Research Study No.

141138

IMPACT OF NREGA ON WAGE RATES, FOOD SECURITY AND RURAL URBAN MIGRATION IN GUJARAT

V.D.SHAH MANISH MAKWANA

AGRO-ECONOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE SARDAR PATEL UNIVERSITY VALLABH VIDYANAGAR 388 120 GUJARAT MAY 2011

Foreword
Amidst great hype and hope, Indian parliament passed a revolutionary novel and unique Act Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA) in 2005. It aims at arresting out-migration and enhancing food and livelihood security of rural peoples on a sustained basis. It is a major initiative of Government of India towards poverty reduction and income generation among rural poor families. MNREGA is a unique welfare programme in the world, as no country in the world has ever given a legal right of this kind to such a large population. MNREGA is expected to address the worst kind of poverty in the country, as it provides a legal guarantee for 100 days of employment in every financial year to the poor rural households at statutory minimum wages. It also introduced novel features of unemployment allowance. MNREGA is not a welfare programme dishing out doles. It is a development initiative chipping at durable productive assets which give momentum to growth process in rural area by improving the purchasing power. MNREGA programme was implemented in all the rural districts of the country since April, 2008. There exist a mix bag of opinions on level of impact and functioning of MNREGA. At present, degree of impact, implementation, irregularities and corruption in MNREGA programme has become a hot issue of debate for researchers, academicians and politicians. The conflicting views on level of corruption, functioning and degree of impact indicates that clear picture on effectiveness of the Act yet to emerge. Keeping this controversy and debate in view, the Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India asked Agro-Economic Research Centre, Vallabh Vidyanagar, Gujarat to undertake study on probing and quantify the impacts of MNREGA on different parameters and constraints affecting the effectiveness of the programme in State. The study is intended to assess the pros and cons of MNREGA programme. The study conducted in 18 States and coordinated by Prof. Pramod Kumar, Institute of Social and Economic Change (ISEC), Bangalore.

The study was conducted in 5 selected districts namely Dahod, Navsari, Banaskantha, Surendranagar and Jamnagar of Gujarat State. From each selected district, 2 villages and from each village, 20 participants and 5 nonparticipants comprising SC, ST, OBC and others were selected. The field data were collected by recall from 250 sample households for calendar year 2009. The study shows that MNREGA holds the key for the development of rural areas, poverty reduction and income generation among rural poor households. However low to moderate impact on income level, wage rate of unskilled labour, food security and livelihood of rural peoples was made by the programme. The peoples awareness on their legal rights under MNREGA was found below expectation. The MNREGA not able to generate the kind of employment demand as expected. On the basis of survey report, policy suggestions have been made to improve the development, effectiveness of MNREGA. The results of the study suggests that after implementing corrective measures, MNREGA holds out prospects of not only transforming livelihoods of the poorest people, but also heralding a revolution in rural governance of India. Shri V D Shah, Research Officer of our centre, put in lot of efforts and unquantifiable work for preparing this enrich and excellent evaluation research report. The special thank to Shri Manish Makwana, Research Associate of our centre and to entire project team for providing necessary help and co-operation at all the stages of study report. We will feel extremely rewarded if the finding of the study can generate sufficient interest among academicians, policy makers and those who have keen interest in agricultural and rural development of country.

Date: 23-05-2011 Place: Vallabh Vidyanagar

Dr. R. H. Patel Director

ii

Preface
The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA) was enacted in 2005 to provide a minimum guaranteed wage employment of 100 days in every financial year to rural households with unemployed adult members prepared for unskilled manual work. MNREGA ranks among the most powerful initiatives ever undertaken for transformation of economy of rural households in India. It holds out prospect of not only transforming livelihood of poorest people but also heralding a revolution in rural governance of India. It aims at arresting outmigration and enhancing food and livelihood security of rural peoples on a sustained basis. It recognizes employment as a legal right. MNREGA is in implementation in all the rural districts of the country since April, 2008. At present, degree of impact, implementation, irregularities and corruption of MNREGA has become a hot issue of debate for researchers, politicians etc. Keeping controversy and debate in views, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India asked to undertake this study. In this study, attempt has been made to assess the impact of MNREGA on wage rates, food security and rural urban migration in five selected districts of Gujarat State. The study is based on both, secondary and primary data. The primary data collected for the reference year 2009 from 200 participant and 50 non-participant households spread over 5 districts namely Banaskantha, Navsari, Dahod, Surendranagar and Jamnagar of Gujarat State. This report is a product of support, help and contribution from many individuals and organisations. I commend all of them for their valuable contribution. I would like to place on record my sincere thanks to Dr. R.H.Patel, Director of our centre, Dr.Mahesh Pathak, Hon. Advisor of centre and Dr. R.A.Dutta, Deputy Director of centre for providing valuable guidance and infrastructural support as and when needed. Special thanks are due to Shri H.N.Chibber, Additional Commissioner (MNREGA), Commissionerate of Rural Development, Government of Gujarat and all MNREGA officials at study districts / talukas for providing necessary help and support at all
iii

stages of the study. I would like to thank Sarpanch / Talati of selected villages, sample households and all others who have directly or indirectly provided valuable help and support in field work and preparing this valuable report. I am equally grateful to Dr.M.N.Swain, Research Officer for helping in Logit analysis. I register my special thank to Shri Manish Makwana, Research Associate at centre and entire project team for their help, support and contribution in making this study so enrich. I am also thankful to Prof. Pramod Kumar, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, who as a co-ordinator of the study provided valuable guidance and all kind of support as and when needed. I am equally grateful to Mr. Utpal Ghosh, Economic & Statistical Advisor, Directorate of Economics and Statistics; Mr.B.S.Bhandari, Advisor, Ministry of Agriculture, GoI; Mr. V.P. Ahuja, Additional Economic Advisor, Ministry of Agriculture, GoI and Mr.B. Naik, Economic Officer, Ministry of Agriculture, GoI for providing their help as and when needed. I am sure the findings and recommendations of the study will be useful for administrators, policy makers and those who have interest in rural development of the country.

Date: 23-05-2011 Place: Vallabh Vidyanagar

V.D.Shah Project Leader

iv

Project Team
Sr. Activities Name No. 1 Project Leader Shri V. D.Shah 2 Project Assistant Shri Manish Makwana 3 Field work Team Shri Manish Makwana Shri C. M. Patel Shri J. S. Raj Shri Hitesh Makwana Shri J. N. Singh 4 5 Tabulation / Data Processing Data / Draft Entry Shri Manish Makwana Shri J. B. Kahar Shri Himanshu Parmar Shri Hemal Padhiyar Ms. Kalpana kapadia 6 7 Secondary Data Tabulation Miscellaneous Shri Shreekant Sharma Shri Vinod Parmar

Designation Research Officer Research Associate Research Associate Field Supervisor (CCS) Agriculture Assistant (CCS) Agriculture Assistant (CCS) Computer (CCS) Research Associate Data Entry Operator Research Fellow Research Fellow Research Associate Research Associate P.A. to Director

Contents
Chapter No. Foreword Preface Project Team List of Tables CHAPTER 1: Introduction 1.1 Background 1.2 Workfare Programmes in India 1.3 Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 1.4 Review of Literature On MNREGA 1.5 Need of the Study 1.6 Objectives of the Study 1.7 Sampling Design 1.8 Reference Year 1.9 Data Collection 1.10 Limitation 1.11 Organization of Study Report CHAPTER 2: Agricultural Profile, Functioning and Socio-Economic Characteristics of MNREGA in Selected Districts and State Section I Demography Details of Selected Districts and State 2.1.1 Population 2.1.2 Agriculture Profile of Selected Districts Section II Functioning, Employment and Socio-Economic Characteristics of MNREGA 2.2.1 Implementation and Administrative Setup in Gujarat 2.2.2 Job Cards Issued and Employment Generation by Sex and Castes 2.2.3 Works Undertaken under MNREGA during 2008-09 to 2010-11 2.2.4 Expenditure on Works Undertaken under MNREGA 2.2.5 Social Auditing and Inspection of MNREGA works 2.2.6 Unemployment Allowance 2.2.7 Wage Payment through Banks/Post Offices
vi

Title

Page No. i iii v ix 1 - 20

21 - 74

2.2.8 Work projection under MNREGA for 2010-11 Summary CHAPTER 3: Characteristics, Income and Consumption Pattern of Sample Households 3.1 Demographic Profiles of the Sample Households 3.2 Per Household Occupation (Activity) wise Mandays-2009 3.3 Source-wise Per Household Annual Net Income-2009 3.4 Item-wise Food Consumption (Per Capita / Month)-2009 3.5 Per Capita Monthly Consumption Expenditure of Sample Households 2009 3.6 Inequality (variability) in Income and Consumption of Sample HHs. -2009 3.7 Factors Impacting Participation in MNREGA-Logit Regression Analysis Summary CHAPTER 4: Work Profile, Wage Differential and Migration under MNREGA 4.1 Work Profile under MNREGA of Sample HHs.-2009 4.2 Activity-wise Employment under MNREGA-2009 4.3 The Out-Migration Incidents 2009 4.4 Wage Differentials between MNREGA and Non-MNREGA works Summary CHAPTER 5: The Qualitative Aspects of the Functioning of MNREGA 5.1 Assets Holding (Rs. /HHs.) 5.2 Borrowings by Sample Households 2009 5.3 Borrowing Sources in Sample Villages and Investment in Assets by Sample HHs.-2009 5.4 Some Qualitative Aspects of Functioning of MNREGA 5.5 Quantitative Information with Reason on Functioning of MNREGA 5.6 Beneficiaries Perception on Potential Benefits of MNREGA 5.7 Perception of Beneficiaries on Food Security and Related Aspects with Suggestions to Improve MNREGA Functioning Summary 114-144 96 - 113 75 - 95

vii

CHAPTER 6:

MNREGA impact on village economy 6.1 Infrastructure Availability within Study Village-2009 6.2 Changes in Occupational Pattern-2009 6.3 Effects of MNREGA on Wage Rates in Study Villages

145-157

6.4 Effects of MNREGA on Labour Charges for Agricultural Operations 6.5 Some Questions about Functioning of MNREGA Summary CHAPTER 7: Concluding Remarks And Policy Recommendations A. Concluding Remarks B. Policy Recommendations Bibliography Appendix- 1 to 2 Comments from the Co-ordinator Action taken on the comments 178-179 180-197 198 199 158-177

viii

Table No. 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.2 2.3 (i) 2.3(ii) 2.4 (i) 2.4 (ii) 2.4(iii) 2.5 (i) 2.5(ii) 2.5(iii) 2.6 (i) 2.6 (ii) 2.6 (iii) 2.7 (i) 2.7 (ii) 2.7 (iii) 2.8 2.9(i) 2.9(ii) 2.9(iii) 2.10 2.10(i) 2.10(ii)

Title Page No. Performance of NREP in the sixth and seventh five year plan 2 Performance of RLEGP in the Seventh Plan 3 Employment Generated By SGRY and NFFWP-2002-03 to 2005-06 4 Total Employment Generated and Expenditure under MNREGA in 11 India -2006-07 to 2009-10 Details of Selected Sample Districts and Sample Villages 17 Demography Details of selected District and State 23 Agricultural Statistics at a Glance for Selected Districts 25 Fund Availability and Utilization for MNREGA in Gujarat State 29 2008-2009 Fund Availability and Utilization for MNREGA in Gujarat State 30 - 2009-2010 Employment generated through MNREGA and its socio-economic 38 characteristics in Gujarat-2008-09 Employment generated through MNREGA and its socio-economic 39 characteristics in Gujarat-2009-10 Employment generated through MNREGA and its socio-economic 40 characteristics in Gujarat-2010-11 (Till Aug.2010) District wise number of works completed/progress under MNREGA 45 2008-09 District wise number of works completed/progress under MNREGA46 2009-10 District wise number of works completed/progress under MNREGA 47 2010-2011 (Till Aug -2010) District wise amount spent on works completed/progress under 49 MNREGA-2008-09 District wise amount spent on works completed/progress under 50 MNREGA-2009-10 District wise amount spent on works completed/progress under 51 MNREGA-2010-11 (Till Aug 2010) District-wise social auditing and inspection of MNREGA works in 54 Gujarat-2008-09 District-wise social auditing and inspection of MNREGA works in 55 Gujarat-2009-10 District-wise social auditing and inspection of MNREGA works in 56 Gujarat-2010-11(Till Aug 2010) Unemployment Allowance Paid (2010-11)-Gujarat 59 District-wise wage payment through banks/post offices in Gujarat 61 2008-09 District-wise wage payment through banks/post offices in Gujarat 62 2009-10 District-wise wage payment through banks/post offices in Gujarat 63 2010-11(Till Aug 2010) Work projection under MNREGA for 2010-11-Gujarat State 65 Work projection under MNREGA for 2010-11-Banaskantha District 67 Work projection under MNREGA for 2010-11-Dahod District 68
ix

List of Tables

2.10(iii) 2.10(iv) 2.10(v) 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6

Work projection under MNREGA for 2010-11-Navsari District Work projection under MNREGA for 2010-11-Jamnagar District Work projection under MNREGA for 2010-11-Surendranagar District Demographic profiles of the Sample Household (% of HHs.) Per Household Occupation - Wise Man-days - 2009 Household Net Annual Income (Rs per HH.) Per Capital Per Month Consumption of Food Items For Sample HHs. Per Capita Monthly Consumption Expenditure of Sample HHs.-2009 Inequality (Variability) in Consumption and Income of Sample HHs. -2009. Determinants of participation in NREGA (Logit function) Factors Affecting MNREGA employment (HH Level OLS Regression) Factors Affecting MNREGA employment (Member Level OLS Regression) The Work Profile Under MNREGA For Beneficiary Sample Households In Selected Districts (Ref.period Jan-Dec. - 2009) The activity-wise employed under MNREGA and the quality of assets created 2009 (% of HHs.) The Migration Incidents Recorded During January December 2009 (For Beneficiary HHs.) Wage Differentials Between different activities 2009 Assets Holdings (Rs/HHs.) Average Borrowings per sample Household-2009 (Rs. /HHs.) Household Status on Borrowing -2009 (% of HHs.) Qualitative Information Related to Functioning of MNREGA (% of Ben. HHs.) Quantitative Information with Reasons on Functioning of MNREGA (% of Bene.HHs.) Beneficiaries Perception on Potential Benefits of MNREGA (Percentage of HHs.) Perception of Beneficiaries on Food Security and Related Aspects with Suggestions to Improve MNREGA Working (% of Ben. HHs.) Infrastructure available within sample villages (percentage to villages) Occupational pattern (% of HHs. Of sample villages) Effects of MNREGA on Wage Rates of different Activities (Average of all sample villages - Rs. /Day) Prevailing labour charges for agricultural operations (Average of all villages) Qualitative Questions on Changes In the Villages During Last One Year (% of HHs.) Quantitative Questions About the Functioning of MNREGA Appendix- 1 to 2
x

69 70 71 77 80 82 85 86 89 90 92 92 98 102 107 109 115 116 118 121 133 135 138 146 147 149 150 153 154 180-197

Chapter - 1 Introduction
1.1 Background: Indian economy suffers from several distortions since independence. Though, current Indian economy is on a higher growth trajectory, it still suffers from high incidence of poverty and unemployment in rural India. Agriculture and allied sectors, which houses atleast 60 percent of the Indian population is a backbone of rural economy. The low rate of growth of agriculture sector also affected the rate of creation of employment opportunities in rural areas. It is observed that majority of the poor in rural areas of the country largely depend on the wages earned through unskilled casual manual labour. They are often on threshold levels of subsistence and are not free from possibility of sinking from transient to chronic poverty. The inadequate labour demand in lean period or unpredictable events like natural disaster or personal ill-health, all such have adverse impact on the level of employment, income and livelihood securities of rural population. In a context of rural poverty and unemployment, workfare programmes are considered as most important interventions. These programmes typically provide unskilled manual workers with short term employment on public works such as irrigation, soil and water conservation, rural connectivity, reforestation etc. These all workfare programmes provide income transfer to poor households in critical times and prevent worsening their poverty and food security particularly during slack agricultural seasons. It was realized that workfare programmes for sustainable poverty alleviation has to be based on increasing the productive employment opportunities in the process of growth itself. The durable assets created under such workfare programmes may also have the potential to generate second round of employment benefits. 1.2 Workfare Programmes in India: The need to erect a mechanism to supplement existing livelihood sources in rural areas was recognised long back in development planning in India. The Government of India and State Government introduced number of workfare programmes that offered wage employment on public works to needy rural households. The wage employment programmes started since

long back. It started as pilot projects in the form of Rural Manpower (RMP) [1960-61], Crash Scheme for Rural Employment (CRSE) [1971-72], Pilot Intensive Rural Employment Programme (PIREP) [1972], Small Farmers Development Agency (SFDA), Marginal Farmers & Agricultural Labour Scheme (MFAL) to benefit the poorest section of the poor. These experimental programmes were converted into a full fledge wage employment programme in the form of Food for Work Programme (FWP) [1977]. In the sixth five year plan assigning more stress on employment and poverty alleviation, FWP was further streamlined and Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD), Government of India (GoI) launched National Rural Employment Programme (NREP) [1980]. The generation of additional gainful employment in rural areas and creation of durable assets were important objectives of this programme. The detail on resource availability, expenditure, employment generation etc. under NREP is shown in below given Table-1.1. Table 1.1: Performance of NREP in the sixth and seventh five year plan
Resource availability ( Rs.crores) 346.32 460.37 540.15 535.59 590.68 593.08 765.13 888.21 845.68 Expenditure (Rs. crores) Employments generation (in million man days) 413.58 354.52 351.20 302.76 352.31 316.41 395.39 370.77 394.96 Man averag e-day cost (Rs.) 5.25 9.04 11.24 13.08 14.74 16.81 18.15 21.26 22.83 Wage: Material ratio 62:38 69:31 62:38 60:40 60:40 60-40 59:41 57:43

Year

Source: Planning commission, GoI (1990) NA=Not Available

1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89

219.03 317.63 394.76 392.22 519.14 531.95 717.77 788.31 901.84

The NREP had a substantial impact on stabilization of wages in rural areas, employment and creation of community assets. The main drawback of NREP was that it lacked a direct focus on the target group, landless and poorest of poor. In August 1983, Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme (RLEGP) was introduced by MoRD, GoI. The main objective of RLEGP was providing guarantee of employment to at least one member of every landless household upto 100 days per year and creating durable assets. RLEGP was

fully financed by central government and its implementation was entrusted to States/ UTs. They were required to prepare specific projects for approval by central committee. During 1983-85, central committee approved 320 projects with estimated cost of Rs.906.59 crores. The details of employment generation and others during seventh plan under RLEGP are shown below. Table 1.2: Performance of RLEGP in the Seventh Plan
Year Resource availability (Rs. crores) 580.35 649.96 648.41 761.55 Expenditure (Rs. crores) 453.17 635.91 653.53 669.37 Employments generation (in million man days) 247.58 306.14 304.11 296.56 Man averageday cost (Rs.) 18.30 20.77 21.49 22.57 Wage: Material ratio 57.43 57.43 58.42 58.42

Source: Planning commission, GoI (1990)

1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89

On the basis of lesson learnt, NREP and RLEGP were merged and named as Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY) in 1993-94. In JRY, Central and State contribution was 80:20. The JRY was launched with total allocation of Rs.2600 crores to generate 93.1 crores mandays of employment. The main objective of JRY was generation of additional employment on productive works which either benefit to the rural poor or create useful rural infrastructure for community. The 20 percent of JRY funds was earmarked for Million Wells Scheme (MWS). The objective of MWS was to provide open wells free of cost to poor SC/ST farmers having category of marginal and small farmers and free bonded labourers. The Employment Assurance Scheme (EAS) was launched on 2 nd October, 1993. It was launched in 1975 identified backward blocks of the country situated in drought prone, desert and hill areas. Subsequently, EAS was extended to additional blocks which were newly included in Drought Prone Area Programme (DPAP), Desert Development Programme (DDP), Modified Area Development Approach (MADA) and blocks in flood prone areas of UP, Bihar, Assam and J & K. In addition, 722 non-EAS blocks covered under second stream of JRY were also brought under EAS. The main objective of the EAS was to provide about 100 days of assured casual manual employment during lean agricultural season at statutory minimum wage rate to all persons of 18-60 years who needs employment on economically

productive and labour intensive community works. On account of number of deficiencies in planning and implementation, the basic objectives of JRY and EAS were eroded severely. Therefore, government merged the EAS and JRY and new programme Jawahar Gram Samriddhi Yojana (JGSY) came into effect from 1990-2000 and it was made a rural infrastructure programme. JGSY was least understood by the target groups and was found lacking in its goal oriented implementation. The violation of guidelines was also observed in its implementation. It performed poorly. Hence within a short time span, it was merged into a new scheme Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana (SGRY) (2001-02). The objectives of SGRY were to create additional wage employment in rural areas, alongwith supply of foodgrains as part of wages to enhance food security, creation of durable community and economic assets and to develop infrastructure in rural areas. The several problems such as too low wages, use of migrant labour and machinery, use of contractors, non lifting of grains by some states, violation of guidelines etc. were observed in its implementation. The parliamentary committee found implementation and performance of SGRY as extremely poor. In most 150 backward districts, the National Food for Work Programme (NFFWP) was launched in 2000-01 by MoRD, GoI. The wages under SGRY and NFFWP programmes were paid partly in cash and partly in the form of foodgrains valued at BPL rates. It was felt that there was an excess flow of foodgrains for the poor through the wage employment schemes. The programme SGRY and NFFWP, which covered the whole country, generated 748 million persondays in 2002-03 and 912 million in 2004-05. The total persondays generated under SGRY + NFFWP programmes during 2002-03 to 2005-06 is shown below in Table 1.3.
Table 1.3: Employment Generated By SGRY and NFFWP-2002-03 to 2005-06 Year 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Persondays generated under SGRY+ NFFWP (In millions) 748 856 912 1116

Source: MoRD, GoI, NREGA Act, 2005.

These all wage employment programmes implemented by state governments with central assistance were self targeting and objective was to

provide an enhance livelihood security, especially for those dependent on casual manual labour. Based on the experience of these programmes, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) was enacted to reinforce government commitment towards livelihood security in rural areas. The Act was notified on 7th September, 2005. 1.3 Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA): Amidst great hype and hope, Indian parliament passed a revolutionary novel and unique Act i.e. National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) in 2005. The ongoing programmes of Sampoorn Grameen Rozgar Yojana (SGRY) and National Food for Work Programme (NFFWP) were subsumed within NREGA. It is renamed on 2nd October 2009, as Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA). Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) is engaged in the implementation of MNREGA. It aims at arresting out-migration of rural households in search of employment and enhancing livelihood security of rural peoples on a sustained basis by developing economic and social infrastructure in rural areas. In the past, all employment programmes in India targeted at the poor generally identified with aim of poverty alleviation. The MNREGA is the largest ever public employment programme visulised in human history and it goes beyond poverty alleviation and recognizes employment as a legal right. This legal commitment is a landmark event in the history of poverty alleviation strategies of India. It is also unique welfare programme in the world, as no country in the world has ever given a legal right of this kind to such a large population. This legal right implies that the constraint of fixed budget allocation will no longer effect the employment attendant entitlement. MNREGA guarantees at least 100 days of wage employment in every financial year to rural households whose adult members are willing to do unskilled manual work in the rural areas. The Act came in force on 2 nd February 2006, in 200 backward districts of the country. From 1 st April 2007, it was extended to 130 more districts. The Act has been extended to all the remaining 266 districts (barring urban districts) with effect from 1st April 2008.

As discussed above, this act is expected to address the worst kind of poverty in the country, as it will provide unskilled wage work to the poor at the bottom who have very low risk bearing capacity and poor credit worthiness to take up self employment ventures and have strong preference for wage work. By guaranteeing them wage work at minimum wages, the act can create significant impact on their livelihood, out-migration and food security aspects on one hand and reduction in the multiples vulnerability on the other hand. The most novel feature of MNREGA is the complete ban on the use of contractor and machines and provision of unemployment allowances (if employment not provided within 15 days). It ensures grass-root level participation of every rural citizen through democratic process, multi-layered transparent social audit, participatory planning, monitoring and implementation at village level etc. MNREGA is not a welfare programme dishing out doles. It is a development initiative chipping in with crucial public investment for creation of durable productive assets which give momentum to growth process, arrest rural-urban migration and empower rural women in backward areas of rural India. It focuses on village level planning of works and mechanism of social audit. The scheme is implemented through collaborative partnership right from Gram Sabhas to Central Government. Community participation by way of (i) Gram Sabha (ii) Local vigilance & monitoring committees and (iii) Self Help Groups (SHGs) and ensures active role by Civil Society Organizations. At official level, the scheme was embedded with inbuilt monitoring & evaluation mechanism at every layer of implementation including online monitoring through Monitoring and Information System (MIS). All these features of MNREGA signal the inauguration of a wholly new chapter in rural governance in India. 1.3.1 Features of the MNREGA: The main salient features and key processes in the implementation of MNREGA are summarized below: a) Adult members of a rural household may apply for employment if they are willing to do unskilled manual work.

b) Such a household will have to apply for registration to the local Gram Panchayat (GP) in writing or orally. c) The Gram Panchayat after due verification will issue a Job Card to the household as a whole. The Job Card will bear the photograph of all adult members of the household willing to work under MNREGA. The Job Card with photograph is free of cost. d) A Job Card holding household may submit a written application for employment to the gram Panchayat or programme officer stating the time and duration for which work is sought. The minimum days of employment have to be fifteen. e) The Gram Panchayat will issue a dated receipt of the written application for employment against which the guarantee providing employment within 15 days. f) Employment will be given within the 15 days of application for work by an employment seeker. g) If employment is not provided within 15 days, daily unemployment allowance, in cash has to be paid. Liability of payment of unemployment allowance is of the States. h) At least one-third of person to whom work is allotted have to be women. i) Wages are to be paid according to minimum wages as prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for agricultural labourers in the State, unless the centre notifies a wage rate which will not be less than Rs.60/ per day. j) Generally disbursement of wages has to be done on weekly basis and it should not be beyond a fortnight. k) Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRIs) have a principal role in planning, implementation and monitoring. The Gram Sabha must monitor the execution of projects and conduct social audit of all projects executed within its territorial jurisdiction. l) Each district has to prepare a shelf of projects. The works for providing employment are to be selected from the list of permissible works. The shelf of projects has to be prepared on the basis of priority assigned by 7

Gram Sabhas. The execution of at least 50 % of works has to be allotted to Gram Panchayats. m) The use of Contractors and labour displacing machinery is prohibited. n) The ratio of wage costs to material costs should be no less than the minimum norm of 60:40 stipulated in the Act. This ratio should be applied preferably at GP, Block and District level. State Government should devise a method for transparent procurement of materials to be used under MNREGA. o) Work should ordinarily be provided within 5 kms. radius of the village or else extra wages of 10% are payable. p) Work site facilities such as crche, drinking water, rest shade, medical aid, child care etc. have to be provided. q) Social Audit has to be done by Gram Sabha. r) Grievance redressal mechanisms have to be put in place for ensuring a responsive implementation process. Complaints should be submitted to the programme officer and disposed of within 7 days of its receipt. s) All accounts and records relating to the scheme are to be made available to any person desirous of obtaining a copy of such records on demand and after paying a specified fee. 1.3.2 Permissible Works under MNREGA: The different categories of permissible works are as follows: i) Water conservation and water harvesting. ii) Drought proofing including afforestation and tree plantation iii) Irrigation canals including minor irrigation works iv) Provision of irrigation facility, plantation, horticulture, land development to land owned by households belonging to the SC/ST or to land of the beneficiaries of land reforms or to land of the beneficiaries under the Indira Awas Yojana/ BPL families. v) Renovation of traditional water bodies including de-silting of tanks vi) Land development

vii) Flood-control and protection works including drainage in waterlogged areas viii)Rural connectivity to provide all weather access. The construction of roads may include culverts where necessary and within the village area may be taken up along with drain. Care should be taken not to take up roads included in the PMGSY network under MNREGA. No cement concrete roads should be taken up under MNREGA. Priority should be given to roads that give access to SC/ST habitations. ix) Any other work that may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government. x) The above list of permissible works represents the initial thrust areas. In some circumstances, locations or seasons, it may be difficult to guarantee employment within this initial list of permissible works. In such circumstances, the State Governments may make use of section 1(ix) of schedule I, whereby new categories of work may be added to the list on the basis of consultations between the State Governments and the Central Government. xi) The maintenance of assets created under the scheme (including protection of afforested land) will be considered as permissible work under MNREGA. The same applies to the maintenance of assets created under other programmes but belonging to the sectors of works approved in Schedule I of the Act. xii) MNREGA resources should not be used for land acquisition. Land belonging to small and marginal farmers or SC/ST landowners cannot be acquired or donated for works under the programme. 1.3.3 Funding Procedure of MNREGA: A) 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 interalia, the salary and the

allowances of the programme officer and his supporting staff work site facilities. d) Expenses of the National Employment Guarantee Council. B) 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 in case the State Government cannot provide wage employment on time. c) Administrative expenses of the State Employment Guarantee Council (SEGC). Each district has dedicated account for MNREGA funds. They have to submit their proposals based on clearly delineated guidelines so that funds may be distributed efficiently at each level and adequate funds may be available accordingly respond to demand. Under MNREGA, fund release is based on an appraisal of both financial and physical indicators of outcomes. 1.3.4 MNREGA Goals: Strong social safety net for the vulnerable groups by providing a fall-back employment sources when others employment alternatives are scarce, inadequate or nil. a) Growth engine for sustainable development of an agricultural economy, through the process of providing employment on works that address causes of chronic poverty such as drought, deforestation and soil erosion. The Act seeks to strengthen the natural resources base of rural livelihood and create durable assets which have potential to generate additional employment in the years to come in rural areas. Effectively implemented, MNREGA has the potential to transform the geography of rural poverty. b) To provide employment to rural poor through the process of a right based law. c) New ways of doing business, as a model of governance reforms anchored on the principle of transparency and grass root democracy. 10

1.3.5 Total Employment Generated and Expenditure under MNREGA in India during 2006-2010: Table 1.4 given below provide details relating to amount spent under MNREGA, employment generated, number of works taken and completed under MNREGA. For the country as a whole, in the year 2006-07, Rs.8823.25 crore was spent against the budget outlay of Rs.11300 crore and employment of 90.50 crore persondays were generated. Employment was provided to 2.10 crore households. A total of 8.35 lakh works were taken up of which 3.97 lakh were completed. During 2007-08, against the fund availability of Rs.19278.78 crore, an amount spent was Rs.15858.44 crore. It generated 143.68 crore person Table 1.4: Total Employment Generated and Expenditure under MNREGA in India-2006-07 to 2009-10.
Year Funds Availability crore) 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 11300.00 19278.78 37361.40 49653.06

(Rs.

Total Expenditure (Rs. crore) 8823.25 15858.44 27250.68 37971.19

Employment No. of HHs. (Crore) 2.10 3.39 4.51 5.26 Person days (Crore) 90.50 143.68 216.32 283.32

Number of works Taken (Lakh) 8.35 17.81 27.25 46.03

rd

Completed (Lakh) 3.97 8.20 12.14 20.97

Source: http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/npr_ht/nregampr-dav.aspx Downloaded on 3 August, 2010.

days of employment covering 3.39 crore households. In year 2008-09, against total availability of Rs.37361.40 crore, expenditure incurred was of Rs.27250.68 crore. It generated 216.32 crore person days of employment covering 4.51 crore households. Total works taken up were 27.25 lakh of which 12.14 lakh works completed. In 2009-10, total amount spent was Rs.37971.19 crore and it generated 283.32 crore person days of employment covering 5.26 crore households. A total of 46.03 lakh works were taken up of which 20.97 lakh works were completed. Upto end of 2009-10, it provided 733.82 crore person days of employment to 15.26 crore households by spending Rs.89903.56 crore. The huge spending indicates the gigantic size of programme.

11

1.4 Review of literature On MNREGA: A number of researchers, various institutions and NGOs conducted studies which looked into the impact of MNREGA on various aspects such as employment generation, alleviation of poverty, food security, out-migration overall rural development and issues/deficiencies of implementation. Of these, some studies found visible positive impact of MNREGA on income, curtailing out-migration and ensuring food-security. Some studies reported concern over several issues such as corruption, system defects, monitoring, social audit and way of implementation of the Act. The main findings of some important studies are discussed below. The study MNREGA Opportunities and Challenges1 (2008) conducted by CSE, New Delhi found that MNREGA intervention has not been able to generate the kind of employment demand as expected. Irrational wage calculation formula has made productive assets creation less lucrative to local communities. The MNREGA transformed a labour surplus economy to a labour using economy. There is excitement over its state of implementation whenever local communities have been able to use MNREGA for development with direct impact on their livelihoods and disappointment whenever local bureaucracy is calling the shot in MNREGA implementation. The study conducted by IAMR, New Delhi2 (2008) found that MNREGA had noticeable impact on arresting out migration. To some extent, it impacted positively on income, purchasing capacity and food-security and ownership of milk animals. Many job card holders neither get employment within stipulated period of 15 days nor get any unemployment allowance. Varsha Joshi and Surjit Singh, IDS, Jaipur3 conducted evaluation study in Rajasthan. They observed that after MNREGAs intervention, the migration certainly decreased but not completely stopped. MNREGA augmented the purchasing power of family, offer better road connectivity to villages, helping in declining debt (marginally), increased agricultural production and thereby farm income. The study conducted by P.Ambasta, Vijay Shankar and Mihir Shah 4 (2008) reveals that department is facing an acute shortage of manpower at the district, taluka and village levels which affecting the effective implementation of MNREGA. Most of the appointments are on contract basis. 12

Many posts are vacant. Non appointment of a full time dedicated PO, who is pivotal to the successful implementations of MNREGA and giving the additional charge of PO to BDO/TDOs, who were responsible for implementation of other many developmental schemes at the block level strikes at the root of the effective implementation and monitoring. Further, it appears that the existing bureaucratic machinery is just not willing to play ball with the strict provisions of MNREGA and are at time actively sabotaging its implementation. Understaffing, lack of professionals, delay in administration etc. are other factors which affecting the effective implementation of MNREGA. The study conducted by Jaswal (IIM, Ahmedabad) and Ms. Paulomee Mistry (Disha, Abad)5 found that there had been impact of MNREGA on the wages of Non-MNREGA works. The different ways of measuring the same work led to differing wage payment across villages. Job-cards often kept by Sarpanch or Talati and hence participants do not have direct information about their wage. Ruhi Tewari conducted study in Bhilwara district of Rajasthan. She found positive impact of MNREGA on economic lives of the rural poor and consequently it reduced the scale of out-migration. CAG report on MNREGA6 (2007) noted that the lack of administrative and technical manpower at block and GP levels was the main deficiency and needs immediate rectification. It adversely affected the preparation of plans, scrutiny, approval, monitoring, measurement of works and maintenance of the stipulated records at block and GP levels. The quality of works undertaken was found uniformly poor. Only 3.2 percent of registered households have been provided work for 100 days. The process of social audits is unfortunately yet to be adopted with enthusiasm. The report also indicts state governments for effectively scuttling the payment of unemployment allowances. In Mid Term Appraisal (MTA) of the 11th FYP7, the planning commission has found that only 14% of worker households have completed 100 days of work as mandated under the Act. It was observed that Gujarat and Kerala were able to provide average 22 days of work per households whereas W.B and Bihar provided 26 days of employment. These four states have the poorest record of fund utilization of MNREGA. In the absence of full time dedicated technical staff for programme execution, only 39 percent of 13

works taken under MNREGA were completed. There were instances both of elite capture of job cards, fake muster rolls resulting in leakages of vested interest. MTA also pointed out that workers had to travel long distance to withdraw their wages deposited in banks. MTA suggested states to promote social audits of MNREGA works to plug leakages and if possible arrangement of home delivery of wages by bank/ post office. The probe panel formed by MoRD, GoI, headed by Amita Sharma, joint secretary in-charge of MNREGA in the ministry8, found that funds of MNREGA was diverted by Gujarat State Government to the Department of Forest for their own works. The panel also found general delay of 3 to 6 months in wage payment to MNREGA beneficiaries. In some Gram Panchayats workers were asked to pay Rs.50 for the photo-graph. In many cases, Sarpanch or Talati are the custodians of the job cards rather than workers. In many job cards, entries of work allocations and payment made were lacking. In his research paper Vanik Anish9 found that employment generation in Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) has been quite low. There were delays of 40 to 50 days in wage payment. Hence, workers choose to leave MNREGA worksites for immediate payment when alternative employment available. No new works were taken up in the summer when work is most needed. As per Reetika Khera and Nayak,10 large interstate variations in the participation of women have been observed. Women constitute more than two thirds of MNREGA workers in Kerala (71%), Rajasthan (69%) and Tamilnadu (82%) and less than stipulated one-third in Assam (31%), Bihar (27%), W.B (17%), UP (15%), Himachal Pradesh (30%) and Jarkhand (27%). They also show that the full potential of this Act is far from being realized. Two thirds of the female respondents reported having to face less hunger as a result of MNREGA employment. Overall, MNREGA was considered very important by 68 % of the respondents. At majority worksites childcare facilities were lacking. MNREGA allowed workers to get work in their village, as a result of which scale of migration and hazardous works now reduced for many. The investigation carried out in 3 blocks of Mayurbhans district of Orissa 11 found pre-absence of muster roll at worksites, fake names or inflated entries in muster suggesting siphoning of funds by middleman. Contractors 14

who were banned in MNREGA were found at nearly half worksites. In some places, instead of account payee cheques, bearers cheques were issued. The article by Hiral Dave12 reveals large scale duplication of job cards in kotda village of kutiyana block of porbandar district of Gujarat. The number of job cards issued there is atleast three times of the total number of voters. The persons who died atleast two years ago are the holder of job cards and payment has been made to them. A family having 10 members has no less than 20 cards issued on his family members names. The number of NGOs and individuals conducted studies which looked into implementation, functioning and impact aspects of MNREGA. Of these some studies found visible positive impact of MNREGA on employment, outmigration and food-security of rural poor households. It also impacted the agricultural and non-agricultural wage rate. Some studies found insignificant or marginal impact on halting out-migration and providing food-security owing to no assurance of providing employment throughout the lean period. Many studies observed lack of active involvement of village communities in planning development works for MNREGA. Many GP were found executing development works which were planned by block/ district level authority. Job cards were issued on ration-card basis, non-payment of unemployment allowances, wrong fake entries in muster rolls, issue of fake job cards, intentionally errors in wage calculation, delay in wage payment, use of JCB and other machines for excavation and other purposes etc. were the irregularities observed in these studies. To sum up, mix bag of opinions were reported on impact, effectiveness, implementation and monitoring of MNREGA. 1.5 Need of the Study: As stated earlier, MNREGA is a flagship programme of government of India which is unique and first of its kind. It is in implementation in all the districts (barring urban) of the country since April, 2008. The numbers of studies were taken up by NGOs, researchers, institutions etc. which looked into the impact of MNREGA on different parameters and also examined its number of implementation issues. Some studies found substantial positive impact of MNREGA on wage rate, food security, migration whereas some studies reported minimum and delayed wage payment, non-payment of 15

unemployment allowances, failure in halting migration, errors in wagecalculation, number of operational bottlenecks, corruption etc. The most of the studies were centered on systemic defects rather than probing the impact on beneficiaries. Thus, mix bag of opinions were reported for level of impact and functioning of MNREGA. At present, degree of impact, implementation procedure, Irregularities and corruption of MNREGA has become a hot issue of debate for researchers, academicians and politicians. These conflicting views on implementation procedure, level of corruption and degree of impact of MNREGA etc. indicate that clear picture on functioning and effectiveness of Act has yet to emerge. Further, there are many issues, which are straddling the implementing agencies right from State / district to Gram Panchayat. Also there are issues such as non-homogeneity in its effectiveness, region specific disparities and outcomes etc. Keeping this controversy, debate and background in view, an absolute necessity is felt by government to have a fresh look toward various aspects of functioning and impact assessment of MNREGA by conducting an empirical study. With this in view, the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, GoI asked AgroEconomic Research Centre, Vallabh Vidyanagar, Gujarat, to undertake study probing the impact of MNREGA on different parameters and implementation constraints affecting the effectiveness of the programme for Gujarat state. This study is intended to assess the overall scenario i.e., the pros and cons associated with MNREGA scheme, the operational bottlenecks, the efficiency of social audit and its impact on the targeted beneficiaries. This common study is to be conducted in 18 states and it is to be co-ordinated by ISEC, Bangalore. 1.6 Objectives of the Study: The following are the specific objectives of the study. 1. Measure the extent of manpower employment generated under MNREGA, their various socio-economic characteristics and gender variability in all the districts implementing MNREGA since its inception in the selected states. 2. To compare wage differentials between MNREGA activities and other wage employment activities.

16

3. Effect of MNREGA on the pattern of migration from rural to urban areas. 4. To find out the nature of assets created under MNREGA and their durability. 5. Identification of factors determining the participation of people in MNREGA scheme and whether MNREGA has been successful in ensuring better food security to the beneficiaries. 6. To assess the implementation of MNREGA, its functioning and to suggest suitable policy measures to further strengthen the programme. 1.7 Sampling Design: 1.7.1: Selection of Sample Districts: The MNREGA was implemented in Gujarat state in three phases: I phase: February-2006- Implemented in 6 districts of the state. II phase: April-2007- Implemented in 3 districts of the state. III phase: April-2008- Implemented in 17 Districts of the state. The selection of sample districts was carried out by project co-ordinator. In order to fulfill the objectives of the study and to reflect the region specific variations, project co-ordinator selected 5 districts, one each from the North, South, East, West and Central location of the state. While selecting the districts, utmost care was taken to give proper representation to all the three phases of MNREGA implementation. The list of selected districts alongwith phase and direction is shown in Table-1.5.
Table 1.5: Details of Selected Sample Districts and Sample Villages.
Sr. No. District 1 1 2 3 4 5 2 Banaskantha Dahod Navsari Jamnagar Surendranagar Selected Block 3 Palanpur Vadgam Limkheda Dahod Gandevi Jalalpore Jamnagar Jodia Dhrangadhra Wadhvan Village 4 Chitrasani Navovas Mangalmahudi Agawada Movasa Erroo Changaa Jodia Khambhana Chamaraj Impleme ntation Phase (Year) 5 I (2006) I (2006) II (2007) III (2008) III (2008) Direction Distance from District H.Q. (kms.) 7 10 16 22 16 25 6 14 20 23 8

6 North East South West Central

17

1.7.2: Selection of Sample Villages: From each selected district, it was decided to select two villages, keeping in mind their distances from district headquarter. One village was selected from the nearby periphery of around 5-15 kms from district headquarter. And second village was selected having atleast distance of 20 kms. For selection of villages, a distance criterion was used with a view to know impact differential due to location. The villages were selected in consultation with the concerned district officials. The lists of selected villages with its distance from district headquarter is given in Table: 1.5. 1.7.3: Selection of Sample Households: From each selected village, it was decided to select 20 participants (MNREGA Beneficiary of year- 2009) of MNREGA and 5 non-participants (not worked in MNREGA in 2009) working as wage employed in Non-MNREGA activities. In this way, from 10 selected villages of Gujarat, total number of 250 households comprising of 200 participant (Beneficiaries) households and 50 non-participant (non beneficiaries) households were selected. For selecting representative sample of participant households, a list of all beneficiaries of calendar year 2009 in the selected village was obtained from the village programme officer alongwith the information on casts factor. The participants appearing in this list were classified into four groups using caste factor. These four groups were i) Scheduled Caste (SC), ii) Scheduled Tribe (ST), iii) Other Backward Caste (OBC), vi) Other Castes. Using proportionate sampling, 20 participant households were selected for each sample villages from above mentioned four caste groups. A due care was taken to give due representation to gender factor. From each selected village, 5 labour households which were non-participant in MNREGA but constitute more or less the similar caste and gender characteristics as that of selected participant households were selected for study. Overall, for study in Gujarat, 250 households from 10 sample villages were selected for the study and surveyed with the help of structured household questionnaire. 1.8 Reference Year: From the selected sample households, primary data were collected by recall for calendar year 2009 in a pre-designed questionnaire.

18

1.9 Data Collection: To fulfill the objectives of the study, both primary and secondary data were collected. The primary data were collected from selected sample households through recall method in single round. The quantitative/ qualitative data were collected through specific well structured pre-tested comprehensive questionnaires having all related aspects such as composition of households, caste, occupation, labour works under MNREGA and Non-MNREGA, migration status, income from various sources, self employment, household consumption, borrowing, functioning and implementation of MNREGA, work applications, worksite facilities, monitoring quality, usefulness and durability of assets created, wage payment and wage calculation method, irregularities observed, awareness of the act, food security, problem faced, suggestions to make MNREGA more effective etc. In addition to household questionnaire, a village schedule also canvassed to capture general changes that have taken place in the village during the last decade and to study the changes in labour rates after the introduction of MNREGA. The qualitative data reflecting to changes in life style of the villages during last decade were also collected through group discussion with Panchayat members, village leaders etc. The secondary data were collected from websites of MoRD, MNREGA; Gujarat Government etc. published materials as well as concerned state/ district/ block/ GP offices associated with implementation of MNREGA. 1.10 Limitation : i) In the states, there is a notable heterogeneity between districts in respect of agricultural characteristics, soil type, irrigation, labour demand and supply, social customs, caste composition, income level etc. Even implementation issues of MNREGA varied across districts. As a result, the degree of impact, effectiveness and nature of irregularities observed in implementation in MNREGA in study districts may or may not be found similar in other districts of the state. While drawing conclusions on impact and effectiveness of MNREGA based on analysis of survey data of the selected districts, these region specific differentials and outcomes may be taken into account. Future conclusions drawn are based on preliminary findings on the survey data of selected district. 19

ii) The secondary data analyzed in chapter-2 are downloading from website http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx. These data are inconsistence. For example, in Table 2.5 (District wise number of works completed /progress under MNREGA) of Chapter-2, total works completed in Jamnagar in year 2009-10 were reported as 13777. Whereas in Table 2.7 (Social auditing and inspection of MNREGA) total works taken up in 2009-10 in Jamnagar were shown as 11766. Further the data given in Table 2.8 of Chapter-2 shows that unemployment allowance was due for 49929 days in 2010-11. But, payment of unemployment allowance is shown as zero. The same data not available for period 2008-2010. Such several inconsistencies and inter conflicts are observed in the downloaded data. We analyzed the downloaded data without effecting any change in it. 1.11 Organization of study Report: The present study is divided into seven chapters including first introductory chapter. The sampling design and methodology used for study has been presented in Chapter one. Chapter two describes functioning of MNREGA in State, total employment generated under MNREGA, the socioeconomic characteristics of participants, quantitative indication of performance of MNREGA and agricultural profile of selected districts. Chapter three examines the profile, income and consumption pattern of selected households. It also examines the determinants of participation in MNREGA. Chapter four broadly provides details of work profile under MNREGA of selected households, nature of assets created and their durability, wage differential, impact on out-migration and its direction etc. The important qualitative aspects of functioning of MNREGA based upon primary data have been covered in Chapter five. The overall impact of MNREGA on village economy is discussed in Chapter six. Finally, in Chapter seven concluding remarks and policy suggestions are given.

20

Chapter 2 Agricultural Profile, Functioning and Socio-Economic Characteristics of MNREGA in Selected Districts and State
In Gujarat state, MNREGA was started in six districts in February 2006. Since April, 2008, it is in implementation in all the 26 districts of the state. It is obvious that employment demand under MNREGA from rural households is highly linked with the prevailing agricultural, social and economical characteristics of the region. With this in view, to assess and understand the overall impact of MNREGA on agro-economic aspects in a more precise way, brief picture of related agricultural and demographic characteristics of selected districts is given in Section - I. For capturing the signals of the overall impact and to understand precisely about the broad dimensions, performance and operational bottleneck of MNREGA, brief discussion on the functioning and performance of MNREGA based upon secondary data will be more helpful. With this in view, using secondary data analysis, attempt has been made in section-II to highlight the current status of various aspects of MNREGA such as administrative set up, implementation and monitoring, cast wise, gender wise participation rate, number of job card issued, employment provided, total person days generated, number of projects completed, total amount spent, unemployment allowance paid etc. for State as a whole and selected districts. Section I Demography Details of Selected Districts and State 2.1.1 Population: According to population census 2001, the population of Gujarat State reported as 5.07 crore. Among selected districts, it varied from 15.15 lakh in Surendranagar to 25.04 lakh in Banaskantha district. The population of Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) in the state have been reported at 35.95 lakh (7.09%) and 74.81 lakh (14.76%) respectively. Dahod and Navsari are predominately tribal districts, with ST population at 72.26 percent and 48.08 percent respectively. ST population in Jamnagar and Surendranagar is negligible. Among selected districts, the percentage of SC population in the selected districts ranged from 10.97 21

percent (Surendranagar) to 2.01 percent (Dahod). Of the total population, more than 88 percent population of Banaskantha and Dahod resides in rural areas. The percentage of rural population in Surendranagar and Navsari district is around 73 percent (see Table 2.1). In Jamnagar district, there is a establishment of big industrial units like Reliance Refinery, Essar Oil, L & T, Tata Chemical, GSFC etc. These units had already provided large scale employment opportunity to skill and unskilled workers. Moreover, still there exist a good scope of employment for skill and unskilled workers in these industrial units. This heavy industrialisation created momentum in rural-urban migration. As a result, the percentage of rural population in Jamnagar is lowest at 56.09 percent. The sex ratio of Gujarat was at 920. In selected districts, tribal district Dahod has the highest sex ratio of 985 and Surendranagar has the lowest sex ratio of 924 (see Table 2.1). The literacy rate in the state (excluding children of age 0-6 years) was 69.14 percent in 2001. Among selected districts, it varied from 45.15 percent in Dahod to 75.83 percent in Navsari (see Table 2.1). The classification of population for the year 2001, by the economic activity reveals that the state has diversified workforce. The state has 170.25 lakh (33.60%) main workers and 294.15 lakh (58.05%) non workers. Out of the main workers, 27.67 percent were cultivators, 17.91 percent were agricultural labourers and rest were engaged in industries and other economic activities. In selected districts, 64.74 percent (Banaskantha) 78.63 percent (Dahod), 51.42 percent (Navsari), 57.62 percent (Surendranagar) of the main working population is engaged in agriculture (i.e., cultivators and agricultural labourers) sector. It is interesting to note that in Navsari district, number of agricultural labourers were higher than number of cultivators. The major problems of the selected districts are high incidence of poverty, low employment availability, particularly in the lean seasons and distress out migration in search of works.

22

Table 2.1: Demography Details of selected District and State

Sr. No. 1 Item Population (2001) (i) Males (ii) Females (iii) Total population Total Rural Population % of rural population Population of Scheduled Castes (SC) % of SC to total population Population of Scheduled Tribes (ST) % of ST to total population Sex ratio (Females per 000' males) Effective Literacy Rate (above 6 years age) Effective literacy rate of rural area Total Main Workers Total Cultivators % to total main workers Agricultural Labourers % to total main workers % of Industry and other workers No of blocks/taluka Nos. of Villages (inhabitant) Nos. of Gram Panchayat Unit Banaskantha 1297 1207 2504 2228 88.98 271 10.84 206 8.22 930 50.97 47.91 8.31 3.98 47.89 1.40 16.85 35.26 12 1244 783 Dahod 824 812 1636 1480 90.46 33 2.01 1183 72.26 985 45.15 41.42 4.96 3.48 70.16 0.42 8.47 21.37 7 693 473

Districts/State Navsari 629 600 1229 893 72.66 40 3.22 591 48.08 955 75.83 72.32 4.57 1.00 21.88 1.35 29.54 48.58 5 374 366 Jamnagar 981 923 1904 1068 56.09 155 8.13 10 0.55 941 66.48 60.36 6.24 2.16 34.62 0.69 11.06 45.68 10 698 664 Surendranagar 788 727 1515 1113 73.44 166 10.97 14 0.95 924 61.61 55.85 5.12 1.66 32.42 1.29 25.20 42.38 10 650 615

Gujarat State 26386 24285 50671 31741 62.64 3593 7.09 7481 14.76 920 69.14 61.29 170.25 47.11 27.67 30.49 17.91 45.58 225 18600 13929

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

000 000 000 000 % 000 % 000 % Nos. % % lakh lakh % lakh % % Nos. Nos. Nos.

Source: (i) Socio- Economic Review, Gujarat state, 2008-09, DES, GoG, Gandhinagar (ii) District Statistical Handbook of selected districts.

23

2.1.2 Agriculture Profile of Selected Districts: 1) Soil Type and Climate: Gujarat has tropical climate. The climate of the state as well as of selected districts is extreme and subject to variations in temperature. The average temperature of the state ranged from 30 Celsius to 460 Celsius. Among selected districts average minimum temperature varied from 7.70 to 11.90 Celsius and maximum temperature from 380 to 43.10 Celsius (see Table 2.2). The soil type of Navsari is deep black to medium black and highly suitable for paddy and orchard crops. The soil type of Jamnagar and Surendranagar is nearly alike and hence more or less similar crop pattern. The Dahod have loamy sand to deep black soil whereas Banaskantha has sandy loam to sandy soil. Banaskantha soil is suitable for crops like Bajra, Wheat, Cotton, Cumin, Rapeseed and Mustard, Sesamum etc. The climatic and soil type variations across districts supports diversified cropping pattern in the state. 2) Monsoon, Rainfall, Irrigation and Agriculture: The agriculture plays an important role in state economy, as nearly 60 percent of its population is dependent on agriculture and allied sectors for livelihood. The agriculture prospects largely depend on arrival of rainfall, quantum of rainfall and even distribution of rainfall over time span. The behaviour of monsoon is usually erratic and remains active during June to September. There is a wide variation in the yearly rainfall from one part to another part of the state. The average normal rainfall of the state is 890 mm. for 10 year period ending 2004-05. For 2007-09, it was 949 mm. Among selected districts, Navsari have highest average annual rainfall (1736 mm) whereas remaining four districts have average annual rainfall lower than state average (see Table 2.2). Owing to scanty and erratic rainfall and unfavourable natural conditions, frequent drought conditions appearing in Banaskantha, Jamnagar and Surendranagar districts. This ultimately caused very adverse impact on prospect of agriculture and making livelihood difficult for rural poor. Under such situation, the incidences of out migration and demand for works in non-agriculture sectors are rising significantly in the rural areas of these districts. In view of these adversities of these selected districts, undertaking of

24

Table 2.2: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance for Selected Districts

Sr. No. Particulars Unit Banas Kantha sandy loam to sandy District/State Dahod Loamy to deep black Navsari Deep black Medium black Jamnagar Shallow Medium Black soil Surendra nagar Shallow Medium Black soil Gujarat State N.A.

Soil-type

Temperature (2006-08) 2 (i) Minimum (ii) Maximum 3 (i) Normal (1996-05) (ii) Actual (2007-09) (i) Total Reporting Area (ii) Net Area Sown (NAS) (iii) Gross Cropped Area (GCA) (iv) Cropping Intensity (i) Net Irrigated Area (NIA) (ii) Gross Irrigated Area (GIA) (iii) % of GIA to GCA (iv) Irrigation Intensity (i) Area Irrigated by Wells/Tube wells as % to GIA (ii) Area Irrigated by Canal as % to GCA C C
0 0

8 42.8 590 589

7.7

11.9

10.4 38 665 902

7.9 42.9 539 624

3 46 890 949

Mm . Mm . 00 Ha. 00 Ha. 00 Ha. % 00 Ha. 00 Ha. % %

43.1 42.1 Rainfall 711 620 1736 1767

Land Use Pattern (2005-06) 10449 7385 10292 139.36 3712 2157 3095 143.41 2201 1360 1462 107.5 10203 6248 7092 113.51 10458 7102 7574 106.63 188118 97222 114947 118.24

Irrigation (2005-06) 4173 5315 51.64 127.33 628 761 24.59 121.18 875 898 61.42 102.63 1522 2048 28.08 134.56 1700 1992 26.3 117.18 39.74 47642 41.25 121.93

Source of Irrigation (2005-06) 6 % % 97.42 2.39 75.69 7.88 31.51 66.04 94.29 5.18 94.78 4.47 78.91 18.08 Paddy, Bajra, Wheat, Jowar, Maize Tur, Gram, Green Gram GNut, castor, Sesamum Cotton, cumin, Sugarcane

Major Crops(2007-09) Bajra, Wheat Green Gram, Gram Castor, Rapeseed, Sesamum Cotton, Cumin, Potato, Guar seed Paddy, Maize, Wheat Tur, Gram Bajra, Wheat, Jowar Gram Sesamum, Castor cumin, Cotton

(i) Cereals

Paddy

Bajra, wheat

(ii) Pulses (iii) Oil-seeds

Gram GNut, castor, Sesamum Cotton, Cumin, Garlic

(iv) Other Crops

Source: (i) Gujarat Agriculture Statistics at a Glance 2009-10, MoA, GoG, Gandhinagar (ii) Socio-Economic Review, Gujarat State, 2008-09, DES, GoG, Gandhinagar

25

works relating to conservation and harvesting of rain water, deepening of tanks/ wells, and to create structures for storage of water resources and irrigation under MNREGA assumes vital importance. Irrigation is a crucial factor affecting the rabi and summer acreage. The groundwater, surface water and irrigation scenario of Gujarat state is not so encouraging as compared to national level. The area under irrigation and multiple crops suggest that agriculture in Gujarat is primarily rainfed. In 200506, about 41 percent of gross cropped area (GCA) was irrigated. However, in Jamnagar, Surendranagar and Dahod district, maximum area irrigated was 28 percent of GCA. Except Navsari, in remaining four selected districts, even in irrigated areas, some times farmers were not in position to give adequate number of watering to the crops mainly due to inadequate water or depletion of water in their wells. This situation restricts farmers to put more area under rabi crops. The source-wise data reveals that except Navsari district, wells/tubewells are the prime sources of irrigation in remaining 4 selected districts and nearly 76 to 97 percent of gross irrigated area (GIA) was irrigated by it. In Navsari, canal was the main source of irrigation. The irrigation intensity of Gujarat was very low at 121.93 percent whereas cropping intensity was only 118.24 percent. In selected districts, the irrigation intensity ranged from only 102.63 percent in Navsari to 134.56 percent in Jamnagar (see Table 2.2). Owing to large areas under horticulture crops, cropping intensity and irrigation intensity is very low for Navsari district. Banaskantha, Dahod, Jamnagar and Surendranagar districts are facing serious problem of continuous decline in water table. Therefore, in low rainfall years, these districts are witnessing large scale decline in crop area in rabi and summer seasons. This in turn is increasing the employment demand from cultivators and agricultural labourers. This phenomenon also scales up the incidences of temporarily out migration. The crop pattern data of the state reveals that Cotton, Groundnut, Bajra, Maize, Wheat, Jowar, Paddy, Cumin, Castor-seeds, Rapeseeds are the major crops of the state. The major crops of selected districts are given in Table 2.2. The cropping pattern of selected districts (except Navsari) is highly dependent on rainfall behaviour and extent of irrigation availability. Hence, general practice is to grow single crop during the year on areas where scope 26

of irrigation and soil-moisture is negligible. Rabi crops are grown on limited areas where available irrigation sources are adequate. The lean rabi and summer agricultural seasons affecting badly on the employment opportunities and livelihood of cultivators, agricultural labourers and other households associated with agriculture sector. This ultimately is giving rise to distress, temporary and seasonal out migration. In short, selected districts have seasonal and lagging agricultural sector, low/nil employment opportunities in the lean seasons and high rate of temporary out migration to other places in search of a work.

