Research Study No Impact of NREGA on Wage Rates, Food Security and Rural Urban Migration in Rajasthan. Mrutyunjay Swain Shreekant Sharma

Transcription

1 Research Study No. 139 Impact of NREGA on Wage Rates, Food Security and Rural Urban Migration in Rajasthan Mrutyunjay Swain Shreekant Sharma Agro Economic Research Centre Sardar Patel University, Vallabh Vidyanagar, Gujarat April 2011 i

2 ii

3 Foreword The Mahatma Gandhi National Employment Act (NREGA) is revolutionary in its promise of inclusive growth, the right to work and the dignity of labour and a participatory relationship with the State. NREGA has become a buzz word in recent days because of its huge coverage and commendable effects on the lives of poorest of the poor in India. The introduction of the scheme has been a major initiative of Government of India towards poverty reduction and income generation among rural poor families. The implantation of the scheme has already covered all districts of the country. The scheme stands apart in significant ways from other employment and poverty alleviation programmes that have been implemented in India. Not only it has many safeguards to check corruption and irregularities in implementation, it has raised the hopes of the millions of the poor to move upward. Keeping in view the huge money being spent for rural development and its significance for transforming the village economy in India, it is necessary to develop mechanism that regularly monitors the various aspects of the implementation. It is highly desirable to examine how it is gradually affecting the lives of disadvantaged groups in our society. In this context, this study on impact of NREGA on wage rates, food security and rural-urban migration in Rajasthan is a very useful piece of work undertaken at our Centre. Dr Mrutyunjay Swain, Research Officer at our Centre has done this excellent piece of research work. He has based his work on both primary and secondary data collected from five districts of Rajasthan State, namely, Banswara, Karauli, Nagaur, Jaisalmer and Sri Ganganagar covering 200 NREGA participant and 50 non participant households. On the basis of survey findings, policy relevant suggestions have been made to bring about improvement in implementation of NREGA. I am highly thankful to Dr Swain and his research team for putting in lot of efforts to complete this excellent piece of work. We were asked by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India to undertake this study. We are equally grateful to Utpaul Ghosh, Economic & Statistical Advisor, Directorate of Economics and Statistics; Mr. V.P. Ahuja, Additional Economic Advisor, Ministry of Agriculture; B.S. Bhandari, Advisor, Ministry of Agriculture; and Mr B. Naik, Economic Officer, Ministry of Agriculture for their unstinted cooperation at every stage of study. I wish to thank Mr Ram Niwas Meena, Project Director (NREGA), Rajasthan, Prof. Parmod Kumar, ISEC, Bangalore who acted as a Coordinator of the study and other agencies/ individuals who have provided valuable help / guidance in preparing this report. It is hoped that this report will be useful for those who are interested in agricultural and rural development of our country. Vallabh Vidyanagar April 04, 2011 Prof. R. H. Patel Director Agro Economic Research Centre Sardar Patel University, Vallabh Vidyanagar Gujarat, India iii

4 iv

5 Preface NREGA is a well-intended Act. It is a flagship programme of the Government that directly touches lives of the poor and promotes inclusive growth. It is the largest ever public employment programme visualized in human history. It has unleashed a silent revolution by forcing the government and private employers to provide minimum wages to the poorest of the poor. It has increased the bargaining power of the poorest of the poor at every stage from demanding a job card to ensuring legitimate wages for work. The control of distress migration in villages is another significant outcome that has been achieved through NREGA. In this study, attempt has been made to assess the impact of NREGA on wage rates, food security and rural urban migration in five study districts of Rajasthan which is known for better implementation of the scheme. This study was undertaken as a part of broader study covering 18 major states as per the guidelines of the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. The study was based on both primary and secondary data collected from five districts of Rajasthan State, namely, Banswara, Karauli, Nagaur, Jaisalmer and Sri Ganganagar. The primary survey was administered on 200 NREGA participant and 50 non participant households in five districts in Rajasthan. While selecting NREGA participant households, care was taken to select more participants belonging to disadvantaged socio-economic groups, e.g., SCs, STs, landless, women and other backward groups etc. On the basis of survey findings, suitable suggestions have been made to further improvement in implementation of NREGA with a special focus on the study districts of Rajasthan. Dr. R.H. Patel, Director of the Centre provided all out administrative and intellectual support for undertaking this study. I am extremely grateful to our Director Dr. R.H. Patel and Deputy Director, Dr. R. Dutta for their guidance and stimulating discussions which helped to enrich the study. I express my heartfelt thanks to Prof. Parmod Kumar, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore who, as a Coordinator of the study, provided necessary intellectual support as and when required. I gratefully acknowledge the excellent support provided by Mr Ram Niwas Meena, Project Director (NREGA), Rajasthan and all the NREGA officials at different study districts for the smooth conduct of the study. I am grateful to Prof. Chandan Mukherjee, National Centre for Public Finance and Policy for advising me regarding the use of R software package for logit analysis used in our study. I am extremely thankful to the research team for their sincere effort and keen interest in undertaking the study. I thank Mr. Shreekant Sharma for preparing the draft of 6 th chapter and a part of 7 th chapter, preparing notes on field observations during the field survey, besides contributing to tabulation. Himanshu Parmer deserves special thanks for completing tabulation work in effective manner within the stipulated time. I thank Dr Shantilal Bhaiya, Field Officer for his association during the initial stage of the project. I am thankful to Mr. Vinod Parmer for providing secretarial assistance, all administrative staff and other support staff for providing excellent support during the study. I am grateful to all the respondents for furnishing the required information in a spontaneous and friendly manner. This study is a modest attempt to assess the impact of NREGA on wage rates, food security and rural urban migration in Rajasthan which is known for better implementation of the scheme. This study will be useful to economists, sociologists, non-governmental organizations, policy makers and planners in understanding the grass root level problems and prospects in implementing NREGA. Mrutyunjay Swain Principal Investigator v

6 Research Team Activities Name Designation Principal Investigator Dr. Mrutyunjay Swain Research Officer Drafting Dr. Mrutyunjay Swain Research Officer Mr. Shreekant Sharma Research Associate Tabulation Mr. Shreekant Sharma Research Associate Mr. Himanshu Parmar Research Fellow Data Entry Mr. Jagdish B. Kahar Hand Punch Operator Data Collection Mr. Shreekant Sharma Research Associate Mr. Manish Makwana Research Associate Mr. Brijesh P. Pandya, Field Supervisor Mr. Jashwantsinh S. Raj Agriculture Assistant vi

7 Table of Contents Content Page No. Foreword Preface Research Team Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures and Plates List of Annexures iii v vi vii x xii xiii Chapter 1: Introduction Rationale of the Study Historical Background Main Objectives of the Study Data base and Methodology Overview of Literature Limitations of the Study Chapter Design 17 Chapter 2: Manpower Employment Generated under NREGA 19 and its Socio-Economic Characteristics 2.1 The Functioning of NREGA Employment Generated through NREGA and 21 its Socio Economic Characteristics 2.3 Number of Projects Completed and Total Amount Spent Performance of NREGA Some Quantitative Indicators Social Auditing and Inspection of NREGA Work The NREGA Payment Processed though Banks/Post Offices The Payment of Unemployment Allowance The Work Projection under NREGA Summary of the Chapter 56 Chapter 3: Household Characteristics and 60 their Income and Consumption Pattern 3.1. Household Profile of the Respondents Major Sources of Occupation Household Net Income 63 vii

8 3.4 Household Consumption Variability and Gini Ratios of Income, Consumption and Wages Logit and OLS Regression Analysis on Determinants of Participation 70 in NREGA 3.7 Summary of the Chapter 75 Chapter 4: Work Profile under NREGA, Wage Structure and Migration Work Profile under NREGA Performance of NREGA in Providing 100 Days of Employment Wage Differentials under NREGA and its Comparison 81 with Minimum Wage Act 4.4 Wage Differential in Different Activities, among Beneficiaries 81 and Non-beneficiaries 4.5 Nature of Assets Created and their Durability Effects of NREGA on Labour Migration Summary of the Chapter 89 Chapter 5: Qualitative Aspects of Functioning of NREGA Household Assets Holdings Household Status on Borrowings and Their Financial Vulnerability Some Qualitative Aspects of NREGA Implementation Job Card Issues and Work Applications Payment of Wages and Related Issues Worksite Facilities and Economic Usefulness of the Work Monitoring of the Work Nature of Assets Created and their Durability Labour Migration and NREGA Respondents Awareness about NREGA Implementation Potential Benefits of NREGA NREGA and Food Security Some Qualitative Questions Related to Food Security Summary of the Chapter 113 Chapter 6: NREGA Impact on Village Economy Background Infrastructure Available in the Village Changes in Occupational Structure in the Selected Villages Effects of NREGA on Wage Rates in the Selected Villages Effects of NREGA on Charges for Agricultural Operations Various Changes in the Village Economy after Implementation of NREGA Summary of the Chapter 127 viii

9 Chapter 7: Concluding Remarks and Policy Suggestions Introduction Summary of Findings Policy Suggestions 142 References 149 Annexure Tables 152 Appendix I: Coordinator s Comments on the Draft Report 172 Appendix II: Point-wise Action Taken on Coordinator s Comments 173 ix

10 List of Tables Table Title Page No. 1.1 Sample size distribution across caste and village Performance of NREGA in Rajasthan from to A Employment generated through NREGA and 22 its socio-economic characteristics during B Employment generated through NREGA and 23 its socio-economic characteristics during C Employment generated through NREGA and 24 its socio-economic characteristics during A District wise works completed / progress under NREGA 30 (number of project) during B District wise works completed / progress under NREGA 31 (number of project) during C District wise works completed / progress under NREGA 32 (number of project) during A District wise works completed/progress under NREGA 34 (Amount spent in lakh rupees) during (Till Aug 2010) 2.4B District wise works completed/progress under NREGA 35 (Amount spent in lakh rupees) during C District wise works completed/progress under NREGA 36 (Amount spent in lakh rupees) during A Social auditing and inspection of NREGA work 40 during (Till 31 Aug 2010) 2.5B Social auditing and inspection of NREGA work during C Social auditing and inspection of NREGA work during A The NREGA payment processed though banks/post office 46 during (Till Aug 2010) 2.6B The NREGA payment processed though banks/post office 47 during C The NREGA payment processed though banks/post office 48 during Unemployment allowance paid in lieu of not providing 50 employment ( ) 2.8 Work projection under NREGA for x

11 3.1 Demographic profile of the respondents (% of HHs) Occupational pattern of sample households 63 (% of total man-days per HH) 3.3 Annual household net income (Rs per household) Household consumption of food items 66 (kg per capita per month) 3.5 Monthly consumption expenditure of households Variability in income, consumption and wages Determinants of participation in NREGA 71 (HH Level Logit Regression) 3.8 Factors affecting NREGA employment 74 (HH Level OLS Regression) 3.9 Factors affecting NREGA employment 74 (Member Level OLS Regression) 4.1 The work profile under NREGA Wage differentials among different activities The activity in which employed under NREGA and 84 the quality of assets created (% of beneficiary HH) 4.4 The migration incidents recorded during the Reference period Assets holdings of sample households (Rs per household) Borrowings by sample households (Rs. per household) Household strength on borrowing and 95 other household assets (% of HHs) 5.4 Qualitative questions related to functioning of NREGA (% of HH) Qualitative questions related to NREGA functioning 102 (% of beneficiary HH) 5.6 Qualitative questions related to food security (percentage of HH) Infrastructure available within the village (percentage of villages) Occupational structure (% of households) Wage rates for different activities (average of all villages) Prevailing labour charges (Rs/day) for agricultural operations Qualitative questions on changes in the villages 122 during last one year (% of HH) 6.6. Quantitative questions about the functioning of NREGA 124 xi

12 List of Figures and Plates Sr. No. Title Page No. Figure 2.1 Cumulative person days generated in Rajasthan (% of total) 27 Figure 2.2 Percentage of works completed under NREGA in Rajasthan 29 Figure 3.1 Lorenz curves for income and consumption of beneficiary HHs 70 Figure 3.2 Lorenz curves for income and consumption of non-beneficiary HHs70 Plate 4.1 NREGA work in progress at Tausar village in Nagaur district 80 with a larger participation of women. Plate 4.2 Brick road at 9Z village of Sri Ganganagar district ( ) 86 Plate 4.3 WHS created under NREGA at Bhundel village 86 of Nagaur district ( ) Plate 4.4 Brick lining of Irrigation channel at 9Z village 87 of Sri Ganganagar district ( ) Plate 5.1 Difficulties in work measurement at Jhareda village of Karauli 100 Plate 5.2 WHS under construction at Odaki village 100 of Sri Ganganagar ( ) Plate 5.3 Community Reservoir at Chudada, Banswara ( ) 101 Plate 5.4 Water harvesting structure at Kotari village, Karauli ( ) 101 xii

13 List of Annexures Annexure Title Page No. 1A District wise works completed / progress under NREGA 152 (number of project) during B District wise works completed / progress under NREGA 153 (number of project) during C District wise works completed / progress under NREGA 154 (number of project) during A District wise works completed/progress under NREGA 155 (Amount spent in lakh rupees) during (Till Aug 2010) 2B District wise works completed/progress under NREGA 156 (Amount spent in lakh rupees) during C District wise works completed/progress under NREGA 157 (Amount spent in lakh rupees) during Work projection under NREGA for other than study districts 158 for xiii

14 Chapter I Introduction 1.1 Rationale of the Study Real India lives in villages. About 74 per cent of population in India subsists in 6, 38,365 villages (Census 2001) directly or indirectly depending on agriculture and allied activities for earning their livelihood whereas about 50 percent of the villages have very poor socio-economic conditions. Since the dawn of independence, concerted efforts have been made to improve the living standard of rural masses. The Government of India has adopted a multipronged development strategy that promotes economic growth and also addresses the needs of the poor by ensuring their basic rights. It has been running a number of schemes and programmes with the principal objective of enabling rural people to improve the quality of their lives by providing direct employment, self employment, social security, housing, building rural infrastructure and manage land resources. In the past, public employment programmes in India targeted at the poor are generally identified with poverty alleviation. The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (here after NREGA) goes beyond poverty alleviation and recognizes employment as a legal right (Chakraborty, 2007). NREGA is the largest ever public employment programme visualised in human history. This is the flagship programme of the Government that directly touches lives of the poor and promotes inclusive growth. It comes at a time when there is a severe rural livelihood distress. The Act aims at enhancing livelihood security of households in rural areas of the country by providing at least 100 days of guaranteed wage employment in a financial year to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work at a statutory minimum wage rate. The Act is a legally enforceable right that facilitates rural households to get employment in public works within 15 days of applying for work. The Act is supposed to fulfill the short-term need of casual employment while creating sustainable livelihoods in long-term. Along with augmenting wage employment, the Act would strengthen the natural resource management through works that address causes of chronic poverty, recurrent drought, and so encourage sustainable development. The Act is also a significant vehicle for strengthening 1

15 decentralization and deepening processes of democracy by giving a pivotal role to the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) in planning, monitoring and implementation. Unique features of the Act include, time bound employment guarantee, incentivedisincentive structure to the State Governments for providing employment as 90 per cent of the cost for employment provided is borne by the Centre or payment of unemployment allowance at their own cost and emphasis on labour intensive works prohibiting the use of contractors and machinery(deaton and Dreze, 2002). It is worth-mentioning that, in the 30 years of existence of its precursor, the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act, there is no recorded instance of payment of unemployment allowance. The NREGA has already recorded payment of unemployment allowance to large numbers of workers in chronically poorlyadministered areas. The successful people s struggles for the payment of unemployment allowance in Barwani District of Madhya Pradesh, Raichur of Karnataka, Bolangir, Nawrangpur and Kalahandi of Orissa, Latehar in Jharkhand, Sitapur District of UP has been a breakthrough in accountability, and an inspiration to other workers struggling for entitlements (Roy and Dey, 2009). The Act also mandates 33 percent participation for women. The programe gains great connotation given the concerns of rising disparity in incomes and economic opportunities between rural and urban India in the last decade. As Shah (2007) rightly pointed out that, even after 60 years of the independence of India, almost 80 percent people suffer from malnutrition and availability of per capita food grain has reduced as compare to 1950s. The private sectors do not want to invest in rural area because of unavailability of basic infrastructure so that the return on investment is too low. In this juncture, effective implementation of NREGA would (1) provide relief in times of distress, drought and flood-proofing of Indian agriculture; (2) contribute to sustainable growth path; (3) become more effective instrument for reducing poverty; (4) lead to reduction in dependence on a state sponsored employment guarantee over time; (5) lead to the non-inflationary expenditure; (6) encourage the private investments in rural areas due to build up infrastructures, that, in turn, will also set up a multiplier of secondary employment opportunities. The NREGA, which promises the largest ever employment programme in human history, has the potential to provide a "big push" in India's regions of distress. 2

16 Thus, NREGA has the potential to change the rural scenario if it can be implemented in right spirit. A large number of studies on impacts of NREGA have pointed out the impressive positive effects of the scheme on different fronts in the rural areas of India. Not only the scheme has helped in providing most needed employment to resource poor rural people, it has also induced the increase in wage rates in other rural farm and non-farm sectors. It has unleashed a silent revolution by forcing the government and private employers to provide minimum wages to the poorest of the poor. It has tremendously improved the extent of curiosity, participation and awareness among rural people about various government programmes. It has increased the bargaining power of the poorest of the poor at every stage from demanding a job card to ensuring legitimate wages for work. More importantly, it has reduced the extent of corruption in implementation of the scheme compared to that in previously implemented rural development programmes. It has considerably checked the extent of out migration in various parts of the country. However, it is necessary to periodically evaluate the performance of the scheme on the basis of different provisions of the Act and the extent of achievement of its development goals. This study is a modest attempt to assess the impact of NREGA on wage rates, food security and rural urban migration in five study districts of Rajasthan which is known for better implementation of the scheme. 1.2 Historical Background Employment generation in rural areas has been a vital component in various rural development programmes. It was realized that a sustainable strategy of poverty alleviation has to be based on increasing the productive employment opportunities in the process of growth itself. The periodic occurrence of drought and scarcity situations at various places in the country during 1972, 1974 and 1976 forced the Government to focus on the need for evolving massive employment generation programme with a view to enhance the purchasing power of the people instead of providing subsidies and free ration to the affected population. This resulted in beginning of National Food for Work Programme (NFFWP) in In the sixth five year plan stress was laid on employment and poverty alleviation. In that respect, Ministry of Rural development, Government of India launched National Rural Employment Programme (NREP) in October 1980 to generate additional gainful employment in rural areas. Under this Programme, an outlay of Rs.1620 crores was 3

17 provided which was to be shared equally between the Centre and the States. The creation of durable assets was an important objective of this Programme. However, this Programme was not targeted and therefore, it is not known as to how much of this has been directed towards those who are landless and the poorest among the poor. To this extent the programme apparently lacked a direct focus on the target-group population, for whom it was meant. The Programme however had a substantial impact in terms of stabilization of wages in the rural areas, containing prices of foodgrains and the creation of a wide variety of community assets which could be expected to help in raising the levels of living of the rural population. On 15th August 1983, Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme (RLEGP) - a programme to supplement NREP was introduced by Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, with the objective of improving and expanding employment opportunities for the rural landless. The prime objective of this Programme was providing guarantee of employment to at least one member of every landless household up to 100 days in a year and creating durable assets for strengthening the infrastructure so as to meet the growing requirements of the rural economy. An outlay of Rs. 500 crores to be fully financed by the Central Government was provided under this programme under the Sixth Five Year Plan. Under NREP and RLEGP programmes, foodgrains were given to workers as a part of the wage component of the programme that aimed at providing food security to rural poor. The implementation of the programme was entrusted to the States/UTs, but they were required to prepare specific projects for approval by a Central Committee. During (1985) the Central Committee approved 320 projects with an estimated cost of Rs crores. The target for employment generation in and was fixed at 360 million man days against which million man-days of employment was actually generated. Experience in the Sixth Plan in certain states has shown that if integrated projects are developed this stipulation would still allow substantial scope for productive works to be planned within a decentralized framework at the district level. Hence both the projects viz., NREP and RLEGP were merged as Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY) in 1989 which was launched with a total allocation of Rs crores to generate 931 million mandays of employment. The primary objective of the programme was generation of additional employment on productive works which would either be of sustained benefit to the poor' or contribute to the creation of rural 4

18 infrastructure. Under this programme, Centre's contribution was 80 percent while States share was 20 percent. The JRY was implemented in all villages in the country. It was reported that panchayats were not above procedural violations, i.e., use of private contractors. Under the program, projects were to be executed by the Government Ministries and agencies without the employment of contractors so that full benefit of wages should go to the workers. The payments to contractors constituted at least 10 percent of the cost of project. Clear-cut guidelines were absent regarding the criteria to be used by the Panchayats in selecting the rural poor. It was not enough only to indicate that the JRY was targeted at the poor. In practice, the executing agencies did not follow any list of workers belonging to poor families needing employment (Islam, 2005). Central assistance is provided to the states on the basis of proportion of the rural poor in a State/UT to the total rural poor in the country. Of the total allocations at the State level 6 percent of the total resources were earmarked for housing under the Indira Awaas Yojana (IAY) which were allotted to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and freed bonded labour. In addition, 20 per cent were earmarked for Million Wells Scheme (MWS). In fact, this scheme was launched as a special feature both under NREP and RLEGP in The objective was to provide open wells free of cost to poor SC/ST farmers in the category of small and marginal farmers and to free bonded labourers. However, where such wells were not feasible, the amounts allotted may be utilized for other schemes of minor irrigation like irrigation tanks, water harvesting structures and also for development of lands of SCs/STs and freed bonded labourers including ceiling surplus and bhoodan lands. A maximum of 2 percent of JRY funds were to be spent as administrative costs inclusive of any additional staff. The Employment Assurance Scheme (EAS) was launched on 2 nd October, 1993 in 1775 identified backward blocks situated in drought prone, desert, tribal and hill areas in which the revamped public distribution system was in operation by District Rural Development Agency (DRDA). Subsequently, the scheme was extended to additional Blocks which included the newly identified Drought Prone Area Programme (DPAP)/Desert Development Programme (DDP) Blocks, Modified Area Development Approach (MADA) Blocks having a larger concentration of tribal and Blocks in flood prone areas of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Assam and Jammu & Kashmir. In addition, 722 non-eas blocks previously covered under Second Stream 5

19 of Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY) were also brought under the EAS. The EAS has since been universalized to cover all the rural blocks in the country with effect from The main objective of the EAS was to provide about 100 days of assured casual manual employment during the lean agricultural season at statutory minimum wages to all persons above the age of 18 years and below 60 years who need and seek employment on economically productive and labour intensive social and community works. Though, the creation of community assets had important spin offs for rural poverty and development, the impact of these programmes on employment and income was limited. The universalisation of the scheme severely eroded its basic objective of providing assured employment in areas of extreme poverty and chronic unemployment. Allocations were based on a fixed criterion that did not specifically provide for regionally differentiated needs. This led to a very thin spread of resources across the country. As a result, even in the poorer regions, employment was provided for only 31 days. In many states, the works taken up were not labour-intensive. Cases of bogus reporting and fudged muster rolls were reported. The efficacy of the programme was also affected by faulty project selection and the absence of a coherent plan which integrated EAS projects in a long-term development strategy. It was however felt that a stage has come when the development of village infrastructure needs to be taken up in a planned manner. This could best be done by the village panchayats who are closest to the ground realities and who can effectively determine their local needs. Accordingly, the Government had restructured the existing wage employment programme namely Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY) and Employment Assurance Scheme (EAS). The new programme - Jawahar Gram Samridhi Yojana (JGSY) was dedicated entirely to the development of rural infrastructure at the village level and implemented by the village Panchayats. This programme came into effect from 1st April The primary objective of JGSY was creation of demand driven community village infrastructure including durable assets at the village level and assets to enable the rural poor to increase the opportunities for sustained employment. The secondary objective was generation of wage employment for the unemployed poor in the rural areas. JGSY was least understood by the target groups and was seldom in its goal-oriented implementation. So, JGSY lasted only for a short time which was being merged into a new scheme, the Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana (SGRY). 6

20 In practice, there was little difference between the JGSY and EAS in terms of both objectives and implementation failures, with the only substantial difference being administrative. The JGSY was implemented by village level institutions (PRIs) while the EAS relied on the State Administrative apparatus. In September 2001, EAS and JGSY were merged into a new scheme, the Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana (SGRY). The objectives of SGRY were to provide additional wage employment in rural areas and also food security, alongside the creation of durable community, social and economic assets and infrastructure development. The SGRY also encompasses all food for work programs in the country since it includes a special component for augmenting food security through additional wage employment in calamity affected rural areas. Several problems in implementation were highlighted, it was documented that wages were too low in relatively prosperous villages, leading to the use of migrant labour and machinery, while in poor villages the wages were much higher than prevailing rates leading to crowding-out of the really poor. Other problems were also observed such as flagrant violation of Government guidelines, including use of contractors and intermediaries, excessive reliance on labour displacing machinery etc. (Deshingkar and Johnson, 2003). The Planning commission identified 150 most backward districts of the country on the basis of prevalence of poverty indicated by SC/ST population, agricultural productivity per worker and agricultural wage rate. Most of them happen to be tribal districts. There was a need for substantial additional investment in these districts to convert their surplus labour into required capital formation solving livelihood issues. The National Food for Work Programme (NFFWP) started on January by Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, was such an attempt. Substantial resources in the form of cash and foodgrains were being provided under the programme to generate additional supplementary wage employment and to create productive assets in these 150 identified districts. Through the programme, an attempt was made to coordinate among different on-going schemes which had wage employment potential, so that the focused approach provides a solid base for the districts to take-off on their own. The major objective was to provide additional resources apart from the resources available under the Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana (SGRY) to 150 most backward districts of the country so that generation of supplementary wage employment and provision of foodsecurity through creation of need based economic, social and community assets in 7

21 these districts was further intensified. Wages under SGRY and NFFWP programmes were paid partly in cash and partly in the form of foodgrains valued at BPL rates. It was felt that there was an excess flow of foodgrains for the poor through the wage employment schemes. National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) was passed in the year The ongoing programmes of Sampoorn Grameen Rozgar Yojna and National Food for Work Programme were subsumed within this programme in the 200 of the most backward districts of the country with effect from First, it ensured the legal right to work for a hundred days to poor people whoever is willing to work at a minimum wage rate, particularly in the rural areas, which in turn would reduce the flow of rural to urban migration (Dreze et al. 2006). In addition to this, another important objective of the Act has been to strengthen the PRIs. NREGA addresses mainly to rural poor and their fundamental right to work with dignity. It is noted from the above mentioned employment programmes that NREGA envisaged a paradigm shift from all precedent Wage Employment Programmes (WEP) operating in the country since Earlier WEP were allocation based where as NREGA is demanddriven. NREGA has extensive in-built transparency safeguards. The act is designed to offer employment within 15 days of application of work, if the employment cannot be provided by the authorities then daily unemployment allowance has to be paid. Unique features of NREGA are: time bound employment guarantee and wage payment within 15 days; incentive-disincentive structure to the State Governments for providing employment, as 90 percent of the cost for employment provided is borne by the Centre while payment of unemployment allowances are borne by State Governments (at their own cost); and emphasis on labour intensive works prohibiting the use of contractors and machinery. The Act mandates 33 percent participation for women. The key processes in the implementation of NREGA are the following: Adult members of rural households submit their name, age and address with photo to the Gram Panchayat. The Gram panchayat registers households after making enquiry and issues a job card which contains the details of adult member enrolled and his /her photo. Registered person can submit an application for work in writing (for at least fourteen days of continuous work) either to Panchayat or to Programme Officer. 8

