Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act: Review of implementation

Parliament

Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act: Review of implementation

Joyita - September 23, 2013 Comments

In the recently concluded Monsoon Session of Parliament , the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Rural Development released a report on the implementation of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Development Act, 2005 (MGNREGA). This blog provides a brief introduction to the key provisions of MGNREGA , followed by an overview of the major findings and recommendations of the Standing Committee.

I. MGNREGA: A brief introduction

A. Objectives: MGNREGA, which is the largest work guarantee programme in the world, was enacted in 2005 with the primary objective of guaranteeing 100 days of wage employment per year to rural households. Secondly, it aims at addressing causes of chronic poverty through the 'works' (projects) that are undertaken, and thus ensuring sustainable development. Finally, there is an emphasis on strengthening the process of decentralisation through giving a significant role to Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) in planning and implementing these works.

B. Key features:

Legal right to work: Unlike earlier employment guarantee schemes, the Act provides a legal right to employment for adult members of rural households. At least one third beneficiaries have to be women. Wages must be paid according to the wages specified for agricultural labourers in the state under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, unless the central government notifies a wage rate (this should not be less than Rs 60 per day). At present, wage rates are determined by the central government but vary across states, ranging from Rs 135 per day to Rs 214 per day.
Time bound guarantee of work and unemployment allowance: Employment must be provided with 15 days of being demanded failing which an ‘unemployment allowance’ must be given.
Decentralised planning: Gram sabhas must recommend the works that are to be undertaken and at least 50% of the works must be executed by them. PRIs are primarily responsible for planning, implementation and monitoring of the works that are undertaken.
Work site facilities: All work sites should have facilities such as crèches, drinking water and first aid.
Transparency and accountability: There are provisions for proactive disclosure through wall writings, citizen information boards, Management Information Systems and social audits. Social audits are conducted by gram sabhas to enable the community to monitor the implementation of the scheme.
Funding: Funding is shared between the centre and the states. There are three major items of expenditure – wages (for unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled labour), material and administrative costs. The central government bears 100% of the cost of unskilled labour, 75% of the cost of semi-skilled and skilled labour, 75% of the cost of materials and 6% of the administrative costs.

MGNREGA was implemented in phases, starting from February 2006, and at present it covers all districts of the country with the exception of those that have a 100% urban population. The Act provides a list of works that can be undertaken to generate employment related to water conservation, drought proofing, land development, and flood control and protection works. Table 1 provides information regarding employment generation and expenditure under MGNREGA.

Table 1: MGNREGA: Key indicators

Year	Number of households provided employment (in crore)	Average number of person days of work per household	Total Expenditure (in lakh)
2006-07	2.10	43	8823.35
2007-08	3.39	42	15856.88
2008-09	4.51	48	27250.10
2009-10	5.25	54	37905.23
2010-11	5.49	47	39377.27
2011-12*	4.99	43	38034.69
2012-13**	4.25	36	28073.51

Source: Standing Committee on Rural Development; PRS. Note: *Provisional ** As on 31.01.2013

II. Findings and Recommendations of the Standing Committee on Rural Development

A. Achievements: The Standing Committee highlighted several achievements of MGNREGA in the seven years of its implementation, especially:

Ensuring livelihood for people in rural areas.
Large scale participation of women, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SCs/STs) and other traditionally marginalised sections of society. SCs/STs account for 51% of the total person-days generated and women account for 47% of the total person-days generated.
Increasing the wage rate in rural areas and strengthening the rural economy through the creation of infrastructure assets.
Facilitating sustainable development, and
Strengthening PRIs by involving them in the planning and monitoring of the scheme.

B. Challenges: However, the Committee found several issues with the implementation of the scheme. As Table 1 (above) shows, the average number of days of employment provided to households has been lower than the mandated 100 days, and has been decreasing since 2010-11. Key issues that the Committee raised include

Fabrication of job cards: While as many as 12.5 crore households have been issued job cards out of an estimated 13.8 crore rural households ( as per the 2001 census), there are several issues related to existence of fake job cards, inclusion of fictitious names, missing entries and delays in making entries in job cards.
Delay in payment of wages: Most states have failed to disburse wages within 15 days as mandated by MGNREGA. In addition, workers are not compensated for a delay in payment of wages.
Non payment of unemployment allowances: Most states do not pay an unemployment allowance when work is not given on demand. The non-issuance of dated receipts of demanded work prevents workers from claiming an unemployment allowance.
Large number of incomplete works: There has been a delay in the completion of works under MGNREGA and inspection of projects has been irregular. Implementing agencies were able to complete only 98 lakh works out of 296 lakh works. As Table 2 shows, a large percentage of works remain incomplete under MGNREGA and the work completion rate appears to be decreasing in recent years.

