Forced/distress migration is another phenomenon that the NREGS is expected to mitigate. The percentage of migrating households is high in our sample, especially in Maharashtra and Orissa.
The extent of overall migration is high, with the notable exception of Tamil Nadu, where too about 20 per cent of the sample migrates for work. Much of this is seasonal migration, and usually in the lean agricultural season. Often, only men migrate, but not always. The usual pattern is that in the case of the landless without any family foodstocks, entire families migrate. Where there is livestock and double/multiple cropping, men alone migrate.
The highest extent of migration is from the more backward mono-cropped regions of Maharashtra and Orissa. The underdeveloped regions have a higher incidence, duration and distance of migration.
In terms of social category, most migrants belong to the SC and ST categories. Typically, while the former are landless casual labour (in agriculture and non-agriculture), the latter combine owner cultivation under rainfed conditions with casual labour. Not surprisingly, therefore, casual labour in all sectors has the highest migration.
A majority of migrants go to destinations outside the district, with high out migration to other states from Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu. Again, the most backward districts reported higher migration outside the state.
Most migrants worked in factories in road and building construction, and in agriculture, in that order. The average wage rates of migrants varied across states and varied from between 50 per cent to 125 per cent of the minimum wage, with an average of 80 per cent.
Table 29: Migration Status in Maharashtra
|
|
|
District/ Village
|
% of Migrating Households
|
Destination
|
Duration in months
|
|
|
Outside Village
|
Outside Block/ Mandal
|
Outside District but within State
|
Outside State
|
< = 2
|
3-5
|
6-9
|
|
|
Nanded
|
|
|
Hardap
|
53
|
-
|
9
|
22
|
70
|
26
|
70
|
4
|
|
|
Sayphal
|
3
|
-
|
100
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
100
|
-
|
|
|
Nandurbar
|
|
|
Chinchora
|
67
|
6
|
-
|
-
|
94
|
6
|
17
|
78
|
|
|
Dara
|
5
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
100
|
-
|
-
|
100
|
|
|
Telkhedi
|
88
|
-
|
76
|
-
|
24
|
11
|
53
|
36
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 30: Migration Status in Orissa
|
District/ Village
|
% of Migrating Households
|
Destination
|
Duration in month
|
Outside Village
|
Outside Block/ Mandal
|
Outside district but within State
|
Outside State
|
Daily
|
< 1
|
1 - 3
|
6
|
12
|
Mayurbhanj
|
Kanthi
|
69
|
53
|
26
|
15
|
6
|
53
|
21
|
15
|
6
|
68
|
Bodhimoha
|
81
|
67
|
5
|
2
|
26
|
67
|
2
|
31
|
-
|
-
|
Table 31: Migration Status in Tamil Nadu
|
District/ Village
|
% of Migrating Households
|
Destination
|
Duration in months
|
outside district but within state
|
outside state
|
1
|
2
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
12
|
Nagapattinam
|
Iluppur
|
8
|
75
|
25
|
50
|
25
|
25
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
Keelaiyur
|
20
|
50
|
50
|
30
|
20
|
|
20
|
10
|
20
|
Villuppuram
|
Kalamarudur
|
22
|
18
|
82
|
9
|
-
|
45
|
-
|
-
|
45
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 32: Migration Status in West Bengal
|
|
|
|
District
|
% of Migrating Households
|
Duration in months
|
|
|
|
Daily
|
< 1
|
1
|
2
|
4
|
|
|
|
Bankura
|
28.71
|
58.62
|
3.45
|
-
|
37.93
|
-
|
|
|
|
Midnapur
|
66.34
|
7.46
|
8.96
|
56.72
|
25.37
|
1.49
|
|
|
V. IMPLEMENTATION OF NREGS
Some of the shortcomings in the programme include:
-
Low awareness regarding Scheme details on the part of potential beneficiaries, panchayat members and officials;
-
Back log in registration and Job card distribution;
-
Non-issuance of individual cards;
-
Exclusion of separated/divorced women in natal home and female headed households;
-
Use of the Census definition of household as residents with common kitchen and consequent reduction of per capita entitlements;
-
Arbitrary and unjustifiable criteria for eligibility like age, BPL card, income, or disability etc. for eligibility not permitted by the Act;
-
Exclusion of migrants;
-
Lack of will to register women, the elderly and handicapped;
-
Unrealistically high productivity norms under piece rate and inadequate identification of separate labour processes or the component tasks;
-
Despite the amendment in Parliament deleting the requirement of ‘diligence’, most states have retained it to describe work;
-
No distinction between male and female outturn requirements, no reduction in norms for women and the elderly;
-
Very low wages and non-payment of minimum wages;
-
Payment in cash only in most places is not in keeping with workers’ preferences;
-
Late wage payment;
-
Lack of official will to transform from a supply driven public works programme to a demand driven employment guarantee;
-
No attempt to encourage applications for work;
-
No unemployment allowance or compensation paid to anyone;
-
‘Business as usual’ approach in the selection of works with over emphasis on roads and ponds;
-
No creative thinking on works in the most food-deficit rainy months;
-
Delayed commencement of work due to non-issuance of work orders despite sanctions;
-
Inadequate worksite facilities, esp. childcare and drinking water;
-
Problem of funds to purchase implements for workers;
-
Absence of muster rolls at worksites;
-
Inadequate generation of employment;
-
Under utilization of EGS funds;
-
Shortage of Staff
Slow Progress and Underutilization of funds
Table 33:Financial Performance under NREGA, 2005-2006 (October)
|
S.No
|
State
|
No. of Districts.
