PERSPECTIVES employment generated in 2014–15 was The MGNREGA Crisis very small in some states, for example, all r ural households in Uttar Pradesh Insights from Jharkhand and Maharashtra, on an average got work for only about fi ve days in the en- tire fi nancial year (Table 1, p 39). Ankita Aggarwal Budget Caps: The central government A decade after coming into force, he Mahatma Gandhi National funds the wages to be paid to unskilled the Mahatma Gandhi National R ural Employment Guarantee MGNREGA workers and 75% of the mate- MGNREGA Rural Employment Guarantee TAct ( ) has been in a rial costs; the rest is paid by the state crisis for a few years now. Rural workers government. Every year, a certain allo- Act is suffering from a decline are fi nding it increasingly hard to get cation is made for MGNREGA in the union in employment, budget caps, work and payment on time. Most budget, but if required the central gov- delays in wage payments and of them are also denied their other ernment gives funds over and above this rampant violations of workers’ entitlements u nder the act such as allocation, as the programme is meant worksite facilities, unemployment allow- to be demand-driven. entitlements. An examination of ance (when work is not given on time), However, in 2014–15 the central gov- the case of Jharkhand points to and compensation in case wages are ernment treated the initial allocation reasons for this crisis, including paid with delays. of `34,000 crore as a cap on MGNREGA the absence of a strong grievance This article discusses the nature and expenditure. As a result, when funds scale of the MGNREGA c risis in the coun- dried up towards the end of that fi n- redressal system, weak fi nancial try and goes on to examine the reasons ancial year, workers were denied work institutions, acute shortage of for the crisis in Jharkhand, in the hope without any compensation in the form functionaries and indiscriminate that this will help shed light on the situa- of un employment allowance. Apart use of technology. However, tion in other parts of the country. Lastly, from the budget caps, delays in transfer it discusses some of the promising initia- of funds from the Ministry of Rural some initiatives taken by the tives that have been taken recently to Development also hampered the ability state government and civil improve MGNREGA in Jharkhand. of states to provide timely work to society in the recent past open up This article draws on offi cial data all workers d emanding employment. MGNREGA new possibilities for improving from the website, existing In 2015–16, the budget caps were re- l iterature on the programme in Jhar- moved, but delays and uncertainties the programme. khand, discussions with activists working in the fl ow of funds continued to affect in the state, and several years of work on MGNREGA. MGNREGA in Jharkhand in association with local help centres for rural workers, Delays in Wage Payments: As per offi - civil society o rganisations and the state cial data, 70% of MGNREGA wages were government. paid with delays (more than 15 days a fter the completion of a week’s work) in Nature and Scale of the Crisis 2014–15; 64% of the delayed payments were made more than a month late. In Employment Crash: Over the past fi ve Punjab and West Bengal, the proportion years, there has been a major crash of delayed payments was higher than in the scale of MGNREGA employment. 90%.1 In 2014–15, 155 crore person-days of MGNREGA work were generated across Shrinking Rights: Since MGNREGA was the country, just about half the quantum e nacted 10 years ago, several entitle- of employment generated in 2009–10. In ments of workers have been curtailed. The author would like to thank Jean Drèze Andhra Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, em- To illustrate: and Siraj Dutta for their comments and ployment has fallen by more than half in (i) MGNREGA is no longer linked to the suggestions. the last two years alone. The reduction Minimum Wages Act. The MGNREGA Ankita Aggarwal (aggarwal.ankita87@gmail. in B ihar’s employment has been as large wage is now fi xed at the discretion of the com) is with the National Institute of Rural as 60% between 2014–15 and 2012–13. c entral government (Drèze 2015). As a Development, Hyderabad. Even in absolute terms, the scale of r esult, in several states, MGNREGA wage 38 may 28, 2016 vol lI no 22 EPW Economic & Political Weekly