IMPACT OF NREGA ON WAGE RATES,

V.D.SHAHMANISH MAKWANA

AGRO-ECONOMIC RESEARCH CENTRESARDAR PATEL UNIVERSITY

VALLABH VIDYANAGAR – 388 120GUJARAT

MAY – 2011

Research Study No.141138

FOOD SECURITY AND RURAL URBAN MIGRATIONIN GUJARAT

i

Foreword

Amidst great hype and hope, Indian parliament passed a revolutionary novel and

unique Act “Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment GuaranteeAct (MNREGA)” in 2005. It aims at arresting out-migration and enhancing food and

livelihood security of rural peoples on a sustained basis. It is a major initiative of

Government of India towards poverty reduction and income generation among rural

poor families. MNREGA is a unique welfare programme in the world, as no country

in the world has ever given a legal right of this kind to such a large population.

MNREGA is expected to address the worst kind of poverty in the country, as it

provides a legal guarantee for 100 days of employment in every financial year to the

poor rural households at statutory minimum wages. It also introduced novel features

of unemployment allowance. MNREGA is not a welfare programme dishing out

doles. It is a development initiative chipping at durable productive assets which give

momentum to growth process in rural area by improving the purchasing power.

MNREGA programme was implemented in all the rural districts of the country since

April, 2008. There exist a mix bag of opinions on level of impact and functioning of

MNREGA. At present, degree of impact, implementation, irregularities and corruption

in MNREGA programme has become a hot issue of debate for researchers,

academicians and politicians. The conflicting views on level of corruption, functioning

and degree of impact indicates that clear picture on effectiveness of the Act yet to

emerge. Keeping this controversy and debate in view, the Directorate of Economics

& Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India asked Agro-Economic

Research Centre, Vallabh Vidyanagar, Gujarat to undertake study on probing and

quantify the impacts of MNREGA on different parameters and constraints affecting

the effectiveness of the programme in State. The study is intended to assess the

pros and cons of MNREGA programme. The study conducted in 18 States and co-

ordinated by Prof. Pramod Kumar, Institute of Social and Economic Change (ISEC),

Bangalore.

ii

The study was conducted in 5 selected districts namely Dahod, Navsari,Banaskantha, Surendranagar and Jamnagar of Gujarat State. From each

selected district, 2 villages and from each village, 20 participants and 5 non-

participants comprising SC, ST, OBC and others were selected. The field data were

collected by recall from 250 sample households for calendar year 2009.

The study shows that MNREGA holds the key for the development of rural areas,

poverty reduction and income generation among rural poor households. However

low to moderate impact on income level, wage rate of unskilled labour, food security

and livelihood of rural peoples was made by the programme. The people’s

awareness on their legal rights under MNREGA was found below expectation. The

MNREGA not able to generate the kind of employment demand as expected. On the

basis of survey report, policy suggestions have been made to improve the

development, effectiveness of MNREGA. The results of the study suggests that after

implementing corrective measures, MNREGA holds out prospects of not only

transforming livelihoods of the poorest people, but also heralding a revolution in rural

governance of India.

Shri V D Shah, Research Officer of our centre, put in lot of efforts and unquantifiable

work for preparing this enrich and excellent evaluation research report. The special

thank to Shri Manish Makwana, Research Associate of our centre and to entire

project team for providing necessary help and co-operation at all the stages of study

report.

We will feel extremely rewarded if the finding of the study can generate sufficient

interest among academicians, policy makers and those who have keen interest in

agricultural and rural development of country.

Date: 23-05-2011 Dr. R. H. PatelPlace: Vallabh Vidyanagar Director

iii

Preface

The “Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA)”was enacted in 2005 to provide a minimum guaranteed wage employment of 100

days in every financial year to rural households with unemployed adult members

prepared for unskilled manual work. MNREGA ranks among the most powerful

initiatives ever undertaken for transformation of economy of rural households in

India. It holds out prospect of not only transforming livelihood of poorest people but

also heralding a revolution in rural governance of India. It aims at arresting out-

migration and enhancing food and livelihood security of rural peoples on a sustained

basis. It recognizes employment as a legal right. MNREGA is in implementation in all

the rural districts of the country since April, 2008. At present, degree of impact,

implementation, irregularities and corruption of MNREGA has become a hot issue of

debate for researchers, politicians etc. Keeping controversy and debate in views,

Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India

asked to undertake this study. In this study, attempt has been made to assess the

impact of MNREGA on wage rates, food security and rural urban migration in five

selected districts of Gujarat State. The study is based on both, secondary and

primary data. The primary data collected for the reference year 2009 from 200

participant and 50 non-participant households spread over 5 districts namely

Banaskantha, Navsari, Dahod, Surendranagar and Jamnagar of Gujarat State.

This report is a product of support, help and contribution from many individuals and

organisations. I commend all of them for their valuable contribution.

I would like to place on record my sincere thanks to Dr. R.H.Patel, Director of our

centre, Dr.Mahesh Pathak, Hon. Advisor of centre and Dr. R.A.Dutta, Deputy

Director of centre for providing valuable guidance and infrastructural support as and

when needed.

Special thanks are due to Shri H.N.Chibber, Additional Commissioner (MNREGA),

Commissionerate of Rural Development, Government of Gujarat and all MNREGA

officials at study districts / talukas for providing necessary help and support at all

iv

stages of the study. I would like to thank Sarpanch / Talati of selected villages,

sample households and all others who have directly or indirectly provided valuable

help and support in field work and preparing this valuable report. I am equally

grateful to Dr.M.N.Swain, Research Officer for helping in Logit analysis.

I register my special thank to Shri Manish Makwana, Research Associate at centre

and entire project team for their help, support and contribution in making this study

so enrich.

I am also thankful to Prof. Pramod Kumar, Institute for Social and Economic Change,

Bangalore, who as a co-ordinator of the study provided valuable guidance and all

kind of support as and when needed.

I am equally grateful to Mr. Utpal Ghosh, Economic & Statistical Advisor, Directorate

of Economics and Statistics; Mr.B.S.Bhandari, Advisor, Ministry of Agriculture, GoI;

Mr. V.P. Ahuja, Additional Economic Advisor, Ministry of Agriculture, GoI and

Mr.B. Naik, Economic Officer, Ministry of Agriculture, GoI for providing their help as

and when needed.

I am sure the findings and recommendations of the study will be useful for

administrators, policy makers and those who have interest in rural development of

the country.

Date: 23-05-2011 V.D.ShahPlace: Vallabh Vidyanagar Project Leader

v

Project Team

Sr.No. Activities Name Designation

1 Project Leader Shri V. D.Shah Research Officer2 Project Assistant Shri Manish Makwana Research Associate3 Field work Team Shri Manish Makwana Research Associate

Shri C. M. Patel Field Supervisor (CCS)

Shri J. S. Raj Agriculture Assistant (CCS)

Shri Hitesh Makwana Agriculture Assistant (CCS)Shri J. N. Singh Computer (CCS)

4 Tabulation /Data Processing Shri Manish Makwana Research Associate

5 Data /Draft Entry

Shri J. B. Kahar Data Entry Operator

Shri Himanshu Parmar Research Fellow

Shri Hemal Padhiyar Research Fellow

Ms. Kalpana kapadia Research Associate6 Secondary

Data Tabulation Shri Shreekant Sharma Research Associate

7 Miscellaneous Shri Vinod Parmar P.A. to Director

vi

ContentsChapter No. Title Page No.

Foreword iPreface iiiProject Team vList of Tables ix

CHAPTER 1: Introduction 1 - 201.1 Background

1.2 Workfare Programmes in India

1.3 Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act

1.4 Review of Literature On MNREGA

1.5 Need of the Study

1.6 Objectives of the Study

1.7 Sampling Design

1.8 Reference Year

1.9 Data Collection

1.10 Limitation

1.11 Organization of Study Report

CHAPTER 2: Agricultural Profile, Functioning and Socio-EconomicCharacteristics of MNREGA in Selected Districts and State

21 - 74

Section –I Demography Details of Selected Districts and State

2.1.1 Population

2.1.2 Agriculture Profile of Selected Districts

Section – II Functioning, Employment and Socio-Economic Characteristicsof MNREGA2.2.1 Implementation and Administrative Setup in Gujarat

2.2.2 Job Cards Issued and Employment Generation by Sex and Castes

2.2.3 Works Undertaken under MNREGA during 2008-09 to 2010-11

2.2.4 Expenditure on Works Undertaken under MNREGA

2.2.5 Social Auditing and Inspection of MNREGA works

2.2.6 Unemployment Allowance

2.2.7 Wage Payment through Banks/Post Offices

vii

2.2.8 Work projection under MNREGA for 2010-11

Summary

CHAPTER 3: Characteristics, Income and Consumption Pattern ofSample Households

75 - 95

3.1 Demographic Profiles of the Sample Households

3.2 Per Household Occupation (Activity) wise Mandays-2009

3.3 Source-wise Per Household Annual Net Income-2009

3.4 Item-wise Food Consumption (Per Capita / Month)-2009

3.5 Per Capita Monthly Consumption Expenditure of Sample Households –20093.6 Inequality (variability) in Income and Consumption of Sample HHs. -20093.7 Factors Impacting Participation in MNREGA-Logit Regression AnalysisSummary

CHAPTER 4: Work Profile, Wage Differential and Migration underMNREGA

96 - 113

4.1 Work Profile under MNREGA of Sample HHs.-2009

4.2 Activity-wise Employment under MNREGA-2009

4.3 The Out-Migration Incidents – 2009

4.4 Wage Differentials between MNREGA and Non-MNREGA works

Summary

CHAPTER 5: The Qualitative Aspects of the Functioning of MNREGA 114-1445.1 Assets Holding (Rs. /HHs.)

5.2 Borrowings by Sample Households – 2009

5.3 Borrowing Sources in Sample Villages and Investment in Assets bySample HHs.-20095.4 Some Qualitative Aspects of Functioning of MNREGA

5.5 Quantitative Information with Reason on Functioning of MNREGA

5.6 Beneficiaries Perception on Potential Benefits of MNREGA

5.7 Perception of Beneficiaries on Food Security and Related Aspects withSuggestions to Improve MNREGA FunctioningSummary

viii

CHAPTER 6: MNREGA impact on village economy 145-1576.1 Infrastructure Availability within Study Village-2009

6.2 Changes in Occupational Pattern-2009

6.3 Effects of MNREGA on Wage Rates in Study Villages

6.4 Effects of MNREGA on Labour Charges for Agricultural Operations

6.5 Some Questions about Functioning of MNREGA

Summary

CHAPTER 7: Concluding Remarks And Policy Recommendations 158-177

A. Concluding Remarks

B. Policy Recommendations

Bibliography 178-179Appendix- 1 to 2 180-197Comments from the Co-ordinator 198Action taken on the comments 199

ix

List of TablesTable No. Title Page No.1.1 Performance of NREP in the sixth and seventh five year plan 21.2 Performance of RLEGP in the Seventh Plan 31.3 Employment Generated By SGRY and NFFWP-2002-03 to 2005-06 41.4 Total Employment Generated and Expenditure under MNREGA in

India -2006-07 to 2009-10 11

1.5 Details of Selected Sample Districts and Sample Villages 172.1 Demography Details of selected District and State 232.2 Agricultural Statistics at a Glance for Selected Districts 252.3 (i) Fund Availability and Utilization for MNREGA in Gujarat State

–2008-2009 29

2.3(ii) Fund Availability and Utilization for MNREGA in Gujarat State- 2009-2010 30

2.4 (i) Employment generated through MNREGA and its socio-economiccharacteristics in Gujarat-2008-09 38

2.4 (ii) Employment generated through MNREGA and its socio-economiccharacteristics in Gujarat-2009-10 39

2.4(iii) Employment generated through MNREGA and its socio-economiccharacteristics in Gujarat-2010-11 (Till Aug.’2010) 40

2.5 (i) District wise number of works completed/progress under MNREGA -2008-09 45

2.5(ii) District wise number of works completed/progress under MNREGA-2009-10 46

2.5(iii) District wise number of works completed/progress under MNREGA -2010-2011 (Till Aug -2010) 47

2.6 (i) District wise amount spent on works completed/progress underMNREGA-2008-09 49

2.6 (ii) District wise amount spent on works completed/progress underMNREGA-2009-10 50

2.6 (iii) District wise amount spent on works completed/progress underMNREGA-2010-11 (Till Aug 2010) 51

2.7 (i) District-wise social auditing and inspection of MNREGA works inGujarat-2008-09 54

2.7 (ii) District-wise social auditing and inspection of MNREGA works inGujarat-2009-10 55

2.7 (iii) District-wise social auditing and inspection of MNREGA works inGujarat-2010-11(Till Aug 2010) 56

2.8 Unemployment Allowance Paid (2010-11)-Gujarat 592.9(i) District-wise wage payment through banks/post offices in Gujarat -

2008-09 61

2.9(ii) District-wise wage payment through banks/post offices in Gujarat -2009-10 62

2.9(iii) District-wise wage payment through banks/post offices in Gujarat -2010-11(Till Aug 2010) 63

2.10 Work projection under MNREGA for 2010-11-Gujarat State 652.10(i) Work projection under MNREGA for 2010-11-Banaskantha District 672.10(ii) Work projection under MNREGA for 2010-11-Dahod District 68

x

2.10(iii) Work projection under MNREGA for 2010-11-Navsari District 692.10(iv) Work projection under MNREGA for 2010-11-Jamnagar District 702.10(v) Work projection under MNREGA for 2010-11-Surendranagar District 713.1 Demographic profiles of the Sample Household (% of HHs.) 773.2 Per Household Occupation - Wise Man-days - 2009 803.3 Household Net Annual Income (Rs per HH.) 823.4 Per Capital Per Month Consumption of Food Items For Sample

HHs. 85

3.5 Per Capita Monthly Consumption Expenditure of SampleHHs.-2009 86

3.6 Inequality (Variability) in Consumption and Income of Sample HHs.-2009. 89

3.7 Determinants of participation in NREGA (Logit function) 903.8 Factors Affecting MNREGA employment

(HH Level OLS Regression) 92

3.9 Factors Affecting MNREGA employment(Member Level OLS Regression) 92

4.1 The Work Profile Under MNREGA For Beneficiary SampleHouseholds In Selected Districts (Ref.period – Jan-Dec. - 2009) 98

4.2 The activity-wise employed under MNREGA and the quality ofassets created –2009 (% of HHs.) 102

4.3 The Migration Incidents Recorded During January – December–2009 (For Beneficiary HHs.) 107

4.4 Wage Differentials Between different activities –2009 1095.1 Assets Holdings (Rs/HHs.) 1155.2 Average Borrowings per sample Household-2009 (Rs. /HHs.) 1165.3 Household Status on Borrowing -2009 (% of HHs.) 1185.4 Qualitative Information Related to Functioning of MNREGA

(% of Ben. HHs.) 121

5.5 Quantitative Information with Reasons on Functioning of MNREGA(% of Bene.HHs.) 133

5.6 Beneficiaries Perception on Potential Benefits of MNREGA(Percentage of HHs.) 135

5.7 Perception of Beneficiaries on Food Security and Related Aspectswith Suggestions to Improve MNREGA Working (% of Ben. HHs.) 138

6.1 Infrastructure available within sample villages (percentage tovillages) 146

6.2 Occupational pattern (% of HHs. Of sample villages) 1476.3 Effects of MNREGA on Wage Rates of different Activities

(Average of all sample villages - Rs. /Day) 149

6.4 Prevailing labour charges for agricultural operations(Average of all villages) 150

6.5 Qualitative Questions on Changes In the Villages During Last OneYear (% of HHs.) 153

6.6 Quantitative Questions About the Functioning of MNREGA 154Appendix- 1 to 2 180-197

1

Chapter - 1Introduction

1.1 Background:Indian economy suffers from several distortions since independence.

Though, current Indian economy is on a higher growth trajectory, it still suffers

from high incidence of poverty and unemployment in rural India. Agriculture

and allied sectors, which houses atleast 60 percent of the Indian population is

a backbone of rural economy. The low rate of growth of agriculture sector also

affected the rate of creation of employment opportunities in rural areas. It is

observed that majority of the poor in rural areas of the country largely depend

on the wages earned through unskilled casual manual labour. They are often

on threshold levels of subsistence and are not free from possibility of sinking

from transient to chronic poverty. The inadequate labour demand in lean

period or unpredictable events like natural disaster or personal ill-health, all

such have adverse impact on the level of employment, income and livelihood

securities of rural population. In a context of rural poverty and unemployment,

workfare programmes are considered as most important interventions. These

programmes typically provide unskilled manual workers with short term

employment on public works such as irrigation, soil and water conservation,

rural connectivity, reforestation etc. These all workfare programmes provide

income transfer to poor households in critical times and prevent worsening

their poverty and food security particularly during slack agricultural seasons. It

was realized that workfare programmes for sustainable poverty alleviation has

to be based on increasing the productive employment opportunities in the

process of growth itself. The durable assets created under such workfare

programmes may also have the potential to generate second round of

employment benefits.

1.2 Workfare Programmes in India:The need to erect a mechanism to supplement existing livelihood

sources in rural areas was recognised long back in development planning in

India. The Government of India and State Government introduced number of

workfare programmes that offered wage employment on public works to

needy rural households. The wage employment programmes started since

2

long back. It started as pilot projects in the form of Rural Manpower (RMP)

[1960-61], Crash Scheme for Rural Employment (CRSE) [1971-72], Pilot

Intensive Rural Employment Programme (PIREP) [1972], Small Farmers

Development Agency (SFDA), Marginal Farmers & Agricultural Labour

Scheme (MFAL) to benefit the poorest section of the poor. These

experimental programmes were converted into a full fledge wage employment

programme in the form of Food for Work Programme (FWP) [1977]. In the

sixth five year plan assigning more stress on employment and poverty

alleviation, FWP was further streamlined and Ministry of Rural Development

(MoRD), Government of India (GoI) launched National Rural Employment

Programme (NREP) [1980]. The generation of additional gainful employment

in rural areas and creation of durable assets were important objectives of this

programme. The detail on resource availability, expenditure, employment

generation etc. under NREP is shown in below given Table-1.1.

Table 1.1: Performance of NREP in the sixth and seventh five year plan

Source: Planning commission, GoI (1990) NA=Not Available

The NREP had a substantial impact on stabilization of wages in rural

areas, employment and creation of community assets. The main drawback of

NREP was that it lacked a direct focus on the target group, landless and

poorest of poor.

In August 1983, Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme

(RLEGP) was introduced by MoRD, GoI. The main objective of RLEGP was

providing guarantee of employment to at least one member of every landless

household upto 100 days per year and creating durable assets. RLEGP was

Year Resourceavailability

( Rs.crores)

Expenditure(Rs. crores)

Employmentsgeneration

(in million mandays)

Manaverage-daycost(Rs.)

Wage:Material

ratio

1980-81 346.32 219.03 413.58 5.25 -1981-82 460.37 317.63 354.52 9.04 62:381982-83 540.15 394.76 351.20 11.24 69:311983-84 535.59 392.22 302.76 13.08 62:381984-85 590.68 519.14 352.31 14.74 60:401985-86 593.08 531.95 316.41 16.81 60:401986-87 765.13 717.77 395.39 18.15 60-401987-88 888.21 788.31 370.77 21.26 59:411988-89 845.68 901.84 394.96 22.83 57:43

3

fully financed by central government and its implementation was entrusted to

States/ UTs. They were required to prepare specific projects for approval by

central committee. During 1983-85, central committee approved 320 projects

with estimated cost of Rs.906.59 crores. The details of employment

generation and others during seventh plan under RLEGP are shown below.

Table 1.2: Performance of RLEGP in the Seventh PlanYear Resource

availability(Rs.

crores)

Expenditure(Rs.

crores)

Employmentsgeneration(in millionman days)

Manaverage-day cost

(Rs.)

Wage:Material

ratio

1985-86 580.35 453.17 247.58 18.30 57.431986-87 649.96 635.91 306.14 20.77 57.431987-88 648.41 653.53 304.11 21.49 58.421988-89 761.55 669.37 296.56 22.57 58.42

Source: Planning commission, GoI (1990)

On the basis of lesson learnt, NREP and RLEGP were merged and

named as Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY) in 1993-94. In JRY, Central and

State contribution was 80:20. The JRY was launched with total allocation of

Rs.2600 crores to generate 93.1 crores mandays of employment. The main

objective of JRY was generation of additional employment on productive

works which either benefit to the rural poor or create useful rural infrastructure

for community. The 20 percent of JRY funds was earmarked for Million Wells

Scheme (MWS). The objective of MWS was to provide open wells free of cost

to poor SC/ST farmers having category of marginal and small farmers and

free bonded labourers.

The Employment Assurance Scheme (EAS) was launched on 2nd

October, 1993. It was launched in 1975 identified backward blocks of the

country situated in drought prone, desert and hill areas. Subsequently, EAS

was extended to additional blocks which were newly included in Drought

Prone Area Programme (DPAP), Desert Development Programme (DDP),

Modified Area Development Approach (MADA) and blocks in flood prone

areas of UP, Bihar, Assam and J & K. In addition, 722 non-EAS blocks

covered under second stream of JRY were also brought under EAS. The main

objective of the EAS was to provide about 100 days of assured casual manual

employment during lean agricultural season at statutory minimum wage rate

to all persons of 18-60 years who needs employment on economically

4

productive and labour intensive community works. On account of number of

deficiencies in planning and implementation, the basic objectives of JRY and

EAS were eroded severely. Therefore, government merged the EAS and JRY

and new programme Jawahar Gram Samriddhi Yojana (JGSY) came into

effect from 1990-2000 and it was made a rural infrastructure programme.

JGSY was least understood by the target groups and was found lacking in its

goal oriented implementation. The violation of guidelines was also observed in

its implementation. It performed poorly. Hence within a short time span, it was

merged into a new scheme Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana (SGRY)

(2001-02). The objectives of SGRY were to create additional wage

employment in rural areas, alongwith supply of foodgrains as part of wages to

enhance food security, creation of durable community and economic assets

and to develop infrastructure in rural areas. The several problems such as too

low wages, use of migrant labour and machinery, use of contractors, non

lifting of grains by some states, violation of guidelines etc. were observed in

its implementation. The parliamentary committee found implementation and

performance of SGRY as extremely poor.

In most 150 backward districts, the National Food for Work Programme

(NFFWP) was launched in 2000-01 by MoRD, GoI. The wages under SGRY

and NFFWP programmes were paid partly in cash and partly in the form of

foodgrains valued at BPL rates. It was felt that there was an excess flow of

foodgrains for the poor through the wage employment schemes. The

programme SGRY and NFFWP, which covered the whole country, generated

748 million persondays in 2002-03 and 912 million in 2004-05. The total

persondays generated under SGRY + NFFWP programmes during 2002-03 to

2005-06 is shown below in Table 1.3.Table 1.3: Employment Generated By SGRY and NFFWP-2002-03 to 2005-06

Year 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

Persondaysgeneratedunder SGRY+NFFWP(In millions)

748 856 912 1116

Source: MoRD, GoI, NREGA Act, 2005.

These all wage employment programmes implemented by state

governments with central assistance were self targeting and objective was to

5

provide an enhance livelihood security, especially for those dependent on

casual manual labour. Based on the experience of these programmes, the

National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) was enacted to reinforce

government commitment towards livelihood security in rural areas. The Act

was notified on 7th September, 2005.

1.3 Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act(MNREGA):

Amidst great hype and hope, Indian parliament passed a revolutionary

novel and unique Act i.e. National Rural Employment Guarantee Act

(NREGA) in 2005. The ongoing programmes of Sampoorn Grameen Rozgar

Yojana (SGRY) and National Food for Work Programme (NFFWP) were

subsumed within NREGA. It is renamed on 2nd October 2009, as Mahatma

Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA).

Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) is engaged in the

implementation of MNREGA. It aims at arresting out-migration of rural

households in search of employment and enhancing livelihood security of

rural people’s on a sustained basis by developing economic and social

infrastructure in rural areas. In the past, all employment programmes in India

targeted at the poor generally identified with aim of poverty alleviation. The

MNREGA is the largest ever public employment programme visulised in

human history and it goes beyond poverty alleviation and recognizes

employment as a legal right. This legal commitment is a landmark event in the

history of poverty alleviation strategies of India. It is also unique welfare

programme in the world, as no country in the world has ever given a legal

right of this kind to such a large population. This legal right implies that the

constraint of fixed budget allocation will no longer effect the employment

attendant entitlement.

MNREGA guarantees at least 100 days of wage employment in every

financial year to rural households whose adult members are willing to do

unskilled manual work in the rural areas. The Act came in force on 2nd

February 2006, in 200 backward districts of the country. From 1st April 2007, it

was extended to 130 more districts. The Act has been extended to all the

remaining 266 districts (barring urban districts) with effect from 1st April 2008.

6

As discussed above, this act is expected to address the worst kind of

poverty in the country, as it will provide unskilled wage work to the poor at the

bottom who have very low risk bearing capacity and poor credit worthiness to

take up self employment ventures and have strong preference for wage work.

By guaranteeing them wage work at minimum wages, the act can create

significant impact on their livelihood, out-migration and food security aspects

on one hand and reduction in the multiples vulnerability on the other hand.

The most novel feature of MNREGA is the complete ban on the use of

contractor and machines and provision of unemployment allowances

(if employment not provided within 15 days). It ensures grass-root level

participation of every rural citizen through democratic process, multi-layered

transparent social audit, participatory planning, monitoring and

implementation at village level etc. MNREGA is not a welfare programme

dishing out doles. It is a development initiative chipping in with crucial public

investment for creation of durable productive assets which give momentum to

growth process, arrest rural-urban migration and empower rural women in

backward areas of rural India. It focuses on village level planning of works and

mechanism of social audit.

The scheme is implemented through collaborative partnership right

from Gram Sabhas to Central Government. Community participation by way

of (i) Gram Sabha (ii) Local vigilance & monitoring committees and (iii) Self

Help Groups (SHGs) and ensures active role by Civil Society Organizations.

At official level, the scheme was embedded with inbuilt monitoring &

evaluation mechanism at every layer of implementation including online

monitoring through Monitoring and Information System (MIS).

All these features of MNREGA signal the inauguration of a wholly new

chapter in rural governance in India.

1.3.1 Features of the MNREGA:

The main salient features and key processes in the implementation of

MNREGA are summarized below:

a) Adult members of a rural household may apply for employment if they

are willing to do unskilled manual work.

7

b) Such a household will have to apply for registration to the local Gram

Panchayat (GP) in writing or orally.

c) The Gram Panchayat after due verification will issue a Job Card to the

household as a whole. The Job Card will bear the photograph of all

adult members of the household willing to work under MNREGA. The

Job Card with photograph is free of cost.

d) A Job Card holding household may submit a written application for

employment to the gram Panchayat or programme officer stating the

time and duration for which work is sought. The minimum days of

employment have to be fifteen.

e) The Gram Panchayat will issue a dated receipt of the written

application for employment against which the guarantee providing

employment within 15 days.

f) Employment will be given within the 15 days of application for work by

an employment seeker.

g) If employment is not provided within 15 days, daily unemployment

allowance, in cash has to be paid. Liability of payment of

unemployment allowance is of the States.

h) At least one-third of person to whom work is allotted have to be

women.

i) Wages are to be paid according to minimum wages as prescribed

under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for agricultural labourers in the

State, unless the centre notifies a wage rate which will not be less than

Rs.60/ per day.

j) Generally disbursement of wages has to be done on weekly basis and

it should not be beyond a fortnight.

k) Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRIs) have a principal role in planning,

implementation and monitoring. The Gram Sabha must monitor the

execution of projects and conduct social audit of all projects executed

within its territorial jurisdiction.

l) Each district has to prepare a shelf of projects. The works for providing

employment are to be selected from the list of permissible works. The

shelf of projects has to be prepared on the basis of priority assigned by

8

Gram Sabhas. The execution of at least 50 % of works has to be

allotted to Gram Panchayats.

m) The use of Contractors and labour displacing machinery is prohibited.

n) The ratio of wage costs to material costs should be no less than the

minimum norm of 60:40 stipulated in the Act. This ratio should be

applied preferably at GP, Block and District level. State Government

should devise a method for transparent procurement of materials to be

used under MNREGA.

o) Work should ordinarily be provided within 5 kms. radius of the village or

else extra wages of 10% are payable.

p) Work site facilities such as crèche, drinking water, rest shade, medical

aid, child care etc. have to be provided.

q) Social Audit has to be done by Gram Sabha.

r) Grievance redressal mechanisms have to be put in place for ensuring a

responsive implementation process. Complaints should be submitted to

the programme officer and disposed of within 7 days of its receipt.

s) All accounts and records relating to the scheme are to be made

available to any person desirous of obtaining a copy of such records on

demand and after paying a specified fee.

1.3.2 Permissible Works under MNREGA:The different categories of permissible works are as follows:

i) Water conservation and water harvesting.

ii) Drought proofing including afforestation and tree plantation

iii) Irrigation canals including minor irrigation works

iv) Provision of irrigation facility, plantation, horticulture, land development

to land owned by households belonging to the SC/ST or to land of the

beneficiaries of land reforms or to land of the beneficiaries under the

Indira Awas Yojana/ BPL families.

v) Renovation of traditional water bodies including de-silting of tanks

vi) Land development

9

vii) Flood-control and protection works including drainage in waterlogged

areas

viii)Rural connectivity to provide all weather access. The construction of

roads may include culverts where necessary and within the village area

may be taken up along with drain. Care should be taken not to take up

roads included in the PMGSY network under MNREGA. No cement

concrete roads should be taken up under MNREGA. Priority should be

given to roads that give access to SC/ST habitations.

ix) Any other work that may be notified by the Central Government in

consultation with the State Government.

x) The above list of permissible works represents the initial thrust areas.

In some circumstances, locations or seasons, it may be difficult to

guarantee employment within this initial list of permissible works. In

such circumstances, the State Governments may make use of section

1(ix) of schedule I, whereby new categories of work may be added to

the list on the basis of consultations between the State Governments

and the Central Government.

xi) The maintenance of assets created under the scheme (including

protection of afforested land) will be considered as permissible work

under MNREGA. The same applies to the maintenance of assets

created under other programmes but belonging to the sectors of works

approved in Schedule I of the Act.

xii) MNREGA resources should not be used for land acquisition. Land

belonging to small and marginal farmers or SC/ST landowners cannot

be acquired or donated for works under the programme.

1.3.3 Funding Procedure of MNREGA:A) The central government bears the costs on the following items.

a) The entire cost of wages of unskilled manual workers.

b) 75% of the cost of material, wages of skilled and semi skilled

workers.

c) Administrative expenses as may be determined by the central

government, which will include interalia, the salary and the

10

allowances of the programme officer and his supporting staff work

site facilities.

d) Expenses of the National Employment Guarantee Council.

B) The State Government bears the costs on the following items:

a) 25% of the cost of material, wages of skilled and semi skilled

workers.

b) Unemployment allowance payable in case the State Government

cannot provide wage employment on time.

c) Administrative expenses of the State Employment Guarantee

Council (SEGC).

Each district has dedicated account for MNREGA funds. They

have to submit their proposals based on clearly delineated guidelines

so that funds may be distributed efficiently at each level and adequate

funds may be available accordingly respond to demand. Under

MNREGA, fund release is based on an appraisal of both financial and

physical indicators of outcomes.

1.3.4 MNREGA Goals:Strong social safety net for the vulnerable groups by providing a fall-back

employment sources when others employment alternatives are scarce,

inadequate or nil.

a) Growth engine for sustainable development of an agricultural

economy, through the process of providing employment on works

that address causes of chronic poverty such as drought,

deforestation and soil erosion. The Act seeks to strengthen the

natural resources base of rural livelihood and create durable assets

which have potential to generate additional employment in the

years to come in rural areas. Effectively implemented, MNREGA

has the potential to transform the geography of rural poverty.

b) To provide employment to rural poor through the process of a right

based law.

c) New ways of doing business, as a model of governance reforms

anchored on the principle of transparency and grass root

democracy.

11

1.3.5 Total Employment Generated and Expenditure under MNREGA inIndia during 2006-2010:

Table 1.4 given below provide details relating to amount spent under

MNREGA, employment generated, number of works taken and completed

under MNREGA.

For the country as a whole, in the year 2006-07, Rs.8823.25 crore was

spent against the budget outlay of Rs.11300 crore and employment of 90.50

crore persondays were generated. Employment was provided to 2.10 crore

households. A total of 8.35 lakh works were taken up of which 3.97 lakh were

completed. During 2007-08, against the fund availability of Rs.19278.78 crore,

an amount spent was Rs.15858.44 crore. It generated 143.68 crore person

Table 1.4: Total Employment Generated and Expenditure underMNREGA in India-2006-07 to 2009-10.

Year FundsAvailability

(Rs.crore)

TotalExpenditure

(Rs.crore)

Employment Number of works

No. ofHHs.

(Crore)

Persondays

(Crore)

Taken(Lakh)

Completed(Lakh)

2006-07 11300.00 8823.25 2.10 90.50 8.35 3.97

2007-08 19278.78 15858.44 3.39 143.68 17.81 8.20

2008-09 37361.40 27250.68 4.51 216.32 27.25 12.14

2009-10 49653.06 37971.19 5.26 283.32 46.03 20.97Source: http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/npr_ht/nregampr-dav.aspx Downloaded on 3rd August, 2010.

days of employment covering 3.39 crore households. In year 2008-09, against

total availability of Rs.37361.40 crore, expenditure incurred was of

Rs.27250.68 crore. It generated 216.32 crore person days of employment

covering 4.51 crore households. Total works taken up were 27.25 lakh of

which 12.14 lakh works completed. In 2009-10, total amount spent was

Rs.37971.19 crore and it generated 283.32 crore person days of employment

covering 5.26 crore households. A total of 46.03 lakh works were taken up of

which 20.97 lakh works were completed. Upto end of 2009-10, it provided

733.82 crore person days of employment to 15.26 crore households by

spending Rs.89903.56 crore. The huge spending indicates the gigantic size of

programme.

12

1.4 Review of literature On MNREGA:A number of researchers, various institutions and NGOs conducted

studies which looked into the impact of MNREGA on various aspects such as

employment generation, alleviation of poverty, food security, out-migration

overall rural development and issues/deficiencies of implementation. Of these,

some studies found visible positive impact of MNREGA on income, curtailing

out-migration and ensuring food-security. Some studies reported concern over

several issues such as corruption, system defects, monitoring, social audit

and way of implementation of the Act. The main findings of some important

studies are discussed below.

The study “MNREGA Opportunities and Challenges1 (2008)” conducted

by CSE, New Delhi found that MNREGA intervention has not been able to

generate the kind of employment demand as expected. Irrational wage

calculation formula has made productive assets creation less lucrative to local

communities. The MNREGA transformed a labour surplus economy to a

labour using economy. There is excitement over its state of implementation

whenever local communities have been able to use MNREGA for

development with direct impact on their livelihoods and disappointment

whenever local bureaucracy is calling the shot in MNREGA implementation.

The study conducted by IAMR, New Delhi2 (2008) found that MNREGA

had noticeable impact on arresting out migration. To some extent, it impacted

positively on income, purchasing capacity and food-security and ownership of

milk animals. Many job card holders neither get employment within stipulated

period of 15 days nor get any unemployment allowance.

Varsha Joshi and Surjit Singh, IDS, Jaipur3 conducted evaluation study

in Rajasthan. They observed that after MNREGA’s intervention, the migration

certainly decreased but not completely stopped. MNREGA augmented the

purchasing power of family, offer better road connectivity to villages, helping

in declining debt (marginally), increased agricultural production and thereby

farm income.

The study conducted by P.Ambasta, Vijay Shankar and Mihir Shah4

(2008) reveals that department is facing an acute shortage of manpower at

the district, taluka and village levels which affecting the effective

implementation of MNREGA. Most of the appointments are on contract basis.

13

Many posts are vacant. Non appointment of a full time dedicated PO, who is

pivotal to the successful implementations of MNREGA and giving the

additional charge of PO to BDO/TDO’s, who were responsible for

implementation of other many developmental schemes at the block level

strikes at the root of the effective implementation and monitoring. Further, it

appears that the existing bureaucratic machinery is just not willing to play ball

with the strict provisions of MNREGA and are at time actively sabotaging its

implementation. Understaffing, lack of professionals, delay in administration

etc. are other factors which affecting the effective implementation of

MNREGA.

The study conducted by Jaswal (IIM, Ahmedabad) and Ms. Paulomee

Mistry (Disha, A’bad)5 found that there had been impact of MNREGA on the

wages of Non-MNREGA works. The different ways of measuring the same

work led to differing wage payment across villages. Job-cards often kept by

Sarpanch or Talati and hence participants do not have direct information

about their wage. Ruhi Tewari conducted study in Bhilwara district of

Rajasthan. She found positive impact of MNREGA on economic lives of the

rural poor and consequently it reduced the scale of out-migration.

CAG report on MNREGA6 (2007) noted that the lack of administrative

and technical manpower at block and GP levels was the main deficiency and

needs immediate rectification. It adversely affected the preparation of plans,

scrutiny, approval, monitoring, measurement of works and maintenance of the

stipulated records at block and GP levels. The quality of works undertaken

was found uniformly poor. Only 3.2 percent of registered households have

been provided work for 100 days. The process of social audits is unfortunately

yet to be adopted with enthusiasm. The report also indicts state governments

for effectively scuttling the payment of unemployment allowances.

In Mid Term Appraisal (MTA) of the 11th FYP7, the planning

commission has found that only 14% of worker households have completed

100 days of work as mandated under the Act. It was observed that Gujarat

and Kerala were able to provide average 22 days of work per households

whereas W.B and Bihar provided 26 days of employment. These four states

have the poorest record of fund utilization of MNREGA. In the absence of full

time dedicated technical staff for programme execution, only 39 percent of

14

works taken under MNREGA were completed. There were instances both of

elite capture of job cards, fake muster rolls resulting in leakages of vested

interest. MTA also pointed out that workers had to travel long distance to

withdraw their wages deposited in banks. MTA suggested states to promote

social audits of MNREGA works to plug leakages and if possible arrangement

of home delivery of wages by bank/ post office.

The probe panel formed by MoRD, GoI, headed by Amita Sharma, joint

secretary in-charge of MNREGA in the ministry8, found that funds of

MNREGA was diverted by Gujarat State Government to the Department of

Forest for their own works. The panel also found general delay of 3 to 6

months in wage payment to MNREGA beneficiaries. In some Gram

Panchayats workers were asked to pay Rs.50 for the photo-graph. In many

cases, Sarpanch or Talati are the custodians of the job cards rather than

workers. In many job cards, entries of work allocations and payment made

were lacking.

In his research paper Vanik Anish9 found that employment generation

in Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) has been quite low. There were delays of 40 to 50

days in wage payment. Hence, workers choose to leave MNREGA worksites

for immediate payment when alternative employment available. No new works

were taken up in the summer when work is most needed.

As per Reetika Khera and Nayak,10 large interstate variations in the

participation of women have been observed. Women constitute more than two

thirds of MNREGA workers in Kerala (71%), Rajasthan (69%) and Tamilnadu

(82%) and less than stipulated one-third in Assam (31%), Bihar (27%), W.B

(17%), UP (15%), Himachal Pradesh (30%) and Jarkhand (27%). They also

show that the full potential of this Act is far from being realized. Two thirds of

the female respondents reported having to face less hunger as a result of

MNREGA employment. Overall, MNREGA was considered very important by

68 % of the respondents. At majority worksites childcare facilities were

lacking. MNREGA allowed workers to get work in their village, as a result of

which scale of migration and hazardous works now reduced for many.

The investigation carried out in 3 blocks of Mayurbhans district of

Orissa 11 found pre-absence of muster roll at worksites, fake names or inflated

entries in muster suggesting siphoning of funds by middleman. Contractors

15

who were banned in MNREGA were found at nearly half worksites. In some

places, instead of account payee cheques, bearer’s cheques were issued.

The article by Hiral Dave12 reveals large scale duplication of job cards

in kotda village of kutiyana block of porbandar district of Gujarat. The number

of job cards issued there is atleast three times of the total number of voters.

The persons who died atleast two years ago are the holder of job cards and

payment has been made to them. A family having 10 members has no less

than 20 cards issued on his family members names.

The number of NGOs and individuals conducted studies which looked

into implementation, functioning and impact aspects of MNREGA. Of these

some studies found visible positive impact of MNREGA on employment, out-

migration and food-security of rural poor households. It also impacted the

agricultural and non-agricultural wage rate. Some studies found insignificant

or marginal impact on halting out-migration and providing food-security owing

to no assurance of providing employment throughout the lean period. Many

studies observed lack of active involvement of village communities in planning

development works for MNREGA. Many GP were found executing

development works which were planned by block/ district level authority. Job

cards were issued on ration-card basis, non-payment of unemployment

allowances, wrong fake entries in muster rolls, issue of fake job cards,

intentionally errors in wage calculation, delay in wage payment, use of JCB

and other machines for excavation and other purposes etc. were the

irregularities observed in these studies.

To sum up, mix bag of opinions were reported on impact,

effectiveness, implementation and monitoring of MNREGA.

1.5 Need of the Study:As stated earlier, MNREGA is a flagship programme of government of

India which is unique and first of its kind. It is in implementation in all the

districts (barring urban) of the country since April, 2008. The numbers of

studies were taken up by NGOs, researchers, institutions etc. which looked

into the impact of MNREGA on different parameters and also examined its

number of implementation issues. Some studies found substantial positive

impact of MNREGA on wage rate, food security, migration whereas some

studies reported minimum and delayed wage payment, non-payment of

16

unemployment allowances, failure in halting migration, errors in wage-

calculation, number of operational bottlenecks, corruption etc. The most of the

studies were centered on systemic defects rather than probing the impact on

beneficiaries. Thus, mix bag of opinions were reported for level of impact and

functioning of MNREGA. At present, degree of impact, implementation

procedure, Irregularities and corruption of MNREGA has become a hot issue

of debate for researchers, academicians and politicians. These conflicting

views on implementation procedure, level of corruption and degree of impact

of MNREGA etc. indicate that clear picture on functioning and effectiveness of

Act has yet to emerge. Further, there are many issues, which are straddling

the implementing agencies right from State / district to Gram Panchayat. Also

there are issues such as non-homogeneity in its effectiveness, region specific

disparities and outcomes etc. Keeping this controversy, debate and

background in view, an absolute necessity is felt by government to have a

fresh look toward various aspects of functioning and impact assessment of

MNREGA by conducting an empirical study. With this in view, the Directorate

of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, GoI asked Agro-

Economic Research Centre, Vallabh Vidyanagar, Gujarat, to undertake study

probing the impact of MNREGA on different parameters and implementation

constraints affecting the effectiveness of the programme for Gujarat state.

This study is intended to assess the overall scenario i.e., the pros and cons

associated with MNREGA scheme, the operational bottlenecks, the efficiency

of social audit and its impact on the targeted beneficiaries. This common

study is to be conducted in 18 states and it is to be co-ordinated by ISEC,

Bangalore.

1.6 Objectives of the Study:The following are the specific objectives of the study.

1. Measure the extent of manpower employment generated under

MNREGA, their various socio-economic characteristics and gender

variability in all the districts implementing MNREGA since its inception

in the selected states.

2. To compare wage differentials between MNREGA activities and other

wage employment activities.

17

3. Effect of MNREGA on the pattern of migration from rural to urban

areas.

4. To find out the nature of assets created under MNREGA and their

durability.

5. Identification of factors determining the participation of people in

MNREGA scheme and whether MNREGA has been successful in

ensuring better food security to the beneficiaries.

6. To assess the implementation of MNREGA, it’s functioning and to

suggest suitable policy measures to further strengthen the programme.

1.7 Sampling Design:1.7.1: Selection of Sample Districts:The MNREGA was implemented in Gujarat state in three phases:

I phase: February-2006- Implemented in 6 districts of the state.

II phase: April-2007- Implemented in 3 districts of the state.

III phase: April-2008- Implemented in 17 Districts of the state.

The selection of sample districts was carried out by project co-ordinator. In

order to fulfill the objectives of the study and to reflect the region specific

variations, project co-ordinator selected 5 districts, one each from the North,

South, East, West and Central location of the state. While selecting the

districts, utmost care was taken to give proper representation to all the three

phases of MNREGA implementation. The list of selected districts alongwith

phase and direction is shown in Table-1.5.Table 1.5: Details of Selected Sample Districts and Sample Villages.Sr.No.

Selected ImplementationPhase(Year)

Direction Distancefrom

DistrictH.Q.

(kms.)District Block Village

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Banaskantha Palanpur Chitrasani I(2006) North 10

Vadgam Navovas 16

2 Dahod Limkheda Mangalmahudi I(2006) East 22

Dahod Agawada 16

3 Navsari Gandevi Movasa II(2007) South 25

Jalalpore Erroo 6

4 Jamnagar Jamnagar Changaa III(2008) West 14

Jodia Jodia 20

5 Surendranagar Dhrangadhra Khambhana III(2008) Central 23

Wadhvan Chamaraj 8

18

1.7.2: Selection of Sample Villages:From each selected district, it was decided to select two villages,

keeping in mind their distances from district headquarter. One village was

selected from the nearby periphery of around 5-15 kms from district

headquarter. And second village was selected having atleast distance of 20

kms. For selection of villages, a distance criterion was used with a view to

know impact differential due to location. The villages were selected in

consultation with the concerned district officials. The lists of selected villages

with its distance from district headquarter is given in Table: 1.5.

1.7.3: Selection of Sample Households:From each selected village, it was decided to select 20 participants

(MNREGA Beneficiary of year- 2009) of MNREGA and 5 non-participants (not

worked in MNREGA in 2009) working as wage employed in Non-MNREGA

activities. In this way, from 10 selected villages of Gujarat, total number of 250

households comprising of 200 participant (Beneficiaries) households and 50

non-participant (non beneficiaries) households were selected. For selecting

representative sample of participant households, a list of all beneficiaries of

calendar year 2009 in the selected village was obtained from the village

programme officer alongwith the information on casts factor. The participants

appearing in this list were classified into four groups using caste factor. These

four groups were i) Scheduled Caste (SC), ii) Scheduled Tribe (ST), iii) Other

Backward Caste (OBC), vi) Other Castes. Using proportionate sampling, 20

participant households were selected for each sample villages from above

mentioned four caste groups. A due care was taken to give due

representation to gender factor. From each selected village, 5 labour

households which were non-participant in MNREGA but constitute more or

less the similar caste and gender characteristics as that of selected participant

households were selected for study. Overall, for study in Gujarat, 250

households from 10 sample villages were selected for the study and surveyed

with the help of structured household questionnaire.

1.8 Reference Year:From the selected sample households, primary data were collected by

recall for calendar year 2009 in a pre-designed questionnaire.

19

1.9 Data Collection:To fulfill the objectives of the study, both primary and secondary data

were collected. The primary data were collected from selected sample

households through recall method in single round. The quantitative/ qualitative

data were collected through specific well structured pre-tested comprehensive

questionnaires having all related aspects such as composition of households,

caste, occupation, labour works under MNREGA and Non-MNREGA,

migration status, income from various sources, self employment, household

consumption, borrowing, functioning and implementation of MNREGA, work

applications, worksite facilities, monitoring quality, usefulness and durability of

assets created, wage payment and wage calculation method, irregularities

observed, awareness of the act, food security, problem faced, suggestions to

make MNREGA more effective etc.

In addition to household questionnaire, a village schedule also

canvassed to capture general changes that have taken place in the village

during the last decade and to study the changes in labour rates after the

introduction of MNREGA. The qualitative data reflecting to changes in life

style of the villages during last decade were also collected through group

discussion with Panchayat members, village leaders etc.

The secondary data were collected from websites of MoRD, MNREGA;

Gujarat Government etc. published materials as well as concerned state/

district/ block/ GP offices associated with implementation of MNREGA.

1.10 Limitation :i) In the states, there is a notable heterogeneity between districts in respect

of agricultural characteristics, soil type, irrigation, labour demand and

supply, social customs, caste composition, income level etc. Even

implementation issues of MNREGA varied across districts. As a result,

the degree of impact, effectiveness and nature of irregularities observed

in implementation in MNREGA in study districts may or may not be found

similar in other districts of the state. While drawing conclusions on impact

and effectiveness of MNREGA based on analysis of survey data of the

selected districts, these region specific differentials and outcomes may be

taken into account. Future conclusions drawn are based on preliminary

findings on the survey data of selected district.

20

ii) The secondary data analyzed in chapter-2 are downloading from website

http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx. These data are inconsistence. For

example, in Table 2.5 (District wise number of works completed /progress

under MNREGA) of Chapter-2, total works completed in Jamnagar in year

2009-10 were reported as 13777. Whereas in Table 2.7 (Social auditing

and inspection of MNREGA) total works taken up in 2009-10 in Jamnagar

were shown as 11766. Further the data given in Table 2.8 of Chapter-2

shows that unemployment allowance was due for 49929 days in 2010-11.

But, payment of unemployment allowance is shown as zero. The same

data not available for period 2008-2010. Such several inconsistencies and

inter conflicts are observed in the downloaded data. We analyzed the

downloaded data without effecting any change in it.

1.11 Organization of study Report:The present study is divided into seven chapters including first

introductory chapter. The sampling design and methodology used for study

has been presented in Chapter one. Chapter two describes functioning of

MNREGA in State, total employment generated under MNREGA, the socio-

economic characteristics of participants, quantitative indication of

performance of MNREGA and agricultural profile of selected districts. Chapter

three examines the profile, income and consumption pattern of selected

households. It also examines the determinants of participation in MNREGA.

Chapter four broadly provides details of work profile under MNREGA of

selected households, nature of assets created and their durability, wage

differential, impact on out-migration and its direction etc. The important

qualitative aspects of functioning of MNREGA based upon primary data have

been covered in Chapter five. The overall impact of MNREGA on village

economy is discussed in Chapter six. Finally, in Chapter seven concluding

remarks and policy suggestions are given.

21

Chapter – 2

Agricultural Profile, Functioning and Socio-EconomicCharacteristics of MNREGA in Selected Districts and State

In Gujarat state, MNREGA was started in six districts in February 2006.

Since April, 2008, it is in implementation in all the 26 districts of the state.

It is obvious that employment demand under MNREGA from rural

households is highly linked with the prevailing agricultural, social and

economical characteristics of the region. With this in view, to assess and

understand the overall impact of MNREGA on agro-economic aspects in a

more precise way, brief picture of related agricultural and demographic

characteristics of selected districts is given in Section - I.

For capturing the signals of the overall impact and to understand

precisely about the broad dimensions, performance and operational

bottleneck of MNREGA, brief discussion on the functioning and performance

of MNREGA based upon secondary data will be more helpful. With this in

view, using secondary data analysis, attempt has been made in section-II to

highlight the current status of various aspects of MNREGA such as

administrative set up, implementation and monitoring, cast wise, gender wise

participation rate, number of job card issued, employment provided, total

person days generated, number of projects completed, total amount spent,

unemployment allowance paid etc. for State as a whole and selected districts.

Section – IDemography Details of Selected Districts and State

2.1.1 Population: According to population census 2001, the population of

Gujarat State reported as 5.07 crore. Among selected districts, it varied from

15.15 lakh in Surendranagar to 25.04 lakh in Banaskantha district. The

population of Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) in the state

have been reported at 35.95 lakh (7.09%) and 74.81 lakh (14.76%)

respectively. Dahod and Navsari are predominately tribal districts, with ST

population at 72.26 percent and 48.08 percent respectively. ST population in

Jamnagar and Surendranagar is negligible. Among selected districts, the

percentage of SC population in the selected districts ranged from 10.97

22

percent (Surendranagar) to 2.01 percent (Dahod). Of the total population,

more than 88 percent population of Banaskantha and Dahod resides in rural

areas. The percentage of rural population in Surendranagar and Navsari

district is around 73 percent (see Table 2.1). In Jamnagar district, there is a

establishment of big industrial units like Reliance Refinery, Essar Oil, L & T,

Tata Chemical, GSFC etc. These units had already provided large scale

employment opportunity to skill and unskilled workers. Moreover, still there

exist a good scope of employment for skill and unskilled workers in these

industrial units. This heavy industrialisation created momentum in rural-urban

migration. As a result, the percentage of rural population in Jamnagar is

lowest at 56.09 percent. The sex ratio of Gujarat was at 920. In selected

districts, tribal district Dahod has the highest sex ratio of 985 and

Surendranagar has the lowest sex ratio of 924 (see Table 2.1). The literacy

rate in the state (excluding children of age 0-6 years) was 69.14 percent in

2001. Among selected districts, it varied from 45.15 percent in Dahod to 75.83

percent in Navsari (see Table 2.1).

The classification of population for the year 2001, by the economic

activity reveals that the state has diversified workforce. The state has 170.25

lakh (33.60%) main workers and 294.15 lakh (58.05%) non workers. Out of

the main workers, 27.67 percent were cultivators, 17.91 percent were

agricultural labourers and rest were engaged in industries and other economic

activities. In selected districts, 64.74 percent (Banaskantha) 78.63 percent

(Dahod), 51.42 percent (Navsari), 57.62 percent (Surendranagar) of the main

working population is engaged in agriculture (i.e., cultivators and agricultural

labourers) sector. It is interesting to note that in Navsari district, number of

agricultural labourers were higher than number of cultivators.

The major problems of the selected districts are high incidence of

poverty, low employment availability, particularly in the lean seasons and

distress out migration in search of works.

23

Table 2.1: Demography Details of selected District and StateSr.No. Item Unit

Districts/State

Banaskantha Dahod Navsari Jamnagar Surendranagar GujaratState

1 Population (2001)(i) Males ‘000 1297 824 629 981 788 26386(ii) Females ‘000 1207 812 600 923 727 24285(iii) Total population ‘000 2504 1636 1229 1904 1515 50671

2 Total Rural Population ‘000 2228 1480 893 1068 1113 31741% of rural population % 88.98 90.46 72.66 56.09 73.44 62.64

3 Population of Scheduled Castes (SC) ‘000 271 33 40 155 166 3593% of SC to total population % 10.84 2.01 3.22 8.13 10.97 7.09

4 Population of Scheduled Tribes (ST) ‘000 206 1183 591 10 14 7481% of ST to total population % 8.22 72.26 48.08 0.55 0.95 14.76

5 Sex ratio (Females per 000' males) Nos. 930 985 955 941 924 920

6 Effective Literacy Rate(above 6 years age) % 50.97 45.15 75.83 66.48 61.61 69.14

Effective literacy rate of rural area % 47.91 41.42 72.32 60.36 55.85 61.297 Total Main Workers lakh 8.31 4.96 4.57 6.24 5.12 170.258 Total Cultivators lakh 3.98 3.48 1.00 2.16 1.66 47.11

% to total main workers % 47.89 70.16 21.88 34.62 32.42 27.679 Agricultural Labourers lakh 1.40 0.42 1.35 0.69 1.29 30.49

% to total main workers % 16.85 8.47 29.54 11.06 25.20 17.9110 % of Industry and other workers % 35.26 21.37 48.58 45.68 42.38 45.5811 No of blocks/taluka Nos. 12 7 5 10 10 22512 Nos. of Villages (inhabitant) Nos. 1244 693 374 698 650 1860013 Nos. of Gram Panchayat Nos. 783 473 366 664 615 13929

Source: (i) Socio- Economic Review, Gujarat state, 2008-09, DES, GoG, Gandhinagar(ii) District Statistical Handbook of selected districts.

24

2.1.2 Agriculture Profile of Selected Districts:1) Soil Type and Climate: Gujarat has tropical climate. The climate of the

state as well as of selected districts is extreme and subject to variations in

temperature. The average temperature of the state ranged from 30 Celsius to

460 Celsius. Among selected districts average minimum temperature varied

from 7.70 to 11.90 Celsius and maximum temperature from 380 to 43.10

Celsius (see Table 2.2).

The soil type of Navsari is deep black to medium black and highly

suitable for paddy and orchard crops. The soil type of Jamnagar and

Surendranagar is nearly alike and hence more or less similar crop pattern.

The Dahod have loamy sand to deep black soil whereas Banaskantha has

sandy loam to sandy soil. Banaskantha soil is suitable for crops like Bajra,

Wheat, Cotton, Cumin, Rapeseed and Mustard, Sesamum etc.

The climatic and soil type variations across districts supports diversified

cropping pattern in the state.

2) Monsoon, Rainfall, Irrigation and Agriculture:The agriculture plays an important role in state economy, as nearly 60

percent of its population is dependent on agriculture and allied sectors for

livelihood. The agriculture prospects largely depend on arrival of rainfall,

quantum of rainfall and even distribution of rainfall over time span. The

behaviour of monsoon is usually erratic and remains active during June to

September. There is a wide variation in the yearly rainfall from one part to

another part of the state. The average normal rainfall of the state is 890 mm.

for 10 year period ending 2004-05. For 2007-09, it was 949 mm. Among

selected districts, Navsari have highest average annual rainfall (1736 mm)

whereas remaining four districts have average annual rainfall lower than state

average (see Table 2.2). Owing to scanty and erratic rainfall and unfavourable

natural conditions, frequent drought conditions appearing in Banaskantha,

Jamnagar and Surendranagar districts. This ultimately caused very adverse

impact on prospect of agriculture and making livelihood difficult for rural poor.

Under such situation, the incidences of out migration and demand for works in

non-agriculture sectors are rising significantly in the rural areas of these

districts. In view of these adversities of these selected districts, undertaking of

25

Table 2.2: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance for Selected Districts

Sr.No. Particulars Unit

District/StateBanasKantha Dahod Navsari Jamnagar Surendra

nagarGujaratState

1 Soil-type sandy loam tosandy

Loamyto deepblack

DeepblackMediumblack

ShallowMedium Blacksoil

ShallowMediumBlack soil

N.A.

2Temperature (2006-08)

(i) Minimum C0 8 7.7 11.9 10.4 7.9 3(ii) Maximum C0 42.8 43.1 42.1 38 42.9 46

3

Rainfall

(i) Normal (1996-05) Mm. 590 711 1736 665 539 890

(ii) Actual (2007-09) Mm. 589 620 1767 902 624 949

4

Land Use Pattern (2005-06)(i) Total ReportingArea

00Ha. 10449 3712 2201 10203 10458 188118

(ii) Net Area Sown(NAS)

00Ha. 7385 2157 1360 6248 7102 97222

(iii) Gross CroppedArea (GCA)

00Ha. 10292 3095 1462 7092 7574 114947

(iv) CroppingIntensity % 139.36 143.41 107.5 113.51 106.63 118.24

5

Irrigation (2005-06)(i) Net Irrigated Area(NIA)

00Ha. 4173 628 875 1522 1700 39.74

(ii) Gross IrrigatedArea (GIA)

00Ha. 5315 761 898 2048 1992 47642

(iii) % of GIA to GCA % 51.64 24.59 61.42 28.08 26.3 41.25(iv) Irrigation Intensity % 127.33 121.18 102.63 134.56 117.18 121.93

6

Source of Irrigation (2005-06)(i) Area Irrigated byWells/Tube wells as% to GIA

% 97.42 75.69 31.51 94.29 94.78 78.91

(ii) Area Irrigated byCanal as % to GCA % 2.39 7.88 66.04 5.18 4.47 18.08

7

Major Crops(2007-09)

(i) Cereals - Bajra,Wheat

Paddy,Maize,Wheat

Paddy Bajra, wheatBajra,

Wheat,Jowar

Paddy,Bajra,

Wheat,Jowar,Maize

(ii) Pulses - GreenGram, Gram

Tur,Gram - Gram Gram

Tur, Gram,GreenGram

(iii) Oil-seeds -Castor,

Rapeseed,Sesamum

- - G’Nut, castor,Sesamum

Sesamum,Castor

G’Nut,castor,

Sesamum

(iv) Other Crops -

Cotton,Cumin,Potato,

Guar seed

- - Cotton,Cumin, Garlic

cumin,Cotton

Cotton,cumin,

Sugarcane

Source: (i) Gujarat Agriculture Statistics at a Glance 2009-10, MoA, GoG, Gandhinagar(ii) Socio-Economic Review, Gujarat State, 2008-09, DES, GoG, Gandhinagar

26

works relating to conservation and harvesting of rain water, deepening of

tanks/ wells, and to create structures for storage of water resources and

irrigation under MNREGA assumes vital importance.

Irrigation is a crucial factor affecting the rabi and summer acreage. The

groundwater, surface water and irrigation scenario of Gujarat state is not so

encouraging as compared to national level. The area under irrigation and

multiple crops suggest that agriculture in Gujarat is primarily rainfed. In 2005-

06, about 41 percent of gross cropped area (GCA) was irrigated. However, in

Jamnagar, Surendranagar and Dahod district, maximum area irrigated was 28

percent of GCA. Except Navsari, in remaining four selected districts, even in

irrigated areas, some times farmers were not in position to give adequate

number of watering to the crops mainly due to inadequate water or depletion

of water in their wells. This situation restricts farmers to put more area under

rabi crops. The source-wise data reveals that except Navsari district,

wells/tubewells are the prime sources of irrigation in remaining 4 selected

districts and nearly 76 to 97 percent of gross irrigated area (GIA) was irrigated

by it. In Navsari, canal was the main source of irrigation. The irrigation

intensity of Gujarat was very low at 121.93 percent whereas cropping intensity

was only 118.24 percent. In selected districts, the irrigation intensity ranged

from only 102.63 percent in Navsari to 134.56 percent in Jamnagar (see

Table 2.2). Owing to large areas under horticulture crops, cropping intensity

and irrigation intensity is very low for Navsari district. Banaskantha, Dahod,

Jamnagar and Surendranagar districts are facing serious problem of

continuous decline in water table. Therefore, in low rainfall years, these

districts are witnessing large scale decline in crop area in rabi and summer

seasons. This in turn is increasing the employment demand from cultivators

and agricultural labourers. This phenomenon also scales up the incidences of

temporarily out migration.

