Chapter IV

RURAL POVERTY ALLEVIATION

PROGRAMMES IN INDIA
 This Chapter reviews the poverty alleviation programmes in India with

special focus on MGNREGA. This Chapter is divided into two parts. Part I

presents poverty alleviation programmes in India prior to MGNREGA, while

Part II focuses on MGNREGA.

Part I

POVERTY ALLEVIATION PROGRAMMES PRIOR TO MGNREGA

This Part shows the rural poverty alleviation programmes in India

prior to MGNREGA. The rural economy is an integral part of the overall

Indian economy. As majority of the poor reside in the rural areas, the prime

goal of rural development is to improve the quality of life of the rural people

by alleviating poverty through the instrument of self-employment and wage

employment programmes, by providing community infrastructure facilities

such as drinking water, electricity, road connectivity, health facilities, rural

housing and education and promoting decentralization of powers to

strengthen the Panchayati Raj Institutions, etc. Poverty alleviation has

remained the central objective of all state and central government initiatives

in India. Five Year Plans have also directly or indirectly focused on reducing

poverty levels throughout the country. Alleviation of poverty remains a

major challenge before the Government. Effective implementation of anti-

poverty programmes would be central to achieving the planned reductions in

poverty.

113
4.1.1 Historical background

Much before poverty alleviation was put on the development agenda of

developing countries and multilateral and international aid agencies, leaders

of the independence movement in India had accorded it the status of one of

the primary national objectives. There are various reasons for India’s

commitment to poverty eradication. The most important among these is the

nature of the national struggle, which led to independence. The mainstream

political movement in India was profoundly influenced by the Gandhian

approach, which emphasised the need to uplift the social and economic

status of the poorest of the poor or ‘antyodaya’. Emphasis on an egalitarian

social order was reflected in the policy documents produced by the Indian

National Congress. Most notable among these was the report of the National

Planning (Kumarappa) Committee. Drawing from the experience of a large

number of experiments in rural development involving local communities,

the Government of India soon after independence launched the Community

Development Programme (CD) to rejuvenate economic and social life in rural

areas. The emphasis was on infrastructure building at the local level and

investment in human resource development through the provision of

education and health services.

At the time of India’s independence, the socio-economic scenario was

characterized by a predominantly rural economy with feudal structure.

There was widespread poverty, dismal literacy rate, geographically and

culturally isolated population, a rigid social structure and extremely poor

transport and communication system. The state leaders and policymakers

114
during the initial years of development planning were also not adequately

acclimatised to development activities. In view of the impediments to social

and economic development, the fulcrum of the planning process had been

pivoted on the strategic goal of ‘economic development with social justice’.

Thus, the planning process in India, over the years, underscored the

development of backward areas and disadvantaged population groups.

4.1.2 Phases of Anti-Poverty Programmes in India

The frontal attack on poverty was pursued in four successive phases.

4.1.2.1 First Phase

In the first phase, lasting from the beginning of the 1950s till the end

of the 1960s, the major emphasis was on redistribution of land and

improving the plight of poor tenants, on abolition of functionless

intermediaries, on tenancy reforms culminating in the principle of ‘land to

the tiller’, on imposing ceilings on large holdings, sequestering surplus land

and redistributing it among the landless agricultural labourers and marginal

farmers. A parallel and complementary movement to state - sponsored

redistributive land reforms was started by the leading spokesman of

Gandhian thought, Acharya Vinoba Bhave. This movement believed in

‘change of heart’ of those who owned large resources to induce them to

share some of their assets, notionally one - fifth, with their poor brethren.

This movement, the “bhoodan” movement, achieved remarkable success in

its initial phase, but soon degenerated into “targetry” and got diverted from

its original purpose. Lack of sufficient effort to support the beneficiaries of

the “land-gift” further weakened its contribution to poverty alleviation.

115
4.1.2.2 Second Phase

The rationale for introducing the targeted programmes for the poor

came to the fore in the late 1960s when the government policies had to face

severe criticisms because the much anticipated benefits of economic growth

was not percolating to the poor and the disadvantaged. The targeted poverty

alleviation programmes are basically supply-side interventions on the part of

the state in response to the needs of the poor and the disadvantaged. By

the late 1960s the second phase of Poverty Alleviation Programme (PAP)

started with measures that promised to address directly and exclusively the

poor in the rural areas. This target-group oriented approach started with the

programme for backward regions, graduated to the programme for the

development of small and marginal farmers, landless labourers, etc. and

finally culminated in the Integrated Rural Development Programme and

National Rural Employment Programme. Serious efforts for poverty

alleviation were initiated only during this phase. The distinguishing feature

of the poverty alleviation programme during this phase was the emphasis on

creating employment opportunities and distributing renewable assets among

the poor. This was in sharp contrast to the intensions in the earlier phase,

i.e., redistributing existing, non - renewable, assets. Heavy emphasis was

also placed during this phase of PAP on transfer of income to the poor in

indirect ways, e.g., through food subsidies and ‘dual pricing’ of essential

commodities.

