An Insight into the performance of National Rural Employment Guarantee scheme in Maharashtra.
An integral approach to economic development and poverty reduction must encompass employment growth, social security, education and health. Hence, a plethora of employment generating programmes have been initiated in our country since 1970s with the objective of strengthening the rural infrastructure, creating community assets and finally, eradicating the poverty in the rural areas. In the year 1989-90, Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY) was introduced after the merger of National Rural Employment Programme and Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme. But JRY could not provide adequate employment due to corruption and leakages of fund and thus, failed to percolate benefits to the real poor. Therefore, the scheme was restructured and streamlined with the introduction of a programme Jawahar Gram Samridhi Yojana (JGSY) in 1999. The primary objective of JGSY was creation of demand driven community village infrastructure at the village level to enable the rural poor to increase the opportunity for sustained employment. Prior to that in 1993, the Employment Assurance Scheme (EAS) was embarked upon. Swarnjayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY) as the major on-going programme for self-employment to remove poverty in rural areas has been implemented since 1, April, 1999 for wage employment in the rural areas to take care of food security, additional wage employment and for laying village infrastructure at the same time.
The basic objective of the SGSY was to bring the assisted poor families above the poverty line by providing them income-generating assets through a mix of bank credit and Government subsidy. The programme aimed at establishing a large number of microenterprises in rural areas based on the ability of the poor and potential of the area concerned. As a holistic programme of self-employment it covered all aspects of self-employment of the rural poor through the organisation of Self Help Groups (SHGs) and their capacity building, training, selection of key activities, infrastructure development and marketing support. A new wage employment programme namely the Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana (SGRY) was announced in 2001.
There has been wide spread concern that the acceleration in GDP growth in the post reforms period has not been accompanied by a commensurate expansion in employment. Because of withdrawals of the public sector, there is a slow expansion of employment leading to a rise in unemployment rates. Besides, relevance of unemployment among educated females in rural areas has been about three times more than that of their male counterparts, presumably due to limited chances being open to them for migration to urban areas for securing employment.
It is a deplorable situation that there has been inadequacy of employment opportunities, scarcity of land, over dependence on agriculture, dependence on the gambling of monsoon; resulting in disguised unemployment that declines in agricultural productivity in rural India. Thus, agriculture in India provides seasonal employment to our population and as a result, the agricultural workers compete in the labour market in the informal services sectors. As a matter of fact the marginal product of labour determines their wages, but marginal product of labour depends largely on the efficiency of the technology and on the land-to-labour ratio. Any change that would move labour from agriculture to other sectors would increase the land-to-labour ratio in agriculture and thus, ameliorate their economic conditions. Appropriate technologies with their enormous potentialities in enhancing the productivity of agriculture-based enterprises would help in creating employment opportunities. But over the years there has been decline in village industries on the wake of globalisation and strong competitions at global level has made it a great problem for their survival and continuation.
Given the predominance of the agricultural sector in the national economy in terms of employment, a meaningful employment strategy for rural India should accord high priority to the development of agriculture and allied rural sectors. Rapid agricultural growth generally triggers a higher growth in output and employment in non-farm sectors. In India, the emergence of numerous growth poles, including corridors of development along highways, and above all, public expenditure on anti-poverty and other rural development programmes and on rural infrastructure have been playing instrumental role in increasing output and employment in non-farm sectors.
However, agricultural growth ought to act as an important engine of growth for other sectors of the economy, especially in rural areas. Thus, for rural employment policy packages usually aimed at: (a) Accelerating the rates of sectoral and national economic growth (b) Reversing the trend of deceleration of agricultural growth and public investment in agriculture, (c) Promotional policies for labour intensive and higher income generating allied agriculture and nonagricultural activities in rural areas for domestic markets, and (d) Diversification of agriculture towards hitherto neglected dry land areas in central and eastern regions are highly imperative in order to boosting up agricultural production and rural employment and finally assaulting on rural poverty.