22 The Panchayat/Programme Officer will accept the valid application and issue dated receipt of application, letter providing work will be sent to the applicant and also displayed at Panchayat office. The employment will be provided within a radius of 5 kilometers and if it is above 5 kilometers extra wage will be paid. If employment under the scheme is not provided within fifteen days of receipt of the application daily unemployment allowance will be paid to the applicant. The cost sharing is done on the following basis: Central Government 3/4th, State Government 1/4 th. Since its inception in September 2005, NREGA has been implemented in phased manner. In phase I, it was introduced, on a pilot basis, in February 2006 in 200 economically most disadvantaged districts of the country. 130 districts were further included under the Act in phase II with effect from 1 st April The remaining 274 districts of India were covered under the Act from 1st April, The act is now effective in the entire rural areas of the country covering 618 districts. The Act has been renamed as The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in December Main Objectives of the Study Based on this background, the study is conceptualized with the following objectives: 1. To measure the extent of manpower employment generated under NREGA, their various socio-economic characteristics and gender variability in all the districts implementing NREGA since its inception in the selected states. 2. To compare the wage differentials between NREGA activities and other wage employment activities. 3. To appraise the effects of NREGA on the pattern of migration from rural to urban areas. 4. To find out the nature of assets created under NREGA and their durability. 5. To identify the factors determining the participation of people in NREGA scheme and whether NREGA has been successful in ensuring better food security to the beneficiaries. 6. To evaluate the performance of NREGA implementation, it s functioning and to suggest suitable policy measures to further strengthen the programme. 9

23 1.4 Data and Methodology This study was undertaken as a part of broader study covering 18 major states as per the guidelines of the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. The study was based on both primary and secondary data collected from five districts of Rajasthan State, namely, Banswara, Karauli, Nagaur, Jaisalmer and Sri Ganganagar. Five districts were selected in such a manner that they would represent the entire state to the maximum possible extent. To facilitate this, one each from the North, South, East, West and Central location of the Rajasthan state were selected for the study. From each districts, two villages were selected keeping into account their distance from the location of the district or the main city/town. In each district, one village was selected from the nearby periphery of around 5 kilometers of the district/city head- quarters that has been categorized as Near (see Table 1.1). The second village from each district was selected from a farthest location of 20 kilometers or more which, has been categorized as Far. From each selected village, primary survey was carried out on 20 NREGA beneficiaries and 5 non-beneficiaries working as wage employed 1. In this fashion, from Rajasthan state, 10 villages were selected and a total number of 250 households were surveyed in detail with the help of structured household questionnaire. As a whole, 200 participants and 50 non participants were surveyed in detail to construct a baseline for the sake of comparison. For selecting participant households, a list of all beneficiaries (participants) in the village was obtained from the Gram Panchayat or Programme Officer in the village along with the information of caste factor of the workers. After getting the list, a Stratified Random Sampling Method was adopted for selection of the participant households giving proportionate representation to the Caste, i.e., (i) Scheduled Caste (ii) Scheduled Tribe (iii) Other Backward Caste (iv) Forward Castes (others). A due representation was also given to the gender factor. While selecting participants, care was taken to select participants belonging to different socio-economic groups (e.g., tribal area, hilly area, gender and Backward and Scheduled Caste groups etc.). The data was collected through questionnaires and the collected data was analyzed using suitable statistical techniques. 1 The participant or beneficiary in the report implies NREGA beneficiary which is otherwise stated as NREGA household at some places. Non-beneficiary in the report implies non-nrega beneficiary which is otherwise stated at some places as non-nrega households. 10

24 Table 1.1: Sample size distribution across caste and villages Sl. No. District Block Gram Panchayat Village Near/F ar NREGA HHs Non-NREGA HHs SC ST OBC Gen Total SC ST OBC Gen Total 1 Ganganagar Ganganagar 9Z 7Z Near Ganganagar Ganganagar 4C Odaki Far Jaisalmer Jaisalmer Kishangad Amarsagar Near Jaisalmer Jaisalmer Jaisalmer Hameera Far Nagaur Nagaur Tausar Tausar Near Nagaur Nagaur Bhundel Bhundel Far Karauli Hindoan Jhareda Jhareda Near Karauli Hindoan Kotari Kotari Far Banswara Kushalgad Thummath Chudada Near Banswara Kushalgad Badi Sarawa Badi Sarawa Far Total (26) (25) (25) (25) (100) (22) (26) (32) (20) (100) Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total Source: Field survey data In addition to household questionnaire, a Village Schedule was also administered to capture the general changes that have taken place in the study villages during the last one decade and to take note of increase in labour charges for agricultural operations after the implementation of NREGA. The village schedule had qualitative questions related to change in life style of the villagers taking place during the last one decade. One village schedule in each village would be filled up with the help of a Group Discussion with the Panchayat Members, Officials, educated and other well informed people available in the village being surveyed. 1.5 Overview of Literature NREGA is a most expensive wage employment guarantee programme sponsored by the Government of India to provide livelihood security to millions of rural poor in India. This is a flagship programme of the Government that has been widely debated in recent years due to its numerous pros and cons. As a result, a sizable literature has been piled up exploring its desirability, impacts on targeted groups, achievements as per the objectives set, loopholes still exist in the Act and its implementation, improvements required to be brought about etc. In this section, attempt has been made to highlight some findings of selected studies with respect to the study objectives as elaborated earlier. 11

25 The programme is unique on many fronts. First, by enacting the NREGA with extraordinary guidelines (MoRD, 2005), Government has to fulfill its obligation to provide minimum 100 days of employment to every registered rural household each year at any cost. Resource constraint cannot be shown as an excuse for not executing the Act. Secondly, contractors have been completely banned that has reduced the extent of corruption and thus has increased the wage employment since the use of machines has been brought down to the minimum level. Thirdly, durable assets for rural connectivity, water conservation, drought and flood proofing etc. have been created on the other side providing the platforms for rural transformation in India. Fourthly, it has increased the curiosity and awareness among the rural people about the ongoing public programmes enhancing the people s participation in these programmes. The Act has facilitated to involve the local people at all stages planning, implementation and social audit. Fifthly, the central emphasis on payment of statutory minimum wages, provision of legal entitlements to labour on working hours, rest, drinking water, medical aid and crèche facilities and the provision for unemployment allowance upon inability to provide the guaranteed days of work have made this Act unique and unparallel in the history of independent India. A review done by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) finds many loopholes in the implementation of NREGA in various parts of the country (CAG, 2007). The survey was done at the request of the Rural Development Ministry to ascertain the success of its NREGA scheme. In 26 states, 558 village panchayats were identified for the survey spread over 68 districts and 141 blocks. The study said that in as many as 70 per cent of villages checked, there were no proper records available on number of households who demanded jobs and the actual number of people who benefited from the job guarantee scheme. Surprisingly, the report said in many cases, it found that jobs were allocated on "verbal basis" and no documentation was available with the village body. As per the survey findings, in 340 villages in 24 states, no meetings were conducted for identifying the households to be registered under NREGA. No door-to-door survey was conducted in these villages to identify persons. Some households were not registered despite submitting applications on the ground that their names did not feature in the BPL survey list. A study by Ambasta et al (2008) that evaluated the performance of NREGA in its first two years highlights major issues confronting implementation of NREGA. The study tried to show why NREGA has raised expectations like no other rural 12

26 development programme and how it can and must be made to deliver on its massive, if yet unrealized, potential. The study finds that the lack of trained professionals for time bound implementation, under staffing and delay in administration, lack of people s planning, poor quality of works and assets created, inappropriate schedules of rates, unnecessary bureaucratic interventions and mockery of social audits are hindering the implementation process. Following the weaknesses identified by CAG (2007), the study has worked out a detailed blueprint of the reforms needed to make NREGA a success. The study has suggested for hiring a large number of full-time professionals and fully trained barefoot professionals at Gram Panchayat level, while strictly enforcing their accountability to PRIs. Much greater use of information technology, revision of outmoded Schedules of Rates and mandating a role for civil society organizations (CSOs) to work as support agencies for PRIs in NREGA planning, implementation and social audit were some of their major suggestions for improving the functioning of NREGA. Shah (2007) also emphasizes that, for NREGA to be able to realise its potential, the role of civil society organizations is critical. Though there is good provision of community monitoring of the NREGA works and expenditures in the Act, practically the level of community monitoring has been grossly inadequate throughout the country. Afridi (2008) discusses the nature and characteristics of monitoring the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme s implementation with a focus on the community control mechanisms existing in the two pioneering states of Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh. What he noted from a case study conducted in Banswara district that the social audit process has been controlled by the few influential villagers in gram panchayat and government officials. The participation of general villagers has been negligible in social audit process. Thus, the study argues that the conduct of audits in villages without the support of NGOs and members of civil society is wishful thinking. He observes that CSOs have taken lead role in Rajasthan in generating awareness and participation of rural people with a bottom up approach, while in AP, the Government has taken the lead role in initiating this process and co-opted individuals from nongovernmental institutions into it, which is more of a top-down approach. The study emphasizes in synthesizing both the models for more effective monitoring of NREGA activities. The study concludes that, the role of NGOs, activists and the civil society in meeting the primary challenge of the smooth conduct of audits at the village level cannot be 13

27 overemphasized. However, cooperation from the government machinery in timely release of information is also critical. Khera (2008) observes that farmer s organization has been very effective in making NREGA perform better. Her study on the Jagrut Adivasi Dalit Sangathan, a farmer s organization with a membership of 3500 families in Madhya Pradesh shows that the levels of NREGA employment in the Sangathan areas are as high as 85 days per household per year, and nearly half of all working households have got 100 days of work. They also earn the minimum wage. Kareemulla et al (2010) evaluated the scheme in four states, viz., Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra with a specific focus on desirability, quality and durability of assets created and the effects on the livelihood generation by NREGA beneficiaries. The study finds that a wide variety of works were taken up under the scheme in the study districts including works on soil and water conservation structures and rural roads, which matched the requirements of the people but the quality and maintenance of assets need more attention in the coming years so that investment made would not go futile. The scheme anyway achieves its primary objectives of employment generation; the assets created are generally seen as a byproduct in the study areas. Shah et al (2010) evaluated the performance of the NREGA in terms of coverage of households, employment guaranteed, works undertaken, strength and bottlenecks and suggested some strategies for further strengthening the programme in Maharashtra. The study found that only per cent of SC and ST families received the job cards as against per cent for other categories. The actual employment generation has also been much below the 100 days per family in a year in almost all the districts in Maharashtra. The wages offered under NREGA varied from Rs 47 to Rs 130 across various districts between and However, the average per day wage rates were seen to be increasing in the state during this period despite the fact that some of the districts offered very low wages under the scheme. So far as the mode of payment of NREGA wages is concerned, as per the operational guidelines of NREGA (MoRD, 2008), all the NREGA wages were to be paid through banks and/or post offices. However, due to staff shortage, delay in processing and other kinds of irregularitis, the payment of NREGA wages has been delayed at many places (Ambasta et. al, 2008; Vanaik and Siddhartha, 2008; Shah et 14

28 al, 2010). Adhikari and Bhatia (2010) argues that the direct transfer of wages into worker's bank account is a substantial protection against embezzlement, control of corruption and foolproof. Respondents had a fairly positive attitude towards bank payments, and an interest in learning how to use the banking system. But poor recordkeeping, inability to cope with mass payment of NREGA wages, large distance to the nearest bank or post office also cause much hardship to the NREGA workers, the risk of manipulation and exploitative social structure are subject to constraint. Their findings revealed a more encouraging picture of the bank payments systam, but also exposed its limited capacity in fighting corruption. Dreze et. al (2008) highlights the superiority of NREGA over other previous wage emplyment programes implemented in India in terms of control over corruptive practices. The study said that there was virtually no check on the embezzlement of NFFWP funds. The situation was so bad that it was constrained to describe NFFWP as Loot for Work Programme. However, it was interesting to hear from a wide range of sources where the enactment of NREGA had led to a steep decline in the incidence of corruption. This was borne out by the muster roll verification exercises. As noted by Sharma (2009), due to introduction of NREGA programme in Rajasthan there was reduction in migration, families got approximately 80 days or more, rural wages got increased but on the other hand discrimination was observed. Scheduled Caste families were sent to far off sites and upper caste families were engaged at nearby work sites. The study by Kareemulla et al (2010) also finds that the scheme has successfully brought down the migration levels in addition to augmenting the livelihood sources in the rural areas. Khera and Nayak (2009) undertook a study on perceptions of women workers regarding the importance of the NREGA and to find out, to what extent the full potential of NREGA has been realized by taking samples from Araria and Kaimur (Bihar); Surguja (Chhattisgarh); Palamau and Koderma (Jharkhand); Badwani and Sidhi (Madhya Pradesh); Dungarpur and Sirohi (Rajasthan); Sitapur (Uttar Pradesh). The study found that the participation of the sample women workers varied largely across the selected study areas in various states. The overall women participation rate was 32 per cent whereas the same in Rajasthan was as high as 71 per cent. The women participation rate in Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh was respectively, 44 per cent, 25 per cent, 18 per cent, 13 per cent and 5 per cent as compare to stipulated female participation rate of 33 per cent as per the 15

29 NREGA guideline. Of the total sample, more than 2/3 (69%) of the sample workers stated the NREGA had helped them avoid huger, while 57 per cent stated avoid migration and 81 per cent households have worked for at least 60 days in the last 12 months. A majority (79%) of women workers were found to collect and keep their own wages. Major barriers to women's participation were tenacious social norms, illegal presence of contractors, lack of childcare facilities, and delayed payment of wages. NREGA has thus contributed greatly to women empowerment. The NREGA s potential in empowering women by providing them work opportunities has also been discussed by others (Drèze and Oldiges 2007; 2009; and Jandu, 2008). Looking at all India participation rates in the first two years of its implementation, Drèze and Oldiges (2009) found that there was a marginal increase in the participation of women from 40% in to 44% in As far as the determinants of NREGA participation is concerned, Jha et al (2008) found that agricultural landholding is negatively related to the odds of NREGA participation in Rajasthan. A one standard deviation increase in landholdings (4.5 hectares) reduces the odds of NREGA participation by 1.3 fold. This indicates that NREGA as a program is reasonably well targeted and there is little evidence of capture in the pooled sample. These trends however reversed in the case of Andhra Pradesh. They found a positive relationship between landholdings and NREGA participation in AP. One standard deviation (1.1 hectares) increase in landholdings increased the odds of NREGP participation by 1.3 fold. Given that AP is a high growth and high poverty elasticity state (Besley et al. 2005), this result is somewhat puzzling. In fact one would expect Rajasthan to show this pattern since it is a low growth and low poverty elasticity state. The answer to this puzzle may rest with inequality, distribution of political power in the village, geographical remoteness of a village, and access to information. 1.6 Limitations of the Study Followings are some limitations of undertaking of our study. Firstly, some mismatches were found on the NREGA official website pertaining to the in the data bases on social audit results and payment through banks/post offices. This has affected the depth and reliability of secondary level data analysis. 16

30 Secondly, our primary level data analysis is based on 250 sample households from five different districts of Rajasthan. The sample size is not enough to generalize the findings for the whole study districts or the state of Rajasthan. Thirdly, keeping in mind the time constraint in completing the work, the primary data collection was undertaken during summer when the people usually feel uneasy to sit for a long duration to answer to our field investigators. In some of the cases, workers joined with our field investigators just after the completion of NREGA work on that particular day. In a majoriy of cases, the respondents were organized at Gram Panchayat (GP) office premises with their job cards and bank pass books for furnishing the relevant information. In such kind of places, the presence of GP members and other NREGA officials had also influenced the workers in furnishing some special information on irregularities and difficulties they had faced. In some other cases, the respondents were too old or too young to express the exact information pertaining to the reference years. All these together have influenced the quality of primary data collected. Fourthly, the qualitative questions related to functioning of NREGA and food security were open ended questions. Thus respondents have expressed their views on some or all aspects of the issues. Furthermore, depending on their memory, they have sometimes skipped to express a part of their views/requirements, making the response percentages inexhaustive. For example, about 15 per cent HHs expressed that their family lack household durables. It does not mean that all other sample HHs don t require household durables. 1.7 Chapter Design The findings of this study on the impact of NREGA on wage rates, food security and rural urban migration in Rajasthan have been presented in seven chapters including Introduction. The introductory chapter discusses the premises, importance, objectives and methodology of the study. This chapter also throws some light on previous studies pertaining to our study objectives. In the 2nd chapter, the performance and functioning of NREGA has been examined in terms of employment generated through NREGA and its socio economic characteristics, number of projects completed and total amount spent, social auditing 17

31 and inspection of NREGA works, payment through bank or post office accounts, payment of unemployment allowance, work projection etc. In 3rd chapter, the socio-economic characteristics, the income and consumption pattern of sample households have been analyzed. The income and consumption pattern of the sample households, inequality in distribution of income, consumption and wages and determinants of participation in NREGA works have been aptly discussed. The fourth chapter discusses the work profile under NREGA and the issues on wage structure and migration affecting the sample households. In this chapter we have analysed how our sample households participated in NREGA works; how successful has been NREGA in providing 100 days employment to them at their door steps; to what extent they could get the higher wages and income; which kinds of assets they could create for fostering development in their locality and to what extent the out migration has been checked after introduction of NREGA in the study areas of the state. In the fifth chapter, it was attempted to assess the perceptions of participant workers on how they participated in different phases of NREGA implementation, their awareness about the scheme, various aspects of NREGA implementation, their rights and duties, the kinds of problems they faced during their association with NREGA, the steps they have taken to ameliorate the bottlenecks, their views for improvement in NREGA functioning, usefulness of the structures created, the effects of NREGA on out migration and their standard of living etc. In the sixth chapter of our report, the impacts of MGNREGA on selected ten sample villages were given based on the analysis of field level survey data collected for Availability of various kinds of infrastructures, occupational pattern of villagers, prevailing wage rates and the perceptions of the villagers on the impacts of NREGA on village economy have been discussed in this chapter. The seventh chapter highlights the summary of findings of the study as discussed in the preceding chapters and contains some policy implications of the study. Some specific policy recommendations have been suggested for the overall improvement in implementation of NREGA with a special focus on the study districts of Rajasthan. 18

32 Chapter 2 Manpower Employment Generated under NREGA and its Various Socio-Economic Characteristics 2.1 The Functioning of NREGA National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) was enacted in February 2005 to cover 200 districts in the country. In the second year, the scheme was extended to additional 150 districts. Since April 2008, the scheme stands extended to cover all the districts in the country. The NREGA is considered as an historic achievement and therefore has attracted wide attention across the country and all sections of the society, particularly, the media, the activists, civil society organization, academics, development workers etc. During 1 st year of implementation during , NREGS faced several teething problem. The evaluation studies conducted by various agencies and organizations pointed out several shortcomings and deficiencies in implementation. It is natural to expect such inadequacies when a change process was expected in the way a scheme is planned and implemented. The NREGA had upset several vested interests such as officials, non officials, contractors who were benefited at the cost of intended beneficiaries. The percentage system of making cuts in each work acted as a lubricant which kept the vested interest happy and satisfied (NIRD, 2008). In case of numerous employment generation programme run by Government of India, human labour was largely replaced by machines that have been banned in the case of NREGS. Banning of use of machines has considerably improved the manpower employment generated under NREGA. Furthermore, the right to get 100 days of employment with demand driven approach has made NREGA an unparallel programme in the history of employment generation programme that has been able to meet the expectations of rural mass. In Rajasthan, there are 33 districts out of which 6 districts namely, Dungarpur, Jhalawar, Sirohi, Udaipur, Karauli and Banswara were covered in Phase 1 of NREGA; another 6 districts comprising of Barmer, Chittorgarh, Jaisalmer, Jalore, Sawai Madhpur and Tonk were covered in Phase 2 of NREGA; and remaining 21 districts including study districts Nagaur and Sri Ganganagar were covered in Phase 3 of NREGA. 19

33 Table 2.1 gives a glimpse of performance of NREGA in Rajasthan during three reference years to The total number of job cards issued was dramatically increased from 8,468,740 in to 9,656,175 in (till August). All households who demanded employment were given employment during , while the majority of households who demanded employment were given employment during and However, the cumulative no. of households completed 100 days has drastically declined from 2,631,892 in to 1,514,420 in , which has further declined to 60,705 in So far as assets created under the scheme in Rajasthan is concerned, about 2.06 lakhs and 2.37 lakhs works were taken up during and respectively. However, the number of works completed during these periods was 100,472 and 92,251 respectively. The expenditure on these completed works has gone up from Rs 159,187 lakhs in to Rs 190,602 lakhs during Fairly a good number of accounts were opened with banks and post offices for disbursing the wages to NREGA workers. The number of such accounts has gone up from 7,359,460 in to 9,330,267 during Table 2.1 Performance of NREGA in Rajasthan from to Performance Indicators Units * Cumulative No. of HH issued job cards Nos 8,468,740 8,827,935 9,656,175 Cumulative No. of HHs demanded Nos 6,375,314 6,522,264 4,539,596 employment Cumulative No. of HHs provided employment Nos 6,373,093 6,522,264 4,348,934 Cumulative person days generated Nos Cumulative No. of HH completed 100 days Nos 2,631,892 1,514,420 60,705 Total number of works taken up Nos 206, , ,208 Works Ongoing/ Nos 135, , ,340 Works Completed Nos 100,472 92, Expenditure on Works Ongoing/ Rs Lakh 443, , ,666 Expenditure on Works Completed Rs Lakh 159, , Total no. of bank and post office accounts Nos 7,359,460 9,330,267 9,424,414 opened Total amount disbursed through banks/post Rs Lakh 324, , ,386 offices Unemployment allowance due No. of NA NA 21,886 days Unemployment allowance paid Rs Percentage of GP where social Audit held % Note: *Data are up to 31st August Source: Accessed on 10th September

34 It was good to see that the social audits were undertaken in 99.9 per cent of Gram Panchayats in Rajasthan during However, there was a declining trend in conducting of social audits in Rajasthan during the reference periods. The percentage of Gram Panchayats where social audit held has declined from 99.9 per cent in to 96.9 per cent in , which has further declined to 32.2 per cent during The most dismal performance was observed in Rajasthan with respect to payment of unemployment allowance. Though unemployment allowance was due for days covering 30 out of 33 districts during (till August 2010), not a single rupee was paid to the workers. 2.2 Employment Generated through NREGA and its Socio Economic Characteristics NREGA aimed at benefitting more to lower social groups such as SC/ST households (HHs) in all districts covered under the scheme. There exists a large extent of disparity among the study districts in having different social groups. Only a few districts like Banswara, Pratapgarh and Barmer provided NREGA job cards to more ST HHs in the state. Among all districts of Rajasthan, lowest proportion of SC beneficiary HHs (2.8%) and second highest proportion of ST beneficiary HHs (72.7%) were from Dungarpur district during (Table 2.2A). The highest proportion of ST beneficiary HHs (81.8%) was from Banswara district during same year. In Jaisalmer, Bikaner and Bhilwara districts, beneficiary HHs belonging to Other Backward Class resided in large numbers. In the case of households issued job cards in our study districts in Rajasthan, maximum number of SC HHs were benefitted in Sri Ganganagar district followed by Nagaur district. About SC HHs were issued job cards during (till August) in Sri Ganganagar constituting about 37.1 per cent of total job card holders in the district. In Nagaur district about 22.8 per cent of job card holders were SCs. On the other hand, Banswara accounted for higher proportion of ST HHs compared to all other districts. About 81.8 per cent of beneficiary HHs in Banswara were STs whereas only 0.5 per cent job card holders were STs in Sri Ganganagar. Caste-wise composition of HHs issued job cards followed more or less similar pattern during the two previous reference years and

35 Table 2.2A: Employment generated through NREGA and its socio-economic characteristics during (Till 31st Aug 2010) Name of the District Cumulative No. of HH issued job cards * Cumulative No. of HH demanded employment Cumulative No. of HH provided employment ** Karauli (21.5) (24.9) (53.6) (100.0) (90.3) (21.4) (33.0) (45.7) (100.0) (65.1) 119 Jaisalmer (13.6) 5976 (5.3) (81.1) (100.0) (96.7) (16.6) (7.2) (76.1) (100.0) (68.4) 1403 Nagaur (22.8) 4111 (0.9) (76.3) (100.0) (98.8) (27.0) (0.9) (72.1) (100.0) (69.8) 2375 Sri Ganganagar (37.1) 1729 (0.5) (62.4) (100.0) (67.0) (57.3) (0.4) (42.3) (100.0) (52.3) 363 Banswara (4.3) (81.8) (13.9) (100.0) (99.4) (3.7) (87.3) (9.0) (100.0) (62.3) 5417 Dungarpur 8428 (2.8) (72.7) (24.5) (100.0) (95.4) (2.9) (78.9) (18.3) (100.0) (74.0) 828 Jhalawar (17.3) (13.9) (68.8) (100.0) (98.7) (23.4) (13.4) (63.2) (100.0) (58.5) 281 Sirohi (21.1) (30.0) (48.9) (100.0) (98.4) (24.8) (34.3) (40.9) (100.0) (78.4) 1724 Udaipur (4.6) (58.7) (36.7) (100.0) (98.6) (4.0) (69.4) (26.6) (100.0) (69.6) 3378 Barmer (16.1) (6.8) (77.1) (100.0) (99.1) (17.8) (8.4) (73.8) (100.0) (70.2) 4040 Chittorgarh (16.2) (14.5) (69.3) (100.0) (99.5) (18.2) (17.9) (63.9) (100.0) (68.8) 5110 Jalore (19.9) (11.7) (68.4) (100.0) (98.6) (24.2) (12.9) (62.9) (100.0) (79.2) 2086 No. of HH working under NREGA Cumulative person days generated # Cumulative No. of HH completed 100 days SCs STs Others Total SCs STs Others Total Women Sawai Madhopur (20.6) (25.1) (54.3) (100.0) (96.2) (21.9) (27.5) (50.6) (100.0) (55.7) 302 Tonk (18.0) (13.4) (68.6) (100.0) (99.6) (18.2) (15.6) (66.2) (100.0) (69.5) 1454 Ajmer (15.2) (3.3) (81.5) (100.0) (100.0) (16.1) (4.3) (79.6) (100.0) (74.7) 561 Alwar (18.5) (12.2) (69.3) (100.0) (86.1) (26.0) (16.4) (57.6) (100.0) (64.0) 476 Baran (16.4) (21.8) (61.8) (100.0) (98.7) (22.2) (21.6) (56.2) (100.0) (60.2) 1133 Bharatpur (22.5) 7469 (2.3) (75.1) (100.0) (89.9) (24.3) (2.4) (73.3) (100.0) (56.3) 875 Bhilwara (13.1) (8.3) (78.6) (100.0) (97.1) (14.6) (9.3) (76.1) (100.0) (78.1) 5930 Bikaner (13.4) 3006 (0.9) (85.6) (100.0) (93.6) (20.7) (1.2) (78.1) (100.0) (53.8) 2060 Bundi (18.9) (24.3) (56.8) (100.0) (98.7) (19.0) (26.3) (54.7) (100.0) (62.4) 1375 Churu (23.3) 3727 (1.4) (75.3) (100.0) (97.6) (30.6) (1.5) (67.9) (100.0) (59.4) 2230 Dausa (10.2) (14.7) (75.1) (100.0) (97.1) (14.7) (21.2) (64.1) (100.0) (73.6) 545 Dholpur (13.4) (6.8) (79.8) (100.0) (97.0) (20.6) (11.5) (67.9) (100.0) (41.4) 120 Hanumangarh (29.8) 875 (0.4) (69.8) (100.0) (93.3) (41.7) (0.5) (57.9) (100.0) (60.7) 368 Jaipur (4.4) (3.1) (92.6) (100.0) (97.9) (4.6) (2.9) (92.5) (100.0) (79.4) 1205 Jhunjhunu (32.4) 4099 (2.8) (64.8) (100.0) (95.2) (48.1) (2.3) (49.6) (100.0) (59.0) 674 Jodhpur (15.6) (3.2) (81.3) (100.0) (95.6) (17.6) (3.4) (79.0) (100.0) (76.7) 6379 Kota (21.2) (13.2) (65.6) (100.0) (99.7) (25.9) (14.0) (60.1) (100.0) (61.3) 1920 Pali (18.7) (8.0) (73.3) (100.0) (96.6) (20.9) (7.8) (71.2) (100.0) (79.4) 2448 Pratapgarh (5.0) (72.4) (22.6) (100.0) (98.4) (4.1) (79.7) (16.2) (100.0) (60.2) 1207 Rajsamand (10.7) (12.3) (77.1) (100.0) (99.1) (12.5) (13.5) (74.0) (100.0) (83.3) 1310 Sikar (18.6) 8789 (2.9) (78.4) (100.0) (81.9) (25.3) (4.0) (70.7) (100.0) (72.0) 1009 Rajasthan state (16.3) (16.4) (67.3) (100.0) (95.8) (17.9) (21.4) (60.7) (100.0) (69.4) Note: * Figures in brackets are percentage of total cumulative no.of HH issued job cards; **Figures in brackets are percentage of total cumulative no. of HH demanded employment; # Figures in brackets are percentage of total cumulative person days generated. Source: nrega.nic.in; Accessed on 10th September

