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

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

ii

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

iv

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

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

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 1 1.1 Rationale of the Study 1 1.2 Historical Background 3 1.3 Main Objectives of the Study 9 1.4 Data base and Methodology 10 1.5 Overview of Literature 11 1.6 Limitations of the Study 16 1.7 Chapter Design 17 Chapter 2: Manpower Employment Generated under NREGA 19 and its Socio-Economic Characteristics 2.1 The Functioning of NREGA 19 2.2 Employment Generated through NREGA and 21 its Socio Economic Characteristics 2.3 Number of Projects Completed and Total Amount Spent 28 2.4 Performance of NREGA Some Quantitative Indicators 37 2.4.1 Social Auditing and Inspection of NREGA Work 38 2.4.2 The NREGA Payment Processed though Banks/Post Offices 43 2.4.3 The Payment of Unemployment Allowance 49 2.4.4 The Work Projection under NREGA 51 2.5 Summary of the Chapter 56 Chapter 3: Household Characteristics and 60 their Income and Consumption Pattern 3.1. Household Profile of the Respondents 61 3.2. Major Sources of Occupation 62 3.3 Household Net Income 63 vii

3.4 Household Consumption 65 3.5 Variability and Gini Ratios of Income, Consumption and Wages 68 3.6 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 78 4.1 Work Profile under NREGA 78 4.2 Performance of NREGA in Providing 100 Days of Employment 79 4.3 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 83 4.6 Effects of NREGA on Labour Migration 87 4.7 Summary of the Chapter 89 Chapter 5: Qualitative Aspects of Functioning of NREGA 92 5.1. Household Assets Holdings 92 5.2. Household Status on Borrowings and Their Financial Vulnerability 93 5.3 Some Qualitative Aspects of NREGA Implementation 95 5.3.1 Job Card Issues and Work Applications 95 5.3.2 Payment of Wages and Related Issues 103 5.3.3 Worksite Facilities and Economic Usefulness of the Work 104 5.3.4 Monitoring of the Work 104 5.3.5 Nature of Assets Created and their Durability 105 5.3.6 Labour Migration and NREGA 105 5.3.7 Respondents Awareness about NREGA Implementation 106 5.3.8 Potential Benefits of NREGA 106 5.3.9 NREGA and Food Security 106 5.4 Some Qualitative Questions Related to Food Security 107 5.5 Summary of the Chapter 113 Chapter 6: NREGA Impact on Village Economy 116 6.1 Background 116 6.2 Infrastructure Available in the Village 116 6.3 Changes in Occupational Structure in the Selected Villages 119 6.4 Effects of NREGA on Wage Rates in the Selected Villages 120 6.5 Effects of NREGA on Charges for Agricultural Operations 121 6.6 Various Changes in the Village Economy after Implementation of NREGA 122 6.7 Summary of the Chapter 127 viii

Chapter 7: Concluding Remarks and Policy Suggestions 129 7.1 Introduction 129 7.2 Summary of Findings 129 7.3 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

List of Tables Table Title Page No. 1.1 Sample size distribution across caste and village 11 2.1 Performance of NREGA in Rajasthan from 2008-09 to 2010-11 20 2.2A Employment generated through NREGA and 22 its socio-economic characteristics during 2010-11 2.2B Employment generated through NREGA and 23 its socio-economic characteristics during 2009-10 2.2C Employment generated through NREGA and 24 its socio-economic characteristics during 2008-09 2.3A District wise works completed / progress under NREGA 30 (number of project) during 2010-11 2.3B District wise works completed / progress under NREGA 31 (number of project) during 2009-10 2.3C District wise works completed / progress under NREGA 32 (number of project) during 2008-09 2.4A District wise works completed/progress under NREGA 34 (Amount spent in lakh rupees) during 2010-11 (Till Aug 2010) 2.4B District wise works completed/progress under NREGA 35 (Amount spent in lakh rupees) during 2009-10 2.4C District wise works completed/progress under NREGA 36 (Amount spent in lakh rupees) during 2008-09 2.5A Social auditing and inspection of NREGA work 40 during 2010-11 (Till 31 Aug 2010) 2.5B Social auditing and inspection of NREGA work during 2009-10 41 2.5C Social auditing and inspection of NREGA work during 2008-09 42 2.6A The NREGA payment processed though banks/post office 46 during 2010-11(Till Aug 2010) 2.6B The NREGA payment processed though banks/post office 47 during 2009-10 2.6C The NREGA payment processed though banks/post office 48 during 2008-09 2.7 Unemployment allowance paid in lieu of not providing 50 employment (2010-11) 2.8 Work projection under NREGA for 2010-11 53 x

3.1 Demographic profile of the respondents (% of HHs) 61 3.2 Occupational pattern of sample households 63 (% of total man-days per HH) 3.3 Annual household net income (Rs per household) 64 3.4 Household consumption of food items 66 (kg per capita per month) 3.5 Monthly consumption expenditure of households 67 3.6 Variability in income, consumption and wages 69 3.7 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 79 4.2 Wage differentials among different activities 82 4.3 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 88 5.1 Assets holdings of sample households (Rs per household) 92 5.2 Borrowings by sample households (Rs. per household) 94 5.3 Household strength on borrowing and 95 other household assets (% of HHs) 5.4 Qualitative questions related to functioning of NREGA (% of HH) 97 5.5 Qualitative questions related to NREGA functioning 102 (% of beneficiary HH) 5.6 Qualitative questions related to food security (percentage of HH) 108 6.1 Infrastructure available within the village (percentage of villages) 117 6.2 Occupational structure (% of households) 119 6.3 Wage rates for different activities (average of all villages) 120 6.4 Prevailing labour charges (Rs/day) for agricultural operations 121 6.5 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

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 (2008-09) 86 Plate 4.3 WHS created under NREGA at Bhundel village 86 of Nagaur district (2008-09) Plate 4.4 Brick lining of Irrigation channel at 9Z village 87 of Sri Ganganagar district (2008-09) 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 (2009-10) Plate 5.3 Community Reservoir at Chudada, Banswara (2008-09) 101 Plate 5.4 Water harvesting structure at Kotari village, Karauli (2008-09) 101 xii

List of Annexures Annexure Title Page No. 1A District wise works completed / progress under NREGA 152 (number of project) during 2010-11 1B District wise works completed / progress under NREGA 153 (number of project) during 2009-10 1C District wise works completed / progress under NREGA 154 (number of project) during 2008-09 2A District wise works completed/progress under NREGA 155 (Amount spent in lakh rupees) during 2010-11 (Till Aug 2010) 2B District wise works completed/progress under NREGA 156 (Amount spent in lakh rupees) during 2009-10 2C District wise works completed/progress under NREGA 157 (Amount spent in lakh rupees) during 2008-09 3 Work projection under NREGA for other than study districts 158 for 2010-11 xiii

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

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

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 1977. 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

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. 906.59 crores. The target for employment generation in 1983-84 and 1984-85 was fixed at 360 million man days against which 260.18 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. 2600 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

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 1988-89. 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

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 1.4.1997. 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 1999. 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

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 2000-01 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

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 2005. 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 2008-09. 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 1980. 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

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 2007. The remaining 274 districts of India were covered under the Act from 1st April, 2008. 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 2009. 1.3 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

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

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 6 2 7 5 20 2 0 1 2 5 2 Ganganagar Ganganagar 4C Odaki Far 11 0 8 1 20 2 0 3 0 5 3 Jaisalmer Jaisalmer Kishangad Amarsagar Near 0 3 17 0 20 0 1 4 0 5 4 Jaisalmer Jaisalmer Jaisalmer Hameera Far 6 8 0 6 20 1 1 3 0 5 5 Nagaur Nagaur Tausar Tausar Near 9 1 10 0 20 2 1 1 1 5 6 Nagaur Nagaur Bhundel Bhundel Far 11 0 2 7 20 1 0 3 1 5 7 Karauli Hindoan Jhareda Jhareda Near 1 9 2 8 20 1 2 0 2 5 8 Karauli Hindoan Kotari Kotari Far 7 6 4 3 20 2 3 0 0 5 9 Banswara Kushalgad Thummath Chudada Near 0 20 0 0 20 0 5 0 0 5 10 Banswara Kushalgad Badi Sarawa Badi Sarawa Far 0 0 0 20 20 0 0 1 4 5 Total 51 49 50 50 200 11 13 16 10 50 (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

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

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

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 10-11 per cent of SC and ST families received the job cards as against 75-78 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 2006-07 and 2009-10. 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

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

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 2006-07 to 44% in 2007-08. 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

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

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 2009-10. 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

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 2006-07, 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

Table 2.1 gives a glimpse of performance of NREGA in Rajasthan during three reference years 2008-09 to 2010-11. The total number of job cards issued was dramatically increased from 8,468,740 in 2008-09 to 9,656,175 in 2010-11(till August). All households who demanded employment were given employment during 2009-10, while the majority of households who demanded employment were given employment during 2008-09 and 2010-11. However, the cumulative no. of households completed 100 days has drastically declined from 2,631,892 in 2008-09 to 1,514,420 in 2009-10, which has further declined to 60,705 in 2010-11. 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 2008-09 and 2009-10 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 2008-09 to Rs 190,602 lakhs during 2009-10. 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 2008-09 to 9,330,267 during 2009-10. Table 2.1 Performance of NREGA in Rajasthan from 2008-09 to 2010-11 Performance Indicators Units 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11* 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 482954000 449810000 157270534 Cumulative No. of HH completed 100 days Nos 2,631,892 1,514,420 60,705 Total number of works taken up Nos 206,770 237,950 109,208 Works Ongoing/ Nos 135,720 110,996 489,340 Works Completed Nos 100,472 92,251 408 Expenditure on Works Ongoing/ Rs Lakh 443,287 382,967 133,666 Expenditure on Works Completed Rs Lakh 159,187 190,602 304 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 324,131 357,972 150,386 offices Unemployment allowance due No. of NA NA 21,886 days Unemployment allowance paid Rs 0 0 0 Percentage of GP where social Audit held % 99.9 96.9 32.2 Note: *Data are up to 31st August 2010. Source: www.nrega.nic.in; Accessed on 10th September 2010. 20

It was good to see that the social audits were undertaken in 99.9 per cent of Gram Panchayats in Rajasthan during 2008-09. 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 2008-09 to 96.9 per cent in 2009-10, which has further declined to 32.2 per cent during 2010-11. The most dismal performance was observed in Rajasthan with respect to payment of unemployment allowance. Though unemployment allowance was due for 21886 days covering 30 out of 33 districts during 2010-11 (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 2010-11(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 133819 SC HHs were issued job cards during 2010-11(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 2008-09 and 2009-10. 21

Table 2.2A: Employment generated through NREGA and its socio-economic characteristics during 2010-11(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 51969 (21.5) 60058 (24.9) 129596 (53.6) 241623 (100.0) 101162 91318 (90.3) 3420 444305 (21.4) 686419 (33.0) 950138 (45.7) 2080862 (100.0) 1353875 (65.1) 119 Jaisalmer 15457 (13.6) 5976 (5.3) 92265 (81.1) 113698 (100.0) 48429 46840 (96.7) 14399 304780 (16.6) 132848 (7.2) 1396978 (76.1) 1834606 (100.0) 1254570 (68.4) 1403 Nagaur 102886 (22.8) 4111 (0.9) 343659 (76.3) 450656 (100.0) 223036 220402 (98.8) 6253 2040978 (27.0) 67025 (0.9) 5450358 (72.1) 7558361 (100.0) 5277252 (69.8) 2375 Sri Ganganagar 133819 (37.1) 1729 (0.5) 224788 (62.4) 360336 (100.0) 156261 104658 (67.0) 24179 1395217 (57.3) 10155 (0.4) 1030217 (42.3) 2435589 (100.0) 1274710 (52.3) 363 Banswara 12252 (4.3) 235371 (81.8) 39959 (13.9) 287582 (100.0) 218931 217533 (99.4) 3818 383442 (3.7) 9041225 (87.3) 927666 (9.0) 10352333 (100.0) 6449178 (62.3) 5417 Dungarpur 8428 (2.8) 215084 (72.7) 72475 (24.5) 295987 (100.0) 163132 155641 (95.4) 8551 134330 (2.9) 3691702 (78.9) 854633 (18.3) 4680665 (100.0) 3464192 (74.0) 828 Jhalawar 45707 (17.3) 36669 (13.9) 181756 (68.8) 264132 (100.0) 82806 81735 (98.7) 1799 433975 (23.4) 248414 (13.4) 1173886 (63.2) 1856275 (100.0) 1085692 (58.5) 281 Sirohi 33875 (21.1) 48056 (30.0) 78414 (48.9) 160345 (100.0) 74912 73709 (98.4) 10093 798802 (24.8) 1102824 (34.3) 1315199 (40.9) 3216825 (100.0) 2523232 (78.4) 1724 Udaipur 20165 (4.6) 258814 (58.7) 161576 (36.7) 440555 (100.0) 228733 225488 (98.6) 20393 345993 (4.0) 6021933 (69.4) 2310042 (26.6) 8677968 (100.0) 6036975 (69.6) 3378 Barmer 76645 (16.1) 32218 (6.8) 366223 (77.1) 475086 (100.0) 271326 268882 (99.1) 16908 1839380 (17.8) 867613 (8.4) 7637853 (73.8) 10344846 (100.0) 7262747 (70.2) 4040 Chittorgarh 43998 (16.2) 39471 (14.5) 188632 (69.3) 272101 (100.0) 145529 144855 (99.5) 3622 1148897 (18.2) 1126964 (17.9) 4024520 (63.9) 6300381 (100.0) 4334459 (68.8) 5110 Jalore 51036 (19.9) 30095 (11.7) 175372 (68.4) 256503 (100.0) 115741 114142 (98.6) 17042 1156220 (24.2) 617992 (12.9) 3005138 (62.9) 4779350 (100.0) 3786298 (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 44295 (20.6) 54012 (25.1) 116787 (54.3) 215094 (100.0) 93608 90056 (96.2) 7916 524411 (21.9) 656951 (27.5) 1210375 (50.6) 2391737 (100.0) 1333075 (55.7) 302 Tonk 46693 (18.0) 34606 (13.4) 177403 (68.6) 258702 (100.0) 139358 138861 (99.6) 2685 887123 (18.2) 759405 (15.6) 3225130 (66.2) 4871658 (100.0) 3384790 (69.5) 1454 Ajmer 54502 (15.2) 11800 (3.3) 292945 (81.5) 359247 (100.0) 196300 196273 (100.0) 1391 1206218 (16.1) 318497 (4.3) 5952291 (79.6) 7477006 (100.0) 5581641 (74.7) 561 Alwar 69264 (18.5) 45708 (12.2) 259236 (69.3) 374208 (100.0) 97720 84136 (86.1) 16698 574991 (26.0) 361217 (16.4) 1271881 (57.6) 2208089 (100.0) 1413395 (64.0) 476 Baran 35462 (16.4) 47242 (21.8) 133720 (61.8) 216424 (100.0) 68215 67337 (98.7) 2063 471877 (22.2) 459060 (21.6) 1194839 (56.2) 2125776 (100.0) 1279377 (60.2) 1133 Bharatpur 71762 (22.5) 7469 (2.3) 239489 (75.1) 318720 (100.0) 116245 104514 (89.9) 19963 702959 (24.3) 69626 (2.4) 2119371 (73.3) 2891956 (100.0) 1627259 (56.3) 875 Bhilwara 68941 (13.1) 44022 (8.3) 414713 (78.6) 527676 (100.0) 309203 300343 (97.1) 18208 1839852 (14.6) 1168121 (9.3) 9569678 (76.1) 12577651 (100.0) 9828259 (78.1) 5930 Bikaner 44469 (13.4) 3006 (0.9) 283302 (85.6) 330777 (100.0) 149922 140346 (93.6) 31854 953796 (20.7) 55892 (1.2) 3598577 (78.1) 4608265 (100.0) 2481155 (53.8) 2060 Bundi 34104 (18.9) 43843 (24.3) 102370 (56.8) 180317 (100.0) 100249 98924 (98.7) 9108 718527 (19.0) 993395 (26.3) 2067062 (54.7) 3778984 (100.0) 2357867 (62.4) 1375 Churu 63333 (23.3) 3727 (1.4) 204815 (75.3) 271875 (100.0) 177737 173520 (97.6) 28622 2333566 (30.6) 111905 (1.5) 5168189 (67.9) 7613660 (100.0) 4525072 (59.4) 2230 Dausa 32080 (10.2) 46117 (14.7) 235878 (75.1) 314075 (100.0) 87309 84799 (97.1) 1011 292498 (14.7) 420654 (21.2) 1272425 (64.1) 1985577 (100.0) 1460943 (73.6) 545 Dholpur 24117 (13.4) 12243 (6.8) 144073 (79.8) 180433 (100.0) 39508 38321 (97.0) 5193 180834 (20.6) 101353 (11.5) 595773 (67.9) 877960 (100.0) 363910 (41.4) 120 Hanumangarh 69255 (29.8) 875 (0.4) 162333 (69.8) 232463 (100.0) 115676 107958 (93.3) 13380 883784 (41.7) 10240 (0.5) 1227725 (57.9) 2121749 (100.0) 1287609 (60.7) 368 Jaipur 20553 (4.4) 14518 (3.1) 436186 (92.6) 471257 (100.0) 228948 224227 (97.9) 11920 355790 (4.6) 224774 (2.9) 7160903 (92.5) 7741467 (100.0) 6150025 (79.4) 1205 Jhunjhunu 47346 (32.4) 4099 (2.8) 94550 (64.8) 145995 (100.0) 42842 40800 (95.2) 16479 741335 (48.1) 35866 (2.3) 765018 (49.6) 1542219 (100.0) 909940 (59.0) 674 Jodhpur 67205 (15.6) 13726 (3.2) 350999 (81.3) 431930 (100.0) 251593 240412 (95.6) 21227 1879450 (17.6) 358969 (3.4) 8410828 (79.0) 10649247 (100.0) 8163964 (76.7) 6379 Kota 33636 (21.2) 20881 (13.2) 103890 (65.6) 158407 (100.0) 75997 75752 (99.7) 3360 744958 (25.9) 403038 (14.0) 1729596 (60.1) 2877592 (100.0) 1763193 (61.3) 1920 Pali 60551 (18.7) 25989 (8.0) 237323 (73.3) 323863 (100.0) 152725 147502 (96.6) 3326 1178768 (20.9) 439116 (7.8) 4008748 (71.2) 5626632 (100.0) 4467059 (79.4) 2448 Pratapgarh 10233 (5.0) 148893 (72.4) 46410 (22.6) 205536 (100.0) 88203 86760 (98.4) 609 131492 (4.1) 2539489 (79.7) 516110 (16.2) 3187091 (100.0) 1919211 (60.2) 1207 Rajsamand 23708 (10.7) 27264 (12.3) 171404 (77.1) 222376 (100.0) 98251 97413 (99.1) 6738 447054 (12.5) 484420 (13.5) 2644423 (74.0) 3575897 (100.0) 2977396 (83.3) 1310 Sikar 55603 (18.6) 8789 (2.9) 233804 (78.4) 298196 (100.0) 79989 65477 (81.9) 25509 613483 (25.3) 95682 (4.0) 1713095 (70.7) 2422260 (100.0) 1743134 (72.0) 1009 Rajasthan state 1573349 (16.3) 1586481 (16.4) 6496345 (67.3) 9656175 (100.0) 4539596 4348934 (95.8) 377737 28089085 (17.9) 33682784 (21.4) 95498665 (60.7) 157270534 (100.0) 109121454 (69.4) 60705 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 2010. 22