The crop pattern data of the state reveals that Cotton, Groundnut,

Bajra, Maize, Wheat, Jowar, Paddy, Cumin, Castor-seeds, Rapeseeds are the

major crops of the state. The major crops of selected districts are given in

Table 2.2.

The cropping pattern of selected districts (except Navsari) is highly

dependent on rainfall behaviour and extent of irrigation availability. Hence,

general practice is to grow single crop during the year on areas where scope

27

of irrigation and soil-moisture is negligible. Rabi crops are grown on limited

areas where available irrigation sources are adequate. The lean rabi and

summer agricultural seasons affecting badly on the employment opportunities

and livelihood of cultivators, agricultural labourers and other households

associated with agriculture sector. This ultimately is giving rise to distress,

temporary and seasonal out migration.

In short, selected districts have seasonal and lagging agricultural

sector, low/nil employment opportunities in the lean seasons and high rate of

temporary out migration to other places in search of a work.

Section – IIFunctioning, Employment and Socio-Economic Characteristics ofMNREGAThis entire section is based on the analysis of secondary data. The data

provided here is for financial year April to March. The data for the fiscal year

2010-11 is up to August 2010, i.e., for period April to August-2010. The, data

analysis attempted here relate to 5 selected districts and Gujarat state as a

whole. The same data for all the 26 district of the state has been provided in

Appendix.

2.2.1 Implementation and Administrative Setup in Gujarat:1) Implementation of MNREGA in Gujarat:

In Gujarat, MNREGA was implemented in three phases. In phase-I,

MNREGA was implemented in 6 districts of the state in April 2006. In phase-

II, 3 more districts of the state covered under MNREGA in April-2007. In

phase-III, MNREGA was implemented in remaining 17 districts of the state in

April 2008. Thus, MNREGA is in implementation in all the 26 districts of the

state since April 2008. The list of districts covered under different phases of

MNREGA is shown below.

Phase-wise Districts Covered Under MNREGA- Gujarat

Phase No.ofDistricts

Name of Districts Covered

I. 6 Banaskantha, Dang, Dohad, Narmada, Panchmahals,Sabarkanta

II. 3 Bharuch, Navsari, Valsad

III. 17Ahmadabad,Amreli,Anand,Patan,Surat,Tapi,Bhavnagar,Gandhinagar,Jamnagar,Junagadh,Kachchh,Mehsana,Rajkot,Surendranagar,Vadodara, Kheda

Source: Commissionerate of Rural Development, GoG, Gandhinagar

28

2) Fund Availability and Utilization:

The Table 2.3(i) and 2.3 (ii) shows district-wise fund availability and

utilization for MNREGA in Gujarat state for the fiscal years 2008-09 and 2009-

10. In fiscal year 2008-09, against total available funds of Rs.28126.75 lakhs

for Gujarat state, total amount utilized was Rs.19600.65 lakhs (69.69%) only.

And of the total expenditure, 73.66 percent was utilized for wage payment,

19.88 percent for material and 5.51 percent for administrative propose

(see Table 2.3(i)).

In 2009-10, against total available funds of Rs.63598.07 lakhs for

Gujarat state, Rs.49096.97 lakhs (77.20%) was utilized. Of the total

expenditure, 76.30 percent utilized for wage payment, 20.46 percent for

material and 2.73 percent for administrative purpose (see Table 2.3(ii)). This

expenditure pattern shows that amount spent on material and administrative

purpose in 2008-09 and 2009-10 was within the prescribed limit of the Act.

Across all districts of Gujarat State percentage of utilization of available

funds during 2008-09 found more impressive. It was for Dahod (97.12%),

Panchmahals (88.86%), Navsari (80.68%), Ahmedabad (407.72%), Junagadh

(96.29%) and Porbandar (87.28%). It was found very low for Dang (30.91%),

Valsad (31.13%), Gandhinagar (41.04%), Jamnagar (31.56%), Kheda

(26.06%) and Surendranagar (23.23%). The fund utilisation was low in 2008-

09 in those districts, where 2008-09 was the initial year of implementation.

Thus, across districts of the State, significant variation noticed in respect of

MNREGA’s fund utilisation.

For fiscal year 2009-10, across districts of the state, there exist a

variation in respect of fund utilization, but compared to 2008-2009, variation

declined and fund utilization improved to some extent. Overall, fund utilization

remained below desired level due to various reasons.

The above data clearly indicates that through proper planning of works,

enough scope exist to improve ratio of fund utilisation to total available funds.

29

Table 2.3(i): Fund Availability and Utilization for MNREGA in Gujarat State - 2008-2009

Source: Data Download from website of Government of Gujarat.

S.No. District

Financial Outcomes

CentralRelease(Rs. Inlakhs)

Total FundsAvailableincluding

O.B (Rs. Inlakhs)

TotalExpenditure

(Rs. Inlakhs)

% Age ofExpenditureAgainst Total

AvailableFund

Expenditure onWages (Rs. In

lakhs)

% Age ofExpenditure on

Wages

Expenditure onMaterial (Rs. In

lakhs)

% Age ofExpenditure on

Material

AdministrativeExpenditure

(Rs. In lakhs)

% Age ofAdministrati

veExpenditure

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 Banas Kantha 1544.62 2476.33 1611.32 65.07 1141.19 70.82 377.85 23.45 85.73 5.32

2 Dang 2171.39 2551.73 788.73 30.91 499.51 63.33 261.94 33.21 23.1 2.93

3 Dohad 2852.78 4185.21 4064.78 97.12 3210.15 78.97 642.13 15.8 91.3 2.25

4 Narmada 1100 1877.99 1115.1 59.38 728.95 65.37 291.63 26.15 53.4 4.79

5 Panch Mahals 2489 3669.54 3261.43 88.88 2264.86 69.44 898.18 27.54 98.39 3.02

6 Sabar Kantha 0 1413.8 1283.11 90.76 1167.21 90.97 40.9 3.19 75 5.85

7 Bharuch 16 899.32 553.27 61.52 310.07 56.04 195.87 35.4 47.33 8.55

8 Navsari 434 1201.73 969.56 80.68 674.36 69.55 249.96 25.78 44.18 4.56

9 Valsad 0 657.37 204.61 31.13 124.59 60.89 35.58 17.39 44.44 21.72

10 Ahmadabad 173.3 367.41 395.76 107.72 311.89 78.81 33.15 8.38 50.72 12.82

11 Amreli 111.7 338.96 217.71 64.23 175.66 80.69 5.25 2.41 30.9 14.19

12 Anand 115.58 320.6 175.17 54.64 114.34 65.27 6.15 3.51 54.68 31.22

13 Bhavnagar 167.98 254.24 193.57 76.14 155.76 80.47 8.49 4.39 29.32 15.15

14 Gandhinagar 118.09 174.04 71.42 41.04 31.36 43.91 18.08 25.32 21.98 30.78

15 Jamnagar 118.22 363.7 114.77 31.56 75.52 65.8 11.34 9.88 27.01 23.53

16 Junagadh 755.58 1006.62 969.26 96.29 918 94.71 25.97 2.68 25.29 2.61

17 Kachchh 601.66 942.26 509.9 54.11 444.14 87.1 35.72 7.01 30.04 5.89

18 Kheda 898 1072.57 279.51 26.06 203.97 72.97 60.9 21.79 14.62 5.23

19 Mahesana 151.82 272.53 189.68 69.6 123.64 65.18 51.85 27.34 13.12 6.92

20 Patan 708.58 1076.76 554.06 51.46 403.73 72.87 101.41 18.3 48.92 8.83

21 Porbandar 95.49 163.1 142.36 87.28 106.98 75.15 28.32 19.89 7.06 4.96

22 Rajkot 155.12 423.01 321.21 75.93 214.18 66.68 64.06 19.94 42.97 13.38

23 Surat 702.41 928.35 638.18 68.74 381.51 59.78 210.94 33.05 45.73 7.17

24 Surendranagar 162.65 396.98 92.22 23.23 73.67 79.89 2.81 3.05 15.74 17.07

25 Tapi 524.33 651.59 496.96 76.27 342.1 68.84 127.26 25.61 23.6 4.75

26 Vadodara 250.9 441.01 387 87.75 239.99 62.01 110.91 28.66 35.9 9.28Grand Total 16419.2 28126.75 19600.65 69.69 14437.33 73.66 3896.65 19.88 1080.47 5.51

30

Table 2.3(ii): Fund Availability and Utilization for MNREGA in Gujarat State - 2009-2010

S.No. States

Financial OutcomesCentralRelease(Rs. Inlakhs)

Total FundsAvailable

including O.B(Rs. In lakhs)

TotalExpenditure

(Rs. In lakhs)

% Age ofExpenditureAgainst Total

Available Fund

Expenditureon Wages

(Rs. In lakhs)

% Age ofExpenditureon Wages

Expenditureon Material

(Rs. In lakhs)

% Age ofExpenditureon Material

AdministrativeExpenditure

(Rs. In lakhs)

% Age ofAdministrativeExpenditure

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 111 Banas Kantha 1946.89 3340.79 2676.27 80.11 2214.14 82.73 394.08 14.72 68.05 2.54

2 Dang 80.00 1968.09 1340.52 68.11 976.14 72.82 336.42 25.10 20.56 1.53

3 Dohad 6303.18 7240.77 6905.25 95.37 5272.54 76.36 1554.98 22.52 72.95 1.06

4 Narmada 1608.69 2670.59 1922.37 71.98 1332.37 69.31 493.50 25.67 64.52 3.36

5 Panch Mahals 3770.80 4552.37 4779.22 104.98 3190.21 66.75 1461.00 30.57 117.50 2.46

6 Sabar Kantha 3137.74 3750.70 2993.06 79.80 2752.63 91.97 122.18 4.08 104.98 3.51

7 Bharuch 690.13 914.91 903.75 98.78 487.10 53.90 378.12 41.84 38.53 4.26

8 Navsari 1678.02 2133.38 1302.28 61.04 881.56 67.69 385.41 29.59 35.31 2.71

9 Valsad 347.00 1083.83 765.08 70.59 589.37 77.03 131.34 17.17 44.32 5.79

10 Ahmadabad 1126.71 1329.46 701.26 52.75 562.77 80.25 69.41 9.90 65.00 9.27

11 Amreli 516.25 775.84 695.09 89.59 518.43 74.58 90.43 13.01 28.03 4.03

12 Anand 429.12 640.27 357.30 55.80 262.10 73.36 55.04 15.40 39.02 10.92

13 Bhavnagar 1050.65 1223.34 981.20 80.21 870.79 88.75 89.74 9.15 20.67 2.11

14 Gandhinagar 180.19 544.89 508.99 93.41 333.20 65.46 163.12 32.05 12.67 2.49

15 Jamnagar 793.98 679.54 588.95 86.67 433.13 73.54 119.69 20.32 34.46 5.85

16 Junagadh 3416.12 3851.42 2635.36 68.43 2311.51 87.71 250.31 9.50 73.54 2.79

17 Kachchh 4748.67 4033.33 3101.23 76.89 2711.43 87.43 324.97 10.48 64.83 2.09

18 Kheda 1082.80 1934.24 1685.40 87.13 1113.20 66.05 531.56 31.54 40.34 2.39

19 Mahesana 349.87 695.58 604.24 86.87 393.65 65.15 170.36 28.19 40.23 6.66

20 Patan 2222.05 2953.97 1865.90 63.17 1511.56 81.01 259.57 13.91 94.77 5.08

21 Porbandar 1997.96 2144.31 929.85 43.36 676.66 72.77 238.99 25.70 14.20 1.53

22 Rajkot 4523.50 4903.12 3244.18 66.17 2644.35 81.51 528.02 16.28 71.81 2.21

23 Surat 635.81 1357.78 883.27 65.05 599.39 67.86 253.57 28.71 29.92 3.39

24 Surendranagar 1703.58 2247.94 1721.31 76.57 1426.62 82.88 243.38 14.14 51.31 2.98

25 Tapi 2780.13 3319.07 2013.56 60.67 1321.52 65.63 563.77 28.00 28.58 1.4226 Vadodara 2907.62 3308.54 2992.09 90.44 2076.88 69.41 838.35 28.02 63.71 2.13

Grand Total 50027.46 63598.07 49096.97 77.20 37463.25 76.30 10047.31 20.46 1339.80 2.73Source: Data Download from website of Government of Gujarat

31

3) Administrative Setup for MNREGA:i) Administrative Setup:

In Gujarat, multi-tier structures of authority and agencies are involved

for planning, implementation and monitoring of the MNREGA and ensuring

quality at every stage. The functions and duties of each one is clearly

specified.

Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD), Government of Gujarat (GoG)

is engaged in the implementation of the MNREGA in Gujarat. For planning,

implementation and monitoring of MNREGA, MoRD, GoG set up a separate

Commissionerate of Rural Development (MNREGA) and Principal Secretary,

MoRD, GoG is working as a Commissioner of it. As per section 12(a) of the

said Act, state government also constituted State Employment Guarantee

Council (SEGC) for the purpose of overviewing the implementation and

monitoring of the Act at the state level and give necessary advice to the state

government. This council have members from concerned departments,

elected representatives, members from Panchayat Raj institutions (PRIs),

members of NGOs and experts. It is disappointing to note that the meetings of

SEGC are not taking place regularly and hence SEGC not functioning

effectively. It affected the monitoring of the programme at state level and

defeated the purpose of forming SEGC.

At the village, taluka and district level, the primary responsibilities of

planning and implementation of the MNREGA lies with Panchayat Raj

institutions. For proper planning and effective implementation of MNREGA,

the District Panchayat at district level, Taluka Panchayat at the taluka level

and the Village Panchayat at the village level are the principal implementing

authority. At the district level, District Development Officer (DDO) is

designated as the District Programme Co-ordinator (DPC) who is responsible

for overall planning, implementation, co-ordination and monitoring of the

MNREGA. Further, DPC has financial and administrative power as are

required for the implementation of scheme. Director, DRDA is designated as

Additional District Programme Co-ordinator (ADPC). DDO is assisted by

ADPC at the district level and programme officers (PO) at the taluka level.

DPC is also assisted by Deputy District Programme Co-ordinator (DDPC),

Works Manager, Deputy Engineer (DE), Junior Engineer (JE) Technical

32

Assistant, MIS co-ordinator etc. and “Technical Advisory Cell (TAC)”.

Appointment of DDPC, Assistant Engineers (AE), Junior Engineer (JE),

Account officer, Clerks etc. are made either on deputation or giving additional

charge or on contract basis with fix tenure and salary.

The Taluka Development Officer (TDO) is designated as programme

officer (PO) at Taluka level. The PO at the taluka level is assisted by Assistant

Programme Officer (APO), Junior Engineers/Technical Assistant, MIS co-

ordinator, accountant, clerks etc. PO and his team is responsible for the

planning, implementation, co-ordination, inspection and monitoring of the

scheme at the block level and to perform functions in co-ordination with

district/state level concerned officers.

The Sarpanch and Talati-cum-Mantri of village Panchayat are

responsible for planning, execution and supervisory of projects, propagating

implementation, co-ordination, monitoring of the scheme at the village level.

Talati is assisted by junior engineer and APO. The responsibility of calling

Gram Sabha and to conduct social audit of village level schemes is also lie

with them.

ii) Brief Description of Responsibility at Various Levels:The main responsibilities under MNREGA at State/District/Taluka/GP level

are briefly given below.

a) At State Level:i. Wide Communication, information dissemination and create awareness

about MNREGA.

ii. Ensuring that full time dedicated personnel are in place for

implementing MNREGA at all levels.

iii. Ensuring timely release of fund including state share for MNREGA.

iv. Regular review, monitoring and evaluation of MNREGA work at

districts level.

v. Training to personnel associated with implementation of MNREGA at

all levels. Also to arrange Training of Trainers (ToT).

vi. Ensuring accountability and transparency in the scheme at all levels.

b) At District Level:i. Information dissemination and create awareness.

ii. Training to PRI/GP/Block level employees of MNREGA.

33

iii. Consolidation of block plans into district plan. To prepare a “Labour

Budget” every year. To give administrative and technical approvals to

the shelf of projects included in the Taluka plan.

iv. Release and utilization of funds.

v. Ensuring hundred percent monitoring of works and Muster Rolls

verification.

vi. Submission of Monthly Progress Reports (MPR).

c) At Taluka (Block) Level:i. Scrutinizing the annual development plan proposed by the Gram

Panchayat (GPs) and consolidating it into Block plan.

ii. Including the proposals of the Intermediate Panchayat.

iii. To match employment opportunities with the demand for works.

iv. Monitoring and supervising implementation of MNREGA works.

v. Disposal of complaints in stipulated time period.

vi. Ensuring that social audits are conducted regularly by the Gram Sabha

for works undertaken under MNREGA.

vii. Payment of unemployment allowance if any.

d) At Gram Panchayat Level:i. Convening Gram Sabha and prepare annual work-plan at village level.

ii. Receiving application for registration, verifying applications, registration

of households and issuing job cards.

iii. Receiving applications for employment, issuing dated receipts.

iv. Allocating employment within fifteen days of application.

v. Executing Works, maintaining all type of records, monitoring the

implementation of the Scheme at the village level. To from local

Vigilance Monitoring Committee (VMC).

vi. Convening the Gram Sabha for social audit.

iii) Grievance Redressal System:The PO at taluka level and the DPC at the district level are performing

duties as the Grievance Redressal Officer. The Gram Sabha is the forum for

public hearing appeal against GP to be made to the PO and appeal against

the PO to DPC and appeal against DPC to the state level authority. The

complaints can be lodged on plain paper or on prescribed form and submitted

through post or complaint box put in the offices of PO and DPC. Any

34

complaint received by GP will be forwarded to the PO for necessary action.

The PO and DPC will inquire into the facts of all the complaints received by

them and will try to dispose them within ten days or so from the date of receipt

of the complaint.

iv) Issues Related with MNREGA In State:Our discussion at various level and observations during field survey

indicated several issues/problems which strike at the effective implementation

of MNREGA.

i) Vacant Posts and Shortage of Staff:Under MNREGA in each district, full time District Programme

Co-ordinator (DPC) and in each block, a full time PO is require to be

appointed exclusively for MNREGA with necessary technical and

administrative staff. In district, DDO has been given additional charge of DPC

and in many blocks TDO has been given additional charge of PO. Technical

staff/Junior Engineers appointed are either on deputation from other

departments or given additional charge or on contract basis with fix salary and

tenure. Hence, they lack motivation and dedication. Numbers of sanctioned

posts are vacant. Absence of adequate administrative and technical staff is

adversely affecting the preparation and scrutiny of plan, approval, monitoring,

measurement, wage payment and quality of works. The appointments of low

level administrative and other staff made at block/district level are also on

contract for 11 months tenure and fix salary. At village level, Talati cum Mantri

is already overburdening with his regular works and duties. Further, some of

them have additional charge of other villages too. They lack require technical

expertise and motivation for effective implementation and integration of works.

The shortage of qualified and dedicated permanent staff at all level causing

delays in execution, monitoring, quality and measurement of works and timely

payment of wages. Thus, the shortage of full time staff exclusively for

MNREGA is one of the main factors which adversely affecting the functioning

of MNREGA in a big way.

ii) Lack of People’s planning:At village level, without support of technical and professional staff,

Gram Panchayat find it difficult to prepare a shelf of projects and its planning

35

and to ensure quality of works. Therefore, in majority cases, plans are made

and approved at the top and sent downwards for implementation to GPs.

iii) Capacity Building of Stakeholders:Capacity building is a continuous process. It is not a one time job. The

need is felt for capacity building of all stakeholders of the MNREGA,

Government administration at all levels, PR institutions at all the levels,

community organisations at the village level and common people. Each of

them needs more training to be equipped to perform their role effectively.

State government has put in lot of efforts in this area. However, training has

not reached yet to all stakeholders. There is a urgent need to create adequate

technical capabilities among MNREGA staff of district, taluka and village

Panchayat to enable them to plan and implement the programme and to

conduct social audit in a effective and positive manner.

v) Other Issues:Lack of commitment, sincerity and initiative for the programme are

seen in overburden Talatis, Sarpanchs and TDOs. Despite intensive ICE

(Information, Communication and Extension) activities, stakeholders at

district, taluka and village level lack full awareness on various components of

the scheme. The partial involvement and lack of adequate technical support in

implementation of MNREGA by line departments are also other issues which

impacted the performance of MNREGA.

4) Glimpse of Performance of MNREGA in Gujarat- 2008-09 to 2010-11:The glimpse of Performance of MNREGA in Gujarat during period

2008-09 to 2010-11 (Till Aug.2010) is shown in below given summary Table.

It is worth to note that total numbers of job cards issued shows uptrend

and it increased from 2877792 in 2008-09 to 3859162 in 2010-11. The

important feature is all households who demand employment were provided

employment during 2008-10. However, numbers of households which

completed 100 days of employment were very less and average days

employment per household per year was around 25 in 2008-09 and 37 in

2009-10. Of the total works taken up, 69.72 percent works were completed in

2008-09 and 88.90 percent completed in 2009-10. It is unpleasing to not that

unemployment allowance due for 49929 days in 2010-11 but not paid single

36

Glimpse of Performance of MNREGA in Gujarat- 2008-09 to 2010-11(Till Aug. 2010)

Sr.No. Indicators Unit 2008-09 2009-10

2010-11(Till Aug.

2010)

1. Cumulative No. of HHs. issuedjob cards Nos. 2877792 3570123 3859162

2. Cumulative No. of HHs.demanded employment

Nos. 850691 1596402 590919

3. Cumulative No. of HHs.provided employment Nos. 850691 1596402 590919

4.Cumulative person daysgenerated Nos. 21305000 58509000 20696923

5. Cumulative No. of HHs.completed Nos. 49160 103752 20407

6. Total Nos. of works Taken up Nos. 46657 296717 1611247. Total Nos. of works completed Nos. 32530 263651 30218. Total Expenditure on works Rs.Lakh 18273 70300 251479. Unemployment allowance due No.of days N.A N.A 49929

10. Unemployment allowance paid Rs. 0 0 011. Nos. of Muster Rolls used Nos. 229855 577170 23517612. Nos. of Muster Rolls verified Nos. 209128 564948 223808

13. % of GPs where social Auditheld % 81.30 98.30 73.20

Source:http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx,

rupee to anyone. The social audits were taken up in 81.30 percent and 98.30

percent Gram Panchayats during 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively.

2.2.2 Job Cards Issued and Employment Generation by Sex and Castes:Table 2.4(i) to 2.4(iii) present year wise data on job cards issued and

employment generation by sex and castes for all 26 districts of Gujarat State

for financial years 2008-09 to 2010-11(Till august, 2010).

1) Job-Cards Issued:Under MNREGA, there is a provision to issue job card to the household

as a whole. The job card is bearing the photograph of all the eligible members

of the household who are willing to work under MNREGA. The job card is free

of cost. It is seen from the Table 2.4 (iii) that up till August 2010, under

MNREGA cumulative numbers of households issued job cards in Gujarat

state were about 38.60 lakh. Among all the 26 districts of the state, highest

number of job-cards issued in Panchmahals district (2.90 lakh) and lowest in

Gandhinagar (0.42 lakh) district. Among five selected districts, it varied from

2.60 lakh in Banaskantha to only 0.63 lakh in Jamnagar district (see Table 2.4

(iii)). The higher scope of employment availability in industrial and other

37

sectors with relatively high wage rates and for longer duration was the key

reason for issue of less number of job cards in Surat, Porbandar,

Gandhinagar, Narmada and Jamnagar districts. Caste-wise classification

reveals that of the total job cards issued in Gujarat state, 9.00 percent issued

to Scheduled Castes (SC), 31.80 percent issued to Scheduled Tribes (ST)

and 59.10 percent to other castes. As ST population is predominant in Dahod,

Dang, Narmada, Bharuch, Valsad, Surat, Tapi and Navsari districts, the

percentage of job cards issued to ST, as expected, also very high in these

districts (Appendix-I). Similarly the job cards issued to other castes were high

and above 70.00 percent in 16 districts (Out of 26) of the State. Caste wise

classification reveals that against SC/ST population of 21.85 percent in

Gujarat, job cards issued to SC/ST were 40.80 percent (Till Aug. 2010). This

shows that MNREGA succeed in providing enhance employment to under

priviledged ST/SC.

2) Employment Demanded and Provided:The success of MNREGA can be measured by examining the ratio of

employment demanded and provided. In Gujarat state, of the total registered

families, about 8.51 lakh (29.56%) in year 2008-09 and 15.96 lakh (44.72%) in

year 2009-10 demanded employment under MNREGA. The third phase of

MNREGA implemented in remaining 17 districts of the state in year 2008-09.

As 2008-09 was the initial year, the MNREGA was in preparation stage in

these 17 districts and projects implemented in second half of the year. Hence

employment demand remained low in fiscal year 2008-09. However, it picked

up momentum from year 2009-10 onward. Because of this reasons,

compared to 2008-09, record of demand for employment in 2009-10 looks

more attractive. The striking feature is the fluctuating percentage of

employment demand across all districts as well as selected districts. During

year 2009-10, from the selected districts, economical backward districts like

Dahod (63%), Banaskantha (63%) and Surendranagar (49.4%), recorded

higher demand of employment under the scheme (see Table 2.4(ii)).

However, on account of ample scope of alternative employment in nearby

industrial and other sectors, larger portion of job-cards holders of Jamnagar

and to some extent of Navsari districts not demanded employment under

MNREGA during study period 2008-10.

38

Table-2.4 (i): Distric-wise Employment generated through MNREGA and its socio-economic characteristics in Gujarat-2008-09

BanasKantha 49484 (28.1) 32786 (18.6) 93655 (53.2) 175925 (100) 82270 82270 (100) 594000 (34.5) 434000 (25.2) 694000 (40.3) 1722000 (100) 645000 (37.5) 3199 (3.9)

Dang 0 0.0 37437 (99.6) 155 (0.4) 37592 (100) 29476 29476 (100) 0 0.0 542000 99.8 1000 (0.2) 543000 (100) 250000 (46.0) 72 (0.2)

Dohad 3521 (1.8) 151758 (78.2) 38797 (20.0) 194076 (100) 133029 133029 (100) 173000 (3.6) 3947000 (82.5) 665000 (13.9) 4785000 (100) 2457000 (51.3) 14527 (10.9)

Narmada 2503 (3.0) 72699 (87.1) 8271 (9.9) 83473 (100) 54192 54192 (100) 8000 (0.9) 818000 (93.8) 46000 (5.3) 872000 (100) 399000 (45.8) 1147 (2.1)

Panch Mahals 11781 (6.2) 62173 (32.9) 114885 (60.8) 188839 (100) 71730 71730 (100) 254000 (6.7) 1752000 (46.3) 1780000 (47.0) 3786000 (100) 1568000 (41.4) 6609 (9.2)

Sabar Kantha 29529 (15.7) 57133 (30.3) 101602 (54.0) 188264 (100) 56960 56960 (100) 424000 (21.7) 773000 (39.6) 754000 (38.6) 1951000 (100) 1077000 (55.2) 6738 (11.8)

Bharuch 9089 (8.6) 72852 (68.8) 24015 (22.7) 105956 (100) 22426 22426 (100) 47000 (9.1) 362000 (70.3) 106000 (20.6) 515000 (100) 188000 (36.5) 915 (4.1)

Navsari 581 (0.8) 68887 (92.7) 4880 (6.6) 74348 (100) 29891 29891 (100) 2000 (0.3) 673000 93.9 42000 (5.9) 717000 (100) 225000 (31.4) 28 (0.1)

Valsad 1373 (1.4) 92105 (90.9) 7852 (7.7) 101330 (100) 6030 6030 (100) 0 0.0 147000 100.0 0 0.0 147000 (100) 61000 (41.5) 24 (0.4)

Ahmadabad 51333 (33.5) 12206 (8.0) 89696 (58.5) 153235 (100) 42865 42865 (100) 32000 (10.2) 19000 (6.0) 264000 (83.8) 315000 (100) 105000 (33.3) 1274 (3.0)

Amreli 24800 (33.0) 0 0.0 50383 (67.0) 75183 (100) 11327 11327 (100) 88000 (29.7) 0 0.0 208000 (70.3) 296000 (100) 78000 (26.4) 506 (4.5)

Anand 27442 (19.6) 2718 (1.9) 109826 (78.5) 139986 (100) 18516 18516 (100) 40000 (22.7) 1000 (0.6) 135000 (76.7) 176000 (100) 60000 (34.1) 54 (0.3)

Bhavnagar 8442 (10.6) 170 (0.2) 70660 (89.1) 79272 (100) 15379 15379 (100) 39000 (17.1) 0 0.0 189000 (82.9) 228000 (100) 95000 (41.7) 201 (1.3)

Gandhinagar 8205 (22.5) 0 0.0 28296 (77.5) 36501 (100) 5091 5091 (100) 6000 (17.6) 0 0.0 28000 (82.4) 34000 (100) 10000 (29.4) 0 (0.0)

Jamnagar 8334 (17.3) 375 (0.8) 39561 (82.0) 48270 (100) 4580 4580 (100) 28000 (25.0) 0 0.0 84000 (75.0) 112000 (100) 72000 (64.3) 67 (1.5)

Junagadh 40435 (36.8) 2390 (2.2) 67082 (61.0) 109907 (100) 16829 16829 (100) 210000 (17.0) 20000 1.6 1006000 (81.4) 1236000 (100) 473000 (38.3) 6855 (40.7)

Kachchh 22977 (25.9) 1154 (1.3) 64740 (72.8) 88871 (100) 34354 34354 (100) 123000 (20.7) 46000 (7.7) 425000 (71.5) 594000 (100) 257000 (43.3) 1665 (4.8)

Kheda 9492 (6.6) 4634 (3.2) 129865 (90.2) 143991 (100) 30923 30923 (100) 69000 (14.8) 26000 (5.6) 372000 (79.7) 467000 (100) 128000 (27.4) 51 (0.2)

Mahesana 22641 (21.0) 0 0.0 85125 (79.0) 107766 (100) 13906 13906 (100) 47000 (33.6) 0 0.0 93000 (66.4) 140000 (100) 74000 (52.9) 40 (0.3)

Patan 24290 (22.4) 1566 (1.4) 82728 (76.2) 108584 (100) 21516 21516 (100) 260000 (35.0) 19000 (2.6) 464000 (62.4) 743000 (100) 214000 (28.8) 657 (3.1)

Porbandar 5819 (30.2) 294 (1.5) 13177 (68.3) 19290 (100) 2384 2384 (100) 62000 (42.8) 0 0.0 83000 (57.2) 145000 (100) 54000 (37.2) 799 (33.5)

Rajkot 24402 (25.0) 0 0.0 73208 (75.0) 97610 (100) 28381 28381 (100) 89000 (36.0) 0 0.0 158000 (64.0) 247000 (100) 84000 (34.0) 3669 (12.9)

Surat 2056 (1.7) 117667 (94.5) 4849 (3.9) 124572 (100) 23631 23631 (100) 7000 (1.5) 433000 95.8 12000 (2.7) 452000 (100) 164000 (36.3) 0 (0.0)

Surendranagar 5373 (9.1) 518 (0.9) 53034 (90.0) 58925 (100) 7433 7433 (100) 65000 (27.5) 8000 (3.4) 163000 (69.1) 236000 (100) 95000 (40.3) 63 (0.8)

Tapi 40 (0.0) 100225 (99.0) 960 (0.9) 101225 (100) 44852 44852 (100) 0 0.0 490000 (100.0) 0 0.0 490000 (100) 180000 (36.7) 0 (0.0)

Vadodara 12638 (5.4) 146517 (62.4) 75646 (32.2) 234801 (100) 42720 42720 (100) 32000 (9.0) 262000 (73.6) 62000 (17.4) 356000 (100) 109000 30.6 0 (0.0)

Gujarat 406580 (14.1) 1038264 (36.1) 1432948 (49.8) 2877792 (100) 850691 850691 (100) 2699000 (12.7) 10772000 (50.6) 7834000 (36.8) 21305000 (100) 9122000 (42.8) 49160 (5.8)

Note: The figures in parentheses are percentages of respective total

SCs

Name of theDistrict

Cumulative No. of HH issued job cards (Till the reporting month) CumulativeNo. of HHdemanded

employment

Cumulative No.of HH provided

employment (Tillthe reporting

month)

Cumulative Person days generated

Source:http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx

OthersSCs STs STs Others Total Women

Cumulative No.of HHcompleted 100days (Till thereporting month)

Total

39

Table-2.4 (ii): Distric-wise Employment generated through MNREGA and its socio-economic characteristics in Gujarat-2009-10

Banas Kantha 68112 (28.6) 43872 (18.4) 126410 (53.0) 238394 (100) 150919 150919 (100.0) 1150000 (32.1) 735000 (20.5) 1701000 (47.4) 3586000 (100) 1133000 (31.6) 6443 (4.3)

Dang 16 (0.0) 42723 (98.8) 495 (1.1) 43234 (100) 33676 33676 (100.0) 2000 (0.1) 1502000 (99.1) 11000 (0.7) 1515000 (100) 743000 (49.0) 4301 (12.8)

Dohad 152457 (67.4) 3950 (1.7) 69729 (30.8) 226136 (100) 142761 142761 (100.0) 75000 (1.5) 4279000 (82.8) 813000 (15.7) 5167000 (100) 2583000 (50.0) 9830 (6.9)

Narmada 3184 (3.3) 83522 (86.0) 10359 (10.7) 97065 (100) 62639 62639 (100.0) 79000 (2.9) 2579000 (94.8) 62000 (2.3) 2720000 (100) 1130000 (41.5) 1780 (2.8)

Panch Mahals 14208 (6.4) 70997 (31.9) 137470 (61.7) 222675 (100) 131902 131902 (100.0) 663000 (10.4) 2589000 (40.7) 3107000 (48.9) 6359000 (100) 2851000 (44.8) 10064 (7.6)

Sabar Kantha 32606 (13.9) 69470 (29.7) 132049 (56.4) 234125 (100) 113453 113453 (100.0) 924000 (17.3) 2106000 (39.5) 2308000 (43.2) 5338000 (100) 3203000 (60.0) 5930 (5.2)

Bharuch 9344 (8.6) 78227 (71.7) 21464 (19.7) 109035 (100) 37608 37608 (100.0) 41000 (4.7) 770000 (88.7) 57000 (6.6) 868000 (100) 254000 (29.3) 350 (0.9)

Navsari 923 (1.0) 79104 (84.6) 13464 (14.4) 93491 (100) 33592 33592 (100.0) 12000 (0.9) 1126000 (87.8) 145000 (11.3) 1283000 (100) 518000 (40.4) 751 (2.2)

Valsad 3763 (2.3) 147895 (89.0) 14566 (8.8) 166224 (100) 28061 28061 (100.0) 15000 (1.7) 874000 (98.3) 0 0.0 889000 (100) 312000 (35.1) 609 (2.2)

Ahmadabad 48813 (31.1) 11276 (7.2) 97012 (61.8) 157101 (100) 51262 51262 (100.0) 179000 (15.8) 34000 (3.0) 922000 (81.2) 1135000 (100) 378000 (33.3) 1055 (2.1)

Amreli 50097 (49.9) 0 0.0 50383 (50.1) 100480 (100) 24100 24100 (100.0) 288000 (24.0) 0 0.0 912000 (76.0) 1200000 (100) 362000 (30.2) 1055 (4.4)

Anand 28772 (19.7) 3250 (2.2) 113801 (78.0) 145823 (100) 20753 20753 (100.0) 91000 (18.2) 15000 (3.0) 394000 (78.8) 500000 (100) 178000 (35.6) 671 (3.2)

Bhavnagar 12261 (13.6) 478 (0.5) 77383 (85.9) 90122 (100) 28715 28715 (100.0) 363000 (25.7) 2000 (0.1) 1049000 (74.2) 1414000 (100) 707000 (50.0) 867 (3.0)

Gandhinagar 3034 (7.4) 324 (0.8) 37877 (91.9) 41235 (100) 10328 10328 (100.0) 153000 (39.9) 0 0.0 230000 (60.1) 383000 (100) 146000 (38.1) 419 (4.1)

Jamnagar 17394 (29.4) 1746 (2.9) 40064 (67.7) 59204 (100) 19149 19149 (100.0) 277000 (33.3) 38000 (4.6) 518000 (62.2) 833000 (100) 275000 (33.0) 1993 (10.4)

Junagadh 56500 (41.6) 5100 (3.8) 74337 (54.7) 135937 (100) 55367 55367 (100.0) 798000 (31.5) 52000 (2.1) 1683000 (66.4) 2533000 (100) 1123000 (44.3) 10018 (18.1)

Kachchh 29822 (25.6) 4113 (3.5) 82426 (70.8) 116361 (100) 74367 74367 (100.0) 860000 (22.4) 158000 (4.1) 2821000 (73.5) 3839000 (100) 1398000 (36.4) 21122 (28.4)

Kheda 11211 (6.5) 5143 (3.0) 155499 (90.5) 171853 (100) 43647 43647 (100.0) 124000 (9.2) 22000 (1.6) 1197000 (89.1) 1343000 (100) 404000 (30.1) 1197 (2.7)

Mahesana 23850 (20.9) 0 0.0 90488 (79.1) 114338 (100) 11327 11327 (100.0) 107000 (17.7) 0 0.0 497000 (82.3) 604000 (100) 152000 (25.2) 466 (4.1)

Patan 19491 (10.4) 6446 (3.4) 161987 (86.2) 187924 (100) 60813 60813 (100.0) 351000 (14.1) 59000 (2.4) 2080000 (83.5) 2490000 (100) 1146000 (46.0) 2999 (4.9)

Porbandar 10385 (25.9) 315 (0.8) 29451 (73.4) 40151 (100) 19952 19952 (100.0) 357000 (26.4) 53000 (3.9) 942000 (69.7) 1352000 (100) 446000 (33.0) 3351 (16.8)

Rajkot 42000 (29.3) 1540 (1.1) 99674 (69.6) 143214 (100) 72591 72591 (100.0) 973000 (22.5) 40000 (0.9) 3307000 (76.6) 4320000 (100) 2818000 (65.2) 11717 (16.1)

Surat 3186 (2.5) 113301 (89.0) 10870 (8.5) 127357 (100) 36974 36974 (100.0) 11000 (0.9) 1243000 (96.7) 32000 (2.5) 1286000 (100) 417000 (32.4) 620 (1.7)Surendranagar 26279 (21.8) 860 (0.7) 93180 (77.4) 120319 (100) 59362 59362 (100.0) 652000 (32.9) 43000 (2.2) 1289000 (65.0) 1984000 (100) 615000 (31.0) 1895 (3.2)

Tapi 1910 (1.4) 127391 (93.4) 7020 (5.1) 136321 (100) 65344 65344 (100.0) 52000 (2.4) 2068000 (94.9) 58000 (2.7) 2178000 (100) 1137000 (52.2) 1459 (2.2)

Vadodara 27424 (10.9) 166843 (66.2) 57737 (22.9) 252004 (100) 207740 207740 (100.0) 103000 (3.0) 2700000 (79.6) 587000 (17.3) 3390000 (100) 3390000 (100.0) 2790 (1.3)Gujarat 697042 (19.5) 1067886 (29.9) 1805195 (50.6) 3570123 (100.0) 1596402 1596402 (100.0) 8700000 (14.9) 23087000 (39.5) 26722000 (45.7) 58509000 (100) 27819000 (47.5) 103752 (6.5)

Note: The figures in parentheses are percentages of respective total

Name of theDistrict

Cumulative Person days generate

Source:http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx

Others

(Till the reporting month)

SCs STs STs Others

Cumulative No. ofHH completed 100days(Till the reportingmonth )Total SCs

Cumulative No. of HH issued job cards (Till the reporting month)

Cumulative No. ofHH demanded

employment (Tillthe reporting

month)

Cumulative No. ofHH provided

employment (Tillthe reporting

month)Total Women

40

Banas Kantha 38726 (14.9) 32747 (12.6) 188384 (72.5) 259857 (100) 41297 40419 (97.9) 158849 (12.8) 197995 (15.9) 885313 (71.3) 1242157 (100) 599920 (48.3) 1497 (3.7)Dang 95 (0.2) 45066 (97.6) 1003 (2.2) 46164 (100) 29664 29316 (98.8) 776 (0.1) 1505452 (98.0) 30477 (2.0) 1536705 (100) 759950 (49.5) 3904 (13.3)Dohad 2788 (1.1) 163361 (64.7) 86454 (34.2) 252603 (100) 58497 52309 (89.4) 12997 (1.0) 735558 (58.7) 504710 (40.3) 1253265 (100) 598828 (47.8) 755 (1.4)Narmada 3218 (3.2) 85139 (85.4) 11347 (11.4) 99704 (100) 23119 22569 (97.6) 14850 (2.8) 484829 (90.4) 36856 (6.9) 536535 (100) 250207 (46.6) 305 (1.4)Panch Mahals 24467 (8.4) 70536 (24.3) 194822 (67.2) 289825 (100) 41906 40693 (97.1) 65063 (5.4) 303374 (25.1) 838820 (69.5) 1207257 (100) 585104 (48.5) 1073 (2.6)Sabar Kantha 32962 (13.7) 70983 (29.5) 136740 (56.8) 240685 (100) 54252 53105 (97.9) 289746 (15.4) 545656 (29.0) 1046075 (55.6) 1881477 (100) 923015 (49.1) 1965 (3.7)Bharuch 6735 (5.5) 83717 (68.5) 31692 (25.9) 122144 (100) 4993 4976 (99.7) 7607 (6.3) 83442 (68.9) 30046 (24.8) 121095 (100) 56529 (46.7) 68 (1.4)Navsari 1955 (1.9) 83924 (82.1) 16378 (16.0) 102257 (100) 17081 16959 (99.3) 4921 (1.0) 395480 (79.8) 95084 (19.2) 495485 (100) 268870 (54.3) 172 (1.0)Valsad 4231 (2.3) 157193 (87.2) 18895 (10.5) 180319 (100) 9641 9506 (98.6) 3339 (1.2) 243249 (87.6) 31192 (11.2) 277780 (100) 140077 (50.4) 342 (3.6)Ahmadabad 18912 (13.6) 6492 (4.7) 114065 (81.8) 139469 (100) 14447 14297 (99.0) 42548 (7.8) 9880 (1.8) 494460 (90.4) 546888 (100) 267389 (48.9) 523 (3.7)Amreli 23301 (20.2) 314 (0.3) 91609 (79.5) 115224 (100) 28252 28009 (99.1) 318768 (29.2) 9189 (0.8) 765580 (70.0) 1093537 (100) 554811 (50.7) 1108 (4.0)Anand 11393 (7.7) 3884 (2.6) 132646 (89.7) 147923 (100) 4688 4612 (98.4) 24566 (18.1) 5195 (3.8) 106025 (78.1) 135786 (100) 56263 (41.4) 129 (2.8)Bhavnagar 5788 (6.0) 1057 (1.1) 89777 (92.9) 96622 (100) 16943 16779 (99.0) 58890 (7.7) 9293 (1.2) 698969 (91.1) 767152 (100) 398179 (51.9) 1182 (7.0)Gandhinagar 2947 (7.0) 352 (0.8) 38678 (92.1) 41977 (100) 3156 3128 (99.1) 6032 (4.9) 129 (0.1) 117000 (95.0) 123161 (100) 50989 (41.4) 164 (5.2)Jamnagar 14567 (23.0) 1844 (2.9) 47031 (74.1) 63442 (100) 5897 5755 (97.6) 40130 (18.0) 6342 (2.8) 176091 (79.1) 222563 (100) 104531 (47.0) 185 (3.2)Junagadh 27891 (18.9) 8522 (5.8) 111137 (75.3) 147550 (100) 45659 45244 (99.1) 484329 (22.7) 98514 (4.6) 1554602 (72.7) 2137445 (100) 1064086 (49.8) 2051 (4.5)Kachchh 15232 (12.6) 975 (0.8) 104445 (86.6) 120652 (100) 27751 26799 (96.6) 99569 (9.8) 3172 (0.3) 912681 (89.9) 1015422 (100) 516479 (50.9) 423 (1.6)Kheda 9767 (5.3) 3875 (2.1) 169270 (92.5) 182912 (100) 10794 10674 (98.9) 6953 (2.7) 4010 (1.5) 248664 (95.8) 259627 (100) 104507 (40.3) 70 (0.7)Mahesana 18884 (16.2) 247 (0.2) 97307 (83.6) 116438 (100) 4648 4591 (98.8) 26964 (17.8) 355 (0.2) 124559 (82.0) 151878 (100) 66310 (43.7) 67 (1.5)Patan 20346 (10.3) 6702 (3.4) 170283 (86.3) 197331 (100) 35207 33688 (95.7) 117632 (10.8) 39246 (3.6) 930404 (85.6) 1087282 (100) 497776 (45.8) 505 (1.5)Porbandar 5187 (11.5) 1243 (2.7) 38822 (85.8) 45252 (100) 12635 12546 (99.3) 44821 (8.5) 10143 (1.9) 475276 (89.6) 530240 (100) 249805 (47.1) 454 (3.6)Rajkot 14107 (8.0) 1801 (1.0) 160910 (91.0) 176818 (100) 20525 19414 (94.6) 32628 (4.8) 2654 (0.4) 644920 (94.8) 680202 (100) 326480 (48.0) 374 (1.9)Surat 3486 (2.7) 112879 (88.0) 11950 (9.3) 128315 (100) 7600 7439 (97.9) 2136 (1.0) 195168 (91.0) 17143 (8.0) 214447 (100) 96958 (45.2) 167 (2.2)Surendranagar 15492 (10.7) 4001 (2.8) 125557 (86.6) 145050 (100) 40357 39889 (98.8) 158618 (9.3) 35653 (2.1) 1502888 (88.6) 1697159 (100) 799920 (47.1) 1977 (5.0)Tapi 2105 (1.4) 134488 (92.6) 8658 (6.0) 145251 (100) 18373 17891 (97.4) 4426 (1.2) 336814 (94.5) 15015 (4.2) 356255 (100) 156730 (44.0) 89 (0.5)Vadodara 23727 (9.3) 147790 (57.8) 84361 (33.0) 255878 (100) 30934 30312 (98.0) 40024 (3.6) 911033 (80.9) 175066 (15.5) 1126123 (100) 474479 (42.1) 858 (2.8)Gujarat 348309 (9.0) 1229132 (31.8) 2282221 (59.1) 3859662 (100) 608316 590919 (97.1) 2067182 (10.0) 6171825 (29.8) 12457916 (60.2) 20696923 (100) 9968192 (48.2) 20407 (3.5)

Total

Table-2.4 (iii): Distric-wise Employment generated through MNREGA and its socio-economic characteristics in Gujarat-2010-11 ( Till Aug.2010)

Women

Name of theDistrict

STs Others

Cumulative No.of HHcompleted100 days (Tillthe reportingmonth )

Note: The figures in parentheses are percentages of respective total

Cumulative No. of HH issued job cards (Till the reporting month) Cumulative Person days generated

SCs STs Others Total

Cumulative No.of HH

demandedemployment

(Till thereportingmonth)

Cumulative No.of HH provided

employment (Tillthe reporting

month) SCs

41

During 2008-10, across all districts of State, demand for employment

under MNREGA was found low in Anand, Bharuch, Gandhinagar, Valsad,

Jamnagar, Navsari, Jamnagar, Amreli and Mahesana districts. The demand

remained low mainly due to ample scope of alternative employment with

relatively higher wages and for a longer period (Table 2.4(i) to 2.4 (iii)).

Across all districts of the state, demand for employment under

MNREGA was found highest in Dahod district followed by Banaskatha district

during 2008-09. During 2009-10, employment demand was found high in

Vadodara district followed by Banaskatha district (Table 2.4 (i) and (ii)).

It is pleasing to note that as per record, during the period of 2008-10, all

the needy rural households of all the districts of Gujarat State who demanded

works were provided employment under MNREGA. Therefore, supply of

employment matches the demand.

3) Employment Generation:One criteria of judging the success of MNREGA is number of person

days of employment generated per job demanding household. It is seen from

the Table 2.4 (i) to 2.4 (iii) that in Gujarat State, MNREGA created

employment of 213.05 lakh person days in the year 2008-09 and 585.09 lakh

person days in 2009-10. It means that against the guarantee of 100 person

days, Gujarat able to generate on an average only 25 and 37 person days per

job demanding household in year 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. The low

level generation of employment days per job demanding households reflects

low level performance of MNREGA. Gandhinagar district generated lowest

person days of employment during 2008-10.

Among all districts of Gujarat State, during 2008-10, Panchmahals

(101.45 lakh) and Dahod (99.52 lakh) district created highest person days of

employment. During period 2008-10, per job demanding households Dahod

generated on an average 36 person days per year, whereas Panchmahals

generated nearly 50 person days per year.

In selected districts, Dahod generated highest employment days at

47.85 lakh in 2008-09 and 51.67 lakh in 2009-10. The important feature is the

very less number of days of employment generated per household. Further,

average number of person days generated per job demanding household for

year 2008-09 varied from 21 person days in Banaskantha to 36 person days

42

in Dahod district. And for year 2009-10, it ranged from 24 person days in

Banaskantha to 44 person days in Surendranagar district (see Table 2.4 (i) to

2.4 (iii)).

Due to low level of operation of the programme and frequent

stoppages/ suspension of works, employment generated per household

remained very low and far below the expectation. The steps needed

immediately for higher generation of employment days through higher

participation. For Gujarat State as a whole, in the total person days

generated, ST and SC together had very high contribution. It was 63.30

percent in year 2008-09 and 54.40 percent in year 2009-10. This indicates

that programme appears to be well targeted, as the castes/tribes with high

incidence of poverty have maximum participation in the programme. Further,

this shows that MNREGA succeed in providing enhance employment and

livelihood security to under privileged ST and SC.

For empowering the women, there is a provision in the scheme to

provide at least one third employment to women. It is evident from the Table

2.4 (i) to 2.4 (iii) that in Gujarat State, for each year, the employment share of

women was higher (above 42%) than provision made in guidelines. In Rajkot

and Sabarkantha districts, employment share of women in 2009-10 was more

than 60.00 percent. And it was below 30.00 percent in Kheda and Bharuch

districts. In majority districts, the women share in total employment under

MNREGA was also more than or near to one third. This indicates that women

prefer to work in MNREGA works, if works are conveniently located and suit

their skills. As expected, good level of women participation in MNREGA works

is definitely a sign of positive development for women community and Act

empowered and enhanced their economic freedom to some extent.

4) 100 Days Employment:MNREGA guarantees at least 100 days of wage employment per

household in every financial year. The data reveals that of the total job

demanding households of Gujarat State, only 5.78 percent in 2008-09 and

6.50 percent in 2009-10 exhausted 100 days limit of employment. Among all

districts of the State, during 2009-10, percentage of households exhausted

100 days limit of employment was found highest (28.40%) for drought affected

Kutch districts followed by Patan (20.28%) and Junagadh (18.90%). In

43

Vadodara, Tapi, Gandhinagar and Surat district, not a single households

availed wage employment of 100 days in year 2008-09. During 2009-10,

percentage of households which exhausted 100 days of employment limit

was found below 2.00 percent in Bharuch, Surat and Vadodara districts

(Table 2.4 (i) to 2.4 (iii)).

In selected districts also only 10 percent or less number of households

were provided guaranteed employment of 100 days. This reflects the poor

performance of MNREGA. The 100 days of guaranteed employment at

minimum wage rate aim at holding people to villages and reducing the scale

of distress out migration during lean period. As 100 days employment not

provided to a very large section, Act had little impact on halting rural-urban

migration during lean seasons and lifestyle of the rural poor people.

2.2.3 Works Undertaken under MNREGA during 2008-09 to 2010-11:The types of permissible works to be undertaken under MNREGA have

been codified in the Guidelines. Out of nine preferred areas of works under

scheme, the main focus was laid on soil and water conservation and

harvesting (WCWH) works and improving irrigation potential. Further, it focus

on works which create productive assets like water harvesting and storing

structures, flood control and drought proofing structures etc. As per act, local

bodies are suppose to plan, design and execute the works to be taken up and

at least 50 percent of the works under scheme will be implemented and

monitored through village Panchayat. The data on types of works undertaken

under MNREGA during period 2008-09 to 2010-11 (Till August-2010) in

selected districts as well as state as a whole are shown in Table 2.5.(i) to

2.5(iii). The same data for 26 districts are given in Appendix- 1(i) to 1(iii).

1) Works Completed:In Gujarat State, during fiscal year 2008-09, of the total 46657 started

works, 32530 (69.72%) works have been completed while 14127 (30.28%)

works remained incompleted or suspended. Of the total works undertaken,

88.86 percent works in year 2009-10 and only 1.87 percent works in year

2010-11 (Till August, 2010) have been completed.

The data on completed works reveals large variations in the

performance of MNREGA across districts. As 2008-09 was the initial year of

implementation of MNREGA in many districts of the state, the works started

44

late and hence the works started late and hence the percentage of

incompleted/ suspended works found very high for many districts. In Dahod

63.32 percent, Valsad 68.91 percent, Kutch 55.39 percent and Surendranagar

76.14 percent works remained incompleted or suspended. However, record of

works completed improved to a great extent in 2009-10. In 2009-10, 18

districts out of 26 districts completed more than 85.00 percent of planned

works (Appendix-1(i) to 1 (iii)).

Among selected districts, during fiscal year 2008-09, of the total works

undertaken, 75.30 percent works in Banaskantha, 36.67 percent works in

Dahod, 52.70 percent works in Navsari, 44.86 percent works in Jamnagar and

23.86 percent works in Surendranagar district have been completed. Thus,

data of works completed in 2008-09 present gloomy picture of performance,

particularly in Jamnagar, Surendranagar and Banaskantha districts. However,

during 2009-10, 78.39 percent works in Banaskantha, 62.55 percent works in

Dahod, 83.68 percent works in Navsari, 98.77 percent works in Jamnagar and

95.96 percent works in Surendranagar reported completed. The data on

completed works reveals the wide variations in the performance of MNREGA

across districts. As compared to 2009-10, large numbers of

incompleted/suspeneded works during 2008-09 were mainly due to various

reasons such as delays in approval and implementation, inadequate funds,

works started in last quarter of the year, initial year of implementation for

many districts etc. Also, in the scheme there is no compulsion to complete

works within fiscal year. Therefore, implementing agency is starting so many

works at a time but not completing many of them.

2) Types of Works Undertaken:The MNREGA guidelines have recommended the types of works that

can be undertaken under the scheme. The data in Table 2.5 and Appendix-1

clearly reveals that all the districts of Gujarat seem to have followed the

guidelines.

The effectiveness of scheme crucially depends on what types of works it

gives priority to. During fiscal year 2008-09, of the total 46657 works taken up

in Gujarat State, 40.90 percent were related to Water Conservation and Water

Harvesting (WCWH), 17.40 percent were related to Provision of Irrigation and

Land Development (PI & LD) 16.50 percent to Drought Proofing (DP) and

45

Table 2.5 (i): District wise number of works completed/progress under MNREGA -2008-2009Type of Works Banas

Kantha Dohad Navsari Jamnagar Surendranagar Gujarat State

RuralConnectivity

comp.* 99(2.1)

360(13.1)

140(18.9)

10(9.2)

0(0.0)

2886(8.9)

Ongo/Susp** 115(7.3)

197(4.1)

235(35.3)

16(11.9)

12(17.9)

2267(16.0)

Total 214(3.4)

557(7.4)

375(26.7)

26(10.7)

12(13.6)

5153(11.0)

FloodControl

comp.* 31(0.6)

482(17.5)

113(15.2)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

2196(6.8)

Ongo/Susp** 4(0.3)

332(7.0)

44(6.6)

2(1.5)

5(7.5)

810(5.7)

Total 35(0.5)

814(10.8)

157(11.2)

2(0.8)

5(5.7)

3006(6.4)

WaterConservationAnd WaterHarvesting

comp.* 3927(81.7)

1369(49.7)

70(9.4)

70(64.2)

21(100.0)

17397(53.5)

Ongo/Susp** 170(10.8)

211(4.4)

19(2.9)

34(25.4)

42(62.7)

1687(11.9)

Total 4097(64.2)

1580(21.0)

89(6.3)

104(42.8)

63(71.6)

19084(40.9)

DroughtProofing

comp.* 226(4.7)

347(12.6)

147(19.8)

9(8.3)

0(0.0)

6328(19.5)

Ongo/Susp** 712(45.2)

12(0.3)

9(1.4)

9(6.7)

5(7.5)

1390(9.8)

Total 938(14.7)

359(4.8)

156(11.1)

18(7.4)

5(5.7)

7718(16.5)

MicroIrrigation

comp.* 0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

85(0.3)

Ongo/Susp** 0(0.0)

0(0.0)

14(2.1)

2(1.5)

0(0.0)

98(0.7)

Total 0(0.0)

0(0.0)

14(1.0)

2(0.8)

0(0.0)

183(0.4)

Provision ofIrrigationfacility toLanddevelopment

comp.* 136(2.8)

162(5.9)

125(16.9)

1(0.9)

0(0.0)

1784(5.5)

Ongo/Susp** 141(8.9)

3999(84.0)

339(51.0)

46(34.3)

1(1.5)

6332(44.8)

Total 277(4.3)

4161(55.4)

464(33.0)

47(19.3)

1(1.1)

8116(17.4)

Renovationof TraditionalWaterBodies

comp.* 149(3.1)

37(1.3)

60(8.1)

2(1.8)

0(0.0)

1154(3.5)

Ongo/Susp** 120(7.6)

9(0.2)

5(0.8)

8(6.0)

2(3.0)

1122(7.9)

Total 269(4.2)

46(0.6)

65(4.6)

10(4.1)

2(2.3)

2276(4.9)

Landdevelopment

comp.* 10(0.2)

0(0.0)

3(0.4)

7(6.4)

0(0.0)

217(0.7)

Ongo/Susp** 31(2.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

8(6.0)

0(0.0)

112(0.8)

Total 41(0.6)

0(0.0)

3(0.2)

15(6.2)

0(0.0)

329(0.7)

Any OtherActivityApproved byMoRD

comp.* 227(4.7)

0(0.0)

83(11.2)

10(9.2)

0(0.0)

483(1.5)

Ongo/Susp** 283(18.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

9(6.7)

0(0.0)

309(2.2)

Total 510(8.0)

0(0.0)

83(5.9)

19(7.8)

0(0.0)

792(1.7)

Rajiv GandhiSeva Kendra

comp.* 0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

Ongo/Susp** 0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

Total 0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

Total Works

comp.* 4805(100.0)

2757(100.0)

741(100.0)

109(100.0)

21(100.0)

32530(100.0)

Ongo/Susp** 1576(100.0)

4760(100.0)

665(100.0)

134(100.0)

67(100.0)

14127(100.0)

Total 6381(100.0)

7517(100.0)

1406(100.0)

243(100.0)

88(100.0)

46657(100.0)

Source: http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx, Note: Figure in brackets denote percentage to total works.*comp. means completed, **ongo/susp. means ongoing/suspended

46

Table 2.5(ii): District wise number of works completed/progress under MNREGA-2009-10Type of Works Banas

Kantha Dohad Navsari Jamnagar Surendranagar Gujarat State

RuralConnectivity

comp.* 34(0.2)

58(0.5)

234(4.2)

112(0.8)

65(0.4)

6799(2.6)

Ongo/Susp** 398(9.6)

347(5.4)

341(31.3)

21(12.3)

56(8.7)

4716(14.3)

Total 432(2.3)

405(2.4)

575(8.6)

133(1.0)

121(0.8)

11515(3.9)

FloodControl

comp.* 2(0.0)

295(2.8)

63(1.1)

0(0.0)

33(0.2)

2858(1.1)

Ongo/Susp** 60(1.4)

898(14.0)

56(5.1)

8(4.7)

349(54.4)

2478(7.5)

Total 62(0.3)

1193(7.0)

119(1.8)

8(0.1)

382(2.4)

5336(1.8)

WaterConservationAnd WaterHarvesting

comp.* 14859(98.9)

9576(89.6)

5142(92.1)

13137(95.4)

15078(98.8)

222699(84.5)

Ongo/Susp** 1934(46.7)

379(5.9)

2(0.2)

19(11.1)

183(28.5)

4549(13.8)

Total 16793(87.6)

9955(58.3)

5144(77.1)

13156(94.3)

15261(96.0)

227248(76.6)

DroughtProofing

comp.* 12(0.1)

45(0.4)

2(0.0)

63(0.5)

1(0.0)

4232(1.6)

Ongo/Susp** 774(18.7)

309(4.8)

203(18.6)

13(7.6)

4(0.6)

5441(16.5)

Total 786(4.1)

354(2.1)

205(3.1)

76(0.5)

5(0.0)

9673(3.3)

MicroIrrigation

comp.* 0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

17(0.1)

0(0.0)

334(0.1)

Ongo/Susp** 38(0.9)

4(0.1)

0(0.0)

9(5.3)

5(0.8)

524(1.6)

Total 38(0.2)

4(0.0)

0(0.0)

26(0.2)

5(0.0)

858(0.3)

Provision ofIrrigationfacility toLanddevelopment

comp.* 23(0.2)

710(6.6)

95(1.7)

71(0.5)

1(0.0)

3645(1.4)

Ongo/Susp** 326(7.9)

4365(68.2)

413(37.9)

57(33.3)

4(0.6)

11503(34.8)

Total 349(1.8)

5075(29.7)

508(7.6)

128(0.9)

5(0.0)

15148(5.1)

Renovationof TraditionalWaterBodies

comp.* 9(0.1)

4(0.0)

39(0.7)

88(0.6)

83(0.5)

3748(1.4)

Ongo/Susp** 287(6.9)

92(1.4)

70(6.4)

17(9.9)

28(4.4)

2547(7.7)

Total 296(1.5)

96(0.6)

109(1.6)

105(0.8)

111(0.7)

6295(2.1)

Landdevelopment

comp.* 80(0.5)

0(0.0)

9(0.2)

22(0.2)

00.0

2224(0.8)

Ongo/Susp** 41(1.0)

5(0.1)

4(0.4)

27(15.8)

13(2.0)

549(1.7)

Total 121(0.6)

5(0.0)

13(0.2)

49(0.4)

13(0.1)

2773(0.9)

Any OtherActivityApproved byMoRD

comp.* 6(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

267(1.9)

0(0.0)

17112(6.5)

Ongo/Susp** 284(6.9)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

759(2.3)

Total 290(1.5)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

267(1.9)

0(0.0)

17871(6.0)

Rajiv GandhiSeva Kendra

comp.* 0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

Ongo/Susp** 0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

Total 0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

Total Works

comp.* 15025(100.0)

10688(100.0)

5584(100.0)

13777(100.0)

15261(100.0)

263651(100.0)

Ongo/Susp** 4142(100.0)

6399(100.0)

1089(100.0)

171(100.0)

642(100.0)

33066(100.0)

Total 19167(100.0)

17087(100.0)

6673(100.0)

13948(100.0)

15903(100.0)

296717(100.0)

Source: http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx, Note: Figure in brackets denote percentage to total works.*comp. means completed, **ongo/susp. Means ongoing/suspended

47

Table 2.5 (iii): District wise number of works completed/progress under MNREGA -2010-2011(Till Aug -2010)

Type of Works BanasKantha Dohad Navsari Jamnagar Surendra

nagar Gujarat State

RuralConnectivity

comp.* 4(17.4)

1(0.6)

60(47.6)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

396(13.1)

Ongo/Susp** 1181(13.9)

677(2.7)

650(18.3)

609(10.8)

187(5.7)

19197(12.1)

Total 1185(14.0)

678(2.7)

710(19.3)

609(10.8)

187(5.7)

19593(12.2)

FloodControl

comp.* 0(0.0)

11(6.7)

5(4.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

126(4.2)

Ongo/Susp** 55(0.6)

2912(11.8)

250(7.0)

35(0.6)

440(13.5)

12258(7.8)

Total 55(0.6)

2923(11.8)

255(6.9)

35(0.6)

440(13.5)

12384(7.7)

WaterConservationAnd WaterHarvesting

comp.* 13(56.5)

32(19.6)

0(0.0)

1(100.0)

0(0.0)

1897(62.8)

Ongo/Susp** 5526(65.3)

4462(18.1)

1268(35.6)

4071(72.2)

2283(69.8)

70021(44.3)

Total 5539(65.2)

4494(18.1)

1268(34.4)

4072(72.2)

2283(69.8)

71918(44.6)

DroughtProofing

comp.* 1(4.3)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

83(2.7)

Ongo/Susp** 295(3.5)

139(0.6)

234(6.6)

290(5.1)

29(0.9)

11710(7.4)

Total 296(3.5)

139(0.6)

234(6.4)

290(5.1)

29(0.9)

11793(7.3)

MicroIrrigation

comp.* 0(0.0)

1(0.6)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

18(0.6)

Ongo/Susp** 63(0.7)

92(0.4)

157(4.4)

12(0.2)

7(0.2)

1918(1.2)

Total 63(0.7)

93(0.4)

157(4.3)

12(0.2)

7(0.2)

1936(1.2)

Provision ofIrrigationfacility toLanddevelopment

comp.* 0(0.0)

97(59.5)

61(48.4)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

204(6.8)

Ongo/Susp** 211(2.5)

13603(55.2)

557(15.7)

283(5.0)

5(0.2)

25620(16.2)

Total 211(2.5)

13700(55.2)

618(16.8)

283(5.0)

5(0.2)

25824(16.0)

RenovationofTraditionalWaterBodies

comp.* 3(13.0)

13(8.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

94(3.1)

Ongo/Susp** 697(8.2)

1585(6.4)

170(4.8)

127(2.3)

85(2.6)

8626(5.5)

Total 700(8.2)

1598(6.4)

170(4.6)

127(2.3)

85(2.6)

8720(5.4)

Landdevelopment

comp.* 2(8.7)

1(0.6)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

135(4.5)

Ongo/Susp** 243(2.9)

185(0.8)

49(1.4)

179(3.2)

66(2.0)

3774(2.4)

Total 245(2.9)

186(0.7)

49(1.3)

179(3.2)

66(2.0)

3909(2.4)

Any OtherActivityApproved byMoRD

comp.* 0(0.0)

7(4.3)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

68(2.3)

Ongo/Susp** 197(2.3)

1009(4.1)

222(6.2)

36(0.6)

169(5.2)

4938(3.1)

Total 197(2.3)

1016(4.1)

222(6.0)

36(0.6)

169(5.2)

5006(3.1)

Rajiv GandhiSeva Kendra

comp.* 0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

Ongo/Susp** 0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

41(0.0)

Total 0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

41(0.0)

Total Works

comp.* 23(100.0)

163(100.0)

126(100.0)

1(100.0)

0(100.0)

3021(100.0)

Ongo/Susp** 8468(100.0)

24664(100.0)

3557(100.0)

5642(100.0)

3271(100.0)

158103(100.0)

Total 8491(100.0)

24827(100.0)

3683(100.0)

5643(100.0)

3271(100.0)

161124(100.0)

Source: http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx, Note: Figure in brackets denote percentage to total works.*comp. means completed, **ongo/susp. means ongoing/suspended

48

11.00 percent related to Rural Connectivity (RC). In fiscal year 2009-10, of

the total works undertaken, 76.60 percent were of WCWH and 5.10 percent of

PI & LD works on SC/ST private land. The above data clearly reveals that the

main focus was on works related to WCWH, PI&LD and DP.

