impact of mahatma gandhi national rural employment ...€¦ · fostering disaster management in...

International Journal of Engineering Technology, Management and Applied Sciences

www.ijetmas.com July 2019, Volume 7, Issue 7, ISSN 2349-4476

5 Dr. Paramasivan S Vellala, Dr. Utpal Chattopadhyay

Impact of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment

Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) On Inclusive Economic Growth:

Evidence from Field Study

Dr. Paramasivan S Vellala,

Institute of Technology, Nirma University Ahmedabad

Dr. Utpal Chattopadhyay

National Institute of Industrial Engineering (NITIE), Mumbai

ABSTRACT- This paper evaluates one of the revolutionary and game-changing policies of Government of

India, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) – 2005 with the help of

field study in the Gram Panchayat (GP) of Chengalakuruchi in the district of Tirunelveli of Tamil Nadu state.

The research methodology consist of a well designed questionnaire prepared under the supervision of Indian

Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) capacity building workshop for collection of primary data. The

sample size was 100 households and issues related to MGNREGA like issue of Job Cards, the participation of

women, people from the socially disadvantaged groups like Scheduled Caste (SC)m Scheduled Tribe (STs) and

Other Backward Caste (OBCs) in the programme, payment of notified wages and the satisfaction level among

people of different social category were studied. The result shows that though MGNREGA helped in the social

inclusion and gender equity, there are several unresolved issues which need urgent policy intervention like jobs

not getting as per the demand of the people, imperfect designing of the MGNREGA projects and the objective

of social audit and the capacity building of Gram Panchayats (GPs) through ICT and IoT applications are far

from satisfactory and therefore, needs to be addressed immediately which will go a long way for better

implementation of MGNREGA. These facts have been validated by this field study.

Keywords: MGNREGA, Agriculture Productivity, Satisfactions Level, Social Category, Gender Equity,

Social Inclusion

Introduction

In the recent decades, there has been a paradigm shift in the economic development approach of the developing

nations. The present focus is on achieving inclusive growth, rather than just accelerated economic growth. Of

late, India has also embraced inclusive growth policies. This is evident from the enactment of the Mahatma

Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) in 2005 and its enthusiastic implementation

by the successive governments at the centre and states. MGNREGA is perceived to be one of the revolutionary

and game-changing policies of the Government of India that would cause inclusive growth in the country.

However, the experiences in the ground do not always corroborate the high expectations surrounding the Act.

This paper evaluates the impact of MGNREGA with the help of a field study conducted in the Chengalakuruchi

Gram Panchayat (GP) of Tirunelveli district in Tamil Nadu state. In particular, the paper explores whether

MGNREGA has helped to foster inclusive growth and social inclusion or not.

Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act MGNREGA, 2005 was notified on 07th September

2005 and in the first phase, the Act was notified in 200 rural districts with effect from 2nd February 2006.

Further, it was extended to additional 130 districts. The remaining districts were notified under MGNREGA

with effect from 01st April 2008 and have covered the entire country with the exception of districts with 100

percent urban population. This study is organized into six sections – The current section deals with introduction

http://www.ijetmas.com/




followed by Section – II which scans existing literature in evaluating MGNREGA. Section – III deals with

Hypothesis formulations. Section – IV deals with Results and Discussion. Section V encompasses the major

findings of this study. Finally, section VI concludes. Appendix I describes the questionnaire employed for the

field study.

Mandate and Objectives of MGNREGA

Mandate

The mandate of the Act is to provide 100 days of guaranteed wage employment in a financial year (FY) to every

rural household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work.

Objectives

The objectives of the MGNREGA programme are as follows.

Ensuring social protection for the weaker sections of the people living in rural India by providing

employment opportunities during the lean period of agriculture.

Providing food security by creating durable assets, improved land productivity and improved water

security.

Fostering disaster management in drought and flood-prone areas

Empowering the vulnerable sections of the society such as scheduled caste, scheduled tribes, women etc.

through right based legislation.

Fostering decentralized planning through ensuring good participation of the target people in the execution

of the projects

Strengthening the functions of grass-root institutions like Gram Panchayats (GPs)

Fostering governance standards for ensuring accountability and transparency.

Source: MGNREGA, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India (2006)

The success of MGNREGA depends upon the functioning of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) particularly the

Gram Panchayats (GPs).

Section – II Evaluation of MGNREGA: A Literature Review

There are a large number of research papers which have evaluated the performance of MGNREGA in different

states of India (MGNREGA Sameeksha, Government of India, 2006-12) It is not possible to harness the massive

potential of the MGNREGA with existing governance structure. Therefore necessary governance reforms are

essential for the better implementation of this programme which will drastically transform the life of the poorest

of the poor (Ambasta et al., 2008). Birner et al. (2010) explored the governance issues in the implementation

of MGRNEGA based on their study on two districts of Bihar. They found that delay in issuing of job cards,

lack of awareness and capacity among rural citizens, misappropriation of funds, lack of capacity due to staff

shortages and lack of training etc. adversely effected the implementation of MGNREGA.

The study of Institute of Rural Management Anand-IRMA (2010) shows that MGNREGA has provided a

supporting source of income to agricultural labourers without discriminating gender which perhaps indicates

why the scheme has a higher participation for women. The study reported that the scheme has enhanced food

security and provided opportunities for the unemployed. It concluded that the scheme had a positive impact on

the livelihood of the people. However, the study recommended that the nodal agency for implementing the

scheme needs to ensure a better mechanism to identify and design the projects which can create durable and

sustainable assets. Kajale and Shroff (2011) studied the implementation of the scheme in five districts of

Maharashtra with respect to wage differentials, rural to urban migration, asset creation, determinants of

participation and implementation in five districts of Maharashtra. Their study found that the state has not been

able to show satisfactory performance in terms of employment generated and assets created. However, in places





where it was implemented well, there has been a positive impact on food security, poverty reduction and

migration.

