TERM PAPER

Course Title: BUSINESS ENVIORNMENT

TOPIC:- IMPACT OF NREGA SCHEME ON RURAL INDIA

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Mr. Bhavdeep S.kochar VINEETH NAIR
ROLL NO- B36
REG NO- 11002057

1
 SN PAGE
O TOPIC NO
Acknowled
1 gement 2
2 Introduction 3-5
3 Analysis 5-11
4 History 11-12
5 Report 12-16
6 Suggestion 16-19
7 References 20

I hereby acknowledge you that I received the assignment uploaded by you and read

all the instructions given by you regarding the assignment; I have done my

assignment as instructed in the assignment uploaded by you. I convey my heart full

of regards to you for sending such a good term paper which helps us to increase our

knowledge by collecting information and doing term papers, which increases our

ability and helps us to know about the pattern of doing the term paper. So Iam very

thankful to MR Bhavdeep Singh Kochar for assigning such a good term paper to us.

2
The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA) is an
Indian job guarantee scheme, enacted by legislation on August 25, 2005. The
scheme provides a legal guarantee for one hundred days of employment in every
financial year to adult members of any rural household willing to do public work-
related unskilled manual work at the statutory minimum wage of Rs.100 per day. The
Central government outlay for scheme is Rs. 40,100 crores in FY 2010-11. The
National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 is a law where by any adult who is
willing to do unskilled manual work at the minimum wages entitled to being
employed on local public works within 15 days of applying.

This act was introduced with an aim of improving the purchasing power of the rural
people, primarily semi or un-skilled work to people living in rural India, whether or not
they are below the poverty line. Around one-third of the stipulated work force is
women. The government is planning to open a call centre, which upon becoming
operational can be approached on the toll-free number, 1800-345-22-44; it was

3
initially called the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) but was
renamed on 2 October 2009

Political background

The act was brought about by the UPA coalition government supported by the left
parties. The promise of this project is considered by many to be one of the major
reasons for the re-election of the UPA in the Indian general election, 2005.

The plan

The act directs state governments to implement MNREGA "schemes". Under the
MGNREGA the Central Government meets the cost towards the payment of wage,
3/4 of material cost and some percentage of administrative cost. State Governments
meet the cost of unemployment allowance, 1/4 of material cost and administrative
cost of State council. Since the State Governments pay the unemployment
allowance, they are heavily incentivized to offer employment to workers.

However, it is up to the State Government to decide the amount of unemployment

allowance, subject to the stipulation that it not be less than 1/4th the minimum wage
for the first 30 days, and not less than 1/2 the minimum wage thereafter. 100 days of
employment (or unemployment allowance) per household must be provided to able
and willing workers every financial year.

Process

A registered person can submit application for work in writing (for at least fourteen
days of continuous work) either to the panchayat or to Programme Officer.
Application daily unemployment allowance will be paid to the applicant.

No discrimination between men and women is allowed under the act. Therefore,
men and women must be paid the same wage. All adults can apply for employment.
Adult members of rural households submit their name, age and address with a photo
to the Gram Panchayat. The Panchayat registers households after verification and
issues a job card. The job card contains the details of the adult member enrolled and
his/her photo.

History and Funding

The scheme commenced on February 2, 2006 in 200 districts, was expanded to

cover another 130 districts in 2007-2008 and eventually covered all 593 districts in

4
India by April 1, 2008. The outlay was Rs. 110 billion in 2006-2007, and rose steeply
to Rs. 391 billion (140% increase in amount with respect to previous 2008-2009
budget) in 2009-2010.

Implementation

The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India, in its performance audit of the
implementation of MGNREGA has found "significant deficiencies" in the
implementation of the act. The plan was launched in February 2006 in 200 districts
and eventually extended to cover 593 districts. 44,940,870 rural households were
provided jobs under NREGA during 2008-09, with an national average of 48 working
days per household.