116
4.1.2.3 Third Phase

In the third phase starting from the beginning of the 1990s, emphasis

has shifted to measures aimed at accelerating economic growth and on

creating an environment for ensuring a ‘spread effect’. In keeping with

Indian traditions, lip-service is continued to be paid to structural change, as

much as to the target-group oriented programmes, but the dominant

thought is to create more wealth to enable the poor to benefit from the

secondary effects of growth which, it is presumed, will percolate down and

reach the poor.

Beginning with the launch of integrated rural development programme

(IRDP) in the year 1980, number of Poverty Alleviation Programme have been

formulated fresh from time to time. Among these Poverty alleviation

Programme: Training of Rural youth for Self - Employment (TRYSEM 1975),

Food - for - Work Programme (NREP 1980), Rural Landless Employment

Guarantee Programme (RLEGP 1983), Development of Women and Children

in Rural Areas (DWCRA), Million Wells Scheme (MWS), Nehru Rozgar

Yojana (NRY) and National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREG),

Employment Assurance Scheme (EAS), Prime Minister’s Rozgar Yojana

(PMRY), Prime Minister’s Integrated Urban Poverty Eradication Programme

(PMIUPEP), etc.

4.1.2.4 Fourth Phase

In the fourth phase, the Poverty Alleviation Programmes dealt with

reference to the New Economic Reforms (Liberalization, Privatization and

Globalization) and Millennium Development Goals. Of the eight ‘Millennium

117
Development Goals’ of 1990, the first goal , “Eradicate extreme poverty and

hunger” has given further boost to the poverty alleviation programes towards

the targeted groups of people who are below poverty line in India, especially

the rural poor. The UPA Government (2004-2009) particularly the UPA - II

(2009-2014) has committed towards the poorest among the poor and

enacted a) Right to information Act, b) Right to Education Act, c) Right to

Food Act (Food Security Act) and d) Employment Guarantee Act to

safeguard the common man. The MGNREGA is the result of the above

revolutionary vision of the government.

However the poverty alleviation programmes started from each plan

periods with different strategy towards the objectives starting from the first

five year plan. The present policy mechanism of poverty alleviation

programmes are with the pretext of the New Economic Policy wherein the

socio - economic and high technological development taken into account. In

recent times, there has been a significant shift in focus in the poverty

literature away from the ‘trickle-down’ concept of growth towards the idea of

‘pro-poor growth’, which enables the poor to actively participate in and

benefit from economic activities. Hence, the strategy of targeting the poor

was adopted in India and the economic philosophy behind these special

programmes was that special preferential treatment was necessary to enable

the poor to participate in economic development. Inclusive growth also

focuses on productive employment for the excluded groups. Poverty

alleviation programmes have been designed from time to time to enlarge the

118
income-earning opportunities for the poor. The programmes and schemes

have been modified, consolidated, expanded and improved over time.

4.1.3 Poverty alleviation strategies under different Five Year Plans

Since independence, the Indian economy has been premised on the

concept of planning. The Government of India introduced a number of area

and target oriented development programmes for the rural areas with an aim

to reduce poverty and unemployment among the rural weak since the First

Five Year Plan (1951-1956). This has been carried through the Five-Year

Plans, developed, executed, and monitored by the Planning Commission,

which is an institution in the Government of India, which formulates India's

Five-Year Plans, among other functions. So far eleven Five – Year Plans

have been completed in the country. The Eleventh Plan completed its term

in March 2012 and the Twelfth Plan is currently underway.

The First Five Year Plan (1951-56) started with Community

Development Programme with the objective of facilitating socio-economic

change primarily in the life of the rural population failed to generate the

desired results because of the over-dependency of the programme not only

on the government initiative but also on government funding. Another

important institutional change that took place in the first plan period was

the evolution of a comprehensive land reform policy, which led to the

abolition of intermediary institutions and systems of land holding like

zamindari, jagirdari, etc., which were highly exploitative and a root cause of

rural poverty. However, the benefit of land reform was confined only to a few

agriculturally progressive states.

119
 The Second Five – Year Plan (1956-61) heralded a massive industrial

development programme with an emphasis on balanced regional

development of the industrial and the agricultural economy. The second

plan ran into trouble in the late fifties on account of a serious balance of

payment crisis and acute food deficit. The problems got compounded with

an exacerbation in inflationary pressures and rapid growth of population.

A major development that took place during the Third Plan (1961-66)

was the beginning of a comprehensive programme of rural works with the

objective of generating additional employment opportunities and utilizing the

large reserve of rural labour force for accelerating the process of economic

development. In spite of this positive development, the performance of the

third plan remained far below expectation.

With the Fifth Five Year Plan (1974-79), poverty alleviation came to be

accepted as one of the principal objectives of economic planning. Thus, a

number of targeted income and employment generation programmes were

introduced as a component of the development strategy of the Fifth Five-

Year Plan with the objective of ameliorating the living conditions of the

disadvantaged. Although the strategy for poverty alleviation during this

period had yielded fruits in terms of poverty reduction, the extent of poverty

reduction was, however, not commensurate with the resources put in. This

strategic emphasis on growth with redistribution continued during both the

sixth (1980-85) as well as the seventh plan (1985-90) periods. These plans

sought to alleviate poverty through some specific measures apart from

relying on the overall higher rate growth of the economy.