PERSPECTIVES Table 1: Statewise Status of MGNREGA in 2014–15 other parts of the country, some have had State Average Number of Days of Proportion (%) of Persondays Notified Wage Proportion (%) to go as far as Kerala (Aggarwal 2015). MGNREGA Work Provided Per Accounted for Rate (`) of Wages Paid Employed Rural Women Scheduled Scheduled with Delays Household Household Castes Tribes Disruptions in Funds: Like the rest of Andhra Pradesh 47 11 59 23 12 169 59 the country, Jharkhand suffered from Arunachal Pradesh 14 10 30 0 90 155 52 the budget caps imposed by the central Assam 22 4 28 6 15 167 67 government in 2014–15. The same year, Bihar 34 2 37 28 2 158 75 Chhattisgarh 32 13 50 11 32 157 71 the state also faced long delays in receiv- Gujarat 35 3 43 7 40 167 54 ing funds from the Ministry of Rural Haryana 28 2 42 44 0 236 82 D evelopment. However, the blame for Himachal Pradesh 42 15 61 27 8 193 77 this situation lay partly with the state, as Jammu and Kashmir 36 8 25 5 20 157 80 it did not complete the process of collect- Jharkhand 41 10 32 14 36 158 31 ing MGNREGA audit reports from all the Karnataka 40 5 47 16 8 191 88 districts and forwarding them to the Kerala 43 14 92 17 4 212 82 centre on time; a prerequisite for the re- Madhya Pradesh 42 11 43 16 29 157 82 lease of funds from the ministry. Maharashtra 53 5 43 10 19 168 72 Manipur 22 26 38 3 52 175 11 Due to the budget caps and delays in Meghalaya 48 39 43 1 94 153 88 receiving funds from the ministry in Mizoram 22 41 40 0 100 170 2 2014–15, Jharkhand was left with very Nagaland 22 33 31 1 95 155 70 little money from October 2014 to the Odisha 36 7 34 16 42 164 79 rest of the fi nancial year to provide Punjab 22 2 57 77 0 200 93 e mployment and ensure timely payment Rajasthan 46 18 68 20 26 163 59 of wages. Given the uncertainty about Sikkim 43 26 48 4 36 155 56 r eceiving additional funds in the rest of Tamil Nadu 47 28 85 29 1 167 71 the fi nancial year, local offi cials became Telangana 43 13 61 24 19 169 71 Tripura 88 83 49 17 44 155 30 reluctant to open works; they preferred Uttar Pradesh 34 5 25 35 1 156 79 violating workers’ right to work than Uttarakhand 32 10 51 18 3 156 46 dealing with the hassles of delays in West Bengal 33 12 41 32 8 169 92 wage payments. Further, the ministry India 40 9 55 22 17 170 70 exempted the states from paying com- Source: Author’s calculations using official data from nrega.nic.in and Census of India 2011. pensation to workers who did not re- is lower than the state’s minimum agri- Most workers who are denied work are ceive their wages on time due to short- cultural wage. In Punjab, for example, also unable to secure the unemployment age of funds. the MGNREGA wage in 2014–15 was `66 allowance.2 Instances of payment of the below the state’s minimum agricultural severely reduced compensation amount Lack of Accountability: Even when funds wage. in case of wage delays are also few and are available, workers are often unable to (ii) At the time of enactment, MGNREGA far between. Worksite facilities (drink- get work because of delays in sanctioning entitled workers to claim compensation ing water, fi rst-aid kit, shade for rest, schemes, starting schemes or allotting of up to `3,000 in case of delays in wage crèche for children below six years of work to workers. Such situations arise be- payments, as per the Payment of Wages age and notice board) have become a cause of a general lack of accountability of Act. But the revised schedules of the act rare sight and grievance redressal re- local offi cials and MGNREGA functionaries, now entitle workers to a compensation mains a distant dream. creating an a tmosphere of impunity, which amount of only 0.05% of the pending results in rampant violations of workers’ wages per day of delay. The Case of Jharkhand e ntitlements. (iii) The initial MGNREGA guidelines The crisis in the employment guarantee Failure of the state government to im- r equired the implementation of the pro- programme has affected Jharkhand as pose penalties on the erring offi cials and gramme act to be consistent with the well, a state which has amongst the high- functionaries has also contributed to Persons with Disabilities Act, which est levels of poverty in the country and large-scale delays in wage payments. mandates spending 3% of the funds for tremendous potential for MGNREGA Timely payment of wages requires sev- the benefi t of persons with disabilities.