Works/Activities

The MGNREGA achieves twin objectives of rural development and employment. The
MGNREGA stipulates that works must be targeted towards a set of specific rural
development activities such as: water conservation and harvesting, afforestation,
rural connectivity, flood control and protection much as construction and repair of
embankments, etc. Digging of new tanks/ponds, percolation tanks and construction
of small check dams are also given importance. The employed are given work such
as land levelling, tree plantation, etc. First a proposal is given by the Panchayat to
the Block Office and then the Block Office decides whether the work should be
sanctioned

The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, NREGA is a flagship

programme of the UPA government which guarantees employment up to
100 days for the rural poor with a statutory minimum wage of Rs.100 per
day. According to many political analysts, the NREGA was instrumental in
the UPA’s return to power in the centre in 2009. This model of rural
growth was revolutionary because of its base principles of Inclusive
Growth, right to work and a rational centre-state relationship immaterial
of the ruling party. But has it really delivered? That’s the big question.

5
I am not an expert on NREGA, nor do I claim to be one. This report of mine
is based on the analysis of several reports that have appeared in reputed
leading national dailies since the implementation of the act. Let me start
by giving the differences between the NREGA and several other poverty
eradication programmes. The main point here is transparency. A worker
getting his wages under the NREGA is, in most cases aware of his fees
and hence cannot be cheated directly by the government officials. Even
then there have been instances of endemic corruption, which I will

explain below. Since most of the reports that I have researched are of a
localised nature, I am presenting a state wise analysis comprising of a few
select states here.

Andhra Pradesh:

AP has been a model state as far as the NREGA is concerned. The state
government here has taken numerous measures to provide transparency
in the process. For example, all the NREGA wages in AP are paid through
post offices. Here the payment is facilitated through an agency (the post
office) which is separate from the implementing agency. This helps in
preventing corruption on a large scale. This must act as a model for other
states where the implementing agency gives out the wages, thus leading
to ‘babugiri’.

Orissa:

Orissa has been a state which has been plagued by mass corruption in
NREGA funds. The system here has been virtually unverifiable by 3rd
party organizations who wanted to check the effects of NREGA. The good
news here is that the state government has finally woken up to the
centre’s call and is in the process of ensuring that there are routine
checks and a proper balance is maintained. More recent reports state that
the corruption has come down significantly over the past few years.

Jharkhand:

The scenario here is much worse than that in Orissa. Some reports
suggest that around a third of the funds are leaked. This can be prevented
only with regular checks by non implementing agencies. There has been
no decline in corruption over the past few years.

Tamil Nadu:

The government here has initiated a unique method of preventing

embezzlement by requiring each worker to enter his/her signature or
thumbprint on the muster roll everyday to verify attendance, thus

6
preventing the pocketing of funds by officials. These muster rolls are
available for scrutiny at the site of work, thus enabling transparency.

Concluding, I can say that corruption can be rooted out from the NREGA if
all the guidelines mentioned in the official act are strictly implemented by
the state governments. For example, the method adopted by the TN
government is already mentioned in the guidelines of the act, but seldom
followed, with TN being the only state to do so. Also, swift and immediate
action must be taken wherever corruption has been exposed, thus
ensuring a better rural growth and economic development.

The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, NREGA is a flagship

programme of the UPA government which guarantees employment up to
100 days for the rural poor with a statutory minimum wage of Rs.100 per
day. According to many political analysts, the NREGA was instrumental in
the UPA’s return to power in the centre in 2009. This model of rural
growth was revolutionary because of its base principles of inductive,
right to work and a rational centre-state relationship immaterial of the
ruling party. But has it really delivered? That’s the big question.

I am not an expert on NREGA, nor do I claim to be one. This report of mine

is based on the analysis of several reports that have appeared in reputed
leading national dailies since the implementation of the act. Let me start
by giving the differences between the NREGA and several other poverty
eradication programmes. The main point here is transparency. A worker
getting his wages under the NREGA is, in most cases aware of his fees
and hence cannot be cheated directly by the government officials. Even
then there have been instances of endemic corruption, which I will explain
below. Since most of the reports that I have researched are of a localised
nature, I am presenting a state wise analysis comprising of a few select
states here.

Payment method

7
Despite the common perception that most NREGA wages are currently being routed
through bank accounts, the graphs below show that progress towards this goal has
been shoddy at best.