120
 The Eighth Five-Year Plan (1992-97) document underscored the

human and social development policies as crucial components of the

strategy for ensuring ‘development with social justice’. The focus was

primarily on health care and education along with Special Component Plan

for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (SCs/STs). Over the late eighties a

number of empirical studies brought out the deplorable conditions faced by

some vulnerable sections of the society like women, children, the aged and

the disabled, despite a promising growth performance and indicated the

need for their inclusion in the development policies. The emphasis in the

planning process also changed accordingly with the introduction of a large

number of programmes meant for these disadvantaged sections.

During the Ninth Five–Year Plan (1997—2002), direct poverty

alleviation programmes continued on an expanded scale. But these

programmes would be oriented towards strengthening the productive

potential of the economy and providing more opportunities for involving the

poor in the economic process. The Integrated Rural Development

Programme (IRDP) continued to be the major self-employment programme

targeted to families living below the poverty line in the rural areas of the

country. A review of various wage employment programmes during the

Ninth Plan shows that there has been a considerable reduction in terms of

allocation as well as in employment generation. This was largely due to

changes in allocation for rural development schemes during the Plan period.

The reduction in allocation for wage employment was compensated by

increased allocation for some programmes and initiation of new schemes.

121
 The Tenth Plan period (2002-07) has observed a healthy

transformation in the policy sphere with the emergence of a more vibrant

civil society and media and the evolution of a more dynamic and sensible

judiciary. These developments accompanied by social mobilization has

prompted the Supreme Court of India to issue a series of directives to the

governments at the centre and the states to allocate adequate resources,

ensure people’s participation in implementation and monitoring of poverty

alleviation programmes, use excess food stocks to run food for work (FFW)

schemes in drought affected states and serve cooked mid-day meals to

primary school children.

The Eleventh Plan (2007-12) gave a special impetus to several

programmes aimed at building rural and urban infrastructure and providing

basic services with the objective of increasing inclusiveness and reducing

poverty.

4.1.4 Rural Anti Poverty Programmes

To improve the conditions of rural people, Government of India

launched schemes through the Planning Commission. All these schemes

are aimed to reduce the gap between rural and urban people which would

help reduce imbalances and speed up the development process.

4.1.4.1 Public Distribution System (PDS)

The PDS is a safety net programme for improving food security at the

household level in India where millions of poor are crippled by chronic

poverty and malnutrition. It distributes six essential commodities, namely,

122
food grains, edible oil, sugar and kerosene at subsidized prices (less than

market prices) in both rural and urban areas.

4.1.4.2 Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP) and Allied

Programmes

The first two programmes that were initiated in the late 1960s and

incorporated into agricultural planning are: Small Farmers' Development

Agency (SFDA) and Marginal Farmers and Agricultural Labourers (MFAL).

These programmes were intended to provide special incentive to the poorest

of the poor in agriculture, namely, small and marginal farmers and landless

agricultural labourers, for raising their incomes. The two programmes were

merged into Integrated Rural Development programme (IRDP) in 1980 along

with five other schemes.

IRDP is a Centrally Sponsored Scheme which is in operation in all the

blocks of the country since 1980. Under this scheme Central funds are

allocated to States on the basis of proportion of rural poor in a State to the

total rural poor in the country. The Integrated Rural Development

Programme (IRDP) aims at providing self-employment to the rural poor

through acquisition of productive assets or appropriate skills which would

generate additional income on a sustained basis to enable them to cross the

poverty line. Training of Rural Youth for Self Employment (TRYSEM),

Development of Women and Children in Rural Areas (DWCRA), Supply of

Improved Tool Kits to Rural Artisans (SITRA) and Ganga Kalyan Yojana

(GKY) were introduced as sub-programmes of IRDP to take care of the

specific needs of the rural population.

123
4.1.4.3 Development of Women and Children in Rural Areas (DWCRA)

The special scheme for Development of Women and Children in Rural

Areas (DWCRA) aims at strengthening the gender component of IRDP. It was

started in the year 1982-83, on a pilot basis, in 50 districts and has now

been extended to all the districts of the country. DWCRA is directed at

improving the living conditions of women and, thereby, of children through

the provision of opportunities for self-employment and access to basic social

services. The main strategy adopted under this programme is to facilitate

access for poor women to employment, skill upgradation, training, credit

and other support services so that the DWCRA women as a group can take

up income generating activities for supplementing their incomes. It seeks to

encourage collective action in the form of group activities which are known

to work better and are more sustainable than the individual effort. It

encourages the habit of thrift and credit among poor rural women to make

them self-reliant.

4.1.4.4 Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY)

The marginal impact of self-employment programmes led to the

constitution of a committee by the Planning Commission in 1997 to review

self-employment and wage-employment programmes. The committee

recommended the merger of all self-employment programmes for the rural

poor and a shift from the individual beneficiary approach to a group-based

approach. It emphasised the identification of activity clusters in specific

areas and strong training and marketing linkages. The committee’s

recommendations were accepted by the Government. On 1 April 1999, the

124
IRDP and allied programmes, including the Million Wells Scheme (MWS),

were merged into a single programme known as Swarnajayanti Gram

Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY).

