In 2005, India passed the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, which is both a labour law and a social security measure. A look at how it has fared. Compiled by Kritika Kapoor.

1. Rural Job Scheme: Hits & Misses
A compilation of research studies

2. What is MGNREGA?
In 2005, the union government passed the National
Rural Employment Guarantee Act, which is both a
labour law and a social security measure.
It aims to tackle poverty through the generation of
employment of unskilled labour and thus, incomes.

3. The Mandate
The Act promises at least one hundred days of
guaranteed wage employment in every financial year
to every household whose adult members volunteer to
do unskilled manual work…
“Bottom-up, people-centered, demand-driven,
self-selecting and rights-based”

4. Objectives:
• Social Protection for the vulnerable
• Creation of durable assets; protection of land
and water resources
• Rural Flood Management
• Empower the marginalised (SCs, STs, women etc)
• Deepening of democracy to grassroots levels
• Cover over 200 rural districts

5. Salient Features
Registration
with Gram
Panchayat in
writing, or orally
Job Cards to
each registered
household for
identification,
notification of
work and wages
Work provided
within 5 km of
residence;
transport
financed
otherwise

6. Salient Features
Priority to women for
work
Prohibits use of
contractors and machinery
Wages to be paid weekly
Transparency (Social
Audits, Public Scrutiny)

7. Ground Realities
The success of the MGNREGA remains dubious.
While the achievements cannot be denied, the
failures have become evident too.
Issues related to MGNREGA

8. Positive Change
5 crore households, around 25% of all rural
households, were provided over 209 crore
person-days of work in 2011-12
66 % of the total expenditure under
MGNREGA was spent on worker wages
40-50 % is the share of SCs and STs in the
work provided across each year of the
scheme’s implementation
47% of the total person-days
generated have been by women

9. 27 to 7%
was the drop in
distress migration
in Anantpur Andhra
Pradesh due to
availability of work
51%
works related to
water conservation,
flood control,
irrigation, drought
water bodies
9 %
rise in gross
cropped area in
Bihar thus good
returns of both
public and private
assets.
70%
of the irrigation
structures ensured
perennial water
across agricultural
seasons

10. A Long Wait
Only 10 % households
in Rajasthan received
payments within limit; in
Madhya Pradesh, 23%
In Mandla, Madhya Pradesh
and Narmada, Gujarat,
people shifted back
to other works due to delay
Over 10 crore
post/bank office accounts
80% of the total wages
are now being paid through
these

11. Migration
Distress migration
down but
migration in
search of better
and more lucrative
opportunities
continues as
before
MGNREGA cannot
match the wages
of skilled labour in
cities.

12. In Rajsamand and Dungarpur districts of
Rajasthan much of the MGNREGA workers were
women and elderly while younger men migrated
to urban centres for relatively higher incomes.

13. Success of Assets
Dependent on district/region-specific implementation of
the scheme
Affected by factors such as poor planning, lack of technical
support, irregular flow of funds, delayed payment
Lack of community involvement
Lapse in the efforts of Gram Parishads

14. Women: On the Field Only
Gender difference in wages
reduced, yet in some public
works, the difference is larger :
Rs 98.3 for men and Rs 86.1 for
women.
Unavailability of work-site
facilities like crèches is a huge
disincentive
Participation of women in the
scheme limited to field work
Absence in worksite management,
in staff appointments, planning
through participation in gram
sabhas and social audits

15. To get it known
Low awareness about benefits of
MGNREGA has been another impediment
which can be changed though social audits
Improvement
in awareness
levels before
and after
social audits

16. “A Government dole rife with Corruption”
Fake entries in
muster rolls
Payment of less
than notified
wages
Delay in payments
Inadequate staff
and irregular
supervision
Highly irregular
social audits thus
lack of
transparency and
awareness
Inactivity of gram
parishads and
sabhas

17. As CAG looks at it
Non-payment or under
payment of wages of Rs
36.97 crore noticed in 14
states.
Works amounting to
around Rs 4,070 crore
incomplete after one to
five years of launching
Impermissible works
undertaken to the tune
of Rs 2,252 crore
No social audit units in
10 states and 4 UTs,
99% of beneficiaries
not provided work
within 15 days were
not paid the
unemployment
allowance.
The per rural
household
employment has
declined from 54 days
in 2009-10 to 43 days
in 2011-12

18. Want to know more?
Get in touch at GoI Monitor