Table 2.2B: Employment generated through NREGA and its socio-economic characteristics (2009-10) 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 61133 (27.7) 61722 (28.0) 97484 (44.2) 220339 (100.0) 161968 161968 (100.0) 9076 2422000 (30.9) 2539000 (32.4) 2868000 (36.6) 7829000 (100.0) 3273000 (41.8) 13936 Jaisalmer 17575 (15.4) 8389 (7.4) 87848 (77.2) 113812 (100.0) 89213 89213 (100.0) 19668 1166000 (17.9) 556000 (8.5) 4804000 (73.6) 6526000 (100.0) 3957000 (60.6) 25076 Nagaur 161076 (35.1) 1759 (0.4) 296382 (64.5) 459217 (100.0) 333743 333743 (100.0) 58251 10457000 (38.4) 264000 (1.0) 16539000 (60.7) 27260000 (100.0) 20536000 (75.3) 85031 Cumulative No. of HH completed 100 days Sri Ganganagar 145904 (56.5) 116 (0.0) 112342 (43.5) 258362 (100.0) 201524 201524 (100.0) 29056 6202000 (58.1) 4000 (0.0) 4473000 (41.9) 10679000 (100.0) 5716000 (53.5) 15455 Banswara 13872 (4.5) 263995 (84.8) 33460 (10.7) 311327 (100.0) 259908 259908 (100.0) 13241 1327000 (6.7) 16664000 (83.5) 1954000 (9.8) 19945000 (100.0) 13656000 (68.5) 69075 Dungarpur 15211 (5.3) 214674 (75.5) 54519 (19.2) 284404 (100.0) 256065 256065 (100.0) 28728 1188000 (5.6) 16664000 (78.8) 3282000 (15.5) 21134000 (100.0) 15221000 (72.0) 113341 Jhalawar 48076 (20.0) 36998 (15.4) 154930 (64.6) 240004 (100.0) 177607 177607 (100.0) 12293 2343000 (29.0) 1576000 (19.5) 4149000 (51.4) 8068000 (100.0) 5037000 (62.4) 11371 Sirohi 43358 (27.3) 48013 (30.2) 67364 (42.4) 158735 (100.0) 90988 90988 (100.0) 8797 1578000 (23.0) 2218000 (32.4) 3055000 (44.6) 6851000 (100.0) 5009000 (73.1) 21984 Udaipur 20319 (4.2) 293388 (61.4) 164393 (34.4) 478100 (100.0) 341056 341056 (100.0) 21025 1702000 (7.2) 16298000 (69.1) 5595000 (23.7) 23595000 (100.0) 16988000 (72.0) 36817 Barmer 92556 (19.9) 45295 (9.7) 327237 (70.4) 465088 (100.0) 360374 360374 (100.0) 78222 4995000 (18.0) 2030000 (7.3) 20675000 (74.6) 27700000 (100.0) 18471000 (66.7) 80774 Chittorgarh 70999 (21.4) 128899 (38.9) 131794 (39.7) 331692 (100.0) 235259 235259 (100.0) 22966 3581000 (25.0) 5418000 (37.8) 5327000 (37.2) 14326000 (100.0) 10167000 (71.0) 39677 Jalore 72557 (29.3) 28698 (11.6) 145990 (59.0) 247245 (100.0) 150949 150949 (100.0) 11750 3715000 (28.5) 2098000 (16.1) 7219000 (55.4) 13032000 (100.0) 9202000 (70.6) 59517 Sawai Madhopur 50797 (24.6) 63423 (30.7) 92678 (44.8) 206898 (100.0) 189300 189300 (100.0) 3576 1467000 (27.4) 1699000 (31.7) 2187000 (40.9) 5353000 (100.0) 3319000 (62.0) 6190 Tonk 54057 (22.5) 38219 (15.9) 147498 (61.5) 239774 (100.0) 180809 180809 (100.0) 32254 3195000 (27.7) 2440000 (21.1) 5915000 (51.2) 11550000 (100.0) 7435000 (64.4) 39320 Ajmer 80920 (22.8) 15869 (4.5) 257885 (72.7) 354674 (100.0) 268760 268760 (100.0) 44029 5470000 (19.6) 1311000 (4.7) 21070000 (75.7) 27851000 (100.0) 22420000 (80.5) 88494 Alwar 137100 (39.8) 61060 (17.7) 146580 (42.5) 344740 (100.0) 175707 175707 (100.0) 6020 3419000 (37.7) 1981000 (21.8) 3678000 (40.5) 9078000 (100.0) 4469000 (49.2) 13618 Baran 41007 (22.0) 53435 (28.7) 92066 (49.4) 186508 (100.0) 110299 110299 (100.0) 12669 1742000 (27.2) 1758000 (27.4) 2906000 (45.4) 6406000 (100.0) 3223000 (50.3) 13207 Bharatpur 71569 (23.2) 7456 (2.4) 228811 (74.3) 307836 (100.0) 195638 195638 (100.0) 2209 2953000 (33.3) 248000 (2.8) 5678000 (63.9) 8879000 (100.0) 4452000 (50.1) 12381 Bhilwara 67253 (14.0) 42695 (8.9) 371964 (77.2) 481912 (100.0) 404754 404754 (100.0) 55670 9132000 (27.0) 5001000 (14.8) 19673000 (58.2) 33806000 (100.0) 24112000 (71.3) 138826 Bikaner 95461 (29.9) 733 (0.2) 223498 (69.9) 319692 (100.0) 272500 272500 (100.0) 48500 7238000 (43.2) 0 (0.0) 9500000 (56.8) 16738000 (100.0) 10043000 (60.0) 59500 Bundi 41423 (23.5) 47252 (26.8) 87751 (49.7) 176426 (100.0) 135687 135687 (100.0) 14524 1677000 (23.4) 1955000 (27.3) 3527000 (49.3) 7159000 (100.0) 5309000 (74.2) 9928 Churu 98440 (38.8) 3599 (1.4) 151888 (59.8) 253927 (100.0) 197772 197772 (100.0) 34616 6249000 (35.2) 231000 (1.3) 11269000 (63.5) 17749000 (100.0) 9219000 (51.9) 86765 Dausa 68918 (29.2) 73355 (31.1) 93715 (39.7) 235988 (100.0) 153097 153097 (100.0) 6107 3111000 (31.2) 3369000 (33.8) 3500000 (35.1) 9980000 (100.0) 7211000 (72.3) 23866 Dholpur 55095 (37.3) 15118 (10.2) 77654 (52.5) 147867 (100.0) 104153 104153 (100.0) 810 1598000 (37.2) 623000 (14.5) 2076000 (48.3) 4297000 (100.0) 1243000 (28.9) 9190 Hanumangarh 65970 (29.9) 949 (0.4) 153613 (69.7) 220532 (100.0) 144341 144341 (100.0) 32164 4339000 (45.8) 8000 (0.1) 5132000 (54.1) 9479000 (100.0) 4936000 (52.1) 42656 Jaipur 137209 (31.5) 78295 (18.0) 220449 (50.6) 435953 (100.0) 318127 318127 (100.0) 50047 8858000 (35.0) 6074000 (24.0) 10377000 (41.0) 25309000 (100.0) 17716000 (70.0) 104200 Jhunjhunu 66019 (45.8) 8469 (5.9) 69510 (48.3) 143998 (100.0) 75376 75376 (100.0) 3762 2374000 (44.6) 363000 (6.8) 2582000 (48.5) 5319000 (100.0) 2350000 (44.2) 22901 Jodhpur 80211 (28.0) 16965 (5.9) 189766 (66.1) 286942 (100.0) 293496 293496 (100.0) 36456 4807000 (23.4) 1956000 (9.5) 13745000 (67.0) 20508000 (100.0) 15606000 (76.1) 86036 Kota 36405 (27.3) 23274 (17.4) 73824 (55.3) 133503 (100.0) 79055 79055 (100.0) 13747 1908000 (31.0) 1269000 (20.6) 2975000 (48.4) 6152000 (100.0) 3590000 (58.4) 16800 Pali 70808 (24.4) 20661 (7.1) 198135 (68.4) 289604 (100.0) 288652 288652 (100.0) 16503 4437000 (26.3) 1909000 (11.3) 10502000 (62.3) 16848000 (100.0) 13096000 (77.7) 81624 Pratapgarh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rajsamand 32474 (16.0) 47877 (23.6) 122485 (60.4) 202836 (100.0) 140179 140179 (100.0) 18379 1833000 (14.8) 2442000 (19.7) 8151000 (65.6) 12426000 (100.0) 9580000 (77.1) 60811 Sikar 92000 (31.7) 16000 (5.5) 182000 (62.8) 290000 (100.0) 135908 135908 (100.0) 11667 2869000 (36.0) 221000 (2.8) 4888000 (61.3) 7978000 (100.0) 4324000 (54.2) 26053 Rajasthan state 2205772 (25.0) 1766650 (20.0) 4855513 (55.0) 8827935 (100.0) 6522264 6522264 (100.0) 756782 119352000 (26.5) 101187000 (22.5) 229271000 (51.0) 449810000 (100.0) 300886000 (66.9) 1514420 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 2010. 23