The SGSY is conceived as a holistic programme of micro enterprise

development in rural areas with emphasis on organising the rural poor into

self-help groups, capacity-building, planning of activity clusters,

infrastructure support, technology, credit and marketing linkages. It seeks

to promote a network of agencies, namely, the District Rural Development

Agencies (DRDAs), line departments of state governments, banks, NGOs and

panchayati raj Institutions (PRIs) for implementation of the programme. The

SGSY recognises the need to focus on key activities and the importance of

activity clusters. The programme has in-built safeguards for the weaker

sections. It insists that 50 per cent of the self-help groups must be formed

exclusively by women and that 50 per cent of the benefits should flow to SCs

and STs. There is also a provision for disabled beneficiaries. The

programme is credit driven and subsidy is back-ended. Funds under the

scheme are shared between the Centre and state governments in the ratio of

75:25.

4.1.4.5 Wage Employment Programmes

Direct provision of wage employment is obviously an attractive

instrument for poverty alleviation wherever the poor depend heavily upon

wage employment for their income and also suffer from considerable

unemployment and underemployment. The employment opportunities that

are available particularly in rural areas in agriculture, which is the main

125
occupation, are not of a permanent nature and hence are not uniform all

round the year. This lack of permanence and uniformity is attributable to

seasonal pattern of agricultural operations which even today is largely

dependent on the vagaries of monsoon. The seasonality in the flow of income

for the wage earners, small and marginal farmers and artisans thus makes

their earnings inadequate to sustain their nutritional and other

requirements throughout the year. To address these problems, the

government have been formulating and implementing a large number of

wage and self-employment generation programmes for the rural poor.

India's experience is perhaps the most extensive, beginning with the

Rural Manpower Programme in 1960, which was followed by a variety of

similar employment programs. While public works programmes to provide

employment in times of distress have a long history, major thrust to wage

employment programmes in the country was provided only after the

attainment of self-sufficiency in food grains in the 1970s. The Government

of India have introduced various types of employment generation schemes

since the late 1970s to raise the income levels of the daily wage earners and

the other poor. At the State level, there is the well-known Employment

Guarantee Scheme (EGS) in Maharashtra which was introduced in 1972. At

the national level, the Food-for-Work Programme was introduced in 1977

and was replaced by the National Rural Employment Programme (NREP) in

1980. To this was added the Rural Landless Employment Guarantee

Programme (RLEGP) in 1983. The NREP and RLEGP were two very similar

rural employment schemes, differing mainly in the arrangements for sharing

126
the cost between the Centre and the States. In 1989 these two programs

were merged into a single and expanded new program called the Jawahar

Rozgar Yojana (JRY).

4.1.4.5.1 Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY)

The JRY was launched as a Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS) on 1st

April, 1989 by merging the National Rural Employment Programme (NREP)

and the Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme (RLEGP). The

main objective of the programme is the generation of additional gainful

employment for unemployed and underemployed persons, both men and

women, in the rural areas through the creation of rural economic

infrastructure, community and social assets with the aim of improving the

quality of life of the rural poor. The resources under this scheme are

allocated to the States/UTs on the basis of proportion of rural poor in the

States/UTs to the total rural poor in the country. This programme is

targeted at people living below the poverty line. However, preference is given

to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and freed bonded labourers. Atleast

30 per cent of the employment is to be provided to women under the Yojana.

4.1.4.5.2 Employment Assurance Scheme (EAS)

The Employment Assurance Scheme was launched on 2nd October,

1993. The main objective of the EAS is to provide about 100 days of

assured casual manual employment during the lean agricultural season, at

statutory minimum wages, to all persons above the age of 18 years and

below 60 years who need and seek employment on economically productive

and labour intensive social and community works. The works are to be

127
selected by the District Collector and implemented through the line

departments in such a manner that the ratio of wage to the non-wage

component would stand at 60:40.

4.1.4.5.3 Sampoorna Gramin Rozgar Yojana (SGRY)

From 1st April 1999, the nature of EAS was changed and JRY was

replaced by Jawahar Gram Samridhi Yojana (JGSY). In the early 2001, Food

for Work Programme (FWP) was again initiated in selected rural areas in the

country well-known for their hard-core poverty in order to generate

additional employment for the poor. Finally, in September 2001 both JGSY

and EAS were replaced by Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana (SGRY). The

Food for Work Programme was discontinued as a specific programme, and

the tasks it was supposed to perform were subsumed in the objectives of

SGRY.

The basic aim of the scheme continues to be generation of wage

employment, creation of durable economic infrastructure in rural areas and

provision of food and nutrition security to the poor. The amalgamation of the

earlier schemes has led to an augmentation of resources for this

programme. The works taken up under the programme are labour-intensive

and the workers are paid the minimum wages notified by the states.

Payment of wages is done partly in cash and partly in kind - 5 kg of

foodgrains and the balance in cash. The Centre and the states share the

cost of the cash component of the scheme in the ratio of 75:25.

