AUGUST 17, 2017

POVERTY ALLEVIATION PROGRAMMES - MGNREGA

A PROJECT MANAGEMENT REVIEW OF MGNREGA

SUBMITTED BY GROUP-1:

ELIAS KURIAN PGP/20/020

BAVIRISETTY DURGA CHANDRA SEKHAR PGP/20/141
RANADHEER ADDAGATLA PGP/20/232
SUVEER S NALKUND PGP/20/244
Table of Contents
Poverty Eradication – Indian Perspective .......................................................................... 2
MGNREGA ........................................................................................................................ 2
Scope of MGNREGA .......................................................................................................... 3
Project Objective ..................................................................................................................... 3
Deliverables ............................................................................................................................. 3
Milestones ............................................................................................................................... 3
Technical Requirements ........................................................................................................... 3
Limits and exclusions ............................................................................................................... 3
Project Priorities ...................................................................................................................... 3
Responsibility Matrix ............................................................................................................... 4
Communication Plan ................................................................................................................ 5
Plan of Execution .............................................................................................................. 5
Stake holders ........................................................................................................................... 5
Salient features of the Act ........................................................................................................ 6
Natural Resource Regeneration and impact on agricultural productivity.................................... 6
Timely measurement of works ................................................................................................. 7
Timely wage Payment .............................................................................................................. 7
Monitoring & Evaluation: ................................................................................................. 7
Risk Analysis & ways to mitigate them: ............................................................................. 9
Risk of selecting unintended households as beneficiaries: ......................................................... 9
Risk related to payments:....................................................................................................... 10
Risk related to upkeep of durable resources: .......................................................................... 10
Critical Review of the MGNREGA programme: ................................................................ 10
Media critique: ...................................................................................................................... 10
Government’s view ................................................................................................................ 11
Empirical studies and research done by acclaimed institutes ................................................... 12
Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 13
References ..................................................................................................................... 13

Table 1 MGNREGA - major milestones ......................................................................................3

Table 2 Responsibility Matrix.....................................................................................................4
Table 3 MGNREGA - Project Communication Plan – major components..................................5

Figure 1 Project Priority Matrix..................................................................................................4

Poverty Eradication – Indian Perspective
Creating income for masses and eradicating poverty has been India’s central challenge.
Hence, a number of schemes and programs have been initiated by the government, both at
central level and state level to tackle the issue of poverty, especially in the rural regions.
Tackling poverty has been a challenge in the rural areas due to the deficiency in the
infrastructure and geographic limitations.
The major programs designed for the rural regions include JGSY (Jawahar Gram Samridhi
Yojna), NOAPS (National Old age Pension Scheme), IRDP (Integrated Rural Development
Program), MGNREGA (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Generation Act).

MGNREGA
The NREGA bill was ratified by the parliament in 2005 and became effective from the next
year. The Act provides for a guaranteed work for a household for at least 100 days in a
financial year. This is envisaged to majorly augment the income of the rural India. MoRD
(Ministry of Rural Development) holds the overall responsibility to implement this scheme.
MoRD ensures adequate financial and operational support to the state governments and the
Employment Guarantee Councils. The program is made available for scrutiny at all levels. This
has been majorly achieved by following a transparent process and making all relevant data
publically available using Information Technology. The list of major completed projects and
various information related to the work progress and financial allocation is made available in
the website 1.

1 http://nrega.nic.in/
Scope of MGNREGA
The development of the implementation plan for MGNREGA is dependant on its project
scope. MGNREGA focusses on augmenting the livelihood security of people in non-urban
areas by providing paid employment.

Project Objective
MGNREGA is aimed at augmenting the income of the rural unemployed by guaranteeing at
least 100 days of paid, unskilled manual work in every financial year for at least an adult in
every household who wishes to participate. This has to be met within the budget discussed
and approved by the central legislature.
During the course, it also envisages creation of capital assets which could increase the income
and sustainability of the local population.

Deliverables
• List of eligible and participating households
• 100 days of manual unskilled labour for all registered households
• Timely (weekly basis or in any case not later than fortnightly) payment of wages.