Section II
Functioning, Employment and Socio-Economic Characteristics of MNREGA This entire section is based on the analysis of secondary data. The data provided here is for financial year April to March. The data for the fiscal year 2010-11 is up to August 2010, i.e., for period April to August-2010. The, data analysis attempted here relate to 5 selected districts and Gujarat state as a whole. The same data for all the 26 district of the state has been provided in Appendix. 2.2.1 Implementation and Administrative Setup in Gujarat: 1) Implementation of MNREGA in Gujarat: In Gujarat, MNREGA was implemented in three phases. In phase-I, MNREGA was implemented in 6 districts of the state in April 2006. In phaseII, 3 more districts of the state covered under MNREGA in April-2007. In phase-III, MNREGA was implemented in remaining 17 districts of the state in April 2008. Thus, MNREGA is in implementation in all the 26 districts of the state since April 2008. The list of districts covered under different phases of MNREGA is shown below. Phase-wise Districts Covered Under MNREGA- Gujarat Phase I. II. III. No.of Districts 6 3 17 Name of Districts Covered Banaskantha, Dang, Dohad, Narmada, Panchmahals, Sabarkanta Bharuch, Navsari, Valsad Ahmadabad,Amreli,Anand,Patan,Surat,Tapi,Bhavnagar, Gandhinagar,Jamnagar,Junagadh,Kachchh,Mehsana, Rajkot,Surendranagar,Vadodara, Kheda 27

Source: Commissionerate of Rural Development, GoG, Gandhinagar

2) Fund Availability and Utilization: The Table 2.3(i) and 2.3 (ii) shows district-wise fund availability and utilization for MNREGA in Gujarat state for the fiscal years 2008-09 and 200910. In fiscal year 2008-09, against total available funds of Rs.28126.75 lakhs for Gujarat state, total amount utilized was Rs.19600.65 lakhs (69.69%) only. And of the total expenditure, 73.66 percent was utilized for wage payment, 19.88 percent for material and 5.51 percent for administrative propose (see Table 2.3(i)). In 2009-10, against total available funds of Rs.63598.07 lakhs for Gujarat state, Rs.49096.97 lakhs (77.20%) was utilized. Of the total expenditure, 76.30 percent utilized for wage payment, 20.46 percent for material and 2.73 percent for administrative purpose (see Table 2.3(ii)). This expenditure pattern shows that amount spent on material and administrative purpose in 2008-09 and 2009-10 was within the prescribed limit of the Act. Across all districts of Gujarat State percentage of utilization of available funds during 2008-09 found more impressive. It was for Dahod (97.12%), Panchmahals (88.86%), Navsari (80.68%), Ahmedabad (407.72%), Junagadh (96.29%) and Porbandar (87.28%). It was found very low for Dang (30.91%), Valsad (31.13%), Gandhinagar (41.04%), Jamnagar (31.56%), Kheda (26.06%) and Surendranagar (23.23%). The fund utilisation was low in 200809 in those districts, where 2008-09 was the initial year of implementation. Thus, across districts of the State, significant variation noticed in respect of MNREGAs fund utilisation. For fiscal year 2009-10, across districts of the state, there exist a variation in respect of fund utilization, but compared to 2008-2009, variation declined and fund utilization improved to some extent. Overall, fund utilization remained below desired level due to various reasons. The above data clearly indicates that through proper planning of works, enough scope exist to improve ratio of fund utilisation to total available funds.

28

Table 2.3(i): Fund Availability and Utilization for MNREGA in Gujarat State - 2008-2009
Central Release (Rs. In lakhs)
2

S. No . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

District
1

Total Funds Available including O.B (Rs. In lakhs)

3

Total Expenditure (Rs. In lakhs)

4

% Age of Expenditure Against Total Available Fund

5

Financial Outcomes Expenditure on Wages (Rs. In lakhs)

6

% Age of Expenditure on Wages

7

Expenditure on Material (Rs. In lakhs)

8

% Age of Expenditure on Material

9

Administrative Expenditure (Rs. In lakhs)

10

% Age of Administrati ve Expenditure

11

Banas Kantha Dang Dohad Narmada Panch Mahals Sabar Kantha Bharuch Navsari Valsad Ahmadabad Amreli Anand Bhavnagar Gandhinagar Jamnagar Junagadh Kachchh Kheda Mahesana Patan Porbandar Rajkot Surat Surendranagar Tapi Vadodara Grand Total

1544.62 2171.39 2852.78 1100 2489 0 16 434 0 173.3 111.7 115.58 167.98 118.09 118.22 755.58 601.66 898 151.82 708.58 95.49 155.12 702.41 162.65 524.33 250.9 16419.2

2476.33 2551.73 4185.21 1877.99 3669.54 1413.8 899.32 1201.73 657.37 367.41 338.96 320.6 254.24 174.04 363.7 1006.62 942.26 1072.57 272.53 1076.76 163.1 423.01 928.35 396.98 651.59 441.01 28126.75

1611.32 788.73 4064.78 1115.1 3261.43 1283.11 553.27 969.56 204.61 395.76 217.71 175.17 193.57 71.42 114.77 969.26 509.9 279.51 189.68 554.06 142.36 321.21 638.18 92.22 496.96 387 19600.65

65.07 30.91 97.12 59.38 88.88 90.76 61.52 80.68 31.13 107.72 64.23 54.64 76.14 41.04 31.56 96.29 54.11 26.06 69.6 51.46 87.28 75.93 68.74 23.23 76.27 87.75 69.69

1141.19 499.51 3210.15 728.95 2264.86 1167.21 310.07 674.36 124.59 311.89 175.66 114.34 155.76 31.36 75.52 918 444.14 203.97 123.64 403.73 106.98 214.18 381.51 73.67 342.1 239.99 14437.33

70.82 63.33 78.97 65.37 69.44 90.97 56.04 69.55 60.89 78.81 80.69 65.27 80.47 43.91 65.8 94.71 87.1 72.97 65.18 72.87 75.15 66.68 59.78 79.89 68.84 62.01 73.66

377.85 261.94 642.13 291.63 898.18 40.9 195.87 249.96 35.58 33.15 5.25 6.15 8.49 18.08 11.34 25.97 35.72 60.9 51.85 101.41 28.32 64.06 210.94 2.81 127.26 110.91 3896.65

23.45 33.21 15.8 26.15 27.54 3.19 35.4 25.78 17.39 8.38 2.41 3.51 4.39 25.32 9.88 2.68 7.01 21.79 27.34 18.3 19.89 19.94 33.05 3.05 25.61 28.66 19.88

85.73 23.1 91.3 53.4 98.39 75 47.33 44.18 44.44 50.72 30.9 54.68 29.32 21.98 27.01 25.29 30.04 14.62 13.12 48.92 7.06 42.97 45.73 15.74 23.6 35.9 1080.47

5.32 2.93 2.25 4.79 3.02 5.85 8.55 4.56 21.72 12.82 14.19 31.22 15.15 30.78 23.53 2.61 5.89 5.23 6.92 8.83 4.96 13.38 7.17 17.07 4.75 9.28 5.51

Source: Data Download from website of Government of Gujarat.

29

Table 2.3(ii): Fund Availability and Utilization for MNREGA in Gujarat State - 2009-2010
Financial Outcomes S.N o. States 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Banas Kantha Dang Dohad Narmada Panch Mahals Sabar Kantha Bharuch Navsari Valsad Ahmadabad Amreli Anand Bhavnagar Gandhinagar Jamnagar Junagadh Kachchh Kheda Mahesana Patan Porbandar Rajkot Surat Surendranagar Tapi Central Release (Rs. In lakhs) 2 1946.89 80.00 6303.18 1608.69 3770.80 3137.74 690.13 1678.02 347.00 1126.71 516.25 429.12 1050.65 180.19 793.98 3416.12 4748.67 1082.80 349.87 2222.05 1997.96 4523.50 635.81 1703.58 2780.13 Total Funds Available including O.B (Rs. In lakhs) 3 3340.79 1968.09 7240.77 2670.59 4552.37 3750.70 914.91 2133.38 1083.83 1329.46 775.84 640.27 1223.34 544.89 679.54 3851.42 4033.33 1934.24 695.58 2953.97 2144.31 4903.12 1357.78 2247.94 3319.07 Total Expenditure (Rs. In lakhs) 4 2676.27 1340.52 6905.25 1922.37 4779.22 2993.06 903.75 1302.28 765.08 701.26 695.09 357.30 981.20 508.99 588.95 2635.36 3101.23 1685.40 604.24 1865.90 929.85 3244.18 883.27 1721.31 2013.56 % Age of Expenditure Against Total Available Fund 5 80.11 68.11 95.37 71.98 104.98 79.80 98.78 61.04 70.59 52.75 89.59 55.80 80.21 93.41 86.67 68.43 76.89 87.13 86.87 63.17 43.36 66.17 65.05 76.57 60.67 90.44 77.20 Expenditure on Wages (Rs. In lakhs) 6 2214.14 976.14 5272.54 1332.37 3190.21 2752.63 487.10 881.56 589.37 562.77 518.43 262.10 870.79 333.20 433.13 2311.51 2711.43 1113.20 393.65 1511.56 676.66 2644.35 599.39 1426.62 1321.52 2076.88 37463.25 % Age of Expenditure on Wages 7 82.73 72.82 76.36 69.31 66.75 91.97 53.90 67.69 77.03 80.25 74.58 73.36 88.75 65.46 73.54 87.71 87.43 66.05 65.15 81.01 72.77 81.51 67.86 82.88 65.63 69.41 76.30 Expenditure on Material (Rs. In lakhs) 8 394.08 336.42 1554.98 493.50 1461.00 122.18 378.12 385.41 131.34 69.41 90.43 55.04 89.74 163.12 119.69 250.31 324.97 531.56 170.36 259.57 238.99 528.02 253.57 243.38 563.77 838.35 10047.31 % Age of Expenditure on Material 9 14.72 25.10 22.52 25.67 30.57 4.08 41.84 29.59 17.17 9.90 13.01 15.40 9.15 32.05 20.32 9.50 10.48 31.54 28.19 13.91 25.70 16.28 28.71 14.14 28.00 28.02 20.46 Administrative Expenditure (Rs. In lakhs) 10 68.05 20.56 72.95 64.52 117.50 104.98 38.53 35.31 44.32 65.00 28.03 39.02 20.67 12.67 34.46 73.54 64.83 40.34 40.23 94.77 14.20 71.81 29.92 51.31 28.58 63.71 1339.80 % Age of Administrative Expenditure 11 2.54 1.53 1.06 3.36 2.46 3.51 4.26 2.71 5.79 9.27 4.03 10.92 2.11 2.49 5.85 2.79 2.09 2.39 6.66 5.08 1.53 2.21 3.39 2.98 1.42 2.13 2.73

Vadodara 2907.62 3308.54 2992.09 Grand Total 50027.46 63598.07 49096.97 Source: Data Download from website of Government of Gujarat

30

3) Administrative Setup for MNREGA: i) Administrative Setup: In Gujarat, multi-tier structures of authority and agencies are involved for planning, implementation and monitoring of the MNREGA and ensuring quality at every stage. The functions and duties of each one is clearly specified. Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD), Government of Gujarat (GoG) is engaged in the implementation of the MNREGA in Gujarat. For planning, implementation and monitoring of MNREGA, MoRD, GoG set up a separate Commissionerate of Rural Development (MNREGA) and Principal Secretary, MoRD, GoG is working as a Commissioner of it. As per section 12(a) of the said Act, state government also constituted State Employment Guarantee Council (SEGC) for the purpose of overviewing the implementation and monitoring of the Act at the state level and give necessary advice to the state government. This council have members from concerned departments, elected representatives, members from Panchayat Raj institutions (PRIs), members of NGOs and experts. It is disappointing to note that the meetings of SEGC are not taking place regularly and hence SEGC not functioning effectively. It affected the monitoring of the programme at state level and defeated the purpose of forming SEGC. At the village, taluka and district level, the primary responsibilities of planning and implementation of the MNREGA lies with Panchayat Raj institutions. For proper planning and effective implementation of MNREGA, the District Panchayat at district level, Taluka Panchayat at the taluka level and the Village Panchayat at the village level are the principal implementing authority. At the district level, District Development Officer (DDO) is designated as the District Programme Co-ordinator (DPC) who is responsible for overall planning, implementation, co-ordination and monitoring of the MNREGA. Further, DPC has financial and administrative power as are required for the implementation of scheme. Director, DRDA is designated as Additional District Programme Co-ordinator (ADPC). DDO is assisted by ADPC at the district level and programme officers (PO) at the taluka level. DPC is also assisted by Deputy District Programme Co-ordinator (DDPC), Works Manager, Deputy Engineer (DE), Junior Engineer (JE) Technical 31

Assistant, MIS co-ordinator etc. and Technical Advisory Cell (TAC). Appointment of DDPC, Assistant Engineers (AE), Junior Engineer (JE), Account officer, Clerks etc. are made either on deputation or giving additional charge or on contract basis with fix tenure and salary. The Taluka Development Officer (TDO) is designated as programme officer (PO) at Taluka level. The PO at the taluka level is assisted by Assistant Programme Officer (APO), Junior Engineers/Technical Assistant, MIS coordinator, accountant, clerks etc. PO and his team is responsible for the planning, implementation, co-ordination, inspection and monitoring of the scheme at the block level and to perform functions in co-ordination with district/state level concerned officers. The Sarpanch and Talati-cum-Mantri of village Panchayat are responsible for planning, execution and supervisory of projects, propagating implementation, co-ordination, monitoring of the scheme at the village level. Talati is assisted by junior engineer and APO. The responsibility of calling Gram Sabha and to conduct social audit of village level schemes is also lie with them. ii) Brief Description of Responsibility at Various Levels: The main responsibilities under MNREGA at State/District/Taluka/GP level are briefly given below. a) At State Level: i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. i. ii. Wide Communication, information dissemination and create awareness about MNREGA. Ensuring that full time dedicated personnel are in place for implementing MNREGA at all levels. Ensuring timely release of fund including state share for MNREGA. Regular review, monitoring and evaluation of MNREGA work at districts level. Training to personnel associated with implementation of MNREGA at all levels. Also to arrange Training of Trainers (ToT). Ensuring accountability and transparency in the scheme at all levels. Information dissemination and create awareness. Training to PRI/GP/Block level employees of MNREGA. 32 b) At District Level:

iii.

Consolidation of block plans into district plan. To prepare a Labour Budget every year. To give administrative and technical approvals to the shelf of projects included in the Taluka plan.

iv. v. vi. i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. i. ii. iii. iv. v.

Release and utilization of funds. Ensuring hundred percent monitoring of works and Muster Rolls verification. Submission of Monthly Progress Reports (MPR). Scrutinizing the annual development plan proposed by the Gram Panchayat (GPs) and consolidating it into Block plan. Including the proposals of the Intermediate Panchayat. To match employment opportunities with the demand for works. Monitoring and supervising implementation of MNREGA works. Disposal of complaints in stipulated time period. Ensuring that social audits are conducted regularly by the Gram Sabha for works undertaken under MNREGA. Payment of unemployment allowance if any. Convening Gram Sabha and prepare annual work-plan at village level. Receiving application for registration, verifying applications, registration of households and issuing job cards. Receiving applications for employment, issuing dated receipts. Allocating employment within fifteen days of application. Executing Works, maintaining all type of records, monitoring the implementation of the Scheme at the village level. To from local Vigilance Monitoring Committee (VMC).

c) At Taluka (Block) Level:

d) At Gram Panchayat Level:

vi.

Convening the Gram Sabha for social audit. The PO at taluka level and the DPC at the district level are performing

iii) Grievance Redressal System: duties as the Grievance Redressal Officer. The Gram Sabha is the forum for public hearing appeal against GP to be made to the PO and appeal against the PO to DPC and appeal against DPC to the state level authority. The complaints can be lodged on plain paper or on prescribed form and submitted through post or complaint box put in the offices of PO and DPC. Any 33

complaint received by GP will be forwarded to the PO for necessary action. The PO and DPC will inquire into the facts of all the complaints received by them and will try to dispose them within ten days or so from the date of receipt of the complaint. iv) Issues Related with MNREGA In State: Our discussion at various level and observations during field survey indicated several issues/problems which strike at the effective implementation of MNREGA. i) Vacant Posts and Shortage of Staff: Under MNREGA in each district, full time District Programme Co-ordinator (DPC) and in each block, a full time PO is require to be appointed exclusively for MNREGA with necessary technical and administrative staff. In district, DDO has been given additional charge of DPC and in many blocks TDO has been given additional charge of PO. Technical staff/Junior Engineers appointed are either on deputation from other departments or given additional charge or on contract basis with fix salary and tenure. Hence, they lack motivation and dedication. Numbers of sanctioned posts are vacant. Absence of adequate administrative and technical staff is adversely affecting the preparation and scrutiny of plan, approval, monitoring, measurement, wage payment and quality of works. The appointments of low level administrative and other staff made at block/district level are also on contract for 11 months tenure and fix salary. At village level, Talati cum Mantri is already overburdening with his regular works and duties. Further, some of them have additional charge of other villages too. They lack require technical expertise and motivation for effective implementation and integration of works. The shortage of qualified and dedicated permanent staff at all level causing delays in execution, monitoring, quality and measurement of works and timely payment of wages. Thus, the shortage of full time staff exclusively for MNREGA is one of the main factors which adversely affecting the functioning of MNREGA in a big way. ii) Lack of Peoples planning: At village level, without support of technical and professional staff, Gram Panchayat find it difficult to prepare a shelf of projects and its planning

34

and to ensure quality of works. Therefore, in majority cases, plans are made and approved at the top and sent downwards for implementation to GPs. iii) Capacity Building of Stakeholders: Capacity building is a continuous process. It is not a one time job. The need is felt for capacity building of all stakeholders of the MNREGA, Government administration at all levels, PR institutions at all the levels, community organisations at the village level and common people. Each of them needs more training to be equipped to perform their role effectively. State government has put in lot of efforts in this area. However, training has not reached yet to all stakeholders. There is a urgent need to create adequate technical capabilities among MNREGA staff of district, taluka and village Panchayat to enable them to plan and implement the programme and to conduct social audit in a effective and positive manner. v) Other Issues: Lack of commitment, sincerity and initiative for the programme are seen in overburden Talatis, Sarpanchs and TDOs. Despite intensive ICE (Information, Communication and Extension) activities, stakeholders at district, taluka and village level lack full awareness on various components of the scheme. The partial involvement and lack of adequate technical support in implementation of MNREGA by line departments are also other issues which impacted the performance of MNREGA. 4) Glimpse of Performance of MNREGA in Gujarat- 2008-09 to 2010-11: The glimpse of Performance of MNREGA in Gujarat during period 2008-09 to 2010-11 (Till Aug.2010) is shown in below given summary Table. It is worth to note that total numbers of job cards issued shows uptrend and it increased from 2877792 in 2008-09 to 3859162 in 2010-11. The important feature is all households who demand employment were provided employment during 2008-10. However, numbers of households which completed 100 days of employment were very less and average days employment per household per year was around 25 in 2008-09 and 37 in 2009-10. Of the total works taken up, 69.72 percent works were completed in 2008-09 and 88.90 percent completed in 2009-10. It is unpleasing to not that unemployment allowance due for 49929 days in 2010-11 but not paid single

35

Glimpse of Performance of MNREGA in Gujarat- 2008-09 to 2010-11 (Till Aug. 2010)

Sr. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Indicators Cumulative No. of HHs. issued job cards Cumulative No. of HHs. demanded employment Cumulative No. of HHs. provided employment Cumulative person days generated Cumulative No. of HHs. completed Total Nos. of works Taken up Total Nos. of works completed Total Expenditure on works Unemployment allowance due Unemployment allowance paid Nos. of Muster Rolls used Nos. of Muster Rolls verified % of GPs where social Audit held Unit Nos. Nos. Nos. Nos. Nos. Nos. Nos. Rs.Lakh No.of days Rs. Nos. Nos. % 2008-09 2877792 850691 850691 21305000 49160 46657 32530 18273 N.A 0 229855 209128 81.30 2009-10 3570123 1596402 1596402 58509000 103752 296717 263651 70300 N.A 0 577170 564948 98.30

2010-11 (Till Aug. 2010) 3859162 590919 590919

20696923 20407 161124 3021 25147 49929 0 235176 223808 73.20

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

rupee to anyone. The social audits were taken up in 81.30 percent and 98.30 percent Gram Panchayats during 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. 2.2.2 Job Cards Issued and Employment Generation by Sex and Castes: Table 2.4(i) to 2.4(iii) present year wise data on job cards issued and employment generation by sex and castes for all 26 districts of Gujarat State for financial years 2008-09 to 2010-11(Till august, 2010). 1) Job-Cards Issued: Under MNREGA, there is a provision to issue job card to the household as a whole. The job card is bearing the photograph of all the eligible members of the household who are willing to work under MNREGA. The job card is free of cost. It is seen from the Table 2.4 (iii) that up till August 2010, under MNREGA cumulative numbers of households issued job cards in Gujarat state were about 38.60 lakh. Among all the 26 districts of the state, highest number of job-cards issued in Panchmahals district (2.90 lakh) and lowest in Gandhinagar (0.42 lakh) district. Among five selected districts, it varied from 2.60 lakh in Banaskantha to only 0.63 lakh in Jamnagar district (see Table 2.4 (iii)). The higher scope of employment availability in industrial and other

36

sectors with relatively high wage rates and for longer duration was the key reason for issue of less number of job cards in Surat, Porbandar, Gandhinagar, Narmada and Jamnagar districts. Caste-wise classification reveals that of the total job cards issued in Gujarat state, 9.00 percent issued to Scheduled Castes (SC), 31.80 percent issued to Scheduled Tribes (ST) and 59.10 percent to other castes. As ST population is predominant in Dahod, Dang, Narmada, Bharuch, Valsad, Surat, Tapi and Navsari districts, the percentage of job cards issued to ST, as expected, also very high in these districts (Appendix-I). Similarly the job cards issued to other castes were high and above 70.00 percent in 16 districts (Out of 26) of the State. Caste wise classification reveals that against SC/ST population of 21.85 percent in Gujarat, job cards issued to SC/ST were 40.80 percent (Till Aug. 2010). This shows that MNREGA succeed in providing enhance employment to under priviledged ST/SC. 2) Employment Demanded and Provided: The success of MNREGA can be measured by examining the ratio of employment demanded and provided. In Gujarat state, of the total registered families, about 8.51 lakh (29.56%) in year 2008-09 and 15.96 lakh (44.72%) in year 2009-10 demanded employment under MNREGA. The third phase of MNREGA implemented in remaining 17 districts of the state in year 2008-09. As 2008-09 was the initial year, the MNREGA was in preparation stage in these 17 districts and projects implemented in second half of the year. Hence employment demand remained low in fiscal year 2008-09. However, it picked up momentum from year 2009-10 onward. Because of this reasons, compared to 2008-09, record of demand for employment in 2009-10 looks more attractive. The striking feature is the fluctuating percentage of employment demand across all districts as well as selected districts. During year 2009-10, from the selected districts, economical backward districts like Dahod (63%), Banaskantha (63%) and Surendranagar (49.4%), recorded higher demand of employment under the scheme (see Table 2.4(ii)). However, on account of ample scope of alternative employment in nearby industrial and other sectors, larger portion of job-cards holders of Jamnagar and to some extent of Navsari districts not demanded employment under MNREGA during study period 2008-10. 37

Table-2.4 (i): Distric-wise Employment generated through MNREGA and its socio-economic characteristics in Gujarat-2008-09
Name of the District Cumulative No. of HH issued job cards (Till the reporting month) Cumulative No. of HH demanded employment Cumulative No. of HH provided employment (Till the reporting month) 82270 29476 133029 54192 71730 56960 22426 29891 6030 42865 11327 18516 15379 5091 4580 16829 34354 30923 13906 21516 2384 28381 23631 7433 44852 42720 850691 (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) Cumulative Person days generated Cumulative No. of HH completed 100 days (Till the reporting month) 3199 72 14527 1147 6609 6738 915 28 24 1274 506 54 201 0 67 6855 1665 51 40 657 799 3669 0 63 0 0 49160 (3.9) (0.2) (10.9) (2.1) (9.2) (11.8) (4.1) (0.1) (0.4) (3.0) (4.5) (0.3) (1.3) (0.0) (1.5) (40.7) (4.8) (0.2) (0.3) (3.1) (33.5) (12.9) (0.0) (0.8) (0.0) (0.0) (5.8)

SCs BanasKantha Dang Dohad Narmada Panch Mahals Sabar Kantha Bharuch Navsari Valsad Ahmadabad Amreli Anand Bhavnagar Gandhinagar Jamnagar Junagadh Kachchh Kheda Mahesana Patan Porbandar Rajkot Surat Surendranagar Tapi Vadodara Gujarat 49484 0 3521 2503 11781 29529 9089 581 1373 51333 24800 27442 8442 8205 8334 40435 22977 9492 22641 24290 5819 24402 2056 5373 40 12638 406580 (28.1) 0.0 (1.8) (3.0) (6.2) (15.7) (8.6) (0.8) (1.4) (33.5) (33.0) (19.6) (10.6) (22.5) (17.3) (36.8) (25.9) (6.6) (21.0) (22.4) (30.2) (25.0) (1.7) (9.1) (0.0) (5.4) (14.1)

STs 32786 37437 151758 72699 62173 57133 72852 68887 92105 12206 0 2718 170 0 375 2390 1154 4634 0 1566 294 0 117667 518 100225 146517 1038264 (18.6) (99.6) (78.2) (87.1) (32.9) (30.3) (68.8) (92.7) (90.9) (8.0) 0.0 (1.9) (0.2) 0.0 (0.8) (2.2) (1.3) (3.2) 0.0 (1.4) (1.5) 0.0 (94.5) (0.9) (99.0) (62.4) (36.1)

Others 93655 155 38797 8271 114885 101602 24015 4880 7852 89696 50383 109826 70660 28296 39561 67082 64740 129865 85125 82728 13177 73208 4849 53034 960 75646 1432948 (53.2) (0.4) (20.0) (9.9) (60.8) (54.0) (22.7) (6.6) (7.7) (58.5) (67.0) (78.5) (89.1) (77.5) (82.0) (61.0) (72.8) (90.2) (79.0) (76.2) (68.3) (75.0) (3.9) (90.0) (0.9) (32.2) (49.8)

Total 175925 37592 194076 83473 188839 188264 105956 74348 101330 153235 75183 139986 79272 36501 48270 109907 88871 143991 107766 108584 19290 97610 124572 58925 101225 234801 2877792 (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) 82270 29476 133029 54192 71730 56960 22426 29891 6030 42865 11327 18516 15379 5091 4580 16829 34354 30923 13906 21516 2384 28381 23631 7433 44852 42720 850691

SCs 594000 0 173000 8000 254000 424000 47000 2000 0 32000 88000 40000 39000 6000 28000 210000 123000 69000 47000 260000 62000 89000 7000 65000 0 32000 2699000 (34.5) 0.0 (3.6) (0.9) (6.7) (21.7) (9.1) (0.3) 0.0 (10.2) (29.7) (22.7) (17.1) (17.6) (25.0) (17.0) (20.7) (14.8) (33.6) (35.0) (42.8) (36.0) (1.5) (27.5) 0.0 (9.0) (12.7)

STs 434000 542000 3947000 818000 1752000 773000 362000 673000 147000 19000 0 1000 0 0 0 20000 46000 26000 0 19000 0 0 433000 8000 490000 262000 10772000 (25.2) 99.8 (82.5) (93.8) (46.3) (39.6) (70.3) 93.9 100.0 (6.0) 0.0 (0.6) 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 (7.7) (5.6) 0.0 (2.6) 0.0 0.0 95.8 (3.4) (100.0) (73.6) (50.6)

Others 694000 1000 665000 46000 1780000 754000 106000 42000 0 264000 208000 135000 189000 28000 84000 1006000 425000 372000 93000 464000 83000 158000 12000 163000 0 62000 7834000 (40.3) (0.2) (13.9) (5.3) (47.0) (38.6) (20.6) (5.9) 0.0 (83.8) (70.3) (76.7) (82.9) (82.4) (75.0) (81.4) (71.5) (79.7) (66.4) (62.4) (57.2) (64.0) (2.7) (69.1) 0.0 (17.4) (36.8)

Total 1722000 543000 4785000 872000 3786000 1951000 515000 717000 147000 315000 296000 176000 228000 34000 112000 1236000 594000 467000 140000 743000 145000 247000 452000 236000 490000 356000 21305000 (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100)

Women 645000 250000 2457000 399000 1568000 1077000 188000 225000 61000 105000 78000 60000 95000 10000 72000 473000 257000 128000 74000 214000 54000 84000 164000 95000 180000 109000 9122000 (37.5) (46.0) (51.3) (45.8) (41.4) (55.2) (36.5) (31.4) (41.5) (33.3) (26.4) (34.1) (41.7) (29.4) (64.3) (38.3) (43.3) (27.4) (52.9) (28.8) (37.2) (34.0) (36.3) (40.3) (36.7) 30.6 (42.8)

Source:http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx Note: The figures in parentheses are percentages of respective total

38

Table-2.4 (ii): Distric-wise Employment generated through MNREGA and its socio-economic characteristics in Gujarat-2009-10
Name of the District Cumulative No. of HH issued job cards (Till the reporting month) Cumulative No. of Cumulative No. of HH demanded HH provided employment (Till employment (Till the reporting the reporting month) month) 150919 33676 142761 62639 131902 113453 37608 33592 28061 51262 24100 20753 28715 10328 19149 55367 74367 43647 11327 60813 19952 72591 36974 59362 65344 207740 1596402 150919 33676 142761 62639 131902 113453 37608 33592 28061 51262 24100 20753 28715 10328 19149 55367 74367 43647 11327 60813 19952 72591 36974 59362 65344 Cumulative Person days generate (Till the reporting month) SCs 1150000 (32.1) 2000 75000 79000 663000 924000 41000 12000 15000 179000 288000 91000 363000 153000 277000 798000 860000 124000 107000 351000 357000 973000 11000 652000 52000 (0.1) (1.5) (2.9) (10.4) (17.3) (4.7) (0.9) (1.7) (15.8) (24.0) (18.2) (25.7) (39.9) (33.3) (31.5) (22.4) (9.2) (17.7) (14.1) (26.4) (22.5) (0.9) (32.9) (2.4) STs 735000 1502000 4279000 2579000 2589000 2106000 770000 1126000 874000 34000 0 15000 2000 0 38000 52000 158000 22000 0 59000 53000 40000 1243000 43000 2068000 (20.5) (99.1) (82.8) (94.8) (40.7) (39.5) (88.7) (87.8) (98.3) (3.0) 0.0 (3.0) (0.1) 0.0 (4.6) (2.1) (4.1) (1.6) 0.0 (2.4) (3.9) (0.9) (96.7) (2.2) (94.9) Others 1701000 11000 813000 62000 3107000 2308000 57000 145000 0 922000 912000 394000 1049000 230000 518000 1683000 2821000 1197000 497000 2080000 942000 3307000 32000 1289000 58000 (47.4) (0.7) (15.7) (2.3) (48.9) (43.2) (6.6) (11.3) 0.0 (81.2) (76.0) (78.8) (74.2) (60.1) (62.2) (66.4) (73.5) (89.1) (82.3) (83.5) (69.7) (76.6) (2.5) (65.0) (2.7) Total 3586000 1515000 5167000 2720000 6359000 5338000 868000 1283000 889000 1135000 1200000 500000 1414000 383000 833000 2533000 3839000 1343000 604000 2490000 1352000 4320000 1286000 1984000 2178000 (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) Women 1133000 743000 2583000 1130000 2851000 3203000 254000 518000 312000 378000 362000 178000 707000 146000 275000 1123000 1398000 404000 152000 1146000 446000 2818000 417000 615000 1137000 (31.6) (49.0) (50.0) (41.5) (44.8) (60.0) (29.3) (40.4) (35.1) (33.3) (30.2) (35.6) (50.0) (38.1) (33.0) (44.3) (36.4) (30.1) (25.2) (46.0) (33.0) (65.2) (32.4) (31.0) (52.2)
Cumulative No. of HH completed 100 days (Till the reporting month )

SCs Banas Kantha Dang Dohad Narmada Panch Mahals Sabar Kantha Bharuch Navsari Valsad Ahmadabad Amreli Anand Bhavnagar Gandhinagar Jamnagar Junagadh Kachchh Kheda Mahesana Patan Porbandar Rajkot Surat Surendra nagar Tapi 68112 16 152457 3184 14208 32606 9344 923 3763 48813 50097 28772 12261 3034 17394 56500 29822 11211 23850 19491 10385 42000 3186 26279 1910 (28.6) (0.0) (67.4) (3.3) (6.4) (13.9) (8.6) (1.0) (2.3) (31.1) (49.9) (19.7) (13.6) (7.4) (29.4) (41.6) (25.6) (6.5) (20.9) (10.4) (25.9) (29.3) (2.5) (21.8) (1.4)

STs 43872 42723 3950 83522 70997 69470 78227 79104 147895 11276 0 3250 478 324 1746 5100 4113 5143 0 6446 315 1540 113301 860 127391 (18.4) (98.8) (1.7) (86.0) (31.9) (29.7) (71.7) (84.6) (89.0) (7.2) 0.0 (2.2) (0.5) (0.8) (2.9) (3.8) (3.5) (3.0) 0.0 (3.4) (0.8) (1.1) (89.0) (0.7) (93.4)

Others 126410 495 69729 10359 137470 132049 21464 13464 14566 97012 50383 113801 77383 37877 40064 74337 82426 155499 90488 161987 29451 99674 10870 93180 7020 (53.0) (1.1) (30.8) (10.7) (61.7) (56.4) (19.7) (14.4) (8.8) (61.8) (50.1) (78.0) (85.9) (91.9) (67.7) (54.7) (70.8) (90.5) (79.1) (86.2) (73.4) (69.6) (8.5) (77.4) (5.1)

Total 238394 43234 226136 97065 222675 234125 109035 93491 166224 157101 100480 145823 90122 41235 59204 135937 116361 171853 114338 187924 40151 143214 127357 120319 136321 (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100)

(100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0)

6443 4301 9830 1780 10064 5930 350 751 609 1055 1055 671 867 419 1993 10018 21122 1197 466 2999 3351 11717 620 1895 1459 2790 103752

(4.3) (12.8) (6.9) (2.8) (7.6) (5.2) (0.9) (2.2) (2.2) (2.1) (4.4) (3.2) (3.0) (4.1) (10.4) (18.1) (28.4) (2.7) (4.1) (4.9) (16.8) (16.1) (1.7) (3.2) (2.2) (1.3) (6.5)

Vadodara 27424 (10.9) 166843 (66.2) 57737 (22.9) Gujarat 697042 (19.5) 1067886 (29.9) 1805195 (50.6) Source:http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx Note: The figures in parentheses are percentages of respective total

252004 (100) 3570123 (100.0)

207740 (100.0) 1596402 (100.0)

103000 (3.0) 8700000 (14.9)

2700000 (79.6) 23087000 (39.5)

587000 (17.3) 3390000 (100) 26722000 (45.7) 58509000 (100)

3390000 (100.0) 27819000 (47.5)

39

Table-2.4 (iii): Distric-wise Employment generated through MNREGA and its socio-economic characteristics in Gujarat-2010-11 ( Till Aug.2010)
Cumulative No. of HH issued job cards (Till the reporting month)

Name of the District

SCs

STs

Others

Total

Cumulative No. Cumulative No. of HH of HH provided demanded employment (Till employment the reporting (Till the month) reporting month)

Cumulative Person days generated

SCs

STs

Others

Total

Women

Cumulative No. of HH completed 100 days (Till the reporting month )

Banas Kantha Dang Dohad Narmada Panch Mahals Sabar Kantha Bharuch Navsari Valsad Ahmadabad Amreli Anand Bhavnagar Gandhinagar Jamnagar Junagadh Kachchh Kheda Mahesana Patan Porbandar Rajkot Surat Tapi Vadodara Gujarat

38726 95 2788 3218 24467 32962 6735 1955 4231 18912 23301 11393 5788 2947 14567 27891 15232 9767 18884 20346 5187 14107 3486 2105 23727 348309

(14.9) (0.2) (1.1) (3.2) (8.4) (13.7) (5.5) (1.9) (2.3) (13.6) (20.2) (7.7) (6.0) (7.0) (23.0) (18.9) (12.6) (5.3) (16.2) (10.3) (11.5) (8.0) (2.7) (10.7) (1.4) (9.3) (9.0)

32747 45066 163361 85139 70536 70983 83717 83924 157193 6492 314 3884 1057 352 1844 8522 975 3875 247 6702 1243 1801 112879 4001 134488 147790 1229132

(12.6) (97.6) (64.7) (85.4) (24.3) (29.5) (68.5) (82.1) (87.2) (4.7) (0.3) (2.6) (1.1) (0.8) (2.9) (5.8) (0.8) (2.1) (0.2) (3.4) (2.7) (1.0) (88.0) (2.8) (92.6) (57.8) (31.8)

188384 1003 86454 11347 194822 136740 31692 16378 18895 114065 91609 132646 89777 38678 47031 111137 104445 169270 97307 170283 38822 160910 11950 125557 8658 84361 2282221

(72.5) (2.2) (34.2) (11.4) (67.2) (56.8) (25.9) (16.0) (10.5) (81.8) (79.5) (89.7) (92.9) (92.1) (74.1) (75.3) (86.6) (92.5) (83.6) (86.3) (85.8) (91.0) (9.3) (86.6) (6.0) (33.0) (59.1)

259857 46164 252603 99704 289825 240685 122144 102257 180319 139469 115224 147923 96622 41977 63442 147550 120652 182912 116438 197331 45252 176818 128315 145050 145251 255878 3859662

(100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100)

41297 29664 58497 23119 41906 54252 4993 17081 9641 14447 28252 4688 16943 3156 5897 45659 27751 10794 4648 35207 12635 20525 7600 40357 18373 30934 608316

40419 29316 52309 22569 40693 53105 4976 16959 9506 14297 28009 4612 16779 3128 5755 45244 26799 10674 4591 33688 12546 19414 7439 39889 17891 30312 590919

(97.9) (98.8) (89.4) (97.6) (97.1) (97.9) (99.7) (99.3) (98.6) (99.0) (99.1) (98.4) (99.0) (99.1) (97.6) (99.1) (96.6) (98.9) (98.8) (95.7) (99.3) (94.6) (97.9) (98.8) (97.4) (98.0) (97.1)

158849 776 12997 14850 65063 289746 7607 4921 3339 42548 318768 24566 58890 6032 40130 484329 99569 6953 26964 117632 44821 32628 2136 158618 4426 40024 2067182

(12.8) (0.1) (1.0) (2.8) (5.4) (15.4) (6.3) (1.0) (1.2) (7.8) (29.2) (18.1) (7.7) (4.9) (18.0) (22.7) (9.8) (2.7) (17.8) (10.8) (8.5) (4.8) (1.0) (9.3) (1.2) (3.6) (10.0)

197995 735558 484829 303374 545656 83442 395480 243249 9880 9189 5195 9293 129 6342 98514 3172 4010 355 39246 10143 2654 195168 35653 336814 911033

(15.9) (58.7) (90.4) (25.1) (29.0) (68.9) (79.8) (87.6) (1.8) (0.8) (3.8) (1.2) (0.1) (2.8) (4.6) (0.3) (1.5) (0.2) (3.6) (1.9) (0.4) (91.0) (2.1) (94.5) (80.9)

885313 30477 504710 36856 838820 1046075 30046 95084 31192 494460 765580 106025 698969 117000 176091 1554602 912681 248664 124559 930404 475276 644920 17143 1502888 15015 175066 12457916

(71.3) (2.0) (40.3) (6.9) (69.5) (55.6) (24.8) (19.2) (11.2) (90.4) (70.0) (78.1) (91.1) (95.0) (79.1) (72.7) (89.9) (95.8) (82.0) (85.6) (89.6) (94.8) (8.0) (88.6) (4.2) (15.5) (60.2)

1242157 1536705 1253265 536535 1207257 1881477 121095 495485 277780 546888 1093537 135786 767152 123161 222563 2137445 1015422 259627 151878 1087282 530240 680202 214447 1697159 356255 1126123 20696923

(100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100)

599920 759950 598828 250207 585104 923015 56529 268870 140077 267389 554811 56263 398179 50989 104531 1064086 516479 104507 66310 497776 249805 326480 96958 799920 156730 474479 9968192

(48.3) (49.5) (47.8) (46.6) (48.5) (49.1) (46.7) (54.3) (50.4) (48.9) (50.7) (41.4) (51.9) (41.4) (47.0) (49.8) (50.9) (40.3) (43.7) (45.8) (47.1) (48.0) (45.2) (47.1) (44.0) (42.1)

1497 3904 755 305 1073 1965 68 172 342 523 1108 129 1182 164 185 2051 423 70 67 505 454 374 167 1977 89 858

(3.7) (13.3) (1.4) (1.4) (2.6) (3.7) (1.4) (1.0) (3.6) (3.7) (4.0) (2.8) (7.0) (5.2) (3.2) (4.5) (1.6) (0.7) (1.5) (1.5) (3.6) (1.9) (2.2) (5.0) (0.5) (2.8) (3.5)

1505452 (98.0)

Surendranagar 15492

6171825 (29.8)

(48.2) 20407

Note: The figures in parentheses are percentages of respective total

40

During 2008-10, across all districts of State, demand for employment under MNREGA was found low in Anand, Bharuch, Gandhinagar, Valsad, Jamnagar, Navsari, Jamnagar, Amreli and Mahesana districts. The demand remained low mainly due to ample scope of alternative employment with relatively higher wages and for a longer period (Table 2.4(i) to 2.4 (iii)). Across all districts of the state, demand for employment under MNREGA was found highest in Dahod district followed by Banaskatha district during 2008-09. During 2009-10, employment demand was found high in Vadodara district followed by Banaskatha district (Table 2.4 (i) and (ii)). It is pleasing to note that as per record, during the period of 2008-10, all the needy rural households of all the districts of Gujarat State who demanded works were provided employment under MNREGA. Therefore, supply of employment matches the demand. 3) Employment Generation: One criteria of judging the success of MNREGA is number of person days of employment generated per job demanding household. It is seen from the Table 2.4 (i) to 2.4 (iii) that in Gujarat State, MNREGA created employment of 213.05 lakh person days in the year 2008-09 and 585.09 lakh person days in 2009-10. It means that against the guarantee of 100 person days, Gujarat able to generate on an average only 25 and 37 person days per job demanding household in year 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. The low level generation of employment days per job demanding households reflects low level performance of MNREGA. Gandhinagar district generated lowest person days of employment during 2008-10. Among all districts of Gujarat State, during 2008-10, Panchmahals (101.45 lakh) and Dahod (99.52 lakh) district created highest person days of employment. During period 2008-10, per job demanding households Dahod generated on an average 36 person days per year, whereas Panchmahals generated nearly 50 person days per year. In selected districts, Dahod generated highest employment days at 47.85 lakh in 2008-09 and 51.67 lakh in 2009-10. The important feature is the very less number of days of employment generated per household. Further, average number of person days generated per job demanding household for year 2008-09 varied from 21 person days in Banaskantha to 36 person days 41

in Dahod district. And for year 2009-10, it ranged from 24 person days in Banaskantha to 44 person days in Surendranagar district (see Table 2.4 (i) to 2.4 (iii)). Due to low level of operation of the programme and frequent stoppages/ suspension of works, employment generated per household remained very low and far below the expectation. The steps needed immediately for higher generation of employment days through higher participation. For Gujarat State as a whole, in the total person days generated, ST and SC together had very high contribution. It was 63.30 percent in year 2008-09 and 54.40 percent in year 2009-10. This indicates that programme appears to be well targeted, as the castes/tribes with high incidence of poverty have maximum participation in the programme. Further, this shows that MNREGA succeed in providing enhance employment and livelihood security to under privileged ST and SC. For empowering the women, there is a provision in the scheme to provide at least one third employment to women. It is evident from the Table 2.4 (i) to 2.4 (iii) that in Gujarat State, for each year, the employment share of women was higher (above 42%) than provision made in guidelines. In Rajkot and Sabarkantha districts, employment share of women in 2009-10 was more than 60.00 percent. And it was below 30.00 percent in Kheda and Bharuch districts. In majority districts, the women share in total employment under MNREGA was also more than or near to one third. This indicates that women prefer to work in MNREGA works, if works are conveniently located and suit their skills. As expected, good level of women participation in MNREGA works is definitely a sign of positive development for women community and Act empowered and enhanced their economic freedom to some extent. 4) 100 Days Employment: MNREGA guarantees at least 100 days of wage employment per household in every financial year. The data reveals that of the total job demanding households of Gujarat State, only 5.78 percent in 2008-09 and 6.50 percent in 2009-10 exhausted 100 days limit of employment. Among all districts of the State, during 2009-10, percentage of households exhausted 100 days limit of employment was found highest (28.40%) for drought affected Kutch districts followed by Patan (20.28%) and Junagadh (18.90%). In 42

Vadodara, Tapi, Gandhinagar and Surat district, not a single households availed wage employment of 100 days in year 2008-09. During 2009-10, percentage of households which exhausted 100 days of employment limit was found below 2.00 percent in Bharuch, Surat and Vadodara districts (Table 2.4 (i) to 2.4 (iii)). In selected districts also only 10 percent or less number of households were provided guaranteed employment of 100 days. This reflects the poor performance of MNREGA. The 100 days of guaranteed employment at minimum wage rate aim at holding people to villages and reducing the scale of distress out migration during lean period. As 100 days employment not provided to a very large section, Act had little impact on halting rural-urban migration during lean seasons and lifestyle of the rural poor people. 2.2.3 Works Undertaken under MNREGA during 2008-09 to 2010-11: The types of permissible works to be undertaken under MNREGA have been codified in the Guidelines. Out of nine preferred areas of works under scheme, the main focus was laid on soil and water conservation and harvesting (WCWH) works and improving irrigation potential. Further, it focus on works which create productive assets like water harvesting and storing structures, flood control and drought proofing structures etc. As per act, local bodies are suppose to plan, design and execute the works to be taken up and at least 50 percent of the works under scheme will be implemented and monitored through village Panchayat. The data on types of works undertaken under MNREGA during period 2008-09 to 2010-11 (Till August-2010) in selected districts as well as state as a whole are shown in Table 2.5.(i) to 2.5(iii). The same data for 26 districts are given in Appendix- 1(i) to 1(iii). 1) Works Completed: In Gujarat State, during fiscal year 2008-09, of the total 46657 started works, 32530 (69.72%) works have been completed while 14127 (30.28%) works remained incompleted or suspended. Of the total works undertaken, 88.86 percent works in year 2009-10 and only 1.87 percent works in year 2010-11 (Till August, 2010) have been completed. The data on completed works reveals large variations in the performance of MNREGA across districts. As 2008-09 was the initial year of implementation of MNREGA in many districts of the state, the works started 43

late and hence the works started late and hence the percentage of incompleted/ suspended works found very high for many districts. In Dahod 63.32 percent, Valsad 68.91 percent, Kutch 55.39 percent and Surendranagar 76.14 percent works remained incompleted or suspended. However, record of works completed improved to a great extent in 2009-10. In 2009-10, 18 districts out of 26 districts completed more than 85.00 percent of planned works (Appendix-1(i) to 1 (iii)). Among selected districts, during fiscal year 2008-09, of the total works undertaken, 75.30 percent works in Banaskantha, 36.67 percent works in Dahod, 52.70 percent works in Navsari, 44.86 percent works in Jamnagar and 23.86 percent works in Surendranagar district have been completed. Thus, data of works completed in 2008-09 present gloomy picture of performance, particularly in Jamnagar, Surendranagar and Banaskantha districts. However, during 2009-10, 78.39 percent works in Banaskantha, 62.55 percent works in Dahod, 83.68 percent works in Navsari, 98.77 percent works in Jamnagar and 95.96 percent works in Surendranagar reported completed. The data on completed works reveals the wide variations in the performance of MNREGA across districts. As compared to 2009-10, large numbers of incompleted/suspeneded works during 2008-09 were mainly due to various reasons such as delays in approval and implementation, inadequate funds, works started in last quarter of the year, initial year of implementation for many districts etc. Also, in the scheme there is no compulsion to complete works within fiscal year. Therefore, implementing agency is starting so many works at a time but not completing many of them. 2) Types of Works Undertaken: The MNREGA guidelines have recommended the types of works that can be undertaken under the scheme. The data in Table 2.5 and Appendix-1 clearly reveals that all the districts of Gujarat seem to have followed the guidelines. The effectiveness of scheme crucially depends on what types of works it gives priority to. During fiscal year 2008-09, of the total 46657 works taken up in Gujarat State, 40.90 percent were related to Water Conservation and Water Harvesting (WCWH), 17.40 percent were related to Provision of Irrigation and Land Development (PI & LD) 16.50 percent to Drought Proofing (DP) and 44

Table 2.5 (i): District wise number of works completed/progress under MNREGA -2008-2009
Type of Works comp.* Rural Connectivity Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Flood Control Ongo/Susp** Total Water Conservation And Water Harvesting comp.* Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Drought Proofing Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Micro Irrigation Ongo/Susp** Total Provision of Irrigation facility to Land development Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies comp.* Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Land development Ongo/Susp** Total Any Other Activity Approved by MoRD comp.* Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Total Works Ongo/Susp** Total Banas Kantha 99 (2.1) 115 (7.3) 214 (3.4) 31 (0.6) 4 (0.3) 35 (0.5) 3927 (81.7) 170 (10.8) 4097 (64.2) 226 (4.7) 712 (45.2) 938 (14.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 136 (2.8) 141 (8.9) 277 (4.3) 149 (3.1) 120 (7.6) 269 (4.2) 10 (0.2) 31 (2.0) 41 (0.6) 227 (4.7) 283 (18.0) 510 (8.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 4805 (100.0) 1576 (100.0) 6381 (100.0) Dohad 360 (13.1) 197 (4.1) 557 (7.4) 482 (17.5) 332 (7.0) 814 (10.8) 1369 (49.7) 211 (4.4) 1580 (21.0) 347 (12.6) 12 (0.3) 359 (4.8) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 162 (5.9) 3999 (84.0) 4161 (55.4) 37 (1.3) 9 (0.2) 46 (0.6) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 2757 (100.0) 4760 (100.0) 7517 (100.0) Navsari 140 (18.9) 235 (35.3) 375 (26.7) 113 (15.2) 44 (6.6) 157 (11.2) 70 (9.4) 19 (2.9) 89 (6.3) 147 (19.8) 9 (1.4) 156 (11.1) 0 (0.0) 14 (2.1) 14 (1.0) 125 (16.9) 339 (51.0) 464 (33.0) 60 (8.1) 5 (0.8) 65 (4.6) 3 (0.4) 0 (0.0) 3 (0.2) 83 (11.2) 0 (0.0) 83 (5.9) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 741 (100.0) 665 (100.0) 1406 (100.0) Jamnagar 10 (9.2) 16 (11.9) 26 (10.7) 0 (0.0) 2 (1.5) 2 (0.8) 70 (64.2) 34 (25.4) 104 (42.8) 9 (8.3) 9 (6.7) 18 (7.4) 0 (0.0) 2 (1.5) 2 (0.8) 1 (0.9) 46 (34.3) 47 (19.3) 2 (1.8) 8 (6.0) 10 (4.1) 7 (6.4) 8 (6.0) 15 (6.2) 10 (9.2) 9 (6.7) 19 (7.8) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 109 (100.0) 134 (100.0) 243 (100.0) Surendra nagar 0 (0.0) 12 (17.9) 12 (13.6) 0 (0.0) 5 (7.5) 5 (5.7) 21 (100.0) 42 (62.7) 63 (71.6) 0 (0.0) 5 (7.5) 5 (5.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (1.5) 1 (1.1) 0 (0.0) 2 (3.0) 2 (2.3) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 21 (100.0) 67 (100.0) 88 (100.0) Gujarat State 2886 (8.9) 2267 (16.0) 5153 (11.0) 2196 (6.8) 810 (5.7) 3006 (6.4) 17397 (53.5) 1687 (11.9) 19084 (40.9) 6328 (19.5) 1390 (9.8) 7718 (16.5) 85 (0.3) 98 (0.7) 183 (0.4) 1784 (5.5) 6332 (44.8) 8116 (17.4) 1154 (3.5) 1122 (7.9) 2276 (4.9) 217 (0.7) 112 (0.8) 329 (0.7) 483 (1.5) 309 (2.2) 792 (1.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 32530 (100.0) 14127 (100.0) 46657 (100.0)

Source: http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx, Note: Figure in brackets denote percentage to total works. *comp. means completed, **ongo/susp. means ongoing/suspended

45

Table 2.5(ii): District wise number of works completed/progress under MNREGA-2009-10

Type of Works comp.* Rural Connectivity Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Flood Control Ongo/Susp** Total Water Conservation And Water Harvesting comp.* Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Drought Proofing Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Micro Irrigation Ongo/Susp** Total Provision of Irrigation facility to Land development comp.* Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Land development Ongo/Susp** Total Any Other Activity Approved by MoRD comp.* Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Total Works Ongo/Susp** Total Banas Kantha 34 (0.2) 398 (9.6) 432 (2.3) 2 (0.0) 60 (1.4) 62 (0.3) 14859 (98.9) 1934 (46.7) 16793 (87.6) 12 (0.1) 774 (18.7) 786 (4.1) 0 (0.0) 38 (0.9) 38 (0.2) 23 (0.2) 326 (7.9) 349 (1.8) 9 (0.1) 287 (6.9) 296 (1.5) 80 (0.5) 41 (1.0) 121 (0.6) 6 (0.0) 284 (6.9) 290 (1.5) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 15025 (100.0) 4142 (100.0) 19167 (100.0) Dohad 58 (0.5) 347 (5.4) 405 (2.4) 295 (2.8) 898 (14.0) 1193 (7.0) 9576 (89.6) 379 (5.9) 9955 (58.3) 45 (0.4) 309 (4.8) 354 (2.1) 0 (0.0) 4 (0.1) 4 (0.0) 710 (6.6) 4365 (68.2) 5075 (29.7) 4 (0.0) 92 (1.4) 96 (0.6) 0 (0.0) 5 (0.1) 5 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 10688 (100.0) 6399 (100.0) 17087 (100.0) Navsari 234 (4.2) 341 (31.3) 575 (8.6) 63 (1.1) 56 (5.1) 119 (1.8) 5142 (92.1) 2 (0.2) 5144 (77.1) 2 (0.0) 203 (18.6) 205 (3.1) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 95 (1.7) 413 (37.9) 508 (7.6) 39 (0.7) 70 (6.4) 109 (1.6) 9 (0.2) 4 (0.4) 13 (0.2) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 5584 (100.0) 1089 (100.0) 6673 (100.0) Jamnagar 112 (0.8) 21 (12.3) 133 (1.0) 0 (0.0) 8 (4.7) 8 (0.1) 13137 (95.4) 19 (11.1) 13156 (94.3) 63 (0.5) 13 (7.6) 76 (0.5) 17 (0.1) 9 (5.3) 26 (0.2) 71 (0.5) 57 (33.3) 128 (0.9) 88 (0.6) 17 (9.9) 105 (0.8) 22 (0.2) 27 (15.8) 49 (0.4) 267 (1.9) 0 (0.0) 267 (1.9) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 13777 (100.0) 171 (100.0) 13948 (100.0) Surendra nagar 65 (0.4) 56 (8.7) 121 (0.8) 33 (0.2) 349 (54.4) 382 (2.4) 15078 (98.8) 183 (28.5) 15261 (96.0) 1 (0.0) 4 (0.6) 5 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 5 (0.8) 5 (0.0) 1 (0.0) 4 (0.6) 5 (0.0) 83 (0.5) 28 (4.4) 111 (0.7) 0 0.0 13 (2.0) 13 (0.1) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 15261 (100.0) 642 (100.0) 15903 (100.0) Gujarat State 6799 (2.6) 4716 (14.3) 11515 (3.9) 2858 (1.1) 2478 (7.5) 5336 (1.8) 222699 (84.5) 4549 (13.8) 227248 (76.6) 4232 (1.6) 5441 (16.5) 9673 (3.3) 334 (0.1) 524 (1.6) 858 (0.3) 3645 (1.4) 11503 (34.8) 15148 (5.1) 3748 (1.4) 2547 (7.7) 6295 (2.1) 2224 (0.8) 549 (1.7) 2773 (0.9) 17112 (6.5) 759 (2.3) 17871 (6.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 263651 (100.0) 33066 (100.0) 296717 (100.0)