128
4.1.4.5.4 National Food for Work Programme (NFFWP)

As a result of the thin spread of resources and governance and

delivery related problems, SGRY, the main wage employment programme for

the poor in the country, had limited impact in generating employment in the

backward areas (as is evident from the above discussion). Such a situation

prompted the state to initiate the food for work programme at the national

level. Hence, on 14th November, 2004 the National Food for Work

Programme (NFFWP) was launched. The NFFWP is being operated in the

backward districts of the country where rural unemployment is high.

In addition to the programme specified above, some State

governments have their own schemes. The multiplicity of the programs is

advocated on the grounds of multi-dimensionality of poverty and regional

variations in the efficacy of the delivery system. There is also recognition

that it is problematic to close a scheme even if it is cost ineffective because

of adverse publicity associated with the closure.

4.1.5 Appraisal of Anti Poverty Programmes

Regarding Public Distribution System (PDS), it is indicated from

various studies that only a small percentage of that subsidy actually

reached the poor. The operation of the PDS involves huge budgetary food

subsidy, which has been growing over time. Though the subsidy includes

expenses for buffer stocking operation and some other items, nearly one-

third of this subsidy is spent on the subsidized grains meant for the poor.

129
 With regard to the performance of the IRDP, it is noticed that the

programme has provided assistance to rural poor in the form of subsidy and

bank credit for productive employment opportunities through successive

plan periods. The programme suffered from sub critical investments, lack of

bank credit, over-crowding in certain projects, and lack of market linkages.

The programme was basically subsidy driven and ignored the processes of

social intermediation necessary for the success of self-employment

programmes. A one-time provision of credit without follow-up action and

lack of a continuing relationship between borrowers and lenders also

undermined the programme’s objectives.

According to the Planning Commission of the Government of India, the

IRDP has been successful in providing incremental income to the poor

families, but in most cases the incremental income has not been adequate to

enable the beneficiaries to cross the poverty line on a sustained basis mainly

because of a low per family investment. The major constraint in the

implementation of IRDP has been sub-critical investments which have

adversely affected the Incremental Capital Output Ratio (ICOR) levels and

thereby undermined the viability of the projects. Though the average per

family investment has been rising steadily in monetary terms, in real terms

the increase has been inadequate and in some cases sub-critical due to the

inflationary trends and the increase in the cost of assets.

There has been a poor convergence of TRYSEM with IRDP which has

also been reflected in the Fourth Round of the Concurrent Evaluation of

IRDP (1992-93). Only 3.88 per cent of the IRDP beneficiaries had received

130
training under TRYSEM. It was also observed that the rural youth trained

under TRYSEM were only interested in the stipendiary benefits they received

during the course of training and therefore, had not utilised the knowledge

gained under the programme for furthering their self-employment prospects.

In practice, therefore, such expenditure on training had become infructuous

because of an absence of linkages between the employment opportunities

available and training provided. Clearly, TRYSEM has been a weak link in

the overall strategy for self-employment in rural areas.

Under Supply of Improved Toolkits to Rural Artisans (SITRA) scheme,

a variety of crafts persons, except weavers, tailors, needle workers and beedi

workers, are supplied with a kit of improved hand tools within a financial

ceiling of Rs.2000, of which the artisans have to pay 10 per cent and the

remaining 90 per cent is a subsidy from the Government of India. The rural

artisans are trained under TRYSEM for which an age relaxation has been

provided to them. The scheme has been well received by rural artisans. The

more popular crafts under this scheme are blacksmithy, carpentry, stone

craft, leather work, pottery and cane and bamboo work. Prototypes of

improved tools in these crafts have been developed by the National Small

Industries Corporation (NSIC), Regional Design and Technical Development

Centres under the Development Commissioner, Handicrafts and other

organisations.

In the implementation of DWCRA, some States like Andhra Pradesh,

Kerala, Tripura and Gujarat have performed very well while in other States,

the performance and impact of DWCRA has been relatively poor. Yet, in the

131
implementation of DWCRA several shortcomings have also surfaced which

has stymied its successful and effective execution in some States. Several

groups have become defunct over time. The reasons for these include,

among others, (a) improper selection of groups; (b) lack of homogeneity

among the group members; (c) selection of non-viable economic activities

which are mostly traditional and yield low income; (d) the linkages for

supply of raw material and marketing of production are either deficient or

not properly planned as a result of which DWCRA groups have become

vulnerable to competition.

While the IRDP concentrated on individual beneficiaries, the SGSY

laid greater emphasis on social mobilisation and group formation. However,

the DRDAs responsible for administering the programme did not have the

requisite skills in social mobilisation. Linkages with NGOs, which could have

facilitated this process, were also not in place. The programme, therefore,

suffered in the initial years. Central releases were substantially lower than

the allocation as the field offices were not in a position to organise self-help

groups which could be provided financial assistance. Credit mobilisation

also suffered in the process.

Planning Commission evaluation report on Jawahar Rozgar Yojana

(JRY) revealed that per person employment generated was inadequate in

terms of the requirement and did not provide enough income to the poor. It

was also perceived that the resources under JRY were too thinly spread and

adequate attention was not being given to the backward areas of the

country. The Evaluation Report also brought into focus certain

132
inadequacies in the programme. It was reported that 57.44 per cent of the

elected panchayat heads had not been imparted any training for the

implementation of JRY works. The share of women in employment generated

under the programme was only 16.59 per cent and 49.47 per cent of the

works could not be completed on time on account of shortage of funds.

