The year 2020, when the entire country is fighting against the pandemic, thinking of reviving the economy without considering rural development plans will not be possible. The first-ever act in the history of India, which guaranteed work and wage to rural India, MGNREGA has experienced an increase in a number of rural people looking for employment under the act. The pandemic has made the economies go on a standstill, and rural population, even the ones who migrated to cities to work are looking for means to survive it. This paper tries to get deep insights into the employment generation act and how will it help in reviving the rural as well as the entire economy as a whole. The study will also focus on the challenges and problems faced by MGNREGA to employ these people and allocating tasks with some ‘special laws’ enforced at the time. Also, there is a need for looking into the payment procedure to these people when everything is at pause.

 Introduction

The roots of the Indian community, without a doubt, lies in its rural economy. India’s demographic structure constitutes the majority of the people live in rural areas. For any developing economy to grow and prosper, it should start with strengthening its base, that is, rural economy. The Indian government has been trying to develop these areas with the introduction of policies and schemes that cover the broader aspect from employment to education to hygiene facilities in rural households.

One such policy introduced by the government was Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, which is considered to be the milestone for the policy enactment in Indian history. It was introduced in 2005 and implemented in 2006. According to the World Bank report published in 2014, they have termed this policy as the “stellar example for rural development”. The groundwork done for the implementation of this policy was based on two objectives poverty reduction and hunger eradication. This act provides a hundred days of guaranteed employment and wages. It provides decent work, with an additional aim to empower the women in these areas, both socially and economically.

The Mahatma Gandhi Rural National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, since its enactment, has seen large crowds getting attracted to it. It has led to an increase in the employment of people in rural areas undertaking different types of work which aim at sustainable development. It has also helped 47% of women in rural areas to become a bread earner for their families. About 57% of people belonging to SCs/STs have been given jobs. There is a complete decentralised system for the work allotment, but the payment system is completely centralised, which has undoubtedly been seen as a problem from past many years.

There are quite a lot of challenges and loopholes in the system which have still not been addressed by the officials. The first and foremost thing is the number of people holding job cards and still many of them being dormant for years. The issue of fabrication of these job cards with misuse of them or wrong information been input in the system. There are no proper records available as such because the only the demand for work that gets translated into work is recorded. There is no provision for wages in case of demand for work but no work allotment. The work completion rate for MGNREGA stands at a shallow figure of 33% which is also a result of lack of proper records and delays in the payment.

While MGNREGA, on the one hand, has created positive impacts on some, it has its pitfalls in the system, which has led to the migration of workers to cities in search of work. Under the scheme, the wages hike is between ₹1 to ₹17, which is comparatively less than the wages in agricultural activities and much less than the wages earned in the cities.

Talking about the scenario that the entire world is facing, that is, COVID19 which has made everything at a standstill, the poor people who have migrated to cities for work have started on their journey back to their hometowns. This migration has resulted in government policies, especially MGNREGA, quite attractive. Many states have seen an increase in the enrolment to find work and support their families in this situation.

This paper aims to evaluate the performance of MGNREGA during the pre-COVID times, draw out facts about its growing importance in the current scenario and address its shortcomings, with changes introduced by the government.

Research Questions

1. Why is MGNREGA getting too much attention, i.e., why rural people are more attracted towards it rather than any other policy?
2. What problems are being experienced?
3. How are these people going to be remunerated?

Literature Review

(MGNREGA wages , 2019) concentrates on the fact of a hike in wages under the scheme. The hike in wages just corresponds to a minimum of ₹1 to maximum ₹17, which is not sufficient for many to support their family. The average income under the scheme is merely 2.6%. For the workers who still are working as bonded labour is only because wages offered by MGNREGA are less than the wages offered by agricultural activities. Where on one side poor are still trying to recover from the 2016 demonetisation, the unemployment was at an all-time high with stagnant wages prevailing in the rural economy. Payment delays, along with most people not being paid for the work, made the rural economy shift away from such government programs.