Source: http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx, Note: Figure in brackets denote percentage to total works. *comp. means completed, **ongo/susp. Means ongoing/suspended

46

Table 2.5 (iii): District wise number of works completed/progress under MNREGA -2010-2011 (Till Aug -2010)
Type of Works comp.* Rural Connectivity Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Flood Control Ongo/Susp** Total Water Conservation And Water Harvesting comp.* Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Drought Proofing Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Micro Irrigation Ongo/Susp** Total Provision of Irrigation facility to Land development Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies comp.* Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Land development Ongo/Susp** Total Any Other Activity Approved by MoRD comp.* Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Total Works Ongo/Susp** Total Banas Kantha 4 (17.4) 1181 (13.9) 1185 (14.0) 0 (0.0) 55 (0.6) 55 (0.6) 13 (56.5) 5526 (65.3) 5539 (65.2) 1 (4.3) 295 (3.5) 296 (3.5) 0 (0.0) 63 (0.7) 63 (0.7) 0 (0.0) 211 (2.5) 211 (2.5) 3 (13.0) 697 (8.2) 700 (8.2) 2 (8.7) 243 (2.9) 245 (2.9) 0 (0.0) 197 (2.3) 197 (2.3) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 23 (100.0) 8468 (100.0) 8491 (100.0) Dohad 1 (0.6) 677 (2.7) 678 (2.7) 11 (6.7) 2912 (11.8) 2923 (11.8) 32 (19.6) 4462 (18.1) 4494 (18.1) 0 (0.0) 139 (0.6) 139 (0.6) 1 (0.6) 92 (0.4) 93 (0.4) 97 (59.5) 13603 (55.2) 13700 (55.2) 13 (8.0) 1585 (6.4) 1598 (6.4) 1 (0.6) 185 (0.8) 186 (0.7) 7 (4.3) 1009 (4.1) 1016 (4.1) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 163 (100.0) 24664 (100.0) 24827 (100.0) Navsari 60 (47.6) 650 (18.3) 710 (19.3) 5 (4.0) 250 (7.0) 255 (6.9) 0 (0.0) 1268 (35.6) 1268 (34.4) 0 (0.0) 234 (6.6) 234 (6.4) 0 (0.0) 157 (4.4) 157 (4.3) 61 (48.4) 557 (15.7) 618 (16.8) 0 (0.0) 170 (4.8) 170 (4.6) 0 (0.0) 49 (1.4) 49 (1.3) 0 (0.0) 222 (6.2) 222 (6.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 126 (100.0) 3557 (100.0) 3683 (100.0) Jamnagar 0 (0.0) 609 (10.8) 609 (10.8) 0 (0.0) 35 (0.6) 35 (0.6) 1 (100.0) 4071 (72.2) 4072 (72.2) 0 (0.0) 290 (5.1) 290 (5.1) 0 (0.0) 12 (0.2) 12 (0.2) 0 (0.0) 283 (5.0) 283 (5.0) 0 (0.0) 127 (2.3) 127 (2.3) 0 (0.0) 179 (3.2) 179 (3.2) 0 (0.0) 36 (0.6) 36 (0.6) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (100.0) 5642 (100.0) 5643 (100.0) Surendra nagar 0 (0.0) 187 (5.7) 187 (5.7) 0 (0.0) 440 (13.5) 440 (13.5) 0 (0.0) 2283 (69.8) 2283 (69.8) 0 (0.0) 29 (0.9) 29 (0.9) 0 (0.0) 7 (0.2) 7 (0.2) 0 (0.0) 5 (0.2) 5 (0.2) 0 (0.0) 85 (2.6) 85 (2.6) 0 (0.0) 66 (2.0) 66 (2.0) 0 (0.0) 169 (5.2) 169 (5.2) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (100.0) 3271 (100.0) 3271 (100.0) Gujarat State 396 (13.1) 19197 (12.1) 19593 (12.2) 126 (4.2) 12258 (7.8) 12384 (7.7) 1897 (62.8) 70021 (44.3) 71918 (44.6) 83 (2.7) 11710 (7.4) 11793 (7.3) 18 (0.6) 1918 (1.2) 1936 (1.2) 204 (6.8) 25620 (16.2) 25824 (16.0) 94 (3.1) 8626 (5.5) 8720 (5.4) 135 (4.5) 3774 (2.4) 3909 (2.4) 68 (2.3) 4938 (3.1) 5006 (3.1) 0 (0.0) 41 (0.0) 41 (0.0) 3021 (100.0) 158103 (100.0) 161124 (100.0)

Source: http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx, Note: Figure in brackets denote percentage to total works. *comp. means completed, **ongo/susp. means ongoing/suspended

47

11.00 percent related to Rural Connectivity (RC). In fiscal year 2009-10, of the total works undertaken, 76.60 percent were of WCWH and 5.10 percent of PI & LD works on SC/ST private land. The above data clearly reveals that the main focus was on works related to WCWH, PI&LD and DP. In majority districts of the State, the main focus on works undertaken under MNREGA was on works related to WCWH, PI & LD, DP, micro irrigation etc. for creating durable productive assets which are helpful in enhancing irrigation and in turn crop productivity. In all selected districts, except Dahod, large number of works undertaken during 2008-09 and 2009-10 were under the category of water harvesting and conservation (WCWH). The second and third priority of works taken up varied across districts depending on demand. During 2009-10, in water starving districts like Surendranagar, Jamnagar and Banaskantha, of the total works taken up, more than 87 percent works were related to WCWH. In Dahod, WCWH (58.3%) and PI&LD (19.70%) were the main works. It may be noted that so far works relating to Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra were not completed in any district of Gujarat State. The above analysis clearly established that in Gujarat state including selected districts, focus was more on works which create productive community assets and enhance irrigation potential by recharge of rain water. This, in turn, will provide enhance employment and livelihood security especially for those rural families which are poor and highly dependent on casual manual labour. 2.2.4 Expenditure on Works Undertaken Under MNREGA: The break-up of the expenditure according to works undertaken under MNREGA in selected districts for fiscal year 2008-09 to 2010-11(Till August2010) is shown in Table 2.6(i) to 2.6(iii). District wise break-up of expenditure for all the districts of the state is shown in Appendix-2(i) to 2(iii). For Gujarat state as a whole, during year 2008-09, of the total amount of Rs. 182.73 crore, the highest amount of Rs.51.31 crores was spent on water conservation and harvesting (WCWH) works, followed by Rs.50.27 crores on rural connectivity (RC) works, Rs.35.69 crores on Provision of Irrigation and Land Development for SC/ST (PI & LD), Rs.19.87 crores on flood control (FC) works and Rs.13.31 crores on renovation of traditional water bodies (RTWB) 48

Table 2.6 (i): District wise amount spent on works completed/progress under MNREGA2008-09 (Rs.in Lakhs)
Type of Works comp.* Rural Connectivity Ongo/ Susp** Total comp.* Flood Control Ongo/ Susp** Total Water Conservation And Water Harvesting comp.* Ongo/ Susp** Total comp.* Drought Proofing Ongo/ Susp** Total comp.* Micro Irrigation Ongo/ Susp** Total Provision of Irrigation facility to Land development comp.* Ongo/ Susp** Total comp.* Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies Ongo/ Susp** Total comp.* Land development Ongo/ Susp** Total Any Other Activity Approved by MoRD comp.* Ongo/ Susp** Total comp.* Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra Ongo/ Susp** Total comp.* Total Works Ongo/ Susp** Total Banas kantha 127.7 (12.5) 248.6 (49.4) 376.3 (24.7) 13.0 (1.3) 4.3 (0.9) 17.3 (1.1) 742.5 (72.6) 189.7 (37.7) 932.2 (61.1) 72.6 (7.1) 28.0 (5.6) 100.6 (6.6) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 10.0 (1.0) 1.5 (0.3) 11.5 (0.8) 31.9 (3.1) 24.6 (4.9) 56.5 (3.7) 16.2 (1.6) 4.6 (0.9) 20.8 (1.4) 8.9 (0.9) 1.6 (0.3) 10.4 (0.7) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 1022.7 (100.0) 502.9 (100.0) 1525.6 (100.0) Dohad 183.4 (12.2) 320.4 (13.0) 503.8 (12.7) 281.6 (18.7) 357.6 (14.5) 639.2 (16.1) 778.0 (51.8) 330.0 (13.4) 1107.9 (27.9) 48.5 (3.2) 6.0 (0.2) 54.5 (1.4) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 202.9 (13.5) 1441.2 (58.3) 1644.2 (41.4) 7.8 (0.5) 16.1 (0.7) 23.9 (0.6) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 00 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 1502.2 (100.0) 2471.3 (100.0) 3973.5 (100.0) Navsari 198.0 (45.6) 186.9 (38.1) 384.9 (41.6) 67.9 (15.6) 23.0 (4.7) 90.9 (9.8) 15.3 (3.5) 0.0 (0.0) 15.3 (1.7) 6.5 (1.5) 0.2 (0.0) 6.7 (0.7) 0.0 (0.0) 9.9 (2.0) 9.9 (1.1) 107.1 (24.7) 267.1 (54.4) 374.2 (40.4) 33.9 (7.8) 4.1 (0.8) 38.0 (4.1) 1.1 (0.3) 0.0 (0.0) 1.1 (0.1) 4.4 (1.0) 0.0 (0.0) 4.4 (0.5) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 434.2 (100.0) 491.2 (100.0) 925.4 (100.0) Jamnagar 12.0 (22.0) 5.1 (18.6) 17.2 (20.9) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 31.5 (57.8) 14.1 (51.0) 45.6 (55.5) 2.7 (5.0) 1.1 (3.9) 3.8 (4.6) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 1.6 (2.8) 4.3 (15.6) 5.9 (7.1) 0.3 (0.5) 1.2 (4.2) 1.4 (1.8) 0.5 (0.9) 1.7 (6.0) 2.1 (2.6) 6.0 (10.9) 0.2 (0.7) 6.2 (7.5) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 54.6 (100.0) 27.6 (100.0) 82.1 (100.0) Surendra nagar 0.0 (0.0) 13.9 (19.6) 13.9 (18.2) 0.0 (0.0) 9.5 (13.3) 9.5 (12.4) 5.3 (100.0) 42.9 (60.2) 48.1 (62.9) 0.0 0.0 1.8 (2.6) 1.8 (2.4) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 2.5 (3.5) 2.5 (3.2) 0.0 0.0 0.7 (0.9) 0.7 (0.9) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 5.3 (100.0) 71.2 (100.0) 76.5 (100.0) Gujarat State 2865.1 (27.8) 2162.2 (27.2) 5027.2 (27.5) 1254.5 (12.2) 732.2 (9.2) 1986.6 (10.9) 3914.7 (37.9) 1216.7 (15.3) 5131.4 (28.1) 590.1 (5.7) 279.3 (3.5) 869.5 (4.8) 100.7 (1.0) 40.7 (0.5) 141.4 (0.8) 670.5 (6.5) 2898.2 (36.4) 3568.6 (19.5) 773.1 (7.5) 558.1 (7.0) 1331.2 (7.3) 82.3 (0.8) 59.2 (0.7) 141.5 (0.8) 65.8 (0.6) 9.4 (0.1) 75.3 (0.4) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 10316.7 (100.0) 7956.1 (100.0) 18272.8 (100.0)

Source: http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx, Note: Figure in brackets denotes percentage to total works. * Comp. means completed. **ongo/susp. means ongoing/suspended

49

Table 2.6 (ii): District wise amount spent on works completed/progress under MNREGA-2009-10 (Rs.in Lakhs)
Type of Works comp.* Rural Connectivity Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Flood Control Ongo/Susp** Total Water Conservation And Water Harvesting comp.* Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Drought Proofing Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Micro Irrigation Ongo/Susp** Total Provision of Irrigation facility to Land development comp.* Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Land development Ongo/Susp** Total Any Other Activity Approved by MoRD comp.* Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Total Works Ongo/Susp** Total Banas Kantha 103.68 (6.6) 784.14 (35.5) 887.82 (23.5) 1.79 (0.1) 146.72 (6.6) 148.51 (3.9) 1413.4 (89.7) 847.57 (38.4) 2261 (59.8) 7.84 (0.5) 137.75 (6.2) 145.59 (3.8) 0 (0.0 ) 39.6 (1.8) 39.6 (1.0) 11.66 (0.7) 126.79 (5.7) 138.45 (3.7) 11.05 (0.7) 88.51 (4.0) 99.56 (2.6) 26.07 (1.7) 35.83 (1.6) 61.9 (1.6) 0.06 (0.0) 1.04 (0.0) 1.1 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1575.5 (100.0) 2208 (100.0) 3783.5 (100.0) Dohad 13.6 (0.8) 364 (5.2) 378 (4.3) 242 (14.2) 1385 (19.7) 1627 (18.6) 578 (33.9) 515 (7.3) 1092 (12.5) 16.9 (1.0) 233 (3.3) 250 (2.9) 0 (0.0 ) 0.6 (0.0) 0.6 (0.0) 848 (49.8) 4533 (64.4) 5381 (61.6) 3.6 (0.2) 6.29 (0.1) 9.89 (0.1) 0 0.0 0.5 (0.0) 0.5 (0.0) 0 (0.0 ) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1702 (100.0) 7037 (100.0) 8739 (100.0) Navsari 361.69 (40.6) 325.46 (35.5) 687.15 (38.0) 87.85 (9.9) 36.89 (4.0) 124.74 (6.9) 247.49 (27.8) 4.6 (0.5) 252.09 (13.9) 0.09 (0.0) 108.62 (11.8) 108.71 (6.0) 0 (0.0 ) 0 (0.0 ) 0 (0.0 ) 130.25 (14.6) 410.23 (44.7) 540.48 (29.9) 57.67 (6.5) 29.55 (3.2) 87.22 (4.8) 4.91 (0.6) 1.9 (0.2) 6.81 (0.4) 0 (0.0 ) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 889.95 (100.0) 917.25 (100.0) 1807.2 (100.0) Jamnagar 196 (22.9) 12.4 (14.2) 209 (22.1) 0 (0.0) 10.3 (11.8) 10.3 (1.1) 291 (34.0) 15.7 (18.0) 307 (32.5) 47.6 (5.6) 5.86 (6.7) 53.5 (5.7) 18.6 (2.2) 4.18 (4.8) 22.8 (2.4) 85.1 (9.9) 32 (36.6) 117 (12.4) 122 (14.2) 3.16 (3.6) 125 (13.2) 16.3 (1.9) 3.67 (4.2) 20 (2.1) 79.6 (9.3) 0 (0.0) 79.6 (8.4) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 856 (100.0) 87.3 (100.0) 944 (100.0) Surendra nagar 135.6 (16.0) 102.6 (11.8) 238.2 (13.9) 72.83 (8.6) 235.6 (27.2) 308.5 (18.0) 508.1 (59.8) 258.1 (29.8) 766.2 (44.7) 1.23 (0.1) 4.54 (0.5) 5.77 (0.3) 0 (0.0 ) 11.11 (1.3) 11.11 (0.6) 0.5 (0.1) 3 (0.3) 3.5 (0.2) 130.7 (15.4) 250.5 (28.9) 381.2 (22.2) 0 0.0 1.52 (0.2) 1.52 (0.1) 0 (0.0 ) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 849 (100.0) 866.9 (100.0) 1716 (100.0) Gujarat State 9368.49 (21.7) 6216.85 (22.9) 15585.3 (22.2) 3376.81 (7.8) 3348.74 (12.3) 6725.55 (9.6) 16929.2 (39.3) 4471.14 (16.4) 21400.4 (30.4) 1993.57 (4.6) 2335.11 (8.6) 4328.68 (6.2) 347.13 (0.8) 436.8 (1.6) 783.93 (1.1) 3366.05 (7.8) 7038.79 (25.9) 10404.8 (14.8) 6409.71 (14.9) 2032.56 (7.5) 8442.27 (12.0) 584.5 (1.4) 441.46 (1.6) 1025.96 (1.5) 726.22 (1.7) 876.91 (3.2) 1603.13 (2.3) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 43101.7 (100.0) 27198.4 (100.0) 70300.1 (100.0)

Source: http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx, Note: Figure in brackets denote percentage to total works. *comp. means completed, **ongo/susp. means ongoing/suspended

50

Table 2.6 (iii): District wise amount spent on works completed/progress under MNREGA-20010-11 (Till Aug 2010) (Rs in Lakhs)
Type of Works comp.* Rural Connectivity Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Flood Control Ongo/Susp** Total Water Conservation And Water Harvesting comp.* Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Drought Proofing Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Micro Irrigation Ongo/Susp** Total Provision of Irrigation facility to Land development Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies comp.* Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Land development Ongo/Susp** Total Any Other Activity Approved by MoRD comp.* Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra Ongo/Susp** Total comp.* Total Works Ongo/Susp** Total Banas Kantha 1.9 (12.3) 360.1 (26.3) 362.0 (26.2) 0.0 0.0 29.4 (2.2) 29.4 (2.1) 11.2 (70.8) 761.8 (55.7) 773.0 (55.9) 0.0 0.0 27.9 (2.0) 27.9 (2.0) 0.0 0.0 35.9 (2.6) 35.9 (2.6) 0.0 0.0 17.6 (1.3) 17.6 (1.3) 0.0 0.0 34.5 (2.5) 34.5 (2.5) 2.7 (16.9) 83.2 (6.1) 85.9 (6.2) 0.0 0.0 16.4 (1.2) 16.4 (1.2) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.8 (100.0) 1366.8 (100.0) 1382.5 (100.0) Dohad 0.0 0.0 16.5 (1.3) 16.5 (1.3) 0.2 (1.0) 361.7 (28.2) 361.9 (27.8) 7.2 (40.7) 224.2 (17.5) 231.3 (17.8) 0.0 0.0 1.5 (0.1) 1.5 (0.1) 0.0 0.0 0.3 (0.0) 0.3 (0.0) 9.1 (51.8) 502.5 (39.2) 511.6 (39.4) 1.1 (6.2) 151.7 (11.8) 152.8 (11.7) 0.0 0.0 6.1 (0.5) 6.1 (0.5) 0.1 (0.3) 18.2 (1.4) 18.2 (1.4) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.6 (100.0) 1282.6 (100.0) 1300.2 (100.0) Navsari 40.0 (42.5) 287.2 (42.7) 327.3 (42.7) 4.3 (4.5) 33.2 (4.9) 37.5 (4.9) 0.0 0.0 60.6 (9.0) 60.6 (7.9) 0.0 0.0 7.5 (1.1) 7.5 (1.0) 0.0 0.0 0.6 (0.1) 0.6 (0.1) 49.9 (53.0) 258.4 (38.4) 308.3 (40.2) 0.0 0.0 5.4 (0.8) 5.4 (0.7) 0.0 0.0 6.0 (0.9) 6.0 (0.8) 0.0 0.0 13.8 (2.0) 13.8 (1.8) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 94.2 (100.0) 672.8 (100.0) 766.9 (100.0) Jamnagar 0.0 0.0 104.4 (39.5) 104.4 (39.5) 0.0 0.0 1.3 (0.5) 1.3 (0.5) 0.2 (100.0) 22.0 (8.3) 22.2 (8.4) 0.0 0.0 17.4 (6.6) 17.4 (6.6) 0.0 0.0 0.6 (0.2) 0.6 (0.2) 0.0 0.0 36.9 (14.0) 36.9 (14.0) 0.0 0.0 48.0 (18.1) 48.0 (18.1) 0.0 0.0 31.9 (12.1) 31.9 (12.1) 0.0 0.0 1.8 (0.7) 1.8 (0.7) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 (100.0) 264.4 (100.0) 264.6 (100.0) Surendra Nagar 0.0 0.0 155.2 (9.8) 155.2 (9.8) 0.0 0.0 163.6 (10.3) 163.6 (10.3) 0.0 0.0 1121.8 (70.7) 1121.8 (70.7) 0.0 0.0 1.8 (0.1) 1.8 (0.1) 0.0 0.0 1.9 (0.1) 1.9 (0.1) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 91.8 (5.8) 91.8 (5.8) 0.0 0.0 16.1 (1.0) 16.1 (1.0) 0.0 0.0 35.4 (2.2) 35.4 (2.2) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1587.7 (100.0) 1587.7 (100.0) Gujarat State 498.3 (28.7) 5782.3 (24.7) 6280.6 (25.0) 309.7 (17.9) 3289.8 (14.1) 3599.4 (14.3) 628.9 (36.3) 8457.7 (36.1) 9086.6 (36.1) 10.7 (0.6) 1094.7 (4.7) 1105.4 (4.4) 3.4 (0.2) 237.3 (1.0) 240.7 (1.0) 74.7 (4.3) 2134.9 (9.1) 2209.6 (8.8) 111.9 (6.5) 1468.8 (6.3) 1580.8 (6.3) 57.3 (3.3) 619.4 (2.6) 676.7 (2.7) 38.6 (2.2) 323.9 (1.4) 362.5 (1.4) 0.0 0.0 4.9 (0.0) 4.9 (0.0) 1733.6 (100.0) 23413.7 (100.0) 25147.2 (100.0)

Source: http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx, Note: Figure in brackets denote percentage to total works. *comp. means completed, **ongo/susp. means ongoing/suspended

51

works. The expenditure outlay for year 2009-10 increased significantly and it was 3.85 times (Rs.703 crore) than it (Rs.182.73 crore) for previous year 2008-09. The pattern of expenditure for fiscal years 2009-10 also found similar to year 2008-09. Amount spent was highest (Rs.155.85 crores) for WCWH works and it was followed by RC works, PI&LD and FC works. The examination of expenditure pattern clearly reveals that bulk part of the amount was spent on creating durable productive structures for conservation and harvesting water, improving irrigation potential and thereby agricultural productivity. Across all districts of the State, highest amount spent in Dahod district. It was Rs. 39.73 crore in 2008-09 and Rs. 87.39 crore for 2009-10. It was lowest at 0.49 crore for Gandhinagar and 0.76 crore for Surendranagar in 2008-09. And, it was lowest at 5.86 crore for Anand in 2009-10 (Appendix-2 (i) to 2 (iii)). In ST dominating district Dahod, highest amount spent was on PI&LD works on ST and SC land followed by WCWH and FC works. Of the total amount spent, 41.40 percent in 2008-09 and 61.60 percent in 2009-10 was spent on PI&LD works. In 2008-09, 27.90 percent amount was spent on WCWH works and 16.10 percent on FC works. In dry land districts like Banaskantha, Surendranagar, Jamnagar and others as emphasis was on WCWH and associated works, highest amount was spent on WCWH works in year 2008-09 as well as in 2009-10. It is followed by RC works. During 2009-10, amount spent on WCWH works was Rs.22.61 crore for Banaskantha, Rs.30.68 crore for Jamnagar and Rs.76.62 crore for Surendranagar. For RC works, it was Rs.8.88 crore in Banaskantha, Rs.20.89 crore for Jamnagar and Rs.23.82 crore for Surendranagar district. The expenditure pattern for Tapi, Navsari and Surat districts differs much from other selected districts as it has relatively rich water resources and irrigated land. In these districts, relatively very low amount spent for WCWH works. The highest amount spent was for RC and PI&LD works. In Navsari district during 2008-09, Rs.3.85 crore (41.60%) was spent on RC works and Rs.3.74 crore (40.40%) was spent on PI&LD works. In fiscal year 2009-10, of the total expenditure of Rs.18.70 crore, Rs.6.87 crore was spent on RC works whereas Rs. 5.40 crore was spent on PI&LD works.

52

The above analysis clearly reveals that in dry land districts, focus was more on creating durable structures which are useful for improving the water recharging and irrigation potential. Whereas in districts where there is a good irrigation facilities, focus was more on rural connectivity and land development of SC/ST and to enhance irrigation facility on SC/ST land. 2.2.5 Social Auditing and Inspection of MNREGA works: The MNREGA besides the main features mentioned earlier in Chapter-1, have also important feature of rigorous and continuous monitoring by way of multilayered social audit and transparency mechanism through involvement of civil societies. The concept of social audit aims at primarily to make sure that the local communities have a say over implementation and it looks after violations and corruption. In Act, there is also a provision to set up local vigilance and monitoring committees (VMC) for every works sanctioned under scheme at village level. The Gram Sabha is deciding the members of VMC which have members such as social workers, beneficiaries, leading local persons and experts. The muster roll verification and inspections of works has to be carried out for 10 percent and 100 percent manner at district and block level respectively. Block level inspection and monitoring is done by programme officer (PO) and Taluka Panchayat whereas district level inspection done by DPC and officials of District Panchayat. District- wise data on social audit, inspection carried, VMC meetings, number of complaints received and disposed etc. for Gujarat state have been presented in Table 2.7(i) to 2.7 (iii). In Gujarat State, of the total number of muster rolls used, 91 percent muster rolls were verified in 2008-09, 79.9 percent in 2009-10 and 95.2 percent in 2010-11. Among all 26 districts of the State, during 2008-09, cent percent verification of muster rolls carried out in Dang, Ahmedabad, Amreli, Kheda, Porbandar and Rajkot districts. However, muster rolls verification carried out for only 35.40 percent muster rolls in Mehsana and 53.80 percent in Vadodara districts. The inadequate staffs were one of the main reasons for low level verification of muster rolls in these districts. In 2009-10, except Mehsana, muster rolls verification carried out for atleast 90.00 percent in all the districts.

53

Table- 2.7 (i): District wise Social auditing and inspection of MNREGA works in Gujarat -2008-09
Muster Rolls Verified Name Of The District Social Audit Nos. of GP where social Audit held Inspections Conducted NOs. of Works Inspected at District Level NOs. of Works Inspected at Block Level Gram Sabha Held Complaints Nos. of Nos. of VMC Complaints meetings Received held Nos. of Complaints Disposed

Nos. of Muster Rolls Used

Verified

Total Gram Panchayats

Total Works Taken up

Total Gram Panchayats

Nos. of Gram Sabhas held

Banas Kantha Dang Dohad Narmada Panch Mahals Sabar Kantha Bharuch Navsari Valsad Ahmadabad Amreli Anand Bhavnagar Gandhinagar Jamnagar Junagadh Kachchh Kheda Mahesana Patan Porbandar Rajkot Surat Surendranagar Tapi Vadodara Gujarat

14563 5110 46802 12144 19295 5989 6649 11528 2223 915 1991 2449 2939 339 1015 12369 27513 5332 4822 8863 1206 2072 10021 88 16003 7615

(100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0)

14326 5110 46661 11324 17817 5973 5996 10774 1796 915 1991 2435 2919 336 819 7965 25780 5332 1706 8283 1206 2072 9444 88 13963 4097

(98.4) (100.0) (99.7) (93.2) (92.3) (99.7) (90.2) (93.5) (80.8) (100.0) (100.0) (99.4) (99.3) (99.1) (80.7) (64.4) (93.7) (100.0) (35.4) (93.5) (100.0) (100.0) (94.2) (100.0) (87.3) (53.8)

783 70 459 219 668 708 295 364 344 516 1258 352 240 294 664 267 334 323 589 464 128 1663 625 67 280 891

(100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0)

783 70 459 219 621 708 295 286 100 149 1258 352 165 10 136 154 334 323 543 314 128 1663 625 33 280 452

(100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (93.0) (100.0) (100.0) (78.6) (29.1) (28.9) (100.0) (100.0) (68.8) (3.4) (20.5) (57.7) (100.0) (100.0) (92.2) (67.7) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (49.3) (100.0) (50.7)

6381 1200 7517 3049 5792 3468 2029 1406 357 327 1258 516 440 225 243 267 408 701 839 1672 167 1663 1819 88 2432 2014

(100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0)

0 128 707 337 532 340 93 141 108 45

(0.0) (10.7) (9.4) (11.1) (9.2) (9.8) (4.6) (10.0) (30.3) (13.8)

5876 902 5326 2360 5285 3468 1927 1406 357 327 1258 516 440 208 169 161 408 701 547 1249 147 1579 1754 88 2056 1798 40313

(92.1) (75.2) (70.9) (77.4) (91.2) (100.0) (95.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (92.4) (69.5) (60.3) (100.0) (100.0) (65.2) (74.7) (88.0) (94.9) (96.4) (100.0) (84.5) (89.3) (87.1)

783 70 459 219 668 708 543 364 344 516 613 352 771 588 664 820 615 559 589 464 150 844 566 615 283 3444

(100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0)

783 1003 1400 219 668 1378 543 363 340 516 613 704 771 588 664 1190 615 3382 589 464 408 844 1656 615 849 4194

(100.0) (1432.9) (305.0) (100.0) (100.0) (194.6) (100.0) (99.7) (98.8) (100.0) (100.0) (200.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (145.1) (100.0) (605.0) (100.0) (100.0) (272.0) (100.0) (292.6) (100.0) (300.0) (121.8)

783 0 80 219 621 229 0 363 211 516 613 1056 240 294 0 240 615 3382 585 0 408 0 1656 615 849 0 13575

1 0 36 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 8 1 2 0 1 12 0 2 5 32 0 0 2 2 0 2 115

1 0 36 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 4 1 2 0 1 6 0 2 1 27 0 0 1 2 0 2 91

(100.0) 1258 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) 51 17 0 0 59 387 75 19 51 20 166 42 5 188 0 (9.9) (3.9) (0.0) (0.0) (22.1) (94.9) (10.7) (2.3) (3.1) (12.0) (10.0) (2.3) (5.7) (7.7) (0.0)

229855 (100.0)

209128 (91.0)

12865 (100.0)

10460 (81.3)

46278 (100.0)

4769 (10.3)

16611 (100.0)

25359 (152.7)

Source:http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx Note: The figures in parentheses are percentages of respective total

54

Table- 2.7 (ii): District wise Social auditing and inspection of MNREGA works in Gujarat -2009-10
Muster Rolls Verified Name Of The District Nos. of Muster Rolls Used Verified Social Audit Total Gram Panchayats Nos. of GP where social Audit held Total Works Taken up Inspections Conducted NOs. of Works NOs. of Works Inspected at Inspected at District Level Block Level Total Gram Panchayats Gram Sabha Held Nos. of Gram Sabhas held

Complaints
Nos. of Nos. of Nos. of VMC Complaints Complaints meetings Received Disposed held

Banas Kantha Dang Dohad Narmada Panch Mahals Bharuch Navsari Valsad Ahmadabad Amreli Anand Bhavnagar Gandhinagar Jamnagar Junagadh Kachchh Kheda Mahesana Patan Porbandar Rajkot Surat Tapi Vadodara

43130 (100.0) 14896 (100.0) 62190 (100.0) 20706 (100.0) 54365 (100.0) 12130 (100.0) 15850 (100.0) 12013 (100.0) 11317 (100.0) 10376 (100.0) 10547 (100.0) 11899 (100.0) 2463 (100.0) 15199 (100.0) 32326 (100.0) 35836 (100.0) 17260 (100.0) 10591 (100.0) 8855 9445 (100.0) (100.0)

41286

(95.7)

783 70 473 219 668 716 543 366 345 516 590 352 771 294 664 820 615 559 590 464 150 843 567 615 283 863

(100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0)

783 70 473 219 624 716 543 366 345 516 590 327 771 294 664 820 615 559 432 459 150 843 567 615 283 863

(100.0) 19167 (100.0) (100.0) 3167

686

(3.6) (49.5) (7.7) (8.8) (10.2) (10.1) (8.6) (25.2) (10.6) (1.5) (10.0) (10.4) (10.0) (22.2) (1.1) (1.6) (10.4) (11.9) (6.3) (10.0) (9.2) (1.0) (1.2) (10.0) (4.9) (8.0)

19167 (100.0) 2100 16971 8514 (66.3) (99.3) (82.3)

783 70 473 219 668 716 543 366 345 516 590 352 771 294 664 820 615 559 590 464 150 843 567 615 283 863

(100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0)

783 280 473 219 668 543 366 345 516 590 771 294 664 821 615 590 151 843 615 849

(100.0) (400.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.1) (100.0) (100.0) (100.7) (100.0) (100.0) (300.0)

783 280 473 219 668 716 0 366 345 516 590 2169 771 294 664 940 615 2572 590 813 151 843 1528 60 849 863 18678

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 4 67 0 0 0 54 0 50 12 0 0 0 195

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 53 0 0 0 38 0 41 9 0 0 0 149

14896 (100.0) 62190 (100.0) 19086 (92.2) 54365 (100.0) 14938 (100.0) 11613 14878 11705 10975 (95.7) (93.9) (97.4) (97.0)

(100.0) 1567 910

(100.0) 17087 (100.0) 1317 (100.0) 10344 (100.0) (93.4) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (92.9) (100.0) (100.0) 19206 (100.0) 1962 8741 6673 8940 9901 2864 7735 2469 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) 752 946 165 990 298 773 548 125 268

19206 (100.0) 25677 (100.0) 8599 6573 8617 9901 2864 7735 2469 12568 (98.4) (98.5) (96.4) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (76.8)

Sabar Kantha 14938 (100.0)

(100.0) 25677 (100.0) 2597 (100.0) 1684

(100.0) 2148 (300.0)

(100.0) 10784 (100.0)

10784 (100.0)

10376 (100.0) 10547 (100.0) 11899 (100.0) 2463 (100.0) 15199 (100.0) 32326 (100.0) 33781 6860 8855 9332 (94.3) (64.8) (100.0) (98.8) 17260 (100.0)

(100.0) 1291 (366.8)

(100.0) 11766 (100.0) (100.0) 16372 (100.0)

11766 (100.0) 13535 (100.0) 10192 (100.0) 943 5918 2828 7183 (90.6) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0)

(100.0) 13535 (100.0) 1412 (100.0) 10192 (100.0) 1213 (73.2) (98.9) (100.0) (100.0) 1041 5918 2828 7183 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) 66 591 259 235 86 507

(100.0) 2572 (460.1) (100.0) 1856 (400.0)

24186 (100.0) 24673 (100.0) 44273 (100.0) 34706 (100.0)

24186 (100.0) 24673 (100.0) 23000 (100.0) 43790 34469 (98.9) (99.3)

(100.0) 24186 (100.0)

24186 (100.0) 15903 (100.0) 10383 (100.0) 21074 (100.0)

(100.0) 1528 (269.5)

Surendranagar 23000 (100.0)

(100.0) 15903 (100.0) 1595 (100.0) 10383 (100.0) (100.0) 21074 (100.0) 1677

(100.0) 4007 (464.3)

Gujarat 577170 (100.0) 564948 (97.9) 13739 (100.0) 13507 (98.3) 293136 (100.0) 23229 (7.9) Source:http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx Note: The figures in parentheses are percentages of respective total

285656 (97.4) 13739 (100.0) 24398 (177.6)

55

Table- 2.7 (iii): District wise Social auditing and inspection of MNREGA works in Gujarat -2010-11 (Till Aug 2010)
Muster Rolls Verified Name Of The District BanasKantha Dang Dohad Narmada PanchMahals SabarKantha Bharuch Navsari Valsad Ahmadabad Amreli Anand Bhavnagar Gandhinagar Jamnagar Junagadh Kachchh Kheda Mahesana Patan Porbandar Rajkot Surat Surendranagar Tapi Nos. of Muster Rolls Used 14460 11965 23594 6266 12944 7842 3162 4270 4346 5149 10780 1909 7080 885 2726 19726 33734 2702 921 1950 4733 9606 3639 20609 5720 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Verified 12382 11965 22291 4881 12944 7842 2736 4260 4118 5149 10780 1574 7080 885 2496 19726 29757 2702 921 1950 4594 9215 3639 20609 5720 (85.6) (100.0) (94.5) (77.9) (100.0) (100.0) (86.5) (99.8) (94.8) (100.0) (100.0) (82.5) (100.0) (100.0) (91.6) (100.0) (88.2) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (97.1) (95.9) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Social Audit Total Gram Panchayats 783 70 473 219 668 716 543 366 345 0 590 352 771 294 664 820 615 559 593 464 337 843 567 615 283 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (0.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Inspections Conducted Nos. of GP Total Works where social Taken up Audit held 302 70 0 668 716 161 345 0 0 191 771 294 0 113 615 305 0 355 337 843 0 615 111 (38.6) (100.0) (0.0) (100.0) (100.0) (44.0) (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (54.3) (100.0) (100.0) (0.0) (13.8) (100.0) (54.6) (0.0) (76.5) (100.0) (100.0) (0.0) (100.0) (39.2) 4279 1425 7082 4450 4599 4197 1712 1296 1673 987 899 374 330 136 602 682 801 1114 0 973 279 1045 1020 1126 790 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (0.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Gram Sabha Held NOs. of Works NOs. of Works Total Gram Inspected at Inspected at Panchayats District Level Block Level 93 159 707 48 486 449 325 66 168 74 95 38 33 77 213 83 85 112 0 973 279 12 15 110 123 115 4938 (2.2) (11.2) (10.0) (1.1) (10.6) (10.7) (19.0) (5.1) (10.0) (7.5) (10.6) (10.2) (10.0) (56.6) (35.4) (12.2) (10.6) (10.1) (0.0) (100.0) (100.0) (1.1) (1.5) (9.8) (15.6) (2.7) (10.7) 1474 1425 7082 2038 4689 4197 642 1296 1591 987 899 374 330 136 602 73 801 1114 0 464 279 997 1020 1126 710 (34.4) (100.0) (100.0) (45.8) (102.0) (100.0) (37.5) (100.0) (95.1) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (10.7) (100.0) (100.0) (0.0) (47.7) (100.0) (95.4) (100.0) (100.0) (89.9) 783 70 473 219 668 716 543 366 345 516 590 352 771 294 664 820 615 559 593 464 150 843 567 615 283 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Complaints Nos. of Nos. of Nos. of Complaints Complaints Nos. of Gram VMC Disposed Sabhas held meetings Received held 85 70 0 0 668 716 543 366 345 516 386 352 771 294 0 113 286 579 0 464 150 843 0 615 111 (10.9) (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (65.4) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (0.0) (13.8) (46.5) (103.6) (0.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (0.0) (100.0) (39.2) 85 70 0 0 668 1432 543 720 345 516 0 2169 771 294 0 660 0 579 0 464 150 843 0 0 111 650 11070 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 4 100 0 0 0 36 6 53 6 0 1 0 216 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 3 92 0 0 0 20 4 45 0 0 1 0 174

(100.0) 1499 (684.5)

(100.0) 1135 (209.0)

Vadodara 14458 (100.0) 13592 (94.0) 863 (100.0) 379 (43.9) Gujarat 235176 (100.0) 223808 (95.2) 13413 (100.0) 9825 (73.2) Source:http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx Note: The figures in parentheses are percentages of respective total

4220 (100.0) 46091 (100.0)

4192 (99.3) 38538 (83.6)

863 (100.0) 13742 (100.0)

779 (90.3) 9052 (65.9)

56

Among selected districts, in each year, cent percent verification of muster rolls was undertaken at block level in Surendranagar. In 2009-10, cent percent muster rolls verification carried out at block level in Dahod, Jamnagar and Surendranagar districts. In 2008-09, except Jamnagar, block level verification was carried out for atlest 93.5 percent muster rolls in the remaing selected districts (see Table 2.7(i) to 2.7 (iii)). From the data, it can be conclude that block level verification of muster rolls carried out in Gujarat was close to suggested norms in the Act. The social audit of the works undertaken under the MNREGA is done by Gram Panchayats (GPs). In Gujarat, social audit was conducted in 81.31 percent Gram Panchayats in 2008-09. Among all districts of the State, record of conducting social audit of the works undertaken in 2008-09 was very poor for Gandhinagar (3.40%), Jamnagar (20.40%) and Valsad (29.10%) districts. For 2009-10, much improvement was seen in respect of conducting number of social audit of works done. Out of 26 districts, all Gram Panchayats of 22 districts in 2009-10 conducted cent percent social audit. In Mehsana, social audit was held in only 73.20 percent Gram Panchayats. All Gram Panchayats of the selected districts held social audit of works for year 2009-10. However, as the 2008-09 was the initial year of implementation, social audit was not conducted by many Gram Panchayats of Navsari, Jamnagar and Surendranagar districts. In the first five months of 2010-11, not a single Gram Panchayat of Dahod and Jamnagar district had conducted social audit. Thus, compare to other selected districts, record of conducting social audit seem to be much poor for Jamnagar and Navsari districts. As per data given in Table 2.7(i) to 2.7 (iii), the picture of social audit looks rosy but in majority cases attendance in the meetings was poor and it has been done to complete the formality. The most of the participations in the meeting were found unaware about their role in conducting social audit. Under the Act, there is a provision of block and district level inspection of the works taken up. The data given in Table 2.7 (i) to 2.7 (iii) reveals significant variation across districts in respect of works inspected at district level. Number of works inspected at district level varied from zero (Banaskantha) to 100 percent (Amreli) in 2008-09. Among selected districts, record of number of works inspected at district

57

level is very poor for Banaskantha and Jamnagar districts. For year 2009-10 and 2010-11, record of number of works inspected at block level in selected districts has been nearly satisfactory. However, in year 2008-09, it was poor for Jamnagar and Dahod districts. The inadequate staff at block and district level for carrying technical functions of the programme impacted adversely on the quality of works and frequency of inspections. The MNREGA involves participatory process of planning and implementation of works through proactive role of Gram Sabha. The data given in Table 2.7 (i) to 2.7 (iii) reveals that in Dang district against 70 Gram Panchayats, Total numbers of Gram Sabhas held in 2008-09 were1003 (1433%). Similarly in Dahod, Anand, Sabarkantha, Kheda, Porbandar, Surat and Tapi districts, numbers of Gram Sabhas held in 2008-09 were held atleast once. In year 2009-10, in each village of all districts of the state, Gram Sabhas were held atleast once (Table 2.7 (i) to 2.7 (iii)). In 2008-09, not a single meeting of VMC was held in Dang, Bharuch , Jamnagar, Patan, Rajkot and Vadodara districts. In 2009-10, also VMC meeting not held in Bharuch district. Thus, across districts of the state, there exists a wide variation in respect of numbers of VMC meeting held. According to public opinion, majority Gram Sabhas were not held in the true spirits of participation. Most of the Gram Sabhas and VMC meetings were held just to complete mere formality. The bureaucracy is dominating the process of planning. Generally, the attendance in majority Gram Sabhas was found low. In majority villages, either VMC are not formed or are mostly inactive. The villagers who attended Gram Sabhas were pro Sarpanch and generally have no knowledge of how to conduct social audits. During period 2008-09 to 2010-11 (Till Auguest-2010), Gujarat received only 526 complaints on various issues related with job cards, implementation and wage payment under MNREGA. Out of these 526 complaints, 414 complaints were disposed by the concern block/district/state authorities. The complaints were higher in Patan (27) district in 2008-09. It was higher in Junagadh (53), Patan (38) and Rajkot (47) districts in 2009-10. In selected districts, except Jamnagar and Dahod, number of complaints lodged were nil or very negligible. The negligible quantum of complaints not implies smooth and very well functioning of the scheme. There is a

58

voice of discontent, but workers hailing from weaker sections have either no courage to lodge complaints or no time or lack awareness. 2.2.6 Unemployment Allowance: As per act, employment must be given within the 15 days of work application by an employment seeker. If employment is not provided within 15 days, daily unemployment allowance in cash has to be paid as per provision made in the Act. Liability of payment of unemployment allowance is of the state government. Payment due was highest for Dahod followed by Kachchh, Sabarkanta Vadodara and Banaskantha districts. The data on unemployment allowance due and amount of allowance paid in 2010-11 (upto Auguset-2010) have been given in Table 2.8. From the 26 districts of
Table 2.8: Unemployment Allowance Paid (2010-11)-Gujarat
District Ahmadabad Amreli Anand Banas Kantha Bharuch Bhavnagar Dang Dohad Gandhinagar Jamnagar Junagadh Kachchh Kheda Mahesana Narmada Navsari Panch Mahals Patan Porbandar Rajkot Sabar Kantha Surat Surendranagar Tapi Vadodara Valsad Total Unemployment Allowance Due No. of Days 479 0 2294 3778 285 42 1303 13714 172 609 841 7024 21 725 2138 286 1129 723 301 2099 5616 454 12 769 4072 1043 49929 Unemployment Allowance Paid No. of Days Amount (Rs.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Source: http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx Date: 11/01/2011

state, unemployment allowance due was highest for Dahod (13714 days) followed by Kachchh (7024 days), Sabarkanta and Vadodara districts. It is surprising to note that

59

payment of unemployment allowance due for 49929 days but not paid to any one till August 2010 (see Table 2.8). It is learnt that since the payment of unemployment allowance comes from states exchequer, state government has given instruction at district/block level to avoid payment of this allowance to the possible extent. Further, there is no collective strength on the part of people to demand due unemployment allowance. It is learnt from the discussion with the people that some Gram Panchayats are accepting only non-dated applications for demanding employment. Doing so, Gram Panchayats are avoiding the cases of payment of unemployment allowance and indirectly diluting the legal right of people to avail unemployment allowance. 2.2.7 Wage Payment through Banks/Post Offices: With a view to minimize corruption and malpractices of under payment of wages and to bring transparency in wage payment, payment of wages through Banks/Post offices made compulsory and fully effective since 2008-09 onward. Districts-wise details of number of Banks/Post offices accounts and payment made through it have been given in Table 2.9 (i) to 2.9 (iii)). The data reveals that of the total job cards holders in Gujarat State during fiscal year 2008-09, about 15.68 lakh households (54.48%) opened account either in nearest Banks or Post Offices. About 28.10 lakh (78.71%) in 2010-11 and in 2009-10 (till August, 2010) about 31.86 lakh households opened accounts in Banks/Post Offices. Of the total accounts, 35.43 percent accounts in 2010-11, 32.54 percent accounts in 2009-10 and 38.49 percent accounts in 2008-09 were opened in Banks. This shows that of the total accounts opened in Gujarat State during 2008-09 to 2010-11, about 65 percent accounts were opened in Post Offices and 35 percent in Banks. The majority MNREGA workers opted for Post Offices accounts mainly because of it nearest location and easy access. Banks/Post offices accounts were opened either on individual name or joint names. Of the total accounts opened in Banks/Post offices in Gujarat during 2008-09 to 2010-11 (till August, 2010), nearly 51 percents accounts were joint and rest individuals. In Narmada, Sabarkantha, Ahmedabad, Bhavnagar, Junagadh, Kheda, Porbandar and Surendranagar districts, cent percent bank accounts were joint whereas in Bharuch and Rajkot districts cent percent bank accounts were individuals.

60

Table 2.9 (i) : District -wise W age Paym ent Through Banks / Post offices in Gujarat-2008-09

No. of Bank Account Opened Joint 3232 4865 54488 6056 14533 0 11065 9815 9575 256 500 1845 378 6592 32 2097 0 18382 12034 10885 14439 407251 (67.5) (97.0) (76.0) (100.0) (67.8) (0.0) (98.5) (51.9) (69.5) (0.4) (7.5) (12.2) (4.7) (41.4) (1.2) (100.0) (0.0) (60.6) (100.0) (85.6) (52.1) (67.5)

Nam e of The District

Individual (32.5) (3.0) (24.0) (0.0) (32.2) (0.0) (100.0) (1.5) (48.1) (0.0) (30.5) (99.6) (0.0) (92.5) (87.8) (0.0) (95.3) (0.0) (58.6) (98.8) (0.0) (100.0) (39.4) (0.0) (14.4) (47.9) (32.5)

BanasKantha 1554 Dang Dohad 151 17221

Am ount of No. of Post O ffice Account O pened w ages Disbursed Total Individual Joint Total through bank (Rs. in Lakhs) 4786 (100.0) 108 (21.8) 45173 (98.2) 820 (1.8) 45993 (100.0) 5016 (100.0) 6056 (100.0) 168 229 501 710 10 162 8 121 109 71 72 23 59 563 66 100 (37.0) 27650 (100.0) (89.4) (26.5) (0.0) (83.1) (80.0) (7.1) (41.9) (96.9) (0.0) (99.0) (82.3) (0.0) (86.5) (0.0) (74.2) (99.7) (0.0) (100.0) (8.7) (0.0) (15.4) (59.6) (58.0) (50.2) 63152 (100.0) (59.1) 13818 (60.8) (6.6) (29.8) (61.8) (46.7) (74.3) (83.9) (61.3) (49.0) (72.3) (7.5) (52.0) (70.1) (80.0) (14.6) (28.7) (60.1) (60.8) 0 47965 749 3605 0 4871 6259 0 0 10283 53719 0 9229 2130 0 5352 44510 559667 0 8577 0 38410 9777 9450 9860 0 5004 646 50 1344 5614 3571 149 10430 0 22233 22269 29500 30134 404666 (0.0) (10.6) (0.0) (73.5) (16.9) (20.0) (92.9) (0.0) (58.1) (3.1) (1.0) (17.7) (13.5) (25.8) (0.3) (100.0) (0.0) (91.3) (100.0) (84.6) (40.4) (42.0) 27650 (100.0) 80702 (100.0) 63152 (100.0) 52228 (100.0) 57742 (100.0) 47219 (100.0) 10609 (100.0) 55337 (100.0) 8609 (100.0) 20659 (100.0) 4921 7603 (100.0) (100.0)

Am ount of W ages disbursed Individual through post office (Rs. in 386 (78.2) 46727 (92.0) 285 (62.8) 27801 (85.1) 332 (10.4) 89346 (58.6) 227 (49.9) 63152 (91.2) 346 (40.9) 20732 (28.1) 457 (39.2) 0 (0.0) 137 (93.3) 49242 (83.4) 90 (35.7) 37935 (64.9) 19 (71.9) 67 (38.0) 83 (53.8) 8 9854 7811 0 (33.4) (34.9) (0.0) 187 (60.8) 55337 (42.7) 43 (38.0) 85569 (99.0) (26.8) 11073 (95.3) 0 3 19613 56266 0 33345 14070 0 7187 57784 755969 (0.0) (0.0) (65.9) (99.7) (0.0) (100.0) (25.7) (0.0) (15.1) (56.5) (48.2)

Total Accounts Joint 4052 4865 63065 6056 52943 9777 20515 19675 74400 14579 902 550 3189 5992 10163 181 12527 0 40615 34303 40385 44573 811917 (8.0) (14.9) (41.4) (8.8) (71.9) (16.6) (35.1) (66.6) (57.3) (65.1) (1.0) (4.7) (14.0) (12.1) Total 50779 (100.0) 32666 (100.0) 69208 (100.0) 73675 (100.0) 59019 (100.0) 58450 (100.0) 29529 (100.0) 129737 (100.0) 22390 (100.0) 86471 (100.0) 26147 (100.0) 11623 (100.0) 22743 (100.0) 35530 (100.0) 49560 (100.0)

Total Am ount Disbursed(Rs.in lakhs) 494 453 456 847 147 252 27 308 176 114 155 31 70 918 445 204 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0)

71709 (100.0) 2878 (89.7) 72125 21447 (100.0) 1277 (100.0) 11231 (100.0) 18920 (100.0) 13781 (100.0) 65812 (100.0) 6702 (100.0) 15140 (100.0) 7988 (100.0) 15922 2579 2097 24116 30322 12034 12720 27713 603553

152411 (100.0) 3210 (100.0)

Narm ada 0 Panch 6914 M ahals Sabar Kantha 0 Bharuch Navsari Valsad Ahm adabad Am reli Anand Bhav nagar G andhinagar Jam nagar Junagadh Kachchh Kheda 1277 166 9105 0 4206 65556 0 6202 13295 0 7610 3

84311 (100.0) 84311 (100.0)

92691 (100.0) 92691 (100.0)

177002 (100.0) 177002 (100.0) 1167 (100.0)

(64.1) 37769

74400 (100.0) 74400 (100.0)

(39.2) 55337 (100.0) (62.3) 20013

12836 (100.0) 12836 (100.0)

13311 (100.0) 13311 (100.0)

26147 (100.0)

11 (16.3) 19554 (86.0) 355 (38.7) 104 (51.0) (27.3) (92.5) (48.0) (30.0) (19.9) (85.0) (71.0) (39.9) (39.2) 379 (85.1) 43568 (87.9)

20243 (100.0) 20243 (100.0) 34392 (100.0) 34395 (100.0)

15287 (100.0) 15287 (100.0) 41572 (100.0) 13854 53868 10430 9229 24363 22269 34852 74644 964333 75539 (100.0) 75539 (100.0)

35530 (100.0)

(14.7) 35958

109931 (100.0) 109934 (100.0)

Source:http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/hom e.aspx Note: The figures in parentheses are percentages of respective total

M ahesana 9330 Patan 2547 Porbandar 0 Rajkot 24116 Surat 11940 Surendranag 0 ar Tapi 1835 Vadodara 13274 G ujarat 196302

(100.0) 89 (100.0) 21 (100.0) 56 (100.0) 150 (100.0) 308 (100.0) 11 (100.0) 99 (100.0) 144 (100.0) 6832

(100.0) 34 (100.0) 260 (100.0) 51 (100.0) 64 (100.0) 77 (100.0) 63 (100.0) 244 (100.0) 96 (100.0) 4407

(34.1) 29776 (100.0) 123 (0.3) 56447 (100.0) 281 (100.0) 12527 (100.0) 107 (0.0) 33345 (100.0) 214 (74.3) 54685 (100.0) 385 (100.0) 34303 (100.0) 74 (84.9) 47572 (100.0) 343 (43.5) 102357 (100.0) 240 (51.8) 1567886 (100.0) 11241

61

Table 2.9 (ii) : District -wise Wage Payment Through Banks / Post offices in Gujarat-2009-10 Amount of No. of Bank Account Opened No. of Post Office Account Opened wages Name of The Disbursed District through bank Individual Joint Total Individual Joint Total Accounts (Rs. in Lakhs) BanasKantha 1641 (29.7) 3879 (70.3) 5520 (100.0) 104 (3.3) 188626 (95.0) 9835 (5.0) 198461 (100.0) Dang Dohad Narmada PanchMahals Sabar Kantha Bharuch Navsari Valsad Ahmadabad Amreli Anand Bhavnagar Gandhinagar Jamnagar Junagadh Kachchh Kheda Mahesana Patan Porbandar Rajkot Surat Surendranagar Tapi Vadodara 198 0 0 (3.0) (0.0) (0.0) 6441 (97.0) 6639 (100.0) 421 278 (24.8) (61.8) (13.1) (40.4) (37.8) (0.8) (33.1) (43.8) (39.7) (63.1) (44.3) (41.8) (93.1) (64.0) (59.7) 0.0 (22.3) (45.9) (0.0) (25.4) (39.3) (66.0) (4.2) (18.3) (38.0) 33771 91207 30313 0 71418 59529 24146 62787 11717 27414 10227 4468 14776 0 50 17055 72326 12268 10630 0 7139 73975 (98.3) (82.2) (29.9) (0.0) (85.6) (89.9) (29.4) (98.8) (42.0) (93.3) (26.8) (68.0) (89.9) 0.0 (0.0) (80.0) (74.2) (66.2) (20.7) 0.0 (10.5) (66.6) 590 19806 0 70914 11999 6700 58120 770 16161 1953 28004 2105 1655 5614 4275 25099 6276 0 40846 60719 37035 (1.7) (17.8) (0.0) (70.1) (14.4) (10.1) (70.6) (1.2) (58.0) (6.7) (73.2) (32.0) (10.1) (5.0) (20.0) (25.8) (33.8) 0.0 (79.3) (89.5) (33.4) 26826 (31.2) 20844 (33.0) 1247 (100.0) 13123 (39.3) 24422 (39.9) 39340 (53.5) 5063 920 (33.5) (6.7) 64705 (85.9) 14304 (59.5) 21957 (91.1) 0 7610 3 0 662 (0.0) (95.3) (0.0) (0.0) (31.2) 59203 (68.8) 86029 (100.0) 4345 7126 (100.0) 7126 (100.0) 42341 (67.0) 63185 (100.0) 1878 93699 (100.0) 93699 (100.0) 1649 0 (0.0) 1247 (100.0) 6 427 382 319 523 201 424 378 467 0 256 247 0 284 811 73 390 20256 (60.7) 33379 (100.0) 36839 (60.1) 61261 (100.0) 34244 (46.5) 73584 (100.0) 10052 (66.5) 15115 (100.0) 10652 (14.1) 75357 (100.0) 12830 (93.3) 13750 (100.0) 9740 2148 378 6740 0 1459 0 (40.5) 24044 (100.0) (8.9) (4.7) 24105 (100.0) 7988 (100.0)