Overall, only 43% of the total payments have been disbursed through the sources
other than bank and post-offices. Interestingly, in many cases compliance of states
in routing NREGA wages via formal accounts seems to bear little relation to the
levels of financial inclusion of the state: for example, UP in which a low share of the
population holds a bank account has performed relatively well on this metric while
states such as Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, with much high rates of existing
financial inclusion, have performed abysmally.

Analysis oF NREGA IMPLEMENTATION IN

Expenditure On (in
Total Total Persond
Total Lakhs)
Househol Mandays ays Women Total Avl. Cost
S.N Expenditur
State d Generat Created Personday Funds (in Perda
o. e (in Wages Material
provided ed (in in a s Lakhs) y
Lakhs) No. No.
Job Lakhs) Family
(%) (%)

1 2 3 4 3/4 5 6 7 3/7 8 9

ANDAMAN 0.00 0.00

1 AND 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
NICOBAR 0 0

166929. 27474.
ANDHRA 48038 2010. 229320.8 194404. 96.7 79 56
2 PRADESH
41.85 1160.86
92 28 2 35 1
86 14

8
 187.28 111.01
ARUNACHAL 106.
3 PRADESH
4490 2.79 62.19 0.82599 372.49 298.29
83
63 37

35749.3 17780.
14028 487.6 150.428 53530.1 109. 9 80
4 ASSAM 34.76 80609.74
88 1 67 8 78
67 33

68356.0 34003.
38596 855.1 227.616 152531.4 102359. 119. 6 12
5 BIHAR 22.16
30 0 89 401 18 70
67 33

0.00 0.00
CHANDIGAR
6 H
0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00
0 0

90069.5 46901.
CHHATTISG 22849 1316. 151755.6 136970. 104. 1 46
7 ARH
57.60 553.418
63 10 67 97 07
66 34

DADRA & 0.00 0.00

8 NAGAR 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00
HAVELI 0 0

0.00 0.00
DAMAN &
9 DIU
0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00
0 0

0.00 0.00
10 GOA 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00
0 0

9
 1596.8
5785.81
29069 41.9168 12680.44 81.9 4
11 GUJARAT 90.06 30.98 7382.65
1 1 9 8
78
22

4440.87 659.26
142.
12 HARYANA 70869 35.76 50.46 12.3147 5802.462 5100.13
63
87 13

5103.2
7355.50
HIMACHAL 27109 16150.34 12458.7 127. 5
13 PRADESH
97.53 35.98 29.3632
9 2 5 74
59
41

1492.5
2337.01
JAMMU AND 13830 114. 6
14 KASHMIR
33.40 24.15 0.36077 6148.96 3829.57
3 66
61
39

61595.9 42434.
16798 747.5 203.121 125468.1 104030. 139. 0 30
15 JHARKHAND 44.50
68 6 28 86 19 16
59 41

23151.4 13238.
85964 320.9 159.701 67420.67 36389.8 113. 3 37
16 KARNATAKA 37.33
5 1 85 2 0 40
64 36

7139.51 870.87
18539 43.3692 131.
17 KERALA 60.75 32.77 9973.95 8010.38
2 8 86
89 11

0.00 0.00
LAKSHADWE
18 EP
0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00
0 0

10
 175006. 106934
MADHYA 43469 2753. 1147.27 328848.3 281941. 102. 42 .72
19 PRADESH
63.33
16 02 826 97 14 41
62 38

16585.9 1606.1
MAHARASHT47469 184.8 73.9259 18192.1 98.4 7 5
20 RA
38.94 49783.33
5 6 2 2 1
91 9

1810.6
4184.72
11254 15.8475 6415.046 124. 0
21 MANIPUR 48.32 42.93 5995.32
9 6 37 08
70
30

1280.7
3650.64
10604 12.7604 6389.929 119. 0
22 MEGHALAYA 41.33 38.98 4931.34
2 7 5 32
74
26

4020.62 20.53
10.6026 4595.383 128.
23 MIZORAM 88940 31.53 35.45 4041.14
9 21 16
99 1

1704.34 656.23
11005 97.0
24 NAGALAND 24.33 22.10 7.14195 2572.41 2360.57
2 4
72 28

31363.7 25264.
11004 405.2 147.475 81098.82 56628.3 139. 6 62
25 ORISSA 36.82
97 3 02 64 8 75
55 45

0.00 0.00
PUDUCHERR
26 Y
0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.00
0 0