(Rajendra, Sakina, & Rajesh, 2018) have asserted on the fact of payment delays by the government under the scheme for the year 2017-2018. On one side where the government claimed that 85% of the payments were made on time, the study conducted showed only 32% payments had been made on time. The timely payment under the programme is what is done within the 15 days of the task completion. There were some cases reported where payments were rejected due to the mismatch of their names and incorrect account number and other information entered in the system. Since the entire system is centralised, the blame game has no end to it. Instead of a centralised system, each stakeholder from central government to gram panchayats should be given responsibility and held accountable for the payment issues arising in the system.

(Roshni, 2017) have put forward a study focusing on the economic development, employment generation, asset creation and infrastructural development in rural India. It can be truly said that the development of any economy is not possible without developing its rural economy. MGNREGA has provided an excellent opportunity for the rural people to attain an income or return for the services they render, the work they do. It was concluded that the programme has surely led to uplifting the poor, and poverty reduction was quite evident. There were several gaps in the system as well as from no proper data of individuals to not adequate verification of the tasks given by the officials.

(Kritika & Mahesh, 2017) have analysed delay in the payment system, which are due to delays in the funds’ release by the officials and agencies involved. Payment delays are a big loophole in the system which has to be addressed. With analysing the data, it was found the districts of Rajasthan had fewer payment delays on an average compared to other districts.

Dr. Abdul Karim & Disha Sharma (2017) presented a study to outline the extent to which MGNREGA has been successful in improving the lives of the rural livelihood by combining work with skill. The campaign was thought to be beneficial in our country and should be implemented in the entire nation rather than restricting it too few districts. Gender discrimination which lays its grounds in rural areas, has also seen a decline. The payment system did not go as planned when it was left to the gram panchayats. The programme may have proved beneficiary to quite a lot of people, but it surely has some pitfalls which need to be addressed. There are more job cardholders than jobs to be allocated. Even if this prevails, the government is entitled to pay the wages as per the programme’s framework.

(Rajiv, 2016) has tried to put forward some facts about the programme by critically analysing it. It has put forward some of the positive and the negative impacts on the Indian economy since the introduction and implementation of this programme. The inability of the part of the government and other related bodies have shown its inabilities to provide work to all the people under the scheme due to a constant increasing gap between job cardholders and people employed at worksites. On the contrary, women participation has shown a tremendous increase.

(Padma, 2015) in her study focuses on the macro aspect of MGNREGA like employment and asset generated, expenditure incurred and growth in wage rate etc. The methodology adopted in the paper is secondary. Data for the year 2009 to 2010 and 2011 to 2014 has been taken into consideration for the study. The study adopts a holistic approach to solve and focus on the problem and arrive at a conclusion. The paper has used tabular representation for analysing the data. This paper concludes that there has been Employment generation in different sections of society due to MGNREGA. It has also promoted women empowerment and also increased the wage rates as well as the real wages of a worker in rural areas. Small and marginal farmers have also benefited from the act.

(Navneet, 2015) focuses on the positive and negative effects of the act on the economy and also aims at providing the information regarding MGNREGA’s implementation in different parts of India. The methodology of this paper is secondary and has relied on secondary sources for information. This paper concludes that there are more positive effects of this act than negative effects. The act made by the government has positively affected the economy by employing people, increased wages and promoting women empowerment. But still, there are some adverse effects like irregular availability of work non-payment of wages and lack of planning that has been mentioned by the author in his paper.

(Bashir & Mariyappan, 2015) have conducted a study which focuses on the impact of MGNREGA in village Shanoo of district kupwara Jammu and Kashmiri. The study aims to find out the reduction in rural poverty through this act in a small village of J&K. The primary method of data collection has been used in this paper, along with the tabular representation of the data to analyse the reduction of poverty in the village of Shanoo. The study concludes that MGNREGA program launched by the government helped in reducing poverty of people in the rural area and has led to increase in the social respect and an increase in the purchasing power and this study also reflects the program of government has developed the social and economic infrastructure. There has been a reduction in discrimination which has led to a decrease in migration, and all of this has led to an increase in the standard of rural livelihood.

MGNREGA During The Covid19

22^nd March 2020, where people were seen applauding and appreciating the ‘messiahs’ working day and night to stop the infection, there were few who were employed at construction sites, factories etc. were being deployed of their jobs.