Kumar (2010) throws light on various factors associated with the creation of successful assets under

MGNREGA along with labour market dynamics in the blocks of Harnaut, Nalanda, Sehar Bhojpur and Vaishali

in Vaishali districts of Bihar. .In all the five blocks, the study found that the assets were productive and effective

if they were made according to the rules and regulation of MGNREGA. Those assets which are public in nature

or owned by the community are more effective like for example, micro-canals and ponds and wells which are

private in nature are less productive as it irrigates only a very limited area as the owner is using these assets for

cultivation near the well area. Private assets are maintained properly in all three districts as the beneficiaries

want the benefits of these assets for a long time. All the public assets that were studied did not have proper

maintenance and hence, the authors feel that these assets are not going to be sustainable in the long term. The

study also shows that although labourers are getting economic benefit from MGNREGA, they are unhappy

regarding two issues: (i) according to them they are not getting a sufficient number of days to work under this

scheme and, (ii) there is a delay in payment which affects their day to day activities.

Nair et al. (2009) studied the impact of MGRNEGA in three Gram Panchayats of Kasargod District, viz.

Madikai, Ajanoor and Trikarpur from Kerala. Their study explored the organisational arrangements at the Gram

Panchayats (GP) s for planning and implementation of the scheme. Various institutional aspects in the form of

guidelines, rules, and regulations brought out by the ;Government of Kerala have also been examined. Their

study found that the identification of projects for MGNREGA is a grass-root level activity with Ward

Development Committee and Area Development Society which have been established under Kudumbasree, the

unique poverty reduction programme of the state. The role of Gram Pandhayats (GPs) in the formulation of a

ward level Action Plan is found to be weak. The worker registration is appreciably good in all the three GPs

and registration of SC and ST categories is also impressive. But there is a big drop in the number of people who

demanded jobs in 2007–08. It is below one-fourth in two panchayats and just above one-third in the third. There

is a further drop in the number in the succeeding year. The study found that all those who demanded jobs have

been given employment. The percentage of man-days generated for SC and ST categories is very low compared

to that of the general category. Women of the general category constituted the major beneficiaries of

MGNREGA. Unskilled wages constituted the major component of expenditure. The number of projects is large,

most of them not leading to the creation of durable public assets. There is a lack of integration with other

schemes implemented at the local level. The scheme is successful in raising the level of employment and income

of the rural household, thereby enhancing their purchasing power. Working in groups has empowered the

women socially. But in some cases, MGNREGA initiated works and agricultural works were operational at the

same time, aggravating the problem of a labour shortage in agriculture. The study also recommends a few

changes in the existing operational system to make the programme more effective.

Using a field survey, Pankaj and Tankha (2010) examined the empowerment effects of the MGNREGA scheme

on rural women in Bihar, Jharkhand, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh. Their study found that women workers

have gained from the scheme primarily because of the paid employment opportunity, and benefits have been

realised through income-consumption effects, intra-household effects, and the enhancement of choice and

capability. Women have also gained to some extent in terms of realisation of equal wages under the MGNREGA

with long-term implications for correcting the skewed gender ratio and gender discriminatory wages prevalent

in the rural labour market of India which is indeed a great achievement.

Tata Institute of Social Science (2011) studied the impact of MGNREGA in the state of Kerala and has raised

concern over its implementation as a formidable challenge to the existing institutional framework, as well as to

the elected representatives, officials and workers to effectively plan, organise and execute a large number of

works across the state in order to work towards the creation of assets that contribute to livelihood security and

regeneration of the natural resource base. The response from the state of Kerala, in terms of procedural clarity

for programme implementation has been remarkable, as it capitalised on its achievements in implementing

democratic decentralisation over the past decade. The implementation of MGNREGA commenced in the state

in 2006–07, a decade after it embarked on democratic decentralisation. Procedures and systems for programme

implementation have been put in place after considerable fine-tuning. The actual implementation has, however,





raised issues or concern. Five years down, it is time to evaluate the extent to which the panchayats and the state

have been able to realise the objectives of MGNREGA in the state.

The study of Dasgupta and Sudharshan (2011) attributed MGNREGA as a response by the UPA government to

the distress in rural India, particularly in the agriculture sector. The study also pointed out the fact that higher

literacy rate prevailing in the state of Kerala has helped the awareness about MGNREGA among the

marginalized groups such as scheduled caste, scheduled tribe, other backward community and other vulnerable

sections of the society. In fact the people have demanded their choice of jobs while registering with the Gram

Panchayats (GPs) which has made these GPs more accountable and transparent. The state supplemented the

MGNREGA with Kudumbassery projects. Khera and Muthiah (2011) focused on the initiatives taken by the

Tamil Nadu State Government to ensure effective implementation of the MGNREGA. It is based on field visits

to districts Villupuram, Cuddalore and Dindigul.

Table 1 The major findings of the MGNREGA studies

Year Author Major Findings

2008 Ambasta Shankar

P.P.S. .Vijay, and

Shah M

Without governance reforms the scheme cannot realize its potential and

therefore, for better implementation of the scheme, the government needs to

solve the issues related to governance.

2010 IRMA The study found the satisfactory participation of women in the schemes

showing gender equity. It also found that the scheme has provided food

security and provided employment opportunities to the unemployed. The

government needs to ensure a better mechanism to identify and formulate the

projects to be executed under this scheme.