36 Table 2.2B: Employment generated through NREGA and its socio-economic characteristics ( ) Name of the District SCs Cumulative No. of HH issued job cards* STs Cumulative No. of HH demanded employment Cumulative No. of HH provided employment ** No. of HH working under NREGA Cumulative person days generated # Others Total SCs STs Others Total Women Karauli (27.7) (28.0) (44.2) (100.0) (100.0) (30.9) (32.4) (36.6) (100.0) (41.8) Jaisalmer (15.4) 8389 (7.4) (77.2) (100.0) (100.0) (17.9) (8.5) (73.6) (100.0) (60.6) Nagaur (35.1) 1759 (0.4) (64.5) (100.0) (100.0) (38.4) (1.0) (60.7) (100.0) (75.3) Cumulative No. of HH completed 100 days Sri Ganganagar (56.5) 116 (0.0) (43.5) (100.0) (100.0) (58.1) 4000 (0.0) (41.9) (100.0) (53.5) Banswara (4.5) (84.8) (10.7) (100.0) (100.0) (6.7) (83.5) (9.8) (100.0) (68.5) Dungarpur (5.3) (75.5) (19.2) (100.0) (100.0) (5.6) (78.8) (15.5) (100.0) (72.0) Jhalawar (20.0) (15.4) (64.6) (100.0) (100.0) (29.0) (19.5) (51.4) (100.0) (62.4) Sirohi (27.3) (30.2) (42.4) (100.0) (100.0) (23.0) (32.4) (44.6) (100.0) (73.1) Udaipur (4.2) (61.4) (34.4) (100.0) (100.0) (7.2) (69.1) (23.7) (100.0) (72.0) Barmer (19.9) (9.7) (70.4) (100.0) (100.0) (18.0) (7.3) (74.6) (100.0) (66.7) Chittorgarh (21.4) (38.9) (39.7) (100.0) (100.0) (25.0) (37.8) (37.2) (100.0) (71.0) Jalore (29.3) (11.6) (59.0) (100.0) (100.0) (28.5) (16.1) (55.4) (100.0) (70.6) Sawai Madhopur (24.6) (30.7) (44.8) (100.0) (100.0) (27.4) (31.7) (40.9) (100.0) (62.0) 6190 Tonk (22.5) (15.9) (61.5) (100.0) (100.0) (27.7) (21.1) (51.2) (100.0) (64.4) Ajmer (22.8) (4.5) (72.7) (100.0) (100.0) (19.6) (4.7) (75.7) (100.0) (80.5) Alwar (39.8) (17.7) (42.5) (100.0) (100.0) (37.7) (21.8) (40.5) (100.0) (49.2) Baran (22.0) (28.7) (49.4) (100.0) (100.0) (27.2) (27.4) (45.4) (100.0) (50.3) Bharatpur (23.2) 7456 (2.4) (74.3) (100.0) (100.0) (33.3) (2.8) (63.9) (100.0) (50.1) Bhilwara (14.0) (8.9) (77.2) (100.0) (100.0) (27.0) (14.8) (58.2) (100.0) (71.3) Bikaner (29.9) 733 (0.2) (69.9) (100.0) (100.0) (43.2) 0 (0.0) (56.8) (100.0) (60.0) Bundi (23.5) (26.8) (49.7) (100.0) (100.0) (23.4) (27.3) (49.3) (100.0) (74.2) 9928 Churu (38.8) 3599 (1.4) (59.8) (100.0) (100.0) (35.2) (1.3) (63.5) (100.0) (51.9) Dausa (29.2) (31.1) (39.7) (100.0) (100.0) (31.2) (33.8) (35.1) (100.0) (72.3) Dholpur (37.3) (10.2) (52.5) (100.0) (100.0) (37.2) (14.5) (48.3) (100.0) (28.9) 9190 Hanumangarh (29.9) 949 (0.4) (69.7) (100.0) (100.0) (45.8) 8000 (0.1) (54.1) (100.0) (52.1) Jaipur (31.5) (18.0) (50.6) (100.0) (100.0) (35.0) (24.0) (41.0) (100.0) (70.0) Jhunjhunu (45.8) 8469 (5.9) (48.3) (100.0) (100.0) (44.6) (6.8) (48.5) (100.0) (44.2) Jodhpur (28.0) (5.9) (66.1) (100.0) (100.0) (23.4) (9.5) (67.0) (100.0) (76.1) Kota (27.3) (17.4) (55.3) (100.0) (100.0) (31.0) (20.6) (48.4) (100.0) (58.4) Pali (24.4) (7.1) (68.4) (100.0) (100.0) (26.3) (11.3) (62.3) (100.0) (77.7) Pratapgarh Rajsamand (16.0) (23.6) (60.4) (100.0) (100.0) (14.8) (19.7) (65.6) (100.0) (77.1) Sikar (31.7) (5.5) (62.8) (100.0) (100.0) (36.0) (2.8) (61.3) (100.0) (54.2) Rajasthan state (25.0) (20.0) (55.0) (100.0) (100.0) (26.5) (22.5) (51.0) (100.0) (66.9) Note: * Figures in brackets are percentage of total cumulative no.of HH issued job cards; **Figures in brackets are percentage of total cumulative no. of HH demanded employment; # Figures in brackets are percentage of total cumulative person days generated. Source: nrega.nic.in; Accessed on 10th September

37 Table 2.2C: Employment generated through NREGA and its socio-economic characteristics ( ) Name of the District Cumulative No. of HH issued job cards * Cumulative No. of HH demanded employment Cumulative No. of HH provided employment ** No. of HH working under NREGA Cumulative person days generated # Cumulative No. SCs STs Others Total SCs STs Others Total Women of HH completed 100 days Karauli (28.4) (28.2) (43.4) (100.0) (100.0) (30.2) (30.1) (39.8) (100.0) (61.7) Jaisalmer (17.8) 9357 (8.6) (73.6) (100.0) (100.0) (26.7) (11.0) (62.3) (100.0) (69.6) Nagaur (34.3) 1263 (0.3) (65.4) (100.0) (100.0) (40.9) (0.8) (58.2) (100.0) (67.3) Sri Ganganagar (55.5) 117 (0.0) (44.5) (100.0) (99.1) (56.7) 8000 (0.0) (43.2) (100.0) (50.8) Banswara (4.2) (86.5) (9.4) (100.0) (100.0) (6.7) (86.1) (7.2) (100.0) (67.8) Dungarpur (5.6) (75.3) (19.2) (100.0) (100.0) (5.0) (79.3) (15.7) (100.0) (75.5) Jhalawar (20.4) (15.3) (64.3) (100.0) (100.0) (25.5) (14.8) (59.7) (100.0) (62.1) Sirohi (29.7) (32.3) (38.0) (100.0) (100.0) (28.7) (32.6) (38.8) (100.0) (74.3) Udaipur (4.3) (62.7) (33.0) (100.0) (100.0) (8.9) (73.2) (17.8) (100.0) (68.9) Barmer (19.6) (9.6) (70.8) (100.0) (100.0) (16.4) (8.6) (75.0) (100.0) (63.8) Chittorgarh (21.3) (39.6) (39.1) (100.0) (100.0) (23.1) (39.4) (37.6) (100.0) (71.0) Jalore (29.5) (11.7) (58.8) (100.0) (100.0) (31.2) (14.7) (54.1) (100.0) (73.3) Sawai Madhopur (24.5) (30.7) (44.8) (100.0) (100.0) (30.8) (30.6) (38.6) (100.0) (60.3) Tonk (22.5) (15.7) (61.8) (100.0) (100.0) (24.6) (17.3) (58.0) (100.0) (67.0) Ajmer (23.5) (4.4) (72.1) (100.0) (100.0) (21.1) (4.2) (74.7) (100.0) (83.6) Alwar (40.3) (18.2) (41.6) (100.0) (100.0) (38.0) (25.6) (36.4) (100.0) (51.4) Baran (20.6) (29.1) (50.4) (100.0) (100.0) (22.8) (29.8) (47.5) (100.0) (66.4) Bharatpur (43.2) (5.1) (51.7) (100.0) (100.0) (40.8) (3.9) (55.2) (100.0) (58.4) Bhilwara (15.0) (9.6) (75.4) (100.0) (100.0) (30.0) (17.9) (52.0) (100.0) (82.7) Bikaner (31.9) 733 (0.3) (67.9) (100.0) (100.0) (43.6) 9000 (0.0) (56.4) (100.0) (51.7) Bundi (23.5) (26.8) (49.7) (100.0) (100.0) (23.4) (25.3) (51.3) (100.0) (76.5) Churu (39.2) 2977 (1.3) (59.5) (100.0) (100.0) (38.1) (1.6) (60.4) (100.0) (49.4) Dausa (28.8) (31.3) (39.9) (100.0) (100.0) (30.5) (33.2) (36.2) (100.0) (69.6) Dholpur (37.3) (11.6) (51.1) (100.0) (100.0) (37.1) (13.3) (49.6) (100.0) (27.3) Hanumangarh (32.0) 822 (0.4) (67.6) (100.0) (100.0) (45.0) (0.1) (54.9) (100.0) (37.1) Jaipur (32.4) (17.6) (50.0) (100.0) (100.0) (31.9) (20.5) (47.6) (100.0) (78.6) Jhunjhunu (47.9) 6039 (4.7) (47.3) (100.0) (100.0) (50.0) (6.4) (43.6) (100.0) (53.0) Jodhpur (22.0) (5.0) (73.0) (100.0) (100.0) (49.9) (8.0) (42.1) (100.0) (90.0) Kota (24.8) (22.9) (52.3) (100.0) (100.0) (36.8) (21.9) (41.4) (100.0) (60.0) Pali (24.6) (7.9) (67.5) (100.0) (100.0) (29.4) (10.4) (60.2) (100.0) (76.5) Pratapgarh Rajsamand (16.4) (24.1) (59.5) (100.0) (100.0) (14.5) (19.0) (66.6) (100.0) (77.9) Sikar (31.3) (5.5) (63.3) (100.0) (100.0) (33.1) (5.9) (61.0) (100.0) (37.2) State (25.6) (20.5) (53.9) (100.0) (100.0) (28.8) (23.2) (48.0) (100.0) (67.1) Note: * Figures in brackets are percentage of total cumulative no.of HH issued job cards; **Figures in brackets are percentage of total cumulative no. of HH demanded employment; # Figures in brackets are percentage of total cumulative person days generated. Source: nrega.nic.in; Accessed on 10th September

38 Among NREGA workers, majority were women who were not working earlier. This has resulted in better standard of livings of rural women in the rural areas after introduction of NREGA. Interestingly, selling of cosmetics and liquor has increased many folds in villages. The increase in selling of liqor in the villages signifies that hard earned money from NREGA works have been misutilised by some rural people. As per the data provided in NREGA official website, most of the districts in Rajasthan have performed exceptionally well in terms of jobs provided under the scheme. Only 3 out of 33 districts in Rajasthan, namely, Sri Ganganagar, Sikar and Alwar have failed in meeting more than 90 per cent of job demand during Banswara was one of the best performers where 99.4 per cent job seeking HHs were provided jobs in various rural development works such as rural roads, soil and water conservation structures, drought proofing, renovation of traditional water bodies, flood control and protection and land development activities during About 2, 17,533 HHs were provided jobs under NREGS against 2, 18,931 job applications in Banswara district during (till August). Among the study districts, Shree Ganganagar has fallen aside with the dismal performance with just 67 per cent of job seeking households given jobs under the NREGA in Other districts with better performance with respect to employment provided were Ajmer (100%), Chittorgarh (99.5%), Rajsamund (99.2%) and Barmer (99.1%). As a whole, 95.8 per cent households were employed in NREGA works during in Rajasthan. It was very encouraging to find that in previous years and , all households seeking jobs in all the districts were provided jobs. It is worth-mentioning that there is a declining trend in the number of HHs working under NREGA over the reference years in Rajasthan. The number of HHs working under NREGA in Rajasthan during was 21,28,832, which has steeply fallen to 7,56,782 during and has subsequently declined to 3,77,737 during (till 31 st August 2010). There is also declining trend in participation of SCs, STs in NREGA jobs during the reference years. The proportion of SC and ST beneficiary HHs was 25.6 per cent and 20.5 per cent respectively during , that has declined to 25 per cent and 20 per cent respectively during and has further decreased to 16.3 per cent and 16.4 per cent respectively during (till 31 st August 2010). On the other hand, participation of Others category and General Caste category of HHs has increased which could be visualized as a threat to the 25

39 major objectives of the scheme. It was observed during the survey that some influential upper section people in study villages were having job cards that they hired out to needy labourers, by which they generated undue profit out of the NREGS, even without actually participating in the NREGA works. Not only there was a declining trend in issue of job cards to lower social strata in Rajasthan, there was also a declining trend in cumulative person-days generated by these SC/ST HHs (Figure 2.1). As shown in Tables 2.2A, 2.2B and 2.2C, the proportion of cumulative person-days generated by SC and ST beneficiary HHs was 28.8 per cent and 23.2 per cent respectively during , that has declined to 26.5 per cent and 22.5 per cent respectively during and has further decreased to 17.9 per cent and 21.4 per cent respectively during (till 31 st August 2010). The women participation in NREGA works has also declined from 67.1 per cent of total cumulative person-days generated during to 66.9 per cent during However, their participation has improved during with 69.4 per cent of total cumulative person-days generated. Among different districts of Rajasthan, the per cent of total cumulative person-days generated by women was maximum of 83.3 per cent in Rajsamund and minimum of 41.4 per cent in Dholpur district during Similarly, during , the per cent of total cumulative person-days generated by women was maximum of 80.5 per cent in Ajmer and minimum of 28.9 per cent in Dholpur district. However, during , the total number of cumulative persondays generated by women was comparatively less in various other districts compared to and Higher disparity was also observed during with regard to the cumulative person-days generated by women. It may be seen from Table 2.2C that the per cent of total cumulative person-days generated by women was maximum of 90.0 per cent in Jodhpur and minimum of 27.3 per cent in Dholpur district. Among the districts where women participation in NREGA works was found less, Dholpur, Hanumangarh, Sikar and Churu were prominent ones. The cumulative number of households completed 100 days of participation in the NREGA works during (till August) was lowest in Karauli (119) and was highest in Jodhpur (6379). The cumulative number of households completed 100 days of participation in the NREGA works during was lowest in Sarai Madhopur (6190) and was highest in Bhilwara (138826). The same during was lowest in Sirohi (21113) and was highest in Bhilwara (229446). 26

40 (70.0) (60.0) (50.0) (40.0) (30.0) (20.0) (10.0) (0.0) SCs STs Others Women (till Aug 2010) Figure 2.1.Cumulative person days generated in Rajasthan (% of total) As far as Rajasthan state as whole is concerned, the cumulative number of households completed 100 days of participation in the NREGA works was 26,31,892 during that has declined to 15,14,420 during which has further declined to 60,705 during The exact causes of the declining trend in these important performance parameters are not clearly understood. The failure to plan and execute the works plan at villages in timely manner could be the possible reason for not being able to provide sufficient works to the workers, which, in turn, could be due to shortage of NREGA staff and line department staff. It was revealed by some line department staff at Sri Ganaganagar district that the existing staffing arrangement is grossly inadequate to execute the works in such a larger scale. The existing work plans available with the line departments were modified slightly and were used for creating the structures under NREGA during initial period. There was no sufficient time and staff to prepare new work plans particularly for creating NREGA assets during the subsequent years. The workers were discouraged to apply for jobs at some places and the records were maintained in such a way that they did not require to pay any unemployment allowance. At some other places, though beneficiary HHs were eligible to get the unemployment allowance, they were not provided anything. Towards the end of this chapter, we will find that though person-days are due for payment of unemployment allowance in Rajasthan (Table 2.7), none of the beneficiary HHs were paid any unemployment allowance. 27

41 2.3 Number of Projects Completed and Total Amount Spent The progress in different kind of works under NREGA in 5 study districts and Rajasthan state from to has been shown in Tables 2.3A, 2.3B and 2.3C, whereas the same for other 28 districts of Rajasthan has been reported as Annexures 1A, 1B and 1C. In terms of number of projects completed or in progress, various districts have performed well. During (till August 2010), a total of 408 works were completed whereas works were in progress in entire Rajasthan (Table 2.3A). Out of these 408 completed works, a majority of 201 works (49.1%) were on rural connectivity and 92 works (22.5%) were on water conservation and water harvesting structures. However the number of projects completed in the study districts except Jaisalmer was very less during It is disheartening to find that, not a single work was completed in Sri Ganganagar and Karauli during (till August 2010) whereas the number of works completed in Banswara and Nagaur was 2 and 1 respectively 2. Surprisingly, ongoing works were very large in number in both the districts of Sri Ganganagar and Karauli during the same year. During two previous reference periods and , the composition of works completed in Rajasthan was somewhat different. The works related to the provision of irrigation facility to land development constituted a major share during both and (Figure 2.2). During , the number of works related to the provision of irrigation facility to land development was 54,976 constituting about 54.7 per cent of total number of works completed in Rajasthan (Table 2.3C). The number of works related to the provision of irrigation facility to land development has declined to 46,008 constituting about 50 per cent of total number of works completed in Rajasthan (Table 2.3B). The performance in terms of number of completed works in various districts was much better during and as compared to that during While the total number of works completed in Rajasthan during and was and respectively, the same in Banswara district during the same period was 6706 (6.7%) and 6824 (7.4%) respectively. Among different works undertaken in Banswara, works on rural connectivity, water conservation and provision of irrigation facility to land 2 The data on completed projects seem to be unrealistic. Since most part of the NREGA works is usually undertaken during summer, it is unlikely that during (till August 2010), not a single project could be completed in entire districts of Sri Ganganagar and Karauli where respectively and person-days had already been generated during the same period. 28

42 development were the major ones during and About 32 per cent of total number of completed works was on water conservation and water harvesting during in Banswara. About 45.3 per cent of total number of completed works was on water conservation and water harvesting during in the same district Rural Connectivity Flood Control Water Conservation And Water Herversting Drought Proofing Micro Irrigation Provision of Irrigation facility Renovation Land Any Other of traditional development WHSs Activity Approved by MRD (till Aug 2010) Figure2.2. Percentage of works completed under NREGA in Rajasthan However the nature of assets created was not very satisfactory as observed in the study districts. It was spotted that works have been taken up without proper planning at some places. For example, rural roads have been stopped at the middle due to some legal disputes since the work was not initiated with proper planning and due consultation of beneficiary farmers. Lack of awareness hinders the entire process including selection of assets created or the assets to be created. The NREGA officials in the region reportedly expressed that, no proper and timely proposals were submitted by the Gram Sabha. Time shortage and staff shortage also affected the quality of assets created. No proper maintenance was arranged after creation of the assets that threatened the durability of assets. 29

43 Table 2.3A: District wise works completed / progress under NREGA (number of project) during (Till 31st August 2010) Rural Connectivity Flood Control Water Conservation And Water Herversting Drought Proofing Micro Irrigation Provision of Irrigation facility to Land development Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies Land development Any Other Activity Approved by MRD Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra Total District Banswara Jaisalmer Nagaur Karauli Sri Ganganagar State comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ Source: nrega.nic.in; Accessed on 10th September (0.5) 17 (8.5) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) (100.0) (50.0) (32.1) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (49.3) 5452 (0.5) 1332 (1.1) 5147 (4.2) 2944 (2.4) 6388 (5.3) (100.0) (17.6) (16.5) (35.1) (27.7) (35.8) (24.8) 0 (0.5) 11 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 11 (100.0) (0.0) (20.8) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (2.7) 1076 (0.5) 51 (1.2) 60 (1.4) 99 (2.3) 22 (0.5) 4340 (100.0) (3.5) (0.6) (0.4) (0.9) (0.1) (0.9) 0 (0.5) 10 (10.9) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 92 (100.0) (0.0) (18.9) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (22.5) 5694 (0.5) 809 (1.0) 3764 (4.6) 4535 (5.5) 500 (0.6) (100.0) (18.3) (10.0) (25.7) (42.6) (2.8) (16.9) 0 (0.5) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 4 (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (1.0) 2411 (0.5) (3.3) 474 (1.9) 107 (0.4) (100.0) (7.8) (4.8) (5.4) (4.5) (0.6) (5.0) 1 (0.5) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 7 (100.0) (50.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (1.7) 2090 (0.5) 196 (1.1) 146 (0.9) 36 (0.2) 4591 (26.8) (100.0) (6.7) (2.4) (1.0) (0.3) (25.7) (3.5) 0 (0.5) 0 (0.0) 1 (5.9) 0 (0.0) 0 17 (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (4.2) 4637 (0.5) 3053 (4.1) 2197 (3.0) 396 (0.5) 696 (0.9) (100.0) (14.9) (37.8) (15.0) (3.7) (3.9) (15.0) 0 (0.5) 14 (30.4) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 46 (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (11.3) 2187 (0.5) 1341 (2.7) 1888 (3.8) 1685 (3.4) 2380 (4.8) (100.0) (7.0) (16.6) (12.9) (15.8) (13.3) (10.1) 0 (0.5) 1 (10.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 10 (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (2.5) 5556 (0.5) 672 (0.8) 156 (0.2) 209 (0.2) 2745 (3.3) (100.0) (17.9) (8.3) (1.1) (2.0) (15.4) (17.2) 0 (0.5) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 20 (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (4.9) 1625 (0.5) 113 (0.5) 59 (0.3) 39 (0.2) 84 (0.4) (100.0) (5.2) (1.4) (0.4) (0.4) (0.5) (4.6) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 0 (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 313 (0.5) 122 (1.3) 452 (4.8) 225 (2.4) 328 (3.5) 9327 (100.0) (1.0) (1.5) (3.1) (2.1) (1.8) (1.9) 2 (0.5) 53 (13.0) 1 (0.2) 0 (0.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (0.5) 8073 (1.6) (3.0) (2.2) (3.6) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Notes: (1) Bracketed figures below the values are percentages of total number of projects of respective districts. (2) Bracketed figures towards the right side of the values are percentages of total number of projects under the respective activity undertaken in the state. 30

44 Table 2.3B: District wise works completed / progress under NREGA (number of project) during Rural Connectivity District Banswara Jaisalmer Nagaur Karauli Sri Ganganagar State comp. Ongoing/ Flood Control comp. Water Conservation And Water Herversting Drought Proofing Micro Irrigation Provision of Irrigation facility to Land development Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies Land development Any Other Activity Approved by MRD Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra Total Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ Source: nrega.nic.in; Accessed on 10th September (7.4) 286 (1.4) 562 (2.8) 125 (0.6) 1103 (5.5) (100.0) (21.6) (19.1) (26.4) (30.3) (45.7) (21.6) 949 (2.9) 132 (0.4) 1165 (3.5) 544 (1.6) 3078 (9.3) (100.0) (9.8) (14.4) (24.5) (46.4) (42.8) (29.8) 104 (13.2) 4 (0.5) 0 (0.0) 11 (1.4) 0 (0.0) 787 (100.0) (1.5) (0.3) (0.0) (2.7) (0.0) (0.9) 646 (29.6) 34 (1.6) 27 (1.2) 14 (0.6) 7 (0.3) 2182 (100.0) (6.6) (3.7) (0.6) (1.2) (0.1) (2.0) 2190 (20.0) 93 (0.9) 414 (3.8) 56 (0.5) 11 (0.1) (100.0) (32.1) (6.2) (19.4) (13.6) (0.5) (11.9) 2280 (12.5) 145 (0.8) 571 (3.1) 209 (1.1) 210 (1.2) (100.0) (23.5) (15.8) (12.0) (17.8) (2.9) (16.4) 208 (9.8) 6 (0.3) 1 (0.0) 26 (1.2) 39 (1.8) 2118 (100.0) (3.0) (0.4) (0.0) (6.3) (1.6) (2.3) 452 (6.7) 218 (3.2) 282 (4.2) 126 (1.9) 184 (2.7) 6712 (100.0) (4.7) (23.8) (5.9) (10.7) (2.6) (6.0) 300 (11.0) 1 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 18 (0.7) 707 (26.0) 2718 (100.0) (4.4) (0.1) (0.0) (4.4) (29.3) (2.9) 553 (13.3) 39 (0.9) 10 (0.2) 64 (1.5) 1467 (35.3) 4154 (100.0) (5.7) (4.3) (0.2) (5.5) (20.4) (3.7) 1927 (4.2) 966 (2.1) 620 (1.3) 65 (0.1) 17 (0.0) (100.0) (28.2) (64.5) (29.1) (15.8) (0.7) (49.9) 3483 (12.6) 199 (0.7) 879 (3.2) 39 (0.1) 532 (1.9) (100.0) (35.8) (21.7) (18.5) (3.3) (7.4) (25.0) 179 (2.3) 130 (1.7) 532 (6.8) 102 (1.3) 173 (2.2) 7811 (100.0) (2.6) (8.7) (25.0) (24.8) (7.2) (8.5) 210 (1.4) 109 (0.7) 1793 (12.1) 98 (0.7) 925 (6.3) (100.0) (2.2) (11.9) (37.7) (8.4) (12.9) (13.3) 443 (22.5) 11 (0.6) 0 (0.0) 9 (0.5) 364 (18.5) 1965 (100.0) (6.5) (0.7) (0.0) (2.2) (15.1) (2.1) 1143 (27.8) 39 (0.9) 26 (0.6) 79 (1.9) 793 (19.3) 4112 (100.0) (11.8) (4.3) (0.5) (6.7) (11.0) (3.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 55 (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.1) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 6824 (7.4) 1497 (1.6) 2129 (2.3) 412 (0.4) 2414 (2.6) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) 9716 (8.8) 915 (0.8) 4753 (4.3) 1173 (1.1) 7196 (6.5) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Notes: (1) Bracketed figures below the values are percentages of total number of projects of respective districts. (2) Bracketed figures towards the right side of the values are percentages of total number of projects under the respective activity undertaken in the state. 31

