MGNREGA works on a canal in Thrissur, Kerala. file | Photo Credit: PTI
Reforms in the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA) are nothing new. In fact, the enthusiasm with which reforms are introduced often exceeds the ability to adapt. Every time the administrative machinery gets back on its feet after one reform step, it is attacked by another. Poorer states struggle more to adapt than better-off states because of weak administrative capacity. The central government’s most recent concern is the “regressive” spending pattern of the program, where poorer states spend less NREGA funds than better-off states. as if on cue, a committee to suggest reforms Instead of listening to the long standing demands of the workers and their collectives, it has been formed. NREGA is underperforming because its most basic design principles have been forgotten or willfully ignored. We remind the committee of this simple message.
address rights violations
The first is: removing the delay in wage payments to restore workers’ confidence in the programme. In 2016, the Supreme Court of India directed the government to ensure that wages are paid on time, equating workers waiting for months for wages to “forced labor”. However, not a single decisive step has been taken by the ministry since then. Instead, the process of wage payment made by the central government has become even more complicated. For example, seven or more functionaries must sign before payment as a worker can be approved (stage one of the wage payment cycle). It also does not include the chain of delays from the time the payment is accepted till the payment is made (the second stage of the cycle). In contrast, loans from private banks are processed in fewer steps. The point is that the Ministry of Rural Development should simplify the payment process and be transparent about pending salary payments in phases one and two so that the bottlenecks can be rectified.
The second is: strengthening implementation capacity where spending is low, rather than curbing spending where job creation is high. States that are spending more are implementing the program better because they have better capabilities (as many studies, including the government’s own Economic Survey in 2016), show. For a universal, demand-driven social security program like NREGA, reforms based on ‘targets’ cannot be better. The focus has to be on exclusion and not inclusion of “flaws”. Exclusion should be identified at the household level, rather than using expenditure and income poverty as mere markers. There is ample evidence to show that NREGA is fairly well targeted, benefitting the poorest, particularly Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) households. However, there is scope for improvement. For example, panchayats, blocks and districts where the employment of SC and ST households is less than their proportion in the population should be identified. This would indicate the pockets where the most marginalized are being left out of the programme. Similarly, panchayats should also be identified where the average wages paid are less than the notified wage rates. This would point out the places where the implementing officers should be dragged up for failing to complete the task – which in turn deprives the workers of their minimum wages. NREGA’s online management information system can flag areas where rights are violated instead of being used as a tool by bureaucrats to centralize and control things.
The third is: run the program as a demand-driven law, not as a plan. The intermittent and unpredictable release of funds by the central government is a fundamental reason why state governments are unable to realize the full potential of NREGA. As of today, ₹18,191 crore is outstanding in the liabilities of 24 states. Poorly performing states, due to insufficient funding, generally discourage seeking work and are often denied.
case of bihar
Based on our experience of organizing NREGA workers in several districts of Bihar, we have found that even when we are able to receive receipts of our applications demanding work, workplaces do not open on time, and are provided The work does not match the demand. The Kama Aam campaign was launched by the Ministry of Rural Development in 2013 – due to the declining demand for work under NREGA), the Union Ministry of Rural Development launched this campaign, which literally means “ask for work” – with the help of civil society organization in six districts of six states; 53,000 workers sought work in Katihar district alone and were provided with dated receipts. Unfortunately, the historic number of workers seeking work was cut short by the ministry as funds were not released to the states in time to meet the demand. The lessons learned from such campaigns are part of the institutional memory of the government. In a related instance, workers in Barari block of Katihar were on an indefinite strike as they were not provided with work and wages for the work done by them. In view of the unique financial requirements of this programme, there is a need to re-imagine the general financial rules so that the budgetary allocation remains flexible to meet the requirement of funds by the States in response to the demands of work.
Fourth: Make the discussion on any proposed improvements participatory. NREGA grew out of the demands of a vibrant mass movement across India and its cornerstone is its path-breaking provision for public accountability. There is a need to build on the spirit of public participation, which gave NREGA an institutional framework that was well ahead of its time. In-built consultative processes and forums such as the State and Central Employment Guarantee Councils have to be leveraged. State governments have played an important role in the successes and failures of NREGA, and any proposed reform should bring in representatives of civil society organisations, labor unions and self-help groups in state legislatures, in addition to parliament.
‘Top down’ reform as a problem
Fifth: It is time the Indian government made a serious effort to map the impact of each of its “reforms” on NREGA reach and spending, especially in poorer states. Several “reforms” – most focused on centralization such as an electronic fund management system, geo-tagging of assets and a National Mobile Monitoring System (NMMS) – have impeded implementation. Around 3,000 women NREGA workers in Muzaffarpur district are protesting against the NMMS application, as the app has failed to record their attendance. His salary has been stopped. The members of the committee should meet the protesting workers while visiting different states. The central government must be held accountable for the denial of rights to NREGA workers as a result of top-down “reforms”, as the workers had no role in designing.
Read this also | Corruption, pending payments affect implementation of rural schemes: Parliamentary panel
The article also appeals to this committee to consider some principles to guide its discussions and recommendations. Reforms in NREGA should prioritize access to entitlements with ease and dignity of workers rather than focusing only on administrative and fiscal efficacy.
Rakshita Swamy and Anindita Adhikari are with Social Accountability Forum for Action and Research. Ashish Ranjan is with Jan Jagran Shakti Sangathan, Bihar. All three authors are associated with People’s Action for Employment Guarantee and National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) Sangharsh Morcha