2010 IIT -Madras This study found the positive impacts of MGNREGA like prompt wage

payment and women empowerment

2011 TISS, Mumbai

This study found that there are formidable challenges in the implementation

of the scheme. The projects initiated under MGNREGA enhanced the

livelihood of the people.

2011 Kajale, J., and S.

Shroff

Their study found that Maharashtra has not been able to show satisfactory

performance in terms of employment generated and assets created under

MGNREGA However, in places where it was implemented well, there has

been a positive impact on food security, poverty reduction, and migration.

2011 Birner, R., K.

Gayathridevi, K.G,

Raabe, E. Schiffer,

and M. Sekhar

This study captured the exclusion in issuing of job cards, lack of awareness

and capacity among rural citizens, misappropriation of funds, lack of capacity

due to staff shortages and lack of training etc. which adversely affected the

implementation of MGNREGA in the state of Bihar.

2011 Pankaj, A., and

Tankha,

It argued that women workers have benefited from the scheme primarily

because of the paid employment opportunities and removed the gender

disparity in labour market in the rural areas of Bihar.





The study conducted by Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai (2010) assessed the MGNREGS activities with

relevance to village requirements. The report covered six key aspects, viz. effective tracking of job requests,

wage difference across districts, impact of MGNREGA on agriculture, high participation of women in

MGNREGS, human rights and MGNREGA, effectiveness of Gram Panchayats (GPs) in decision making and

reasons for low participation in MGNREGA by people from Below Poverty Line (BPL). The study reveals that

MGNREGA has become a blessing for the poor and has benefited a major section of rural people by providing

100 days of employment to demanding households. It also highlighted good practices including prompt wage

payment, protection of the rights of rural women and provision of a helpline

Field Study in the state of Tamil Nadu

This study has evaluated the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act -MGNREGA (2006)

in the Gram Panchayat of Chengalakuruchi in the state of Tamil Nadu to investigate the effectiveness of

inclusive growth policy initiative of Government of India. The state of Tamil Nadu has been chosen for the

primary data analysis since that state has achieved remarkable progress in the MGNREGA implementations at

macro level.

Research Questions: The research questions are given below.

Research Question: 1 whether the marginalized sections of the society are aware of the MGNREGA?

Research Question: 2 whether there is any significant difference in the level of satisfactions when we classify

the respondents according to their social category?

Research Question: 3 whether there is any significant association between gender and the problems faced

by MGNREGA beneficiaries?

Objectives of Field Study

This field study is undertaken to pursue the following objectives

to understand the awareness of MGNREGA among weaker sections of the society

to investigate the satisfaction level among the beneficiaries according to their social category

to investigate the problems in the implementation of MGNREGA

Questionnaire Design

This study used a structured questionnaire(Appendix-I) which was designed for field survey of MGNREGA

under the supervision of Indian Council for Social Science Research (ICSSR) capacity building workshop

conducted at Mohanlal Shukadia University, Udaipur. The researcher himself was part of that capacity building

workshop and got the hands-on experience of primary data collection from the rural area populated heavily by

the socially disadvantaged groups in the state of Rajasthan and applied the same technique for the current

research in the state of Tamil Nadu. The questionnaire includes questions regarding the awareness, social class,

sex, gap between the application for Job Cards and receipt of Job Cards, the number of days of employment

obtained under MGNREGA, the delay in wage payment, the MGNREGA wage and whether any durable assets

have been created under the MGNREGA.

Gram Panchayat Profile of Chengalakuruchi, Tamil Nadu State

The primary data study was conducted at the Gram Panchayat of Chengalakuruchi in the district of Tirunelveli

district of Tamil Nadu. The district of Tirunelveli along with Kanyakumari forms part of the southern most

districts of the state of Tamil Nadu and historically these districts are agriculture dominated and therefore, large

number people depend on agriculture for their livelihood. This study has chosen Chengalakuruchi Gram





Panchayat (GP) which is one of the largest and remotest GPs of Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu state. The

Gram Panchayat profile of Chengalakuruchi is given below.

Table 2 The Gram Panchayat profile of Chengalakuruchi

Source: Census (2011) , Ministry of Home, Government of India

The progress of MGNREGA in the state of Chengalakuruchi Gram Panchayat in the state of Tamil Nadu is

given below.

Table 3 Job Card Details

State: TAMIL NADU District: TIRUNELVELI Block: KALAKADU Panchayat: Chengalakuruchi

I Job Card Status up to 31.03.2016

Total No. of Job Cards issued 362

Total No. of Workers 397

Total No. of Active Job Cards 326

Total No. of Active Workers 366

(i)SC worker against active workers[%] 22.4

(ii)ST worker against active workers[%] 2.19

Source: http://www.nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx

State Tamil Nadu (Code: 33)

District Tirunelveli Code: 628

Block Code Kalakadu Code: 0325

Name of GP Chengalakuruchi Code: 643042

Number of Villages 17

Number of Households 1005

Total Population 3896

Male Population 1908

Female Population 1988

SC Population 513 (Male:243 Female:270)

ST Population 40 (Male: 19 Female:21)

Literate Population 3088 Male:1569 Female:1519

Total Workers Population 1709 Male 1540 Female: 169

Main Cultivator Population 195 Male: 171 Female:24)

Main Agricultural Labour Population 417 Male: 269 Female:148)

Main Household Industries Population 60 Male:16 Female:44)

Marginal Workers Population 743 Male: 377 Female: 366

Marginal Cultivators Population 134 Male:103 Female:31)

Marginal Agricultural Labour Population 79 Male:53 Female: 26

Marginal Household Industries Population 200 Male: 04 Female:196





From table 3, it is clear that the chosen Gram Panchayat is an ideal one to investigate whether the vulnerable

section of the society i.e. the people belong to the social category of SC/ST get the real benefits from

MGNREGA or not.