45 Table 2.3C: District wise works completed / progress under NREGA (number of project) during Rural Connectivity District Banswara Jaisalmer Nagaur Karauli Sri Ganganagar State comp (8.0) 154 (1.0) 154 (1.0) 271 (1.7) 1435 (9.2) (100.0) Ongoing/ Flood Control comp. Water Conservation And Water Herversting Drought Proofing Micro Irrigation Provision of Irrigation facility to Land development Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies Land development Any Other Activity Approved by MRD Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ (18.6) (9.6) (23.4) (41.4) (35.2) (15.5) 1294 (3.7) 480 (1.4) 1253 (3.6) 642 (1.8) 1779 (5.1) (100.0) (14.4) (19.3) (26.5) (41.4) (41.0) (25.9) 127 (15.7) 2 (0.2) 1 (0.1) 0 (0.0) 4 (0.5) 809 (100.0) (1.9) (0.1) (0.2) (0.0) (0.1) (0.8) 164 (15.1) 5 (0.5) 10 (0.9) 12 (1.1) 0 (0.0) 1086 (100.0) (1.8) (0.2) (0.2) (0.8) (0.0) (0.8) 3036 (21.1) 148 (1.0) 131 (0.9) 194 (1.4) 39 (0.3) (100.0) (45.3) (9.2) (19.9) (29.6) (1.0) (14.3) 2214 (11.7) 187 (1.0) 1497 (7.9) 408 (2.2) 111 (0.6) (100.0) (24.6) (7.5) (31.7) (26.3) (2.6) (13.9) 153 (7.3) 1 (0.0) 19 (0.9) 0 (0.0) 83 (4.0) 2092 (100.0) (2.3) (0.1) (2.9) (0.0) (2.0) (2.1) 303 (9.9) 10 (0.3) 214 (7.0) 10 (0.3) 129 (4.2) 3071 (100.0) (3.4) (0.4) (4.5) (0.6) (3.0) (2.3) 194 (5.9) 3 (0.1) 0 (0.0) 87 (2.6) 1708 (51.8) 3295 (100.0) (2.9) (0.2) (0.0) (13.3) (41.9) (3.3) 533 (15.5) 60 (1.7) 10 (0.3) 137 (4.0) 780 (22.7) 3439 (100.0) (5.9) (2.4) (0.2) (8.8) (18.0) (2.5) 1439 (2.6) 1239 (2.3) 175 (0.3) 77 (0.1) 51 (0.1) (100.0) (21.5) (77.1) (26.6) (11.8) (1.3) (54.7) 3968 (7.9) 1658 (3.3) 615 (1.2) 201 (0.4) 233 (0.5) (100.0) (44.1) (66.7) (13.0) (13.0) (5.4) (37.0) 177 (2.4) 61 (0.8) 164 (2.3) 18 (0.2) 372 (5.1) 7269 (100.0) (2.6) (3.8) (24.9) (2.7) (9.1) (7.2) 89 (0.5) 86 (0.5) 1105 (6.2) 126 (0.7) 655 (3.7) (100.0) (1.0) (3.5) (23.4) (8.1) (15.1) (13.1) 333 (15.5) 0 (0.0) 14 (0.7) 8 (0.4) 387 (18.0) 2148 (100.0) (5.0) (0.0) (2.1) (1.2) (9.5) (2.1) 442 (7.3) 0 (0.0) 23 (0.4) 14 (0.2) 649 (10.7) 6065 (100.0) (4.9) (0.0) (0.5) (0.9) (15.0) (4.5) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 6 (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.1) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) Total comp (6.7) 1608 (1.6) 658 (0.7) 655 (0.7) 4079 (4.1) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Ongoing/ 9007 (6.6) 2486 (1.8) 4727 (3.5) 1550 (1.1) 4336 (3.2) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Notes: (1) Bracketed figures below the values are percentages of total number of projects of respective districts. (2) Bracketed figures towards the right side of the values are percentages of total number of projects under the respective activity undertaken in the state. Source: nrega.nic.in; Accessed on 10th September

46 Considering the case of all districts of Rajasthan, it could be seen that, out of 4, 89,340 number of ongoing works in Rajasthan during , the maximum number of works were undertaken in Barmer (66,022) followed by Udaipur (59,163) and Bikaner (26,046). Among the lowest performing districts during the same year, Jhunjhunu (4544), Kota (5287) and Dholpur (5854) were major ones (see Annexure 1A). The better performing districts during in terms of number of projects completed and ongoing were Barmer and Udaipur where 24,408 and 16,403 number of works were completed out of a total of completed works in Rajasthan state (see Annexures 1B and1c). These two districts have also performed better in terms of number of projects completed compared to other districts during also. The ongoing works were almost evenly distributed across different districts of Rajasthan during and The financial aspects of the works done under NREGA in various study districts in Rajasthan from to has been shown in Tables 2.4A, 2.4B and 2.4C, whereas the same for other 28 districts of Rajasthan has been reported in Annexures 2A, 2B and 2C. It may be seen that huge amount of money has been spent on different ongoing projects in all districts of Rajasthan during The total amount spent on various completed and ongoing projects in Rajasthan state as a whole was Rs Cr and Rs Cr respectively during The total amount spent on various completed projects was higher (Rs Cr) and the spending on ongoing projects was lower (Rs Cr) in Rajasthan during compared to the same during A major part of about 43.7 per cent of total spending on completed projects in Rajasthan was spent on rural connectivity in Rajasthan during Similarly, about 37.2 per cent of total spending on completed projects in Rajasthan was spent on rural connectivity in Rajasthan during Also in the majority of districts in Rajasthan, the major part of the total spending was spent on rural connectivity works during and In Banswara alone, Rs 91.4 crores (Cr) was spent on various ongoing projects during whereas during , the amount spent on various completed projects and ongoing projects were Rs Cr and Rs Cr respectively. Similarly, during , the amount spent on various completed projects and ongoing projects were Rs Cr and Rs Cr respectively in the same district. 33

47 Table 2.4A: District wise works completed/progress under NREGA (Amount spent in lakh rupees) during (Till Aug 2010) Rural Connectivity District Banswara Karauli Jaisalmer Nagaur Sri Ganganagar State comp. Ongoing/ Flood Control comp. Water Conservation And Water Herversting Drought Proofing Micro Irrigation Provision of Irrigation facility to Land development Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies Land development Any Other Activity Approved by MRD Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra Total Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ Source: nrega.nic.in; Accessed on 10th September (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 25.3 (18.6) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) (100.0) (1.0) (0.0) (57.3) (0.0) (0.0) (44.8) (2.0) (0.3) (0.7) (4.2) (2.8) (100.0) (9.3) (8.5) (20.9) (29.0) (40.7) (31.2) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.7 (7.7) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 9.1 (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (1.6) (0.0) (0.0) (3.0) (33.2) 15.5 (0.6) 39.9 (1.7) 6.0 (0.2) 8.2 (0.3) (100.0) (8.7) (1.1) (2.8) (0.1) (0.3) (1.8) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 6.9 (8.7) 0.5 (0.6) 0.0 (0.0) 79.5 (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (15.7) (28.4) (0.0) (26.1) (4.5) (2.1) (0.8) (4.9) 73.4 (0.2) (100.0) (22.1) (63.4) (25.5) (35.8) (2.5) (33.4) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 5.4 (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (1.8) (15.2) 13.9 (0.2) 65.5 (1.1) (3.0) 12.2 (0.2) (100.0) (9.8) (1.0) (4.5) (2.9) (0.4) (4.4) 0.0 (0.3) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 4.1 (100.0) (0.3) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (1.4) (12.0) 23.8 (0.4) 68.2 (1.1) 4.7 (0.1) (12.5) (100.0) (8.1) (1.6) (4.7) (0.1) (26.5) (4.6) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.8 (6.4) 0.0 (0.0) 11.8 (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (45.2) (0.0) (3.9) (28.0) 0.0 (0.0) (6.5) (7.2) 62.3 (2.1) (100.0) (8.9) (0.0) (13.1) (3.4) (2.2) (2.2) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 9.7 (21.0) 0.4 (0.9) 0.0 (0.0) 46.3 (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (22.0) (26.4) (0.0) (15.2) (2.0) (1.6) (1.9) (8.6) (2.3) (100.0) (4.2) (21.5) (25.4) (27.2) (15.3) (14.5) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 1.5 (88.9) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 1.7 (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (3.4) (0.0) (0.0) (0.6) (32.4) 15.5 (0.2) 25.8 (0.4) 58.6 (0.8) (4.2) (100.0) (26.0) (1.1) (1.8) (1.0) (10.7) (5.5) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 4.9 (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (1.6) (8.6) 0.6 (0.0) 16.3 (0.8) 7.8 (0.4) 2.1 (0.1) (100.0) (1.9) (0.0) (1.1) (0.1) (0.1) (1.5) 4.9 (100.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 4.9 (100.0) (98.7) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (1.6) 88.6 (7.7) 26.8 (2.3) 1.1 (0.1) 22.0 (1.9) 39.0 (3.4) (100.0) (1.0) (1.8) (0.1) (0.4) (1.4) (0.9) 4.9 (1.6) 0.0 (0.0) 44.1 (14.5) 1.7 (0.5) 0.0 (0.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (6.8) (1.1) (1.1) (4.6) (2.2) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Notes: (1) Bracketed figures below the values are percentages of total cost of projects of respective districts. (2) Bracketed figures towards the right side of the values are percentages of total cost of projects under the respective activity undertaken in the state. 34

48 Table 2.4B: District wise works completed/progress under NREGA (Amount spent in lakh rupees) during Rural Connectivity Flood Control Water Conservation And Water Herversting Drought Proofing Micro Irrigation Provision of Irrigation facility to Land development Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies Land development Any Other Activity Approved by MRD Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra Total District Banswara Karauli Jaisalmer Nagaur Sri Ganganagar State comp (2.6) (0.9) (0.8) (1.9) (2.0) (100.0) (18.2) (35.2) (43.7) (34.2) (46.3) (43.7) Ongoing/ (1.8) (2.2) (0.6) (7.9) (3.7) (100.0) (20.0) (53.5) (21.0) (40.6) (49.5) (41.1) comp (7.1) (2.9) 10.6 (0.3) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) (100.0) (2.1) (4.7) (0.7) (0.0) (0.0) (1.9) (12.2) (3.3) (3.2) 86.4 (0.9) 27.4 (0.3) (100.0) Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ (8.3) (5.0) (7.2) (0.3) (0.2) (2.6) (13.7) (1.2) 53.2 (0.1) (2.6) 24.5 (0.1) (100.0) (43.2) (21.2) (3.4) (21.7) (0.7) (19.5) (3.9) (1.2) (0.9) (5.1) (0.4) (100.0) (20.1) (14.2) (15.2) (12.3) (2.2) (19.1) (23.3) 35.4 (0.6) 6.0 (0.1) 3.5 (0.1) 32.2 (0.6) (100.0) (11.6) (1.6) (0.4) (0.1) (0.9) (3.1) (6.3) (1.0) (2.3) (3.5) (1.1) (100.0) (9.6) (3.3) (11.4) (2.5) (1.9) (5.6) (6.2) (1.4) 1.5 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) (15.7) (100.0) (3.8) (4.7) (0.1) (0.0) (31.7) (3.8) (6.7) (2.5) (2.2) 38.2 (0.2) (14.4) (100.0) (8.7) (7.2) (9.2) (0.1) (22.4) (4.8) (4.7) (0.9) (2.1) (1.2) 62.1 (0.3) (100.0) (9.1) (10.0) (30.5) (5.9) (1.7) (12.0) (14.8) (1.3) (3.0) (6.5) (4.4) (100.0) (23.8) (4.7) (15.7) (4.9) (8.5) (6.0) (2.0) (1.2) (1.1) (6.3) (1.1) (100.0) (4.6) (15.3) (19.6) (38.1) (8.2) (14.3) (0.6) (0.5) (1.2) (17.2) (1.6) (100.0) (2.8) (5.7) (19.8) (38.9) (9.3) (18.0) (26.7) (4.8) 26.7 (0.8) 0.0 (0.0) (11.8) (100.0) (7.4) (7.2) (1.7) (0.0) (10.6) (1.7) (9.3) (4.0) 26.5 (0.3) (1.2) (6.8) (100.0) (6.8) (6.4) (0.6) (0.4) (5.9) (2.7) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 13.2 (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (6.2) (1.1) (0.8) (2.4) (1.9) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (3.7) (1.7) (1.1) (8.0) (3.1) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Notes: (1) Bracketed figures below the values are percentages of total cost of projects of respective districts. (2) Bracketed figures towards the right side of the values are percentages of total cost of projects under the respective activity undertaken in the state. Source: nrega.nic.in; Accessed on 10th September

49 Table 2.4C: District wise works completed/progress under NREGA (Amount spent in lakh rupees) during Sri District Banswara Karauli Jaisalmer Nagaur Ganganagar State Rural comp (5.6) (1.7) (1.3) (2.0) (6.9) (100.0) Connectivity Flood Control Water Conservation And Water Herversting Drought Proofing Micro Irrigation Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies Land development Any Other Activity Approved by MRD Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra Total Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ Provision of comp. Irrigation facility to Land Ongoing/ development comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ comp. Ongoing/ (32.6) (38.2) (29.3) (41.9) (36.1) (37.2) (2.8) (2.0) (1.2) (2.9) (3.5) (100.0) (22.8) (37.7) (44.8) (23.6) (53.0) (43.8) (11.1) 0.0 (0.0) 14.7 (0.7) 3.0 (0.1) 2.8 (0.1) (100.0) (2.4) (0.0) (0.5) (0.1) (0.0) (1.4) (9.1) (3.6) 30.3 (0.5) 38.8 (0.7) 0.0 (0.0) (100.0) (2.2) (1.9) (0.6) (0.2) (0.0) (1.3) (9.6) (2.4) (1.4) (1.3) (0.5) (100.0) (37.4) (36.4) (20.6) (17.8) (1.9) (24.8) (6.2) (3.1) (0.8) (10.8) (0.3) (100.0) (26.3) (29.1) (15.0) (45.5) (2.1) (22.5) (5.7) 0.0 (0.0) 12.0 (0.3) 75.6 (1.6) 71.7 (1.5) (100.0) (2.6) (0.0) (0.4) (2.6) (0.6) (2.9) (15.0) 30.0 (0.2) 78.3 (0.6) (6.8) (1.6) (100.0) (8.9) (0.3) (1.5) (4.0) (1.7) (3.2) (10.0) (5.5) 11.3 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) (47.3) (100.0) (8.3) (18.0) (0.4) (0.0) (35.8) (5.3) (13.5) (4.9) (1.0) 52.0 (0.3) (13.7) (100.0) (10.1) (8.3) (3.3) (0.2) (19.0) (4.0) (4.3) 66.8 (0.4) (6.1) 84.7 (0.5) 51.0 (0.3) (100.0) (7.0) (2.6) (37.3) (2.9) (0.5) (10.4) (16.6) (0.6) (4.3) (0.4) (1.1) (100.0) (22.3) (1.9) (27.1) (0.6) (2.8) (7.2) (1.5) (0.4) (1.2) (3.7) (7.7) (100.0) (3.9) (4.4) (11.4) (32.7) (17.6) (16.2) (0.5) (2.7) (0.5) (8.0) (2.3) (100.0) (1.4) (18.7) (7.7) (24.3) (13.0) (16.3) (21.6) 12.1 (0.4) 0.0 (0.0) 57.6 (2.1) (30.2) (100.0) (5.9) (0.5) (0.0) (2.0) (7.5) (1.7) (18.0) (2.7) 0.0 (0.0) (4.7) (13.4) (100.0) (6.0) (2.0) (0.0) (1.6) (8.3) (1.8) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 8.3 (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (6.4) (1.6) (1.7) (1.8) (7.1) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (5.3) (2.4) (1.1) (5.3) (2.9) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Notes: (1) Bracketed figures below the values are percentages of total cost of projects of respective districts. (2) Bracketed figures towards the right side of the values are percentages of total cost of projects under the respective activity undertaken in the state. Source: nrega.nic.in; Accessed on 10th September

50 It may be noted that the amount spent on various completed and ongoing projects in Banswara district constituted only 6.4 per cent and 5.3 per cent respectively during The larger amount of money was spent in Banswara district mainly because of its larger size compared to other districts of Rajasthan. Among other districts of Rajasthan, Barmer, Udaipur, Jaipur and Jodhpur were few districts where higher amount was spent on various ongoing projects during These districts including some more like Churu and Bhilwara were front runners in spending money on various completed and ongoing projects during Out of a total amount of Rs Cr during , Udaipur, Ajmer and Pali spent Rs Cr, Cr and Cr respectively on various completed works, whereas Jodhpur and Bikaner were found to be lagged behind. It is not clearly understood how Jodhpur and Bikaner could not spent a single rupee on the completed works though they have completed 13 and 1390 number of works respectively during the same year, i.e., This is another case of data inconsistency on the NREGA website. Respectively 43.2 per cent and 37.4 per cent of total expenditure was spent in Banswara on water conservation/water harvesting structures during and Among the study districts, the total amount spent on various NREGA works was lowest (Rs15.73 Cr) in Jaisalmer district and highest (Rs Cr) in Banswara district. However, the amount spent on ongoing works (Rs Cr) was the highest in Nagaur during About 5.3 per cent each of total spending in Rajasthan was invested on various ongoing NREGA works in Nagaur and Banswara district of Rajasthan during Performance of NREGA Some Quantitative Indicators In this section, attempt has been made to shed some light on performance of NREGA in various districts of Rajasthan during the reference periods in terms of some qualitative parameters. These parameters include social auditing and inspection of NREGA works, payment through bank or post office accounts, payment of unemployment allowance, work projection etc. 37

51 2.4.1 Social Auditing and Inspection of NREGA Work An innovative feature of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act is that it gives a central role to social audits as a means of continuous public vigilance. The basic objective of a social audit is to ensure public accountability in the implementation of projects, laws and policies. One simple form of social audit is a public assembly where all the details of a project are scrutinized. However, social audit can also be understood in a broader sense, as a continuous process of public vigilance. In this perspective, a social audit is an ongoing process through which the potential beneficiaries and other stakeholders of an activity or project are involved at every stage: from the planning to the implementation, monitoring and evaluation. This process helps in ensuring that the activity or project is designed and implemented in a manner that is most suited to the prevailing (local) conditions, appropriately reflects the priorities and preferences of those affected by it, and most effectively serves public interest. Thus, social audits can be seen as a means of promoting some basic norms in public matters like transparency in implementation, stakeholder participation in the process of decision making and validation, accountability of elected representatives and government functionaries to answer questions and provide explanations about relevant action and inaction to concerned and affected people. A set of norms have to be followed for addressing public issues through which the findings of social audits and other public investigations receive official sanction, have necessary outcomes, and are reported back to the people, along with information on action taken in response to complaints. As per the analysis on secondary data provided on NREGA website (see Tables 2.5A, 2.5B and 2.5C), there has been a good progress on the fronts of muster rolls verification and number of Gramsabha and Vigilance and Monitoring Committee (VMC) meeting held during (till August 2010). Total works taken up in Banswara district alone was about 1052 during (till August 2010). In the case of Sri Ganganagar, the total number of works taken up was about during the same period (Table 2.5A). However, total number of blocks where social audit has been completed is still very less during this period and there has been no satisfactory progress in terms of inspection of works at district and block levels. It may be seen from Table 2.5A that the social audit has been completed only in 84 out of 307 Gram 38

52 Panchayats (GPs) and 105 and 947 works have been verified at district and block levels respectively against 1052 number of works taken up in Banswara district during It is apprehended that the progress would be better towards the end of the current financial year. In the case of Sri Ganganagar, the performance was worst with only 34 and 1290 works inspected at district level and block level respectively out of a total of number of works taken up during (till August 2010). There has also been poor performance in terms of disposal of complaints in most of the districts in the majority of years since implementation. During (till August,2010), 6369 complaints have been disposed out of 8027 complaints received accounting for about 79.3 per cent in Rajasthan(Table 2.5A). Some districts like Jaisalmer and Karauli have performed much better compared to other study districts in disposing the complaints lodged by the NREGA beneficiaries. In Jaisalmer and Karauli, respectively 100 per cent and 92.5 per cent complaints have been disposed during whereas in other districts like Banswara, Sirohi and Dholpur, the performance has not been so good. Only 56 complaints out of 166 (33.7%) have been disposed in Banswara and 43.9 per cent complaints have been disposed in Sirohi district during (till August, 2010). However, the overall performance of the scheme was satisfactory as per the social audit reports of and The overall performance in terms of muster roll verification, number of works inspected at district and block levels was good but the progress in terms of disposal of complaints was better compare to that during but was not satisfactory in majority of districts in Rajasthan during these two reference years. The percentages of complaints disposed at different levels in Rajasthan in and were 87.3 per cent and 86.1 per cent respectively. Among the study districts, Sri Ganganagar and Banswara were the bad performers where respectively 72.3 per cent and 75.6 per cent complaints were resolved in Only 567 out of 784 complaints in Sri Ganganagar (72.3%) and 90 out of 119 complaints in Banswara (75.9%) were discussed and disposed during

53 Table 2.5A: Social auditing and inspection of NREGA work during (Till 31 Aug 2010) Name of The District No. of Muster Rolls Used Must Roll Verified Social Audit Inspections Conducted Gram Sabha and VMCs Held Complaints No of % of GP No. of % of No. of % of VMC No. of No. of % of Total GP where Total Works Gram Gram VMC Works Works Works metings Compla Muster Muster No. where social Works Inspecte Sabhas Sabhas held meting Inspected Inspected Inspected held (% ints Rolls Rolls of social Audit Taken up d at held (% of total s held at District at Block at Block of total Receive Verified Verified GPs Audit held District (No.) no. of GPs) (No.) Level Level Level no. of d held Level GPs) No of Compl % of aints Complaint Dispos s Disposed ed Banswara (100.0) (27.4) (10.0) 947 (90.0) 307 (100.0) 1482 (482.7) (33.7) Karauli (91.6) (3.4) 510 (87.9) 125 (56.1) 0 (0.0) (92.5) Jaisalmer (98.2) (96.1) (100.0) 256 (100.0) 128 (100.0) 48 (37.5) (100.0) Nagaur (100.0) (5.9) (3.9) (276.8) 0 (0.0) 27 (5.9) (67.3) Sri Ganganagar (99.5) (57.8) (0.3) 1290 (12.8) 185 (57.8) 0 (0.0) (60.7) Dungarpur (100.0) (32.1) (12.4) 685 (100.0) 76 (32.1) 0 (0.0) (77.4) Jhalawar (87.6) (51.2) (10.9) 276 (111.3) 129 (51.2) 0 (0.0) (96.3) Sirohi (90.6) (100.0) (0.4) 4207 (100.0) 151 (100.0) 0 (0.0) (43.9) Udaipur (80.1) (100.0) (7.1) 8613 (100.0) 467 (100.0) 0 (0.0) (76.5) Barmer (90.1) (21.0) 3006 (79.0) 380 (100.0) 0 (0.0) (92.6) Chittorgarh (100.0) (31.9) (10.1) 1751 (263.3) 92 (31.9) 0 (0.0) (62.4) Jalore (92.1) (0.8) (13.1) 2174 (86.9) 264 (100.0) 264 (100.0) (91.1) Sawai Madhopur (100.0) (98.5) (100.0) 311 (100.0) 197 (100.0) 197 (100.0) (89.5) Tonk (99.8) (2.6) (2.7) 8414 (89.7) 230 (100.0) 0 (0.0) (67.1) Ajmer (88.0) (10.0) (100.0) 93 (33.9) 0 (0.0) (61.4) Alwar (93.3) (4.0) (61.2) 3928 (1219.9) 19 (4.0) 80 (16.9) (69.6) Baran (100.0) (0.9) 1253 (18.1) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) (130.6) Bharatpur (100.0) (46.4) (9.8) 652 (100.0) 327 (88.1) 144 (38.8) (92.0) Bhilwara (100.0) (22.5) (1.3) 5147 (98.7) 86 (22.5) 0 (0.0) (72.0) Bikaner (100.0) (8.2) (2.4) 2335 (13.3) 18 (8.2) 0 (0.0) (95.9) Bundi (100.0) (89.5) (46.3) 1746 (178.2) 162 (89.5) 0 (0.0) (79.6) Churu (100.0) (100.0) (4.1) 360 (61.1) 249 (100.0) 154 (61.8) (72.0) Dausa (92.0) (13.1) 320 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) (79.2) Dholpur (92.7) (100.0) (9.9) 203 (100.0) 153 (100.0) 0 (0.0) (47.7) Hanumangarh (100.0) (72.9) (8.5) 5901 (269.7) 183 (72.9) 183 (72.9) (87.0) Jaipur (100.0) (34.4) (48.5) (1894.8) 417 (85.5) 253 (51.8) (88.9) Jhunjhunu (100.0) (1.0) (9.8) 498 (100.0) 288 (100.0) 0 (0.0) (77.4) Jodhpur (100.0) (0.9) 2569 (100.0) 339 (100.0) 0 (0.0) (75.0) Kota (100.0) (89.7) (10.0) 3226 (100.0) 155 (99.4) 0 (0.0) 0 10 (0.0) Pali (100.0) (2.5) (147.3) (4804.9) 320 (100.0) 1600 (500.0) (61.8) Pratapgarh (97.1) (2.6) (28.3) 380 (275.4) 152 (100.0) 152 (100.0) 6 5 (83.3) Rajsamand (100.0) (14.1) (90.3) 5114 (1839.6) 205 (100.0) 205 (100.0) 14 7 (50.0) Sikar (100.0) (8.2) (3.1) 2668 (100.0) 27 (8.2) 0 (0.0) (61.3) State (96.6) (32.2) (7.2) (129.3) 5924 (64.6) 4789 (52.2) (79.3) Note: Percentage in brackets are percentage of state total; Source: nrega.nic.in; Accessed on 10th September