Table 2.2C: Employment generated through NREGA and its socio-economic characteristics (2008-09) 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 61592 (28.4) 61131 (28.2) 93939 (43.4) 216662 (100.0) 161260 161260 (100.0) 69240 3010000 (30.2) 3002000 (30.1) 3967000 (39.8) 9979000 (100.0) 6155000 (61.7) 39860 Jaisalmer 19328 (17.8) 9357 (8.6) 80170 (73.6) 108855 (100.0) 88965 88965 (100.0) 38255 1754000 (26.7) 724000 (11.0) 4087000 (62.3) 6565000 (100.0) 4567000 (69.6) 30690 Nagaur 138762 (34.3) 1263 (0.3) 264268 (65.4) 404293 (100.0) 293201 293201 (100.0) 180445 9599000 (40.9) 191000 (0.8) 13652000 (58.2) 23442000 (100.0) 15776000 (67.3) 113097 Sri Ganganagar 148635 (55.5) 117 (0.0) 119227 (44.5) 267979 (100.0) 228522 226354 (99.1) 44034 9213000 (56.7) 8000 (0.0) 7021000 (43.2) 16242000 (100.0) 8251000 (50.8) 94007 Banswara 12748 (4.2) 265464 (86.5) 28712 (9.4) 306924 (100.0) 256167 256167 (100.0) 82929 1658000 (6.7) 21263000 (86.1) 1778000 (7.2) 24699000 (100.0) 16754000 (67.8) 141187 Dungarpur 14862 (5.6) 201036 (75.3) 51185 (19.2) 267083 (100.0) 247067 247067 (100.0) 52814 1116000 (5.0) 17827000 (79.3) 3539000 (15.7) 22482000 (100.0) 16981000 (75.5) 188218 Jhalawar 47205 (20.4) 35306 (15.3) 148920 (64.3) 231431 (100.0) 197048 196995 (100.0) 55555 3046000 (25.5) 1761000 (14.8) 7117000 (59.7) 11924000 (100.0) 7409000 (62.1) 91033 Sirohi 45827 (29.7) 49917 (32.3) 58753 (38.0) 154497 (100.0) 99272 99272 (100.0) 1331 1737000 (28.7) 1973000 (32.6) 2351000 (38.8) 6061000 (100.0) 4504000 (74.3) 21113 Udaipur 19832 (4.3) 288770 (62.7) 152303 (33.0) 460905 (100.0) 327528 327528 (100.0) 114394 2242000 (8.9) 18372000 (73.2) 4475000 (17.8) 25089000 (100.0) 17275000 (68.9) 137910 Barmer 92556 (19.6) 45295 (9.6) 333585 (70.8) 471436 (100.0) 346887 346887 (100.0) 206862 4606000 (16.4) 2432000 (8.6) 21112000 (75.0) 28150000 (100.0) 17951000 (63.8) 132011 Chittorgarh 66976 (21.3) 124190 (39.6) 122589 (39.1) 313755 (100.0) 253194 253194 (100.0) 94550 3523000 (23.1) 6015000 (39.4) 5746000 (37.6) 15284000 (100.0) 10844000 (71.0) 60648 Jalore 71098 (29.5) 28079 (11.7) 141670 (58.8) 240847 (100.0) 169341 169341 (100.0) 87400 3937000 (31.2) 1860000 (14.7) 6821000 (54.1) 12618000 (100.0) 9245000 (73.3) 55310 Sawai Madhopur 50484 (24.5) 63224 (30.7) 92378 (44.8) 206086 (100.0) 159905 159905 (100.0) 39934 2625000 (30.8) 2605000 (30.6) 3281000 (38.6) 8511000 (100.0) 5136000 (60.3) 22185 Tonk 52930 (22.5) 36923 (15.7) 145070 (61.8) 234923 (100.0) 199897 199897 (100.0) 79171 3525000 (24.6) 2485000 (17.3) 8314000 (58.0) 14324000 (100.0) 9601000 (67.0) 56848 Ajmer 77349 (23.5) 14359 (4.4) 237439 (72.1) 329147 (100.0) 266836 266836 (100.0) 87470 5258000 (21.1) 1042000 (4.2) 18604000 (74.7) 24904000 (100.0) 20826000 (83.6) 165413 Alwar 128812 (40.3) 58085 (18.2) 132908 (41.6) 319805 (100.0) 224747 224747 (100.0) 46359 4582000 (38.0) 3086000 (25.6) 4389000 (36.4) 12057000 (100.0) 6194000 (51.4) 50548 Baran 35895 (20.6) 50776 (29.1) 87911 (50.4) 174582 (100.0) 125972 125972 (100.0) 25433 1864000 (22.8) 2438000 (29.8) 3889000 (47.5) 8191000 (100.0) 5442000 (66.4) 39068 Bharatpur 125567 (43.2) 14691 (5.1) 150322 (51.7) 290580 (100.0) 192167 192167 (100.0) 20128 4738000 (40.8) 458000 (3.9) 6404000 (55.2) 11600000 (100.0) 6773000 (58.4) 41792 Bhilwara 66321 (15.0) 42150 (9.6) 332236 (75.4) 440707 (100.0) 336959 336959 (100.0) 109283 9089000 (30.0) 5434000 (17.9) 15764000 (52.0) 30287000 (100.0) 25033000 (82.7) 229446 Bikaner 93461 (31.9) 733 (0.3) 198998 (67.9) 293192 (100.0) 262500 262500 (100.0) 56000 9053000 (43.6) 9000 (0.0) 11710000 (56.4) 20772000 (100.0) 10734000 (51.7) 68308 Bundi 41423 (23.5) 47252 (26.8) 87751 (49.7) 176426 (100.0) 130294 130294 (100.0) 37491 2485000 (23.4) 2690000 (25.3) 5462000 (51.3) 10637000 (100.0) 8142000 (76.5) 62819 Churu 89592 (39.2) 2977 (1.3) 135847 (59.5) 228416 (100.0) 187802 187802 (100.0) 94076 6168000 (38.1) 251000 (1.6) 9773000 (60.4) 16192000 (100.0) 7996000 (49.4) 74887 Dausa 65939 (28.8) 71799 (31.3) 91337 (39.9) 229075 (100.0) 137191 137191 (100.0) 43052 2836000 (30.5) 3085000 (33.2) 3366000 (36.2) 9287000 (100.0) 6466000 (69.6) 65018 Dholpur 55099 (37.3) 17113 (11.6) 75604 (51.1) 147816 (100.0) 131317 131317 (100.0) 9654 3221000 (37.1) 1155000 (13.3) 4315000 (49.6) 8691000 (100.0) 2372000 (27.3) 67171 Hanumangarh 67863 (32.0) 822 (0.4) 143226 (67.6) 211911 (100.0) 131797 131797 (100.0) 34971 4748000 (45.0) 12000 (0.1) 5800000 (54.9) 10560000 (100.0) 3914000 (37.1) 67930 Jaipur 122183 (32.4) 66254 (17.6) 188481 (50.0) 376918 (100.0) 283798 283798 (100.0) 99339 6244000 (31.9) 4009000 (20.5) 9302000 (47.6) 19555000 (100.0) 15376000 (78.6) 100460 Jhunjhunu 61057 (47.9) 6039 (4.7) 60242 (47.3) 127338 (100.0) 63143 63143 (100.0) 23151 2535000 (50.0) 325000 (6.4) 2212000 (43.6) 5072000 (100.0) 2687000 (53.0) 22804 Jodhpur 80222 (22.0) 18232 (5.0) 266191 (73.0) 364645 (100.0) 285497 285497 (100.0) 112784 11872000 (49.9) 1902000 (8.0) 10000000 (42.1) 23774000 (100.0) 21398000 (90.0) 142196 Kota 31514 (24.8) 29101 (22.9) 66458 (52.3) 127073 (100.0) 77265 77265 (100.0) 42911 2030000 (36.8) 1206000 (21.9) 2283000 (41.4) 5519000 (100.0) 3309000 (60.0) 25929 Pali 73808 (24.6) 23661 (7.9) 202135 (67.5) 299604 (100.0) 239881 239881 (100.0) 43461 5740000 (29.4) 2024000 (10.4) 11742000 (60.2) 19506000 (100.0) 14914000 (76.5) 131273 Pratapgarh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rajsamand 31199 (16.4) 45727 (24.1) 112903 (59.5) 189829 (100.0) 139840 139840 (100.0) 56612 1522000 (14.5) 1994000 (19.0) 7002000 (66.6) 10518000 (100.0) 8189000 (77.9) 60127 Sikar 80000 (31.3) 14000 (5.5) 162000 (63.3) 256000 (100.0) 130054 130054 (100.0) 39743 3465000 (33.1) 614000 (5.9) 6383000 (61.0) 10462000 (100.0) 3891000 (37.2) 32586 State 2170139 (25.6) 1733843 (20.5) 4564758 (53.9) 8468740 (100.0) 6375314 6373093 (100.0) 2128832 139041000 (28.8) 112252000 (23.2) 231661000 (48.0) 482954000 (100.0) 324105000 (67.1) 2631892 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 2010. 24

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 2010-11. 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 2010-11. About 2, 17,533 HHs were provided jobs under NREGS against 2, 18,931 job applications in Banswara district during 2010-11(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 2010-11. 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 2010-11 in Rajasthan. It was very encouraging to find that in previous years 2008-09 and 2009-10, 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 2008-09 was 21,28,832, which has steeply fallen to 7,56,782 during 2009-10 and has subsequently declined to 3,77,737 during 2010-11(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 2008-09, that has declined to 25 per cent and 20 per cent respectively during 2009-10 and has further decreased to 16.3 per cent and 16.4 per cent respectively during 2010-11(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

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 2008-09, that has declined to 26.5 per cent and 22.5 per cent respectively during 2009-10 and has further decreased to 17.9 per cent and 21.4 per cent respectively during 2010-11(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 2008-09 to 66.9 per cent during 2009-10. However, their participation has improved during 2010-11 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 2010-11. Similarly, during 2009-10, 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 2008-09, the total number of cumulative persondays generated by women was comparatively less in various other districts compared to 2009-10 and 2010-11. Higher disparity was also observed during 2008-09 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 2010-11(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 2009-10 was lowest in Sarai Madhopur (6190) and was highest in Bhilwara (138826). The same during 2008-09 was lowest in Sirohi (21113) and was highest in Bhilwara (229446). 26

(70.0) (60.0) (50.0) (40.0) (30.0) (20.0) (10.0) (0.0) SCs STs Others Women 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11(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 2008-09 that has declined to 15,14,420 during 2009-10 which has further declined to 60,705 during 2010-11. 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 21886 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

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 2008-09 to 2010-11 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 2010-11(till August 2010), a total of 408 works were completed whereas 489340 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 2010-11. It is disheartening to find that, not a single work was completed in Sri Ganganagar and Karauli during 2010-11(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 2008-09 and 2009-10, 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 2008-09 and 2009-10(Figure 2.2). During 2008-09, 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 2008-09 and 2009-10 as compared to that during 2010-11. While the total number of works completed in Rajasthan during 2008-09 and 2009-10 was 100472 and 92251 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 2010-11(till August 2010), not a single project could be completed in entire districts of Sri Ganganagar and Karauli where respectively 2435589 and 5277252 person-days had already been generated during the same period. 28

development were the major ones during 2008-09 and 2009-10. About 32 per cent of total number of completed works was on water conservation and water harvesting during 2009-10 in Banswara. About 45.3 per cent of total number of completed works was on water conservation and water harvesting during 2008-09 in the same district. 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 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 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11(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

Table 2.3A: District wise works completed / progress under NREGA (number of project) during 2010-11 (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 2010. 1 (0.5) 17 (8.5) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 0 201 (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) 121504 (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) 82707 (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) 384 1.57 795 (3.3) 474 (1.9) 107 (0.4) 24420 (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) 17130 (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) 73624 (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) 49386 (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) 84288 (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) 22614 (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) 0 408 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) 31041 (0.5) 8073 (1.6) 14664 (3.0) 10642 (2.2) 17841 (3.6) 489340 (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

Table 2.3B: District wise works completed / progress under NREGA (number of project) during 2009-10 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 2010. 1473 (7.4) 286 (1.4) 562 (2.8) 125 (0.6) 1103 (5.5) 19909 (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) 33099 (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) 10935 (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) 18181 (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) 46008 (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) 27732 (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) 14769 (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) 92251 (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) 110996 (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

Table 2.3C: District wise works completed / progress under NREGA (number of project) during 2008-09 Rural Connectivity District Banswara Jaisalmer Nagaur Karauli Sri Ganganagar State comp. 1247 (8.0) 154 (1.0) 154 (1.0) 271 (1.7) 1435 (9.2) 15528 (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) 35160 (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) 14355 (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) 18888 (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) 54976 (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) 50279 (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) 17726 (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. 6706 (6.7) 1608 (1.6) 658 (0.7) 655 (0.7) 4079 (4.1) 100472 (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) 135720 (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 2010. 32

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 2010-11, 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 2009-10 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 92251 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 208-09 also. The ongoing works were almost evenly distributed across different districts of Rajasthan during 2009-10 and 2008-09. The financial aspects of the works done under NREGA in various study districts in Rajasthan from 2008-09 to 2010-11 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 2010-11. The total amount spent on various completed and ongoing projects in Rajasthan state as a whole was Rs 1591.87 Cr and Rs 4432.87 Cr respectively during 2008-09. The total amount spent on various completed projects was higher (Rs 1906.02 Cr) and the spending on ongoing projects was lower (Rs 3829.67 Cr) in Rajasthan during 2009-10 compared to the same during 2008-09. 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 2009-10. Similarly, about 37.2 per cent of total spending on completed projects in Rajasthan was spent on rural connectivity in Rajasthan during 2008-09. Also in the majority of districts in Rajasthan, the major part of the total spending was spent on rural connectivity works during 2009-10 and 2008-09. In Banswara alone, Rs 91.4 crores (Cr) was spent on various ongoing projects during 2010-11 whereas during 2009-10, the amount spent on various completed projects and ongoing projects were Rs 117.7 Cr and Rs 142.5 Cr respectively. Similarly, during 2008-09, the amount spent on various completed projects and ongoing projects were Rs 101.7 Cr and Rs 236.8 Cr respectively in the same district. 33

Table 2.4A: District wise works completed/progress under NREGA (Amount spent in lakh rupees) during 2010-11 (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 2010. 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 25.3 (18.6) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 136.2 (100.0) (1.0) (0.0) (57.3) (0.0) (0.0) (44.8) 851.2 (2.0) 125.0 (0.3) 302.6 (0.7) 1770.7 (4.2) 1176.6 (2.8) 41675.3 (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) 799.0 (33.2) 15.5 (0.6) 39.9 (1.7) 6.0 (0.2) 8.2 (0.3) 2405.9 (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) 2015.6 (4.5) 930.1 (2.1) 369.5 (0.8) 2190.5 (4.9) 73.4 (0.2) 44699.0 (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) 898.8 (15.2) 13.9 (0.2) 65.5 (1.1) 177.8 (3.0) 12.2 (0.2) 5913.1 (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) 736.8 (12.0) 23.8 (0.4) 68.2 (1.1) 4.7 (0.1) 764.5 (12.5) 6126.3 (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) 814.5 (28.0) 0.0 (0.0) 189.7 (6.5) 209.8 (7.2) 62.3 (2.1) 2913.3 (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) 380.1 (2.0) 314.6 (1.6) 367.7 (1.9) 1666.0 (8.6) 442.5 (2.3) 19400.0 (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) 2379.5 (32.4) 15.5 (0.2) 25.8 (0.4) 58.6 (0.8) 309.1 (4.2) 7349.9 (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) 174.6 (8.6) 0.6 (0.0) 16.3 (0.8) 7.8 (0.4) 2.1 (0.1) 2032.8 (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) 1150.9 (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) 304.0 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) 9138.7 (6.8) 1465.8 (1.1) 1446.2 (1.1) 6113.8 (4.6) 2890.0 (2.2) 133666.4 (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