The poor daily wage earners have travelled miles from their rural households in the hope of better jobs, better income and with a dream of providing their family with a better life. We see them on a daily basis as labourers on construction sites, attendants at grocery stores, rag pickers, security guards or our house helps who rely on the wages that they earn either daily or monthly. They do not have the provisions for sick leaves, pensions or the privilege of work from home, unlike most of us. The spread of the COVID19 and implementation of various government policies have turned their lives upside down!

The curfew imposed by the government has stiffened the situation of these labourers and barred their income from flowing in. Everybody has been expected to follow the imposed regulations and stay indoors. The primary concern for these labourers during the COVID19 crisis has been hunger. While the privileged section of the society is locked up with sufficient food supplies, these labourers are fighting two wars on the streets; one against the virus and the other, hunger. Their income has stopped, and they are running out of essentials.

With the imposition of nationwide lockdown, the migrant labourers failed to secure jobs which led to them sleeping hungry every night. Many labourers were stationed at the site of their work, but due to the imposition of the lockdown these labourers were deprived of their shelters as no one was willing to take responsibility of them in case, they get infected by the virus. This resulted in reverse migration in many states. According to many reports, the majority of the labourers expressed that they would try to secure employment under government schemes instead of returning back to their former workplaces. They expressed that they would prefer employment in their indigenous locations instead of travelling miles. MGNREGA, a rural employment initiative launched by the government in 2006, gained popularity amongst the labourers.

The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Generation Act (MGNREGA) has proved to be an attraction for the rural inhabitants during this time of crisis. The imposition of a nationwide lockdown leading to reverse migration is one of the primary reasons behind the scheme gaining overnight popularity. The reverse migration was a result of lack of shelter and food and availability of other essentials for the migrant labourers. The loss of jobs and an unlikely crisis pushed the migrants to go choose to work in the vicinities of their village and not come back to their former workplace soon. Majority of the workforce decided to resort to reverse migration because they thought that they would have food to satiate themselves and a roof over their heads back in their villages.

This employment generation programme as analysed in the review of literature has proved to be a bane rather than a boon to the economy. The crucial reason for this scheme let down is the payment delays faced by the workers. The programme has a provision to provide wages within 15 days of the work completion has not been put into practice.

The lack of or incomplete database is also a significant loophole. As pointed out in many papers, there is a mismatch in information, and also the data is only recorded for the demand which gets converted into work. This brings out the issue of inadequate information about the people actually enrolling under the scheme, which leads to many job cards issued turn dormant as time passes.

The employment generation programme was started off as a demand-driven programme, which meant rural labourers would be provided with work whenever they demand it. But the programme has taken the shape of the supply-driven programme where work is provided when the work is available. This can be aligned to one of the reasons for the low completion rate of work to be undertaken by these rural labourers. The scheme as for most states has been a mechanism to get funds from the centre into the states and used in other development activities.

At the beginning of the term for the current government tenure (2014- present), the policy was seen being criticised on many levels. It was thought to be not the best way the government and other officials to use funds to elevate the status of the poor. They termed it as the ‘living monument of failure’ on the part of the previous government in power.

With changing times, it has now been termed as what they call now a ‘national pride’. This change in perspective is a sheer result of the majority of rural habitats moving in its direction. Earlier government had cut down on the funds that were previously allocated to the scheme, and still, with the change in the economy, the scheme has been implemented with various changes introduced. The government has said to have realised it might not like the scheme, but it is undoubtedly the way ahead.

The government has taken a step forward to implement the scheme again but with changes which act as an aid in the rural economy and indirectly the entire economy. These changes introduced post the reverse migration is likely to attract more and more rural labourers enrol in this programme. The demand for work and the number of day’s people demanding work is likely to go up. The task of allocating work and remunerating people will be the biggest challenge.

Till 1st April 2020, 3.5 million applications have been received under the scheme. The month of May marked the highest demand for work by the rural people. The number of people enrolling in the programme has shown a steep increase during the period with most of the applications received in states of Odisha, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.

