(This Paper was presented in the " National Seminar on Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Act (MGNREGA) at Dharwad, Karnataka State (India) on 31st Jan. 2017 & 2nd Feb. 2017)
-* Dr. S. Vijay Kumar
Despite decades of planned
development and poverty eradication programs at the national and state levels,
poverty continues to persist in India. The National Rural Employment Guarantee
Act (NREGA) has been a subject of lively debate, which aims at the ‘right to
work’ enhancing the livelihood security of people in rural areas by
guaranteeing hundred days of wage-employment in a financial year to a rural household
who volunteer to do unskilled manual work. The National Rural Employment
Guarantee Act was approved by the Indian Parliament in September 2005. It was renamed
as ‘Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act’ on 2-10-2009. This
Act started functioning from 2nd Feb.2006. Initially it was
introduced in 200 districts of the country and later extended to all districts
in the country. The main aim of this Act is to enhance the purchasing power of
rural people. World Development Report 2014
termed it a "stellar example of rural development" and noted
economist Amartya Sen also said it is a good Scheme for employment generation
in rural areas, but it has to be reformed. This Paper is an attempt to present
a review of the “Mahatma
Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act - With Special Reference to
Telangana State.
Objectives of the Study
Paper:
·
Aims of MGNREGA
·
Brief Review of
Literature
·
Modus operandi of MGNREGA
·
Different
categories of works permissible under MGNREGA & Performance
·
MGNREGA –
At a Glance - India & Telangana State
·
Findings, Impact, Criticism, and Suggestions
Methodology:
The study is based on secondary
data derived from the website of MGNREGA as well as research studies from
different sources - Journals, News-papers etc.
Aims
of MGNREGA:
1).
To provide at least 100 days of unskilled work on demand per household per
annum within 15 days and within 5 KMs radius near to his/her address to all adults who have completed 18 years of age, thus by ensuring economic security to rural
people.
2). Equal wages for men and women and preference should be given to
women in each work and at least one-third (33%) of persons to whom work is allotted
have to be women, thus ensuring women
empowerment and social equality.
3). Creation and maintenance of rural assets
and environmental protection.
4). Lowering
of rural-urban migration.
5). Panchayat Raj Institutions to have a principal role in planning and implementation and each district has to prepare a shelf of projects.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5). Panchayat Raj Institutions to have a principal role in planning and implementation and each district has to prepare a shelf of projects.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Professor (Associate) & Head (Retd.), Department of Economics,
Kakatiya Government (UG&PG) College (NAAC “A” Grade), Ex - Member of Board of
Studies, Kakatiya University, Warangal. (Telangana State).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brief Review of Literature: MGNREGA is the
catalyst for rural transformation. This programme is encompassing the whole
of the rural India and spends a huge budget, when compared to several preceding
employment generation programmes. It is the largest wage employment programme
in India ever launched with 25% of rural households participating and an annual
central government expenditure of about 0.5% of GDP. Many studies are available on MGNREGA which
observed that it is the successful scheme of the Government of India to improve
the condition of rural life (For example: Bhatia and Dreze 2006 , Puri 2008).
Government’s keenness to involve the Panchayat Raj Institutions directly in
this Scheme has been highlighted by Patel (2006) in his research paper. Saha
Roy (2013), observed from different studies that there is continued illegal
presence of contractors and delay in payments is a significant negative factor
affecting the availability of work. It has been observed by Goswami (2013) in a
study relating to AP that there was a significant development in the
implementation of MGNREGA using IT in all stages of work. This Scheme has given
an assurance to the rural people 100 days of employment nearer to home but
unfortunately works were not provided within 15 days as mentioned under the
provision of MGNREGA Act and also failed to provide unemployment allowance.