Table 2: Work completion rate

Year	Work completion rate (%)
2006-07	46.34
2007-08	45.99
2008-09	43.76
2009-10	48.94
2010-11	50.86
2011-12*	20.25
2012-13*	15.02
Total	33.22

Source: Standing Committee on Rural Development. Note: * As on 30.01.2013

Other key challenges include poor quality of assets created, several instances of corruption in the implementation of MGNREGA, and insufficient involvement of PRIs.

C. Recommendations: The Committee made the following recommendations, based on its findings:

Regulation of job cards: Offences such as not recording employment related information in job cards and unlawful possession of job cards with elected PRI representatives and MGNREGA functionaries should be made punishable under the Act.
Participation of women: Since the income of female workers typically raises the standard of living of their households to a greater extent than their male counterparts, the participation of women must be increased through raising awareness about MGNREGA.
Participation of people with disabilities: Special works (projects) must be identified for people with disabilities; and special job cards must be issued and personnel must be employed to ensure their participation.
Utilisation of funds: The Committee found that a large amount of funds allocated for MGNREGA have remained unutilised. For example, in 2010-11, 27.31% of the funds remained unutilised. The Committee recommends that the Department of Rural Development should analyse reasons for poor utilisation of funds and take steps to improve the same. In addition, it should initiate action against officers found guilty of misappropriating funds under MGNREGA.
Context specific projects and convergence: Since states are at various stages of socio-economic development, they have varied requirements for development. Therefore, state governments should be allowed to undertake works that are pertinent to their context. There should be more emphasis on skilled and semi-skilled work under MGNREGA. In addition, the Committee recommends a greater emphasis on convergence with other schemes such as the National Rural Livelihoods Mission, National Rural Health Mission, etc.
Payment of unemployment allowance: Dated receipts for demanded work should be issued so that workers can claim unemployment allowance. Funds for unemployment allowance should be met by the central government.
Regular monitoring: National Level Monitors (NLMs) are deployed by the Ministry of Rural Development for regular and special monitoring of MGNREGA and to enquire into complaints regarding mis-utilisation of funds, etc. The Committee recommends that the frequency of monitoring by NLMs should increase and appropriate measures should be taken by states based on their recommendations. Additionally, social audits must mandatorily be held every six months. The Committee observes that the performance of MGNREGA is better in states with effective social audit mechanisms.
Training of functionaries: Training and capacity building of elected representatives and other functionaries of PRIs must be done regularly as it will facilitate their involvement in the implementation of MGNREGA.

Tags:

employment,

MGNREGA,

panchayati raj,

rights,

Union Budget 2020-21: Are the fiscal targets realistic?

No comments

Gayatri Mann and Suyash Tiwari - February 6, 2020 Comments

Today, a general discussion on the Union Budget 2020-21 is being held in both Houses of Parliament. In the budget, the government presented the estimates of the money it expects to spend on various ministries, and how much money will be raised from different sources such as levy of taxes and dividends from public enterprises in 2020-21. In addition, the budget presented the revised estimates made by the government for the year 2019-20 in comparison to the estimates it had given to Parliament in the previous year’s budget. The budget also gave an account of how much money the government actually raised and spent in 2018-19.

What are revised estimates?

Some of the estimates made by the government might change during the course of the year. For instance, once the year gets underway, some ministries may need more funds than what was actually allocated to them in the budget, or the receipts expected from certain sources might change. Such deviations from the budget estimates get reflected in the figures released by the government at later stages as part of the subsequent budgets. Once the year ends, the actual numbers are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), post which they are presented to Parliament with the upcoming budget, i.e. two years after the estimates are made.

For instance, estimates for the year 2019-20 were presented as part of the 2019-20 budget in July 2019. In the 2020-21 budget (February 2020), the government presented 2019-20’s revised estimates based on the actual receipts and expenditure accounted so far during the year and estimations made for the remaining 2-3 months.

Is there a way to find out the government’s actual receipts or expenditure mid-year?

The actual receipts and expenditure accounts of the central government are maintained by the Controller General of Accounts (CGA), Ministry of Finance on a monthly basis. On January 31, 2020, the CGA updated the accounts figures for the period April to December 2019. Thus, we have unaudited actuals for the first nine months of the financial year.

How do the actual figures for the year 2019-20 so far compare with the revised estimates?

Table 1 gives the revised estimates presented by the central government for the year 2019-20 and the monthly account figures maintained by the CGA for the nine-month period April to December 2019. The difference between these two figures gives us the three-month target that the government will have to meet by March 2020 to reach its revised estimates.

Till December 2019, the government has spent Rs 21.1 lakh crore, which is 78% of the revised estimates for 2019-20. While the expenditure has reached 78% of the target, so far, the government has been able to generate only Rs 11.8 lakh crore or 61% of the receipts (excluding borrowings) for the year 2019-20. This implies that the receipts will have to grow at a rate of 41% in the three-month period January-March 2020 to meet the revised estimates of Rs 19.3 lakh crore. So far, receipts have grown at a rate of 4%.