Amount of Wages disbursed through post Individual office Accounts (Rs. in lakhs) 3030 (96.7) 190267 (93.3) (75.2) (38.2) (86.9) (59.6) (62.2) (99.2) (67.0) (56.2) (60.2) (36.8) (55.8) (58.1) (7.0) (36.0) (40.3) (77.6) (54.0) (74.7) (60.7) (34.0) (95.8) (81.7) (62.0) 33969 118033 70574 51157 0 72665 72652 48568 102127 16780 92119 11147 18772 36733 0 53 29695 72326 12930 33235 0 23626 105725 (82.9) (59.9) (90.8) (31.1) (0.0) (85.8) (72.9) (33.8) (74.5) (39.0) (88.0) (21.4) (61.3) (90.6) (0.0) (95.0) (0.0) (72.9) (74.2) (62.6) (30.7) (0.0) (22.3) (64.2)

Total Accounts Joint 13714 7031 79009 7126 (6.7) (17.1) (40.1) (9.2) Total Total Amount Disbursed (Rs.in lakhs)

203981 (100.0) 3134 (100.0) 41000 (100.0) 1696 (100.0) 197042 (100.0) 7027 (100.0) 77700 (100.0) 2129 (100.0) 164412 (100.0) 4650 (100.0) 84664 (100.0) 143527 (100.0) 137141 (100.0) 42993 (100.0) 104724 (100.0) 30617 (100.0) 40536 (100.0) 746 873 802 828 454 406 730 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0)

34361 (100.0) 1275 111013 (100.0) 2682 70574 (100.0) 1851 101227 (100.0) 2772 83417 (100.0) 740 66229 (100.0) 862 82266 (100.0) 491 63557 (100.0) 483 27878 (100.0) 305 29367 (100.0) 253 38231 (100.0) 590 6573 (100.0) 28 16431 (100.0) 263 41048 (100.0) 1182

70574 (100.0)

113255 (68.9) 11999 26956 94959 35014 26213 12605 40834 11845 3803 5992 11015 25099 7735 0 74955 82548 59013 (14.2) (27.1) (66.2) (25.5) (61.0) (12.0) (78.6) (38.7) (9.4) (5.0) (27.1) (25.8) (37.4) (0.0) (69.3) (77.7) (35.8)

135734 (100.0) 135734 (100.0) 2708

229433 (100.0) 229433 (100.0) 4357 (100.0) 99608 (100.0) 1288 (100.0)

51981 (100.0) 1014 (100.0)

52896 (100.0) 52896 (100.0) 1752 36999 (100.0) 37002 (100.0) (34.8) 19380 (100.0) (0.0) (68.8) (0.0) 0 (100.0) 2121 (100.0)

41048 (100.0)

93944 (100.0)

93944 (100.0) 2934 (100.0) 120858 (100.0) 3336 (100.0) 40710 (100.0) 537 (100.0)

107256 (95.0)

112870 (100.0) 3336 (100.0) 114866 21330 (100.0) 290 18544 (100.0) 838 93527 (100.0) 1962 51476 (100.0) 418 90473 (100.0) 1643 67858 (100.0) 1736 111010 (100.0) 1978

124713 (100.0) 124763 (100.0) 891

161712 (100.0) 161765 (100.0) 1147 (100.0) 97425 (100.0) 1813 (100.0) 20665 (100.0) 1122 (100.0) 126002 (100.0) 3233 (100.0) 108190 (100.0) 1229 (100.0) 106174 (100.0) 2126 (100.0) 164738 (100.0) 3191 (100.0)

12640 (65.2)

97425 (100.0) 1813 (100.0)

32475 (100.0) 22605 (39.9) 0 (0.0) 16487 (43.0) 31750 (59.1)

32475 (100.0) 1271

93527 (100.0)

126002 (100.0)

34109 (60.1) 56714 (100.0) 29846 (100.0) 29846 (100.0) 21829 (57.0) 38316 (100.0)

90473 (100.0)

120319 (100.0) 120319 (100.0) 1716 (100.0)

21978 (40.9) 53728 (100.0) 1213

Gujarat 358822 (39.2) 555684 (60.8) 914506 (100.0) 18099 (34.5) 1095199 (57.8) 800444 (42.2) 1895643 (100.0) 34422 (65.5) 1454021 (51.7) 1356128 (48.3) 2810149 (100.0) 52518 (100.0) Source:http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx Note: The figures in parentheses are percentages of respective total

62

Table 2.9 (iii) : District -wise Wage Payment Through Banks / Post offices in Gujarat-2010-11 (Till Aug 2010) No. of Bank Account Opened Name of The District BanasKantha Dang Dohad Narmada PanchMahals SabarKantha Bharuch Navsari Valsad Ahmadabad Amreli Anand Bhavnagar Gandhinagar Jamnagar Junagadh Kachchh Kheda Mahesana Patan Porbandar Rajkot Surat Surendranagar Tapi Vadodara Individual 1641 211 4042 0 (29.7) (2.6) (57.0) (0.0) Joint 3879 7898 3054 (70.3) (97.4) (43.0) Total 5520 8109 7096 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Amount of wages Disbursed through bank Accounts (Rs. in Lakhs) 0 298 507 23 586 587 0 248 147 180 471 23 218 101 281 1098 0 14 22 0 220 298 250 41 115 457 (0.0) (22.8) (24.8) (3.9) (48.8) (28.4) (0.0) (52.1) (31.0) (50.3) (35.9) (21.8) (35.0) (95.6) (57.8) (52.0) (0.0) (5.5) (29.7) (0.0) (35.7) (51.0) (72.3) (2.2) (19.6) (46.8) No. of Post Office Account Opened Individual 193294 (95.2) 36417 91207 25930 32898 0 71418 60415 30525 26823 15360 27416 10229 4668 15606 0 50 17055 78285 22428 10763 0 7982 81325 (98.0) (82.2) (30.3) (30.3) (0.0) (85.6) (90.0) (30.5) (54.0) (54.8) (93.4) (26.4) (68.9) (90.4) (0.0) (0.0) (80.0) (76.5) (70.5) (20.4) (0.0) (8.0) (65.9) Joint 9835 746 (4.8) (2.0) Total 203129 (100.0) 37163 (100.0) 85474 (100.0) Amount of Wages disbursed through post office Accounts (Rs. in lakhs) 1612 1011 1539 561 615 1483 149 228 328 178 843 84 405 5 205 1011 2373 240 53 763 395 286 96 1854 471 518 17306 (100.0) (77.2) (75.2) (96.1) (51.2) (71.6) (99.9) (48.0) (69.1) (49.8) (64.2) (78.4) (65.0) (5.1) (42.1) (47.9) (100.0) (94.4) (70.1) (100.0) (64.2) (49.0) (27.8) (97.8) (80.4) (53.1) (73.7) Total Accounts Individual 194935 36628 118033 29972 59472 0 72665 75519 58108 63135 19275 92121 11179 23952 37563 0 116377 53 29695 79313 24876 147638 33368 0 26000 124575 1474452 (93.4) (80.9) (59.9) (32.4) (32.5) (0.0) (85.8) (73.6) (34.7) (51.1) (16.3) (88.0) (21.1) (66.8) (90.8) (0.0) (95.1) (0.0) (29.2) (75.9) (64.0) (100.0) (30.1) (0.0) (18.0) (65.7) (46.3) 13714 8644 79009 62598 123656 239572 11999 27088 109398 60348 98875 12578 41721 11931 3803 126545 5992 162208 72015 25153 13997 0 77491 139446 118309 65116 1711206 Joint (6.6) (19.1) (40.1) (67.6) (67.5) (100.0) (14.2) (26.4) (65.3) (48.9) (83.7) (12.0) (78.9) (33.2) (9.2) (100.0) (4.9) (100.0) (70.8) (24.1) (36.0) (0.0) (69.9) (100.0) (82.0) (34.3) (53.7) Total 208649 45272 197042 92570 183128 239572 84664 102607 167506 123483 118150 104699 52900 35883 41366 126545 122369 162261 101710 104466 38873 147638 110859 139446 144309 189691 3185658 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Total Amount Disbursed (Rs.in lakhs) 1612 1309 2046 584 1201 2070 149 476 475 358 1314 107 623 106 486 2109 2373 254 75 763 615 584 346 1895 586 975 23491 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0)

26826 (31.2) 59203 (68.8) 26574 (35.7) 47809 (64.3) 1247 (100.0) 0 (0.0)

86029 (100.0) 74383 (100.0) 1247 (100.0)

19806 (17.8) 111013 (100.0) 59544 (69.7) 75847 (69.7) 108745 (100.0) 145920 (100.0) 145920 (100.0) 11999 (14.4) 6700 (10.0) 69414 (69.5) 22804 (46.0) 12650 (45.2) 1953 2105 1655 5614 4275 9399 0 (6.6) (31.1) (9.6) (4.9) (20.0) (29.5) (0.0) 28559 (73.6) 83417 (100.0) 67115 (100.0) 99939 (100.0) 49627 (100.0) 28010 (100.0) 29369 (100.0) 38788 (100.0) 6773 (100.0) 17261 (100.0) 114381 (100.0) 21330 (100.0) 31827 (100.0) 102491 (100.0) 52792 (100.0)

93652 (100.0) 93652 (100.0) 35492 (100.0) 67567 (100.0) 73856 (100.0) 90140 (100.0) 75330 (100.0) 14112 (100.0) 29110 (100.0) 24105 (100.0) 7988 (100.0)

15104 (42.6) 20388 (57.4) 27583 (40.8) 39984 (59.2) 36312 (49.2) 37544 (50.8) 3915 950 (4.3) (6.7) 86225 (95.7) 13162 (93.3) 9826 2148 378 (33.8) (8.9) (4.7) 64705 (85.9) 10625 (14.1) 19284 (66.2) 21957 (91.1) 0 7610 3 1028 2448 (0.0) (95.3) (0.0) (49.2) (34.7)

67915 (100.0) 67915 (100.0) 37404 (100.0) 37407 (100.0) 80380 (100.0) 2088 7046 (100.0) (100.0) 1060 4598 0 (50.8) (65.3) (0.0)

58630 (100.0) 58630 (100.0) 124804 (100.0) 124854 (100.0) 24093 (23.5) 102378 (100.0)

108767 (95.1)

12640 (15.7) 67740 (84.3)

45147 (100.0) 0 (0.0)

45147 (100.0) 58067 (100.0) 43949 (100.0) 66228 (100.0)

102491 (100.0)

22605 (38.9) 35462 (61.1) 18018 (41.0) 25931 (59.0) 43250 (65.3) 22978 (34.7)

42029 (79.6)

26916 (100.0) 26916 (100.0)

112530 (100.0) 112530 (100.0) 92378 (92.0) 100360 (100.0) 42138 (34.1) 123463 (100.0)

Gujarat 403100 (35.7) 725779 (64.3) 1128879 (100.0) 6185 (26.3) 1071352 (52.1) 985427 (47.9) 2056779 (100.0) Source:http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx Note: 1. Figure in brackets except coln.9 indicate percentage to respective total. 2. Figure in brackets except coln.9 indicate percentage to respective total amount disbursed.

63

The examination of account pattern in selected districts reveals surprising trend. In Surendranagar district, all banks/post offices accounts were opened on joint names. Note a single account opened as individual. Whereas, in Banaskantha, Navsari, Dahod and Jamnagar districts, more than 80 percent post office accounts were individual accounts. In Jamnagar, nearly 88 percent banks accounts were individual whereas in Banaskantha and Dahod districts nearly 68 percent or more bank accounts were joint names. There are few job card holders who have account in both, Bank and Post offices. The examination of data on wages disbursed through Banks/Post Offices shows that in Gujarat, of the total disbursed amount of Rs.87250 lakhs during 2008-09 to 2010-11 (till Aug. 2010), Rs.56135 lakhs (64.34%) was disbursed as wages through Post offices and rest through Banks. Among selected districts, in 2010-11 total wages (100%) in Banaskantha and nearly 98 percent wage amount in Surendranagar district was disbursed through Post offices. In 2008-09 and 2009-10 also, bulk of the wage amount disbursed through Post Offices in Banaskantha and Surendranagar districts. During period 2008-10, in Dahod and Jamnagar districts, wage payment made through Banks was much higher than Post Offices. The above analysis clearly brought out that MNREGA workers have high preference for receiving wage payment through account in post offices mainly due to relatively easy access and nearby location. 2.2.8 Work projection Under MNREGA for 2010-11: As per provision in the Act, every Gram Panchayat is suppose to prepare a shelf of projects to be executed under MNREGA in the next year. The GPs will send this plan to the Programme Officer (PO) for scrutiny and approval prior to commencement of the year in which these projects are to be executed. The PO will consolidate the plans of GPs and prepare an integrated plan at the Taluka level. Based on plan received from Taluka Panchayats and other proposals, an integrated plan for the district will be prepared and sanctioned by the District Panchayat. 1) For Gujarat State: Table 2.10 give details of projection of works to be executed under MNREGA in Gujarat state during fiscal year 2010-11. 64

Table 2.10: Work projection under MNREGA for 2010-11-Gujarat State Shelf of works Total No. of Total No. of No. of Works No. Of Through Which Spill over New Works Likely to Spill New Employment to be Works From Taken up in Over From Works Provided Previous Current Current Proposed Year Year Financial to for next Next financial financial Year Year 1008 12913 956 26807 Rural Connectivity (19.57) (12.52) (14.73) (11.26) Flood Control and 447 7184 573 15696 Protection (8.68) (6.96) (8.83) (6.59) Water Conservation 776 51324 2018 84605 and Water (15.07) (49.74) (31.10) (35.54) Harvesting 191 6062 355 15724 Drought Proofing (3.71) (5.88) (5.47) (6.60) Micro Irrigation Works Provision of Irrigation facility to Land Owned by Renovation of Traditional Water bodies Land Development Any Other activity Approved by MoRD Bharat Nirman Rajiv Gandhi Sewa Kendra Total of All Works 31 (0.60) 2150 (41.74) 518 (10.06) 26 (0.50) 4 (0.08) 0 (0.0) 1624 (1.57) 9026 (8.75) 6337 (6.14) 8261 (8.01) 446 (0.43) 0 (0.0) 42 (0.65) 1757 (27.08) 629 (9.69) 153 (2.36) 6 (0.09) 0 (0.0) 5419 (2.28) 39571 (16.62) 14804 (6.22) 32209 (13.53) 3248 (1.36) 1 (0.00)

Benefit Achieved Unit

Person days To be Generated

Estimated Cost (In Lakh) On Unskilled Wage 14549 (16.32) 8074 (9.06) 18668 (20.94) 5009 (5.62) 1755 (1.97) 10492 (11.77) 9640 (10.82) 3454 (3.87) 17480 (19.61) 16 (0.02) [60.45] [61.89] [64.91] [58.44] [59.47] [1.24] On Material including skilled and semiskilled wages 9520 [39.55] (17.20) 4971 [38.11] (8.98) 10090 (18.23) 3563 (6.44) 1196 (2.16) 6641 (12.00) 5228 (9.44) 1964 (3.55) 12179 (22.00) 9 (0.02) [35.09] [41.56] [40.53] [38.76]

Total 24070 (16.66) 13045 (9.03) 28758 (19.90) 8571 (5.93) 2951 (2.04) 17132 (11.86) 14868 (10.29) 5418 (3.75) 29659 (20.53) 25 (0.02) 144498 (100.00)

682278 599097 19930627 160666 1329722 8194006

14638166 (16.71) 8097338 (9.24) 16987461 (19.39) 4854989 (5.54) 1760055 (2.01) 10475433 (11.96) 9719998 (11.10) 3499525 (3.99) 17552145 (20.04) 15630 (0.02)

15808288 263846 420486

[64.84] [63.74] [58.94]

[35.16] [36.26] [41.06]

[62.52]

[37.48]

5151 103177 6489 238084 87600740 89137 55361 47389016 [61.69] [38.31] (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) Source: http://nregalndc.nic.in downloaded on 20th January, 2011, Previous year: 2008-09; Current F.Y.:2009-10; Projection year: 2010-11, Note: Figures in ( ) denote percentage to total of all works, Figures in [ ] denote percentage to total cost

65

As per proposed plan, total numbers of works to be executed in year 2010-11 are 244573, of which 6489 are spill over works of year 2009-10 and 238084 new works proposed for 2010-11. From the total new works suggested for 2010-11, Water Conservation and Water Harvesting (WCWH) works have highest share of 35.54 percent. It is followed by works of provision of Irrigation on Land Owned (16.62%), Land Development (LD) works (13.53%) and Rural Connectivity (11.26%). It is estimated that by undertaking 244573 works in 2010-11, 8.76 crore person days of employment will be generated. In the total person days to be generated through shelf of works, the major contributors are activities approved by MoRD (20.04%), WCWH works (19.39%), Rural Connectivity (16.31%) and provision of Irrigation Facility on Own Land (11.96%). The estimated cost of undertaking all proposed works in 2010-11 is Rs.1444.98 crore. From the total estimated cost, Rs.891.37 crore (61.69%) will be spend as wages on unskilled labour and Rs.553.61 (38.31%) on material and skilled/semi skilled wages. This shows that 60:40 expenditure ratio for wage costs and material costs stipulated in the MNREGA Act have been maintained in the proposed plan. The data further reveals that for drought proofing works and activities approved by MoRD, estimated cost on material and skilled / semi skilled wages marginally higher than stipulated limit of 40 percent. The examination of estimated cost for different activities reveals that highest provision of Rs.296.59 crore (20.53%) has been for activities approved by MoRD. It is Rs.287.58 crore (19.90%) for WCWH works and Rs.240.70 crore (16.66%) for Rural connectivity works. Thus, in terms of employment generation and expenditure, water conservation and water harvesting works, activities approved by MoRD and Rural connectivity works are most important. 2) For Selected Districts: The details of projection of works to be undertaken under MNREGA in selected districts during fiscal year 2010-11 are given in Table 2.10 (i) to (v). In the total number of new works proposed for the fiscal year 2010-11, the highest priority assign to WCWH works in work projection plan of Banaskantha, Navsari and Surendranagar districts. The second priority assign to it in Jamnagar and Dahod work plans. Rural Connectivity (RC) received the 66

Table 2.10(i): Work projection under MNREGA for 2010-11-Banaskantha District Shelf of works Through Which Employment to be Provided Rural Connectivity Flood Control and Protection Water Conservation and Water Harvesting Drought Proofing Micro Irrigation Works Provision of Irrigation facility to Land Owned by Renovation of Traditional Water bodies Land Development Any Other activity Approved by MoRD Total of All Works Total No. of Spill over Works From Previous year 2 (5.00) 0 (0.0) 5 (12.50) 31 (77.50) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 2 (5.00) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 40 (100.00) Total No. of New Works Taken up in Current Year 1 (0.89) 0 (0.0) 111 (99.11) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 112 (100.00) No. of Works Likely to Spill Over From Current Financial Year to Next financial 1 (16.67) 0 (0.0) 5 (83.33) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 6 (100.00) No. Of New Works Proposed for next financial year 482 (10.26) 370 (7.87) 2607 (55.48) 314 (6.68) 49 (1.04) 290 (6.17) 286 (6.09) 178 (3.79) 123 (2.62) 4699 (100.00) 0.0 114.0 11413.6 531733.0 168.64 5.0 7946.5 729958 24.3 Person days To be Generated 836713 (19.04) 113996 (2.59) 989321 (22.52) 914000 (20.80) 74003 (1.68) 129003 (2.94) 460000 (10.47) 112003 (2.55) 765000 (17.41) 4394039 (100.00) Estimated Cost (In Lakhs) On Unskilled Wage 836.71 (19.04) 114 (2.59) 988.9 (22.51) 914 (20.80) 74 (1.68) 129 (2.94) 460 (10.47) 112 (2.55) 765 (17.41) 4393.61 (100.00) [62.05] [60.00] [62.50] [62.50] [62.50] [62.50] [62.50] [62.49] [62.50] [62.50] On Material including skilled and semiskilled wages 501.99 (18.68) 68.4 (2.55) 593.6 (22.09) 548.4 (20.41) 44.4 (1.65) 77.4 (2.88) 276 (10.27) 67.2 (2.50) 510 (18.98) 2687.4 (100.00) [37.95] [40.00] [37.50] [37.50] [37.50] [37.50] [37.50] [37.51] [37.50] [37.50] Total

Benefit Achieved Unit 884.231

1338.7 (18.91) 182.4 (2.58) 1582.5 (22.35) 1462.4 (20.65) 118.4 (1.67) 206.4 (2.91) 736 (10.39) 179.2 (2.53) 1275 (18.01) 7081 (100.00)

Source: http://nregalndc.nic.in downloaded on 20th January, 2011, Previous year: 2008-09; Current F.Y.:2009-10; Projection year: 2010-11, Note: Figures in ( ) denote percentage to total of all works, Figures in [ ] denote percentage to total cost

67

Table 2.10(ii): Work projection under MNREGA for 2010-11-Dahod District Shelf of works Through Which Employment to be Provided Total No. of Spill over Works From Previous Year Total No. of New Works Taken up in Current Year No. of Works Likely to Spill Over From Current Financial Year to Next Financial
0 (0.0) 215 (10.44) 1026 (49.81) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 819 (39.76)

No. Of New Works Proposed for next Financial Year

Benefit Achieved Unit

Person days To be Generated

Estimated Cost (In Lakhs)

On Unskilled Wage

On Material including skilled and semiskilled wages

Total

Rural Connectivity Flood Control and Protection Water Conservation and Water Harvesting Drought Proofing Micro Irrigation Works Provision of Irrigation facility to Land Owned by Renovation of Traditional Water bodies

53 (4.65) 218 (19.11) 35 (3.07) 4 (0.35) 11 (0.96) 819 (71.78)

66 (1.25) 647 (12.21) 1894 (35.75) 57 (1.08) 2 (0.04) 1392 (26.27)

498 (1.61) 2364 (7.66) 5971 (19.35) 641 (2.08) 500 (1.62) 2491 (8.07)

349 76203

834405 (5.64) 3200701 (21.63) 2963996 (20.03) 729736 (4.93) 106500 (0.72) 3543475 (23.94)

834 (5.64) 3201 (21.63) 2964 (20.02) 730 (4.93) 107 (0.72) 3543 (23.94)

[62.48] [62.48]

501 (5.64) 1922 (21.62) 1779 (20.01) 438 (4.93) 64 (0.72) 2126 (23.92)

[37.52] [37.52]

1336 (5.64) 5123 (21.62) 4743 (20.02) 1168 (4.93) 170 (0.72) 5670 (23.93)

1952218

[62.49]

[37.51]

231 202548

[62.50] [62.50]

[37.50] [37.50]

5594413

[62.50]

[37.50]

1 (0.09)

373 (7.04)

0 (0.0)

1555 (5.04)

7399859

2022329 (13.66)

2022 (13.66)

[62.53]

1212 (13.63)

[37.47]

3234 (13.65)

Land 0 802 0 16542 16047 972204 974 581 1555 [62.64] [37.36] (0.0) (15.14) (0.0) (53.62) (6.57) (6.58) (6.53) (6.56) Development Any Other activity 0 65 0 290 275 426670 427 267 693 [61.54] [38.46] (0.0) (1.23) (0.0) (0.94) (2.88) (2.88) (3.00) (2.93) Approved by MoRD Total of All 1141 5298 2060 30852 14800016 14802 8890 23692 [62.48] [37.52] (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) works Source: http://nregalndc.nic.in downloaded on 20th January, 2011, Previous year: 2008-09, Current F.Y:2009-10,Projection year: 2010-11, Note: Figures in ( ) denote percentage to total of all works, Figures in [ ] denote percentage to total cost

68

Table 2.10(iii): Work projection under MNREGA for 2010-11-Navsari District Shelf of works Through Which Employment to be Provided Total No. of Spill over Works From Previous Year 1 (100.00) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 Total No. of New Works Taken up in Current Year 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 20 (25.00) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 60 (75.00) 0 (0.0) 80 No. of Works Likely to Spill Over From Current Financial Year to Next Financial Year 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 No. Of New Works Proposed for next Financial Year 1380 (26.99) 649 (12.69) 1386 (27.11) 354 (6.92) 3 (0.06) 664 (12.99) 283 (5.53) 320 (6.26) 74 (1.45) 5113 16346 2606 321866 1624372 9690 14 2846 2035407 Benefit Achieved Unit Person days To be Generated Estimated Cost (In Lakh) On Unskilled Wage 630 (30.74) 219 (10.68) 293 (14.28) 17 (0.85) 6 (0.28) 269 (13.12) 120 (5.84) 53 (2.60) 443 (21.62) 2049 [61.95] [81.01] [58.67] [77.18] [60.48] [87.73] [100.00] [64.82] [70.67] [56.72] On Material including skilled and semiskilled wages 480 (38.17) 119 (9.44) 121 (9.65) 2 (0.19) 0 0.00 176 (13.95) 35 (2.81) 12 (0.99) 312 (24.80) 1259 [38.05] [18.99] [41.33] [22.82] [39.52] [12.27] [0.00] [35.18] [29.33] [43.28]

Total 1110 (33.57) 338 (10.21) 414 (12.52) 20 (0.60) 6 (0.17) 444 (13.43) 155 (4.69) 66 (1.99) 755 (22.83) 3307 (100.00)

Rural Connectivity Flood Control and Protection Water Conservation and Water Harvesting Drought Proofing Micro Irrigation Works Provision of Irrigation facility to Land Owned by Renovation of Traditional Water bodies Land Development Any Other activity Approved by MoRD Total of All Works

1189

629668 (29.37) 214655 (10.01) 363255 (16.94) 17187 (0.80) 5760 (0.27) 268661 (12.53) 119360 (5.57) 78919 (3.68) 446466 (20.82) 2143931

(100.00) (100.00) (0.0) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) Source: http://nregalndc.nic.in downloaded on 20th January, 2011, Previous year: 2008-09; Current F.Y.:2009-10; Projection year: 2010-11, Note: Figures in ( ) denote percentage to total of all works, Figures in [ ] denote percentage to total cost

69

Table 2.10 (iv): Work projection under MNREGA for 2010-11-Jamnagar District Shelf of works Through Which Employment to be Provided Total No. of Spill over Works From Previous Year 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) Total No. of New Works Taken up in Current Year 19 (1.52) 2 (0.16) 1214 (97.12) 3 (0.24) 1 (0.08) 3 (0.24) 0 0.00 2 (0.16) 6 (0.48) No. of Works Likely to Spill Over From Current Financial Year to Next Financial 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) No. Of New Works Proposed for next financial Year 594 (24.09) 57 (2.31) 526 (21.33) 86 (3.49) 90 (3.65) 346 (14.03) 347 (14.07) 285 (11.56) 135 (5.47) 23590 1 159461 624 2 61 Estimated Cost (In Lakh) Benefit Achieved Unit 781 370 172279 Person days To be Generated 207289 (11.23) 61701 (3.34) 200116 (10.84) 51370 (2.78) 56190 (3.04) 119046 (6.45) 159613 (8.65) 173085 (9.38) 817200 (44.28) On Unskilled Wage 201.29 (10.92) 50.68 (2.75) 201.21 (10.91) 50.6 (2.74) 55.79 (3.03) 123.88 (6.72) 159.82 (8.67) 172.85 (9.37) 828 (44.90) [62.28] [60.00] [62.31] [62.65] [62.69] [62.53] [62.75] [63.17] [62.47] On Material including skilled and semiskilled wages 119.49 (10.29) 29.55 (2.55) 120.88 (10.41) 30.17 (2.60) 33.21 (2.86) 74.23 (6.39) 96.68 (8.33) 104.67 (9.02) 552 (47.55) [38.63] [37.72] [40.00] [37.69] [37.35] [37.31] [37.47] [37.25] [36.83] [37.53]

Total

Rural Connectivity Flood Control and Protection Water Conservation and Water Harvesting Drought Proofing Micro Irrigation Works Provision of Irrigation facility to Land Owned by Renovation of Traditional Water bodies Land Development Any Other activity Approved by MoRD

320.78 (10.67) 80.23 (2.67) 322.09 (10.72) 80.77 (2.69) 89 (2.96) 198.11 (6.59) 256.5 (8.54) 277.52 (9.24) 1380 (45.92) 3005 (100.00)

0 1250 0 2466 1845610 1844.1 [61.37] 1160.88 (0.0) (100.00) (0.0) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) Source: http://nregalndc.nic.in downloaded on 20th January, 2011, Previous year: 2008-09; Current F.Y.:2009-10; Projection year: 2010-11, Note: Figures in ( ) denote percentage to total of all works, Figures in [ ] denote percentage to total cost Total of All Works

70

Table 2.10(v): Work projection under MNREGA for 2010-11-Surendranagar District Shelf of works Through Which Employment to be Provided Total No. of Spill over Works From Previous Year 5 (100.00) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 5 (100.00) Total No. of New Works Taken up in Current Year 1 (100.00) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (100.00) No. of Works Likely to Spill Over From Current Financial Year to Next Financial 10 (6.99) 6 (4.20) 92 (64.34) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.70) 34 (23.78) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 143 (100.00) No. Of New Works Proposed for next Financial Year 144 (7.91) 136 (7.47) 748 (41.08) 34 (1.87) 32 (1.76) 115 (6.32) 471 (25.86) 63 (3.46) 78 (4.28) 1821 (100.00) Person days To be Generated 214500 (8.02) 170272 (6.36) 955204 (35.69) 14280 (0.53) 28800 (1.08) 81500 (3.05) 669501 (25.02) 37800 (1.41) 504276 (18.84) 2676133 (100.00) Estimated Cost (In Lakh) On Unskilled Wage 215 (8.07) 169 (6.36) 955 (35.94) 14 (0.54) 29 (1.08) 82 (3.07) 671 (25.23) 38 (1.42) 486 (18.29) 2658 (100.00) [62.50] [62.77] On Material including skilled and semiskilled wages 129 (7.93) 100 (6.18) 572 (35.25) 9 (0.53) 17 (1.06) 49 (3.01) 401 (24.70) 22 (1.38) 324 (19.96) 1623 (100.00) [37.50] [37.23]

Benefit Achieved Unit

Total

Rural Connectivity Flood Control and Protection Water Conservation and Water Harvesting Drought Proofing Micro Irrigation Works Provision of Irrigation facility to Land Owned by Renovation of Traditional Water bodies Land Development Any Other activity Approved by MoRD Total of All Works

227 25270

343 (8.02) 269 (6.29) 1527 (35.68) 23 (0.53) 46 (1.08) 130 (3.05) 1072 (25.03) 60 (1.41) 810 (18.92) 4281 (100.00)

1790360 2039 7285

[62.53] [62.47] [62.50]

[37.47] [37.53] [37.50]

14232

[62.50]

[37.50]

1077862 5839 0

[62.58] [62.81] [60.00] [62.08]

[37.42] [37.19] [40.00 [37.92]

Source: http://nregalndc.nic.in downloaded on 20th January, 2011, Previous year: 2008-09; Current F.Y.:2009-10; Projection year: 2010-11, Note: Figures in ( ) denote percentage to total of all works, Figures in [ ] denote percentage to total cost

71

first priority in Jamnagar district and second priority in Banaskantha and Navsari district. In tribal dominating district Dahod, Land Development (LD) works received first priority. In Surendranagar and Jamnagar districts, works of Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies (RTWB) have notable share. Thus, from the set of works suggested, the works relating to WCWH, RC, RTWB and provision of Irrigation Facility on owned Land hold prime importance. As per proposed work plan of selected districts, the works of WCWH, RC, RTWB, LD and Provision of Irrigation on Owned Land will be the main sources of employment generation. Among selected districts, the estimated cost of executing all proposed works in 2010-11 varied from only Rs.30.05 crore in Jamnagar district to Rs.236.92 crore in Dahod district. In all the selected districts, 60:40 overall expenditure ratios of wage cost and material cost/skilled wages stipulated in the Act has been maintained. Of the proposed total outlay, major spending will be on WCWH works, activities approved by MoRD, RC, Irrigation works on owned land and RTWB. Summary: In view of adversities like seasonal and lagging agricultural sector, scanty and erratic rainfall, limited irrigation and unfavourable natural conditions, implementation of MNREGA assumes vital importance for rural Gujarat. The existing institutional arrangement in the state is good enough for effective implementation of MNREGA. However, it is facing various issues which hamper the implementation in an effective manner. The main issues are, 1) Fund utilisation ratio of MNREGA found as low as 30 to 45 percent in some districts. It was moderate for state as whole. Thus is so mainly because of inadequate staff and number of suspended/incompleted works. 2) The number and quality of human resources deployed so far are completely inadequate for shouldering responsibilities of MNREGA implementation in its true spirit. Majority appointments are adhoc or on additional charge or on deputation. Many posts are unfilled. There is a need of deployment of full time professional staff dedicated exclusively to MNREGA at all levels and most crucially at block and village level which is at the cutting edge of implementation.

72

3) Despite intensive ICE activities, many stakeholders at taluka and village level have partial awareness on MNREGA. Poor involvement/interest of Sarpanch and Talati in planning and preparing shelf of projects was noticed. There is a need to strengthen the institutional structure at the local level for optimal use of resources. In many places, Panchayats do not have the necessary capacity to manage the schemes and capacity building ought to take place at the Panchayat level. In terms of registration and issuance of job cards the performance was moderate. In many instances, job card issued per ration card. The demand of works under MNREGA fluctuated across districts. As per record, demand of works under MNREGA found low in those districts which are either prosperous in agriculture or have well developed industries such as Jamnagar, Surat, Anand, Gandhinagar, Navsari etc. The job demand was higher in economical and agriculturally backward districts. The supply of employment under MNREGA matches the demand in the all districts of the state. Against the guarantee of 100 person days per household per year, an average employment provided was for only 25 and 37 person days in 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. Apart from other reasons, low level operation of programme and frequent stoppages/suspension of works undertaken were mainly responsible for low level generation of employment. The castes/tribes with high poverty had maximum participation. The MNREGA succeed in providing enhance employment and income to under privileged ST and SC. In Gujarat, for each year, the employment share of women was above 42 percent which indicates that they prefer to work in MNREGA, if works are conveniently located and suit to their skills. Only 5.78 percent households in 2008-09 and 6.50 percent in 2009-10 exhausted 100 days limit of employment. Therefore, Act had little impact in arresting distress migration. However, MNREGA succeed in shortening the migration period of some rural families. It also improved to some extent purchasing power of rural poor. In Gujarat state as well as in some districts, the data on completed works present gloomy picture. As there is no compulsion to complete works within fiscal year, implementing agency starting so many work at a time but not completing many of them. In Gujarat state, in majority districts main focus was more on WCWH and other works which create durable productive community assets. These works/assets

73

likely to create additional irrigation and in turn it will be helpful in enhancing agriculture productivity, employment, income and livelihood security of rural households in the long run. Overall, in terms of various types of works and activities covered under MNREGA, Gujarat has done much better. As per data, the picture of social audit in Gujarat looks much rosy but in majority cases attendance in the meetings/Gram Sabhas was poor and has been done to complete mere formality. The inadequate staff at block and district level for carrying technical functions and inspections impacted very adversely on the quality of assets and frequency of inspections. According to public opinion, majority Gram Sabhas were not held in the true spirit of participation. The bureaucracy is dominating the process of planning. In majority villages either VMC not formed or if formed, most of them are inactive. In many cases plans are made and approved at the top and sent downwards for implementation. This is most undesirable. There is a voice of discontent, but people have either no courage to lodge complaints or no enough awareness. The unemployment allowance in Gujarat become due for 49929 days in 2010-11, but not paid at all to any one. It is learnt that some Gram Panchayats are accepting only non-dated employment demand applications for avoiding the payment of unemployment allowances. The MNREGA workers have high preference for receiving payment through account in post offices mainly due to easy access and nearby location. The average wage rate received by MNREGA workers was lower than the legal minimum wage-rate of Rs.100 per day. For majority works, wage amount is determined on the basis of quantum of work done and prescribed schedule of rates (SoR). Owing to this wage determination method, workers are receiving wage rate lower than minimum wage rate of Rs. 100 per day. This discouraged them for participation in MNREGA and encouraged them for labour work in non-MNREGA activities. The implementation of MNREGA impacted the prevailing wage rates of agriculture and non-agriculture sector. Now, wages paid for casual non- MNREGA works are much higher (Rs.120 to 150/day). Hence, need is felt for upward revision of minimum wage rate of MNREGA. By effecting corrective measures, there exist ample scope to enhance the performance level and effectiveness of MNREGA.

74

Chapter-3 Characteristics, Income and Consumption Pattern of Sample Households

As mentioned earlier in Chapter-1, five sample districts namely directions and belonging to different phases of MNREGA

Banaskantha, Dahod, Navsari, Jamnagar and Surendranagar located in distinct implementation were selected for study. For studying the impact of MNREGA on various aspects, 50 sample households comprising 40 beneficiaries and 10 non-beneficiaries were selected as sample from each selected district. All related field data required for the study were collected from these 250 sample households for calendar year 2009 through recall method in one round. This chapter mainly deals with the socio-economic characteristics and income and consumption pattern of 250 sample households. Here, analysis is not attempted separately for each selected district. It is attempted using combine data of 250 sample households. 3.1 Demographic Profiles of the Sample Households: 1) Family size: Under MNREGA, there is a provision to issue a job-card to the household as a whole. Moreover, Act guarantees at least 100 days of wage employment per household per year. This means that per person availability of employment days under MNREGA will be higher for small family as compared to large family. In this context, it is pertinent to examine average family size and composition sample households. Table 3.1 shows that average family size for beneficiary (B) households was 5.52 persons whereas it was 5.32 persons for nonbeneficiary (NB) households. For aggregate sample (B+NB), it was 5.48 persons. Thus, average family size of B households found little higher as compared to that of NB households. 2) Age-Group of Family Members: Under the Act, only adult members of a job-card holding family are eligible for unskilled manual work. In beneficiary households, out of total 1104 persons, 33.70 percent were of age below 16 years and hence not eligible to avail employment under MNREGA. Of the total persons of beneficiary 75

households, 64.04 percent were in active age-group of 16-60 years. In nonbeneficiary households, 39.10 percent persons were of age below 16 years and 59.02 percent had age between 16 and 60 years. The average number of earning persons per beneficiary household worked out to 3.55 whereas it was 3.30 persons per non-beneficiary household. (See Table 3.1) 3) Caste-Wise Classification of Sample Households: The MNREGA emphasizes more on enhancing food and livelihood security by providing employment in lean seasons to needy rural households and particularly for underprivileged castes of rural community. With this in view, cast-wise classification of sample households examined here. The data given in Table 3.1 reveals very negligible representation (1.6%) of general castes (higher castes) in the selected sample households. From the total 250 households, 98.40 percent households are SC, ST and OBC. Among aggregate sample, 56.40 percent were of Other Backward Castes (OBC), 22.40 percent SC and 19.60 percent ST. From the selected beneficiary households, 44.00 percent were SC/ST and 54.50 percent OBC. And from non-beneficiary households, 34.00 percent were SC/ST and 64.00 percent OBC. This caste composition suggests that MNREGA provided employment mainly to underprivileged section of the rural community. Further, it suggest that higher castes almost remained away from seeking employment under MNREGA and also avoided to work as casual labourer in other nonMNREGA works too. 4) Education Status: Apart from other factors, education level of members of samples households plays an important role in planning and preparation of the village level work plan, suppress malpractices and conducting effective social audit of the works undertaken under MNREGA. With this in view, the data on educational status of family members (above age 6 year) have been presented in Table 3.1. In the beneficiary households, only 1.83 percent members had education upto graduate and above. In beneficiary households, 37.44 percent members were illiterate whereas it was 24.90 percent for nonbeneficiary households. The 35.23 percent members of beneficiary and 39.36 percent of non-beneficiary households had education upto secondary. The 76

Table 3.1: Demographic profiles of the Sample Households

Sr. No. 1 2 3 4 Characteristics No of HH Total persons Average HHs size Average Earners per HHs. Male Gender Female Total Nos. 5 Age group <16 16-60 >60 Total Head Others Total Illiterate Education status (age above 6 year) Up to primary Up to secondary Up to graduate Above graduate 8 Caste SC ST OBC General 9 Ratios Card holding pattern Decision maker AAY BPL APL None Male Female Farming Main occupation Self business Salaried/pensioners Wage earners (wage Labour) Involved in migration - 2009 1.Dahod 2. Navsari 3. Banaskantha 4.Surendranagar 5.Jamnagar Unit Nos. Nos. Nos. Nos. (% TM) (% TM) Nos. (% TM) (% TM) (% TM) Nos. %HH. %HH. Nos. (% TM) (% TM) (% TM) (% TM) (% TM) %HH. %HH. %HH. %HH. %HH. %HH. %HH. %HH. %HH. %HH. % EM % EM % EM % EM %HH. %HH. %HH. %HH. %HH. %HH. Beneficiaries (B) 200 1104 5.52 3.55 51.18 48.82 1104 33.70 64.04 2.26 1104 43.50 56.50 200 37.44 25.41 35.23 1.83 0.10 24.00 20.00 54.50 1.50 3.00 55.00 40.00 2.00 80.00 20.00 21.77 0.53 0.88 76.81 47.00 67.50 90.00 37.50 22.50 17.50

Non beneficiaries (NB) 50 266 5.32 3.30 48.50 51.50 266 39.10 59.02 1.88 266 64.00 36.00 50 24.90 34.54 39.36 0.80 0.40 16.00 18.00 64.00 2.00 8.00 36.00 56.00 0.00 88.00 12.00 21.05 0.88 0.88 77.19 42.00 50.00 60.00 40.00 30.00 30.00

(% of HHs.)
Aggregate (B+NB) 250 1370 5.48 3.50 50.66 49.34 1370 34.74 63.07 2.19 1370 47.60 52.40 250 35.02 27.17 36.02 1.63 0.16 22.40 19.60 56.40 1.60 4.00 51.20 43.20 1.60 81.20 18.80 21.65 0.59 0.88 76.88 46.00 64.00 84.00 38.00 24.00 20.00

Identity of respondent

10

11

12

Source: Field Survey Note: Unit of each characteristic is shown in brackets % HH = Percentage to total HHs. TM = Percentage to total Nos. of members % EM = Percentage to total earners. AAY= Antyoday Anna Yojana APL= Above Poverty Line BPL= Below Poverty Line

77

data clearly reveals that average education level of members of nonbeneficiary households average education level of members of nonbeneficiary households was some what better compared to that for beneficiary households. 5) Main Occupation/Activities: The demand of employment under MNREGA also depends upon the type of occupation followed by the family. The occupation pattern followed by earning members of sample households has been furnished in Table 3.1. The data reveals that of the total earning members of beneficiary as well as of non-beneficiary households, nearly 77 percent members had causal wage labour in agriculture and non-agriculture works and about 21 percent had agriculture as their main occupation. This means that livelihood security of nearly 98 percent sample households is highly dependent on the agricultural prospect and availability of employment opportunity in non-agriculture sector. 6) Ration Cards Pattern: The data given in Table 3.1 show that of the total sample households, only 4.00 percent households had AAY (Antyoday Anna Yojana) type ration cards. The 55.00 percent beneficiary households and 36.00 percent nonbeneficiary households had BPL (Below Poverty Line) type rationcards. Overall, from the total sample households, 43.20 percent had APL rationcards wherein 51.20 percent had BPL type rationcards. This reveals that non-BPL (APL) households also enrolled them for MNREGA programme. 7) Gender Ratio: In aggregate sample households, sex ratio was 954 females per 1000 males. In total population of sample households, 51.18 percent were male and 48.82 percent female. 8) Decision Maker: Of the total sample households, 81.20 percent households had male and 18.80 percent had female as decision maker. Of the non-beneficiary households, 88.00 percent households had male as decision maker. Thus, in decision making process, dominance of male is clearly visible. 9) Migration during 2009: For each selected district, the data on households which were involved in migration during year 2009 have been given in Table 3.1. From the data, it 78

is seen that in year 2009, for ST dominating Dahod as well as in Navsari districts, scale of migration was highest. Of the beneficiary households, 67.50 percent of Dahod and 90.00 percent of Navsari were involved in migration during 2009. In these two districts, migration rate for non-beneficiary households was somewhat lower than it was for beneficiary households. In Banaskantha, Surendranagar and Jamnagar districts, the scale of migration among beneficiary households was lower as compared to that for nonbeneficiary households. Overall, from the total 250 sample households, 46.00 percent were involved in migration during year 2009. The high scale of migration suggests that MNREGA had very little impact on reducing the rate of out migration particularly in Dahod and Navsari districts. As seen earlier, owing to very low non-kharif employment opportunities in the villages, significant proportion of ST/OBC population of these two districts migrates regularly every year to other places of same or neighbouring districts. They migrate to those destinations were they have been going year after year and were sure of getting work. The nature of such migration is temporarily or seasonally. At migration place, they are working as casual labourer mainly in construction works, diamond works, textile and other industrial sectors. As compared to wage rate of MNREGA, they are availing relatively very high wage rate (Rs.120 to 140/day) here and also employment for a longer duration. For working in diamond industry, they are earning around Rs.150 to 240 per day. 10) Identity of Respondent: The field level data in structured questionnaires were collected from the head of 119 (47.60%) sample households. And for remaining 131 (52.40%) households, it was collected from adult family member. (See Table 3.1) 3.2 Per Household Occupation (Activity) Wise Mandays-2009: The data relating to per household mandays spent on different occupations/activities during calendar year 2009 are given in Table 3.2. The data shows that per household total mandays spent on different activities during 2009 by beneficiary households were 675, which was little less than 696 mandays spent by non-beneficiary households. Each non beneficiary household, on an average worked as non-agricultural casual labourer for about 308 mandays which was substantially higher (62%) than 189 man days 79

Table 3.2: Per Household Occupation - Wise Man-days 2009 Sr. No Occupation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Worked under MNREGA Agricultural casual labour Non agricultural casual labour Work for public work programmes (PWP) other than MNREGA Worked as a migrant worker Self employed in non farming Self employed in agriculture Self employed in livestock Regular Job/Salary/Pension Any other works Total Beneficiaries (B) Mandays % to total 80.94 136.69 189.34 4.05 148.22 3.80 52.10 48.68 10.95 0.00 674.75 11.99 20.26 28.06 0.60 21.97 0.56 7.72 7.21 1.62 0.00 100.00 Non- Beneficiaries(NB) Mandays % to total 0.00 115.20 307.90 11.30 163.50 0.00 57.38 32.94 7.30 0.00 695.52 0.00 16.56 44.27 1.62 23.51 0.00 8.25 4.74 1.05 0.00 100.00 Aggregate (B+NB) Mandays % to total 64.75 132.39 213.05 5.50 151.27 3.04 53.15 45.53 10.22 0.00 678.91 9.54 19.50 31.38 0.81 22.28 0.45 7.83 6.71 1.51 0.00 100.00

Source: Field Survey

80

of beneficiary household. Under MNREGA, on an average each beneficiary household availed employment for about 81 days. Thus, total mandays spent by beneficiary households for non-agricultural casual works plus MNREGA works comes to 270, which was still lower than 308 days spent by nonbeneficiary on non-agricultural casual works. Beneficiary households worked as a migrant worker for about 148 mandays whereas non-beneficiary household worked for about 164 mandays. This suggests that MNREGA not able to stop out-migration but helped beneficiary households to shorten their migration period. Further, high numbers of mandays as migrant worker for beneficiary and non-beneficiary households indicates very poor scope of employment within villages during lean period. Further, some families felt that limit of 100 days employment per household is not enough for them to survive on. Therefore, they have no option but to go ahead with migration. As an agricultural casual labourer, on an average, each non-beneficiary household worked for 115 mandays and beneficiary household worked for about 137 mandays. The average mandays spent per beneficiary and non-beneficiary households for self farming were very low (8%). This suggest that majority of them are either landless or own very small land holding or their agriculture not in a better shape mainly due to low investment. In the total employment days of beneficiary households, the share of employment days under MNREGA was quite low and it was to the extent of only 11.99 percent (81 days). Therefore, MNREGA caused low level impact on livelihood security, quality of life and halting out-migration. For beneficiary and non-beneficiary households, in total mandays, casual labour works in agriculture and non-agriculture and worked as migrant worker were the forefront contributors and together it accounted for 84.34 percent of total 696 mandays. For beneficiary households, it claimed 70.29 percent of total 675 mandays. (See Table 3.2) 3.3 Source-wise Per Household Annual Net Income-2009: The data on annual net income per household for calendar year 2009 from various sources such as agriculture, casual labour work, work under MNREGA, livestock and dairy, self employment etc. have been presented in Table 3.3. It is seen from the table that average annual net income per non-beneficiary households was Rs.82886 which is higher by Rs.7064 (9.32%) compared to that Rs.75822 of beneficiary households. The average 81

Table 3.3: Per Household Net Annual Income 2009

No. Particulars
Average Income (Rs.) % CV (across HHs.) Average Income (Rs.) % CV (across HHs.)

(Rs. per HH.)

Average Income (Rs.) % CV (across HHs.)

Beneficiaries(B) 1 Income from work under MNREGA Income from wages in agriculture casual works Income from wages non agriculture casual works Income from wages in PWP (other than MNREGA) Income from wages as migrant workers Income from self employed in non farming 7084.18 (9.34) 11183.10 (14.75) 25028.95 (33.01) 409.00 (0.54) 19887.50 (26.23) 980.00 (1.29) 6167.00 (8.13) 2755.00 (3.63) 1039.00 (1.37) 1288.25 (1.70) 75821.98 90.00

Non beneficiaries(NB) (0.00) 9189.00 (11.09) 39664.00 (47.85) 442.00 (0.53) 20281.10 (24.47) (0.00) 9660.00 (11.65) 2370.00 (2.86) 280.00 (0.34) 1000.00 (1.21) 82886.10 (100.00) -

Aggregate (B+NB) 5667.34 (7.34) 10784.28 (13.96) 27955.96 (36.20) 415.66 (0.54) 19966.22 (25.85) 784.00 (1.02) 6865.60 (8.89) 2678.00 (3.47) 887.20 (1.15) 1230.60 (1.59) 77234.80 112.00

110.00

121.00

112.30

3 4

168.00 320.00

144.00 410.00

163.00 338.00

196.00

149.00

187.00

969.00

1084.0 0

Income from agriculture

229.00

223.00

228.00

Income from livestock Income from regular job/salary/pension Income from sale of assets/rent/transfer etc. Total Income

189.00

187.00

189.00

691.00

707.00

694.00

10 11

753.00 113.00

707.00 102.00

744.00 110.00

(100.00)

(100.00)

CV= Coefficient of variation Note: Figures in brackets denote the percentage to total income Source: Field Survey

82

income per working day for beneficiary households was Rs.112.37 wherein it was Rs.119.17 for non-beneficiary households. Thus, non-beneficiary households realised income per working day more by Rs.6.80. This has been mainly due to prevailing of high wage rate for Non-MNREGA works. In total net annual income, wage-income from non-agriculture works was the highest for both type households, and it was Rs.25029 (33.01%) for beneficiary households and Rs.39664 (47.85%) for non-beneficiary households. The share of wage-income as migrant workers in total net income was also significant and it was 26.23 percent (Rs.19888) for beneficiary households and 24.47 percent (Rs.20281) for nonbeneficiary households. The wage income from agriculture labour was Rs.11183 (14.75%) for beneficiary and Rs.9189 (11.09%) for non-beneficiary. For beneficiary, income from works under MNREGA was Rs.7084 (9.34%). For working under MNREGA, beneficiary households received average wage rate per day of Rs.87.53, which was lower than prescribed basic minimum wage rate of Rs.100 per day in the Act and the average wage rate per day received by nonbeneficiary for non- MNREGA works. The MNREGA workers received wage rate less than the prescribed one mainly because of the work measurement (task wage) method for determining wages and productivity. Thus, income from MNREGA as well as wage rate received for MNREGA was not so enough and significant to create notable improvement in food consumption, quality of life and livelihood security of the participants. In view of high inflation and high wage rate for Non-MNREGA works, the need is felt for upward revision in minimum wage rate prescribed for the programme with simultaneous revision of SoR which is used for determining productivity and wages. The income pattern of sample households shows low income from agriculture. It was Rs.6167 (8.13%) for beneficiary and Rs.9660 (11.65%) for nonbeneficiary. Low share of agriculture income for beneficiary as well as nonbeneficiary suggests that some sample households are landless and some own very small land holding. Many households are involved in regular migration every year and hence they not pursue either dairy or any other business activities. Therefore, the income from other sources such as livestock/dairy, job/salary, self employment/business etc. has been low. The coefficient of variation across household worked out for each income item. And it shows high variation for income from non-farming, self employment, 83

sale of assets and wage income from PWP works. These sources have very less number of observations. Therefore, coefficient of variation worked out for these sources found relatively high. 3.4 Item-wise Food Consumption (Per Capita / Month)-2009: It is assume that creation of productive assets through providing employment under MNREGA is likely to promote development of the region and subsequently to improve the income and quality of life of the rural people. Further, it will upsurge the purchasing power of the people as well as consumption of food and other items. With this in view, the data on per capita per month consumption of different food items for sample households for calendar year 2009 have been shown in Table 3.4. Moreover, for comparison purpose, per capita/month consumption data for Gujarat state collected through National Sample Survey (NSS) for year 1993-94, 1999-2000 and 2004-05 are also given. Bajra, Wheat and Rice are the main cereals which are consumed by the rural households of Banaskantha, Jamnagar and Surendranagar districts. Whereas, Maize in Panchmahals district and in Navsari district Jowar, Rice and Maize are the principle cereal of the diet menu. The close examination of data reveals that in year 2009, per capita per month, consumed quantity of Wheat, Other Cereals, Total Cereals and Total Pulses for beneficiary households has been found moderately higher compared to that shown in NSS data (1993-94 to 2004-05). As compared to quantitative consumption of beneficiary households, the per capita consumption of Wheat, Other Cereals, Total Cereals and Total Pulses has been found moderately lower for non-beneficiary households. The consumption of rice for beneficiary households was found slightly lower than that for non-beneficiary households. But, it was significantly higher than its consumption shown in NSS data. (See Table 3.4) As compared to consumption data of NSS, consumption quantity of liquid milk, sugar, spices and vegetables was found lower for both, beneficiary as well as non-beneficiary households. In respect of fruits and poultry-meat consumption by beneficiary as well as non-beneficiary households has been found significantly higher than its consumption shown in NSS data (see Table 3.4). The consumption quantity of edible oil for beneficiary households was slightly higher than nonbeneficiary. 84

Table 3.4: Per Capita per Month Consumption of Food Items for Sample HHs.2009
Sr. No. Item Unit Beneficiaries (B) Non beneficiaries (NB) Aggregate (B+NB) NSS 1993-94 NSS 1999-00 NSS 2004-05

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Rice Wheat Other cereals Total cereals Total pulses Sugar Edible oils Liquid milk Milk products Spices Poultry-meat Fruits Vegetables Confectionery

Kg. Kg. Kg. Kg. Kg. Kg. Ltr. Ltr. Kg. Grams Kg. Kg. Kg. Kg.