Reasons for Gained Popularity

i) The scheme provides for guaranteed employment under the scheme. One of the guidelines governing the scheme is the allocation of work within 15 days of the enrolment is legally binding. One hundred days of work assurance is given under the scheme.

ii) This programme is the first and foremost in Indian history to provide wages. The wages last revised stood at ₹182 for each and every individual devoting time and effort in undertaking the work.

iii) The month of April- May is the lean agriculture season. It means that the gap between harvesting the Rabi crops and planting the Kharif crops. There is not much to work in agricultural fields, and income and employment fluctuate the most during this time.

iv) The work provided is decent and mainly focuses on asset creation. The various projects undertaken are a creation of irrigation facilities, livestock and fisheries-related work in coastal areas, rural drinking and sanitation work etc.

v) Another reason for getting attention is the beginning of the monsoon season in the months of July. During the monsoon months usually, less number of activities take place in rural areas as it becomes difficult to work on fields and work sites. Minimal agricultural activities take place, that too, for a short duration of time.

vi) The person willing to enrol under the scheme may or may not have the required skills. An unskilled individual or semi-skilled is equally likely to get work as a skilled person.

vii) There is also a provision for unemployment allowance, which states that in case the job is not provided to the individual under the scheme, that individual has the right to get a minimal allowance.

Changes Introduced

Considering the attention that the scheme has gathered in the last few months of the crisis, the government has put the scheme in action with specific necessary changes. The government has issued guidelines which should be adhered to strictly and on implementation of which work will be undertaken.

The government which had cut down the budget of the scheme for the financial year has now allotted an additional budget of rupees forty thousand crores in the scheme. The additional budget, along with the additional measures, is expected to help strengthen the rural economy to if implemented and used correctly.

The Union Rural Development Ministry shared pictures that showed that the villages’ officials ensured that social distancing is followed and each individual is wearing masks while working. The provision of providing soap, maintaining a clean and hygienic environment on every worksite has been taken care of. The ministry is taking every initiative and strictly following the guidelines laid down by the health ministry.

Only one-third of the actual number of workers required for the work will be allowed in order to maintain the social distancing norms to prevent the spread of the virus. Some of the states have also promised an increase in wages, along with providing food and shelter to the workers that have been employed under the scheme.

To guarantee that the lockdown doesn’t affect the lives of the poor, the Union Rural Development Ministry has additionally advised states to concentrate on giving work including “individual resource creation” that require a maximum of four to five people. This has been decided because, with four to five people, the norm of social distancing will not be violated. Under MGNREGA, singular resource creation includes building ranch lakes, burrowing wells, cultivation related exercises, among others. The changes have been introduced, and each state had a different story to tell.

Madhya Pradesh has taken a step towards door to door service of surveying people without job cards and those who have been dormant for years. The task for providing employment to unskilled workers and sharing the details of the skilled workers with the industries is being undertaken.

The state of Haryana took the decision of giving the wage rate of ₹309 to its workers employed under the scheme. The rural migrants have been mostly employed in forest department work. Building sheds for cattle, irrigation and its allied activities etc. People will a particular skill set have also been employed in the industrial sector.

Maharashtra, the state with the most number of infected people, saw enrolment of over six lakh people under the scheme. In the wake of the situation the state is facing, it ordered the minimal number of workers at worksites with wearing face masks and gloves all the time.

Assam promised to provide to the individuals who are skilled at the priority basis in various departments. It also undertook the task of providing job cards under the scheme at the earliest for the unskilled or semi-skilled workers. The step taken forward by Assam was involving the Skills Department to impart training to these labourers through digital platforms.

Chhattisgarh proved to be successful in giving employment to 23 man-days to a family compared to the average of 16 man-days given nationally. It has been employed over twenty lakh rural labourers during April- May. 

The state of Karnataka has altered the way of living for many nomadic villagers. The nomadic villagers who mostly relied on getting money by wandering around with idols of gods on their heads have shifted to this scheme for employment. The people who used to beg earlier are now being employed with the daily wage of ₹285, as per the reports.

Since most of the districts in the rural dwellings are not benefitted with the banking facility, the focus should not be on income reaching their bank accounts, instead of wages in the form of cash available in their hands. This will ensure them to at least buy their everyday groceries. The remuneration under the programme which was earlier ₹182 has now been increased to ₹202 for each and every individual.

