Making NREGS Reach Out: Experiences From
Development Alternatives, Feb 2010
Making NREGS Reach Out: Experiences from
the Study Undertaken in Bihar
The National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) has been devised as a public works programme to address the issue of a rights-based approach to development; provide income security to the rural households through guaranteed wage employment; reduce/check distress migration from rural to urban areas; and create durable community assets (in the rural areas) to trigger an overall development of about six lakh Indian villages.
Socio-economic Context
The jobless growth of the 1990s, stagnation or even decline in the growth of agricultural productivity, distressed farmers committing suicides in various parts of the country, and increased migration from the rural to urban areas – all these were the larger socio-economic contexts of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA). Voting out of ‘India Shining’ and some icons of economic reforms in the 2004 Parliamentary and Assembly elections formed the immediate political contexts of the Act.1 It is an attempt to moderate the consequences of economic reforms which has increased the income and regional inequality in the reform phase.2
There is a constitutional context as well. Article 41 of the Indian Constitution provides a non-justiciable right to work under the Directive Principles of State Policy and proclaims: ‘The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work in case of unemployment’.3 This Article remained dormant for fifty-five years until the legislation of NREGA in 2005. However, NREGA is a partial fulfillment of the right to work, as it assures employment at the household and not at the individual level, and guarantees a maximum of 100 days of wage employment. Nevertheless, it signifies a landmark development in the sense that it highlights the confidence of the State in its economic capacity to convert non-justiciable rights provided in Part IV of the Indian Constitution into justiciable ones.
The NREGA was passed by the Parliament of India in its monsoon session of 2005. This Act received the assent of the President on September 5, 2005, and was notified in the Gazette of India on September 7, 2005. It came into force in 200 selected (backward) districts of the country on February 2, 2006, and was extended to 130 more districts from April 1, 2007 onwards. NREGA has since been extended to all the districts from April 1, 2008, preponing its universal coverage by three years, a bold step indeed.
Objectives of the Scheme
The main objective of the Act is ‘To provide for the enhancement of livelihood security of the households in rural areas by providing at least 100 days of guaranteed wage employment in every financial year to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work’.4
The other objectives of this Act are:
• Reduction of distressed migration from the rural to urban areas and from one part of the rural area to another
• Creation of durable assets in villages
• Invigoration of civic and community life and enlivening of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs - the village level democratic bodies), as they have been entrusted to formulate, implement and monitor the scheme
• Empowerment of rural women by providing them the opportunity to earn income independently and to participate in social groups (workers)
• Overall development of the rural economy
• Promotion of inclusive growth and development
• Facilitation of multiplier effects on the economy
NREGA in Bihar
National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme – Bihar has been prepared under the provision of National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005. It guarantees 100 days of employment in a financial year to any rural household whose adult members are willing to do unskilled manual work. In case of failure to provide a job, the labourer will be compensated with unemployment allowance. This scheme has been launched in 23 districts of Bihar from February 2, 2006 onwards.
The Bihar State Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme 2005 has been launched by the Government of Bihar in 15 districts from February 2, 2006. The Bihar State Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme is being implemented with State fund and along the same pattern as Bihar Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme 2005.
National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme – Bihar is a centrally sponsored programme on a 90:10 cost sharing between the Government of India and the State Government. The Government of India will bear the entire expenditure incurred on unskilled workers and 25% of expenditure on semi-skilled/skilled workers as well as the cost of materials. The expenditure incurred on payment of unemployment allowance is to be fully borne by the State Government.
This programme is being implemented through PRIs, where 50% of the total available fund is made available to the Gram Panchayat, 30% to the Panchayat Samiti and 20% to the Zila Parishad.
Scope of the Study Undertaken by Development Alternatives
A scoping study was conducted in two districts of Bihar - representing two distinct agro-climatic zones - to understand the status of implementation of NREGA. The overall objective of the scoping study was to understand the strength and weaknesses of implementation of NREGA with special focus on demand and supply side issues to identify the existing gaps at various levels in the present implementation process. The study was intended to lead to a design that essentially addresses supply side issues and enables the preparation of an agenda for piloting of alternate programme implementation models that focus on streamlining supply side factors along with understanding the demand side issues related to their participation and awareness.
The scoping study was undertaken by Development Alternatives (DA) with support from the World Bank and the Government of Bihar. The study was conducted between May – August 2009 in two districts, Kaimur and Kishanganj, representing the distinct vulnerable characteristics of the state of Bihar – drought and flood, respectively, in consultation with the World Bank and the Government of Bihar. Kishanganj and Bhagwanpur CD Blocks were selected for in depth analyses and understanding of NREGA from Kishanganj and Kaimur districts, respectively.