Milestones
The timeline for planning and execution is given below in Table 1,
August 15 Gram Sabha to submit plan to PO
December 1 District Annual Plan to be approved
December 31 Labour budget to be submitted to center
February 28 LB to be finalized
April 7 State to communicate opening balance and center release upfront
Whole year MGNREGA execution
Table 1 MGNREGA - major milestones

Technical Requirements
Only the works falling into the following category may be taken up,
a. Public works related to natural resource management
b. Individual assets for vulnerable sections
c. Common infrastructure for NRLM compliant self-help group
d. Rural infrastructure

Limits and exclusions

Repetitive, non-quantifiable, non-measurable works like grass cutting, removal of pebbles
etc. are not allowed under the scope of this project. Neither may the project fund be used for
land acquisitions. Agricultural inputs and agricultural operations are also not permissible
under the project. The expenditure incurred for the non-permissible activities under the
scope of the project will be recovered from the person(s) responsible for the same.

Project Priorities
Traditionally, the success of project is defined as exceeding the expectations of the customer
while ensuring the cost and time constraints are breached. Nevertheless, in the case of a
social development project like MGNREGA, the cost constraints take the least precedence
owing to the nature of project. The Project Priority Matrix is given in Figure 1.

Time Performance Cost

Constrain O
Enhance O
Accept O
Figure 1 Project Priority Matrix

Responsibility Matrix
The sheer size of the project and the involvement of a plethora of agencies calls for well
defined roles and responsibility to be assigned to different stakeholders. The Responsibility
Matrix which summarizes the major tasks to be accomplished is given in Table 2. It also maps
the responsibility to different agencies.

Task MoRD 2 CEGC 3 State SEGC 4 Local bodies PO 5

Frame Rules R S S
Issue operational guidelines R S
Review permissible work list R S
Set up CEGC, NMT R
Set up IT & support infra R
Implement & Monitor R S
Set up SEGC R
Advise state govt. R S S
Prepare annual reports R
Ensure timely fund release R
Consolidate plans of local R
bodies
Register applicants R S
Perform local audits R
Issue job cards R
Baseline Surveys S R
Facilitate technical support R
Monthly meetings with civil S R
society organisations
Training & capacity building S R S S
Table 2 Responsibility Matrix

R- Responsible
S- Support Role

2 Ministry of Rural Development

3 Central Employment Guarantee Council
4 State Employment Guarantee Council
5 Programme Officer
Communication Plan
Given the large number of stakeholders involved, it is vital for the success of MGNREGA to
have a solid internal communication plan. It is necessary for coordinating and tracking project
development. Equally important is its role in monitoring and auditing of the expenditures and
deliverables. The major components of the Project Communication Plan is listen in Table 3.

What Target Mode of

When? Provider
Information? audience communication
Meeting, hard-
Annual Reports Legislature Yearly CEGC, MoRD
copy, Website
Status Reports PO, SEGC Half-Yearly e-mail Local bodies
Follow up Legislature, e-mail,
As required State Govt.
actions SEGC hardcopy
Local
Social Audit
stakeholders, Monthly Hard copy PO
Report
CEGC
Training Local bodies,
As required e-mail, website MoRD
Manual PO
Budget All bodies
MoRD Yearly e-mail
requirements involved.
Meeting,
Press release All stakeholders As required All stakeholders
websites
Issues report PO As required e-mail SEGC
Vigilance Higher e-mail, hard
As required Vigilance officer
Reports authority copy
Table 3 MGNREGA - Project Communication Plan – major components