This was pointed by many research works like Chandrashekhar & Ghosh (2005),
Dreze Jeans et al. (2006), Rai, (2010), Jha et al. (2012), Datta et al. Many
research works have been done on wage system in MGNREGA (For example: Anindita
& Bhatia 2010, Vanaik & Siddarth 2008, CAG 2007, NCAER 2009). Under
this scheme 60% of funds expended on wages, but though the works has been
completed, due to corruption and irregularities wages have not been paid to the beneficiaries.
Keeping in view the role of
employment generation in alleviating rural poverty in India, government has
initiated various programmes time to time since independence. However these
programmes could not create such major impact in rural areas as it was expected
to be. There were number of factors responsible, for example - problem of
seasonality, lack of proper planning and timely disbursement of funds at lower
level of government, poor capacity of local governments etc. Prior to the
introduction of MGNREGA, various employment generation Schemes were introduced.
They are: Community Development Programme (CDP) in 1952, Rural Manpower
Programme (RMP) in 1960, Crash Scheme for Rural Employment (CSRE) in 1971,
Intensive Rural Employment Programme (IREP) in 1972, Food for Work Programme
(FWP) in 1977, National Rural Employment Programme (NREP) in 1988-89, Rural
Landless Employment Guarantee Programme (RLEGP) in 1983-89, Jawahar Rozgar
Yojana (JRY) in 1989-89, Employment Assurance Scheme (EAS) in 1993-99, Jawahar
Gram Samridhi Yojana (JGSY) in 1999-2003, Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana
(SGRY) in 2001, National Food for Work Programme (NFFWP) in 2004, NREGA 200
districts in 2006, Extension of Phase II-NREGA to additional 130 Districts in
2007, NREGA Phase III-Extended to cover
all rural districts of India in 2008 and NREGA renamed as Mahatma Gandhi
National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA) on 2-10-2009 and extended
whole country.
Modus
operandi of MGNREGA: Union Ministry of Rural Development is the nodal agency for the
implementation of the scheme. The
shelf of projects has to be prepared on the basis of priority assigned by Gram
Sabha. At least 50% of works have to be allotted to Gram Panchayats for
execution. A 60:40 wage and material ratio has to be maintained. Contractors and use of labour displacing
machinery are prohibited. Provision
had been made that at least 60 per cent of the work undertaken in a district in
terms of cost under the Act was for creation of productive assets directly
linked to agriculture and allied activities.
The Central Government bears the costs on the following items:
a) The entire cost of wages of unskilled manual workers.
b) 75% of the cost of material, wages of skilled and semi-skilled
workers.
c) Administrative expenses as may be determined by the Central
Government, which will include, inter alia, the salary and the allowances of
the Programme Officer and his supporting staff, work site facilities.
d) Expenses of the Central Employment Guarantee Council.
The
State Government bears the costs on the following items:
a) 25% of the cost of
material, wages of skilled and semi-skilled workers.
b) Unemployment
allowance payable by the State Government in case if it cannot provide wage
employment on time.
c) The Act stipulates
that the rate of the allowance has to be fixed by state governments in
consultation with State Councils. But,
it should not be less than one-fourth of the wages for the first 30 days of
unemployment and half of the wages beyond this.
d) Administrative expenses of the State Employment
Guarantee Council.
Different categories of works permissible
under MNREGA:
·
Creation of productive assets
directly linked to agriculture and allied activities.
·
Water
Conservation and water harvesting.
·
Drought Proofing (including plantation and afforestation).
·
Irrigation canals including micro and minor irrigation works.
·
Flood Control and Protection Works.
·
Minor irrigation, horticulture and land development on the land of
SC /ST /BPL/ IAY and land reform
beneficiaries.
·
Renovation of traditional water bodies including desilting of
tanks.
·
Land Development.
·
Rural Connectivity.
·
Gram Panchayat Bhawan and Bharat Nirman Rajiv Gandhi Sewa Kendra construction.
Recently,
Government has merged Green India Mission (GIM) with the Mahatma Gandhi
National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) Scheme. By merging GIM with
MGNREGA Scheme government seeks to increase 10 million hectares of forest
cover. Social audits are a requisite tool to monitor and
evaluate the works that are being carried out under MGNREGA.