Other shortcomings observed were differentials in the wages paid to male

and female workers, non-utilisation of locally available material in a large

number of JRY works undertaken by panchayats and lack of discussion of

the annual action plans in the Gram Sabha meetings etc.

The evaluation of EAS by the Planning Commission (2000) reveals that

EAS could cover only about 5 per cent of the target beneficiaries. Although

the scheme was observed as demand-driven it was inconsistent with the fact

that only 5 per cent of the daily wage earners in rural India demanded work

when the rural poverty ratio was quite high. The evaluation report observes

that owing to limited resources, the programme covered different sets of

villages and beneficiaries each year which meant that most beneficiaries got

employment only once in a cycle of 3 to 5 years. Second, the schemes were

mostly implemented through contractors who indulged in fudging of

accounts, siphoning of materials and funds. The rural wage employment

generation programmes generally suffered from inadequate allocation of

resources. The allocations meant for Employment Assurance Scheme were

thinly spread across a large number of villages.

The poverty alleviation programmes are not benefiting the poor in

terms of increasing their income. For example, the PDS is plagued with

133
seepage, corruption, high administrative cost and targeting errors. Self-

employment is better utilized by the non-poor or those who are above BPL.

Wage employment programme is caught in redtapism and administrative

delays leading to poor utilization of the allocated funds. All these factors

have been used by some economists to argue against these programmes and

to suggest the winding up the programmes. While some of the poverty

alleviation programmes may not be performing well in terms of utilizing the

allocated funds and increasing the income of the poor, these programmes

have contributed to the social arena of poverty. For example, wage

employment programme was not very successful in terms of utilizing the

allocated resources and generating additional employment for the BPL. But

this programme has created village level assets and infrastructure in terms

of schools, health centers, roads and ponds.

Some of the self-employment schemes failed to take off because no

effort was made to involve the poor in identifying the skills which they can

learn easily. Some of the skills imbibed may not have job potential in the

community. On the positive side, microenterprise under the self-employment

programme was successful because of the role of SHGs. The SHG members

actively participated in the whole process and decided for themselves for the

kind of skills they wanted to learn and also the kind of credit they needed

from the bank to start the microenterprise.

A review of different poverty alleviation programmes presented in the

Eleventh Plan Document of the Planning Commission of the Government of

India shows that there has been erosion in the programmes in terms of

134
resource allocation, implementation, bureaucratic controls, noninvolvement

of local communities, etc. The wage employment programmes suffered from

various problems leading to poor implementation of schemes. First of all, for

the rural poor, it was difficult to understand the nuances of the programme.

As a result, they were cheated and false muster rolls were prepared to

siphon off the money. Second, the schemes suffered from the bureaucratic

muddles. It is a centrally sponsored programme with rigid guidelines, which

may not fit into local conditions. By the time it reached the poor, it passed

through the central government, State government, panchayat and the

beneficiary. At every level, there is red tapism and delays leading to

underutilization of funds. Adding to all these, the government started

reducing the allocation to the wage employment programme from the Ninth

Plan. It is totally a government managed programme at every level and the

poor is the silent or passive beneficiary of the scheme. The poor had no say

in the programme.

A comparison between the self-employment programmes and wage

employment programmes bring out contrasting results. While the

performance of self- employment programmes improved over a period of time

by adopting SHG approach, the wage employment programme declined over

a period of time even after merging different programmes into one

programme. The major difference between the two programmes was

participation of the poor in the programme. While the SGSY (self-

employment programme) was highly participative in nature and empowered

the poor to a great extent, the SGRY (wage employment programme) was

135
implemented by the government and the poor in the community were the

passive beneficiaries. The administrative cost was high and the scope of

corruption was also high. As a result, fewer jobs were created benefiting

fewer poor persons. There were incidences of non-poor receiving the benefits

and ghost labourers were enrolled by fudging the muster rolls.

The appraisal of poverty alleviation programmes by Planning

Commission reveals some lacunae such as unviable projects, poor targeting

and selection of non-poor, provision of inadequate employment, corruption,

hiring outside labours by contractors, violation of labour- material norms,

lack of adequate participation of people for whom are related and lack of

activeness in deciding beneficiaries.

Part – II

PROGRESS OF MGNREGA

This Part focuses on the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural

EmpNational Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). Mahatma

Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) is the

employment programme in India for eradicating rural poverty and

unemployment, by way of generating demand for productive labour force in

Indian villages. It provides an alternative source of livelihood which will

have an impact on reducing migration, restricting child labor, alleviating

poverty, and making villages self-sustaining through productive assets

creation such as road construction, cleaning up of water tanks, soil and

water conservation work, etc. for which it has been considered as the

largest anti-poverty programme in the world.