2.61 5.14 6.73 14.48 1.64 0.90 1.01 3.11 0.45 159.96 0.32 0.42 3.02 th

Source: Field Survey and NSS 50 , 55 , and 61 round.

th

st

2.84 4.5 4.83 12.13 1.33 0.84 0.91 3.11 0.40 146.05 0.41 0.47 3.11 -

2.65 5.02 6.36 14.02 1.58 0.89 0.99 3.11 0.44 157.26 0.34 0.43 3.04 -

1.92 3.59 0.79 0.98 0.65 5.07 0.04 176.61 0.07 0.1 4.08 -

1.94 3.59 4.66 10.19 0.92 1.16 0.82 5.42 0.69 227.01 0.07 0.19 5.92 -

1.81 3.60 4.65 10.06 0.77 1.03 0.81 4.97 0.39 210.64 0.07 0.40 5.23 -

From the table one can conclude that in respect of per capita/month consumption of main food items, beneficiary households have somewhat better position. As compared to NSS data, food consumption level of beneficiary households shows somewhat improvement. However, it is difficult to judge the quantum of MNREGA impact contribution for this positive improvement in food consumption of beneficiary households. 3.5 Per Capita Monthly Consumption Expenditure of Sample HHs. 2009: Owing to additional employment availability during lean seasons under MNREGA, the income level of beneficiary households is expected to move up. Consequently, income rise is likely to impact on consumption and expenditure pattern of these households. With this in view, for examining the impact of MNREGA intervention on consumption and expenditure pattern, related expenditure data on food and non-food items for sample households have been presented in Table 3.5. The expenditure shown against other food items includes expenditure incurred on salt, gur, sugar, tea/coffee, bread, biscuits, wine, colddrink etc. The other non-food category includes items like transportation, communications, personal care, health care, medical, social ceremonies, recreation, repairing of consumer durables etc. The average price per unit of some 85

Table 3.5:

Per Capita Monthly Consumption Expenditure of Sample HHs. 2009

Monthly per capita Expenditure (Rs) % CV Monthly per capita Expenditure (Rs) % CV Monthly per capita Expenditure (Rs) % CV NSS 2004-05 (Rs)

Items

Food Items Rice Wheat Other cereals Total cereals Pulses Sugar etc Cooking oil Spices Milk & products Poultry-meat Fruits Vegetables Any other Total food (TF) Non food items Education Clothing Footwear Other items Fuel

Beneficiaries (B) 47.94 (4.37) 85.31 (7.78) 85.68 (7.81) 218.93 (19.96) 78.75 (7.18) 28.85 (2.63) 59.60 (5.43) 36.08 (3.29) 82.68 (7.54) 26.67 (2.43) 10.15 (0.93) 72.40 (6.60) 74.80 (6.82) 689.32 (62.85) 55.40 (5.05) 38.59 (3.52) 10.03 (0.91) 259.82 (23.69) 43.67 (3.98) 689.00 1003.00 479.00 241.00 175.00 304.00 244.00 629.00 284.00 1517.00 845.00 334.00 157.00 41.00

Non beneficiaries (NB) 55.16 (5.63) 67.56 (6.90) 59.87 (6.11) 182.59 (18.64) 74.69 (7.63) 32.88 (3.36) 61.08 (6.24) 35.19 (3.59) 97.12 (9.92) 34.10 (3.48) 12.35 (1.26) 78.89 (8.05) 82.96 (8.47) 691.86 (70.64) 36.75 (3.75) 39.32 (4.01) 10.29 (1.05) 158.83 (16.22) 42.42 (4.33) 457.00 334.00 297.00 127.00 157.00 628.00 215.00 501.00 327.00 946.00 742.00 331.00 127.00 30.00

Aggregate(B+NB) 49.34 (4.59) 81.86 (7.62) 80.67 (7.51) 211.87 (19.73) 77.96 (7.26) 29.63 (2.76) 59.89 (5.58) 35.91 (3.34) 85.48 (7.96) 28.11 (2.62) 10.58 (0.98) 73.66 (6.86) 76.38 (7.11) 689.81 (64.23) 51.78 (4.82) 38.73 (3.61) 10.08 (0.94) 240.21 (22.37) 43.43 (4.04) 384.23 (35.77) 1074.04 (100.00) 641.00 929.00 463.00 227.00 172.00 408.00 224.00 603.00 297.00 1385.00 816.00 332.00 151.00 39.00

22.25 (3.73) 28.45 (4.77) 28.85 (4.84) 79.55 (13.35) 20.15 (3.38) 18.93 (3.18) 43.57 (7.31) 13.37 (2.24) 78.08 (13.10) 5.19 (0.87) 9.15 (1.54) 42.64 (7.15) 34.83 (5.84) 345.46 (57.95) 7.47 (1.25) 15.56 (2.61) 4.28 (0.72) 160.22 (26.88) 63.10 (10.59) 250.63 (42.05) 596.09 (100.00)

2114.00 596.00 863.00 288.00 542.00

703.00 296.00 302.00 200.00 467.00 98.00 24.00

2063.00 547.00 779.00 285.00 528.00 158.00 39.00

Total 407.51 287.61 Non food 173.00 (37.15) (29.36) (TNF) Gross total 1096.83 979.47 39.00 (TF+NTF) (100.00) (100.00) Note: Figures in bracket denote percentage to gross total Source: Field Survey

86

food items found slightly lower than the prevailing open market prices as some households purchased these food items on ration card from government approved ration shops at a subsidised price. The data presented in Table 3.5 clearly shows that per capita per month average expenditure incurred on total food consumption for both type of households was found almost equal. It was around Rs.689 for beneficiary and around Rs.692 for non-beneficiary. However, per capita/month expenditure incurred by beneficiary households on non-food items was found much higher than that for non-beneficiary households. It was about Rs.408 for beneficiary against only Rs.288 for non-beneficiary. The item-wise examination of data reveals that compared to non-beneficiary, average expenditure incurred by beneficiary households for education and other nonfood items was much higher. This suggests that additional income generated through MNREGA was utilized for education, purchase of consumer durables, communication, transportation and medicine. In total consumption expenditure, the percentage share of food-items was higher than non-food items and it was 62.85 percent for beneficiary and 70.64 percent for non-beneficiary households. In total consumption expenditure, the percentage share of beneficiary households for non-food items was 37.15 percent, which was 7.69 percent higher than 29.36 percent share of non-beneficiary households. For beneficiary and non-beneficiary households, the percentage share of expenditure of different food items in total expenditure found nearly similar with marginal variation. The almost similar expenditure on food consumption by beneficiary and non-beneficiary households suggest that pattern of expenditure on food consumption of beneficiary households broadly remained non-impacted despite incremental income generation from MNREGA intervention. As compared to NSS consumption expenditure data of 2005, the food expenditure of beneficiary and non-beneficiary households in 2009 was nearly double. Further, non-food expenditure of beneficiary households was higher by 83 percent. Compared to NSS data (2005), for significant increase in consumption expenditure in 2009, somewhat improvement in consumption 87

level and significant increase in the consumer prices of many food and nonfood items were the key contributors. For beneficiary households, coefficient of variation found much higher for items wheat, poultry-meat, education and footwear. The high coefficient of variation for wheat and poultry-meat was mainly due to variation in food-habit across districts and households. The Maize in Panchmahal and Wheat/Bajra in Banaskantha are the main food items. However, very low coefficient of variation for total consumption expenditure by both, beneficiary as well as non-beneficiary households suggests least variations in per capita consumption expenditure across households. 3.6 Inequality (variability) In Income and Consumption of Sample HHs. -2009: The mean value of any data set reflects only central characteristics of a data set. It does not give us feel about the magnitude of inequality or equality across individual observations of a data set. Gini coefficient is a measure of the inequality (dispersion) of a distribution. By measuring the inequality using Gini coefficient, the vulnerability of rural households to income and consumption can be judged properly. Gini coefficient lies between 0G1. The 0 value of Gini coefficient express total equality and value of 1 maximal inequality. With a view to study equality (variability) in household income, consumption and wages, Gini coefficient worked out across households for income, consumption and wages separately for beneficiary and non-beneficiary households. The related data presented in Table 3.6. The Gini coefficient of income for beneficiary households as well as for non-beneficiary households is found to be almost same at 0.47. This suggests that income distribution during year 2009 differs significantly across beneficiary as well as non-beneficiary households. Gini coefficient of consumption for beneficiary households found to be higher at 0.357 compared to it 0.267 for non-beneficiaries. This shows that there exists a considerable inequality in consumption across households. However, compared to nonbeneficiary, this inequality is higher for beneficiary households. In respect of wages, Gini coefficient suggests large scale equality among beneficiary households but significant inequality among non-beneficiary households.

88

Table 3.6: Inequality (Variability) in Consumption and Income HHs. - 2009. Non Beneficiary Description beneficiary (B) (NB) Average Income (Rs./HH)-2009 75821.98 82886.10 Average Consumption (Rs./HH) 6054.50 5210.78 Coefficient of Variation (CV) of 1.13 1.02 Income across households (113%) (102%) Average HHs size (Nos. of persons)) 5.52 5.32 Monthly Percapita Consumption 1096.83 979.47 Expenditure (Rs.) Coefficient of Variation (CV)of 0.39 0.24 Consumption across households (39%) (24%) Gini coefficient of Income 0.4715027 0.4731345 Gini coefficient of Consumption 0.3568598 0.2675324 Gini coefficient of Wages 0.09485377 0.3034134
Source: Field Survey data

of Sample Aggregate (B+NB) 77234.80 5885.74 1.10 (110%) 5.48 1074.04 0.39 (39%) 0.4729335 0.3426025 0.1781969

As seen from Table 3.6, the average income per non-beneficiary household is higher than that of beneficiary household. However, in case of consumption, it is found higher for beneficiary households. The coefficient of variation (CV) for income found 113 percent for beneficiary, which was somewhat higher compared to 102 percent for non-beneficiary. Similar trend also observed for CV of consumption. Thus, the variability in income and consumption is noteably higher for beneficiaries compared to it for nonbeneficiaries. This suggests higher vulnerability and comparatively poor economical position of beneficiaries. 3.7 Factors Impacting Participation in MNREGA: 1) Logit Regression Analysis: With a view to know level of influence of various factors in motivating or demotivating the sample households for participation in MNREGA, we fitted logistic regression model using generalized linear model. The Logit regression analysis has been attempted at two levels household@ and member level. In Logit regression analysis, the participation in MNREGA is taken as dependent variable with binary outcomes$. Among the predictor variables, ______________________________________________________________
@ Logit Regression analysis at households level brought out some meaningful results. But analysis at member level not yielded good results. Hence are not reported. $ Logistic Regression modal allows us to determine relationship between binary out-come variable and group of predictor variables. The logit (p) = log (odds) = log (p/q) = a + bX where p is probability of participation in MNREGA and q = (1-p) and X is the vector of predictor variables.

89

Table 3.7: Determinants of participation in MNREGA (Logit function)

Predictor Variables Intercept Household income (Rs. /HH.) Household size (No.) Distance of work place from home (Km.) Wage rate(Rs./day) Female worker (Yes=1, No=0) Possession of land (Yes=1, No=0) BPL Card holding (Yes=1, No=0) Pseudo R (%) LR Chi-square
2

Coefficient 4.0740 0.00002201 -0.01765 -0.3174 -0.0347 0.8308 0.7397 1.099 46.643 116.6293

(Dependent variable: Participation in MNREGA, Yes=1, No=0) Exponentiated value of Std. Error Z value Pr (>|z|) coefficients 58.7947392 1.000022 0.9825054 0.7280354 0.9658952 2.2952355 2.0952895 3.0010435 1.2180 0.000007675 0.1176 0.07961 0.00968 0.6932 0.5689 0.4911 3.345 2.868 -0.15 -3.987 3.585 1.199 1.3 2.238 0.000824 0.004137 0.880654 0.0000669 0.000337 0.230708 0.193548 0.025229 p=0.00 *** ** NS *** *** NS NS *

Degree of freedom= 7 NS=Insignificant

Notes: Significance codes: 0 *** 0.001 ** 0.01 * 0.05 .

4 are continuous variables and 3 are categorical dummy variables. Annual income (Rs. /HH.), households size (No.of persons), distance of work place from residence (Km.) and wage-rate (Rs. /day) are the continuous predictor variables and female participation (Female=1, otherwise=0), land possession (Yes=1, No=0) and BPL card holding (Yes =1, No=0) are dummy variables. The findings of the logit regression analysis are stated in Table 3.7 In table, logistic regression coefficients, their standard errors, the z-statistic and the associated p values are shown. The logistic regression coefficient gives the change in log odds of the outcome for one unit increase in the predictor variable. Accordingly, for one unit increase in household income, the log odds of participation (versus non-participation) in MNREGA works increases by 0.00002201 which indicates significant influence (at 0.1% level) of household income on decision of participation in MNREGA work. For a one unit increase in household size, the log odds of participating in MNREGA decreases by 0.01765. This is statistically insignificant. This suggests insignificant influence of household size on participation in MNREGA. This is so because of provision in Act to 90

provide 100 days employment per household irrespective of size of the household. For a unit increase in distance of work place from home, the log odds of participating decrease by 0.3174. The longer distance of work place has acted as disincentive for working in MNREGA and influence is found statistically significant. For wage rate, impact found highly significant and for one unit increase in wage-rate, the log odds of participation in MNREGA declines by 0.0347. The dummy variables have a different interpretation. For example, being a female worker (versus male worker), increases the log odds of participation in MNREGA by 0.8308. The odd ratio (exponentiated value of coefficient) of 2.295 for female indicates that the odds of female participation in MNREGA are 2.30 times larger than the odds for male worker to participate in MNREGA. In respect of land holding, the workers having land have better odds of participation (0.7397). The odds ratio of 2.095 for land holder suggests that the odds of participation in MNREGA by a land holder are 2.095 times larger than the odds for a landless. The odds ratio for BPL (Below Poverty Line) card holders is 3.001 which suggest that the odds of participation in MNREGA for a BPL card holder are 3.001 times compared to the odds for non-BPL card holders. The analysis indicates that three predictor variables namely household income, distance of work place and wage rate are found influencing significantly on the decision of participation in MNREGA works. Household size has no significant impact on participation in MNREGA. The wage rate and distance of work place are found to be significant at almost zero (p=0) percent level of significance while household income is found to be significant at 0.1 percent level of significance. The land holding and female participation found to be statistically insignificant. BPL card holding is found to be significant at 1 percent level of significance. The chi-square test is used for testing goodness of fit and it suggests that model used is a better fit than an empty model. 2) Ordinary Least Square Analysis (OLS): The impact of various factors in motivating or demotivating the sample households have been also analysed using OLS at household and member level For OLS analysis at household level, numbers of employment days per 91

Table 3.8: Factors Affecting MNREGA employment (HH Level OLS Regression) (Dependent variable: No. of Days per HH worked In MNREGA)
Explanatory Variables Intercept Employment other than MNREGA (No. of working days) HH income other than MNREGA (Rs.) Per HH MNREGA wage (Rs./day) HH size Value of land owned (Rs.) Dummy AAL card holding (Y=1; N=0) Dummy BPL card holding (Y=1; N=0) Dummy SC (Y=1; N=0) Dummy ST (Y=1; N=0) Dummy OBC (Y=1; N=0) Adjusted R F Value
2

Co-efficient 33.2100000 -0.0116700 0.0000442 -0.0269800 2.1200000 -0.0000118 -9.0920000 10.6800000 20.3200000 28.3100000 16.3400000 0.04728

Std. Error

t value 1.5440

Pr (>t) 0.1240 0.3458 0.6223 0.7274 0.0666 0.0640 0.4952 0.0435 0.3248 0.1773 0.4163000

Signi.

21.5100000 0.0123400 0.0000896 0.0772900 1.1500000 0.0000063 13.3100000 5.2630000 20.5900000 20.9200000 20.0600000

-0.9450 0.4930 -0.3490 1.8430 -1.8610 -0.6830 2.0290 0.9870 1.3530 0.8140000

* * **

No. of observations= 250

2.236 on 10 and 239 DF, p-value: 0.01656

Notes: signif. Codes: 0 '****' 0.001 '***' 0.01 '**' 0.05 '*' Source: computed (using R) from field data

Table 3.9: Factors Affecting MNREGA employment (Member Level OLS Regression) (Dependent variable: No. of Days per member worked In MNREGA)
Explanatory Variables Intercept MNREGA wage (Rs./day) Other than MNREGA wage (Rs./day) HH size (No.) Age Education (No. of years) Employment other than MNREGA (No. of working days) Dummy AAL card holding (Y=1; N=0) Dummy BPL card holding (Y=1; N=0) 2 Adjusted R F Value Co-efficient -5.1025111 0.3311198 -0.0008753 -0.6434315 0.2584948 0.6103125 0.0014346 17.9783005 11.0599691 Std. Error 3.2543499 0.0178244 0.0056807 0.2296753 0.0589926 0.1683628 0.0043227 5.0073959 1.4247733 t value -1.568 18.577 -0.154 -2.801 4.382 3.625 0.332 1.593 0.744 Pr (>t) 0.117386 2.00E-16 0.877589 0.005237 1.37E-05 0.000311 0.740097 0.111574 0.457169 *** **** **** ****
Signi.

Notes: signif. Codes: 0 '****' 0.001 '***' 0.01 '**' 0.05 '*' Source: computed (using R) from field data

0.4294 No. of observations= 250 63.47 on 8 and 656 DF, p-value: < 2.2e-16

household in MNREGA was taken as the dependent variable. As explanatory variables, as stated in Table 3.8, five quantitative variables and five dummy variables were taken. It is seen from Table 3.8 that size of household (Nos. of members in HH.), value of land owned and BPL card holding (Poverty level) 92

are found to influencing significantly on the MNREGA employment days of the household (Table 3.8). As per findings, with the increase in family size, there is possibility of increase in employment days of the household in MNREGA works. With the increase in the value of the land, there is possibility of decrease in employment days of household in MNREGA. The BPL card holding and numbers of employment days in MNREGA works are positively correlated. This means that households which are very poor are likely to work for more days in MNREGA. The F value 2.236 at (10, 239) degree of freedom is statistically significant at 5 percent level. The details of OLS regression analysis at member level is shown in Table 3.9. Here, numbers of days per member worked in MNREGA was taken as the dependent variable. As shown in Table 3.9, five quantitative variables and three dummy variables were taken as explanatory variables. It is evident from the Table 3.9 that wage rate of MNREGA, household size, age and education of members are found to influencing significantly on employment in MNREGA. The result suggests that for every one percent increase in wage rate of MNREGA per member, there is a possibility of 0.33 percent increase in employment of members in MNREGA works. Similarly, for a one unit increase in household size, the number of days of MNREGA employment per member decreases by 6.43. This is mainly because of provision of limit of providing 100 days employment per household irrespective of family size. The F value of 63.47 on (8,656) degree of freedom with p value near to zero confirm that the fitted model has a good predictive capacity and the model is overall statistically significant. Summary: Average Family size of aggregate sample households was 5.48 persons. About 64 percent of the total population of beneficiary households were in active age group of 16-60 years. Of the aggregate sample households, 98.40 percent were of ST, SC and OBC. This suggests that higher castes almost remained away from participation in MNREGA mainly due to their social status. Of the total earning members of sample households, nearly 77 percent had casual wage labour and about 21 percent had agriculture as their principal occupation. From the 250 sample households, only 4.00 percent had AAY type ration cards and 51.20 percent had BPL 93

ration cards. This shows that non-BPL families also participated in MNREGA on a large scale. In decision making process, very high dominance of male is visible. Under MNREGA, each beneficiary household availed average employment of 81 days at an average wage rate of Rs.87.53 per day. The employment days provided and wage rate per day realised was lower than guaranteed 100 days and minimum wage prescribed in the Act. Further, during 2009 about 47.00 percent beneficiary and 42.00 percent nonbeneficiary households were involved in out migration process. The nearly equal level of migration suggests that MNREGA had insignificant impact on complete halting of out-migration. Beneficiary households, on an average worked as migrant worker for about 148 mandays whereas non-beneficiaries household worked for 164 mandays. This suggests that MNREGA succeed in reducing the out-migration period but not scale of out-migration. For both, beneficiary as well as non-beneficiary households, casual labour works in village and works as a migrant workers were the forefront contributors in total employment. And together, it accounted for 84.34 percent of total 696 mandays of non-beneficiary. For beneficiary households, it accounted for 70.29 percent of total 675 mandays. For Non-MNREGA works, beneficiary received average wage rate of Rs.115.76/day whereas for MNREGA works, they received only Rs.87.53/day. The non-beneficiary received average wage rate per day of Rs.119.17. Thus, due to lower wage realisation and availability of employment for a shorter (25 to 30 days per person) duration under MNREGA, many members of beneficiary households migrated to other places without waiting for starting of MNREGA works in village. Bajra, Wheat, Maize, Jowar and Rice are the main cereals consumed by sample HHs. In respect of per capita consumption of main food items in 2009, beneficiary households are somewhat better placed compared to nonbeneficiary households. As compared to NSS data (2005), beneficiary households had higher food consumption. Per capita/month consumption expenditure incurred on food items for beneficiary and non-beneficiary households was found almost equal. However, on non-food items, it was much higher for beneficiary households. As compared to NSS data (2005), 94

food consumption expenditure in year 2009 was nearly double for beneficiary as well as non-beneficiary households. This was mainly due to somewhat improvement in consumption level and very large increase in consumer prices of majority food items. The Gini coefficient of income and consumption across households suggest significant inequality (variability) in income distribution as well as in consumption pattern. The logit regression analysis indicates that household income, distance of work place and wage rate per day are found to be influencing significantly on the decision of participation in MNREGA. The land holding and female participation are found to be statistically insignificant. BPL card holding is found to be statistically significant on influencing the decision making about participating in MNREGA. OLS regression analysis attempted at household level indicates that size of household (No. of members), value of owned land and poverty level of household found to influencing significantly on the employment days per household for MNREGA works. The OLS analysis at member level suggest that household size, age and education level of member are found to influencing significantly on employment days in MNREGA.

95

Chapter 4 Work Profile, Wage Differential and Migration under MNREGA

This chapter mainly deals with the issues of wage differentials between MNREGA activities and other Non-MNREGA wage employment activities in selected districts. Further, issues of impact of MNREGA on the pattern of migration in selected districts are also attempted. To what extent, MNREGA succeeded in providing 100 days employment to each job-demanding household is also ascertain in this chapter using primary data. The caste-wise and gender-wise employment provided under MNREGA and other related aspects are also studied here. 4.1 Work Profile under MNREGA of Sample HHs.-2009: For selected districts as well as overall (5 districts together), caste-wise data relating to work profile of sample households (only beneficiary) under MNREGA have been presented in Table 4.1. The given data relate to reference period January- December, 2009. 1. Average Number of Persons per Households Employed Under MNREGA: The average family size of 200 sample beneficiary households was 5.52 persons. Out of these, on an average 2.31 persons per household worked under MNREGA during year 2009. Across districts, it was lowest at 1.18 persons for Navsari and highest at 3.05 persons for Jamnagar district. It was 2.70 persons for Dahod, 2.23 persons for Surendranagar and 2.38 persons for Banaskantha district. The Navsari district is rich in water resources and hence large section of farmers are growing crops in all 3 seasons. Further, it has significant area under orchards and horticulture crops. Moreover, in the district good employment opportunity exist in diamond, textile and other industries. Owing to these all reasons, average members of persons per household employed under MNREGA was low for Navsari. Caste-wise examination of data reveals that overall, on an average, per household 2.63 persons of SC, 2.53 persons of ST and 2.11 persons of OBC worked under MNREGA in year 2009. Across districts, per SC household,
96

average number of persons worked in MNREGA was lowest for Navsari (1.00) and highest for Banaskantha district (2.83). For OBC, it was highest at 3.19 persons for Jamnagar and lowest at 1.16 persons for Navsari district. For ST, it was highest at 3.00 persons for Jamnagar and lowest at 1.00 persons for Banaskantha district. In Dahod, Navsari, Banaskantha and Jamnagar districts, not a single family of General Castes (Higher Castes) asked for works in MNREGA. In Surendranagar district, only 1.33 persons per General category household worked in MNREGA. Owing to their social status, majority households of higher castes consider working in MNREGA as derogatory and hence remained away from participation in it. Overall, on an average against 0.99 men per household, 1.32 women worked under MNREGA. Thus, overall men women participation ratio was 43:57. Thus, against the MNREGA provision of providing employment to atleast 33 percent women, employment was provided to 57 percent women. This shows that women prefer to work in MNREGA, if works provided at convenient place and suitable to their skill. In Dahod district, number of males and number of women per household worked under MNREGA were nearly equal, whereas in Navsari, Banaskantha, Surendranagar and Jamnagar districts, number of women employed per household under MNREGA outnumber the number of men. The rate of women participation in MNREGA in Navsari district is most striking. Against only 0.13 male persons per household, 1.05 women worked under MNREGA (see Table 4.1). Thus, in Navsari district, male female participation ratio was 11:89. This is so because majority males of selected villages of Navsari are working in nearby locted diamond, textile and other industries. Here, they are fetching much higher wages and also employment for a longer period. This shows the predominance of women in MNREGA works. Thus, in selected districts, overall scenario of providing employment to women in MNREGA looks glorious. 2. Number of Employment Days per Households-2009: Overall, per household average number of employment days under MNREGA approximately worked out to 81 (see Table 4.1). Caste-wise, it
97

ranged from 51 days for General Castes to about 91 days for ST. Under MNREGA, lower employment days for General Castes was mainly owing to
Table 4.1: The Work Profile under MNREGA for Beneficiary Sample Households in Selected Districts. (Ref.period Jan-Dec. - 2009) Characteristics Dahod Navsari Banas- Surendra- JamGujarat Kantha nagar nagar (Overall)

No.of members per HHs.employ ed during year - 2009

No. of days per HHs. employed during year 2009

Average Wage rate obtained (Rs./ day)

General SC ST OBC Aggregate Men Women General SC ST OBC Aggregate Men Women General SC ST OBC Aggregate Men Women

0.00 0.00 2.68 2.83 2.70 1.37 1.33 0.00 0.00 96.03 86.17 94.55 53.30 41.25 0.00 0.00 100.67 100.00 100.58 100.75 100.36 2 (5.00) 1.87

0.00 1.00 2.00 1.16 1.18 0.13 1.05 0.00 100.00 108.00 92.18 92.78 5.38 87.40 0.00 80.00 80.00 85.50 85.19 80.95 85.45 6 (15.00) 1.88

0.00 2.83 1.00 1.85 2.38 1.03 1.35 0.00 79.71 46.67 69.38 73.88 33.65 40.23 0.00 95.88 92.86 95.47 95.61 96.33 95.01 0 (0.00) 3.30

1.33 2.47 2.00 2.19 2.23 1.05 1.18 51.00 70.53 90.00 62.62 65.40 32.97 32.43 57.58 66.69 54.84 65.31 65.06 63.06 67.09 2 (5.00) 1.05

0.00 2.50 3.00 3.19 3.05 1.35 1.70 0.00 67.88 54.00 81.48 78.08 32.68 45.40 0.00 65.98 86.67 89.89 85.68 87.76 84.18 0 (0.00) 3.60

1.33 2.63 2.53 2.11 2.31 0.99 1.32 51.00 75.29 91.43 80.39 80.94 31.60 49.34 57.58 82.40 98.43 85.62 87.53 88.69 86.85 10 (5.00) 2.35

Source: Field Survey

No. HHs. Nos. Employed 100 or more % to total HHs. days Average distance from residence (Kms.)

their better economical position, higher chances of availing non-labour jobs and their hesitation to work for social prestige. Across selected districts, average number of days per household employed under MNREGA approximately worked out to 95 mandays for Dahod, 93 mandays for Navsari, 74 mandays for Banaskantha, 65 mandays
98

for Surendranagar and 78 mandays for Jamnagar district. Thus, average number of employment days in MNREGA varied significantly across districts. The MNREGA guarantees atleast 100 days of wage employment in every financial year to registered rural households irrespective of family size. In Dahod and Navsari districts, under MNREGA, numbers of days of employment per household were slightly lower but near to assured 100 mandays. The average number of employment days provided under MNREGA was found lowest at 65 mandays in Surendranagar district. The predominance of woman in MNREGA works is the striking feature. Overall, compare to men, participation of women in MNREGA found considerably higher. Out of approximately 81 employment days per household, share of women employment was to the extent of about 49 days (60.96%). Compared to men, women employment days found remarkably higher in Navsari, Banaskantha and Jamnagar districts whereas it was found lower in Dahod and Surendranagar districts. The high participation of women in MNREGA was mainly owing to relatively higher migration among males. For low participation of women in MNREGA in Surendranagar district, one of the reasons is social custom, tradition and peculiarity of Rajput and Darbar communities. Traditionally, women of these communities are not working as wage-worker. It is found from the Table 4.1 that from the total 200 sample beneficiary households spread over 5 districts, only 10 households (5%) availed employment of atlest 100 days. Not a single household of Banaskatha and Jamnagar districts availed employment of 100 days (Table 4.1). Thus, in respect of providing employment to registered households, performance of MNREGA in sample districts looks slightly below the anticipation but near to satisfactory. 3. Wage Rate Received: The wage rate received by the participant is a very crucial factor influencing largely on the work demand under MNREGA. In a situation, where wage rates for MNREGA works are found much lower than the wage rates prevailing for Non-MNREGA works, the young and physically fit members of sample households opted for Non-MNREGA works and avoided to work
99

under MNREGA. Owing to this phenomenon, significant impact of MNREGA is not seen on the scale of out migration. Such situation is found to be haunting the effective implementation of MNREGA. Two methods are used to determine wage-rate of MNREGA. For road and some other construction works, fix minimum wage per day method is used. The other method is the task rate/piece rate wage payment. Under this system, amount of wages is decided by measuring the task performed by the workers. The measurement of the work is not done daily but on the convenience of the JEN as he has to visit number of sites. Sometimes, it delayed for 10 to 15 days. The workers wage amount of work done is decided using schedule of rate (SOR) of government parlance. This method is very complex and not easy to understand for common men. In this method, there is a scope of favoritism in measurement of works. Most of the workers not understand the calculation of fixing wage amount of work done. This complex wage calculation method is not allowing workers to fetch good wage rate. Due to varying field and geology conditions, physical condition and age of workers, quantum of work performed also vary. And hence in task rate method, wagerate realised also vary from worker to worker. For most of the activities under MNREGA, wage rate is decided using task rate/piece rate method. For digging works, deepening works, water conservation and harvesting works, land development works etc. piece rate method is used to decide wage-rate. There is a need to rationalised and simplified this wage calculation method so that all workers fetch same wage or atleast basic minimum wage. From Table 4.1, it is seen that overall, average wage rate per day obtained by MNREGA workers comes to Rs.87.53. The data clearly shows that average wage rate received is varying much according to castes. It was only Rs.57.58 for General (higher) castes compared to Rs.98.43 for Schedule Tribes (ST) and Rs.85.62 for OBC. It was found much low for higher castes because they are usually not habitual to such strenuous labour works of MNREGA. Further, they are not physically so strong like ST/SC/OBC and hence quantum of work per day performed by them was also found relatively low.

100

Across sample districts, average wage-rate per day received for MNREGA works is varying significantly and ranged from Rs.65.06 for Surendranagar to Rs.100.58 for Dahod district. It was Rs.85.19 for Navsari and Rs.95.61 for Banaskantha. Compared to other districts, average wagerate for Surendranagar district was found much lower. Because of relatively hard soil and hot weather of Surendranagar district, the quantum of work done per day was relatively low and subsequently it downscale the wage amount of the works. Except Surendranagar district, wage rate per day received by MNREGA workers in remaining four selected districts was found as reasonably good and close to prescribed minimum wage rate of Rs.100/day. The average wage rate received by women was found almost similar to wage rate obtained by men. This suggests that quantum of work done by women and men were almost equal and hence no significant gender variation seen. Further, it suggests almost no wage differential among women and men. The average distance of work sites of MNREGA from residence of works was only 2.35 kms. And across districts, it ranged from 1.87 kms. in Dahod to 3.60 kms. in Jamnagar district. This shows that employment was provided to job demanding households within the permissible limit of 5 kms distance from residence. 4.2 Activity-Wise Employment under MNREGA-2009: 1. Activity- Wise Employment (% of HHs.): The MNREGA focusing on works related to regeneration of natural resources through building sustainable assets of good quality. As wage earning is relatively higher in road construction works, MNREGA workers have high preference for road and other construction works where wage payment basis is per working day and not relate to volume of work done. It may be noted that during year 2009, the members of a sample beneficiary households worked in number of activities of MNREGA and NonMNREGA. The data on activity-wise percentage of households employed and their views in respect of quality of assets created have been given in Table 4.2. From the table, it is seen that Water Conservation and Water
101

Table 4.2: The activity-wise employed under MNREGA and the quality of assets created 2009 Characteristics Activity Dahod Rural Connectivity(RC) Flood Control and Protection (FC) Water Conservation and Water Harvesting (WCWH) Drought Proofing (DP) Micro Irrigation Works Provision of Irrigation Facility to Land Owned Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies (RTWD) Land Development (LD) Any other activity approved by the Min. of Rural Development Very good Good Bad 0.00 60.00 85.00 17.50 5.00 17.50 27.50 32.50 0.00 71.30 28.70 0.00 0.00 0.00

(% of HHs.) Gujarat (overall) 39.50 52.00 54.00 3.50 1.00 6.50 6.50 14.00 1.50 60.52 35.79 1.74 1.95 0.00

% of Beneficiary HHs. employed in activities Banas Surendra Navsari Jamnagar Kantha nagar 82.50 90.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 7.50 97.87 2.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 57.50 52.50 57.50 0.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 37.50 0.00 66.84 23.16 10.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 15.00 97.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.21 51.69 8.99 10.11 0.00 52.50 42.50 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.72 53.28 0.00 0.00 0.00

Name of the activity under which employed

Quality of the assets created through MNREGA Worst activities Average unemployment allowance received by the household for not getting work under MNREGA after registration (Rs. /HH.)
Source: Field Survey

102

Harvesting (WCWH), Flood Control and Protection (FC), Rural Connectivity (RC) and Land Development (LD) were the main activities of MNREGA in which beneficiary households availed employment during year 2009. Overall, of the total 200 beneficiary households, 54 percent households worked in WCWH activities, 52 percent in FC activities, 39.50 percent in RC activities and 14 percent in LD activities. Across selected districts, main activities of MNREGA which absorbed higher employment varied due to variation in work-plans. As Navsari is facing frequent flood situation, FC (90%), RC (82.50%) and WCWH (25%) were the major activities where member of beneficiary households worked. In Dahod WCWH (85%), FC (60%), LD (32.50%) and Renovation of traditional water bodies (27.50%) were the major activities where beneficiary households availed employment. In water starving Surendranagar district, WCWH was the main activity and it provided employment to 97.50 percent households. In Jamnagar, RC (52.50%) and FC (42.50) were the major activities which generated maximum employment. It is surprising to note that despite scare water resources in Jamnagar, the works relating to WCWH were undertaken on a very small scale and focus was more on rural connectivity. In Banaskantha district, employment was provided in four major activities of MNREGA. These activities were RC (57.50%), WCWH (57.50%), FC (52.50%) and LD (37.50%). To sum up, overall, WCWH, FC and RC were the main activities of MNREGA which generated maximum employment days. Of these three works, WCWH and FC works are related natural resources works and under these works productive assets were created. As per discussion with the knowledgeable villagers, nexus between government officer and road contractors as well as higher emphasis on wage earning aspect have been found responsible to some extent for shifting focus from natural resources related works to rural connectivity (road) works.

103

2. Perception of Participating Households On Quality of the Assets Created: In order to study quality aspect of the assets created under MNREGA, opinions on quality aspect of the assets created were collected from the all beneficiary sample households. The data given in Table 4.2 exhibit that overall, nearly 61 percent households reported that assets created were of very good quality. In Navsari nearly 98 percent households reported assets created were of very good quality. Except Surendranagar and Banaskatha districts, the quality of assets created under MNREGA was found either good or very good by cent percent participant households. Not a single household reported quality of assets as bad or worst. In Surendranagar district, nearly 81 percent and in Banaskatha about 90.00 percent households felt that quality of assets created was good and rest households reported quality as bad/worst and not up to the mark. The data reveals that majority households are satisfied with the quality of the assets created, but field level observation and discussion reveals that in few cases ground reality was different. Owing to high focus on employment generation under MNREGA, there was a compromise with the quality of assets created. The quality of assets deteriorates over a period of time due to lack of proper maintenance. Because of non-maintenance of created community assets, some assets became non-useful. Many road works done under MNREGA found lacking in quality aspect due to provision of non-use of machinery. Some works were not adequate in size. Some works were not undertaken on proper location. The MNREGA not focus much on maintenance work of created assets. The issue of regular maintenance and repair of created assets has to be addressed urgently as well. The strong efforts are needed to create awareness and understanding in village communities on maintenance and repair of created community assets. Otherwise, community assets created will turn to non-use. This alone has the potential to undo whatever has been achieved through creating productive assets under MNREGA. The majority participating households also expressed such views.
104

3. Unemployment Allowance: According to MNREGA, work must be provided within 15 days of the demand date. If concern authority fails to provide employment within 15 days, daily unemployment allowance in cash has to be paid from the state funds. During reference year 2009, as per record unemployment allowance has been not due for payment to anyone. It is learnt that in some villages Talati/Sarpanch are accepting non dated job-demanding applications and it is assumed to be given on the date when the work is given. Moreover, many workers are demanding works through oral information. In some villages, many people are found unaware about their legal right to demand works. They are giving demand application only when they receive instruction for it from concern Talati / Sarpanch / village functionaries. Thus, mechanism of accepting work demand applications is arranged in such a way that issue of payment of any unemployment allowance mostly not arise. In short, the element of guarantee of work in 15 days is diluted using this mechanism. 4.3 The Out-Migration Incidents 2009: One of the major goals of the MNREGA is to arrest rate of distress migration of the rural poor by providing wage employment within the village. Therefore, using survey data, here an attempt is made to study how MNREGA impacted on labour migration and direction of migration during 2009. The related data provided in Table 4.3. It is seen from the table that overall, of the total family members of sample beneficiary households, 15.00 percent (169 members) belonging to 94 beneficiary households (47%) out migrated during the year 2009 because of various reasons. Across selected districts, the percentage of out-migrant members was very high for Navsari (25%) and Dahod (23%). It was low (4%) for Jamnagar district. In Dahod and Navsari districts, some members of the sample households are regularly migrate every year to nearest districts for labour works. The nature of their migration was seasonal and temporary. Therefore, incidents of out-migration are very high in Dahod and Navsari districts.
105

In case of all sample households, the numbers of members migrated from the village because of not getting work under MNREGA even after registration was only 0.06 per household while average size of household is 5.52. In other words, only 1.09 percent family members had migrated to other places for reason of not getting work under MNREGA. In Navsari, Banaskatha, Surendranagar and Jamnagar districts, there was a out-migration. But not a single out-migration was because of not getting work under MNREGA (Table 4.3).In Dahod district only 0.30 members per household out-migrated because of not getting work under MNREGA. Overall, of the total 169 out-migrated members about 7.00 percent out-migrated because of not getting work under MNREGA and rest 93.00 percent for other reasons. This shows that not getting works under MNREGA was not the key reason for continuation out-migration. There were other reasons and considerations which tempted them for out-migration. Also some members of registered families in selected districts migrated to other places even though works under MNREGA were available. Because, they gets works for a longer period on a very high wage-rate at migrated places. Further, they feel that for a family of 3 to 4 working members, employment of 100 days per households (25 to 33 days per person) not enough to meet the annual household expenses. Therefore, with mutual understanding some members of family (mostly women and old age men) are staying in the village and participating in MNREGA and some are migrating to other places. Thus, limit of providing employment of 100 days per year to registered household is working as constraint for preventing out-migration. Overall, out of 0.06 members per HHs. who out-migrated in 2009 for not getting work under MNREGA, 0.05 members (83.33%) per HHs returned back to village because of getting work under MNREGA (Table 4.3). The members who returned back to village were earlier working in the other districts of the Gujarat state. The members who returned back to village to work in MNREGA activities were earlier working in different activities. Some members worked in more than one activity. Working as a labourer in construction works/manufacturing units
106

Table 4.3: The Migration Incidents Recorded During January-December -2009

Characteristics Total Nos. of HHs. involved in migration Total Nos. of members migrated because of various reasons Average HHs. Size (Nos.) Proportion of Migrated members to total members Per HHs. % % No. of members migrated from the village because of not getting work under MNREGA even after registration (Per HHs.) % No. of out-migrated members returned back to village because of getting work in MNREGA (Per HHs.) Nearby village In the case some members Nearby town returned back to the village to Same district work under MNREGA where Same state were they earlier working (% of Other state returned members) Other country Construction/ Manufacturing / Mining In the case some members returned back to the village to work under MNREGA which activity earlier working in (% of returned members) Trading / Services and Transport Private work/Self business Other government work Dahod 27 69 7.65 0.23 (23.00) 0.30 (3.92)* 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 88.89 11.11 22.22 0.00 Navsari 36 47 4.68 0.25 (25.00) 0.00 (0.00)* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Banas kantha 15 30 4.78 0.16 (16.00) 0.00 (0.00)* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

(For Beneficiary HHs.)

Surendra nagar 9 13 4.65 0.07 (7.00) 0.00 (0.00)* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Jam nagar 7 10 5.85 0.04 (4.00) 0.00 (0.00)* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Gujarat (Overall) 94 169 5.52 0.15 (15.00) 0.06 (1.09)* 0.05 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 88.89 11.11 22.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 77.78

Agriculture labour 0.00 Any other 0.00 Shifted last year 100.00 Year in which shifted (% of shifted HHs.) Shifted before last year 0.00 Is your family better off now compared to previous occupation 77.78 (% of shifted HHs.) Source: Field Survey * = % to average HHs. Size of respective district.

107

(88.89%) and private works/self business (22.22%) were their main activities. This show that majority of the migrated members who returned back to village had worked earlier as unskilled labourer. From the shifted households, all shifted last year. From these shifted households, about 77.78 percent felt that compare to previous occupations, their families are now better off. They feel good for staying in the own village and own house with relatives, friends and well wishers eventhough there was a slight decline in the income. The analysis clearly reveals that MNREGA not succeeded in arresting outmigration. It was found helpful in shortening the length of out-migration period. For enhancing impact of MNREGA in arresting out-migration, need is felt to relook at the limit of 100 days employment per HHs per year. It is inadequate to reduce scale of migration for a relatively larger size family. Also relook at the issue of minimum wage rate prescribed for MNREGA and present wagecalculation method. 4.4 Wage Differentials between MNREGA and Non-MNREGA Works: The Wage rate earned through working in MNREGA activities is one of the crucial factors which impacting on a big way on the work demand of MNREGA. It is obvious that if wage rate earned through MNREGA works are people friendly and close to similar Non-MNREGA works, the participation of people in MNREGA works is bound to be higher. Otherwise, low participation of people in MNREGA will defeat the very aim of the programme. With a view to study wage differentials between MNREGA activities and Non-MNREGA activities, the related data have been presented in Table 4.4. Further, to study wage differential by gender, wage rate data given separately for men and women. The average wage rate per day earned through working as agricultural casual labour was around Rs.84 for male and around Rs.82 for female. The average wage rate earned through MNREGA works was Rs.88.73 for male and Rs.86.51 for female. Thus, wage-rate earned through MNREGA works is slightly higher than the agriculture wage rate. However, the wage rate received for
108

MNREGA works was lower than the prescribed minimum wage-rate of Rs.100/day. This is so, because works like digging a tank, check-dam, desilting works etc. requires more labour and fetches less money because of archaic wage-rate based on measurement of completed works. On the other hand, road works requires less labour and fetches more money as payment is made on per day basis irrespective of volume of works done. Compared to average rate earned (Rs.88.73) through MNREGA works by male, average wage rate earned by them for working as casual labourer in non-agricultural activities (Rs.126.49) was higher by 42.55 percent. As a migrant workers, wage rate earned (Rs.133.17) was higher by 50.08 percent. For public work programme, it was Table 4.4: Wage Differentials Between different activities 2009 Non Beneficiaries Aggregate beneficiaries (B) (B+NB) Occupation (NB) Average % CV Average % CV Average % CV Average Wage Male 84.11 25.00 84.44 22.00 84.17 24.00 rate of agricultural casual labour Female 82.93 39.00 78.98 25.00 82.26 37.00 (Rs./day) Average Wage Male 123.39 53.00 136.05 61.00 126.49 55.00 rate of Non agri. casual labour Female 125.01 66.00 109.17 54.00 120.53 63.00 (Rs./day) Average Wage Male rate in public work programmes Female (Rs./day) Average Wage rate earned as migrant workers (Rs./day) Average Wage rate under MNREGA (Rs./day) Male Female Male Female 100.91 100.00 133.82 122.20 88.73 86.51 3.00 0.00 52.00 38.00 20.00 18.00 100.00 100.00 130.57 117.47 0.00 0.00 39.00 27.00 100.00 100.00 133.17 121.09 88.73 86.51 0.00 0.00 50.00 36.00 20.00 18.00

Source: Field Survey

109

higher by 12.70 percent. Thus, there exist a significant gap between the average wage-rate realised from MNREGA works and Non-MNREGA works. This high gap in wage-rate prevailing at present impacted negatively on the demand of works under MNREGA. Further, owing to nearly 50 percent higher wage-rate as a migrant worker, young and physically strong workers opted for migration. Thus, owing to lower realization of wage-rate, MNREGA not succeed fully in achieving the goal of sizeable reduction in distress out-migration of rural poor to other places. Moreover, paying less than the prescribed minimum wage rate per day has been turned out as one of the great threat to the Acts development potential. The MNREGA guarantees employment but not wages. Therefore, there is a need to make provision to give prescribed basic minimum daily wage irrespective of the methods used to determine wage payment. At present, significant gap exist between wage-rate for activities of MNREGA and Non-MNREGA. Simplified the wage calculation method and wage rate in such a way that the gap between wage rates of Non-MNREGA and MNREGA works turn out to be very small. The gender-wise examination of wage-rate received for different works reveals that compared to female, male earned slightly higher wages for MNREGA and Non-MNREGA activities. However gap of wage rate earned between male and female was so small and insignificant. It is interesting to note that our discussion with people during field survey reveals the striking and positive impact of MNREGA. The fixing of minimum wage rate of Rs.100/day for MNREGA compelled others for upside revision of wagerate for agriculture and Non-MNREGA works. Thus, MNREGA impacted indirectly on the wage-rate of Non-MNREGA works and helped villagers to earn more. The coefficient of variation (CV) worked out suggest significant variation across households in respect of wage differential. Summary: Average family size of beneficiary households was 5.52 persons. Out of 5.52 persons, 2.31 persons worked in MNREGA. Across selected districts, it was lowest at 1.18 persons for Navsari which is rich in water resources and
110

prosperous in agriculture. Large scale participation in MNREGA was observed for SC/ST/OBC, but in case of higher castes (General Castes), participation in MNREGA found very negligible. Because, they considering participation in MNREGA as derogatory and degrading to their social status. The welcome and striking feature is the predominance of women participation in MNREGA works. Overall, men-women participation ratio was 43:57 and in employment days, share of women was to the extent of about 60.96 percent. This shows that women prefer to work in MNREGA, if works provided at convenient places, convenient time and suitable to their skill. Overall, on an average each beneficiary household was provided employment under MNREGA for approximately 81 days with an average wage-rate of Rs.87.53 per day. Across districts, wage-rate variation is high. It was lowest at Rs.65.06 per day for Surendranagar district. This shows that employment provided was for less days then the prescribed limit of 100 days per household. Also, average wage-rate received was less than the fixed basic minimum wage-rate of Rs.100/- per day. The average wage-rate was low mainly owing to task rate/piece rate method in which wage amount is decided by measurement of work done. The average-wage rate realised for MNREGA works found to be much lower than average-wage rate for Non-MNREGA works. No discrimination and gender bias seen in average wage rate received by men and women for MNREGA works. Employment under MNREGA was provided within the permissible limit of 5 kms distance. It is seen that Water Conservation and Water Harvesting (WCWH), Flood control and protection (FC), Rural Connectivity (RC) and Land Development (LD) were the main activities of MNREGA which generated maximum employment in year 2009. In water starving Surendranagar district, WCWH activities provided employment to 97.50 percent households. Navsari district is facing frequent flood situation and hence FC (90%), RC (82.50%) were major activities which generated maximum employment. Except Surendranagar and Banaskatha district, as per participants, the quality of assets created under MNREGA was found good or very good. In
111

Surendranagar district, 81 percent and in Banaskatha 90.00 percent participants found quality of created assets as good. The field level observations and discussion with villagers reveals that in few cases ground reality was different. In some cases, selection of location was not proper. Owing to lack of proper maintenance and repairs of created assets, quality of assets deteriorates and assets became non-useful. Many road works are found lacking in quality due to ban on using machinery. Therefore, there is an urgent need to address issue of maintenance and repairs of community assets created under MNREGA. Otherwise, this alone has the potential to undo whatever has been achieved through creating assets under MNREGA. Unemployment allowance has not been paid to anyone. The village level authority accepting non-dated work demand applications. Some villagers are asking for works through oral information. Some are giving applications only when they receive instruction from Talati/Sarpanch/village functionaries. Owing to this mechanism of accepting work demand applications, payment of unemployment allowance avoided. Also, guarantee of providing employment within 15 days has been diluted using this mechanism. After registration in MNREGA, 169 members belonging to 94 beneficiary households (47%) migrated to other places during 2009. In Dahod district, 67.50 percent and in Navsari as high as 90.00 percent households were involved in process of out-migration. Out of the 169 migrated persons of beneficiary households, only 12 (7.10%) persons migrated to other places because of not getting work under MNREGA. This shows that in majority cases, not getting work under MNREGA were not the primary reason for the out-migration. There are other reasons and considerations which tempted them for the out-migration. They migrated mainly because income earning from 100 days employment under MNREGA was not enough for a poor household to sustain their livelihood for the entire year. Also, at migrated places they are getting employment for a longer period with a very high wage rate. Further, data reveals that MNREGA found helpful in reducing the length of out-migration period but not succeed fully in stopping the distress out-migration.
112

The 100 day guaranteed employment per household is inadequate to stop out-migration of a large size family. Therefore, there is a need to revisit the issue of 100 day employment limit and if possible up this limit and link it with the number of eligible members of the family. Also relook at the issue of minimum wage-rate prescribed for MNREGA and wage calculation method. The average wage rate per day earned by male of beneficiary households for working as agricultural casual labour was Rs.84.17, for MNREGA works Rs.88.73, for non agricultural works Rs.123.39 and as migrant workers Rs.133.82. Thus, wage rate earned through MNREGA works is lower than the prescribed minimum wage rate of Rs.100/day and other Non-MNREGA works. As a non- agriculture labourer they earned 42.85 percent higher wage-rate. As a migrant workers, they earned 50.80 percent higher wage-rate. Thus, high gap in wage rate realised from NonMNREGA works and MNREGA works impacted negatively on the demand of works under MNREGA. Owing to nearly 50 percent higher wage rate as a migrant workers, out-migration continued unabated. The MNREGA guarantees employment but not wages. Therefore, there is a need to make provision to give prescribed basic minimum daily wage irrespective of the methods used to determine wage payment. Simplified the wage calculation method and wage rate in such a way that the present gap between wages of Non-MNREGA and MNREGA works turned out to be very small. Our discussion with people reveals that fixing of basic minimum wage rate of Rs.100/day for MNREGA compelled others for upside revision in wage rate for agriculture and Non-MNREGA works. Thus, MNREGA impacted indirectly on the wage rates of Non-MNREGA works and subsequently, it indirectly boosted the income level of the rural poor households.

113

Chapter-5 The Qualitative Aspects of the Functioning of MNREGA

The level of success of MNREGA programme is highly associated with the nature of functioning of MNREGA. One of the indicator to judge the success of MNREGA is level of satisfication of participating households on functioning and implementation of MNREGA. Therefore, it is worthwhile to know the level of satisfication of the participating households on functioning and implementation of various activities undertaken under the programme. Further, it is necessary to know how far and why authority deviated from the guidelines in functioning and implementing the programme. With these all in view, this chapter deals with the qualitative aspects of the functioning of MNREGA. 5.1 Assets Holding (Rs. /HHs.): Assets position is one of the important indicator of the economic status of the household. And economic status of household is an important factor which is count while deciding about participation in MNREGA. Further, MNREGA intervention aims to generate positive impact on the income level and subsequently on assets composition of beneficiary households. With this in view, assets position of sample households have been examined here. From Table 5.1, it is seen that total assets per beneficiary household was of Rs.135678, which was fairly lower and only 38 percent of assets of Rs.357384 for non-beneficiary household. This clearly gives indication that households having poor economic condition participated on large scale in MNREGA programme. Further, it asserts that living standard and economical status of non beneficiary is better than beneficiary households. Among different type of assets, land property was the highest for both, beneficiary as well as non-beneficiary households. It was Rs.62675 per beneficiary household and Rs.256500 per non-beneficiary households. Thus, average investment on land by non-beneficiary households was more than 4 times than the corresponding beneficiary households. This shows that beneficiary households are either landless or own very small land holding.

114

Table 5.1: Assets Holdings (Rs/HHs.) Assets Beneficiaries (B) 62675 (46.19) 39642 (29.22) 9834 (7.25) 3608 (2.66) 4448 (3.28) 0 (0.00) 10502 (7.74) 1964 (1.45) 3007 (2.22) 135678 (100.00) Non beneficiaries (NB) 256500 (71.77) 53548 (14.98) 9810 (2.74) 10850 (3.04) 8352 (2.34) 0 (0.00) 12952 (3.62) 1956 (0.55) 3416 (0.96) 357384 (100.00) Aggregate (B+NB) 101440 (56.35) 42423 (23.57) 9829 (5.46) 5056 (2.81) 5228 (2.90) 0 (0.00) 10992 (6.11) 1962 (1.09) 3089 (1.72) 180019 (100.00)

Land House Property Live stock Agricultural implements Consumer assets Business assets Ornaments/Jewellary Utensils Others Total Assets

Source: Field Survey Note: Figure in brackets denote percentage to total assets

Further, it shows that size of land holding and ownership of land impacting the participation in MNREGA. Owing to larger land size, investment on agricultural implements by non-beneficiary households was also found 3 times than investment by beneficiary households. Further, owing to relatively better economic condition, non-beneficiary households invested more on house property, consumer durables and ornaments. The comparision of assets of beneficiary with non-beneficiary clearly brought out that poor economic condition of the beneficiary households was one of the main reasons for their participation in MNREGA. 5.2 Borrowings by Sample Households 2009: When income earned during the year plus saving amount found inadequate to meet recurring expenses like daily consumption need of family and non recurring expenses on social obligations, health care, purchase of land/livestock, investment in agriculture etc. sample households have no
115

option but to borrow the required amount from either institutional sources or private sources. Sometime, family members who migrate to other places may not able to send money regularly to the members who stayed at home. In such cases, they have to borrow money temporary for meeting their daily consumption needs. Few households borrowed amount to meet the repayment commitment of earlier debt. Table 5.2: Average Borrowings per sample Household-2009 (Rs. /HHs.) Sources And Purpose Institutional loan (banks) Traders-cumMoney Lenders Commission Agent Source of Borrowing Landlord/Employer Friends/Relatives Others Total Daily consumption Social ceremony Purchase of land, livestock or other assets Consumer durables Construction of house Health treatment Others Total Average Rate of Interest (% per annum) Beneficiaries (B) 1125 (43.05) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 280 (10.72) 1050 (40.18) 158 (6.05) 2613 (100.00) 600 (22.96) 0 (0.00) 700 (26.79) 75 (2.87) 0 (0.00) 33 (1.26) 1205 (46.12) 2613 (100.00) 10.00 Non beneficiaries (NB) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 3000 (64.38) 1260 (27.04) 400 (8.58) 4660 (100.00) 1060 (22.75) 3400 (72.96) 200 (4.29) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 4660 (100.00) 10.80 Aggregate (B+NB) 900 (29.78) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 824 (27.26) 1092 (36.13) 206 (6.83) 3022 (100.00) 692 (22.90) 680 (22.50) 600 (19.85) 60 (1.99) 0 (0.00) 26 (0.87) 964 (31.90) 3022 (100.00) 10.51

Purpose of Borrowing

Source: Field Survey Note: Figures in bracket denote the percentage of respective total. Rs. per all sample households. Not per borrowed household.