Performance
(2015-16): In
the financial year 2015-16, Rs.42,084 crore was spent on MGNREGA. Performance indicators to rank the
States are: Average days of employment
per household, Percentage wages paid within the promised 15 days of enlisting
to work, and the work completion rate.
Average days of employment per household: Even though MGNREGA guarantees 100
days of employment, the national average has always been below 50 days.
Comparing this value across States, Tripura
was able to provide 95 days of employment on average. Manipur reported only
16 workdays of employment, the lowest among all states, followed by Puducherry
with 17 days, Goa 18 days and Lakshadweep 22 days. The overall average was 49 workdays in 2015-16.
Percentage Wages Paid: MGNREGA requires that wages be paid
within 15 days of closing the muster roll. During financial year 2014-15, only
40 per cent of the wages were paid within the stipulated time of 15 days. Manipur stood out in this case with 82 per
cent of wages being paid within 15 days while Meghalaya was only able to pay
wages for 4 per cent of the people on time.
Work Completion Rate: Work completion rate refers to the
number of works completed compared to works started, in percentage terms. Mizoram performed best in this case with a
92 per cent work completion rate. Tripura, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal
Pradesh also had work completion rates of above 80 per cent. Arunachal Pradesh
was at the bottom at just 20 per cent work completion rate.
It is interesting note that two north-eastern
States are at either extreme of the ranking: Tripura on top and Arunachal
Pradesh at the bottom. Mizoram was a close second. Chhattisgarh, Goa, Meghalaya
and Punjab all ranked second from the bottom. Andhra Pradesh and Jharkhand were
two major States with a high ranking. West Bengal, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh were
major States with a low score. Looking at the macro picture it is not clear
why MGNREGA is able to provide below 50 days of employment on average
nationally. But, this may be possible due to shortage of funds or due to lack
of demand for work due to low wage rates. The reasons could vary across and
within States. Tripura was able to
generate about 95 days of employment per household. Andhra Pradesh was able to
pay 80 per cent of the wages within the promised 15 days of enlisting to work,
and Madhya Pradesh was able to achieve 82 per cent work completion rate.
The best practices in each of these high-performing States should be documented
and shared with the other States, so that the performance of each State can go
up. For example, Andhra Pradesh is known for widespread computerization of the
processes which reduces corruption and ensures timely transfer of funds.
MGNREGA – At a
Glance - India & Telangana State
Table:
1 - MGNREGA (India) Total No. of Job
Cards/Blocks/GPs as on FY: 2016-17
1.Total No. of Districts
|
682
|
2.Total No. of Blocks
|
6,860
|
3.Total No. of GPs
|
2,62,249
|
Job Card
|
|
4.Total No. of Job Cards issued
(In Cr)
|
12.51
|
5.Total No. of Workers (In Cr)
|
25.5
|
6.Total No. of Active Job Cards
(In Cr)
|
7.17
|
7.Total No. of Active Workers (In
Cr)
|
10.84
|
8.(i)SC worker against active
workers (%)
|
20.7
|
9.(ii)ST worker against active
workers (%)
|
16.15
|
Source: www.nrega.nic.in
Table: 2 -
MGNREGA (Telangana) Total No. of Job
Cards/Blocks/GPs as on FY: 2016-17
1.Total No. of Districts
|
31
|
2.Total No. of Blocks
|
438
|
3.Total No. of GPs
|
8,831
|
Job Card
|
|
4.Total No. of Job Cards issued
(In Lakhs)
|
55.88
|
5.Total No. of Workers (In Lakhs)
|
126.64
|
6.Total No. of Active Job Cards
(In Lakhs)
|
30.67
|
7.Total No. of Active Workers (In Lakhs)
|
55.91
|
8.(i)SC worker against active
workers (%)
|
16.79
|
9.(ii)ST worker against active
workers (%)
|
12.53
|
Source:
www.nrega.nic.in
Analysis:
When tables 1 and 2 are compared, it is observed that at national level the
percentage of active job cards is 61.63, in Telangana State it is 54.88 i.e.