136
 The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) was

introduced on Februrary 2, 2006. For this scheme National Rural

Employment Guarantee Act was passed on 7th September, 2005. This

eventually would replace the existing wage employment generation

programmes, such as SGRY and the National Food for Work Programme

(NFFWP) to become the sole wage employment programme in the country.

In 2009, the Scheme was renamed as the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural

Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). It intends to provide for 100 days

of unskilled manual work in a year to one adult member of every household

in the rural areas whose adult members volunteer to do such work.

The difference between the National Rural Employment Guarantee

and the earlier programmes is that now the employment is statutorily

guaranteed and one member of all the families, poor and non-poor, in the

rural areas would be employed whereas only the poor were entitled to get

employment in the National Food for Work Programme and the Sampoorna

Grameen Rozgar Yojana.

The NREGA follows a set of legally enforceable employment norms. Its

aim is to end food insecurity, empower village communities, and create

useful assets in rural areas. It is based on the assumption that every adult

has a right to basic employment opportunities at the statutory minimum

wage. All rural poor are eligible, not just those designated below the poverty

line (BPL). One-third of the beneficiaries must be women.

137
 Panchayats at district, intermediate and village levels will identify and

monitor the project, together with a programme officer. Social audits of the

work will be available at Gram Sabhas. Work will, as far as possible, be

provided within a radius of 5 km. The work to be undertaken will be public

works such as water harvesting, drought-proofing, and micro and macro

irrigation works, renovation of traditional water bodies, flood control barriers

and rural connectivity. Medical costs necessitated by injuries at work will be

borne by the implementing authority.

In the first phase, the 200 poorest (backward) districts in the country

where the National Food for Work Programme is currently in operation

would be covered. Later, it was extended to the entire nation. MGNREGS is

being implemented in the country in 646 districts comprises of 6,600 blocks

and 2,47,554 Gram Panchayats. Since inception of the programme until

2012-13, Persondays generated are 1774.21 crore and the total expenditure

spent was Rs.2,68,941.3 crores.

By 2012-13, 13.19 crore number of job cards are issued under

MGNREGA to 28.48 crore workers. The percentage of the Scheduled Castes

to the total workers is 19.16, while the Scheduled Tribes constitute 14.92

per cent of the total workers. Total number of active job cards and workers

are 6.59 crores and 10.63 crores respectively. The percentage of the active

Scheduled Caste workers to the total workers is 21.05, while the Scheduled

Tribes constitute 16.5 per cent of the total workers.

138
 Progress of MGNREGS at the national level for the 2012-13 and 2013-

14 is given in Table – 4.1. It is observed from the table that approved

Labour Budget for the 2012-13 is Rs.278.71 crores. Persondays Generated

so far during this period are 230.41 crores. The percentage of SC

persondays as of total persondays is 22.22, while it is 17.79 in the case of

ST persondays. It is interesting to note that percentage of women

Persondays out of total is 51.3. Average days of employment provided per

Household is 46.2. Average persondays for Scheduled Castes HouseHolds is

44.92 and average persondays for Scheduled Tribe households is 49.97.

Average Wage rate per day per person is Rs.121.41/-. Total number of

households completed 100 Days of Wage Employment are 51,73,482. The

percentage of payments generated within 15 days is 57.53. The data

pertaining to 2013-14 reveals that approved Labour Budget is Rs.258.57

crores. Persondays Generated so far are 220.34 crores. The Scheduled

Caste persondays percentage as of total persondays is 22.62, while it is

17.39 in the case of Scheduled Tribes. The Women Persondays out of Total

persondays is 52.79 per cent. The average days of employment provided per

Household is 45.97 .Average PersonDays for SC HouseHolds is 45.36 and

Average PersonDays for ST HouseHolds is 48.96. The Average Wage rate per

139
 Table – 4.1

PROGRESS OF MGNREGS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL

Progress FY 2013- FY 2012-

2014 2013
Approved Labour Budget [In Cr] 258.57 278.71
Persondays Generated so far [In 220.34 230.41
Cr]
SC persondays % as of total 22.62 22.22
persondays
ST persondays % as of total 17.39 17.79
persondays
Women Persondays out of Total 52.79 51.3
(%)
Average days of employment 45.97 46.2
provided per Household
(i)Average PersonDays for SC 45.36 44.92
HouseHolds
(ii)Average PersonDays for ST 48.96 49.97
HouseHolds
Average Wage rate per day per 132.7 121.41
person(Rs.)
Total No of HHs completed 100 46,58,811 51,73,482
Days of Wage Employment
% payments gererated within 15 45.24 57.53
days
Total Households Worked[In Cr] 4.79 4.99
Total Individuals Worked[In Cr] 7.39 7.97
% of Men Worked 52.06 52.93
% of Women Worked 47.94 47.07
% of SC Worked 22.73 22.79
% of ST Worked 17.72 17.92
% of Disabled Persons Worked 0.65 0.57
Works
Total No. of Works Takenup
94.56 104.62
(New+Spill Over)[In Lakhs]
Number of Ongoing Works[In
68.7 79.09
Lakhs]
Number of Completed Works[In
25.86 25.53
Lakhs]
% of Expenditure on Agriculture
57.26 61
& Agriculture Allied Works

Source: www.nrega.ac.in

140
day per person is Rs.132.7, which is Rs.121.41 in 2012-13. Total number of

households completed 100 Days of Wage Employment are 46,58,811. The

percentage of payments gererated within 15 days is 45.24, while it is 57.53

per cent in 2012-13.