Table 4 Progress of MGNREGA in Chengalakuruchi Gram Panchayat

State: TAMIL NADU District: TIRUNELVELI Block: KALAKADU Panchayat: Chengalakuruchi

II Progress FY 2016-

2017

FY 2015-

2016

FY 2014-

2015

FY 2013-

2014

FY 2012-

2013

Person days Generated so far 18,914 26,038 15,646 16,908 27,299

SC person days % as of total person days 19.38 22.88 24.71 29.96 27.20

ST person days % as of total person days 2.09 2.27 2.26 2.60 1.94

Women Person days out of Total (%) 96.45 94.89 92.50 96.21 74.25

Average days of employment provided per

Household 55.30 68.34 53.04 59.75 77.33

Average Wage rate per day per person(Rs.) 171.25 167.84 150.05 129.24 112.33

Total No of HHs completed 100 Days of

Wage Employment 24 133 28 68 66

Total Households Worked 342 381 295 283 353

Total Individuals Worked 347 398 300 297 476

Differently, abled persons worked 1 1 1 1 2


From table 4, it is clear that out of the total person days of employment, the people belonging to socially

disadvantaged groups like the scheduled caste, scheduled tribe and women have been predominantly

participating in MGNREGA projects. The average days of employment provided to the household have also

been increased over the years.

Table 5 Works in Progress in Chengalakuruchi Gram Panchayat

State: TAMIL NADU District: TIRUNELVELI Block: KALAKADU Panchayat:

Chengalakuruchi

III Works 16-17 15-16 14-15 13-14 12-13

Number of GPs with NIL exp. 0 0 0 1 0

Total No. of Works Taken up (New+Spill Over) 33 85 79 43 7

Number of Ongoing Works 4 29 52 8 1

Number of Completed Works 29 56 27 35 6






From table 5, it is clear that a large number of projects have been undertaken over the years and substantial of

them have already been completed which shows the MGNREGA can do wonders if the nodal agency i.e. the

concerned Gram Panchayat is well functioning with necessary competencies in project design, identification,

formulation and implementation.

Table 6 Financial Progress of Chengalakuruchi Gram Panchayat

State: TAMIL NADU District: TIRUNELVELI Block: KALAKADU Panchayat:

Chengalakuruchi

IV Financial Progress 16-17 15-16 14-15 13-14 12-13

Total Expenditure (Rs. in Lakhs.) 25.86 51.13 31.97 0 29.27

Wages (Rs. In Lakhs) 25.64 41.41 23.61 0 29.22

Material and skilled Wages (Rs. In Lakhs) 0.22 9.72 8.35 0 0.05

Material (%) 0.86 19.02 26.14 0 0.16

Average Cost Per Day Per Person (In Rs.) 172.18 200.66 200.48 132.39 112.50


From table 6, it is clear that out of the total expenditure, substantial forms part of the MGNREGA notified

wages.

Sample Profile

Table 7 Sample Profile of Chengalakurichhi

Characteristics Number/Percentage

Unit of Analysis Household (Head of the Family)

Samp.3le Size 100 Households

Number of Villages covered 12

MEN 33

Women 67

SC Category 24

ST Category 05

0BC Category 71

Sampling Technique

Judgmental (purposive) Sampling Technique was used by targeting the Gram Panchayat which is predominantly

sheltered by the weaker and vulnerable sections of the society which include SC, ST, and OBC so that to verify

whether MGNREGA resulted in the social inclusion or not.

Section – III Hypotheses Formulatios

H 1“The sampling is not purposive and the data is randomly selected”

This hypothesis is framed with the view to establish whether the data collected is random or based on judgmental

i.e. whether purposive sampling technique is employed.





H 2 “There is no association between gender and awareness about MGNREGA”

This hypothesis is emanating from the first research question.

H 3 “There is significant difference in the levels of satisfaction from MGNREGA when we classify the

respondents according to their social category”

This hypothesis is emanating from the second research question.

The following three hypotheses are emanating from the third research question.

H 4“There is significant association between gender and problems faced by MGNREGA beneficiaries”

H 5 “There is no difference between male and female in not getting jobs as per demand or choice”

H 6 “There is no difference between male and female with reference to insufficient wage paid under

MGNREGA”

Section – IV Result and Discussion

General Discussion

Out of the 100 respondents, the male-female participation is given in the following chart.

Fig 1: Respondents: Male vs. Female

It is clear from the above chart that there is strong participation of women in projects initiated under

MGNREGA. The following chart shows the awareness about MGNREGA among the male and female

beneficiaries.

Fig 2: Awareness: Male vs. Female

33%

67%

Respondents : Male vs. Female

MALE

FEMALE

45%55%

Awareness - Male

Yes

No

58%42%

Awareness - Female

Yes

No





From the above chart it is clear that there is no association between the gender and the awareness of MGNREGA

among the beneficiaries. Among the respondents, the awareness about MGNREGA is better among the females

than the male. It may be due to the strong participation of women in MGNREGA initiated projects for whom

the MGNREGA notified wages became a handy source of income, particularly during lean agricultural season.

Another reason may be in rural India women may not tend to migrate for better job opportunities and are self-

content with what they get in their own villages unlike males who tend to migrate to nearby towns and cities for

better paid jobs.

The field survey has been conducted in a Gram Panchayat (GP), Chengalakuruchi which has been dominated

by people from socially disadvantaged groups as given in the following chart.