6.75 per cent less than all India level, that is somewhat nearer to the
national level. While at national level
the percentage of the active workers is 42.5, in Telangana State, it is 44.14
per cent, i. e. higher than national average. The percentage of SC worker
against active workers at national level is 20.7, in Telangana it is 16.79 i. e. nearer to all
India level. The percentage of ST worker against active workers at all India level is 16.15,
in Telangana it is 12.53. Thus, the
overall performance of Telangana State is better when compared with the all
India level.
Table:
3 - Progress of MGNREGA (India) as on FY: 2016-17
Progress
|
FY
2016-2017
|
FY
2015-2016
|
FY 2014-2015
|
FY
2013-2014
|
FY
2012-2013
|
1. Approved Labour Budget (In Cr)
|
220.9274
|
239.112
|
220.67
|
258.57
|
278.71
|
2. Person days Generated so far
(In Cr)
|
155.8623
|
235.1449
|
166.21
|
220.37
|
230.46
|
3. % of Total LB
|
70.55
|
98.34
|
75.32
|
85.23
|
82.69
|
4. .% as per Proportionate LB
|
98.06
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
5. SC person days % as of total person days
|
21.93
|
22.29
|
22.4
|
22.81
|
22.22
|
6. ST person days % as of total
person days
|
16.95
|
17.79
|
16.97
|
17.52
|
17.79
|
7. Women Person days out of Total
(%)
|
56.28
|
55.26
|
54.88
|
52.82
|
51.3
|
8. Average days of employment
provided per Household
|
36.45
|
48.85
|
40.17
|
45.97
|
46.2
|
9. Average Wage rate per day per
person (Rs.)
|
160.6
|
154.09
|
143.92
|
132.7
|
121.41
|
10. Total No of HHs completed 100
Days of Wage Employment
|
9,33,189
|
48,47,942
|
24,92,654
|
46,59,347
|
51,73,487
|
11. Total Households Worked (In
Cr)
|
4.276
|
4.8132
|
4.14
|
4.79
|
4.99
|
12. Total Individuals Worked (In
Cr)
|
6.2662
|
7.2258
|
6.22
|
7.39
|
7.97
|
13. Differently abled persons
worked
|
3,86,056
|
4,59,312
|
4,13,316
|
4,86,495
|
4,55,307
|
Source:
www.nrega.nic.in
Table: 4 -
Progress of MGNREGA (Telangana) as on FY: 2016-17
Progress
|
FY
2016-2017
|
FY
2015-2016
|
FY
2014-2015
|
FY
2013-2014
|
FY
2012-2013
|
1. Approved Labour Budget (In
Lakhs)
|
1000
|
1356.63
|
1308.71
|
0
|
0
|
2. Person days Generated so far
(In Lakhs)
|
795.48
|
1417.04
|
1032.06
|
0
|
0
|
3. % of Total LB
|
79.55
|
104.45
|
78.86
|
0
|
0
|
4. .% as per Proportionate LB
|
105.49
|
||||
5. SC person days % as of total
person days
|
22.36
|
24.2
|
24.17
|
0
|
0
|
6. ST person days % as of total
person days
|
19.09
|
17.05
|
18.18
|
0
|
0
|
7. Women Person days out of Total
(%)
|
59.78
|
60.76
|
61.1
|
0
|
0
|
8. Average days of employment
provided per Household
|
34.21
|
55.28
|
42.42
|
0
|
0
|
9. Average Wage rate per day per
person (Rs.)
|
136.61
|
127.09
|
114.92
|
0
|
0
|
10. Total No of HHs completed 100
Days of Wage Employment
|
62,133
|
4,17,602
|
1,60,281
|
0
|
0
|
11. Total Households Worked (In
Lakhs)
|
23.25
|
25.63
|
24.33
|
0
|
0
|
12. Total Individuals Worked (In Lakhs)
|
39.57
|
45.71
|
43.5
|
0
|
0
|
13. Differently abled persons
worked
|
54816
|
64125
|
61743
|
0
|
0
|
Source:
www.nrega.nic.in
Note: Figures
might not available for FYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 due to bifurcation of AP State
in to Telangana.