54 Table 2.5B: Social auditing and inspection of NREGA work during Must Roll Verified Social Audit Inspections Conducted Gram Sabha and VMCs Held Complaints Name of The District No. of % of Muster No. of Muster Muster Rolls Rolls Rolls Verified Used Verified Total No. of GPs No of GP where social Audit held % of GP where social Audit held Total Works Taken up No. of Works Inspected at District Level % of Works No. of Inspected at Works District Inspected at Level Block Level % of Works Inspected at Block Level Gram Sabhas held (No.) Gram Sabhas held (% of total no. of GPs) VMC metings held (No.) VMC metings held (% of total no. of GPs) No of No. of Complai % of Complain nts Complaints ts Dispose Disposed Received d Banswara (100.0) (100.0) (9.9) 986 (100.0) 366 (100.3) 325 (89.0) (75.6) Karauli (100.0) (91.1) (12.3) 182 (101.7) 204 (91.1) 223 (99.6) (95.6) Jaisalmer (95.1) (100.0) (100.0) 1024 (100.0) 128 (100.0) 39 (30.5) (100.0) Nagaur (89.1) (99.8) (16.4) (1158.2) 460 (99.8) 460 (99.8) (98.5) Sri Ganganagar (100.0) (100.0) (0.5) 1061 (11.0) 320 (100.0) 0 (0.0) (72.3) Dungarpur (100.0) (100.0) (9.3) 569 (100.0) 237 (100.0) 0 (0.0) (86.7) Jhalawar (100.0) (99.6) (47.4) 296 (155.8) 251 (99.6) 0 (0.0) (88.0) Sirohi (84.7) (100.0) (4.1) 2520 (100.0) 151 (100.0) 0 (0.0) (56.8) Udaipur (97.4) (100.0) (2.3) (100.0) 498 (100.0) 0 (0.0) (98.0) Barmer (90.2) (100.0) (28.1) 3080 (71.9) 380 (100.0) 380 (100.0) (83.1) Chittorgarh (100.0) (100.0) (0.0) 0 (0.0) 288 (100.0) 0 (0.0) (100.0) Jalore (100.0) (99.6) (17.6) 7611 (148.1) 261 (98.9) 0 (0.0) (89.5) Sawai Madhopur (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) 79 (100.0) 197 (100.0) 6750 (3426.4) (54.7) Tonk (95.0) (100.0) (1.7) (79.0) 230 (100.0) 0 (0.0) (94.3) Ajmer (100.0) (97.8) (99.7) (104.7) 302 (109.4) 0 (0.0) (72.1) Alwar (100.0) (99.2) (10.0) 4010 (100.0) 474 (99.2) 0 (0.0) (86.8) Baran (100.0) (100.0) (0.0) 0 (0.0) 249 (116.4) 0 (0.0) (99.1) Bharatpur (100.0) (100.0) (26.1) 142 (100.0) 371 (100.0) 26 (7.0) (94.4) Bhilwara (100.0) (100.0) (1.8) 3669 (98.2) 383 (100.0) 0 (0.0) (75.7) Bikaner (100.0) (100.0) (7.0) 7540 (53.2) 219 (100.0) 0 (0.0) (96.2) Bundi (100.0) (100.0) (55.0) 9072 (732.2) 181 (100.0) 0 (0.0) (85.5) Churu (95.7) (0.0) 0 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 8172 (3281.9) (79.7) Dausa (95.0) (100.0) (4.6) 1342 (100.0) 225 (100.0) 0 (0.0) (77.5) Dholpur (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) 39 (100.0) 114 (74.5) 10 (6.5) (92.3) Hanumangarh (100.0) (100.0) (14.6) (288.8) 251 (100.0) 251 (100.0) (68.4) Jaipur (100.0) (100.0) (1.9) (85.4) 330 (67.6) 0 (0.0) (92.8) Jhunjhunu (100.0) (100.0) (10.0) 1812 (100.0) 288 (100.0) 288 (100.0) (96.7) Jodhpur (100.0) (100.0) (1.4) 863 (100.0) 339 (100.0) 0 (0.0) (88.9) Kota (100.0) (100.0) (10.0) 3452 (100.0) 156 (100.0) 0 (0.0) (0.0) Pali (100.0) (100.0) (42.8) (1509.3) 320 (100.0) 1600 (500.0) (98.6) Pratapgarh 0 0 (0.0) 0 0 (0.0) 0 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 0 (0.0) Rajsamand (100.0) (100.0) (121.9) (4929.1) 243 (118.0) 206 (100.0) (94.6) Sikar (100.0) (100.0) (1.1) 4484 (56.9) 329 (100.0) 0 (0.0) (83.7) Rajasthan state (97.8) (96.9) (18.0) (137.6) 8745 (95.9) (205.4) (86.1) Note: Percentage in brackets are percentage of state total; Source: nrega.nic.in; Accessed on 10th September

55 Table 2.5C: Social auditing and inspection of NREGA work during Must Roll Verified Social Audit Inspections Conducted Gram Sabha and VMCs Held Complaints Name of The District No. of % of Muster No. of Muster Muster Rolls Rolls Rolls Verified Used Verified Total No. of GPs No of GP where social Audit held % of GP where social Audit held Total Works Taken up No. of Works Inspected at District Level % of Works No. of Inspected at Works District Inspected at Level Block Level % of Works Inspected at Block Level Gram Sabhas held (No.) Gram Sabhas held (% of total no. of GPs) VMC metings held (No.) VMC metings held (% of total no. of GPs) No of No. of Complai % of Complain nts Complaints ts Dispose Disposed Received d Banswara (79.1) (100.0) (9.1) 3347 (90.9) 324 (100.0) 324 (100.0) (85.3) Karauli (100.0) (100.0) (6.6) 1925 (124.2) 448 (100.0) 15 (3.3) (96.9) Jaisalmer (100.0) (100.0) (29.4) 2486 (100.0) 128 (100.0) 256 (200.0) (100.0) Nagaur (100.0) (100.0) (63.9) (2994.3) 922 (200.0) 922 (200.0) (47.6) Sri Ganganagar (107.0) (100.0) (4.8) (100.0) 320 (100.0) 0 (0.0) (84.4) Dungarpur (100.0) (100.0) (110.0) 879 (110.0) 237 (100.0) 0 (0.0) (83.7) Jhalawar (100.0) (100.0) (96.2) 504 (100.0) 0 (0.0) (99.4) Sirohi (94.3) (100.0) (6.6) 7935 (100.0) 151 (100.0) 0 (0.0) (94.7) Udaipur (100.0) (100.0) (1.7) (98.9) 498 (100.0) 2410 (483.9) (95.7) Barmer (84.6) (97.9) (71.8) 372 (97.9) 372 (97.9) (88.4) Chittorgarh (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) 4965 (100.0) 782 (100.0) 782 (100.0) (98.8) Jalore (97.9) (100.0) (9.0) 6761 (68.4) 261 (98.9) 0 (0.0) (87.4) Sawai Madhopur (100.0) (100.0) (81.8) 197 (100.0) 150 (76.1) (84.3) Tonk (89.7) (100.0) (2.6) (92.7) 470 (204.3) 0 (0.0) (92.2) Ajmer (100.0) (99.3) (632.7) 2962 (63.3) 552 (100.0) 4585 (830.6) (84.8) Alwar (100.0) (100.0) (10.0) (100.0) 478 (100.0) 1954 (408.8) (590.2) Baran (100.0) (100.0) (5.3) 2675 (116.5) 654 (101.4) 654 (101.4) (53.9) Bharatpur (100.0) (100.0) (0.0) 0 (0.0) Bhilwara (100.0) (100.0) (8.3) 7521 (100.0) 762 (100.0) 1683 (220.9) (88.5) Bikaner (100.0) (99.5) (11.9) 6811 (100.0) 218 (99.5) 0 (0.0) (67.8) Bundi (100.0) (100.0) (59.5) 7336 (345.1) 283 (156.4) 859 (474.6) (89.4) Churu (89.6) (99.8) (10.0) 3236 (100.0) 498 (100.0) 498 (100.0) (117.2) Dausa (94.2) (100.0) (6.1) 836 (86.0) 223 (100.0) 196 (87.9) (73.5) Dholpur (100.0) (100.0) (82.7) 2189 (100.0) 153 (100.0) 153 (100.0) (96.8) Hanumangarh (100.0) (100.0) (90.8) (1730.5) 251 (100.0) 251 (100.0) (78.7) Jaipur (96.6) (100.0) (29.1) (736.0) 488 (100.0) 2712 (555.7) (98.9) Jhunjhunu (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) 1334 (100.0) 288 (100.0) 288 (100.0) (100.0) Jodhpur (100.0) (100.0) (3.2) 1939 (96.8) 1319 (389.1) 339 (100.0) (100.0) Kota (100.0) (100.0) (10.0) 1855 (90.0) 316 (100.0) 0 (0.0) (0.0) Pali (100.0) (100.0) (200.0) 640 (200.0) (94.0) Pratapgarh Rajsamand (100.0) (100.0) (22.7) (560.7) 412 (200.0) 0 (0.0) (98.8) Sikar (100.0) (100.0) (11.6) 6044 (266.6) 329 (100.0) 301 (91.5) (89.6) Rajasthan state (97.0) (99.9) (44.3) (162.6) (116.8) (176.2) (87.3) Note: Percentage in brackets are percentage of state total; Source: nrega.nic.in; Accessed on 10th September

56 It is disheartening to see that proper care has not been taken even in creating a reliable database. Even social audit results have been reported wrongly on the NREGA official website. For example, the transparency report for Rajasthan for (till March end) shows that 242 complaints have been disposed against 41 complaints received in Alwar district. Similarly, it is stated that 593 complaints have been disposed against 506 complaints received in Churu district in In the case of Sri Ganganagar, the number of muster rolls verified (145125) is more than the number of muster rolls used (135585) in In the case of all three reference years , and , a large number of mismatches are found in terms of number of works inspected at block and district level against the number of works taken up. During , three instances of such mismatch were observed that pertain to districts Ajmer, Nagaur and Pali. It is disheartening to note that no works have been taken up in in Pali but the number of works inspected at district level and block level is and respectively (Table 2.5C). Similarly in Nagaur, numbers of works have been inspected at block level against a total number of works taken up of These are the some instances showing possible discrepancies in the database of NREGA website. Alternatively, the previous year s cases could have been handled in the year at hand. Even if that was the case, it should not have been in case of works taken up and inspection. At least, the works taken up in a particular year should have been inspected in the same year. Examining the works taken up and inspected in Pali district sounds illogical that reduces the reliability of database. Since these databases are used for periodical evaluation of the scheme and policy formulation, utmost care must be taken in building reliable database The NREGA Payment Processed though Banks/Post Offices As per the NREGA provision, all payments of NREGA wages through banks (or post offices) are useful means of separating payment agencies from implementing agencies. Bank /post office accounts should be opened pro-actively on behalf of all concerned labourers by an appropriate authority (e.g. Bank or Gram Panchayat). Labourers should not be required to open their own bank account. A considered choice needs to be made between individual accounts (for each NREGA labourer) and joint accounts (one for each Job Card). If joint accounts are used, the different household members (e.g. husband and wife) should be co-signatories. Keeping these guidelines in view, it may be seen from Tables 2.6A, 2.6B and 2.6C that the NREGA 43

57 beneficiary households in various districts in Rajasthan have used both banks and post offices evenly for making wage payment towards NREGA works. However, as expected, the number of joint accounts in both the cases is considerably lower in all reference years. About 9, 62,262 joint accounts and 35, 24,033 individual accounts were opened with banks and 2, 38,194 joint accounts and 46, 99,925 individual accounts were opened with post offices in the current year in Rajasthan (Table 2.6A). The total amount disbursed for wage payment through banks and post offices was Rs 1,50,386 lakhs in in Rajasthan, out of which, Rs 84, Lakhs was disbursed through banks and Rs 65, lakhs was disbursed through post offices. Among the districts of Rajasthan, Udaipur had maximum number of NREGA beneficiaries with individual bank accounts (2, 78,579) and Dungarpur had maximum number of NREGA beneficiaries with joint accounts (2, 36,453) in (till August 2010). Nagaur district topped in total number of bank/post office accounts opened (4, 92,445) for payment of NREGA wages constituting about 5.2 per cent of total bank/post office accounts opened in Rajasthan during (till August 2010) whereas Jhunjhunu had least number bank/post office accounts opened (88,446) for payment of NREGA wages during the same period in Rajasthan. Among the study districts of Rajasthan, Sri Ganganagar had more number of NREGA beneficiaries with individual bank accounts (2, 55,005) constituting about 7.2 per cent of total individual bank accounts opened in Rajasthan and Banswara had more number of NREGA beneficiaries with joint accounts (2, 23,091) constituting about 23.2 per cent of total joint bank accounts opened in Rajasthan in Nagaur district topped in total number of bank/post office accounts opened whereas Jaisalmer had least number bank/post office accounts opened (1, 24,939) for payment of NREGA wages constituting about 1.3 per cent of total bank/post office accounts opened during the same period in Rajasthan. As far as performance of NREGA payment process through banks/post offices during is concerned, Table 2.6B shows that 10, 11,389 joint accounts and 35, 02,642 individual accounts were opened with banks and 4, 25,761 joint accounts and 43, 90,475 individual accounts were opened with post offices in the year in Rajasthan. The total amount disbursed for wage payment through banks and post offices was Rs 3, 57,972 lakhs in in Rajasthan. During the year , not a single joint account was opened in banks in 15 out of 33 districts and absence of 44

58 joint account in post offices was observed in 17 out of 33 districts in Rajasthan. The predominance of individual accounts in the state is not good considering the fact that the individual account of a household is generally made in the name of the household head who happens to be a male member. There is larger chance that the women who actually participate more in NREGA works are left with no control over their earnings. In this regard, the operational guidelines of NREGA (2008) clearly say that special care should be taken to avoid crediting household earnings to individual accounts held by the male household head. As regards the performance of the study districts during , Sri Ganganagar had more number of NREGA beneficiaries with individual bank accounts (2, 52, 645) constituting about 7.2 per cent of total individual bank accounts opened and Banswara had more number of NREGA beneficiaries with joint accounts (2, 19,949) constituting about 21.7 per cent of total joint bank accounts opened in Rajasthan in Sri Ganganagar district topped in total number of bank/post office accounts opened (2, 90,271) for payment of NREGA wages constituting about 3.1 per cent of total bank/post office accounts opened in Rajasthan during whereas Jaisalmer had least number bank/post office accounts opened (68,849) for payment of NREGA wages constituting about 0.7 per cent of total bank/post office accounts opened during the same period in Rajasthan. During , 27, 86, 564 individual accounts and 6, 12,662 joint accounts were opened with banks and 37, 95, 010 individual accounts and 1, 65, 224 joint accounts were opened with post offices in Rajasthan (Table 2.6C). The total amount disbursed for wage payment through banks and post offices taken together was Rs 3, 24, 131 lakhs during in Rajasthan. It may be noted that, not a single joint account was opened in banks in 57.6 per cent (19 out of 33) districts and absence of joint account in post offices was observed in 63.6 per cent (21 out of 33) districts in Rajasthan during Thus there has been a small improvement in opening of joint accounts during and over The performance of various study districts in making payment through banks/post offices during was quite similar to that during and Sri Ganganagar was found to have more number of NREGA beneficiaries with individual bank accounts (2,03,755) constituting about 7.3 per cent of total individual bank accounts opened in Rajasthan and Banswara had more number of NREGA beneficiaries with joint accounts (2,12,735) constituting about 34.7 per cent of total joint bank accounts opened in 45

59 Rajasthan in Nagaur district also topped in total number of bank/post office accounts opened (3, 07,671) for payment of NREGA wages constituting about 4.2 per cent of total bank/post office accounts opened in Rajasthan during whereas Karauli had least number bank/post office accounts opened (1, 94,315) for payment of NREGA wages constituting about 2.6 per cent of total bank/post office accounts opened during the same period in Rajasthan. Table 2.6A: The NREGA payment processed though banks/post office during (Till Aug 2010) Name Of NO. of Bank Account Amount of No. of Post Office Amount of Total Accounts Total The District Opened wages Account Opened Wages disbursed Amount Individual Joint Disbursed Individual Joint through post Individual Joint Total Disbursed through bank office (Rs.in Accounts (Rs. Accounts(Rs. in lakhs) in Lakhs) lakhs) =2+5 9=3+6 10=8+9 11=4+7 Banswara (0.4) (23.2) (11.9) (0.0) (3.7) (0.2) (0.2) (19.3) (2.6) (6.8) Karauli (1.9) (0.9) (2.5) (3.1) (0.0) (10.3) (2.6) (0.8) (2.3) (6.0) Jaisalmer (0.9) (0.9) (0.9) (1.6) (3.7) (1.4) (1.3) (1.5) (1.3) (1.1) Nagaur (3.8) (1.3) (2.2) (7.4) (0.4) (5.5) (5.8) (1.1) (5.2) (3.7) Sri Ganganagar (7.2) (1.6) (3.0) (0.5) (0.5) (0.3) (3.4) (1.4) (3.1) (1.8) Dungarpur Jhalawar Sirohi Udaipur Barmer Chittorgarh Jalore Sawai Madhopur Tonk Ajmer Alwar Baran Bharatpur Bhilwara Bikaner Bundi Churu Dausa Dholpur Hanumanga Jaipur Jhunjhunu Jodhpur Kota Pali Pratapgarh Rajsamand Sikar State (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Note: Percentage in brackets are percentage of state total. Source: nrega.nic.in; Accessed on 10th September

60 Table 2.6B: The NREGA payment processed though banks/post office during Name Of NO. of Bank Amount of No. of Post Office Amount of Total Accounts The Account Opened wages Account Opened Wages disbursed District Joint Disbursed Individual Joint through post Individual Joint Total Individua l Total Amount Disbursed(R s.in lakhs) through bank office Accounts (Rs. Accounts(Rs. in in Lakhs) lakhs) =2+5 9=3+6 10=8+9 11=4+7 Banswara (0.5) (21.7) (8.9) (0.0) (3.2) (0.1) (0.2) (16.3) (2.7) (4.7) Karauli (1.8) (0.8) (1.0) (3.0) (9.9) (4.1) (2.5) (3.5) (2.6) (2.5) Jaisalmer (0.5) (0.6) (0.3) (1.0) (0.3) (0.5) (0.8) (0.5) (0.7) (0.4) Nagaur (3.8) (0.9) (2.3) (7.2) (0.2) (6.9) (5.7) (0.7) (4.9) (4.5) Sri Ganganagar (7.2) (1.3) (4.0) (0.5) (0.2) (0.6) (3.5) (1.0) (3.1) (2.3) Dungarpur Jhalawar Sirohi Udaipur Barmer Chittorgarh Jalore Sawai Madhopur Tonk Ajmer Alwar Baran Bharatpur Bhilwara Bikaner Bundi Churu Dausa Dholpur Hanumanga rh Jaipur Jhunjhunu Jodhpur Kota Pali Pratapgarh Rajsamand Sikar State (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Note: Percentage in brackets are percentage of state total. Source: nrega.nic.in; Accessed on 10th September

61 Table 2.6C: The NREGA payment processed though banks/post office during Name Of NO. of Bank Amount of No. of Post Office Amount of Total Accounts T he District Account Opened wages Account Opened Wages disbursed Individual Joint Disbursed Individual Joint through post Individual Joint T otal through bank office Accounts (Rs. Accounts(Rs. in in Lakhs) lakhs) Banswara Karauli Jaisalmer Nagaur Sri =2+5 9=3+6 10=8+9 11= (0.6) (34.7) (2.6) (0.1) (9.7) (9.3) (0.3) (29.4) (3.4) (5.5) (2.1) (1.3) (0.6) (2.3) (24.3) (1.8) (2.2) (6.2) (2.6) (1.1) (2.1) (1.6) (0.2) (2.6) (16.5) (0.5) (2.4) (4.8) (2.6) (0.3) (2.7) (0.1) (2.1) (6.1) (0.5) (7.5) (4.6) (0.2) (4.2) (4.4) (7.3) (2.1) (7.7) (0.4) (1.5) (1.2) (3.3) (1.9) (3.2) (4.9) Ganganagar Dungarpur Jhalawar Sirohi Udaipur Barmer Chittorgarh Jalore Sawai Madhopur Total Amount Disbursed (Rs.in lakhs) T onk Ajmer Alwar Baran Bharatpur Bhilwara Bikaner Bundi Churu Dausa Dholpur Hanumanga Jaipur Jhunjhunu Jodhpur Kota Pali Pratapgarh Rajsamand Sikar State (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Note: Percentage in brackets are percentage of state total. Source: nrega.nic.in; Accessed on 10th September It may be noted that in some districts like Hanumangarh and Sawai Madhopur, no payments were made to beneficiaries either through banks or post offices even if a large number of individual accounts in banks and post offices were available. In case of Sawai Madhopur district, a total of individual accounts (banks and post offices) were in the names of NREGA workers in but none of them received a single rupee during the same year either through banks or post offices(table 2.6C). 48

62 In case of Bundi district, individual bank account holders and 5350 joint bank account holders participating in NREGA work during did not get wage at all through any bank whereas all the NREGA workers having post office accounts managed to get their wages accounting to Rs lakhs (Table 2.6B). It seems that there were some problems with bank transactions The Payment of Unemployment Allowance As per the Act, if a worker who has applied for work under NREGA is not provided employment within 15 days from the date on which work is requested, an unemployment allowance shall be payable by the State Government at the rate prescribed in the Act. This entitlement comes into effect as soon as the Act is notified in a particular District or area. It was recommended that unemployment allowances should be paid on a weekly basis at the Gram Panchayat level, on employment guarantee day. The payment of unemployment allowance shall be made no later than 15 days from the date on which it becomes due for payment (NREGA, Section 7(5)). In the event of any delay, the recipients shall be entitled to compensation based on the same principles as wage compensation under the Payment of Wages Act, Compensation costs shall be borne by the State Government. So far as payment of unemployment allowance in Rajasthan is concerned, we found very scary picture throughout the state. We did not find any data prior to on the NREGA website on the details of unemployment allowance due and payment made. Though unemployment allowance was due for 21,886 days covering 30 out of 33 districts during (till August 2010), not a single rupee was paid to the NREGA work participants (Table 2.7). The maximum number of days of unemployment allowance due was found in Dungarpur district (3311), followed by Tonk district (5164) and Sri Ganganagar (3427) during On the other hands, in some districts like Chittorgarh, Sirohi and Sikar, no unemployment allowance due was found during the same year. 49

63 Table 2.7: Unemployment allowance paid in lieu of not providing employment ( ) District Unemployment allowance due Unemployment allowance paid No. of Days No. of Days Amount Ajmer 79 (0.4) 0 0 Alwar 618 (2.8) 0 0 Banswara 178 (0.8) 0 0 Baran 123 (0.6) 0 0 Barmer 219 (1.0) 0 0 Bharatpur 15 (0.1) 0 0 Bhilwara 60 (0.3) 0 0 Bikaner 301 (1.4) 0 0 Bundi 120 (0.5) 0 0 Chittorgarh 153 (0.7) 0 0 Churu 0 (0.0) 0 0 Dausa 146 (0.7) 0 0 Dholpur 3 (0.0) 0 0 Dungarpur 3311 (15.1) 0 0 Hanumangarh 1748 (8.0) 0 0 Jaipur 1092 (5.0) 0 0 Jaisalmer 110 (0.5) 0 0 Jalore 95 (0.4) 0 0 Jhalawar 888 (4.1) 0 0 Jhunjhunu 718 (3.3) 0 0 Jodhpur 67 (0.3) 0 0 Karauli 306 (1.4) 0 0 Kota 1275 (5.8) 0 0 Nagaur 157 (0.7) 0 0 Pali 31 (0.1) 0 0 Pratapgarh 980 (4.5) 0 0 Rajsamand 411 (1.9) 0 0 Sawai Madhopur 76 (0.3) 0 0 Sikar 0 (0.0) 0 0 Sirohi 0 (0.0) 0 0 Sri Ganganagar 3427 (15.7) 0 0 Tonk 5164 (23.6) 0 0 Udaipur 15 (0.1) 0 0 State (100.0) 0 0 Notes: Bracketed figures are percentages of total number of days of the state for unemployment allowance due. Source: nrega.nic.in; Accessed on 10th September The payment of unemployment allowance is the state s responsibility. Very often, it was revealed by some key informants that the space box for date was 50

64 intentionally kept blank in the employment demand form and the date was put only when the work was sanctioned, so on paper, there was no one who fulfilled the criteria to get the unemployment allowance. This was one of the reasons why until now not a single case of unemployment allowances in whole of Rajasthan came up in the years 3. The lack of awareness and ignorance of the NREGA workers about the procedure adopted for applying the job was the major cause of their failure to get any unemployment allowance The Work Projection under NREGA The major objectives of NREGA are to generate employment in rural areas and to create durable assets that will help rural people to take up better livelihood generation activities in future. Keeping in view the future prospects of assets, the Act indicates the kinds of works that may be taken up for this purpose. As per Schedule I of the Act, the focus of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) has been on the following works: (i) Water conservation and water harvesting; (ii) Drought proofing, including afforestation and tree plantation; (iii) Irrigation canals, including micro and minor irrigation works; (iv) Provision of irrigation facility, plantation, horticulture, land development to land owned by households belonging to the SC/ST, or to land of the beneficiaries of land reforms, or to land of the beneficiaries under the Indira Awas Yojana/BPL families (v) Renovation of traditional water bodies, including de-silting of tanks; (vi) Land development; (vii) flood-control and protection works, including drainage in waterlogged areas; (viii) Rural connectivity to provide all-weather access 4 ; 3 On 7 th December 2010, 17 workers from Jagabor in Dungarpur district of Rajasthan received Rs 375 each as unemployment allowance under NREGA. For these workers, the satisfaction of getting the money was compounded by the fact that they were paid their dues after almost one year and after lodging protests through a NGO Wagad Mazdoor Kisan Sangathan. What makes them the lucky few, however, is that not many rural poor in the country actually get this allowance (Nichenametla, 2011). In 2009, a lone labourer in Bhilwara district of Rajasthan was also paid the allowance after a social audit (Times of India, 2011). 4 As per the NREGA guidelines, the construction of roads may include culverts where necessary, and within the village area may be taken up along with drains. The roads included in the PMGSY network should not be taken up under NREGA. No cement concrete roads should be taken up under NREGA. Priority should be given to roads that give access to SC/ST habitations. 51

65 (ix) Any other work that may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government. It may be noted from Table 2.8 that provision of irrigation facility and rural connectivity works dominated among the works that spilled over from the previous year in Rajasthan state as whole. About 29,219 number of irrigation structures (31.4%) and 24,017 number of rural connectivity works (25.8%) were spilled over from the previous year in Rajasthan. Among other major NREGA works that have been spilled over from the previous year were water conservation and water harvesting (12.4%), renovation of traditional water bodies (10.5%), drought proofing (8.1%) and land development works (5.2%). Among the works those have been newly taken up in the current year , provision of irrigation facility and rural connectivity works have also dominated in Rajasthan. The total number of new works proposed for the next financial year for Rajasthan state as whole is 7, 49,521. The provision of irrigation facility and rural connectivity works also dominated among the new works proposed for the next financial year The estimated person-days to be generated from the rural connectivity works and the provision of irrigation facility constitute respectively 42.4 per cent and 12.1 per cent of total estimated 225, 16, 20,705 person-days to be generated in Rajasthan during The estimated total cost of undertaking these works so as to generate such a large number of person-days in Rajasthan is Rs 8, 18, 67,232 lakhs. The estimated ratio of unskilled wages to material cost including skilled and semi-skilled wages is near about 60:40 for all activities taken under NREGA. It may be noted that 95.3 per cent of total estimated cost of undertaking the projected works is allocated to water conservation and water harvesting in Rajasthan since the most part of the state is water scarce and drought prone that require water harvesting in regular basis. The total number of new works taken up during the current year ( ) was maximum of 32, 297 and was nil in Barmer district of Rajasthan. The analysis of the works projection in various districts of Rajasthan revealed that the total number of new works proposed for the next financial year was maximum of 56,738 for Udaipur district and was minimum of 147 for Sikar district. However, the cost of undertaking new projects was estimated to be maximum in Dausa district (Rs 7, 59,818) and minimum in Sirohi district (Rs 523). 52