National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA)
The concept of National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) is a major initiative of Government of India towards poverty reduction and income generation among rural poor families. In rural India, one major problem is of seasonal employment, i.e. a large number of people have to face lack of employment during certain times of the year. Because of this, many communities in the dry and drought prone areas have to migrate seasonally to other parts of the country in search of work. This annual migration is a painful and disruptive process. Those who are left behind also do not have enough to eat or even the barest money for other basic necessities although there may be no famine. Thus, there has been definitely slow malnutrition and starvation. Even when communities do not migrate they suffer a great amount of distress at such times. Their food intake is reduced, the children are withdrawn from schools, they go into debt and they are unable to attend to their health problems. At such times the need for a safety net is felt and NREGA is a very good protection for this problem. It is most necessary to promote organising so that people can have a formal framework of accessing resources and schemes. Thus, they have a voice to decide where and how resources are to be allocated. NREGA, also by giving a right, helps people to organise themselves and to come together to represent a view.
NREGA in Maharashtra
India with 2.4 per cent of geographical area and 16 per cent of the world population mainly residing in rural habitat that include high shares of landless labourers typically require formal safety nets to reduce vulnerability and sustain people's livelihoods. India already has several large, universal safety net programmes, including the Public Distribution System (PDS) for food and the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) scheme, and in 2006, it launched another scheme popularly known as National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) emanated from India's commitment to a legal right to work. Adopted in the wake of persistent public demand, the NREGS is a mass 'public works programme' (PWP) based on the country's experience in reducing human distress in recent decades in rural Maharashtra state. It promises to sustain the incomes of rural people while creating physical infrastructure that will benefit the country in the long run. Although the programme is relatively new and thus, has not been subject to a comprehensive assessment, early indicators point to areas of success and failure, highlighting the areas where improvements can be made and lessons learned in a public employment programme of this size.
NREGS, which was launched on February 2, 2006, in 200 most backward districts in the first phase, was expanded to 330 districts in the second phase during 2007-08. The remaining 266 districts were notified on September 28, 2008, and the scheme has now been extended to all the districts of the country. More than 4.47 crore households were provided employment in 2008-09. This is a significant jump over the 3.39 crore households covered under the scheme during 2007-08. Out of the 215.63 crore person-days created under the scheme during this period, 29 per cent and 25 per cent were in favour of SC and ST population, respectively and 48 per cent of the total person days created went in favour of women. An allocation of Rs. 30,100 crore has been made in the interim budget for 2009-10 as against Rs. 16,000 crore in 2008-09 for NREGS. The Government in recent years has launched several ambitious programmes in furtherance of its strategy of inclusive growth. Many of these programmes focus on rural areas and population, for example Bharat Nirman for building the essential rural infrastructure in order to provide basic services to the rural people and raise their quality of life. At the same time, schemes like Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission have sought to secure similar services for the urban poor. Besides, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme have ensured that rural poor can demand employment as a matter of right and can manage to have sufficient purchasing power for their basic requirements, especially food.
The National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) is an important policy that guarantees a minimum of hundred days employment at minimum wages every year to each rural household on demand. The scheme is the flagship programme of the Ministry of Rural Development that directly touches lives of the poor and promotes inclusive growth and has been implemented throughout the country in three phases with the objectives of augmenting wage employment, strengthening natural resource management through works that address causes of chronic poverty like drought, deforestation and soil erosion and so encourage sustainable development among the rural poor.
It also aims to include strengthening of grassroots processes of democracy and infusing transparency and accountability in governance by giving a pivotal role to the Panchayat Raj Institutions in planning, monitoring and implementation. The unique features of the programme are time bound employment guarantee and wage payment within 15 days, incentive-disincentive structure to the state governments for providing employment as 90 per cent of cost for employment provided is borne by the centre or payment of unemployment allowance at their own cost and emphasis on labour intensive works prohibiting the use of contractors and machinery.