11
 1016.5
1939.67
154. 7
27 PUNJAB 49690 19.15 38.54 3.11907 5027.36 2956.24
36
66
34

98424.2 45697.
21704 1678. 1158.00 144069.7 144121. 85.8 0 51
28 RAJASTHAN 77.33
60 38 66 94 71 7
68 32

808.31 357.61
135.
29 SIKKIM 19664 8.60 43.72 3.15817 1432.37 1165.92
61
69 31

49890.7
0.00
12348 645.2 49890.7 77.3 1
30 TAMIL NADU 52.25 529.14 70113.96
18 3 1 2
0
100

13134.3 6804.1
42372 181.0 21850.38 19938.5 110. 4 9
31 TRIPURA 42.73 80.5944
4 5 25 3 13
66 34

126278. 58784.
UTTAR 40964 1363. 198.033 222726.1 185063. 135. 96 25
32 PRADESH
33.27
08 06 23 9195 21 77
68 32

3236.3
5930.12
UTTARAKHA 18926 114. 5
33 ND
80.34 42.45 34.363 15319.6 9166.47
3 10
65
35

76549.6 21675.
WEST 38433 968.8 164.633 133148.5 98225.3 101. 6 67
34 BENGAL
25.21
35 0 05 5199 3 39
78 22

12
 108257 466812
34218 14491 1951626. 154938 106. 0.49 .10
Total 42.35 6169.38
783 .07 71 2.59 92
70 30

Total expenditure = Expenditure on Wages(unskilled)+Expenditure on material(Skilled+semi

skilled+material)

The NREGA was launched on 4th May 2006 in the district and first job card was
issued during the Independence Day celebration by the Deputy Commissioner, ie, on
15th August 2006.

The District have constituted Area Employment Council (AEC) as Gram Panchayat
and Village Employment Council (VEC) as Gram Sabaha as the districts do not have
the above institutions. The act was brought about by the UPA coalition
government supported by the left parties. The promise of this project is
considered by many to be one of the major reasons for the re-election of the
UPA in the Indian general election, 2005.
The scheme commenced on February 2, 2006 in 200 districts, was expanded
to cover another 130 districts in 2007-2008 and eventually covered all 593
districts in India by April 1, 2008. The outlay was Rs. 110 billion in 2006-2007,
and rose steeply to Rs. 391 billion (140% increase in amount with respect to
previous 2008-2009 budget) in 2009-2010. The Comptroller and Auditor
General (CAG) of India, in its performance audit of the implementation of
MGNREGA has found "significant deficiencies" in the implementation of the
act. The plan was launched in February 2006 in 200 districts and eventually
extended to cover 593 districts. 44,940,870 rural households were provided
jobs under NREGA during 2008-09, with an national average of 48 working
days per household. The MGNREGA achieves twin objectives of rural
development and employment. The MGNREGA stipulates that works must be
targeted towards a set of specific rural development activities such as: water
conservation and harvesting, afforestation, rural connectivity, flood control
and protection much as construction and repair of embankments, etc. Digging
of new tanks/ponds, percolation tanks and construction of small check dams
are also given importance. The employed are given work such as land
levelling, tree plantation, etc. First a proposal is given by the Panchayat to the
Block Office and then the Block Office decides whether the work should be

13
 sanctioned

Employment Generated during the Year 2010-2011

No. of Registered Employment demanded Employment offered Employment Provided

Job Card
State
Issued
Household Persons Household Persons Household Persons Household Persons Persondays