116

The data relating to borrowing from various sources by sample households are furnished in Table 5.2. The borrowing data are also given purpose wise. The data in Table 5.2 present an average borrowing per sample household. The examination of data reveals that many households used more than one sources for borrowing purpose to meet their financial requirement. An average amount borrowed per household during 2009 was Rs.2613 by beneficiary and Rs.4660 by non-beneficiary. Thus, compared to beneficiary household, non beneficiary household has borrowed about Rs.2047/HHs. (78%) more amount. For beneficiary households, institutional sources (43.05%) and friends/relatives/fellow farmers (40.18%) emerged as the most powerful sources of borrowing. For non-beneficiary households, landlords / employers (64.38%) and friends / relatives (27.04%) were the main sources of borrowing. For beneficiary households, purpose-wise examination of borrowing reveals that 22.96 percent of total amount borrowed was for purpose of meeting daily consumption expenditure and 26.79 percent for purpose of purchase of land/livestock/agriculture implements etc. It was highest at 46.12 percent for other miscellaneous purposes (insurance, purchase of cycle bike, mobile, electric fan, physical assets etc.). The non-beneficiary households has borrowed mainly for meeting the expenses of social obligations / ceremony (72.96%) and daily consumption needs (22.75%) of the households. As sample households availed loan from the institutional sources and employer / friends / relatives, the interest rate charged are very reasonable and low (10 to 10.80 percent per annum). This shows that sample households taken a wise step of not borrowing from professional money lenders, traders and other private sources which are charging very high and abnormal rate of interest (24 to 36 percent per annum). 5.3 Borrowing Sources in Sample Villages and Investment in Assets by Sample HHs.-2009: The data on availability of institutional/co-operative credit access in the selected villages are presented in Table 5.3. Further, data on bank/Post accounts, investment in stocks/bonds and holding of life insurance policy are also given in Table 5.3.
117

The 50.00 percent sample households had facility of co-operative credit society within the village. In other words, 50 percent sample households Table 5.3: Household Status on Borrowing -2009
Particulars Beneficiaries

(% of HHs.)
Non beneficiaries Aggregate

Doing wage work to those whom they are indebted Availability of co-operative credit society in village Nos. of HHs. whose family members have membership in such society Availability of informal credit society/SHGs in village Family member being member of such society/SHGs Having account in a bank/post office/other institutions Having any stocks/bond/shares/other similar assets Having life insurance policy
Source: Field Survey

2.50 50.00 13.50 70.00 10.00 100.00 0.00 7.00

18.00 50.00 26.00 70.00 18.00 56.00 0.00 22.00

5.60 50.00 16.00 70.00 11.60 91.20 0.00 10.00

have no such facility in their villages. The family members of 13.50 percent beneficiary and 26.00 percent of non-beneficiary households possess membership of the co-operative credit society. The seventy percent households had facility in the village to avail credit through membership of Self Help Groups (SHGs). However, only 10.00 percent beneficiary and 18.00 percent non-beneficiary households possess membership of such credit societies/SHGs. It is unpleasing to note that for repayment of loans received from landlords / employers / relatives, 2.50 percent of beneficiary and 18.00 percent of non beneficiary households were found to send their family members to work as wage workers at the establishment of landlords to whom they were indebted. Thus, more non-beneficiary households were found to send their family members for doing wage works to landlords from whom they were indebted. This shows continuation of undesirable vethiya (slave) system. All beneficiary households had saving account either in Banks or in Post Offices. Whereas, 56.00 percent of non beneficiary households had such accounts (Table 5.3).
118

Only 7.00 percent beneficiary households and 22.00 percent nonbeneficiary households had financial assets in the form of life insurance policy. Thus, majority sample households were found without life insurance policy. Not single sample households had investment in shares, stock and Bonds. This shows that they have no surplus money to invest in financial assets as their economy is so tight. 5.4 Some Qualitative Aspects of Functioning of MNREGA: Here attempt has been made to assess the functioning of MNREGA based on the perception of participations on various aspects. The qualitative questions related with awareness on various aspects of MNREGA, quality of assets created, issuance of job card, difficulties faced, suggestions to improve functioning of MNRGA etc. have been asked to sample beneficiaries. In response to these questions, answers received are shown in Table 5.4. 1) About Job Card: As per guideline, issue of job-card to applicant household is done by Gram Panchayat. The job card validity is of 5 years. Also there is a provision to issue job card with photograph free of cost. There is no application fee for issuance of job card. In response to question of fees / charges / bribes paid for getting job card, 95.00 percent households said that they had not paid any fees or bribes for getting job-card. However, 5.00 percent sample beneficiary households reported that they had to pay some amount as fees or bribes for getting job card (Table 5.4). The amount paid is varying from Rs.20 to Rs.50 for application, photo and issuance of job card. This shows that in few cases job card issuance authority collected illegal fees from poor households. Thus, procedure of issuance of job card is not fully free from corruption. Sample beneficiary households reported number of irregularity in the entries made in job-cards. About 22.50 percent beneficiary households informed that no entries of work done were made in job cards regarding their employment eventhough they had worked. In cases of 21.00 percent households, entries made in job-cards were either incomplete or fake. Few households reported that they are not sure about correctness of entries in job cards. Some entries in the job cards were over-written. The 23.00 percent households reported that signature column of concerned authorities was kept
119

deliberately blank or partly blank. As per Act, job cards should be kept with the households only. It is worth mentioning that nearly 95.50 percent sample households kept their job cards with them. Out of 200 beneficiary sample households, only 9 households not kept job card with them. Their job cards were kept by Sarpanch/Talati/contractors (Table 5.4). The reporting from sample households clearly reveals existence of some irregularities and malpractice in issuance and entries in the job cards. This is a matter of serious concern. 2) Work Demanding Application: Under MNREGA, there is a provision to submit a written application for demanding employment to local authority stating time and duration of work. And local authority will issue a dated receipt for this written application. Employment will be given to applicants within 15 days of application, otherwise, daily unemployment allowance in cash has to be paid to concerned applicants. The inquiry with beneficiary households reveals that in response to work application, 91.00 percent households availed employment under MNREGA. Out of total households which applied for works, 176 households (88.00%) get a dated receipt for the application whereas, 24 households were not given dated receipt. Out of 200 beneficiary households, 181 households (90.50%) get employment in MNREGA within the stipulated period of 15 days. However, village level implementing authority failed to provide employment to 19 households within 15 days of application. Therefore, as per provision in the Act, unemployment allowance became due for payment to these 19 households. However, unemployment allowance due for payment was not paid so far to any one (see Table 5.4). The non-payment of unemployment allowance is a matter of great concern. 3) Wage Payment Issues: In respect of gender bias, 96.50 percent participation households informed that no gender bias was seen in payment of wages for MNREGA works. Only 3.50 percent households reported that wage-rate is favouring men. The wages of 76.00 percent households were decided on the basis of

120

Table 5.4: Qualitative Information Related to Functioning of MNREGA

Description

(% of Ben. HHs.)

Nos.of HHs. Yes No Not sure

Yes

Percentage No Not sure

Job card issuance

Irregularity in the job card

Where was the job card generally kept

Work application

Paid any fees/charges or bribe to get a job card? The amount paid for job card (exorbitant) The amount paid as bribe (exorbitant) No entries were made, even though the job card holder(s) had worked on MNREGA Some entries were incomplete or missing or fake information entered Some entries had been over-written The signature column was kept blank or partly blank With the card holders With Sarpanch or Sachiv With contractor With the gram rojgar sevak Elsewhere Are you employed in response to an application for work? If applied, did you get a dated receipt for the application? If applied, did you get work within 15 days of application? In case of failure to provide work within 15 days, is unemployment allowance paid to you? Are the wage rates same for men and women? Wage rates higher for men Wage rates higher for women wage paid on daily-wage basis wage paid on piece-rate/task-wage basis

10 6 6 45 42 31 46 191 7 2 0 0 182 176 181 0 193 7 0 48 152

190 147 144 153 142 NA NA NA NA NA 18 24 19 19 NA NA NA NA NA

0 8 14 16 12 NA NA NA NA NA 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA NA

5.00 3.00 3.00 22.50 21.00 15.50 23.00 95.50 3.50 1.00 0.00 0.00 91.00 88.00 90.50 0.00 96.50

95.00 73.50 72.00 76.50 71.00 NA NA NA NA NA 9.00 12.00 9.50 9.50 NA

0.00 4.00 7.00 8.00 6.00 NA NA NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA NA NA NA NA

Payment of Wages of MNREGA

3.50 NA 0.00 NA 24.00 NA 76.00 NA Contd.

121

Measurement of work

Work was measured by individuals work Work was measured by team measurement Work was measured by collective measurement Wages were paid within a fortnight Wages were paid within a month Wages were paid more than a month Wages were paid after one year Sarpanch or Sachiv Post Office Bank Representative of line departments Other government official or any other Bank/PO account was on selfs name Spouses name Parents name Childrens name Others Individual account Joint account Did bank follow usual procedure of banking
122

21 98 81 121 71 8 0 3 117 69 11 0 153 33 0 0 0 154 32 184

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

10.50 49.00 40.50 60.50 35.50 4.00 0.00 1.50 58.50 34.50 5.50 0.00 82.25 17.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.80 17.20 92.00

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.00

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Contd

Period of wage payment

Who made the wage payment

In case wage payment made in the bank/PO

In case wages were not paid through bank/PO

Complaints regarding wage payment

Wages paid in front of all labourers Wages paid on the worksite Wages paid in Panchayat Bhavan Wages paid on other public/private place Wages paid on some ones private residence There were delays in wage payments? Wage paid less than the minimum wage Wage paid less than asked for sign/thumb impression Task was too much compared to the wages paid Faced problems in accessing post office/bank accounts On what basis wages were calculated not clear Others A Board/GP member gave details of the sanctioned amount, work dimensions and other requisite details

8 11 3 0 0 139 16 15 31 70 92 0 117 161 129 111 106 182 1 0

NA NA NA NA NA 45 168 163 149 108 72 0 61 27 59 72 71 11 198 1

NA NA NA NA NA 16 16 22 20 22 36 0 22 12 12 17 23 7 1 0

7.00 4.50 1.50 0.00 0.00 69.50 8.00 7.50 15.50 35.00 46.00 0.00 58.50 80.50 64.50 55.50 53.00 91.00 0.50 0.00

NA NA NA NA NA 22.50 84.00 81.50 74.50 54.00 36.00 0.00 30.50 13.50 29.50 36.00 35.50 5.50 99.00 0.50

NA NA NA NA NA 8.00 8.00 11.00 10.00 11.00 18.00 0.00 11.00 6.00 6.00 8.50 11.50 3.50 0.50 0.00 Contd...

Details of worksite facilities

The worksite had drinking water facility Worksite had shade for periods of rest Worksite had child care facility Worksite had first aid kit/medicines Was there any authority to monitor the functioning of the MNREGA administration Any complaint lodged relating to worksite etc., to the Gram Panchayat, Programme Officer or other officials If yes, was any action taken on your complaint

Monitoring

123

Economic usefulness of the works

Nature of assets and their durability in which the interviewer involved

Works are very useful to the villagers Works are quite useful to the villagers Works are not particularly useful to the villagers Works are useless for the villagers The structure created may last up to one year The structure created may last up to five year The structure created may last up to ten year The structure created may last more than ten year Is it worth creating the structure Was the structure created adequate No, structure needed more attention to be able to last long Did any your family members migrated out for job after implementation of MNREGA (year 2005 onwards) If yes, only one member of the family migrated* More than one member of the family migrated* Are wages higher in city or other states than MNREGA Any family members migrated back to village to work under MNREGA* If yes, only one member of the family migrated back** More than one member of the family migrated back** Any family member migrated as wage labourer with dissatisfaction from MNREGA* If yes, only one member of the family migrated*** More than one member of the family migrated***

184 16 0 0 14 169 17 0 177 173 27 94 47 47 145 19 6 13 11 4 7

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 106 0 0 55 181 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

92.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 84.50 8.50 0.00 88.50 86.50 13.50 47.00 50.00 50.00 72.50 8.50 31.58 68.42 11.70 36.36 63.64

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 53.00 0.00 0.00 27.50 90.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Contd

How MNREGA has affected labour migration?

124

Are respondent aware about MNREGA implementation Right to apply for work and get employed within 15 days Respondents awareness about MNREGA implementation The work application procedure Right to minimum wages The level of minimum wages The wage calculation method Right to the unemployment allowance Minimum worksite facilities (drinking water, first aid,) Mandatory availability of muster rolls at the worksite The list of permissible works under the MNREGA Did your family get full two meals throughout year 2009 Family did not get sufficient food for one month Family did not get sufficient food for two month Questions related to food security Family did not get sufficient food for more than two month How did you cope with the situation take loan Catch fish/rat/crab etc Near/sometime starvation/take meal only once Begging Any other
* =Percentage to total HHs migrated **=Percentage of total HHs migrated back to village ***=Percentage of HHs migrated because of dissatisfaction from MNREGA wage rate

200 105 88 58 43 24 32 89 71 66 138 4 48 10 36 13 11 2 0

0 47 66 84 87 78 76 52 62 82 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 48 46 58 70 98 92 59 67 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

100.00 52.50 44.00 29.00 21.50 12.00 16.00 44.50 35.50 33.00 69.00 2.00 24.00 5.00 18.00 6.50 5.50 1.00 0.00

0.00 23.50 33.00 42.00 43.50 39.00 38.00 26.00 31.00 41.00 31.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 24.00 23.00 29.00 35.00 49.00 46.00 29.50 33.50 26.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

NA= Not Applicable

125

Piece-rate/ Task-wage method whereas remaing 24.00 percent households received wages as per Daily wage basis (Table 5.4). The works carried out under MNREGA were measured either by JEN or by the supervisor on the work sites. In Gujarat, workers are working mostly on a individual basis or in team/gang. Generally, members of a family or relatives or friends together are forming a gang of 5 to 8 members and working collectively in MNREGA works. In MNREGA works, one or more than one gangs are working at a time. Wages are determined on the basis of measurement of work done by individual or the gangs. Sometime measurement of works were not done on individual or gang basis, but done for collective works. Here, wages are determines on the basis of measurement of collective work and shared equally to individual member depending on the number of days put in by each member. In this method, volume of work done by individual is not taken into account. The 49.00 percent beneficiary households said that they worked as a gang members and work done by gang was measured to determine wages. Nearly 40.50 percent households said that their works in MNREGA were collectively measured. In collective measurement, some influential persons get more advantage than they deserved. Only 10.50 households reported that they received wage payment on the basis of individual measurement of work done by them. In MNREGA, it is mentioned that generally disbursement of wages has to be done on weekly basis and it should not be beyond fortnight. Of the total households, 60.50 percent households received wage payment within fortnight or so. It is unpleasing to note that about 39.50 percent households received wage payment very late. They received it in a month or beyond month. This shows considerable delay in wage-payment owing to various reasons. Main reason was the delay in measurement work due to inadequate qualified staff. Due to inordinate delay in wage payment, households faced difficulties in meeting their recurring expenses. And, it also encouraged some of them to work for Non-MNREGA works where wage payment is regular. In this way delayed in wage payment affected the peoples participation in MNREGA works.
126

The wage-payment of 186 households (93%) has been made in bank/post office. Contrary to provision in guidelines, the representative of line departments made wage payment to 5.50 percent households in person. Only 3 households (1.50%) received wage payment from Sarpanch / Talati. This obviously shows that in order to prevent malpractices in wage payment, to the possible extent, wage-payment has been made through bank/post office. The wage-payment of 186 households has been made through bank/post office. Out of these 186 accounts, 153 bank/post office accounts (82.25%) were on self name whereas 33 accounts (17.75%) were on spouses name. Majority post/bank accounts (82.80%) were individual accounts whereas only 17.20 percent were joint accounts. The 14 participant households not received wage-payment through bank/post office accounts. They received wages either at the worksites (11 HHs.) or in Panchayat Bhavan (3 HHs.). Except 2 households, all reported that banks/post offices followed the usual procedure of banking (Table 5.4). As per 69.50 percent households, many time there was a delay in wage payment. It has been paid after two weeks or so. In some cases, it delayed for one month or more. Nearly 84.00 percent households reported that wages paid according to prescribed method of minimum wage. However, 8.00 percent households complained for less wage payment than the prescribed minimum wage. The 15 households complained that they received wage payment less than the amount shown in payment bill. The amount on which they signed or put thumb impression was higher than what they received. Few respondents reported that there was a under reporting of work done. Hence, they received less payment. The other 22 households were not sure on amount signed and amount received. This clearly indicates existence of corrupt practices in wage-payment of MNREGA. Only 15.50 percent households complained that task as per SoR was too much in relation to the wages paid. About 74.50 percent households considered it reasonable. Owing to illiteracy and long distance, 35.00 percent households faced difficulties in accessing post office / bank accounts. Majority households (64%) found lacking clarity on wage calculation method. They find piece-rate wage
127

calculation method very complex and far beyond their understanding (Table 5.4). 4) Facilities at Work Sites: As per MNREGA, it is mandatory for the state administration to provide basic facilities to workers at worksites. These facilities are drinking water, shads to rest, child care, first aid box with medicines etc. The inquiry with the respondents reveals that local authority had given the details of work dimensions and amount sanctioned for the works. For some works such details were given and for some works not given. The 58.50 percent households said that such details were given whereas 30.50 percent households said that such details neither provided by the local authority nor it displayed on the board (See Table 5.4). Many worksites had necessary basic facilities. Drinking water facility was provided to 80.50 percent households whereas shade for rest purpose was provided to 64.50 percent households. The child care facility was at the worksites where 55.50 percent households were working. Thus from the 200 sample beneficiary households, basic minimum facilities at worksites were made available to majority households. By and large, majority beneficiaries expressed satisfaction on the basic facilities at worksites. 5) Monitoring of MNREGA Works : In response to question relating to monitoring of functioning of MNREGA, 91.00 percent households reported that either local or taluka level authorities were found paying frequent flying visits at the worksites to monitor the execution of MNREGA works. At a time, one or more from Mates, Gram Rozgar Sahayak, Sarpanch/Talati, PO and Jr.Engineer were seen frequently to monitor MNREGA works. Except one household, no one lodge complaint relating to functioning of MNREGA and supervisors at worksites. This shows satisfactory implementation and functioning of MNREGA. The discussion with villagers reveals that they had few complaints on functioning, wage measurement and wage payment of MNREGA, but they lack courage and not wishing to displease their local god.

128

6) Usefulness of Works/ Assets and Durability: In respect of economic usefulness of the works executed under MNREGA, 92.00 percent beneficiary households believed that works were very useful to village community. Another 8.00 percent considered it quite useful. This means that work plans and shelf of the projects prepared at village / taluka level reflect the needs and priority of the village community. And villagers expressed satisfaction for giving priority and inclusion of useful works under MNREGA. According to opinions of 7.00 percent beneficiary households, some structures created under MNREGA were of poor quality and not upto mark. Owing to poor quality, these assets were not durable and perhaps may became non useful in one year of so. However, majority households (84.50%) were of the views that the quality of structures created was neither so good nor so bad. Hence, with proper maintenance and care, these structures are capable to last for a period of five years or so. About 8.50 percent households perceived that quality of structures created was very good and with proper maintenance, chances of lasting these structures for atleast ten years are very bright. The 13.50 percent beneficiary households reported that more attention, personal care and timely repairs are needed for increasing the lifespan of created sub-standard assets. Otherwise, these assets will become non-useful in the years to come. The majority roads prepared under MNREGA were of sub-standard quality. Due to ban on use of machinery, road levelling and paver works not carried. Hence, in excessive rain situation, these earthen (Kuchha) roads are likely to wash away. All assets created under MNREGA, whatsoever may be the quality of it, requires timely proper maintenance, repairs and care. Otherwise, it may not be able to generate expected benefits and gradually may become non useful. 7) MNREGA Impact on Labour Migration: One of the primary aims of MNREGA is to arrest out-migration of rural households in search of employment. With a view to know impact of MNREGA on migration, related data were collected from the beneficiary households. The data reveals that after implementation of MNREGA, out of 200 beneficiary households, 94 households (47%) were involved in out129

migration. In 47 households, only one family member migrated to other places for employment purpose whereas in other 47 households, more than one member migrated to other places. This shows that after introduction of MNREGA, migration continued because they felt limit of 100 days employment per household per year is quite inadequate for ensuring secured livelihood for the entire year. Further, at migration places, wages were found much higher than MNREGA. However, it is interesting to note that family member of 19 households who migrated earlier to other places returned back to village to work under MNREGA. This shows that MNREGA succeeded to some extent in brining migrated persons back to village. The member of 11 households migrated to other places to work as wage labourers due to dissatisfaction from MNREGA. They expressed dissatisfaction mainly towards low wage earning owing to SoR, late payment, delay in starting works, insufficient number of days of employment provided under MNREGA, under measurement of work done and complex nature of wage-calculation method. The above analysis of data shows that implementation of MNREGA created low impact on arresting out-migration owing to varied reasons discussed above. 8) Awareness About MNREGA: Awareness on each and every aspects of MNREGA among people is an important ingredient for success of MNREGA. In surveyed villages, it was found that the people were aware about the implementation of MNREGA programme. However, probing of beneficiary households reveals that knowledge on various basic and rights based aspects such as right to unemployment allowance, wage calculation method, work application procedure, social-audit, wage-payment period, monitoring etc. was found limited, partly or negligible. Only 44.00 percent households were knowing about application procedure for demanding work. Only 29.00 percent beneficiary households had knowledge about right to minimum wages whereas only 21.50 percent households were aware about the level of minimum wages. As many as 84.00 percent households were found unaware or unsure about their legal right to get unemployment allowance. Only 16.00 percent households were aware about unemployment allowance, but they
130

were unaware about the rate of unemployment allowance. More than 55.50 percent households were found unaware about provision of minimum facilities at worksite, mandatory availability of muster rolls at the worksite and permissible works under MNREGA. Many were unaware about social audit and their role. Thus, from these data, it appeared that the implementing agency including PR institutions are require to put more efforts for dissemination of various features of MNREGA. There is strong need to educate people on the various features of MNREGA 9) Food Security and MNREGA: It is assumed that incremental income generated through MNREGA works will be helpful to participants to purchase better and adequate foods and other consumables. Of the total 200 beneficiary households, nearly 138 households (69%) reported that they get two full meals per day throughout year 2009 (see Table 5.4). The 24.00 percent households did not get sufficient food for two full meals for about two months and 5.00 percent households for period more than two months. To cope with this hunger situation, 36 households borrowed from various sources whereas 11 households reduced the food intake and take meal only once a day. The 13 households started to catch and eat fish / rat and 2 households started begging. As per villagers, despite increase in income level, due to very high increase in the prices of food items improvement in food security was found either very low or nil. Thus, implementation of MNREGA had mix effect on ensuring food security. It improved the food security of some households and saved some households from worsening their food security. 5.5 Quantitative Information with Reason on Functioning of MNREGA: Earlier, it is seen that while implementing MNREGA programme, implementing agency deviated from the laid down procedure in the programme. In the programme there is a provision to issue job card with photograph free of cost. Further, job-card holder has to keep job card with him. As per programme, PRIs have a principal role in planning, implementation and monitoring. The Gram Sabha must monitor the execution of projects and conduct social audit. Any complaints regarding programme

131

must be submitted to the programme officer and it should be disposed of within 7 day of its receipt. In response to question regarding payment of fees and bribes for getting job card, 95.00 percent households reported that they get job card free of cost and not paid and bribes. Only 5.00 percent households paid either application fees or bribes or both for getting job card. The payment towards application and photo fees ranged from Rs.20 to Rs.50. The upper limit of the bribes paid was Rs.50 (Table 5.5). It is heartening to note that except 9 households, remaining all households (191 HHs.) kept job card with them. The 9 households kept job card with Talati/ Sarpanch/ Gram Sevak because they felt that job card is safe with them and no need to bring it daily. The 3 households reported that for entry/ presence purpose, they gave their job card to concern authority. In respect of monitoring of functioning of MNREGA, answers received from beneficiary households varied significantly. The 181 households (91%) reported that they know who monitors the functioning of MNREGA. Out of these 181 households, 80 households reported monitoring by Sarpanch/ Talati/ Gram Panchayat /VMC. The 96 households (48%) reported monitoring by PO/APO/AAE/Taluka Level Team (Table 5.5). For ensuring a responsive implementation process, Grievance Redressal Mechanisms have been introduced in the programme. Out of 200 sample beneficiary households, only one household lodged written complaint to programme officer. However, as per respondent, till to-date no action taken on complaint and not received any written answer. Almost no complaint situation shows that either participants were satisfied with the implementation of MNREGA or they lack courage for lodgement of complaints or they are indifferent to it. The sample households worked in number of works and in different types of works. Many households worked in more than one MNREGA works. Among the different type of works, Water Conservation and Water Harvesting (WCWH) and Land Development (LD) works were undertaken on a large scale and hence highest employment opportunities were generated by these two works. The quantitative data collected reveals that 91.50 percent
132

Table 5.5: Quantitative Information with Reasons on Functioning of MNREGA (% of Bene.HHs.)

No. Questions Q1. Answer 1 2 3 i) ii) 4 i) ii) Q.2 Answer 1 2 3 Q.3 Answer 1 2 3 Q.4 Answer 1 2 3 4 Q.5 Answer 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 1 2 1 2 3 If you paid some amount to get job card: how much for job card and HHs. did not pay any fees or bribes: how much for bribe? HHs. paid some amount to get job card and bribe HHs. Paid fees for application/job cards: Rs.Upto 20 Rs.21-50 HHs. paid bribe Rs.Upto 20 Rs.21-50 HHs. Not keeping job card with them-what are the reasons for that? The Job card is safe with Sarpanch/Sachiv/gram sevak No need to bring daily Due to request of authority for entry/presence purpose If there is any authority who monitors the functioning of NREGA then describe the details? Gram Panchayat/Sarpanch/Talati Programme officer/APO/AAE/MIS/Taluka level team DPC/ADPC/DDPC/District team/other team If you lodged any complaints give details and also provide details of what action was taken Complaint was not lodged Verbally complaints was lodged Written complaint was lodged Action taken Provide description of the work and its starting period? Rural connectivity works Water conservation works Renovation of traditional water bodies works Land development works No. of Works started between January- March No. of Works started between April -June No. of Works started between July-September No. of Works started between October- December Provide details of family members migrated back to village to work in MNREGA and why? No. of HHs. returned back Members per returned back HHs. Provide details of families which migrated to city with dissatisfaction of NREGA and why? HH migrated to city with dissatisfaction of NREGA due to low level of wage rate Delay in Payment wage rate Insufficient No. of days of employment provided No. of HHs. Percentag e

190 10 6 3 3 6 2 4 9 7 1 3 182 80 96 38 199 0 1 0 46 153 54 183 17 39 49 63 19 1.68 11 3 5 3

95.00 5.00 3.00 1.50 1.50 3.00 1.00 2.00 4.50 3.50 0.50 1.50 91.00 40.00 48.00 19.00 99.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 23.00 76.50 27.00 91.50 8.50 19.50 24.50 31.50 9.50 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.02

Q.6 Answer Q.7 Answer

Source: Field Survey

133

households get employment in LD works, 76.50 percent households employed in WCWH works, 27.00 percent households participated in Renovation of Tradional Water Bodies Works and 23.00 percent get employment in rural connectivity works (Table 5.5). For success of the employment programme like MNREGA, period of starting work and duration of work is very important. If period of works coincide with the period of lean seasons, the chances of success of employment programme are very high. The examination of period of starting of works reveals that highest works started during October-December, the starting of lean period. This indicates the positive side of work-plan. The period of January-March is also a lean period and poor labourer families needs adequate support of employment for survival. During this period, there is a increase in demand for employment. However, the data reveals that number of works started during this period were lowest (Table 5.5). Therefore, there is a need to prepare a work plan in such a way that it take care to meet the upsurge of employment demand during this period. After implementation of MNREGA in the villages, 9.50 percent (19 HHs.) reported that their family member migrated back to village and worked under MNREGA. On an average 1.68 persons per returned back household migrated back to village. The main reasons were availability of works in village, physical health, social problems, old age and good residential facility. Also there were few cases (11 HHs.) in which family member migrated to city owing to dissatisfaction on functioning and some unsuitable provisions of MNREGA. Out of such 11 households, 5 households get frustrated due to very much delay in wage payment and low earning per day. Comparatively low wage rate of MNREGA and low limit of employment days to be provided were other reasons for out-migration. Thus, there is a strong need of appropriate steps to avoid above shown situations. 5.6 Beneficiaries Perception on Potential Benefits of MNREGA: The implementation of MNREGA is likely to bring many changes in various aspects such as level of food security, migration situation, indebtedness, poverty level, economic independence of women etc. for the
134

rural community. For assessing the direction and magnitude of changes, beneficiaries were asked to give their opinions on changes they observed owing to implementation of MNREGA. The results based on these perceptions are presented in Table 5.6. Table 5.6: Beneficiaries Perception on Potential Benefits of MNREGA (Percentage of HHs.)
No. Q1. 1 2 Answer 3 4 5 Q.2 1 2 Answer 3 4 5 Q.4 1 2 Answer 3 4 5 Q5. 1 2 Answer 3 4 5 Q.6 1 2 Answer 3 4 5 Questions MNREGA is enhancing food security? Yes, Marginal Yes, Some extent Yes, Good extent No Not Sure MNREGA provided protection against extreme poverty? Yes, Marginal Yes, Some extent Yes, Good extent No Not Sure MNREGA helped in reducing distress migration? Yes, Marginal Yes, Some extent Yes, Good extent No Not Sure MNREGA helped to reduce indebtedness? Yes, Marginal Yes, Some extent Yes, Good extent No Not Sure MNREGA gave greater economic independence to women? Yes, Marginal Yes, Some extent Yes, Good extent No Not Sure No. of HHs.

96 48 30 18 71 33 72 28 3 69 28 83 68 15 0 69 48 63 38 25 0 79 58

Percentage (%)

48.00 24.00 15.00 9.00 35.50 16.50 51.50 36.00 14.00 1.50 34.50 14.00 41.50 34.00 7.50 0.00 34.50 24.00 31.50 19.00 12.50 0.00 39.50 29.00 69.50 51.00 18.50 0.00 18.50 12.00

103

139 102 37 0 37 24

Source: Field Survey

From Table 5.6, it is evident that on the whole 48.00 percent sample beneficiaries reported improvement in food security. About 48 households (24%) reported marginal improvement whereas remaining 48 households
135

(24%) reported somewhat/ good extent of improvement in food security. Thus, as per participants, MNREGA caused somewhat improvement in food availability for number of beneficiary households. As regards to protection against extreme poverty, 51.50 percent (103 HHs.) expressed that MNREGA provided some protection against extreme poverty. Incremental income earned through MNREGA saved them from worsening their poverty due to very high rate of inflation. In majority cases, protection against extreme poverty was marginal. In respect of reducing extent of distress migration, overall 83 households (41.50%) believed that MNREGA helped in reducing the incidences of distress migration. However, out of 83 households, 68 households (81.92%) reported that scale of reduction in distress migration was marginal. As regards to reduction in indebtedness, 63 households (31.50%) indicated that MNREGA helped in marginal to moderate reduction in the indebtedness. One of the goals of MNREGA is to give greater economic independence to women. About 69.50 percent (139 HHs.) reported that owing to MNREGA, economic independence of women increased. However, in majority cases, increase in economic independence of women was marginal. Also it empowered women to small extent. Thus, results suggests that implementation of MNREGA enhanced food security, reduced indebtedness and distress migration and enhanced economic moderate. 5.7 Perception of Beneficiaries on Food Security and Related Aspects With Suggestions to Improve MNREGA Functioning: The implementation of MNREGA is expected to brought many socioeconomic changes including change in livelihood. Despite implementation of MNREGA, there were number of beneficiaries who continued to face difficulties such as food insecurity, uncertain income, inadequate employment, very low annual income, lack of basic facilities etc. For studying the reasons for continuation of these difficulties, beneficiary households were asked to
136

independence

of

women

of

rural

households.

However,

improvement in food security and other aspects varied from marginal to

give reasons for the same. The results based on reasons and opinions quoted by beneficiary households are presented in Table 5.7. As regard food insufficiency, 31.00 percent households reported that they do not have sufficient food for two meals a day for the entire 2009 year. Out of these 62 households, nearly 50.00 percent (31 HHs.) households reported availability of employment for inadequate mandays coupled with low wage rate were the primary reasons for food insuffiency. High price rise in food items in relation to income, large family size, poor employment opportunities, very low income, weak physical health, financial scarcity, death of earning members and old age were other reasons cited by them for facing food insufficiency for the whole year (Table 5.7). In respect of deprivations faced other than food insufficiency during year 2009, 22.00 percent households reported that they faced many deprivations. They faced deprivations mainly related to lack of adequate employment opportunities and illiteracy (12.00%), social deprivations such as marriage etc. (10.50%), poor health (5.00%) and unaffordable medical treatment cost and lack of basic infrastructure facilities at home (drinking water, sanitation, electricity, fuel, utensils etc.). When they were asked about the main difficulties which their families faced during year 2009, they reported some difficulties. Among these difficulties, lack of basic facilities (drinking water, electricity, fuel, own home etc.) at home (30.00%), poor sanitation facilities (27.50%), poor health and sickness and not easy access to hospital (15.00%), Low income owing to lack of adequate employment opportunities (16.00%), Financial and monetary problems and indebtedness (13.50%) were the main difficulties which beneficiary households faced during year 2009 (Table 5.7). The beneficiary households were asked about most important thing which their households lacking. In response to this question, 36.00 percent households reported lack of basic infrastructure facilities, 28.50 percent households reported no own home and own land, 40.00 percent households have no financial saving to meet the financial crisis and unexpected expenses, 35.00 percent households have inadequate and uncertain income. The 24.00 percent households lack guaranteed adequate employment. The
137

37.50 percent households reported insufficient food and clothes (Table 5.7). This suggests that they are living in extremely poor conditions. They are economically very weak and hence may find difficult to survive without adequate employment support. For amelioration, suggestions were invited from the beneficiary households. The sample households suggested number of measures to ease the level of difficulties. Increase in the wage rate of MNREGA (20.50%), steps to bring down prices of food and other items at an affordable level, create awareness towards government schemes / programmes which are beneficiary for us (30.50 %), raise the limit of 100 days employment in MNREGA and link it with family size (22.50%). Provide financial support and guidance for agriculture development (22.50%), arrange easy access of institutional credit (20.00%), timely payment of wages of MNREGA (31.50 %), and arrange to supply drinking water of good quality (11.00 %) were the important suggestions given by the beneficiary households for reducing their difficulties. We also invited suggestions for improving current functioning of MNREGA. A large number of suggestions were given by the participants for improving the working and effectiveness of MNREGA and generating better impact. The suggestions given by participant households are shown in Table 5.7. The main suggestions made by the participant households are as follows: Table 5.7: Perception of Beneficiaries on Food Security and Related Aspects with Suggestions to Improve MNREGA Working (% of Ben. HHs.)
Q. No. Q1. 1 2 Answer 3 4 5 6 Q.2 Answer 1 2 3 4 Questions Do you feel that your family does not have sufficient food for the whole of year? give reasons High Price rise in food items and Inflation in relation to rise in income Insufficient wage employment/ employment opportunities Low wage rate Larger family size Very low income No capacity to borrow & Lack of credit worthiness Have you faced any deprivations other than food insufficiency? If yes, explain Lack of infrastructural facilities at home and village Poor health and Unaffordable medical cost Inflation/price rise and low income Employment opportunities/education Nos. 62 12 31 11 6 51 18 44 10 10 3 24 % 31.00 6.00 15.50 5.50 3.00 25.50 9.00 22.00 5.00 5.00 1.50 12.00

138

5 Q.3 1 2 3 Answer 4 5 6 7 Q.4 1 2 Answer 3 4 5 6 7 Q.5 1 2 Answer 3 4 5 6 Q.6 1 2 3 4 Answer 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Social and others deprivations Poor sanitation facilities Lack of basic facilities Poor health and Unaffordable medical cost Lack of adequate employment opportunities Social problems Financial crisis and Monetary problems others What is the most important thing your household lacks Adequate employment opportunities Basic infrastructure facilities(drinking water, Health, Education, Electricity, Sanitation) Own Home/ Own Land Food, Cloths, Shelter Financial Saving Adequate and Sure Income others What are the suggestions for amelioration An appropriate Increase in wage rates Increase awareness towards Government Schemes/Rural development programmes Employment day should be provided on the basis of family size Support and Guidance for agriculture development Easy access to institutional credit others Any suggestions to improve MNREGA functioning No. of employment days according to family size and increase the limit of 100 days Timely payment of wages Increase wage rates in such a way that worker get minimum Rs.100 per day Timing of work according to season Awareness towards Government Schemes/Rural development programmes/Legal rights in MNREGA Transparency and accountabilities in implementation of MNREGA Simplify the wage calculation task rate method Start MNREGA works with the start of lean seasons Make provision of punishment for not paying unemployment allowance Strict monitoring and supervision Others

21 55 60 30 32 4 27 41 48 72 57 75 80 70 62 41 61 45 45 40 35 141 63 60 25 89 78 48 62 30 40 40

10.50 27.50 30.00 15.00 16.00 2.00 13.50 20.50 24.00 36.00 28.50 37.50 40.00 35.00 31.00 20.50 30.50 22.50 22.50 20.00 17.50 70.50 31.50 30.00 12.50 44.50 39.00 24.00 31.00 15.00 20.00 20.00

What were the main difficulties you and your family faced during the last year?

Source: Field Survey Note: This table is only indicative and the answers need to be coded and presented in percentage terms

i)

More than 70.00 percent households find limit of 100 days employment
139

per household per year as totally inadequate and unrealistic. This uniform limit

ignores the family size. Therefore, they suggest upward revision of 100 day limit and linking of this limit with the size of family (Table 5.7). ii) Nearly 44.50 households suggest need of creating more awareness towards legal rights of people and other important aspects of MNREGA. They also suggests to create more awareness about other ongoing central/state government schemes/programmes which are beneficial to rural community. iii) About 31.50 percent households complaints for considerable delay in payment of wages. They suggest making an arrangement for timely and regular payment of wages. The participant households are very poor and hence delay in wage payment causing unnecessary numbers of problems for them. iv) Keeping in mind the substantial price rise in food and other items, 30.00 percent households suggests linking of wage rate with consumer price index of labourer. Further, they suggests simplification of the task/piece rate method in such a way that worker get at least prescribed minimum wageamount. They also suggested revision of SoR in such a way that it move in tandem with changes in statutory minimum wages, more accurately reflect changes in geology and climate and is gender sensitive. v) About 31.00 percent households suggest that MNREGA works must be start with the starting of lean period. The works should not be suspended during the peak lean period when demand for works is at highest level. vi) There was no active involvement of line departments. Owing to low involvement of line departments, there were discrepancies and delays in measurement of works. This subsequently delayed the payment of works. Therefore, beneficiary suggests for necessary steps to increase the involvement of line departments in MNREGA implementation. vii) Deployment of full time professionals staff exclusively dedicated to MNREGA at all levels, but most crucially at the block level and village level which is at the cutting edge of implementation. viii) The work undertaken under MNREGA must focus on raising the productivity of agriculture. The selection of location of works and works to be undertaken must be unbiased and free from influence of politician and influential persons.
140

ix)

The beneficiary households also made suggestions such as timing of

MNREGA works according to season/ climate, punished concern authorities for non-Payment of unemployment allowance, bring more transparency and accountabilities in implementation of MNREGA, provide technical assistance to village level authority for preparing work plan and creating structures of good quality at proper location, ensure strict monitoring and supervision on implementation of MNREGA, capacity building of all stakeholders etc. Summary: Asset position indicates the economic status of the household. The total asset per beneficiary household was of Rs. 135678 which was fairly lower and only 38 percent of assets of Rs. 357384 of non-beneficiary household. The land property accounted for major share in the total assets for both, beneficiary and non-beneficiary households. The investment on land by non-beneficiary households was more than 4 times (Rs. 256500) than it (Rs. 62675) for beneficiary households. This shows that households having marginal / no land with poor economic condition participated on a large scale in the MNREGA programme. Average amount borrowed per household by beneficiary was Rs.2613 and by non-beneficiary Rs.4660. For beneficiary households, institutional sources and friends/relatives emerged as the main sources of borrowing. Non-beneficiary borrowed from non-institutional sources. They borrowed mainly from landlords / employers / friends /relatives. The beneficiary borrowed amount to meet daily routine expenditure where as non-beneficiary mainly borrowed to meet expenditure on social obligations/ceremony. For repayment of loans, 2.50 percent of beneficiary and 18.00 percent of non-beneficiary households were found to send their family members to work as wage workers at the establishment of landlords to whom they are indebted. In respect of issue of job cards, about 5.00 percent households reported that they had to pay bribes ranging from Rs.20 to Rs.50 for getting job card. The participants reported numerous irregularities in the entries made in job cards. In more than 20.00 percent cases, irregularities such as no entry of work done, wrong entry, over written and blank signature column etc. were found. About 4.50 percent households not kept job card with them. They were
141

kept by Sarpanch / Talati /Contractor. Thus existence of irregularities and malpractice in issuance and entries in job cards is a matter of serious concern. Out of total households which applied for works, 88.00 percent get a dated receipt whereas 12.00 percent of them not given dated receipt for application. No unemployment allowance given so far to 19 households which were entitled for it. No gender bias seen in payment of wages for MNREGA. The wage payment of 76.00 percent households was made on the basis of Piece-rate / task-wage method. Moderate dissatisfaction observed among beneficiaries in respect of wage payment. About 60.50 percent households received wage payment around fortnight or so. Nearly 39.50 percent households reported late payment and they received it in a month or beyond. Main reason of late payment was the delay in work measurement due to insufficient qualified staff. Delayed payment of MNREGA encouraged few households for NonMNREGA works where wage payment is regular. The wages were paid to 93.00 percent participants through banks / post offices. About 8.00 percent households complained for less wage payment than prescribed minimum wage, 7.50 percent households complained for less receipt of wage amount than the amount on which they signed or put thumb impression. Some complained for under reporting of work done and hence less payment. About 11.00 percent households were not sure on amount signed and amount received. Owing to illiteracy and long distance, 35.00 percent households faced difficulties in accessing post office / bank accounts. Majority households (64.00 %) lacking clarity on task based wage calculation and they find this method very complex and beyond their understanding. By and large, majority of beneficiaries were satisfied with the facilities provided at worksites. Nearly 91.00 percent households said that some authorities were present at worksites and monitored the execution of the works. To a great extent, mates were found to monitored MNREGA works. Nearly 92.00 percent households believed that structures /assets created under MNREGA were very useful to village community. However, 7.00 percent respondents said that some structures created were of poor and worst quality and not adequate in size. These assets were non-durable. About
142

13.50 percent households reported need of more attention for created structures. Otherwise it will not last for longer period. Majority participants were of the view that whatsoever may be quality of structures, it requires timely maintenance and care. Otherwise, it may gradually become non-useful. As far as effects of MNREGA on labour migration, about 47.00 percent respondents were involved in out-migration for wage employment, after introduction of MNREGA. About 7.50 percent households who migrated earlier, returned back to village to work under MNREGA. The members of 11 households migrated due to dissatisfaction from MNREGA. They expressed dissatisfaction mainly towards low wage earning, late payment, delay in starting works, insufficient employment days, irregularities in measurement and payment etc. In respect of awareness; it was found that the people were aware about the implementation of MNREGA. But further probe reveals that awareness level on basic and rights based aspects, wage calculation method, unemployment allowance, social audit, wage payment period, work application procedures etc. was found very limited and negligible. Analysis suggests that implementing agency including PR institutions are requires to put more efforts for dissemination on various features of MNREGA. About 69.00 percent beneficiary households reported that MNREGA enhanced the food security. However, it failed to provide adequate food security to some of the beneficiaries mainly due to high price rise in food items. About 51.50 percent households perceived that MNREGA provided protection against extreme poverty. Nearly 41.50 percent households believed that MNREGA helped in reducing the incidence of distress migration. The 31.50 percent households indicated that MNREGA helped in marginal to moderate reduction in the indebtedness. About 69.50 percent households believed that MNREGA increased the economic independence and empowered women to a small extent. As regard to food insufficiency, 31.00 percent households reported insufficient food for two meals a day for the entire year 2009. The reasons cited by them were inadequate employment, high price rise, very low income, large family size, old age, death of earning member, weak physical health and financial scarcity. Sample households also reported some difficulties, which they faced during reference year 2009. For
143

amelioration, they suggested some measures. The key suggested measures were, an appropriate increase in wage rate (20.50 %), improve awareness, raise limit of 100 days employment and link it with family size (22.50 %), provide financial support and guidance for agricultural development (22.50 %), timely payment of wages (32.00 %) and easy access to institutional credit (20.00 %). Numerous suggestions were given by the respondents as their feedbacks for improving functioning and effectiveness of MNREGA. Suggestions given are as follows: I. Upward revision of 100 days employment limit and linking it with family size (70 %). II. Create more awareness towards legal rights of people and other aspects of MNREGA (44.50 %). Also provide information on other programmes government. III. Make an arrangement for timely and regular payment (31.50%). IV. Link wage rate with consumer price index (30.00%). V. Simplification of task wage method so that worker get at least prescribed minimum wage amount. VI. Start MNREGA works with the start of lean period. VII. Ensure active involvement of all line departments in execution and monitoring of works. VIII. Deployment of full time professionals staff dedicated to MNREGA at all levels. IX. Undertake and assign first priority to works which are useful in raising the productivity of agriculture. X. Arrangement of proper maintenance of created community assets. XI. Stringent actions against officials involved in corruption and irregularities. XII. Better monitoring and supervision of MNREGA works. XIII. Make MNREGA Free from influence of politicians and influential persons of village. implemented by state / central programme

144

Chapter-6 Impact of MNREGA on Village Economy

The Government of India introduced MNREGA with the aim of improving the economy and livelihood of households living in the villages. The improvement in village economy is highly associated with the improvement in economy of households of the village. Keeping this in view, in this Chapter, an attempt has been made to assess the impact of MNREGA on various indicators describing the status of economy of selected 10 villages. The impact of MNREGA on village economy measured using village level data collected for the reference year 2009. 6.1 Infrastructure Availability within Study Villages-2009: Infrastructure in the village is one of the main indicator to judge the prosperity, development and economy of the village. MNREGA is expected to improve infrastructure in the villages as well as quality of life of people. Under MNREGA, works like all weather rural connectivity, internal road, deepening of tanks, deepening of wells for drinking water, renovation of traditional water bodies etc. offers opportunity for the development of village infrastructure. From Table 6.1, it is evident that landline and mobile connectivity is available round the clock in all the study villages. The road connectivity is available in 90.00 percent villages. To large extent, MNREGA impact seen in development of road connectivity. All sample villages have Gram Panchayat office within the village. The railway connectivity is sparse and available in only 20.00 percent villages. With a view to stop malpractices and to ensure transparency in wage payment of MNREGA, it was decided to distribute wage amount to workers through Banks/ Post Offices. Table 6.1 shows that 70 percent of the villages have post office facility whereas remaining 30 percent of villages have access of it within 2 kms. proximity. The commercial banks are present in only 30.00 percent villages whereas for remaining 70.00 percent villages, banks are located at an average distance of 12 kms. Regional Rural Bank (RRB) is percent in 2 villages and co-operative credit societies are located within the

145

60.00 percent villages. Not a single village has Agricultural Produce Market Yard (APMC). On an average, it is located at a distance of 17 kms. Except 1 village, remaining all villages has primary school. However, secondary school present in only 20.00 percent villages. No higher secondary school present in selected villages. For secondary/ higher secondary education facility is available in the nearby villages, which are on an average located at a distance of 12 kms. Table: 6.1: Infrastructure available within sample villages (% to sample villages) No. Particulars Availabilities Within Nearest village village 90.00 20.00 100.00 70.00 60.00 20.00 30.00 0.00 100.00 90.00 20.00 0.00 40.00 10.00 100.00 80.00 10.00 80.00 0.00 30.00 40.00 80.00 70.00 100.00 0.00 10.00 80.00 100.00 60.00 90.00 0.00 20.00 If nearest village, average distance (Kms.) 2 19 0 2 12 12 12 17 0 3 12 12 6 14 0 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Road connectivity Railway connectivity Landline or Mobile connectivity Post Office Co-operative credit society Regional Rural Bank Commercial Bank Agricultural Produce Market (APMC) Self Help Groups (SHGs) Primary School Secondary School Higher Secondary School Primary Health Centre (PHC) Hospital / Dispensary Gram Panchayat Office Fair Price Shop

Source: Village Survey

The good health condition is requiring for carry out labour works of MNREGA and others. Hence, availability of healthcare facility in the village is quite important. The available infrastructure for health care is very weak in the selected villages. The data in Table 6.1 shows that the facility of Primary Health Center is available only in 40.00 percent villages. The Hospital/ Dispensary facility is available in only 1 village and hence in case of serious illness, they have to travel an average distance of 14 kms. to get medical
146

treatment in the Hospital. The fair price shops (Ration Shops) are available in 80.00 percent villages. And for remaining villages, they are within 2 kms. distance. This shows that infrastructure in respect of higher education, health care treatment and marketing of agriculture production in selected villages is found very weak. 6.2 Changes in Occupational Pattern-2009: It is assumed that MNREGA intervention likely to raise income level of rural households. Subsequently, it may encourage concern households to effect suitable changes in their occupational pattern. With this in view, main occupational pattern followed by households of study villages during 2009 and 2001 studied here. The related data presented in Table 6.2. Table 6.2: Main Occupational pattern No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Particulars Cultivators Agricultural Labour Other Labour Household Small Industry Other Manufacturing / Mining Construction Trade, Commerce and Business Transport and Communication Other Services Miscellaneous Total Households (% of HHs. of sample villages) 2009 23.71 28.82 13.60 5.61 4.83 4.22 1.97 2.29 8.83 6.12 100.00 Year 2001 25.47 26.22 11.49 4.44 4.24 3.80 1.45 2.08 8.99 11.82 100.00

Source: Village Survey and Gram Panchayats

It may be noted that many households were found to follow more than one occupation. But, households are classified considering main occupation. During 2009 as well as 2001, highest proportion of households had main occupation of agriculture labour. It increased from 26.22 percent in 2001 to 28.82 percent in 2009. It increased mainly due to certainty of income from labour works and comparatively better improvement in availability of employment opportunities due to MNREGA. The second important occupation was cultivation. The proportion of households having cultivation as main occupation declined from 25.47 percent in 2001 to 23.71 percent in 2009. It declined mainly due to fluctuating and uncertain income from cultivation, high
147

cost of inputs, non-availability of irrigation, weak economic position to meet the cost of cultivation and other investment require for it and unfavorable terms of trade for agriculture. Owing to above mentioned reasons, mostly marginal/ small farmer opted for labour works in agriculture and nonagricultural sector. This shift in occupation from cultivation to agriculture labour is most undesirable development and sincere efforts are needed to reverse this trend. The proportion of households employed in other non agricultural labour works also increased in 2009. It increased to 13.60 percent in 2009 from 11.49 percent in 2001. Also, proportion of households having occupations such as small household industry, manufacturing/ mining, construction, Trade/ business and transportation registered minor increase in 2009. Thus, MNREGA coupled with other factors effected changes in the occupation pattern followed by the villagers. 6.3 Effects of MNREGA on Wage Rates in Study Villages: The related data on wage rates of different activities in study villages for reference year 2009 and Pre-MNREGA year 2005 are given in Table 6.3. The comparision of wage rate during 2009 vis--vis pre MNREGA year 2005 reveals sizeable increase in wage rate of all types of labour activities. Among all activities, increase in wage rate was highest (88.05%) for nonagricultural labour by male worker. The increase in wage rate was lowest (24.32%) for labour work of mining by male worker. The wages for agricultural operations, increased by 57.76 percent whereas for construction work by 54.81 percent. For skilled workers such as electrician, plumber, pump-set/ boring operations wage rate increased between 50.00 to 64.00 percent. This shows that apart from inflation and other factors, MNREGA also induced enhancement in wage-rate for different labour activities in the selected villages. Further, the comparision reveals that growth in male wages was found lower than growth in female wages (except non-agri.labour). This indicates that MNREGA narrow down the gap between wage rates of males and female workers. The uptrend in wage rates for female encouraged women for higher

148

Table 6.3: Effects of MNREGA on Wage Rates in study villages (Rs. /day)
Wage rates *( Rs./day) Activity Male 2009 Female Before MNREGA (2005) Male Female

Prevailing Agricultural Wages Prevailing Non Agricultural Wages Construction Mining Electrician (Per Point) Plumber Pump-set boring

Other skilled work

127 (157.76) 150 (188.05) 185 (154.81) 230 (124.32) 60 (150.00) 246 (164.00) 350 (155.56)

112 (175.59) 110 (170.54) 125 (156.50) 150 (125.00)

81 (100.00) 80 (100.00) 120 (100.00) 185 (100.00) 40 (100.00) 150 (100.00) 225 (100.00)

64 (100.00) 65 (100.00) 80 (100.00) 120 (100.00)

Source: Village Survey * Average of all sample villages Note: Figure in brackets denotes percentage over 2005.

participation in MNREGA and other labour activities. Thus, due to MNREGA the economic independence and empowerment of women enhanced to few extent. 6.4 Effect of MNREGA on Labour Charges for Agricultural Operations: The number of studies conducted by researchers and various organisations established positive and significant effects of MNREGA on the labour charges of various agricultural operations. With a view to examine MNREGA effects on labour wage rate of various agricultural operations, related data on labour charges were collected for reference year 2009, 2005 and pre-MNREGA year 2001. The relevant data are presented in Table 6.4. For studying the impact of MNREGA, percentage increase in wage rate for agricultural operations has been worked out for post MNREGA period 2005-2009 and pre-MNREGA period 2001-2005. It is evident from the data that hike in the labour charges for various agricultural operations are seen during both periods. But, rate of hike in labour charges for each agricultural operation seen remarkably higher for post MNREGA period 2005-2009 compared to that for pre-MNREGA period 2001-2005 (Table 6.4). Further,
149

Table 6.4: Prevailing labour charges for agricultural operations (Average of all villages) % increase in % Labour charges (Rs.) 2009 over increase in 2005 Reference Before Activity over period MNREGA 2005 2001 2001 2009 2005 2001 Ploughing (Rs. /hr.)* 350 200 150 75.00 133.33 33.33 by Tractor Leveling by Tractor 340 195 166 74.36 104.82 17.47 (Rs. /hr.)* Weeding (Rs./day) 116 67 55 73.13 110.91 21.82 Paddy transplanting 110 70 55 57.14 100.00 27.27 (Rs./day) Harvesting of 125 78 55 60.26 127.27 41.82 wheat(Rs./day) Harvesting of 120 70 50 71.43 140.00 40.00 paddy(Rs./day) Harvesting of 125 75 60 66.67 108.33 25.00 Bajra(Rs./day) Harvesting of 115 65 50 76.92 130.00 30.00 Jowar(Rs./day) Harvesting of 115 76 60 52.32 93.28 26.89 maize(Rs./day) Plucking of Chiku 110 65 45 69.23 144.44 44.44 (Rs./day) Plucking of Mango 110 65 45 69.23 144.44 44.44 (Rs./day) Plucking of Cotton 125 80 60 56.25 108.33 33.33 (Rs./day) Threshing of paddy 120 85 65 41.18 84.62 30.77 (Rs./day) Threshing of wheat by Machine (Rs./Hr.)* Winnowing of wheat/paddy by Machine (Rs./Hr.)* 350 325 180 180 100 120 94.44 80.56 250.00 170.83 80.00 50.00

Source: Village Survey *Labour charges for conducting operation by Machine

hike in wage rate was substantially higher for operations using machine labour compared to for manual operations. This clearly exhibit that apart from other impacting factors, MNREGA effect is visible on hike in labour charges for various agricultural operations.

150

6.5 Some information about changes in villages due to MNREGA: Table 6.5 reveals that overall 60.00 percent households reported that after MNREGA, shortage of agricultural wage labour was felt at some point of time during last year. The shortage of wage labour for agriculture fluctuated across months of the year. The higher shortage of wage labour felt at sowing (June July, October), harvesting (October), interculturing and weeding (July, August, December) stages of crops (see Table 6.6). Last year, nearly 40.00 percent villages experienced shortage of agriculture wage labour during the month of June, July, August and December (Table 6.6). As per 70.00 percent respondents, after introduction of MNREGA in 2006, some of the villages experienced shortage of agricultural wage labour during period 2006-2009(Table 6.5). The shortage of agricultural wage labour showed continuous up trend during 2006 to 2009. In 2006, only 10.00 percent villages felt shortage whereas in 2009, 50.00 percent villages experienced shortage of agricultural wage labour (Table 6.6). Due to MNREGA, there was a significant increase in wages for non-MNREGA, non-agricultural works too. Owing to large difference between wage rate of agriculture works and nonagriculture works, workers gave higher preference to non-agriculture works and subsequently it resulted in shortage of casual labour workers for agriculture. In all the sample villages, after introduction of MNREGA, wages of casual labour for non-agriculture works recorded noticeable increase (Table 6.5 and 6.6). As per 70.00 percent participants, after introduction of MNREGA, trend of people living in the village and going daily to work outside has increased (Table 6.5). This was mainly due to improvement in road connectivity and transport facility. Labour is an important component of the cost of production of the crop. Labour requirement and labour cost also varies according to nature of crop. As per opinion of 50.00 percent participant households, cost of production of crop recorded an average increase of 10.00 percent whereas remaining 50.00 percent believed that cost of production increased up to 20.00 percent (Table 6.5). This shows that all participants believed that MNREGA enhanced the labour cost of agricultural operations and subsequently it resulted in enhancement in the cost of production of crops.
151

One of the key aims of MNREGA is to reduce the scale of distress outmigration. According to 20.00 percent households, some workers who migrated earlier to town returned back to own villages for working in MNREGA works. Further, 70.00 percent households believed that implementation of MNREGA made negligible impact on arresting migration process. It is continued as it was in pre-MNREGA period with the same scale. As per majority households (80%), wage rates of works at migrated places are comparatively much higher than MNREGA and other activities in the villages (Table 6.5). This tempted many labourers for the migration from village to town. This is the primary reason for continuation of out-migration process despite introduction of MNREGA. MNREGA generated incremental income for the rural poor households. The increase in income level improved the purchasing power, lifestyle and living standard of rural households. Nearly 50.00 percent participants believed that living standard and household consumption recorded improvement to some extent in post MNREGA period (Table 6.5). The housing facilities improved in 60.00 percent households of villages, food and non-food consumption increased in 80.00 percent households of villages and access to health facilities improved in 40.00 percent villages (Table 6.6). After introduction of MNREGA, households consumption in respect of food items (Cereals, Pulses, Oil, Vegetables etc.) improved in 80.00 percent villages. In respect of use of personal care products, it improved in 60.00 percent households of the villages whereas in case of cloth, it improved in households of 40.00 percent villages (Table 6.6). The good impact of MNREGA is seen on education front. The enrollment of children in school recorded good increase in 60.00 percent villages and drop-out ratio declined in 40.00 percent villages (Table 6.6). For higher education, the cases of shifting from village to education places were observed in 80.00 percent villages. MNREGA also impacted on the trend of keeping attached labour for agriculture. In 70.00 percent villages, the persons who were earlier working as attached labourer now are working as labourer in MNREGA and other activities.
152

Table 6.5: Qualitative Questions on Changes in the Villages during Last One Year (% of HHs.) No. Description Yes No Not sure Was there shortage of agricultural wage labour 1 60.00 40.00 0.00 at some point during last year After implementation of NREGA has there been 2 70.00 30.00 0.00 a shortage of agriculture labour After implementation of NREGA the cost of production 3 in agriculture increased by 10 percent because 50.00 0.00 0.00 of scarcity of labour 4 Cost increased by 20 percent 50.00 0.00 0.00 5 Cost increased by 20 to 50 percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 Cost increased by 50 to 75 percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 7 Cost increased by 100 percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 8 Cost increased by more than 100 percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 After implementation of NREGA labour who migrated 9 20.00 80.00 0.00 earlier to town/city are coming back to work in the village More labour is migrating from the village as wage 10 rate in the town is higher than wage rate under NREGA or 80.00 20.00 0.00 other activities in the village Some labour has come back to work in NREGA 11 but others are moving to the town/city because of wage 60.00 40.00 0.00 differential 12 There is no change in labour migration by NREGA activities 70.00 30.00 0.00 After NREGA change in wages of casual labourers 13 100.00 0.00 0.00 has increased After NREGA change in wages of casual labourers 14 00.00 0.00 0.00 has decreased After NREGA change in wages of casual labourers 15 00.00 0.00 0.00 remained same The trend of people living in village and going to work 16 70.00 30.00 0.00 outside daily has increased The trend of people living in village and going to work 17 60.00 40.00 0.00 outside for longer period has increased Has living standard improved in your village since the 18 50.00 30.00 20.00 introduction of NREGA After NREGA have you witnessed increase 19 50.00 40.00 10.00 in household consumption in village After NREGA have you witnessed more children 20 60.00 40.00 0.00 are now going to the school After NREGA, have you witnessed change in 21 70.00 30.00 0.00 trend of attached labour in agriculture After NREGA, have villagers awareness towards 22 80.00 20.00 0.00 Government Schemes increased
Source: Village Survey

153

Table 6.6: Quantitative Questions about the Functioning of MNREGA

Q1. Ans.