Table 2.4B: District wise works completed/progress under NREGA (Amount spent in lakh rupees) during 2009-10 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. 2136.4 (2.6) 758.2 (0.9) 688.1 (0.8) 1547.8 (1.9) 1687.9 (2.0) 83355.4 (100.0) (18.2) (35.2) (43.7) (34.2) (46.3) (43.7) Ongoing/ 2843.2 (1.8) 3456.2 (2.2) 906.4 (0.6) 12385.8 (7.9) 5882.8 (3.7) 157493.7 (100.0) (20.0) (53.5) (21.0) (40.6) (49.5) (41.1) comp. 250.3 (7.1) 101.2 (2.9) 10.6 (0.3) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 3541.9 (100.0) (2.1) (4.7) (0.7) (0.0) (0.0) (1.9) 1189.6 (12.2) 322.6 (3.3) 311.2 (3.2) 86.4 (0.9) 27.4 (0.3) 9775.2 (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) 5086.8 (13.7) 455.6 (1.2) 53.2 (0.1) 982.2 (2.6) 24.5 (0.1) 37086.8 (100.0) (43.2) (21.2) (3.4) (21.7) (0.7) (19.5) 2858.0 (3.9) 915.3 (1.2) 656.3 (0.9) 3747.8 (5.1) 261.8 (0.4) 73296.8 (100.0) (20.1) (14.2) (15.2) (12.3) (2.2) (19.1) 1364.4 (23.3) 35.4 (0.6) 6.0 (0.1) 3.5 (0.1) 32.2 (0.6) 5853.9 (100.0) (11.6) (1.6) (0.4) (0.1) (0.9) (3.1) 1367.1 (6.3) 213.7 (1.0) 492.8 (2.3) 754.9 (3.5) 228.2 (1.1) 21600.9 (100.0) (9.6) (3.3) (11.4) (2.5) (1.9) (5.6) 451.7 (6.2) 101.6 (1.4) 1.5 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 1155.2 (15.7) 7338.2 (100.0) (3.8) (4.7) (0.1) (0.0) (31.7) (3.8) 1242.0 (6.7) 466.4 (2.5) 399.0 (2.2) 38.2 (0.2) 2664.9 (14.4) 18519.7 (100.0) (8.7) (7.2) (9.2) (0.1) (22.4) (4.8) 1070.5 (4.7) 215.4 (0.9) 480.2 (2.1) 266.9 (1.2) 62.1 (0.3) 22962.2 (100.0) (9.1) (10.0) (30.5) (5.9) (1.7) (12.0) 3393.4 (14.8) 302.0 (1.3) 678.0 (3.0) 1491.5 (6.5) 1011.7 (4.4) 22945.1 (100.0) (23.8) (4.7) (15.7) (4.9) (8.5) (6.0) 542.6 (2.0) 330.3 (1.2) 309.1 (1.1) 1720.5 (6.3) 298.3 (1.1) 27212.6 (100.0) (4.6) (15.3) (19.6) (38.1) (8.2) (14.3) 392.8 (0.6) 368.2 (0.5) 855.0 (1.2) 11844.0 (17.2) 1103.9 (1.6) 68917.7 (100.0) (2.8) (5.7) (19.8) (38.9) (9.3) (18.0) 867.1 (26.7) 155.3 (4.8) 26.7 (0.8) 0.0 (0.0) 384.9 (11.8) 3251.2 (100.0) (7.4) (7.2) (1.7) (0.0) (10.6) (1.7) 963.2 (9.3) 415.3 (4.0) 26.5 (0.3) 127.5 (1.2) 705.2 (6.8) 10404.7 (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) 11769.7 (6.2) 2153.0 (1.1) 1575.3 (0.8) 4520.9 (2.4) 3645.2 (1.9) 190602.1 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) 14249.2 (3.7) 6459.7 (1.7) 4325.1 (1.1) 30476.1 (8.0) 11885.9 (3.1) 382967.0 (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 2010. 35

Table 2.4C: District wise works completed/progress under NREGA (Amount spent in lakh rupees) during Sri 2008-09 District Banswara Karauli Jaisalmer Nagaur Ganganagar State Rural comp. 3314.0 (5.6) 987.0 (1.7) 793.0 (1.3) 1212.0 (2.0) 4062.6 (6.9) 59255.3 (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) 5391.7 (2.8) 3956.2 (2.0) 2272.7 (1.2) 5571.1 (2.9) 6744.3 (3.5) 194289.6 (100.0) (22.8) (37.7) (44.8) (23.6) (53.0) (43.8) 244.1 (11.1) 0.0 (0.0) 14.7 (0.7) 3.0 (0.1) 2.8 (0.1) 2206.3 (100.0) (2.4) (0.0) (0.5) (0.1) (0.0) (1.4) 520.8 (9.1) 203.5 (3.6) 30.3 (0.5) 38.8 (0.7) 0.0 (0.0) 5705.0 (100.0) (2.2) (1.9) (0.6) (0.2) (0.0) (1.3) 3801.9 (9.6) 941.6 (2.4) 559.2 (1.4) 513.8 (1.3) 214.2 (0.5) 39526.8 (100.0) (37.4) (36.4) (20.6) (17.8) (1.9) (24.8) 6234.5 (6.2) 3058.2 (3.1) 759.4 (0.8) 10754.4 (10.8) 273.5 (0.3) 99866.6 (100.0) (26.3) (29.1) (15.0) (45.5) (2.1) (22.5) 264.4 (5.7) 0.0 (0.0) 12.0 (0.3) 75.6 (1.6) 71.7 (1.5) 4676.5 (100.0) (2.6) (0.0) (0.4) (2.6) (0.6) (2.9) 2104.5 (15.0) 30.0 (0.2) 78.3 (0.6) 955.0 (6.8) 219.2 (1.6) 13987.6 (100.0) (8.9) (0.3) (1.5) (4.0) (1.7) (3.2) 846.3 (10.0) 464.8 (5.5) 11.3 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 4021.8 (47.3) 8498.2 (100.0) (8.3) (18.0) (0.4) (0.0) (35.8) (5.3) 2389.1 (13.5) 869.3 (4.9) 169.6 (1.0) 52.0 (0.3) 2422.6 (13.7) 17656.2 (100.0) (10.1) (8.3) (3.3) (0.2) (19.0) (4.0) 709.2 (4.3) 66.8 (0.4) 1009.8 (6.1) 84.7 (0.5) 51.0 (0.3) 16499.9 (100.0) (7.0) (2.6) (37.3) (2.9) (0.5) (10.4) 5284.1 (16.6) 195.4 (0.6) 1375.3 (4.3) 141.8 (0.4) 356.8 (1.1) 31892.5 (100.0) (22.3) (1.9) (27.1) (0.6) (2.8) (7.2) 392.7 (1.5) 113.0 (0.4) 308.8 (1.2) 943.9 (3.7) 1983.9 (7.7) 25744.2 (100.0) (3.9) (4.4) (11.4) (32.7) (17.6) (16.2) 341.3 (0.5) 1967.3 (2.7) 389.2 (0.5) 5746.6 (8.0) 1656.1 (2.3) 72039.1 (100.0) (1.4) (18.7) (7.7) (24.3) (13.0) (16.3) 600.7 (21.6) 12.1 (0.4) 0.0 (0.0) 57.6 (2.1) 838.9 (30.2) 2779.3 (100.0) (5.9) (0.5) (0.0) (2.0) (7.5) (1.7) 1411.9 (18.0) 212.5 (2.7) 0.0 (0.0) 372.4 (4.7) 1050.7 (13.4) 7842.3 (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) 10173.2 (6.4) 2585.2 (1.6) 2708.7 (1.7) 2890.6 (1.8) 11246.9 (7.1) 159186.6 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) 23677.8 (5.3) 10492.5 (2.4) 5074.8 (1.1) 23632.0 (5.3) 12723.1 (2.9) 443287.1 (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 2010. 36

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 2008-09. 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 2010-11. These districts including some more like Churu and Bhilwara were front runners in spending money on various completed and ongoing projects during 2009-10. Out of a total amount of Rs 1591.87 Cr during 2008-09, Udaipur, Ajmer and Pali spent Rs 181.52 Cr, 156.59 Cr and 110.51 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., 2008-09. 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 2009-10 and 2008-09. Among the study districts, the total amount spent on various NREGA works was lowest (Rs15.73 Cr) in Jaisalmer district and highest (Rs 117.697 Cr) in Banswara district. However, the amount spent on ongoing works (Rs304.76 Cr) was the highest in Nagaur during 2009-10. 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 2008-09. 2.4 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

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 2010-11(till August 2010). Total works taken up in Banswara district alone was about 1052 during 2010-11(till August 2010). In the case of Sri Ganganagar, the total number of works taken up was about 10067 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

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 2010-11. 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 15067 number of works taken up during 2010-11(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 2010-11(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 2010-11whereas 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 2010-11(till August, 2010). However, the overall performance of the scheme was satisfactory as per the social audit reports of 2008-09 and 2009-10. 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 2010-11 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 2008-09 and 2009-10 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 2009-10. 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 2009-10. 39

Table 2.5A: Social auditing and inspection of NREGA work during 2010-11 (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 123315 123315 (100.0) 307 84 (27.4) 1052 105 (10.0) 947 (90.0) 307 (100.0) 1482 (482.7) 166 56 (33.7) Karauli 25727 23568 (91.6) 223 0 0.0 580 20 (3.4) 510 (87.9) 125 (56.1) 0 (0.0) 67 62 (92.5) Jaisalmer 29269 28732 (98.2) 128 123 (96.1) 256 256 (100.0) 256 (100.0) 128 (100.0) 48 (37.5) 10 10 (100.0) Nagaur 94263 94263 (100.0) 461 27 (5.9) 8475 328 (3.9) 23461 (276.8) 0 (0.0) 27 (5.9) 55 37 (67.3) Sri Ganganagar 57112 56846 (99.5) 320 185 (57.8) 10067 34 (0.3) 1290 (12.8) 185 (57.8) 0 (0.0) 453 275 (60.7) Dungarpur 95039 95039 (100.0) 237 76 (32.1) 685 85 (12.4) 685 (100.0) 76 (32.1) 0 (0.0) 858 664 (77.4) Jhalawar 34612 30305 (87.6) 252 129 (51.2) 248 27 (10.9) 276 (111.3) 129 (51.2) 0 (0.0) 187 180 (96.3) Sirohi 36523 33090 (90.6) 151 151 (100.0) 4207 16 (0.4) 4207 (100.0) 151 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 41 18 (43.9) Udaipur 119110 95417 (80.1) 467 467 (100.0) 8613 612 (7.1) 8613 (100.0) 467 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 51 39 (76.5) Barmer 123045 110832 (90.1) 380 0 0.0 3806 800 (21.0) 3006 (79.0) 380 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 1542 1428 (92.6) Chittorgarh 80838 80838 (100.0) 288 92 (31.9) 665 67 (10.1) 1751 (263.3) 92 (31.9) 0 (0.0) 85 53 (62.4) Jalore 62631 57654 (92.1) 264 2 (0.8) 2502 328 (13.1) 2174 (86.9) 264 (100.0) 264 (100.0) 237 216 (91.1) Sawai Madhopur 35418 35418 (100.0) 197 194 (98.5) 311 311 (100.0) 311 (100.0) 197 (100.0) 197 (100.0) 38 34 (89.5) Tonk 65631 65469 (99.8) 230 6 (2.6) 9377 256 (2.7) 8414 (89.7) 230 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 70 47 (67.1) Ajmer 133178 117198 (88.0) 274 0 0.0 12654 1269 (10.0) 12657 (100.0) 93 (33.9) 0 (0.0) 158 97 (61.4) Alwar 36692 34244 (93.3) 472 19 (4.0) 322 197 (61.2) 3928 (1219.9) 19 (4.0) 80 (16.9) 148 103 (69.6) Baran 38164 38164 (100.0) 214 0 0.0 6941 64 (0.9) 1253 (18.1) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 36 47 (130.6) Bharatpur 41175 41175 (100.0) 371 172 (46.4) 652 64 (9.8) 652 (100.0) 327 (88.1) 144 (38.8) 138 127 (92.0) Bhilwara 186514 186514 (100.0) 383 86 (22.5) 5214 67 (1.3) 5147 (98.7) 86 (22.5) 0 (0.0) 1058 762 (72.0) Bikaner 74400 74400 (100.0) 219 18 (8.2) 17600 419 (2.4) 2335 (13.3) 18 (8.2) 0 (0.0) 724 694 (95.9) Bundi 49579 49579 (100.0) 181 162 (89.5) 980 454 (46.3) 1746 (178.2) 162 (89.5) 0 (0.0) 54 43 (79.6) Churu 80302 80302 (100.0) 249 249 (100.0) 589 24 (4.1) 360 (61.1) 249 (100.0) 154 (61.8) 125 90 (72.0) Dausa 35717 32869 (92.0) 225 0 0.0 320 42 (13.1) 320 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 525 416 (79.2) Dholpur 11919 11045 (92.7) 153 153 (100.0) 203 20 (9.9) 203 (100.0) 153 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 88 42 (47.7) Hanumangarh 56038 56038 (100.0) 251 183 (72.9) 2188 187 (8.5) 5901 (269.7) 183 (72.9) 183 (72.9) 192 167 (87.0) Jaipur 102488 102488 (100.0) 488 168 (34.4) 937 454 (48.5) 17754 (1894.8) 417 (85.5) 253 (51.8) 225 200 (88.9) Jhunjhunu 45117 45117 (100.0) 288 3 (1.0) 498 49 (9.8) 498 (100.0) 288 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 84 65 (77.4) Jodhpur 87567 87567 (100.0) 339 0 0.0 2569 22 (0.9) 2569 (100.0) 339 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 48 36 (75.0) Kota 38248 38248 (100.0) 156 140 (89.7) 3226 322 (10.0) 3226 (100.0) 155 (99.4) 0 (0.0) 0 10 (0.0) Pali 81525 81525 (100.0) 320 8 (2.5) 387 570 (147.3) 18595 (4804.9) 320 (100.0) 1600 (500.0) 513 317 (61.8) Pratapgarh 43520 42253 (97.1) 152 4 (2.6) 138 39 (28.3) 380 (275.4) 152 (100.0) 152 (100.0) 6 5 (83.3) Rajsamand 52702 52702 (100.0) 205 29 (14.1) 278 251 (90.3) 5114 (1839.6) 205 (100.0) 205 (100.0) 14 7 (50.0) Sikar 35208 35208 (100.0) 329 27 (8.2) 2668 82 (3.1) 2668 (100.0) 27 (8.2) 0 (0.0) 31 19 (61.3) State 2212586 2137422 (96.6) 9174 2957 (32.2) 109208 7841 (7.2) 141207 (129.3) 5924 (64.6) 4789 (52.2) 8027 6366 (79.3) Note: Percentage in brackets are percentage of state total; Source: nrega.nic.in; Accessed on 10th September 2010. 40

