More Menu

5 Anti-poverty Programmes In India

byPosted at

 Content

  1. Introductoin
  2. What is Public Works?
  3. Public Works under Anti-poverty Programmes In India

Introduction

In order to protect households from temporary job losses and to assist the poor in finding more temporary employment, countries have implemented public works programmes with a variety of objectives. These objectives include protection from significant covariate shocks (such as natural disasters, macro-crises, or seasonal labour demand shortfalls). The government of India's public works programme (PWP) will be covered in detail in this module. The goal is to discuss public works programmes using examples from programmes like the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Scheme (MEGS), National Rural Employment Scheme (NREP), Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Scheme (RLEGP), Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY), and the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. Understanding how public works programmes are intended to be welfare and empowerment tactics requires knowledge of these programmes.

What is Public Works?

Public labour programmes, sometimes known as "workfare," are social protection initiatives that give the poor access to employment and income prospects. The funding for these programmes may come from NGOs, donor organisations, or national governments. These seek to produce "temporary employment for workers." The general expectation for public works programmes is that they will produce two different types of outputs: first, "short-term jobs for workers to increase their incomes," and second, "creation of public goods in the form of new infrastructure, or improvement of infrastructure, or delivery of services." Three main consequences are anticipated from a successful Public works programme: "wages (in cash or kind), managerial costs, and material costs," to name a few. These include: smoothing of rising income and spending, b. a decline in poverty, a narrowing of the poverty gap, and c. infrastructure development." (WB 2009) National governments have used public works for a variety of goals throughout history and in various regions of the world.

Public works has been used as a safety net programme since the early 20th century to combat poverty or assist the poor in finding more temporary employment. Public works has been used as a protective instrument against "large covariate shocks" to more seasonal or temporary fluctuations in incomes and consumption through, "temporary job losses, fight against poverty, or to help the poor gain more temporary employment." Public workfare programmes have been used for a long time in nations like India and Bangladesh to combat chronic poverty and address the labour shortage during the lean crop season. In post-disaster and post-conflict settings, public works have also grown to be a crucial channel for delivering humanitarian aid (WB 2009).

The public works program's ability to "self target" is one of its important features that makes it a suitable tool for social protection and poverty alleviation. The non-poor are not eager to join in such programmes due to the low wages and demand for significant labour. Providing in-kind compensation (such as food grains) instead of wages further diminishes the likelihood that non-poor people will participate (Devereux and Solomon 2006). However, cutting salaries to stop leaks shouldn't lead to unethically low pay levels that are very poor at reducing poverty or providing social safety. Self-targeting and poor pay in public works programmes may also have ethical repercussions (ibid). If the public works program's salary rate is set higher than the national minimum wage, however, nonpoor people will also join it and share the program's limited resources. As a result, wage rates are seen as a crucial factor in determining the distributional outcome of such programmes (Subbarao 1997 cited in Devereux and Solomon 2006). If there is price inflation in the local economy, the value of income received under PWP may decrease. Therefore, wage rates should be adjusted as necessary based on the type of local economic fluctuations, ensuring that recipients are able to acquire subsistence wages (ibid:9).

The selection, planning, implementation, and oversight of public works programmes also require a robust network of local institutions with the necessary technical and administrative skills (ibid:10). Greater local involvement is thought to enhance programme outcomes by fostering a sense of greater ownership over the effort.

Public works, also known as Rural Works in India, are special government initiatives designed to give rural residents temporary employment during times of seasonal food scarcity, crop failure, natural disasters, or persistent poverty in order to help the more vulnerable members of the rural population make ends meet. In order to sustain rural lives, the public works programme also aims to develop rural infrastructure, productive community assets, and local natural resource regeneration. Such projects are self-selective as only persons who are in difficulty want to do manual work for wages or kind. When these programmes are backed by the law, they take on a rights-based nature, obliging the government to begin construction projects at the behest of those who are in need. Thus, public works programmes have the potential to develop beyond only creating jobs and constructing assets to become a vehicle for empowering communities around fundamental rights and entitlements. India's public works programmes have only ever been available to rural disadvantaged populations. Policymakers have recently been debating a programme of self-targeted public works for the urban poor. Public works programmes in urban areas, which are common in various Latin American and African nations, could involve the urban poor community in the design and implementation of state-funded employment guarantee schemes and foster coordination with skill-building initiatives (WB 2011:32).