The state of Maharashtra was a pioneer state to provide guarantee of employment to the rural poor during the drought years of early 1970s. The Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS) Act came into existence in 1979. Since its inception in 1972 till 2005-06, Maharashtra EGS has generated 427.7 crore person days of employment. The works related to EGS are mainly irrigation, forestry, works related to roads, horticulture, Jawahar wells, etc. A number of studies have found that the employment and the income generated by the EGS had a significant impact on economic status of the rural poor. It has been found that it performed better than other poverty alleviation programmes like National Rural Employment Programme, Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme and Integrated Rural Development Programme (Acharya, 1990; Government of India, 2007). These factors have possibly played an important role in reducing the poverty levels as compared to the earlier levels in Maharashtra.
A study by the Centre for Environment and Food Security (CEFS, 2007) about the progress of the programme in Orissa revealed that the government had claimed that out of a budgetary provision of Rs 890 crores for 2006-07, the State Government was able to utilize Rs. 733 crores (that is, 82.4 per cent). As a result 57 days of wage employment was provided during the year. Not a single household was denied wage employment in 19 NREGS districts. The government also claimed that 1.54 lakh families in the State completed 100 days of wage employment during 2006-07.
However, the research team of the CEFS revealed that the hollowness of these claims. Out of Rs. 733 crores spent under the NREGS, more than Rs. 500 crores was unaccounted for, probably siphoned off and misappropriated by government officials. The research team also found that not a single family in the 100 sampled villages was able to secure 100 days of wage employment. Very few families got 20 to 40 days, the rest mostly between five and 20 days, if at all. Fake job cards and fabricated muster rolls exaggerated the benefits of the scheme. The social audit was non-existent. Thus, the ground reality was highly distressing despite tall claims of the government about the success of the NREGS implementation.
Performance of NREGS in Maharashtra
In the light of the above critical analysis regarding the working of NREGS, we can throw light on the performance of NREGS in the state of Maharashtra. The number of works completed at all India level showed an increase throughout the period. At the state level however, a reverse trend is noted and as compared to 200809, the number of works completed in 2010-11 has reduced by 12 times. It is seen that the share of state in total works completed is less than 1 per cent and is reducing over the period concerned (see Table-1)
Phase wise District wise Employment generated under NREGA
Table 2 shows that in the first year of the scheme (phase I) in 2006-07, it was implemented only in 12 most backward districts of the state and share of Nandurbar in terms of person days of employment generated was highest i.e. 37.62 per cent. In the second year (phase II), when six additional districts were included, Gondia had the highest share in terms of employment which was around 15 per cent, followed by Thane--around 12 per cent. In 2008-09 (Phase III), Thane ranked first and was followed by Nandurbar. In 2009-10, Bhandara ranked first with a share of around 15 per cent followed by Nandurbar, Gadchiroli and Yavatmal. Nanded (19 per cent), Bhandara (15 per cent) and Gondia (13 per cent) were the districts with considerable share in the total employment generated in 2010-11.
Table 3 presents share of SCs, STs and women in each district over a period of three years. It is observed that at the state level, the combined share of SCs and STs which was 60 per cent in 2008-09, declined to just around 20 per cent in 2010-11. In case of SCs, it has declined by around 42 per cent and in case of STs, it has declined by around 28 per cent. In case of the former class, only in Hingoli, Nandurbar, Thane and Jalgaon the share has increased or has been maintained over the period concerned. In the later case, only in two districts viz. Hingoli and Nandurbar, the share has increased. This indicates increasing share of the 'other' population as against the SC and ST population.
Employment data of EGS shows that 2001-02 onwards till 2005-06, more than 10 crore man days of employment were generated every year. Total employment under both the schemes taken together is declining as compared to the earlier years. The expenditure per man day of employment however is on rise. With increasing expenditure and declining employment under both the schemes, and inability of NREGA to generate employment comparable to that under EGS (before implementation of NREGA), questions can be raised about sustainability of NREGA in future (see table-4).
Critical Evaluation of NREGA and Prospects
Given the present set of provisions under the Act and the implementation framework, the Act views employment only for unskilled labour and that too for digging, loading and unloading and carrying soil and stones. However, most of the workers in the rural areas do have skills by which they earn their livelihoods. In our opinion, the Act should include the skilled work so that the employment generated is not temporary for the 100 days but could become more long lasting.