66 Table 2.8: Work projection under NREGA for Shelf of works Total No. Total No. No. of Works Through Which of Spill Of New Likely to Spill Employment to be over Works Works Over From Provided From Previous year Taken up in Current Year Current Year to Next year Rural Connectivity Flood Control and Protection Water Conservation and Water Harvesting Drought Proofing Micro Irrigation Works Provision of Irrigation facility Renovation of Traditional Water bodies Land Development Any Other activity Approved by MRD Total Rural Connectivity Flood Control and Protection Water Conservation and Drought Proofing Micro Irrigation Works Provision of Irrigation facility Renovation of Traditional Water bodies Land Development Any Other activity Approved by MRD Total No. Of New Works Proposed for next year Rajasthan state Benefit Achieved Unit Persondays To be Generated Estimated Cost (In Lakhs) On Unskilled Wage On Material including skilled and semiskilled wages Total (25.8) (25.8) (28.3) (21.7) (2.5) (42.4) (39.9) (0.9) (2.2) (1.9) (3.0) (2.4) (1.9) (0.4) (2.1) (10.1) (0.1) (0.4) (12.4) (10.0) (13.0) (13.2) (45.8) (13.7) (12.9) (98.3) (95.3) (8.1) (6.1) (4.7) (3.3) (1.0) (5.0) (3.8) (0.0) (0.2) (3.7) (3.8) (3.4) (3.2) (2.7) (9.3) (6.9) (0.3) (0.5) (31.4) (35.0) (35.9) (42.8) (1.1) (12.1) (9.9) (0.2) (0.5) (10.5) (6.4) (7.3) (7.5) (45.3) (10.9) (9.9) (0.1) (0.5) (5.2) (9.0) (4.4) (4.6) (1.0) (3.4) (5.7) (0.0) (0.2) (1.1) (0.8) (0.6) (1.8) (0.1) (1.1) (0.9) (0.1) (0.1) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Banswara district (14.2) (19.5) (13.6) (12.7) (16.1) (16.0) (20.8) (18.0) (2.1) (5.6) (6.0) (7.7) (9.3) (9.4) (5.7) (7.9) (10.3) (21.0) (16.0) (27.3) (24.7) (24.9) (24.6) (24.8) (14.2) (7.0) (23.1) (3.8) (6.1) (6.1) (3.0) (4.8) (9.5) (10.0) (6.6) (12.5) (13.9) (13.9) (20.2) (16.5) (42.5) (23.9) (25.8) (25.1) (15.7) (15.9) (14.1) (15.2) (1.6) (1.2) (1.3) (2.4) (3.5) (2.9) (2.1) (2.5) (5.5) (9.5) (7.0) (7.0) (8.6) (8.7) (4.4) (6.9) (0.0) (2.3) (0.5) (1.7) (2.2) (2.2) (5.0) (3.4) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) 53

67 Table 2.8 (Continued) Shelf of works Total Through Which Employment to be Provided Rural Connectivity Flood Control and Protection Water Conservation and Water Harvesting Drought Proofing Micro Irrigation Works Provision of Irrigation facility Renovation of Traditional Water bodies Land Development Any Other activity Approved Total Rural Connectivity Flood Control and Protection Water Conservation and Water Harvesting Drought Proofing Micro Irrigation Works Provision of Irrigation facility Renovation of Traditional Water bodies Land Development Any Other activity Approved Total No. of Spill over Works From Previous year Total No. Of New Works Taken up in Current Year No. of Works Likely to Spill Over From Current Year to Next year No. Of New Works Proposed for next year Karauli district On Unskilled Wage On Material including skilled and semiskilled wages Total (58.7) (32.3) (8.4) (31.2) (34.7) (41.6) (28.1) (36.5) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.1) (1.5) (1.7) (1.3) (1.5) (25.0) (46.8) (91.6) (48.1) (40.1) (31.6) (46.2) (37.1) (10.6) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (3.7) (3.1) (2.9) (3.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (1.6) (2.2) (1.4) (1.9) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.7) (2.7) (0.7) (1.9) (4.3) (7.0) (0.0) (8.9) (6.9) (8.1) (5.5) (7.1) (1.4) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (1.8) (1.5) (1.7) (1.6) (0.0) (14.0) (0.0) (11.8) (9.1) (7.6) (12.3) (9.4) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Jaisalmer district Benefit Achieved Unit Persondays To be Generated Estimated Cost (In Lakhs) (6.2) (7.3) (11.2) (10.3) (27.8) (28.1) (21.6) (25.5) (5.5) (1.3) (2.0) (2.2) (2.3) (2.6) (1.9) (2.3) (4.0) (2.7) (4.3) (4.7) (13.1) (13.0) (7.9) (10.9) (3.8) (37.2) (10.5) (14.8) (5.7) (5.2) (5.8) (5.4) (1.6) (1.0) (1.3) (2.4) (4.9) (4.8) (1.8) (3.6) (53.3) (41.3) (56.1) (51.3) (27.6) (23.6) (27.5) (25.2) (23.7) (5.5) (10.4) (8.3) (10.6) (12.0) (12.2) (12.0) (1.9) (2.7) (4.1) (6.1) (7.3) (9.8) (11.8) (10.6) (0.0) (0.9) (0.2) (0.0) (0.7) (0.9) (9.8) (4.5) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) 54

68 Table 2.8 (Continued) Shelf of works Total Through Which Employment to be Provided Rural Connectivity Flood Control and Protection Water Conservation and Water Harvesting Drought Proofing Micro Irrigation Works Provision of Irrigation facility Renovation of Traditional Water bodies Land Development Any Other activity Approved by MRD Total Rural Connectivity Flood Control and Protection Water Conservation and Water Harvesting Drought Proofing Micro Irrigation Works Provision of Irrigation facility No. of Spill over Works From Previous year Total No. Of New Works Taken up in Current Year No. of Works Likely to Spill Over From Current Year to Next year No. Of New Works Proposed for next year Nagaur district On Unskilled Wage On Material including skilled and semiskilled wages Total (16.4) (30.2) (35.6) (21.3) (35.5) (36.7) (52.3) (42.4) (0.5) (0.1) (0.2) (0.3) (0.9) (0.9) (0.4) (0.8) (14.7) (12.5) (3.7) (8.5) (4.5) (4.4) (6.3) (5.1) (4.2) (2.1) (3.3) (2.4) (4.1) (4.2) (2.9) (3.7) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (33.4) (43.4) (31.5) (48.0) (7.3) (7.6) (16.0) (10.7) (27.2) (10.6) (25.0) (8.4) (46.1) (44.3) (17.8) (34.7) (3.5) (0.2) (0.6) (9.7) (0.9) (0.9) (0.4) (0.7) (0.0) (0.9) (0.1) (1.2) (0.6) (0.8) (3.8) (1.9) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Sri Ganganagar district Benefit Achieved Unit Persondays To be Generated Estimated Cost (In Lakhs) (2.9) (0.8) (1.4) (1.3) (1.6) (4.1) (0.0) (0.2) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.2) (0.1) (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) (2.9) (0.0) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.0) (0.0) (1.0) (0.6) (0.7) (0.8) (1.2) (1.0) (0.0) (0.1) (0.7) (0.6) (0.8) (1.9) (1.7) (1.3) (0.0) (0.1) Renovation of Traditional Water bodies Land Development Any Other activity Approved Total (0.7) (0.2) (0.3) (0.3) (0.4) (0.3) (0.0) (0.0) (0.6) (0.3) (0.4) (0.3) (0.4) (0.5) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.4) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (6.2) (2.7) (4.0) (5.4) (5.8) (10.3) (0.1) (0.5) Source: nrega.nic.in; Accessed on 10th September

69 The analysis of the works projection in study districts reveals that the total number of new works proposed for the next financial year for Banswara, Karauli, Jaisalmer, Nagaur and Sri Ganganagar is 21902, 1980, 11633, and respectively. The total estimated cost of undertaking the projected works for the next financial year for the study districts Banswara, Karauli, Jaisalmer, Nagaur and Sri Ganganagar is Rs 87,231 lakhs, Rs 23,788 lakhs, Rs lakhs, Rs 2,32,751 lakhs and Rs 3,75,887 lakhs respectively. The composition of different kinds of works to be taken up in next financial year and the pattern of works spilled over from the to are more or less similar to that at the state level in Rajasthan. 2.5 Summary of the Chapter In this chapter, the performance and functioning of NREGA has been examined in terms of employment generated through NREGA and its socio economic characteristics, number of projects completed and total amount spent, social auditing and inspection of NREGA works, payment through bank or post office accounts, payment of unemployment allowance, work projection etc. Most of the districts in Rajasthan have performed exceptionally well in terms of employment generation under the scheme. Among NREGA workers, majority were women who were not working before the launch of NREGA. This has resulted in increase in their economic freedom and their standard of living. However, it was found that the weakest working person of the family was observed to be sent for NREGA work, the fittest person worked in better avenues. The caste composition of job card holders in Rajasthan revealed that, there exists a large extent of disparity among study districts in having different social groups. Only a few districts like Banswara, Pratapgarh and Barmer provided NREGA job cards to more ST HHs in the state. In Jaisalmer and Bikaner districts, beneficiary Other Backward Class HHs resided in large numbers. It is worth-mentioning that there is a declining trend in the number of HHs working under NREGA over the reference years in Rajasthan. There is also declining trend in participation of SCs, STs in NREGA jobs during the reference years. On the other hand, participation of Others category and General Caste category of HHs has increased over the reference years which could be visualized as a threat to the major objectives of the scheme. 56

70 Not only there was a declining trend in issue of job cards to lower social strata in Rajasthan, there was also a declining trend in cumulative person-days generated by these SC/ST HHs. The cumulative number of households completed 100 days of participation in the NREGA works in Rajasthan is also declining over the reference years. The exact causes of the declining trend in these important performance parameters are not clearly understood. The failure to plan and execute the works plan at villages in timely manner could be the possible reason for not being able to provide sufficient works to the workers, which, in turn, could be due to shortage of NREGA staff and line department staff. It was very encouraging to find that in previous years and , all households seeking jobs in all districts were provided jobs. Among the study districts, Banswara was found to be one of the best performers where 99.4 per cent job seeking HHs were provided jobs during As far as number of projects completed and total amount spent is concerned, it was found that, during (till August 2010), a total of 408 works were completed whereas works were in progress in entire Rajasthan. Out of these 408 completed works, a majority of 201 works (49.1%) were on rural connectivity and 92 works (22.5%) were on water conservation and water harvesting structures. The works related to the provision of irrigation facility to land development constituted a major share during two previous reference periods and However the nature of assets created was not very satisfactory as observed in the study districts. It was spotted that works have been taken up without proper planning at some places. For example, rural roads have been stopped at the middle of agricultural field due to some legal disputes since the work was not initiated with proper planning and due consultation of beneficiary farmers. Lack of awareness hinders the entire process including selection of assets created or to be created. The NREGA officials in the region reportedly expressed that, no proper and timely proposals are coming from Gram Sabha. Time shortage and staff shortage also affected the quality of assets created. No maintenance has been arranged after creation of the assets that threaten the durability of assets though huge amount of money has been spent on different ongoing and completed projects in all districts of Rajasthan during reference periods. Regarding social auditing and inspection of NREGA work in the study districts in Rajasthan, total number of blocks where social audit has been completed is still very less during reference periods and there has been no satisfactory progress in 57

71 terms of inspection of works at district and block levels during However, there has been a good progress on the fronts of muster rolls verification and number of Gramsabha and Vigilance and Monitoring Committee (VMC) meeting held during the same period. However, the overall performance of the scheme was satisfactory as per the social audit reports of and The performance in terms of disposal of complaints was not satisfactory in the majority of districts in Rajasthan during these two reference years. It is disheartening to see that proper care has not been taken even in creating a reliable database. It seems that the social audit results have been reported wrongly on the NREGA official website. Since these databases are used for periodical evaluation of the scheme and policy formulation, utmost care must be taken in building reliable database. As far as NREGA payment processed though banks/post offices is concerned, it was found that that various districts in Rajasthan have used both banks and post offices evenly for making wage payment towards NREGA works. However, as expected, the number of joint accounts in both the cases is considerably lower in all reference years. The total amount disbursed for wage payment through banks and post offices was Rs 1,50,386 lakhs in in Rajasthan, out of which, Rs 84, Lakhs was disbursed through banks and Rs 65, lakhs was disbursed through post offices. It may be noted that in some districts like Hanumangarh and Sawai Madhopur, no payments were made to beneficiaries either through banks or post offices even if a large number of individual accounts in banks and post offices were available. Similarly, in Bundi district, 1,50,974 individual bank account holders and 5,350 joint bank account holders participating in NREGA work during did not get wage at all through any bank whereas all the NREGA workers having post office accounts managed to get their wages accounting to Rs 6, lakhs. So far as payment of unemployment allowance in Rajasthan is concerned, we found very scary picture throughout the state. We did not find any data prior to on the NREGA website on the details of unemployment allowance due and payment made. Though unemployment allowance was due for days covering 30 out of 33 districts during (till August 2010), not a single rupee was paid to the concerned NREGA workers. The provision of irrigation facility and rural connectivity works dominated among the new works proposed for the next financial year The estimated person-days to be generated from the rural connectivity works and the provision of irrigation facility constitute respectively 42.4 per cent and 58

72 12.1 per cent of total estimated 225, 16, 20,705 person-days to be generated in Rajasthan during The estimated total cost of undertaking these works so as to generate such a large number of person-days in Rajasthan is Rs 8, 18, 67,232 lakhs. 59

73 Chapter 3 Household Characteristics, their Income and Consumption Pattern 3.1. Household Profile of the Respondents The NREGA targeted to provide guaranteed employment to underprivileged rural people in India. Since the landless or near-landless, SCs, STs, lower OBCs, casual labourers in agriculture and non-agriculture and BPL card holders are the intended beneficiaries of the scheme as envisaged by the NREGA, these categories of households should constitute the largest proportion of the beneficiaries. In order to understand the impact of the NREGA on their standard of living, it is essential to know about existing socio-economic characteristics of these households (HHs). In this context, the present chapter discusses the socio-economic profile of the sample households. The sample consisted of two types: beneficiary (200 HHs), and nonbeneficiary households (50 HHs). The 80 per cent of total sample households were beneficiary households and remaining 20 per cent were non-beneficiary households (Table 3.1). Thus, our sample included proportionately more beneficiary households. The average family size of a beneficiary household is 5.43 while that of nonbeneficiary households is About 2.5 members of a beneficiary household and 2.1members of a non-beneficiary household are income earners. Thus the dependency ratio for beneficiary household is about 54 per cent and that of non-beneficiary household is 61.4 per cent. In this respect, the beneficiary households enjoy better status over non-beneficiary households. It may be noted that the proportion of male members of a beneficiary HH (54.1%) is more than the female members (45.9%). In contrary, the proportion of female members of a non-beneficiary HH (50.9%) is more than the male members (49.1%). However, the proportion of per HH women participants in NREGA works (54.1%) was more than that of the men participants in NREGA works in Rajasthan. 60

74 Table 3.1: Demographic profile of the respondents. Characteristics Unit Beneficiaries Non Aggregate beneficiaries No of HH Household size No. per HH Average numbers of earners No. per HH Gender Age group Identity of respondent Education status Caste Card holding Decision maker Main occupation Male % of all member Female % of all member <16 % of all member % of all member >60 % of all member Head % of HH Others % of HH Illiterate % of all member Up to primary % of all member Up to secondary % of all member Up to graduate % of all member Above graduate % of all member SC % of HH ST % of HH OBC % of HH General % of HH AAY % of HH BPL % of HH APL % of HH None % of HH Male % of HH Female % of HH Farming % of HH Self business % of HH Salaried/pension % of HH Wage earners % of HH Involved in migration during year % of HH Notes: HH stands for Household; SC stands for Schedule Castes; ST stands for Schedule Tribes; OBC stands for Other Backward Castes; AAY stands for Antyonday Anna Yojana; BPL stands for Below Poverty Line; APL stands for Above Poverty Line. Source: Field survey data. The analysis of age composition of NREGA and Non-NREGA workers reveals that about 60.3 per cent of workers in all categories are in the age group of Only 3.8 per cent of NREGA beneficiaries and 4.1 per cent of Non-NREGA workers are older with more than 60 years. It may be noted that the majority of 61

75 respondents were the heads of their HHs in the case of NREGA beneficiaries (73.5%) as well as Non-NREGA HHs (94.0%). As far as decision making in HHs is concerned, males are found to dominate in both the categories of HHs. The male decision makers of beneficiary and non-beneficiary HHs were 87.5 per cent and 98 per cent respectively. The literacy rate is quite low in the study regions. Illiteracy is more among NREGA workers since about 44.4 per cent of them are illiterate compared to 41.6 per cent illiterates in the case of Non-NREGA workers. The caste composition of our sample HHs is almost equitable. In the case of NREGA beneficiaries, the SCs and STs comprised of 25.5 per cent and 24.5 per cent respectively whereas the OBCs and General categories of HHs accounted for 25 per cent each. The OBC HHs were more (32%) among non-beneficiaries whereas SC categories of HHs were more (26%) among beneficiaries. As expected, the proportion of BPL HHs is more among beneficiaries (44%) compared to non-beneficiaries (24%). The majority of non-beneficiaries comprising of 64 per cent were above poverty line (APL) ration card holders Major Sources of Occupation It may be seen from Table 3.1 that the majority of both NREGA beneficiary and nonbeneficiary households (HHs) were wage earners. Comparatively more among NREGA beneficiaries (77.4%) were wage earners whereas about 61.7 per cent of Non-NREGA HHs were wage earners. The HHs having farming and self-business as their major source of livelihood were 11.6 per cent and 4.3 per cent respectively in the case of NREGA beneficiaries. In the case of Non-NREGA HHs, about 17.8 per cent and 12.1 per cent HHs earned their livelihood from farming and self-business respectively. Table 3.2 reveals the distribution of man-days created from different livelihood sources by beneficiary and non-beneficiary HHs in the study districts. Clearly the majority of HHs of both the categories generated employment from nonagricultural causal labour works. The man-days generated from non-agricultural causal labour works by beneficiary and non-beneficiary HHs were 20.8 per cent and 28.5 per cent respectively. The livestock also generated a major part of human days of employment for the sample HHs. It may be seen that the man-days generated from the livestock by beneficiary and non-beneficiary HHs were 16.5 per cent and 17.6 per cent respectively. 62

76 Table 3.2: Occupational pattern of sample households (% of total man-days per HH) Occupation Beneficiaries Non Aggregate beneficiaries Agricultural casual labour Non agricultural casual labour Work for public work programmes other than NREGA Self employed in non farming Self employed in agriculture Self employed in livestock Regular/salary job Worked as a migrant worker Worked under NREGA Any other work Total Source: Field survey data From Table 3.1, it could be seen that 6.8 per cent of sample households were involved in migration. The man-days generated from out-migration were about 6.5 per cent for beneficiary HHs and about 14.3 per cent for non-beneficiary HHs (Table 3.2). The out migration has been a major coping strategy to frequent drought occurrence in the larger parts of the Rajasthan. These workers preferred to continue as migrant workers even after introduction of NREGA since they felt that NREGA employment and income generated thereby were insufficient in managing their households. Even among NREGA beneficiaries, just 17.7 per cent of total man days per household were associated with NREGA works. Remaining 82.3 per cent man days of employment per household were associated with other kinds of livelihood activities. These activities include agricultural causal labour works, self-employed in farming and non-farming, self-employed in livestock, regular/salary jobs and migration. 3.3 Household Net Income NREGA targeted to provide 100 days employment to each of needy rural households that helped them to generate additional income. It is imperative to see how the income generated from NREGA works stands among that from various occupational sources by sample households. The distribution of HH income generated from various sources by sample households are shown in Table 3.3. The total annual income generated by a beneficiary and a non-beneficiary HH from all livelihood sources was Rs and Rs respectively. The average annual income generated by a non-beneficiary 63

77 HH over a beneficiary HH was found to be more by Rs 8202 with a larger coefficient of variation (44.6%). The major sources of income for both categories of HHs have been agriculture, livestock and non-agricultural wages. Besides Rs 6572 (13.1%) from NREGA works, a beneficiary HH has earned Rs (23.4%) and Rs (25.8%) from non-agricultural wage works and agriculture/livestock respectively. On the other hand, a non-beneficiary HH has earned Rs (30.8%) and Rs 9540 (16.4%) from non-agricultural wage works and agriculture/livestock respectively. It may be noted that income from NREGA works by a beneficiary HH was only 13.1 per cent of their total HH annual income during the reference year On the whole, the income from non-agricultural labour works constituted 25.1 per cent of net annual income of a sample HH. Table 3.3 : Annual household net income (Rs per household)* Sources Beneficiaries Non beneficiaries Aggregate Income from work under NREGA Income from wages in agriculture Income from non agricultural wages Income from wages in PWP Income from wages as migrant workers Income from self employed in non farming Income from agriculture/livestock Income from regular job/salary/pension Income from sale of assets/rent/transfer etc. Average Income per HH CV across HH(%) Average Income per HH CV (Across HH) Average Income per HH CV (Across HH) (13.1) (0.0) (10.2) (7.4) (6.8) (7.3) (23.4) (30.8) (25.1) (0.4) (0.0) (0.3) (13.8) (28.9) (17.2) (5.3) (10.5) (6.5) (25.8) (16.4) (23.7) (7.7) (5.8) (7.3) (3.0) (0.7) (2.5) Total (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Notes: (1) Figures in parentheses are respective percentages of total net income. (2) CV stands for Coefficient of Variation; HH stands for Household ; PWP stands for public works programme (3)* Income from wages in non agriculture/income from migrant workers is calculated after subtracting their transportation cost, while income from agriculture also includes income from hiring out assets if any. Source: Field survey data. 64

78 The income from migration also has been a major component (17.2%) of total annual income of a sample HH. So far as variability in income from various sources is concerned, the income from PWP and sale and transfer of assets is found to exhibit larger variability in terms of coefficient of variation (CV). The CV value was highest (554%) for income from PWP followed by that (255%) for income from sale of assets/rent/transfer etc. in the case of beneficiary HHs. The similar trend was also observed in the case of non-beneficiary and all households. The CV value was maximum for income from PWP since the wage works under other PWP was very irregular unlike NREGA labour works in the study areas. Due to frequent occurrence of meteorological drought in various parts of Rajasthan, income from agriculture has been very badly affected during the reference year in the case of both beneficiary and non-beneficiary HHs. The income generated from migration works was also found to be highly fluctuating with CV value of for beneficiary HHs. 3.4 Household Consumption The per capita consumption of food and non-food items by the NREGA beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries are found to be reasonable in the study areas. However, sample households including NREGA and non-nrega types consumed different food items in lower quantity compared to NSS averages in the case of majority of consumption items. For example, the per capita consumption of total cereals for beneficiary and non-beneficiary households was 10.2 kg and 10.7 kg respectively whereas the respective NSS ( ) average was 12.7 kg (Table 3.4). Similarly, the per capita consumption of vegetables, spices, wheat and liquid milk for all households was 3.8 kg, gm, 6.7 kg and 3.9 litres respectively whereas the NSS ( ) averages for these products in rural Rajasthan were 4 kg, 262gm, 8.4 kg and 9.5 litres respectively. Some products which the sample households consumed more compared to NSS averages were total pulses, edible oils, milk products, and rice. The NSS average figures for these products were lower than the quantities consumed by sample households. However, it is worth mentioning that, compared to beneficiary households, non-beneficiary households were found to consume higher quantities of per capita food items of total cereals, sugar, liquid milk, spices and fruits. For instance, the per capita consumption of total cereals, sugar, liquid milk, spices and fruits for non-beneficiary households were 10.7 kg, 1.1kg, 4.1 litres, 260 gm and 65

79 0.6kg respectively whereas those for beneficiary households were 10.2 kg, 1.0 kg, 3.9litres, 253.9gm and 0.4kg respectively. Table 3.4: Household consumption of food items (kg per capita per month) Beneficiaries Non beneficiaries Aggregate NSS NSS NSS Rice Wheat Other cereals Total cereals Total pulses Sugar Edible oils Liquid milk Milk products Spices Poultry-meat Fruits Vegetables Confectionery 3 NA NA NA NA NA 0.2 Notes: 1. Edible oil and liquid milk are expressed in litre. 2. Spices in gm. 3. NA stands for not available. Source: Field survey data; National Sample Survey (NSS), 50th Round, ; 55th Round, ; 61st Round, The analysis of per capita consumption expenditure of NREGA beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries reveals that non-beneficiaries have enjoyed better status with regard to consumption of different food and non-food items. They have spent more on most items compared to that by beneficiary HHs. The percentage of total per capita spending on food items by a non-beneficiary HH (69.6%) is more than that by a beneficiary HH (66.9%). However, about 33.1 per cent of total monthly per capita spending of a beneficiary household was on non-food items compared to 30.4 per cent in the case of a non-beneficiary household (Table 3.5). Among different kinds of food items consumed by NREGA beneficiaries, total cereals (mainly wheat) accounted for 17.8 per cent of expenses, milk and milk products accounted for 14.6 per cent, pulses accounted for 6.2 per cent and vegetables accounted for 8.5 per cent of total expenses. Among non-food items, education and clothes accounted for 6.1 per cent and 2.8 per 66