Table 2.5B: Social auditing and inspection of NREGA work during 2009-10 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 163873 163873 (100.0) 365 365 (100.0) 986 98 (9.9) 986 (100.0) 366 (100.3) 325 (89.0) 119 90 (75.6) Karauli 60223 60223 (100.0) 224 204 (91.1) 179 22 (12.3) 182 (101.7) 204 (91.1) 223 (99.6) 317 303 (95.6) Jaisalmer 62577 59483 (95.1) 128 128 (100.0) 1024 1024 (100.0) 1024 (100.0) 128 (100.0) 39 (30.5) 65 65 (100.0) Nagaur 240750 214550 (89.1) 461 460 (99.8) 5509 906 (16.4) 63803 (1158.2) 460 (99.8) 460 (99.8) 1127 1110 (98.5) Sri Ganganagar 105967 105967 (100.0) 320 320 (100.0) 9610 47 (0.5) 1061 (11.0) 320 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 784 567 (72.3) Dungarpur 121914 121914 (100.0) 237 237 (100.0) 569 53 (9.3) 569 (100.0) 237 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 713 618 (86.7) Jhalawar 79872 79872 (100.0) 252 251 (99.6) 190 90 (47.4) 296 (155.8) 251 (99.6) 0 (0.0) 83 73 (88.0) Sirohi 71976 60990 (84.7) 151 151 (100.0) 2520 104 (4.1) 2520 (100.0) 151 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 95 54 (56.8) Udaipur 242800 236500 (97.4) 498 498 (100.0) 22622 522 (2.3) 22622 (100.0) 498 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 201 197 (98.0) Barmer 254281 229486 (90.2) 380 380 (100.0) 4284 1204 (28.1) 3080 (71.9) 380 (100.0) 380 (100.0) 1210 1005 (83.1) Chittorgarh 133560 133560 (100.0) 288 288 (100.0) 0 3120 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 288 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 30 30 (100.0) Jalore 122950 122950 (100.0) 264 263 (99.6) 5139 905 (17.6) 7611 (148.1) 261 (98.9) 0 (0.0) 237 212 (89.5) Sawai Madhopur 44964 44964 (100.0) 197 197 (100.0) 79 79 (100.0) 79 (100.0) 197 (100.0) 6750 (3426.4) 86 47 (54.7) Tonk 116275 110430 (95.0) 230 230 (100.0) 22843 393 (1.7) 18052 (79.0) 230 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 210 198 (94.3) Ajmer 212548 212548 (100.0) 276 270 (97.8) 27693 27600 (99.7) 28992 (104.7) 302 (109.4) 0 (0.0) 398 287 (72.1) Alwar 75220 75220 (100.0) 478 474 (99.2) 4010 401 (10.0) 4010 (100.0) 474 (99.2) 0 (0.0) 189 164 (86.8) Baran 46582 46582 (100.0) 214 214 (100.0) 7168 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 249 (116.4) 0 (0.0) 221 219 (99.1) Bharatpur 83270 83270 (100.0) 371 371 (100.0) 142 37 (26.1) 142 (100.0) 371 (100.0) 26 (7.0) 390 368 (94.4) Bhilwara 281014 281014 (100.0) 383 383 (100.0) 3736 67 (1.8) 3669 (98.2) 383 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 945 715 (75.7) Bikaner 144850 144850 (100.0) 219 219 (100.0) 14180 990 (7.0) 7540 (53.2) 219 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 661 636 (96.2) Bundi 71895 71895 (100.0) 181 181 (100.0) 1239 682 (55.0) 9072 (732.2) 181 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 193 165 (85.5) Churu 141281 135201 (95.7) 249 0 (0.0) 0 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 8172 (3281.9) 306 244 (79.7) Dausa 94739 90039 (95.0) 225 225 (100.0) 1342 62 (4.6) 1342 (100.0) 225 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 463 359 (77.5) Dholpur 36430 36430 (100.0) 153 153 (100.0) 39 39 (100.0) 39 (100.0) 114 (74.5) 10 (6.5) 686 633 (92.3) Hanumangarh 106540 106540 (100.0) 251 251 (100.0) 3681 538 (14.6) 10632 (288.8) 251 (100.0) 251 (100.0) 684 468 (68.4) Jaipur 202851 202851 (100.0) 488 488 (100.0) 82402 1592 (1.9) 70376 (85.4) 330 (67.6) 0 (0.0) 374 347 (92.8) Jhunjhunu 66583 66583 (100.0) 288 288 (100.0) 1812 181 (10.0) 1812 (100.0) 288 (100.0) 288 (100.0) 215 208 (96.7) Jodhpur 193934 193934 (100.0) 339 339 (100.0) 863 12 (1.4) 863 (100.0) 339 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 540 480 (88.9) Kota 55495 55495 (100.0) 156 156 (100.0) 3452 345 (10.0) 3452 (100.0) 156 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 128 117 (0.0) Pali 157469 157469 (100.0) 320 320 (100.0) 2245 961 (42.8) 33884 (1509.3) 320 (100.0) 1600 (500.0) 485 478 (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 105858 105858 (100.0) 206 206 (100.0) 512 624 (121.9) 25237 (4929.1) 243 (118.0) 206 (100.0) 167 158 (94.6) Sikar 101209 101209 (100.0) 329 329 (100.0) 7880 85 (1.1) 4484 (56.9) 329 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 319 267 (83.7) Rajasthan state 3999750 3911750 (97.8) 9121 8839 (96.9) 237950 42783 (18.0) 327431 (137.6) 8745 (95.9) 18730 (205.4) 12641 10882 (86.1) Note: Percentage in brackets are percentage of state total; Source: nrega.nic.in; Accessed on 10th September 2010. 41

Table 2.5C: Social auditing and inspection of NREGA work during 2008-09 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 232932 184143 (79.1) 324 324 (100.0) 3681 334 (9.1) 3347 (90.9) 324 (100.0) 324 (100.0) 75 64 (85.3) Karauli 91386 91386 (100.0) 448 448 (100.0) 1550 102 (6.6) 1925 (124.2) 448 (100.0) 15 (3.3) 163 158 (96.9) Jaisalmer 57155 57155 (100.0) 128 128 (100.0) 2486 732 (29.4) 2486 (100.0) 128 (100.0) 256 (200.0) 65 65 (100.0) Nagaur 168334 168334 (100.0) 461 461 (100.0) 1361 870 (63.9) 40752 (2994.3) 922 (200.0) 922 (200.0) 1350 642 (47.6) Sri Ganganagar 135585 145125 (107.0) 320 320 (100.0) 15428 742 (4.8) 15428 (100.0) 320 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 782 660 (84.4) Dungarpur 146758 146758 (100.0) 237 237 (100.0) 799 879 (110.0) 879 (110.0) 237 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 332 278 (83.7) Jhalawar 118184 118184 (100.0) 504 504 (100.0) 1156 0 0.0 1112 (96.2) 504 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 934 928 (99.4) Sirohi 70004 66040 (94.3) 151 151 (100.0) 7935 525 (6.6) 7935 (100.0) 151 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 114 108 (94.7) Udaipur 218718 218718 (100.0) 498 498 (100.0) 55572 944 (1.7) 54958 (98.9) 498 (100.0) 2410 (483.9) 115 110 (95.7) Barmer 255969 216437 (84.6) 380 372 (97.9) 10104 0 0.0 7257 (71.8) 372 (97.9) 372 (97.9) 528 467 (88.4) Chittorgarh 109031 109031 (100.0) 782 782 (100.0) 4965 4965 (100.0) 4965 (100.0) 782 (100.0) 782 (100.0) 413 408 (98.8) Jalore 123344 120714 (97.9) 264 264 (100.0) 9879 887 (9.0) 6761 (68.4) 261 (98.9) 0 (0.0) 269 235 (87.4) Sawai Madhopur 65449 65449 (100.0) 197 197 (100.0) 4396 0 0.0 3597 (81.8) 197 (100.0) 150 (76.1) 108 91 (84.3) Tonk 127339 114185 (89.7) 230 230 (100.0) 18112 469 (2.6) 16795 (92.7) 470 (204.3) 0 (0.0) 408 376 (92.2) Ajmer 203214 203214 (100.0) 552 548 (99.3) 4681 29619 (632.7) 2962 (63.3) 552 (100.0) 4585 (830.6) 223 189 (84.8) Alwar 107376 107376 (100.0) 478 478 (100.0) 23531 2353 (10.0) 23531 (100.0) 478 (100.0) 1954 (408.8) 41 242 (590.2) Baran 71942 71942 (100.0) 645 645 (100.0) 2296 121 (5.3) 2675 (116.5) 654 (101.4) 654 (101.4) 369 199 (53.9) Bharatpur 98137 98137 (100.0) 371 371 (100.0) 848 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 0 0.0 Bhilwara 246702 246702 (100.0) 762 762 (100.0) 7521 628 (8.3) 7521 (100.0) 762 (100.0) 1683 (220.9) 575 509 (88.5) Bikaner 161500 161500 (100.0) 219 218 (99.5) 6811 810 (11.9) 6811 (100.0) 218 (99.5) 0 (0.0) 320 217 (67.8) Bundi 89390 89390 (100.0) 181 181 (100.0) 2126 1266 (59.5) 7336 (345.1) 283 (156.4) 859 (474.6) 284 254 (89.4) Churu 117543 105320 (89.6) 498 497 (99.8) 3236 323 (10.0) 3236 (100.0) 498 (100.0) 498 (100.0) 506 593 (117.2) Dausa 88111 83017 (94.2) 223 223 (100.0) 972 59 (6.1) 836 (86.0) 223 (100.0) 196 (87.9) 215 158 (73.5) Dholpur 67861 67861 (100.0) 153 153 (100.0) 2189 1811 (82.7) 2189 (100.0) 153 (100.0) 153 (100.0) 817 791 (96.8) Hanumangarh 111110 111110 (100.0) 251 251 (100.0) 804 730 (90.8) 13913 (1730.5) 251 (100.0) 251 (100.0) 642 505 (78.7) Jaipur 176490 170490 (96.6) 488 488 (100.0) 3812 1111 (29.1) 28056 (736.0) 488 (100.0) 2712 (555.7) 724 716 (98.9) Jhunjhunu 55853 55853 (100.0) 288 288 (100.0) 1334 1334 (100.0) 1334 (100.0) 288 (100.0) 288 (100.0) 110 110 (100.0) Jodhpur 204544 204544 (100.0) 339 339 (100.0) 2004 65 (3.2) 1939 (96.8) 1319 (389.1) 339 (100.0) 250 250 (100.0) Kota 52249 52249 (100.0) 316 316 (100.0) 2062 207 (10.0) 1855 (90.0) 316 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 144 136 (0.0) Pali 161523 161523 (100.0) 320 320 (100.0) 0 38828 0.0 41870 0.0 640 (200.0) 640 (200.0) 298 280 (94.0) Pratapgarh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rajsamand 90897 90897 (100.0) 206 206 (100.0) 2852 647 (22.7) 15992 (560.7) 412 (200.0) 0 (0.0) 82 81 (98.8) Sikar 97113 97113 (100.0) 329 329 (100.0) 2267 264 (11.6) 6044 (266.6) 329 (100.0) 301 (91.5) 280 251 (89.6) Rajasthan state 4121743 3999897 (97.0) 11543 11529 (99.9) 206770 91625 (44.3) 336297 (162.6) 13478 (116.8) 20344 (176.2) 11536 10071 (87.3) Note: Percentage in brackets are percentage of state total; Source: nrega.nic.in; Accessed on 10th September 2010. 42

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 2008-09 (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 2008-09. In the case of Sri Ganganagar, the number of muster rolls verified (145125) is more than the number of muster rolls used (135585) in 2008-09. In the case of all three reference years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, 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 2008-09, 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 2008-09 in Pali but the number of works inspected at district level and block level is 38828 and 41870 respectively (Table 2.5C). Similarly in Nagaur, 40752 numbers of works have been inspected at block level against a total number of works taken up of 1361. 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. 2.4.2 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

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 2010-11 in Rajasthan (Table 2.6A). The total amount disbursed for wage payment through banks and post offices was Rs 1,50,386 lakhs in 2010-11 in Rajasthan, out of which, Rs 84,447.79 Lakhs was disbursed through banks and Rs 65,936.13 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 2010-11(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 2010-11(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 2010-11. 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 2009-10 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 2009-10 in Rajasthan. The total amount disbursed for wage payment through banks and post offices was Rs 3, 57,972 lakhs in 2009-10 in Rajasthan. During the year 2009-10, not a single joint account was opened in banks in 15 out of 33 districts and absence of 44

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 2009-10, 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 2009-10. 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 2009-10 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 2008-09, 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 2008-09 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 2008-09. Thus there has been a small improvement in opening of joint accounts during 2009-10 and 2010-11 over 2008-09. The performance of various study districts in making payment through banks/post offices during 2008-09 was quite similar to that during 2009-10 and 2010-11. 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

Rajasthan in 2008-09. 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 2008-09 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 2010-11(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) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8=2+5 9=3+6 10=8+9 11=4+7 Banswara 15158 223091 10045.6 1398 8891 117.1 16556 231982 248538 10163 (0.4) (23.2) (11.9) (0.0) (3.7) (0.2) (0.2) (19.3) (2.6) (6.8) Karauli 67265 9028 2128.8 144075 48 6821.3 211340 9076 220416 8950 (1.9) (0.9) (2.5) (3.1) (0.0) (10.3) (2.6) (0.8) (2.3) (6.0) Jaisalmer 31919 8685 748.9 75560 8775 900.1 107479 17460 124939 1649 (0.9) (0.9) (0.9) (1.6) (3.7) (1.4) (1.3) (1.5) (1.3) (1.1) Nagaur 132646 12614 1886.3 346174 1011 3644.5 478820 13625 492445 5531 (3.8) (1.3) (2.2) (7.4) (0.4) (5.5) (5.8) (1.1) (5.2) (3.7) Sri 255005 15345 2560.2 23538 1107 205.7 278543 16452 294995 2766 Ganganagar (7.2) (1.6) (3.0) (0.5) (0.5) (0.3) (3.4) (1.4) (3.1) (1.8) Dungarpur 1708 236453 6500.9 9 27189 1035.0 1717 263642 265359 7536 Jhalawar 86680 47092 1025.8 218378 0 1538.7 305058 47092 352150 2565 Sirohi 41002 0 936.0 97955 0 2110.1 138957 0 138957 3046 Udaipur 278579 0 2326.6 519364 0 3215.0 797943 0 797943 5542 Barmer 251019 19898 5500.0 204512 5358 4500.0 455531 25256 480787 10000 Chittorgarh 0 179044 4213.1 0 15607 366.9 0 194651 194651 4580 Jalore 86269 53191 1977.2 24445 30058 999.6 110714 83249 193963 2977 Sawai 135637 0 320.0 40989 0 120.0 176626 0 176626 440 Madhopur Tonk 98184 0 1185.7 238028 0 2874.8 336212 0 336212 4061 Ajmer 169234 0 6532.9 178269 0 6881.7 347503 0 347503 13415 Alwar 24569 0 159.5 321696 0 1421.1 346265 0 346265 1580 Baran 206871 1639 2656.4 40726 0 421.8 247597 1639 249236 3078 Bharatpur 49214 0 262.2 310612 0 1784.6 359826 0 359826 2047 Bhilwara 156168 0 6175.9 396733 0 6556.0 552901 0 552901 12732 Bikaner 97875 25786 3621.0 111636 9272 2414.0 209511 35058 244569 6035 Bundi 101988 0 1946.7 0 21458 354.3 101988 21458 123446 2301 Churu 160613 0 3324.1 153244 0 3110.2 313857 0 313857 6434 Dausa 97676 64909 1027.0 18601 28487 170.2 116277 93396 209673 1197 Dholpur 0 0 0.0 178612 0 787.8 178612 0 178612 788 Hanumanga 157438 0 0.0 86805 0 0.0 244243 0 244243 0 Jaipur 101329 15982 2586.1 293395 21202 3392.1 394724 37184 431908 5978 Jhunjhunu 20979 0 431.8 67467 0 1388.7 88446 0 88446 1821 Jodhpur 86514 13549 912.5 271134 55211 2976.2 357648 68760 426408 3889 Kota 93733 13230 1548.3 9058 71 299.8 102791 13301 116092 1848 Pali 210687 3610 5562.1 135319 66 3098.8 346006 3676 349682 8661 Pratapgarh 88908 9777 2020.5 82665 3547 940.1 171573 13324 184897 2960 Rajsamand 138607 9339 2866.0 25528 836 358.5 164135 10175 174310 3225 Sikar 80559 0 1460.0 84000 0 1131.3 164559 0 164559 2591 State 3524033 962262 84447.8 4699925 238194 65936.1 8223958 1200456 9424414 150386 (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 2010. 46