Was there a shortage of agricultural wage labour at some point during last year? If so in which months? Yes No If Yes, which month( % of total villages) 60 40
Jan. 10.00 Feb. 20.00 Mar. 10.00 Apr. 20.00 May 20.00 Jun. 40.00 Jul. 40.00 Aug. 40.00 Sept. 10.00 Oct. 40.00 Nov. 20.00 Dec. 40.00

Q.2

Ans. Q.3

After implementation of MNREGA has there been a shortage of agriculture labour? If yes in which years/months? Yes No There was shortage of agriculture labour (% of total villages) 2006 2007 2008 70 30 10.00 20.00 30.00 i. Increased

2009 50.00 100.00 0.00 0.00

Give details of change in wages of casual labour during the last 5 years after MNREGA (% to total villages) ii. Decreased iii. Remained the same In what way the standard of living improved in your village since the introduction of MNREGA? ( % of total villages) i. Housing facilities increased 60.00 80.00 40.00 60.00

Ans.

Q.4

Ans.

ii. Food & Nonfood consumption was increased iii. Better access to health facilities iv. Personal & others In what way the household consumption improved in your village since the introduction of MNREGA ( % of total villages) i. Food items (Cereals, Pulses, Oil & Vegetables)

Q.5

80.00 60.00 40.00 40.00

Ans.

ii. Personal care products iii. Clothes iv. Others

Q6.

In what way NREGA has impacted the children education ( % of total villages) i. Increase in enrollment of children 60.00 40.00 80.00

Ans.

ii. Decrease in dropout of children ii. Shifting for better education

Q.7 Ans. Q.8

In what way NREGA has impacted the trends of attached labour in agriculture ( % of total villages) i. Shifted towards NREGA ii. Not shifted 70.00 30.00

Which sources has improved villagers awareness towards MNREGA and other Government Schemes ( % of HHs.of villages) i. Media (TV, Newspaper, Advertisement etc.) 70.00 ii. Panchayati Raj Institutions & Gramsabha iii. Discussion among participants iv. Government officials Source: Field Survey Ans. = Answer 60.00 80.00 40.00

Ans.

On account of benefits from MNREGA, curiosity among rural people increased to know more about government schemes/ programmes which are beneficial to them. About 80.00 percent participants felt that level of
154

awareness towards various government schemes among villagers increased to a good extent (Table 6.5). About 80.00 percent of the participant households reported that discussions among participants at MNREGA worksites and Gramsabha have created interest and awareness for government schemes in the villages. Nearly 70.00 percent participants said that media like TV, Newspaper, Advertisement, Pamphlets etc. also played important role in creating awareness among rural people about government schemes. More visits of participants to Panchayati Raj institutions and discussion with government officials also enhanced the level of awareness of villagers (Table 6.6). The officials at village (Talati), taluka and district level said that they could not able to give more attention on MNREGA, as at a time, they have to look after number of government schemes. Summary: In this chapter, the impact of MNREGA on economy of selected 10 sample villages is studied based on the analysis of village survey data collected during field work. MNREGA, besides offering employment also offers opportunity for developing infrastructure in the villages. The examination of available infrastructure shows that all study villages have landline and mobile connectivity. The sample villages have very good (90 %) road connectivity but railway connectivity is sparse (20 %). The post offices are present in 70 percent villages whereas commercial banks are present in only 30 percent villages. Not single sample village have Agricultural Produce Market Yard and on an average, it is located at a distance of 17 kms. Except 1 village, all villages have primary school. No higher secondary school present in selected villages. Higher education facility is available within 12 kms. proximity. The health care infrastructure in the villages found so weak. The Primary Health Centre is present in only 40.00 percent villages whereas hospital is available in only one village. For medical treatment in hospital, they have to travel on an average distance of 14 kms. The ration shops are available in 80.00 percent villages. Overall, infrastructure in respect of higher education, healthcare treatment, marketing of agricultural production in selected villages was found in very poor shape.

155

In selected villages, during 2001 as well as 2009, highest proportion of households had agricultural labour has main occupation. It went up from 26.22 percent in 2001 to 28.82 percent in 2009. The proportion of households having cultivation as main occupation declined from 25.47 percent in 2001 to 23.71 percent in 2009. It declined mainly owing to fluctuating and uncertain cultivation income, high cost of inputs, inadequate water resources, weak financial position and unfavorable terms of trade for agriculture. This shift in occupation from cultivation to labour works is most undesirable development. Also increasing trend was witnessed in occupations such as non agricultural labour works, transportation, construction, trade/ business, manufacturing / mining etc. This shows that MNREGA coupled with other factors effected changes in occupational pattern and created positive improvement in the village economy. The comparision of wage rate during 2009 vis--vis pre-MNREGA year 2005 reveals sizable increase in wage rate of all types of labour activities. The increase in wage rate was highest (88.05%) for non-agricultural male labour and lowest (24.32 %) for mining. Further, growth in male wage was found lower compared to growth in female wages. The uptrend in wages for female led to higher participation of women in MNREGA and other labour activities. The hike in the labour charges for various agricultural operations seen remarkably higher for post MNREGA period 2005-09 compared to that for preMNREGA period 2001-2005. This clearly exhibit visible effect of MNREGA on hike in labour charges for various agricultural operations. After introduction of MNREGA, nearly 60.00 percent households reported shortage of wage labour mostly at sowing, interculturing & wedding and harvesting stages of the crops. The shortage of labour increased gradually during period 2005-2009 with the progress of MNREGA. In 2006, only 10.00 percent villages experienced shortage whereas in 2009, 50.00 percent villages experienced shortage of wage-labour. In all sample villages, after MNREGA, wage of casual labour for non-agricultural works recorded noticeable increase. All households believed that MNREGA enhanced the labour cost of agriculture and in turn enhanced the cost of production of crops by upto 20 percent.

156

The introduction of MNREGA not made any significant impact on arresting rural to urban migration. Owing to various reasons, out-migration continued as it was earlier with minor reduction. The MNREGA improved the income level, purchasing power, life style and living standard of villagers. The improvement was marginal or moderate. The spending towards food and non-food items, health care, housing and education moved up. After MNREGA, household consumption in respect of food items improved in 80.00 percent villages. The good impact of MNREGA is seen on education front. The enrollment of children in school recorded good increase and drop-out ratio declined. MNREGA increased the awareness level of the villagers about other state/central government schemes which are beneficial to them. The discussions with other participants and government officials at MNREGA worksites have also enhanced their awareness level on MNREGA and other government programmes. All participants suggested improvement in MNREGA in respect of number of employment days, higher wage rate in tandem with price-rise, regular and timely wage payment, proper measurement of works, correct entries in job card and simplification of wage calculation method.

157

Chapter 7 Concluding Remarks and Policy Recommendations

This chapter deals with the concluding remarks based on major findings of the study. Also, major recommendations for removal of problems emerged from the study are made for strengthening of MNREGA programme in Gujarat State. A. Concluding Remarks: 1. Methodology and Administrative Set-up: The key aim of the study is to examine impacts of MNREGA on employment generation, wage rates of others wage employment activities, rural-urban migration, income level and food security of participants. The five districts of Gujarat State namely Banaskatha, Dahod, Navsari, Jamnagar and Surendranagar were selected for the study. The primary data collected by recall for calendar year 2009 from 200 beneficiaries (40 from each district) and 50 non-beneficiaries (10 from each district) households. The study analysis is based on both, secondary and primary data. Among selected districts, Dahod and Navsari are predominately tribal districts with ST population at 72.26 percent and 48.08 percent respectively. Navsari district have high annual rainfall and hence good irrigation facility. The remaining four districts have erratic, scanty rainfall and unfavourable natural conditions. Hence, frequent drought conditions appearing in these districts. In these districts, rabi and summer crops are grown on very limited areas. These districts have seasonal and lagging agricultural sector, low employment availability in lean seasons and high rate of temporary out migration. In Gujarat, MNREGA was implemented in three phases, starting from April-2006. The MNREGA is in implementation in all 26 districts of the state since April-2008. Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD), Government of Gujarat (GoG) is engaged in implementation of MNREGA in the state. For planning, implementation and monitoring of MNREGA, MoRD, GoG set up separate Commissionerate of Rural Development (MNREGA). At the district level, District Development Officer (DDO) is designated as District programme officer (DPC), Director, DRDA is designated as Additional District Programme 158

Co-ordinator (ADPC). The Taluka Development officer (TDO) is designated as programme officer (PO). The Sarpanch and Talati-cum-Mantri of village Panchayat are responsible for planning, execution, monitoring and supervisory of the projects at the village level. Talati is assisted by Junior Engineer (JE), Assistant Programme Officer (APO) and Mate. The appointments at district and taluka level such as Deputy Engineer (DE), Junior Engineer (JE), Deputy District Programme co-ordinator (DDPC), Account Officer, Clerks, MIS co-ordinator, technical assistant etc. are made either on deputation from other departments or given additional charge or on contract basis for eleven months period with fix salary. Numbers of sanctioned posts are vacant. Thus, shortage of professional, dedicated and motivated permanent staff for MNREGA is one of the key factor which adversely affecting the effective functioning of MNREGA in a big way. At village level, without technical support and professional staff, Gram Panchayats are finding difficult to prepare shelf of projects, planning and carry out quality works. Therefore, in majority cases, plans are made and approved at the top and sent downwards for implementations to Gram Panchayats. Against available funds for MNREGA, 69.69 percent fund utilized for fiscal year 2008-09 and 77.20 percent fund for fiscal year 2009-10. Hence, fund utilization ratio for Gujarat State found somewhat low. It can be improve through proper planning of works. 2. Employment Generation and Socio-Economic Characteristics: Caste-wise classification reveals that against SC/ST population of 21.85 percent in Gujarat, job cards issued to SC/ST were 50.20 percent in 2008-09, 49.40 percent in 2009-10 and 40.80 percent in 2010-11 (Till Aug2010). This shows that MNREGA succeed in providing enhance employment to under priviledged ST/SC population. In Gujarat State, of the total registered households for MNREGA, about 8.51 lakh (29.56%) in year 2008-09 and 15.96 lakh (44.72%) in year 2009-10 demanded employment under MNREGA. Demand of employment was found low in those districts which are either prosperous in agriculture or have very good industrial development as well as capable to provide alternative employment on a relatively higher wages (Anand, Valsad, Gandhinagar, Mehsana, Amreli, Bharuch and 159

Jamnagar). It is worth mentioning that during 2008-09 and 2009-10, in all the districts of the state, all rural households who demanded works were provided employment under MNREGA. For Gujarat State, MNREGA created employment of 213.05 lakh person days in the year 2008-09 and 585.09 lakh person days in 2009-10. It means that against the guarantee of 100 person days, Gujarat able to generate on an average only 25 and 37 person days per job demanding household in 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. Thus, MNREGA not able to generate the kind of employment demand as expected. Average number of person days of employment generation per household varied significantly across districts. Low level operation of programme, delay in preparation and approval of works plans, frequent stoppages/ suspension of works, relatively low wage rate, inadequate fond, non-starting works in beginning of lean seasons etc. were the key which contributing factors for low level employment generation in the state. In total person days generated, ST/SC had very high contribution, 63.30 percent in 2008-09 and 54.40 percent in 2009-10. This indicates that programme appears well targeted to under priviledged rural households. In Gujarat State, employment share of women in total employment was more than 42.00 percent which was higher than provision of 33.33 percent in operational guidelines. In some districts (Rajkot, Sabarkantha), it was more than 60.00 percent. The good level of women participation in MNREGA works is a sign of positive development for women and Act gave economic freedom and empowerment to them to some extent. Of the total job demanding households, only 5.78 percent in 2008-09 and 6.50 percent in 2009-10 exhausted 100 days limit of employment. Across districts, it varied from 28.40 percent in drought affected Kachchh to zero percent in Gandhinagar. Thus, Act had little impact on halting out-migration as employment of 100 days not provided to majority needy households. As far as number of works undertaken is concerned, in 2008-09, total 46657 works were taken up in Gujarat State of which 69.72 percent were completed. In 2009-10, 296717 works were undertaken and from these 88.86 percent works completed. Among different type of works undertaken, focus was more on works of Water Conservation and Water Harvesting (WCWH), provision of irrigation and Land Development on SC/ST land (PI & LD), Drought proofing (DP) and rural connectivity (RC). The analysis clearly 160

established that focus was on those works which create durable productive assets and helpful in enhancing irrigation potential by recharge of rain water and in turn improving crop productivity and potential to generate second round of employment opportunities. This in turn, will provide enhanced employment and livelihood security to rural poor households on a sustainable basis. In 2008-09, total amount spent on MNREGA works in Gujarat was Rs.182.73 crore. In 2009-10, amount spent was Rs.703 crore, 3.85 times of amount spent in previous year. The close examination of data clearly reveals that in dry land districts, focus of spending an amount was more on creating productive structures which are useful in enhancing water recharging and irrigation potential. Whereas, in districts with rich water resources, focus of spending an amount was more on rural connectivity, land development of SC/ST and flood control and protection works. As far as social audit is concern, data present rosy picture of social audit. As per villagers, in majority cases attendance in the meetings/ GramSabhas was poor and has been done to complete mere formality. Majority GramSabhas not held in true spirit and bureaucracy dominated the process of planning. The villagers were unaware about their right, role and way of conducting social audit. In many villages, either VMC not formed or are mostly inactive. The inadequate staff at district and taluka level impacted the inspection of works. Lack of technical knowledge impacted the quality of assets created. There is a voice of discontent, but people neither have courage to lodge complaints nor enough awareness. They also not wish to displease their local gods. The unemployment allowance become due for 49929 days covering many districts of the state in year 2010-11, but not paid a single rupee to any one. The liability of payment of unemployment allowance is of state government. For receiving wage payment, of the total account opened in Gujarat during 2008-09 to 2010-11, about 65 percent accounts were opened in post offices and rest in Banks. Of the total accounts, 51.00 percent accounts were on joint name and rest on individual name. Of the total wage amount during 2008-2010 (till Aug-10), 64.34 percent was disbursed through post offices. This shows that MNREGA workers have high preference for receiving wage payment through post offices mainly because of easy acess. 161

3. Characteristic of Sample Households: The average family size of beneficiary households was 5.52 while that of for non-beneficiary households was 5.32 persons. About 3.55 members of beneficiaries and 3.30 members of non-beneficiaries were income earner. About 64.00 percent of the total population of beneficiary households was in active age group of 16-60 years. In aggregate sample households, 98.40 percent were ST, SC and OBC. This suggests that higher castes almost remained away from participation in MNREGA mainly because of their social status. Nearly 77.00 percent had casual wage labour and 21.00 percent had agriculture as their principal occupation. From 250 sample households, only 4.00 percent had AAY and 51.20 percent had BPL ration cards. This implies that Non-BPL families also participated in MNREGA on a large scale. The literacy rate of sample households was low. 4. Employment, Income and Consumption Pattern of Sample Households: Under MNREGA, sample beneficiary households availed average

employment of 81 days at an average wage rate of Rs.87.53 per day. The employment day provided and wage rate paid per day was lower than it prescribed in the Act. During 2009, nearly 47.00 percent beneficiary households were involved in out-migration. This indicates that MNREGA not caused any significant impact on halting distress rural-urban migration. However, MNREGA succeed to some extent in shortening the out-migration period of some migrants. The average annual income per household from all sources was Rs.75822 for beneficiary and Rs.82886 for non-beneficiary. For both categories of households, casual labour works and works as migrant workers were the forefront contributors in total employment. And these two together, accounted for 84.34 percent of total employment days (696) for nonbeneficiary households and 70.29 percent of total employment days (675) for beneficiary households. The non-beneficiary received average wage rate of Rs.119.17 per day. Whereas beneficiary households received average wage rate of Rs.87.53 per day for MNREGA works. Thus, due to lower realization of wage amount, availability of employment for a shorter period and uncertainty of starting of MNREGA works, many members of beneficiary households

162

preferred to migrate to other places without waiting to start MNREGA works in village. In respect of per capita/month consumption of main food items, beneficiary households were found somewhat better placed compared to non-beneficiary households. Compared to NSS data of year 2005, beneficiary households consumed higher quantity of food items. The Gini Coefficients of income as well as consumption across households suggest significant inequality (variability) in respect of income distribution and consumption. However, compared to non-beneficiary, inequality in consumption is higher for beneficiary households. In respect of wages, Gini Coefficient suggests large scale equality among beneficiaries but significant inequality among nonbeneficiaries. The logit regression analysis indicates that households income, distance of work place, wage rate per day and BPL card holding found to be statistically significant and influencing decision making about participation in MNREGA. 5. Works Profile, Wage Differential and Migration: On an average 2.31 persons per beneficiary household worked in MNREGA works during 2009. Across selected districts, it varied from 1.18 person in Navsari to 3.05 persons in Jamnagar district. Cast-wise data reveals large scale participation in MNREGA by SC/ST/OBC, but in case of higher castes, participation found very negligible. They are considering participation in MNREGA as derogatory and degrading to their social status. The striking feature is the predominance of women participation in MNREGA works. Overall, men-women participation ratio was found at 43:57 and in employment days share of women was to the extent of about 60.57 percent. No discrimination and gender bias seen in wage rate received by men and women for MNREGA works. On an average, wage rate received per day by MNREGA workers worked out to Rs.87.53 per day and from selected districts it was found lowest at Rs.65.06 per day for Surendranagar whereas for remaining districts, it ranged between Rs.85 to Rs.100. The average wage rate received by workers of MNREGA was found less than the prescribed basic minimum wage of Rs.100/- per day. This happened mainly owing to use of task wage method for determining wage amount. In this method wage 163

amount is decided by measurement of works done. And apart from workers capacity, quantum of work done depends upon climate and geology of the region. Also the average wage-rate received for MNREGA works found to be much lower than it was for corresponding non-MNREGA works. The Water Conservation and Water Harvesting, Flood Control, Rural Connectivity and Land Development were the main activities of MNREGA which generated maximum employment in year 2009. In selected districts, majority households found quality of assets created under MNREGA as good or very good. Few households expressed their dissatisfaction on quality of assets. The field level observations and discussion with villagers revealed somewhat different picture. In some cases, ground reality was found quite different. The quality of many assets found poor or moderate. Some works were taken up without proper planning. In some works, selection of locations was not proper. Owing to lack of technical and supervisory staffs, quality of assets created was sub-standard. Owing to lack of proper care and no attention towards maintenance of created community assets, quality of assets deteriorated and assets became nonuseful within short period. Due to ban on use of machines, many earthen road works found lacking in quality. In some Water Conservation and Harvesting works, protective walls not prepared and hence structures get damaged. In heavy rainfall situation, some road and earthen works washed away. There is a need to put more emphasis on maintenance of created assets. So far, unemployment allowance has not been paid to anyone. The village level authority accepting non-dated work demand application. Some villagers asked works through oral information. By adopting this mechanism, payment of unemployment allowance has been mostly avoided and guarantee of providing employment within 15 days has been diluted. After registration in MNREGA, 169 members of 94 beneficiary households (47%) migrated in 2009. In Dahod district, 67.50 percent and in Navsari as high as 90.00 percent households were involved in out-migration. The data shows that in a majority cases, not getting work in MNREGA were not the reason for out migration. They migrated mainly because at migrated places they received employment for a longer period with high wage rate. Also, they felt that income earning from 100 days employment under MNREGA not enough for a poor household 164

to sustain their livelihood for the entire year. Thus, MNREGA found helpful in curtailing the average length of out-migration period but not succeed in stopping the distress out migration. The average wage rate per day earned by male workers of beneficiary households for MNREGA works was Rs.88.73, which was somewhat lower than the prescribed minimum wage rate of Rs.100/day. As a non-agriculture casual labourer for non-MNREGA works, they earned 42.55 percent higher wage-rate and as a migrant worker, earned 50.08 percent higher wage-rate. This very high gap in wage rates between Non-MNREGA and MNREGA works obviously slowdown the works demand under MNREGA and out migration continued unabated. Our discussion with villagers reveals that fixing of basic minimum wage rate of Rs.100/day for MNREGA indirectly impacted on wage rates of Non-MNREGA works. It compelled for upside revision in wage rates for agriculture and Non-MNREGA works which indirectly helped in boosting the income level of the rural labourers. 6. The Functioning of MNREGA-Qualitative Aspects: The value of total assets per beneficiary households was of Rs.135678 which was fairly lower and only 38 percent of assets of Rs.357384 for nonbeneficiary household. The land property accounted for highest share in the total assets for both, beneficiary as well as non-beneficiary households. The land investment by non-beneficiary was more than 4 times (Rs.256500) than it (Rs.62675) for beneficiary households. This gives indications that households having no/marginal land with poor economic condition participated on a larger scale in MNREGA. Average amount borrowed per household by beneficiary was Rs.2313 and by non-beneficiary Rs.4660. Both avoided the borrowing from moneylenders who are charging very high interest rate (36 percent per annum). Beneficiary households borrowed amount to meet daily regular expenditure on food and others, whereas non-beneficiary borrowed mainly to meet expenditure on social obligations. For repayment of borrowed amount, 2.50 percent of beneficiary and 18.00 percent of non-beneficiary households were found to send their family members to work as wage workers at the establishment of landlords to whom they are indebted. 165

In respect of issue of job cards, about 5.00 percent households paid bribes ranging from Rs.20 to Rs.50 for getting job cards. In more than 20.00 percent cases, irregularities were found in job cards in terms of no entry of works done, wrong entry, over-written or blank signature column etc. About 4.50 percent households not kept job-card with them. Thus, existence of irregularities and malpractices in issuance and entries in job cards is a matter of serious concern. Of the total households applied for MNREGA works, 88.00 percent received dated receipt. So far unemployment allowance not paid to the entitled households. As far as the payment of wages is concerned, 76.00 percent beneficiary were paid on the basis of task wage method and therefore average wage rate realization was less than the minimum wage of Rs.100/day prescribed in the Act. MNREGA provided employment to a large number of rural households but many of them were found unsatisfied about the way the scheme was implemented. Nearly 39.50 percent of beneficiaries complained about considerable delay in the wage payment. They received it in a month or beyond. About 7.50 percent households complained for less receipt of wage amount than amount on which they signed or put thumb impression. Some complained for under reporting of work done and hence received less payment. Owing to illiteracy and long distance, 35.00 percent households faced difficulties in accessing post office/bank accounts. Majority (64%) households were lacking clarity on task based wage calculation and they find it very complex and beyond their understanding. By and large majority of beneficiaries were satisfied with the facilities provided at worksites. To a great extent, Mates were found to monitor the execution of works. Nearly 92.00 percent households believed that structures/assets created under MNREGA were very useful to village community. Few respondents (7%) said that some structures created were of poor quality, inadequate in size and non-durable. About 13.50 percent households reported need of more attention and care for these assets so as to make them last longer. Majority participants were of the view that whatsoever may be the quality of structures, it always requires timely maintenance and care, otherwise, it may gradually become non-useful. After introduction of MNREGA, about 47.00 percent households reported out-migration for wage employment. About 7.50 percent households 166

who migrated earlier, returned back to village to work in MNREGA works. The member of 11 households migrated to other places owing to dissatisfaction from MNREGA. They expressed dissatisfaction towards low wage earning, late payment, insufficient employment days, irregularities in measurement and payment etc. In respect of awareness, the probe reveals that awareness level of majority participants on basic and legal right based aspects, wage calculation method, unemployment allowance rule, social audit, wage payment period, work application procedure etc. was found very limited and partly. In respect of food security, about 69.00 percent households reported that MNREGA enhanced the food security to few extent. Some households reported that owing increase in income from MNREGA, they able to maintain their food consumption level despite significant rise in food prices. Owing to significant price rise in essential commodities, the food security worsens for those families which were not able to generate adequate additional income from MNREGA and other sources. However, 31.00 percent households reported insufficient food for two meals a day during some period of the year 2009. About 24.00 percent households reported that MNREGA not able to ensure availability of two meals a day for about two months. For food insufficiency, reasons cited were inadequate employment, very high price rise in food items, large family size and low income, weak physical health and financial scarcity. About 51.50 percent households perceived that MNREGA provided protection against extreme poverty. About, 31.50 percent households indicated that income from MNREGA helped in marginal reduction in their indebtedness. About 69.50 percent households believed that MNREGA increased the economic independence of women to a small extent. Sample households also reported some main difficulties, which they faced during year 2009. For amelioration, they suggested numerous measures. The key measures were, an appropriate increase in wage rate (20.50%), revision of wage rate every year keeping in view the change in consumer price index, steps to improve awareness on MNREGA and government schemes, raise limit of 100 day employment per households and link it with family size (22.50%), timely payment of wages (32%), easy access 167

to institutional credit (20.00%) and financial support and guidance for agricultural development (22.50%). Also, sample respondents gave numerous suggestions as their feedbacks for improving functioning and effectiveness of MNREGA. The key suggestions are upward revision of 100 day employment limit, create more awareness towards all aspects of MNREGA, timely and regular wage payment, simplification of task-wage method, start MNREGA works with start of lean season, active involvement of all line departments, deployment of full time professional and dedicated staff at all level, arrangement of proper maintenance of created community assets, stringent actions against officials involved in corruption and irregularities, structures to be created must be as per requirement of villagers, steps to reduce influence of politicians and influential persons of the village and improve the level of social audit. 7. MNREGA Impact on Village Economy: The infrastructure available in the village reflects the prosperity, development and economy status of the village. The MNREGA besides offering employment also provide opportunity for development of infrastructure in rural areas. The selected villages have good telecom and road connectivity but railway connectivity is sparse. All the selected villages have post office facility within 2 kms proximity. Commercial banks are present in only 30.00 percent villages. Not a single sample village has Agriculture Produce Marketing Yard. Except one village, all sample villages have sound primary education facility. Higher education facility is not available in selected villages. The health care infrastructure in the villages is so weak and for medical treatment in hospital, they have to travel atleast distance of 14 kms. or so. Overall, infrastructure in respect of higher education and healthcare treatment in selected villages was found in poor shape. In selected villages, proportion of households having agriculture labour works as main occupation went up from 26.22 percent in 2001 to 28.22 percent in 2009 whereas it declined for cultivation from 25.47 percent in 2001 to 23.71 percent in 2009. This shift in occupation from cultivation to labour works is most undesirable development. Also, occupations such as nonagricultural labour works, transportation, construction, trade/business etc. witnessed increasing trend in 2009 over 2001. This shows that MNREGA 168

coupled with other factors effected changes in occupational pattern and improvement in the village economy. The comparision of wage rate during 2009 vis--vis pre-MNREGA year 2005 reveals sizable increase in wage rate of all types of labour activities. The increase in wage rate was highest (88.05%) for non-agricultural male labour and lowest (24.32 %) for mining works. Further, growth in male wage was found lower compared to growth in female wages. The relatively higher uptrend in wages for female led to higher participation of women in MNREGA and other labour activities. The hike in the labour charges for various agricultural operations seen remarkably higher for post MNREGA period 2005-2009 compared to that for pre- MNREGA period 2001-2005. This clearly exhibit visible effect of MNREGA on hike in labour charges for agricultural operations. After introduction of MNREGA, nearly 60.00 percent households reported shortage of wage labour mostly at sowing, interculturing & wedding and harvesting stages of the crops. The shortage of labour increased gradually during period 2005-2009. In 2006, only 10.00 percent villages experienced shortage whereas in 2009, 50.00 percent villages experienced shortage of wagelabour. In all sample villages, after MNREGA, wage of casual labour for nonagricultural works recorded noticeable increase. All households believed that MNREGA enhanced the labour cost of agriculture and in turn enhanced the cost of production of crops upto 20 percent. The introduction of MNREGA not made any significant impact on rural to urban migration. Owing to various reasons, out-migration continued as it was earlier with minor reduction. The MNREGA improved the income level, purchasing power, life style and living standard of villagers. The improvement was marginal or moderate. The spending towards food and non-food items, health care, housing and education also shows up move. After MNREGA, households consumption in respect of food items improved in 80.00 percent villages. The good impact of MNREGA is seen on education front. The enrollment of children in school recorded good increase and drop-out ratio declined. 169

MNREGA increased the awareness level of the villagers about other state / central government schemes which are beneficial to them. The discussions with other participants and government officials at MNREGA worksites helped them to enhance their awareness level on MNREGA and other government programmes. All participants suggested improvement in MNREGA in respect of number of employment days, higher wage rate in tandem with price-rise, regular and timely wage payment, proper measurement of works, correct entries in job card and wage calculation method. B. Policy Recommendations: In the field survey, almost all the participants favoured continuation of MNREGA with some modifications. The study further shows that MNREGA is capable to enhance income level, food security and livelihood security of rural poor households on a sustainable manner. The study further reveals that level of benefits derived from MNREGA were found below the expected level. This shows that MNREGA implementation is not fully free from problems and constraints. The following are the policy recommendations for raising performance and effectiveness of MNREGA so as to meet its development goals efficiently. 1. Maintenance of Assets Created: Majority assets created under MNREGA are own by Panchayats. The assets mainly farm ponds, irrigation wells etc. created on private land of SC/ST/BPL households are owned by land owners. The assets created on private land are generally well maintained by the owners. But study revealed that panchayats are not well equipped to maintain community assets properly. They lack capability as well as funds. Owing to poor maintenance of these sub-standard quality assets, it becomes less durable and non-useable in a short time. The MNREGA does not have any mechanism either to ensure maintenance of these assets. As a result, assets that have been created under MNREGA are wasting away due to lack of proper and timely maintenance. Technically, if the assets are on panchayats lands, responsibility of maintenance of assets lies with panchayats. And panchayats are generally short of funds. Therefore, maintenance of created community assets must be brought under the MNREGA purview and panchayat should 170

be provided with special funds for maintenance. If this issue not addressed urgently, this alone has the potential to undo whatsoever has been achieved. 2. Deployment of Full time professionals exclusively dedicated to MNREGA: It is evident that both, number and quality of human resources deployed so far are completely inadequate for shouldering the complex and manifold responsibilities of MNREGA implementation. DDO and TDO have been given additional charge of DPC and PO respectively. DDO and TDO are already overburdening with their regular works. Some staffs and engineers appointed are either on deputation from other line departments of state government or given additional charge. Some appointments such as Junior Engineer (JE), Clerks, MIS co-ordinator, accountants, APO, DDPC etc. have been made at the block/district level but under contract for limited tenure (11 months) with fixed salary. At village level, Talati cum Mantri is overloaded with his regular works. Many sanctioned posts are vacant at present. Owing to additional responsibilities, lack of expertise and adhoc appointments, they lack motivation, dedication and are demoralized. The shortage of qualified permanent staff causing delay in planning, approval, execution and monitoring of MNREGA works. It is also adversely impacting the inspection quality and measurement of works done and as a result timely payment of wages. Sometime measurement itself can take few weeks, although it is supposed to be done within week. Delayed wage payment is one of the major problems of MNREGA and creating large scale dissatisfaction large scale among workers. Therefore, we suggest fill up of all sanctioned posts and deployment of full time professionals exclusively dedicated to MNREGA at district/block/ village level but most crucially at the block level which is at the cutting edge of implementation. This will minimize problems shown above. 3. People Friendly Wage Calculation Method: We observed that in majority works, wage amount of work done is determined by use of task-wage method. This method is very complex and beyond the understanding of the workers. Owing to this wage calculation method, MNREGA workers availed average wage rate less than the daily basic minimum wage (Rs.100/day) prescribed in the Act. Some workers availed wage rate as low as Rs.47/day. The paying less than the daily 171

minimum wage because of archaic wage rates based on finished tasks turned out to be a great threat to the MNREGAs development potential. Thus, there is a need to rationalized and simplified the task-wage method. Whatever may be the wage-calculation method, arrange to pay atleast basic minimum daily wage to MNREGA workers. 4. Timely Wage Payment: Irregular and delayed payment of MNREGA works is also acting as a key constraint to the acts development potential. In the study, we observed that many participants expressed their dissatisfaction towards very late payment of wages. The payment found to be delayed for month and beyond. As majority participants are very poor, without timely payment, they are facing lot of problems to meet their recurring expenses. Due to late payment, some participants started to work in non-MNREGA works where payment is regular and wage rates relatively higher. The shortage of qualified staff at all levels was the main cause for delay in payment. Therefore, we suggest making an appropriate arrangement to ensure timely and regular wage payment to MNREGA workers. 5. Every Year Review of Wage Rate: When MNREGA introduced in 2006, wage-rate of MNREGA works was on par or marginally higher than prevailing market labour rate of agriculture and non-agricultural works. The introduction of MNREGA impacted on available labour resources and created labour shortage. Due to labour shortage, wage rate of non-MNREGA works moved up significantly. Currently, non-MNREGA wage rates of different activities are substantially higher (20 to 40%) than it for MNREGA works (Rs.100/day). And, subsequently, it will lead to higher scale of out-migration and low participation in MNREGA. Moreover, high rate of inflation make current wage rate of MNREGA non attractive. Therefore, to correct this situation, we suggest every year revision of basic minimum wage rate of MNREGA in the context of inflation scenario or consumer price index of labourers. 6. Convergence with Other Ongoing Rural Development Programmes: For securing maximum benefits from MNREGA, it is necessary to integrate MNREGA programme with the other relevant ongoing central / state programmes. In this context, some ongoing programmes are Watershed 172

Development, NWDPRA, DPAP, Hariyali, Minor Irrigation, Farm Ponds, Tribal Development Programme etc. Instead of starting new independent works, efforts should be made to contribute to the ongoing efforts through MNREGA. It is also necessary that at the district, taluka and village level, efforts should be made for convergence of these different programmes to make them effective. Such convergence will enable the planner to generate large scale wage employment on a continuous basis in these districts on one hand and also promote rapid development of the regions on the other hand. 7. Revision of SoR: In the study, it was found that wage amount of more than 75.00 percent workers of MNREGA decided using Schedule of Rates (SoR). And hence, workers get lower wages than prescribed basic minimum wage. In the context of high inflation, revision of SoR is suggested. Revise SoR in such a way that wages are in line with programme that bans machines and contractors. In should be gender sensitive and reflect clearly climate and geology variations. It must move in tandem with changes in statutory minimum wages and valuate different activities separately. This will be helpful in minimize the adverse impact on wage rate of MNREGA and in turn increase the participation. 8. Unemployment Allowance: As per Act, if employment not provided within 15 days, unemployment allowance in cash has to be paid as per Act. A liability of payment of unemployment allowance is of state government. In 2010-11, unemployment allowance due for 49929 days but not paid a single rupee to anyone. To avoid the payment of unemployment allowance, some Gram Panchayats are accepting non-dated demand applications or oral information. Thus, by using this mechanism, legal guarantee of providing unemployment allowance is diluted. Also, there is no awareness or collective strength on the part of people to demand unemployment allowance and no willingness on the part of authorities to make such payment. Therefore, central government must pursue this matter with state government to pay regularly due unemployment allowance to all eligible workers. The policy of payment of unemployment allowance will put pressure on the state government as well as on other functionaries to perform better. 173

9. Up 100 Days Employment Limits Per HHs. MNREGA guarantee atleast 100 days of wage employment per HHs. in every financial year. The 100 days limit not taking into account their family size. This uniform provision has discouraged large families. A family having 3 to 4 earning members will get employment for about 25 to 33 days per person in a financial year. The earning from these employment days is absolutely inadequate to sustain their livelihood for the entire year. Therefore, they have no other option but to continue migration at other places. Therefore, aims of MNREGA to arrest out-migration get defeated. We suggest upward revision of limit of 100 days employment per household and if possible link it with number of eligible members of the family. 10. Capacity Building of Stakeholders: Capacity building is a continuous process. It is not a one time job. The need is felt for capacity building of all stakeholders of the MNREGA, government administration at all levels, PR institutions at all the levels, community organisations and common people at the village level. Many of them lack full awareness on various components of the programme. Participants found unaware about their legal rights, unemployment allowance rate, wage calculation method, how to conduct social audit etc. Official were found lacking clarity about their job chart. Therefore, all of them need more training to be equipped to perform their role effectively. State government has put in lot of efforts in this area. However, training has not reached to all stakeholders. There is a urgent need to create adequate technical capabilities among MNREGA staff of district, taluka, village panchayat and stakeholders to enable them to plan and implement the programme and to conduct social audit in a effective and positive manner. 11. Period of Starting of MNREGA Works: It was observed that some time MNREGA works started when agricultural works are at its peak. Sometime MNREGA works delayed for a longer period and not started with the start of lean seasons. Such employment schedule of MNREGA yielded negative impact on their income and employment level. Therefore, it is suggested that works should be not implemented when agricultural works are at its peak and it should be started 174

immediately with the start of lean period. This will improve the participation and employment generation under MNREGA. 12. Focus on Involvement of Peoples in Village Level Planning: Under MNREGA, Panchayats are supposed to play pivotal roles in designing, planning and executing at least 50 percent of the total works. At village level, without support of technical and support staff, most of the Gram Panchayats do not have a capacity or expertise to undertake planning and hence they find it difficult to prepare shelf of projects and annual village development plans and carry out technically correct works of better quality. Therefore, in many cases, plans are made and approved at the top and sent downwards for implementation by the GPs. The Panchayats calling the meetings / Gram Sabhas for approval of plan sent from the top. The attendance of peoples in such meetings found low and such meetings become mere formality. Many Gram Sabhas not held in true spirit and bureaucracy dominated the process of planning. There is a need to provide technical assistance to Panchayats for planning, execution of works and creating awareness among peoples for their active involvement in planning and execution and social audit of the works done under MNREGA. In many Gram Panchayats, Vigilance and Monitoring Committee (VMC) are not set up for the monitoring of the scheme at village level. In some villages, VMC are formed but found inactive. Social audit also requires capacity building of the poor villagers to enable them to perform the task. 13. Check Corruption and Malpractices: In study, we have seen earlier that procedure of issuance of job card is not fully free from corruption. Some participants paid bribes for getting jobcard. In some job cards, entries of work done were not made, whereas in some cards, entries were over written. Some job cards have fake entries and column of signature of concerned authorities was kept deliberately blank. Some job cards were kept with Sarpanch / Talati and some with contractors. There were cases of under reporting of work done. In some cases, they received less wage payment than amount on which they sign. Thus, numbers of such corrupt practices are prevailing in the current functioning system of MNREGA. These corrupt practices created dissatisfaction and discontent among participants and therefore, they are giving first preference to 175

non- MNREGA works. Therefore, we suggest provision of strict actions in the act to check corruption and malpractices. Also take stringent actions against corrupt officials of MNREGA. 14. Clarity on Definition of a Household: In the Act, household is to be defined as nuclear family consisting of husband, wife, children and unmarried adult persons. A single person living alone can also be defined as a household. In the selected villages, however job card issued mostly on ration card basis and household definition used was based on the ration card, i.e. nuclear family consists of all members recorded in one ration card. This definition will imply that a joint family is one household even when there are several nuclear families living together. Since getting a separate ration card for each nuclear family not easy, families not frequently make a separate ration card even when they live away from one another. Therefore, for issuance of job card, clearly define the definition of a household. 15. Active Involvement of Line Departments: Field survey revealed that there was low level involvement of line departments in planning, execution of works and at other stages. Owing to low level involvement of line departments such as Irrigation, PWD, Forest etc. there were discrepancies in selection of works, location, size of works, quality of works and measurement of works delayed. And in turn there was a delay in wage payment. Therefore, necessary actions needed for active involvement of all related line departments in implementation of MNREGA. Lastly, some suggestions made by participants in the earlier chapter-5 are also important for enhancing the efficacy of implementation of MNREGA programme. Conclusions: Based on evaluation carried out at field level, it can be inferred that MNREGA holds the key to the development of countrys vast rural population. The programme deemed to have huge potential in empowering rural communities. The programme is capable to enhance income level, food security and livelihood security of rural poor on a sustainable manner. Further, MNREGA brought very positive changes in respect of employment, income, wage-rates and food security. It boosted village economy and found 176

beneficial to rural poor. The study further reveals that the participation of peoples was low at the stages of planning, implementation and Gram Sabhas. The awareness level about project activities was also low to moderate. This calls for higher efforts to increase the peoples participation at all the stages of the programme. The study reveals need of bringing more transparency in conducting social audits. The more involvement of line departments in the programme will be helpful in effective implementation of programme. Timely repairs and maintenance of created assets also needed for sustainability of the impact of the programme. The investment under MNREGA must be focused more on activities providing benefits at the community level so that poor derive maximum benefits. The MNREGA reformed on the suggested lines holds out the prospect of not only transforming the livelihoods of the poorest rural peoples of the country but also heralding a revolution in rural governance in India. The goals of upliftment of poor rural households through ensuring food security on a sustained basis by providing wage employment through MNREGA not look distant, if MNREGA pursued in earnest.

177

Bibliography
1) CSE (2008), MNREGA Opportunities and Challenges by Natural Resource Management and Livelihood Unit, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), New Delhi. 2) M. R. Prasad, IAMR (2008), All India Report on Evaluation of NREGA: A Survey of Twenty District, IAMR, Narela, New Delhi. 3) Joshi Varsha, Surjit Singh, Joshi K. N. (Sept. 2008), Evaluation of NREGA in Rajasthan, IDS, Jaipur. 4) P. Ambasta, P. S. Vijay Shankar, Shah Mihir (2008), Two Years of NREGA: The Road Ahead Economic & Political Weekly, February 2329, Vol. XIIII, No. 8, PP. 41-50. 5) Jaswal Anshuman and Minstry Paulomee, Will NREGA Ensure Security Against hunger? Disha, Ahmedabad. 6) CAG (2007), Draft Performance Audit of Implementation of NREGA, Office of the Principal Director of Audit, Economic and Service Ministries, New Delhi. 7) Siddhanta Priyadarshan (2010), NREGA falls way short of targets Indian Express, Ahmedabad Edition, July 21, 2010 PP.17. 8) Chakravarthy Anupam, Tewari (July, 2010), After Modi Sniffs Corruption in NREGA, Delhi flags state dossier Indian Express, Ahmedabad, July 27, 2010, PP 1, 2. 9) Vanik Anish (2008), NREGA and the death of Tapas Soren Economic and Political Weekly, July 26 August 1, 2008. Vol. XL III, No 30, PP 8. 10) Reetika Khera, Nayak Nandini (2009), Women Workers Perceptions of the NREGA, Economic & Political Weekly, October 24-30, 2009. Vol. XLIV No 43, PP 49. 11) Vanik, Anish and Siddhartha (2008), Bank Payment: End of Corruption in NREGA? Economic & Political Weekly, 26-2 May, 2009. Vol. XL III No 17, PP 33-39. 12) Hiral Dave (2010), NREGA loot: Dead men walking as ghost workers Indian Express, Ahmedabad Edition November 16, 2010. Page no. 3.

178

13) MoRD (2007), Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 (NREGA), Report of the second year April, 2006-March, 2007, Ministry of Rural Development, GoI, New Delhi. 14) Dr. R. Prasad Singh (April 2008), Success of NREGA Need Peoples Active Participation, Grameen Bharat, Voi-7, Issue No-46, April, 2008. 15) Chakraborty Pinaki (Feb, 2007), Implementation of Employment Guarantee: A Preliminary Appraisal, EPW, February, 17, 2007. PP 4855. 16) Hirway Indira (2008), Plan for Long Term Indian Express, February 2, 2008. 17) MoRD (2005), The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 (NREGA) Operational Guidelines, Ministry of Rural Development, GUI, New Delhi. 18) Shah Mihir (2007), Employment Guarantee, Civil Society and Indian Democracy, Economic & Political Weekly, November 17th 2007. 19) CSE (October 2007), A background to NREGA, National Resources Management and Livelihood Unit, CSE, New Delhi. 20) Hirway Indira (October 2006), Concurrent Monitoring of National Rural Employment Guarantee Act Feedback from the Field Centre for Development Alternatives, Ahmedabad. 21) Patnaik Prabhat (2005), On the need for providing employment guarantee, Economic & Political Weekly, January 15-21, 2005, Vol. XL, No.3, PP.203. 22) K. S. Gopal (2009), NREGA Social Audit: Myths and Reality, Economic & Political Weekly, 17-23 January, 2009, Vol. XLIV No 3, PP. 70-71. 23) Narayan Sudha (2008), Employment Guarantee, womens work and child care, Economic & Political Weekly, March 1-7, 2008, Vol.XLIII No.9, PP. 10 to 12. 24) Rakesh Tiwari, Somashekhar and others (2011), MGNREGA for Environmental Service Enhancement and Vulnerability Reduction: Rapid Appraisal in Chitredurgu District, Karnataka Economic & Political weekly, May 14, 2011, Vol.XLVI No.20 PP 39 to 47. 179

Appendix- 1(i) : District wise works completed/progress under MNREGA (nos. of projects) in Gujarat -2008-09
District Rural Connectivity comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp.

Banas Kantha
99 115 31 4 3927 170 226 712 0 0 136 141 149 120 10 31 227 283 0 0 4805 1576 6381 (1.55) (1.80) (0.49) (0.06) (61.54) (2.66) (3.54) (11.16) (0.00) (0.00) (2.13) (2.21) (2.34) (1.88) (0.16) (0.49) (3.56) (4.44) (0.00) (0.00) (75.30) (24.70) (100.0) 275 44 62 57 435 21 290 0 0 0 0 0 28 15 69 8 0 0 0 0

Dang
(21.09) (3.37) (4.75) (4.37) (33.36) (1.61) (22.24) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (2.15) (1.15) (5.29) (0.61) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (88.88) (11.12) (100.0)

Dohad
360 197 482 332 1369 211 347 12 0 0 162 3999 37 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2757 4760 7517 (4.79) (2.62) (6.41) (4.42) (18.21) (2.81) (4.62) (0.16) (0.00) (0.00) (2.16) (53.20) (0.49) (0.12) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (36.68) (63.32) (100.0)

Narmada
187 233 20 35 538 94 374 0 0 0 1065 339 140 3 15 5 1 0 0 0 2340 709 3049 (6.13) (7.64) (0.66) (1.15) (17.65) (3.08) (12.27) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (34.93) (11.12) (4.59) (0.10) (0.49) (0.16) (0.03) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (76.75) (23.25) (100.0)

Panch Mahals
495 368 597 150 1948 247 383 133 0 0 240 868 121 224 13 5 0 0 0 0 3797 1995 5792 (8.55) (6.35) (10.31) (2.59) (33.63) (4.26) (6.61) (2.30) (0.00) (0.00) (4.14) (14.99) (2.09) (3.87) (0.22) (0.09) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (65.56) (34.44) (100.0)

Sabar Kantha
135 207 6 3 2197 229 332 19 0 0 0 0 81 235 23 1 0 0 0 0 2774 694 3468 (3.89) (5.97) (0.17) (0.09) (63.35) (6.60) (9.57) (0.55) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (2.34) (6.78) (0.66) (0.03) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (79.99) (20.01) (100.0)

Bharuch
7 111 23 79 780 51 564 35 1 43 2 207 12 111 1 2 0 0 0 0 1390 639 2029 (0.34) (5.47) (1.13) (3.89) (38.44) (2.51) (27.80) (1.72) (0.05) (2.12) (0.10) (10.20) (0.59) (5.47) (0.05) (0.10) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (68.51) (31.49) (100.0)

Navsari
140 235 113 44 70 19 147 9 0 14 125 339 60 5 3 0 83 0 0 0 741 665 1406 (9.96) (16.71) (8.04) (3.13) (4.98) (1.35) (10.46) (0.64) (0.00) (1.00) (8.89) (24.11) (4.27) (0.36) (0.21) (0.00) (5.90) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (52.70) (47.30) (100.0) 2 50 0 9 0 81 94 23 0 2 8 74 0 7 1 0 6 0 0 0

Valsad
(0.56) (14.01) (0.00) (2.52) (0.00) (22.69) (26.33) (6.44) (0.00) (0.56) (2.24) (20.73) (0.00) (1.96) (0.28) (0.00) (1.68) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (31.09) (68.91) (100.0)

Flood Control

Water Conservation comp. And Water Ongoing/Susp. Herversting Drought Proofing comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp.

Micro Irrigation Provision of Irrigation facility to Land development Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies Land development

Any Other Activity comp. Approved by MoRD Ongoing/Susp. Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Total Ongoing/Susp. Total

1159 145 1304

111 246 357

Source:http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx Note: The figures in parentheses are percentages of respective total

180

Contd..

Appendix- 1(i) : District wise works completed/progress under MNREGA (nos. of projects) in Gujarat -2008-09
District Rural Connectivity comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp.

Ahmadabad
10 2 3 2 114 3 29 153 11 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 167 167 334 (2.99) (0.60) (0.90) (0.60) (34.13) (0.90) (8.68) (45.81) (3.29) (2.10) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (50.00) (50.00) (100.0) 0 0 18 27

Amreli
(0.00) (0.00) (1.43) (2.15) (33.97) (0.24) (48.77) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (8.43) (5.01) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (92.60) (7.40) (100.0) 59 55 4 4 42 33

Anand
(11.43) (10.66) (0.78) (0.78) (8.14) (6.40) (47.48) (7.36) (0.19) (1.16) (0.00) (0.00) (1.16) (2.52) (0.00) (1.74) (0.00) (0.19) (0.00) (0.00) (69.19) (30.81) (100.0)

Bhavnagar
5 1 8 3 205 2 90 1 8 1 12 11 72 19 1 1 0 0 0 0 401 39 440 (1.14) (0.23) (1.82) (0.68) (46.59) (0.45) (20.45) (0.23) (1.82) (0.23) (2.73) (2.50) (16.36) (4.32) (0.23) (0.23) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (91.14) (8.86) (100.0)

Gandhinagar
2 12 0 0 11 2 194 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 208 17 225 (0.89) (5.33) (0.00) (0.00) (4.89) (0.89) (86.22) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.44) (1.33) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (92.44) (7.56) (100.0)

Jamnagar
10 16 0 2 70 34 9 9 0 2 1 46 2 8 7 8 10 9 0 0 109 134 243 (4.12) (6.58) (0.00) (0.82) (28.81) (13.99) (3.70) (3.70) (0.00) (0.82) (0.41) (18.93) (0.82) (3.29) (2.88) (3.29) (4.12) (3.70) (0.00) (0.00) (44.86) (55.14) (100.0)

Junagadh
0 0 692 0 50 0 0 35 0 0 0 174 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 747 212 959 (0.00) (0.00) (72.16) (0.00) (5.21) (0.00) (0.00) (3.65) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (18.14) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.52) (0.31) (0.00) (0.00) (77.89) (22.11) (100.0)

Kachchh
3 63 0 0 17 37 104 15 0 0 0 0 57 110 1 1 0 0 0 0 182 226 408 (0.74) (15.44) (0.00) (0.00) (4.17) (9.07) (25.49) (3.68) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (13.97) (26.96) (0.25) (0.25) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (44.61) (55.39) (100.0) 12

Kheda
(1.71) (17.40) (0.00) (0.00) (49.79) (2.85) (6.56) (14.12) (0.29) (1.71) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (5.56) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (58.35) (41.65) (100.0)

122 0 0 349 20 46 99 2 12 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 409 292 701

Flood Control

Water Conservation comp. And Water Ongoing/Susp. Herversting Drought Proofing comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp.

427 3 613 0 0 0 0 0 106 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 1164 93 1257

245 38 1 6 0 0 6 13 0 9 0 1 0 0 357 159 516

Micro Irrigation Provision of Irrigation facility to Land development Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies Land development

Any Other Activity comp. Approved by MoRD Ongoing/Susp. Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Total Ongoing/Susp. Total

181

Contd..

Appendix- 1(i) : District wise works completed/progress under MNREGA (nos. of projects) in Gujarat -2008-09
District Rural Connectivity comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp.

Mahesana
8 17 10 19 253 29 386 18 9 6 2 0 34 19 34 3 71 10 0 0 807 121 928 (0.86) (1.83) (1.08) (2.05) (27.26) (3.13) (41.59) (1.94) (0.97) (0.65) (0.22) (0.00) (3.66) (2.05) (3.66) (0.32) (7.65) (1.08) (0.00) (0.00) (86.96) (13.04) (100.0) 24 62 8 3 804 111 476 3 50 5 1 1 78 30 11 5 0 0 0 0

Patan
(1.44) (3.71) (0.48) (0.18) (48.09) (6.64) (28.47) (0.18) (2.99) (0.30) (0.06) (0.06) (4.67) (1.79) (0.66) (0.30) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (86.84) (13.16) (100.0)

Porbandar
81 4 5 1 19 4 8 0 2 0 0 0 5 2 6 2 4 0 0 0 130 13 143 (56.64) (2.80) (3.50) (0.70) (13.29) (2.80) (5.59) (0.00) (1.40) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (3.50) (1.40) (4.20) (1.40) (2.80) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (90.91) (9.09) (100.0) 80 15 0 0

Rajkot
(4.34) (0.81) (0.00) (0.00) (61.13) (5.97) (16.61) (1.57) (0.00) (0.00) (1.09) (0.98) (3.09) (0.38) (0.00) (0.00) (4.02) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (90.28) (9.72) (100.0) 256 11 76 27 698 30 622 0 1 0 0 30 49 18 1 0 0 0 0 0

Surat
(14.07) (0.60) (4.18) (1.48) (38.37) (1.65) (34.19) (0.00) (0.05) (0.00) (0.00) (1.65) (2.69) (0.99) (0.05) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (93.62) (6.38) (100.0)

Surendranagar
0 12 0 5 21 42 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 67 88 (0.00) (13.64) (0.00) (5.68) (23.86) (47.73) (0.00) (5.68) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (1.14) (0.00) (2.27) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (23.86) (76.14) (100.0) 518 90 23 0 1394 1 285 0 0 0 0 24 56 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 2276 156 2432

Tapi
(21.30) (3.70) (0.95) (0.00) (57.32) (0.04) (11.72) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.99) (2.30) (1.69) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (93.59) (6.41) (100.0)

Vadodara
118 225 15 4 533 103 158 42 0 0 10 60 3 19 21 31 2 3 0 0 860 487 1347 (8.76) (16.70) (1.11) (0.30) (39.57) (7.65) (11.73) (3.12) (0.00) (0.00) (0.74) (4.45) (0.22) (1.41) (1.56) (2.30) (0.15) (0.22) (0.00) (0.00) (63.85) (36.15) (100.0)

Flood Control

Water Conservation comp. And Water Ongoing/Susp. Herversting Drought Proofing comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp.