Plan of Execution
The implementation of MNREGA is on the Gram Panchayats. From the Government point of
view, since the implementation of this scheme, the government has incurred an expenditure
of Rs 289817.04 crores towards this scheme, by employing 68,26,921 workers in 2,61,942
worksites. The minimum wages decided was Rs100 per day but it was revised later because
of state labour employment conventions. The new minimum wages are now decided by states
which is in the range of Rs 163 to Rs 500. This scheme is subject to lot of criticisms too over
the years like for encouraging corruption to increasing inequality to being called as an election
card for UPA. Leaving the fact that it is causing major financial drain of country’s resources,
actual benefits have not reached to the rural completely yet.
Stake holders
Implementation of the MNREGA involves roles and responsibilities of a large number of
stakeholders from the village to the national level. The key stakeholders are:
1. Wage seekers
2. Gram Sabha (GS)
3. Three-tier Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs), especially the Gram Panchayat (GP)
4. District Programme Coordinator (DPC)
5. Programme Officer at the Block level
6. State Government
7. Civil Society
8. Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD)
9. Other stakeholders ( line departments, convergence departments, Self-Help Groups etc.)

Salient features of the Act

• Right based Framework is for adult members of a rural willing to do unskilled manual work.
• Time bound Guarantee: Unemployment allowance will be given if the work is not allocated
in 15 days
• Labour Intensive Works will be provided, 60:40 wage and material ratio for permissible
works; no contractors/machinery.
• Upto 100 days in a financial year per household of work is provided, depending on the actual
demand.

• Decentralized Planning or Gram Sabhas to recommend works for at least 50% of works by
Gram Panchayats for execution of Principal role of PRIs in planning, monitoring and
implementation
• Work site facilities: Drinking water, first aid and shade infrastructure are provided at
worksites
• Women empowerment: Women should constitute at least one third of beneficiaries.
• Transparency and Accountability is taken utmost care by Proactive disclosure through Social
Audits, Grievance Redressal Mechanism.
• Funding is mainly done by Central Government, it pays 100% of wages for unskilled manual
labor, 75% of material cost including payment of wages to skilled and semi-skilled labor. State
Government pays quarter of material including payment of wages to skilled and semi-skilled
labor cost. 100% of unemployment allowance is given by state government

Natural Resource Regeneration and impact on agricultural productivity

The works which are undertaken through MNREGA give top priority to activities which are
related to water harvesting, groundwater, drought-proof system development, and
protection from flood. It focuses on eco-restoration and sustainable system development so
that livelihoods will lead over time, so as to increase land productivity and aid the workers
moving from wage employment to sustainable employment. Almost 80% of the works are
related to soil and water conservation. MNREGA works by the very nature of placing stress
on increasing the land productivity, recharging ground water and increasing water availability.
Recent amendment of the Act to permit MNREGA works on individual land of small and
marginal farmers who may constitute 89% of the farming community, in addition to the
individual land of ST/SC/BPL/ land reform beneficiaries will augment the impact on
agricultural productivity and household income
Timely measurement of works
Recognizing the need for adequate human resource for timely measurement of work, the
authority took the following initiatives:
All activities required to process payment of wages must invariably be completed as per
timelines given in the circular of the Ministry dated 29th Oct 2010. This includes, closure of
muster on 6th day, MB to be brought to appropriate authority on 8th day or before and so
on. Penal provision (Sec 25 of the Act) should invariably be invoked for delays. A flow chart
with time schedule has been suggested to the States. I. Closing of muster roll by 6th day after
start of the work. II. Bringing muster roll measurement book by 8th day. III. Entry of muster
roll in MIS and generation of pay orders by 9th and 10th days. IV. Submission of pay order at
the Block post office/bank, generation of information wage slip transfer of pay order at the
village post office/bank within 11th and 12th day. V. Deposit of wages in the account of wage
earners 13th day. VI. Entry of disbursement of wage into MIS within 16th day.

Timely wage Payment

• The Ministry is instructing the states to operationalize the model and report regularly on
progress. The states are supposed to identify unserved areas for BC model and discuss with
banks. The Ministry has also issued executive instructions for appointment of Business
correspondent (BC) system
• Many Post Offices do not keep adequate cash amount. Ministry has issues instruction to
State that the District Administration should place adequate amounts with all the post offices
to facilitate payment;
• District Administration is supposed to facilitate transport and security for carrying cash
• Alternate Institutions like SHG Federations, LAMPS, Non-Scheduled Commercial Banks and
Private Banks like Cooperative Bank, RRBs, Gramin Banks etc, JFM Groups of proven track
records and others could be authorized to act as BCs.