In majority districts of the State, the main focus on works undertaken

under MNREGA was on works related to WCWH, PI & LD, DP, micro

irrigation etc. for creating durable productive assets which are helpful in

enhancing irrigation and in turn crop productivity.

In all selected districts, except Dahod, large number of works

undertaken during 2008-09 and 2009-10 were under the category of water

harvesting and conservation (WCWH). The second and third priority of works

taken up varied across districts depending on demand.

During 2009-10, in water starving districts like Surendranagar,

Jamnagar and Banaskantha, of the total works taken up, more than 87

percent works were related to WCWH. In Dahod, WCWH (58.3%) and PI&LD

(19.70%) were the main works. It may be noted that so far works relating to

Rajiv Gandhi Seva Kendra were not completed in any district of Gujarat State.

The above analysis clearly established that in Gujarat state including

selected districts, focus was more on works which create productive

community assets and enhance irrigation potential by recharge of rain water.

This, in turn, will provide enhance employment and livelihood security

especially for those rural families which are poor and highly dependent on

casual manual labour.

2.2.4 Expenditure on Works Undertaken Under MNREGA:The break-up of the expenditure according to works undertaken under

MNREGA in selected districts for fiscal year 2008-09 to 2010-11(Till August-

2010) is shown in Table 2.6(i) to 2.6(iii). District wise break-up of expenditure

for all the districts of the state is shown in Appendix-2(i) to 2(iii). For Gujarat

state as a whole, during year 2008-09, of the total amount of Rs. 182.73

crore, the highest amount of Rs.51.31 crores was spent on water

conservation and harvesting (WCWH) works, followed by Rs.50.27 crores on

rural connectivity (RC) works, Rs.35.69 crores on Provision of Irrigation and

Land Development for SC/ST (PI & LD), Rs.19.87 crores on flood control (FC)

works and Rs.13.31 crores on renovation of traditional water bodies (RTWB)

49

Table 2.6 (i): District wise amount spent on works completed/progress under MNREGA-2008-09 (Rs.in Lakhs)

Type of Works Banaskantha Dohad Navsari Jamnagar Surendra

nagar Gujarat State

RuralConnectivity

comp.* 127.7(12.5)

183.4(12.2)

198.0(45.6)

12.0(22.0)

0.0(0.0)

2865.1(27.8)

Ongo/Susp**

248.6(49.4)

320.4(13.0)

186.9(38.1)

5.1(18.6)

13.9(19.6)

2162.2(27.2)

Total 376.3(24.7)

503.8(12.7)

384.9(41.6)

17.2(20.9)

13.9(18.2)

5027.2(27.5)

Flood Control

comp.* 13.0(1.3)

281.6(18.7)

67.9(15.6)

0.0(0.0)

0.0(0.0)

1254.5(12.2)

Ongo/Susp**

4.3(0.9)

357.6(14.5)

23.0(4.7)

0.0(0.0)

9.5(13.3)

732.2(9.2)

Total 17.3(1.1)

639.2(16.1)

90.9(9.8)

0.0(0.0)

9.5(12.4)

1986.6(10.9)

WaterConservationAnd WaterHarvesting

comp.* 742.5(72.6)

778.0(51.8)

15.3(3.5)

31.5(57.8)

5.3(100.0)

3914.7(37.9)

Ongo/Susp**

189.7(37.7)

330.0(13.4)

0.0(0.0)

14.1(51.0)

42.9(60.2)

1216.7(15.3)

Total 932.2(61.1)

1107.9(27.9)

15.3(1.7)

45.6(55.5)

48.1(62.9)

5131.4(28.1)

DroughtProofing

comp.* 72.6(7.1)

48.5(3.2)

6.5(1.5)

2.7(5.0)

0.00.0

590.1(5.7)

Ongo/Susp**

28.0(5.6)

6.0(0.2)

0.2(0.0)

1.1(3.9)

1.8(2.6)

279.3(3.5)

Total 100.6(6.6)

54.5(1.4)

6.7(0.7)

3.8(4.6)

1.8(2.4)

869.5(4.8)

MicroIrrigation

comp.* 0.0(0.0)

0.0(0.0)

0.0(0.0)

0.0(0.0)

0.0(0.0)

100.7(1.0)

Ongo/Susp**

0.0(0.0)

0.0(0.0)

9.9(2.0)

0.0(0.0)

0.0(0.0)

40.7(0.5)

Total 0.0(0.0)

0.0(0.0)

9.9(1.1)

0.0(0.0)

0.0(0.0)

141.4(0.8)

Provision ofIrrigationfacility to Landdevelopment

comp.* 10.0(1.0)

202.9(13.5)

107.1(24.7)

1.6(2.8)

0.0(0.0)

670.5(6.5)

Ongo/Susp**

1.5(0.3)

1441.2(58.3)

267.1(54.4)

4.3(15.6)

2.5(3.5)

2898.2(36.4)

Total 11.5(0.8)

1644.2(41.4)

374.2(40.4)

5.9(7.1)

2.5(3.2)

3568.6(19.5)

Renovation ofTraditionalWater Bodies

comp.* 31.9(3.1)

7.8(0.5)

33.9(7.8)

0.3(0.5)

0.00.0

773.1(7.5)

Ongo/Susp**

24.6(4.9)

16.1(0.7)

4.1(0.8)

1.2(4.2)

0.7(0.9)

558.1(7.0)

Total 56.5(3.7)

23.9(0.6)

38.0(4.1)

1.4(1.8)

0.7(0.9)

1331.2(7.3)

Landdevelopment

comp.* 16.2(1.6)

0.0(0.0)

1.1(0.3)

0.5(0.9)

0.0(0.0)

82.3(0.8)

Ongo/Susp**

4.6(0.9)

0.0(0.0)

0.0(0.0)

1.7(6.0)

0.0(0.0)

59.2(0.7)

Total 20.8(1.4)

0.0(0.0)

1.1(0.1)

2.1(2.6)

0.0(0.0)

141.5(0.8)

Any OtherActivityApproved byMoRD

comp.* 8.9(0.9)

0.0(0.0)

4.4(1.0)

6.0(10.9)

0.0(0.0)

65.8(0.6)

Ongo/Susp**

1.6(0.3)

0.0(0.0)

0.0(0.0)

0.2(0.7)

0.0(0.0)

9.4(0.1)

Total 10.4(0.7)

0 0(0.0)

4.4(0.5)

6.2(7.5)

0.0(0.0)

75.3(0.4)

Rajiv GandhiSeva Kendra

comp.* 0.0(0.0)

0.0(0.0)

0.0(0.0)

0.0(0.0)

0.0(0.0)

0.0(0.0)

Ongo/Susp**

0.0(0.0)

0.0(0.0)

0.0(0.0)

0.0(0.0)

0.0(0.0)

0.0(0.0)

Total 0.0(0.0)

0.0(0.0)

0.0(0.0)

0.0(0.0)

0.0(0.0)

0.0(0.0)

Total Works

comp.* 1022.7(100.0)

1502.2(100.0)

434.2(100.0)

54.6(100.0)

5.3(100.0)

10316.7(100.0)

Ongo/Susp**

502.9(100.0)

2471.3(100.0)

491.2(100.0)

27.6(100.0)

71.2(100.0)

7956.1(100.0)

Total 1525.6(100.0)

3973.5(100.0)

925.4(100.0)

82.1(100.0)

76.5(100.0)

18272.8(100.0)

Source: http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx, Note: Figure in brackets denotes percentage to total works.* Comp. means completed. **ongo/susp. means ongoing/suspended

50

Table 2.6 (ii): District wise amount spent on works completed/progress under MNREGA-2009-10(Rs.in Lakhs)

Type of Works BanasKantha Dohad Navsari Jamnagar Surendra

nagar Gujarat State

RuralConnectivity

comp.* 103.68(6.6)

13.6(0.8)

361.69(40.6)

196(22.9)

135.6(16.0)

9368.49(21.7)

Ongo/Susp** 784.14(35.5)

364(5.2)

325.46(35.5)

12.4(14.2)

102.6(11.8)

6216.85(22.9)

Total 887.82(23.5)

378(4.3)

687.15(38.0)

209(22.1)

238.2(13.9)

15585.3(22.2)

Flood Control

comp.* 1.79(0.1)

242(14.2)

87.85(9.9)

0(0.0)

72.83(8.6)

3376.81(7.8)

Ongo/Susp** 146.72(6.6)

1385(19.7)

36.89(4.0)

10.3(11.8)

235.6(27.2)

3348.74(12.3)

Total 148.51(3.9)

1627(18.6)

124.74(6.9)

10.3(1.1)

308.5(18.0)

6725.55(9.6)

WaterConservationAnd WaterHarvesting

comp.* 1413.4(89.7)

578(33.9)

247.49(27.8)

291(34.0)

508.1(59.8)

16929.2(39.3)

Ongo/Susp** 847.57(38.4)

515(7.3)

4.6(0.5)

15.7(18.0)

258.1(29.8)

4471.14(16.4)

Total 2261(59.8)

1092(12.5)

252.09(13.9)

307(32.5)

766.2(44.7)

21400.4(30.4)

DroughtProofing

comp.* 7.84(0.5)

16.9(1.0)

0.09(0.0)

47.6(5.6)

1.23(0.1)

1993.57(4.6)

Ongo/Susp** 137.75(6.2)

233(3.3)

108.62(11.8)

5.86(6.7)

4.54(0.5)

2335.11(8.6)

Total 145.59(3.8)

250(2.9)

108.71(6.0)

53.5(5.7)

5.77(0.3)

4328.68(6.2)

MicroIrrigation

comp.* 0(0.0 )

0(0.0 )

0(0.0 )

18.6(2.2)

0(0.0 )

347.13(0.8)

Ongo/Susp** 39.6(1.8)

0.6(0.0)

0(0.0 )

4.18(4.8)

11.11(1.3)

436.8(1.6)

Total 39.6(1.0)

0.6(0.0)

0(0.0 )

22.8(2.4)

11.11(0.6)

783.93(1.1)

Provision ofIrrigationfacility toLanddevelopment

comp.* 11.66(0.7)

848(49.8)

130.25(14.6)

85.1(9.9)

0.5(0.1)

3366.05(7.8)

Ongo/Susp** 126.79(5.7)

4533(64.4)

410.23(44.7)

32(36.6)

3(0.3)

7038.79(25.9)

Total 138.45(3.7)

5381(61.6)

540.48(29.9)

117(12.4)

3.5(0.2)

10404.8(14.8)

Renovationof TraditionalWater Bodies

comp.* 11.05(0.7)

3.6(0.2)

57.67(6.5)

122(14.2)

130.7(15.4)

6409.71(14.9)

Ongo/Susp** 88.51(4.0)

6.29(0.1)

29.55(3.2)

3.16(3.6)

250.5(28.9)

2032.56(7.5)

Total 99.56(2.6)

9.89(0.1)

87.22(4.8)

125(13.2)

381.2(22.2)

8442.27(12.0)

Landdevelopment

comp.* 26.07(1.7)

00.0

4.91(0.6)

16.3(1.9)

00.0

584.5(1.4)

Ongo/Susp** 35.83(1.6)

0.5(0.0)

1.9(0.2)

3.67(4.2)

1.52(0.2)

441.46(1.6)

Total 61.9(1.6)

0.5(0.0)

6.81(0.4)

20(2.1)

1.52(0.1)

1025.96(1.5)

Any OtherActivityApproved byMoRD

comp.* 0.06(0.0)

0(0.0 )

0(0.0 )

79.6(9.3)

0(0.0 )

726.22(1.7)

Ongo/Susp** 1.04(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

876.91(3.2)

Total 1.1(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

79.6(8.4)

0(0.0)

1603.13(2.3)

Rajiv GandhiSeva Kendra

comp.* 0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

Ongo/Susp** 0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

Total 0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

Total Works

comp.* 1575.5(100.0)

1702(100.0)

889.95(100.0)

856(100.0)

849(100.0)

43101.7(100.0)

Ongo/Susp** 2208(100.0)

7037(100.0)

917.25(100.0)

87.3(100.0)

866.9(100.0)

27198.4(100.0)

Total 3783.5(100.0)

8739(100.0)

1807.2(100.0)

944(100.0)

1716(100.0)

70300.1(100.0)

Source: http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx, Note: Figure in brackets denote percentage to total works.*comp. means completed, **ongo/susp. means ongoing/suspended

51

Table 2.6 (iii): District wise amount spent on works completed/progress under MNREGA-20010-11(Till Aug 2010) (Rs in Lakhs)

Type of Works BanasKantha Dohad Navsari Jamnagar Surendra

Nagar Gujarat State

RuralConnectivity

comp.* 1.9(12.3)

0.00.0

40.0(42.5)

0.00.0

0.00.0

498.3(28.7)

Ongo/Susp** 360.1(26.3)

16.5(1.3)

287.2(42.7)

104.4(39.5)

155.2(9.8)

5782.3(24.7)

Total 362.0(26.2)

16.5(1.3)

327.3(42.7)

104.4(39.5)

155.2(9.8)

6280.6(25.0)

Flood Control

comp.* 0.00.0

0.2(1.0)

4.3(4.5)

0.00.0

0.00.0

309.7(17.9)

Ongo/Susp** 29.4(2.2)

361.7(28.2)

33.2(4.9)

1.3(0.5)

163.6(10.3)

3289.8(14.1)

Total 29.4(2.1)

361.9(27.8)

37.5(4.9)

1.3(0.5)

163.6(10.3)

3599.4(14.3)

WaterConservationAnd WaterHarvesting

comp.* 11.2(70.8)

7.2(40.7)

0.00.0

0.2(100.0)

0.00.0

628.9(36.3)

Ongo/Susp** 761.8(55.7)

224.2(17.5)

60.6(9.0)

22.0(8.3)

1121.8(70.7)

8457.7(36.1)

Total 773.0(55.9)

231.3(17.8)

60.6(7.9)

22.2(8.4)

1121.8(70.7)

9086.6(36.1)

DroughtProofing

comp.* 0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

10.7(0.6)

Ongo/Susp** 27.9(2.0)

1.5(0.1)

7.5(1.1)

17.4(6.6)

1.8(0.1)

1094.7(4.7)

Total 27.9(2.0)

1.5(0.1)

7.5(1.0)

17.4(6.6)

1.8(0.1)

1105.4(4.4)

MicroIrrigation

comp.* 0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

3.4(0.2)

Ongo/Susp** 35.9(2.6)

0.3(0.0)

0.6(0.1)

0.6(0.2)

1.9(0.1)

237.3(1.0)

Total 35.9(2.6)

0.3(0.0)

0.6(0.1)

0.6(0.2)

1.9(0.1)

240.7(1.0)

Provision ofIrrigationfacility toLanddevelopment

comp.* 0.00.0

9.1(51.8)

49.9(53.0)

0.00.0

0.00.0

74.7(4.3)

Ongo/Susp** 17.6(1.3)

502.5(39.2)

258.4(38.4)

36.9(14.0)

0.00.0

2134.9(9.1)

Total 17.6(1.3)

511.6(39.4)

308.3(40.2)

36.9(14.0)

0.00.0

2209.6(8.8)

Renovationof TraditionalWater Bodies

comp.* 0.00.0

1.1(6.2)

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

111.9(6.5)

Ongo/Susp** 34.5(2.5)

151.7(11.8)

5.4(0.8)

48.0(18.1)

91.8(5.8)

1468.8(6.3)

Total 34.5(2.5)

152.8(11.7)

5.4(0.7)

48.0(18.1)

91.8(5.8)

1580.8(6.3)

Landdevelopment

comp.* 2.7(16.9)

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

57.3(3.3)

Ongo/Susp** 83.2(6.1)

6.1(0.5)

6.0(0.9)

31.9(12.1)

16.1(1.0)

619.4(2.6)

Total 85.9(6.2)

6.1(0.5)

6.0(0.8)

31.9(12.1)

16.1(1.0)

676.7(2.7)

Any OtherActivityApproved byMoRD

comp.* 0.00.0

0.1(0.3)

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

38.6(2.2)

Ongo/Susp** 16.4(1.2)

18.2(1.4)

13.8(2.0)

1.8(0.7)

35.4(2.2)

323.9(1.4)

Total 16.4(1.2)

18.2(1.4)

13.8(1.8)

1.8(0.7)

35.4(2.2)

362.5(1.4)

Rajiv GandhiSeva Kendra

comp.* 0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

Ongo/Susp** 0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

4.9(0.0)

Total 0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

4.9(0.0)

Total Workscomp.* 15.8

(100.0)17.6

(100.0)94.2

(100.0)0.2

(100.0)0.00.0

1733.6(100.0)

Ongo/Susp** 1366.8(100.0)

1282.6(100.0)

672.8(100.0)

264.4(100.0)

1587.7(100.0)

23413.7(100.0)

Total 1382.5(100.0)

1300.2(100.0)

766.9(100.0)

264.6(100.0)

1587.7(100.0)

25147.2(100.0)

Source: http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx, Note: Figure in brackets denote percentage to total works.*comp. means completed, **ongo/susp. means ongoing/suspended

52

works. The expenditure outlay for year 2009-10 increased significantly and it was

3.85 times (Rs.703 crore) than it (Rs.182.73 crore) for previous year 2008-09. The

pattern of expenditure for fiscal years 2009-10 also found similar to year 2008-09.

Amount spent was highest (Rs.155.85 crores) for WCWH works and it was followed

by RC works, PI&LD and FC works. The examination of expenditure pattern clearly

reveals that bulk part of the amount was spent on creating durable productive

structures for conservation and harvesting water, improving irrigation potential and

thereby agricultural productivity.

Across all districts of the State, highest amount spent in Dahod district. It was

Rs. 39.73 crore in 2008-09 and Rs. 87.39 crore for 2009-10. It was lowest at 0.49

crore for Gandhinagar and 0.76 crore for Surendranagar in 2008-09. And, it was

lowest at 5.86 crore for Anand in 2009-10 (Appendix-2 (i) to 2 (iii)).

In ST dominating district Dahod, highest amount spent was on PI&LD works on

ST and SC land followed by WCWH and FC works. Of the total amount spent, 41.40

percent in 2008-09 and 61.60 percent in 2009-10 was spent on PI&LD works. In

2008-09, 27.90 percent amount was spent on WCWH works and 16.10 percent on

FC works.

In dry land districts like Banaskantha, Surendranagar, Jamnagar and others

as emphasis was on WCWH and associated works, highest amount was spent on

WCWH works in year 2008-09 as well as in 2009-10. It is followed by RC

works. During 2009-10, amount spent on WCWH works was Rs.22.61 crore for

Banaskantha, Rs.30.68 crore for Jamnagar and Rs.76.62 crore for Surendranagar.

For RC works, it was Rs.8.88 crore in Banaskantha, Rs.20.89 crore for Jamnagar

and Rs.23.82 crore for Surendranagar district.

The expenditure pattern for Tapi, Navsari and Surat districts differs much from

other selected districts as it has relatively rich water resources and irrigated land. In

these districts, relatively very low amount spent for WCWH works. The highest

amount spent was for RC and PI&LD works. In Navsari district during 2008-09,

Rs.3.85 crore (41.60%) was spent on RC works and Rs.3.74 crore (40.40%) was

spent on PI&LD works. In fiscal year 2009-10, of the total expenditure of Rs.18.70

crore, Rs.6.87 crore was spent on RC works whereas Rs. 5.40 crore was spent on

PI&LD works.

53

The above analysis clearly reveals that in dry land districts, focus was more

on creating durable structures which are useful for improving the water recharging

and irrigation potential. Whereas in districts where there is a good irrigation facilities,

focus was more on rural connectivity and land development of SC/ST and to

enhance irrigation facility on SC/ST land.

2.2.5 Social Auditing and Inspection of MNREGA works:The MNREGA besides the main features mentioned earlier in Chapter-1,

have also important feature of rigorous and continuous monitoring by way of

multilayered social audit and transparency mechanism through involvement of civil

societies. The concept of social audit aims at primarily to make sure that the local

communities have a say over implementation and it looks after violations and

corruption. In Act, there is also a provision to set up local vigilance and monitoring

committees (VMC) for every works sanctioned under scheme at village level. The

Gram Sabha is deciding the members of VMC which have members such as social

workers, beneficiaries, leading local persons and experts. The muster roll verification

and inspections of works has to be carried out for 10 percent and 100 percent

manner at district and block level respectively. Block level inspection and monitoring

is done by programme officer (PO) and Taluka Panchayat whereas district level

inspection done by DPC and officials of District Panchayat.

District- wise data on social audit, inspection carried, VMC meetings, number

of complaints received and disposed etc. for Gujarat state have been presented in

Table 2.7(i) to 2.7 (iii).

In Gujarat State, of the total number of muster rolls used, 91 percent muster

rolls were verified in 2008-09, 79.9 percent in 2009-10 and 95.2 percent in 2010-11.

Among all 26 districts of the State, during 2008-09, cent percent verification of

muster rolls carried out in Dang, Ahmedabad, Amreli, Kheda, Porbandar and Rajkot

districts. However, muster rolls verification carried out for only 35.40 percent muster

rolls in Mehsana and 53.80 percent in Vadodara districts. The inadequate staffs were

one of the main reasons for low level verification of muster rolls in these districts. In

2009-10, except Mehsana, muster rolls verification carried out for atleast 90.00

percent in all the districts.

54

Nos. ofVMCmeetingsheld

Nos. ofComplaintsReceived

Nos. ofComplaintsDisposed

Banas Kantha 14563 (100.0) 14326 (98.4) 783 (100.0) 783 (100.0) 6381 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 5876 (92.1) 783 (100.0) 783 (100.0) 783 1 1

Dang 5110 (100.0) 5110 (100.0) 70 (100.0) 70 (100.0) 1200 (100.0) 128 (10.7) 902 (75.2) 70 (100.0) 1003 (1432.9) 0 0 0

Dohad 46802 (100.0) 46661 (99.7) 459 (100.0) 459 (100.0) 7517 (100.0) 707 (9.4) 5326 (70.9) 459 (100.0) 1400 (305.0) 80 36 36

Narmada 12144 (100.0) 11324 (93.2) 219 (100.0) 219 (100.0) 3049 (100.0) 337 (11.1) 2360 (77.4) 219 (100.0) 219 (100.0) 219 0 0

Panch Mahals 19295 (100.0) 17817 (92.3) 668 (100.0) 621 (93.0) 5792 (100.0) 532 (9.2) 5285 (91.2) 668 (100.0) 668 (100.0) 621 8 4

Sabar Kantha 5989 (100.0) 5973 (99.7) 708 (100.0) 708 (100.0) 3468 (100.0) 340 (9.8) 3468 (100.0) 708 (100.0) 1378 (194.6) 229 0 0

Bharuch 6649 (100.0) 5996 (90.2) 295 (100.0) 295 (100.0) 2029 (100.0) 93 (4.6) 1927 (95.0) 543 (100.0) 543 (100.0) 0 1 1

Navsari 11528 (100.0) 10774 (93.5) 364 (100.0) 286 (78.6) 1406 (100.0) 141 (10.0) 1406 (100.0) 364 (100.0) 363 (99.7) 363 0 0

Valsad 2223 (100.0) 1796 (80.8) 344 (100.0) 100 (29.1) 357 (100.0) 108 (30.3) 357 (100.0) 344 (100.0) 340 (98.8) 211 0 0

Ahmadabad 915 (100.0) 915 (100.0) 516 (100.0) 149 (28.9) 327 (100.0) 45 (13.8) 327 (100.0) 516 (100.0) 516 (100.0) 516 0 0

Amreli 1991 (100.0) 1991 (100.0) 1258 (100.0) 1258 (100.0) 1258 (100.0) 1258 (100.0) 1258 (100.0) 613 (100.0) 613 (100.0) 613 8 4

Anand 2449 (100.0) 2435 (99.4) 352 (100.0) 352 (100.0) 516 (100.0) 51 (9.9) 516 (100.0) 352 (100.0) 704 (200.0) 1056 1 1

Bhavnagar 2939 (100.0) 2919 (99.3) 240 (100.0) 165 (68.8) 440 (100.0) 17 (3.9) 440 (100.0) 771 (100.0) 771 (100.0) 240 2 2

Gandhinagar 339 (100.0) 336 (99.1) 294 (100.0) 10 (3.4) 225 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 208 (92.4) 588 (100.0) 588 (100.0) 294 0 0

Jamnagar 1015 (100.0) 819 (80.7) 664 (100.0) 136 (20.5) 243 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 169 (69.5) 664 (100.0) 664 (100.0) 0 1 1

Junagadh 12369 (100.0) 7965 (64.4) 267 (100.0) 154 (57.7) 267 (100.0) 59 (22.1) 161 (60.3) 820 (100.0) 1190 (145.1) 240 12 6

Kachchh 27513 (100.0) 25780 (93.7) 334 (100.0) 334 (100.0) 408 (100.0) 387 (94.9) 408 (100.0) 615 (100.0) 615 (100.0) 615 0 0

Kheda 5332 (100.0) 5332 (100.0) 323 (100.0) 323 (100.0) 701 (100.0) 75 (10.7) 701 (100.0) 559 (100.0) 3382 (605.0) 3382 2 2

Mahesana 4822 (100.0) 1706 (35.4) 589 (100.0) 543 (92.2) 839 (100.0) 19 (2.3) 547 (65.2) 589 (100.0) 589 (100.0) 585 5 1

Patan 8863 (100.0) 8283 (93.5) 464 (100.0) 314 (67.7) 1672 (100.0) 51 (3.1) 1249 (74.7) 464 (100.0) 464 (100.0) 0 32 27

Porbandar 1206 (100.0) 1206 (100.0) 128 (100.0) 128 (100.0) 167 (100.0) 20 (12.0) 147 (88.0) 150 (100.0) 408 (272.0) 408 0 0

Rajkot 2072 (100.0) 2072 (100.0) 1663 (100.0) 1663 (100.0) 1663 (100.0) 166 (10.0) 1579 (94.9) 844 (100.0) 844 (100.0) 0 0 0

Surat 10021 (100.0) 9444 (94.2) 625 (100.0) 625 (100.0) 1819 (100.0) 42 (2.3) 1754 (96.4) 566 (100.0) 1656 (292.6) 1656 2 1

Surendranagar 88 (100.0) 88 (100.0) 67 (100.0) 33 (49.3) 88 (100.0) 5 (5.7) 88 (100.0) 615 (100.0) 615 (100.0) 615 2 2

Tapi 16003 (100.0) 13963 (87.3) 280 (100.0) 280 (100.0) 2432 (100.0) 188 (7.7) 2056 (84.5) 283 (100.0) 849 (300.0) 849 0 0

Vadodara 7615 (100.0) 4097 (53.8) 891 (100.0) 452 (50.7) 2014 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 1798 (89.3) 3444 (100.0) 4194 (121.8) 0 2 2

Gujarat 229855 (100.0) 209128 (91.0) 12865 (100.0) 10460 (81.3) 46278 (100.0) 4769 (10.3) 40313 (87.1) 16611 (100.0) 25359 (152.7) 13575 115 91

Source:http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspxNote: The figures in parentheses are percentages of respective total

NOs. of WorksInspected atDistrict Level

Inspections ConductedMuster Rolls Verified Social Audit

Total GramPanchayats

Nos. of GramSabhas held

NOs. of WorksInspected atBlock Level

Table- 2.7 (i): District wise Social auditing and inspection of MNREGA works in Gujarat -2008-09

Name Of TheDistrict

Gram Sabha Held Complaints

Nos. of MusterRolls Used Verified Total Gram

Panchayats

Nos. of GPwhere social

Audit held

Total WorksTaken up

55

Nos. ofVMCmeetingsheld

Nos. ofComplaintsReceived

Nos. ofComplaintsDisposed

Banas Kantha 43130 (100.0) 41286 (95.7) 783 (100.0) 783 (100.0) 19167 (100.0) 686 (3.6) 19167 (100.0) 783 (100.0) 783 (100.0) 783 0 0Dang 14896 (100.0) 14896 (100.0) 70 (100.0) 70 (100.0) 3167 (100.0) 1567 (49.5) 2100 (66.3) 70 (100.0) 280 (400.0) 280 0 0Dohad 62190 (100.0) 62190 (100.0) 473 (100.0) 473 (100.0) 17087 (100.0) 1317 (7.7) 16971 (99.3) 473 (100.0) 473 (100.0) 473 0 0Narmada 20706 (100.0) 19086 (92.2) 219 (100.0) 219 (100.0) 10344 (100.0) 910 (8.8) 8514 (82.3) 219 (100.0) 219 (100.0) 219 0 0Panch Mahals 54365 (100.0) 54365 (100.0) 668 (100.0) 624 (93.4) 19206 (100.0) 1962 (10.2) 19206 (100.0) 668 (100.0) 668 (100.0) 668 0 0Sabar Kantha 14938 (100.0) 14938 (100.0) 716 (100.0) 716 (100.0) 25677 (100.0) 2597 (10.1) 25677 (100.0) 716 (100.0) 2148 (300.0) 716 0 0Bharuch 12130 (100.0) 11613 (95.7) 543 (100.0) 543 (100.0) 8741 (100.0) 752 (8.6) 8599 (98.4) 543 (100.0) 543 (100.0) 0 0 0Navsari 15850 (100.0) 14878 (93.9) 366 (100.0) 366 (100.0) 6673 (100.0) 1684 (25.2) 6573 (98.5) 366 (100.0) 366 (100.0) 366 0 0Valsad 12013 (100.0) 11705 (97.4) 345 (100.0) 345 (100.0) 8940 (100.0) 946 (10.6) 8617 (96.4) 345 (100.0) 345 (100.0) 345 0 0Ahmadabad 11317 (100.0) 10975 (97.0) 516 (100.0) 516 (100.0) 10784 (100.0) 165 (1.5) 10784 (100.0) 516 (100.0) 516 (100.0) 516 0 0Amreli 10376 (100.0) 10376 (100.0) 590 (100.0) 590 (100.0) 9901 (100.0) 990 (10.0) 9901 (100.0) 590 (100.0) 590 (100.0) 590 8 7Anand 10547 (100.0) 10547 (100.0) 352 (100.0) 327 (92.9) 2864 (100.0) 298 (10.4) 2864 (100.0) 352 (100.0) 1291 (366.8) 2169 0 0Bhavnagar 11899 (100.0) 11899 (100.0) 771 (100.0) 771 (100.0) 7735 (100.0) 773 (10.0) 7735 (100.0) 771 (100.0) 771 (100.0) 771 0 0Gandhinagar 2463 (100.0) 2463 (100.0) 294 (100.0) 294 (100.0) 2469 (100.0) 548 (22.2) 2469 (100.0) 294 (100.0) 294 (100.0) 294 0 0Jamnagar 15199 (100.0) 15199 (100.0) 664 (100.0) 664 (100.0) 11766 (100.0) 125 (1.1) 11766 (100.0) 664 (100.0) 664 (100.0) 664 4 1Junagadh 32326 (100.0) 32326 (100.0) 820 (100.0) 820 (100.0) 16372 (100.0) 268 (1.6) 12568 (76.8) 820 (100.0) 821 (100.1) 940 67 53Kachchh 35836 (100.0) 33781 (94.3) 615 (100.0) 615 (100.0) 13535 (100.0) 1412 (10.4) 13535 (100.0) 615 (100.0) 615 (100.0) 615 0 0Kheda 17260 (100.0) 17260 (100.0) 559 (100.0) 559 (100.0) 10192 (100.0) 1213 (11.9) 10192 (100.0) 559 (100.0) 2572 (460.1) 2572 0 0Mahesana 10591 (100.0) 6860 (64.8) 590 (100.0) 432 (73.2) 1041 (100.0) 66 (6.3) 943 (90.6) 590 (100.0) 590 (100.0) 590 0 0Patan 8855 (100.0) 8855 (100.0) 464 (100.0) 459 (98.9) 5918 (100.0) 591 (10.0) 5918 (100.0) 464 (100.0) 1856 (400.0) 813 54 38Porbandar 9445 (100.0) 9332 (98.8) 150 (100.0) 150 (100.0) 2828 (100.0) 259 (9.2) 2828 (100.0) 150 (100.0) 151 (100.7) 151 0 0Rajkot 24186 (100.0) 24186 (100.0) 843 (100.0) 843 (100.0) 24186 (100.0) 235 (1.0) 24186 (100.0) 843 (100.0) 843 (100.0) 843 50 41Surat 24673 (100.0) 24673 (100.0) 567 (100.0) 567 (100.0) 7183 (100.0) 86 (1.2) 7183 (100.0) 567 (100.0) 1528 (269.5) 1528 12 9Surendranagar 23000 (100.0) 23000 (100.0) 615 (100.0) 615 (100.0) 15903 (100.0) 1595 (10.0) 15903 (100.0) 615 (100.0) 615 (100.0) 60 0 0Tapi 44273 (100.0) 43790 (98.9) 283 (100.0) 283 (100.0) 10383 (100.0) 507 (4.9) 10383 (100.0) 283 (100.0) 849 (300.0) 849 0 0Vadodara 34706 (100.0) 34469 (99.3) 863 (100.0) 863 (100.0) 21074 (100.0) 1677 (8.0) 21074 (100.0) 863 (100.0) 4007 (464.3) 863 0 0Gujarat 577170 (100.0) 564948 (97.9) 13739 (100.0) 13507 (98.3) 293136 (100.0) 23229 (7.9) 285656 (97.4) 13739 (100.0) 24398 (177.6) 18678 195 149Source:http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspxNote: The figures in parentheses are percentages of respective total

Social Audit

Total GramPanchayats

Nos. of GPwhere socialAudit held

Inspections Conducted

Total WorksTaken up

NOs. of WorksInspected atDistrict Level

NOs. of WorksInspected atBlock Level

Total GramPanchayats

Nos. of GramSabhas held

Table- 2.7 (ii): District wise Social auditing and inspection of MNREGA works in Gujarat -2009-10

Name Of TheDistrict

Gram Sabha Held Complaints

Nos. of MusterRolls Used Verified

Muster Rolls Verified

56

Nos. ofVMCmeetingsheld

Nos. ofComplaintsReceived

Nos. ofComplaintsDisposed

BanasKantha 14460 (100.0) 12382 (85.6) 783 (100.0) 302 (38.6) 4279 (100.0) 93 (2.2) 1474 (34.4) 783 (100.0) 85 (10.9) 85 0 0

Dang 11965 (100.0) 11965 (100.0) 70 (100.0) 70 (100.0) 1425 (100.0) 159 (11.2) 1425 (100.0) 70 (100.0) 70 (100.0) 70 3 2

Dohad 23594 (100.0) 22291 (94.5) 473 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 7082 (100.0) 707 (10.0) 7082 (100.0) 473 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 0 0

Narmada 6266 (100.0) 4881 (77.9) 219 (100.0) 1499 (684.5) 4450 (100.0) 48 (1.1) 2038 (45.8) 219 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 0 0

PanchMahals 12944 (100.0) 12944 (100.0) 668 (100.0) 668 (100.0) 4599 (100.0) 486 (10.6) 4689 (102.0) 668 (100.0) 668 (100.0) 668 0 0

SabarKantha 7842 (100.0) 7842 (100.0) 716 (100.0) 716 (100.0) 4197 (100.0) 449 (10.7) 4197 (100.0) 716 (100.0) 716 (100.0) 1432 0 0

Bharuch 3162 (100.0) 2736 (86.5) 543 (100.0) 1135 (209.0) 1712 (100.0) 325 (19.0) 642 (37.5) 543 (100.0) 543 (100.0) 543 0 0

Navsari 4270 (100.0) 4260 (99.8) 366 (100.0) 161 (44.0) 1296 (100.0) 66 (5.1) 1296 (100.0) 366 (100.0) 366 (100.0) 720 0 0

Valsad 4346 (100.0) 4118 (94.8) 345 (100.0) 345 (100.0) 1673 (100.0) 168 (10.0) 1591 (95.1) 345 (100.0) 345 (100.0) 345 0 0

Ahmadabad 5149 (100.0) 5149 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 987 (100.0) 74 (7.5) 987 (100.0) 516 (100.0) 516 (100.0) 516 0 0

Amreli 10780 (100.0) 10780 (100.0) 590 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 899 (100.0) 95 (10.6) 899 (100.0) 590 (100.0) 386 (65.4) 0 7 7

Anand 1909 (100.0) 1574 (82.5) 352 (100.0) 191 (54.3) 374 (100.0) 38 (10.2) 374 (100.0) 352 (100.0) 352 (100.0) 2169 0 0

Bhavnagar 7080 (100.0) 7080 (100.0) 771 (100.0) 771 (100.0) 330 (100.0) 33 (10.0) 330 (100.0) 771 (100.0) 771 (100.0) 771 0 0

Gandhinagar 885 (100.0) 885 (100.0) 294 (100.0) 294 (100.0) 136 (100.0) 77 (56.6) 136 (100.0) 294 (100.0) 294 (100.0) 294 0 0

Jamnagar 2726 (100.0) 2496 (91.6) 664 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 602 (100.0) 213 (35.4) 602 (100.0) 664 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 4 3

Junagadh 19726 (100.0) 19726 (100.0) 820 (100.0) 113 (13.8) 682 (100.0) 83 (12.2) 73 (10.7) 820 (100.0) 113 (13.8) 660 100 92

Kachchh 33734 (100.0) 29757 (88.2) 615 (100.0) 615 (100.0) 801 (100.0) 85 (10.6) 801 (100.0) 615 (100.0) 286 (46.5) 0 0 0

Kheda 2702 (100.0) 2702 (100.0) 559 (100.0) 305 (54.6) 1114 (100.0) 112 (10.1) 1114 (100.0) 559 (100.0) 579 (103.6) 579 0 0

Mahesana 921 (100.0) 921 (100.0) 593 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 593 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 0 0

Patan 1950 (100.0) 1950 (100.0) 464 (100.0) 355 (76.5) 973 (100.0) 973 (100.0) 464 (47.7) 464 (100.0) 464 (100.0) 464 36 20

Porbandar 4733 (100.0) 4594 (97.1) 337 (100.0) 337 (100.0) 279 (100.0) 279 (100.0) 279 (100.0) 150 (100.0) 150 (100.0) 150 6 4

Rajkot 9606 (100.0) 9215 (95.9) 843 (100.0) 843 (100.0) 1045 (100.0) 12 (1.1) 997 (95.4) 843 (100.0) 843 (100.0) 843 53 45

Surat 3639 (100.0) 3639 (100.0) 567 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 1020 (100.0) 15 (1.5) 1020 (100.0) 567 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 0 6 0

Surendranagar 20609 (100.0) 20609 (100.0) 615 (100.0) 615 (100.0) 1126 (100.0) 110 (9.8) 1126 (100.0) 615 (100.0) 615 (100.0) 0 0 0

Tapi 5720 (100.0) 5720 (100.0) 283 (100.0) 111 (39.2) 790 (100.0) 123 (15.6) 710 (89.9) 283 (100.0) 111 (39.2) 111 1 1

Vadodara 14458 (100.0) 13592 (94.0) 863 (100.0) 379 (43.9) 4220 (100.0) 115 (2.7) 4192 (99.3) 863 (100.0) 779 (90.3) 650 0 0Gujarat 235176 (100.0) 223808 (95.2) 13413 (100.0) 9825 (73.2) 46091 (100.0) 4938 (10.7) 38538 (83.6) 13742 (100.0) 9052 (65.9) 11070 216 174Source:http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspxNote: The figures in parentheses are percentages of respective total

Total GramPanchayats

Inspections Conducted

Total WorksTaken up

NOs. of WorksInspected atDistrict Level

NOs. of WorksInspected atBlock Level

Nos. of GPwhere socialAudit held

Nos. of GramSabhas held

Table- 2.7 (iii): District wise Social auditing and inspection of MNREGA works in Gujarat -2010-11 (Till Aug 2010)

Name Of TheDistrict

Gram Sabha Held ComplaintsMuster Rolls Verified

Nos. of MusterRolls Used Verified

Social Audit

Total GramPanchayats

57

Among selected districts, in each year, cent percent verification of muster rolls

was undertaken at block level in Surendranagar. In 2009-10, cent percent muster

rolls verification carried out at block level in Dahod, Jamnagar and Surendranagar

districts. In 2008-09, except Jamnagar, block level verification was carried out for

atlest 93.5 percent muster rolls in the remaing selected districts (see Table 2.7(i) to

2.7 (iii)). From the data, it can be conclude that block level verification of muster rolls

carried out in Gujarat was close to suggested norms in the Act.

The social audit of the works undertaken under the MNREGA is done by

Gram Panchayats (GPs). In Gujarat, social audit was conducted in 81.31 percent

Gram Panchayats in 2008-09. Among all districts of the State, record of conducting

social audit of the works undertaken in 2008-09 was very poor for Gandhinagar

(3.40%), Jamnagar (20.40%) and Valsad (29.10%) districts. For 2009-10, much

improvement was seen in respect of conducting number of social audit of works

done. Out of 26 districts, all Gram Panchayats of 22 districts in 2009-10 conducted

cent percent social audit. In Mehsana, social audit was held in only 73.20 percent

Gram Panchayats.

All Gram Panchayats of the selected districts held social audit of works for

year 2009-10. However, as the 2008-09 was the initial year of implementation, social

audit was not conducted by many Gram Panchayats of Navsari, Jamnagar and

Surendranagar districts. In the first five months of 2010-11, not a single Gram

Panchayat of Dahod and Jamnagar district had conducted social audit. Thus,

compare to other selected districts, record of conducting social audit seem to be

much poor for Jamnagar and Navsari districts. As per data given in Table 2.7(i) to

2.7 (iii), the picture of social audit looks rosy but in majority cases attendance in the

meetings was poor and it has been done to complete the formality. The most of the

participations in the meeting were found unaware about their role in conducting

social audit.

Under the Act, there is a provision of block and district level inspection of the

works taken up. The data given in Table 2.7 (i) to 2.7 (iii) reveals significant variation

across districts in respect of works inspected at district level. Number of works

inspected at district level varied from zero (Banaskantha) to 100 percent (Amreli) in

2008-09. Among selected districts, record of number of works inspected at district

58

level is very poor for Banaskantha and Jamnagar districts. For year 2009-10 and

2010-11, record of number of works inspected at block level in selected districts has

been nearly satisfactory. However, in year 2008-09, it was poor for Jamnagar and

Dahod districts. The inadequate staff at block and district level for carrying technical

functions of the programme impacted adversely on the quality of works and

frequency of inspections.

The MNREGA involves participatory process of planning and implementation

of works through proactive role of Gram Sabha. The data given in Table 2.7 (i) to 2.7

(iii) reveals that in Dang district against 70 Gram Panchayats, Total numbers of

Gram Sabhas held in 2008-09 were1003 (1433%). Similarly in Dahod, Anand,

Sabarkantha, Kheda, Porbandar, Surat and Tapi districts, numbers of Gram Sabhas

held in 2008-09 were held atleast once. In year 2009-10, in each village of all

districts of the state, Gram Sabhas were held atleast once (Table 2.7 (i) to 2.7 (iii)).

In 2008-09, not a single meeting of VMC was held in Dang, Bharuch , Jamnagar,

Patan, Rajkot and Vadodara districts. In 2009-10, also VMC meeting not held in

Bharuch district. Thus, across districts of the state, there exists a wide variation in

respect of numbers of VMC meeting held. According to public opinion, majority Gram

Sabhas were not held in the true spirits of participation. Most of the Gram Sabhas

and VMC meetings were held just to complete mere formality.

The bureaucracy is dominating the process of planning. Generally, the

attendance in majority Gram Sabhas was found low. In majority villages, either VMC

are not formed or are mostly inactive. The villagers who attended Gram Sabhas

were pro Sarpanch and generally have no knowledge of how to conduct social

audits.

During period 2008-09 to 2010-11 (Till Auguest-2010), Gujarat received only

526 complaints on various issues related with job cards, implementation and wage

payment under MNREGA. Out of these 526 complaints, 414 complaints were

disposed by the concern block/district/state authorities. The complaints were higher

in Patan (27) district in 2008-09. It was higher in Junagadh (53), Patan (38) and

Rajkot (47) districts in 2009-10. In selected districts, except Jamnagar and Dahod,

number of complaints lodged were nil or very negligible. The negligible quantum of

complaints not implies smooth and very well functioning of the scheme. There is a

59

voice of discontent, but workers hailing from weaker sections have either no courage

to lodge complaints or no time or lack awareness.

2.2.6 Unemployment Allowance:As per act, employment must be given within the 15 days of work application

by an employment seeker. If employment is not provided within 15 days, daily

unemployment allowance in cash has to be paid as per provision made in the Act.

Liability of payment of unemployment allowance is of the state government. Payment

due was highest for Dahod followed by Kachchh, Sabarkanta Vadodara and

Banaskantha districts.

The data on unemployment allowance due and amount of allowance paid in

2010-11 (upto Auguset-2010) have been given in Table 2.8. From the 26 districts ofTable 2.8: Unemployment Allowance Paid (2010-11)-Gujarat

District Unemployment Allowance Due Unemployment Allowance PaidNo. of Days No. of Days Amount (Rs.)

Ahmadabad 479 0 0Amreli 0 0 0Anand 2294 0 0Banas Kantha 3778 0 0Bharuch 285 0 0Bhavnagar 42 0 0Dang 1303 0 0Dohad 13714 0 0Gandhinagar 172 0 0Jamnagar 609 0 0Junagadh 841 0 0Kachchh 7024 0 0Kheda 21 0 0Mahesana 725 0 0Narmada 2138 0 0Navsari 286 0 0Panch Mahals 1129 0 0Patan 723 0 0Porbandar 301 0 0Rajkot 2099 0 0Sabar Kantha 5616 0 0Surat 454 0 0Surendranagar 12 0 0Tapi 769 0 0Vadodara 4072 0 0Valsad 1043 0 0Total 49929 0 0

Source: http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx Date: 11/01/2011

state, unemployment allowance due was highest for Dahod (13714 days) followed by

Kachchh (7024 days), Sabarkanta and Vadodara districts. It is surprising to note that

60

payment of unemployment allowance due for 49929 days but not paid to any one till

August 2010 (see Table 2.8).

It is learnt that since the payment of unemployment allowance comes from

state’s exchequer, state government has given instruction at district/block level to

avoid payment of this allowance to the possible extent. Further, there is no collective

strength on the part of people to demand due unemployment allowance. It is learnt

from the discussion with the people that some Gram Panchayats are accepting only

non-dated applications for demanding employment. Doing so, Gram Panchayats are

avoiding the cases of payment of unemployment allowance and indirectly diluting the

legal right of people to avail unemployment allowance.

2.2.7 Wage Payment through Banks/Post Offices:With a view to minimize corruption and malpractices of under payment of

wages and to bring transparency in wage payment, payment of wages through

Banks/Post offices made compulsory and fully effective since 2008-09 onward.

Districts-wise details of number of Banks/Post offices accounts and payment

made through it have been given in Table 2.9 (i) to 2.9 (iii)).

The data reveals that of the total job cards holders in Gujarat State during

fiscal year 2008-09, about 15.68 lakh households (54.48%) opened account either in

nearest Banks or Post Offices. About 28.10 lakh (78.71%) in 2010-11 and in 2009-10

(till August, 2010) about 31.86 lakh households opened accounts in Banks/Post

Offices. Of the total accounts, 35.43 percent accounts in 2010-11, 32.54 percent

accounts in 2009-10 and 38.49 percent accounts in 2008-09 were opened in Banks.

This shows that of the total accounts opened in Gujarat State during 2008-09 to

2010-11, about 65 percent accounts were opened in Post Offices and 35 percent in

Banks. The majority MNREGA workers opted for Post Offices accounts mainly

because of it nearest location and easy access. Banks/Post offices accounts were

opened either on individual name or joint names. Of the total accounts opened in

Banks/Post offices in Gujarat during 2008-09 to 2010-11 (till August, 2010), nearly

51 percents accounts were joint and rest individuals. In Narmada, Sabarkantha,

Ahmedabad, Bhavnagar, Junagadh, Kheda, Porbandar and Surendranagar

districts, cent percent bank accounts were joint whereas in Bharuch and Rajkot

districts cent percent bank accounts were individuals.