Table 2.6B: The NREGA payment processed though banks/post office during 2009-10 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) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8=2+5 9=3+6 10=8+9 11=4+7 Banswara 16195 219949 16698.5 2091 13660 120.6 18286 233609 251895 16820 (0.5) (21.7) (8.9) (0.0) (3.2) (0.1) (0.2) (16.3) (2.7) (4.7) Karauli 64274 8273 1949.2 131303 42233 6970.3 195577 50506 246083 8919 (1.8) (0.8) (1.0) (3.0) (9.9) (4.1) (2.5) (3.5) (2.6) (2.5) Jaisalmer 19264 6258 648.9 42227 1100 796.1 61491 7358 68849 1445 (0.5) (0.6) (0.3) (1.0) (0.3) (0.5) (0.8) (0.5) (0.7) (0.4) Nagaur 131654 9416 4302.5 316049 971 11823.9 447703 10387 458090 16127 (3.8) (0.9) (2.3) (7.2) (0.2) (6.9) (5.7) (0.7) (4.9) (4.5) Sri 252645 13525 7406.3 23229 872 980.2 275874 14397 290271 8386 Ganganagar (7.2) (1.3) (4.0) (0.5) (0.2) (0.6) (3.5) (1.0) (3.1) (2.3) Dungarpur 1708 230966 14890.5 9 27189 3680.0 1717 258155 259872 18571 Jhalawar 86680 47092 748.3 218378 0 784.3 305058 47092 352150 1532 Sirohi 52399 0 1208.6 62333 0 4788.8 114732 0 114732 5998 Udaipur 290056 0 10682.7 486198 0 11489.4 776254 0 776254 22172 Barmer 251019 19898 10850.0 204512 5358 11200.0 455531 25256 480787 22050 Chittorgarh 0 269102 12456.4 0 28788 1333.5 0 297890 297890 13789 Jalore 86269 53191 5868.9 30058 26504 2791.7 116327 79695 196022 8661 Sawai Madhopur 137720 0 350.0 37493 0 300.0 175213 0 175213 650 Tonk 96281 0 1310.5 233904 0 3740.7 330185 0 330185 5051 Ajmer 170485 0 12244.3 188213 0 13517.6 358698 0 358698 25762 Alwar 22648 0 516.1 308732 0 5103.3 331380 0 331380 5619 Baran 206801 1639 5692.5 40626 0 622.4 247427 1639 249066 6315 Bharatpur 41002 0 28.3 271844 0 39.5 312846 0 312846 68 Bhilwara 154120 0 7749.5 373897 0 19059.9 528017 0 528017 26810 Bikaner 97875 25786 8270.0 111636 9272 5513.5 209511 35058 244569 13784 Bundi 150974 5350 0.0 1422 186271 6778.8 152396 191621 344017 6779 Churu 160613 0 8510.0 153244 0 7243.8 313857 0 313857 15754 Dausa 97676 64909 7513.4 18601 27487 2478.3 116277 92396 208673 9991 Dholpur 0 0 0.0 178612 0 3091.0 178612 0 178612 3091 Hanumanga rh 157438 0 5918.0 79454 0 2550.2 236892 0 236892 8468 Jaipur 118614 0 6098.0 317339 0 16314.6 435953 0 435953 22413 Jhunjhunu 20725 0 1289.6 66337 0 4127.7 87062 0 87062 5418 Jodhpur 86494 13549 4140.1 271134 55211 13505.0 357628 68760 426388 17645 Kota 93756 13069 4240.5 9058 71 432.1 102814 13140 115954 4672 Pali 220979 910 14127.6 126080 16 3531.0 347059 926 347985 17659 Pratapgarh 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Rajsamand 135709 8507 8166.8 2462 758 1987.2 138171 9265 147436 10154 Sikar 80569 0 3250.0 84000 0 4149.0 164569 0 164569 7399 State 3502642 1011389 187126.0 4390475 425761 170844.1 7893117 1437150 9330267 357972 (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 2010. 47

Table 2.6C: The NREGA payment processed though banks/post office during 2008-09 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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8=2+5 9=3+6 10=8+9 11=4+7 16199 212735 4802.73 1949 16105 12985.2 18148 228840 246988 17788 (0.6) (34.7) (2.6) (0.1) (9.7) (9.3) (0.3) (29.4) (3.4) (5.5) 58564 7812 1138.32 87766 40173 2445.2 146330 47985 194315 3583 (2.1) (1.3) (0.6) (2.3) (24.3) (1.8) (2.2) (6.2) (2.6) (1.1) 58975 9977 368.36 98653 27183 701.3 157628 37160 194788 1069 (2.1) (1.6) (0.2) (2.6) (16.5) (0.5) (2.4) (4.8) (2.6) (0.3) 74808 856 3805.12 231224 783 10521.9 306032 1639 307671 14327 (2.7) (0.1) (2.1) (6.1) (0.5) (7.5) (4.6) (0.2) (4.2) (4.4) 203755 12605 14132.87 16412 2547 1717.2 220167 15152 235319 15850 (7.3) (2.1) (7.7) (0.4) (1.5) (1.2) (3.3) (1.9) (3.2) (4.9) Ganganagar Dungarpur 1708 209904 11000.06 9 23567 735.6 1717 233471 235188 11736 Jhalawar 60362 33535 3406.75 197962 0 3207.9 258324 33535 291859 6615 Sirohi 51044 0 1116.94 57444 0 1300.0 108488 0 108488 2417 Udaipur 161650 0 2146.71 466970 0 2730.0 628620 0 628620 4877 Barmer 131987 19898 13606.34 147071 5358 9852.9 279058 25256 304314 23459 Chittorgarh 235166 3647 13266.33 23430 306 1318.5 258596 3953 262549 14584 Jalore 64105 42518 3772.60 24461 24582 1274.6 88566 67100 155666 5048 Sawai Madhopur Total Amount Disbursed (Rs.in lakhs) 125704 0 0.00 35942 0 0.0 161646 0 161646 0 T onk 67113 0 510.20 208036 0 1820.7 275149 0 275149 2331 Ajmer 141582 0 11017.40 166802 0 12980.0 308384 0 308384 23997 Alwar 16917 0 795.99 259366 0 8865.9 276283 0 276283 9662 Baran 141346 918 3863.56 22470 0 564.2 163816 918 164734 4428 Bharatpur 40759 0 2815.72 259523 0 6075.9 300282 0 300282 8892 Bhilwara 68763 0 9535.11 295149 0 14576.8 363912 0 363912 24112 Bikaner 111073 0 5890.00 112635 0 5375.0 223708 0 223708 11265 Bundi 129185 0 7864.33 27646 0 2164.4 156831 0 156831 10028 Churu 75249 0 5125.36 93890 0 3580.6 169139 0 169139 8706 Dausa 57162 45665 5224.98 8640 24543 1700.5 65802 70208 136010 6926 Dholpur 0 0 0.00 178612 0 7601.3 178612 0 178612 7601 Hanumanga 117629 0 8500.65 59867 0 1026.2 177496 0 177496 9527 Jaipur 66977 0 9616.00 214576 0 4218.0 281553 0 281553 13834 Jhunjhunu 16893 0 1056.42 51223 0 3169.3 68116 0 68116 4225 Jodhpur 49468 0 15183.00 247630 0 7200.0 297098 0 297098 22383 Kota 70415 11682 4142.59 9618 61 493.7 80033 11743 91776 4637 Pali 220979 910 11398.23 100058 16 4912.2 321037 926 321963 16310 Pratapgarh 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 Rajsamand 118203 0 5871.90 22270 0 992.8 140473 0 140473 6865 Sikar 32824 0 3456.80 67706 0 3591.9 100530 0 100530 7049 State 2786564 612662 184431.4 3795010 165224 139699.1 6581574 777886 7359460 324131 (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 2010. 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 161646 individual accounts (banks and post offices) were in the names of NREGA workers in 2008-09 but none of them received a single rupee during the same year either through banks or post offices(table 2.6C). 48

In case of Bundi district, 150974 individual bank account holders and 5350 joint bank account holders participating in NREGA work during 2009-10 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 6778.82 lakhs (Table 2.6B). It seems that there were some problems with bank transactions. 2.4.3 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, 1936. 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 2010-11 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 2010-11 (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 2010-11. On the other hands, in some districts like Chittorgarh, Sirohi and Sikar, no unemployment allowance due was found during the same year. 49

Table 2.7: Unemployment allowance paid in lieu of not providing employment (2010-11) 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 21886 (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 2010. 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

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. 2.4.4 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

(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 2009-10 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 2009-10 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 2010-11, 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 2010-11 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 2010-11. 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 2010-11. 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 (2009-10) 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 2010-11 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

Table 2.8: Work projection under NREGA for 2010-11 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 24017 73314 46876 162373 13342226 955240955 1142044 698179 1840222 (25.8) (25.8) (28.3) (21.7) (2.5) (42.4) (39.9) (0.9) (2.2) 1795 8475 4053 14383 2373360 47038042 288353 50122 338475 (1.9) (3.0) (2.4) (1.9) (0.4) (2.1) (10.1) (0.1) (0.4) 11547 28315 21598 99075 245681356 308440915 370251 77672361 78042612 (12.4) (10.0) (13.0) (13.2) (45.8) (13.7) (12.9) (98.3) (95.3) 7547 17391 7742 24894 5530329 111788865 108740 35234 143974 (8.1) (6.1) (4.7) (3.3) (1.0) (5.0) (3.8) (0.0) (0.2) 3421 10862 5676 24198 14452330 209695816 197384 222024 419409 (3.7) (3.8) (3.4) (3.2) (2.7) (9.3) (6.9) (0.3) (0.5) 29219 99319 59477 320958 5656743 271689236 283060 154743 437804 (31.4) (35.0) (35.9) (42.8) (1.1) (12.1) (9.9) (0.2) (0.5) 9728 18269 12104 55870 242826635 245694718 283643 91815 375458 (10.5) (6.4) (7.3) (7.5) (45.3) (10.9) (9.9) (0.1) (0.5) 4793 25409 7311 34462 5505401 77003822 162323 29998 192321 (5.2) (9.0) (4.4) (4.6) (1.0) (3.4) (5.7) (0.0) (0.2) 979 2321 1000 13308 765657 25028336 26410 50547 76957 (1.1) (0.8) (0.6) (1.8) (0.1) (1.1) (0.9) (0.1) (0.1) 93046 283675 165837 749521 536134038 2251620705 2862209 79005023 81867232 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Banswara district 835 1593 710 2771 1841691 8093116 8171 7529 15700 (14.2) (19.5) (13.6) (12.7) (16.1) (16.0) (20.8) (18.0) 125 460 311 1680 200090 4698120 4802 2080 6882 (2.1) (5.6) (6.0) (7.7) (9.3) (9.4) (5.7) (7.9) 603 1715 831 5973 7461749 12436347 12712 8915 21628 (10.3) (21.0) (16.0) (27.3) (24.7) (24.9) (24.6) (24.8) 830 574 1204 837 231347 3069870 3095 1083 4177 (14.2) (7.0) (23.1) (3.8) (6.1) (6.1) (3.0) (4.8) 555 819 346 2731 1368309 7024704 7115 7296 14411 (9.5) (10.0) (6.6) (12.5) (13.9) (13.9) (20.2) (16.5) 2493 1950 1342 5490 123825 7884164 8122 5120 13241 (42.5) (23.9) (25.8) (25.1) (15.7) (15.9) (14.1) (15.2) 95 98 69 520 3497985 1737714 1468 746 2213 (1.6) (1.2) (1.3) (2.4) (3.5) (2.9) (2.1) (2.5) 325 774 364 1525 869821 4314668 4443 1594 6037 (5.5) (9.5) (7.0) (7.0) (8.6) (8.7) (4.4) (6.9) 0 185 28 375 53301 1107913 1115 1826 2941 (0.0) (2.3) (0.5) (1.7) (2.2) (2.2) (5.0) (3.4) 5861 8168 5205 21902 50366616 51042 36188 87231 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) 53

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 518 532 20 617 1257 4256451 6133 2543 8676 Total (58.7) (32.3) (8.4) (31.2) (34.7) (41.6) (28.1) (36.5) 0 0 0 1 82 182164 247 114 360 (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.1) (1.5) (1.7) (1.3) (1.5) 221 770 219 952 5522406 4923247 4658 4175 8833 (25.0) (46.8) (91.6) (48.1) (40.1) (31.6) (46.2) (37.1) 94 0 0 0 3894 454248 456 262 719 (10.6) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (3.7) (3.1) (2.9) (3.0) 0 0 0 0 6292 193544 325 124 450 (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (1.6) (2.2) (1.4) (1.9) 0 0 0 0 1710 85192 398 59 457 (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.7) (2.7) (0.7) (1.9) 38 115 0 176 1220573 841729 1190 497 1686 (4.3) (7.0) (0.0) (8.9) (6.9) (8.1) (5.5) (7.1) 12 0 0 0 4091 226387 226 152 378 (1.4) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (1.8) (1.5) (1.7) (1.6) 0 230 0 234 0 1115445 1115 1115 2230 (0.0) (14.0) (0.0) (11.8) (9.1) (7.6) (12.3) (9.4) 883 1647 239 1980 12278407 14748 9041 23788 (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) 409 1363 883 1194 239872 8466730 6496 3383 9879 (6.2) (7.3) (11.2) (10.3) (27.8) (28.1) (21.6) (25.5) 361 234 157 251 31989 689950 589 291 879 (5.5) (1.3) (2.0) (2.2) (2.3) (2.6) (1.9) (2.3) 261 506 342 547 2922460 3986421 3003 1234 4237 (4.0) (2.7) (4.3) (4.7) (13.1) (13.0) (7.9) (10.9) 251 6936 830 1723 498658 1728520 1204 903 2106 (3.8) (37.2) (10.5) (14.8) (5.7) (5.2) (5.8) (5.4) 103 190 99 275 1411739 1499197 1112 282 1394 (1.6) (1.0) (1.3) (2.4) (4.9) (4.8) (1.8) (3.6) 3517 7694 4439 5971 30978 8390914 5447 4311 9758 (53.3) (41.3) (56.1) (51.3) (27.6) (23.6) (27.5) (25.2) 1566 1033 821 966 2855248 3235512 2760 1911 4671 (23.7) (5.5) (10.4) (8.3) (10.6) (12.0) (12.2) (12.0) 127 502 326 706 505 2211500 2260 1849 4108 (1.9) (2.7) (4.1) (6.1) (7.3) (9.8) (11.8) (10.6) 0 175 15 0 40 198500 207 1534 1741 (0.0) (0.9) (0.2) (0.0) (0.7) (0.9) (9.8) (4.5) 6595 18633 7912 11633 30407244 23078 15696 38774 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) 54

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 671 3602 1327 11733 12731 51733813 54349 44248 98597 (16.4) (30.2) (35.6) (21.3) (35.5) (36.7) (52.3) (42.4) 20 11 7 176 10986 1373000 1374 376 1750 (0.5) (0.1) (0.2) (0.3) (0.9) (0.9) (0.4) (0.8) 601 1489 138 4694 3008830 6500742 6531 5361 11892 (14.7) (12.5) (3.7) (8.5) (4.5) (4.4) (6.3) (5.1) 172 245 122 1306 4863 5993164 6283 2423 8706 (4.2) (2.1) (3.3) (2.4) (4.1) (4.2) (2.9) (3.7) 0 4 0 37 0 185600 186 75 260 (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) 1367 5179 1171 26417 241905 10614344 11308 13508 24816 (33.4) (43.4) (31.5) (48.0) (7.3) (7.6) (16.0) (10.7) 1112 1261 932 4617 19736619 67251196 65591 15100 80690 (27.2) (10.6) (25.0) (8.4) (46.1) (44.3) (17.8) (34.7) 144 20 24 5364 2344371 1332952 1317 344 1661 (3.5) (0.2) (0.6) (9.7) (0.9) (0.9) (0.4) (0.7) 1 113 2 679 264147 919458 1189 3190 4379 (0.0) (0.9) (0.1) (1.2) (0.6) (0.8) (3.8) (1.9) 4088 11924 3723 55023 145904269 148128 84623 232751 (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) 2693 2271 2338 9936 23629 36682281 117002 27920 144922 (2.9) (0.8) (1.4) (1.3) (1.6) (4.1) (0.0) (0.2) 10 31 11 65 177101 337207 337 137 474 (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 201 213 275 2130 1281800 5309967 82613 3661 86274 (0.2) (0.1) (0.2) (0.3) (0.2) (2.9) (0.0) (0.1) 115 182 204 759 7644 2406740 2419 845 3264 (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.0) (0.0) 963 1664 1222 5676 8897 28104165 28323 17607 45930 (1.0) (0.6) (0.7) (0.8) (1.2) (1.0) (0.0) (0.1) 616 1813 1333 14054 46819 38239306 38619 22818 61437 (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 643 471 454 2283 94190234 8935934 8927 3873 12800 (0.7) (0.2) (0.3) (0.3) (0.4) (0.3) (0.0) (0.0) 519 933 724 2537 25106 9752204 14645 2233 16878 (0.6) (0.3) (0.4) (0.3) (0.4) (0.5) (0.0) (0.0) 0 4 38 3328 317 945107 959 2949 3908 (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.4) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 5760 7582 6599 40768 130712911 293843 82044 375887 (6.2) (2.7) (4.0) (5.4) (5.8) (10.3) (0.1) (0.5) Source: nrega.nic.in; Accessed on 10th September 2010. 55