Analysis: The tables 3& 4, reveals that at all
India level, the approved labour budget is
decreased from Rs. 278.71 crore in 2012-13
to 220.92 crore in 2016-17 (so far). This is the same in case of Telangana
also, except in 2015-16. The person days (The
amount of work done by one person in one working day) is also decreasing at the
national level from 230.46 in 2012-13 to 155.86 in 2016-17 (so far) baring
2015-16. However, at the national
level the percentage of total labour budget is increasing from Rs. 82.69 crore
in 2012-13 to Rs. 98.34 crore in 2015-16 which is a welcome sign. SC person
days % as of total person days at
national level is almost stable at 22%. It is the same in case of Telangana
also. ST person days % as of total
person days at national level is decreasing from 17.79 in 2012-13 to 16.95 in
2016-17 so far. But, in case of Telangana it is increasing from 18.18 in
2014-15 to 19.09 in 2016-17 so far, which
is good for STs of Telangana. When we see, women Person days out of Total (%) at India level is increasing from
51.3 in 2012-13 to 56.28 in 2016-17 so far. This clearly shows that women
work participation is increasing. But, in Telangana it is slightly decreased
from 61.1% in 2014-15 to 59.78% in 2016-17 so far. At India level,
average days of employment provided per Household is decreased from 46.2 in
2012-13 to 36.45 in 2016-17 so far, in case of Telangana also the situation is
same. Average Wage rate per day per person (Rs.) at national level is increased
from Rs. 121 in 2012-13 to Rs. 161 in 2016-17. In Telangana, it is increased
from Rs. 115 in 2014-15 to Rs. 137 in 2016-17, which is less than national
average. Several Chief Ministers
wrote letters to the Prime Minister that the present MGNREGA wage is less than
the minimum wage rate of their respective States, hence it should be hiked to minimum
Rs. 300 per day. At present, Haryana State is paying Rs. 259 per day, which is
the maximum MGNREGA wage in India followed by Chandigarh Rs. 248/day.
Bihar, Chattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh paying minimum of Rs. 167/day. Total No of HHs completed 100 Days of Wage
Employment at national level is 51,73,487 in 2012-13 has fallen to 48,47,942
and 9,33,189 in 2015-16 and 2016-17 (so
far) respectively. In Telangana, it is increased from 1,60,281 in 2014-15
to 4,17,602 in 2015-16, but decreased
to 62,133 in 2016-17 so far.
Findings of the Paper:
·
At the national, the percentage of
total labour budget is increasing from Rs. 82.69 crore in 2012-13 to Rs. 98.34
crore in 2015-16 which is a welcome sign.
·
SC person days % as of total person days at national level is almost
stable at 22%. It is the same in case of Telangana also.
·
ST person days % as of total person
days at national level is decreasing from 17.79 in 2012-13 to 16.95 in 2016-17
so far. But, in case of Telangana it is increasing from 18.18 in 2014-15 to
19.09 in 2016-17 so far, which is good for STs of Telangana.
·
Women Person days out of Total (%)
at India level is increasing from 51.3 in 2012-13 to 56.28 in 2016-17 so far. This clearly shows that women work
participation is increasing. This is a welcome step. But, in Telangana it is
slightly decreased from 61.11% in 2014-15 to 59.78% in 2016-17 so far.
·
At India level, average days of
employment provided per Household is decreased from 46.2 in 2012-13 to 36.45 in
2016-17 so far, in case of Telangana also the situation is same.