Fig 2: Social Categories of Respondent

From the above chart it is clear that 24% of the respondents belong to scheduled caste (SC), 5% of the

respondents belong to scheduled tribe (ST) and the remaining 71% belong to Other Backward Classes. The

demographic profile of India itself shows that the percentage of people from scheduled caste (SC) and scheduled

tribe (ST) across the nation are relatively less when compared to that of percentage of people from Other

Backward Classes (OBC).

The satisfaction level from MGNREGA differed among the respondents belonging to different social categories

as given in the following chart. Normally, the people from scheduled tribes (STs) get very less job opportunities

since there are a large number of social taboos that exist in India where the main-stream village community

never allow the people from scheduled tribes (STs) to do any sort of works in the village. However, MGNREGA

give job opportunities to these people and therefore, they are better satisfied with MNGREGA initiated project

when compared to their counter parts of people from scheduled caste (SC) and other backward classes (OBCs).

This is visible from the following pie charts where the satisfaction level of people from scheduled tribe (ST) is

40% which is far greater than that of people from scheduled caste (SC) which is 21% or people from other

backward classes (OBCs) which is only 31%.

24%

5%

71%

Social Categories of Respondents

SC ST OBC





Fig 3: Satisfaction Levels of Respondents according to Social Category

HS: Highly Satisfied S: Satisfied HD: Highly Dissatisfied D: Dissatisfied N Neutral

All the respondents have agreed that there are problems in the implementation of MGNREGA but they disagree

among the type of problems faced by the people at grass root level. Though the questionnaire listed four

different problems such as job not as per demand/choice, MGNREGA notified wage is insufficient when

compared to market rate, there is delay between job application and job absorption, the respondents differed

only between job not as per demand/choice and insufficient wages. This has been clearly represented in the

following chart.

The following chart shows that there is significant difference between male and female participants with regard

to the problem of job not getting as per demand/choice.

Fig 4: Job not as per demand/choice: Male vs. Female

21%

42%0%

37%

0%

Satisfaction Level - SC

HS

S

HD

D

N

40%

40%

0%20% 0%

Satisfaction Level - ST

HS

S

HD

D

N

31%

48%

0%21%0%

Satisfaction Level -OBC

HS

S

HD

D

N

3%

97%

Job not as per demand/choice -

Male

Yes

No

40%60%

Job not as per demand/choice -

Female

Yes

No





The following chart shows that there is significant difference between male and female participants with regard

to the problem of insufficient wages paid under MGNREGA. Further, it is clear that female respondents are

more of the opinion that jobs are not provided as per demand or choice which shows the strong participation of

women in the MGNREGA initiated projects.

Fig 5: Insufficient Wage: Male vs. Female

Insufficient wages is one of the major problems faced by the people in the MNGREGA implementation at the

ground level, though female respondents have been comparatively happy with MGNREGA wages than their

male counterparts. The male respondents are largely of the opinion that the MGNREGA notified wages is less

than the market rate and therefore, they tend to move to other non-farm activities. Madasamy, one of the male

respondents spoke-“we get much more better paid jobs in the construction and other contractual works in the

nearby towns of Valliyoor and Erwadi where the wages paid are much higher than the MGNREGA notified

wages”. Another male respondent, Thankavel spoke “the projects initiated by MGNREGA like digging the

ponds, construction of approach roads etc. with traditional methods do not attract us anymore particularly when

we are better paid under better working conditions in the near-by towns” These factors are self-explanatory as

to why male workers tend to migrate to nearby towns and cities for better job opportunities. However, the

female workers normally self-content with what they get under MGNREGA initiated projects. This is visible

when one of the female respondents, Muthammal spoke – “we are quite happy with MGNREGA wages since

it comes very handy at a time when there is no work in the farms. This adds to our purchasing power and we

could buy food grains with MGNREGA wages and could support the education of our children”. Another female

respondent Annathai quotes “I have to feed four of my children with my husband’s only income from the farm-

sector and I found life miserable during the lean period when there is no job in the agriculture. However, with

MGNREGA wages, at least I could meet both ends and can send my daughters to the nearby municipality

school”. This really is the testimony that MGNREGA, fostered inclusive growth in the rural India, not only by

guaranteeing employment, but also by ;ensuring strong participation of women in the projects initiated by

MGNREGA.

Hypotheses Testing

To check the various hypotheses this study has conducted the following statistical tests and necessary inferences

have been taken.

1. Runs Test:

It is a non-parametric statistical test that checks a randomness hypothesis i.e.to test the hypothesis that the

elements of the sequence are mutually independent. If the p-value is less than 0.05 the null hypothesis is rejected

in favour of the alternate hypothesis that the data is not random.

97%

3%

Insufficient Wage -Male

Yes

No

60%

40%

Insufficient Wage -Female

Yes

No





2. Chi-Square Test:

This test is used to compare observed data with data we expect to obtain according to a specific hypothesis i.e.

to test goodness of fit between observed and expected.

The null hypothesis is formulated as “there is no significant difference between the expected and observed

result” If the p-value is less than 0.05, then the null hypothesis is rejected in favor of the alternate hypothesis

that some factors other than chance are operating for deviation.

3. One Way ANOVA Test

ANOVA stands for Analysis of Variance. It is also called Fisher Analysis of Variance. When we compare

more than two groups One Way ANOVA is used. The null hypothesis should be “there is no significant

difference between the groups”. If the p-value is less than 0.05, then the null hypothesis is rejected in favour of

alternative hypothesis that there is a significant difference between the groups.

4. Two Proportion Test

This test is conducted to test the equality of two proportions against alternative hypothesis that they are not

equal. If the p-value is less than 0.05, then the null hypothesis is rejected against the alternative hypothesis that

the two proportions are not equal

The hypotheses formulated for the primary study has been tested and the result is given below.