80 cent, respectively of total per capita spending by a beneficiary HH. The per capita expenses on other non-food items including kerosene, intoxicants, wine and other drinks, transport and communication, loan repayment, repairing of durables, social and cultural functions accounted for about 20.9 per cent of total annual per capita expenditure of a beneficiary HH. It may be noted that monthly per capita expenses NREGA beneficiaries on rice, poultry-meat and education exhibit wide variability with co-efficient of variation of 456 per cent, 287 per cent and 208 per cent respectively. The consumption of rice is very occasional in both the cases. Table 3.5: Monthly per capita consumption expenditure of sample households Beneficiaries Non beneficiaries Aggregate NSS Monthly per capita (Rs.) Monthly per capita (Rs.) Monthly per capita (Rs.) (Rs.) CV across HH (%) CV across HH (%) CV across HH (%) Food Items Rice 18.6 (2.3) (2.3) (2.3) (0.4) Wheat 87.5 (10.6) (10.0) (10.5) (10.1) Other cereals 40.1 (4.9) (4.4) (4.8) (4.2) Total cereals (17.8) (16.7) (17.6) (14.7) Pulses 51.4 (6.2) (6.4) (6.3) (2.0) Sugar etc 36.6 (4.4) (5.1) (4.6) (3.2) Tea 11.4 (1.4) (1.4) (1.4) 239 NA Total edible oil 43.8 (5.3) (5.2) (5.3) (3.8) Spices 26.8 (3.3) (3.5) (3.3) (2.0) Milk & prods (14.6) (13.7) (14.4) (19.4) Poultry-meat 13.0 (1.6) (1.5) (1.6) (0.0) Fruits 9.1 (1.1) (1.9) (1.3) (1.0) Vegetables 70.1 (8.5) (8.6) (8.5) (5.0) Confectionery 6.0 (0.7) (1.0) (0.8) (0.3) Any other 16.0 (1.9) (4.6) (2.5) 277 NA (Salt Total and food (66.9) (69.6) (67.5) (51.3) Non food items (365 day recall period) Education 49.8 (6.1) (2.7) (5.3) (2.7) Clothing 23.4 (2.8) (3.4) (3.0) (4.9) Footwear 7.1 (0.9) (1.0) (0.9) (1.4) Fuel 19.6 (2.4) (2.3) (2.4) (10.1) Other items (20.9) (20.9) (20.9) (29.6) Total Non food (33.1) (30.4) (32.5) (48.7) Gross total (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Notes: (1) Figures in parentheses are percentages of gross total expenditure in their respective categories (2) CV stands for Coefficient of Variation; HH stands for Household. Source: Field survey data; National Sample Survey (NSS), 61st Round, The composition of food and non-food items consumed by non-nrega households is quite similar. However, the per capita amount spent on different items by NREGA and non-nrega households differs a lot on some fronts. For example, the per capita amount spent on other food items by a NREGA household was just ` 67

81 16.0 compared to ` 41.4 by a non-nrega household. The per capita amount spent on total food items by a NREGA household was only ` compared to ` by a non-nrega household. Similarly, the per capita amount spent on total cereals by a NREGA household was about ` compared to only ` by a non-nrega household. The milk and other milk products accounted for about 13.7 per cent of total per capita expenses of a non-beneficiary household compared to 14.6 per cent in case of a beneficiary household. On an average, the per capita monthly expenditure of a sample household was about ` out of which ` was spent on food items and ` was spent on non-food items. When compared to NSS figures as stated in the same Table 3.5, the per capita amounts spent by both categories of HHs on both foods and non-foods items were found to be much higher. This can be attributed to higher current prices during the reference year ( ) compared to that during National Sample Survey year (prior to ). 3.5 Variability and Gini Ratios of Income and Consumption The vulnerability of rural households to income and consumption shortfall can be well judged on the basis of variability in their income, consumption and the wages they get. Higher variability in income, consumption and wages implies higher the extent of vulnerability of the household to various kinds of shocks. The prevalence of higher degree of inequality in distribution of income, consumption and wages would propagate unhealthy social structure within a village economy. Higher inequality in income and consumption also implies that the larger proportion of population falls below the bottom line. In this section we have analysed the disparities between the NREGA beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries in terms of variability and inequality in distribution of income, consumption and wages. As Table 3.6 shows, the average income, consumption and wages of non-beneficiaries are more than that of beneficiary HHs. The coefficient of variation (CV) in income, consumption and wages across all sample households were 69.9 per cent, 59.5 per cent and 45.8 per cent respectively. The CV values for these variables are found to be higher for nonbeneficiaries compared to beneficiaries. Thus the variability in income, consumption and wages is considerably higher in case of non-beneficiary households over beneficiary households even though the non-beneficiary households were better off. 68

82 Table 3.6: Variability in income, consumption and wages Description Beneficiary Non All households beneficiary Average household Income during the reference year (Rs) Average household consumption during the reference year (Rs) Average wage (Rs/day)* Coefficient of variation in income across households (%) Coefficient of variation in consumption across households (%) Coefficient of variation in wages across households (%) Gini coefficient of income Gini coefficient of consumption Gini coefficient of wage Note: *The wage rate includes all activities undertaken by sample households. The average wage from NREGA works only is Rs 78.7 per beneficiary HH per day Source: Field survey data. The extent of inequality in distribution of income, consumption and wages was also found to be more among non-beneficiaries. The Gini coefficients 5 income, consumption and wages of non-beneficiaries were 0.427, and respectively. Similarly, the Gini coefficients for income, consumption and wages of beneficiaries were 0.343, and respectively. This is well evidenced in Figures 3.1 and 3.2 that shows that the Lorenz curves for both the income and expenditure of non-beneficiary HHs are more pronounced and bulged out compared to that of beneficiary HHs. The dotted Lorenz curves are for expenditure and continuous Lorenz curves are for income of HHs. for 5 The Gini Coefficient is a complementary way of presenting information about inequality. It is the ratio of the area between the Lorenz Curve and the line of absolute equality (numerator) and the whole area under the line of absolute equality (denominator). The higher the value of Gini coefficient is, the higher will be the level of inequality. 69

83 Cum. Share of Income and Expenditure Cum. Share of Income and Expenditure Lorenz curve (beneficiary Lorenz curve HHs) 1.0 Lorenz curve (non-beneficiary Lorenz curve HHs) G= G= Cum. Proportion of Workers Figure 3.1. Lorenz curves for income and consumption of beneficiary HHs G= G= Cum. Proportion of Workers Figure 3.2. Lorenz curves for income and consumption of non-beneficiary HHs 3.6 Logit and OLS Regression Analysis on Determinants of Participation in NREGA In this section, the influence of various factors in motivating or demotivating the sample HHs to participate in NREGA works have been analysed with the help of OLS (Ordinary Least Square) and Logit regression techniques. The analysis has been undertaken at two levels- household and member level 6. The Logit regression model was fitted to assess the influence of various predictor variables on the participation in NREGA as a binary outcome variable 7 at both household and member level. Among the predictors at household level, four are continuous variables and three are categorical dummy variables. The continuous predictors are annual HH income (Rs/HH), household size (no.), the distance of work place from home (km) and the wage rate (Rs/day); and the categorical dummy variables are female worker participation (female =1, otherwise =0), possession of land (have land=1, otherwise=0) and BPL card holding (own BPL card=1, otherwise=0). The model was fitted with intercept. The findings of the HH level Logit model are stated in Table At both the levels, various combinations of factors have been tried out and the regression results for the best set of factors have been reported. Though the OLS and Logit regression at household level resulted in some meaningful outcomes, the Logit analysis at member level did not yield good results, thus, was not reported. 7 A logistic regression model allows us to establish a relationship between a binary outcome variable and a group of predictor variables. It models the logit-transformed probability as a linear relationship with the predictor. The logit (p) = log (odds) = log (p/q) = a + bx where p is the probability of success (participation in NREGA in our case) and q (=1-p) is the probability of failure and X is the vector of predictor variable. 70

84 Table 3.7: Determinants of participation in NREGA (HH Level Logit Regression) (Dependent variable: Participation in NREGA, Yes=1, No=0) Predictor Variables Coefficient Exponentiated value of coefficients Std Error Z value Pr (> z ) Intercept *** Household income (Rs) Household size *** (No.) Distance of work place from home (Km) Wage rate(rs/day) ** Female worker *** (Yes=1, No=0) Possession of land (Yes=1, No=0) BPL Card holding (Yes=1, No=0) Pseudo R No. of observations = 250 LR Chi-square Degree of freedom= Notes: Significance codes: 0 *** ** 0.01 * Source: Computed (using R) from field data The logistic regression coefficients give the change in the log odds 8 of the outcome for one unit increase in the predictor variable. For every one unit change in household income, the log odds of participation in NREGA works (versus nonparticipation) increases by which reveals that there is very insignificant influence of household income on participation in NREGA works. For a one unit increase in household size, the log odds of participating in NREGA decreases by This is mainly because there is no provision under NREGA to provide more working opportunities to families with higher family size. All the household irrespective of family size are given 100 days of employment under the Act. For a one unit increase in distance of work place from home, the log odds of participating in NREGA decreases by The longer distance of the work place from the 8 The odds of success are defined as the ratio of the probability of success over the probability of failure. For example, the participation odds for female, one of our predictor variables, is p/q and the odds for male is p 1 /q 1. Thus the odds ratio for female worker is (p/q)/ (p 1 /q 1 ). The coefficient for female worker is the log of odds ratio between the female group and male group. So we can get the odds ratio by exponentiating the coefficient for female worker. Each exponentiated coefficient is the ratio of two odds, or the change in odds in the multiplicative scale for a unit increase in the corresponding predictor variable holding other variables at certain value. 71

85 residence of workers has acted as disincentive for joining the NREGA work though the influence is not statistically significant. For a one unit increase in wage rate, the log odds of participating in NREGA decreases by This is an unexpected result of our logit model specifically for the nature of our sample data. It is worthmentioning that non-beneficiary workers were mostly skilled and semi-skilled with better standard of living. Thus they could manage to get higher average wage compared to NREGA beneficiaries. From Table 3.6, it may be seen that the average wage of NREGA beneficiaries was Rs 78.7 compared to that of Rs 153 for nonbeneficiary workers. This kind of distribution of wage rate affected the coefficient of wage rate in negative direction favoring inverse relationship between wage rate and NREGA participation. Thus it is suggested to provide more wages to NREGA workers with the provision to raise their skill levels. The categorical variables have a slightly different interpretation. For example, being a female worker, versus a male worker, increases the log odds of participation in NREGA works by In terms of odds ratio of 25.89, the odds of female participation in NREGA are times larger than the odds for a male worker to participate in NREGA works. Thus, the female workers have better chance of joining NREGA work compared to their male counterparts. It was observed that the weakest working members of the family including ladies and children were used to be sent for NREGA works, whereas the most efficient person of the family works in better avenues. This is why, the women participation in NREGA work has been much better not only in Rajasthan, but also in various other parts of the country. This is also one of the reasons why the assets created under NREGA were not worth of money spent on them. The non-participation of efficient members of the family in NREGA works has certainly affected the quality of assets created under the scheme. It was also observed that fairly a good section of female NREGA workers did not do any labour works before initiation of NREGA. NREGA has given them the opportunities to come out of their houses and earn something for them and for their families. The better participation of women workers has resulted in better awareness among rural women regarding various other programmes of the government. The rise in their purchasing power has reduced the level of dependence on the male members of the families. The sale of cosmetics and other items used by women has increased many folds in the study villages. As far as the land holding is concerned, the workers having some land have better log odds of participation in NREGA works by compared to that by 72

86 a landless. Holding of BPL cards versus holding of other cards like APL, Antyodaya Anna Yojana or having no card holding increases the log odds of participation in NREGA works by In terms of exponentiated value of coefficients (odds ratio), the odds of participation in NREGA for a BPL card holder are times larger than the odds for a non- BPL card holder. The Chi-square value of with 7 degrees of freedom and an associated p-value of about 0.0 tells us that our model as a whole fits significantly better than an empty model. It may be noted that three predictor variables (household size, wage rate and female participation) and intercept are found to significantly influence the participation in NREGA works while remaining predictor variables such as distance of the work place from home and land holing and BPL card holding did not significantly influence the participation in NREGA work. Female participation, household size and intercept are found to be significant at p value of almost 0; whereas the wage rate was found to be significant at 0.1 percent of significance. For OLS regression analysis at household level, number of days per HH worked in NREGA was taken as the dependent variables. As stated in Table 3.8, four quantitative variables and five dummy variables were taken as explanatory variables. It may be seen that only one variable, i.e., per household NREGA wage was found to significantly influence the NREGA employment. As per the findings, for every one per cent increase in household wage, there is a possibility of 0.88 per cent increase in employment of households in NREGA works. The F value of on 10 and 239 degree of freedom with p value of nearly zero confirms that the model has a good predictive capacity and the model is overall statistically significant. It is already mentioned that the Logit analysis at member level did not yield any meaningful result. Thus the details of the model have not been reported. However, the OLS regression analysis on members participating in NREGA works produced some consistent result. For OLS regression analysis at member level, number of days per member worked in NREGA was taken as the dependent variables. As stated in Table 3.9, five quantitative variables and three dummy variables were taken as explanatory variables. It is evident from the Table 3.9 that per member NREGA wage, household size and gender (worker being a male member) were found to significantly influence the NREGA employment. It is found that, for every one per cent increase in wage rate per member, there is a possibility of per cent increase in employment of workers in NREGA works. 73

87 Table 3.8: Factors affecting NREGA employment (HH Level OLS Regression) (Dependent variable: No. of Days per HH Worked in NREGA) Explanatory Variables Coefficient Std Error t value Pr (> t ) Intercept Employment other than NREGA (No. working days) HH Income other than E NREGA (Rs) Per HH NREGA wage *** (Rs/day) HH size Value of land owned (Rs) E Dummy AAY card holding (Y=1; N=0) Dummy BPL card holding (Y=1; N=0) Dummy SC (Y=1; N=0) Dummy ST (Y=1; N=0) Dummy OBC (Y=1; N=0) Adjusted R No. of observations = 250 F value on 10 and 239 DF, p-value: < 2.2e-16 Notes: Signif. codes: 0 *** ** 0.01 * Source: Computed (using R) from field data Table 3.9: Factors affecting NREGA employment (Member Level OLS Regression) (Dependent variable: No. of Days per HH Worked in NREGA) Explanatory Variables Coefficient Std Error t value Pr (> t ) Intercept NREGA wage (Rs) < 2e-16 *** Household size (No.) * Age Education (No. of yeas ) Employment other than NREGA (No. working days) Dummy AAY card holding (Y=1; N=0) Dummy BPL card holding (Y=1; N=0) Dummy Gender (Male=1; Female=0) E-05 *** Adjusted R ; No. of observations = 250 F value on 8 and 548 DF, p-value: < 2.2e-16 Notes: Signif. codes: 0 *** ** 0.01 * Source: Computed (using R) from field data 74

88 For a one unit increase in household size, the number of days of NREGA employment per member decreases by This is mainly because there is no provision under NREGA to provide more working opportunities to families with higher family size. So far as gender dummy variable is concerned, it may be noted that being a male worker, versus a female worker, decreases the number of days of employment in NREGA works by Thus, the female workers have contributed more and participated more in NREGA works compared to their male counterparts. The F value of on 8 and 548 degree of freedom with p value of nearly zero confirms that the model has a good predictive capacity and the model is overall statistically significant. 3.7 Summary of the Chapter In this chapter, the socio-economic characteristics, the income and consumption pattern of sample households have been analysed. Out of a total of 250 sample HHs, 80 per cent were beneficiary households and remaining 20 per cent were nonbeneficiary households. The average family size of a beneficiary household is 5.43 while that of non-beneficiary households is About 2.5 members of a beneficiary household and 2.1 members of a non-beneficiary household are income earners. More importantly, the proportion of per HH women participants in NREGA works (54.1%) was more than that of the men participants in NREGA works in Rajasthan. The literary rate is quite low in the study regions. Illiteracy is more among NREGA workers since about 44.4 per cent of them are illiterate compared to 41.6 per cent illiterates in the case of Non-NREGA workers. In the case of NREGA beneficiaries, the SCs and STs comprised of 25.5 per cent and 24.5 per cent respectively whereas the OBCs and General categories of HHs accounted for 25 per cent each. The majority of both NREGA beneficiary and non-beneficiary households (HHs) were wage earners. Comparatively more among NREGA beneficiaries (77.4%) were wage earners whereas about 61.7 per cent of Non-NREGA HHs were wage earners. The total annual income generated by a beneficiary and a non-beneficiary HH from all livelihood sources was Rs and Rs respectively. The major sources of income for both categories of HHs have been agriculture, livestock and non-agricultural wages. On the whole, the income from non-agricultural labour works constituted 25.1 per cent of gross annual income of a sample HH. 75

89 The per capita consumption of food and non-food items by the NREGA beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries are found to be reasonable in the study areas. However, sample households including NREGA and non-nrega types consumed different food items in lower quantity compared to NSS averages in the case of majority of consumption items. For example, the per capita consumption of total cereals for beneficiary and non-beneficiary households was 10.2 kg and 10.7 kg respectively whereas the respective NSS ( ) average was 12.7 kg. The analysis of consumption expenditure of NREGA beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries reveals that non-beneficiaries have enjoyed better status with regard to consumption of different food and non-food items. They have spent more on most items compared to that by beneficiary HHs. However, the percentage of total per capita spending on food items by a non-beneficiary HH (69.6%) is more than that by a beneficiary HH (66.9%). The variability in income, consumption and wages is considerably higher in case of non-beneficiary households over beneficiary households even though the nonbeneficiary households were better off. So far as variability in income from various sources is concerned, the income from public works programmes and sale and transfer of assets is found to exhibit larger variability in terms of coefficient of variation. Due to frequent occurrence of meteorological drought in various parts of Rajasthan, income from agriculture has been very negligible for both beneficiary and nonbeneficiary HHs. The extent of inequality in distribution of income, consumption and wages was also found to be more among non-beneficiaries. The Gini coefficients for income, consumption and wages of non-beneficiaries were 0.427, and respectively. Similarly, the Gini coefficients for income, consumption and wages of beneficiaries were 0.343, and respectively. The influence of various factors in motivating or demotivating the sample HHs to participate in NREGA works was analysed with the help of OLS (Ordinary Least Square) and Logit regression techniques at both household and member level. The logistic regression model at household level was fitted to assess the influence of various predictor variables on the participation in NREGA as a binary outcome variable. Among the predictors, four were continuous variables and three are categorical dummy variables. The continuous predictors were annual HH income (Rs/HH), household size (no.), the distance of work place from home (km) and the per HH wage rate (Rs/day); and the categorical dummy variables were female worker 76

90 participation (female =1, otherwise =0), possession of land (have land=1, otherwise=0) and BPL card holding (own BPL card=1, otherwise=0). The model was fitted with intercept. Three predictor variables (household size, wage rate and female participation) and intercept were found to significantly influence the participation in NREGA works while remaining predictor variables such as distance of the work place from home and land holing and BPL card holding did not significantly influence the participation in NREGA work. The Chi-square value of with 7 degrees of freedom and an associated p-value of about 0.0 confirmed that our model as a whole fitted significantly better than an empty model. The results of the model indicated that, for a one unit increase in household size, the log odds of participating in NREGA would decrease by This was mainly because there was no provision under NREGA to provide more working opportunities to families with higher family size. For a one unit increase in wage rate, the log odds of participating in NREGA decreased by Being a female worker, versus a male worker, increased the log odds of participation in NREGA works by In terms of odds ratio of 25.89, the odds of female participation in NREGA are times larger than the odds for a male worker to participate in NREGA works. Thus, the female workers have better chance of joining NREGA work compared to their male counterparts. It was observed that the weakest working members of the family including ladies and older members were used to be sent for NREGA works, whereas the most efficient person of the family works in better avenues. For OLS regression analysis at household level, number of days per HH worked in NREGA was taken as the dependent variables. Four quantitative variables and five dummy variables were taken as explanatory variables out of which, only one variable, i.e., per household NREGA wage was found to significantly influence the NREGA employment. For OLS regression analysis at member level, number of days per member worked in NREGA was taken as the dependent variables. Five quantitative variables and three dummy variables were taken as explanatory variables out of which, the per member NREGA wage, household size and gender (worker being a male member) were found to significantly influence the NREGA employment. 77

91 Chapter 4 Work Profile under NREGA, Wage Structure and Migration 4.1 Work profile under NREGA NREGA after being operational in 200 districts in February 2006 was extended to all districts of India just within 2 and half years because of its potential to bring about a silent revolution in rural areas. Rajasthan is one of the states where NREGA is known to be implemented effectively. Because of better participation of different stakeholders including common man and civil societies, the state is distinctly ahead of other states in many respects. In the rural parts of the state, NREGA is believed to serve as an effective safety net for the unemployed, especially during years of famine and drought, supplementing household incomes and reducing migration to cities by villagers in search of work. It helps the rural poor economically by not just putting cash in their hands, but also helping them create sustainable assets. In this chapter we have analysed how our sample households participated in NREGA works; how successful has been NREGA in providing 100 days employment to them at their door steps; to what extent they could get the higher wages and income; which kinds of assets they could create for fostering development in their locality and to what extent the out migration has been checked after introduction of NREGA in the study areas of the state. Table 4.1 shows the details of participation of different categories of sample households (HHs) from different study districts in NREGA works in their vicinity. It may be seen that about 1.41 persons of a sample household were employed in NREGA works in the state. Banswara district topped among study districts with maximum of 1.95 members per household employed in NREGA works. Out of 1.41 members per HH who participated in NREGA works, about 0.81 members (i.e., 57.7%) were women. It is worth-mentioning that the 57.7per cent of women participation was as per the job cards provided to sample HHs. Our own observations reveal that more than 75 per cent of NREGA workers in Rajasthan were women (see Plate 4.1). A possible reason for such kind of discrepancy could be due to the fact that some financially sound influential HHs also had job cards and they had lent their job cards to the poorer HHs having no job cards or having insufficient number of job 78

92 cards with respect to their family size. Some respondents revealed that they had borrowed such job cards at the rate of Rs 20 to Rs 25 per day. Table 4.1: The work profile under NREGA Characteristics No. of members per hh employed during the year No. of days per hh employed during the year % HHs employed 100 or more days Wage rate obtained (Rs) Sri Banswara Jaisalmer Karauli Nagaur Rajasthan Ganganagar Aggregate General SC ST OBC Men Women Aggregate General SC ST OBC Men Women Aggregate General SC ST OBC Aggregate General SC ST OBC Men Women Average distance from residence where employed (Km) Source: Field survey data. 4.2 Performance of NREGA in Providing 100 Days of Employment The National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme is one of the most important employment generation schemes in India backed by legislation. The Act guarantees 100 days employment to any rural household that desires to do any manual work stipulated in the Act, during a financial year. Though 100 days of employment was guaranteed as per the Act, sample households in Rajasthan could manage to get about 82 days per HH in 2009 (Table 4.1). Out of these 82 days per beneficiary family, 79

93 about 52 days (i.e., 63.4%) were the man-days participated by the female workers. Only SC households in Jaisalmer and ST households in Nagaur were fortunate to get full 100 days of employment per HH. Caste wise distribution of employment reveals that General caste and ST people have availed more number of days of employment compared to other caste categories. Among the beneficiary households participated in NREGA works, about 44.5 per cent households got employment for 100 days or more during the reference year Among various study districts, a maximum of 60 per cent beneficiary households in Nagaur got 100 days or more number of days of employment, whereas a minimum of 27.5 per cent beneficiary households in Sri Ganganagar got 100 days or more number of days of employment during the reference year. Some households could not complete their 100 days of employment due to their illness, employment in other avenues and delay in wage payment. On the other hand, some households did not get 100 days of employment due to delay in planning and execution of NREGA works. The average distance of the work places from the residences of workers was found to be reasonable in all districts except Sri Ganganagar district. The average distance in the case of Sri Ganganagar was 4.35 km compared to average distance of 2.54 km for all sample respondents taken together. It may be noted that, among different caste categories, maximum of 1.46 members of a ST household and 1.43 members of a General caste household have joined NREGA works on an average in Rajasthan. More number of General categories of people worked in Banswara and Shri Ganganagar districts. About 2.1 members of a beneficiary household belonging to General caste were employed in NREGA works 4.2 Performance of NREGA in Providing 100 Days of Employment 4.2 Performance of NREGA in Providing 100 Days of Employment The National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme is one of the most important employment generation schemes in India backed by legislation. The Act guarantees Plate 4.1. NREGA work in progress at Tausar village in Nagaur district with a larger participation of women. The work is being supervised by Mate. 100 days employment to any rural household that desires to do any manual work 80

94 4.3 Wage Differentials under NREGA and its Comparison with Minimum Wage Act The minimum wage rate for unskilled workers in Rajasthan was `100 for the reference year On an average, sample HHs in Rajasthan got their wages at the rate of ` 79 per day (Table 4.1). Caste wise distribution of wages reveals that General caste and ST people have also received more wages per day compared to other caste categories. NERGA workers of ST category managed to obtain wage rate of `100 per day in Sri Ganganagar and Nagaur district. Noticeably the women workers received higher daily wages than the male workers in Sri Ganganagar (`97), Banswara (`80) and Jaisalmer (`69) districts during the reference year Overall the women workers received higher wage rate (`80) compared to average wage rate of `79 per day received by all workers (Table 4.2). The average daily wage received by all workers taken together in Sri Ganganagar, Banswara and Jaisalmer districts during the same year was `95, `79, and `67 respectively. It is worth mentioning that the average daily wages received by the working members of our sample households in all study districts and Rajasthan state were less than the stipulated minimum wage of `100. This is basically due to the fact that people were given more piece rate work compared to daily wage work. So in the majority of cases, the payment was made on the basis of task rate. It was found that many workers were unable to complete the quantum of work stipulated per day for which per day wage received by them was less than stipulated wage of `100 per day. Since various groups of workers were involved in task rate works, very often, the underperformance of few team members resulted in the low wage rate for their groups. Sometimes, the lack of seriousness of the workers and the inability of mates to get the work done also lead to poor performance of workers which, in turn, lowered their average earning from NREGA works. However, workers expressed that comparatively more of them received the better wages from NREGA works during the reference year than the same from other kinds of works taken up earlier under other programmes. 4.4 Wage Differential in Different Activities, among Beneficiaries and Non Beneficiaries Substantial differences were found between wage rates earned by beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries and by male and female workers across different activities including NREGA works. As far as beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries are concerned, wage rates earned by non-beneficiary HHs were found to be higher for all activities except public works programmes and NREGA works where there was no participation of 81

95 non-beneficiary HHs. As shown in Table 4.2 that the average wage earned by a nonbeneficiary male worker from agricultural causal labour works was `96.5 compared to `86.2 by a beneficiary male worker. Similarly, the average wage earned by a nonbeneficiary female worker from agricultural causal labour works was `66.7 compared to `66.3 by a beneficiary female worker. Table 4.2: Wage differentials among different activities Occupation Beneficiaries Non beneficiaries Aggregate Average CV(%) Average CV(%) Average CV(%) Wage rate in Male agricultural casual labour (Rs) Female Wage rate in non Male agri casual labour (Rs) Female Wage rate in public work programmes (Rs) Wage rate earned by migrant workers (Rs) Male Female Male Female Wage rate under NREGA (Rs) Note: CV stands for Coefficient of Variation across HHs Source: Field survey data. Male Female The wage differential between non-beneficiary and beneficiary HHs was found to be higher for non-agricultural causal labour works (a difference of `15.7 for male worker) compared to agricultural causal labour works(a difference of `10.3). It may be noted that the average wage earned by non-beneficiary male workers from non-agricultural causal labour works was `139.1 compared to `123.4 by beneficiary male workers. Similarly, the average wage earned by non-beneficiary female workers from non-agricultural causal labour works was `81.0 compared to `73.6 by beneficiary female workers. All sample HHs taken together, non-agricultural causal labour works was more remunerative compared to agricultural causal labour works in the study regions. However, when all kinds of activities involving beneficiary and non-beneficiary HHs taken together, the wage rate received from out migration is found to be higher. It may be noted that the average wage earned by male and female migrant workers was `160.3 and `90.0 respectively. 82

