7/27/2019 Wake Up Call on Rural Employment Guarantee

1/2

JANUARY 26, 2008

Economic & Political Weekly january 26, 2008 5

Wke-up C n Rur Empymen Gurnee

An independent report oers constructive criticism, but the fndings are being sensationalised.

Indias National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA),

which came into orce two years ago, is one o the most crea-

tive initiatives o our times in the feld o social policy. Under

the Act, any adult who is willing to do casual labour at the mini-

mum wage is entitled to being employed on local public works

within 15 days. Yet, large sections o the mainstream media have

consistently attacked the programme or being an example o

waste and sops.

The Act is currently operational in 330 districts and is due to

be extended to the whole country on April 1, 2008. At this crucial

juncture, the drat Perormance Audit report o the Comptroller

and Auditor General (CAG) on the NREGA programme is a useul

stocktaking o the procedural problems that are currently hold-

ing up the eective implementation o the Act.

Unortunately, the report has been used by some to discredit

and dismiss the Act itsel. One example o the media sensational-ising the CAGs fndings is the highlighting o the reports fnd-

ing that only 3.2 per cent o registered households have been

provided work or 100 days (the minimum number o days o

work to be provided under the Act). This ignores the act that

the percentage o registered households is always likely to ex-

ceed those who actually demand work (since job cards have been

proactively distributed to well-o and poor alike). It is worth

noting that only around 55 per cent o registered households

have actually accessed NREGA employment. Thereore, the per-

centage o registered households accessing 100 days is not an in-

dicator o the health o the programme.

The CAGs report is based on an extensive examination o

NREGA programme records in 26 states. Contrary to the impres-

sion that has been in circulation, it has relatively little to say

about corruption (the word is not used once in the entire

report) in the NREGA programme. A plain reading o the report

will reveal that the main objective o the CAG was to assess the

ftness o the programme in terms o processes rather than out-

comes. In this respect, there is much that is to be welcomed in the

drat document.

One o its most signifcant fndings relates to the ar-reaching

ramifcations o the lack o administrative and technical sta

dedicated to the implementation o this gigantic programme.For instance, ew states have appointed ull-time programme

ofcers (POs) at the block level. As the CAG correctly notes,

giving the additional charge oPO to BDOs [block develop-

ment ofcers], who were responsible or other developmental

schemes at the block level, str ikes at the root o eective imple-

mentation oNREGA. There are other serious sta shortages

throughout the system, rom the village (gram rozgar sevaks) to

the state level (state NREGA commissioners) and all the technical

posts in between (junior engineers, assistant engineers, data

entry operators, etc). The gross neglect o the stafng needs o

the NREGA programme by the state administrations needs im-

mediate rectifcation i the scheme is to be carried orward.

Another disturbing fnding is the non-payment o minimum

wages, something that deeats NREGAs objective o providing

livelihood security. The report also indicts state governments

or eectively scuttling the payment o unemployment allowances.

On this, and other questions, the report has been prepared to

highlight major areas o concern, where remedial action isurgently required.

Among these must be counted the unique initiatives in parti-

cipatory monitoring enshrined in the Act. Social audits, or

instance, are supposed to play a crucial role under NREGA. The

CAG report notes that this process is unortunately yet to be

adopted with enthusiasm. The more traditional monitoring and

reporting procedures listed under the operational guidelines

such as ongoing work site checks, random external and internal

audits, and wholesale fnancial audits have also not yet been

institutionalised. This panoply o devices was intended to act as a

built-in check on corruption.

The history o public works in the subcontinent suggests that

expecting corruption to disappear overnight is unrealistic.

However, the experience so ar indicates that strict enorce-

ment o the transparency saeguards under NREGA can go a

long way in preventing corruption. The central and state

governments would do well to heed the recommendations o

the CAG on the question and invest more eort in the tighten-

ing o these measures.

There is also some good news, explicit or implicit, in the CAG

report. For instance, the report states that in 40 per cent o

the sampled gram panchayats (GPs) there was at least one

instance o delayed payment (i e, payment not made within aortnight o the date on which the work was done). This is a

troubling fnding, but it should be seen in the light o rampant

7/27/2019 Wake Up Call on Rural Employment Guarantee

2/2

EditoRial

january 26, 2008 Economic & Political Weekly6

and prolonged delays in wage payments under earlier public

works schemes such as the national ood or work programme.

I wages are paid within 15 days in 60 per cent o the GPs, as

the report implies, this is a signifcant achievement, which

points to the possibility o ensuring timely wage payments in

all circumstances. Again, the CAG fnding that the distribution

o job cards was incomplete in 74 out o 513 o the surveyed GPs

suggests that it was actually complete in the remaining 439panchayats, a success o sorts given the scale o the operation

involved. It is important to acknowledge and learn rom these

achievements as much as rom the ailures that are widely docu-

mented in the report.

The CAG report has many limitations, methodological and

otherwise. However, as a study independent o the ministry o

rural development, it is an opportunity to take a close look at the

programme. The government would do well not to dismiss it as

alse and ignore the constructive core o the report as it proceedswith the ambitious expansion o the programme.