H 1 The sampling is not purposive and the data is randomly selected

To test this hypothesis, the run test was conducted with the use of SPSS software which has produced the

following result.

Table 8 Runs Test

Who is the beneficiary?

*Test Value 2

Cases < Test Value 33

Cases >= Test Value 67

Total Cases 100

Number of Runs 19

Z -5.968

Asymp.Sig.(2-tailed) .000

*Median

From the above Table-8, output, the study rejects the null hypothesis in favour of the alternate hypotheses that

sampling is purposive since the p-value is less than 0.05. It clearly shows that the study has targeted respondents

belonging to the poorest of the poor sections of the society like SC, ST, OBC etc., on judgmental basis catering

to the needs of inclusive growth.

H 2 There is no association between gender and awareness about MGNREGA

To test this hypothesis, the SPSS software is used and the Chi-squared test is carried out. It produced the

following output.

Table 9 Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent

Are you aware of the

MGNREGA? Who is

the beneficiary?

100 100.0% O 0% 100 100.0%





Table 10 Count: Cross Tabulation

Who is the beneficiary?

Male Female Total

Are you aware of MGNREGA Yes 15 39 54

No 18 28 46

Total 33 67 100

From table 10, it is clear that out of 33 male members 15 are of the opinion that they were aware of MGNREGA

and 18 were not aware of MGNREGA. Out of the 67 women beneficiaries 39 members were aware of

MGNREGA and the remaining 18 were not aware of the programme. Combining male and female beneficiaries,

54 members were of the opinion that they were aware of MGNREGA and the remaining 46 were not aware of

the programme.

Table 11 Chi-Square Tests

Value Df Asymp Sig

(2-sided)

Exact Sig(2-sided) Exact Sig (1-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 1448a 1 .229

Continuityb Correction .980 1 .322

Likelihood Ratio 1.447 1 .229

Fisher’s Exact Test .287 ..161

Linear by-Linear Association 1.433 1 .231

Number of Valid Cases 100

a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 15.18

b. Computed only for 2x2 table

The Chi-Squared calculated value is .229 as given in table 11 which is greater than the significance level of

0.05. Again the Chi-Square table value against 01 degrees of freedom below 0.05 significant level is 3.841

which is higher than the Chi-Squared calculated value and so this study does not reject the null hypothesis.

Therefore, there is no association between gender and awareness about MGNREGA.

H 3 There is significant difference in the satisfaction from MGNREGA

when we classify the respondents according to their social categories.

To test this hypothesis, ANOVA was carried out with the help of SPSS software which produced the following

output

Table 12 Descriptive - Are you satisfied with MGNREGA notified wages

N Mean Std.

Deviation

Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Lower Bound Upper Bound

SC 24 2.29 .999 .204 1.87 2.71

ST 05 1.80 1.304 .583 .18 3.42

OBC 71 2.54 1.080 .128 2.28 2.79

Total 100 2.44 1.076 .108 2.23 2.65





Table 13 Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Levene

Statistic

Df1 Df2 Sig.

.421 2 97 .658

Table 14 ANOVA

Sum of

Squares

Df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 3.220 02 1.610 1.401 .251

Within Groups 111.420 97 1.149

Total 114.640 99

Table 15 Post Hoc Tests - Multiple Comparisons

Are you belonging to

SC/ST Community

Are you belonging

to SC/ST

Community

Mean Differences Std.Error Sig.

SC ST .492 .527 1.000

OBC -.244 .253 1.000

ST SC -.492 .527 1.000

OBC -.735 .496 . 424

OBC SC .244 .253 1.000

ST .735 .496 . 424

The ANOVA table 14 shows the p-value as .251 which exceeds the significance level of 0.05 and therefore the

researcher do not reject the null hypothesis. Further the Chi-Squared table value against 2 degrees of freedom

below 0.05 significance level is 5.991 which is greater than the Chi-Squared calculated value from the table

1.401 and therefore the researcher do not reject the null hypothesis, Thus there is significant difference between

the levels of satisfaction from MGNREGA when we classify the respondents according to their social

categories.

H 4 “There is significant association between gender and problems faced by MGNREGA beneficiaries”

To test this hypothesis, Chi Squared test was carried out with the help of SPSS software which produced the

following output.

Table 16 Count – Cross-tabulation

According to you what are the main problems in the implementation of MGNREGA

Jobs are not as per

demand/choice

Insufficient wage Total

Beneficiary Male 01 32 33

Female 27 40 67

Total 28 72 100





The table 14 clearly shows that all the respondents agree that there exist impediments in the implementation of

MGNREGA but they differ in their opinion when asked to name the problem. The respondents vary in their

opinion regarding the impediments in the implementation of as to whether jobs are not provided as per

demand/choice or the primary problem is due to insufficient wage.

To study the statistical significance, the Chi-Square Test is conducted which has produced the following result

Table 17 Chi-Square Tests

Values Df Asymp. Sig(2-

sided)

Exact Sig.(2-

sided)

Exact Sig.(1-

sided)

Pearson Chi-

Square

15.233a 1 .000

Continuityb

Correction

13.440 1 .000

Likelihood

Ratio

19.285 1 .000

Fisher’s Exact

Test

.000 .000

Linear by-

Linear

Association

15.080 1 .000

Number of

Valid Cases

100

a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 9.24

b. Computed only for 2x2 table

From table 15, it is clear that the p-value of the Chi-Square test is less than 0.05 and the study rejects the null

hypothesis in favour of the alternate hypothesis that “there is no significant association between gender and the

problems in the implementation of MGNREGA”.