1126 110 306 29 0 0 20 18 57 7 0 0 74 0 0 0 1663 179 1842

Micro Irrigation Provision of Irrigation facility to Land development Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies Land development

Any Other Activity comp. Approved by MoRD Ongoing/Susp. Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Total Ongoing/Susp. Total

1452 220 1672

1703 116 1819

182

Appendix-1(ii):District wise works completed/progress under MNREGA (nos.of projects) in Gujatat -2009-10
District Rural Connectivity comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Flood Control Water Conservation And Water Herversting Drought Proofing Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. Provision of comp. Irrigation facility to Land Ongoing/Susp. development Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies Land development Any Other Activity Approved by MoRD Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Total Ongoing/Susp. Toal

Banas Kantha
34 398 2 60 14859 1934 12 774 0 38 23 326 9 287 80 41 6 284 0 0 15025 4142 19167 (0.18) (2.08) (0.01) (0.31) (77.52) (10.09) (0.06) (4.04) (0.00) (0.20) (0.12) (1.70) (0.05) (1.50) (0.42) (0.21) (0.03) (1.48) (0.00) (0.00) (78.39) (21.61) (100.0)

Dang
195 353 153 261 1309 17 1 7 0 0 0 255 159 21 1121 30 0 0 0 0 2938 944 3882 (5.02) (9.09) (3.94) (6.72) (33.72) (0.44) (0.03) (0.18) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (6.57) (4.10) (0.54) (28.88) (0.77) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (75.68) (24.32) (100.0)

Dohad
58 347 295 898 9576 379 45 309 0 4 710 4365 4 92 0 5 0 0 0 0 10688 6399 17087 (0.34) (2.03) (1.73) (5.26) (56.04) (2.22) (0.26) (1.81) (0.00) (0.02) (4.16) (25.55) (0.02) (0.54) (0.00) (0.03) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (62.55) (37.45) (100.0)

Narmada
396 368 55 36 4307 330 898 1142 0 1 303 2145 99 54 177 31 0 0 0 0 6235 4107 10342 (3.83) (3.56) (0.53) (0.35) (41.65) (3.19) (8.68) (11.04) (0.00) (0.01) (2.93) (20.74) (0.96) (0.52) (1.71) (0.30) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (60.29) (39.71) (100.0)

Panch Mahals
532 437 1079 403 12499 380 146 654 1 12 694 1763 135 388 49 34 0 0 0 0 15135 4071 19206 (2.77) (2.28) (5.62) (2.10) (65.08) (1.98) (0.76) (3.41) (0.01) (0.06) (3.61) (9.18) (0.70) (2.02) (0.26) (0.18) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (78.80) (21.20) (100.0)

Sabar Kantha
288 404 33 101 22797 44 61 884 0 0 0 75 282 451 20 104 0 133 0 0 23481 2196 25677 (1.12) (1.57) (0.13) (0.39) (88.78) (0.17) (0.24) (3.44) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.29) (1.10) (1.76) (0.08) (0.41) (0.00) (0.52) (0.00) (0.00) (91.45) (8.55) (100.0)

Bharuch
51 122 126 62 6432 214 730 84 50 14 7 356 181 226 14 19 53 0 0 0 7644 1097 8741 (0.58) (1.40) (1.44) (0.71) (73.58) (2.45) (8.35) (0.96) (0.57) (0.16) (0.08) (4.07) (2.07) (2.59) (0.16) (0.22) (0.61) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (87.45) (12.55) (100.0)

Navsari
234 341 63 56 5142 2 2 203 0 0 95 413 39 70 9 4 0 0 0 0 5584 1089 6673 (3.51) (5.11) (0.94) (0.84) (77.06) (0.03) (0.03) (3.04) (0.00) (0.00) (1.42) (6.19) (0.58) (1.05) (0.13) (0.06) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (83.68) (16.32) (100.0)

Valsad
68 423 6 25 7869 414 19 209 0 0 36 170 0 0 1 28 14 3 0 0 8013 1272 9285 (0.73) (4.56) (0.06) (0.27) (84.75) (4.46) (0.20) (2.25) (0.00) (0.00) (0.39) (1.83) (0.00) (0.00) (0.01) (0.30) (0.15) (0.03) (0.00) (0.00) (86.30) (13.70) (100.0)

Micro Irrigation

Source:http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx Note: The figures in parentheses are percentages of respective total

183

Contd..

Appendix-1(ii):District wise works completed/progress under MNREGA (nos.of projects) in Gujatat -2009-10
District Rural Connectivity comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Flood Control Water Conservation And Water Herversting Drought Proofing Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. Provision of comp. Irrigation facility to Land Ongoing/Susp. development Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies Land development Any Other Activity Approved by MoRD Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Total Ongoing/Susp. Toal

Ahmadabad
74 101 18 2 10483 26 77 31 43 26 0 2 47 17 22 14 20 9 0 0 10784 228 11012 (0.67) (0.92) (0.16) (0.02) (95.20) (0.24) (0.70) (0.28) (0.39) (0.24) (0.00) (0.02) (0.43) (0.15) (0.20) (0.13) (0.18) (0.08) (0.00) (0.00) (97.93) (2.07) (100.0) 7 12 0 15

Amreli
(0.07) (0.12) (0.00) (0.15) (92.12) (0.21) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (1.86) (0.26) (0.91) (0.01) (3.60) (0.69) (0.00) (0.00) (98.56) (1.44) (100.0)

Anand
39 311 10 4 1599 33 100 286 0 1 346 0 27 39 3 64 0 2 0 0 2124 740 2864 (1.36) (10.86) (0.35) (0.14) (55.83) (1.15) (3.49) (9.99) (0.00) (0.03) (12.08) (0.00) (0.94) (1.36) (0.10) (2.23) (0.00) (0.07) (0.00) (0.00) (74.16) (25.84) (100.0)

Bhavnagar
32 7 25 2 7260 4 86 11 40 0 57 5 120 64 20 2 0 0 0 0 7640 95 7735 (0.41) (0.09) (0.32) (0.03) (93.86) (0.05) (1.11) (0.14) (0.52) (0.00) (0.74) (0.06) (1.55) (0.83) (0.26) (0.03) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (98.77) (1.23) (100.0)

Gandhinagar
164 34 0 0 2088 0 171 4 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2431 38 2469 (6.64) (1.38) (0.00) (0.00) (84.57) (0.00) (6.93) (0.16) (0.04) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.24) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.04) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (98.46) (1.54) (100.0)

Jamnagar
112 21 0 8 13137 19 63 13 17 9 71 57 88 17 22 27 267 0 0 0 13777 171 13948 (0.80) (0.15) (0.00) (0.06) (94.19) (0.14) (0.45) (0.09) (0.12) (0.06) (0.51) (0.41) (0.63) (0.12) (0.16) (0.19) (1.91) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (98.77) (1.23) (100.0)

Junagadh
17 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 70 287 130 2 1 15776 0 0 0 16197 215 16412 (0.10) (0.09) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.70) (0.43) (1.75) (0.79) (0.01) (0.01) (96.12) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (98.69) (1.31) (100.0)

Kachchh
120 77 8 3 12759 23 185 77 8 4 40 115 82 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 13202 333 13535 (0.89) (0.57) (0.06) (0.02) (94.27) (0.17) (1.37) (0.57) (0.06) (0.03) (0.30) (0.85) (0.61) (0.25) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (97.54) (2.46) (100.0)

Kheda
177 223 1 0 9128 0 138 105 4 13 0 0 68 118 135 82 0 0 0 0 9651 541 10192 (1.74) (2.19) (0.01) (0.00) (89.56) (0.00) (1.35) (1.03) (0.04) (0.13) (0.00) (0.00) (0.67) (1.16) (1.32) (0.80) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (94.69) (5.31) (100.0)

9121 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 184 26 90 1 356 68 0 0 9758 143 9901

Micro Irrigation

184

Contd..

Appendix-1(ii):District wise works completed/progress under MNREGA (nos.of projects) in Gujatat -2009-10
District Rural Connectivity comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Flood Control Water Conservation And Water Herversting Drought Proofing Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. Provision of comp. Irrigation facility to Land Ongoing/Susp. development Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies Land development Any Other Activity Approved by MoRD Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Total Ongoing/Susp. Toal

Mahesana
39 46 22 24 525 38 168 30 3 5 0 3 56 32 0 1 26 23 0 0 839 202 1041 (3.75) (4.42) (2.11) (2.31) (50.43) (3.65) (16.14) (2.88) (0.29) (0.48) (0.00) (0.29) (5.38) (3.07) (0.00) (0.10) (2.50) (2.21) (0.00) (0.00) (80.60) (19.40) (100.0)

Patan
261 69 54 34 4993 109 114 21 7 3 10 0 158 4 55 26 0 0 0 0 5652 266 5918 (4.41) (1.17) (0.91) (0.57) (84.37) (1.84) (1.93) (0.35) (0.12) (0.05) (0.17) (0.00) (2.67) (0.07) (0.93) (0.44) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (95.51) (4.49) (100.0)

Porbandar
276 31 68 2 2015 13 1 0 12 2 36 12 51 7 59 8 287 21 0 0 2805 96 2901 (9.51) (1.07) (2.34) (0.07) (69.46) (0.45) (0.03) (0.00) (0.41) (0.07) (1.24) (0.41) (1.76) (0.24) (2.03) (0.28) (9.89) (0.72) (0.00) (0.00) (96.69) (3.31) (100.0)

Rajkot
916 23 121 5 20756 50 316 112 17 0 811 60 865 13 116 5 0 0 0 0 23918 268 24186 (3.79) (0.10) (0.50) (0.02) (85.82) (0.21) (1.31) (0.46) (0.07) (0.00) (3.35) (0.25) (3.58) (0.05) (0.48) (0.02) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (98.89) (1.11) (100.0)

Surat
623 82 246 31 5043 0 326 129 8 0 59 110 310 133 77 6 0 0 0 0 6692 491 7183 (8.67) (1.14) (3.42) (0.43) (70.21) (0.00) (4.54) (1.80) (0.11) (0.00) (0.82) (1.53) (4.32) (1.85) (1.07) (0.08) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (93.16) (6.84) (100.0)

Surendranagar
65 56 33 349 15078 183 1 4 0 5 1 4 83 28 0 13 0 0 0 0 15261 642 15903 (0.41) (0.35) (0.21) (2.19) (94.81) (1.15) (0.01) (0.03) (0.00) (0.03) (0.01) (0.03) (0.52) (0.18) (0.00) (0.08) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (95.96) (4.04) (100.0)

Tapi
1682 71 71 1 7250 13 387 202 2 0 62 199 375 13 55 0 0 0 0 0 9884 499 10383 (16.20) (0.68) (0.68) (0.01) (69.83) (0.13) (3.73) (1.95) (0.02) (0.00) (0.60) (1.92) (3.61) (0.13) (0.53) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (95.19) (4.81) (100.0)

Vadodara
339 345 369 96 16674 303 185 150 121 387 169 998 33 283 97 3 306 216 0 0 18293 2781 21074 (1.61) (1.64) (1.75) (0.46) (79.12) (1.44) (0.88) (0.71) (0.57) (1.84) (0.80) (4.74) (0.16) (1.34) (0.46) (0.01) (1.45) (1.02) (0.00) (0.00) (86.80) (13.20) (100.0)

Micro Irrigation

185

Appedix-1(iii): District wise works completed/progress under MNREGA (nos.of projects) in Gujarat -2010-11 (Till Aug. 2010)
District Rural Connectivity comp. Ongoing/ Susp. comp. Ongoing/ Susp. Water Conservation And Water Herversting Drought Proofing comp. Ongoing/ Susp. comp. Ongoing/ Susp. comp. Ongoing/ Susp. Provision of comp. Irrigation facility to Land Ongoing/ Susp. development Renovation of comp. Traditional Water Bodies Ongoing/ Susp. Land development Any Other Activity Approved by MoRD Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra comp. Ongoing/ Susp. comp. Ongoing/ Susp. comp. Ongoing/ Susp. comp. Total Ongoing/ Susp. Total

Banas Kantha
4 1181 0 55 13 5526 1 295 0 63 0 211 3 697 2 243 0 197 0 0 23 8468 8491 (0.05) (13.91) (0.00) (0.65) (0.15) (65.08) (0.01) (3.47) (0.00) (0.74) (0.00) (2.48) (0.04) (8.21) (0.02) (2.86) (0.00) (2.32) (0.00) (0.00) (0.27) (99.73) (100.0) 7

Dang
(0.16) (24.68) (1.11) (53.45) (0.00) (3.63) (0.00) (2.13) (0.00) (0.02) (0.00) (5.80) (0.02) (5.25) (0.02) (3.70) (0.00) (0.02) (0.00) (0.00) (1.32) (98.68) (100.0) 1

Dohad
(0.00) (2.73) (0.04) (11.73) (0.13) (17.97) (0.00) (0.56) (0.00) (0.37) (0.39) (54.79) (0.05) (6.38) (0.00) (0.75) (0.03) (4.06) (0.00) (0.00) (0.66) (99.34) (100.0)

Narmada
2 1115 1 124 2 2328 1 876 0 38 21 3123 0 280 1 123 0 67 0 0 28 8074 8102 (0.02) (13.76) (0.01) (1.53) (0.02) (28.73) (0.01) (10.81) (0.00) (0.47) (0.26) (38.55) (0.00) (3.46) (0.01) (1.52) (0.00) (0.83) (0.00) (0.00) (0.35) (99.65) (100.0)

Panch Mahals
0 2165 0 2861 0 8687 0 1311 0 101 0 5518 0 1097 0 603 1 221 0 0 1 22564 22565 (0.00) (9.59) (0.00) (12.68) (0.00) (38.50) (0.00) (5.81) (0.00) (0.45) (0.00) (24.45) (0.00) (4.86) (0.00) (2.67) (0.00) (0.98) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (100.00) (100.0)

Sabar Kantha
0 2156 0 141 1 3800 0 560 2 101 1 13 0 130 0 151 0 1229 0 0 4 8281 8285 (0.00) (26.02) (0.00) (1.70) (0.01) (45.87) (0.00) (6.76) (0.02) (1.22) (0.01) (0.16) (0.00) (1.57) (0.00) (1.82) (0.00) (14.83) (0.00) (0.00) (0.05) (99.95) (100.0)

Bharuch
0 286 0 241 0 4132 19 973 0 279 0 428 0 139 0 116 5 35 0 0 24 6629 6653 (0.00) (4.30) (0.00) (3.62) (0.00) (62.11) (0.29) (14.62) (0.00) (4.19) (0.00) (6.43) (0.00) (2.09) (0.00) (1.74) (0.08) (0.53) (0.00) (0.00) (0.36) (99.64) (100.0)

Navsari
60 650 5 250 0 1268 0 234 0 157 61 557 0 170 0 49 0 222 0 0 126 3557 3683 (1.63) (17.65) (0.14) (6.79) (0.00) (34.43) (0.00) (6.35) (0.00) (4.26) (1.66) (15.12) (0.00) (4.62) (0.00) (1.33) (0.00) (6.03) (0.00) (0.00) (3.42) (96.58) (100.0) 0 752 0 61 0

Valsad
(0.00) (12.02) (0.00) (0.98) (0.00) (68.39) (0.00) (5.68) (0.00) (0.42) (0.00) (0.05) (0.00) (2.21) (0.00) (1.10) (0.00) (9.16) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (100.00) (100.0)

Ahmadabad
8 213 4 76 4 280 9 85 4 61 0 10 14 100 8 95 7 34 0 1 58 955 1013 (0.79) (21.03) (0.39) (7.50) (0.39) (27.64) (0.89) (8.39) (0.39) (6.02) (0.00) (0.99) (1.38) (9.87) (0.79) (9.38) (0.69) (3.36) (0.00) (0.10) (5.73) (94.27) (100.0)

1067 48 2311 0 157 0 92 0 1 0 251 1 227 1 160 0 1 0 0 57 4267 4324

677 11 2912 32 4462 0 139 1 92 97 13603 13 1585 1 185 7 1009 0 0 163 24664 24827

Flood Control

4278 0 355 0 26 0 3 0 138 0 69 0 573 0 0 0 6255 6255

Micro Irrigation

Source:http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx Note: The figures in parentheses are percentages of respective total

186

Contd..

Appedix-1(iii): District wise works completed/progress under MNREGA (nos.of projects) in Gujarat -2010-11 (Till Aug. 2010)
District Rural Connectivity comp. Ongoing/ Susp. comp. Ongoing/ Susp. Water Conservation And Water Herversting Drought Proofing comp. Ongoing/ Susp. comp. Ongoing/ Susp. comp. Ongoing/ Susp. Provision of comp. Irrigation facility to Land Ongoing/ Susp. development Renovation of comp. Traditional Water Bodies Ongoing/ Susp. Land development Any Other Activity Approved by MoRD Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra comp. Ongoing/ Susp. comp. Ongoing/ Susp. comp. Ongoing/ Susp. comp. Total Ongoing/ Susp. Total 1 155 0 141 3 3247 0 171 0 17 0 214 0 967 0 18 0 186 0 0 4 5116 5120

Amreli
(0.02) (3.03) (0.00) (2.75) (0.06) (63.42) (0.00) (3.34) (0.00) (0.33) (0.00) (4.18) (0.00) (18.89) (0.00) (0.35) (0.00) (3.63) (0.00) (0.00) (0.08) (99.92) (100.0) 0 461 0 26 0 101 0 476 0 82 0 9 0 85 0 85 0 19 0 24 0 1368 1368

Anand
(0.00) (33.70) (0.00) (1.90) (0.00) (7.38) (0.00) (34.80) (0.00) (5.99) (0.00) (0.66) (0.00) (6.21) (0.00) (6.21) (0.00) (1.39) (0.00) (1.75) (0.00) (100.00) (100.0)

Bhavnagar
0 84 0 37 1 1469 0 134 0 26 0 50 0 304 1 23 0 2 0 0 2 2129 2131 (0.00) (3.94) (0.00) (1.74) (0.05) (68.93) (0.00) (6.29) (0.00) (1.22) (0.00) (2.35) (0.00) (14.27) (0.05) (1.08) (0.00) (0.09) (0.00) (0.00) (0.09) (99.91) (100.0)

Gandhinagar
4 153 0 63 16 28 1 90 0 24 0 0 0 5 2 15 0 151 0 0 23 529 552 (0.72) (27.72) (0.00) (11.41) (2.90) (5.07) (0.18) (16.30) (0.00) (4.35) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.91) (0.36) (2.72) (0.00) (27.36) (0.00) (0.00) (4.17) (95.83) (100.0)

Jamnagar
0 609 0 35 1 4071 0 290 0 12 0 283 0 127 0 179 0 36 0 0 1 5642 5643 (0.00) (10.79) (0.00) (0.62) (0.02) (72.14) (0.00) (5.14) (0.00) (0.21) (0.00) (5.02) (0.00) (2.25) (0.00) (3.17) (0.00) (0.64) (0.00) (0.00) (0.02) (99.98) (100.0)

Junagadh
2 203 12 897 1586 3426 0 25 0 10 0 154 0 40 0 79 0 48 0 0 1600 4882 6482 (0.03) (3.13) (0.19) (13.84) (24.47) (52.85) (0.00) (0.39) (0.00) (0.15) (0.00) (2.38) (0.00) (0.62) (0.00) (1.22) (0.00) (0.74) (0.00) (0.00) (24.68) (75.32) (100.0) 0

Kachchh
(0.00) (17.36) (0.00) (0.94) (0.00) (50.04) (0.00) (7.59) (0.00) (0.40) (0.00) (1.13) (0.00) (10.09) (0.00) (12.35) (0.00) (0.11) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (100.00) (100.0)

Kheda
38 328 0 15 40 1344 30 358 0 88 0 304 8 102 62 92 39 80 0 0 217 2711 2928 (1.30) (11.20) (0.00) (0.51) (1.37) (45.90) (1.02) (12.23) (0.00) (3.01) (0.00) (10.38) (0.27) (3.48) (2.12) (3.14) (1.33) (2.73) (0.00) (0.00) (7.41) (92.59) (100.0)

478 0 26 0 1378 0 209 0 11 0 31 0 278 0 340 0 3 0 0 0 2754 2754

Flood Control

Micro Irrigation

187

Contd..

Appedix-1(iii): District wise works completed/progress under MNREGA (nos.of projects) in Gujarat -2010-11 (Till Aug. 2010)
District Rural Connectivity comp. Ongoing/ Susp. comp. Ongoing/ Susp. Water Conservation And Water Herversting Drought Proofing comp. Ongoing/ Susp. comp. Ongoing/ Susp. comp. Ongoing/ Susp. Provision of comp. Irrigation facility to Land Ongoing/ Susp. development Renovation of comp. Traditional Water Bodies Ongoing/ Susp. Land development Any Other Activity Approved by MoRD Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra comp. Ongoing/ Susp. comp. Ongoing/ Susp. comp. Ongoing/ Susp. comp. Total Ongoing/ Susp. Total

Mahesana
3 116 4 187 2 412 1 425 0 56 0 0 4 114 0 51 3 153 0 0 17 1514 1531 (0.20) (7.58) (0.26) (12.21) (0.13) (26.91) (0.07) (27.76) (0.00) (3.66) (0.00) (0.00) (0.26) (7.45) (0.00) (3.33) (0.20) (9.99) (0.00) (0.00) (1.11) (98.89) (100.0) 40

Patan
(1.58) (15.33) (0.59) (3.56) (4.36) (42.57) (0.36) (14.85) (0.40) (2.53) (0.00) (0.16) (0.95) (9.35) (1.27) (1.62) (0.04) (0.48) (0.00) (0.00) (9.54) (90.46) (100.0)

Porbandar
184 533 2 5 5 180 0 68 0 27 3 26 11 101 20 180 4 125 0 16 229 1261 1490 (12.35) (35.77) (0.13) (0.34) (0.34) (12.08) (0.00) (4.56) (0.00) (1.81) (0.20) (1.74) (0.74) (6.78) (1.34) (12.08) (0.27) (8.39) (0.00) (1.07) (15.37) (84.63) (100.0)

Rajkot
39 420 1 56 78 1107 12 576 0 15 14 56 16 276 5 53 1 126 0 0 166 2685 2851 (1.37) (14.73) (0.04) (1.96) (2.74) (38.83) (0.42) (20.20) (0.00) (0.53) (0.49) (1.96) (0.56) (9.68) (0.18) (1.86) (0.04) (4.42) (0.00) (0.00) (5.82) (94.18) (100.0) 2

Surat
(0.04) (21.00) (0.00) (6.62) (0.02) (37.09) (0.00) (13.02) (0.02) (3.96) (0.14) (8.08) (0.00) (8.19) (0.00) (1.02) (0.00) (0.79) (0.00) (0.00) (0.22) (99.78) (100.0)

Surendranagar
0 187 0 440 0 2283 0 29 0 7 0 5 0 85 0 66 0 169 0 0 0 3271 3271 (0.00) (5.72) (0.00) (13.45) (0.00) (69.80) (0.00) (0.89) (0.00) (0.21) (0.00) (0.15) (0.00) (2.60) (0.00) (2.02) (0.00) (5.17) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (100.00) (100.0) 1

Tapi
(0.02) (48.31) (0.00) (1.64) (0.00) (23.73) (0.00) (10.30) (0.00) (0.29) (0.00) (6.51) (0.00) (6.40) (0.00) (2.78) (0.00) (0.02) (0.00) (0.00) (0.02) (99.98) (100.0)

Vadodara
0 1132 23 792 2 11852 0 2357 0 349 0 11 0 588 0 555 0 200 0 0 25 17836 17861 (0.00) (6.34) (0.13) (4.43) (0.01) (66.36) (0.00) (13.20) (0.00) (1.95) (0.00) (0.06) (0.00) (3.29) (0.00) (3.11) (0.00) (1.12) (0.00) (0.00) (0.14) (99.86) (100.0)

387 15 90 110 1075 9 375 10 64 0 4 24 236 32 41 1 12 0 0 241 2284 2525

1034 0 326 1 1826 0 641 1 195 7 398 0 403 0 50 0 39 0 0 11 4912 4923

2655 0 90 0 1304 0 566 0 16 0 358 0 352 0 153 0 1 0 0 1 5495 5496

Flood Control

Micro Irrigation

188

Appendix-2(i):District wise Amount Spent on works under MNREGA in Gujarat -2008-09 (Rs. In Lakhs)
District Rural Connectivity comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. Banas Kantha 128 249 13 4 742 190 73 28 0 0 10 2 32 25 16 5 9 2 0 0 1023 503 1526 (8.37) 225 Dang (29.43) (8.79) (22.50) (13.22) (11.27) (0.00) (6.71) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (2.26) (0.00) (2.92) (2.89) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (75.11) (24.89) (100.0) 183 320 282 358 778 330 49 6 0 0 203 Dohad (4.62) (8.06) (7.09) (9.00) Narmada 173 277 25 28 Panch Mahals (15.41) (6.30) (16.33) (3.33) Sabar Kantha 265 196 9 1 298 147 69 8 0 0 0 0 114 95 4 1 0 0 0 0 760 448 1208 (21.96) (16.18) (0.78) (0.07) (24.63) (12.18) (5.75) (0.70) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (9.42) (7.90) (0.37) (0.07) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (62.91) (37.09) (100.0) 7 Bharuch (1.37) Navsari 198 (21.40) 0 48 0 6 0 15 3 1 0 0 7 78 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Valsad (0.04) (29.66) (0.00) (3.43) (0.00) (9.40) (2.06) (0.63) (0.00) (0.00) (4.18) (48.60) (0.00) (1.52) (0.21) (0.00) (0.26) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (6.76)

(16.30) 487 (26.10) 199 (2.31) (2.65) 517 105

(16.29) 67 (0.85) (0.28) 172 101

132 (26.15) 187 (20.20) 19 38 (3.76) (7.52) 68 23 (7.34) (2.48) (1.65) (0.00) (0.70) (0.02) (0.00) (1.07)

Flood Control

Water Conservation comp. And Water Ongoing/Susp. Herversting Drought Proofing comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp.

(48.67) 86 (12.44) 0 (4.76) (1.83) (0.00) (0.00) (0.65) (0.10) (2.09) (1.62) (1.06) (0.30) (0.58) (0.10) (0.00) (0.00) 51 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 22 22 0 0 0 0

(19.58) 145 (8.30) (1.22) (0.15) (0.00) (0.00) (5.11) 102 33 0 0 0 173

(13.64) 1023 (32.35) (9.58) (3.13) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 142 31 147 0 0 (4.50) (0.97) (4.66) (0.00) (0.00) (4.28) (5.47) (3.81) (2.36) (0.20) (0.03) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (26.64)

153 (30.31) 15 24 17 4 3 15 2 35 6 49 0 1 0 0 0 0 (4.81) (3.40) (0.69) (0.59) (3.03) (0.34) (6.89) (1.14) (9.76) (0.01) (0.25) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 0 7 0 0 10

Micro Irrigation Provision of Irrigation facility to Land development Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies Land development

(16.25) 135 (5.82) (3.06) (0.38) (0.39) (0.37) (0.02) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 173 121 75 6 1 0 0 0 0

107 (11.57) 267 (28.86) 34 4 1 0 4 0 0 0 (3.67) (0.44) (0.12) (0.00) (0.48) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

1441 (36.27) 62 8 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0.20) (0.41) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 33 4 4 4 0 0 0 0

comp. Any Other Activity Approved by MoRD Ongoing/Susp. Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Total Ongoing/Susp. Total

(67.03) 575 (32.97) 191 (100.0) 766

1502 (37.81) 585 2471 (62.19) 477 3973 (100.0) 1062

(55.11) 2320 (73.36) (44.89) 843 (100.0) 3163 (100.0)

207 (40.90) 434 (46.92) 299 (59.10) 491 (53.08) 506 (100.0) 925 (100.0)

149 (93.24) 160 (100.0) Contd..

Source:http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx Note: The figures in parentheses are percentages of respective total

189

Appendix-2(i):District wise Amount Spent on works under MNREGA in Gujarat -2008-09 (Rs. In Lakhs)
District Rural Connectivity comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. Ahmadabad 117 (33.86) 0 53 0 74 0 18 0 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0.00) (15.50) (0.00) (21.43) (0.00) (5.16) (0.00) (24.04) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 0 0 20 29 9 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 99 18 0 0 0 2 0 0 53 Amreli (0.00) (0.00) (10.76) (15.74) (4.79) (1.28) (3.32) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (53.03) (9.85) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (1.23) (0.00) (0.00) (28.10) 30 39 1 1 15 15 8 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 6 0 0 0 0 54 67 120 Anand Bhav nagar (9.16) (0.00) (3.88) (0.00) 0 Gandhi nagar (0.57) Jam nagar 12 5 0 0 32 14 3 1 0 0 2 4 0 1 0 2 6 0 0 0 55 28 82 (14.65) 0 (6.25) (0.00) (0.00) 0 3 0 Junagadh (0.00) (0.00) (0.35) (0.00) 2 125 0 0 5 90 17 20 0 0 0 0 16 203 1 0 0 0 0 0 42 438 480 Kachchh (0.51) 9 Kheda (3.31)

(24.63) 15 (32.65) 0 (0.50) (0.66) 6 0

16 (32.83) 0 0 (0.00) (0.00)

(26.13) 124 (46.77) (0.00) (0.00) (1.01) 0 0 69 (0.00) (0.00) (26.06) (0.85) (2.98) (13.71) (0.27) (4.10) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (1.96) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (32.62)

Flood Control

Water Conservation comp. And Water Ongoing/Susp. Herversting Drought Proofing comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp.

(12.07) 33 (12.86) 0 (6.54) (0.70) (0.22) (0.25) (0.00) (0.00) (0.76) (3.05) (0.00) (5.10) (0.00) (0.02) (0.00) (0.00) 14 0 2 0 10 0 76 3 4 0 0 0 0 0

(20.24) 11 (22.53) (0.00) (8.77) (0.00) (1.33) (0.04) (6.03) (0.00) 1 (1.58)

(38.39) 103 (10.96) (17.10) 0 (3.32) (1.30) (0.00) (0.00) (1.89) (5.25) (0.35) (1.40) (0.58) (2.01) (7.27) (0.24) (0.00) (0.00) 0 7 0 0 0 (0.00) (0.00) (0.74) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

(18.69) 2 (3.54) (4.21) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (3.33) 8 36 1 11 0 0 0

18 (36.53) 0 0 0 0 0 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (3.20) (2.77) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

Micro Irrigation Provision of Irrigation facility to Land development Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies Land development

810 (85.84) 0 0 0 0 17 3 0 0 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (1.79) (0.32) (0.00) (0.00)

(46.56) 2 (1.70) (2.28) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (1.74) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

(42.30) 5 (0.27) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (8.66) 0 0 0 0 0 0 86

comp. Any Other Activity Approved by MoRD Ongoing/Susp. Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Total Ongoing/Susp. Total

345 (100.0) 345 (100.0)

134 (71.90) 187 (100.0)

(44.73) 161 (98.26) 31 (62.82) (55.27) 3 18 (37.18) (100.0) 164 (100.0) 49 (100.0)

(66.45) 124 (13.10) (33.55) 820 (86.90) (100.0) 944 (100.0)

(91.34) 178 (67.38) (100.0) 265 (100.0) Contd..

190

Appendix-2(i):District wise Amount Spent on works under MNREGA in Gujarat -2008-09 (Rs. In Lakhs)
District Rural Connectivity comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. 7 21 8 21 19 19 23 5 2 4 1 0 13 9 3 9 8 2 0 0 84 90 Mahesana (3.83) 83 Patan Porbandar (77.82) 77 (1.68) (5.83) (0.00) (0.55) (0.69) (2.62) (0.00) (1.74) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (3.97) (0.89) (1.71) (0.12) (2.38) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (3.38) 37 0 0 26 14 34 9 0 0 18 8 30 7 0 0 16 0 0 0 76 Rajkot Surat Surendranagar (0.00) (18.20) (0.00) (12.36) (6.90) (56.04) (0.00) (2.39) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (3.23) (0.00) (0.88) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (6.90) (93.10) (100.0) Tapi 294 (62.20) 11 13 0 63 0 28 0 0 0 0 10 40 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 (2.24) (2.77) (0.00) (13.35) (0.00) (5.82) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (2.02) (8.38) (3.22) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (7.47) Vadodara 93 34 21 2 40 3 11 3 0 0 3 2 2 10 13 6 1 1 0 0 60 (38.13) (14.01) (8.55) (0.86) (16.39) (1.10) (4.46) (1.27) (0.00) (0.00) (1.23) (0.61) (0.92) (4.19) (5.16) (2.30) (0.57) (0.25) (0.00) (0.00) (24.60)

(16.46) 99 (11.27) 2 (2.09) (0.89) 7 0

(27.78) 359 (76.77) 0 (13.24) 1 (0.00) (0.00) (9.33) (5.15) 6 2 50 0 (0.25) (1.30) (0.32) 14 0 9

(12.28) 57 (4.66) 11

Flood Control

(11.80) 5

Water Conservation comp. And Water Ongoing/Susp. Herversting Drought Proofing comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp.

(10.97) 119 (23.55) 1 (10.86) 62 (13.24) 44 (3.01) (1.06) (2.19) (0.59) (0.00) (7.50) (5.23) (1.77) (5.35) (4.65) (1.02) (0.00) (0.00) 0 7 0 0 2 (12.30) 1 (8.73) (0.00) (1.46) (0.09) (0.05) (0.31) 3 0 2 0 0 0

(10.62) 5 (0.00) (4.64) (0.00) (0.03) (0.00) (0.00) (0.63) (5.27) (0.13) (0.05) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (1.32) 43 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 71

(12.35) 22 (3.40) (0.00) (0.00) (6.62) (2.97) 0 0 0 0 3

Micro Irrigation Provision of Irrigation facility to Land development Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies Land development

101 (19.96) 5 8 4 3 0 0 0 0 (1.52) (0.77) (0.54) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 1 2 0 3 0 0 0

(10.65) 25 (2.57) (0.00) (0.00) (5.93) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

comp. Any Other Activity Approved by MoRD Ongoing/Susp. Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Total Ongoing/Susp. Total

(48.26) 369 (73.08) 123 (51.74) 136 (26.92) 4

(96.62) 202 (72.66) 461 (98.68) 5 (27.34) 6 (100.0) 278 (100.0) 468 (100.0) 76

438 (92.53) 473 (100.0)

184 (75.40) 244 (100.0)

174 (100.0) 505 (100.0) 127

191

Appendix-2(ii) : District wise Amount Spent Works Under MNREGA in Gujarat -2009-10 (Rs in Lakhs)
District Rural Connectivity comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp.

Banas Kantha
104 784 2 147 1413 848 8 138 0 40 12 127 11 89 26 36 0 1 0 0 1576 2208 3783 (2.74) (20.73) (0.05) (3.88) (37.36) (22.40) (0.21) (3.64) (0.00) (1.05) (0.31) (3.35) (0.29) (2.34) (0.69) (0.95) (0.00) (0.03) (0.00) (0.00) (41.64) (58.36) (100.0)

Dang
299 504 326 614 338 13 4 21 0 0 0 45 121 16 160 58 0 0 0 0 1248 1272 2520 (11.85) (20.00) (12.94) (24.37) (13.39) (0.53) (0.16) (0.82) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (1.80) (4.81) (0.65) (6.36) (2.31) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (49.52) (50.48) (100.0)

Dohad
14 364 242 1385 578 515 17 233 0 1 848 4533 4 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 1702 7037 8739 (0.16) (4.17) (2.77) (15.85) (6.61) (5.89) (0.19) (2.67) (0.00) (0.01) (9.71) (51.87) (0.04) (0.07) (0.00) (0.01) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (19.48) (80.52) (100.0)

Narmada
325 480 59 47 368 243 879 51 0 0 108 378 42 3 21 8 0 0 0 0 1801 1210 3011 (10.80) (15.93) (1.97) (1.55) (12.21) (8.07) (29.18) (1.68) (0.00) (0.01) (3.57) (12.55) (1.40) (0.12) (0.69) (0.26) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (59.82) (40.18) (100.0)

Panch Mahals
390 281 1391 363 2199 396 45 419 0 0 504 345 129 277 52 38 0 0 0 0 4710 2120 6830 (5.71) (4.12) (20.36) (5.32) (32.19) (5.80) (0.65) (6.14) (0.00) (0.00) (7.38) (5.05) (1.90) (4.06) (0.77) (0.56) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (68.96) (31.04) (100.0)

Sabar Kantha
604 1035 52 149 808 99 100 420 0 0 0 29 404 805 8 110 0 200 0 0 1977 2845 4822 (12.52) (21.45) (1.08) (3.08) (16.76) (2.05) (2.07) (8.71) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.61) (8.39) (16.69) (0.17) (2.28) (0.00) (4.14) (0.00) (0.00) (40.99) (59.01) (100.0)

Bharuch
130 148 155 29 350 1 86 12 85 12 7 49 58 40 2 8 1 0 0 0 875 299 1174 (11.08) (12.63) (13.25) (2.49) (29.84) (0.11) (7.34) (0.98) (7.27) (1.03) (0.56) (4.17) (4.95) (3.39) (0.14) (0.67) (0.10) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (74.54) (25.46) (100.0)

Navsari
362 325 88 37 247 5 0 109 0 0 130 410 58 30 5 2 0 0 0 0 890 917 1807 (20.01) (18.01) (4.86) (2.04) (13.69) (0.25) (0.00) (6.01) (0.00) (0.00) (7.21) (22.70) (3.19) (1.64) (0.27) (0.11) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (49.24) (50.76) (100.0)

Valsad
64 324 1 8 390 61 2 180 0 0 56 55 0 0 0 18 6 3 0 0 521 649 1170 (5.51) (27.69) (0.10) (0.73) (33.37) (5.19) (0.15) (15.36) (0.00) (0.00) (4.81) (4.73) (0.00) (0.00) (0.03) (1.55) (0.55) (0.22) (0.00) (0.00) (44.53) (55.47) (100.0)

Flood Control

Water Conservation comp. And Water Ongoing/Susp. Herversting Drought Proofing comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp.

Micro Irrigation Provision of Irrigation facility to Land development Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies Land development

Any Other Activity comp. Approved by MoRD Ongoing/Susp. Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Total Ongoing/Susp. Total

Source:http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx Note: The figures in parentheses are percentages of respective total

192

Contd

Appendix-2(ii) : District wise Amount Spent Works Under MNREGA in Gujarat -2009-10 (Rs in Lakhs)
District Rural Connectivity comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp.

Ahmadabad
166 52 53 3 644 9 90 12 56 7 0 2 79 10 39 7 30 9 0 0 1158 112 1270 (13.06) (4.12) (4.15) (0.24) (50.73) (0.70) (7.12) (0.98) (4.44) (0.58) (0.00) (0.16) (6.25) (0.75) (3.11) (0.55) (2.36) (0.70) (0.00) (0.00) (91.22) (8.78) (100.0)

Amreli
18 6 0 8 547 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 314 10 7 0 94 20 0 0 981 64 1045 (1.73) (0.60) (0.00) (0.73) (52.33) (1.96) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (30.07) (0.96) (0.70) (0.00) (9.00) (1.91) (0.00) (0.00) (93.84) (6.16) (100.0)

Anand
15 324 4 4 64 33 4 51 0 0 4 0 8 34 4 31 0 7 0 0 102 484 586 (2.54) (55.27) (0.67) (0.71) (10.91) (5.57) (0.62) (8.65) (0.00) (0.02) (0.69) (0.00) (1.37) (5.79) (0.62) (5.36) (0.00) (1.19) (0.00) (0.00) (17.42) (82.58) (100.0)

Bhavnagar
70 23 52 14 547 5 35 6 15 0 64 3 197 84 9 5 0 0 0 0 988 140 1128 (6.17) (2.00) (4.61) (1.27) (48.47) (0.44) (3.11) (0.50) (1.30) (0.00) (5.69) (0.31) (17.46) (7.42) (0.78) (0.48) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (87.59) (12.41) (100.0)

Gandhinagar
82 5 0 0 463 0 91 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 638 6 644 (12.77) (0.82) (0.00) (0.00) (72.02) (0.00) (14.08) (0.08) (0.02) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.20) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.02) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (99.10) (0.90) (100.0)

Jamnagar
196 12 0 10 291 16 48 6 19 4 85 32 122 3 16 4 80 0 0 0 856 87 944 (20.82) (1.32) (0.00) (1.09) (30.85) (1.66) (5.05) (0.62) (1.98) (0.44) (9.02) (3.39) (12.89) (0.33) (1.73) (0.39) (8.43) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (90.75) (9.25) (100.0)

Junagadh
30 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 800 36 2439 50 8 4 235 0 0 0 3512 108 3620 (0.83) (0.54) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (22.10) (0.98) (67.38) (1.37) (0.22) (0.10) (6.49) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (97.02) (2.98) (100.0)

Kachchh
525 456 16 22 2068 1009 67 238 17 20 14 2 97 100 0 0 0 500 0 0 2804 2346 5151 (10.20) (8.85) (0.31) (0.42) (40.15) (19.59) (1.30) (4.62) (0.33) (0.39) (0.27) (0.04) (1.89) (1.94) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (9.71) (0.00) (0.00) (54.45) (45.55) (100.0)

Kheda
251 238 1 0 1071 0 61 33 2 1 0 0 13 65 51 65 0 0 0 0 1450 402 1852 (13.58) (12.84) (0.03) (0.00) (57.84) (0.00) (3.31) (1.78) (0.09) (0.08) (0.00) (0.00) (0.70) (3.51) (2.74) (3.50) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (78.29) (21.71) (100.0)

Flood Control

Water Conservation comp. And Water Ongoing/Susp. Herversting Drought Proofing comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp.

Micro Irrigation Provision of Irrigation facility to Land development Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies Land development

Any Other Activity comp. Approved by MoRD Ongoing/Susp. Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Total Ongoing/Susp. Total

193

Contd

Appendix-2(ii) : District wise Amount Spent Works Under MNREGA in Gujarat -2009-10 (Rs in Lakhs)
District Rural Connectivity comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp.

Mahesana
85 73 45 67 202 33 96 47 1 5 0 0 43 23 0 0 23 42 0 0 495 291 786 (10.76) (9.31) (5.70) (8.49) (25.75) (4.20) (12.19) (6.01) (0.17) (0.57) (0.00) (0.05) (5.41) (2.95) (0.00) (0.05) (2.97) (5.40) (0.00) (0.00) (62.96) (37.04) (100.0)

Patan
453 125 173 92 879 404 14 22 5 3 3 0 205 10 27 26 0 0 0 0 1759 681 2439 (18.56) (5.11) (7.09) (3.77) (36.05) (16.55) (0.59) (0.89) (0.20) (0.13) (0.13) (0.00) (8.39) (0.39) (1.09) (1.07) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (72.10) (27.90) (100.0)

Porbandar
981 45 38 0 101 12 1 0 24 1 3 1 115 4 59 14 94 14 0 0 1415 90 1504 (65.20) (2.97) (2.52) (0.00) (6.69) (0.77) (0.07) (0.00) (1.61) (0.07) (0.17) (0.05) (7.64) (0.24) (3.93) (0.95) (6.22) (0.91) (0.00) (0.00) (94.04) (5.96) (100.0)

Rajkot
1176 115 65 4 730 161 130 53 5 3 80 15 1455 30 40 2 0 0 0 0 3682 383 4065 (28.93) (2.84) (1.60) (0.09) (17.97) (3.95) (3.21) (1.31) (0.11) (0.07) (1.98) (0.38) (35.80) (0.74) (0.98) (0.04) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (90.58) (9.42) (100.0)

Surat
687 53 78 9 547 0 73 29 2 0 108 41 168 45 17 1 0 0 0 0 1681 179 1860 (36.96) (2.87) (4.22) (0.50) (29.41) (0.00) (3.95) (1.56) (0.13) (0.00) (5.78) (2.20) (9.04) (2.43) (0.91) (0.05) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (90.39) (9.61) (100.0)

Surendranagar
136 103 73 236 508 258 1 5 0 11 1 3 131 250 0 2 0 0 0 0 849 867 1716 (7.90) (5.98) (4.24) (13.73) (29.61) (15.04) (0.07) (0.26) (0.00) (0.65) (0.03) (0.17) (7.62) (14.60) (0.00) (0.09) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (49.48) (50.52) (100.0)

Tapi
1887 176 68 0 370 16 73 149 3 0 105 93 177 8 18 0 0 0 0 0 2701 443 3144 (60.03) (5.60) (2.15) (0.00) (11.77) (0.50) (2.33) (4.75) (0.08) (0.00) (3.35) (2.96) (5.62) (0.27) (0.57) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (85.91) (14.09) (100.0)

Vadodara
320 146 396 102 1204 317 69 103 113 329 434 839 19 41 15 2 163 82 0 0 2732 1959 4691 (6.81) (3.11) (8.44) (2.16) (25.67) (6.75) (1.47) (2.19) (2.41) (7.01) (9.26) (17.88) (0.39) (0.87) (0.32) (0.04) (3.47) (1.75) (0.00) (0.00) (58.24) (41.76) (100.0)

Flood Control

Water Conservation comp. And Water Ongoing/Susp. Herversting Drought Proofing comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp.

Micro Irrigation Provision of Irrigation facility to Land development Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies Land development

Any Other Activity comp. Approved by MoRD Ongoing/Susp. Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Total Ongoing/Susp. Total

194

Appendix-2(iii):District wise Amount Spent works under MNREGA in Gujarat - 20010 - 11 (Till Aug 2010)
District Rural Connectivity Flood Control Water Conservation And Water Herversting Drought Proofing Micro Irrigation Provision of Irrigation facility to Land development Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies Land development Any Other Activity Approved by MoRD Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Total Ongoing/Susp. Total Banas Kantha 2 360 0 29 11 762 0 28 0 36 0 18 0 34 3 83 0 16 0 0 16 1367 1383 (0.14) (26.04) (0.00) (2.13) (0.81) (55.10) (0.00) (2.02) (0.00) (2.59) (0.00) (1.27) (0.00) (2.49) (0.19) (6.02) (0.00) (1.18) (0.00) (0.00) (1.14) (98.86) (100.0) 11 526 161 1363 0 228 0 112 0 0 0 52 1 31 0 24 0 1 0 0 174 2337 2510 Dang (0.44) (20.96) (6.42) (54.31) (0.00) (9.09) (0.00) (4.45) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (2.09) (0.05) (1.22) (0.01) (0.94) (0.00) (0.02) (0.00) (0.00) (6.92) (93.08) (100.00) 0 17 0 362 7 224 0 1 0 0 9 503 1 152 0 6 0 18 0 0 18 1283 1300 Dohad (0.00) (1.27) (0.01) (27.82) (0.55) (17.24) (0.00) (0.11) (0.00) (0.02) (0.70) (38.65) (0.08) (11.67) (0.00) (0.47) (0.00) (1.40) (0.00) (0.00) (1.36) (98.64) (100.00) 3 144 0 27 0 216 0 248 0 2 5 307 0 1 0 9 0 0 0 0 8 954 962 Narmada (0.27) (14.93) (0.01) (2.81) (0.01) (22.45) (0.01) (25.81) (0.00) (0.22) (0.51) (31.86) (0.00) (0.15) (0.03) (0.91) (0.00) (0.02) (0.00) (0.00) (0.84) (99.16) (100.00)

(Rs. In Lakh)
Sabar Kantha 0 773 0 144 0 695 0 27 1 112 0 17 0 50 0 29 0 126 0 0 2 1973 1975 (0.00) (39.15) (0.00) (7.31) (0.02) (35.19) (0.00) (1.37) (0.05) (5.65) (0.00) (0.86) (0.00) (2.55) (0.00) (1.46) (0.00) (6.38) (0.00) (0.00) (0.08) (99.92) (100.00) 0 40 0 19 0 34 1 19 0 5 0 35 0 5 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 160 162 Bharuch (0.00) (25.03) (0.00) (11.95) (0.00) (20.84) (0.58) (11.48) (0.00) (3.38) (0.00) (21.91) (0.00) (3.06) (0.00) (0.97) (0.17) (0.62) (0.00) (0.00) (0.75) (99.25) (100.00) 40 287 4 33 0 61 0 8 0 1 50 258 0 5 0 6 0 14 0 0 94 673 767 Navsari (5.22) (37.45) (0.55) (4.33) (0.00) (7.90) (0.00) (0.98) (0.00) (0.08) (6.51) (33.69) (0.00) (0.70) (0.00) (0.79) (0.00) (1.79) (0.00) (0.00) (12.28) (87.72) (100.00) 0 252 0 2 0 146 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 18 0 0 0 464 464 Valsad (0.00) (54.31) (0.00) (0.37) (0.00) (31.54) (0.00) (8.34) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.03) (0.00) (1.08) (0.00) (0.43) (0.00) (3.89) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (100.00) (100.00) Contd..

Panch Mahals 0 179 2 507 4 536 0 180 0 1 0 491 0 29 0 104 0 15 0 0 6 2044 2050 (0.00) (8.75) (0.07) (24.74) (0.19) (26.16) (0.00) (8.78) (0.00) (0.06) (0.00) (23.97) (0.00) (1.40) (0.02) (5.09) (0.00) (0.75) (0.00) (0.00) (0.28) (99.72) (100.00) 195

Source:http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx Note: The figures in parentheses are percentages of respective total

Appendix-2(iii):District wise Amount Spent works under MNREGA in Gujarat - 20010 - 11 (Till Aug 2010)
District Rural Connectivity Flood Control Water Conservation And Water Herversting Drought Proofing Micro Irrigation Provision of Irrigation facility to Land development Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies Land development Any Other Activity Approved by MoRD Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Total Ongoing/Susp. Total Ahmadabad 14 32 3 48 0 141 2 9 1 14 0 0 32 81 9 15 2 2 0 0 62 342 405 (3.37) (7.81) (0.83) (11.96) (0.05) (34.88) (0.42) (2.21) (0.30) (3.41) (0.00) (0.00) (7.93) (19.98) (2.11) (3.72) (0.40) (0.61) (0.00) (0.00) (15.42) (84.58) (100.00) 1 187 0 75 3 498 0 24 0 2 0 50 0 94 0 9 0 1 0 0 4 939 943 Amreli (0.09) (19.84) (0.00) (7.96) (0.29) (52.82) (0.00) (2.54) (0.00) (0.21) (0.00) (5.28) (0.00) (9.97) (0.00) (0.94) (0.00) (0.06) (0.00) (0.00) (0.38) (99.62) (100.00) 0 101 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 4 0 1 0 14 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 155 155 Anand (0.00) (65.13) (0.00) (4.71) (0.00) (4.75) (0.00) (4.40) (0.00) (2.50) (0.00) (0.38) (0.00) (9.18) (0.00) (8.69) (0.00) (0.25) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (100.00) (100.00) Bhavnagar 0 81 0 41 0 257 0 17 0 8 0 12 0 306 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 731 731 (0.00) (11.03) (0.00) (5.67) (0.00) (35.12) (0.00) (2.32) (0.00) (1.15) (0.00) (1.68) (0.00) (41.80) (0.00) (1.23) (0.00) (0.01) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (100.00) (100.00) 196

(Rs. In Lakh)
Jamnagar 0 104 0 1 0 22 0 17 0 1 0 37 0 48 0 32 0 2 0 0 0 264 265 (0.00) (39.46) (0.00) (0.50) (0.08) (8.32) (0.00) (6.59) (0.00) (0.22) (0.00) (13.95) (0.00) (18.13) (0.00) (12.06) (0.00) (0.68) (0.00) (0.00) (0.08) (99.92) (100.00) Junagadh 0 120 73 42 424 1204 0 2 0 0 0 86 0 2 0 33 0 4 0 0 497 1493 1990 (0.00) (6.03) (3.66) (2.12) (21.31) (60.51) (0.00) (0.09) (0.00) (0.02) (0.00) (4.33) (0.00) (0.10) (0.00) (1.64) (0.00) (0.20) (0.00) (0.00) (24.97) (75.03) (100.00) 0 57 0 39 0 499 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 120 0 93 0 0 0 0 0 819 819 Kachchh (0.00) (6.91) (0.00) (4.82) (0.00) (60.95) (0.00) (1.24) (0.00) (0.03) (0.00) (0.01) (0.00) (14.64) (0.00) (11.41) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (100.00) (100.00) 21 60 0 4 23 23 1 17 0 6 0 16 4 19 5 16 25 20 0 0 77 181 258 Kheda (7.95) (23.38) (0.00) (1.38) (8.89) (8.77) (0.35) (6.74) (0.00) (2.34) (0.00) (6.21) (1.48) (7.28) (1.76) (6.28) (9.52) (7.67) (0.00) (0.00) (29.95) (70.05) (100.00) Contd..

Gandhinagar 2 173 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 7 0 0 2 191 193 (0.80) (89.38) (0.00) (0.00) (0.15) (0.67) (0.00) (2.24) (0.00) (0.74) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.20) (0.15) (2.08) (0.00) (3.59) (0.00) (0.00) (1.10) (98.90) (100.00)

Appendix-2(iii):District wise Amount Spent works under MNREGA in Gujarat - 20010 - 11 (Till Aug 2010)
District Rural Connectivity Flood Control Water Conservation And Water Herversting Drought Proofing Micro Irrigation Provision of Irrigation facility to Land development Renovation of Traditional Water Bodies Land development Any Other Activity Approved by MoRD Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Ongoing/Susp. comp. Total Ongoing/Susp. Total Mahesana 1 34 7 70 0 9 0 61 0 0 0 0 4 6 0 3 5 18 0 0 17 201 218 (0.45) (15.85) (3.06) (32.03) (0.00) (4.07) (0.00) (27.96) (0.00) (0.12) (0.00) (0.00) (1.68) (2.60) (0.00) (1.51) (2.43) (8.24) (0.00) (0.00) (7.62) (92.38) (100.00) 9 147 26 39 42 440 0 30 1 14 0 1 24 79 7 12 0 0 0 0 109 763 871 Patan (0.98) (16.93) (2.97) (4.43) (4.85) (50.54) (0.00) (3.48) (0.08) (1.63) (0.00) (0.06) (2.76) (9.09) (0.82) (1.37) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (12.46) (87.54) (100.00) Porbandar 303 300 0 11 0 11 0 13 0 9 0 11 16 19 9 31 2 18 0 5 330 427 757 (40.02) (39.60) (0.00) (1.42) (0.00) (1.45) (0.00) (1.65) (0.00) (1.18) (0.02) (1.47) (2.14) (2.47) (1.22) (4.15) (0.23) (2.35) (0.00) (0.65) (43.63) (56.37) (100.00) 64 167 1 10 105 181 7 84 0 1 6 13 27 76 24 4 5 2 0 0 239 539 779 Rajkot (8.16) (21.48) (0.07) (1.33) (13.50) (23.26) (0.91) (10.79) (0.00) (0.18) (0.82) (1.73) (3.53) (9.80) (3.09) (0.49) (0.65) (0.21) (0.00) (0.00) (30.72) (69.28)

(Rs. In Lakh)
Surat 3 302 0 34 1 53 0 15 0 8 4 107 0 29 0 6 0 0 0 0 9 555 564 (0.50) (53.66) (0.06) (6.05) (0.14) (9.45) (0.00) (2.73) (0.08) (1.36) (0.75) (18.96) (0.00) (5.12) (0.00) (1.13) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (1.54) (98.46) (100.00) Surendranagar 0 155 0 164 0 1122 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 92 0 16 0 35 0 0 0 1588 1588 (0.00) (9.78) (0.00) (10.31) (0.00) (70.66) (0.00) (0.11) (0.00) (0.12) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (5.78) (0.00) (1.02) (0.00) (2.23) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (100.00) (100.00) 27 985 0 18 5 77 0 16 0 3 0 120 2 61 0 49 0 0 0 0 34 1329 1363 Tapi (2.00) (72.27) (0.00) (1.34) (0.35) (5.62) (0.00) (1.21) (0.00) (0.20) (0.00) (8.78) (0.17) (4.48) (0.00) (3.59) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (2.52) (97.48) (100.00) Vadodara 0 197 33 198 3 1010 0 104 0 7 0 0 0 111 0 8 0 6 0 0 35 1641 1677 (0.00) (11.78) (1.96) (11.83) (0.16) (60.23) (0.00) (6.22) (0.00) (0.39) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (6.60) (0.00) (0.49) (0.00) (0.34) (0.00) (0.00) (2.12) (97.88) (100.00)

(100.00) 197

Coordinators Comments on the Draft Report

1) It was very clearly indicated in the Proposal of the study as well as in Chapter and Table Plan that the analysis in the Chapter 2 will be based on the data available through NREGA website and this chapter presents aspects of NREGA functioning in all the districts of the state. While in the report although analysis is done for the whole state while presenting main tables for only the selected districts and other districts are presented in Annexure. While discussion authors should make analysis of all the districts based on their high and low performance and no reference to selected districts should be attempted in the chapter as this chapter is based on all districts and selected districts do not mean anything in the chapter. Write up should be done in the context of functioning of the NREGA in all the districts comparing higher and lower performing districts in the state. 2) Chapter 3, Table 3.1: While calculating education status consider only 6 + age people. The coefficient of variation (CV) = SD/ Mean* 100 (please make correction wherever necessary. 3) Chapter 3, Table 3.4: Per capita per month consumption: please provide the figures for total (along with beneficiary and non beneficiary). 4) Chapter 4, Table 4.1: While providing information on numbers of members per HH employed during the year include another category of men as that of women and sum total of men+ women should supposedly be equal aggregate. Also in this table provide another row with details of percentage of HH employed 100 or more days, selected district wise. 5) Table 4.2: Name of the activity under which employed (% of households) the sum of all activities, e.g. rural connectivity + flood control + + any other activity, should add up to 100, but it is actually exceeding 100 in different districts in the present report. It seems authors have not understood what is being asked hear. Like quality of assets adds to 100, similarly the total allocation of works in different project should add to 100. Please make the correction. 6) Chapter 4, Table 4.3: The information asked in the rows is no of members migrated or out-migrated per households. Per household migrated members = The total numbers of members migrated each district/ total numbers of members in the district. Kindly make the correction if any as the numbers in the third rows do not match with numbers in fourth and fifth rows. 198

Action Taken on Comments

1) Chapter-2: As suggested, write up of the chapter and presentation of Tables is given in the context of functioning of MNREGA in all the districts of the state. 2) Chapter-3: The formula of CV has already used was correct. However, CV was not presented in percentage. Now, as per suggestion, CV has been presented in percentage. For education status, only 6+ age person are considered. 3) Chapter-3, Table 3.4: As suggested, figures are provided for aggregate (B + NB) along with beneficiary and non-beneficiary. 4) Chapter-4, Table 4.1: As suggested details of percentage of HHs. employed under MNREGA for 100 or more days are provided. 5) Chapter-4, Table 4.2: The sum may not necessarily be 100 as many selected beneficiaries worked in multiple activities of MNREGA. Therefore, the figures given in the Table 4.2 are correct. 6) Chapter 4, Table 4.3: We worked out per households migrated members by dividing total nos. of migrated members in the district by total nos. of households in the district. However, as suggested, we also worked out proportion of migrated members per HH in each district by taking Total nos. of migrated members in the district / Total numbers of members in the district and presented in Table 4.3. 7) As suggested, additional OLS analysis at household and member level is attempted.

199