11.4 14 13.8 16 11.6 14 11.1 13 84.3 Himachal Pradesh 20.2 10 27 13 25.2 12 21.2 10 19.9 10 19.6 9 15.1 7 17.1 8 11.2 5 4 2 8.9 4 19.7 9 209.2 Jammu and Kashmir 1.8 4 1.6 3 1.5 3 2.8 6 3.5 7 4.3 9 5.5 11 6.2 13 7.3 15 6.1 12 4.5 9 3.9 8 49.1 Jharkhand 95.5 12 106.1 13 91.3 11 60.9 8 54.7 7 69.3 9 49.7 6 38.3 5 47.6 6 62 8 69.3 9 60.2 7 804.8 Karnataka 5.4 0 6.7 1 14 1 17.9 2 24.6 2 34.8 3 51.7 5 59.8 5 81.9 7 146.2 13 294.9 27 360.2 33 1098.2 Kerala 14.6 3 29.5 6 37.4 8 48.3 10 39.5 8 49.8 10 35.1 7 35.4 7 43.3 9 55.8 11 55.1 11 48.8 10 492.7 Madhya Pradesh 277.7 16 318 18 293.3 17 133.2 8 67.4 4 57.3 3 59.7 3 66.6 4 118.5 7 143.7 8 134.4 8 95.9 5 1765.8 Maharashtra 53 29 46.1 25 23.8 13 6.2 3 3.1 2 2.5 1 2.7 1 2.5 1 6.2 3 8.6 5 13.5 7 15.9 9 184.1 Odisha 163.9 17 239.9 25 124.3 13 29.9 3 27.7 3 31.7 3 38.6 4 45.9 5 57.9 6 66.2 7 79.8 8 70 7 975.8 Punjab 6.1 8 7.5 10 8.1 10 5.3 7 5.8 7 6.1 8 5.9 8 4.4 6 4.4 6 4.3 6 6.4 8 13.6 17 77.8 Rajasthan 322.6 12 594 23 687.4 26 245.2 9 69.1 3 40 2 29.1 1 30.9 1 75.5 3 155.8 6 186.2 7 159.1 6 2594.8 Tamil Nadu 326.9 12 332.9 13 318.5 12 419.4 16 282.6 11 200.9 8 201.7 8 84.3 3 100.7 4 94.5 4 136.1 5 137.9 5 2636.3 Uttar Pradesh 273.6 9 306.6 10 326.2 10 300.1 10 184 6 88.8 3 60.3 2 139.2 4 346 11 420.5 14 378.8 12 290.2 9 3114.4 Uttarakhand 16.6 8 12.3 6 12.7 6 13.7 7 15.7 8 12.4 6 12.6 6 15.5 8 23 11 29.5 15 23 11 15.8 8 202.9 West Bengal 243.9 17 233 16 209.2 15 106.1 7 58.2 4 56.9 4 45.6 3 41.1 3 69.3 5 119.4 8 141.7 10 106.5 7 1430.8 Total 3068.6 13 3945.2 17 3288.2 14 1818 8 1138.5 5 934.3 4 849 4 840.7 4 1307.4 6 1728 8 1971.4 9 1882.2 8 22771.6 Source: Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (official website), www.mgnrega.nic.in. ** FY 2010–11 has been used since at the time of the preparation of the report, reporting on MIS was still open for FY 2011–12.
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 and 26: 6 MGNREGA Sameeksha per capita expe
Page 27 and 28: 8 MGNREGA Sameeksha has had an impa
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: 46 MGNREGA Sameeksha force where mo
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?