·
Average Wage rate per day per person
(Rs.) at national level is increased from Rs. 121 in 2012-13 to Rs. 161 in
2016-17. In Telangana, it is increased from Rs. 115 in 2014-15 to Rs. 137 in
2016-17, which is less than national average.
·
Total No of HHs completed 100 Days
of Wage Employment at national level is 51,73,487 in 2012-13 has fallen to
48,47,942 and 9,33,189 in 2015-16 and
2016-17 (so far) respectively. In Telangana, it is increased from 1,60,281 in
2014-15 to 4,17,602 in 2015-16, but
decreased to 62,133 in 2016-17 so far.
Impact of MGNREGA:
·
Reduction in migration.
·
Financial Inclusion increased.
·
Women participation increased and
equal wages on par with men.
·
Reduction in hunger.
·
Relief from village money lenders.
·
Improvement in rural environment and
sanitation.
·
Rural asset creation.
·
Children enrollment in schools
increased as rural economic empowerment is increasing.
·
Participation of SCs and STs
increased.
·
Increase in average wages and
employment.
Criticism:
·
Fake
bills and mustered rolls were generated and payments significantly late.
·
There is a criticism that in
some states, low wages are paid than the stipulated by the Act. According to
the Supreme Court judgment this comes under ‘forced labour’.
·
Controller & Auditor General of India in its report has
mentioned that funds are being misutilized in some states.
·
Public Works like land development works, afforestation,
irrigation works, construction roads, flood control etc. are being carried out
by wealthy sections of the society thus betraying poor sections for whom this
Act. is meant.
·
At some places, it is observed that the workers have to wait
months together for their wags and they have to pay up to Rs.50/- as bribe for their
job card.
·
It is also noticed that most of the works are confined to papers
only and quality is not being maintained.
·
The Supreme Court Bench headed by Chief Justice K .G. Balakrishnan,
Justice Deepak Varma and Justice B.S. Chowan has commented that there is lack
of uniform policy in case of MGNREGA and they have further commented that the
funds are not reaching the eligible beneficiaries, except in some states.
·
8,50,000
differently abled enrolled for work, but only 19% of these people were actually
given work.
·
Some
so called groups popped up, especially the local political groups who are
having strength and power in the village . These groups grabbed majority of the
job cards issued under MGNREGA.
Suggestions:
·
To prevent leakages in the MGNREGA programme, the government is planning to introduce the system of electronic transfer of wages to the
beneficiaries from 1st January 2017 in Kerala. But, this should be extended to the entire
country at an early date.
·
Government must avoid delay in releasing the outstanding
funds of MGNREGA. Recently,
Centre released its share of funds to the tune of Rs 12,230 crore to the states
for the rural job flagship scheme MGNREGA, only after the Supreme Court rapped
it for not releasing adequate funds for the scheme. The apex
court said it was extremely unfortunate that the government had no provision
for providing compensation to the workers, and it was regrettable that it
cleared the pending wage bill for 2015-16 only during the pendency of the case. It ordered the
Centre to release all outstanding funds for MGNREGA to the states and directed
it to pay compensation for delayed wages to farmers in drought-hit areas. The
court further directed the Centre to ensure that the Central Employment
Guarantee Council is immediately constituted under provisions of the MNREG Act
within a maximum period of 60 days and asked it to proactively request state
governments to establish the State Employment Guarantee Council within 45 days.
·
The average days of
labour used was only 50 days as against 100 days stipulated per annum by
MGNREGA. Hence, it is advised to
encourage the rural people to to utilize stipulated 100 days of labour.
·
There are complaints
from different States that low wages are paid
than the stipulated by the Act. Hence, there
should be proper check and punishment for those who violates the rules.
·
Earlier,
Controller & Auditor General of India in its report has
mentioned that funds are being misutilized in some states. Hence, utmost care must be taken to avoid
misutilization of funds.