H 5 “There is no difference between male and female in not getting jobs as per demand or choice”

Two Proportion Test has been used to test this hypothesis with the help of Minitab 16 which produced the

following result.

Test and CI for Two Proportions

Sample X N Sample p

1 1 33 0.030303

2 27 67 0.402985

Difference = p (1) - p (2)

Estimate for difference: -0.372682

95% CI for difference: (-0.503887, -0.241477)

Test for difference = 0 (vs not = 0): Z = -5.57 P-Value = 0.000

* NOTE * The normal approximation may be inaccurate for small samples.

Fisher's exact test: P-Value = 0.000

Since the p-value is less than 0.05 this study rejects the null hypothesis in favour of the alternate hypothesis that

there is the difference between male and female in not getting jobs as per demand or choice”.





H 6 “There is no difference between male and female with reference to insufficient wage paid under

MGNREGA”

Two Proportion Test has been used to test this hypothesis with the help of Minitab 16 which produced the

following result

Test and CI for Two Proportions

Sample X N Sample p

1 32 33 0.969697

2 40 67 0.597015

Difference = p (1) - p (2)

Estimate for difference: 0.372682

95% CI for difference: (0.241477, 0.503887)

Test for difference = 0 (vs not = 0): Z = 5.57 P-Value = 0.000

* NOTE * The normal approximation may be inaccurate for small samples.

Fisher's exact test: P-Value = 0.000

Since the p-value is less than 0.05 this study rejects the null hypothesis in favour of alternate hypothesis that

“there is difference between male and female with reference to insufficient wage paid under MGNREGA”.

Table 18 Summary of Hypotheses and Result Analysis

Hypothesis Result

H O1“The sampling is not purposive

and the data is randomly selected”

From the above output, the study since the p-value is less than 0.05

and this study reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternate

hypotheses that sampling is purposive.

H 02 “There is no association

between gender and awareness

about MGNREGA”

The Chi-Squared calculated value is .229 which is greater than the

significance level of 0.05. Again the Chi-Squared table value against

01 degrees of freedom below 0.05 significant level is 3.841 which is

higher than the Chi-Square calculated value and so this study does

not reject the null hypothesis. Therefore there is no association

between gender and awareness about MGNREGA.

H 03 “There is significant

difference in the levels of

satisfaction from MGNREGA when

we classify the respondents

according to their social category”

The ANOVA table shows the p-value as .251 which exceeds the

significance level of 0.05 and therefore, the researcher do not reject

the null hypothesis. Further the Chi-Squared table value against 2

degrees of freedom below 0.05 significance level is 5.991 which is

greater than the Chi-Squared calculated value from the table 1.401 and

therefore the researcher do not reject the null hypothesis,

H 04“There is significant

association between gender and

problems faced by MGNREGA

beneficiaries”

It is clear that the p value of the Chi-Square test is less than 0.05 and

the study rejects the null hypothesis in favour of the alternate

hypotheses that there is no association between gender and the

problems in the implementation of MGNREGA.





H 05 “There is no difference

between male and female in not

getting jobs as per demand or

choice”

Since the p value is less than 0.05 the this study rejects the null

hypothesis in favour of alternate hypothesis that there is difference

between male and female in not getting jobs as per demand or choice”.

H 06 “There is no difference

between male and female with

reference to insufficient wage paid

under MGNREGA”

Since the p value is less than 0.05 this study rejects the null hypothesis

in favour of alternate hypothesis that “there is difference between

male and female with reference to insufficient wage paid under

MGNREGA”

Section – V Major Findings of Field Study

The field study is confined to the Gram Panchayat of Chengalakuruchi of Tirunelveli district in the state of

Tamil Nadu and based on the statistical findings, the following observations have been made.

1. There is very good awareness among the rural people regarding MGNREGA and there is no gender or

category difference in the awareness which has been statistically tested in the field study.

2. It is also proved that there is no significant difference in the levels of satisfaction from MGNREGA when

we classify the respondents according to their social category.

3. It is also proved statistically that there is no significant association between gender and problems faced by

MGNREGA beneficiaries. In fact, both male and female beneficiaries agree to the grass root reality that

there are challenges in the implementation of MGNREGA such as insufficient wage which is less than

market rate and the job provided is not as per demand or choice and there is a delay between job application

and job absorption.

4. MGNREGA could provide job to the beneficiaries for more than 100 mandated days and the MGNREGA

wage is also substantially increased over the years though still, it is less than the market rate.

5. MGNREGA could create rural employment during the lean season of agriculture when the farmers do not

engage themselves in any productive employment.

It also created social inclusion with large numbers of socially disadvantaged people from scheduled caste,

scheduled tribe and other backward class.

6. MGNREGA also resulted in women empowerment through job creation and caused gender equity in rural

areas which is a major achievement of any development programme.

7. It created rural connectivity and transforming the traditional water bodies and land development in a big

way.

8. This study further reiterates the findings of earlier studies that MGNREGA notified wages are less than

the market rate and therefore, it needs urgent policy intervention.

Section VI Conclusion

The field study is of great significance to reiterate that MGNREGA if implemented effectively can become a

powerful instrument for fostering inclusive economic growth in rural India. The field study will be of immense

significance to the policy makers in improving the performance of MGNREGA among other Gram

Panchayats(GPs) The study clearly showed that if implemented according to the felt-need of the Gram

Panchayat(GPs) the outcome can be positive and transform Rural India from the situation of farming distress

especially during off season when Agriculture cannot guarantee income. MGNREGA is a game-changer in

fostering the support system and achieving inclusive growth in the long run. It also increased gender equity

since large number of women engage in those developmental activities that are initiated by the Gram Panchayat

(GP) under MGNREGA projects. There are few issues which still remain unresolved like the delay in the

distribution of Job Cards, unavailability of jobs according to the need of the people. Since MGNREGA is a





bottom-up demand oriented approach, there is an urgent need for policy intervention in redefining the designing

of projects under MGNREGA which can further strengthen the existing state of infrastructure in the Rural India.