|
Month Code
|
% Expenditure against total available funds (including opening balance, last year's dues transferred in this financial year centre's current year transfer and state's share at 10 per cent)
|
% expenditure against current year central funds and state's share at 10 per cent
|
Percentage distribution of expenditure
|
On unskilled wages
|
On semi-skilled and skilled wage
|
On material
|
On contingency
|
1
|
Arunachal Pradesh
|
1
|
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
2
|
Kerala
|
2
|
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
3
|
Maharashtra
|
12
|
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
4
|
Meghalaya
|
2
|
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
5
|
Sikkim
|
1
|
4
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
6
|
Tamil Nadu
|
6
|
7
|
4.38
|
6.21
|
54.67
|
0.00
|
0.67
|
44.67
|
7
|
Mizoram
|
2
|
7
|
7.30
|
20.77
|
77.76
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
22.24
|
8
|
Bihar
|
23
|
7
|
12.79
|
24.16
|
62.15
|
4.02
|
32.79
|
1.03
|
9
|
Uttranchal
|
3
|
8
|
13.80
|
33.05
|
53.46
|
4.53
|
41.29
|
0.72
|
10
|
West Bengal
|
10
|
7
|
13.96
|
25.17
|
64.57
|
2.12
|
10.32
|
1.73
|
11
|
Uttar Pradesh
|
22
|
8
|
18.39
|
36.02
|
68.10
|
3.66
|
26.11
|
2.13
|
12
|
Assam
|
7
|
7
|
18.45
|
65.29
|
58.45
|
1.13
|
38.10
|
2.31
|
13
|
Nagaland
|
1
|
7
|
21.80
|
67.74
|
60.00
|
0.00
|
40.00
|
0.00
|
14
|
Jharkhand
|
20
|
7
|
22.47
|
33.88
|
62.56
|
7.65
|
28.78
|
1.02
|
15
|
Jammu & Kashmir
|
3
|
8
|
24.52
|
45.16
|
63.96
|
21.11
|
14.07
|
0.86
|
16
|
Harayana
|
2
|
7
|
25.98
|
55.74
|
70.40
|
0.75
|
15.19
|
13.66
|
17
|
Himachal Pradesh
|
2
|
8
|
30.67
|
47.82
|
60.30
|
4.85
|
33.95
|
0.90
|
18
|
Orissa
|
19
|
8
|
31.09
|
33.17
|
53.63
|
9.07
|
36.56
|
0.73
|
19
|
Gujarat
|
6
|
8
|
31.14
|
59.15
|
62.90
|
1.02
|
9.71
|
26.38
|
20
|
Tripura
|
1
|
8
|
32.99
|
87.27
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
NA
|
21
|
Karanataka
|
5
|
8
|
36.52
|
66.06
|
60.45
|
2.90
|
33.84
|
2.80
|
22
|
Madhya Pradesh
|
18
|
6
|
48.69
|
45.22
|
63.71
|
5.52
|
30.34
|
0.43
|
23
|
Rajasthan
|
6
|
8
|
51.77
|
52.78
|
80.85
|
2.97
|
15.48
|
0.70
|
24
|
Andhra Pradesh
|
13
|
8
|
51.95
|
70.54
|
80.64
|
0.20
|
0.61
|
18.54
|
25
|
Chattisgarh
|
11
|
7
|
57.64
|
71.29
|
67.65
|
2.33
|
29.76
|
0.26
|
26
|
Punjab
|
1
|
8
|
63.91
|
126.41
|
58.60
|
0.00
|
39.17
|
2.22
|
27
|
Manipur
|
1
|
7
|
67.95
|
134.00
|
58.60
|
4.19
|
37.20
|
0.00
|
|
TOTAL
|
200
|
|
30.46
|
41.02
|
66.49
|
4.33
|
25.32
|
2.67
|
Source: http://nrega.nic.in/
All the states told us that they would not be able to fully absorb first installment within the prescribed time. The utilization levels varied between 6 per cent and 34 per cent in the selected states. In the case of West Bengal and Tamil Nadu the Programme had really taken off very well, but the Election Commission’s ill-advised decision to stop the NREGS before the elections put a damper on the work. In both the states, the process of registration and issuing job cards had taken off and worksites started until they were abruptly halted by the EC. In Orissa, works for the lean season have not started till now. In Maharashtra the scheme is being implemented on virtually the same lines as the former EGS.
The states have a low absorptive capacity at the moment due to a combination of factors, the most important being lack of administrative staff and slow percolation of details to the lower bureaucracy on the one hand and lack of awareness and pressure from potential beneficiaries from below, on the other. There is no cause for alarm, since systems do not change overnight. Both these constraints are likely to ease over time, but not by themselves. At the moment, a perfectly good programme is being stymied by a nervous and insensitive administration, which requires a strong political message and orientation of the bureaucracy. In addition, administrative, technical and financial empowerment of Panchayats and a strong and organized mobilization of the masses are both vital to strengthen grassroots institutions.
Mass organizations like women's organizations, agricultural workers and small peasant organizations are ultimately most important, since as we have discussed elsewhere in the Report, it is the extent of mass mobilization and bargaining power that has determined the ability of workers to access their entitlements. There are also two institutions that are important for the mobilization of workers and potential beneficiaries. The first are SHGs, especially for women, not only for micro-credit but also to organize women. The second is a formal assembly of registered workers, where a host of issues such as work selection, working conditions, wages and worksite facilities may be discussed.
|