SOIL Report 2008 - ACCESS Development Services

Chapter VNo. of SHGs formed 2,741,081No. of swarozgaris assisted 9,332,572SHGs swarozgaris 5,812,645Individual swarozgaris 3,519,927Credit disbursedSubsidy disbursed:Rs 13,538 croreRs 6,612 crorePer capita Investment(Average/year) Rs 21,832Source: Annual Report 2007-08, MoRD, GoI (2008a).The sector-wise coverage of assisted swarozgaris under SGSY during 2007-’08 displays the familiar patternobserved since the days of IRDP. Animal husbandry is the overwhelmingly popular income-generationactivity for which loans are taken (about half of total). The next popular activity is petty trade whichhas been taken up by about one-sixth of the beneficiaries. It would appear that a breakthrough is yet tobe made in other manufacturing activity in the form of cottage and small and medium enterprises toprovide enhanced income and employment through the SGSY programme in the rural areas.Programme ImpactTable 5.1SGSY coversonly 1 per centof the relevanthouseholdpopulationand only 33per cent of itsbeneficiaries aredrawn from thepoorest quintile,SGSY guidelines contain extensive details on how the programme should be administered. However,fairly early into its implementation, it had been recognised that there was surprisingly little focus on thedesired client impacts SGSY sought to achieve − other than raise every assisted family above the povertyline over a three-year period (Ghosh, 2001).There are very few studies on SGSY and only very scattered findings. A National Institute of Rural Developmentstudy (NIRD, 2007) found the average annual incremental income earned by the individualsdue to the assistance under the programme was Rs 8,800 whereas in case of group swarozgaris, it wassubstantial at Rs 34,920. A study of coverage of SC/STs in the implementation of SGSY (BIRD, 2007)involved a survey of about 10,848 swarozgaris/non-swarozgaris in seven states. The study reports thatSC/ST families were excluded from the real assistance for the following reasons:• Physical exclusion - by not being accepted as group members• Financial exclusion by denial of their due share either by group leaders or by implementingbank/block officials• Exclusion because they are already covered under some state government sponsored programmes(often implemented by state SC/ST corporations) and in many cases are already defaulters ofbank loans.The study also found that groups under SGSY are cobbled together to fulfill targets and often with theallurement of subsidy. After getting the term loan, a large number of groups repay the loan componentand distribute the subsidy portion among members.Similarly, a rigorous study by Pathak and Pant (2006) in Jaunpur district of UP found that SGSY has notcontributed significantly in the change in the level of income of the beneficiaries. The foremost reason forthis was that there had been no infrastructural facility or any other kind of support to the SHGs to starta viable microenterprise. There was also a high prevalence of corrupt practices. The analysis, however,showed that SGSY had positive impact on non-income indicators. Beneficiaries showed improvementin access to safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, electricity and in housing conditions.A more dismal picture is provided by an MoRD (2007) briefing which shows that SGSY covers only 1per cent of the relevant household population and only 33 per cent of its beneficiaries are drawn from114