61

Table 2.9 (i) : District -wise Wage Payment Through Banks / Post offices in Gujarat-2008-09

BanasKantha 1554 (32.5) 3232 (67.5) 4786 (100.0) 108 (21.8) 45173 (98.2) 820 (1.8) 45993 (100.0) 386 (78.2) 46727 (92.0) 4052 (8.0) 50779 (100.0) 494 (100.0)Dang 151 (3.0) 4865 (97.0) 5016 (100.0) 168 (37.0) 27650 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 27650 (100.0) 285 (62.8) 27801 (85.1) 4865 (14.9) 32666 (100.0) 453 (100.0)Dohad 17221 (24.0) 54488 (76.0) 71709 (100.0) 2878 (89.7) 72125 (89.4) 8577 (10.6) 80702 (100.0) 332 (10.4) 89346 (58.6) 63065 (41.4) 152411 (100.0) 3210 (100.0)Narmada 0 (0.0) 6056 (100.0) 6056 (100.0) 229 (50.2) 63152 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 63152 (100.0) 227 (49.9) 63152 (91.2) 6056 (8.8) 69208 (100.0) 456 (100.0)PanchMahals

6914 (32.2) 14533 (67.8) 21447 (100.0) 501 (59.1) 13818 (26.5) 38410 (73.5) 52228 (100.0) 346 (40.9) 20732 (28.1) 52943 (71.9) 73675 (100.0) 847 (100.0)Sabar Kantha 0 (0.0) 84311 (100.0) 84311 (100.0) 710 (60.8) 0 (0.0) 92691 (100.0) 92691 (100.0) 457 (39.2) 0 (0.0) 177002 (100.0) 177002 (100.0) 1167 (100.0)Bharuch 1277 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 1277 (100.0) 10 (6.6) 47965 (83.1) 9777 (16.9) 57742 (100.0) 137 (93.3) 49242 (83.4) 9777 (16.6) 59019 (100.0) 147 (100.0)Navsari 166 (1.5) 11065 (98.5) 11231 (100.0) 162 (64.1) 37769 (80.0) 9450 (20.0) 47219 (100.0) 90 (35.7) 37935 (64.9) 20515 (35.1) 58450 (100.0) 252 (100.0)Valsad 9105 (48.1) 9815 (51.9) 18920 (100.0) 8 (29.8) 749 (7.1) 9860 (92.9) 10609 (100.0) 19 (71.9) 9854 (33.4) 19675 (66.6) 29529 (100.0) 27 (100.0)Ahmadabad 0 (0.0) 74400 (100.0) 74400 (100.0) 121 (39.2) 55337 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 55337 (100.0) 187 (60.8) 55337 (42.7) 74400 (57.3) 129737 (100.0) 308 (100.0)Amreli 4206 (30.5) 9575 (69.5) 13781 (100.0) 109 (61.8) 3605 (41.9) 5004 (58.1) 8609 (100.0) 67 (38.0) 7811 (34.9) 14579 (65.1) 22390 (100.0) 176 (100.0)Anand 65556 (99.6) 256 (0.4) 65812 (100.0) 71 (62.3) 20013 (96.9) 646 (3.1) 20659 (100.0) 43 (38.0) 85569 (99.0) 902 (1.0) 86471 (100.0) 114 (100.0)Bhav nagar 0 (0.0) 12836 (100.0) 12836 (100.0) 72 (46.7) 0 (0.0) 13311 (100.0) 13311 (100.0) 83 (53.8) 0 (0.0) 26147 (100.0) 26147 (100.0) 155 (100.0)Gandhinagar 6202 (92.5) 500 (7.5) 6702 (100.0) 23 (74.3) 4871 (99.0) 50 (1.0) 4921 (100.0) 8 (26.8) 11073 (95.3) 550 (4.7) 11623 (100.0) 31 (100.0)Jamnagar 13295 (87.8) 1845 (12.2) 15140 (100.0) 59 (83.9) 6259 (82.3) 1344 (17.7) 7603 (100.0) 11 (16.3) 19554 (86.0) 3189 (14.0) 22743 (100.0) 70 (100.0)Junagadh 0 (0.0) 20243 (100.0) 20243 (100.0) 563 (61.3) 0 (0.0) 15287 (100.0) 15287 (100.0) 355 (38.7) 0 (0.0) 35530 (100.0) 35530 (100.0) 918 (100.0)Kachchh 7610 (95.3) 378 (4.7) 7988 (100.0) 66 (14.7) 35958 (86.5) 5614 (13.5) 41572 (100.0) 379 (85.1) 43568 (87.9) 5992 (12.1) 49560 (100.0) 445 (100.0)Kheda 3 (0.0) 34392 (100.0) 34395 (100.0) 100 (49.0) 0 (0.0) 75539 (100.0) 75539 (100.0) 104 (51.0) 3 (0.0) 109931 (100.0) 109934 (100.0) 204 (100.0)Mahesana 9330 (58.6) 6592 (41.4) 15922 (100.0) 89 (72.3) 10283 (74.2) 3571 (25.8) 13854 (100.0) 34 (27.3) 19613 (65.9) 10163 (34.1) 29776 (100.0) 123 (100.0)Patan 2547 (98.8) 32 (1.2) 2579 (100.0) 21 (7.5) 53719 (99.7) 149 (0.3) 53868 (100.0) 260 (92.5) 56266 (99.7) 181 (0.3) 56447 (100.0) 281 (100.0)Porbandar 0 (0.0) 2097 (100.0) 2097 (100.0) 56 (52.0) 0 (0.0) 10430 (100.0) 10430 (100.0) 51 (48.0) 0 (0.0) 12527 (100.0) 12527 (100.0) 107 (100.0)Rajkot 24116 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 24116 (100.0) 150 (70.1) 9229 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 9229 (100.0) 64 (30.0) 33345 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 33345 (100.0) 214 (100.0)Surat 11940 (39.4) 18382 (60.6) 30322 (100.0) 308 (80.0) 2130 (8.7) 22233 (91.3) 24363 (100.0) 77 (19.9) 14070 (25.7) 40615 (74.3) 54685 (100.0) 385 (100.0)Surendranagar

0 (0.0) 12034 (100.0) 12034 (100.0) 11 (14.6) 0 (0.0) 22269 (100.0) 22269 (100.0) 63 (85.0) 0 (0.0) 34303 (100.0) 34303 (100.0) 74 (100.0)Tapi 1835 (14.4) 10885 (85.6) 12720 (100.0) 99 (28.7) 5352 (15.4) 29500 (84.6) 34852 (100.0) 244 (71.0) 7187 (15.1) 40385 (84.9) 47572 (100.0) 343 (100.0)Vadodara 13274 (47.9) 14439 (52.1) 27713 (100.0) 144 (60.1) 44510 (59.6) 30134 (40.4) 74644 (100.0) 96 (39.9) 57784 (56.5) 44573 (43.5) 102357 (100.0) 240 (100.0)Gujarat 196302 (32.5) 407251 (67.5) 603553 (100.0) 6832 (60.8) 559667 (58.0) 404666 (42.0) 964333 (100.0) 4407 (39.2) 755969 (48.2) 811917 (51.8) 1567886 (100.0) 11241 (100.0)Source:http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspxNote: The figures in parentheses are percentages of respective total

Joint Total Individual JointName of TheDistrict

No. of Bank Account Opened Amount ofwagesDisbursedthrough bank(Rs. in Lakhs)

No. of Post Office Account Opened Amount ofWagesdisbursedthrough postoffice (Rs. in

Total AmountDisbursed(Rs.inlakhs)Individual Joint Total Individual Total

Total Accounts

62

Table 2.9 (ii) : District -wise Wage Payment Through Banks / Post offices in Gujarat-2009-10

BanasKantha 1641 (29.7) 3879 (70.3) 5520 (100.0) 104 (3.3) 188626 (95.0) 9835 (5.0) 198461 (100.0) 3030 (96.7) 190267 (93.3) 13714 (6.7) 203981 (100.0) 3134 (100.0)Dang 198 (3.0) 6441 (97.0) 6639 (100.0) 421 (24.8) 33771 (98.3) 590 (1.7) 34361 (100.0) 1275 (75.2) 33969 (82.9) 7031 (17.1) 41000 (100.0) 1696 (100.0)Dohad 26826 (31.2) 59203 (68.8) 86029 (100.0) 4345 (61.8) 91207 (82.2) 19806 (17.8) 111013 (100.0) 2682 (38.2) 118033 (59.9) 79009 (40.1) 197042 (100.0) 7027 (100.0)Narmada 0 (0.0) 7126 (100.0) 7126 (100.0) 278 (13.1) 70574 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 70574 (100.0) 1851 (86.9) 70574 (90.8) 7126 (9.2) 77700 (100.0) 2129 (100.0)PanchMahals 20844 (33.0) 42341 (67.0) 63185 (100.0) 1878 (40.4) 30313 (29.9) 70914 (70.1) 101227 (100.0) 2772 (59.6) 51157 (31.1) 113255 (68.9) 164412 (100.0) 4650 (100.0)Sabar Kantha 0 (0.0) 93699 (100.0) 93699 (100.0) 1649 (37.8) 0 (0.0) 135734 (100.0) 135734 (100.0) 2708 (62.2) 0 (0.0) 229433 (100.0) 229433 (100.0) 4357 (100.0)Bharuch 1247 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 1247 (100.0) 6 (0.8) 71418 (85.6) 11999 (14.4) 83417 (100.0) 740 (99.2) 72665 (85.8) 11999 (14.2) 84664 (100.0) 746 (100.0)Navsari 13123 (39.3) 20256 (60.7) 33379 (100.0) 427 (33.1) 59529 (89.9) 6700 (10.1) 66229 (100.0) 862 (67.0) 72652 (72.9) 26956 (27.1) 99608 (100.0) 1288 (100.0)Valsad 24422 (39.9) 36839 (60.1) 61261 (100.0) 382 (43.8) 24146 (29.4) 58120 (70.6) 82266 (100.0) 491 (56.2) 48568 (33.8) 94959 (66.2) 143527 (100.0) 873 (100.0)Ahmadabad 39340 (53.5) 34244 (46.5) 73584 (100.0) 319 (39.7) 62787 (98.8) 770 (1.2) 63557 (100.0) 483 (60.2) 102127 (74.5) 35014 (25.5) 137141 (100.0) 802 (100.0)Amreli 5063 (33.5) 10052 (66.5) 15115 (100.0) 523 (63.1) 11717 (42.0) 16161 (58.0) 27878 (100.0) 305 (36.8) 16780 (39.0) 26213 (61.0) 42993 (100.0) 828 (100.0)Anand 64705 (85.9) 10652 (14.1) 75357 (100.0) 201 (44.3) 27414 (93.3) 1953 (6.7) 29367 (100.0) 253 (55.8) 92119 (88.0) 12605 (12.0) 104724 (100.0) 454 (100.0)Bhavnagar 920 (6.7) 12830 (93.3) 13750 (100.0) 424 (41.8) 10227 (26.8) 28004 (73.2) 38231 (100.0) 590 (58.1) 11147 (21.4) 40834 (78.6) 51981 (100.0) 1014 (100.0)Gandhinagar 14304 (59.5) 9740 (40.5) 24044 (100.0) 378 (93.1) 4468 (68.0) 2105 (32.0) 6573 (100.0) 28 (7.0) 18772 (61.3) 11845 (38.7) 30617 (100.0) 406 (100.0)Jamnagar 21957 (91.1) 2148 (8.9) 24105 (100.0) 467 (64.0) 14776 (89.9) 1655 (10.1) 16431 (100.0) 263 (36.0) 36733 (90.6) 3803 (9.4) 40536 (100.0) 730 (100.0)Junagadh 0 (0.0) 52896 (100.0) 52896 (100.0) 1752 (59.7) 0 0.0 41048 (100.0) 41048 (100.0) 1182 (40.3) 0 (0.0) 93944 (100.0) 93944 (100.0) 2934 (100.0)Kachchh 7610 (95.3) 378 (4.7) 7988 (100.0) 0 0.0 107256 (95.0) 5614 (5.0) 112870 (100.0) 3336 (100.0) 114866 (95.0) 5992 (5.0) 120858 (100.0) 3336 (100.0)Kheda 3 (0.0) 36999 (100.0) 37002 (100.0) 256 (22.3) 50 (0.0) 124713 (100.0) 124763 (100.0) 891 (77.6) 53 (0.0) 161712 (100.0) 161765 (100.0) 1147 (100.0)Mahesana 12640 (65.2) 6740 (34.8) 19380 (100.0) 247 (45.9) 17055 (80.0) 4275 (20.0) 21330 (100.0) 290 (54.0) 29695 (72.9) 11015 (27.1) 40710 (100.0) 537 (100.0)Patan 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 72326 (74.2) 25099 (25.8) 97425 (100.0) 1813 (100.0) 72326 (74.2) 25099 (25.8) 97425 (100.0) 1813 (100.0)Porbandar 662 (31.2) 1459 (68.8) 2121 (100.0) 284 (25.4) 12268 (66.2) 6276 (33.8) 18544 (100.0) 838 (74.7) 12930 (62.6) 7735 (37.4) 20665 (100.0) 1122 (100.0)Rajkot 32475 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 32475 (100.0) 1271 (39.3) 93527 (100.0) 0 0.0 93527 (100.0) 1962 (60.7) 126002 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 126002 (100.0) 3233 (100.0)Surat 22605 (39.9) 34109 (60.1) 56714 (100.0) 811 (66.0) 10630 (20.7) 40846 (79.3) 51476 (100.0) 418 (34.0) 33235 (30.7) 74955 (69.3) 108190 (100.0) 1229 (100.0)Surendranagar 0 (0.0) 29846 (100.0) 29846 (100.0) 73 (4.2) 0 0.0 90473 (100.0) 90473 (100.0) 1643 (95.8) 0 (0.0) 120319 (100.0) 120319 (100.0) 1716 (100.0)Tapi 16487 (43.0) 21829 (57.0) 38316 (100.0) 390 (18.3) 7139 (10.5) 60719 (89.5) 67858 (100.0) 1736 (81.7) 23626 (22.3) 82548 (77.7) 106174 (100.0) 2126 (100.0)Vadodara 31750 (59.1) 21978 (40.9) 53728 (100.0) 1213 (38.0) 73975 (66.6) 37035 (33.4) 111010 (100.0) 1978 (62.0) 105725 (64.2) 59013 (35.8) 164738 (100.0) 3191 (100.0)Gujarat 358822 (39.2) 555684 (60.8) 914506 (100.0) 18099 (34.5) 1095199 (57.8) 800444 (42.2) 1895643 (100.0) 34422 (65.5) 1454021 (51.7) 1356128 (48.3) 2810149 (100.0) 52518 (100.0)Source:http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspxNote: The figures in parentheses are percentages of respective total

Total IndividualName of The

District

No. of Bank Account Opened Amount ofwages

Disbursedthrough bank

Accounts(Rs. in Lakhs)

No. of Post Office Account Opened Amount ofWages

disbursedthrough post

office Accounts(Rs. in lakhs)

Total Accounts

Joint

Total AmountDisbursed

(Rs.in lakhs)Individual Joint Total Individual Joint Total

63

Table 2.9 (iii) : District -wise Wage Payment Through Banks / Post offices in Gujarat-2010-11 (Till Aug 2010)

BanasKantha 1641 (29.7) 3879 (70.3) 5520 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 193294 (95.2) 9835 (4.8) 203129 (100.0) 1612 (100.0) 194935 (93.4) 13714 (6.6) 208649 (100.0) 1612 (100.0)Dang 211 (2.6) 7898 (97.4) 8109 (100.0) 298 (22.8) 36417 (98.0) 746 (2.0) 37163 (100.0) 1011 (77.2) 36628 (80.9) 8644 (19.1) 45272 (100.0) 1309 (100.0)Dohad 26826 (31.2) 59203 (68.8) 86029 (100.0) 507 (24.8) 91207 (82.2) 19806 (17.8) 111013 (100.0) 1539 (75.2) 118033 (59.9) 79009 (40.1) 197042 (100.0) 2046 (100.0)Narmada 4042 (57.0) 3054 (43.0) 7096 (100.0) 23 (3.9) 25930 (30.3) 59544 (69.7) 85474 (100.0) 561 (96.1) 29972 (32.4) 62598 (67.6) 92570 (100.0) 584 (100.0)PanchMahals 26574 (35.7) 47809 (64.3) 74383 (100.0) 586 (48.8) 32898 (30.3) 75847 (69.7) 108745 (100.0) 615 (51.2) 59472 (32.5) 123656 (67.5) 183128 (100.0) 1201 (100.0)SabarKantha 0 (0.0) 93652 (100.0) 93652 (100.0) 587 (28.4) 0 (0.0) 145920 (100.0) 145920 (100.0) 1483 (71.6) 0 (0.0) 239572 (100.0) 239572 (100.0) 2070 (100.0)Bharuch 1247 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 1247 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 71418 (85.6) 11999 (14.4) 83417 (100.0) 149 (99.9) 72665 (85.8) 11999 (14.2) 84664 (100.0) 149 (100.0)Navsari 15104 (42.6) 20388 (57.4) 35492 (100.0) 248 (52.1) 60415 (90.0) 6700 (10.0) 67115 (100.0) 228 (48.0) 75519 (73.6) 27088 (26.4) 102607 (100.0) 476 (100.0)Valsad 27583 (40.8) 39984 (59.2) 67567 (100.0) 147 (31.0) 30525 (30.5) 69414 (69.5) 99939 (100.0) 328 (69.1) 58108 (34.7) 109398 (65.3) 167506 (100.0) 475 (100.0)Ahmadabad 36312 (49.2) 37544 (50.8) 73856 (100.0) 180 (50.3) 26823 (54.0) 22804 (46.0) 49627 (100.0) 178 (49.8) 63135 (51.1) 60348 (48.9) 123483 (100.0) 358 (100.0)Amreli 3915 (4.3) 86225 (95.7) 90140 (100.0) 471 (35.9) 15360 (54.8) 12650 (45.2) 28010 (100.0) 843 (64.2) 19275 (16.3) 98875 (83.7) 118150 (100.0) 1314 (100.0)Anand 64705 (85.9) 10625 (14.1) 75330 (100.0) 23 (21.8) 27416 (93.4) 1953 (6.6) 29369 (100.0) 84 (78.4) 92121 (88.0) 12578 (12.0) 104699 (100.0) 107 (100.0)Bhavnagar 950 (6.7) 13162 (93.3) 14112 (100.0) 218 (35.0) 10229 (26.4) 28559 (73.6) 38788 (100.0) 405 (65.0) 11179 (21.1) 41721 (78.9) 52900 (100.0) 623 (100.0)Gandhinagar 19284 (66.2) 9826 (33.8) 29110 (100.0) 101 (95.6) 4668 (68.9) 2105 (31.1) 6773 (100.0) 5 (5.1) 23952 (66.8) 11931 (33.2) 35883 (100.0) 106 (100.0)Jamnagar 21957 (91.1) 2148 (8.9) 24105 (100.0) 281 (57.8) 15606 (90.4) 1655 (9.6) 17261 (100.0) 205 (42.1) 37563 (90.8) 3803 (9.2) 41366 (100.0) 486 (100.0)Junagadh 0 (0.0) 67915 (100.0) 67915 (100.0) 1098 (52.0) 0 (0.0) 58630 (100.0) 58630 (100.0) 1011 (47.9) 0 (0.0) 126545 (100.0) 126545 (100.0) 2109 (100.0)Kachchh 7610 (95.3) 378 (4.7) 7988 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 108767 (95.1) 5614 (4.9) 114381 (100.0) 2373 (100.0) 116377 (95.1) 5992 (4.9) 122369 (100.0) 2373 (100.0)Kheda 3 (0.0) 37404 (100.0) 37407 (100.0) 14 (5.5) 50 (0.0) 124804 (100.0) 124854 (100.0) 240 (94.4) 53 (0.0) 162208 (100.0) 162261 (100.0) 254 (100.0)Mahesana 12640 (15.7) 67740 (84.3) 80380 (100.0) 22 (29.7) 17055 (80.0) 4275 (20.0) 21330 (100.0) 53 (70.1) 29695 (29.2) 72015 (70.8) 101710 (100.0) 75 (100.0)Patan 1028 (49.2) 1060 (50.8) 2088 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 78285 (76.5) 24093 (23.5) 102378 (100.0) 763 (100.0) 79313 (75.9) 25153 (24.1) 104466 (100.0) 763 (100.0)Porbandar 2448 (34.7) 4598 (65.3) 7046 (100.0) 220 (35.7) 22428 (70.5) 9399 (29.5) 31827 (100.0) 395 (64.2) 24876 (64.0) 13997 (36.0) 38873 (100.0) 615 (100.0)Rajkot 45147 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 45147 (100.0) 298 (51.0) 102491 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 102491 (100.0) 286 (49.0) 147638 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 147638 (100.0) 584 (100.0)Surat 22605 (38.9) 35462 (61.1) 58067 (100.0) 250 (72.3) 10763 (20.4) 42029 (79.6) 52792 (100.0) 96 (27.8) 33368 (30.1) 77491 (69.9) 110859 (100.0) 346 (100.0)Surendranagar 0 (0.0) 26916 (100.0) 26916 (100.0) 41 (2.2) 0 (0.0) 112530 (100.0) 112530 (100.0) 1854 (97.8) 0 (0.0) 139446 (100.0) 139446 (100.0) 1895 (100.0)Tapi 18018 (41.0) 25931 (59.0) 43949 (100.0) 115 (19.6) 7982 (8.0) 92378 (92.0) 100360 (100.0) 471 (80.4) 26000 (18.0) 118309 (82.0) 144309 (100.0) 586 (100.0)Vadodara 43250 (65.3) 22978 (34.7) 66228 (100.0) 457 (46.8) 81325 (65.9) 42138 (34.1) 123463 (100.0) 518 (53.1) 124575 (65.7) 65116 (34.3) 189691 (100.0) 975 (100.0)Gujarat 403100 (35.7) 725779 (64.3) 1128879 (100.0) 6185 (26.3) 1071352 (52.1) 985427 (47.9) 2056779 (100.0) 17306 (73.7) 1474452 (46.3) 1711206 (53.7) 3185658 (100.0) 23491 (100.0)Source:http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx

2. Figure in brackets except coln.9 indicate percentage to respective total amount disbursed.

Joint

Total AmountDisbursed(Rs.in lakhs)Individual Joint Total Individual Joint Total Total

Note: 1. Figure in brackets except coln.9 indicate percentage to respective total.

Name of TheDistrict

No. of Bank Account OpenedAmount of wagesDisbursedthrough bankAccounts(Rs. in Lakhs)

No. of Post Office Account OpenedAmount of Wagesdisbursed through postoffice Accounts(Rs. in lakhs)

Total Accounts

Individual

64

The examination of account pattern in selected districts reveals

surprising trend. In Surendranagar district, all banks/post offices accounts

were opened on joint names. Note a single account opened as individual.

Whereas, in Banaskantha, Navsari, Dahod and Jamnagar districts, more than

80 percent post office accounts were individual accounts. In Jamnagar, nearly

88 percent banks accounts were individual whereas in Banaskantha and

Dahod districts nearly 68 percent or more bank accounts were joint names.

There are few job card holders who have account in both, Bank and Post

offices.

The examination of data on wages disbursed through Banks/Post

Offices shows that in Gujarat, of the total disbursed amount of Rs.87250 lakhs

during 2008-09 to 2010-11 (till Aug. 2010), Rs.56135 lakhs (64.34%) was

disbursed as wages through Post offices and rest through Banks. Among

selected districts, in 2010-11 total wages (100%) in Banaskantha and nearly

98 percent wage amount in Surendranagar district was disbursed through

Post offices. In 2008-09 and 2009-10 also, bulk of the wage amount disbursed

through Post Offices in Banaskantha and Surendranagar districts. During

period 2008-10, in Dahod and Jamnagar districts, wage payment made

through Banks was much higher than Post Offices.

The above analysis clearly brought out that MNREGA workers have

high preference for receiving wage payment through account in post offices

mainly due to relatively easy access and nearby location.

2.2.8 Work projection Under MNREGA for 2010-11:As per provision in the Act, every Gram Panchayat is suppose to

prepare a “shelf of projects” to be executed under MNREGA in the next year.

The GPs will send this plan to the Programme Officer (PO) for scrutiny and

approval prior to commencement of the year in which these projects are to be

executed. The PO will consolidate the plans of GPs and prepare an integrated

plan at the Taluka level. Based on plan received from Taluka Panchayats and

other proposals, an integrated plan for the district will be prepared and

sanctioned by the District Panchayat.

1) For Gujarat State:Table 2.10 give details of projection of works to be executed under

MNREGA in Gujarat state during fiscal year 2010-11.

65

Table 2.10: Work projection under MNREGA for 2010-11-Gujarat StateShelf of worksThrough Which

Employment to beProvided

Total No. ofSpill over

Works FromPrevious

Year

Total No. ofNew WorksTaken up in

CurrentYear

No. of WorksLikely to SpillOver From

CurrentFinancial to

Next financialYear

No. OfNew

WorksProposedfor nextfinancial

Year

BenefitAchieved

Unit

Persondays To

beGenerated

Estimated Cost (In Lakh)

On UnskilledWage

On Materialincluding

skilled andsemiskilled

wages

Total

Rural Connectivity 1008(19.57)

12913(12.52)

956(14.73)

26807(11.26) 682278 14638166

(16.71)14549(16.32) [60.45] 9520

(17.20) [39.55] 24070(16.66)

Flood Control andProtection

447(8.68)

7184(6.96)

573(8.83)

15696(6.59) 599097 8097338

(9.24)8074(9.06) [61.89] 4971

(8.98) [38.11] 13045(9.03)

Water Conservationand WaterHarvesting

776(15.07)

51324(49.74)

2018(31.10)

84605(35.54) 19930627 16987461

(19.39)18668(20.94) [64.91] 10090

(18.23) [35.09] 28758(19.90)

Drought Proofing 191(3.71)

6062(5.88)

355(5.47)

15724(6.60) 160666 4854989

(5.54)5009(5.62) [58.44] 3563

(6.44) [41.56] 8571(5.93)

Micro IrrigationWorks

31(0.60)

1624(1.57)

42(0.65)

5419(2.28) 1329722 1760055

(2.01)1755(1.97) [59.47] 1196

(2.16) [40.53] 2951(2.04)

Provision ofIrrigation facility toLand Owned by

2150(41.74)

9026(8.75)

1757(27.08)

39571(16.62) 8194006 10475433

(11.96)10492(11.77) [1.24] 6641

(12.00) [38.76] 17132(11.86)

Renovation ofTraditional Waterbodies

518(10.06)

6337(6.14)

629(9.69)

14804(6.22) 15808288 9719998

(11.10)9640

(10.82) [64.84] 5228(9.44) [35.16] 14868

(10.29)

Land Development 26(0.50)

8261(8.01)

153(2.36)

32209(13.53) 263846 3499525

(3.99)3454(3.87) [63.74] 1964

(3.55) [36.26] 5418(3.75)

Any Other activityApproved by MoRD

4(0.08)

446(0.43)

6(0.09)

3248(1.36) 420486 17552145

(20.04)17480(19.61) [58.94] 12179

(22.00) [41.06] 29659(20.53)

Bharat Nirman RajivGandhi SewaKendra

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

1(0.00) 1 15630

(0.02)16

(0.02) [62.52] 9(0.02) [37.48] 25

(0.02)

Total of All Works 5151(100.00)

103177(100.00)

6489(100.00)

238084(100.00) 47389016 87600740

(100.00)89137

(100.00) [61.69] 55361(100.00) [38.31] 144498

(100.00)Source: http://nregalndc.nic.in downloaded on 20th January, 2011, Previous year: 2008-09; Current F.Y.:2009-10; Projection year: 2010-11,Note: Figures in ( ) denote percentage to total of all works, Figures in [ ] denote percentage to total cost

66

As per proposed plan, total numbers of works to be executed in year

2010-11 are 244573, of which 6489 are spill over works of year 2009-10 and

238084 new works proposed for 2010-11. From the total new works

suggested for 2010-11, Water Conservation and Water Harvesting (WCWH)

works have highest share of 35.54 percent. It is followed by works of provision

of Irrigation on Land Owned (16.62%), Land Development (LD) works

(13.53%) and Rural Connectivity (11.26%).

It is estimated that by undertaking 244573 works in 2010-11, 8.76 crore

person days of employment will be generated. In the total person days to be

generated through shelf of works, the major contributors are activities

approved by MoRD (20.04%), WCWH works (19.39%), Rural Connectivity

(16.31%) and provision of Irrigation Facility on Own Land (11.96%).

The estimated cost of undertaking all proposed works in 2010-11 is

Rs.1444.98 crore. From the total estimated cost, Rs.891.37 crore (61.69%)

will be spend as wages on unskilled labour and Rs.553.61 (38.31%) on

material and skilled/semi skilled wages. This shows that 60:40 expenditure

ratio for wage costs and material costs stipulated in the MNREGA Act have

been maintained in the proposed plan. The data further reveals that for

drought proofing works and activities approved by MoRD, estimated cost on

material and skilled / semi skilled wages marginally higher than stipulated limit

of 40 percent. The examination of estimated cost for different activities reveals

that highest provision of Rs.296.59 crore (20.53%) has been for activities

approved by MoRD. It is Rs.287.58 crore (19.90%) for WCWH works and

Rs.240.70 crore (16.66%) for Rural connectivity works.

Thus, in terms of employment generation and expenditure, water

conservation and water harvesting works, activities approved by MoRD and

Rural connectivity works are most important.

2) For Selected Districts:The details of projection of works to be undertaken under MNREGA in

selected districts during fiscal year 2010-11 are given in Table 2.10 (i) to (v).

In the total number of new works proposed for the fiscal year 2010-11,

the highest priority assign to WCWH works in work projection plan of

Banaskantha, Navsari and Surendranagar districts. The second priority assign

to it in Jamnagar and Dahod work plans. Rural Connectivity (RC) received the

67

Source: http://nregalndc.nic.in downloaded on 20th January, 2011, Previous year: 2008-09; Current F.Y.:2009-10; Projection year: 2010-11,Note: Figures in ( ) denote percentage to total of all works, Figures in [ ] denote percentage to total cost

Table 2.10(i): Work projection under MNREGA for 2010-11-Banaskantha District

Shelf of worksThrough Which

Employment to beProvided

Total No. ofSpill over

WorksFrom

Previousyear

Total No.of NewWorks

Taken upin Current

Year

No. of WorksLikely to SpillOver From

CurrentFinancial Year

to Next financial

No. Of NewWorks

Proposed fornext financial

year

BenefitAchieved

Unit

PersondaysTobe

Generated

Estimated Cost (In Lakhs)

On UnskilledWage

On Materialincluding skilledand semiskilled

wages

Total

Rural Connectivity 2 1 1 482 884.231 836713 836.71 [62.50] 501.99 [37.50] 1338.7(5.00) (0.89) (16.67) (10.26) (19.04) (19.04) (18.68) (18.91)

Flood Control andProtection

0 0 0 370 24.3 113996 114 [62.50] 68.4 [37.50] 182.4

(0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (7.87) (2.59) (2.59) (2.55) (2.58)Water Conservationand WaterHarvesting

5 111 5 2607 729958 989321 988.9 [62.49] 593.6 [37.51] 1582.5

(12.50) (99.11) (83.33) (55.48) (22.52) (22.51) (22.09) (22.35)

Drought Proofing31 0 0 314 7946.5 914000 914 [62.50] 548.4 [37.50] 1462.4

(77.50) (0.0) (0.0) (6.68) (20.80) (20.80) (20.41) (20.65)

Micro IrrigationWorks

0 0 0 49 5.0 74003 74 [62.50] 44.4 [37.50] 118.4

(0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (1.04) (1.68) (1.68) (1.65) (1.67)Provision ofIrrigation facility toLand Owned by

0 0 0 290 168.64 129003 129 [62.50] 77.4 [37.50] 206.4

(0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (6.17) (2.94) (2.94) (2.88) (2.91)

Renovation ofTraditional Waterbodies

2 0 0 286 531733.0 460000 460 [62.50] 276 [37.50] 736

(5.00) (0.0) (0.0) (6.09) (10.47) (10.47) (10.27) (10.39)

Land Development0 0 0 178 11413.6 112003 112 [62.50] 67.2 [37.50] 179.2

(0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (3.79) (2.55) (2.55) (2.50) (2.53)

Any Other activityApproved by MoRD

0 0 0 123 114.0 765000 765 [60.00] 510 [40.00] 1275

(0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (2.62) (17.41) (17.41) (18.98) (18.01)

Total of All Works40 112 6 4699 0.0 4394039 4393.61 [62.05] 2687.4 [37.95] 7081

(100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00)

68

Table 2.10(ii): Work projection under MNREGA for 2010-11-Dahod District

Shelf of worksThrough WhichEmployment tobe Provided

Total No.of Spillover

WorksFrom

PreviousYear

Total No.of NewWorks

Taken upin Current

Year

No. ofWorks

Likely toSpill Over

FromCurrent

FinancialYear to

NextFinancial

No. OfNew

WorksProposedfor next

FinancialYear

BenefitAchieved

Unit

Person daysTo be

Generated

Estimated Cost (In Lakhs)

TotalOn Unskilled Wage

On Material includingskilled and semiskilled

wages

RuralConnectivity

53(4.65)

66(1.25)

0(0.0)

498(1.61)

349 834405(5.64)

834(5.64) [62.48] 501

(5.64) [37.52] 1336(5.64)

Flood Controland Protection

218(19.11)

647(12.21)

215(10.44)

2364(7.66)

76203 3200701(21.63)

3201(21.63) [62.48] 1922

(21.62) [37.52] 5123(21.62)

WaterConservationand WaterHarvesting

35(3.07)

1894(35.75)

1026(49.81)

5971(19.35)

1952218 2963996(20.03)

2964(20.02) [62.49] 1779

(20.01) [37.51] 4743(20.02)

DroughtProofing

4(0.35)

57(1.08)

0(0.0)

641(2.08)

231 729736(4.93)

730(4.93) [62.50] 438

(4.93) [37.50] 1168(4.93)

Micro IrrigationWorks

11(0.96)

2(0.04)

0(0.0)

500(1.62)

202548 106500(0.72)

107(0.72) [62.50] 64

(0.72) [37.50] 170(0.72)

Provision ofIrrigation facilityto Land Ownedby

819(71.78)

1392(26.27)

819(39.76)

2491(8.07)

5594413 3543475(23.94)

3543(23.94) [62.50] 2126

(23.92) [37.50] 5670(23.93)

Renovation ofTraditionalWater bodies

1(0.09)

373(7.04)

0(0.0)

1555(5.04)

7399859 2022329(13.66)

2022(13.66) [62.53] 1212

(13.63) [37.47] 3234(13.65)

LandDevelopment

0(0.0)

802(15.14)

0(0.0)

16542(53.62)

16047 972204(6.57)

974(6.58) [62.64] 581

(6.53) [37.36] 1555(6.56)

Any OtheractivityApproved byMoRD

0(0.0)

65(1.23)

0(0.0)

290(0.94)

275 426670(2.88)

427(2.88) [61.54] 267

(3.00) [38.46] 693(2.93)

Total of Allworks

1141(100.00)

5298(100.00)

2060(100.00)

30852(100.00)

14800016(100.00)

14802(100.00) [62.48] 8890

(100.00) [37.52] 23692(100.00)

Source: http://nregalndc.nic.in downloaded on 20th January, 2011, Previous year: 2008-09, Current F.Y:2009-10,Projection year: 2010-11, Note: Figures in ( )denote percentage to total of all works, Figures in [ ] denote percentage to total cost

69

Table 2.10(iii): Work projection under MNREGA for 2010-11-Navsari District

Shelf of works ThroughWhich Employment to

be Provided

Total No. ofSpill over

WorksFrom

PreviousYear

Total No. ofNew WorksTaken upin Current

Year

No. of WorksLikely to SpillOver From

CurrentFinancial Year

to NextFinancial Year

No. OfNew

WorksProposedfor next

FinancialYear

BenefitAchieved

Unit

PersondaysTo be

Generated

Estimated Cost (In Lakh)

On UnskilledWage

On Materialincluding skilledand semiskilled

wages

Total

Rural Connectivity1 0 0 1380 1189 629668 630 [56.72] 480 [43.28] 1110

(100.00) (0.0) (0.0) (26.99) (29.37) (30.74) (38.17) (33.57)

Flood Control andProtection

0 0 0 649 2846 214655 219 [64.82] 119 [35.18] 338(0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (12.69) (10.01) (10.68) (9.44) (10.21)

Water Conservationand Water Harvesting

0 20 0 1386 2035407 363255 293 [70.67] 121 [29.33] 414(0.0) (25.00) (0.0) (27.11) (16.94) (14.28) (9.65) (12.52)

Drought Proofing0 0 0 354 9690 17187 17 [87.73] 2 [12.27] 20

(0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (6.92) (0.80) (0.85) (0.19) (0.60)

Micro Irrigation Works0 0 0 3 14 5760 6 [100.00] 0 [0.00] 6

(0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (0.06) (0.27) (0.28) 0.00 (0.17)Provision of Irrigationfacility to Land Ownedby

0 0 0 664 1624372 268661 269 [60.48] 176 [39.52] 444

(0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (12.99) (12.53) (13.12) (13.95) (13.43)Renovation ofTraditional Waterbodies

0 0 0 283 321866 119360 120 [77.18] 35 [22.82] 155

(0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (5.53) (5.57) (5.84) (2.81) (4.69)

Land Development0 60 0 320 16346 78919 53 [81.01] 12 [18.99] 66

(0.0) (75.00) (0.0) (6.26) (3.68) (2.60) (0.99) (1.99)

Any Other activityApproved by MoRD

0 0 0 74 2606 446466 443 [58.67] 312 [41.33] 755(0.0) (0.0) (0.0) (1.45) (20.82) (21.62) (24.80) (22.83)

Total of All Works1 80 0 5113 2143931 2049 [61.95] 1259 [38.05] 3307

(100.00) (100.00) (0.0) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00)Source: http://nregalndc.nic.in downloaded on 20th January, 2011, Previous year: 2008-09; Current F.Y.:2009-10; Projection year: 2010-11,

Note: Figures in ( ) denote percentage to total of all works, Figures in [ ] denote percentage to total cost

70

Table 2.10 (iv): Work projection under MNREGA for 2010-11-Jamnagar District

Shelf of worksThrough Which

Employment to beProvided

Total No. ofSpill over

Works FromPrevious

Year

Total No. ofNew WorksTaken up inCurrent Year

No. of WorksLikely to SpillOver From

CurrentFinancial

Year to NextFinancial

No. Of NewWorks

Proposedfor nextfinancial

Year

BenefitAchieved

Unit

PersondaysTo be

Generated

Estimated Cost (In Lakh)

On UnskilledWage

On Materialincluding skilledand semiskilled

wages

Total

Rural Connectivity0 19 0 594 781 207289 201.29 [62.75] 119.49 [37.25] 320.78

(0.0) (1.52) (0.0) (24.09) (11.23) (10.92) (10.29) (10.67)Flood Control andProtection

0 2 0 57 370 61701 50.68 [63.17] 29.55 [36.83] 80.23(0.0) (0.16) (0.0) (2.31) (3.34) (2.75) (2.55) (2.67)

WaterConservation andWater Harvesting

0 1214 0 526 172279 200116 201.21 [62.47] 120.88 [37.53] 322.09

(0.0) (97.12) (0.0) (21.33) (10.84) (10.91) (10.41) (10.72)

Drought Proofing0 3 0 86 624 51370 50.6 [62.65] 30.17 [37.35] 80.77

(0.0) (0.24) (0.0) (3.49) (2.78) (2.74) (2.60) (2.69)Micro IrrigationWorks

0 1 0 90 2 56190 55.79 [62.69] 33.21 [37.31] 89(0.0) (0.08) (0.0) (3.65) (3.04) (3.03) (2.86) (2.96)

Provision ofIrrigation facility toLand Owned by

0 3 0 346 61 119046 123.88 [62.53] 74.23 [37.47] 198.11

(0.0) (0.24) (0.0) (14.03) (6.45) (6.72) (6.39) (6.59)Renovation ofTraditional Waterbodies

0 0 0 347 159461 159613 159.82 [62.31] 96.68 [37.69] 256.5

(0.0) 0.00 (0.0) (14.07) (8.65) (8.67) (8.33) (8.54)

Land Development0 2 0 285 23590 173085 172.85 [62.28] 104.67 [37.72] 277.52

(0.0) (0.16) (0.0) (11.56) (9.38) (9.37) (9.02) (9.24)Any Other activityApproved byMoRD

0 6 0 135 1 817200 828 [60.00] 552 [40.00] 1380

(0.0) (0.48) (0.0) (5.47) (44.28) (44.90) (47.55) (45.92)

Total of All Works0 1250 0 2466 1845610 1844.1 [61.37] 1160.88 [38.63] 3005

(0.0) (100.00) (0.0) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00)Source: http://nregalndc.nic.in downloaded on 20th January, 2011, Previous year: 2008-09; Current F.Y.:2009-10; Projection year: 2010-11,

Note: Figures in ( ) denote percentage to total of all works, Figures in [ ] denote percentage to total cost

71

Table 2.10(v): Work projection under MNREGA for 2010-11-Surendranagar District

Shelf of worksThrough Which

Employment to beProvided

Total No. ofSpill over

Works FromPrevious

Year

Total No. ofNew WorksTaken up in

CurrentYear

No. of WorksLikely to SpillOver From

CurrentFinancial

Year to NextFinancial

No. OfNew

WorksProposedfor next

Financial Year

BenefitAchieved

Unit

PersondaysTo be

Generated

Estimated Cost (In Lakh)

OnUnskilled

Wage

On Materialincluding skilledand semiskilled

wages

Total

Rural Connectivity 5(100.00)

1(100.00)

10(6.99)

144(7.91) 227 214500

(8.02)215

(8.07) [62.50] 129(7.93) [37.50] 343

(8.02)

Flood Control andProtection

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

6(4.20)

136(7.47) 25270 170272

(6.36)169

(6.36) [62.77] 100(6.18) [37.23] 269

(6.29)

Water Conservationand WaterHarvesting

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

92(64.34)

748(41.08) 1790360 955204

(35.69)955

(35.94) [62.53] 572(35.25) [37.47] 1527

(35.68)

Drought Proofing 0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

34(1.87) 2039 14280

(0.53)14

(0.54) [62.47] 9(0.53) [37.53] 23

(0.53)

Micro IrrigationWorks

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

32(1.76) 7285 28800

(1.08)29

(1.08) [62.50] 17(1.06) [37.50] 46

(1.08)

Provision ofIrrigation facility toLand Owned by

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

1(0.70)

115(6.32) 14232 81500

(3.05)82

(3.07) [62.50] 49(3.01) [37.50] 130

(3.05)

Renovation ofTraditional Waterbodies

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

34(23.78)

471(25.86) 1077862 669501

(25.02)671

(25.23) [62.58] 401(24.70) [37.42] 1072

(25.03)

Land Development 0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

63(3.46) 5839 37800

(1.41)38

(1.42) [62.81] 22(1.38) [37.19] 60

(1.41)

Any Other activityApproved by MoRD

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

0(0.0)

78(4.28) 0 504276

(18.84)486

(18.29) [60.00] 324(19.96) [40.00 810

(18.92)

Total of All Works 5(100.00)

1(100.00)

143(100.00)

1821(100.00)

2676133(100.00)

2658(100.00) [62.08] 1623

(100.00) [37.92] 4281(100.00)

Source: http://nregalndc.nic.in downloaded on 20th January, 2011, Previous year: 2008-09; Current F.Y.:2009-10; Projection year: 2010-11,Note: Figures in ( ) denote percentage to total of all works, Figures in [ ] denote percentage to total cost

72

first priority in Jamnagar district and second priority in Banaskantha and Navsari

district. In tribal dominating district Dahod, Land Development (LD) works received

first priority. In Surendranagar and Jamnagar districts, works of Renovation of

Traditional Water Bodies (RTWB) have notable share. Thus, from the set of works

suggested, the works relating to WCWH, RC, RTWB and provision of Irrigation

Facility on owned Land hold prime importance.

As per proposed work plan of selected districts, the works of WCWH, RC,

RTWB, LD and Provision of Irrigation on Owned Land will be the main sources of

employment generation.

Among selected districts, the estimated cost of executing all proposed works

in 2010-11 varied from only Rs.30.05 crore in Jamnagar district to Rs.236.92 crore in

Dahod district. In all the selected districts, 60:40 overall expenditure ratios of wage

cost and material cost/skilled wages stipulated in the Act has been maintained.

Of the proposed total outlay, major spending will be on WCWH works,

activities approved by MoRD, RC, Irrigation works on owned land and RTWB.

Summary:In view of adversities like seasonal and lagging agricultural sector, scanty and

erratic rainfall, limited irrigation and unfavourable natural conditions, implementation

of MNREGA assumes vital importance for rural Gujarat.

The existing institutional arrangement in the state is good enough for effective

implementation of MNREGA. However, it is facing various issues which hamper the

implementation in an effective manner. The main issues are,

1) Fund utilisation ratio of MNREGA found as low as 30 to 45 percent in some

districts. It was moderate for state as whole. Thus is so mainly because of

inadequate staff and number of suspended/incompleted works.

2) The number and quality of human resources deployed so far are completely

inadequate for shouldering responsibilities of MNREGA implementation in its

true spirit. Majority appointments are adhoc or on additional charge or on

deputation. Many posts are unfilled. There is a need of deployment of full time

professional staff dedicated exclusively to MNREGA at all levels and most

crucially at block and village level which is at the cutting edge of implementation.

73

3) Despite intensive ICE activities, many stakeholders at taluka and village level

have partial awareness on MNREGA. Poor involvement/interest of Sarpanch

and Talati in planning and preparing shelf of projects was noticed. There is a

need to strengthen the institutional structure at the local level for optimal use of

resources. In many places, Panchayats do not have the necessary capacity to

manage the schemes and capacity building ought to take place at the Panchayat

level.

In terms of registration and issuance of job cards the performance was

moderate. In many instances, job card issued per ration card. The demand of works

under MNREGA fluctuated across districts. As per record, demand of works under

MNREGA found low in those districts which are either prosperous in agriculture or

have well developed industries such as Jamnagar, Surat, Anand, Gandhinagar,

Navsari etc. The job demand was higher in economical and agriculturally backward

districts. The supply of employment under MNREGA matches the demand in the all

districts of the state. Against the guarantee of 100 person days per household per

year, an average employment provided was for only 25 and 37 person days in

2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. Apart from other reasons, low level operation of

programme and frequent stoppages/suspension of works undertaken were mainly

responsible for low level generation of employment. The castes/tribes with high

poverty had maximum participation. The MNREGA succeed in providing enhance

employment and income to under privileged ST and SC. In Gujarat, for each year,

the employment share of women was above 42 percent which indicates that they

prefer to work in MNREGA, if works are conveniently located and suit to their skills.

Only 5.78 percent households in 2008-09 and 6.50 percent in 2009-10 exhausted

100 days limit of employment. Therefore, Act had little impact in arresting distress

migration. However, MNREGA succeed in shortening the migration period of some

rural families. It also improved to some extent purchasing power of rural poor. In

Gujarat state as well as in some districts, the data on completed works present

gloomy picture. As there is no compulsion to complete works within fiscal year,

implementing agency starting so many work at a time but not completing many of

them. In Gujarat state, in majority districts main focus was more on WCWH and

other works which create durable productive community assets. These works/assets

74

likely to create additional irrigation and in turn it will be helpful in enhancing

agriculture productivity, employment, income and livelihood security of rural

households in the long run. Overall, in terms of various types of works and activities

covered under MNREGA, Gujarat has done much better. As per data, the picture of

social audit in Gujarat looks much rosy but in majority cases attendance in the

meetings/Gram Sabhas was poor and has been done to complete mere formality.

The inadequate staff at block and district level for carrying technical functions and

inspections impacted very adversely on the quality of assets and frequency of

inspections. According to public opinion, majority Gram Sabhas were not held in the

true spirit of participation. The bureaucracy is dominating the process of planning. In

majority villages either VMC not formed or if formed, most of them are inactive. In

many cases plans are made and approved at the top and sent downwards for

implementation. This is most undesirable. There is a voice of discontent, but people

have either no courage to lodge complaints or no enough awareness. The

unemployment allowance in Gujarat become due for 49929 days in 2010-11, but not

paid at all to any one. It is learnt that some Gram Panchayats are accepting only

non-dated employment demand applications for avoiding the payment of

unemployment allowances. The MNREGA workers have high preference for

receiving payment through account in post offices mainly due to easy access and

nearby location.

The average wage rate received by MNREGA workers was lower than the

legal minimum wage-rate of Rs.100 per day. For majority works, wage amount is

determined on the basis of quantum of work done and prescribed schedule of rates

(SoR). Owing to this wage determination method, workers are receiving wage rate

lower than minimum wage rate of Rs. 100 per day. This discouraged them for

participation in MNREGA and encouraged them for labour work in non-MNREGA

activities. The implementation of MNREGA impacted the prevailing wage rates of

agriculture and non-agriculture sector. Now, wages paid for casual non- MNREGA

works are much higher (Rs.120 to 150/day). Hence, need is felt for upward revision

of minimum wage rate of MNREGA.

By effecting corrective measures, there exist ample scope to enhance the

performance level and effectiveness of MNREGA.

75

Chapter-3

Characteristics, Income and Consumption Pattern of SampleHouseholds

As mentioned earlier in Chapter-1, five sample districts namely

Banaskantha, Dahod, Navsari, Jamnagar and Surendranagar located in

distinct directions and belonging to different phases of MNREGA

implementation were selected for study. For studying the impact of MNREGA

on various aspects, 50 sample households comprising 40 beneficiaries and

10 non-beneficiaries were selected as sample from each selected district. All

related field data required for the study were collected from these 250 sample

households for calendar year 2009 through recall method in one round.

This chapter mainly deals with the socio-economic characteristics and

income and consumption pattern of 250 sample households. Here, analysis is

not attempted separately for each selected district. It is attempted using

combine data of 250 sample households.

3.1 Demographic Profiles of the Sample Households:1) Family size:

Under MNREGA, there is a provision to issue a job-card to the

household as a whole. Moreover, Act guarantees at least 100 days of wage

employment per household per year. This means that per person availability

of employment days under MNREGA will be higher for small family as

compared to large family. In this context, it is pertinent to examine average

family size and composition sample households.

Table 3.1 shows that average family size for beneficiary (B)

households was 5.52 persons whereas it was 5.32 persons for non-

beneficiary (NB) households. For aggregate sample (B+NB), it was 5.48

persons. Thus, average family size of B households found little higher as

compared to that of NB households.

2) Age-Group of Family Members:Under the Act, only adult members of a job-card holding family are

eligible for unskilled manual work. In beneficiary households, out of total 1104

persons, 33.70 percent were of age below 16 years and hence not eligible to

avail employment under MNREGA. Of the total persons of beneficiary

76

households, 64.04 percent were in active age-group of 16-60 years. In non-

beneficiary households, 39.10 percent persons were of age below 16 years

and 59.02 percent had age between 16 and 60 years. The average number of

earning persons per beneficiary household worked out to 3.55 whereas it was

3.30 persons per non-beneficiary household. (See Table 3.1)

3) Caste-Wise Classification of Sample Households:The MNREGA emphasizes more on enhancing food and livelihood

security by providing employment in lean seasons to needy rural households

and particularly for underprivileged castes of rural community. With this in

view, cast-wise classification of sample households examined here.

The data given in Table 3.1 reveals very negligible representation

(1.6%) of general castes (higher castes) in the selected sample households.

From the total 250 households, 98.40 percent households are SC, ST and

OBC. Among aggregate sample, 56.40 percent were of Other Backward

Castes (OBC), 22.40 percent SC and 19.60 percent ST. From the selected

beneficiary households, 44.00 percent were SC/ST and 54.50 percent OBC.

And from non-beneficiary households, 34.00 percent were SC/ST and 64.00

percent OBC. This caste composition suggests that MNREGA provided

employment mainly to underprivileged section of the rural community. Further,

it suggest that higher castes almost remained away from seeking employment

under MNREGA and also avoided to work as casual labourer in other non-

MNREGA works too.

4) Education Status:Apart from other factors, education level of members of samples

households plays an important role in planning and preparation of the village

level work plan, suppress malpractices and conducting effective social audit of

the works undertaken under MNREGA. With this in view, the data on

educational status of family members (above age 6 year) have been

presented in Table 3.1. In the beneficiary households, only 1.83 percent

members had education upto graduate and above. In beneficiary households,

37.44 percent members were illiterate whereas it was 24.90 percent for non-

beneficiary households. The 35.23 percent members of beneficiary and 39.36

percent of non-beneficiary households had education upto secondary. The

77

Table 3.1: Demographic profiles of the Sample Households (% of HHs.)

Sr. No. Characteristics Unit Beneficiaries (B)Non

beneficiaries(NB)

Aggregate(B+NB)

1 No of HH Nos. 200 50 250

2Total persons Nos. 1104 266 1370

Average HHs size Nos. 5.52 5.32 5.48

3 Average Earners per HHs. Nos. 3.55 3.30 3.50

4Gender

Male (% TM) 51.18 48.50 50.66

Female (% TM) 48.82 51.50 49.34

Total Nos. Nos. 1104 266 1370

5

Age group

<16 (% TM) 33.70 39.10 34.74

16-60 (% TM) 64.04 59.02 63.07

>60 (% TM) 2.26 1.88 2.19Total Nos. 1104 266 1370

6 Identity ofrespondent

Head %HH. 43.50 64.00 47.60

Others %HH. 56.50 36.00 52.40

Total Nos. 200 50 250

7 Educationstatus(age above6 year)

Illiterate (% TM) 37.44 24.90 35.02

Up to primary (% TM) 25.41 34.54 27.17

Up to secondary (% TM) 35.23 39.36 36.02

Up to graduate (% TM) 1.83 0.80 1.63

Above graduate (% TM) 0.10 0.40 0.16

8

Caste

SC %HH. 24.00 16.00 22.40ST %HH. 20.00 18.00 19.60OBC %HH. 54.50 64.00 56.40

General %HH. 1.50 2.00 1.60

9 RatiosCardholdingpattern

AAY %HH. 3.00 8.00 4.00

BPL %HH. 55.00 36.00 51.20

APL %HH. 40.00 56.00 43.20

None %HH. 2.00 0.00 1.60

10 Decisionmaker

Male %HH. 80.00 88.00 81.20

Female %HH. 20.00 12.00 18.80

11Mainoccupation

Farming % EM 21.77 21.05 21.65Self business % EM 0.53 0.88 0.59

Salaried/pensioners % EM 0.88 0.88 0.88Wage earners(wage Labour) % EM 76.81 77.19 76.88

12 Involved in migration - 2009 %HH. 47.00 42.00 46.00

1.Dahod %HH. 67.50 50.00 64.00

2. Navsari %HH. 90.00 60.00 84.00

3. Banaskantha %HH. 37.50 40.00 38.00

4.Surendranagar %HH. 22.50 30.00 24.00

5.Jamnagar %HH. 17.50 30.00 20.00Source: Field SurveyNote: Unit of each characteristic is shown in brackets% HH = Percentage to total HHs. TM = Percentage to total Nos. of members % EM = Percentage to total earners.AAY= Antyoday Anna Yojana APL= Above Poverty Line BPL= Below Poverty Line

78

data clearly reveals that average education level of members of non-

beneficiary households average education level of members of non-

beneficiary households was some what better compared to that for beneficiary

households.

5) Main Occupation/Activities:The demand of employment under MNREGA also depends upon the

type of occupation followed by the family. The occupation pattern followed by

earning members of sample households has been furnished in Table 3.1. The

data reveals that of the total earning members of beneficiary as well as of

non-beneficiary households, nearly 77 percent members had causal wage

labour in agriculture and non-agriculture works and about 21 percent had

agriculture as their main occupation. This means that livelihood security of

nearly 98 percent sample households is highly dependent on the agricultural

prospect and availability of employment opportunity in non-agriculture sector.

6) Ration Cards Pattern:The data given in Table 3.1 show that of the total sample households,

only 4.00 percent households had AAY (Antyoday Anna Yojana) type ration

cards. The 55.00 percent beneficiary households and 36.00 percent non-

beneficiary households had BPL (Below Poverty Line) type rationcards.

Overall, from the total sample households, 43.20 percent had APL rationcards

wherein 51.20 percent had BPL type rationcards. This reveals that non-BPL

(APL) households also enrolled them for MNREGA programme.

7) Gender Ratio:In aggregate sample households, sex ratio was 954 females per 1000

males. In total population of sample households, 51.18 percent were male

and 48.82 percent female.

8) Decision Maker:Of the total sample households, 81.20 percent households had male

and 18.80 percent had female as decision maker. Of the non-beneficiary

households, 88.00 percent households had male as decision maker. Thus, in

decision making process, dominance of male is clearly visible.

9) Migration during 2009:For each selected district, the data on households which were involved

in migration during year 2009 have been given in Table 3.1. From the data, it

79

is seen that in year 2009, for ST dominating Dahod as well as in Navsari

districts, scale of migration was highest. Of the beneficiary households, 67.50

percent of Dahod and 90.00 percent of Navsari were involved in migration

during 2009. In these two districts, migration rate for non-beneficiary

households was somewhat lower than it was for beneficiary households. In

Banaskantha, Surendranagar and Jamnagar districts, the scale of migration

among beneficiary households was lower as compared to that for non-

beneficiary households. Overall, from the total 250 sample households, 46.00

percent were involved in migration during year 2009. The high scale of

migration suggests that MNREGA had very little impact on reducing the rate

of out migration particularly in Dahod and Navsari districts. As seen earlier,

owing to very low non-kharif employment opportunities in the villages,

significant proportion of ST/OBC population of these two districts migrates

regularly every year to other places of same or neighbouring districts. They

migrate to those destinations were they have been going year after year and

were sure of getting work. The nature of such migration is temporarily or

seasonally. At migration place, they are working as casual labourer mainly in

construction works, diamond works, textile and other industrial sectors. As

compared to wage rate of MNREGA, they are availing relatively very high

wage rate (Rs.120 to 140/day) here and also employment for a longer

duration. For working in diamond industry, they are earning around Rs.150 to

240 per day.

10) Identity of Respondent:The field level data in structured questionnaires were collected from the

head of 119 (47.60%) sample households. And for remaining 131 (52.40%)

households, it was collected from adult family member. (See Table 3.1)

3.2 Per Household Occupation (Activity) Wise Mandays-2009:The data relating to per household mandays spent on different

occupations/activities during calendar year 2009 are given in Table 3.2. The

data shows that per household total mandays spent on different activities

during 2009 by beneficiary households were 675, which was little less than

696 mandays spent by non-beneficiary households. Each non beneficiary

household, on an average worked as non-agricultural casual labourer for

about 308 mandays which was substantially higher (62%) than 189 man days

80

Table 3.2: Per Household Occupation - Wise Man-days – 2009

Sr.No Occupation Beneficiaries (B) Non- Beneficiaries(NB) Aggregate (B+NB)

Mandays % to total Mandays % to total Mandays % to total1 Worked under MNREGA 80.94 11.99 0.00 0.00 64.75 9.54

2 Agricultural casual labour 136.69 20.26 115.20 16.56 132.39 19.503

Non agricultural casual labour 189.34 28.06 307.90 44.27 213.05 31.38

4 Work for public workprogrammes (PWP) otherthan MNREGA

4.05 0.60 11.30 1.62 5.50 0.81

5 Worked as a migrant worker 148.22 21.97 163.50 23.51 151.27 22.28

6 Self employed in non farming 3.80 0.56 0.00 0.00 3.04 0.45

7Self employed in agriculture 52.10 7.72 57.38 8.25 53.15 7.83

8 Self employed in livestock 48.68 7.21 32.94 4.74 45.53 6.71

9 Regular Job/Salary/Pension 10.95 1.62 7.30 1.05 10.22 1.51

10Any other works 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

11 Total 674.75 100.00 695.52 100.00 678.91 100.00Source: Field Survey

81

of beneficiary household. Under MNREGA, on an average each beneficiary

household availed employment for about 81 days. Thus, total mandays spent

by beneficiary households for non-agricultural casual works plus MNREGA

works comes to 270, which was still lower than 308 days spent by non-

beneficiary on non-agricultural casual works. Beneficiary households worked

as a migrant worker for about 148 mandays whereas non-beneficiary

household worked for about 164 mandays. This suggests that MNREGA not

able to stop out-migration but helped beneficiary households to shorten their

migration period. Further, high numbers of mandays as migrant worker for

beneficiary and non-beneficiary households indicates very poor scope of

employment within villages during lean period. Further, some families felt that

limit of 100 days employment per household is not enough for them to survive

on. Therefore, they have no option but to go ahead with migration. As an

agricultural casual labourer, on an average, each non-beneficiary household

worked for 115 mandays and beneficiary household worked for about 137

mandays. The average mandays spent per beneficiary and non-beneficiary

households for self farming were very low (8%). This suggest that majority of

them are either landless or own very small land holding or their agriculture not

in a better shape mainly due to low investment. In the total employment days

of beneficiary households, the share of employment days under MNREGA

was quite low and it was to the extent of only 11.99 percent (81 days).

Therefore, MNREGA caused low level impact on livelihood security, quality of

life and halting out-migration. For beneficiary and non-beneficiary households,

in total mandays, casual labour works in agriculture and non-agriculture and

worked as migrant worker were the forefront contributors and together it

accounted for 84.34 percent of total 696 mandays. For beneficiary

households, it claimed 70.29 percent of total 675 mandays. (See Table 3.2)

3.3 Source-wise Per Household Annual Net Income-2009:The data on annual net income per household for calendar year 2009

from various sources such as agriculture, casual labour work, work under

MNREGA, livestock and dairy, self employment etc. have been presented in

Table 3.3. It is seen from the table that average annual net income per

non-beneficiary households was Rs.82886 which is higher by Rs.7064

(9.32%) compared to that Rs.75822 of beneficiary households. The average

82

Table 3.3: Per Household Net Annual Income —2009 (Rs. per HH.)

No. Particulars

AverageIncome

(Rs.)

% CV(acrossHHs.)

AverageIncome

(Rs.)

% CV(acrossHHs.)

AverageIncome

(Rs.)

% CV(acrossHHs.)

Beneficiaries(B) Nonbeneficiaries(NB)

Aggregate(B+NB)

1 Income from work underMNREGA

7084.1890.00

--

5667.34112.00

(9.34) (0.00) (7.34)

2 Income from wages inagriculture casual works

11183.10110.00

9189.00121.00

10784.28112.30

(14.75) (11.09) (13.96)

3 Income from wages nonagriculture casual works

25028.95168.00

39664.00144.00

27955.96163.00

(33.01) (47.85) (36.20)

4 Income from wages in PWP(other than MNREGA)

409.00320.00

442.00410.00

415.66338.00

(0.54) (0.53) (0.54)

5 Income from wages asmigrant workers

19887.50196.00

20281.10149.00

19966.22187.00

(26.23) (24.47) (25.85)

6 Income from self employed innon farming

980.00969.00

--

784.00 1084.00

(1.29) (0.00) (1.02)

7 Income from agriculture6167.00

229.009660.00

223.006865.60

228.00(8.13) (11.65) (8.89)

8 Income from livestock2755.00

189.002370.00

187.002678.00

189.00(3.63) (2.86) (3.47)

9 Income from regularjob/salary/pension

1039.00691.00

280.00707.00

887.20694.00

(1.37) (0.34) (1.15)

10 Income from sale ofassets/rent/transfer etc.

1288.25753.00

1000.00707.00

1230.60744.00

(1.70) (1.21) (1.59)

11 Total Income75821.98

113.0082886.10

102.0077234.80

110.00(100.00) (100.00) (100.00)

CV= Coefficient of variationNote: Figures in brackets denote the percentage to total incomeSource: Field Survey

83

income per working day for beneficiary households was Rs.112.37 wherein it was

Rs.119.17 for non-beneficiary households. Thus, non-beneficiary households

realised income per working day more by Rs.6.80. This has been mainly due to

prevailing of high wage rate for Non-MNREGA works. In total net annual income,

wage-income from non-agriculture works was the highest for both type

households, and it was Rs.25029 (33.01%) for beneficiary households and

Rs.39664 (47.85%) for non-beneficiary households. The share of wage-income as

migrant workers in total net income was also significant and it was 26.23 percent

(Rs.19888) for beneficiary households and 24.47 percent (Rs.20281) for non-

beneficiary households. The wage income from agriculture labour was Rs.11183

(14.75%) for beneficiary and Rs.9189 (11.09%) for non-beneficiary. For

beneficiary, income from works under MNREGA was Rs.7084 (9.34%). For

working under MNREGA, beneficiary households received average wage rate per

day of Rs.87.53, which was lower than prescribed basic minimum wage rate of

Rs.100 per day in the Act and the average wage rate per day received by non-

beneficiary for non- MNREGA works. The MNREGA workers received wage rate

less than the prescribed one mainly because of the work measurement

(task wage) method for determining wages and productivity. Thus, income from

MNREGA as well as wage rate received for MNREGA was not so enough and

significant to create notable improvement in food consumption, quality of life and

livelihood security of the participants. In view of high inflation and high wage rate

for Non-MNREGA works, the need is felt for upward revision in minimum wage rate

prescribed for the programme with simultaneous revision of SoR which is used for

determining productivity and wages.

The income pattern of sample households shows low income from

agriculture. It was Rs.6167 (8.13%) for beneficiary and Rs.9660 (11.65%) for non-

beneficiary. Low share of agriculture income for beneficiary as well as non-

beneficiary suggests that some sample households are landless and some own

very small land holding. Many households are involved in regular migration every

year and hence they not pursue either dairy or any other business activities.

Therefore, the income from other sources such as livestock/dairy, job/salary, self

employment/business etc. has been low.

The coefficient of variation across household worked out for each income

item. And it shows high variation for income from non-farming, self employment,

84

sale of assets and wage income from PWP works. These sources have very less

number of observations. Therefore, coefficient of variation worked out for these

sources found relatively high.

3.4 Item-wise Food Consumption (Per Capita / Month)-2009:It is assume that creation of productive assets through providing

employment under MNREGA is likely to promote development of the region and

subsequently to improve the income and quality of life of the rural people. Further,

it will upsurge the purchasing power of the people as well as consumption of food

and other items. With this in view, the data on per capita per month consumption of

different food items for sample households for calendar year 2009 have been

shown in Table 3.4. Moreover, for comparison purpose, per capita/month

consumption data for Gujarat state collected through National Sample Survey

(NSS) for year 1993-94, 1999-2000 and 2004-05 are also given.

Bajra, Wheat and Rice are the main cereals which are consumed by the

rural households of Banaskantha, Jamnagar and Surendranagar districts.

Whereas, Maize in Panchmahals district and in Navsari district Jowar, Rice and

Maize are the principle cereal of the diet menu. The close examination of data

reveals that in year 2009, per capita per month, consumed quantity of Wheat,

Other Cereals, Total Cereals and Total Pulses for beneficiary households has

been found moderately higher compared to that shown in NSS data (1993-94 to

2004-05). As compared to quantitative consumption of beneficiary households, the

per capita consumption of Wheat, Other Cereals, Total Cereals and Total Pulses

has been found moderately lower for non-beneficiary households. The

consumption of rice for beneficiary households was found slightly lower than that

for non-beneficiary households. But, it was significantly higher than its

consumption shown in NSS data. (See Table 3.4)

As compared to consumption data of NSS, consumption quantity of liquid

milk, sugar, spices and vegetables was found lower for both, beneficiary as well as

non-beneficiary households. In respect of fruits and poultry-meat consumption by

beneficiary as well as non-beneficiary households has been found significantly

higher than its consumption shown in NSS data (see Table 3.4). The consumption

quantity of edible oil for beneficiary households was slightly higher than non-

beneficiary.

85

Table 3.4: Per Capita per Month Consumption of Food Items for Sample HHs.—2009

Source: Field Survey and NSS 50th, 55th, and 61st round.

From the table one can conclude that in respect of per capita/month

consumption of main food items, beneficiary households have somewhat better

position. As compared to NSS data, food consumption level of beneficiary

households shows somewhat improvement. However, it is difficult to judge the

quantum of MNREGA impact contribution for this positive improvement in food

consumption of beneficiary households.

3.5 Per Capita Monthly Consumption Expenditure of Sample HHs. – 2009:

Owing to additional employment availability during lean seasons under

MNREGA, the income level of beneficiary households is expected to move up.