Monitoring & Evaluation:

Extensive care has been taken in monitoring the NAREGA Programme. Gram
Panchayat and local administration plays a crucial role in verifying or monitoring the
proceedings of scheme.
The Gram Panchayat has to verify the following before registering the household for
MGNREGA
 If the details mentioned in the application are correct
 If the applicant or the household is a local resident of the Gram Panchayat mentioned
in the application
 If the applicant is adult member of the household
On verifying the above mentioned information, if the Gram Panchayat certifies the
eligibility of household for MGNREGA a job card would be issued to him which will act as
license to work. Since employment has to be provided within 15 days of applying for work,
the Gram Panchayat cannot withhold the decision for longer periods and thus reducing the
unnecessary delays. Even if employment cannot be provided due to genuine reasons, the
applicant will be entitled to unemployment allowance.
In order to ensure accountability and transparency, the person to whom the Job Card was
issued will be its custodian and Job Cards found in the possession of the functionaries of
programme without any valid reason shall be considered as an offence.
Quality Monitoring:
Ensuring the quality of work done and the quality of implementation is very
important and hence will be taken up by external monitors and will comprise of two parts:
National level monitors and State Quality Monitors. The State Quality Monitors will be
allotted for each district and a nodal officer of the rank of no less than Superintending
Engineer will be responsible for coordinating the work of all State Quality Monitors in the
estate. In order to ensure transparency the nodal officer shall be independent of
implementation machinery.
Evaluation:
As the scheme was implemented through a strong collaborative partnership of Gram
Sabha, local vigilance and monitoring committees and Self Help Groups. As a result, active
role by civil society organizations has been ensured. Through online monitoring with the help
of Monitoring and information system, officially the scheme was embedded with inbuilt
monitoring and evaluation system at every layer of implementation
For evaluating the programme properly one should understand the objective of
MGNREGA in the first place. The aim of the programme is to guarantee at least 100 days of
employment in a financial year to any rural household whose adults irrespective of their
gender are willing to participate in unskilled manual work. The objective clearly states that
the view point of beneficiaries is of paramount importance than assessing what amount of
work has been carried out. With this understanding at the back of our mind, a survey was
carried out in districts such that they are scattered around India by targeting 300 beneficiaries
from each district. The beneficiaries are selected such that there is appropriate
representation of various geography and social backgrounds. Through open-ended questions,
data on several factors or variables were collected from these people who are participants of
NREGA programme.
Views of the participants was also captured on the modus operandi followed for the
distribution of job cards by the concerned officials. One tenth of the people participated in
the survey revealed that 10% of the eligible adult members of the family are not included in
the job card.
One of the major & important objectives of the programme is to prevent migration of
unskilled and landless labour force from rural to urban areas. A quarter of the families
surveyed are of the opinion that there is migration in search of job from their respective
villages. In the western region, the situation is much aggravated where half of them said that
there is migration from their villages. The situation in North-east region is pathetic that in a
district called North Lakimpur, almost all of them opined that there is migration for jobs.
A general perception or inference from the above revelations could be that there
might be migration in expectation of better wages. Contrary to such general expectation close
to seventy percent of the beneficiaries stated that the migration is only for wages to support
basis sustenance and not in expectation of better wages.
 Around 85% of the respondents have stated that their names were read out in the
Gram Sabha and the rest have said that their names were not read out in the Gram Sabha
meeting.
Moving on to the other important aspect of the programme i.e. the ability of the
programme to uplift the rural households from poverty and to improve their overall quality
of life. One caveat in assessing the impact of the scheme on the quality of life is that the
scheme is applicable only for 100 days and hence the effect will not be uniform. However,
though the span of impact is limited the varied patterns is consumption behaviour during that
period provided with rich date for assessing the impact of scheme on the quality of life. The
people are divided into four income groups with the help of earlier surveys and tried to
observe difference in the percentage of people falling into those income groups post the
implementation NREGA programme. It is much more pronounced in the eastern region where
there is significant reduction of low income group.
In order to assess the impact of scheme with the help of consumption patterns, the
beneficiaries were divided into three categories. I) People spending less than Rs.500 on food
items per month II) People spending between 500 and 700 on food and III) People spending
more than 700 on food items. It is found out that there is perceptible shift in the percentage
of beneficiaries who are spending more than Rs.800 per month on food from 49.5% to 56.5%
The quality of improvement in life can also be understood from the increase in
spending on non-food items. The survey shows there is a significant jump in the percentage
of people spending more than Rs.800 on non-food items clearly indicating an improvement
in the quality of life.