The analysis of the works projection in study districts reveals that the total number of new works proposed for the next financial year 2010-11 for Banswara, Karauli, Jaisalmer, Nagaur and Sri Ganganagar is 21902, 1980, 11633, 55023 and 40768 respectively. The total estimated cost of undertaking the projected works for the next financial year 2010-11for the study districts Banswara, Karauli, Jaisalmer, Nagaur and Sri Ganganagar is Rs 87,231 lakhs, Rs 23,788 lakhs, Rs 38774 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 2009-10 to 2010-11 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

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 2008-09 and 2009-10, 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 2010-11. As far as number of projects completed and total amount spent is concerned, it was found that, during 2010-11(till August 2010), a total of 408 works were completed whereas 489340 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 2008-09 and 2009-10. 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

terms of inspection of works at district and block levels during 2010-11. 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 2008-09 and 2009-10. 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 2010-11 in Rajasthan, out of which, Rs 84,447.79 Lakhs was disbursed through banks and Rs 65,936.13 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 2009-10 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 6,778.82 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 2010-11 on the NREGA website on the details of unemployment allowance due and payment made. Though unemployment allowance was due for 21886 days covering 30 out of 33 districts during 2010-11 (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 2010-11. 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

12.1 per cent of total estimated 225, 16, 20,705 person-days to be generated in Rajasthan during 2010-11. 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

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 5.44. 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

Table 3.1: Demographic profile of the respondents. Characteristics Unit Beneficiaries Non Aggregate beneficiaries No of HH 200.0 50.0 250.0 Household size No. per HH 5.43 5.44 5.43 Average numbers of earners No. per HH 2.50 2.10 2.40 Gender Age group Identity of respondent Education status Caste Card holding Decision maker Main occupation Male % of all member 54.1 49.1 53.1 Female % of all member 45.9 50.9 46.9 <16 % of all member 38.1 33.6 35.9 16-60 % of all member 58.1 62.3 60.3 >60 % of all member 3.8 4.1 3.8 Head % of HH 73.5 94.0 77.6 Others % of HH 26.5 6.0 22.4 Illiterate % of all member 44.4 41.6 43.8 Up to primary % of all member 23.9 29.2 25.0 Up to secondary % of all member 28.5 27.3 28.3 Up to graduate % of all member 2.7 1.9 2.6 Above graduate % of all member 0.5 0.0 0.4 SC % of HH 25.5 22.0 24.8 ST % of HH 24.5 26.0 24.8 OBC % of HH 25.0 32.0 26.4 General % of HH 25.0 20.0 24.0 AAY % of HH 2.5 0.0 2.0 BPL % of HH 44.0 24.0 40.0 APL % of HH 45.0 64.0 48.8 None % of HH 8.5 12.0 9.2 Male % of HH 87.5 98.0 89.6 Female % of HH 12.5 2.0 10.4 Farming % of HH 11.6 17.8 12.7 Self business % of HH 4.3 12.1 5.7 Salaried/pension % of HH 6.7 8.4 7.0 Wage earners % of HH 77.4 61.7 74.6 Involved in migration during year % of HH 6.0 9.4 6.8 2009 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 16-60. 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

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. 3.2. 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

Table 3.2: Occupational pattern of sample households (% of total man-days per HH) Occupation Beneficiaries Non Aggregate beneficiaries Agricultural casual labour 9.7 10.7 9.9 Non agricultural casual labour 20.8 28.5 22.2 Work for public work programmes other 0.3 0 0.2 than NREGA Self employed in non farming 4.2 9.9 5.3 Self employed in agriculture 13.7 6.9 12.4 Self employed in livestock 16.5 17.6 17.3 Regular/salary job 10.6 12.1 10.9 Worked as a migrant worker 6.5 14.3 7.4 Worked under NREGA 17.7 0 14.4 Any other work 0 0 0 Total 100 100 100 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 50116.6 and Rs 58318.9 respectively. The average annual income generated by a non-beneficiary 63

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 11736.6 (23.4%) and Rs 12948.1(25.8%) from non-agricultural wage works and agriculture/livestock respectively. On the other hand, a non-beneficiary HH has earned Rs 17974.1 (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 2009. 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) 6572.0 45.6 0.0 0.0 5257.6 45.6 (13.1) (0.0) (10.2) 3728.9 131.4 3963.0 92.9 3775.7 123.3 (7.4) (6.8) (7.3) 11736.6 67.1 17974.1 55.9 12984.1 64.0 (23.4) (30.8) (25.1) 198.0 554.1 0.0 0.0 158.4 554.1 (0.4) (0.0) (0.3) 6892.7 255.7 16877.8 175.5 8889.7 225.2 (13.8) (28.9) (17.2) 2680.0 186.3 6150.0 159.1 3374.0 176.4 (5.3) (10.5) (6.5) 12948.1 46.5 9540.0 74.0 12266.4 50.8 (25.8) (16.4) (23.7) 3853.8 158.4 3384.0 192.5 3759.8 164.5 (7.7) (5.8) (7.3) 1506.5 255.0 430.0 272.6 1291.2 256.2 (3.0) (0.7) (2.5) Total 50116.6 34.7 58318.9 44.6 51757.0 36.9 (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

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 255.7 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 (2004-05) 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, 255.1 gm, 6.7 kg and 3.9 litres respectively whereas the NSS (2004-05) 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

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 2 1993-94 NSS 2 1999-00 NSS 2 2004-05 Rice 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 Wheat 7.0 5.8 6.7 9.4 9.8 8.4 Other cereals 2.2 4.0 2.6 5.3 4.1 4.1 Total cereals 10.2 10.7 10.3 14.9 14.2 12.7 Total pulses 1.1 1.0 1.1 0.5 0.6 0.5 Sugar 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.0 Edible oils 1 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.4 Liquid milk 1 3.9 4.1 3.9 10.4 9.6 9.5 Milk products 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 Spices 2 253.9 260.0 255.1 202.7 271.6 262.0 Poultry-meat 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Fruits 0.4 0.6 0.4 1.1 1.8 2.2 Vegetables 3.8 3.6 3.8 2.5 2.9 4.0 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, 1993-94; 55th Round, 1999-2000; 61st Round, 2004-05. 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

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 2004-05 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) 456 20.6 (2.3) 114 19.0 (2.3) 267 2.4 (0.4) Wheat 87.5 (10.6) 66 90.3 (10.0) 67 88.0 (10.5) 66 58.9 (10.1) Other cereals 40.1 (4.9) 97 39.2 (4.4) 98 39.9 (4.8) 97 24.3 (4.2) Total cereals 146.2 (17.8) 50 150.2 (16.7) 44 147.0 (17.6) 49 85.6 (14.7) Pulses 51.4 (6.2) 61 57.2 (6.4) 55 52.5 (6.3) 60 11.5 (2.0) Sugar etc 36.6 (4.4) 153 45.5 (5.1) 76 38.3 (4.6) 60 18.5 (3.2) Tea 11.4 (1.4) 236 12.5 (1.4) 255 11.6 (1.4) 239 NA Total edible oil 43.8 (5.3) 63 47.0 (5.2) 56 44.4 (5.3) 62 21.9 (3.8) Spices 26.8 (3.3) 48 31.5 (3.5) 49 27.7 (3.3) 48 11.9 (2.0) Milk & prods 119.6 (14.6) 109 123.7 (13.7) 90 120.4 (14.4) 106 113.0 (19.4) Poultry-meat 13.0 (1.6) 287 13.3 (1.5) 274 13.1 (1.6) 285 0.1 (0.0) Fruits 9.1 (1.1) 103 17.4 (1.9) 177 10.78 (1.3) 143 5.7 (1.0) Vegetables 70.1 (8.5) 60 77.7 (8.6) 50 71.6 (8.5) 58 29.0 (5.0) Confectionery 6.0 (0.7) 167 9.0 (1.0) 173 6.6 (0.8) 170 1.7 (0.3) Any other 16.0 (1.9) 228 41.4 (4.6) 275 21.1 (2.5) 277 NA (Salt Total and food 550.0 (66.9) 56.8 626.3 (69.6) 29.8 565.2 (67.5) 56.4 298.8 (51.3) Non food items (365 day recall period) Education 49.8 (6.1) 208 24.4 (2.7) 200 44.7 (5.3) 214 15.7 (2.7) Clothing 23.4 (2.8) 79 30.9 (3.4) 168 24.86 (3.0) 108 28.6 (4.9) Footwear 7.1 (0.9) 90 9.4 (1.0) 120 7.5 (0.9) 98 8.2 (1.4) Fuel 19.6 (2.4) 136 20.557 (2.3) 152 19.77 (2.4) 139 58.8 (10.1) Other items 172.0 (20.9) 227 188.0 (20.9) 260 175.2 (20.9) 235 172.0 (29.6) Total Non food 271.9 (33.1) 125.8 273.3 (30.4) 167 272.1 (32.5) 135 283.3 (48.7) Gross total 821.8 (100.0) 55.7 899.6 (100.0) 70.6 837.4 (100.0) 59.5 582.1 (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, 2004-05. 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

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 ` 550.0 compared to ` 626.3 by a non-nrega household. Similarly, the per capita amount spent on total cereals by a NREGA household was about ` 146.2 compared to only ` 150.2 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 ` 837.4 out of which ` 565.2 was spent on food items and ` 272.1 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 (2009-10) compared to that during National Sample Survey year (prior to 2004-05). 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

Table 3.6: Variability in income, consumption and wages Description Beneficiary Non All households beneficiary Average household Income 50116.6 58318.9 51757.0 during the reference year (Rs) Average household 53502.1 58724.7 54542.8 consumption during the reference year (Rs) Average wage (Rs/day)* 118.6 134.8 121.8 Coefficient of variation in income across households (%) 65.5 80.7 69.9 Coefficient of variation in consumption across households (%) Coefficient of variation in wages across households (%) 55.7 70.6 59.5 43.4 51.9 45.8 Gini coefficient of income 0.343 0.427 0.364 Gini coefficient of 0.342 0.347 0.345 consumption Gini coefficient of wage 0.116 0.283 0.217 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, 0.347 and 0.283 respectively. Similarly, the Gini coefficients for income, consumption and wages of beneficiaries were 0.343, 0.342 and 0.116 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

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) 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.2 G= 0.342 G= 0.343 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Cum. Proportion of Workers Figure 3.1. Lorenz curves for income and consumption of beneficiary HHs 0.4 0.2 0.0 G= 0.347 G= 0.427 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 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 3.7. 6 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

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 7.263 1427.206 1.663000 4.368000 0.000013 *** Household income (Rs) 0.0000048 1.0000048 0.000011 0.437000 0.662227 Household size -0.0487 0.9525 0.012030-4.048000 0.000052 *** (No.) Distance of work place from home (Km) -0.1279 0.8799 0.133800-0.956000 0.339115 Wage rate(rs/day) -0.3884 0.6781 0.129700-2.993000 0.002758 ** Female worker 3.2540 25.8937 0.9629 3.38 0.000726 *** (Yes=1, No=0) Possession of land 0.4828 1.6206 0.6103 0.791 0.428881 (Yes=1, No=0) BPL Card holding (Yes=1, No=0) 0.0634 1.0654 0.5921 0.107 0.914757 Pseudo R 2 0.6353 No. of observations = 250 LR Chi-square 158.95 Degree of freedom= 7 0.000000 Notes: Significance codes: 0 *** 0.001 ** 0.01 * 0.05. 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 0.0000043 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 0.0484. 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 0.1298. 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

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 0.3705. 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 3.254. In terms of odds ratio of 25.89, the odds of female participation in NREGA are 25.89 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 0.4828 compared to that by 72

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 0.0634. In terms of exponentiated value of coefficients (odds ratio), the odds of participation in NREGA for a BPL card holder are 1.065 times larger than the odds for a non- BPL card holder. The Chi-square value of 158.95 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 24.87 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 0.659 per cent increase in employment of workers in NREGA works. 73

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 2.198 8.372 0.263 0.793 Employment other than 0.01371 0.01304 1.051 0.294 NREGA (No. working days) HH Income other than -0.00002408 7.92E-05-0.304 0.761 NREGA (Rs) Per HH NREGA wage 0.8843 0.05794 15.263 0.00000000 *** (Rs/day) HH size 1 0.881 1.135 0.257 Value of land owned (Rs) 0.0000037 2.21E-05 0.167 0.867 Dummy AAY card holding (Y=1; N=0) -7.824 1.295-0.604 0.546 Dummy BPL card holding (Y=1; N=0) 2.392 4.114 0.581 0.562 Dummy SC (Y=1; N=0) -2.191 5.651-0.395 0.693 Dummy ST (Y=1; N=0) 2.207 5.588 0.395 0.693 Dummy OBC (Y=1; N=0) -6.949 5.612-1.238 0.217 Adjusted R 2 0.4894 No. of observations = 250 F value 24.87 on 10 and 239 DF, p-value: < 2.2e-16 Notes: Signif. codes: 0 *** 0.001 ** 0.01 * 0.05. 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 8.218529 5.249924 1.565 0.1181 NREGA wage (Rs) 0.642277 0.027704 23.184 < 2e-16 *** Household size (No.) -1.139758 0.461677-2.469 0.0139 * Age 0.135463 0.08677 1.561 0.11910000 Education (No. of yeas ) -0.152182 0.252686-0.602 0.54725 Employment other than NREGA (No. working days) -0.0013940 0.00894-0.156 0.87611 Dummy AAY card holding (Y=1; N=0) Dummy BPL card holding (Y=1; N=0) Dummy Gender (Male=1; Female=0) -3.323194 6.727578-0.494 0.6215 2.922926 2.143149 1.364 0.1732-10.144845 2.476508-4.096 4.83E-05 *** Adjusted R 2 0.569; No. of observations = 250 F value 92.77 on 8 and 548 DF, p-value: < 2.2e-16 Notes: Signif. codes: 0 *** 0.001 ** 0.01 * 0.05. Source: Computed (using R) from field data 74

For a one unit increase in household size, the number of days of NREGA employment per member decreases by 1.139. 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 10.14. Thus, the female workers have contributed more and participated more in NREGA works compared to their male counterparts. The F value of 92.77 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 5.44. 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 50116.6 and Rs 58318.9 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

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 (2004-05) 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, 0.347 and 0.283 respectively. Similarly, the Gini coefficients for income, consumption and wages of beneficiaries were 0.343, 0.342 and 0.116 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