Consequently, income rise is likely to impact on consumption and expenditure

pattern of these households. With this in view, for examining the impact of

MNREGA intervention on consumption and expenditure pattern, related

expenditure data on food and non-food items for sample households have been

presented in Table 3.5. The expenditure shown against other food items includes

expenditure incurred on salt, gur, sugar, tea/coffee, bread, biscuits, wine, cold-

drink etc. The other non-food category includes items like transportation,

communications, personal care, health care, medical, social ceremonies,

recreation, repairing of consumer durables etc. The average price per unit of some

Sr.No. Item Unit Beneficiaries

(B)

Nonbeneficiaries

(NB)

Aggregate(B+NB)

NSS1993-94

NSS1999-00

NSS2004-05

1 Rice Kg. 2.61 2.84 2.65 1.92 1.94 1.812 Wheat Kg. 5.14 4.5 5.02 3.59 3.59 3.603 Other cereals Kg. 6.73 4.83 6.36 - 4.66 4.654 Total cereals Kg. 14.48 12.13 14.02 - 10.19 10.065 Total pulses Kg. 1.64 1.33 1.58 0.79 0.92 0.776 Sugar Kg. 0.90 0.84 0.89 0.98 1.16 1.037 Edible oils Ltr. 1.01 0.91 0.99 0.65 0.82 0.818 Liquid milk Ltr. 3.11 3.11 3.11 5.07 5.42 4.979 Milk products Kg. 0.45 0.40 0.44 0.04 0.69 0.39

10 Spices Grams 159.96 146.05 157.26 176.61 227.01 210.6411 Poultry-meat Kg. 0.32 0.41 0.34 0.07 0.07 0.0712 Fruits Kg. 0.42 0.47 0.43 0.1 0.19 0.4013 Vegetables Kg. 3.02 3.11 3.04 4.08 5.92 5.2314 Confectionery Kg. - - - - - -

86

Table 3.5: Per Capita Monthly Consumption Expenditure of Sample HHs. – 2009

Items

Monthly percapita

Expenditure(Rs)

% CVMonthly

per capitaExpenditure

(Rs)

% CVMonthly per

capitaExpenditure

(Rs)

% CV NSS2004-05

(Rs)Beneficiaries (B) Non beneficiaries (NB) Aggregate(B+NB)

Food Items

Rice 47.94 689.00 55.16 457.00 49.34 641.00 22.25(4.37) (5.63) (4.59) (3.73)

Wheat 85.31 1003.00 67.56 334.00 81.86 929.00 28.45(7.78) (6.90) (7.62) (4.77)

Othercereals

85.68 479.00 59.87 297.00 80.67 463.00 28.85(7.81) (6.11) (7.51) (4.84)

Total cereals 218.93 241.00 182.59 127.00 211.87 227.00 79.55(19.96) (18.64) (19.73) (13.35)

Pulses 78.75 175.00 74.69 157.00 77.96 172.00 20.15(7.18) (7.63) (7.26) (3.38)

Sugar etc 28.85 304.00 32.88 628.00 29.63 408.00 18.93(2.63) (3.36) (2.76) (3.18)

Cooking oil59.60

244.0061.08

215.0059.89

224.0043.57

(5.43) (6.24) (5.58) (7.31)

Spices 36.08 629.00 35.19 501.00 35.91 603.00 13.37(3.29) (3.59) (3.34) (2.24)

Milk &products

82.68 284.00 97.12 327.00 85.48 297.00 78.08(7.54) (9.92) (7.96) (13.10)

Poultry-meat 26.67 1517.00 34.10 946.00 28.11 1385.00 5.19(2.43) (3.48) (2.62) (0.87)

Fruits10.15

845.0012.35

742.0010.58

816.00 9.15(1.54)(0.93) (1.26) (0.98)

Vegetables 72.40 334.00 78.89 331.00 73.66 332.00 42.64(6.60) (8.05) (6.86) (7.15)

Any other 74.80 157.00 82.96 127.00 76.38 151.00 34.83(6.82) (8.47) (7.11) (5.84)

Total food(TF)

689.32 41.00 691.86 30.00 689.81 39.00 345.46(62.85) (70.64) (64.23) (57.95)

Non food items

Education 55.40 2114.00 36.75 703.00 51.78 2063.00 7.47(5.05) (3.75) (4.82) (1.25)

Clothing 38.59 596.00 39.32 296.00 38.73 547.00 15.56(3.52) (4.01) (3.61) (2.61)

Footwear 10.03 863.00 10.29 302.00 10.08 779.00 4.28(0.91) (1.05) (0.94) (0.72)

Other items 259.82(23.69) 288.00 158.83 200.00 240.21 285.00 160.22

(16.22) (22.37) (26.88)

Fuel 43.67 542.00 42.42 467.00 43.43 528.00 63.10(3.98) (4.33) (4.04) (10.59)

TotalNon food(TNF)

407.51(37.15) 173.00 287.61

(29.36) 98.00384.23

158.00250.63

(35.77) (42.05)

Gross total(TF+NTF)

1096.83 39.00 979.47 24.00 1074.04 39.00 596.09(100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00)

Note: Figures in bracket denote percentage to gross totalSource: Field Survey

87

food items found slightly lower than the prevailing open market prices as

some households purchased these food items on ration card from

government approved ration shops at a subsidised price.

The data presented in Table 3.5 clearly shows that per capita per

month average expenditure incurred on total food consumption for both type

of households was found almost equal. It was around Rs.689 for beneficiary

and around Rs.692 for non-beneficiary. However, per capita/month

expenditure incurred by beneficiary households on non-food items was found

much higher than that for non-beneficiary households. It was about Rs.408 for

beneficiary against only Rs.288 for non-beneficiary. The item-wise

examination of data reveals that compared to non-beneficiary, average

expenditure incurred by beneficiary households for education and other non-

food items was much higher. This suggests that additional income generated

through MNREGA was utilized for education, purchase of consumer durables,

communication, transportation and medicine.

In total consumption expenditure, the percentage share of food-items

was higher than non-food items and it was 62.85 percent for beneficiary and

70.64 percent for non-beneficiary households. In total consumption

expenditure, the percentage share of beneficiary households for non-food

items was 37.15 percent, which was 7.69 percent higher than 29.36 percent

share of non-beneficiary households.

For beneficiary and non-beneficiary households, the percentage share

of expenditure of different food items in total expenditure found nearly similar

with marginal variation. The almost similar expenditure on food consumption

by beneficiary and non-beneficiary households suggest that pattern of

expenditure on food consumption of beneficiary households broadly remained

non-impacted despite incremental income generation from MNREGA

intervention.

As compared to NSS consumption expenditure data of 2005, the food

expenditure of beneficiary and non-beneficiary households in 2009 was nearly

double. Further, non-food expenditure of beneficiary households was higher

by 83 percent. Compared to NSS data (2005), for significant increase in

consumption expenditure in 2009, somewhat improvement in consumption

88

level and significant increase in the consumer prices of many food and non-

food items were the key contributors.

For beneficiary households, coefficient of variation found much higher

for items wheat, poultry-meat, education and footwear. The high coefficient of

variation for wheat and poultry-meat was mainly due to variation in food-habit

across districts and households. The Maize in Panchmahal and Wheat/Bajra

in Banaskantha are the main food items. However, very low coefficient of

variation for total consumption expenditure by both, beneficiary as well as

non-beneficiary households suggests least variations in per capita

consumption expenditure across households.

3.6 Inequality (variability) In Income and Consumption of Sample HHs.-2009:

The mean value of any data set reflects only central characteristics of a

data set. It does not give us feel about the magnitude of inequality or equality

across individual observations of a data set. Gini coefficient is a measure of

the inequality (dispersion) of a distribution. By measuring the inequality using

Gini coefficient, the vulnerability of rural households to income and

consumption can be judged properly. Gini coefficient lies between 0≤G≤1.

The “0” value of Gini coefficient express total equality and value of “1”

maximal inequality. With a view to study equality (variability) in household

income, consumption and wages, Gini coefficient worked out across

households for income, consumption and wages separately for beneficiary

and non-beneficiary households. The related data presented in Table 3.6.

The Gini coefficient of income for beneficiary households as well as for

non-beneficiary households is found to be almost same at 0.47. This suggests

that income distribution during year 2009 differs significantly across

beneficiary as well as non-beneficiary households. Gini coefficient of

consumption for beneficiary households found to be higher at 0.357 compared

to it 0.267 for non-beneficiaries. This shows that there exists a considerable

inequality in consumption across households. However, compared to non-

beneficiary, this inequality is higher for beneficiary households. In respect of

wages, Gini coefficient suggests large scale equality among beneficiary

households but significant inequality among non-beneficiary households.

89

Table 3.6: Inequality (Variability) in Consumption and Income of SampleHHs. - 2009.

Description Beneficiary(B)

Nonbeneficiary

(NB)Aggregate

(B+NB)

Average Income (Rs./HH)-2009 75821.98 82886.10 77234.80Average Consumption (Rs./HH) 6054.50 5210.78 5885.74Coefficient of Variation (CV) ofIncome across households

1.13(113%)

1.02(102%)

1.10(110%)

Average HHs size (Nos. of persons)) 5.52 5.32 5.48Monthly Percapita ConsumptionExpenditure (Rs.) 1096.83 979.47 1074.04

Coefficient of Variation (CV)ofConsumption across households

0.39(39%)

0.24(24%)

0.39(39%)

Gini coefficient of Income 0.4715027 0.4731345 0.4729335Gini coefficient of Consumption 0.3568598 0.2675324 0.3426025Gini coefficient of Wages 0.09485377 0.3034134 0.1781969Source: Field Survey data

As seen from Table 3.6, the average income per non-beneficiary

household is higher than that of beneficiary household. However, in case of

consumption, it is found higher for beneficiary households. The coefficient of

variation (CV) for income found 113 percent for beneficiary, which was

somewhat higher compared to 102 percent for non-beneficiary. Similar trend

also observed for CV of consumption. Thus, the variability in income and

consumption is noteably higher for beneficiaries compared to it for non-

beneficiaries. This suggests higher vulnerability and comparatively poor

economical position of beneficiaries.

3.7 Factors Impacting Participation in MNREGA:1) Logit Regression Analysis:

With a view to know level of influence of various factors in motivating or

demotivating the sample households for participation in MNREGA, we fitted

logistic regression model using generalized linear model. The Logit regression

analysis has been attempted at two levels – household@ and member level.

In Logit regression analysis, the participation in MNREGA is taken as

dependent variable with binary outcomes$. Among the predictor variables,

______________________________________________________________@ Logit Regression analysis at households level brought out some meaningful results. But analysis at member level not yielded goodresults. Hence are not reported.$ Logistic Regression modal allows us to determine relationship between binary out-come variable and group of predictor variables.The logit (p) = log (odds) = log (p/q) = a + bX where “p” is probability of participation in MNREGA and “q” = (1-p) and X is the vector ofpredictor variables.

90

Table 3.7: Determinants of participation in MNREGA (Logit function)(Dependent variable: Participation in MNREGA, Yes=1, No=0)

Predictor Variables CoefficientExponentiated

value ofcoefficients

Std. Error Z value Pr (>|z|)

Intercept 4.0740 58.7947392 1.2180 3.345 0.000824 ***Household income(Rs. /HH.) 0.00002201 1.000022 0.000007675 2.868 0.004137 **

Household size (No.) -0.01765 0.9825054 0.1176 -0.15 0.880654 NSDistance of workplace from home(Km.)

-0.3174 0.7280354 0.07961 -3.987 0.0000669 ***

Wage rate(Rs./day) -0.0347 0.9658952 0.00968 3.585 0.000337 ***

Female worker(Yes=1, No=0) 0.8308 2.2952355 0.6932 1.199 0.230708 NS

Possession of land(Yes=1, No=0) 0.7397 2.0952895 0.5689 1.3 0.193548 NS

BPL Card holding(Yes=1, No=0) 1.099 3.0010435 0.4911 2.238 0.025229 *

Pseudo R2 (%) 46.643

LR Chi-square 116.6293 Degree of freedom= 7 p=0.00

Notes: Significance codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ NS=Insignificant

4 are continuous variables and 3 are categorical dummy variables. Annual

income (Rs. /HH.), households size (No.of persons), distance of work place

from residence (Km.) and wage-rate (Rs. /day) are the continuous predictor

variables and female participation (Female=1, otherwise=0), land possession

(Yes=1, No=0) and BPL card holding (Yes =1, No=0) are dummy variables.

The findings of the logit regression analysis are stated in Table 3.7

In table, logistic regression coefficients, their standard errors, the

z-statistic and the associated ‘p’ values are shown.

The logistic regression coefficient gives the change in log odds of the

outcome for one unit increase in the predictor variable. Accordingly, for one

unit increase in household income, the log odds of participation

(versus non-participation) in MNREGA works increases by 0.00002201 which

indicates significant influence (at 0.1% level) of household income on decision

of participation in MNREGA work. For a one unit increase in household size,

the log odds of participating in MNREGA decreases by 0.01765. This is

statistically insignificant. This suggests insignificant influence of household

size on participation in MNREGA. This is so because of provision in Act to

91

provide 100 days employment per household irrespective of size of the

household. For a unit increase in distance of work place from home, the log

odds of participating decrease by 0.3174. The longer distance of work place

has acted as disincentive for working in MNREGA and influence is found

statistically significant. For wage rate, impact found highly significant and for

one unit increase in wage-rate, the log odds of participation in MNREGA

declines by 0.0347.

The dummy variables have a different interpretation. For example,

being a female worker (versus male worker), increases the log odds of

participation in MNREGA by 0.8308. The odd ratio (exponentiated value of

coefficient) of 2.295 for female indicates that the odds of female participation

in MNREGA are 2.30 times larger than the odds for male worker to participate

in MNREGA. In respect of land holding, the workers having land have better

odds of participation (0.7397). The odds ratio of 2.095 for land holder

suggests that the odds of participation in MNREGA by a land holder are 2.095

times larger than the odds for a landless. The odds ratio for BPL (Below

Poverty Line) card holders is 3.001 which suggest that the odds of

participation in MNREGA for a BPL card holder are 3.001 times compared to

the odds for non-BPL card holders.

The analysis indicates that three predictor variables namely household

income, distance of work place and wage rate are found influencing

significantly on the decision of participation in MNREGA works. Household

size has no significant impact on participation in MNREGA. The wage rate

and distance of work place are found to be significant at almost zero (p=0)

percent level of significance while household income is found to be significant

at 0.1 percent level of significance. The land holding and female participation

found to be statistically insignificant. BPL card holding is found to be

significant at 1 percent level of significance. The chi-square test is used for

testing goodness of fit and it suggests that model used is a better fit than an

empty model.

2) Ordinary Least Square Analysis (OLS):The impact of various factors in motivating or demotivating the sample

households have been also analysed using OLS at household and member

level For OLS analysis at household level, numbers of employment days per

92

Table 3.8: Factors Affecting MNREGA employment (HH Level OLSRegression) (Dependent variable: No. of Days per HH worked In MNREGA)Explanatory Variables Co-efficient Std. Error t value Pr (>ІtІ) Signi.

Intercept 33.2100000 21.5100000 1.5440 0.1240

Employment other than MNREGA(No. of working days) -0.0116700 0.0123400 -0.9450 0.3458

HH income other than MNREGA(Rs.) 0.0000442 0.0000896 0.4930 0.6223

Per HH MNREGA wage (Rs./day) -0.0269800 0.0772900 -0.3490 0.7274HH size 2.1200000 1.1500000 1.8430 0.0666 *Value of land owned (Rs.) -0.0000118 0.0000063 -1.8610 0.0640 *Dummy AAL card holding (Y=1; N=0) -9.0920000 13.3100000 -0.6830 0.4952

Dummy BPL card holding (Y=1; N=0) 10.6800000 5.2630000 2.0290 0.0435 **

Dummy SC (Y=1; N=0) 20.3200000 20.5900000 0.9870 0.3248Dummy ST (Y=1; N=0) 28.3100000 20.9200000 1.3530 0.1773Dummy OBC (Y=1; N=0) 16.3400000 20.0600000 0.8140000 0.4163000Adjusted R2 0.04728 No. of observations= 250F Value 2.236 on 10 and 239 DF, p-value: 0.01656Notes: signif. Codes: 0 '****' 0.001 '***' 0.01 '**' 0.05 '*'Source: computed (using R) from field data

Table 3.9: Factors Affecting MNREGA employment (Member Level OLSRegression) (Dependent variable: No. of Days per member worked In MNREGA)Explanatory Variables Co-efficient Std. Error t value Pr (>ІtІ) Signi.

Intercept -5.1025111 3.2543499 -1.568 0.117386

MNREGA wage (Rs./day) 0.3311198 0.0178244 18.577 2.00E-16 ****

Other than MNREGA wage (Rs./day) -0.0008753 0.0056807 -0.154 0.877589

HH size (No.) -0.6434315 0.2296753 -2.801 0.005237 ***Age 0.2584948 0.0589926 4.382 1.37E-05 ****Education (No. of years) 0.6103125 0.1683628 3.625 0.000311 ****

Employment other than MNREGA(No. of working days) 0.0014346 0.0043227 0.332 0.740097

Dummy AAL card holding(Y=1; N=0) 17.9783005 5.0073959 1.593 0.111574

Dummy BPL card holding(Y=1; N=0) 11.0599691 1.4247733 0.744 0.457169

Adjusted R2 0.4294 No. of observations= 250F Value 63.47 on 8 and 656 DF, p-value: < 2.2e-16Notes: signif. Codes: 0 '****' 0.001 '***' 0.01 '**' 0.05 '*'Source: computed (using R) from field data

household in MNREGA was taken as the dependent variable. As explanatory

variables, as stated in Table 3.8, five quantitative variables and five dummy

variables were taken. It is seen from Table 3.8 that size of household (Nos. of

members in HH.), value of land owned and BPL card holding (Poverty level)

93

are found to influencing significantly on the MNREGA employment days of the

household (Table 3.8). As per findings, with the increase in family size, there

is possibility of increase in employment days of the household in MNREGA

works. With the increase in the value of the land, there is possibility of

decrease in employment days of household in MNREGA. The BPL card

holding and numbers of employment days in MNREGA works are positively

correlated. This means that households which are very poor are likely to work

for more days in MNREGA. The F value 2.236 at (10, 239) degree of freedom

is statistically significant at 5 percent level.

The details of OLS regression analysis at member level is shown in

Table 3.9. Here, numbers of days per member worked in MNREGA was taken

as the dependent variable. As shown in Table 3.9, five quantitative variables

and three dummy variables were taken as explanatory variables. It is evident

from the Table 3.9 that wage rate of MNREGA, household size, age and

education of members are found to influencing significantly on employment in

MNREGA. The result suggests that for every one percent increase in wage

rate of MNREGA per member, there is a possibility of 0.33 percent increase in

employment of members in MNREGA works. Similarly, for a one unit increase

in household size, the number of days of MNREGA employment per member

decreases by 6.43. This is mainly because of provision of limit of providing

100 days employment per household irrespective of family size. The F value

of 63.47 on (8,656) degree of freedom with ‘p’ value near to zero confirm that

the fitted model has a good predictive capacity and the model is overall

statistically significant.

Summary:Average Family size of aggregate sample households was 5.48

persons. About 64 percent of the total population of beneficiary households

were in active age group of 16-60 years. Of the aggregate sample

households, 98.40 percent were of ST, SC and OBC. This suggests that

higher castes almost remained away from participation in MNREGA mainly

due to their social status. Of the total earning members of sample households,

nearly 77 percent had casual wage labour and about 21 percent had

agriculture as their principal occupation. From the 250 sample households,

only 4.00 percent had AAY type ration cards and 51.20 percent had BPL

94

ration cards. This shows that non-BPL families also participated in MNREGA

on a large scale. In decision making process, very high dominance of male is

visible.

Under MNREGA, each beneficiary household availed average

employment of 81 days at an average wage rate of Rs.87.53 per day. The

employment days provided and wage rate per day realised was lower than

guaranteed 100 days and minimum wage prescribed in the Act. Further,

during 2009 about 47.00 percent beneficiary and 42.00 percent non-

beneficiary households were involved in out migration process. The nearly

equal level of migration suggests that MNREGA had insignificant impact on

complete halting of out-migration. Beneficiary households, on an average

worked as migrant worker for about 148 mandays whereas non-beneficiaries

household worked for 164 mandays. This suggests that MNREGA succeed in

reducing the out-migration period but not scale of out-migration.

For both, beneficiary as well as non-beneficiary households,

casual labour works in village and works as a migrant workers were the

forefront contributors in total employment. And together, it accounted for

84.34 percent of total 696 mandays of non-beneficiary. For beneficiary

households, it accounted for 70.29 percent of total 675 mandays. For

Non-MNREGA works, beneficiary received average wage rate of

Rs.115.76/day whereas for MNREGA works, they received only Rs.87.53/day.

The non-beneficiary received average wage rate per day of Rs.119.17. Thus,

due to lower wage realisation and availability of employment for a shorter

(25 to 30 days per person) duration under MNREGA, many members of

beneficiary households migrated to other places without waiting for starting of

MNREGA works in village.

Bajra, Wheat, Maize, Jowar and Rice are the main cereals consumed

by sample HHs. In respect of per capita consumption of main food items in

2009, beneficiary households are somewhat better placed compared to non-

beneficiary households. As compared to NSS data (2005), beneficiary

households had higher food consumption. Per capita/month consumption

expenditure incurred on food items for beneficiary and non-beneficiary

households was found almost equal. However, on non-food items, it was

much higher for beneficiary households. As compared to NSS data (2005),

95

food consumption expenditure in year 2009 was nearly double for beneficiary

as well as non-beneficiary households. This was mainly due to somewhat

improvement in consumption level and very large increase in consumer prices

of majority food items. The Gini coefficient of income and consumption across

households suggest significant inequality (variability) in income distribution as

well as in consumption pattern.

The logit regression analysis indicates that household income, distance

of work place and wage rate per day are found to be influencing significantly

on the decision of participation in MNREGA. The land holding and female

participation are found to be statistically insignificant. BPL card holding is

found to be statistically significant on influencing the decision making about

participating in MNREGA.

OLS regression analysis attempted at household level indicates that

size of household (No. of members), value of owned land and poverty level of

household found to influencing significantly on the employment days per

household for MNREGA works. The OLS analysis at member level suggest

that household size, age and education level of member are found to

influencing significantly on employment days in MNREGA.

96

Chapter – 4

Work Profile, Wage Differential and Migration under MNREGAThis chapter mainly deals with the issues of wage differentials between

MNREGA activities and other Non-MNREGA wage employment activities in

selected districts. Further, issues of impact of MNREGA on the pattern of

migration in selected districts are also attempted. To what extent, MNREGA

succeeded in providing 100 days employment to each job-demanding

household is also ascertain in this chapter using primary data. The caste-wise

and gender-wise employment provided under MNREGA and other related

aspects are also studied here.

4.1 Work Profile under MNREGA of Sample HHs.-2009:For selected districts as well as overall (5 districts together), caste-wise

data relating to work profile of sample households (only beneficiary) under

MNREGA have been presented in Table 4.1. The given data relate to

reference period January- December, 2009.

1. Average Number of Persons per Households Employed UnderMNREGA:

The average family size of 200 sample beneficiary households was

5.52 persons. Out of these, on an average 2.31 persons per household

worked under MNREGA during year 2009. Across districts, it was lowest at

1.18 persons for Navsari and highest at 3.05 persons for Jamnagar district. It

was 2.70 persons for Dahod, 2.23 persons for Surendranagar and 2.38

persons for Banaskantha district.

The Navsari district is rich in water resources and hence large section

of farmers are growing crops in all 3 seasons. Further, it has significant area

under orchards and horticulture crops. Moreover, in the district good

employment opportunity exist in diamond, textile and other industries. Owing

to these all reasons, average members of persons per household employed

under MNREGA was low for Navsari.

Caste-wise examination of data reveals that overall, on an average, per

household 2.63 persons of SC, 2.53 persons of ST and 2.11 persons of OBC

worked under MNREGA in year 2009. Across districts, per SC household,

97

average number of persons worked in MNREGA was lowest for Navsari

(1.00) and highest for Banaskantha district (2.83). For OBC, it was highest at

3.19 persons for Jamnagar and lowest at 1.16 persons for Navsari district. For

ST, it was highest at 3.00 persons for Jamnagar and lowest at 1.00 persons

for Banaskantha district.

In Dahod, Navsari, Banaskantha and Jamnagar districts, not a single

family of General Castes (Higher Castes) asked for works in MNREGA. In

Surendranagar district, only 1.33 persons per General category household

worked in MNREGA. Owing to their social status, majority households of

higher castes consider working in MNREGA as derogatory and hence

remained away from participation in it.

Overall, on an average against 0.99 men per household, 1.32 women

worked under MNREGA. Thus, overall men women participation ratio was

43:57. Thus, against the MNREGA provision of providing employment to

atleast 33 percent women, employment was provided to 57 percent women.

This shows that women prefer to work in MNREGA, if works provided at

convenient place and suitable to their skill.

In Dahod district, number of males and number of women per

household worked under MNREGA were nearly equal, whereas in Navsari,

Banaskantha, Surendranagar and Jamnagar districts, number of women

employed per household under MNREGA outnumber the number of men. The

rate of women participation in MNREGA in Navsari district is most striking.

Against only 0.13 male persons per household, 1.05 women worked under

MNREGA (see Table 4.1). Thus, in Navsari district, male female participation

ratio was 11:89. This is so because majority males of selected villages of

Navsari are working in nearby locted diamond, textile and other industries.

Here, they are fetching much higher wages and also employment for a longer

period. This shows the predominance of women in MNREGA works. Thus, in

selected districts, overall scenario of providing employment to women in

MNREGA looks glorious.

2. Number of Employment Days per Households-2009:Overall, per household average number of employment days under

MNREGA approximately worked out to 81 (see Table 4.1). Caste-wise, it

98

ranged from 51 days for General Castes to about 91 days for ST. Under

MNREGA, lower employment days for General Castes was mainly owing toTable 4.1: The Work Profile under MNREGA for Beneficiary Sample

Households in Selected Districts. (Ref.period – Jan-Dec. - 2009)Characteristics Dahod Navsari Banas-

KanthaSurendra-

nagarJam-nagar

Gujarat(Overall)

No.ofmembersperHHs.employed duringyear - 2009

General 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.33 0.00 1.33SC 0.00 1.00 2.83 2.47 2.50 2.63ST 2.68 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 2.53OBC 2.83 1.16 1.85 2.19 3.19 2.11Aggregate 2.70 1.18 2.38 2.23 3.05 2.31Men 1.37 0.13 1.03 1.05 1.35 0.99Women 1.33 1.05 1.35 1.18 1.70 1.32

No. of daysper HHs.employedduring year -2009

General 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.00 0.00 51.00SC 0.00 100.00 79.71 70.53 67.88 75.29ST 96.03 108.00 46.67 90.00 54.00 91.43OBC 86.17 92.18 69.38 62.62 81.48 80.39Aggregate 94.55 92.78 73.88 65.40 78.08 80.94Men 53.30 5.38 33.65 32.97 32.68 31.60Women 41.25 87.40 40.23 32.43 45.40 49.34

AverageWage rateobtained(Rs./ day)

General 0.00 0.00 0.00 57.58 0.00 57.58SC 0.00 80.00 95.88 66.69 65.98 82.40ST 100.67 80.00 92.86 54.84 86.67 98.43OBC 100.00 85.50 95.47 65.31 89.89 85.62Aggregate 100.58 85.19 95.61 65.06 85.68 87.53Men 100.75 80.95 96.33 63.06 87.76 88.69Women 100.36 85.45 95.01 67.09 84.18 86.85

No. HHs.Employed100 or moredays

Nos.2

(5.00)6

(15.00)0

(0.00)2

(5.00)0

(0.00)10

(5.00)% to totalHHs.

Average distance fromresidence (Kms.) 1.87 1.88 3.30 1.05 3.60 2.35

Source: Field Survey

their better economical position, higher chances of availing non-labour jobs

and their hesitation to work for social prestige.

Across selected districts, average number of days per household

employed under MNREGA approximately worked out to 95 mandays for

Dahod, 93 mandays for Navsari, 74 mandays for Banaskantha, 65 mandays

99

for Surendranagar and 78 mandays for Jamnagar district. Thus, average

number of employment days in MNREGA varied significantly across districts.

The MNREGA guarantees atleast 100 days of wage employment in

every financial year to registered rural households irrespective of family size.

In Dahod and Navsari districts, under MNREGA, numbers of days of

employment per household were slightly lower but near to assured 100

mandays. The average number of employment days provided under

MNREGA was found lowest at 65 mandays in Surendranagar district.

The predominance of woman in MNREGA works is the striking

feature. Overall, compare to men, participation of women in MNREGA found

considerably higher. Out of approximately 81 employment days per

household, share of women employment was to the extent of about 49 days

(60.96%). Compared to men, women employment days found remarkably

higher in Navsari, Banaskantha and Jamnagar districts whereas it was found

lower in Dahod and Surendranagar districts. The high participation of women

in MNREGA was mainly owing to relatively higher migration among males.

For low participation of women in MNREGA in Surendranagar district, one of

the reasons is social custom, tradition and peculiarity of Rajput and Darbar

communities. Traditionally, women of these communities are not working as

wage-worker.

It is found from the Table 4.1 that from the total 200 sample beneficiary

households spread over 5 districts, only 10 households (5%) availed

employment of atlest 100 days. Not a single household of Banaskatha and

Jamnagar districts availed employment of 100 days (Table 4.1).

Thus, in respect of providing employment to registered households,

performance of MNREGA in sample districts looks slightly below the

anticipation but near to satisfactory.

3. Wage Rate Received:The wage rate received by the participant is a very crucial factor

influencing largely on the work demand under MNREGA. In a situation, where

wage rates for MNREGA works are found much lower than the wage rates

prevailing for Non-MNREGA works, the young and physically fit members of

sample households opted for Non-MNREGA works and avoided to work

100

under MNREGA. Owing to this phenomenon, significant impact of MNREGA

is not seen on the scale of out migration. Such situation is found to be

haunting the effective implementation of MNREGA.

Two methods are used to determine wage-rate of MNREGA. For road

and some other construction works, fix minimum wage per day method is

used. The other method is the task rate/piece rate wage payment. Under this

system, amount of wages is decided by measuring the task performed by the

workers. The measurement of the work is not done daily but on the

convenience of the JEN as he has to visit number of sites. Sometimes, it

delayed for 10 to 15 days. The worker’s wage amount of work done is decided

using schedule of rate (SOR) of government parlance. This method is very

complex and not easy to understand for common men. In this method, there is

a scope of favoritism in measurement of works. Most of the workers not

understand the calculation of fixing wage amount of work done. This complex

wage calculation method is not allowing workers to fetch good wage rate. Due

to varying field and geology conditions, physical condition and age of workers,

quantum of work performed also vary. And hence in task rate method, wage-

rate realised also vary from worker to worker. For most of the activities under

MNREGA, wage rate is decided using task rate/piece rate method. For

digging works, deepening works, water conservation and harvesting works,

land development works etc. piece rate method is used to decide wage-rate.

There is a need to rationalised and simplified this wage calculation

method so that all workers fetch same wage or atleast basic minimum wage.

From Table 4.1, it is seen that overall, average wage rate per day

obtained by MNREGA workers comes to Rs.87.53. The data clearly shows

that average wage rate received is varying much according to castes. It was

only Rs.57.58 for General (higher) castes compared to Rs.98.43 for Schedule

Tribes (ST) and Rs.85.62 for OBC. It was found much low for higher castes

because they are usually not habitual to such strenuous labour works of

MNREGA. Further, they are not physically so strong like ST/SC/OBC and

hence quantum of work per day performed by them was also found relatively

low.

101

Across sample districts, average wage-rate per day received for

MNREGA works is varying significantly and ranged from Rs.65.06 for

Surendranagar to Rs.100.58 for Dahod district. It was Rs.85.19 for Navsari

and Rs.95.61 for Banaskantha. Compared to other districts, average wage-

rate for Surendranagar district was found much lower. Because of relatively

hard soil and hot weather of Surendranagar district, the quantum of work done

per day was relatively low and subsequently it downscale the wage amount of

the works. Except Surendranagar district, wage rate per day received by

MNREGA workers in remaining four selected districts was found as

reasonably good and close to prescribed minimum wage rate of Rs.100/day.

The average wage rate received by women was found almost similar to

wage rate obtained by men. This suggests that quantum of work done by

women and men were almost equal and hence no significant gender variation

seen. Further, it suggests almost no wage differential among women and

men.

The average distance of work sites of MNREGA from residence of

works was only 2.35 kms. And across districts, it ranged from 1.87 kms. in

Dahod to 3.60 kms. in Jamnagar district. This shows that employment was

provided to job demanding households within the permissible limit of 5 kms

distance from residence.

4.2 Activity-Wise Employment under MNREGA-2009:1. Activity- Wise Employment (% of HHs.):

The MNREGA focusing on works related to regeneration of natural

resources through building sustainable assets of good quality.

As wage earning is relatively higher in road construction works,

MNREGA workers have high preference for road and other construction

works where wage payment basis is per working day and not relate to volume

of work done.

It may be noted that during year 2009, the members of a sample

beneficiary households worked in number of activities of MNREGA and Non-

MNREGA. The data on activity-wise percentage of households employed and

their views in respect of quality of assets created have been given in

Table 4.2. From the table, it is seen that Water Conservation and Water

102

Table 4.2: The activity-wise employed under MNREGA and the quality of assets created –2009 (% of HHs.)

Characteristics Activity % of Beneficiary HHs. employed in activities

Dahod Navsari BanasKantha

Surendranagar Jamnagar Gujarat

(overall)

Name of theactivity underwhich employed

Rural Connectivity(RC) 0.00 82.50 57.50 5.00 52.50 39.50

Flood Control and Protection (FC) 60.00 90.00 52.50 15.00 42.50 52.00Water Conservation and WaterHarvesting (WCWH) 85.00 25.00 57.50 97.50 5.00 54.00

Drought Proofing (DP) 17.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.50Micro Irrigation Works 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00Provision of Irrigation Facility toLand Owned 17.50 0.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 6.50

Renovation of Traditional WaterBodies (RTWD) 27.50 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.50

Land Development (LD) 32.50 0.00 37.50 0.00 0.00 14.00Any other activity approved by theMin. of Rural Development 0.00 7.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50

Quality of theassets createdthroughMNREGAactivities

Very good 71.30 97.87 66.84 29.21 46.72 60.52Good 28.70 2.13 23.16 51.69 53.28 35.79Bad 0.00 0.00 10.00 8.99 0.00 1.74Worst 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.11 0.00 1.95

Average unemployment allowance received by thehousehold for not getting work under MNREGA afterregistration (Rs. /HH.)

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Source: Field Survey

103

Harvesting (WCWH), Flood Control and Protection (FC), Rural Connectivity (RC)

and Land Development (LD) were the main activities of MNREGA in which

beneficiary households availed employment during year 2009. Overall, of the

total 200 beneficiary households, 54 percent households worked in WCWH

activities, 52 percent in FC activities, 39.50 percent in RC activities and 14

percent in LD activities.

Across selected districts, main activities of MNREGA which absorbed

higher employment varied due to variation in work-plans. As Navsari is facing

frequent flood situation, FC (90%), RC (82.50%) and WCWH (25%) were the

major activities where member of beneficiary households worked. In Dahod

WCWH (85%), FC (60%), LD (32.50%) and Renovation of traditional water

bodies (27.50%) were the major activities where beneficiary households availed

employment. In water starving Surendranagar district, WCWH was the main

activity and it provided employment to 97.50 percent households. In Jamnagar,

RC (52.50%) and FC (42.50) were the major activities which generated

maximum employment. It is surprising to note that despite scare water resources

in Jamnagar, the works relating to WCWH were undertaken on a very small scale

and focus was more on rural connectivity. In Banaskantha district, employment

was provided in four major activities of MNREGA. These activities were RC

(57.50%), WCWH (57.50%), FC (52.50%) and LD (37.50%).

To sum up, overall, WCWH, FC and RC were the main activities of

MNREGA which generated maximum employment days. Of these three works,

WCWH and FC works are related natural resources works and under these

works productive assets were created. As per discussion with the knowledgeable

villagers, nexus between government officer and road contractors as well as

higher emphasis on wage earning aspect have been found responsible to some

extent for shifting focus from natural resources related works to rural connectivity

(road) works.

104

2. Perception of Participating Households On Quality of the AssetsCreated:

In order to study quality aspect of the assets created under MNREGA,

opinions on quality aspect of the assets created were collected from the all

beneficiary sample households.

The data given in Table 4.2 exhibit that overall, nearly 61 percent

households reported that assets created were of very good quality. In Navsari

nearly 98 percent households reported assets created were of very good quality.

Except Surendranagar and Banaskatha districts, the quality of assets created

under MNREGA was found either good or very good by cent percent participant

households. Not a single household reported quality of assets as bad or worst. In

Surendranagar district, nearly 81 percent and in Banaskatha about 90.00 percent

households felt that quality of assets created was good and rest households

reported quality as bad/worst and not up to the mark.

The data reveals that majority households are satisfied with the quality of

the assets created, but field level observation and discussion reveals that in few

cases ground reality was different. Owing to high focus on employment

generation under MNREGA, there was a compromise with the quality of assets

created. The quality of assets deteriorates over a period of time due to lack of

proper maintenance. Because of non-maintenance of created community assets,

some assets became non-useful. Many road works done under MNREGA found

lacking in quality aspect due to provision of non-use of machinery. Some works

were not adequate in size. Some works were not undertaken on proper location.

The MNREGA not focus much on maintenance work of created assets.

The issue of regular maintenance and repair of created assets has to be

addressed urgently as well. The strong efforts are needed to create awareness

and understanding in village communities on maintenance and repair of created

community assets. Otherwise, community assets created will turn to non-use.

This alone has the potential to undo whatever has been achieved through

creating productive assets under MNREGA. The majority participating

households also expressed such views.

105

3. Unemployment Allowance:According to MNREGA, work must be provided within 15 days of the

demand date. If concern authority fails to provide employment within 15 days,

daily unemployment allowance in cash has to be paid from the state funds.

During reference year 2009, as per record unemployment allowance has

been not due for payment to anyone. It is learnt that in some villages

Talati/Sarpanch are accepting non dated job-demanding applications and it is

assumed to be given on the date when the work is given. Moreover, many

workers are demanding works through oral information. In some villages, many

people are found unaware about their legal right to demand works. They are

giving demand application only when they receive instruction for it from concern

Talati / Sarpanch / village functionaries. Thus, mechanism of accepting work

demand applications is arranged in such a way that issue of payment of any

unemployment allowance mostly not arise. In short, the element of guarantee of

work in 15 days is diluted using this mechanism.

4.3 The Out-Migration Incidents – 2009:One of the major goals of the MNREGA is to arrest rate of distress

migration of the rural poor by providing wage employment within the village.

Therefore, using survey data, here an attempt is made to study how MNREGA

impacted on labour migration and direction of migration during 2009. The related

data provided in Table 4.3.

It is seen from the table that overall, of the total family members of sample

beneficiary households, 15.00 percent (169 members) belonging to 94

beneficiary households (47%) out migrated during the year 2009 because of

various reasons. Across selected districts, the percentage of out-migrant

members was very high for Navsari (25%) and Dahod (23%). It was low (4%) for

Jamnagar district. In Dahod and Navsari districts, some members of the sample

households are regularly migrate every year to nearest districts for labour works.

The nature of their migration was seasonal and temporary. Therefore, incidents

of out-migration are very high in Dahod and Navsari districts.

106

In case of all sample households, the numbers of members migrated from

the village because of not getting work under MNREGA even after registration

was only 0.06 per household while average size of household is 5.52. In other

words, only 1.09 percent family members had migrated to other places for reason

of not getting work under MNREGA. In Navsari, Banaskatha, Surendranagar and

Jamnagar districts, there was a out-migration. But not a single out-migration was

because of not getting work under MNREGA (Table 4.3).In Dahod district only

0.30 members per household out-migrated because of not getting work under

MNREGA. Overall, of the total 169 out-migrated members about 7.00 percent

out-migrated because of not getting work under MNREGA and rest 93.00 percent

for other reasons. This shows that not getting works under MNREGA was not the

key reason for continuation out-migration. There were other reasons and

considerations which tempted them for out-migration.

Also some members of registered families in selected districts migrated to

other places even though works under MNREGA were available. Because, they

gets works for a longer period on a very high wage-rate at migrated places.

Further, they feel that for a family of 3 to 4 working members, employment of 100

days per households (25 to 33 days per person) not enough to meet the annual

household expenses. Therefore, with mutual understanding some members of

family (mostly women and old age men) are staying in the village and

participating in MNREGA and some are migrating to other places. Thus, limit of

providing employment of 100 days per year to registered household is working as

constraint for preventing out-migration.

Overall, out of 0.06 members per HHs. who out-migrated in 2009 for not

getting work under MNREGA, 0.05 members (83.33%) per HHs returned back to

village because of getting work under MNREGA (Table 4.3). The members who

returned back to village were earlier working in the other districts of the Gujarat

state.

The members who returned back to village to work in MNREGA activities

were earlier working in different activities. Some members worked in more than

one activity. Working as a labourer in construction works/manufacturing units

107

Table 4.3: The Migration Incidents Recorded During January-December -2009 (For Beneficiary HHs.)

Characteristics Dahod Navsari Banaskantha

Surendranagar

Jamnagar

Gujarat(Overall)

Total Nos. of HHs. involved in migration 27 36 15 9 7 94Total Nos. of members migrated because of various reasons 69 47 30 13 10 169Average HHs. Size (Nos.) 7.65 4.68 4.78 4.65 5.85 5.52

Proportion of Migrated members to total members Per HHs. 0.23(23.00)

0.25(25.00)

0.16(16.00)

0.07(7.00)

0.04(4.00)

0.15(15.00)%

%No. of members migrated from the village because of not getting work underMNREGA even after registration (Per HHs.) %

0.30(3.92)*

0.00(0.00)*

0.00(0.00)*

0.00(0.00)*

0.00(0.00)*

0.06(1.09)*

No. of out-migrated members returned back to village because of gettingwork in MNREGA (Per HHs.) 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05

In the case some membersreturned back to the village towork under MNREGA wherewere they earlier working (% ofreturned members)

Nearby village 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0Nearby town 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0Same district 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0Same state 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.0Other state 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0Other country 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0

In the case some membersreturned back to the village towork under MNREGA whichactivity earlier working in (% ofreturned members)

Construction/ Manufacturing / Mining 88.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 88.89

Trading / Services and Transport 11.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.11

Private work/Self business 22.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.22

Other government work 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Agriculture labour 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Any other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Year in which shifted (% ofshifted HHs.)

Shifted last year 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00Shifted before last year 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Is your family better off now compared to previous occupation(% of shifted HHs.) 77.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77.78

Source: Field Survey * = % to average HHs. Size of respective district.

108

(88.89%) and private works/self business (22.22%) were their main activities.

This show that majority of the migrated members who returned back to village

had worked earlier as unskilled labourer.

From the shifted households, all shifted last year. From these shifted

households, about 77.78 percent felt that compare to previous occupations, their

families are now better off. They feel good for staying in the own village and own

house with relatives, friends and well wishers eventhough there was a slight

decline in the income.

The analysis clearly reveals that MNREGA not succeeded in arresting out-

migration. It was found helpful in shortening the length of out-migration period.

For enhancing impact of MNREGA in arresting out-migration, need is felt to

relook at the limit of 100 days employment per HHs per year. It is inadequate to

reduce scale of migration for a relatively larger size family. Also relook at the

issue of minimum wage rate prescribed for MNREGA and present wage-

calculation method.

4.4 Wage Differentials between MNREGA and Non-MNREGA Works:The Wage rate earned through working in MNREGA activities is one of the

crucial factors which impacting on a big way on the work demand of MNREGA. It

is obvious that if wage rate earned through MNREGA works are people friendly

and close to similar Non-MNREGA works, the participation of people in

MNREGA works is bound to be higher. Otherwise, low participation of people

in MNREGA will defeat the very aim of the programme.

With a view to study wage differentials between MNREGA activities and

Non-MNREGA activities, the related data have been presented in Table 4.4.

Further, to study wage differential by gender, wage rate data given separately for

men and women.

The average wage rate per day earned through working as agricultural

casual labour was around Rs.84 for male and around Rs.82 for female. The

average wage rate earned through MNREGA works was Rs.88.73 for male and

Rs.86.51 for female. Thus, wage-rate earned through MNREGA works is slightly

higher than the agriculture wage rate. However, the wage rate received for

109

MNREGA works was lower than the prescribed minimum wage-rate of

Rs.100/day. This is so, because works like digging a tank, check-dam, desilting

works etc. requires more labour and fetches less money because of archaic

wage-rate based on measurement of completed works. On the other hand, road

works requires less labour and fetches more money as payment is made on per

day basis irrespective of volume of works done. Compared to average rate

earned (Rs.88.73) through MNREGA works by male, average wage rate earned

by them for working as casual labourer in non-agricultural activities (Rs.126.49)

was higher by 42.55 percent. As a migrant workers, wage rate earned

(Rs.133.17) was higher by 50.08 percent. For public work programme, it was

Table 4.4: Wage Differentials Between different activities –2009

OccupationBeneficiaries

(B)Non

beneficiaries(NB)

Aggregate(B+NB)

Average % CV Average % CV Average % CVAverage Wagerate ofagriculturalcasual labour(Rs./day)

Male 84.11 25.00 84.44 22.00 84.17 24.00

Female 82.93 39.00 78.98 25.00 82.26 37.00

Average Wagerate of Non agri.casual labour(Rs./day)

Male 123.39 53.00 136.05 61.00 126.49 55.00

Female 125.01 66.00 109.17 54.00 120.53 63.00

Average Wagerate in publicwork programmes(Rs./day)

Male 100.91 3.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00

Female 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.00

Average Wagerate earned asmigrant workers(Rs./day)

Male 133.82 52.00 130.57 39.00 133.17 50.00

Female 122.20 38.00 117.47 27.00 121.09 36.00

Average Wagerate underMNREGA(Rs./day)

Male 88.73 20.00 - - 88.73 20.00

Female 86.51 18.00 - - 86.51 18.00Source: Field Survey

110

higher by 12.70 percent. Thus, there exist a significant gap between the average

wage-rate realised from MNREGA works and Non-MNREGA works. This high

gap in wage-rate prevailing at present impacted negatively on the demand of

works under MNREGA. Further, owing to nearly 50 percent higher wage-rate as

a migrant worker, young and physically strong workers opted for migration. Thus,

owing to lower realization of wage-rate, MNREGA not succeed fully in achieving

the goal of sizeable reduction in distress out-migration of rural poor to other

places. Moreover, paying less than the prescribed minimum wage rate per day

has been turned out as one of the great threat to the Act’s development potential.

The MNREGA guarantees employment but not wages. Therefore, there is a need

to make provision to give prescribed basic minimum daily wage irrespective of

the methods used to determine wage payment. At present, significant gap exist

between wage-rate for activities of MNREGA and Non-MNREGA. Simplified the

wage calculation method and wage rate in such a way that the gap between

wage rates of Non-MNREGA and MNREGA works turn out to be very small.

The gender-wise examination of wage-rate received for different works

reveals that compared to female, male earned slightly higher wages for

MNREGA and Non-MNREGA activities. However gap of wage rate earned

between male and female was so small and insignificant.

It is interesting to note that our discussion with people during field survey

reveals the striking and positive impact of MNREGA. The fixing of minimum wage

rate of Rs.100/day for MNREGA compelled others for upside revision of wage-

rate for agriculture and Non-MNREGA works. Thus, MNREGA impacted

indirectly on the wage-rate of Non-MNREGA works and helped villagers to earn

more.

The coefficient of variation (CV) worked out suggest significant variation

across households in respect of wage differential.

Summary:Average family size of beneficiary households was 5.52 persons. Out of

5.52 persons, 2.31 persons worked in MNREGA. Across selected districts, it was

lowest at 1.18 persons for Navsari which is rich in water resources and

111

prosperous in agriculture. Large scale participation in MNREGA was observed

for SC/ST/OBC, but in case of higher castes (General Castes), participation in

MNREGA found very negligible. Because, they considering participation in

MNREGA as derogatory and degrading to their social status. The welcome and

striking feature is the predominance of women participation in MNREGA works.

Overall, men-women participation ratio was 43:57 and in employment days,

share of women was to the extent of about 60.96 percent. This shows that

women prefer to work in MNREGA, if works provided at convenient places,

convenient time and suitable to their skill.

Overall, on an average each beneficiary household was provided

employment under MNREGA for approximately 81 days with an average

wage-rate of Rs.87.53 per day. Across districts, wage-rate variation is high. It

was lowest at Rs.65.06 per day for Surendranagar district. This shows that

employment provided was for less days then the prescribed limit of 100 days per

household. Also, average wage-rate received was less than the fixed basic

minimum wage-rate of Rs.100/- per day. The average wage-rate was low mainly

owing to task rate/piece rate method in which wage amount is decided by

measurement of work done. The average-wage rate realised for MNREGA works

found to be much lower than average-wage rate for Non-MNREGA works. No

discrimination and gender bias seen in average wage rate received by men and

women for MNREGA works. Employment under MNREGA was provided within

the permissible limit of 5 kms distance.

It is seen that Water Conservation and Water Harvesting (WCWH), Flood

control and protection (FC), Rural Connectivity (RC) and Land Development (LD)

were the main activities of MNREGA which generated maximum employment in

year 2009. In water starving Surendranagar district, WCWH activities provided

employment to 97.50 percent households. Navsari district is facing frequent flood

situation and hence FC (90%), RC (82.50%) were major activities which

generated maximum employment.

Except Surendranagar and Banaskatha district, as per participants, the

quality of assets created under MNREGA was found good or very good. In

112

Surendranagar district, 81 percent and in Banaskatha 90.00 percent participants

found quality of created assets as good. The field level observations and

discussion with villagers reveals that in few cases ground reality was different. In

some cases, selection of location was not proper. Owing to lack of proper

maintenance and repairs of created assets, quality of assets deteriorates and

assets became non-useful. Many road works are found lacking in quality due to

ban on using machinery. Therefore, there is an urgent need to address issue of

maintenance and repairs of community assets created under MNREGA.

Otherwise, this alone has the potential to undo whatever has been achieved

through creating assets under MNREGA.

Unemployment allowance has not been paid to anyone. The village level

authority accepting non-dated work demand applications. Some villagers are

asking for works through oral information. Some are giving applications only

when they receive instruction from Talati/Sarpanch/village functionaries. Owing

to this mechanism of accepting work demand applications, payment of

unemployment allowance avoided. Also, guarantee of providing employment

within 15 days has been diluted using this mechanism.

After registration in MNREGA, 169 members belonging to 94 beneficiary

households (47%) migrated to other places during 2009. In Dahod district, 67.50

percent and in Navsari as high as 90.00 percent households were involved in

process of out-migration. Out of the 169 migrated persons of beneficiary

households, only 12 (7.10%) persons migrated to other places because of not

getting work under MNREGA. This shows that in majority cases, not getting work

under MNREGA were not the primary reason for the out-migration. There are

other reasons and considerations which tempted them for the out-migration.

They migrated mainly because income earning from 100 days employment

under MNREGA was not enough for a poor household to sustain their livelihood

for the entire year. Also, at migrated places they are getting employment for a

longer period with a very high wage rate. Further, data reveals that MNREGA

found helpful in reducing the length of out-migration period but not succeed fully

in stopping the distress out-migration.

113

The 100 day guaranteed employment per household is inadequate to stop

out-migration of a large size family. Therefore, there is a need to revisit the issue

of 100 day employment limit and if possible up this limit and link it with the

number of eligible members of the family. Also relook at the issue of minimum

wage-rate prescribed for MNREGA and wage calculation method. The average

wage rate per day earned by male of beneficiary households for working as

agricultural casual labour was Rs.84.17, for MNREGA works Rs.88.73, for non

agricultural works Rs.123.39 and as migrant workers Rs.133.82. Thus, wage rate

earned through MNREGA works is lower than the prescribed minimum wage rate

of Rs.100/day and other Non-MNREGA works. As a non- agriculture labourer

they earned 42.85 percent higher wage-rate. As a migrant workers, they earned

50.80 percent higher wage-rate. Thus, high gap in wage rate realised from Non-

MNREGA works and MNREGA works impacted negatively on the demand of

works under MNREGA. Owing to nearly 50 percent higher wage rate as a

migrant workers, out-migration continued unabated. The MNREGA guarantees

employment but not wages. Therefore, there is a need to make provision to give

prescribed basic minimum daily wage irrespective of the methods used to

determine wage payment. Simplified the wage calculation method and wage rate

in such a way that the present gap between wages of Non-MNREGA and

MNREGA works turned out to be very small.

Our discussion with people reveals that fixing of basic minimum wage rate

of Rs.100/day for MNREGA compelled others for upside revision in wage rate for

agriculture and Non-MNREGA works. Thus, MNREGA impacted indirectly on the

wage rates of Non-MNREGA works and subsequently, it indirectly boosted the

income level of the rural poor households.

114

Chapter-5

The Qualitative Aspects of the Functioning of MNREGAThe level of success of MNREGA programme is highly associated with

the nature of functioning of MNREGA. One of the indicator to judge the

success of MNREGA is level of satisfication of participating households on

functioning and implementation of MNREGA. Therefore, it is worthwhile to

know the level of satisfication of the participating households on functioning

and implementation of various activities undertaken under the programme.

Further, it is necessary to know how far and why authority deviated from the

guidelines in functioning and implementing the programme. With these all in

view, this chapter deals with the qualitative aspects of the functioning of

MNREGA.

5.1 Assets Holding (Rs. /HHs.):Assets position is one of the important indicator of the economic status

of the household. And economic status of household is an important factor

which is count while deciding about participation in MNREGA. Further,

MNREGA intervention aims to generate positive impact on the income level

and subsequently on assets composition of beneficiary households. With this

in view, assets position of sample households have been examined here.

From Table 5.1, it is seen that total assets per beneficiary household

was of Rs.135678, which was fairly lower and only 38 percent of assets of

Rs.357384 for non-beneficiary household. This clearly gives indication that

households having poor economic condition participated on large scale in

MNREGA programme. Further, it asserts that living standard and economical

status of non beneficiary is better than beneficiary households.

Among different type of assets, land property was the highest for both,

beneficiary as well as non-beneficiary households. It was Rs.62675 per

beneficiary household and Rs.256500 per non-beneficiary households. Thus,

average investment on land by non-beneficiary households was more than 4

times than the corresponding beneficiary households. This shows that

beneficiary households are either landless or own very small land holding.

115

Table 5.1: Assets Holdings (Rs/HHs.)

Assets Beneficiaries(B)

Nonbeneficiaries

(NB)

Aggregate

(B+NB)

Land 62675(46.19)

256500(71.77)

101440(56.35)

House Property 39642(29.22)

53548(14.98)

42423(23.57)

Live stock 9834(7.25)

9810(2.74)

9829(5.46)

Agricultural implements 3608(2.66)

10850(3.04)

5056(2.81)

Consumer assets 4448(3.28)

8352(2.34)

5228(2.90)

Business assets 0(0.00)

0(0.00)

0(0.00)

Ornaments/Jewellary 10502(7.74)

12952(3.62)

10992(6.11)

Utensils 1964(1.45)

1956(0.55)

1962(1.09)

Others 3007(2.22)

3416(0.96)

3089(1.72)

Total Assets 135678(100.00)

357384(100.00)

180019(100.00)

Source: Field SurveyNote: Figure in brackets denote percentage to total assets

Further, it shows that size of land holding and ownership of land impacting the

participation in MNREGA. Owing to larger land size, investment on

agricultural implements by non-beneficiary households was also found 3 times

than investment by beneficiary households. Further, owing to relatively better

economic condition, non-beneficiary households invested more on house

property, consumer durables and ornaments.

The comparision of assets of beneficiary with non-beneficiary clearly

brought out that poor economic condition of the beneficiary households was

one of the main reasons for their participation in MNREGA.

5.2 Borrowings by Sample Households – 2009:When income earned during the year plus saving amount found

inadequate to meet recurring expenses like daily consumption need of family

and non recurring expenses on social obligations, health care, purchase of

land/livestock, investment in agriculture etc. sample households have no

116

option but to borrow the required amount from either institutional sources or

private sources. Sometime, family members who migrate to other places may

not able to send money regularly to the members who stayed at home. In

such cases, they have to borrow money temporary for meeting their daily

consumption needs. Few households borrowed amount to meet the

repayment commitment of earlier debt.

Table 5.2: Average Borrowings per sample Household-2009 (Rs. /HHs.)

Sources And Purpose Beneficiaries(B)

Nonbeneficiaries

(NB)Aggregate

(B+NB)

Source ofBorrowing

Institutional loan(banks)

1125(43.05)

0(0.00)

900(29.78)

Traders-cum-Money Lenders

0(0.00)

0(0.00)

0(0.00)

Commission Agent 0(0.00)

0(0.00)

0(0.00)

Landlord/Employer 280(10.72)

3000(64.38)

824(27.26)

Friends/Relatives 1050(40.18)

1260(27.04)

1092(36.13)

Others 158(6.05)

400(8.58)

206(6.83)

Total 2613(100.00)

4660(100.00)

3022(100.00)

Purpose ofBorrowing

Daily consumption 600(22.96)

1060(22.75)

692(22.90)

Social ceremony 0(0.00)

3400(72.96)

680(22.50)

Purchase of land,livestock or otherassets

700(26.79)

200(4.29)

600(19.85)

Consumer durables 75(2.87)

0(0.00)

60(1.99)

Construction ofhouse

0(0.00)

0(0.00)

0(0.00)

Health treatment 33(1.26)

0(0.00)

26(0.87)

Others 1205(46.12)

0(0.00)

964(31.90)

Total 2613(100.00)

4660(100.00)

3022(100.00)

Average Rate of Interest(% per annum)

10.00 10.80 10.51

Source: Field SurveyNote: Figures in bracket denote the percentage of respective total.

Rs. per all sample households. Not per borrowed household.

117

The data relating to borrowing from various sources by sample

households are furnished in Table 5.2. The borrowing data are also given

purpose wise. The data in Table 5.2 present an average borrowing per

sample household.

The examination of data reveals that many households used more than

one sources for borrowing purpose to meet their financial requirement. An

average amount borrowed per household during 2009 was Rs.2613 by

beneficiary and Rs.4660 by non-beneficiary. Thus, compared to beneficiary

household, non beneficiary household has borrowed about Rs.2047/HHs.

(78%) more amount.

For beneficiary households, institutional sources (43.05%) and

friends/relatives/fellow farmers (40.18%) emerged as the most powerful

sources of borrowing. For non-beneficiary households, landlords / employers

(64.38%) and friends / relatives (27.04%) were the main sources of borrowing.

For beneficiary households, purpose-wise examination of borrowing

reveals that 22.96 percent of total amount borrowed was for purpose of

meeting daily consumption expenditure and 26.79 percent for purpose of

purchase of land/livestock/agriculture implements etc. It was highest at 46.12

percent for other miscellaneous purposes (insurance, purchase of cycle bike,

mobile, electric fan, physical assets etc.). The non-beneficiary households has

borrowed mainly for meeting the expenses of social obligations / ceremony

(72.96%) and daily consumption needs (22.75%) of the households.

As sample households availed loan from the institutional sources and

employer / friends / relatives, the interest rate charged are very reasonable

and low (10 to 10.80 percent per annum). This shows that sample households

taken a wise step of not borrowing from professional money lenders, traders

and other private sources which are charging very high and abnormal rate of

interest (24 to 36 percent per annum).

5.3 Borrowing Sources in Sample Villages and Investment in Assets bySample HHs.-2009:

The data on availability of institutional/co-operative credit access in the

selected villages are presented in Table 5.3. Further, data on bank/Post

accounts, investment in stocks/bonds and holding of life insurance policy are

also given in Table 5.3.

118

The 50.00 percent sample households had facility of co-operative

credit society within the village. In other words, 50 percent sample households

Table 5.3: Household Status on Borrowing -2009 (% of HHs.)

Particulars Beneficiaries Nonbeneficiaries Aggregate

Doing wage work to those whomthey are indebted 2.50 18.00 5.60

Availability of co-operative creditsociety in village 50.00 50.00 50.00

Nos. of HHs. whose family membershave membership in such society 13.50 26.00 16.00

Availability of informal creditsociety/SHGs in village 70.00 70.00 70.00

Family member being member ofsuch society/SHGs 10.00 18.00 11.60

Having account in a bank/postoffice/other institutions 100.00 56.00 91.20

Having anystocks/bond/shares/other similarassets

0.00 0.00 0.00

Having life insurance policy 7.00 22.00 10.00Source: Field Survey

have no such facility in their villages. The family members of 13.50 percent

beneficiary and 26.00 percent of non-beneficiary households possess

membership of the co-operative credit society. The seventy percent

households had facility in the village to avail credit through membership of

Self Help Groups (SHGs). However, only 10.00 percent beneficiary and 18.00

percent non-beneficiary households possess membership of such credit

societies/SHGs. It is unpleasing to note that for repayment of loans received

from landlords / employers / relatives, 2.50 percent of beneficiary and 18.00

percent of non beneficiary households were found to send their family

members to work as wage workers at the establishment of landlords to whom

they were indebted. Thus, more non-beneficiary households were found to

send their family members for doing wage works to landlords from whom they

were indebted. This shows continuation of undesirable vethiya (slave) system.

All beneficiary households had saving account either in Banks or in Post

Offices. Whereas, 56.00 percent of non beneficiary households had such

accounts (Table 5.3).

119

Only 7.00 percent beneficiary households and 22.00 percent non-

beneficiary households had financial assets in the form of life insurance

policy. Thus, majority sample households were found without life insurance

policy. Not single sample households had investment in shares, stock and

Bonds. This shows that they have no surplus money to invest in financial

assets as their economy is so tight.

5.4 Some Qualitative Aspects of Functioning of MNREGA:Here attempt has been made to assess the functioning of MNREGA

based on the perception of participations on various aspects. The qualitative

questions related with awareness on various aspects of MNREGA, quality of

assets created, issuance of job card, difficulties faced, suggestions to improve

functioning of MNRGA etc. have been asked to sample beneficiaries. In

response to these questions, answers received are shown in Table 5.4.

1) About Job Card:As per guideline, issue of job-card to applicant household is done by

Gram Panchayat. The job card validity is of 5 years. Also there is a provision

to issue job card with photograph free of cost. There is no application fee for

issuance of job card. In response to question of fees / charges / bribes paid

for getting job card, 95.00 percent households said that they had not paid any

fees or bribes for getting job-card. However, 5.00 percent sample beneficiary

households reported that they had to pay some amount as fees or bribes for

getting job card (Table 5.4). The amount paid is varying from Rs.20 to Rs.50

for application, photo and issuance of job card. This shows that in few cases

job card issuance authority collected illegal fees from poor households. Thus,

procedure of issuance of job card is not fully free from corruption.

Sample beneficiary households reported number of irregularity in the

entries made in job-cards. About 22.50 percent beneficiary households

informed that no entries of work done were made in job cards regarding their

employment eventhough they had worked. In cases of 21.00 percent

households, entries made in job-cards were either incomplete or fake. Few

households reported that they are not sure about correctness of entries in job

cards. Some entries in the job cards were over-written. The 23.00 percent

households reported that signature column of concerned authorities was kept

120

deliberately blank or partly blank. As per Act, job cards should be kept with

the households only. It is worth mentioning that nearly 95.50 percent sample

households kept their job cards with them. Out of 200 beneficiary sample

households, only 9 households not kept job card with them. Their job cards

were kept by Sarpanch/Talati/contractors (Table 5.4).

The reporting from sample households clearly reveals existence of

some irregularities and malpractice in issuance and entries in the job cards.

This is a matter of serious concern.

2) Work Demanding Application:Under MNREGA, there is a provision to submit a written application for

demanding employment to local authority stating time and duration of work.