Programs for public works contain a gender component. Women's access to wage employment created by public works projects and to the resources or infrastructure developed as a result of such programmes have been used to conceptualise this (Dejardin 1996). Public works programmes have been discovered to be reinforcing societal disparities based on gender-based division of labour through their concentration on the "productive realm" from a gender perspective. Typical public works initiatives also cost women more time and effort. Some authors have proposed refocusing public works programmes on labor-intensive social sector tasks like care work, which are more likely to be carried out by underprivileged women (Holmes and Jones 2011). By promoting gender equality in the community, public works programmes can have positive effects beyond those of employment creation and income support (Dejardin 1996: 18)

Observers claim that public labour programmes can only be successful if they meet a few prerequisites. The programmes must have clear objectives, produce beneficial public goods, have access to reliable funding sources, be able to fix wages at the appropriate level, create an effective, decentralised implementation structure, and most importantly, determine the proper coverage, scope, and duration of the intervention. Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, such as a social audit component, are also essential (WB 2009).

Public Works under Anti-poverty Programmes In India

The Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme (RLEGP)

Programs for Public or Rural Works have been a component of government anti-poverty initiatives. The government's Food for Work Program is a prime illustration of this (1977-78). During a period of low agricultural production, the FWP sought to provide rural employment and long-lasting assets (such as irrigation tanks, panchayat and school buildings, roads, and drainage systems). From the buffer stock, food grains were used as payment for labour. The initiative assisted in maintaining wages and preventing increases in the cost of food during years of drought. The Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme (RLEGP), a centrally supported programme, was first implemented in 1983 as part of the 6th Plan with the aim of giving landless households in rural areas employment. It sought to build enduring assets as well as 100 days of employment for one member of a rural landless household per year. For specialised initiatives like social forestry, work that would help SC/ST, and housing under the Indira Awas Yojana, funds for works-projects were designated.

The National Rural Employment Programme (NREP)

The National Rural Employment Programme (NREP) was a federally funded scheme that provided pay employment during the lean agricultural months to families living below the poverty line, marginal farmers, and landless individuals. The central government contributed food grains from the buffer stock to be used as salaries in the employment programme as part of its NREP contribution. States were urged to buy locally grown grains in order to support regional farmers and maintain steady food supplies. In order to implement the scheme, contractors were to be removed from rural construction projects and a stronger role was given to the panchayati raj institutions. Social forestry, soil and water conservation, irrigation, flood protection, the construction and maintenance of village tanks and ponds, school and dispensary facilities, and projects to improve hygiene and sanitation were among the projects to be given priority under the NREP.

The Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY)

The Jawahar Rozgar Yojana was created in 1989 by the merger of RLEGP and NREP (JRY). The goal was to build rural assets and infrastructure in order to give unemployed and underemployed rural residents gainful employment and sustainable livelihoods. Village panchayats were given control over the program's implementation, and the Center and State split the program's costs 80:20. Priority was to be given to BPL, SC, ST, and liberated bonded labour households under JRY, and 30% of the work was to be set aside for women.

The Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS)

The Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS) of the state of Maharashtra stands out among the many public works programmes the government has adopted throughout the decades-long fight against poverty for its strong foundation in the rights-based framework. During the harsh drought years of 1972–1973, EGS was established to solve rural unemployment. It was special because it allowed the rural poor to easily access unskilled manual labour on demand. The EGS sought to improve communal assets and provide employment in rural areas. The relief-focused social programme became a rights-based one with the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act, which was passed in 1977.

The EGS protected the right to work and was a forerunner of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and Act. In 1989, the panchayat-based Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY) paid employment scheme was introduced throughout India. This program's main goal was to provide men and women in rural areas who were unemployed or underemployed and living in poverty with employment during the lean agricultural season. The development of rural assets and community infrastructure was a secondary goal. The Panchayats implemented JRY in the following proportions: 70:15:15 at the village, block, and district levels. JRY cost Rs. 351 billion and generated 7.6 billion person days between 1990–1991 and 2000–2001. Up till November 1998, 190.28 million man-days were produced at a cost of Rs. 1244 crore. The approach was quite successful during years of drought (1972- 73, 1987-88 and 2002-03 droughts). It gave panchayats more power and produced rural assets while defending the poor in rural areas from labour market shocks and poor harvests. Following a protracted drought in the state, the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Scheme was established in 1974. The EGS was enacted in 1977. For unskilled labourers, EGS protects the right to work in the village. It guaranteed a minimum of 100 days of employment along with a number of benefits, including worksite amenities and unemployment benefits. Based on EGS Maharashtra, the Indian government created the National Employment Guarantee Act in 2006.

