1. Dynamics of Economic, Social and Political Power in Vulnerable Rural Labour Market: A Case Study of MGNREGS Workers in Punjab Professor Balwinder Singh Tiwana Deptt. of Economics Punjabi University, Patiala, INDIA

2. MGNREGS – Right driven largest schemes impact on poverty and social security MGNREGS – Right driven largest schemes impact on poverty and social security Financial Structure – up to 2015 – 60% for wages and 40% for material and now this is 51% and 49% Financial Structure – up to 2015 – 60% for wages and 40% for material and now this is 51% and 49% Over 50 million beneficiaries in India but expenditure varies between 0.5 to 1% of GDP Over 50 million beneficiaries in India but expenditure varies between 0.5 to 1% of GDP Impact of wages and on women – increase in wages over the year in 19 states, and in Punjab wage rate increased from Rs. 101 in 2005-06 to 210 in 2015 (Highest in state of Haryana Rs. 251 than in Kerala 229). Now from 1-1-2011 NREGS link with CPI-AL Impact of wages and on women – increase in wages over the year in 19 states, and in Punjab wage rate increased from Rs. 101 in 2005-06 to 210 in 2015 (Highest in state of Haryana Rs. 251 than in Kerala 229). Now from 1-1-2011 NREGS link with CPI-AL Overall in Punjab the women participation varies between 16% to 43% on the basis of women percentage (MGNREGA Sameeksha) Overall in Punjab the women participation varies between 16% to 43% on the basis of women percentage (MGNREGA Sameeksha) Scheme reduced gap in wage rate for men and women (NSSO) Scheme reduced gap in wage rate for men and women (NSSO) Table 1 : Demand of Work and Employment Generation under MGNREGS YearNo. of HHs Demanded Employment HHs provided Employment (%) %age of HHs who availed 100 days of employment %age of SC/ST Beneficiar y %age of Women Beneficiar y 2009-105286460899.3613.4851.1948.10 2010-115576324498.5510.1251.4847.73 2011-125038021399.037.8140.2548.17 2012-135041145596.339.9438.2352.13 2013-145176556992.129.6539.7952.84 2014-154589963586.014.4139.5655.03 Source: Calculated from data available at www.nrega.nic.in visited on 11 May 2015www.nrega.nic.in

3. Rural labour market – 61.79 lakh rural workers (Census 2011) Rural labour market – 61.79 lakh rural workers (Census 2011) Working of Gram Panchayat Working of Gram Panchayat Table 2: Acceptability and Spread of NREGS in Punjab YearApplied for job cards as %age of total rural workers Job cards issued as %age of total rural workers* %age of workers demanded work as of total rural workers* %age of workers worked under MGNREGS as of total rural workers* 2012-1315.0114.924.864.67 2013-1417.6217.309.178.00 2014-1518.0317.496.795.44 Source: www.nrega.nic.in visited on 7 May 2015www.nrega.nic.in Table 3 : Gram Panchayats with Nil Expenditure on NREGS in Punjab Year Gram Panchayats with Nil Expenditure No.%age of Total GPs 13053) 2012-13761258.32 2013-14617447.30 2014-15598945.88 Source: www.nrega.nic.in visited on 11 May 2015www.nrega.nic.in

4. About 50% of rural Punjab is out of this scheme and 80% workers are not covered Table 4: Amount Disbursed as Labour Cost in Punjab YearTotal Accounts (Bank + Post Office) Amount Disbursed (Rs.) Per Account Amount Distributed (Rs.) Per Year 2012-13875667857959048 (0.02%)* 979.78 2013-149511471631640440 (3.64%)* 1715.45 2014-159537351514934842 (0.03%)* 1588.42 *This is percentage of total sanctioned amount for labour as wages Source: www.nrega.nic.in visited on 11 May 2015www.nrega.nic.in Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages. Table 5: Participation of SCs and Women in NREGS in Punjab YearSCs worked as %age of total workers worked (Person-Days) %age of HHs reached 100 days limit %age of women worked as of total workers worked under MGNREGS (person- days) HouseholdsPerson- Days SCs as %age of total SC households worked As %age of total households worked 2012-1380.2878.491.571.5946.36 2013-1477.4276.913.013.0052.73 2014-1579.0676.740.580.7157.43 Note: HHs – Households, SCs – Scheduled Castes Source: (a) www.nrega.nic.in visited on 11 May 2015www.nrega.nic.in (b) Census of India, 2011 at www.census 2011www.census