Yet another perennial issue which need urgent attention is the social audit and transparency in the budget

spending of projects under MGNREGA. Though the Act provides provision for in social audit, the people are

not interested in scrutinizing the local bodies. Another promising area for improvement is the capacity building

of Gram Panchayats (GPS). Since the GPs are the nodal agencies for the implementation of MGNREGA

Government should strengthen the operations of GPs through ICT (Internet and Communication Technologies)

and IoT (Internet of Things) applications. These can transform our GPs into well- functioning units which can

be big-push factor in the delivery mechanism of MGNREGA. Since the study is based on a small sample size

i.e.one Gram Panchayat (GP) broader generalizations cannot be done. A larger study which can accommodate

a broader range of indicators drawn from a wider set of household surveys across many Gram Panchayats (GPs)

across different states in India would help deepen the understanding and measuring of growth inclusiveness

triggered by the enactment of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act – 2005.

Appendix – I

Questionnaire

Q.No.

Questions answer

1 Are you aware of the MGNREGA?

(1) Yes (2) No

2 Who is the beneficiary?

(1) Men (2)Women)

3 (a) Did you register with GP (1) Yes (2) No

(b) Did you receive Job Card within 15 days? (1) Yes (2) No.

(c) Did you send a written application to GP demanding your choice of job? (1) Yes

(2) No

(d) Have you got the job of your choice within 15 days of your written application

to GP (1) Yes (2) No

(e) If there is delay, average delay period (Days)

(f) How many man days’ work you get in a year(100 days are guaranteed)

(g) How much wage rate per day you get?

(h) Whether the wage under MGNREGA is higher or lower to similar work at

market rate : (1) Higher (2) Lower

4 If the job is not provided within 15 days of your written application are you getting

unemployment allowance

(1) Yes (2) No

5 Are you getting job during agricultural. lean period or peak period?

(1) Lean Period (2) Peak Period





6 Are you satisfied with the minimum salary given as per MGNREGA

1.Highly satisfied

2.Satisfied

3.Dissatisfied

4. Highly Dissatisfied

5.Neutral

7 Are you belonging to SC/ST community?

(1) SC (2) ST (3) OBC

;8 According to you what are the main problems in the implementation of

MGNREGA?

1.Job not as per demand/choice

2.Wage is not sufficient compare to market rate

3. Delay between job application and job absorption

4. Timing of job clash with peak time in agriculture

5. Others

9 Whether MGNREGA resulted in productive employment (i.e. Whether any durable

assets created in your area)

10 Whether MGNREGA resulted in women empowerment and resulted in gender

equity

REFERENCES

Ambasta P. P. S. Vijay Shankar, and M. Shah 2008 ‘Two Years of NREGA: The Road Ahead’, Economic and

Political Weekly, vol. 43

Birner, R., K. Gayathridevi, K.G, Raabe, E. Schiffer, and M. Sekhar 2010 ‘How to Overcome the Governance

Challenges of Implementing NREGA’, Discussion Paper 00963, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)

Dasgupta, S., and S. Sudarshan 2011, ‘Issues in Labour Market Inequality and Women’s Participation in India’s

National Rural Employment Guarantee Act’, Working Paper No. 98, International Labour Organization, Geneva

Government of India 2012 Ministry of Rural Development, <MGNREGA Sameeksha: An Anthropology of

Research Studies on the MGNREGA,2005” – 2006-2012

Indian Institute of Technology-Chennai2010, ‘NREGA in Districts of Dharmapuri, Erode, Nagapattinam,

Perambalur, Thanjavur, Theni, Thoothukudi, Tiruvallur, Vellore, Villupuram of Tamil Nadu”, Report submitted to

Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India/UNDP

Institute of Rural Management Anand (IRMA, 2010 ‘An Impact Assessment Study of the Usefulness and

Sustainability of the Assets Created under Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment Guarantee Act in Sikkim

Kajale, J., and S. Shroff 2011 ‘Impact of NREGA on Wage Rates, Food Security, and Rural Urban Migration in

Maharashtra’, Gokhale Instute of Politics and Economics, Agro-economic Research Centre, Pune

Khera, R., and K. Muthiah, 2011 ‘Tamil Nadu: Slow and Steady’, in The Battle for Employment Guarantee, ed. R.

Khera, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 233–41.

Kumar, A. A.,(2010 ‘Effectiveness and Ownership of Irrigation Assets Created under MGNREGA and Labour

Market Dynamics in Bihar’, MTS Report, Institute of Rural Management, Anand.





Nair, K. N., T. P. Sreedharan, and M. Anoopkumar 2009, ‘A Study of National Rural Employment Guarantee

Programme in Three Gram Panchayats of Kasargod District’, Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram.

Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2006, Ministry of Rural Development, New Delhi,

http://www.nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx

Pankaj, A., and Tankha,‘Empowerment Effects of the NREGS on Women Workers: A Study in Four States’,

Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 45, no. 30, 24, 2010.

Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), 2011, ‘An Evaluation of MGNREGA in Kerala’, Report submitted to the

State Government of Kerala, TISS, Mumbai


http://www.nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx

impact of mahatma gandhi national rural employment ...€¦ · fostering disaster management in...

Documents