The main goal of the EGS was to give rural and "c" class local councils profitable and constructive employment. By enhancing rural infrastructure, the secondary goal was to support the growth of the rural economy. The implementation of EGS resulted in significant improvements, including the reduction of seasonal suffering, protection against consumption shortfalls, and prevention of acute distress and expensive forms of adjustment by rural households. EGS served as insurance for the rural poor and high priority marginalised populations that lacked credit and unemployment benefits. The programme increased pressure on agricultural salaries and indirectly impacted agricultural growth. Most significantly, it made it possible for the rural poor to become a political force.

The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA)

In order to strengthen the commitment to livelihood security in rural areas, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) was passed in 2005. Every household whose adult members agree to perform unskilled manual labour would receive at least 100 days of guaranteed wage employment under the MGNREGA in an effort to increase the security of livelihood in rural areas. The Act's proposed effort aims to solve rural distresses brought on by soil erosion, drought, and deforestation. Not only does the Act guarantee a certain number of hours of employment, it also makes an effort to build rural poor people's assets. The MGNREGS was introduced in 200 select districts in 2006, and it was expanded to 130 more districts in 2007–2008. All of the nation's rural areas were included in the Act starting in 2008.

In agricultural environments that are prone to risk, public employment programmes offer stabilising advantages. In India and nearby nations like Bangladesh, rural public works have a proven track record of performance as a tool for seasonal stabilisation and famine relief. Comparative studies in agroclimatically similar villages have demonstrated that the rural, landless poor living in villages with PWS, such as the EGS, have less variable earnings than those living in villages without such programmes. Employment at EGS typically peaked during the dry season and during years of labour shortages and then began to fall. It performed best as a drought-resistance strategy. Long-term advantages could result from the assurance of employment during the lean season, allowing risk-averse rural poor households to make more investments in agricultural production. The additional income during the lean season may also help rural poor people avoid terrible coping strategies like debt and land sales under duress. In other regions of the world, Public Works programmes have been used to alleviate labour market problems that surfaced during economic reforms. In order to address the issue of enormous armies of unskilled employees who were unable to find employment as the countries made the transition to capitalism, public works programmes were started in numerous central European countries in the early 1990s (Ravallion 1991).

Conclusion

In India and nearby nations like Bangladesh, rural public works have a proven track record of performance as a tool for seasonal stabilisation and famine relief. Comparative studies in agroclimatically similar communities have demonstrated that the rural, landless poor in those villages with PWS have less fluctuating earnings than those in those villages without such programmes. As risk-averse rural poor households may become less confined to engage in agricultural production, assurance of employment during lean season may have long-term benefits. The additional income during the lean season may also help rural poor people avoid terrible coping strategies like debt and land sales under duress. In order to solve the problem of enormous armies of unskilled employees who were unable to find employment as the countries made the transition to capitalism, Public Works programmes were used to address labour market challenges that surfaced during economic reforms.

REFERENCE

  1. Bagchee, S. 1984. Employment Guarantee Scheme in Maharashtra. EPW, 19, 37:1633-1638 
  2. Dejardin, A.K. 1996. Public Works Programme, a strategy for poverty alleviation: The Gender Dimension. ILO. http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_emp/documents/publication/wcms_123436.p df 
  3. Del Ninno, C, Subbarao, K and Milazzo, K. 2009. How to Make Public Works Work: A Review of the Experiences. Social Protection and Labour, The World Bank. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOCIALPROTECTION/Resources/SP-Discussionpapers/Safety-Nets-DP/0905.pdf 
  4. Devereux, S and Solomon, C. 2006. Employment Creation Programmes: the Interantional Experience. https://www.ids.ac.uk/files/disc24.pdf
Post a Comment
Tag

Comments

Thank You