The local vigilance group should be formed for one panchayat rather for each village. They should have a formal recognition by the panchayat body. The first step in this direction is to have a base line survey identifying the BPL families. It should not be a rigorous survey rather it should involve minimum information about the number of individuals, income from various sources and the property under his/her possession. Such information should be available to the vigilance groups. If the basic information can be displayed in local language in some common places of the village such as youth club or any other common places that would produce tremendous result.
The role of community groups through vigilance is very much essential for the implementation of schemes under the NREGA, right from the beginning, to ensure that the provisions made under the Act are implemented in the right sense and equity and justice are ensured in every phase of its implementation. For example, apart from the role of PRIs and government monitoring mechanisms, it would be useful if local vigilance groups involved in livelihoods/employment (community organisations and NGOs) could survey wages, works done in their area etc. and build a compendium of sorts over a period of time. This could yield interesting information about wages actually received as checked out by the groups and as reported. This is because while everyone knows full wages are not always paid and they differ immensely through seasons and regions. However, there appears to be no systematic effort to document the difference or discrimination in wages and share the data.
Continued capacity-building is the key to success of the programme. However, the Act does not have clarity on the aspects of capacity building of stakeholders and the resource allocation for this. Members also advocated enlarging the task of the Vigilance Officials or setting up of a new NREGA vigilance cell, having the task of looking at the implementation of the NREGA. On the other hand, it has been felt that the vigilance of schemes by different agencies was essential as it would ensure adequate and transparent implementation of the Act.
The NREGA stipulates that projects shall not be implemented by employment of contractors, because contractors do not pay labour statutory minimum wage and get most of the work done by machines. Muster rolls are faked, labours are underpaid, and bogus workers are shown as paid workers while the actual work is done by machines. The schedule of rates is not observed in practice.
Studies by NGOs reveal that Employment Guarantee Assistants (EGAs) employed by panchayats themselves work as contractors. Besides, in Chattisgarh, the study of 50 per cent of the NREGA works supposed to be implemented by rural labourers and other staff are invariably found using machinery.
The CAG Report (2007) has brought out glaring deficiencies of the NREGA in the following words: The main deficiency was the lack of adequate administrative and technical manpower at the block and gram panchayat level. The lack of manpower adversely affected the preparation of plans, scrutiny, approval, monitoring and measurement of works, and maintenance of stipulated records at the block and gram panchayat level. Besides affecting the implementation of the scheme and provision of employment, this has also impacted transparency adversely, and made it difficult to verify the provision of the legal guarantee of 100 days of employment on demand. Planning was inadequate and delayed, which resulted in poor progress of works. Systems for financial management and tracking were deficient, with numerous instances of diversion/ misutilisation, and delay in transfer of state share. Maintenance of records at the block and gram panchayat level was extremely poor, and the status of monitoring, evaluation and social audit was also not up to the mark (CAG, 2007).
Besides these deficiencies which require remedial action, the NGOs also found in their studies that wherever social mobilisation of rural workers was successful, public pressure led to improved implementation of the scheme, reduction in the use of contractors and machines, reduced corruption in bureaucracy and also resulted in better payment of minimum wages. Obviously, continuous mobilisation of the rural poor is a basic necessity for securing the intended benefits of the NREGA.
Prospects of NREGS
The employment guarantee scheme, if effectively implemented would raise the purchasing power of the rural poor. This would lower the burden of food subsidies. It needs to be noted that the implementation of employment generation programme in part has suffered from many flaws including the high incidence of leakages. As there are many irregularities, it has been suggested that the only meaningful employment guarantee scheme would be one, which is not targeted, but is universal and demand driven.
What the rural poor need is not merely a guarantee of 100 days of work in a year but uninterrupted employment for most part of the year. Implementation is to be decentralised; control vested in local communities and gram sabhas. Transparency and accountability are to be ensured through in-built mechanisms for monitoring and social audit. The work projects should be entrusted to the panchayats. Studies show that panchayat control increases participation, transparency and accountability.