ORISSA 5927414 15877576 5867042 1395748 2766757 1393813 2762842 1353745 2666341 52395986

RAJASTHAN 9694334 24289144 9694334 4763240 6342771 4752801 6319846 4590600 6054938 177822285

CHHATTISGARH 4049614 12678634 4049410 2021824 4150347 2021491 4148370 2017088 4133474 66036651

JHARKHAND 3859599 8288200 3854801 1313460 2110381 1313302 2110060 1305012 2092747 43895546

14
 MADHYA PRADESH 11316542 35031834 11308779 2628300 5355918 2622535 5342364 2618076 5331104 82464295

TRIPURA 595700 1302877 594317 525550 780189 525527 779976 524916 773673 20807043

MAHARASHTRA 6031975 14839266 5630863 303823 564174 303148 562873 301255 558235 11151038

GUJARAT 3915337 9874311 3909481 739165 1842958 738572 1841378 722075 1788031 26071447

WEST BENGAL 10595913 22464400 10595909 3965660 5619694 3956834 5606067 3926217 5554239 74279227

KERALA 2678866 5099461 2673501 820133 893298 819618 892682 806511 876833 18550376

KARNATAKA 4975361 13284591 4940031 510132 1293246 509200 1290765 496839 1252426 13532850

BIHAR 10950600 16310796 10950599 834802 1105187 830881 1099826 799764 1056054 22558998

MIZORAM 189621 446232 189586 108523 108545 108428 108450 108399 108421 2254034

HARYANA 500926 989713 500589 93607 139095 93537 138998 92978 137967 2167364

HIMACHAL PRADESH 1005802 1952985 1005802 299849 348895 299321 348208 284289 328804 8994634

UTTAR PRADESH 11671428 15742708 11545981 4132864 5048324 4122595 5034009 4072863 4958038 114201083

NAGALAND 333391 572383 333391 270418 327780 270418 327780 270321 326698 10114655

ASSAM 3603080 5205961 3575845 717103 827460 715917 826024 702474 807571 12140867

UTTARAKHAND 933005 1610308 928222 236511 272111 235835 271195 232050 266340 5525617

MEGHALAYA 382706 817347 377905 150350 189623 149368 188369 148532 187030 3527515

PUNJAB 782102 1360140 778664 170558 197222 170473 197119 169561 195929 3502700

TAMIL NADU 7705010 12903203 7668229 5164911 7558160 5161215 7549928 5448966 8059359 196806571

SIKKIM 74108 147959 72307 30077 34960 29578 34422 28412 32846 1008640

MANIPUR 368635 755009 300359 47043 49678 45597 48021 32066 34227 318971

JAMMU AND KASHMIR 487111 698662 350928 29738 37393 28556 35880 27729 34730 502948

GOA 22889 31094 10740 4982 5121 4978 5117 4891 5029 147646

15
 ARUNACHAL
51008 120314 28812 15 15 0 0 0 0 0
PRADESH

LAKSHADWEEP 6042 12618 5926 840 855 810 825 718 731 10782

ANDAMAN AND
28398 35908 28390 2696 2828 2686 2807 2569 2684 29447
NICOBAR

PUDUCHERRY 60268 142501 55382 11334 13846 11288 13793 10176 12503 258695

DAMAN & DIU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DADRA & NAGAR

1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HAVELI

ANDHRA PRADESH 11654792 27127056 11654792 5574372 10323871 5526561 10215817 5848815 11023902 268959692

CHANDIGARH 5 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Grand Total 114451583 250013199 113480922 36867628 58310702 36764883 58103811 36947907 58660904 1240037603

household Registered

Block Registered Household

Baghmara 4,271

Rongara 3,751

Chokpot 5,442

Gasuapara 4,207

Total Household Registered 17,671

Work at a Glance

At a Glance

16
Total No. of Project Proposed 2,402

Project Taken Up 1,127

Project Completed 85

Ongoing Project 1,042

Man days Generated 6.34

Employment Provided 17,275

Funds

Project Cost 2080.46 Lakhs

Fund Received - Central 513.30 Lakhs

Fund Received – State 57.30 Lakhs

Fund Utilized 512.64 Lakhs

Criticisms
Many criticisms have been levelled at the programme, which has been argued to be no more effective
than other poverty reduction programmes in India, with key exceptions such as Rajasthan.