5. Primary survey of 27 villages and 462 families Beneficiary – highest coverage of BPL families 23.67% 69.66% females beneficiary. 2014-15 – only 649 person – days per village (7 workers for 100 days per year). The average per village – 1997 person – days (as per 2015-16 proposal). Amount disbursed through bank and post office accounts – only 0.02 to 3.64 per cent of sanctioned amount for wages. Source: Field Survey 2014 Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages. 462 (100) (100) 373(80.74) (100) 89(19.26) (100) All 117(100) (25.32) 106(90.60) 28.42 11 (9.40%) (12.36) Others 100(100) (21.65) 80(80.00%) (21.45) 20(20.00%) (22.47) APL 245(100) (53.03) 187(76.33) (50.13) 58(23.67%) (65.17) BPL TotalNon-BeneficiaryBeneficiaryDescription Table 6 : Inclusiveness of NREGS on Basis of Categories

6. Social and Economic Impact Scheme beneficiaries – 71.91% have semi-pucca houses, 64% no separate kitchen, 43.2% no toilet, main source of drinking water is tape or pump, 29.12% have their own electricity connection, 58.95% are illiterate or educated up to primary. Scheme beneficiaries – 71.91% have semi-pucca houses, 64% no separate kitchen, 43.2% no toilet, main source of drinking water is tape or pump, 29.12% have their own electricity connection, 58.95% are illiterate or educated up to primary. Scheme beneficiaries – 79.44% are casual labourers and 96.26% are in informal sector. Scheme beneficiaries – 79.44% are casual labourers and 96.26% are in informal sector. All beneficiaries have job cards but 6.74% paid money to get job card. All most 74% beneficiaries have blank job cards (GPs not entering due to legal action). All beneficiaries have job cards but 6.74% paid money to get job card. All most 74% beneficiaries have blank job cards (GPs not entering due to legal action). 93.26% beneficiaries did not get work within 15 days. 93.26% beneficiaries did not get work within 15 days. Table 16: Different Procedural Activities of MGNREGS Workers DescriptionApplied for WorkGot Work with in 15 days after application Get Unemployment Allowance Yes78 (87.64)5 (5.62)0 (0) No11 (12.36)83 (93.26)89 (100) Don't Know0 (0)01 (1.12)0 (0) All89 (100) Source: Field Survey 2014 Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages

7. Table 17: Number of Days of Work Generated under MGNREGS No of DaysNo of HHsTotal person-days of employment generated Nil06 (6.74)0 upto 2065 (73.03)1131 21-4016 (17.98)520 41-8001 (1.12)62 81-10001 (1.12)100 All89 (100)1813 Average no of day worked per worker20.37 Source: Field Survey 2014 Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages

8. Average days of work per worker – 20.37 person days On an average on the basis of minimum wage rate a worker should get Rs. 4286 during the year but per worker amount to be paid is only Rs. 3916 and out of this to be paid amount only Rs. 1209 per worker has been given without delay i.e. within 15 days of work done. The wage gap of on the basis of gender reduced and stagnation or declining in real wage checked. The wage gap of on the basis of gender reduced and stagnation or declining in real wage checked. Table 18: Average Work Rate, Per Day Wage Rate (Rs.)No. of HHsAverage wage rate (Rs.) upto 10001 (1.12)100 101-15007 (7.87)138 151-20062 (69.67)200 Don’t work06 (6.74)0 Don’t get wages19 (21.35)0 All89 (100)190.94 (13366/70) Source: Field Survey 2014 Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages Table 19 : Days of Employment and Amount Received by Worker, Mean Value DescriptionAll Average days of employment generated20.22 Actual average amount of wages per worker received with out any delay1209.77 Minimum average amount of wages should be received4286 As per information average amount to be received per worker3916.82

9. Social audit – 79% of beneficiaries either do not know or do not care about social audit. Social audit – 79% of beneficiaries either do not know or do not care about social audit. As per the provisions almost no facilities available at work site. As per the provisions almost no facilities available at work site. Table 20 : Got Payment within 15 Days of Completion of Work DescriptionNo of HHs got Payment within 15 days Complaint of Corruption Awareness about Social Audit Yes15 (16.85)02 (2.25)19 (21.35) No74 (83.15)65 (73.03)40 (44.94) Don't care as long as we get work 00 (00)06 (6.74)30 (33.71) All89 (100) Source: Field Survey 2014 Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages Table 21: Facilities at Worksite DescriptionSafe Drinking Water First AidCrèchesShade for rest No Facility Yes10 (11.24)03 (3.37)0(0) 76 (85.39) No79 (88.76)86 (96.63)89 (100) 13 (14.61) All89 (100) Source: Field Survey 2014 Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages

10. Most of the households know about muster rolls but these are not available at work site. This scheme empowered the workers socially and empowered the women. This scheme empowered the workers socially and empowered the women. Increased the reapaying capacity of poor and wage rate. Increased the reapaying capacity of poor and wage rate. Adverse impact of scheme – shortage of labour, women health, health of children and education of poor households. Source: Field Survey 2014 Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages 89 (100) All 43 (48.31)78 (87.64)56 (62.92)46 (51.69)No 46 (51.69)11 (12.36)33 (37.08)43 (48.31)Yes Increase in Wage Rate Repaying Capacity of Debt Women Empowerment Social Empowerment Description Table 23: Socio-Economic Impact of NREGS Source: Field Survey 2014 Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages 89 (100) All 57 (64.04)46 (51.69)19 (21.35)80 (89.88)No 32 (35.96)43 (48.31)70 (78.65)9 (10.11)Yes Adverse impact on education of poor households due to availability of work Adverse impact on health of children due to lack of worksite facilities Bad impact on women health due to hard working conditions Shortage of labour in agriculture and industry Description Table 24: Adverse Impact of MGNREGS

11. Social Political Processes Gram Panchayat – political institutions and main implementing institutions of this scheme Gram Sabha meetings and awareness about planning by Gram Panchayat – very low participation by male and female labourers, almost awareness about planning. Table 25: Opinion of Beneficiaries regarding NREGS DescriptionIs Gram Panchayat is suitable for execution of the NREGS Are completed works useful? Scheme should be continued in the future Do PRIs implement the scheme properly Is NREGS Transparent and Accountable Yes57 (64.04)69 (77.53)87 (97.75)34 (38.20)27 (30.34) No32 (35.96)20 (22.47)02 (2.25)55 (61.80)62 (69.66) All89 (100) Source: Field Survey 2014 Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages Table 26: Panchayat Meetings and Participation of Members DescriptionParticipating in Gram Sabha meetingsAwareness about planning by GP AllMaleFemaleAllMaleFemale Yes09 (10.11) 07 (25.93) 02 (3.22) 07 (7.87) 05 (18.52) 02 (3.22) No80 (89.89) 20 (74.07) 60 (96.77) 82 (92.13) 22 (81.48) 60 (96.77) All89 (100) 27 (100) 62 (100) 89 (100) 27 (100) 62 (100) Source: Field Survey 2014 Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages

12. Unions of NREGS workers – Nrega Rozgar Prapat Union (NRPU) – CPI, Punjab Khet Mazdoor Union and Central Indian Trade Union – CPI(M), Khet Mazoor Union – CPM (Punjab) and Punjab Dasta Front. No union – BSP, INC, BJP and SAD in Punjab. No union – BSP, INC, BJP and SAD in Punjab. NRPU – Moga, Faridkot, Muktsar, Mansa and Patiala. NRPU – Moga, Faridkot, Muktsar, Mansa and Patiala. Punjab Khet Mazoor Union and CITU – Hoshiarpur, Sangrur, Patiala and Jalandhar. Punjab Khet Mazoor Union and CITU – Hoshiarpur, Sangrur, Patiala and Jalandhar. Khet Mazoor Union – Tarn Taran, Amritsar, Gurdaspur. Khet Mazoor Union – Tarn Taran, Amritsar, Gurdaspur. 1/3 NREGS workers – Union members and majority of females are members. 1/3 NREGS workers – Union members and majority of females are members. Table 27: Unionisation and Organisation of NREGS Workers DescriptionNo. of Workers members of any Union Participating in Rallies/Dharna Aware about the Unions TotalMaleFemaleTotalMaleFemale Yes29 (32.58) 08 (29.63) 21 (33.87) 23 (25.81 ) 09 (33.33) 14 (22.58) 89 (100) No60 (67.41) 19 (70.37) 41 (66.13) 66 (74.16 ) 18 (66.67) 48 (77.42) 0 (0) All89 (100) 27 (100) 62 (100) 89 (100) 27 (100) 62 (100) 89 (100) Source: Field Survey 2014 Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages

13. Conflict/contradiction between landless agricultural workers and land owning farmers. Participation of workers in protests – Role of Sarpanch. Leaders of the unions – strong union and more work (Some Sarpanches are goods, honest and pro- people – better implementation). Women leaders of unions – only at village level no at block, tehsil, districts and state level. Table 28: Conflict/Contradiction within the Village DescriptionAny Contradiction with farmers in regard to MGNREGA In Wage Rate basis of Contradiction YesNoAll Yes14 (15.73)11 (78.57)03 (21.43) 14 (100) No75 (84.27) All89 (100) Source: Field Survey 2014 Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages

14. Conclusions and suggestions Continuation of scheme – Economically, Socially and Politically in the interest of rural workers particularly for the women. Increase the inclusiveness. Acceptability by Gram Panchayat. Increase in the budgetary allocation by the Union Government. Monitoring and functioning of PRIs – Transparent and accountable – Role of Unions. Mainly SC/ST Workers ( No or very low participation of General Category – but a strong joint platform for organization of workers across the categories and castes. This scheme - leads toward many democratic political processes in which female participation will be more and as a result there will be social changes. From the point of view of social, economic and political dynamics of rural vulnerable market of Punjab – must continue and for this every effort by the democratic institutions and workers unions. This right driven scheme – survival of the poor people.