Maharashtra is a leading state as far as industrialisation is concerned. However, a major characteristic feature of the state is the urban centric growth which has taken place around districts of Thane, Mumbai and Pune which are located in western Maharashtra and which contribute more than 30 per cent to the state income. Majority i.e. 55 per cent of the population stays in rural areas and is mainly dependent on agricultural sector for its livelihood. The agricultural sector is characterised by low level of irrigation (16 per cent of the gross cropped area as against the national average of 42 per cent) and explains overall lower productivity of the crops in the state. The state experienced agricultural stagnation and agrarian crisis which got manifested in suicides of farmers in various regions of the state in the post 2000 period.
(1) On the basis of critical assessment of its performance, it has been suggested that the agents of NREGS should be apolitical and have some resources and the ability to create awareness among the society. The suggested agents for the vigilance groups included NGOs, local youth forums, SHGs, people's federations, voluntary organisations, people's groups like Forest Protection/Eco Development Committees, activists, local elites outside the government like lawyers, doctors, teachers/lecturers, and other civil society organisations.
(2) However, there are several issues regarding the alternate mechanisms which need to be addressed before formation of such groups, e.g. the legitimacy of these mechanisms; funding needs; swift remedial action is required; and so on . It has been stressed that if action is not swift and prompt then all these mechanisms would turn into futility.
(3) Under NREGA a shelf of works is developed and implemented as demands for work come from wage seekers. It would lead to problems if calculations are for the rainy and post-rainy season whereas if work is done in summer then the amount of effort needed is much higher but the work out-turn would be lower. It has been suggested that the estimates be provided for two seasons and based on when the work is actually done the appropriate cost estimate be applied.
(4) Although the NREGA has provisions for transparency in the process of implementation, in actual practice, data on the work done and payments made for various kinds of jobs are kept as a closely guarded secret. As a consequence, there is a mockery of social audit. Even some of the fake NGOs are prepared to verify social audit by charging a ridiculously low fee per panchayat. As a result, the most radical provisions of the NREGA are violated with impunity. Stringent steps required to be taken to combat these issues so as to make it transparent.
To sum up, it is extremely important to increase and sustain growth rate of the agricultural sector not only for maintaining food security and improving the standard of living of the rural population, but also for sustaining growth rate of the other sectors of the economy. One major component of sustainable development of agriculture is increasing productivity of land resources by creation of assets and increasing absorptive capacity of the sector. NREGA which aims at creation of employment and generation of assets in rural areas has therefore potential for creating base for sustainable development of the agricultural sector.
Acharya, Sarathi (1990): Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Scheme: A Study of Labour Market Intervention, ILO-ARTEP, New Delhi.
CAG (2007), Draft Performance Audit of Implementation of NREGA, GOI, New Delhi.
CEFS (2007) Study on NREGA in Orissa, Centre for Environment and Food Security. Government of India (2007), Planning Commission, Maharashtra Development Report.