Total households worked during 2012-13 are 4.99 crore and the total

individuals worked are 7.97 crore, while during 2013-14, total households

worked are 4.79 crores and total individuals worked are 7.39 crore. The

percentage of men worked is 52.93 during 2012-13, followed by women,

47.07 per cent, Scheduled Castes, 22.79 per cent, Scheduled Tribes, 17.92

and disabled persons, 0.57 per cent, whereas the percentage of the men

worked during 2013-14 is 52.06, followed by, women, 47.94 per cent,

Scheduled Castes, 22.73 per cent, Scheduled Tribes, 17.72 per cent and

Disabled Persons, 0.65 per cent.

During 2013-14, total number of works takenup are 94.56 Lakhs,

while the number of Ongoing Works are 68.7 Lakhs and the number of

Completed Works are 25.86 Lakhs. The percentage of expenditure on

agriculture & agriculture allied works is 57.26.

Financial progress of MGNREGS at the national level is furnished in

Table – 4.2. It is revealed from the table that during 2013-14, wages

expendiuture is Rs.26,690.01 crores, while expenditure on material and

skilled wages is Rs.9,680.03 crore. Total administrative expenditure is

Rs.2,372.36 crores. Total Expenditure is Rs.38,742.4 crores.

141
 Table – 4.2

FINANCIAL PROGRESS OF MGNREGS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL

Financial Progress FY 2013-2014 FY 2012-2013

Wages[In Cr] 26,690.01 27,153.53

Material and skilled Wages [In Cr] 9,680.03 10,429.98

Total Adm Expenditure [In Cr] 2,372.36 2,194.78

Total Expenditure [In Cr] 38,742.4 39,778.29

Liability (Wages) [In Cr] 749.59 322.32

Material (%) 26.62 27.75

Admin Expenses (%) 6.12 5.52

Source: www.nrega.ac.in

142
Conclusion

The eradication of poverty has been integral component of the strategy

for economic development in India. Consistent with the objectives of

successive plans in the realm of poverty alleviation, a number of general as

well as specific programmes were implemented for improving the living

conditions of the poor. However, in spite of these efforts, the problem of

poverty continued to exist. The benefits did not percolate to lower levels

because of adverse institutional framework and poor participation of poor

besides administrative loopholes. The performance of MGNREGA reveals

that 4.99 crore households are working under the programme.Since

inception of the programme until 2012-13, Persondays generated are

1774.21 crore and the total expenditure spent was Rs.2,68,941.3 crores.

There is a need to carefully evaluate the ground realities in the

implementation of the rural poverty alleviation programmes in the country.

***

143
References:-

1. Reports of the Planning Commission, Government of India.

2. Meeta Krishna (2003), ‘Poverty Alleviation and Rural Poor’, Mittal
Publications, New Delhi.
3. Kaushik Ranjan Bandyopadhyay (2007), “Poverty Alleviation and Pro-
Poor Growth in India”, Asian Institute of Transport Development, New
Delhi
4. Neepa Saha (2005), ‘Poverty Alleviation Programmes in India’,
Independent Commission on Development and Health in India, New
Delhi.
5. Sunil Kumar (2014), “Good Governance Model for Poverty Alleviation
Programmes in India”, The International Journal of Humanities and
Social Studies, Vol.2, Issue 9, September, pp.216-223.
6. Ramu Bhykya (2014), “Rural Development - A Strategy for Poverty
Alleviation in India”, Global Journal for Research Analysis, Vol.3, Issue
8, August, pp.1-3.
7. Parvathamma, G.L., (2014), “A Review on India’s Experience with
Poverty since Independence - Conceptual Framework, Trends and
Approaches for its Eradication”, Global Journal for Research Analysis,
Vol.3, Issue 7, July, pp.61-64.
8. Sanjay Kumar Chourasiya and Gour H S (2013), “A study of Poverty
Eradication in India: National Policies, Plans and Programs”,
International Journal of Research in Commerce & Management, Vol.4,
Issue 7, July, pp.101-105.
9. Santanu Panda and Arup Majumder (2013), ”A review of Rural
Development Programmes in India”, International Journal of Research
in Sociology and Social Anthropology, Vol.1, No.2, pp.37-40.
10. Ranganathan T (2012), “Poverty Alleviation Programmes in India
– Policy Perspectives”, International Journal of Innovative Research and
Development, Vol.1, Issue 8, October, pp.383-399.
11. Datir R K (2012), “Problem of Poverty and Implementation of
Poverty Alleviation Programmes”, International Interdisciplinary
Research Journal, Vol. II, Issue V, September-October, pp.100-107.
12. Lalitha Kumari (2013), “Poverty Eradication in India: A study of
National policies, Plans And Programs”, Journal of Arts, Science and
Commerce, Vol.IV, Issue 2, April, pp.68-80.
13. www.nrega.ac.in
14. www.planningcommission.gov.in

144