Methodology
A number of qualitative and quantitative participatory methods were used in the study, such as:
• Household survey: 150 households in 4 Gram Panchayats of Kaimur and 265 households in 5 Gram Panchayats from Kishanganj
• Focused Group Discussions (FGDs) with participants and non-participants groups in NREGS (men and women separately): 8 FGDs in 4 Gram Panchayats from the two districts
• FGD with PRI members (Mukhiya, Ward Members and PRS): 2 Gram Panchayats each from Kaimur and Kishanganj
• Semi-structured interviews with representatives of the banks, post offices and important line departments
• Process time and motion study at Kishanganj, along with study of documents
• Resource maps for 2 Gram Panchayats in Kaimur and 3 Gram Panchayats in Kishanganj with a GIS-based resource map for one village in Kaimur
The key findings of the scoping study are summarised below.
Citizen’s Awareness on NREGS
The household assessment indicates that only 37% of the total respondents from Kaimur and 14% from Kishanganj were aware of the provisions of the Act with even lower percentage (10%) of awareness among women and SC/ST households. Among the community, especially women, there is a prevailing misunderstanding that NREGS is for the Below Poverty Line (BPL) category only. People in general were not aware of the role of Gram Sabhas in NREGS. This is also true in case of many other schemes and programmes. In terms of processes under the Act, the majority of respondents across the two districts did not face any problem in getting their job cards, with a few exceptions where payments were collected for photographs. As the people were unaware of important features of the scheme, the scheme appears to be supply driven. None of the respondents acknowledged that they had demanded work. The majority of respondents raised concern over the untimely and hassled payment processes.
Livelihood Profile
Kaimur district is characterised by undulating topography, forests and lots of wasteland (22% of the total geographical area) and recurrent droughts, while Kishanganj is all plains and wetlands with frequent floods. The majority of respondents in both Kaimur (70%) and Kishanganj (69%) were landless. The remaining were small and marginal farmers. Because of drought, here the agriculture productivity is poor, irrespective of the land holding in Kaimur, whereas the productivity due to availability of water is much higher in Kishanganj. The proportion of respondents that have migrated in Kishanganj is higher than in Kaimur. Here, 28% of the respondents reported migration in case of the former and 19% in case of the latter district. Long distance migration is high in Kishanganj in comparison to that of Kaimur. It was specially observed in Kishanganj that many migrants return home during pre-monsoons and stay back till the water recedes. Thus, 62% of the migrants are without work during monsoons/rainy season. This is also the period when NREGS works are either thin or not implemented. Seasonal mapping has revealed that majority of the people in both districts preferred to work during June to August followed by December to February and April to June. Implementation of NREGS works during these periods attracts maximum participation, though such scheduling of works under NREGS was not observed. In these areas, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and women are being extremely vulnerable and marginalised, and NREGS as a vehicle for their economic upliftment becomes crucial.
Process Time and Motion
The Process Time and Motion study was conducted for three schemes at three levels – one each from Gram Panchayats, PS and Zila Panchayat levels in Kishanganj block of Kishanganj district.
Planning of Works
There are prescribed norms as well as the deadlines indicated for planning processes in the NREGS guidelines. It was observed that the current planning processes have not been able to adhere to these norms. Generally, the Gram Sabhas rarely happen and even if it is the case, there is very poor participation of villagers.
Technical and Administrative Approval
A high degree of efficiency was observed in both technical and administrative sanctioning of projects. There was no formal system of requesting for technical estimation, technical sanction and administrative sanction was observed due to which the time lag between requisition and follow up action could not be tracked.
Fund Flow to Implementers
The flow of funds to the implementing agency at all the levels was found to be smooth. The difference in days of release of different installments from the date of opening of worksite appears on the higher side as no works were completed in or on the contemplated time.
Payment of Wages
The payments generally do not reach the workers on time. This is largely because the advice is not submitted on time.
Fund Flow from State and Centre
The flow of funds from centre to district was observed to be on time and onward transmission to the block was also on schedule. However, fund flow from district to the Gram Panchayat showed significant delay.
Personnel, Systemic and Institutional Capacity
Personnel: Inadequate information on provisions and processes of the NREGS was observed across personnel at all levels. PRI functionaries were poorly skilled to develop any perspective and integrated plans in a participatory manner due to lack of negotiation skills. They also lacked the orientation to facilitate demand for work in their area. The block team was observed to be confused about their roles and responsibilities with a high degree of discontentment. Poor planning, management and documentation of NREGS works was observed because of lack of training inputs. The block team, especially at Kaimur, lacked team spirit.