And local authority will issue a dated receipt for this written application.

Employment will be given to applicants within 15 days of application,

otherwise, daily unemployment allowance in cash has to be paid to concerned

applicants.

The inquiry with beneficiary households reveals that in response to

work application, 91.00 percent households availed employment under

MNREGA. Out of total households which applied for works, 176 households

(88.00%) get a dated receipt for the application whereas, 24 households were

not given dated receipt. Out of 200 beneficiary households, 181 households

(90.50%) get employment in MNREGA within the stipulated period of 15 days.

However, village level implementing authority failed to provide employment to

19 households within 15 days of application. Therefore, as per provision in the

Act, unemployment allowance became due for payment to these 19

households. However, unemployment allowance due for payment was not

paid so far to any one (see Table 5.4). The non-payment of unemployment

allowance is a matter of great concern.

3) Wage – Payment Issues:In respect of gender bias, 96.50 percent participation households

informed that no gender bias was seen in payment of wages for MNREGA

works. Only 3.50 percent households reported that wage-rate is favouring

men. The wages of 76.00 percent households were decided on the basis of

121

Table 5.4: Qualitative Information Related to Functioning of MNREGA (% of Ben. HHs.)

DescriptionNos.of HHs. Percentage

Yes No Not sure Yes No Not sure

Job cardissuance

Paid any fees/charges or bribe to get a job card? 10 190 0 5.00 95.00 0.00The amount paid for job card (exorbitant) 6 - - 3.00 - -The amount paid as bribe (exorbitant) 6 - - 3.00 - -

Irregularity inthe job card

No entries were made, even though the job card holder(s)had worked on MNREGA 45 147 8 22.50 73.50 4.00

Some entries were incomplete or missing or fakeinformation entered 42 144 14 21.00 72.00 7.00

Some entries had been over-written 31 153 16 15.50 76.50 8.00The signature column was kept blank or partly blank 46 142 12 23.00 71.00 6.00

Where was thejob cardgenerally kept

With the card holders 191 NA NA 95.50 NA NAWith Sarpanch or Sachiv 7 NA NA 3.50 NA NAWith contractor 2 NA NA 1.00 NA NAWith the gram rojgar sevak 0 NA NA 0.00 NA NAElsewhere 0 NA NA 0.00 NA NA

Workapplication

Are you employed in response to an application for work? 182 18 0 91.00 9.00 0.00If applied, did you get a dated receipt for the application? 176 24 0 88.00 12.00 0.00If applied, did you get work within 15 days of application? 181 19 0 90.50 9.50 0.00In case of failure to provide work within 15 days, isunemployment allowance paid to you? 0 19 0 0.00 9.50 0.00

Payment ofWages ofMNREGA

Are the wage rates same for men and women? 193 NA NA 96.50 NA NAWage rates higher for men 7 NA NA 3.50 NA NAWage rates higher for women 0 NA NA 0.00 NA NAwage paid on “daily-wage” basis 48 NA NA 24.00 NA NAwage paid on “piece-rate/task-wage” basis 152 NA NA 76.00 NA NA

Contd….

122

Measurementof work

Work was measured by individual’s work 21 NA NA 10.50 NA NA

Work was measured by team measurement 98 NA NA 49.00 NA NA

Work was measured by collective measurement 81 NA NA 40.50 NA NA

Period of wagepayment

Wages were paid within a fortnight 121 NA NA 60.50 NA NA

Wages were paid within a month 71 NA NA 35.50 NA NA

Wages were paid more than a month 8 NA NA 4.00 NA NA

Wages were paid after one year 0 NA NA 0.00 NA NA

Who made thewage payment

Sarpanch or Sachiv 3 NA NA 1.50 NA NA

Post Office 117 NA NA 58.50 NA NA

Bank 69 NA NA 34.50 NA NA

Representative of line departments 11 NA NA 5.50 NA NAOther government official or any other 0 NA NA 0.00 NA NA

In case wagepayment madein the bank/PO

Bank/PO account was on self’s name 153 NA NA 82.25 NA NA

Spouse’s name 33 NA NA 17.75 NA NA

Parent’s name 0 NA NA 0.00 NA NA

Children’s name 0 NA NA 0.00 NA NAOthers 0 NA NA 0.00 NA NAIndividual account 154 NA NA 82.80 NA NAJoint account 32 NA NA 17.20 NA NADid bank follow usual procedure of banking 184 2 NA 92.00 1.00 NA

Contd…

123

In case wageswere not paidthroughbank/PO

Wages paid in front of all labourers 8 NA NA 7.00 NA NAWages paid on the worksite 11 NA NA 4.50 NA NAWages paid in Panchayat Bhavan 3 NA NA 1.50 NA NAWages paid on other public/private place 0 NA NA 0.00 NA NAWages paid on some one’s private residence 0 NA NA 0.00 NA NA

Complaintsregarding wagepayment

There were delays in wage payments? 139 45 16 69.50 22.50 8.00Wage paid less than the minimum wage 16 168 16 8.00 84.00 8.00Wage paid less than asked for sign/thumb impression 15 163 22 7.50 81.50 11.00Task was too much compared to the wages paid 31 149 20 15.50 74.50 10.00Faced problems in accessing post office/bank accounts 70 108 22 35.00 54.00 11.00On what basis wages were calculated not clear 92 72 36 46.00 36.00 18.00Others 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Details ofworksitefacilities

A Board/GP member gave details of the sanctionedamount, work dimensions and other requisite details 117 61 22 58.50 30.50 11.00

The worksite had drinking water facility 161 27 12 80.50 13.50 6.00

Worksite had shade for periods of rest 129 59 12 64.50 29.50 6.00

Worksite had child care facility 111 72 17 55.50 36.00 8.50

Worksite had first aid kit/medicines 106 71 23 53.00 35.50 11.50

Monitoring

Was there any authority to monitor the functioning of theMNREGA administration 182 11 7 91.00 5.50 3.50

Any complaint lodged relating to worksite etc., to the GramPanchayat, Programme Officer or other officials 1 198 1 0.50 99.00 0.50

If yes, was any action taken on your complaint 0 1 0 0.00 0.50 0.00Contd...

124

Economicusefulness ofthe works

Works are very useful to the villagers 184 0 0 92.00 0.00 0.00Works are quite useful to the villagers 16 0 0 8.00 0.00 0.00Works are not particularly useful to the villagers 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00Works are useless for the villagers 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

Nature ofassets and theirdurability inwhich theinterviewerinvolved

The structure created may last up to one year 14 0 0 7.00 0.00 0.00The structure created may last up to five year 169 0 0 84.50 0.00 0.00

The structure created may last up to ten year 17 0 0 8.50 0.00 0.00The structure created may last more than ten year 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00Is it worth creating the structure 177 18 5 88.50 9.00 2.50Was the structure created adequate 173 0 0 86.50 0.00 0.00No, structure needed more attention to be able to last long 27 0 0 13.50 0.00 0.00

How MNREGAhas affectedlabourmigration?

Did any your family members migrated out for job afterimplementation of MNREGA (year 2005 onwards) 94 106 0 47.00 53.00 0.00

If yes, only one member of the family migrated* 47 0 0 50.00 0.00 0.00More than one member of the family migrated* 47 0 0 50.00 0.00 0.00Are wages higher in city or other states than MNREGA 145 55 0 72.50 27.50 0.00Any family members migrated back to village to work underMNREGA* 19 181 0 8.50 90.50 0.00

If yes, only one member of the family migrated back** 6 0 0 31.58 0.00 0.00More than one member of the family migrated back** 13 0 0 68.42 0.00 0.00

Any family member migrated as wage labourer withdissatisfaction from MNREGA* 11 0 0 11.70 0.00 0.00

If yes, only one member of the family migrated*** 4 0 0 36.36 0.00 0.00More than one member of the family migrated*** 7 0 0 63.64 0.00 0.00

Contd…

125

Respondents’awarenessaboutMNREGAimplementation

Are respondent aware about MNREGA implementation 200 0 0 100.00 0.00 0.00

Right to apply for work and get employed within 15 days 105 47 48 52.50 23.50 24.00The work application procedure 88 66 46 44.00 33.00 23.00Right to minimum wages 58 84 58 29.00 42.00 29.00The level of minimum wages 43 87 70 21.50 43.50 35.00The wage calculation method 24 78 98 12.00 39.00 49.00Right to the unemployment allowance 32 76 92 16.00 38.00 46.00Minimum worksite facilities (drinking water, first aid,) 89 52 59 44.50 26.00 29.50Mandatory availability of muster rolls at the worksite 71 62 67 35.50 31.00 33.50The list of permissible works under the MNREGA 66 82 52 33.00 41.00 26.00

Questionsrelated to foodsecurity

Did your family get full two meals throughout year 2009 138 62 0 69.00 31.00 0.00

Family did not get sufficient food for one month 4 0 0 2.00 0.00 0.00

Family did not get sufficient food for two month 48 0 0 24.00 0.00 0.00

Family did not get sufficient food for more than two month 10 0 0 5.00 0.00 0.00

How did you cope with the situation – take loan 36 0 0 18.00 0.00 0.00

Catch fish/rat/crab etc 13 0 0 6.50 0.00 0.00

Near/sometime starvation/take meal only once 11 0 0 5.50 0.00 0.00

Begging 2 0 0 1.00 0.00 0.00Any other 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

* =Percentage to total HHs migrated NA= Not Applicable**=Percentage of total HHs migrated back to village***=Percentage of HHs migrated because of dissatisfaction from MNREGA wage rate

126

“Piece-rate/ Task-wage” method whereas remaing 24.00 percent households

received wages as per “Daily wage” basis (Table 5.4).

The works carried out under MNREGA were measured either by JEN

or by the supervisor on the work sites. In Gujarat, workers are working mostly

on a individual basis or in team/gang. Generally, members of a family or

relatives or friends together are forming a gang of 5 to 8 members and

working collectively in MNREGA works. In MNREGA works, one or more than

one gangs are working at a time. Wages are determined on the basis of

measurement of work done by individual or the gangs. Sometime

measurement of works were not done on individual or gang basis, but done

for collective works. Here, wages are determines on the basis of

measurement of collective work and shared equally to individual member

depending on the number of days put in by each member. In this method,

volume of work done by individual is not taken into account. The 49.00

percent beneficiary households said that they worked as a gang members

and work done by gang was measured to determine wages. Nearly 40.50

percent households said that their works in MNREGA were collectively

measured. In collective measurement, some influential persons get more

advantage than they deserved. Only 10.50 households reported that they

received wage payment on the basis of individual measurement of work done

by them.

In MNREGA, it is mentioned that generally disbursement of wages has

to be done on weekly basis and it should not be beyond fortnight. Of the total

households, 60.50 percent households received wage payment within

fortnight or so. It is unpleasing to note that about 39.50 percent households

received wage payment very late. They received it in a month or beyond

month. This shows considerable delay in wage-payment owing to various

reasons. Main reason was the delay in measurement work due to inadequate

qualified staff. Due to inordinate delay in wage payment, households faced

difficulties in meeting their recurring expenses. And, it also encouraged some

of them to work for Non-MNREGA works where wage payment is regular. In

this way delayed in wage payment affected the people’s participation in

MNREGA works.

127

The wage-payment of 186 households (93%) has been made in

bank/post office. Contrary to provision in guidelines, the representative of line

departments made wage payment to 5.50 percent households in person. Only

3 households (1.50%) received wage payment from Sarpanch / Talati.

This obviously shows that in order to prevent malpractices in wage payment,

to the possible extent, wage-payment has been made through bank/post

office.

The wage-payment of 186 households has been made through

bank/post office. Out of these 186 accounts, 153 bank/post office accounts

(82.25%) were on self name whereas 33 accounts (17.75%) were on

spouse’s name. Majority post/bank accounts (82.80%) were individual

accounts whereas only 17.20 percent were joint accounts. The 14 participant

households not received wage-payment through bank/post office accounts.

They received wages either at the worksites (11 HHs.) or in Panchayat

Bhavan (3 HHs.). Except 2 households, all reported that banks/post offices

followed the usual procedure of banking (Table 5.4).

As per 69.50 percent households, many time there was a delay in

wage payment. It has been paid after two weeks or so. In some cases, it

delayed for one month or more. Nearly 84.00 percent households reported

that wages paid according to prescribed method of minimum wage. However,

8.00 percent households complained for less wage payment than the

prescribed minimum wage. The 15 households complained that they received

wage payment less than the amount shown in payment bill. The amount on

which they signed or put thumb impression was higher than what they

received. Few respondents reported that there was a under reporting of work

done. Hence, they received less payment. The other 22 households were not

sure on amount signed and amount received. This clearly indicates existence

of corrupt practices in wage-payment of MNREGA. Only 15.50 percent

households complained that task as per SoR was too much in relation to the

wages paid. About 74.50 percent households considered it reasonable. Owing

to illiteracy and long distance, 35.00 percent households faced difficulties in

accessing post office / bank accounts. Majority households (64%) found

lacking clarity on wage calculation method. They find piece-rate wage

128

calculation method very complex and far beyond their understanding (Table

5.4).

4) Facilities at Work Sites:As per MNREGA, it is mandatory for the state administration to provide

basic facilities to workers at worksites. These facilities are drinking water,

shads to rest, child care, first aid box with medicines etc.

The inquiry with the respondents reveals that local authority had given

the details of work dimensions and amount sanctioned for the works. For

some works such details were given and for some works not given. The 58.50

percent households said that such details were given whereas 30.50 percent

households said that such details neither provided by the local authority nor it

displayed on the board (See Table 5.4).

Many worksites had necessary basic facilities. Drinking water facility

was provided to 80.50 percent households whereas shade for rest purpose

was provided to 64.50 percent households. The child care facility was at the

worksites where 55.50 percent households were working. Thus from the 200

sample beneficiary households, basic minimum facilities at worksites were

made available to majority households. By and large, majority beneficiaries

expressed satisfaction on the basic facilities at worksites.

5) Monitoring of MNREGA Works :In response to question relating to monitoring of functioning of

MNREGA, 91.00 percent households reported that either local or taluka level

authorities were found paying frequent flying visits at the worksites to monitor

the execution of MNREGA works. At a time, one or more from Mates, Gram

Rozgar Sahayak, Sarpanch/Talati, PO and Jr.Engineer were seen frequently

to monitor MNREGA works. Except one household, no one lodge complaint

relating to functioning of MNREGA and supervisors at worksites. This shows

satisfactory implementation and functioning of MNREGA. The discussion with

villagers reveals that they had few complaints on functioning, wage

measurement and wage payment of MNREGA, but they lack courage and not

wishing to displease their local god.

129

6) Usefulness of Works/ Assets and Durability:In respect of economic usefulness of the works executed under

MNREGA, 92.00 percent beneficiary households believed that works were

very useful to village community. Another 8.00 percent considered it quite

useful. This means that work plans and shelf of the projects prepared at

village / taluka level reflect the needs and priority of the village community.

And villagers expressed satisfaction for giving priority and inclusion of useful

works under MNREGA.

According to opinions of 7.00 percent beneficiary households, some

structures created under MNREGA were of poor quality and not upto mark.

Owing to poor quality, these assets were not durable and perhaps may

became non useful in one year of so. However, majority households (84.50%)

were of the views that the quality of structures created was neither so good

nor so bad. Hence, with proper maintenance and care, these structures are

capable to last for a period of five years or so. About 8.50 percent households

perceived that quality of structures created was very good and with proper

maintenance, chances of lasting these structures for atleast ten years are

very bright. The 13.50 percent beneficiary households reported that more

attention, personal care and timely repairs are needed for increasing the

lifespan of created sub-standard assets. Otherwise, these assets will become

non-useful in the years to come. The majority roads prepared under MNREGA

were of sub-standard quality. Due to ban on use of machinery, road levelling

and paver works not carried. Hence, in excessive rain situation, these earthen

(Kuchha) roads are likely to wash away. All assets created under MNREGA,

whatsoever may be the quality of it, requires timely proper maintenance,

repairs and care. Otherwise, it may not be able to generate expected benefits

and gradually may become non useful.

7) MNREGA Impact on Labour Migration:One of the primary aims of MNREGA is to arrest out-migration of rural

households in search of employment. With a view to know impact of

MNREGA on migration, related data were collected from the beneficiary

households. The data reveals that after implementation of MNREGA, out of

200 beneficiary households, 94 households (47%) were involved in out-

130

migration. In 47 households, only one family member migrated to other places

for employment purpose whereas in other 47 households, more than one

member migrated to other places. This shows that after introduction of

MNREGA, migration continued because they felt limit of 100 days

employment per household per year is quite inadequate for ensuring secured

livelihood for the entire year. Further, at migration places, wages were found

much higher than MNREGA. However, it is interesting to note that family

member of 19 households who migrated earlier to other places returned back

to village to work under MNREGA. This shows that MNREGA succeeded to

some extent in brining migrated persons back to village. The member of 11

households migrated to other places to work as wage labourers due to

dissatisfaction from MNREGA. They expressed dissatisfaction mainly towards

low wage earning owing to SoR, late payment, delay in starting works,

insufficient number of days of employment provided under MNREGA, under

measurement of work done and complex nature of wage-calculation method.

The above analysis of data shows that implementation of MNREGA created

low impact on arresting out-migration owing to varied reasons discussed

above.

8) Awareness About MNREGA:Awareness on each and every aspects of MNREGA among people is

an important ingredient for success of MNREGA. In surveyed villages, it was

found that the people were aware about the implementation of MNREGA

programme. However, probing of beneficiary households reveals that

knowledge on various basic and rights based aspects such as right to

unemployment allowance, wage calculation method, work application

procedure, social-audit, wage-payment period, monitoring etc. was found

limited, partly or negligible. Only 44.00 percent households were knowing

about application procedure for demanding work. Only 29.00 percent

beneficiary households had knowledge about right to minimum wages

whereas only 21.50 percent households were aware about the level of

minimum wages. As many as 84.00 percent households were found unaware

or unsure about their legal right to get unemployment allowance. Only 16.00

percent households were aware about unemployment allowance, but they

131

were unaware about the rate of unemployment allowance. More than 55.50

percent households were found unaware about provision of minimum facilities

at worksite, mandatory availability of muster rolls at the worksite and

permissible works under MNREGA. Many were unaware about social audit

and their role. Thus, from these data, it appeared that the implementing

agency including PR institutions are require to put more efforts for

dissemination of various features of MNREGA. There is strong need to

educate people on the various features of MNREGA

9) Food Security and MNREGA:It is assumed that incremental income generated through MNREGA

works will be helpful to participants to purchase better and adequate foods

and other consumables. Of the total 200 beneficiary households, nearly 138

households (69%) reported that they get two full meals per day throughout

year 2009 (see Table 5.4). The 24.00 percent households did not get

sufficient food for two full meals for about two months and 5.00 percent

households for period more than two months. To cope with this hunger

situation, 36 households borrowed from various sources whereas 11

households reduced the food intake and take meal only once a day. The 13

households started to catch and eat fish / rat and 2 households started

begging. As per villagers, despite increase in income level, due to very high

increase in the prices of food items improvement in food security was found

either very low or nil. Thus, implementation of MNREGA had mix effect on

ensuring food security. It improved the food security of some households and

saved some households from worsening their food security.

5.5 Quantitative Information with Reason on Functioning of MNREGA:Earlier, it is seen that while implementing MNREGA programme,

implementing agency deviated from the laid down procedure in the

programme. In the programme there is a provision to issue job card with

photograph free of cost. Further, job-card holder has to keep job card with

him. As per programme, PRIs have a principal role in planning,

implementation and monitoring. The Gram Sabha must monitor the execution

of projects and conduct social audit. Any complaints regarding programme

132

must be submitted to the programme officer and it should be disposed of

within 7 day of its receipt.

In response to question regarding payment of fees and bribes for

getting job card, 95.00 percent households reported that they get job card free

of cost and not paid and bribes. Only 5.00 percent households paid either

application fees or bribes or both for getting job card. The payment towards

application and photo fees ranged from Rs.20 to Rs.50. The upper limit of the

bribes paid was Rs.50 (Table 5.5).

It is heartening to note that except 9 households, remaining all

households (191 HHs.) kept job card with them. The 9 households kept job

card with Talati/ Sarpanch/ Gram Sevak because they felt that job card is safe

with them and no need to bring it daily. The 3 households reported that for

entry/ presence purpose, they gave their job card to concern authority.

In respect of monitoring of functioning of MNREGA, answers received

from beneficiary households varied significantly. The 181 households (91%)

reported that they know who monitors the functioning of MNREGA. Out of

these 181 households, 80 households reported monitoring by Sarpanch/

Talati/ Gram Panchayat /VMC. The 96 households (48%) reported monitoring

by PO/APO/AAE/Taluka Level Team (Table 5.5).

For ensuring a responsive implementation process, Grievance

Redressal Mechanisms have been introduced in the programme. Out of 200

sample beneficiary households, only one household lodged written complaint

to programme officer. However, as per respondent, till to-date no action taken

on complaint and not received any written answer. Almost no complaint

situation shows that either participants were satisfied with the implementation

of MNREGA or they lack courage for lodgement of complaints or they are

indifferent to it.

The sample households worked in number of works and in different

types of works. Many households worked in more than one MNREGA works.

Among the different type of works, Water Conservation and Water Harvesting

(WCWH) and Land Development (LD) works were undertaken on a large

scale and hence highest employment opportunities were generated by these

two works. The quantitative data collected reveals that 91.50 percent

133

Table 5.5: Quantitative Information with Reasons on Functioning of MNREGA(% of Bene.HHs.)

No. Questions No. ofHHs.

Percentage

Q1. If you paid some amount to get job card: how much for job cardandhow much for bribe?

- -Answer 1 HHs. did not pay any fees or bribes: 190 95.00

2 HHs. paid some amount to get job card and bribe 10 5.003 HHs. Paid fees for application/job cards: 6 3.00i) Rs.Upto 20 3 1.50ii) Rs.21-50 3 1.504 HHs. paid bribe 6 3.00i) Rs.Upto 20 2 1.00ii) Rs.21-50 4 2.00

Q.2 HHs. Not keeping job card with them-what are the reasons forthat?

9 4.50Answer 1 The Job card is safe with Sarpanch/Sachiv/gram sevak 7 3.50

2 No need to bring daily 1 0.503 Due to request of authority for entry/presence purpose 3 1.50

Q.3 If there is any authority who monitors the functioning of NREGAthen describe the details? 182 91.00

Answer 1 Gram Panchayat/Sarpanch/Talati 80 40.002 Programme officer/APO/AAE/MIS/Taluka level team 96 48.003 DPC/ADPC/DDPC/District team/other team 38 19.00

Q.4 If you lodged any complaints give details and also provide detailsof what action was taken - -

Answer 1 Complaint was not lodged 199 99.502 Verbally complaints was lodged 0 0.003 Written complaint was lodged 1 0.504 Action taken 0 0.00

Q.5 Provide description of the work and its starting period? - -Answer 1 Rural connectivity works 46 23.00

2 Water conservation works 153 76.503 Renovation of traditional water bodies works 54 27.004 Land development works 183 91.506 No. of Works started between January- March 17 8.507 No. of Works started between April -June 39 19.508 No. of Works started between July-September 49 24.509 No. of Works started between October- December 63 31.50

Q.6 Provide details of family members migrated back to village towork in MNREGA and why? - -

Answer 1 No. of HHs. returned back 19 9.502 Members per returned back HHs. 1.68 -

Q.7 Provide details of families which migrated to city withdissatisfaction of NREGA and why? 11 0.06

Answer 1 HH migrated to city with dissatisfaction of NREGA due to lowlevel of wage rate

wage rate

3 0.02

2 Delay in Payment 5 0.033 Insufficient No. of days of employment provided 3 0.02

Source: Field Survey

134

households get employment in LD works, 76.50 percent households

employed in WCWH works, 27.00 percent households participated in

Renovation of Tradional Water Bodies Works and 23.00 percent get

employment in rural connectivity works (Table 5.5).

For success of the employment programme like MNREGA, period of

starting work and duration of work is very important. If period of works

coincide with the period of lean seasons, the chances of success of

employment programme are very high. The examination of period of starting

of works reveals that highest works started during October-December, the

starting of lean period. This indicates the positive side of work-plan.

The period of January-March is also a lean period and poor labourer families

needs adequate support of employment for survival. During this period, there

is a increase in demand for employment. However, the data reveals that

number of works started during this period were lowest (Table 5.5). Therefore,

there is a need to prepare a work plan in such a way that it take care to meet

the upsurge of employment demand during this period.

After implementation of MNREGA in the villages, 9.50 percent

(19 HHs.) reported that their family member migrated back to village and

worked under MNREGA. On an average 1.68 persons per returned back

household migrated back to village. The main reasons were availability of

works in village, physical health, social problems, old age and good residential

facility.

Also there were few cases (11 HHs.) in which family member migrated

to city owing to dissatisfaction on functioning and some unsuitable provisions

of MNREGA. Out of such 11 households, 5 households get frustrated due to

very much delay in wage payment and low earning per day. Comparatively

low wage rate of MNREGA and low limit of employment days to be provided

were other reasons for out-migration. Thus, there is a strong need of

appropriate steps to avoid above shown situations.

5.6 Beneficiaries Perception on Potential Benefits of MNREGA:The implementation of MNREGA is likely to bring many changes in

various aspects such as level of food security, migration situation,

indebtedness, poverty level, economic independence of women etc. for the

135

rural community. For assessing the direction and magnitude of changes,

beneficiaries were asked to give their opinions on changes they observed

owing to implementation of MNREGA. The results based on these

perceptions are presented in Table 5.6.

Table 5.6: Beneficiaries Perception on Potential Benefits of MNREGA(Percentage of HHs.)

No. Questions No. ofHHs.

Percentage(%)

Q1. MNREGA is enhancing food security? 96 48.00

Answer

1 Yes, Marginal 48 24.002 Yes, Some extent 30 15.003 Yes, Good extent 18 9.004 No 71 35.505 Not Sure 33 16.50

Q.2 MNREGA provided protection against extremepoverty? 103 51.50

Answer

1 Yes, Marginal 72 36.002 Yes, Some extent 28 14.003 Yes, Good extent 3 1.504 No 69 34.505 Not Sure 28 14.00

Q.4 MNREGA helped in reducing distress migration? 83 41.50

Answer

1 Yes, Marginal 68 34.002 Yes, Some extent 15 7.503 Yes, Good extent 0 0.004 No 69 34.505 Not Sure 48 24.00

Q5. MNREGA helped to reduce indebtedness? 63 31.50

Answer

1 Yes, Marginal 38 19.002 Yes, Some extent 25 12.503 Yes, Good extent 0 0.004 No 79 39.505 Not Sure 58 29.00

Q.6 MNREGA gave greater economic independenceto women? 139 69.50

Answer

1 Yes, Marginal 102 51.002 Yes, Some extent 37 18.503 Yes, Good extent 0 0.004 No 37 18.505 Not Sure 24 12.00

Source: Field Survey

From Table 5.6, it is evident that on the whole 48.00 percent sample

beneficiaries reported improvement in food security. About 48 households

(24%) reported marginal improvement whereas remaining 48 households

136

(24%) reported somewhat/ good extent of improvement in food security. Thus,

as per participants, MNREGA caused somewhat improvement in food

availability for number of beneficiary households.

As regards to protection against extreme poverty, 51.50 percent

(103 HHs.) expressed that MNREGA provided some protection against

extreme poverty. Incremental income earned through MNREGA saved them

from worsening their poverty due to very high rate of inflation. In majority

cases, protection against extreme poverty was marginal.

In respect of reducing extent of distress migration, overall 83

households (41.50%) believed that MNREGA helped in reducing the

incidences of distress migration. However, out of 83 households, 68

households (81.92%) reported that scale of reduction in distress migration

was marginal.

As regards to reduction in indebtedness, 63 households (31.50%)

indicated that MNREGA helped in marginal to moderate reduction in the

indebtedness.

One of the goals of MNREGA is to give greater economic

independence to women. About 69.50 percent (139 HHs.) reported that owing

to MNREGA, economic independence of women increased. However, in

majority cases, increase in economic independence of women was marginal.

Also it empowered women to small extent.

Thus, results suggests that implementation of MNREGA enhanced

food security, reduced indebtedness and distress migration and enhanced

economic independence of women of rural households. However,

improvement in food security and other aspects varied from marginal to

moderate.

5.7 Perception of Beneficiaries on Food Security and Related AspectsWith Suggestions to Improve MNREGA Functioning:

The implementation of MNREGA is expected to brought many socio-

economic changes including change in livelihood. Despite implementation of

MNREGA, there were number of beneficiaries who continued to face

difficulties such as food insecurity, uncertain income, inadequate employment,

very low annual income, lack of basic facilities etc. For studying the reasons

for continuation of these difficulties, beneficiary households were asked to

137

give reasons for the same. The results based on reasons and opinions quoted

by beneficiary households are presented in Table 5.7.

As regard food insufficiency, 31.00 percent households reported that

they do not have sufficient food for two meals a day for the entire 2009 year.

Out of these 62 households, nearly 50.00 percent (31 HHs.) households

reported availability of employment for inadequate mandays coupled with low

wage rate were the primary reasons for food insuffiency. High price rise in

food items in relation to income, large family size, poor employment

opportunities, very low income, weak physical health, financial scarcity, death

of earning members and old age were other reasons cited by them for facing

food insufficiency for the whole year (Table 5.7).

In respect of deprivations faced other than food insufficiency during

year 2009, 22.00 percent households reported that they faced many

deprivations. They faced deprivations mainly related to lack of adequate

employment opportunities and illiteracy (12.00%), social deprivations such as

marriage etc. (10.50%), poor health (5.00%) and unaffordable medical

treatment cost and lack of basic infrastructure facilities at home (drinking

water, sanitation, electricity, fuel, utensils etc.). When they were asked about

the main difficulties which their families faced during year 2009, they reported

some difficulties. Among these difficulties, lack of basic facilities (drinking

water, electricity, fuel, own home etc.) at home (30.00%), poor sanitation

facilities (27.50%), poor health and sickness and not easy access to hospital

(15.00%), Low income owing to lack of adequate employment opportunities

(16.00%), Financial and monetary problems and indebtedness (13.50%) were

the main difficulties which beneficiary households faced during year 2009

(Table 5.7).

The beneficiary households were asked about most important thing

which their households lacking. In response to this question, 36.00 percent

households reported lack of basic infrastructure facilities, 28.50 percent

households reported no own home and own land, 40.00 percent households

have no financial saving to meet the financial crisis and unexpected

expenses, 35.00 percent households have inadequate and uncertain income.

The 24.00 percent households lack guaranteed adequate employment. The

138

37.50 percent households reported insufficient food and clothes (Table 5.7).

This suggests that they are living in extremely poor conditions. They are

economically very weak and hence may find difficult to survive without

adequate employment support.

For amelioration, suggestions were invited from the beneficiary

households. The sample households suggested number of measures to ease

the level of difficulties. Increase in the wage rate of MNREGA (20.50%), steps

to bring down prices of food and other items at an affordable level, create

awareness towards government schemes / programmes which are beneficiary

for us (30.50 %), raise the limit of 100 days employment in MNREGA and link

it with family size (22.50%). Provide financial support and guidance for

agriculture development (22.50%), arrange easy access of institutional credit

(20.00%), timely payment of wages of MNREGA (31.50 %), and arrange to

supply drinking water of good quality (11.00 %) were the important

suggestions given by the beneficiary households for reducing their difficulties.

We also invited suggestions for improving current functioning of

MNREGA. A large number of suggestions were given by the participants for

improving the working and effectiveness of MNREGA and generating better

impact. The suggestions given by participant households are shown in Table

5.7. The main suggestions made by the participant households are as follows:

Table 5.7: Perception of Beneficiaries on Food Security and RelatedAspects with Suggestions to Improve MNREGA Working (% of Ben. HHs.)

Q. No. Questions Nos. %

Q1. Do you feel that your family does not have sufficient food for thewhole of year? give reasons 62 31.00

Answer

1 High Price rise in food items and Inflation in relation to rise inincome 12 6.00

2 Insufficient wage employment/ employment opportunities 31 15.503 Low wage rate 11 5.504 Larger family size 6 3.005 Very low income 51 25.506 No capacity to borrow & Lack of credit worthiness 18 9.00

Q.2 Have you faced any deprivations other than food insufficiency?If yes, explain 44 22.00

Answer 1 Lack of infrastructural facilities at home and village 10 5.002 Poor health and Unaffordable medical cost 10 5.003 Inflation/price rise and low income 3 1.50

4 Employment opportunities/education 24 12.00

139

5 Social and others deprivations 21 10.50Q.3 What were the main difficulties you and your family faced during the last year?

Answer

1 Poor sanitation facilities 55 27.502 Lack of basic facilities 60 30.003 Poor health and Unaffordable medical cost 30 15.004 Lack of adequate employment opportunities 32 16.005 Social problems 4 2.006 Financial crisis and Monetary problems 27 13.507 others 41 20.50

Q.4 What is the most important thing your household lacks

Answer

1 Adequate employment opportunities 48 24.00

2 Basic infrastructure facilities(drinking water, Health, Education,Electricity, Sanitation) 72 36.00

3 Own Home/ Own Land 57 28.504 Food, Cloths, Shelter 75 37.505 Financial Saving 80 40.006 Adequate and Sure Income 70 35.007 others 62 31.00

Q.5 What are the suggestions for amelioration

Answer

1 An appropriate Increase in wage rates 41 20.50

2 Increase awareness towards Government Schemes/Ruraldevelopment programmes 61 30.50

3 Employment day should be provided on the basis of family size 45 22.504 Support and Guidance for agriculture development 45 22.505 Easy access to institutional credit 40 20.006 others 35 17.50

Q.6 Any suggestions to improve MNREGA functioning

Answer

1 No. of employment days according to family size and increasethe limit of 100 days 141 70.50

2 Timely payment of wages 63 31.50

3 Increase wage rates in such a way that worker get minimumRs.100 per day 60 30.00

4 Timing of work according to season 25 12.50

5 Awareness towards Government Schemes/Rural developmentprogrammes/Legal rights in MNREGA 89 44.50

6 Transparency and accountabilities in implementation ofMNREGA 78 39.00

7 Simplify the wage calculation task rate method 48 24.008 Start MNREGA works with the start of lean seasons 62 31.00

9 Make provision of punishment for not paying unemploymentallowance 30 15.00

10 Strict monitoring and supervision 40 20.0011 Others 40 20.00

Source: Field SurveyNote: This table is only indicative and the answers need to be coded and presented in percentage terms

i) More than 70.00 percent households find limit of 100 days employment

per household per year as totally inadequate and unrealistic. This uniform limit

140

ignores the family size. Therefore, they suggest upward revision of 100 day

limit and linking of this limit with the size of family (Table 5.7).

ii) Nearly 44.50 households suggest need of creating more awareness

towards legal rights of people and other important aspects of MNREGA. They

also suggests to create more awareness about other ongoing central/state

government schemes/programmes which are beneficial to rural community.

iii) About 31.50 percent households complaints for considerable delay in

payment of wages. They suggest making an arrangement for timely and

regular payment of wages. The participant households are very poor and

hence delay in wage payment causing unnecessary numbers of problems for

them.

iv) Keeping in mind the substantial price rise in food and other items,

30.00 percent households suggests linking of wage rate with consumer price

index of labourer. Further, they suggests simplification of the task/piece rate

method in such a way that worker get at least prescribed minimum wage-

amount. They also suggested revision of SoR in such a way that it move in

tandem with changes in statutory minimum wages, more accurately reflect

changes in geology and climate and is gender sensitive.

v) About 31.00 percent households suggest that MNREGA works must be

start with the starting of lean period. The works should not be suspended

during the peak lean period when demand for works is at highest level.

vi) There was no active involvement of line departments. Owing to low

involvement of line departments, there were discrepancies and delays in

measurement of works. This subsequently delayed the payment of works.

Therefore, beneficiary suggests for necessary steps to increase the

involvement of line departments in MNREGA implementation.

vii) Deployment of full time professionals staff exclusively dedicated to

MNREGA at all levels, but most crucially at the block level and village level

which is at the cutting edge of implementation.

viii) The work undertaken under MNREGA must focus on raising the

productivity of agriculture. The selection of location of works and works to be

undertaken must be unbiased and free from influence of politician and

influential persons.

141

ix) The beneficiary households also made suggestions such as timing of

MNREGA works according to season/ climate, punished concern authorities

for non-Payment of unemployment allowance, bring more transparency and

accountabilities in implementation of MNREGA, provide technical assistance

to village level authority for preparing work plan and creating structures of

good quality at proper location, ensure strict monitoring and supervision on

implementation of MNREGA, capacity building of all stakeholders etc.

Summary:Asset position indicates the economic status of the household. The

total asset per beneficiary household was of Rs. 135678 which was fairly

lower and only 38 percent of assets of Rs. 357384 of non-beneficiary

household. The land property accounted for major share in the total assets for

both, beneficiary and non-beneficiary households. The investment on land by

non-beneficiary households was more than 4 times (Rs. 256500) than it (Rs.

62675) for beneficiary households. This shows that households having

marginal / no land with poor economic condition participated on a large scale

in the MNREGA programme. Average amount borrowed per household by

beneficiary was Rs.2613 and by non-beneficiary Rs.4660. For beneficiary

households, institutional sources and friends/relatives emerged as the main

sources of borrowing. Non-beneficiary borrowed from non-institutional

sources. They borrowed mainly from landlords / employers / friends /relatives.

The beneficiary borrowed amount to meet daily routine expenditure where as

non-beneficiary mainly borrowed to meet expenditure on social

obligations/ceremony. For repayment of loans, 2.50 percent of beneficiary and

18.00 percent of non-beneficiary households were found to send their family

members to work as wage workers at the establishment of landlords to whom

they are indebted.

In respect of issue of job cards, about 5.00 percent households

reported that they had to pay bribes ranging from Rs.20 to Rs.50 for getting

job card. The participants reported numerous irregularities in the entries made

in job cards. In more than 20.00 percent cases, irregularities such as no entry

of work done, wrong entry, over written and blank signature column etc. were

found. About 4.50 percent households not kept job card with them. They were

142

kept by Sarpanch / Talati /Contractor. Thus existence of irregularities and

malpractice in issuance and entries in job cards is a matter of serious

concern. Out of total households which applied for works, 88.00 percent get a

dated receipt whereas 12.00 percent of them not given dated receipt for

application. No unemployment allowance given so far to 19 households which

were entitled for it. No gender bias seen in payment of wages for MNREGA.

The wage payment of 76.00 percent households was made on the basis of

“Piece-rate / task-wage” method.

Moderate dissatisfaction observed among beneficiaries in respect of

wage payment. About 60.50 percent households received wage payment

around fortnight or so. Nearly 39.50 percent households reported late

payment and they received it in a month or beyond. Main reason of late

payment was the delay in work measurement due to insufficient qualified staff.

Delayed payment of MNREGA encouraged few households for Non-

MNREGA works where wage payment is regular. The wages were paid to

93.00 percent participants through banks / post offices. About 8.00 percent

households complained for less wage payment than prescribed minimum

wage, 7.50 percent households complained for less receipt of wage amount

than the amount on which they signed or put thumb impression. Some

complained for under reporting of work done and hence less payment. About

11.00 percent households were not sure on amount signed and amount

received. Owing to illiteracy and long distance, 35.00 percent households

faced difficulties in accessing post office / bank accounts. Majority households

(64.00 %) lacking clarity on task based wage calculation and they find this

method very complex and beyond their understanding. By and large, majority

of beneficiaries were satisfied with the facilities provided at worksites. Nearly

91.00 percent households said that some authorities were present at

worksites and monitored the execution of the works. To a great extent, mates

were found to monitored MNREGA works.

Nearly 92.00 percent households believed that structures /assets

created under MNREGA were very useful to village community. However,

7.00 percent respondents said that some structures created were of poor and

worst quality and not adequate in size. These assets were non-durable. About

143

13.50 percent households reported need of more attention for created

structures. Otherwise it will not last for longer period. Majority participants

were of the view that whatsoever may be quality of structures, it requires

timely maintenance and care. Otherwise, it may gradually become non-useful.

As far as effects of MNREGA on labour migration, about 47.00 percent

respondents were involved in out-migration for wage employment, after

introduction of MNREGA. About 7.50 percent households who migrated

earlier, returned back to village to work under MNREGA. The members of 11

households migrated due to dissatisfaction from MNREGA. They expressed

dissatisfaction mainly towards low wage earning, late payment, delay in

starting works, insufficient employment days, irregularities in measurement

and payment etc. In respect of awareness; it was found that the people were

aware about the implementation of MNREGA. But further probe reveals that

awareness level on basic and rights based aspects, wage calculation method,

unemployment allowance, social audit, wage payment period, work

application procedures etc. was found very limited and negligible. Analysis

suggests that implementing agency including PR institutions are requires to

put more efforts for dissemination on various features of MNREGA.

About 69.00 percent beneficiary households reported that MNREGA

enhanced the food security. However, it failed to provide adequate food

security to some of the beneficiaries mainly due to high price rise in food

items. About 51.50 percent households perceived that MNREGA provided

protection against extreme poverty. Nearly 41.50 percent households believed

that MNREGA helped in reducing the incidence of distress migration. The

31.50 percent households indicated that MNREGA helped in marginal to

moderate reduction in the indebtedness. About 69.50 percent households

believed that MNREGA increased the economic independence and

empowered women to a small extent. As regard to food insufficiency, 31.00

percent households reported insufficient food for two meals a day for the

entire year 2009. The reasons cited by them were inadequate employment,

high price rise, very low income, large family size, old age, death of earning

member, weak physical health and financial scarcity. Sample households also

reported some difficulties, which they faced during reference year 2009. For

144

amelioration, they suggested some measures. The key suggested measures

were, an appropriate increase in wage rate (20.50 %), improve awareness,

raise limit of 100 days employment and link it with family size (22.50 %),

provide financial support and guidance for agricultural development (22.50

%), timely payment of wages (32.00 %) and easy access to institutional credit

(20.00 %).

Numerous suggestions were given by the respondents as their

feedbacks for improving functioning and effectiveness of MNREGA.

Suggestions given are as follows:

I. Upward revision of 100 days employment limit and linking it with

family size (70 %).

II. Create more awareness towards legal rights of people and other

aspects of MNREGA (44.50 %). Also provide information on other

programmes implemented by state / central programme

government.

III. Make an arrangement for timely and regular payment (31.50%).

IV. Link wage rate with consumer price index (30.00%).

V. Simplification of ‘task wage’ method so that worker get at least

prescribed minimum wage amount.

VI. Start MNREGA works with the start of lean period.

VII. Ensure active involvement of all line departments in execution and

monitoring of works.

VIII. Deployment of full time professionals staff dedicated to MNREGA at

all levels.

IX. Undertake and assign first priority to works which are useful in

raising the productivity of agriculture.

X. Arrangement of proper maintenance of created community assets.

XI. Stringent actions against officials involved in corruption and

irregularities.

XII. Better monitoring and supervision of MNREGA works.

XIII. Make MNREGA Free from influence of politicians and influential

persons of village.

145

Chapter-6

Impact of MNREGA on Village EconomyThe Government of India introduced MNREGA with the aim of

improving the economy and livelihood of households living in the villages. The

improvement in village economy is highly associated with the improvement in

economy of households of the village. Keeping this in view, in this Chapter, an

attempt has been made to assess the impact of MNREGA on various

indicators describing the status of economy of selected 10 villages. The

impact of MNREGA on village economy measured using village level data

collected for the reference year 2009.

6.1 Infrastructure Availability within Study Villages-2009:Infrastructure in the village is one of the main indicator to judge the

prosperity, development and economy of the village. MNREGA is expected to

improve infrastructure in the villages as well as quality of life of people. Under

MNREGA, works like all weather rural connectivity, internal road, deepening

of tanks, deepening of wells for drinking water, renovation of traditional water

bodies etc. offers opportunity for the development of village infrastructure.

From Table 6.1, it is evident that landline and mobile connectivity is

available round the clock in all the study villages. The road connectivity is

available in 90.00 percent villages. To large extent, MNREGA impact seen in

development of road connectivity. All sample villages have Gram Panchayat

office within the village. The railway connectivity is sparse and available in

only 20.00 percent villages.

With a view to stop malpractices and to ensure transparency in wage

payment of MNREGA, it was decided to distribute wage amount to workers

through Banks/ Post Offices. Table 6.1 shows that 70 percent of the villages

have post office facility whereas remaining 30 percent of villages have access

of it within 2 kms. proximity. The commercial banks are present in only 30.00

percent villages whereas for remaining 70.00 percent villages, banks are

located at an average distance of 12 kms. Regional Rural Bank (RRB) is

percent in 2 villages and co-operative credit societies are located within the

146

60.00 percent villages. Not a single village has Agricultural Produce Market

Yard (APMC). On an average, it is located at a distance of 17 kms.

Except 1 village, remaining all villages has primary school. However,

secondary school present in only 20.00 percent villages. No higher secondary

school present in selected villages. For secondary/ higher secondary

education facility is available in the nearby villages, which are on an average

located at a distance of 12 kms.

Table: 6.1: Infrastructure available within sample villages (% to sample villages)

No. Particulars Availabilities If nearestvillage, averagedistance (Kms.)

Withinvillage

Nearestvillage

1 Road connectivity 90.00 10.00 2

2 Railway connectivity 20.00 80.00 193 Landline or Mobile connectivity 100.00 0.00 04 Post Office 70.00 30.00 25 Co-operative credit society 60.00 40.00 126 Regional Rural Bank 20.00 80.00 127 Commercial Bank 30.00 70.00 12

8 Agricultural Produce Market(APMC) 0.00 100.00 17

9 Self Help Groups (SHGs) 100.00 0.00 010 Primary School 90.00 10.00 311 Secondary School 20.00 80.00 1212 Higher Secondary School 0.00 100.00 1213 Primary Health Centre (PHC) 40.00 60.00 614 Hospital / Dispensary 10.00 90.00 1415 Gram Panchayat Office 100.00 0.00 016 Fair Price Shop 80.00 20.00 2Source: Village Survey

The good health condition is requiring for carry out labour works of

MNREGA and others. Hence, availability of healthcare facility in the village is

quite important. The available infrastructure for health care is very weak in the

selected villages. The data in Table 6.1 shows that the facility of Primary

Health Center is available only in 40.00 percent villages. The Hospital/

Dispensary facility is available in only 1 village and hence in case of serious

illness, they have to travel an average distance of 14 kms. to get medical

147

treatment in the Hospital. The fair price shops (Ration Shops) are available in

80.00 percent villages. And for remaining villages, they are within 2 kms.

distance. This shows that infrastructure in respect of higher education, health

care treatment and marketing of agriculture production in selected villages is

found very weak.

6.2 Changes in Occupational Pattern-2009:It is assumed that MNREGA intervention likely to raise income level of

rural households. Subsequently, it may encourage concern households to

effect suitable changes in their occupational pattern. With this in view, main

occupational pattern followed by households of study villages during 2009 and

2001 studied here. The related data presented in Table 6.2.

Table 6.2: Main Occupational pattern (% of HHs. of sample villages)

No. Particulars Year2009 2001

1 Cultivators 23.71 25.472 Agricultural Labour 28.82 26.223 Other Labour 13.60 11.494 Household Small Industry 5.61 4.445 Other Manufacturing / Mining 4.83 4.246 Construction 4.22 3.807 Trade, Commerce and Business 1.97 1.458 Transport and Communication 2.29 2.089 Other Services 8.83 8.99

10 Miscellaneous 6.12 11.8211 Total Households 100.00 100.00

Source: Village Survey and Gram Panchayats

It may be noted that many households were found to follow more than

one occupation. But, households are classified considering main occupation.

During 2009 as well as 2001, highest proportion of households had main

occupation of agriculture labour. It increased from 26.22 percent in 2001 to

28.82 percent in 2009. It increased mainly due to certainty of income from

labour works and comparatively better improvement in availability of

employment opportunities due to MNREGA. The second important occupation

was cultivation. The proportion of households having cultivation as main

occupation declined from 25.47 percent in 2001 to 23.71 percent in 2009. It

declined mainly due to fluctuating and uncertain income from cultivation, high

148

cost of inputs, non-availability of irrigation, weak economic position to meet

the cost of cultivation and other investment require for it and unfavorable

terms of trade for agriculture. Owing to above mentioned reasons, mostly

marginal/ small farmer opted for labour works in agriculture and non-

agricultural sector. This shift in occupation from cultivation to agriculture

labour is most undesirable development and sincere efforts are needed to

reverse this trend.

The proportion of households employed in other non agricultural labour

works also increased in 2009. It increased to 13.60 percent in 2009 from

11.49 percent in 2001. Also, proportion of households having occupations

such as small household industry, manufacturing/ mining, construction, Trade/

business and transportation registered minor increase in 2009. Thus,

MNREGA coupled with other factors effected changes in the occupation

pattern followed by the villagers.

6.3 Effects of MNREGA on Wage Rates in Study Villages:The related data on wage rates of different activities in study villages

for reference year 2009 and Pre-MNREGA year 2005 are given in Table 6.3.

The comparision of wage rate during 2009 vis-à-vis pre MNREGA year

2005 reveals sizeable increase in wage rate of all types of labour activities.

Among all activities, increase in wage rate was highest (88.05%) for non-

agricultural labour by male worker. The increase in wage rate was lowest

(24.32%) for labour work of mining by male worker. The wages for agricultural

operations, increased by 57.76 percent whereas for construction work by

54.81 percent. For skilled workers such as electrician, plumber, pump-set/

boring operations wage rate increased between 50.00 to 64.00 percent. This

shows that apart from inflation and other factors, MNREGA also induced

enhancement in wage-rate for different labour activities in the selected

villages.

Further, the comparision reveals that growth in male wages was found

lower than growth in female wages (except non-agri.labour). This indicates

that MNREGA narrow down the gap between wage rates of males and female

workers. The uptrend in wage rates for female encouraged women for higher

149

Table 6.3: Effects of MNREGA on Wage Rates in study villages (Rs. /day)

Activity

Wage rates *( Rs./day)2009 Before MNREGA (2005)

Male Female Male Female

Prevailing Agricultural Wages 127(157.76)

112(175.59)

81(100.00)

64(100.00)

Prevailing Non AgriculturalWages

150(188.05)

110(170.54)

80(100.00)

65(100.00)

Construction 185(154.81)

125(156.50)

120(100.00)

80(100.00)

Mining 230(124.32)

150(125.00)

185(100.00)

120(100.00)

Otherskilledwork

Electrician(Per Point)

60(150.00)

40(100.00)

Plumber 246(164.00)

150(100.00)

Pump-set boring 350(155.56)

225(100.00)

Source: Village Survey * Average of all sample villagesNote: Figure in brackets denotes percentage over 2005.

participation in MNREGA and other labour activities. Thus, due to MNREGA

the economic independence and empowerment of women enhanced to few

extent.

6.4 Effect of MNREGA on Labour Charges for Agricultural Operations:The number of studies conducted by researchers and various

organisations established positive and significant effects of MNREGA on the

labour charges of various agricultural operations. With a view to examine

MNREGA effects on labour wage rate of various agricultural operations,

related data on labour charges were collected for reference year 2009, 2005

and pre-MNREGA year 2001. The relevant data are presented in Table 6.4.

For studying the impact of MNREGA, percentage increase in wage rate

for agricultural operations has been worked out for post MNREGA period

2005-2009 and pre-MNREGA period 2001-2005. It is evident from the data

that hike in the labour charges for various agricultural operations are seen

during both periods. But, rate of hike in labour charges for each agricultural

operation seen remarkably higher for post MNREGA period 2005-2009

compared to that for pre-MNREGA period 2001-2005 (Table 6.4). Further,

150

Table 6.4: Prevailing labour charges for agricultural operations(Average of all villages)

Activity

Labour charges (Rs.) % increase in2009 over

%increasein 2005

over2001

Referenceperiod

BeforeMNREGA 2005 2001

2009 2005 2001Ploughing (Rs. /hr.)*by Tractor 350 200 150 75.00 133.33 33.33

Leveling by Tractor(Rs. /hr.)* 340 195 166 74.36 104.82 17.47

Weeding (Rs./day) 116 67 55 73.13 110.91 21.82Paddy transplanting(Rs./day) 110 70 55 57.14 100.00 27.27

Harvesting ofwheat(Rs./day) 125 78 55 60.26 127.27 41.82

Harvesting ofpaddy(Rs./day) 120 70 50 71.43 140.00 40.00

Harvesting ofBajra(Rs./day) 125 75 60 66.67 108.33 25.00

Harvesting ofJowar(Rs./day) 115 65 50 76.92 130.00 30.00

Harvesting ofmaize(Rs./day) 115 76 60 52.32 93.28 26.89

Plucking of Chiku(Rs./day) 110 65 45 69.23 144.44 44.44

Plucking of Mango(Rs./day) 110 65 45 69.23 144.44 44.44

Plucking of Cotton(Rs./day) 125 80 60 56.25 108.33 33.33

Threshing of paddy(Rs./day) 120 85 65 41.18 84.62 30.77

Threshing of wheatby Machine (Rs./Hr.)* 350 180 100 94.44 250.00 80.00

Winnowing ofwheat/paddy byMachine (Rs./Hr.)*

325 180 120 80.56 170.83 50.00

Source: Village Survey*Labour charges for conducting operation by Machine

hike in wage rate was substantially higher for operations using machine

labour compared to for manual operations. This clearly exhibit that apart from

other impacting factors, MNREGA effect is visible on hike in labour charges

for various agricultural operations.

151

6.5 Some information about changes in villages due to MNREGA:Table 6.5 reveals that overall 60.00 percent households reported that

after MNREGA, shortage of agricultural wage labour was felt at some point of

time during last year. The shortage of wage labour for agriculture fluctuated

across months of the year. The higher shortage of wage labour felt at sowing

(June July, October), harvesting (October), interculturing and weeding (July,

August, December) stages of crops (see Table 6.6). Last year, nearly 40.00

percent villages experienced shortage of agriculture wage labour during the

month of June, July, August and December (Table 6.6).

As per 70.00 percent respondents, after introduction of MNREGA in

2006, some of the villages experienced shortage of agricultural wage labour

during period 2006-2009(Table 6.5). The shortage of agricultural wage labour

showed continuous up trend during 2006 to 2009. In 2006, only 10.00 percent

villages felt shortage whereas in 2009, 50.00 percent villages experienced

shortage of agricultural wage labour (Table 6.6). Due to MNREGA, there was

a significant increase in wages for non-MNREGA, non-agricultural works too.

Owing to large difference between wage rate of agriculture works and non-

agriculture works, workers gave higher preference to non-agriculture works

and subsequently it resulted in shortage of casual labour workers for

agriculture.

In all the sample villages, after introduction of MNREGA, wages of

casual labour for non-agriculture works recorded noticeable increase (Table

6.5 and 6.6). As per 70.00 percent participants, after introduction of

MNREGA, trend of people living in the village and going daily to work outside

has increased (Table 6.5). This was mainly due to improvement in road

connectivity and transport facility.

Labour is an important component of the cost of production of the crop.

Labour requirement and labour cost also varies according to nature of crop.

As per opinion of 50.00 percent participant households, cost of production of

crop recorded an average increase of 10.00 percent whereas remaining 50.00

percent believed that cost of production increased up to 20.00 percent (Table

6.5). This shows that all participants believed that MNREGA enhanced the

labour cost of agricultural operations and subsequently it resulted in

enhancement in the cost of production of crops.

152

One of the key aims of MNREGA is to reduce the scale of distress out-

migration. According to 20.00 percent households, some workers who

migrated earlier to town returned back to own villages for working in MNREGA

works. Further, 70.00 percent households believed that implementation of

MNREGA made negligible impact on arresting migration process. It is

continued as it was in pre-MNREGA period with the same scale. As per

majority households (80%), wage rates of works at migrated places are

comparatively much higher than MNREGA and other activities in the villages

(Table 6.5). This tempted many labourers for the migration from village to

town. This is the primary reason for continuation of out-migration process

despite introduction of MNREGA.

MNREGA generated incremental income for the rural poor households.

The increase in income level improved the purchasing power, lifestyle and

living standard of rural households. Nearly 50.00 percent participants believed

that living standard and household consumption recorded improvement to

some extent in post MNREGA period (Table 6.5). The housing facilities

improved in 60.00 percent households of villages, food and non-food

consumption increased in 80.00 percent households of villages and access to

health facilities improved in 40.00 percent villages (Table 6.6). After

introduction of MNREGA, households consumption in respect of food items

(Cereals, Pulses, Oil, Vegetables etc.) improved in 80.00 percent villages. In

respect of use of personal care products, it improved in 60.00 percent

households of the villages whereas in case of cloth, it improved in households

of 40.00 percent villages (Table 6.6).

The good impact of MNREGA is seen on education front. The

enrollment of children in school recorded good increase in 60.00 percent

villages and drop-out ratio declined in 40.00 percent villages (Table 6.6). For

higher education, the cases of shifting from village to education places were

observed in 80.00 percent villages.

MNREGA also impacted on the trend of keeping attached labour for

agriculture. In 70.00 percent villages, the persons who were earlier working as

attached labourer now are working as labourer in MNREGA and other

activities.

153

Table 6.5: Qualitative Questions on Changes in the Villages during Last One Year(% of HHs.)

No. Description Yes No Not sure

1 Was there shortage of agricultural wage labourat some point during last year 60.00 40.00 0.00

2 After implementation of NREGA has there beena shortage of agriculture labour 70.00 30.00 0.00

3After implementation of NREGA the cost of productionin agriculture increased by 10 percent becauseof scarcity of labour

50.00 0.00 0.00

4 Cost increased by 20 percent 50.00 0.00 0.005 Cost increased by 20 to 50 percent 0.00 0.00 0.006 Cost increased by 50 to 75 percent 0.00 0.00 0.007 Cost increased by 100 percent 0.00 0.00 0.008 Cost increased by more than 100 percent 0.00 0.00 0.00

9 After implementation of NREGA labour who migratedearlier to town/city are coming back to work in the village 20.00 80.00 0.00

10More labour is migrating from the village as wagerate in the town is higher than wage rate under NREGA orother activities in the village

80.00 20.00 0.00

11Some labour has come back to work in NREGAbut others are moving to the town/city because of wagedifferential

60.00 40.00 0.00

12 There is no change in labour migration by NREGA activities 70.00 30.00 0.00

13 After NREGA change in wages of casual labourershas increased 100.00 0.00 0.00

14 After NREGA change in wages of casual labourershas decreased 00.00 0.00 0.00

15 After NREGA change in wages of casual labourersremained same 00.00 0.00 0.00

16 The trend of people living in village and going to workoutside daily has increased 70.00 30.00 0.00

17 The trend of people living in village and going to workoutside for longer period has increased 60.00 40.00 0.00

18 Has living standard improved in your village since theintroduction of NREGA 50.00 30.00 20.00

19 After NREGA have you witnessed increasein household consumption in village 50.00 40.00 10.00

20 After NREGA have you witnessed more childrenare now going to the school 60.00 40.00 0.00

21 After NREGA, have you witnessed change intrend of attached labour in agriculture 70.00 30.00 0.00

22 After NREGA, have villagers’ awareness towardsGovernment Schemes increased 80.00 20.00 0.00

Source: Village Survey

154

Table 6.6: Quantitative Questions about the Functioning of MNREGAQ1. Was there a shortage of agricultural wage labour at some point during last year? If so in which months?

Ans.

Yes No If Yes, which month( % of total villages)

60 40Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

10.00 20.00 10.00 20.00 20.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 10.00 40.00 20.00 40.00

Q.2 After implementation of MNREGA has there been a shortage of agriculture labour? If yes in whichyears/months?

Ans.Yes No There was shortage of agriculture labour (% of total villages)

70 302006 2007 2008 200910.00 20.00 30.00 50.00

Q.3 Give details of change in wages of casual labour during the last 5 years after MNREGA (% to total villages)

Ans.

i. Increased 100.00

ii. Decreased 0.00

iii. Remained the same 0.00

Q.4 In what way the standard of living improved in your village since the introduction of MNREGA?( % of total villages)

Ans.

i. Housing facilities increased 60.00

ii. Food & Nonfood consumption was increased 80.00

iii. Better access to health facilities 40.00

iv. Personal & others 60.00

Q.5 In what way the household consumption improved in your village since the introduction of MNREGA( % of total villages)

Ans.

i. Food items (Cereals, Pulses, Oil & Vegetables) 80.00

ii. Personal care products 60.00

iii. Clothes 40.00

iv. Others 40.00

Q6. In what way NREGA has impacted the children education ( % of total villages)

Ans.

i. Increase in enrollment of children 60.00

ii. Decrease in dropout of children 40.00

ii. Shifting for better education 80.00

Q.7 In what way NREGA has impacted the trends of attached labour in agriculture ( % of total villages)

Ans.i. Shifted towards NREGA 70.00

ii. Not shifted 30.00

Q.8 Which sources has improved villagers’ awareness towards MNREGA and other Government Schemes( % of HHs.of villages)

Ans.

i. Media (TV, Newspaper, Advertisement etc.) 70.00

ii. Panchayati Raj Institutions & Gramsabha 60.00

iii. Discussion among participants 80.00

iv. Government officials 40.00Source: Field Survey Ans. = Answer

On account of benefits from MNREGA, curiosity among rural people

increased to know more about government schemes/ programmes which are

beneficial to them. About 80.00 percent participants felt that level of

155

awareness towards various government schemes among villagers increased

to a good extent (Table 6.5). About 80.00 percent of the participant

households reported that discussions among participants at MNREGA

worksites and Gramsabha have created interest and awareness for

government schemes in the villages. Nearly 70.00 percent participants said

that media like TV, Newspaper, Advertisement, Pamphlets etc. also played

important role in creating awareness among rural people about government

schemes. More visits of participants to Panchayati Raj institutions and

discussion with government officials also enhanced the level of awareness of

villagers (Table 6.6). The officials at village (Talati), taluka and district level

said that they could not able to give more attention on MNREGA, as at a time,

they have to look after number of government schemes.