S.N. Tripathy, Professor of Economics, Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, Pune (Maharashtra) E-mail: email@example.com
Table 1 Status of NREGA in Maharashtra and India S. 2008-09 No. Indicators Maharashtra 1 Households provided employment 906297 (2.13) 2 Percentage of HHs provided employment to HHs demanding 99.8 employment 3 Employment days (crore) 4.19 (1.94) 4 Average employment per HHs (days) 46.32 5 Households completing 32510 100 days of employment (no.) 6 Share of SC employment (%) 16.5 7 Share of ST employment (%) 44.2 8 Share of women employment (%) 46.2 9 Number of works completed 10778 (0.89) S. 2009-10 2010-11 No. India Maharashtra India Maharashtra India 1 45115358 591547 (1.12) 52585999 387208 (0.79) 48562559 2 99.11 99.98 99.36 99.59 98.19 3 216.32 2.74 (0.96) 283.59 1.34 (0.6) 219.33 4 47.95 56.37 53.92 47.2 45.16 5 6521268 22630 7083663 23505 3974807 6 29.28 25.61 30.48 20.58 31.33 7 25.43 33.16 20.17 23.43 19.49 8 47.87 39.65 48.09 42.51 48.28 9 1214169 10613 (0.47) 2259482 890 (0.03) 2439746 Note: 1. The table is based on data downloaded in May 2011. 2. Figures in the bracket indicate share of Maharashtra to India. 3. HH--Households Source: Economic survey of Maharashtra and India (various issues), District Implementation Report, http://nrega.nic.in Table 2 District wise Person Days of Employment Generated under NREGA jn Maharashtra (In lakhs) S. No. District 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Phase I 1 Ahmednagar 0.92 (4.42) 1.20 (0.97) 9.68 (2.31) 2 Amravati 3.03 (14.52) 10.82 (8.75) 15.56 (3.71) 3 Aurangabad 0.94 (4.50) 5.00 (4.05) 16.11 (3.84) 4 Bhandara 0.00059 (0.00) 13.07 (10.56) 29.3 (6.98) 5 Chandrapur 2.52 (12.06) 5.09 (4.12) 6.65 (1.58) 6 Dhule 2.16 (10.33) 3.33 (2.70) 11.6 (2.76) 7 Gadchiroli 2.24 (10.70) 13.22 (10.69) 30.56 (7.28) 8 Gondia 0.57 (2.76) 17.99 (14.55) 62.2 (14.82) 9 Nanded 0.57 (2.74) 10.23 (8.27) 27.28 (6.50) 10 Nandurbar 7.87 (37.62) 11.80 (9.54) 29.11 (6.93) 11 Yavatmal 0.04 (0.23) 2.72 (2.20) 62.39 (14.86) 12 Hingoli 0.02 (0.13) 11.39 (9.21) 11.94 (2.84) Phase II 13 Akola 0.53 (0.43) 1.32 (0.31) 14 Buldhana 0.75 (0.61) 6.51 (1.55) 15 Osmanabad 0.50 (0.41) 4 (0.95) 16 Thane 14.96 (12.09) 67.28 (16.03) 17 Wardha 0.68 (0.56) 0.8 (0.19) 18 Washim 0.36 (0.29) 0.71 (0.17) Phase III 19 Beed 0.42 (0.10) 20 Jalgaon 0.25 (0.06) 21 Jalna 3.62 (0.86) 22 Kolhapur 0 (0) 23 Latur 11.39 (2.71) 24 Nagpur 0.97 (0.23) 25 Nashik 1.38 (0.33) 26 Parbhani 8.16 (1.94) 27 Pune 0.17 (0.04) 28 Raigad 0.09 (0.02) 29 Ratnagiri 0 (0) 30 Sangli 0.34 (0.08) 31 Satara 0.03 (0.01) 32 Sindhudurg 0 (0) 33 Solapur 0 (0) Maharashtra 20.93 (100) 123.73 (100) 419.82 (100) S. No. District 2009-10 2010-11 Phase I 1 Ahmednagar 4.46 (1.63) 