Systemic: Well-articulated norms and systems were properly followed, while those intended by the Act but not explicitly enunciated were not acted upon. For instance, efforts to involve elderly, differently abled, widows, etc., were not observed, while efforts to involve women were seen everywhere. Existence of any performance appraisal systems was also not observed. Mechanisms of monitoring and evaluation like nigrani samiti, social audit, etc., are yet to be fully operationalised.
Institutional: Gram Sabhas are poorly capacitated to develop any perspective or integrated action plans and handle large funds. There are no properly developed mechanisms for effective monitoring of NREGS works at the Gram Sabha level. The Gram Panchayats do not have adequate human resources to manage effective service delivery. Absence of mandated district perspective plans constraints the promotion of strategic interventions for livelihood strengthening and convergent action.
Scenario of Convergent Action
There have been no to low initiatives directed towards convergent action. There have also been varied levels of ignorance and pessimism narrated in the context of convergent action. One important finding has been the non-existence of a consolidated resource database for holistic planning, monitoring evaluation and learning and impact assessment.
Land and Waterscape Potential Resources
The detailed plotting of resources has revealed that there exist a strong possibility and scope for undertaking a diverse and creative portfolio of works under NREGS. NREGS is referred to as mitti ka kaam by a majority of villagers and even the supply side actors, reflecting the limitations and narrowness in the currently undertaken nature of works.
Sample Shelf of Project and Labour Budget Estimates
The study and analysis of works undertaken in one Gram Panchayat during the year 2007-08 revealed that 80% of the works undertaken were related to roads, and 20% to water and land development. However, the Sample Shelf of Projects developed within this scoping phase for the same Gram Panchayat shows that the optimal possibilities are for 38.5% for road works, 29% for water works, 20% for plantations and 12% for land development works.
Conclusions and Implications for Alternative Implementation Strategy on NREGS
It can be concluded that there are definite issues confronting the demand and supply side that this scoping study has highlighted and, thus, there is a need for alternative implementation mechanisms - either the Alternative Implementation Model or the Alternative Management Model - that support the engagement with diverse actors not being currently engaged for enhancing service delivery under NREGS.
End-to-end Implementation by Other Non-government Agencies (Revamping the Vertical Structure)
The word non-government here implies CSOs, the private sector, etc., or a consortium-based arrangement of these entities. This alternative will mean a shift in the ownership of the existing implementation structure or replacing it with an alternate implementation structure.
Support Services to the Existing Supply Side (Horizontal Support to the Existing Vertical Chain)
This mechanisms call for non-government actors to provide support services to the existing supply side structure. The horizontal support could be extended on an array of issues like:
• Communication support – strategic and material
• Capacity building support – training of personnel at all levels in the areas of participatory planning, computer-aided estimation, monitoring and evaluation, reporting and MIS, etc.
• Systemic support – development of SORs for planning, technical, administrative and financial systems, techno-systemic support for timely wage payments, etc.
• Planning support – outsourced model for planning and estimation of works under NREGS
• Monitoring and evaluation support, etc.
However, both the options will call for significant changes in the current administrative set up and guidelines, thus calling for administrative reforms to be instituted for exploring alternative arrangements. This calls for developing the internal capacity of government agencies to partner with appropriate agencies that have the ability to deliver and guarantee better performance, innovative and flexible administrative and funding arrangements, development of clear measurable performance norms and structured monitoring and evaluation systems.
This scoping study suggests that the existing supply side structure can perform better with support services being extended by the diverse kinds of actors – preferably as consortia, thus suggesting that the second option is a more suitable Alternative Implementation strategy. q
Raghwesh Ranjan
(Footnotes)
1 See Ashok K. Pankaj, ‘NREGA: Guaranteeing the Right to Livelihood’, India Social Development Report 2008 (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 221-23.
2 See M.S. Ahluwalia (2000), ‘Economic Performance of States in Post-reforms Period’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XXXV, No. 19, pp. 1637-48; N.J. Kurian (2000), ‘Widening Regional Disparities in India’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XXXV, No. 7, pp. 538-50; Angus Deaton and Jean Dreze (2002), ‘Poverty and Inequality in India: A Re-examination’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 37, No. 36, pp. 3729-48; Nirvikar Singh, Lavesh Bhandari, et al. (2003), ‘Regional Inequality in India: A Fresh Look’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 1069-73; Sabyasachi Kar and S. Saktivel (2007), ‘Reforms and Regional Inequality in India’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 42, No. 47, pp. 69-77
3 V.N. Shukla, The Constitution of India (Lucknow: Eastern Law Company, 2004), p. 305.
4 Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, No. 48, Delhi, September 7, 2006, p.1.