Risk Analysis & ways to mitigate them:

Risk of selecting unintended households as beneficiaries:
Other than rural households or people with experience in manual labour and non-
domiciled contractor’s workers might participate in the NREGA program.
Issuance of job cards has a larger role to play in fixing this issue. Since they are
confirmed on the spot against an already created database, the possibility of renting the job
cards was removed through creation of greater visibility.
Risk of implementing the scheme when not in need:
As the scheme is supposed to be implemented for only 100 days in a financial year, it
is very important to execute the scheme when the households are in dire need of work and
not when there is sufficient amount of work. It should be understood that the scheme is
intended to provide work for the labour and not labour for performing tasks
The process of application submitting helps in mitigating the issue. As the
functionaries are obliged to provide work within fifteen days application for the programme
people will apply when there is trim season for career.
Risk related to choice of work:
Since there could be possibility of service provider based performs or material
extensive work, to remove them selection of all workers will be done by Gram Sabha and also
shall be displayed for full public view and thus improving visibility.
Risk related to Dimension of work done:
Regular amount of the work should be done according to the standard non-urban
rates. Any sort of arbitrage will incentivise non intended people to strive for participation in
the programme which will lead to beating up the original purpose of the programme.
 The risk can be mitigated through reading out the names of beneficiaries on the
performing place to avoid fake information and below par transaction or below
recommended level transaction of income.
Risk related to payments:
There is a possibility of money falling into the wrong hands if it is given in the form of
cash on the spot due to lack of constant vigilance by higher officials. In order to overcome this
problem money will be deposited through post offices as well as private or government banks
depending on the availability.
However, this might pop up another issue of lack of access to appropriate banking
facilities in rural areas. The beneficiaries have to visit the nearest bank or ATM which might
be located in a nearby town to get his daily wage. This might result in loss of valuable time
and opportunity to work for that person. This situation actually explains the need to act fast
in the improving the reach of banking facilities

Risk related to upkeep of durable resources:

Once the programme is successfully implemented for 100 days in the financial year,
the Gram Panchayat might be left with some durable resources and not taking proper care of
them would lead to unnecessary increment in cost of executing the programme next time
Appropriate audit mechanism is required to prevent that from happening and social
audits are being performed for proper upkeep of not only the durable resources but also the
quality of work environment especially for women.

Critical Review of the MGNREGA programme:

MGNREGA being the world’s largest social security scheme, garners lot of media coverage
and many stakeholders has different opinion on the scheme. In the subsequent part of this
report we will critically review the scheme through different lenses such as Media,
Government (Central & State), Stakeholders etc.
Media critique:
A common stand across the media is that MGNREGA is a good scheme which is targeted to
eradicate poverty and provide a better livelihood to the population under BPL. Based on
several field studies conducted by various organizations and ground work done by many
media houses they are of the view that the success of the programme is dependent on many
factors some of them are,
1. Universalistic Anti-poverty programme with no discretion against any sects of the
rural India who apply for work under the scheme
2. Pressure of the newly mobilized political outsiders such as the likes of Anna Hazare,
an activist judiciary and civil society groups
3. According to the research done by Aditya Dasgupta6 anti-poverty programs are seen
by all the political parties as the way to win elections at state as well as center. Some
of the findings are
_____________________________
6
“Anti-poverty schemes, a success story” by Aditya Dasgupta, The BusinessLine, April 7, 2014
 a. Based on a comparison of Congress’s election performance across state
assembly constituencies during the early stages of the programme’s
implementation (when some districts had received the programme while
others had not), suggests that NREGA did cause a large increase in Congress’s
vote share in state elections. There has been increase in vote share by as much
as 4% which makes a huge difference in the Indian elections.
b. Being associated with MGNREGA during natural calamities non-congress ruled
state parties were also able to benefit in the elections, which shows that there
is enough room for the opposing parties to take credit for the work done
through the scheme.
A case study of the land slide victory of Congress-led UPA in 2009 points to a strong adoption
of MGNREGA by the government in its previous term.
Though overall there has been a positive view from the media there also has been some
concerns7 from their side on some the points such as given below,
1. Though the scheme forces government to provide work to the applicants, there is no
provision to measure the productivity or durability of the work done.
2. Since, there is incentive for the worker to turn-up for the work, there is no mechanism
to ensure their full involvement and no incentive to expedite the work and finish the
job as per the requirement.
3. There are administrative glitches as well, resulting in delays in work sanctioning. As a
result of the delays in every step of the approval process only 10% of the 4.8 crore
households were able to benefit from the scheme in 2015-16.

As per the research done by The Hindu8 there has been revelations that the governments are
providing lesser and lesser work under the scheme and the sanctions are hard to come by.
The number of households that received the legally guaranteed 100 days of work fell from
51.73 lakhs in 2012-13 to 46.73 lakh in 2013-14 (under the UPA), and then dipped sharply to
23.24 lakh in 2014-15 (under the NDA). One explanation for this could be that funds are not
being released by the Centre. If we look the amount sanctioned we could see a steep decline
from Rs. 27, 484 crore in 2013-14 to Rs. 17,074 crores in 2014-15, which again points to the
reduction in funding to the scheme. But, government could defend itself by arguing that there
has been fall in demand for the works under the scheme.
Though MGNREGA looks to be a fine scheme there has been many opponents to the scheme
and if the government continues to decrease the funding for the scheme and keep on delaying
the payments for the scheme beneficiaries there is a concern form the media that the scheme
could wind-up one day.
Government’s view
UPA government has clearly supported the scheme and has used it as a tool to come in to
power again in 2009 elections. In many of the election rallies and speeches they constantly
kept them associated with the MGNREGA scheme which has worked pretty well for them as
it is being an anti-poverty scheme they were able to attract the majority of the vote bank, i.e,
the poor.
______________________________
7
“All you wanted to know about MGNREGA” by Muthukumar K, The BusinessLine, February 13, 2017
8 “Is the MGNREGA being set up for failure?” by G. Sampath & S. Rukhmini, The Hindu, April 3, 2016
Even the current BJP government has been more critical about the scheme as the PM Sh.
Narendra Modi himself has branded the scheme as “monument to 60 years of failure”. From
the data given in the critique of media it is quite clear that the government has been
decreasing its sanctions for the works done under the scheme though it has been allotting
record amounts of budget for the same. This implies that the governments are using this
scheme only as a tool to garner the votes of the poor by showing on the outside that they are
pro poor and doling out huge sum of money to eradicate poverty.

Empirical studies and research done by acclaimed institutes

As per the research done by IISc Bangalore8, MGNREGA works has contributed to improved
ground water levels, increased water availability for irrigation, increased area irrigated by
ground and surface water sources, and increased availability of drinking water for humans
and livestock.
According to the report published by MoRD8, the works done on regenerating the rural
ecosystem has aided the workers to move from wage employment to sustainable
employment. The scheme has been the critical source of income for the women-headed
households, providing as much as 15% of the total household income in some states.
According to an empirical study9 conducted by Laura Zimmerman of University of Michigan,
USA the MGNREGA scheme has benefited the women workers which is in-line with the report
published by MoRD. Also the study suggests that the most important function of the scheme
may be to indirectly enforce minimum wages in the private sector during the agricultural main
season, but may be less successful in providing employment and income for large enough
sections of the working-age population during the agricultural off-season when households
are especially dependent on additional sources of income.
As per the study “Impact of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme in India on Rural
Poverty and Food Security”10 the following are the effects of the scheme.
a. The eroding profitability in the agriculture has been forcing the farmers to apply for
the work under the scheme and helped them to offset the problems.
b. Introduction of many works under the scheme has brought down the migration levels
thus retaining the rural workforce to perform the jobs.
c. The scheme overall has brought in a paradigm shift in the rural labour opportunities
and livelihoods in India and the momentum could sustain only with innovation in work
opportunities.