3.61 (2.70) 2 Amravati 11.24 (4.10) 8.38 (6.27) 3 Aurangabad 16.34 (5.96) 10.71 (8.01) 4 Bhandara 39.9 (14.54) 20.63 (15.42) 5 Chandrapur 6.75 (2.46) 3.91 (2.92) 6 Dhule 6.93 (2.53) 4.16 (3.11) 7 Gadchiroli 27.05 (9.86) 9.27 (6.93) 8 Gondia 16.62 (6.06) 18.48 (13.82) 9 Nanded 17 (6.20) 25.64 (19.17) 10 Nandurbar 35.84 (13.06) 6.46 (4.83) 11 Yavatmal 27.14 (9.89) 1.75 (1.31) 12 Hingoli 4.19 (1.53) 1.88 (1.40) Phase II 13 Akola 0.67 (0.24) 0.33 (0.25) 14 Buldhana 2.86 (1.04) 0.94 (0.70) 15 Osmanabad 2.67 (0.97) 0.60 (0.45) 16 Thane 8.94 (3.26) 2.38 (1.78) 17 Wardha 1.1 (0.40) 0.51 (0.38) 18 Washim 6.84 (2.49) 0.62 (0.47) Phase III 19 Beed 7.29 (2.66) 3.91 (2.92) 20 Jalgaon 0.27 (0.10) 0.90 (0.68) 21 Jalna 1.7 (0.62) 2.44 (1.83) 22 Kolhapur 0 (0) 0.0 (0.00) 23 Latur 8.71 (3.17) 3.11 (2.33) 24 Nagpur 1.28 (0.47) 0.17 (0.13) 25 Nashik 16.27 (5.93) 1.03 (0.77) 26 Parbhani 2.14 (0.78) 1.79 (1.34) 27 Pune 0 (0) 0.0 (0.00) 28 Raigad 0.02 (0.01) 0.02 (0.01) 29 Ratnagiri 0.12 (0.04) 0.08 (0.06) 30 Sangli 0.01 (0.01) 0.0 (0.00) 31 Satara 0 (0) 0.0 (0.00) 32 Sindhudurg 0 (0) 0.0 (0.00) 33 Solapur 0 (0) 0.03 (0.02) Maharashtra 274.35 (100) 133.75 (100.00) Note: 1. Figures in brackets are per centages to Maharashtra. 2. Based on data downloaded in May 2011. Source: District Implementation Report, www.nrega.nic.in. Table 3 Distribution of Man days of Employment Generated according to the Social Class of the beneficiaries (In percentage) SC S. 2008- 2009- 2010- No. District 09 10 11 1 Ahmednagar 7.13 4.48 0.53 2 Amravati 23.39 21.62 2.13 3 Aurangabad 26.88 28.15 0.80 4 Bhandara 17.34 21.18 3.15 5 Chandrapur 19.55 20.00 4.58 6 Dhule 12.84 12.84 0.44 7 Gadchiroli 18.62 19.30 11.04 8 Gondia 15.00 16.91 2.46 9 Hingoli 34.02 31.00 35.57 10 Nanded 35.01 43.22 15.75 11 Nandurbar 5.58 4.38 7.65 12 Yavatmal 26.63 25.30 8.43 13 Akola 43.94 34.33 17.04 14 Buldhana 11.06 30.42 3.22 15 Osmanabad 17.00 17.98 11.45 16 Thane 0.06 0.34 0.36 17 Wardha 23.75 23.64 3.22 18 Washim 22.54 39.91 19.00 19 Beed 26.19 26.06 0.38 20 Jalgaon 12.00 11.11 12.10 21 Jalna 14.92 14.71 0.25 22 Kolhapur 0.00 0.00 9.65 23 Latur 48.02 34.33 25.73 24 Nagpur 50.52 41.41 6.88 25 Nashik 10.87 66.01 8.22 26 Parbhani 28.68 12.62 7.80 27 Pune 5.88 0.00 0.00 28 Raigad 0.00 0.00 0.00 29 Ratnagiri 0.00 0.00 0.00 30 Sangli 29.41 0.00 0.00 31 Satara 33.33 0.00 0.00 32 Sindhudurg 0.00 0.00 0.00 33 Solapur 0.00 0.00 48.71 Maharashtra 16.51 25.61 7.05 ST S. 2008- 2009- 2010- No. District 09 10 11 1 Ahmednagar 23.55 21.30 0.34 2 Amravati 46.79 42.88 1.88 3 Aurangabad 17.63 11.20 0.51 4 Bhandara 10.82 13.78 1.43 5 Chandrapur 29.32 32.30 11.14 6 Dhule 52.76 52.81 9.94 7 Gadchiroli 32.30 44.62 28.74 8 Gondia 18.01 37.12 2.35 9 Hingoli 22.98 22.00 35.69 