The current government has taken a step to shield the poor families from the monetary effect of the coronavirus by speeding up the exchange of money under the Direct Benefits Transfer (DBT) while emphasising on ‘individual resource creation’ under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).

To make this scheme a success, it is important to not run it like a supply-driven scheme in the past, instead a demand-driven scheme as it was formulated in the beginning.

Bibliography

Arora, V. (2013). “MahatmMahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme: A unique scheme for rural Indian women. International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER), vol.3(2) pp 108-114.

Ashwini, K., & Pragati, A. (2013). MGNREGA: Alternative View. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 48, No. 36,pp.4-5.

Bashir, B., & Mariyappan, D. (2015). MGNREGA: A New Hope to Reduce Rural Poverty. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATIVE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT.

Borah, K., & Bordoloi, R. (2014). MGNREGA and its impact on daily waged women workers: A case study of sonitpur district. International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER), vol. 4(4), pp 40-44.

Chitra, B. (2015). Impact of MGNREGA on Women’s Empowerment. International Journal of Engineering and Management Research, Volume-5, Issue-5, pp: 218-222.

Dr.Abdul, K., & Disha, S. (2017). MGNREGA: A Tool for Generation of Employment & Poverty Alleviation. SSRG International Journal of Humanities and Social Science (SSRG – IJHSS) Volume 4 Issue 4.

Govind, M., & Archana, A. (2018). ROLE OF MGNREGA FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF WOMEN. International Journal of Recent Trends in Engineering & Research (IJRTER), Volume 04, Issue 06.

Kavita, B., & Rimjhim, B. (2014). MGNREGA and its Impact on Daily Waged Women Workers: A Case study of Sonitpur District of Assam. IOSR Journal of Economics and Finance (IOSR-JEF) Volume 4, Issue 4, PP 40-44.

Kritika, Y., & Mahesh, P. (2017). Analysis of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act using the Data Mining Technique. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Research Volume 13, Number 9, pp. 2221-2235.

Liu, Y. & Barrett, C.B. (2013): “Heterogeneous Pro-Poor Targeting in India’s Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 48, No.10, 9 March, pp. 46-53.18. (n.d.).

MGNREGA wages. (2019). Economic and Political Weekly, vol lIV no 14.

Minati, S. (2013). MGNREGA and Financial Inclusion – An Inter-District Analysis of Odisha. IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), Volume 14, Issue 2.

Navneet, S. (2015). MGNREGA: ITS IMPLICATION IN INDIA. International Journal of Science Technology & Management, Volume No.04, Special Issue No.01.

Padma, D. (2015). MGNREGA and Rural Distress in India. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, Volume 4 Issue 8.

Panda, B. &Umdor, S (2011), Appraisal and Impact Assessment of MGNREGAin Assam. North-Eastern Hill University. (n.d.).

Rajendra, N., Sakina, D., & Rajesh, G. (2018). Analysis of Payment Delays and Delay Compensation in NREGA Findings across Ten States for Financial Year 2017-18.

Rajiv, R. (2016). Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA): A Critical appraisal of its performance since its inception.

Ramesh, C., & Srivastva, S. (2014). Changes in the Rural Labour Market and Their Implications for Agriculture. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 49, No. 10, pp. 47-54.

Roshni, P. (2017). MGNREGA and Its Role in Rural Development. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 7, Issue 11.

Sanjoy, S. (2013). Rural Poverty Alleviation Programmes: A Study Of Mgnrega In Manipur. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, Volume 2 Issue 9.

Smt.Pushpa, S. (2014). Implementation and Impact of MGNREGA on Agriculture Produces. SSARSC International Journal of GeoScience and Geo-Informatics, Volume 1, Issue 1.

Sudarshan, Ratna M. (2011): “India’s National Rural Employment Guarantee Act: Women’sParticipation and Impacts in Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, and Rajasthan”, Research ReportSummary 06, Institute of Development Studies. (n.d.).

Tanisha, E., KV, R., Bhaskar, S., SS, R., Bhaskar, R., Ajay, B., . . . Rajeev, S. (2013). Agricultural and Livelihood Vulnerability Reduction through the MGNREGA. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 48, No. 52, 94-103.

.