·
In earlier case, the Supreme Court Bench headed by Chief Justice K
.G. Balakrishnan, Justice Deepak Varma and Justice B.S. Chowan has commented
that there is lack of uniform policy
in case of MGNREGA and they have further commented that the funds are not
reaching the eligible beneficiaries, except in some states. For
example, different wages are paid in different States. Hence, due care must be taken to follow the
uniform policy in case of MGNREGA and see that funds are reached to the
eligible beneficiaries.
·
It has been observed from different studies that (for
example, Saha Roy 2013) there is continued
illegal presence of contractors and delay in payments. Hence, this should be
avoided.
·
In all stages, Information Technology (IT) should be used
for better implementation of MGNREGA.
·
There is a provision
under MGNREGA that States should provide employment within 15 days, if they failed to do so, they have to pay 25%
of wage as unemployment allowance for the
first 30 days of unemployment and half of the wages beyond this. But, several
States failed to provide unemployment allowance. This was pointed by many
research works like Chandrashekhar & Ghosh (2005), Dreze Jeans et al.
(2006), Rai, (2010), Jha et al. (2012), Datta et al. Hence, States should take
necessary steps in this direction.
·
Under this scheme 60% of funds expended on wages, but though the works has been completed, due
to corruption and irregularities wages have not been paid to the beneficiaries. Hence, State
Governments must take initiative in this
direction.
·
At some places, it is observed that the workers have to wait
months together for their wags and they have to pay up to Rs.50/- as bribe for
their job card. Hence, States must punish such people who indulge in such
activities.
·
It is also noticed that most of the works are confined to papers
only and quality is not being maintained. Hence, in any case quality must not be compromised in works.
·
The best practices in
each of these high-performing States should be documented and shared with the
other States, so that the performance of each State can go up. For example,
Andhra Pradesh is known for widespread computerization of the processes which
reduces corruption and ensures timely transfer of funds.
To conclude, though there are some shortcomings
like misappropriation of funds at some places, yet this Act is really a boon
for the rural people. If this Act is implemented transparently and corruption free,
it certainly enhances the standard of living of the rural people.
References:
The Economic Times
Dated: 10-10-2013
Bhatia,
Bela and Dreze, Jean, “Employment Guarantee in Jharkhand: Ground Realities”,
Economic and Political Weekly, XLI (29). 3200-3202. July, 2006.
Patel,
Amrit, “ Role of PRIs in Implementing Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme”,
Kurukshetra, 54(10), 24-25, August,2006.
Saha
Roy, Chhanda, “Right Based Approach in Accessing Social Sector Services – A
Case Study of MGNREGA”, Global Research Methodology Journal, Feb-Mar-April, II
(8). 2013.
Goswami, H. K. ,
NGRGA Implementation in Andhra Pradesh. The Assam Tribune, October15.
Chandrasekhar
C. P. and J. Ghosh, Social Inclusion in the NREGS, Business Line (India),
January 27. 2005.
Dreze,
J., Khera, Reethika and Sidharth, NREGA in Orissa: Ten loopholes and the silver
lining; Interim survey report (mimio), Survey conducted by G.B Pant Science
Institute. 2007.
Adhikari,
Anindita and Kartika Bhatia, NREGA Wage Payments: Can We Bank on the Banks?
Economic & Political Weekly, 5 (1). 30-37,2010.
Vanaik
and Siddarth, “Bank Payments: The End of Corruption?” Economic & Political
Weekly, 43(17). 33-39, April, 2008.
Comptroller
and Auditor General, “Performance Audit of Implementation of National Rural
Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (NREGA)”, Draft Report, New Delhi. 2007.
NCAER-PIF,
“Evaluating Performance of National Rural Employment Guarantee Act”, Project
Report. 2009.
The Hindu: 31-05-2016
Vijay Kumar S,
“Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act - A Review”,
Kurukshetra, A Journal of Rural Development, Govt. of India, Vol. 59, Jan.2011
pp 10-12.
No comments:
Post a Comment