______________________________________
9 Zimmermann, Laura, Labor Market Impacts of a Large-Scale Public Works Program:

Evidence from the Indian Employment Guarantee Scheme. IZA Discussion Paper No. 6858.
Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2158000
10 Kareemulla K, Ramasundaram P, Kumar S, RamaRao C. A. Impact of National Rural

Employment Guarantee Scheme in India on Rural Poverty and Food Security . Curr Agri
Res 2013;1(1):13-28. Available from: http://www.agriculturejournal.org/?p=388
Conclusion
With our critical analysis of the every aspect of the MGNREGA scheme we are of the opinion
that even though there has been lot achieved through the scheme in eradicating poverty by
way of providing guaranteed 100 days of work for the poor in the rural areas, there are many
things which could have been improved up on this grand scheme to make it a huge success.
Some of the suggestions to make it a successful program in alleviating the poverty in India
are,
1. As the government is planning to setup skill development centers across the country
they could link the two scheme to provide better tools and skills to the rural
population to make them more employable not only in the government schemes but
also in private jobs
2. Though some of the works done under the scheme are building assets for the villages
many of them lack quality and some lack purpose. Hence, there is a need for making
everyone accountable for the works and execute more promising and meaningful
projects which are better in quality as well.
3. With the government moving towards digitalization it makes sense to setup ATMs and
mobile banks in the rural areas to facilitate the usage of the same.
4. Government should also take steps to teach the rural population of the benefits of the
scheme to the village as well as the importance of going digital instead of daily wages.
5. By educating the rural population well government should move fully in to the digital
payment system to ensure faster processing of the payments for the workers and
reduce delays.

References
1. “Anti-poverty schemes, a success story” by Aditya Dasgupta, The BusinessLine, April 7, 2014
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/antipoverty-schemes-a-success-
story/article5883555.ece
2. “All you wanted to know about MGNREGA” by Muthukumar K, The BusinessLine, February
13, 2017
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/columns/slate/all-you-want-to-know-about-
mgnrega/article9539721.ece
3. “Is the MGNREGA being set up for failure?” by G. Sampath & S. Rukhmini, The Hindu, April 3,
2016
http://www.thehindu.com/sunday-anchor/is-the-mgnrega-being-set-up-for-
failure/article7265266.ece
4. Zimmermann, Laura, Labor Market Impacts of a Large-Scale Public Works Program:
Evidence from the Indian Employment Guarantee Scheme. IZA Discussion Paper No.
6858. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2158000
5. Kareemulla K, Ramasundaram P, Kumar S, RamaRao C. A. Impact of National Rural
Employment Guarantee Scheme in India on Rural Poverty and Food Security . Curr Agri
Res 2013;1(1):13-28. Available from: http://www.agriculturejournal.org/?p=388
6. http://nrega.nic.in/
7. http://www.mapsofindia.com/my-india/government/mnrega-progress-made-by-
modi-government-in-one-year
8. https://www.outlookindia.com/newswire/story/steps-taken-to-ensure-proper-
nrega-implementation-govt
9. http://www.nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx
10. http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/Planning.aspx
11. http://nrega.nic.in/Circular_Archive/archive/Operational_guidelines_4thEdition_eng
_2013.pdf
12. http://www.mgnrega.co.in/funding.htm
13. http://planningcommission.gov.in/reports/genrep/rep_NREGA.pdf