The first criticism is financial. The MGNREGA is one of the largest initiatives of its kind in the world.
The national budget for the financial year 2006-2007 was Rs 113 billion (about US$2.5bn and almost
0.3% of GDP) and now fully operational, it costs Rs. 391 billion in financial year 2009-2010. Funding
was argued by Jean Druze and others to be possible through improved tax administration and
reforms, yet the tax-GDP ratio has actually been falling. There are fears the programme will end up
costing 5% of GDP.

Another important criticism is that the public works schemes' completed product (e.g. water
conservation, land development, afforestation, provision of irrigation systems, construction of roads,
or flood control) is vulnerable to being taken over wealthier sections of society. A monitoring study of
NREGA in Madhya Pradesh showed the types of activities undertaken were more or less
standardised across villages, suggesting little local consultation.

Further concerns include the fact that local government corruption leads to the exclusion of specific
sections of society]. Local governments have also been found to claim more people have received job
cards than people who actual work in order to generate more funds than needed, to be then
embezzled by local officials. Bribes as high Rs 50 are paid in order to receive the job cards

17
 The Prime Minister said that the government is planning to improve the skills of the young people
working under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, NREGA, so that they can be
employed in the developmental projects for rural infrastructure. Speaking at a function to mark the
fourth anniversary of the implementation of the NREGA flagship programme in New Delhi on
Tuesday, Dr Manmohan Singh said that the training will be given to them and the government is
considering partnership with the private institutions in this regard.

Dr Singh also stressed the need for proper coordination between various programmes being
implemented in the rural areas to ensure that there is no overlapping. He said that there is a need to
ensure that the works taken up under the programme help in strengthening rural infrastructure as well
as agriculture.

Dr. Manmohan Singh said 51 per cent of the money under the flagship programme has been used for
water conservation and this will help in improving ground water as well as the fertility of the soil.

While assuring that the centre will continue its efforts to improve the delivery mechanism, Dr.
Manmohan Singh said, there is a need to emulate the states which have been more successful in
implementing the NREGA.

The Prime Minister said NREGA has helped in providing social security to the poor and weakest
sections of society in the villages. Speaking on the occasion, the UPA Chairperson Mrs Sonia Gandhi
said that the flag ship programme has helped in checking migration from villages, reducing
exploitation of the labour and in the empowerment of rural women.

She also pointed to the complaints regarding bogus cards and other shortcomings in carrying out the
programme.

Trophies and certificated were also presented for good work done in the implementation of the
programme. AIR correspondents says that employment was provided to 4.27 crore households.

18
THE NATIONAL Rural Employment Guarantee Act, now renamed the Mahatma
Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act is a flagship program of the UPA
government and aims at enhancing the livelihood security and purchasing power of
people in rural areas by guaranteeing hundred days of employment in a financial year to
volunteers who are able and willing to do manual work.

The Act came into force in February 2006 and started with 200 districts and within two
and a half years it has spread its branches to the rest of the country. While critics have
lambasted the scheme as being a drain on the exchequer and populist to the extreme,
and an obvious throwback to the pre-liberalisation days, the NREGA is already silencing
them and bringing about a silent revolution in rural areas and has already even begun to
make a major dent on poverty reduction despite its uneven progress.

In this article, we propose some very important enhancements to the NREGA with a view
to enhancing its effectiveness, and help the country reap the rewards of this scheme
much more quickly and produce a greater and quicker return on money spent. These
proposed enhancements will also help bring in greater accountability and transparency
into the scheme and boost rural infrastructure both in the long-term and in the short-
term.

Institution of a nodal agency

The Supreme Court has recently expressed the need for the establishment of a nodal
watchdog and an agency to oversee the implementation of the NREGA. We can argue
that this proposal would be of utmost importance in giving a much-needed central
direction to the scheme and ensuring that it benefits trickle down to the intended
beneficiaries in a time-bound manner.

The nodal agency can serve as an ombudsman and help in the process of identifying
assets that need to be created as a part of the scheme. It will also carry out research on
key aspects of the program and help identify best practices on a continuous basis. It can
also help disseminate information about best practices to other regions and help provide
strategic consulting to specific regions based on their unique problems and needs.

