Indian Government enacted the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) on August 25, 2005. The NREGA provides a legal guarantee for one hundred days of employment in every financial year to adult members of any rural household willing to do unskilled manual work at the statutory minimum wage. The NREGA went operational with 200 poorest and backward districts covered in the first phase in February 2006 and got extended to 130 more districts from April last year. The scheme is expected to cover the entire county in the next 3 years.
Since the NREGA draws its strength from being a legislation which guarantees 100 days of employment to every household in the concerned districts, by design it is different from any employment generation scheme that has been previously implemented. It requires a different approach towards employment generation schemes and towards overall involvement of the State in providing the right to employment to its masses (even though it is still far from being a full right). The real challenge as well as the strength of the Act comes from it being given the legitimacy as well as authority from the Indian Parliament, which puts the onus of its implementation in the hand of the recipient as well as that of the implementing authorities. The recipients have a greater role, at least by design, not only in demanding the employment but also in deciding on how the act will be implemented. Such a situation is unique in terms of posing challenges of implementation where the existing system has one of being a dole to be handed to the recipients at the mercy of the ‘babus’ of the state. It also drastically alters the power equations which the agents of the state and the powerful groups within the local society have become used to enjoying.
Despite the well-intentioned nature of the act, it poses necessarily new challenges and enables new ways of exploitation. The main issues concerned with its implementation are its low utilization, woefully inadequate generation of employment, non-payment of minimum wages, absence of facilities at work sites, lack of sufficient number of useful projects, lack of awareness about the act.
It is apparent that many of these problems are inevitable in a completely new pro gramme that requires a basic change in approach on the part of both the state and the citizens who are affected by it. However, despite the shortcomings on various counts in terms of implementation, only time can tell whether this act will be able to become a potent instrument of social and economic change.
Since the NREGA draws its strength from being a legislation which guarantees 100 days of employment to every household in the concerned districts, by design it is different from any employment generation scheme that has been previously implemented. It requires a different approach towards employment generation schemes and towards overall involvement of the State in providing the right to employment to its masses (even though it is still far from being a full right). The real challenge as well as the strength of the Act comes from it being given the legitimacy as well as authority from the Indian Parliament, which puts the onus of its implementation in the hand of the recipient as well as that of the implementing authorities. The recipients have a greater role, at least by design, not only in demanding the employment but also in deciding on how the act will be implemented. Such a situation is unique in terms of posing challenges of implementation where the existing system has one of being a dole to be handed to the recipients at the mercy of the ‘babus’ of the state. It also drastically alters the power equations which the agents of the state and the powerful groups within the local society have become used to enjoying.
Despite the well-intentioned nature of the act, it poses necessarily new challenges and enables new ways of exploitation. The main issues concerned with its implementation are its low utilization, woefully inadequate generation of employment, non-payment of minimum wages, absence of facilities at work sites, lack of sufficient number of useful projects, lack of awareness about the act.
It is apparent that many of these problems are inevitable in a completely new pro gramme that requires a basic change in approach on the part of both the state and the citizens who are affected by it. However, despite the shortcomings on various counts in terms of implementation, only time can tell whether this act will be able to become a potent instrument of social and economic change.