Summary:In this chapter, the impact of MNREGA on economy of selected 10

sample villages is studied based on the analysis of village survey data

collected during field work. MNREGA, besides offering employment also

offers opportunity for developing infrastructure in the villages. The

examination of available infrastructure shows that all study villages have

landline and mobile connectivity. The sample villages have very good (90 %)

road connectivity but railway connectivity is sparse (20 %). The post offices

are present in 70 percent villages whereas commercial banks are present in

only 30 percent villages. Not single sample village have Agricultural Produce

Market Yard and on an average, it is located at a distance of 17 kms. Except

1 village, all villages have primary school. No higher secondary school

present in selected villages. Higher education facility is available within 12

kms. proximity. The health care infrastructure in the villages found so weak.

The Primary Health Centre is present in only 40.00 percent villages whereas

hospital is available in only one village. For medical treatment in hospital, they

have to travel on an average distance of 14 kms. The ration shops are

available in 80.00 percent villages. Overall, infrastructure in respect of higher

education, healthcare treatment, marketing of agricultural production in

selected villages was found in very poor shape.

156

In selected villages, during 2001 as well as 2009, highest proportion of

households had agricultural labour has main occupation. It went up from

26.22 percent in 2001 to 28.82 percent in 2009. The proportion of households

having cultivation as main occupation declined from 25.47 percent in 2001 to

23.71 percent in 2009. It declined mainly owing to fluctuating and uncertain

cultivation income, high cost of inputs, inadequate water resources, weak

financial position and unfavorable terms of trade for agriculture. This shift in

occupation from cultivation to labour works is most undesirable development.

Also increasing trend was witnessed in occupations such as non agricultural

labour works, transportation, construction, trade/ business, manufacturing /

mining etc. This shows that MNREGA coupled with other factors effected

changes in occupational pattern and created positive improvement in the

village economy.

The comparision of wage rate during 2009 vis-à-vis pre-MNREGA year

2005 reveals sizable increase in wage rate of all types of labour activities. The

increase in wage rate was highest (88.05%) for non-agricultural male labour

and lowest (24.32 %) for mining. Further, growth in male wage was found

lower compared to growth in female wages. The uptrend in wages for female

led to higher participation of women in MNREGA and other labour activities.

The hike in the labour charges for various agricultural operations seen

remarkably higher for post MNREGA period 2005-09 compared to that for pre-

MNREGA period 2001-2005. This clearly exhibit visible effect of MNREGA on

hike in labour charges for various agricultural operations. After introduction of

MNREGA, nearly 60.00 percent households reported shortage of wage labour

mostly at sowing, interculturing & wedding and harvesting stages of the crops.

The shortage of labour increased gradually during period 2005-2009 with the

progress of MNREGA. In 2006, only 10.00 percent villages experienced

shortage whereas in 2009, 50.00 percent villages experienced shortage of

wage-labour. In all sample villages, after MNREGA, wage of casual labour for

non-agricultural works recorded noticeable increase. All households believed

that MNREGA enhanced the labour cost of agriculture and in turn enhanced

the cost of production of crops by upto 20 percent.

157

The introduction of MNREGA not made any significant impact on

arresting rural to urban migration. Owing to various reasons, out-migration

continued as it was earlier with minor reduction.

The MNREGA improved the income level, purchasing power, life style

and living standard of villagers. The improvement was marginal or moderate.

The spending towards food and non-food items, health care, housing and

education moved up.

After MNREGA, household consumption in respect of food items

improved in 80.00 percent villages. The good impact of MNREGA is seen on

education front. The enrollment of children in school recorded good increase

and drop-out ratio declined.

MNREGA increased the awareness level of the villagers about other

state/central government schemes which are beneficial to them. The

discussions with other participants and government officials at MNREGA

worksites have also enhanced their awareness level on MNREGA and other

government programmes.

All participants suggested improvement in MNREGA in respect of

number of employment days, higher wage rate in tandem with price-rise,

regular and timely wage payment, proper measurement of works, correct

entries in job card and simplification of wage calculation method.

158

Chapter – 7

Concluding Remarks and Policy RecommendationsThis chapter deals with the concluding remarks based on major

findings of the study. Also, major recommendations for removal of problems

emerged from the study are made for strengthening of MNREGA programme

in Gujarat State.

A. Concluding Remarks:1. Methodology and Administrative Set-up:

The key aim of the study is to examine impacts of MNREGA on

employment generation, wage rates of others wage employment activities,

rural-urban migration, income level and food security of participants.

The five districts of Gujarat State namely Banaskatha, Dahod, Navsari,

Jamnagar and Surendranagar were selected for the study. The primary data

collected by recall for calendar year 2009 from 200 beneficiaries (40 from

each district) and 50 non-beneficiaries (10 from each district) households. The

study analysis is based on both, secondary and primary data.

Among selected districts, Dahod and Navsari are predominately tribal

districts with ST population at 72.26 percent and 48.08 percent respectively.

Navsari district have high annual rainfall and hence good irrigation facility. The

remaining four districts have erratic, scanty rainfall and unfavourable natural

conditions. Hence, frequent drought conditions appearing in these districts. In

these districts, rabi and summer crops are grown on very limited areas. These

districts have seasonal and lagging agricultural sector, low employment

availability in lean seasons and high rate of temporary out migration. In

Gujarat, MNREGA was implemented in three phases, starting from

April-2006. The MNREGA is in implementation in all 26 districts of the state

since April-2008. Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD), Government of

Gujarat (GoG) is engaged in implementation of MNREGA in the state. For

planning, implementation and monitoring of MNREGA, MoRD, GoG set up

separate Commissionerate of Rural Development (MNREGA). At the district

level, District Development Officer (DDO) is designated as District programme

officer (DPC), Director, DRDA is designated as Additional District Programme

159

Co-ordinator (ADPC). The Taluka Development officer (TDO) is designated as

programme officer (PO). The Sarpanch and Talati-cum-Mantri of village

Panchayat are responsible for planning, execution, monitoring and

supervisory of the projects at the village level. Talati is assisted by Junior

Engineer (JE), Assistant Programme Officer (APO) and Mate. The

appointments at district and taluka level such as Deputy Engineer (DE), Junior

Engineer (JE), Deputy District Programme co-ordinator (DDPC), Account

Officer, Clerks, MIS co-ordinator, technical assistant etc. are made either on

deputation from other departments or given additional charge or on contract

basis for eleven months period with fix salary. Numbers of sanctioned posts

are vacant. Thus, shortage of professional, dedicated and motivated

permanent staff for MNREGA is one of the key factor which adversely

affecting the effective functioning of MNREGA in a big way.

At village level, without technical support and professional staff, Gram

Panchayats are finding difficult to prepare shelf of projects, planning and carry

out quality works. Therefore, in majority cases, plans are made and approved

at the top and sent downwards for implementations to Gram Panchayats.

Against available funds for MNREGA, 69.69 percent fund utilized for

fiscal year 2008-09 and 77.20 percent fund for fiscal year 2009-10. Hence,

fund utilization ratio for Gujarat State found somewhat low. It can be improve

through proper planning of works.

2. Employment Generation and Socio-Economic Characteristics:

Caste-wise classification reveals that against SC/ST population of

21.85 percent in Gujarat, job cards issued to SC/ST were 50.20 percent in

2008-09, 49.40 percent in 2009-10 and 40.80 percent in 2010-11 (Till Aug-

2010). This shows that MNREGA succeed in providing enhance employment

to under priviledged ST/SC population. In Gujarat State, of the total registered

households for MNREGA, about 8.51 lakh (29.56%) in year 2008-09 and

15.96 lakh (44.72%) in year 2009-10 demanded employment under

MNREGA. Demand of employment was found low in those districts which are

either prosperous in agriculture or have very good industrial development as

well as capable to provide alternative employment on a relatively higher

wages (Anand, Valsad, Gandhinagar, Mehsana, Amreli, Bharuch and

160

Jamnagar). It is worth mentioning that during 2008-09 and 2009-10, in all the

districts of the state, all rural households who demanded works were provided

employment under MNREGA. For Gujarat State, MNREGA created

employment of 213.05 lakh person days in the year 2008-09 and 585.09 lakh

person days in 2009-10. It means that against the guarantee of 100 person

days, Gujarat able to generate on an average only 25 and 37 person days per

job demanding household in 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. Thus,

MNREGA not able to generate the kind of employment demand as expected.

Average number of person days of employment generation per household

varied significantly across districts. Low level operation of programme, delay

in preparation and approval of works plans, frequent stoppages/ suspension

of works, relatively low wage rate, inadequate fond, non-starting works in

beginning of lean seasons etc. were the key which contributing factors for low

level employment generation in the state. In total person days generated,

ST/SC had very high contribution, 63.30 percent in 2008-09 and 54.40

percent in 2009-10. This indicates that programme appears well targeted to

under priviledged rural households. In Gujarat State, employment share of

women in total employment was more than 42.00 percent which was higher

than provision of 33.33 percent in operational guidelines. In some districts

(Rajkot, Sabarkantha), it was more than 60.00 percent. The good level of

women participation in MNREGA works is a sign of positive development for

women and Act gave economic freedom and empowerment to them to some

extent. Of the total job demanding households, only 5.78 percent in 2008-09

and 6.50 percent in 2009-10 exhausted 100 days limit of employment. Across

districts, it varied from 28.40 percent in drought affected Kachchh to zero

percent in Gandhinagar. Thus, Act had little impact on halting out-migration as

employment of 100 days not provided to majority needy households.

As far as number of works undertaken is concerned, in 2008-09, total

46657 works were taken up in Gujarat State of which 69.72 percent were

completed. In 2009-10, 296717 works were undertaken and from these 88.86

percent works completed. Among different type of works undertaken, focus

was more on works of Water Conservation and Water Harvesting (WCWH),

provision of irrigation and Land Development on SC/ST land (PI & LD),

Drought proofing (DP) and rural connectivity (RC). The analysis clearly

161

established that focus was on those works which create durable productive

assets and helpful in enhancing irrigation potential by recharge of rain water

and in turn improving crop productivity and potential to generate second round

of employment opportunities. This in turn, will provide enhanced employment

and livelihood security to rural poor households on a sustainable basis.

In 2008-09, total amount spent on MNREGA works in Gujarat was

Rs.182.73 crore. In 2009-10, amount spent was Rs.703 crore, 3.85 times of

amount spent in previous year. The close examination of data clearly reveals

that in dry land districts, focus of spending an amount was more on creating

productive structures which are useful in enhancing water recharging and

irrigation potential. Whereas, in districts with rich water resources, focus of

spending an amount was more on rural connectivity, land development of

SC/ST and flood control and protection works.

As far as social audit is concern, data present rosy picture of social

audit. As per villagers, in majority cases attendance in the meetings/

GramSabhas was poor and has been done to complete mere formality.

Majority GramSabhas not held in true spirit and bureaucracy dominated the

process of planning. The villagers were unaware about their right, role and

way of conducting social audit. In many villages, either VMC not formed or are

mostly inactive. The inadequate staff at district and taluka level impacted the

inspection of works. Lack of technical knowledge impacted the quality of

assets created. There is a voice of discontent, but people neither have

courage to lodge complaints nor enough awareness. They also not wish to

displease their local gods. The unemployment allowance become due for

49929 days covering many districts of the state in year 2010-11, but not paid

a single rupee to any one. The liability of payment of unemployment

allowance is of state government. For receiving wage payment, of the total

account opened in Gujarat during 2008-09 to 2010-11, about 65 percent

accounts were opened in post offices and rest in Banks. Of the total accounts,

51.00 percent accounts were on joint name and rest on individual name. Of

the total wage amount during 2008-2010 (till Aug-10), 64.34 percent was

disbursed through post offices. This shows that MNREGA workers have high

preference for receiving wage payment through post offices mainly because

of easy acess.

162

3. Characteristic of Sample Households:The average family size of beneficiary households was 5.52 while that

of for non-beneficiary households was 5.32 persons. About 3.55 members of

beneficiaries and 3.30 members of non-beneficiaries were income earner.

About 64.00 percent of the total population of beneficiary households was in

active age group of 16-60 years. In aggregate sample households, 98.40

percent were ST, SC and OBC. This suggests that higher castes almost

remained away from participation in MNREGA mainly because of their social

status. Nearly 77.00 percent had casual wage labour and 21.00 percent had

agriculture as their principal occupation. From 250 sample households, only

4.00 percent had AAY and 51.20 percent had BPL ration cards. This implies

that Non-BPL families also participated in MNREGA on a large scale. The

literacy rate of sample households was low.

4. Employment, Income and Consumption Pattern of SampleHouseholds:

Under MNREGA, sample beneficiary households availed average

employment of 81 days at an average wage rate of Rs.87.53 per day. The

employment day provided and wage rate paid per day was lower than it

prescribed in the Act. During 2009, nearly 47.00 percent beneficiary

households were involved in out-migration. This indicates that MNREGA not

caused any significant impact on halting distress rural-urban migration.

However, MNREGA succeed to some extent in shortening the out-migration

period of some migrants. The average annual income per household from all

sources was Rs.75822 for beneficiary and Rs.82886 for non-beneficiary. For

both categories of households, casual labour works and works as migrant

workers were the forefront contributors in total employment. And these two

together, accounted for 84.34 percent of total employment days (696) for non-

beneficiary households and 70.29 percent of total employment days (675) for

beneficiary households. The non-beneficiary received average wage rate of

Rs.119.17 per day. Whereas beneficiary households received average wage

rate of Rs.87.53 per day for MNREGA works. Thus, due to lower realization of

wage amount, availability of employment for a shorter period and uncertainty

of starting of MNREGA works, many members of beneficiary households

163

preferred to migrate to other places without waiting to start MNREGA works in

village.

In respect of per capita/month consumption of main food items,

beneficiary households were found somewhat better placed compared to

non-beneficiary households. Compared to NSS data of year 2005, beneficiary

households consumed higher quantity of food items. The Gini Coefficients of

income as well as consumption across households suggest significant

inequality (variability) in respect of income distribution and consumption.

However, compared to non-beneficiary, inequality in consumption is higher for

beneficiary households. In respect of wages, Gini Coefficient suggests large

scale equality among beneficiaries but significant inequality among non-

beneficiaries.

The logit regression analysis indicates that households income,

distance of work place, wage rate per day and BPL card holding found to be

statistically significant and influencing decision making about participation in

MNREGA.

5. Works Profile, Wage Differential and Migration:On an average 2.31 persons per beneficiary household worked in

MNREGA works during 2009. Across selected districts, it varied from 1.18

person in Navsari to 3.05 persons in Jamnagar district. Cast-wise data reveals

large scale participation in MNREGA by SC/ST/OBC, but in case of higher

castes, participation found very negligible. They are considering participation

in MNREGA as derogatory and degrading to their social status. The striking

feature is the predominance of women participation in MNREGA works.

Overall, men-women participation ratio was found at 43:57 and in employment

days share of women was to the extent of about 60.57 percent. No

discrimination and gender bias seen in wage rate received by men and

women for MNREGA works. On an average, wage rate received per day by

MNREGA workers worked out to Rs.87.53 per day and from selected districts

it was found lowest at Rs.65.06 per day for Surendranagar whereas for

remaining districts, it ranged between Rs.85 to Rs.100. The average wage

rate received by workers of MNREGA was found less than the prescribed

basic minimum wage of Rs.100/- per day. This happened mainly owing to use

of task wage method for determining wage amount. In this method wage

164

amount is decided by measurement of works done. And apart from workers

capacity, quantum of work done depends upon climate and geology of the

region. Also the average wage-rate received for MNREGA works found to be

much lower than it was for corresponding non-MNREGA works.

The Water Conservation and Water Harvesting, Flood Control, Rural

Connectivity and Land Development were the main activities of MNREGA

which generated maximum employment in year 2009.

In selected districts, majority households found quality of assets

created under MNREGA as good or very good. Few households expressed

their dissatisfaction on quality of assets. The field level observations and

discussion with villagers revealed somewhat different picture. In some cases,

ground reality was found quite different. The quality of many assets found

poor or moderate. Some works were taken up without proper planning. In

some works, selection of locations was not proper. Owing to lack of technical

and supervisory staffs, quality of assets created was sub-standard. Owing to

lack of proper care and no attention towards maintenance of created

community assets, quality of assets deteriorated and assets became non-

useful within short period. Due to ban on use of machines, many earthen road

works found lacking in quality. In some Water Conservation and Harvesting

works, protective walls not prepared and hence structures get damaged. In

heavy rainfall situation, some road and earthen works washed away. There is

a need to put more emphasis on maintenance of created assets.

So far, unemployment allowance has not been paid to anyone. The

village level authority accepting non-dated work demand application. Some

villagers asked works through oral information. By adopting this mechanism,

payment of unemployment allowance has been mostly avoided and guarantee

of providing employment within 15 days has been diluted. After registration in

MNREGA, 169 members of 94 beneficiary households (47%) migrated in

2009. In Dahod district, 67.50 percent and in Navsari as high as 90.00 percent

households were involved in out-migration. The data shows that in a majority

cases, not getting work in MNREGA were not the reason for out migration.

They migrated mainly because at migrated places they received employment

for a longer period with high wage rate. Also, they felt that income earning

from 100 days employment under MNREGA not enough for a poor household

165

to sustain their livelihood for the entire year. Thus, MNREGA found helpful in

curtailing the average length of out-migration period but not succeed in

stopping the distress out migration.

The average wage rate per day earned by male workers of beneficiary

households for MNREGA works was Rs.88.73, which was somewhat lower

than the prescribed minimum wage rate of Rs.100/day. As a non-agriculture

casual labourer for non-MNREGA works, they earned 42.55 percent higher

wage-rate and as a migrant worker, earned 50.08 percent higher wage-rate.

This very high gap in wage rates between Non-MNREGA and MNREGA

works obviously slowdown the works demand under MNREGA and out

migration continued unabated.

Our discussion with villagers reveals that fixing of basic minimum wage

rate of Rs.100/day for MNREGA indirectly impacted on wage rates of

Non-MNREGA works. It compelled for upside revision in wage rates for

agriculture and Non-MNREGA works which indirectly helped in boosting the

income level of the rural labourers.

6. The Functioning of MNREGA-Qualitative Aspects:The value of total assets per beneficiary households was of Rs.135678

which was fairly lower and only 38 percent of assets of Rs.357384 for non-

beneficiary household. The land property accounted for highest share in the

total assets for both, beneficiary as well as non-beneficiary households. The

land investment by non-beneficiary was more than 4 times (Rs.256500) than it

(Rs.62675) for beneficiary households. This gives indications that households

having no/marginal land with poor economic condition participated on a larger

scale in MNREGA. Average amount borrowed per household by beneficiary

was Rs.2313 and by non-beneficiary Rs.4660. Both avoided the borrowing

from moneylenders who are charging very high interest rate (36 percent per

annum). Beneficiary households borrowed amount to meet daily regular

expenditure on food and others, whereas non-beneficiary borrowed mainly to

meet expenditure on social obligations. For repayment of borrowed amount,

2.50 percent of beneficiary and 18.00 percent of non-beneficiary households

were found to send their family members to work as wage workers at the

establishment of landlords to whom they are indebted.

166

In respect of issue of job cards, about 5.00 percent households paid

bribes ranging from Rs.20 to Rs.50 for getting job cards. In more than 20.00

percent cases, irregularities were found in job cards in terms of no entry of

works done, wrong entry, over-written or blank signature column etc. About

4.50 percent households not kept job-card with them. Thus, existence of

irregularities and malpractices in issuance and entries in job cards is a matter

of serious concern. Of the total households applied for MNREGA works, 88.00

percent received dated receipt. So far unemployment allowance not paid to

the entitled households. As far as the payment of wages is concerned, 76.00

percent beneficiary were paid on the basis of “task wage” method and

therefore average wage rate realization was less than the minimum wage of

Rs.100/day prescribed in the Act. MNREGA provided employment to a large

number of rural households but many of them were found unsatisfied about

the way the scheme was implemented. Nearly 39.50 percent of beneficiaries

complained about considerable delay in the wage payment. They received it

in a month or beyond. About 7.50 percent households complained for less

receipt of wage amount than amount on which they signed or put thumb

impression. Some complained for under reporting of work done and hence

received less payment. Owing to illiteracy and long distance, 35.00 percent

households faced difficulties in accessing post office/bank accounts. Majority

(64%) households were lacking clarity on task based wage calculation and

they find it very complex and beyond their understanding. By and large

majority of beneficiaries were satisfied with the facilities provided at worksites.

To a great extent, Mates were found to monitor the execution of works.

Nearly 92.00 percent households believed that structures/assets

created under MNREGA were very useful to village community. Few

respondents (7%) said that some structures created were of poor quality,

inadequate in size and non-durable. About 13.50 percent households reported

need of more attention and care for these assets so as to make them last

longer. Majority participants were of the view that whatsoever may be the

quality of structures, it always requires timely maintenance and care,

otherwise, it may gradually become non-useful.

After introduction of MNREGA, about 47.00 percent households

reported out-migration for wage employment. About 7.50 percent households

167

who migrated earlier, returned back to village to work in MNREGA works. The

member of 11 households migrated to other places owing to dissatisfaction

from MNREGA. They expressed dissatisfaction towards low wage earning,

late payment, insufficient employment days, irregularities in measurement and

payment etc. In respect of awareness, the probe reveals that awareness level

of majority participants on basic and legal right based aspects, wage

calculation method, unemployment allowance rule, social audit, wage

payment period, work application procedure etc. was found very limited and

partly.

In respect of food security, about 69.00 percent households reported

that MNREGA enhanced the food security to few extent. Some households

reported that owing increase in income from MNREGA, they able to maintain

their food consumption level despite significant rise in food prices. Owing to

significant price rise in essential commodities, the food security worsens for

those families which were not able to generate adequate additional income

from MNREGA and other sources. However, 31.00 percent households

reported insufficient food for two meals a day during some period of the year

2009. About 24.00 percent households reported that MNREGA not able to

ensure availability of two meals a day for about two months. For food

insufficiency, reasons cited were inadequate employment, very high price rise

in food items, large family size and low income, weak physical health and

financial scarcity. About 51.50 percent households perceived that MNREGA

provided protection against extreme poverty. About, 31.50 percent

households indicated that income from MNREGA helped in marginal

reduction in their indebtedness. About 69.50 percent households believed that

MNREGA increased the economic independence of women to a small extent.

Sample households also reported some main difficulties, which they

faced during year 2009. For amelioration, they suggested numerous

measures. The key measures were, an appropriate increase in wage rate

(20.50%), revision of wage rate every year keeping in view the change in

consumer price index, steps to improve awareness on MNREGA and

government schemes, raise limit of 100 day employment per households and

link it with family size (22.50%), timely payment of wages (32%), easy access

168

to institutional credit (20.00%) and financial support and guidance for

agricultural development (22.50%).

Also, sample respondents gave numerous suggestions as their

feedbacks for improving functioning and effectiveness of MNREGA. The key

suggestions are upward revision of 100 day employment limit, create more

awareness towards all aspects of MNREGA, timely and regular wage

payment, simplification of task-wage method, start MNREGA works with start

of lean season, active involvement of all line departments, deployment of full

time professional and dedicated staff at all level, arrangement of proper

maintenance of created community assets, stringent actions against officials

involved in corruption and irregularities, structures to be created must be as

per requirement of villagers, steps to reduce influence of politicians and

influential persons of the village and improve the level of social audit.

7. MNREGA Impact on Village Economy:The infrastructure available in the village reflects the prosperity,

development and economy status of the village. The MNREGA besides

offering employment also provide opportunity for development of

infrastructure in rural areas. The selected villages have good telecom and

road connectivity but railway connectivity is sparse. All the selected villages

have post office facility within 2 kms proximity. Commercial banks are present

in only 30.00 percent villages. Not a single sample village has Agriculture

Produce Marketing Yard. Except one village, all sample villages have sound

primary education facility. Higher education facility is not available in selected

villages. The health care infrastructure in the villages is so weak and for

medical treatment in hospital, they have to travel atleast distance of 14 kms.

or so. Overall, infrastructure in respect of higher education and healthcare

treatment in selected villages was found in poor shape.

In selected villages, proportion of households having agriculture labour

works as main occupation went up from 26.22 percent in 2001 to 28.22

percent in 2009 whereas it declined for cultivation from 25.47 percent in 2001

to 23.71 percent in 2009. This shift in occupation from cultivation to labour

works is most undesirable development. Also, occupations such as non-

agricultural labour works, transportation, construction, trade/business etc.

witnessed increasing trend in 2009 over 2001. This shows that MNREGA

169

coupled with other factors effected changes in occupational pattern and

improvement in the village economy.

The comparision of wage rate during 2009 vis-à-vis pre-MNREGA year

2005 reveals sizable increase in wage rate of all types of labour activities. The

increase in wage rate was highest (88.05%) for non-agricultural male labour

and lowest (24.32 %) for mining works. Further, growth in male wage was

found lower compared to growth in female wages. The relatively higher

uptrend in wages for female led to higher participation of women in MNREGA

and other labour activities.

The hike in the labour charges for various agricultural operations seen

remarkably higher for post MNREGA period 2005-2009 compared to that for

pre- MNREGA period 2001-2005. This clearly exhibit visible effect of

MNREGA on hike in labour charges for agricultural operations. After

introduction of MNREGA, nearly 60.00 percent households reported shortage

of wage labour mostly at sowing, interculturing & wedding and harvesting

stages of the crops. The shortage of labour increased gradually during period

2005-2009. In 2006, only 10.00 percent villages experienced shortage

whereas in 2009, 50.00 percent villages experienced shortage of wage-

labour. In all sample villages, after MNREGA, wage of casual labour for non-

agricultural works recorded noticeable increase. All households believed that

MNREGA enhanced the labour cost of agriculture and in turn enhanced the

cost of production of crops upto 20 percent.

The introduction of MNREGA not made any significant impact on rural

to urban migration. Owing to various reasons, out-migration continued as it

was earlier with minor reduction.

The MNREGA improved the income level, purchasing power, life style

and living standard of villagers. The improvement was marginal or moderate.

The spending towards food and non-food items, health care, housing and

education also shows up move.

After MNREGA, households consumption in respect of food items

improved in 80.00 percent villages. The good impact of MNREGA is seen on

education front. The enrollment of children in school recorded good increase

and drop-out ratio declined.

170

MNREGA increased the awareness level of the villagers about other

state / central government schemes which are beneficial to them. The

discussions with other participants and government officials at MNREGA

worksites helped them to enhance their awareness level on MNREGA and

other government programmes.

All participants suggested improvement in MNREGA in respect of

number of employment days, higher wage rate in tandem with price-rise,

regular and timely wage payment, proper measurement of works, correct

entries in job card and wage calculation method.

B. Policy Recommendations:In the field survey, almost all the participants favoured continuation of

MNREGA with some modifications. The study further shows that MNREGA is

capable to enhance income level, food security and livelihood security of rural

poor households on a sustainable manner. The study further reveals that level

of benefits derived from MNREGA were found below the expected level. This

shows that MNREGA implementation is not fully free from problems and

constraints. The following are the policy recommendations for raising

performance and effectiveness of MNREGA so as to meet its development

goals efficiently.

1. Maintenance of Assets Created:Majority assets created under MNREGA are own by Panchayats. The

assets mainly farm ponds, irrigation wells etc. created on private land of

SC/ST/BPL households are owned by land owners. The assets created on

private land are generally well maintained by the owners. But study revealed

that panchayats are not well equipped to maintain community assets properly.

They lack capability as well as funds. Owing to poor maintenance of these

sub-standard quality assets, it becomes less durable and non-useable in a

short time. The MNREGA does not have any mechanism either to ensure

maintenance of these assets. As a result, assets that have been created

under MNREGA are wasting away due to lack of proper and timely

maintenance. Technically, if the assets are on panchayat’s lands,

responsibility of maintenance of assets lies with panchayats. And panchayats

are generally short of funds. Therefore, maintenance of created community

assets must be brought under the MNREGA purview and panchayat should

171

be provided with special funds for maintenance. If this issue not addressed

urgently, this alone has the potential to undo whatsoever has been achieved.

2. Deployment of Full time professionals exclusively dedicated toMNREGA:

It is evident that both, number and quality of human resources

deployed so far are completely inadequate for shouldering the complex and

manifold responsibilities of MNREGA implementation. DDO and TDO have

been given additional charge of DPC and PO respectively. DDO and TDO are

already overburdening with their regular works. Some staffs and engineers

appointed are either on deputation from other line departments of state

government or given additional charge. Some appointments such as Junior

Engineer (JE), Clerks, MIS co-ordinator, accountants, APO, DDPC etc. have

been made at the block/district level but under contract for limited tenure (11

months) with fixed salary. At village level, Talati cum Mantri is overloaded with

his regular works. Many sanctioned posts are vacant at present. Owing to

additional responsibilities, lack of expertise and adhoc appointments, they

lack motivation, dedication and are demoralized. The shortage of qualified

permanent staff causing delay in planning, approval, execution and monitoring

of MNREGA works. It is also adversely impacting the inspection quality and

measurement of works done and as a result timely payment of wages.

Sometime measurement itself can take few weeks, although it is supposed to

be done within week. Delayed wage payment is one of the major problems of

MNREGA and creating large scale dissatisfaction large scale among workers.

Therefore, we suggest fill up of all sanctioned posts and deployment of

full time professionals exclusively dedicated to MNREGA at district/block/

village level but most crucially at the block level which is at the cutting edge of

implementation. This will minimize problems shown above.

3. People Friendly Wage Calculation Method:We observed that in majority works, wage amount of work done is

determined by use of task-wage method. This method is very complex and

beyond the understanding of the workers. Owing to this wage calculation

method, MNREGA workers availed average wage rate less than the daily

basic minimum wage (Rs.100/day) prescribed in the Act. Some workers

availed wage rate as low as Rs.47/day. The paying less than the daily

172

minimum wage because of archaic wage rates based on finished tasks turned

out to be a great threat to the MNREGA’s development potential. Thus, there

is a need to rationalized and simplified the task-wage method. Whatever may

be the wage-calculation method, arrange to pay atleast basic minimum daily

wage to MNREGA workers.

4. Timely Wage Payment:Irregular and delayed payment of MNREGA works is also acting as a

key constraint to the act’s development potential. In the study, we observed

that many participants expressed their dissatisfaction towards very late

payment of wages. The payment found to be delayed for month and beyond.

As majority participants are very poor, without timely payment, they are facing

lot of problems to meet their recurring expenses. Due to late payment, some

participants started to work in non-MNREGA works where payment is regular

and wage rates relatively higher. The shortage of qualified staff at all levels

was the main cause for delay in payment.

Therefore, we suggest making an appropriate arrangement to ensure

timely and regular wage payment to MNREGA workers.

5. Every Year Review of Wage Rate:When MNREGA introduced in 2006, wage-rate of MNREGA works was

on par or marginally higher than prevailing market labour rate of agriculture

and non-agricultural works. The introduction of MNREGA impacted on

available labour resources and created labour shortage. Due to labour

shortage, wage rate of non-MNREGA works moved up significantly. Currently,

non-MNREGA wage rates of different activities are substantially higher (20 to

40%) than it for MNREGA works (Rs.100/day). And, subsequently, it will lead

to higher scale of out-migration and low participation in MNREGA. Moreover,

high rate of inflation make current wage rate of MNREGA non attractive.

Therefore, to correct this situation, we suggest every year revision of basic

minimum wage rate of MNREGA in the context of inflation scenario or

consumer price index of labourers.

6. Convergence with Other Ongoing Rural Development Programmes:For securing maximum benefits from MNREGA, it is necessary to

integrate MNREGA programme with the other relevant ongoing central / state

programmes. In this context, some ongoing programmes are Watershed

173

Development, NWDPRA, DPAP, Hariyali, Minor Irrigation, Farm Ponds, Tribal

Development Programme etc. Instead of starting new independent works,

efforts should be made to contribute to the ongoing efforts through MNREGA.

It is also necessary that at the district, taluka and village level, efforts should

be made for convergence of these different programmes to make them

effective. Such convergence will enable the planner to generate large scale

wage employment on a continuous basis in these districts on one hand and

also promote rapid development of the regions on the other hand.

7. Revision of SoR:In the study, it was found that wage amount of more than 75.00 percent

workers of MNREGA decided using Schedule of Rates (SoR). And hence,

workers get lower wages than prescribed basic minimum wage. In the context

of high inflation, revision of SoR is suggested. Revise SoR in such a way that

wages are in line with programme that bans machines and contractors. In

should be gender sensitive and reflect clearly climate and geology variations.

It must move in tandem with changes in statutory minimum wages and

valuate different activities separately. This will be helpful in minimize the

adverse impact on wage rate of MNREGA and in turn increase the

participation.

8. Unemployment Allowance:As per Act, if employment not provided within 15 days, unemployment

allowance in cash has to be paid as per Act. A liability of payment of

unemployment allowance is of state government. In 2010-11, unemployment

allowance due for 49929 days but not paid a single rupee to anyone. To avoid

the payment of unemployment allowance, some Gram Panchayats are

accepting non-dated demand applications or oral information. Thus, by using

this mechanism, legal guarantee of providing unemployment allowance is

diluted. Also, there is no awareness or collective strength on the part of

people to demand unemployment allowance and no willingness on the part of

authorities to make such payment. Therefore, central government must

pursue this matter with state government to pay regularly due unemployment

allowance to all eligible workers. The policy of payment of unemployment

allowance will put pressure on the state government as well as on other

functionaries to perform better.

174

9. Up 100 Days Employment Limits Per HHs.MNREGA guarantee atleast 100 days of wage employment per HHs.

in every financial year. The 100 days limit not taking into account their family

size. This uniform provision has discouraged large families. A family having 3

to 4 earning members will get employment for about 25 to 33 days per person

in a financial year. The earning from these employment days is absolutely

inadequate to sustain their livelihood for the entire year. Therefore, they have

no other option but to continue migration at other places. Therefore, aims of

MNREGA to arrest out-migration get defeated. We suggest upward revision of

limit of 100 days employment per household and if possible link it with number

of eligible members of the family.

10. Capacity Building of Stakeholders:Capacity building is a continuous process. It is not a one time job. The

need is felt for capacity building of all stakeholders of the MNREGA,

government administration at all levels, PR institutions at all the levels,

community organisations and common people at the village level. Many of

them lack full awareness on various components of the programme.

Participants found unaware about their legal rights, unemployment allowance

rate, wage calculation method, how to conduct social audit etc. Official were

found lacking clarity about their job chart. Therefore, all of them need more

training to be equipped to perform their role effectively. State government has

put in lot of efforts in this area. However, training has not reached to all

stakeholders. There is a urgent need to create adequate technical capabilities

among MNREGA staff of district, taluka, village panchayat and stakeholders

to enable them to plan and implement the programme and to conduct social

audit in a effective and positive manner.

11. Period of Starting of MNREGA Works:It was observed that some time MNREGA works started when

agricultural works are at its peak. Sometime MNREGA works delayed for a

longer period and not started with the start of lean seasons. Such employment

schedule of MNREGA yielded negative impact on their income and

employment level. Therefore, it is suggested that works should be not

implemented when agricultural works are at its peak and it should be started

175

immediately with the start of lean period. This will improve the participation

and employment generation under MNREGA.

12. Focus on Involvement of People’s in Village Level Planning:Under MNREGA, Panchayats are supposed to play pivotal roles in

designing, planning and executing at least 50 percent of the total works. At

village level, without support of technical and support staff, most of the Gram

Panchayats do not have a capacity or expertise to undertake planning and

hence they find it difficult to prepare shelf of projects and annual village

development plans and carry out technically correct works of better quality.

Therefore, in many cases, plans are made and approved at the top and sent

downwards for implementation by the GPs. The Panchayats calling the

meetings / Gram Sabhas for approval of plan sent from the top. The

attendance of people’s in such meetings found low and such meetings

become mere formality. Many Gram Sabhas not held in true spirit and

bureaucracy dominated the process of planning. There is a need to provide

technical assistance to Panchayats for planning, execution of works and

creating awareness among people’s for their active involvement in planning

and execution and social audit of the works done under MNREGA. In many

Gram Panchayats, Vigilance and Monitoring Committee (VMC) are not set up

for the monitoring of the scheme at village level. In some villages, VMC are

formed but found inactive. Social audit also requires capacity building of the

poor villagers to enable them to perform the task.

13. Check Corruption and Malpractices:In study, we have seen earlier that procedure of issuance of job card is

not fully free from corruption. Some participants paid bribes for getting job-

card. In some job cards, entries of work done were not made, whereas in

some cards, entries were over written. Some job cards have fake entries and

column of signature of concerned authorities was kept deliberately blank.

Some job cards were kept with Sarpanch / Talati and some with contractors.

There were cases of under reporting of work done. In some cases, they

received less wage payment than amount on which they sign. Thus, numbers

of such corrupt practices are prevailing in the current functioning system of

MNREGA. These corrupt practices created dissatisfaction and discontent

among participants and therefore, they are giving first preference to

176

non- MNREGA works. Therefore, we suggest provision of strict actions in the

act to check corruption and malpractices. Also take stringent actions against

corrupt officials of MNREGA.

14. Clarity on Definition of a Household:In the Act, household is to be defined as nuclear family consisting of

husband, wife, children and unmarried adult persons. A single person living

alone can also be defined as a household. In the selected villages, however

job card issued mostly on ration card basis and household definition used was

based on the ration card, i.e. nuclear family consists of all members recorded

in one ration card. This definition will imply that a joint family is one household

even when there are several nuclear families living together. Since getting a

separate ration card for each nuclear family not easy, families not frequently

make a separate ration card even when they live away from one another.

Therefore, for issuance of job card, clearly define the definition of a

household.

15. Active Involvement of Line Departments:Field survey revealed that there was low level involvement of line

departments in planning, execution of works and at other stages. Owing to

low level involvement of line departments such as Irrigation, PWD, Forest etc.

there were discrepancies in selection of works, location, size of works, quality

of works and measurement of works delayed. And in turn there was a delay in

wage payment. Therefore, necessary actions needed for active involvement

of all related line departments in implementation of MNREGA.

Lastly, some suggestions made by participants in the earlier chapter-5

are also important for enhancing the efficacy of implementation of MNREGA

programme.

Conclusions:Based on evaluation carried out at field level, it can be inferred that

MNREGA holds the key to the development of country’s vast rural population.

The programme deemed to have huge potential in empowering rural

communities. The programme is capable to enhance income level, food

security and livelihood security of rural poor on a sustainable manner. Further,

MNREGA brought very positive changes in respect of employment, income,

wage-rates and food security. It boosted village economy and found

177

beneficial to rural poor. The study further reveals that the participation of

peoples was low at the stages of planning, implementation and Gram Sabhas.

The awareness level about project activities was also low to moderate. This

calls for higher efforts to increase the people’s participation at all the stages of

the programme. The study reveals need of bringing more transparency in

conducting social audits. The more involvement of line departments in the

programme will be helpful in effective implementation of programme. Timely

repairs and maintenance of created assets also needed for sustainability of

the impact of the programme. The investment under MNREGA must be

focused more on activities providing benefits at the community level so that

poor derive maximum benefits.

The MNREGA reformed on the suggested lines holds out the prospect

of not only transforming the livelihoods of the poorest rural peoples of the

country but also heralding a revolution in rural governance in India. The goals

of upliftment of poor rural households through ensuring food security on a

sustained basis by providing wage employment through MNREGA not look

distant, if MNREGA pursued in earnest.

178

Bibliography1) CSE (2008), “MNREGA Opportunities and Challenges” by Natural

Resource Management and Livelihood Unit, Centre for Science and

Environment (CSE), New Delhi.

2) M. R. Prasad, IAMR (2008), “All India Report on Evaluation of NREGA:

A Survey of Twenty District”, IAMR, Narela, New Delhi.

3) Joshi Varsha, Surjit Singh, Joshi K. N. (Sept. 2008), “Evaluation of

NREGA in Rajasthan”, IDS, Jaipur.

4) P. Ambasta, P. S. Vijay Shankar, Shah Mihir (2008), “Two Years of

NREGA: The Road Ahead” Economic & Political Weekly, February 23-

29, Vol. XIIII, No. 8, PP. 41-50.

5) Jaswal Anshuman and Minstry Paulomee, “Will NREGA Ensure

Security Against hunger?” Disha, Ahmedabad.

6) CAG (2007), “Draft Performance Audit of Implementation of NREGA”,

Office of the Principal Director of Audit, Economic and Service

Ministries, New Delhi.

7) Siddhanta Priyadarshan (2010), “NREGA falls way short of targets”

Indian Express, Ahmedabad Edition, July 21, 2010 PP.17.

8) Chakravarthy Anupam, Tewari (July, 2010), “After Modi Sniffs

Corruption in NREGA, Delhi flags state dossier” Indian Express,

Ahmedabad, July 27, 2010, PP 1, 2.

9) Vanik Anish (2008), “NREGA and the death of Tapas Soren” Economic

and Political Weekly, July 26 August 1, 2008. Vol. XL III, No 30, PP 8.

10) Reetika Khera, Nayak Nandini (2009), “Women Workers Perceptions

of the NREGA”, Economic & Political Weekly, October 24-30, 2009.

Vol. XLIV No 43, PP 49.

11) Vanik, Anish and Siddhartha (2008), “Bank Payment: End of

Corruption in NREGA?” Economic & Political Weekly, 26-2 May, 2009.

Vol. XL III No 17, PP 33-39.

12) Hiral Dave (2010), “NREGA loot: Dead men walking as ghost workers”

Indian Express, Ahmedabad Edition November 16, 2010. Page no. 3.

179

13) MoRD (2007), “Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 (NREGA),

Report of the second year April, 2006-March, 2007”, Ministry of Rural

Development, GoI, New Delhi.

14) Dr. R. Prasad Singh (April 2008), “Success of NREGA Need People’s

Active Participation”, Grameen Bharat, Voi-7, Issue No-46, April, 2008.

15) Chakraborty Pinaki (Feb, 2007), “Implementation of Employment

Guarantee: A Preliminary Appraisal”, EPW, February, 17, 2007. PP 48-

55.

16) Hirway Indira (2008), “Plan for Long Term” Indian Express, February

2, 2008.

17) MoRD (2005), “The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005

(NREGA) Operational Guidelines, Ministry of Rural Development, GUI,

New Delhi.

18) Shah Mihir (2007), “Employment Guarantee, Civil Society and Indian

Democracy”, Economic & Political Weekly, November 17th 2007.

19) CSE (October 2007), “A background to NREGA”, National Resources

Management and Livelihood Unit, CSE, New Delhi.

20) Hirway Indira (October 2006), “Concurrent Monitoring of National

Rural Employment Guarantee Act Feedback from the Field” Centre for

Development Alternatives, Ahmedabad.

21) Patnaik Prabhat (2005), “On the need for providing employment

guarantee”, Economic & Political Weekly, January 15-21, 2005, Vol.

XL, No.3, PP.203.

22) K. S. Gopal (2009), “NREGA Social Audit: Myths and Reality”,

Economic & Political Weekly, 17-23 January, 2009, Vol. XLIV No 3,

PP. 70-71.

23) Narayan Sudha (2008), “Employment Guarantee, women’s work and

child care”, Economic & Political Weekly, March 1-7, 2008, Vol.XLIII

No.9, PP. 10 to 12.

24) Rakesh Tiwari, Somashekhar and others (2011),” MGNREGA for

Environmental Service Enhancement and Vulnerability Reduction:

Rapid Appraisal in Chitredurgu District, Karnataka” Economic &

Political weekly, May 14, 2011, Vol.XLVI’ No.20 PP 39 to 47.

Appendix- 1(i) : District wise works completed/progress under MNREGA (nos. of projects) in Gujarat -2008-09

comp. 99 (1.55) 275 (21.09) 360 (4.79) 187 (6.13) 495 (8.55) 135 (3.89) 7 (0.34) 140 (9.96) 2 (0.56)

Ongoing/Susp. 115 (1.80) 44 (3.37) 197 (2.62) 233 (7.64) 368 (6.35) 207 (5.97) 111 (5.47) 235 (16.71) 50 (14.01)

comp. 31 (0.49) 62 (4.75) 482 (6.41) 20 (0.66) 597 (10.31) 6 (0.17) 23 (1.13) 113 (8.04) 0 (0.00)

ValsadDohad Narmada Panch Mahals Sabar Kantha Bharuch NavsariDistrict

Rural Connectivity

Flood Control

Banas Kantha Dang

comp. 31 (0.49) 62 (4.75) 482 (6.41) 20 (0.66) 597 (10.31) 6 (0.17) 23 (1.13) 113 (8.04) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 4 (0.06) 57 (4.37) 332 (4.42) 35 (1.15) 150 (2.59) 3 (0.09) 79 (3.89) 44 (3.13) 9 (2.52)

comp. 3927 (61.54) 435 (33.36) 1369 (18.21) 538 (17.65) 1948 (33.63) 2197 (63.35) 780 (38.44) 70 (4.98) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 170 (2.66) 21 (1.61) 211 (2.81) 94 (3.08) 247 (4.26) 229 (6.60) 51 (2.51) 19 (1.35) 81 (22.69)

comp. 226 (3.54) 290 (22.24) 347 (4.62) 374 (12.27) 383 (6.61) 332 (9.57) 564 (27.80) 147 (10.46) 94 (26.33)

Ongoing/Susp. 712 (11.16) 0 (0.00) 12 (0.16) 0 (0.00) 133 (2.30) 19 (0.55) 35 (1.72) 9 (0.64) 23 (6.44)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.05) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 43 (2.12) 14 (1.00) 2 (0.56)

Flood Control

Water ConservationAnd WaterHerversting

Drought Proofing

Micro Irrigation

Provision ofIrrigation facility toLand development

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.05) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 43 (2.12) 14 (1.00) 2 (0.56)

comp. 136 (2.13) 0 (0.00) 162 (2.16) 1065 (34.93) 240 (4.14) 0 (0.00) 2 (0.10) 125 (8.89) 8 (2.24)

Ongoing/Susp. 141 (2.21) 0 (0.00) 3999 (53.20) 339 (11.12) 868 (14.99) 0 (0.00) 207 (10.20) 339 (24.11) 74 (20.73)

comp. 149 (2.34) 28 (2.15) 37 (0.49) 140 (4.59) 121 (2.09) 81 (2.34) 12 (0.59) 60 (4.27) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 120 (1.88) 15 (1.15) 9 (0.12) 3 (0.10) 224 (3.87) 235 (6.78) 111 (5.47) 5 (0.36) 7 (1.96)

comp. 10 (0.16) 69 (5.29) 0 (0.00) 15 (0.49) 13 (0.22) 23 (0.66) 1 (0.05) 3 (0.21) 1 (0.28)

Ongoing/Susp. 31 (0.49) 8 (0.61) 0 (0.00) 5 (0.16) 5 (0.09) 1 (0.03) 2 (0.10) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Micro Irrigation

Provision ofIrrigation facility toLand development

Renovation ofTraditional WaterBodies

Land development

Any Other ActivityApproved by MoRD

Ongoing/Susp. 31 (0.49) 8 (0.61) 0 (0.00) 5 (0.16) 5 (0.09) 1 (0.03) 2 (0.10) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

comp. 227 (3.56) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.03) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 83 (5.90) 6 (1.68)

Ongoing/Susp. 283 (4.44) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

comp. 4805 (75.30) 1159 (88.88) 2757 (36.68) 2340 (76.75) 3797 (65.56) 2774 (79.99) 1390 (68.51) 741 (52.70) 111 (31.09)

Ongoing/Susp. 1576 (24.70) 145 (11.12) 4760 (63.32) 709 (23.25) 1995 (34.44) 694 (20.01) 639 (31.49) 665 (47.30) 246 (68.91)

Rajiv Gandhi SevaKendra

Total

Land development

Any Other ActivityApproved by MoRD

Ongoing/Susp. 1576 (24.70) 145 (11.12) 4760 (63.32) 709 (23.25) 1995 (34.44) 694 (20.01) 639 (31.49) 665 (47.30) 246 (68.91)

Total 6381 (100.0) 1304 (100.0) 7517 (100.0) 3049 (100.0) 5792 (100.0) 3468 (100.0) 2029 (100.0) 1406 (100.0) 357 (100.0)

Source:http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspxNote: The figures in parentheses are percentages of respective total 180

Contd..

Total

Appendix- 1(i) : District wise works completed/progress under MNREGA (nos. of projects) in Gujarat -2008-09

comp. 10 (2.99) 0 (0.00) 59 (11.43) 5 (1.14) 2 (0.89) 10 (4.12) 0 (0.00) 3 (0.74) 12 (1.71)

Ongoing/Susp. 2 (0.60) 0 (0.00) 55 (10.66) 1 (0.23) 12 (5.33) 16 (6.58) 0 (0.00) 63 (15.44) 122 (17.40)

comp. 3 (0.90) 18 (1.43) 4 (0.78) 8 (1.82) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 692 (72.16) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

District

Rural Connectivity

Flood Control

Jamnagar Junagadh Kachchh KhedaAhmadabad Amreli Anand Bhavnagar Gandhinagar

comp. 3 (0.90) 18 (1.43) 4 (0.78) 8 (1.82) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 692 (72.16) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 2 (0.60) 27 (2.15) 4 (0.78) 3 (0.68) 0 (0.00) 2 (0.82) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

comp. 114 (34.13) 427 (33.97) 42 (8.14) 205 (46.59) 11 (4.89) 70 (28.81) 50 (5.21) 17 (4.17) 349 (49.79)

Ongoing/Susp. 3 (0.90) 3 (0.24) 33 (6.40) 2 (0.45) 2 (0.89) 34 (13.99) 0 (0.00) 37 (9.07) 20 (2.85)

comp. 29 (8.68) 613 (48.77) 245 (47.48) 90 (20.45) 194 (86.22) 9 (3.70) 0 (0.00) 104 (25.49) 46 (6.56)

Ongoing/Susp. 153 (45.81) 0 (0.00) 38 (7.36) 1 (0.23) 0 (0.00) 9 (3.70) 35 (3.65) 15 (3.68) 99 (14.12)

comp. 11 (3.29) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.19) 8 (1.82) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 2 (0.29)

Ongoing/Susp. 7 (2.10) 0 (0.00) 6 (1.16) 1 (0.23) 0 (0.00) 2 (0.82) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 12 (1.71)

Provision ofIrrigation facility toLand development

Flood Control

Water ConservationAnd WaterHerversting

Drought Proofing

Micro Irrigationcomp. 11 (3.29) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.19) 8 (1.82) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 2 (0.29)

Ongoing/Susp. 7 (2.10) 0 (0.00) 6 (1.16) 1 (0.23) 0 (0.00) 2 (0.82) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 12 (1.71)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 12 (2.73) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.41) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 11 (2.50) 0 (0.00) 46 (18.93) 174 (18.14) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

comp. 0 (0.00) 106 (8.43) 6 (1.16) 72 (16.36) 1 (0.44) 2 (0.82) 0 (0.00) 57 (13.97) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 63 (5.01) 13 (2.52) 19 (4.32) 3 (1.33) 8 (3.29) 0 (0.00) 110 (26.96) 39 (5.56)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.23) 0 (0.00) 7 (2.88) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.25) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 9 (1.74) 1 (0.23) 0 (0.00) 8 (3.29) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.25) 0 (0.00)

Provision ofIrrigation facility toLand development

Renovation ofTraditional WaterBodies

Land development

Any Other ActivityApproved by MoRD

Micro Irrigation

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 9 (1.74) 1 (0.23) 0 (0.00) 8 (3.29) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.25) 0 (0.00)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 10 (4.12) 5 (0.52) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.19) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 9 (3.70) 3 (0.31) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

comp. 167 (50.00) 1164 (92.60) 357 (69.19) 401 (91.14) 208 (92.44) 109 (44.86) 747 (77.89) 182 (44.61) 409 (58.35)

Ongoing/Susp. 167 (50.00) 93 (7.40) 159 (30.81) 39 (8.86) 17 (7.56) 134 (55.14) 212 (22.11) 226 (55.39) 292 (41.65)

Land development

Any Other ActivityApproved by MoRD

Rajiv Gandhi SevaKendra

Total Ongoing/Susp. 167 (50.00) 93 (7.40) 159 (30.81) 39 (8.86) 17 (7.56) 134 (55.14) 212 (22.11) 226 (55.39) 292 (41.65)

Total 334 (100.0) 1257 (100.0) 516 (100.0) 440 (100.0) 225 (100.0) 243 (100.0) 959 (100.0) 408 (100.0) 701 (100.0)

181Contd..

Total

Appendix- 1(i) : District wise works completed/progress under MNREGA (nos. of projects) in Gujarat -2008-09

comp. 8 (0.86) 24 (1.44) 81 (56.64) 80 (4.34) 256 (14.07) 0 (0.00) 518 (21.30) 118 (8.76)

Ongoing/Susp. 17 (1.83) 62 (3.71) 4 (2.80) 15 (0.81) 11 (0.60) 12 (13.64) 90 (3.70) 225 (16.70)

comp. 10 (1.08) 8 (0.48) 5 (3.50) 0 (0.00) 76 (4.18) 0 (0.00) 23 (0.95) 15 (1.11)

VadodaraDistrict

Rural Connectivity

Flood Control

Porbandar RajkotMahesana Patan Surat Surendranagar Tapi

comp. 10 (1.08) 8 (0.48) 5 (3.50) 0 (0.00) 76 (4.18) 0 (0.00) 23 (0.95) 15 (1.11)

Ongoing/Susp. 19 (2.05) 3 (0.18) 1 (0.70) 0 (0.00) 27 (1.48) 5 (5.68) 0 (0.00) 4 (0.30)

comp. 253 (27.26) 804 (48.09) 19 (13.29) 1126 (61.13) 698 (38.37) 21 (23.86) 1394 (57.32) 533 (39.57)

Ongoing/Susp. 29 (3.13) 111 (6.64) 4 (2.80) 110 (5.97) 30 (1.65) 42 (47.73) 1 (0.04) 103 (7.65)

comp. 386 (41.59) 476 (28.47) 8 (5.59) 306 (16.61) 622 (34.19) 0 (0.00) 285 (11.72) 158 (11.73)

Ongoing/Susp. 18 (1.94) 3 (0.18) 0 (0.00) 29 (1.57) 0 (0.00) 5 (5.68) 0 (0.00) 42 (3.12)

comp. 9 (0.97) 50 (2.99) 2 (1.40) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.05) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 6 (0.65) 5 (0.30) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Provision ofIrrigation facility toLand development

Flood Control

Water ConservationAnd WaterHerversting

Drought Proofing

Micro Irrigationcomp. 9 (0.97) 50 (2.99) 2 (1.40) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.05) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 6 (0.65) 5 (0.30) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

comp. 2 (0.22) 1 (0.06) 0 (0.00) 20 (1.09) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 10 (0.74)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 1 (0.06) 0 (0.00) 18 (0.98) 30 (1.65) 1 (1.14) 24 (0.99) 60 (4.45)

comp. 34 (3.66) 78 (4.67) 5 (3.50) 57 (3.09) 49 (2.69) 0 (0.00) 56 (2.30) 3 (0.22)

Ongoing/Susp. 19 (2.05) 30 (1.79) 2 (1.40) 7 (0.38) 18 (0.99) 2 (2.27) 41 (1.69) 19 (1.41)

comp. 34 (3.66) 11 (0.66) 6 (4.20) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.05) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 21 (1.56)

Ongoing/Susp. 3 (0.32) 5 (0.30) 2 (1.40) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 31 (2.30)

Provision ofIrrigation facility toLand development

Renovation ofTraditional WaterBodies

Land development

Any Other ActivityApproved by MoRD

Micro Irrigation

Ongoing/Susp. 3 (0.32) 5 (0.30) 2 (1.40) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 31 (2.30)

comp. 71 (7.65) 0 (0.00) 4 (2.80) 74 (4.02) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 2 (0.15)

Ongoing/Susp. 10 (1.08) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 3 (0.22)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

comp. 807 (86.96) 1452 (86.84) 130 (90.91) 1663 (90.28) 1703 (93.62) 21 (23.86) 2276 (93.59) 860 (63.85)

Ongoing/Susp. 121 (13.04) 220 (13.16) 13 (9.09) 179 (9.72) 116 (6.38) 67 (76.14) 156 (6.41) 487 (36.15)

Land development

Any Other ActivityApproved by MoRD

Rajiv Gandhi SevaKendra

Total Ongoing/Susp. 121 (13.04) 220 (13.16) 13 (9.09) 179 (9.72) 116 (6.38) 67 (76.14) 156 (6.41) 487 (36.15)

Total 928 (100.0) 1672 (100.0) 143 (100.0) 1842 (100.0) 1819 (100.0) 88 (100.0) 2432 (100.0) 1347 (100.0)

182

Total

Appendix-1(ii):District wise works completed/progress under MNREGA (nos.of projects) in Gujatat -2009-10

comp. 34 (0.18) 195 (5.02) 58 (0.34) 396 (3.83) 532 (2.77) 288 (1.12) 51 (0.58) 234 (3.51) 68 (0.73)

Sabar Kantha Bharuch Navsari ValsadBanas Kantha Dang Dohad Narmada Panch MahalsDistrict

RuralConnectivity

comp. 34 (0.18) 195 (5.02) 58 (0.34) 396 (3.83) 532 (2.77) 288 (1.12) 51 (0.58) 234 (3.51) 68 (0.73)

Ongoing/Susp. 398 (2.08) 353 (9.09) 347 (2.03) 368 (3.56) 437 (2.28) 404 (1.57) 122 (1.40) 341 (5.11) 423 (4.56)

comp. 2 (0.01) 153 (3.94) 295 (1.73) 55 (0.53) 1079 (5.62) 33 (0.13) 126 (1.44) 63 (0.94) 6 (0.06)

Ongoing/Susp. 60 (0.31) 261 (6.72) 898 (5.26) 36 (0.35) 403 (2.10) 101 (0.39) 62 (0.71) 56 (0.84) 25 (0.27)

comp. 14859 (77.52) 1309 (33.72) 9576 (56.04) 4307 (41.65) 12499 (65.08) 22797 (88.78) 6432 (73.58) 5142 (77.06) 7869 (84.75)

Ongoing/Susp. 1934 (10.09) 17 (0.44) 379 (2.22) 330 (3.19) 380 (1.98) 44 (0.17) 214 (2.45) 2 (0.03) 414 (4.46)

Sabar Kantha Bharuch Navsari ValsadBanas Kantha Dang Dohad Narmada Panch MahalsDistrict

RuralConnectivity

Flood Control

WaterConservationAnd WaterHerversting

DroughtProofing

Ongoing/Susp. 1934 (10.09) 17 (0.44) 379 (2.22) 330 (3.19) 380 (1.98) 44 (0.17) 214 (2.45) 2 (0.03) 414 (4.46)

comp. 12 (0.06) 1 (0.03) 45 (0.26) 898 (8.68) 146 (0.76) 61 (0.24) 730 (8.35) 2 (0.03) 19 (0.20)

Ongoing/Susp. 774 (4.04) 7 (0.18) 309 (1.81) 1142 (11.04) 654 (3.41) 884 (3.44) 84 (0.96) 203 (3.04) 209 (2.25)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.01) 0 (0.00) 50 (0.57) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 38 (0.20) 0 (0.00) 4 (0.02) 1 (0.01) 12 (0.06) 0 (0.00) 14 (0.16) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

comp. 23 (0.12) 0 (0.00) 710 (4.16) 303 (2.93) 694 (3.61) 0 (0.00) 7 (0.08) 95 (1.42) 36 (0.39)

WaterConservationAnd WaterHerversting

DroughtProofing

Micro Irrigation

Provision ofIrrigation facilityto Landdevelopment

comp. 23 (0.12) 0 (0.00) 710 (4.16) 303 (2.93) 694 (3.61) 0 (0.00) 7 (0.08) 95 (1.42) 36 (0.39)

Ongoing/Susp. 326 (1.70) 255 (6.57) 4365 (25.55) 2145 (20.74) 1763 (9.18) 75 (0.29) 356 (4.07) 413 (6.19) 170 (1.83)

comp. 9 (0.05) 159 (4.10) 4 (0.02) 99 (0.96) 135 (0.70) 282 (1.10) 181 (2.07) 39 (0.58) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 287 (1.50) 21 (0.54) 92 (0.54) 54 (0.52) 388 (2.02) 451 (1.76) 226 (2.59) 70 (1.05) 0 (0.00)

comp. 80 (0.42) 1121 (28.88) 0 (0.00) 177 (1.71) 49 (0.26) 20 (0.08) 14 (0.16) 9 (0.13) 1 (0.01)

Ongoing/Susp. 41 (0.21) 30 (0.77) 5 (0.03) 31 (0.30) 34 (0.18) 104 (0.41) 19 (0.22) 4 (0.06) 28 (0.30)

Renovation ofTraditionalWater Bodies

Landdevelopment

Any OtherActivityApproved byMoRD

Provision ofIrrigation facilityto Landdevelopment

Ongoing/Susp. 41 (0.21) 30 (0.77) 5 (0.03) 31 (0.30) 34 (0.18) 104 (0.41) 19 (0.22) 4 (0.06) 28 (0.30)

comp. 6 (0.03) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 53 (0.61) 0 (0.00) 14 (0.15)

Ongoing/Susp. 284 (1.48) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 133 (0.52) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 3 (0.03)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

comp. 15025 (78.39) 2938 (75.68) 10688 (62.55) 6235 (60.29) 15135 (78.80) 23481 (91.45) 7644 (87.45) 5584 (83.68) 8013 (86.30)

Ongoing/Susp. 4142 (21.61) 944 (24.32) 6399 (37.45) 4107 (39.71) 4071 (21.20) 2196 (8.55) 1097 (12.55) 1089 (16.32) 1272 (13.70)

Landdevelopment

Rajiv GandhiSeva Kendra

Any OtherActivityApproved byMoRD

Total

comp. 15025 (78.39) 2938 (75.68) 10688 (62.55) 6235 (60.29) 15135 (78.80) 23481 (91.45) 7644 (87.45) 5584 (83.68) 8013 (86.30)

Ongoing/Susp. 4142 (21.61) 944 (24.32) 6399 (37.45) 4107 (39.71) 4071 (21.20) 2196 (8.55) 1097 (12.55) 1089 (16.32) 1272 (13.70)

Toal 19167 (100.0) 3882 (100.0) 17087 (100.0) 10342 (100.0) 19206 (100.0) 25677 (100.0) 8741 (100.0) 6673 (100.0) 9285 (100.0)Source:http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspxNote: The figures in parentheses are percentages of respective total

Contd..183

Total

Appendix-1(ii):District wise works completed/progress under MNREGA (nos.of projects) in Gujatat -2009-10

comp. 74 (0.67) 7 (0.07) 39 (1.36) 32 (0.41) 164 (6.64) 112 (0.80) 17 (0.10) 120 (0.89) 177 (1.74)

Junagadh Kachchh KhedaAmreli Bhavnagar Gandhinagar JamnagarAnandDistrict

RuralConnectivity

Ahmadabad

comp. 74 (0.67) 7 (0.07) 39 (1.36) 32 (0.41) 164 (6.64) 112 (0.80) 17 (0.10) 120 (0.89) 177 (1.74)

Ongoing/Susp. 101 (0.92) 12 (0.12) 311 (10.86) 7 (0.09) 34 (1.38) 21 (0.15) 14 (0.09) 77 (0.57) 223 (2.19)

comp. 18 (0.16) 0 (0.00) 10 (0.35) 25 (0.32) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 8 (0.06) 1 (0.01)

Ongoing/Susp. 2 (0.02) 15 (0.15) 4 (0.14) 2 (0.03) 0 (0.00) 8 (0.06) 0 (0.00) 3 (0.02) 0 (0.00)

comp. 10483 (95.20) 9121 (92.12) 1599 (55.83) 7260 (93.86) 2088 (84.57) 13137 (94.19) 0 (0.00) 12759 (94.27) 9128 (89.56)

Ongoing/Susp. 26 (0.24) 21 (0.21) 33 (1.15) 4 (0.05) 0 (0.00) 19 (0.14) 0 (0.00) 23 (0.17) 0 (0.00)

DroughtProofing

Junagadh Kachchh KhedaAmreli Bhavnagar Gandhinagar JamnagarAnandDistrict

RuralConnectivity

Flood Control

WaterConservationAnd WaterHerversting

Ahmadabad

Ongoing/Susp. 26 (0.24) 21 (0.21) 33 (1.15) 4 (0.05) 0 (0.00) 19 (0.14) 0 (0.00) 23 (0.17) 0 (0.00)

comp. 77 (0.70) 0 (0.00) 100 (3.49) 86 (1.11) 171 (6.93) 63 (0.45) 0 (0.00) 185 (1.37) 138 (1.35)

Ongoing/Susp. 31 (0.28) 0 (0.00) 286 (9.99) 11 (0.14) 4 (0.16) 13 (0.09) 0 (0.00) 77 (0.57) 105 (1.03)

comp. 43 (0.39) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 40 (0.52) 1 (0.04) 17 (0.12) 0 (0.00) 8 (0.06) 4 (0.04)

Ongoing/Susp. 26 (0.24) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.03) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 9 (0.06) 0 (0.00) 4 (0.03) 13 (0.13)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 346 (12.08) 57 (0.74) 0 (0.00) 71 (0.51) 115 (0.70) 40 (0.30) 0 (0.00)

DroughtProofing

Micro Irrigation

Provision ofIrrigation facilityto Landdevelopment

WaterConservationAnd WaterHerversting

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 346 (12.08) 57 (0.74) 0 (0.00) 71 (0.51) 115 (0.70) 40 (0.30) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 2 (0.02) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 5 (0.06) 0 (0.00) 57 (0.41) 70 (0.43) 115 (0.85) 0 (0.00)

comp. 47 (0.43) 184 (1.86) 27 (0.94) 120 (1.55) 6 (0.24) 88 (0.63) 287 (1.75) 82 (0.61) 68 (0.67)

Ongoing/Susp. 17 (0.15) 26 (0.26) 39 (1.36) 64 (0.83) 0 (0.00) 17 (0.12) 130 (0.79) 34 (0.25) 118 (1.16)

comp. 22 (0.20) 90 (0.91) 3 (0.10) 20 (0.26) 0 (0.00) 22 (0.16) 2 (0.01) 0 (0.00) 135 (1.32)

Ongoing/Susp. 14 (0.13) 1 (0.01) 64 (2.23) 2 (0.03) 0 (0.00) 27 (0.19) 1 (0.01) 0 (0.00) 82 (0.80)

Any OtherActivityApproved byMoRD

Provision ofIrrigation facilityto Landdevelopment

Renovation ofTraditionalWater Bodies

Landdevelopment

Ongoing/Susp. 14 (0.13) 1 (0.01) 64 (2.23) 2 (0.03) 0 (0.00) 27 (0.19) 1 (0.01) 0 (0.00) 82 (0.80)

comp. 20 (0.18) 356 (3.60) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.04) 267 (1.91) 15776 (96.12) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 9 (0.08) 68 (0.69) 2 (0.07) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

comp. 10784 (97.93) 9758 (98.56) 2124 (74.16) 7640 (98.77) 2431 (98.46) 13777 (98.77) 16197 (98.69) 13202 (97.54) 9651 (94.69)

Ongoing/Susp. 228 (2.07) 143 (1.44) 740 (25.84) 95 (1.23) 38 (1.54) 171 (1.23) 215 (1.31) 333 (2.46) 541 (5.31)

Any OtherActivityApproved byMoRD

Rajiv GandhiSeva Kendra

Total

Landdevelopment

comp. 10784 (97.93) 9758 (98.56) 2124 (74.16) 7640 (98.77) 2431 (98.46) 13777 (98.77) 16197 (98.69) 13202 (97.54) 9651 (94.69)

Ongoing/Susp. 228 (2.07) 143 (1.44) 740 (25.84) 95 (1.23) 38 (1.54) 171 (1.23) 215 (1.31) 333 (2.46) 541 (5.31)

Toal 11012 (100.0) 9901 (100.0) 2864 (100.0) 7735 (100.0) 2469 (100.0) 13948 (100.0) 16412 (100.0) 13535 (100.0) 10192 (100.0)

Contd..