96 It is worth mentioning that the average wages earned from NREGA works were among the lowest. The average wage earned by male and female NREGA workers was only `78.9 and `80.0 respectively which were much lower than the prescribed minimum wage rate (`100.0) for unskilled workers in Rajasthan. If we examine the variability in wage rates for workers across different kinds of activities they were involved in, the variability in wage rates for NREGA workers was found to be comparatively less. The coefficient of variation (CV) in wage rates for male and female NREGA workers was found to be 18 per cent and 20 per cent respectively whereas the coefficient of variation (CV) in wage rates for male and female agricultural causal labour workers was found to be 42 per cent and 45 per cent respectively. The variability in wage rates for migrant workers was found to be maximum (i.e., 44% and 47% respectively for male and female) among all categories of labourers. 4.5 Nature of Assets Created and their Durability The NREGA has three important aspects. One aspect is the creation of assets in rural areas; second aspect is the social protection of the vulnerable sections of the society; and the third aspect is the guaranteed provision for employment, the mother of all social securities. In this section we intend to discuss about the performance of study districts in Rajasthan with respect to the first aspect of the Act. Assets created under NREGA are supposed to ignite rural transformation through better developmental initiatives. Among different assets created, water conservation and water harvesting structures, drought proofing works including afforestation and tree plantation, irrigation canals, including micro and minor irrigation works, horticulture, land development works, renovation of traditional water bodies, including de-silting of tanks, flood-control and protection works, including drainage in waterlogged areas and rural connectivity works were major ones. 83

97 Table 4.3: The activity in which employed under NREGA and the quality of assets created (% of beneficiary HH) Characteristics Sri Ganganagar Banswara Jaisalmer Karauli Nagaur Rajasthan Name of Rural connectivity the activity Flood control and under protection which Water conservation and employed water harvesting Quality of the assets created through NREGA activities Drought proofing Micro irrigation works Provision of irrigation facility to land owned by (Panchayat) Renovation of traditional water bodies Land development Any other activity approved by the Min of Rural Development A B A B A B A B A B A B Very good Good Bad Worst Average unemployment allowance received by the household for not getting work under NREGA after registration (Rs per hh) Note: A denotes % of all beneficiary HHs in the respective districts/state and B denotes % of all NREGA workers in the respective districts/state Source: Field survey data. It could be seen from Table 4.3 that majority of NREGA workers were engaged in rural connectivity works followed by land development works and creation of water conservation and water harvesting structures. The proportion of beneficiary HHs participating in creation or strengthening of rural roads in Karauli, Sri Ganganagar, Nagaur and Banswara districts were 95 per cent, 92.5 per cent, 65 per cent and 60 per cent, respectively. Taken all sample households (HHs) together, about 72.0 per cent of participating HHs and 72.3 per cent of participating workers have worked in rural connectivity works in Rajasthan. About 38.5 per cent of NREGA HHs were engaged in land development works, 36.5 per cent of them were engaged in creation of water conservation and water harvesting structures. More workers in Nagaur (44.4%), Jaisalmer (40.5%), and Banswara (37.2%) joined the works of creation and maintenance of water conservation and water harvesting structures. About 48.7 per cent of NREGA workers in Banswara and 40.7 per cent of workers in Karauli were employed for land development activities in the reference year

98 Even though various parts of Rajasthan are frequently affected by recurrent drought, only 7.4 per cent of NREGA workers were employed in other drought proofing activities (Table 4.3). However, all kinds of works taken up in Rajasthan like creation of water conservation structures, renovation of water bodies, micro irrigation works and provision of irrigation facilities to rural community would contribute to withstanding drought in the study regions in Rajasthan. It may be noted that about 56.5 per cent of NREGA HHs reported that the quality of assets created was good while about 40 per cent reported that that the quality of assets created was very good. Only 3 per cent of NREGA HHs reported that the quality of assets created was bad. However, the quality of assets created with respect to the amount spent was grossly inadequate. Though overall response of respondents on paper is found to be good, researchers observation of assets created revealed that quality of works was very poor at some places. Many instances were noticed where the works have not been properly undertaken due to poor planning and coordination. For example, a rural road was left at middle of the agricultural lands in Sri Ganganagar district which could not serve any purpose even if a large amount of money was spent on it. It may be seen from the table that Sri Ganganagar was the only districts where some respondents constituting about 2.5 per cent have expressed that some assets created were worst in quality. A respondent says, Govt has to distribute money to people. Thus they have chosen NREGA programme through which they have distributed money to rural people without looking at what they are making and how they will be useful for the villagers. Many people just sit at the worksites and many works very slowly. Many get payments without coming to worksites at all and they share the payment with concerned NREGA officials or the actual job card holders. Some structures created in the study areas are shown below (see the Plates 4.2, 4.3, 4.4). 85

99 Plate 4.2. Brick road at 9Z village of Sri Ganganagar district ( ) Plate 4.3. WHS created under MGNREGA at Bhundel village of Nagaur district ( ) 86

100 Plate 4.4. Brick lining of Irrigation channel at 9Z village of Sri Ganganagar district ( ) It is worth mentioning that no unemployment allowance was paid in any of the study districts in Rajasthan. Unemployment allowances is Programme Officer s responsibility so they keep the date blank in the employment demand form and put the date as when the work is sanctioned so they on paper have no unemployment allowances to give. This can be a reason why so far not a single case of payment of unemployment allowance was found in the whole of Rajasthan. Keeping in view the reluctance of various state governments including Government of Rajasthan, CAG (2007) has advised the central government to consider amending NREGA rules to allow the centre to pay part of the unemployment allowance, while instituting controls to minimize chances of persons drawing unemployment allowance without demanding employment or working. 4.6 Effects of NREGA on Labour Migration This section makes an attempt to explain how has NREGA affected the number of labour migration (labour migrating back to village and migrated out of village), and direction of migration (rural to urban and vice-versa). In the case of all sample households, the number of members migrated from the village because of not getting work under NREGA even after registration was about 0.44 per household while the average size of a household is 5.4 (Table 4.4). In other words, about 8 per cent of family members of a sample household in Rajasthan have migrated to other places for not getting work under NREGA. Relatively, out-migrants are more in Banswara district where about 12.1 per cent members of sample households have migrated from the village because of not getting 87

101 work under NREGA even after registration. Since Banswara district is situated closer to Gujarat that provides better opportunities for migrant workers, the incidence of outmigration is more in the district. On the other hand, the number of out-migrated members who returned back to village because of getting work in NREGA is comparatively very less. All sample households taken together, about members of a household (3.24%) have returned back to village because of getting work in NREGA in Rajasthan. Incidentally, the returning of out-migrants to join NREGA was more in Banswara too compared to other study districts. About 0.5 members (i.e., 8.3% of household members) of a sample household in Banswara against members (i.e., 3.2% of household members) in Rajasthan state have returned back to their villages to work with NREGA. It is worth mentioning that, as less as members per household returned in Karauli for joining NREGA. Table 4.4: The migration incidents recorded during the reference period Characteristics Sri Ganganagar Banswara Jaisalmer Karauli Nagaur Rajasthan Average Household size No of members migrated from the village because of not getting work under NREGA even after registration (per household) Const/ manufacturing/mining (4.79) (12.08) (8.00) (7.87) (6.56) (8.06) No of out-migrated members returned back to village because of getting work in NREGA (per household) (1.60) (8.33) (1.50) (0.46) (3.28) (3.24) In the case some Nearby village members returned Nearby town back to the village to work under Same district NREGA where Same state were they earlier working (% of Other state returned members) Other country In the case some members returned back to the village to work under NREGA which activity earlier working in (% of returned members) Trading/services and transport Private work/self business Other government work Agriculture labour Any other Shifted last year Year in which shifted (% of shifted hh) Shifted before last year Is your family better off now compared to previous occupation (% of shifted hh) Note: Figures in parentheses are percentage of respective household size. Source: Field survey data. Regarding the places where they were earlier working, it may be seen in Table 4.4, the majority of 30 per cent of returned members in Rajasthan state were earlier 88

102 working in nearby villages whereas the per cent of returned members earlier working in nearby towns, same district and other states was 20 per cent each. Only 10 per cent of returned members of sample households in Rajasthan were earlier working in the same state. Furthermore, all the returned members in Sri Ganganagar were earlier working in the nearby villages while all returned members in Jaisalmer were working in the nearby towns. In Banswara, each of 33.3 per cent returned members were earlier working in the same district and in the other states. As far as the types of activities in which they were engaged earlier to joining NREGA are concerned, about 60 per cent of returned members of sample households in Rajasthan were earlier working in construction, manufacturing and mining sectors while 30 per cent and 10 per cent of returned members were engaged in agricultural labour works and private works respectively. About 66.7 per cent of returned members were engaged in construction, manufacturing and mining in Sri Ganganagar while 33.3 per cent of them were engaged in agricultural labour works. All returned members in Banswara were working in construction, manufacturing and mining sectors whereas all returned members in Jaisalmer were working in private work/self business. The majority of 63.3 per cent of returned members shifted in last year only to their villages to join in NREGA works as against 26.7 per cent before last year. About half of the returned members of sample households in Rajasthan expressed that their family was better off after joining NREGA compared to their previous occupations. All the returned members in Nagaur, 66.7 per cent of returned members in Banswara and 33.3 per cent of returned members in Sri Ganganagar also expressed similar views that they were better off after joining NREGA. 4.7 Summary of the Chapter This chapter discusses the work profile under NREGA and the issues on wage structure and migration affecting the sample households. we have analysed in this chapter, how our sample households participated in NREGA works; how successful has been NREGA in providing 100 days employment to them at their door steps; to what extent they could get the higher wages and income; which kinds of assets they could create for fostering development in their locality and to what extent the out migration has been checked after introduction of NREGA in the study areas of the state. It was found that, about 1.41 persons of a sample household (with family size 89

103 5.4) were employed in NREGA works in the state. Banswara district topped among study districts with maximum of 1.95 members per household employed in NREGA works. Out of 1.41 members per HH who participated in NREGA works, about 0.81 members (i.e., 57.7%) were women. Women participants are found to be maximum (0.90 per HH) in Banswara district compared to other four study districts. Though 100 days of employment was guaranteed as per the Act, sample households in Rajasthan could manage to get about 82 days per HH in Out of these 82 days per beneficiary family, about 52 days (i.e., 63.4%) were the man-days participated by the female workers. Only SC households in Jaisalmer and ST households in Nagaur got full 100 days of employment per HH.. Since various groups of workers were involved in task rate works, very often, the underperformance of few team members resulted in the low wage rate for their groups. Sometimes, the lack of seriousness of the workers and the inability of mates to get the work done also lead to poor performance of workers which, in turn, lowered their average earning from NREGA works. The average distance of the work places from the residences of workers was found to be reasonable in all districts except Sri Ganganagar district. The average distance in the case of Sri Ganganagar was 4.35 km compared to average distance of 2.54 km for all sample respondents taken together. As far as the wage differentials under NREGA and its comparison with Minimum Wage Act is concerned, on an average, sample HHs in Rajasthan got their wages at the rate of ` 79 per day compared to the minimum wage rate of ` 100. Overall the women workers received higher wage rate (`80) compared to average wage rate of `79 per day received by all workers. It is worth mentioning that the lower average daily wage earned by the working members of our sample households in all study districts and Rajasthan state was basically due to the fact that people were given more piece rate work compared to daily wage work. So in the majority of cases, the payment was made on the basis of task rate. However, workers expressed that comparatively more of them received the better wages from NREGA works during the reference year than the same from other kinds of works taken up earlier under other programmes. As far as beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries are concerned, wage rates earned by non-beneficiary HHs were found to be higher for all activities except public works programmes and NREGA works where there was no participation of non-beneficiary HHs. The wage differential between non-beneficiary and beneficiary 90

104 HHs was found to be higher for non-agricultural causal labour works (a difference of `15.7 for male worker) compared to agricultural causal labour works(a difference of `10.3). It is worth mentioning that the average wages earned from NREGA works were among the lowest. Regarding the nature of assets created under NREGA and their durability, the majority of NREGA workers were engaged in rural connectivity works followed by land development works and creation of water conservation and water harvesting structures. Taken all sample households (HHs) together, about 72.0 per cent of participating HHs and 72.3 per cent of participating workers have worked in rural connectivity works in Rajasthan. It may be noted that about 56.5 per cent of NREGA HHs reported that the quality of assets created was good while about 40 per cent reported that that the quality of assets created was very good. Only 3 per cent of NREGA HHs reported that the quality of assets created was bad. However, the quality of assets created with respect to amount spent was grossly inadequate. So far as the effects of NREGA on labour migration is concerned, about 8 per cent of family members of a sample household in Rajasthan have migrated to other places for not getting work under NREGA. Relatively among study districts, outmigrants are more in Banswara district where about 12.1 per cent members of sample households have migrated from the village because of not getting work under NREGA even after registration. On the other hand, about members of a household (3.24%) have returned back to village because of getting work in NREGA in Rajasthan. Incidentally, the returning of out-migrants to join NREGA was more in Banswara too compared to other study districts. As far as the types of activities in which they were engaged earlier to joining NREGA are concerned, about 60 per cent of returned members of sample households in Rajasthan were earlier working in construction, manufacturing and mining sectors while 30 per cent and 10 per cent of returned members were engaged in agricultural labour works and private works respectively. 91

105 Chapter 5 Qualitative Aspects of NREGA Functioning 5.1. Assets Holdings of Sample Households The overall asset base of the sample households in rural Rajasthan is low in the study districts. Moreover, their share of the productive assets like financial assets, transport means, land and agricultural implements is considerably less, which also indicates that the capacity of the sample household to earn through its own resources is limited. But more importantly, the asset base of the beneficiary household (HH) is lower than that of its non-beneficiary counterpart, as shown in Table 5.1. The value of total assets of a beneficiary HH and a non-beneficiary HH was ` and ` respectively during the reference year The house property accounted for a major share of the total asset value for both beneficiary and non-beneficiary HHs. All sample households taken together, about 49.0 per cent of total asset value was on account of house property. The value of house property of beneficiary and non beneficiary HHs was `95225 (50.5%) and ` (44.2%) respectively. Better endowment of household assets by non-nrega households asserts that their standard of living is better than that of NREGA beneficiary HHs in the study areas. Table 5.1: Assets holdings of sample households (Rs per household) Occupation Beneficiaries Non beneficiaries Aggregate Land (26.6) (29.3) (27.2) House property (50.5) (44.2) (49.0) Livestock (7.4) (2.7) (6.3) Agricultural (2.6) (4.8) (3.1) implements Consumer assets (3.2) (3.9) (3.3) Financial assets (0.4) (0.5) (0.4) Ornaments (6.9) (10.8) (7.8) Utensils (1.3) (1.9) (1.4) Transport means (1.3) (1.9) (1.4) Others 0.0 (0.0) (0.0) 20.0 (0.0) Total (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Note: Figures in parentheses are percentage of total asset value. Source: Field survey data 92

106 5.2. Household Status on Borrowings and their Financial Vulnerability Table 5.2 shows the details of borrowing by the sample HHs. It is very much clear that the non-nrega HHs have succeeded to avail more institutional credit which is comparatively cheap among various types of rural credit availed by rural HHs in Rajasthan. A non-beneficiary HH has availed `11840 of institutional loans from various commercial banks and cooperatives as against ` of institutional loans by a beneficiary HH during the same year Institutional loans constituted about 73.3 per cent of total borrowings by a non-beneficiary HH whereas only 38.9 per cent of total borrowings of a beneficiary HH were institutional loans. On the other hand, beneficiary HHs have resorted more to borrowings from traders-cum-money lenders which is very costly in rural areas. A beneficiary HH has borrowed ` (35.7%) from moneylenders as against only `820 (5.1%) by a non-beneficiary HH from the same source. Thus the average rate of interest for NREGA beneficiary has been very high (27%) as compared to that (12%) by a non-beneficiary HH. On the whole, Rs ` was borrowed by a sample HH in the study area. The beneficiary and nonbeneficiary HHs have borrowed a total of ` and `16150 respectively from various sources. As far as the purpose of borrowing is concerned, except daily consumption of essential commodities and health related expenses, non-beneficiary HHs have spent more on all other fronts like social ceremony, purchase of transport means, construction of house buildings etc. On an average, a non-beneficiary HH spent ` 8000, `2540 and `2500 during the reference year on purchase of land, livestock, transport vehicle, social ceremony and others respectively. On the other hand, respectively `2790, `1525 and `1722 have been spent for these major types of expenses by a beneficiary HH. However, the health related expenses for a NREGA beneficiary HH (`1250) was much more than 4 times than that incurred (`300) by a non-beneficiary HH. It is believed that, because of lower socio-economic conditions, the majority of beneficiary HHs have failed to maintain a healthy life with access to good quality food and standard hygienic environment. Very often they fail to take their food in time for which they become vulnerable to various kind of health related anomalies. To sum up, the non-nrega HHs have availed more cheap credit from banks and utilized them in various productive activities; whereas the NREGA HHs had to resort to high cost borrowings from private moneylenders with exorbitant rate 93

107 of interests to fulfill some essential needs. Some of these poor HHs are found to be caught in debt trap. Table 5.2: Borrowings by sample households (Rs. per household) Occupation Beneficiaries Non beneficiaries Aggregate Source of loan Purpose of loan Institutional loan (38.9) (73.3) (49.4) (banks) Traders-cum (35.7) (5.1) (26.3) Money Lenders Commission Agent (2.2) 0.0 (0.0) (1.5) Landlord/Employer (3.3) (2.5) (3.0) Friends/Relatives (19.7) (18.8) (19.4) Others 29.8 (0.3) 50.0 (0.3) 33.8 (0.3) Daily consumption (13.0) (6.3) (11.0) Social ceremony (16.5) (15.7) (16.3) Purchase of land, (30.3) (49.5) (36.1) livestock, Transport vehicle Consumer durables (3.3) (5.0) (3.8) Construction of (4.6) (3.7) (4.3) house Health treatment (13.6) (4.3) (10.7) Others (18.7) (15.5) (17.7) Total amount of borrowing (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Rate of interest (percent per annum) Note: Figures in parentheses are percentage of total borrowing by respective categories of HHs. Source: Field survey data. It is interesting to notice that, even if the non-nrega workers have borrowed less from traders-cum-moneylenders, they have borrowed more from their landlords and friends/relatives with good social networking. More non-nrega HHs (14.0%) were found to send their family members to work at agricultural lands or other establishes of landlords to whom they were indebted (Table 5.3). About 10.5 per cent of NREGA beneficiary HHs had also done wage works to those whom they were indebted. It may also be seen that the membership of cooperative credit society and self-help groups (SHGs) is more among beneficiary HHs compared to non-beneficiary HHs. In contrast to 8.0 per cent of non-nrega HHs, about 35 per cent of NREGA beneficiaries were members of SHGs. However, more non-nrega HHs (12%) have purchased financial assets like life insurance policies as compared to 9.5 per cent of NREGA beneficiary HHs. 94

108 Table 5.3: Household strength on borrowing and other households assets (% of households) Occupation Beneficiaries Non beneficiaries Aggregate Doing wage work to those whom they are indebted Availability of co-operative credit society in village Family member being member of such society Availability of informal credit society/shg in village Family member being member of such society Having account in a bank/post office/other institution Having any stocks/bond/shares/other similar assets Having life insurance policy Note: SHG stands for Self Help Group. Source: Field survey data. 5.3 Some Qualitative Aspects of NREGA Implementation It is important to examine how the beneficiaries experienced the differences due to implementation of NREGA in their locality. Attempt has been made in this section to assess the perceptions of participant workers on how they participated in different phases of NREGA implementation. To what extent, they were aware of various aspects of NREGA implementation, their rights and duties? What kinds of problems did they face during their association with NREGA? What steps they have taken to ameliorate the bottlenecks? What are their views for improvement in NREGA functioning? To what extent, NREGA strengthened the rural infrastructures? How the structures are created useful for the villagers? Did NREGA help them in getting their family members around them? Did NREGA help them in raising their standard of living? These are some of the issues that have been discussed in this section in the light of perceptions of sample HHs Job Card Issues and Work Applications As per the operational guidelines (OG) of NREGA, the Gram Panchayats are required to issue job cards to the households who apply for registration after due verification of name, age and address of the adult members of a household and affixing their photograph on the job cards. The Job Card which is valid for a period of five years 95

109 should be issued free of cost within 15 days of application. No one can charge any fees for issuing the Job card. However, about 11 per cent of NREGA beneficiaries in the study region revealed that they were asked to pay exorbitant charges as bribe for getting the job card (Table 5.4). About 9 per cent of beneficiaries were forced to pay about `50 or less and rest 2 per cent had paid `50 to `100 as bribe for getting the job card (Table 5.5). Some cases of irregularities were found in terms of wrong entry or no entry in the job cards, over written or no signature of concerned authorities in the job cards. About 20 per cent beneficiaries revealed that their job cards had no entries regarding their employment even though they had worked on NREGA. About 31 per cent beneficiaries expressed that some entries were incomplete or missing or fake information was entered. In cases of 7 per cent participants, some entries were overwritten. It is worth-mentioning that about 17.5 per cent cases, there were no signatures of authorities on the job cards. As per the OG, job cards should be kept with the card holders only. However, about 20.5 per cent cases were found where the job cards were not kept with the job card holders. Six per cent beneficiaries told that their job cards are usually kept with the Sarpanch or Sachiv whereas another 0.5 per cent expressed that their job cards were kept with Gram Rojgar Sevak. In the case of 14 per cent of beneficiaries, the job cards were placed with Mates (Table 5.4). It may be noted from Table 5.5 that 9.5 per cent beneficiaries revealed that they had to hand over their job cards to these functionaries since these functionaries had requested them to do so; but 7.5 per cent beneficiaries said that they wanted to get some favors of NREGA functionaries at the worksites in term of doing less work or partiality in the measurement of works etc. About 9 per cent respondent expressed that they believed that the job cards would be kept safely with the mates whereas another 2 per cent told that they preferred to hand over to these functionaries since they need not bring the job cards daily. As per the OG, a job card holder may submit a written application for employment to the Gram Panchayat, stating the time and duration for which work is sought. The minimum days of employment have to be at least fourteen. In case they were not provided employment within 15 days of application, the unemployment allowance has to be paid to the concerned beneficiaries. Our data on experiences of NREGA beneficiaries reveals that about 92.5 per cent of them were employed in response to an application for work. However, it is a matter of great concern that only 28 per cent of them were 96

110 provided a dated receipt for the application. Though about 25 per cent of NREGA beneficiaries did not get the job within stipulated 15 days, they were not paid any unemployment allowance. Since the payment of unemployment allowance is a state s responsibility, the job cards were updated and the records were intentionally maintained in such a way that there will be no need to pay unemployment allowance. Table 5.4: Qualitative questions related to functioning of NREGA (% of beneficiary HH). Description Yes No Not sure Job card issued Irregularity in the job card Where was the card generally kept Work application Paid any fees/charges or bribe to get a job card The amount paid for job card (exorbitant) The amount paid as bribe (exorbitant) No entries were made, even though the job card holder(s) had worked on NREGA Some entries were incomplete or missing or fake information was entered Some entries were over-written The signature column was blank or partly blank With the card holders With Sarpanch or Sachiv With contractor With the Gram Rojgar Sahayak With Mate Are you employed in response to an application for work If applied, did you get a dated receipt for the application If applied, did you get work within 15 days of application In case of failure to provide work within 15 days, is unemployment allowance paid Payment of Wages Measurement of work Period of wage payment Are the wage rates same for men and women Wage rates higher for men Wage rates higher for women wage paid on daily-wage basis wage paid on piece-rate/task-wage basis Work was measured by individual s work Work was measured by team measurement Work was measured by collective measurement Wages were paid within a fortnight Wages were paid within a month Wages were paid more than a month Wages were paid after one year

111 Table 5.4 (Continued) Who made the wage payment In case wage payment made in the bank Places of wage payment Complaints regarding wage payment Details of worksite facilities Monitoring Economic usefulness of the work Nature of assets and their durability in which the interviewee involved Description Yes No Not sure Sarpanch or Sachiv Post office Bank Representative of line department Other government official or any other Bank account was on self s name Spouse s name Parent s name Children s name Others Individual account Joint account Did bank follow usual procedure of banking Wages paid in front of all labourers Wages paid at the worksite Wages paid in Panchayat Bhawan Wages paid at other public/private place Wages paid at some one s private residence There were delays in wage payments Wage paid less than the minimum wage Wage paid less than asked for sign/thumb impression Task was too much compared to the wages paid Faced problems in accessing post office/banks On what basis wages were calculated not clear Others A Board/GP member gave details of the sanctioned amount, work dimensions and other requisite details The worksite had drinking water facility Worksite had shed for periods of rest Worksite had child care facility Worksite had first aid kit/medicines Was there any authority to monitor the functioning of the NREGA administration Any complaint lodged relating to worksite etc., to the Gram Panchayat, Programme Officer or other officials If yes, was any action taken on your complaint Work is very useful to the villagers Work is quite useful to the villagers Work is not particularly useful to the villagers Work is useless for the villagers The structure created may last up to one year The structure created may last up to five years The structure created may last up to ten years The structure created may last more than ten years Is it worth creating the structure? Was the structure created adequate? No, structure needed more attention to be able to last long. 98

112 Table 5.4 (Continued) How has NREGA affected labour migration? Respondents awareness about NREGA implementation Potential benefits of NREGA Questions related to food security (Case of NREGA beneficiaries) Description Yes No Not sure Did any of your family members migrated out for job after implementation of NREGA (year 2005 onwards) If yes, only one member of the family migrated More than one member of the family migrated Are wages higher in city or other states than NREGA Any family members migrated back to village to work under NREGA If yes, only one member of the family migrated back More than one member of the family migrated back Any family member migrated as wage labourers with dissatisfaction from NREGA If yes, only one member of the family migrated More than one member of the family migrated Are respondent aware about NREGA implementation Right to apply for work and get employed within days The work application procedure Right to minimum wages The level of minimum wages The wage calculation method Right to the unemployment allowance Minimum worksite facilities (drinking water, first aid) Mandatory availability of muster rolls at the worksite The list of permissible works under the NREGA NREGA enhanced food security NREGA provided protection against extreme poverty NREGA helped to reduce distress migration NREGA helped to reduce indebtedness NREGA gave greater economic independence to women NREGA generated purchasing power at local economy Did your family get full two meals per day throughout year 2009 Family did not get sufficient food for one month Family did not get sufficient food for two month Family did not get sufficient food for above two month How did you cope with the situation take loan Catch fish/rat/crab etc Near/sometime starvation/take meal only once Begging Any other Note: GP stands for Gram Panchayat Source: Field survey data 99

113 Plate 5.1. Difficulties in work measurement at Jhareda village of Karauli district. There were many instances when the workers could not understand how their work was being measured. They had to only receive the wages without putting many questions. Plate 5.2 WHS under construction at Odaki village of Sri Ganganagar district ( ). In most of the cases the nearby trees and bushes were used as rest shed by the NREGA workers. 100

114 Plate 5.3. Community Reservoir at Chudada, Banswara ( ). This is an example of a good quality work. Plate 5.4 Water harvesting structure at Kotari village, Karauli ( ). This is an example of a bad quality work 101