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 158.95 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 0.0484. 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 0.3705. Being a female worker, versus a male worker, increased the log odds of participation in NREGA works by 3.254. In terms of odds ratio of 25.89, the odds of female participation in NREGA are 25.89 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

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

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 1.35 1.95 1.05 1.35 1.35 1.41 General 1.43 2.10 1.14 1.18 1.29 1.43 SC 1.28 0.00 1.00 1.14 1.35 0.95 ST 1.00 1.80 1.00 1.50 2.00 1.46 OBC 1.43 0.00 1.06 1.50 0.75 0.95 Men 0.62 1.05 0.27 0.52 0.52 0.60 Women 0.73 0.90 0.78 0.83 0.83 0.81 Aggregate 71.73 81.48 81.28 84.93 91.30 82.14 General 92.00 81.65 86.43 82.73 94.86 87.53 SC 71.06 0.00 100.00 84.71 87.15 68.58 ST 80.00 81.30 75.73 87.75 100.00 84.96 OBC 61.86 0.00 78.50 81.67 87.92 61.99 Men 30.33 46.08 21.33 24.73 27.87 30.06 Women 41.40 35.40 59.95 60.20 63.43 52.08 Aggregate 27.50 50.00 45.00 40.00 60.00 44.50 General 7.50 25.00 10.00 15.00 15.00 14.50 SC 12.50 0.00 10.00 5.00 27.50 11.00 ST 0.00 25.00 2.50 12.50 2.50 8.50 OBC 7.50 0.00 22.50 7.50 15.00 10.50 Aggregate 94.82 78.72 67.19 76.39 78.37 79.14 General 94.00 83.33 58.50 80.31 90.22 81.27 SC 93.30 0.00 68.00 78.75 72.33 62.48 ST 100.00 72.66 73.82 75.17 100.00 84.33 OBC 97.05 0.00 66.84 73.11 79.19 63.24 Men 88.17 76.00 66.64 76.33 82.29 78.76 Women 97.24 80.32 68.59 76.48 77.30 79.99 Average distance from residence where employed (Km) 4.35 1.18 3.1 1.34 2.74 2.54 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

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 2009. 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

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 2009-10. 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 2009. 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

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 86.2 51.0 96.5 35.0 94.2 42.0 agricultural casual labour (Rs) Female 66.3 34.0 66.7 29.0 66.3 45.0 Wage rate in non Male 123.4 46.0 139.1 44.0 130.8 45.0 agri casual labour (Rs) Female 73.6 40.0 81.0 28.0 83.3 40.0 Wage rate in public work programmes (Rs) Wage rate earned by migrant workers (Rs) Male 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Female 175.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 175.0 20.0 Male 152.9 38.0 181.9 52.0 160.3 44.0 Female 90.0 47.0 0.0 0.0 90.0 47.0 Wage rate under NREGA (Rs) Note: CV stands for Coefficient of Variation across HHs Source: Field survey data. Male 78.9 18.0 0.0 0.0 78.9 18.0 Female 80.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 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

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

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 92.5 88.9 60.0 65.4 47.5 45.2 95.0 94.4 65.0 64.8 72.0 72.3 2.5 1.9 0.0 0.0 5.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.6 2.5 2.1 25.0 25.9 32.5 37.2 42.5 40.5 37.5 35.2 45.0 44.4 36.5 36.5 0.0 0.0 7.5 5.1 7.5 7.1 15.0 13.0 15.0 13.0 9.0 7.4 20.0 16.7 20.0 11.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.9 9.5 6.7 5.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.9 1.5 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.5 23.8 0.0 0.0 17.5 13.0 8.0 6.0 35.0 31.5 40.0 48.7 45.0 45.2 37.5 40.7 35.0 37.0 38.5 41.1 5.0 3.7 2.5 1.3 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.9 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.4 Very good 20.0 60.0 27.5 45.0 47.5 40 Good 65.0 40.0 72.5 55.0 52.5 56.5 Bad 12.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 3.0 Worst 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 Average unemployment allowance 0 0 0 0 0 0 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 2009. 84

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

Plate 4.2. Brick road at 9Z village of Sri Ganganagar district (2008-09) Plate 4.3. WHS created under MGNREGA at Bhundel village of Nagaur district (2008-09) 86

Plate 4.4. Brick lining of Irrigation channel at 9Z village of Sri Ganganagar district (2008-09) 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

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 0.175 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 0.175 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 0.025 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 4.7 6.0 5.0 5.4 6.1 5.4 0.23 0.725 0.4 0.425 0.4 0.44 (4.79) (12.08) (8.00) (7.87) (6.56) (8.06) No of out-migrated members returned back to 0.08 0.5 0.075 0.025 0.2 0.175 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 100.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 50.0 30.0 members returned Nearby town 0.0 16.7 100.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 back to the village to work under Same district 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 NREGA where Same state 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 10.0 were they earlier working (% of Other state 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 returned members) Other country 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 In the case some members returned back to the village to work under NREGA which activity earlier working in (% of returned members) 66.7 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 60.0 Trading/services and 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 transport Private work/self business 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 Other government work 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Agriculture labour 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 Any other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Shifted last year 100.0 66.7 100.0 0.0 50.0 63.3 Year in which shifted (% of shifted hh) Shifted before last year 0.0 33.3 50.0 0.0 50.0 26.7 Is your family better off now compared to previous occupation (% of shifted hh) 33.3 66.7 50.0 0.0 100.0 50.0 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

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

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 2009. 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

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 0.175 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

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 ` 188612.0 and ` 226868.0 respectively during the reference year 2009. 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 `100300 (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 50175.0 (26.6) 66460.0 (29.3) 53432.0 (27.2) House property 95225.0 (50.5) 100300.0 (44.2) 96240.0 (49.0) Livestock 13865.5 (7.4) 6130.0 (2.7) 12318.4 (6.3) Agricultural 4825.0 (2.6) 10840.0 (4.8) 6028.0 (3.1) implements Consumer assets 5953.5 (3.2) 8742.0 (3.9) 6511.2 (3.3) Financial assets 750.0 (0.4) 1075.0 (0.5) 815.0 (0.4) Ornaments 12961.0 (6.9) 24600.0 (10.8) 15288.8 (7.8) Utensils 2382.5 (1.3) 4347.0 (1.9) 2775.4 (1.4) Transport means 2474.5 (1.3) 4274.0 (1.9) 2834.4 (1.4) Others 0.0 (0.0) 100.0 (0.0) 20.0 (0.0) Total 188612.0 (100.0) 226868.0 (100.0) 196263.2 (100.0) Note: Figures in parentheses are percentage of total asset value. Source: Field survey data 92

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 `3587.5 of institutional loans by a beneficiary HH during the same year 2009. 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 ` 3287.5 (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 `10606.6 was borrowed by a sample HH in the study area. The beneficiary and nonbeneficiary HHs have borrowed a total of ` 9220.8 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

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 3587.5 (38.9) 11840.0 (73.3) 5238.0 (49.4) (banks) Traders-cum- 3287.5 (35.7) 820.0 (5.1) 2794.0 (26.3) Money Lenders Commission Agent 200.0 (2.2) 0.0 (0.0) 160.0 (1.5) Landlord/Employer 300.0 (3.3) 400.0 (2.5) 320.0 (3.0) Friends/Relatives 1816.0 (19.7) 3040.0 (18.8) 2060.8 (19.4) Others 29.8 (0.3) 50.0 (0.3) 33.8 (0.3) Daily consumption 1203.3 (13.0) 1010.0 (6.3) 1164.6 (11.0) Social ceremony 1525.0 (16.5) 2540.0 (15.7) 1728.0 (16.3) Purchase of land, 2790.0 (30.3) 8000.0 (49.5) 3832.0 (36.1) livestock, Transport vehicle Consumer durables 305.0 (3.3) 800.0 (5.0) 404.0 (3.8) Construction of 425.0 (4.6) 600.0 (3.7) 460.0 (4.3) house Health treatment 1250.0 (13.6) 700.0 (4.3) 1140.0 (10.7) Others 1722.5 (18.7) 2500.0 (15.5) 1878.0 (17.7) Total amount of borrowing 9220.8 (100.0) 16150.0 (100.0) 10606.6 (100.0) Rate of interest (percent per annum) 27.0 12.0 23.6 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

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 10.5 14.0 11.0 indebted Availability of co-operative credit society in 50.0 52.0 50.4 village Family member being member of such society 13.0 0.0 10.3 Availability of informal credit society/shg in 30.0 26.0 29.2 village Family member being member of such society 35.0 8.0 30.1 Having account in a bank/post office/other 100.0 60.0 92.0 institution Having any stocks/bond/shares/other similar 0.0 0.0 0.0 assets Having life insurance policy 9.5 12.0 10.0 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. 5.3.1 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

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

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 11.0 89.0 0.0 The amount paid for job card (exorbitant) 11.0 89.0 0.0 The amount paid as bribe (exorbitant) 11.0 89.0 0.0 No entries were made, even though the job card 19.5 79.0 1.5 holder(s) had worked on NREGA Some entries were incomplete or missing or fake 31.0 65.5 3.5 information was entered Some entries were over-written 7.0 84.5 8.5 The signature column was blank or partly blank 17.5 76.5 6.0 With the card holders 79.5 20.5 0.0 With Sarpanch or Sachiv 6.0 94.0 0.0 With contractor 0.0 100.0 0.0 With the Gram Rojgar Sahayak 0.5 99.5 0.0 With Mate 14.0 86.0 0.0 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 92.5 7.5 0.0 28.0 72.0 0.0 74.5 25.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 Payment of Wages Measurement of work Period of wage payment Are the wage rates same for men and women 97.5 2.5 0.0 Wage rates higher for men 2.5 97.5 0.0 Wage rates higher for women 0.0 100.0 0.0 wage paid on daily-wage basis 0.5 99.5 0.0 wage paid on piece-rate/task-wage basis 99.5 0.5 0.0 Work was measured by individual s work 0.5 99.5 0.0 Work was measured by team measurement 94.5 5.5 0.0 Work was measured by collective measurement 5.0 95.0 0.0 Wages were paid within a fortnight 7.0 93.0 0.0 Wages were paid within a month 33.5 66.5 0.0 Wages were paid more than a month 59.5 40.5 0.0 Wages were paid after one year 0.0 100.0 0.0 97

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 0.0 100.0 0.0 Post office 49.0 51.0 0.0 Bank 45.5 54.5 0.0 Representative of line department 5.5 94.5 0.0 Other government official or any other 0.0 100.0 0.0 Bank account was on self s name 88.5 11.5 0.0 Spouse s name 29.5 70.5 0.0 Parent s name 1.5 98.5 0.0 Children s name 1.0 99.0 0.0 Others 0.0 100.0 0.0 Individual account 79.5 20.5 0.0 Joint account 20.5 79.5 0.0 Did bank follow usual procedure of banking 99.5 0.5 0.0 Wages paid in front of all labourers 91.5 2.0 6.5 Wages paid at the worksite 3.0 97.0 0.0 Wages paid in Panchayat Bhawan 4.0 96.0 0.0 Wages paid at other public/private place 92.0 8.0 0.0 Wages paid at some one s private residence 1.0 99.0 0.0 There were delays in wage payments 69.0 29.5 1.5 Wage paid less than the minimum wage 58.5 39.0 2.5 Wage paid less than asked for sign/thumb impression 7.0 90.0 3.0 Task was too much compared to the wages paid 39.0 55.5 5.5 Faced problems in accessing post office/banks 34.0 62.0 4.0 On what basis wages were calculated not clear 25.0 62.0 13.0 Others 0.0 0.0 0.0 A Board/GP member gave details of the sanctioned 73.5 12.5 14.0 amount, work dimensions and other requisite details The worksite had drinking water facility 94.5 5.0 0.5 Worksite had shed for periods of rest 82.0 18.0 0.0 Worksite had child care facility 73.0 25.0 2.0 Worksite had first aid kit/medicines 91.0 6.5 2.5 Was there any authority to monitor the functioning of 96.5 3.5 0.0 the NREGA administration Any complaint lodged relating to worksite etc., to the 11.0 88.5 0.5 Gram Panchayat, Programme Officer or other officials If yes, was any action taken on your complaint 50.0 45.5 4.5 Work is very useful to the villagers 40.0 60.0 0.0 Work is quite useful to the villagers 56.5 43.5 0.0 Work is not particularly useful to the villagers 3.0 97.0 0.0 Work is useless for the villagers 0.5 99.5 0.0 The structure created may last up to one year. 8.0 92.0 0.0 The structure created may last up to five years. 73.0 27.0 0.0 The structure created may last up to ten years. 10.0 90.0 0.0 The structure created may last more than ten years. 9.0 91.0 0.0 Is it worth creating the structure? 74.5 22.5 3.0 Was the structure created adequate? 60.5 36.5 3.0 No, structure needed more attention to be able to last 36.5 63.5 0.0 long. 98

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 28.0 72.0 0.0 after implementation of NREGA (year 2005 onwards) If yes, only one member of the family migrated 16.5 83.5 0.0 More than one member of the family migrated 11.5 88.5 0.0 Are wages higher in city or other states than NREGA 74.0 26.0 0.0 Any family members migrated back to village to work 13.0 87.0 0.0 under NREGA If yes, only one member of the family migrated back 8.0 92.0 0.0 More than one member of the family migrated back 5.0 95.0 0.0 Any family member migrated as wage labourers with 6.0 94.0 0.0 dissatisfaction from NREGA If yes, only one member of the family migrated 2.5 97.5 0.0 More than one member of the family migrated 3.5 96.5 0.0 Are respondent aware about NREGA implementation 92.0 4.0 4.0 Right to apply for work and get employed within 15 67.5 22.0 10.5 days The work application procedure 60.0 19.5 20.5 Right to minimum wages 59.0 25.0 16.0 The level of minimum wages 33.0 44.0 23.0 The wage calculation method 13.5 47.5 39.0 Right to the unemployment allowance 13.5 25.0 61.5 Minimum worksite facilities (drinking water, first aid) 92.5 3.0 4.5 Mandatory availability of muster rolls at the worksite 78.0 11.5 10.5 The list of permissible works under the NREGA 44.0 35.5 20.5 NREGA enhanced food security 99.5 0.5 0.0 NREGA provided protection against extreme poverty 95.5 2.0 2.5 NREGA helped to reduce distress migration 75.0 17.5 7.5 NREGA helped to reduce indebtedness 76.0 11.0 13.0 NREGA gave greater economic independence to 98.0 0.0 2.0 women NREGA generated purchasing power at local economy 92.5 1.5 6.0 Did your family get full two meals per day throughout 77.0 23.0 0.0 year 2009 Family did not get sufficient food for one month 5.5 94.5 0.0 Family did not get sufficient food for two month 13.0 87.0 0.0 Family did not get sufficient food for above two 4.5 95.5 0.0 month How did you cope with the situation take loan 10.0 90.0 0.0 Catch fish/rat/crab etc 1.5 98.5 0.0 Near/sometime starvation/take meal only once 9.5 90.5 0.0 Begging 0.5 99.5 0.0 Any other 1.5 98.5 0.0 Note: GP stands for Gram Panchayat Source: Field survey data 99

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 (2009-10). In most of the cases the nearby trees and bushes were used as rest shed by the NREGA workers. 100

Plate 5.3. Community Reservoir at Chudada, Banswara (2008-09). This is an example of a good quality work. Plate 5.4 Water harvesting structure at Kotari village, Karauli (2008-09). This is an example of a bad quality work 101