Total

184

Appendix-1(ii):District wise works completed/progress under MNREGA (nos.of projects) in Gujatat -2009-10

comp. 39 (3.75) 261 (4.41) 276 (9.51) 916 (3.79) 623 (8.67) 65 (0.41) 1682 (16.20) 339 (1.61)

District

RuralConnectivity

Mahesana Patan VadodaraPorbandar Rajkot Surat Surendranagar Tapi

comp. 39 (3.75) 261 (4.41) 276 (9.51) 916 (3.79) 623 (8.67) 65 (0.41) 1682 (16.20) 339 (1.61)

Ongoing/Susp. 46 (4.42) 69 (1.17) 31 (1.07) 23 (0.10) 82 (1.14) 56 (0.35) 71 (0.68) 345 (1.64)

comp. 22 (2.11) 54 (0.91) 68 (2.34) 121 (0.50) 246 (3.42) 33 (0.21) 71 (0.68) 369 (1.75)

Ongoing/Susp. 24 (2.31) 34 (0.57) 2 (0.07) 5 (0.02) 31 (0.43) 349 (2.19) 1 (0.01) 96 (0.46)

comp. 525 (50.43) 4993 (84.37) 2015 (69.46) 20756 (85.82) 5043 (70.21) 15078 (94.81) 7250 (69.83) 16674 (79.12)

Ongoing/Susp. 38 (3.65) 109 (1.84) 13 (0.45) 50 (0.21) 0 (0.00) 183 (1.15) 13 (0.13) 303 (1.44)

District

RuralConnectivity

Flood Control

WaterConservationAnd WaterHerversting

DroughtProofing

Mahesana Patan VadodaraPorbandar Rajkot Surat Surendranagar Tapi

Ongoing/Susp. 38 (3.65) 109 (1.84) 13 (0.45) 50 (0.21) 0 (0.00) 183 (1.15) 13 (0.13) 303 (1.44)

comp. 168 (16.14) 114 (1.93) 1 (0.03) 316 (1.31) 326 (4.54) 1 (0.01) 387 (3.73) 185 (0.88)

Ongoing/Susp. 30 (2.88) 21 (0.35) 0 (0.00) 112 (0.46) 129 (1.80) 4 (0.03) 202 (1.95) 150 (0.71)

comp. 3 (0.29) 7 (0.12) 12 (0.41) 17 (0.07) 8 (0.11) 0 (0.00) 2 (0.02) 121 (0.57)

Ongoing/Susp. 5 (0.48) 3 (0.05) 2 (0.07) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 5 (0.03) 0 (0.00) 387 (1.84)

comp. 0 (0.00) 10 (0.17) 36 (1.24) 811 (3.35) 59 (0.82) 1 (0.01) 62 (0.60) 169 (0.80)

WaterConservationAnd WaterHerversting

DroughtProofing

Micro Irrigation

Provision ofIrrigation facilityto Landdevelopment

comp. 0 (0.00) 10 (0.17) 36 (1.24) 811 (3.35) 59 (0.82) 1 (0.01) 62 (0.60) 169 (0.80)

Ongoing/Susp. 3 (0.29) 0 (0.00) 12 (0.41) 60 (0.25) 110 (1.53) 4 (0.03) 199 (1.92) 998 (4.74)

comp. 56 (5.38) 158 (2.67) 51 (1.76) 865 (3.58) 310 (4.32) 83 (0.52) 375 (3.61) 33 (0.16)

Ongoing/Susp. 32 (3.07) 4 (0.07) 7 (0.24) 13 (0.05) 133 (1.85) 28 (0.18) 13 (0.13) 283 (1.34)

comp. 0 (0.00) 55 (0.93) 59 (2.03) 116 (0.48) 77 (1.07) 0 (0.00) 55 (0.53) 97 (0.46)

Ongoing/Susp. 1 (0.10) 26 (0.44) 8 (0.28) 5 (0.02) 6 (0.08) 13 (0.08) 0 (0.00) 3 (0.01)

Landdevelopment

Any OtherActivityApproved byMoRD

Provision ofIrrigation facilityto Landdevelopment

Renovation ofTraditionalWater Bodies

Ongoing/Susp. 1 (0.10) 26 (0.44) 8 (0.28) 5 (0.02) 6 (0.08) 13 (0.08) 0 (0.00) 3 (0.01)

comp. 26 (2.50) 0 (0.00) 287 (9.89) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 306 (1.45)

Ongoing/Susp. 23 (2.21) 0 (0.00) 21 (0.72) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 216 (1.02)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

comp. 839 (80.60) 5652 (95.51) 2805 (96.69) 23918 (98.89) 6692 (93.16) 15261 (95.96) 9884 (95.19) 18293 (86.80)

Ongoing/Susp. 202 (19.40) 266 (4.49) 96 (3.31) 268 (1.11) 491 (6.84) 642 (4.04) 499 (4.81) 2781 (13.20)Total

Landdevelopment

Any OtherActivityApproved byMoRD

Rajiv GandhiSeva Kendra

comp. 839 (80.60) 5652 (95.51) 2805 (96.69) 23918 (98.89) 6692 (93.16) 15261 (95.96) 9884 (95.19) 18293 (86.80)

Ongoing/Susp. 202 (19.40) 266 (4.49) 96 (3.31) 268 (1.11) 491 (6.84) 642 (4.04) 499 (4.81) 2781 (13.20)

Toal 1041 (100.0) 5918 (100.0) 2901 (100.0) 24186 (100.0) 7183 (100.0) 15903 (100.0) 10383 (100.0) 21074 (100.0)

185

Total

Appedix-1(iii): District wise works completed/progress under MNREGA (nos.of projects) in Gujarat -2010-11 (Till Aug. 2010)

comp. 4 (0.05) 7 (0.16) 1 (0.00) 2 (0.02) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 60 (1.63) 0 (0.00) 8 (0.79)

Ongoing/ Susp. 1181 (13.91) 1067 (24.68) 677 (2.73) 1115 (13.76) 2165 (9.59) 2156 (26.02) 286 (4.30) 650 (17.65) 752 (12.02) 213 (21.03)

District

RuralConnectivity

Flood Control

Sabar Kantha Bharuch Navsari Valsad AhmadabadBanas Kantha Dang Dohad Narmada Panch Mahals

Ongoing/ Susp. 1181 (13.91) 1067 (24.68) 677 (2.73) 1115 (13.76) 2165 (9.59) 2156 (26.02) 286 (4.30) 650 (17.65) 752 (12.02) 213 (21.03)

comp. 0 (0.00) 48 (1.11) 11 (0.04) 1 (0.01) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 5 (0.14) 0 (0.00) 4 (0.39)

Ongoing/ Susp. 55 (0.65) 2311 (53.45) 2912 (11.73) 124 (1.53) 2861 (12.68) 141 (1.70) 241 (3.62) 250 (6.79) 61 (0.98) 76 (7.50)

comp. 13 (0.15) 0 (0.00) 32 (0.13) 2 (0.02) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.01) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 4 (0.39)

Ongoing/ Susp. 5526 (65.08) 157 (3.63) 4462 (17.97) 2328 (28.73) 8687 (38.50) 3800 (45.87) 4132 (62.11) 1268 (34.43) 4278 (68.39) 280 (27.64)

comp. 1 (0.01) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.01) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 19 (0.29) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 9 (0.89)DroughtProofing

RuralConnectivity

Flood Control

WaterConservationAnd WaterHerversting

comp. 1 (0.01) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.01) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 19 (0.29) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 9 (0.89)

Ongoing/ Susp. 295 (3.47) 92 (2.13) 139 (0.56) 876 (10.81) 1311 (5.81) 560 (6.76) 973 (14.62) 234 (6.35) 355 (5.68) 85 (8.39)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 2 (0.02) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 4 (0.39)

Ongoing/ Susp. 63 (0.74) 1 (0.02) 92 (0.37) 38 (0.47) 101 (0.45) 101 (1.22) 279 (4.19) 157 (4.26) 26 (0.42) 61 (6.02)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 97 (0.39) 21 (0.26) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.01) 0 (0.00) 61 (1.66) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/ Susp. 211 (2.48) 251 (5.80) 13603 (54.79) 3123 (38.55) 5518 (24.45) 13 (0.16) 428 (6.43) 557 (15.12) 3 (0.05) 10 (0.99)

comp. 3 (0.04) 1 (0.02) 13 (0.05) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 14 (1.38)

DroughtProofing

Micro Irrigation

Provision ofIrrigationfacility to Landdevelopment

Renovation ofTraditionalWater Bodies

comp. 3 (0.04) 1 (0.02) 13 (0.05) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 14 (1.38)

Ongoing/ Susp. 697 (8.21) 227 (5.25) 1585 (6.38) 280 (3.46) 1097 (4.86) 130 (1.57) 139 (2.09) 170 (4.62) 138 (2.21) 100 (9.87)

comp. 2 (0.02) 1 (0.02) 1 (0.00) 1 (0.01) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 8 (0.79)

Ongoing/ Susp. 243 (2.86) 160 (3.70) 185 (0.75) 123 (1.52) 603 (2.67) 151 (1.82) 116 (1.74) 49 (1.33) 69 (1.10) 95 (9.38)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 7 (0.03) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 5 (0.08) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 7 (0.69)

Ongoing/ Susp. 197 (2.32) 1 (0.02) 1009 (4.06) 67 (0.83) 221 (0.98) 1229 (14.83) 35 (0.53) 222 (6.03) 573 (9.16) 34 (3.36)

Renovation ofTraditionalWater Bodies

Landdevelopment

Any OtherActivityApproved byMoRD

Rajiv GandhiSeva Kendra

Ongoing/ Susp. 197 (2.32) 1 (0.02) 1009 (4.06) 67 (0.83) 221 (0.98) 1229 (14.83) 35 (0.53) 222 (6.03) 573 (9.16) 34 (3.36)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/ Susp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.10)

comp. 23 (0.27) 57 (1.32) 163 (0.66) 28 (0.35) 1 (0.00) 4 (0.05) 24 (0.36) 126 (3.42) 0 (0.00) 58 (5.73)

Ongoing/ Susp. 8468 (99.73) 4267 (98.68) 24664 (99.34) 8074 (99.65) 22564 (100.00) 8281 (99.95) 6629 (99.64) 3557 (96.58) 6255 (100.00) 955 (94.27)

Total 8491 (100.0) 4324 (100.0) 24827 (100.0) 8102 (100.0) 22565 (100.0) 8285 (100.0) 6653 (100.0) 3683 (100.0) 6255 (100.0) 1013 (100.0)

Source:http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx186

Contd..

Total

Any OtherActivityApproved byMoRD

Rajiv GandhiSeva Kendra

Source:http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspxNote: The figures in parentheses are percentages of respective total 186

Contd..

comp. 1 (0.02) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 4 (0.72) 0 (0.00) 2 (0.03) 0 (0.00) 38 (1.30)

Ongoing/ Susp. 155 (3.03) 461 (33.70) 84 (3.94) 153 (27.72) 609 (10.79) 203 (3.13) 478 (17.36) 328 (11.20)

District

RuralConnectivity

Flood Control

Amreli Anand Bhavnagar Gandhinagar Jamnagar

Appedix-1(iii): District wise works completed/progress under MNREGA (nos.of projects) in Gujarat -2010-11 (Till Aug. 2010)Junagadh Kachchh Kheda

Ongoing/ Susp. 155 (3.03) 461 (33.70) 84 (3.94) 153 (27.72) 609 (10.79) 203 (3.13) 478 (17.36) 328 (11.20)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 12 (0.19) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/ Susp. 141 (2.75) 26 (1.90) 37 (1.74) 63 (11.41) 35 (0.62) 897 (13.84) 26 (0.94) 15 (0.51)

comp. 3 (0.06) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.05) 16 (2.90) 1 (0.02) 1586 (24.47) 0 (0.00) 40 (1.37)

Ongoing/ Susp. 3247 (63.42) 101 (7.38) 1469 (68.93) 28 (5.07) 4071 (72.14) 3426 (52.85) 1378 (50.04) 1344 (45.90)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.18) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 30 (1.02)

RuralConnectivity

Flood Control

WaterConservationAnd WaterHerversting

DroughtProofing

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.18) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 30 (1.02)

Ongoing/ Susp. 171 (3.34) 476 (34.80) 134 (6.29) 90 (16.30) 290 (5.14) 25 (0.39) 209 (7.59) 358 (12.23)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/ Susp. 17 (0.33) 82 (5.99) 26 (1.22) 24 (4.35) 12 (0.21) 10 (0.15) 11 (0.40) 88 (3.01)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/ Susp. 214 (4.18) 9 (0.66) 50 (2.35) 0 (0.00) 283 (5.02) 154 (2.38) 31 (1.13) 304 (10.38)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 8 (0.27)Renovation ofTraditionalWater Bodies

Micro Irrigation

Provision ofIrrigationfacility to Landdevelopment

DroughtProofing

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 8 (0.27)

Ongoing/ Susp. 967 (18.89) 85 (6.21) 304 (14.27) 5 (0.91) 127 (2.25) 40 (0.62) 278 (10.09) 102 (3.48)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.05) 2 (0.36) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 62 (2.12)

Ongoing/ Susp. 18 (0.35) 85 (6.21) 23 (1.08) 15 (2.72) 179 (3.17) 79 (1.22) 340 (12.35) 92 (3.14)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 39 (1.33)

Ongoing/ Susp. 186 (3.63) 19 (1.39) 2 (0.09) 151 (27.36) 36 (0.64) 48 (0.74) 3 (0.11) 80 (2.73)

Renovation ofTraditionalWater Bodies

Landdevelopment

Rajiv GandhiSeva Kendra

Any OtherActivityApproved byMoRD Ongoing/ Susp. 186 (3.63) 19 (1.39) 2 (0.09) 151 (27.36) 36 (0.64) 48 (0.74) 3 (0.11) 80 (2.73)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/ Susp. 0 (0.00) 24 (1.75) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

comp. 4 (0.08) 0 (0.00) 2 (0.09) 23 (4.17) 1 (0.02) 1600 (24.68) 0 (0.00) 217 (7.41)

Ongoing/ Susp. 5116 (99.92) 1368 (100.00) 2129 (99.91) 529 (95.83) 5642 (99.98) 4882 (75.32) 2754 (100.00) 2711 (92.59)

Total 5120 (100.0) 1368 (100.0) 2131 (100.0) 552 (100.0) 5643 (100.0) 6482 (100.0) 2754 (100.0) 2928 (100.0)

187Contd..

Rajiv GandhiSeva Kendra

Total

Any OtherActivityApproved byMoRD

187Contd..

Appedix-1(iii): District wise works completed/progress under MNREGA (nos.of projects) in Gujarat -2010-11 (Till Aug. 2010)

comp. 3 (0.20) 40 (1.58) 184 (12.35) 39 (1.37) 2 (0.04) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.02) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/ Susp. 116 (7.58) 387 (15.33) 533 (35.77) 420 (14.73) 1034 (21.00) 187 (5.72) 2655 (48.31) 1132 (6.34)

District

RuralConnectivity

Flood Control

Mahesana Patan VadodaraPorbandar TapiSurendranagarSuratRajkot

Ongoing/ Susp. 116 (7.58) 387 (15.33) 533 (35.77) 420 (14.73) 1034 (21.00) 187 (5.72) 2655 (48.31) 1132 (6.34)

comp. 4 (0.26) 15 (0.59) 2 (0.13) 1 (0.04) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 23 (0.13)

Ongoing/ Susp. 187 (12.21) 90 (3.56) 5 (0.34) 56 (1.96) 326 (6.62) 440 (13.45) 90 (1.64) 792 (4.43)

comp. 2 (0.13) 110 (4.36) 5 (0.34) 78 (2.74) 1 (0.02) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 2 (0.01)

Ongoing/ Susp. 412 (26.91) 1075 (42.57) 180 (12.08) 1107 (38.83) 1826 (37.09) 2283 (69.80) 1304 (23.73) 11852 (66.36)

comp. 1 (0.07) 9 (0.36) 0 (0.00) 12 (0.42) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

WaterConservationAnd WaterHerversting

DroughtProofing

RuralConnectivity

Flood Control

comp. 1 (0.07) 9 (0.36) 0 (0.00) 12 (0.42) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/ Susp. 425 (27.76) 375 (14.85) 68 (4.56) 576 (20.20) 641 (13.02) 29 (0.89) 566 (10.30) 2357 (13.20)

comp. 0 (0.00) 10 (0.40) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.02) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/ Susp. 56 (3.66) 64 (2.53) 27 (1.81) 15 (0.53) 195 (3.96) 7 (0.21) 16 (0.29) 349 (1.95)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 3 (0.20) 14 (0.49) 7 (0.14) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/ Susp. 0 (0.00) 4 (0.16) 26 (1.74) 56 (1.96) 398 (8.08) 5 (0.15) 358 (6.51) 11 (0.06)

comp. 4 (0.26) 24 (0.95) 11 (0.74) 16 (0.56) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

DroughtProofing

Renovation ofTraditionalWater Bodies

Micro Irrigation

Provision ofIrrigationfacility to Landdevelopment

comp. 4 (0.26) 24 (0.95) 11 (0.74) 16 (0.56) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/ Susp. 114 (7.45) 236 (9.35) 101 (6.78) 276 (9.68) 403 (8.19) 85 (2.60) 352 (6.40) 588 (3.29)

comp. 0 (0.00) 32 (1.27) 20 (1.34) 5 (0.18) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/ Susp. 51 (3.33) 41 (1.62) 180 (12.08) 53 (1.86) 50 (1.02) 66 (2.02) 153 (2.78) 555 (3.11)

comp. 3 (0.20) 1 (0.04) 4 (0.27) 1 (0.04) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/ Susp. 153 (9.99) 12 (0.48) 125 (8.39) 126 (4.42) 39 (0.79) 169 (5.17) 1 (0.02) 200 (1.12)

Renovation ofTraditionalWater Bodies

Landdevelopment

Any OtherActivityApproved byMoRD

Rajiv GandhiSeva Kendra

Ongoing/ Susp. 153 (9.99) 12 (0.48) 125 (8.39) 126 (4.42) 39 (0.79) 169 (5.17) 1 (0.02) 200 (1.12)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/ Susp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 16 (1.07) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

comp. 17 (1.11) 241 (9.54) 229 (15.37) 166 (5.82) 11 (0.22) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.02) 25 (0.14)

Ongoing/ Susp. 1514 (98.89) 2284 (90.46) 1261 (84.63) 2685 (94.18) 4912 (99.78) 3271 (100.00) 5495 (99.98) 17836 (99.86)

Total 1531 (100.0) 2525 (100.0) 1490 (100.0) 2851 (100.0) 4923 (100.0) 3271 (100.0) 5496 (100.0) 17861 (100.0)

188

Any OtherActivityApproved byMoRD

Rajiv GandhiSeva Kendra

Total

188

Appendix-2(i):District wise Amount Spent on works under MNREGA in Gujarat -2008-09 (Rs. In Lakhs)

comp. 128 (8.37) 225 (29.43) 183 (4.62) 173 (16.30) 487 (15.41) 265 (21.96) 7 (1.37) 198 (21.40) 0 (0.04)

Ongoing/Susp. 249 (16.29) 67 (8.79) 320 (8.06) 277 (26.10) 199 (6.30) 196 (16.18) 132 (26.15) 187 (20.20) 48 (29.66)

comp. 13 (0.85) 172 (22.50) 282 (7.09) 25 (2.31) 517 (16.33) 9 (0.78) 19 (3.76) 68 (7.34) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 4 (0.28) 101 (13.22) 358 (9.00) 28 (2.65) 105 (3.33) 1 (0.07) 38 (7.52) 23 (2.48) 6 (3.43)

comp. 742 (48.67) 86 (11.27) 778 (19.58) 145 (13.64) 1023 (32.35) 298 (24.63) 153 (30.31) 15 (1.65) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 190 (12.44) 0 (0.00) 330 (8.30) 102 (9.58) 142 (4.50) 147 (12.18) 24 (4.81) 0 (0.00) 15 (9.40)

comp. 73 (4.76) 51 (6.71) 49 (1.22) 33 (3.13) 31 (0.97) 69 (5.75) 17 (3.40) 7 (0.70) 3 (2.06)

Ongoing/Susp. 28 (1.83) 0 (0.00) 6 (0.15) 0 (0.00) 147 (4.66) 8 (0.70) 4 (0.69) 0 (0.02) 1 (0.63)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 3 (0.59) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 15 (3.03) 10 (1.07) 0 (0.00)

comp. 10 (0.65) 0 (0.00) 203 (5.11) 173 (16.25) 135 (4.28) 0 (0.00) 2 (0.34) 107 (11.57) 7 (4.18)

Micro Irrigation

Provision ofIrrigation facility toLand development

ValsadDohad Narmada Panch Mahals Sabar KanthaBanas Kantha Dang

Drought Proofing

District

Rural Connectivity

Flood Control

Water ConservationAnd WaterHerversting

Bharuch Navsari

comp. 10 (0.65) 0 (0.00) 203 (5.11) 173 (16.25) 135 (4.28) 0 (0.00) 2 (0.34) 107 (11.57) 7 (4.18)

Ongoing/Susp. 2 (0.10) 0 (0.00) 1441 (36.27) 62 (5.82) 173 (5.47) 0 (0.00) 35 (6.89) 267 (28.86) 78 (48.60)

comp. 32 (2.09) 17 (2.26) 8 (0.20) 33 (3.06) 121 (3.81) 114 (9.42) 6 (1.14) 34 (3.67) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 25 (1.62) 0 (0.00) 16 (0.41) 4 (0.38) 75 (2.36) 95 (7.90) 49 (9.76) 4 (0.44) 2 (1.52)

comp. 16 (1.06) 22 (2.92) 0 (0.00) 4 (0.39) 6 (0.20) 4 (0.37) 0 (0.01) 1 (0.12) 0 (0.21)

Ongoing/Susp. 5 (0.30) 22 (2.89) 0 (0.00) 4 (0.37) 1 (0.03) 1 (0.07) 1 (0.25) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

comp. 9 (0.58) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.02) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 4 (0.48) 0 (0.26)

Ongoing/Susp. 2 (0.10) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

comp. 1023 (67.03) 575 (75.11) 1502 (37.81) 585 (55.11) 2320 (73.36) 760 (62.91) 207 (40.90) 434 (46.92) 11 (6.76)

Ongoing/Susp. 503 (32.97) 191 (24.89) 2471 (62.19) 477 (44.89) 843 (26.64) 448 (37.09) 299 (59.10) 491 (53.08) 149 (93.24)

Total 1526 (100.0) 766 (100.0) 3973 (100.0) 1062 (100.0) 3163 (100.0) 1208 (100.0) 506 (100.0) 925 (100.0) 160 (100.0)Source:http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspxNote: The figures in parentheses are percentages of respective total

Any Other ActivityApproved by MoRD

Rajiv Gandhi SevaKendra

189

Total

Provision ofIrrigation facility toLand developmentRenovation ofTraditional WaterBodies

Contd..

Land development

Appendix-2(i):District wise Amount Spent on works under MNREGA in Gujarat -2008-09 (Rs. In Lakhs)

comp. 117 (33.86) 0 (0.00) 30 (24.63) 15 (9.16) 0 (0.57) 12 (14.65) 0 (0.00) 2 (0.51) 9 (3.31)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 39 (32.65) 0 (0.00) 16 (32.83) 5 (6.25) 0 (0.00) 125 (26.13) 124 (46.77)

comp. 53 (15.50) 20 (10.76) 1 (0.50) 6 (3.88) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 3 (0.35) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 29 (15.74) 1 (0.66) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

comp. 74 (21.43) 9 (4.79) 15 (12.07) 33 (20.24) 11 (22.53) 32 (38.39) 103 (10.96) 5 (1.01) 69 (26.06)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 2 (1.28) 15 (12.86) 0 (0.00) 1 (1.58) 14 (17.10) 0 (0.00) 90 (18.69) 2 (0.85)

comp. 18 (5.16) 6 (3.32) 8 (6.54) 14 (8.77) 18 (36.53) 3 (3.32) 0 (0.00) 17 (3.54) 8 (2.98)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.70) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (1.30) 7 (0.74) 20 (4.21) 36 (13.71)

comp. 83 (24.04) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.22) 2 (1.33) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.27)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.25) 0 (0.04) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 11 (4.10)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 10 (6.03) 0 (0.00) 2 (1.89) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 4 (5.25) 810 (85.84) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ahmadabad

Rural Connectivity

Kachchh KhedaAmreli Anand Bhav nagar Gandhinagar Jam nagar JunagadhDistrict

Provision ofIrrigation facility toLand developmentRenovation ofTraditional WaterBodies

Drought Proofing

Micro Irrigation

Flood Control

Water ConservationAnd WaterHerversting

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 4 (5.25) 810 (85.84) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

comp. 0 (0.00) 99 (53.03) 1 (0.76) 76 (46.56) 2 (3.20) 0 (0.35) 0 (0.00) 16 (3.33) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 18 (9.85) 4 (3.05) 3 (1.70) 1 (2.77) 1 (1.40) 0 (0.00) 203 (42.30) 5 (1.96)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 4 (2.28) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.58) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.27) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 6 (5.10) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 2 (2.01) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 6 (7.27) 17 (1.79) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 2 (1.23) 0 (0.02) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.24) 3 (0.32) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

comp. 345 (100.0) 134 (71.90) 54 (44.73) 161 (98.26) 31 (62.82) 55 (66.45) 124 (13.10) 42 (8.66) 86 (32.62)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 53 (28.10) 67 (55.27) 3 (1.74) 18 (37.18) 28 (33.55) 820 (86.90) 438 (91.34) 178 (67.38)

Total 345 (100.0) 187 (100.0) 120 (100.0) 164 (100.0) 49 (100.0) 82 (100.0) 944 (100.0) 480 (100.0) 265 (100.0)

Provision ofIrrigation facility toLand developmentRenovation ofTraditional WaterBodies

190Contd..

Rajiv Gandhi SevaKendra

Total

Land development

Any Other ActivityApproved by MoRD

Appendix-2(i):District wise Amount Spent on works under MNREGA in Gujarat -2008-09 (Rs. In Lakhs)

comp. 7 (3.83) 83 (16.46) 99 (77.82) 77 (27.78) 359 (76.77) 0 (0.00) 294 (62.20) 93 (38.13)

Ongoing/Susp. 21 (12.28) 57 (11.27) 2 (1.68) 37 (13.24) 1 (0.25) 14 (18.20) 11 (2.24) 34 (14.01)

comp. 8 (4.66) 11 (2.09) 7 (5.83) 0 (0.00) 6 (1.30) 0 (0.00) 13 (2.77) 21 (8.55)

Ongoing/Susp. 21 (11.80) 5 (0.89) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 2 (0.32) 9 (12.36) 0 (0.00) 2 (0.86)

comp. 19 (10.97) 119 (23.55) 1 (0.55) 26 (9.33) 50 (10.62) 5 (6.90) 63 (13.35) 40 (16.39)

Ongoing/Susp. 19 (10.86) 62 (12.30) 1 (0.69) 14 (5.15) 0 (0.00) 43 (56.04) 0 (0.00) 3 (1.10)

comp. 23 (13.24) 44 (8.73) 3 (2.62) 34 (12.35) 22 (4.64) 0 (0.00) 28 (5.82) 11 (4.46)

Ongoing/Susp. 5 (3.01) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 9 (3.40) 0 (0.00) 2 (2.39) 0 (0.00) 3 (1.27)

comp. 2 (1.06) 7 (1.46) 2 (1.74) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.03) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 4 (2.19) 0 (0.09) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

comp. 1 (0.59) 0 (0.05) 0 (0.00) 18 (6.62) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 3 (1.23)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 2 (0.31) 0 (0.00) 8 (2.97) 3 (0.63) 2 (3.23) 10 (2.02) 2 (0.61)

comp. 13 (7.50) 101 (19.96) 5 (3.97) 30 (10.65) 25 (5.27) 0 (0.00) 40 (8.38) 2 (0.92)

Surendranagar Tapi Vadodara

Rural Connectivity

District Mahesana Patan Porbandar

Drought Proofing

Micro Irrigation

Flood Control

Water ConservationAnd WaterHerversting

Rajkot Surat

Provision ofIrrigation facility toLand developmentRenovation ofTraditional WaterBodies

comp. 13 (7.50) 101 (19.96) 5 (3.97) 30 (10.65) 25 (5.27) 0 (0.00) 40 (8.38) 2 (0.92)

Ongoing/Susp. 9 (5.23) 8 (1.52) 1 (0.89) 7 (2.57) 1 (0.13) 1 (0.88) 15 (3.22) 10 (4.19)

comp. 3 (1.77) 4 (0.77) 2 (1.71) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.05) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 13 (5.16)

Ongoing/Susp. 9 (5.35) 3 (0.54) 0 (0.12) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 6 (2.30)

comp. 8 (4.65) 0 (0.00) 3 (2.38) 16 (5.93) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.57)

Ongoing/Susp. 2 (1.02) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.25)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

comp. 84 (48.26) 369 (73.08) 123 (96.62) 202 (72.66) 461 (98.68) 5 (6.90) 438 (92.53) 184 (75.40)

Ongoing/Susp. 90 (51.74) 136 (26.92) 4 (3.38) 76 (27.34) 6 (1.32) 71 (93.10) 35 (7.47) 60 (24.60)

Total 174 (100.0) 505 (100.0) 127 (100.0) 278 (100.0) 468 (100.0) 76 (100.0) 473 (100.0) 244 (100.0)

191

Rajiv Gandhi SevaKendra

Total

Land development

Any Other ActivityApproved by MoRD

Renovation ofTraditional WaterBodies

Appendix-2(ii) : District wise Amount Spent Works Under MNREGA in Gujarat -2009-10 (Rs in Lakhs)

comp. 104 (2.74) 299 (11.85) 14 (0.16) 325 (10.80) 390 (5.71) 604 (12.52) 130 (11.08) 362 (20.01) 64 (5.51)

Ongoing/Susp. 784 (20.73) 504 (20.00) 364 (4.17) 480 (15.93) 281 (4.12) 1035 (21.45) 148 (12.63) 325 (18.01) 324 (27.69)

comp. 2 (0.05) 326 (12.94) 242 (2.77) 59 (1.97) 1391 (20.36) 52 (1.08) 155 (13.25) 88 (4.86) 1 (0.10)

Ongoing/Susp. 147 (3.88) 614 (24.37) 1385 (15.85) 47 (1.55) 363 (5.32) 149 (3.08) 29 (2.49) 37 (2.04) 8 (0.73)

comp. 1413 (37.36) 338 (13.39) 578 (6.61) 368 (12.21) 2199 (32.19) 808 (16.76) 350 (29.84) 247 (13.69) 390 (33.37)

Ongoing/Susp. 848 (22.40) 13 (0.53) 515 (5.89) 243 (8.07) 396 (5.80) 99 (2.05) 1 (0.11) 5 (0.25) 61 (5.19)

comp. 8 (0.21) 4 (0.16) 17 (0.19) 879 (29.18) 45 (0.65) 100 (2.07) 86 (7.34) 0 (0.00) 2 (0.15)

Ongoing/Susp. 138 (3.64) 21 (0.82) 233 (2.67) 51 (1.68) 419 (6.14) 420 (8.71) 12 (0.98) 109 (6.01) 180 (15.36)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 85 (7.27) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 40 (1.05) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.01) 0 (0.01) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 12 (1.03) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Sabar Kantha Bharuch Navsari Valsad

Water ConservationAnd WaterHerversting

Banas Kantha Dang Dohad Panch MahalsDistrict

Rural Connectivity

Flood Control

Narmada

Drought Proofing

Micro Irrigation

Provision ofIrrigation facility toLand development

Ongoing/Susp. 40 (1.05) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.01) 0 (0.01) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 12 (1.03) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

comp. 12 (0.31) 0 (0.00) 848 (9.71) 108 (3.57) 504 (7.38) 0 (0.00) 7 (0.56) 130 (7.21) 56 (4.81)

Ongoing/Susp. 127 (3.35) 45 (1.80) 4533 (51.87) 378 (12.55) 345 (5.05) 29 (0.61) 49 (4.17) 410 (22.70) 55 (4.73)

comp. 11 (0.29) 121 (4.81) 4 (0.04) 42 (1.40) 129 (1.90) 404 (8.39) 58 (4.95) 58 (3.19) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 89 (2.34) 16 (0.65) 6 (0.07) 3 (0.12) 277 (4.06) 805 (16.69) 40 (3.39) 30 (1.64) 0 (0.00)

comp. 26 (0.69) 160 (6.36) 0 (0.00) 21 (0.69) 52 (0.77) 8 (0.17) 2 (0.14) 5 (0.27) 0 (0.03)

Ongoing/Susp. 36 (0.95) 58 (2.31) 1 (0.01) 8 (0.26) 38 (0.56) 110 (2.28) 8 (0.67) 2 (0.11) 18 (1.55)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.10) 0 (0.00) 6 (0.55)

Ongoing/Susp. 1 (0.03) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 200 (4.14) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 3 (0.22)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

comp. 1576 (41.64) 1248 (49.52) 1702 (19.48) 1801 (59.82) 4710 (68.96) 1977 (40.99) 875 (74.54) 890 (49.24) 521 (44.53)

Ongoing/Susp. 2208 (58.36) 1272 (50.48) 7037 (80.52) 1210 (40.18) 2120 (31.04) 2845 (59.01) 299 (25.46) 917 (50.76) 649 (55.47)

Total 3783 (100.0) 2520 (100.0) 8739 (100.0) 3011 (100.0) 6830 (100.0) 4822 (100.0) 1174 (100.0) 1807 (100.0) 1170 (100.0)

Source:http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspxNote: The figures in parentheses are percentages of respective total

Contd…

Land development

Any Other ActivityApproved by MoRD

192

Rajiv Gandhi SevaKendra

Total

Micro Irrigation

Provision ofIrrigation facility toLand development

Renovation ofTraditional WaterBodies

Appendix-2(ii) : District wise Amount Spent Works Under MNREGA in Gujarat -2009-10 (Rs in Lakhs)

comp. 166 (13.06) 18 (1.73) 15 (2.54) 70 (6.17) 82 (12.77) 196 (20.82) 30 (0.83) 525 (10.20) 251 (13.58)

Ongoing/Susp. 52 (4.12) 6 (0.60) 324 (55.27) 23 (2.00) 5 (0.82) 12 (1.32) 20 (0.54) 456 (8.85) 238 (12.84)

comp. 53 (4.15) 0 (0.00) 4 (0.67) 52 (4.61) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 16 (0.31) 1 (0.03)

Ongoing/Susp. 3 (0.24) 8 (0.73) 4 (0.71) 14 (1.27) 0 (0.00) 10 (1.09) 0 (0.00) 22 (0.42) 0 (0.00)

comp. 644 (50.73) 547 (52.33) 64 (10.91) 547 (48.47) 463 (72.02) 291 (30.85) 0 (0.00) 2068 (40.15) 1071 (57.84)

Ongoing/Susp. 9 (0.70) 21 (1.96) 33 (5.57) 5 (0.44) 0 (0.00) 16 (1.66) 0 (0.00) 1009 (19.59) 0 (0.00)

comp. 90 (7.12) 0 (0.00) 4 (0.62) 35 (3.11) 91 (14.08) 48 (5.05) 0 (0.00) 67 (1.30) 61 (3.31)

Ongoing/Susp. 12 (0.98) 0 (0.00) 51 (8.65) 6 (0.50) 1 (0.08) 6 (0.62) 0 (0.00) 238 (4.62) 33 (1.78)

comp. 56 (4.44) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 15 (1.30) 0 (0.02) 19 (1.98) 0 (0.00) 17 (0.33) 2 (0.09)

Ongoing/Susp. 7 (0.58) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.02) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 4 (0.44) 0 (0.00) 20 (0.39) 1 (0.08)

Ahmadabad

Rural Connectivity

Kachchh KhedaAmreli Anand Bhavnagar Gandhinagar Jamnagar JunagadhDistrict

Provision ofIrrigation facility toLand development

Drought Proofing

Micro Irrigation

Flood Control

Water ConservationAnd WaterHerversting

Ongoing/Susp. 7 (0.58) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.02) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 4 (0.44) 0 (0.00) 20 (0.39) 1 (0.08)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 4 (0.69) 64 (5.69) 0 (0.00) 85 (9.02) 800 (22.10) 14 (0.27) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 2 (0.16) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 3 (0.31) 0 (0.00) 32 (3.39) 36 (0.98) 2 (0.04) 0 (0.00)

comp. 79 (6.25) 314 (30.07) 8 (1.37) 197 (17.46) 1 (0.20) 122 (12.89) 2439 (67.38) 97 (1.89) 13 (0.70)

Ongoing/Susp. 10 (0.75) 10 (0.96) 34 (5.79) 84 (7.42) 0 (0.00) 3 (0.33) 50 (1.37) 100 (1.94) 65 (3.51)

comp. 39 (3.11) 7 (0.70) 4 (0.62) 9 (0.78) 0 (0.00) 16 (1.73) 8 (0.22) 0 (0.00) 51 (2.74)

Ongoing/Susp. 7 (0.55) 0 (0.00) 31 (5.36) 5 (0.48) 0 (0.00) 4 (0.39) 4 (0.10) 0 (0.00) 65 (3.50)

comp. 30 (2.36) 94 (9.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.02) 80 (8.43) 235 (6.49) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 9 (0.70) 20 (1.91) 7 (1.19) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 500 (9.71) 0 (0.00)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

comp. 1158 (91.22) 981 (93.84) 102 (17.42) 988 (87.59) 638 (99.10) 856 (90.75) 3512 (97.02) 2804 (54.45) 1450 (78.29)

Ongoing/Susp. 112 (8.78) 64 (6.16) 484 (82.58) 140 (12.41) 6 (0.90) 87 (9.25) 108 (2.98) 2346 (45.55) 402 (21.71)

Total 1270 (100.0) 1045 (100.0) 586 (100.0) 1128 (100.0) 644 (100.0) 944 (100.0) 3620 (100.0) 5151 (100.0) 1852 (100.0)

Provision ofIrrigation facility toLand development

Renovation ofTraditional WaterBodies

Micro Irrigation

193Contd…

Rajiv Gandhi SevaKendra

Total

Land development

Any Other ActivityApproved by MoRD

Appendix-2(ii) : District wise Amount Spent Works Under MNREGA in Gujarat -2009-10 (Rs in Lakhs)

comp. 85 (10.76) 453 (18.56) 981 (65.20) 1176 (28.93) 687 (36.96) 136 (7.90) 1887 (60.03) 320 (6.81)

Ongoing/Susp. 73 (9.31) 125 (5.11) 45 (2.97) 115 (2.84) 53 (2.87) 103 (5.98) 176 (5.60) 146 (3.11)

comp. 45 (5.70) 173 (7.09) 38 (2.52) 65 (1.60) 78 (4.22) 73 (4.24) 68 (2.15) 396 (8.44)

Ongoing/Susp. 67 (8.49) 92 (3.77) 0 (0.00) 4 (0.09) 9 (0.50) 236 (13.73) 0 (0.00) 102 (2.16)

comp. 202 (25.75) 879 (36.05) 101 (6.69) 730 (17.97) 547 (29.41) 508 (29.61) 370 (11.77) 1204 (25.67)

Ongoing/Susp. 33 (4.20) 404 (16.55) 12 (0.77) 161 (3.95) 0 (0.00) 258 (15.04) 16 (0.50) 317 (6.75)

comp. 96 (12.19) 14 (0.59) 1 (0.07) 130 (3.21) 73 (3.95) 1 (0.07) 73 (2.33) 69 (1.47)

Ongoing/Susp. 47 (6.01) 22 (0.89) 0 (0.00) 53 (1.31) 29 (1.56) 5 (0.26) 149 (4.75) 103 (2.19)

comp. 1 (0.17) 5 (0.20) 24 (1.61) 5 (0.11) 2 (0.13) 0 (0.00) 3 (0.08) 113 (2.41)

Ongoing/Susp. 5 (0.57) 3 (0.13) 1 (0.07) 3 (0.07) 0 (0.00) 11 (0.65) 0 (0.00) 329 (7.01)

comp. 0 (0.00) 3 (0.13) 3 (0.17) 80 (1.98) 108 (5.78) 1 (0.03) 105 (3.35) 434 (9.26)

Surendranagar Tapi Vadodara

Rural Connectivity

District Mahesana Patan Porbandar

Drought Proofing

Micro Irrigation

Flood Control

Water ConservationAnd WaterHerversting

Rajkot Surat

Provision ofIrrigation facility toLand development

comp. 0 (0.00) 3 (0.13) 3 (0.17) 80 (1.98) 108 (5.78) 1 (0.03) 105 (3.35) 434 (9.26)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.05) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.05) 15 (0.38) 41 (2.20) 3 (0.17) 93 (2.96) 839 (17.88)

comp. 43 (5.41) 205 (8.39) 115 (7.64) 1455 (35.80) 168 (9.04) 131 (7.62) 177 (5.62) 19 (0.39)

Ongoing/Susp. 23 (2.95) 10 (0.39) 4 (0.24) 30 (0.74) 45 (2.43) 250 (14.60) 8 (0.27) 41 (0.87)

comp. 0 (0.00) 27 (1.09) 59 (3.93) 40 (0.98) 17 (0.91) 0 (0.00) 18 (0.57) 15 (0.32)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.05) 26 (1.07) 14 (0.95) 2 (0.04) 1 (0.05) 2 (0.09) 0 (0.00) 2 (0.04)

comp. 23 (2.97) 0 (0.00) 94 (6.22) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 163 (3.47)

Ongoing/Susp. 42 (5.40) 0 (0.00) 14 (0.91) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 82 (1.75)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

comp. 495 (62.96) 1759 (72.10) 1415 (94.04) 3682 (90.58) 1681 (90.39) 849 (49.48) 2701 (85.91) 2732 (58.24)

Ongoing/Susp. 291 (37.04) 681 (27.90) 90 (5.96) 383 (9.42) 179 (9.61) 867 (50.52) 443 (14.09) 1959 (41.76)

Total 786 (100.0) 2439 (100.0) 1504 (100.0) 4065 (100.0) 1860 (100.0) 1716 (100.0) 3144 (100.0) 4691 (100.0)

194

Rajiv Gandhi SevaKendra

Total

Land development

Any Other ActivityApproved by MoRD

Provision ofIrrigation facility toLand development

Renovation ofTraditional WaterBodies

Appendix-2(iii):District wise Amount Spent works under MNREGA in Gujarat - 20010 - 11 (Till Aug 2010) (Rs. In Lakh)

comp. 2 (0.14) 11 (0.44) 0 (0.00) 3 (0.27) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 40 (5.22) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 360 (26.04) 526 (20.96) 17 (1.27) 144 (14.93) 179 (8.75) 773 (39.15) 40 (25.03) 287 (37.45) 252 (54.31)

comp. 0 (0.00) 161 (6.42) 0 (0.01) 0 (0.01) 2 (0.07) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 4 (0.55) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 29 (2.13) 1363 (54.31) 362 (27.82) 27 (2.81) 507 (24.74) 144 (7.31) 19 (11.95) 33 (4.33) 2 (0.37)

comp. 11 (0.81) 0 (0.00) 7 (0.55) 0 (0.01) 4 (0.19) 0 (0.02) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 762 (55.10) 228 (9.09) 224 (17.24) 216 (22.45) 536 (26.16) 695 (35.19) 34 (20.84) 61 (7.90) 146 (31.54)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.01) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.58) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 28 (2.02) 112 (4.45) 1 (0.11) 248 (25.81) 180 (8.78) 27 (1.37) 19 (11.48) 8 (0.98) 39 (8.34)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.05) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 36 (2.59) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.02) 2 (0.22) 1 (0.06) 112 (5.65) 5 (3.38) 1 (0.08) 0 (0.00)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 9 (0.70) 5 (0.51) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 50 (6.51) 0 (0.00)

Narmada Panch Mahals Sabar Kantha Bharuch Navsari ValsadBanas Kantha Dang Dohad

Drought Proofing

District

Rural Connectivity

Flood Control

Water ConservationAnd WaterHerversting

Micro Irrigation

Provision of Irrigationfacility to Landdevelopment

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 9 (0.70) 5 (0.51) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 50 (6.51) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 18 (1.27) 52 (2.09) 503 (38.65) 307 (31.86) 491 (23.97) 17 (0.86) 35 (21.91) 258 (33.69) 0 (0.03)

comp. 0 (0.00) 1 (0.05) 1 (0.08) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 34 (2.49) 31 (1.22) 152 (11.67) 1 (0.15) 29 (1.40) 50 (2.55) 5 (3.06) 5 (0.70) 5 (1.08)

comp. 3 (0.19) 0 (0.01) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.03) 0 (0.02) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 83 (6.02) 24 (0.94) 6 (0.47) 9 (0.91) 104 (5.09) 29 (1.46) 2 (0.97) 6 (0.79) 2 (0.43)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.17) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 16 (1.18) 1 (0.02) 18 (1.40) 0 (0.02) 15 (0.75) 126 (6.38) 1 (0.62) 14 (1.79) 18 (3.89)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

comp. 16 (1.14) 174 (6.92) 18 (1.36) 8 (0.84) 6 (0.28) 2 (0.08) 1 (0.75) 94 (12.28) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 1367 (98.86) 2337 (93.08) 1283 (98.64) 954 (99.16) 2044 (99.72) 1973 (99.92) 160 (99.25) 673 (87.72) 464 (100.00)

Total 1383 (100.0) 2510 (100.00) 1300 (100.00) 962 (100.00) 2050 (100.00) 1975 (100.00) 162 (100.00) 767 (100.00) 464 (100.00)Source:http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspxNote: The figures in parentheses are percentages of respective total

Contd..

Land development

Any Other ActivityApproved by MoRD

Rajiv Gandhi SevaKendra

195

Total

Provision of Irrigationfacility to LanddevelopmentRenovation ofTraditional WaterBodies

Appendix-2(iii):District wise Amount Spent works under MNREGA in Gujarat - 20010 - 11 (Till Aug 2010) (Rs. In Lakh)

comp. 14 (3.37) 1 (0.09) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 2 (0.80) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 21 (7.95)

Ongoing/Susp. 32 (7.81) 187 (19.84) 101 (65.13) 81 (11.03) 173 (89.38) 104 (39.46) 120 (6.03) 57 (6.91) 60 (23.38)

comp. 3 (0.83) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 73 (3.66) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 48 (11.96) 75 (7.96) 7 (4.71) 41 (5.67) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.50) 42 (2.12) 39 (4.82) 4 (1.38)

comp. 0 (0.05) 3 (0.29) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.15) 0 (0.08) 424 (21.31) 0 (0.00) 23 (8.89)

Ongoing/Susp. 141 (34.88) 498 (52.82) 7 (4.75) 257 (35.12) 1 (0.67) 22 (8.32) 1204 (60.51) 499 (60.95) 23 (8.77)

comp. 2 (0.42) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.35)

Ongoing/Susp. 9 (2.21) 24 (2.54) 7 (4.40) 17 (2.32) 4 (2.24) 17 (6.59) 2 (0.09) 10 (1.24) 17 (6.74)

comp. 1 (0.30) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 14 (3.41) 2 (0.21) 4 (2.50) 8 (1.15) 1 (0.74) 1 (0.22) 0 (0.02) 0 (0.03) 6 (2.34)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ahmadabad

Rural Connectivity

Kachchh KhedaAmreli Anand Bhavnagar Gandhinagar Jamnagar JunagadhDistrict

Provision of Irrigationfacility to Landdevelopment

Drought Proofing

Micro Irrigation

Flood Control

Water ConservationAnd WaterHerversting

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 50 (5.28) 1 (0.38) 12 (1.68) 0 (0.00) 37 (13.95) 86 (4.33) 0 (0.01) 16 (6.21)

comp. 32 (7.93) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 4 (1.48)

Ongoing/Susp. 81 (19.98) 94 (9.97) 14 (9.18) 306 (41.80) 0 (0.20) 48 (18.13) 2 (0.10) 120 (14.64) 19 (7.28)

comp. 9 (2.11) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.15) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 5 (1.76)

Ongoing/Susp. 15 (3.72) 9 (0.94) 13 (8.69) 9 (1.23) 4 (2.08) 32 (12.06) 33 (1.64) 93 (11.41) 16 (6.28)

comp. 2 (0.40) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 25 (9.52)

Ongoing/Susp. 2 (0.61) 1 (0.06) 0 (0.25) 0 (0.01) 7 (3.59) 2 (0.68) 4 (0.20) 0 (0.00) 20 (7.67)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

comp. 62 (15.42) 4 (0.38) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 2 (1.10) 0 (0.08) 497 (24.97) 0 (0.00) 77 (29.95)

Ongoing/Susp. 342 (84.58) 939 (99.62) 155 (100.00) 731 (100.00) 191 (98.90) 264 (99.92) 1493 (75.03) 819 (100.00) 181 (70.05)

Total 405 (100.00) 943 (100.00) 155 (100.00) 731 (100.00) 193 (100.00) 265 (100.00) 1990 (100.00) 819 (100.00) 258 (100.00)

Provision of Irrigationfacility to LanddevelopmentRenovation ofTraditional WaterBodies

196Contd..

Rajiv Gandhi SevaKendra

Total

Land development

Any Other ActivityApproved by MoRD

Appendix-2(iii):District wise Amount Spent works under MNREGA in Gujarat - 20010 - 11 (Till Aug 2010) (Rs. In Lakh)

comp. 1 (0.45) 9 (0.98) 303 (40.02) 64 (8.16) 3 (0.50) 0 (0.00) 27 (2.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 34 (15.85) 147 (16.93) 300 (39.60) 167 (21.48) 302 (53.66) 155 (9.78) 985 (72.27) 197 (11.78)

comp. 7 (3.06) 26 (2.97) 0 (0.00) 1 (0.07) 0 (0.06) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 33 (1.96)

Ongoing/Susp. 70 (32.03) 39 (4.43) 11 (1.42) 10 (1.33) 34 (6.05) 164 (10.31) 18 (1.34) 198 (11.83)

comp. 0 (0.00) 42 (4.85) 0 (0.00) 105 (13.50) 1 (0.14) 0 (0.00) 5 (0.35) 3 (0.16)

Ongoing/Susp. 9 (4.07) 440 (50.54) 11 (1.45) 181 (23.26) 53 (9.45) 1122 (70.66) 77 (5.62) 1010 (60.23)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 7 (0.91) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 61 (27.96) 30 (3.48) 13 (1.65) 84 (10.79) 15 (2.73) 2 (0.11) 16 (1.21) 104 (6.22)

comp. 0 (0.00) 1 (0.08) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.08) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.12) 14 (1.63) 9 (1.18) 1 (0.18) 8 (1.36) 2 (0.12) 3 (0.20) 7 (0.39)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.02) 6 (0.82) 4 (0.75) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Surendranagar Tapi Vadodara

Rural Connectivity

District Mahesana Patan Porbandar

Drought Proofing

Micro Irrigation

Flood Control

Water ConservationAnd WaterHerversting

Rajkot Surat

Provision of Irrigationfacility to Landdevelopment

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.02) 6 (0.82) 4 (0.75) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 1 (0.06) 11 (1.47) 13 (1.73) 107 (18.96) 0 (0.00) 120 (8.78) 0 (0.00)

comp. 4 (1.68) 24 (2.76) 16 (2.14) 27 (3.53) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 2 (0.17) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 6 (2.60) 79 (9.09) 19 (2.47) 76 (9.80) 29 (5.12) 92 (5.78) 61 (4.48) 111 (6.60)

comp. 0 (0.00) 7 (0.82) 9 (1.22) 24 (3.09) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 3 (1.51) 12 (1.37) 31 (4.15) 4 (0.49) 6 (1.13) 16 (1.02) 49 (3.59) 8 (0.49)

comp. 5 (2.43) 0 (0.00) 2 (0.23) 5 (0.65) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 18 (8.24) 0 (0.00) 18 (2.35) 2 (0.21) 0 (0.00) 35 (2.23) 0 (0.00) 6 (0.34)

comp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

Ongoing/Susp. 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 5 (0.65) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)

comp. 17 (7.62) 109 (12.46) 330 (43.63) 239 (30.72) 9 (1.54) 0 (0.00) 34 (2.52) 35 (2.12)

Ongoing/Susp. 201 (92.38) 763 (87.54) 427 (56.37) 539 (69.28) 555 (98.46) 1588 (100.00) 1329 (97.48) 1641 (97.88)

Total 218 (100.00) 871 (100.00) 757 (100.00) 779 (100.00) 564 (100.00) 1588 (100.00) 1363 (100.00) 1677 (100.00)

197

Rajiv Gandhi SevaKendra

Total

Land development

Any Other ActivityApproved by MoRD

Provision of Irrigationfacility to LanddevelopmentRenovation ofTraditional WaterBodies

198

Coordinator’s Comments on the Draft Report

1) It was very clearly indicated in the Proposal of the study as well as in Chapter and

Table Plan that the analysis in the Chapter 2 will be based on the data available

through NREGA website and this chapter presents aspects of NREGA functioning in

all the districts of the state. While in the report although analysis is done for the

whole state while presenting main tables for only the selected districts and other

districts are presented in Annexure. While discussion authors should make analysis

of all the districts based on their high and low performance and no reference to

selected districts should be attempted in the chapter as this chapter is based on all

districts and selected districts do not mean anything in the chapter. Write up should

be done in the context of functioning of the NREGA in all the districts comparing

higher and lower performing districts in the state.

2) Chapter 3, Table 3.1: While calculating education status consider only 6 + age

people. The coefficient of variation (CV) = SD/ Mean* 100 (please make correction

wherever necessary.

3) Chapter 3, Table 3.4: Per capita per month consumption: please provide the figures

for total (along with beneficiary and non beneficiary).

4) Chapter 4, Table 4.1: While providing information on numbers of members per HH

employed during the year include another category of men as that of women and

sum total of men+ women should supposedly be equal aggregate. Also in this table

provide another row with details of percentage of HH employed 100 or more days,

selected district wise.

5) Table 4.2: Name of the activity under which employed (% of households) the sum of

all activities, e.g. rural connectivity + flood control + … + any other activity, should

add up to 100, but it is actually exceeding 100 in different districts in the present

report. It seems authors have not understood what is being asked hear. Like quality

of assets adds to 100, similarly the total allocation of works in different project should

add to 100. Please make the correction.

6) Chapter 4, Table 4.3: The information asked in the rows is no of members migrated

or out-migrated per households. Per household migrated members = The total

numbers of members migrated each district/ total numbers of members in the district.

Kindly make the correction if any as the numbers in the third rows do not match with

numbers in fourth and fifth rows.

199

Action Taken on Comments

1) Chapter-2: As suggested, write up of the chapter and presentation of Tables is given

in the context of functioning of MNREGA in all the districts of the state.

2) Chapter-3: The formula of CV has already used was correct. However, CV was not

presented in percentage. Now, as per suggestion, CV has been presented in

percentage. For education status, only 6+ age person are considered.

3) Chapter-3, Table 3.4: As suggested, figures are provided for aggregate (B + NB)

along with beneficiary and non-beneficiary.

4) Chapter-4, Table 4.1: As suggested details of percentage of HHs. employed under

MNREGA for 100 or more days are provided.

5) Chapter-4, Table 4.2: The sum may not necessarily be 100 as many selected

beneficiaries worked in multiple activities of MNREGA. Therefore, the figures given in

the Table 4.2 are correct.

6) Chapter 4, Table 4.3: We worked out per households migrated members by dividing

total nos. of migrated members in the district by total nos. of households in the district.

However, as suggested, we also worked out proportion of migrated members per HH

in each district by taking Total nos. of migrated members in the district / Total

numbers of members in the district and presented in Table 4.3.

7) As suggested, additional OLS analysis at household and member level is attempted.