10 Nanded 25.01 19.98 8.49 11 Nandurbar 84.42 86.26 89.16 12 Yavatmal 29.06 29.59 15.26 13 Akola 18.18 23.88 12.34 14 Buldhana 5.99 12.94 0.43 15 Osmanabad 2.00 1.87 1.11 16 Thane 99.88 94.30 93.04 17 Wardha 23.75 23.64 3.34 18 Washim 23.94 25.44 5.33 19 Beed 14.29 14.95 0.16 20 Jalgaon 36.00 25.93 34.69 21 Jalna 3.04 2.94 0.08 22 Kolhapur 0.00 0.00 0.00 23 Latur 3.78 15.04 2.08 24 Nagpur 18.56 17.97 2.73 25 Nashik 84.06 27.54 35.03 26 Parbhani 8.46 0.00 4.11 27 Pune 0.00 0.00 0.00 28 Raigad 33.33 50.00 30.58 29 Ratnagiri 0.00 0.00 0.64 30 Sangli 0.00 0.00 0.00 31 Satara 0.00 0.00 0.00 32 Sindhudurg 0.00 0.00 0.00 33 Solapur 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maharashtra 44.17 33.16 12.33 Women S. 2008- 2009- 2010- No. District 09 10 11 1 Ahmednagar 53.62 51.79 51.71 2 Amravati 36.57 36.92 31.70 3 Aurangabad 35.01 40.09 47.52 4 Bhandara 46.72 59.25 62.02 5 Chandrapur 28.87 33.19 55.10 6 Dhule 45.00 34.92 45.77 7 Gadchiroli 49.02 19.82 36.53 8 Gondia 60.00 55.72 61.79 9 Hingoli 33.50 32.88 45.01 10 Nanded 38.99 32.25 47.46 11 Nandurbar 58.01 59.95 45.50 12 Yavatmal 24.46 47.49 30.99 13 Akola 23.48 29.85 30.51 14 Buldhana 1.84 41.96 26.40 15 Osmanabad 46.50 33.33 38.82 16 Thane 46.64 44.74 52.39 17 Wardha 18.75 25.45 35.66 18 Washim 28.17 17.11 39.56 19 Beed 100.00 33.06 45.91 20 Jalgaon 28.00 22.22 28.85 21 Jalna 25.14 32.94 46.62 22 Kolhapur 0.00 0.00 72.81 23 Latur 42.14 37.20 49.06 24 Nagpur 45.36 37.50 41.30 25 Nashik 55.07 13.34 41.36 26 Parbhani 37.50 37.38 45.27 27 Pune 47.06 N.A 0.00 28 Raigad 44.44 0.00 47.89 29 Ratnagiri 0.00 0.00 52.91 30 Sangli 61.76 0.00 0.00 31 Satara 33.33 0.00 0.00 32 Sindhudurg 0.00 0.00 0.00 33 Solapur 0.00 0.00 41.45 Maharashtra 46.23 39.66 49.43 Source: District Implementation Report, www.nrega.nic.in. Table 4 Employment Generated under EGS and NREGA in Maharashtra. Man days of Expenditure Employment Expenditure per man generated under day of (crore) EGS and employment NREGS (In generated EGS NREGA crore) (In crore) S. No. Year (1) (2) (3) (4) 1 2001-02 16.17 -- 914.62 56.56 2 2002-03 15.45 -- 889.00 57.54 3 2003-04 18.53 -- 1050.71 56.70 4 2004-05 22.18 -- 1256.47 56.65 5 2005-06 11.64 -- 983.24 84.47 6 2006-07 * 9.23 0.21 717.91 * 77.78 7 2007-08 * 7.8 1.23 932.03 * 119.49 8 2008-09 * 7 4.19 613.70 * 87.67 9 2009-10 * 5.72 ** 2.74 792.79 * 138.60 Note: * EGS figures inclusive of NREGA figures, ** provisional Source: www.mahaegs.nic.in for col.1 and 3, www.nrega.nic.in for col.2
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||Madhya Pradesh Journal of Social Sciences|
|Date:||Jun 1, 2014|
|Previous Article:||Colonialism in India.|
|Next Article:||Effect of seasonal migration on lives of women and children in Chhattisgarh.|