This will ensure that all learning’s are documented continuously and are used to further
improve the program from time to time. Nodal agencies will preferably be set up at a
state level also, so that this exercise can be carried out at a national and at a state level.
The nodal agency will also play a key role in identifying the interlinkages with other
schemes and play a critical part in interacting with other departments.

Emphasis on Asset creation

The emphasis of the NREGS besides employment creation needs to be asset creation
.i.e. creation of permanent assets as has already been stressed in various quarters. This
is of particular importance to long-term poverty reduction: as the economic conditions of
villages improve, less and less people will opt for the NREGA and the money saved can,
in turn be used to build assets in other areas. The assets must be built taking into
account the needs to the region in question, and only a bottom-up approach will work
here. The list of assets that need to be built needs to be identified at the lowest possible
level. The steps to do this should ideally be as follows:

19
(a) Identify projects by talking to villages and panchayats - a list needs to be arrived at
taking into the account the needs of a particular region or village. It can also ensure that
villagers get what they need. Thus, solutions addressing the problems of a region will be
provided.

(b) Build up a list of projects a village, taluk, state and a national level based on the
requirements of a village or region so that projects can be monitored at all levels.
Targets can also be factored into Five year plans for better monitoring and tracking.

(c) Key performance indicators must also be defined for each project.

The advantage of this is that it allows for a better comparison between plans and actual
performance. It will also minimize corruption at all levels. It will also help the national
economy greatly by leading to all round economic growth, greater tax collections and a
better ROI on the project. The steps listed above will also enhance accountability and
reduce corruption.

Incorporation of targets in Five-year plans

Ideally, infrastructure targets as a part of the NREGA need to be built into five years
plans as this can help better monitoring, tracking and implementation. These targets can
be fixed taking into account both assets which have been identified for creation and
additional target which can be fixed based on the previous year’s actual achievements.

Interlinkages with other schemes

We must emphasize that the NREGA must be interlinked with other schemes currently
being implemented by the central government for maximum efficacy. A list of such
schemes include population control programs, the National rural health mission and
watershed programs. In this connection, it would be useful to identify the key set of
problems or constraints facing the nation and then work backwards to see how the
NREGS can be combined with other schemes for maximum impact.

Thus, on one hand the list of assets to be built in each region must be identified by
talking to the locals and local authorities. On the other hand, the long-term constraints
and challenges facing the region can also be identified and scaled up at the national
level. This will help ensure that solutions implemented in one part of the country can be
replicated elsewhere without any difficulty. A detailed review must be carried out by the
nodal agency annually to make this happen. This two-pronged approach can greatly
contribute to the success of the NREGA and ensure that it is in tandem with critical
national requirements.

NREGA and population growth

We can argue here that the scheme need not necessarily be restricted to the poor alone.
It can also utilize the services of better-educated people to spread awareness on key
areas such as family planning. All this will be possible if there is better planning at a
national level, state and district levels and short term and long term plans are drawn up
for each region based on its specific requirements.
The NREGA can be linked to population control initiatives too as better population
management is the crying need of the hour:

(a) Spreading awareness about family planning: This exercise can be particularly
valuable and will naturally comprise of trained volunteers who can spread the message
of family planning as the part of the NREGA.

20
(b) Adult literacy programs: Many states such as Karnataka have recently declared their
intention to achieve 100% literacy by 2015. The NREGA can be a valuable tool in making
this happen and the exercise can be driven by trained volunteers too.

(c) Special work package for senior citizens: This can be made a part of the NREGA
program as such packages can play a crucial role in providing security to older citizens
and can act as an incentive for long-term birth control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi_National_Rural_Employment_Guara
ntee_Act

http://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2009/12/has-nrega-been-effective-a-concise-
analysis/

http://nrega.nic.in/states/cummulative_report.asp

http://nrega.nic.in/MISAnaReport.htm

http://www.indiadevelopmentblog.com/2009/06/nrega-analysis-of-payment-
method.html

http://southgarohills.nic.in/Scheme/NREGA_details.htm

http://southgarohills.nic.in/Scheme/Household.htm

http://southgarohills.nic.in/Scheme/WorkDetails.htm

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-199812914/nrega-good-scheme-
but.html

21