Table 1: Budget at a Glance – Comparison of 2019-20 revised estimates with Apr-Dec 2019 figures (Rs crore)

Budget at a Glance	Actuals	Revised	Nine-month period	Three-month target	Growth rate so far	Growth target
Budget at a Glance	2018-19	2019-20	Apr-Dec 2019	Jan-Mar 2020	% change (Apr-Dec 2018 to Apr-Dec 2019)	% change (Jan-Mar 2019 to Jan-Mar 2020)
Revenue Expenditure	20,07,399	23,49,645	18,54,125	4,95,520	14%	28%
Capital Expenditure	3,07,714	3,48,907	2,55,522	93,385	21%	-3%
Total Expenditure	23,15,113	26,98,552	21,09,647	5,88,905	15%	22%
Revenue Receipts	15,52,916	18,50,101	11,46,897	7,03,204	6%	50%
Capital Receipts	1,12,779	81,605	31,025	50,580	-33%	-24%
of which Disinvestment	94,727	65,000	18,100	46,900	-47%	-22%
Total Receipts (without borrowings)	16,65,695	19,31,706	11,77,922	7,53,784	4%	41%
Revenue Deficit	4,54,483	4,99,544	7,07,228	-2,07,684
Fiscal Deficit	6,49,418	7,66,846	9,31,725	-1,64,879
Primary Deficit	66,770	1,41,741	5,07,411	-3,65,670

Sources: Union Budget 2020-21; Controller General of Accounts, Ministry of Finance; PRS.

How do the actual tax receipts fare in comparison to the revised estimates of 2019-20?

A lower than estimated growth in nominal GDP has also affected the tax receipts of the government during the year. The 2019-20 budget estimated the nominal GDP to grow at 12% over the previous year, whereas the latest estimates suggest this growth rate to be 7.5% in 2019-20. The revised estimates for 2019-20 show gross tax receipts of Rs 21.6 lakh crore (includes states’ share). Till December 2019, tax receipts of Rs 13.8 lakh crore has been collected, which is 64% of the target. The tax receipts will have to grow at 19% in the three-month period January-March 2020 to meet the target. Table 2 shows similar comparison for the various taxes and also for the tax receipts devolved to states. While the budget estimated a growth in receipts from all major taxes, receipts from taxes such as corporation tax (-14%), union excise duties (-2%), and customs (-12%) have declined during the period Apr-Dec 2019.

Table 2: Tax receipts – Comparison of 2019-20 revised estimates with Apr-Dec 2019 figures (Rs crore)

Revenue Receipts	Actuals	Revised	Nine-month period	Three-month target	Growth rate so far	Growth target
Revenue Receipts	2018-19	2019-20	Apr-Dec 2019	Jan-Mar 2020	% change (Apr-Dec 2018 to Apr-Dec 2019)	% change (Jan-Mar 2019 to Jan-Mar 2020)
Gross Tax Revenue	20,80,465	21,63,423	13,83,035	7,80,388	-3%	19%
Devolution to States	7,61,454	6,56,046	4,76,113	1,79,933	-2%	-34%
Net Tax Revenue	13,17,211	15,04,587	9,04,944	5,99,643	-3%	57%
Dividend and Profits	1,13,420	1,99,893	1,61,979	37,914	175%	-30%
Other Non-tax Revenue	1,22,284	1,45,620	79,974	65,646	-10%	96%
Revenue Receipts	15,52,916	18,50,101	11,46,897	7,03,204	6%	50%

Note: Figures for income tax exclude receipts from the Securities Transaction Tax.

Sources: Receipts Budget, Union Budget 2019-20; Controller General of Accounts, Ministry of Finance; PRS.

If we look at sources of receipts other than taxes, non-tax revenue during Apr-Dec 2019 is Rs 2.4 lakh crore, i.e. 69% of the estimated Rs 3.5 lakh crore. Disinvestment receipts till date amounted to Rs 18,100 crore, i.e. 17% of the budget target of Rs 1.05 lakh crore. Though the investment target has been revised down to Rs 65,000 crore, it implies that Rs 47,000 crore would need to be raised in the next two months.

How does this impact the borrowings of the government?

When the expenditure planned by the government is more than its receipts, the government finances this gap through borrowings. This gap is known as fiscal deficit and equals the borrowings required to be made for that year. Given lower than expected receipts, the government has had to borrow more money than it had planned for. Borrowings or fiscal deficit of the government, till December 2019, stands at Rs 9.3 lakh crore, which is 22% higher than the revised estimate of Rs 7.7 lakh crore. Note that with three months still remaining in the financial year, fiscal deficit may further increase, in case receipts are less than expenditure.

When we look at fiscal deficit as a percentage of GDP, the 2019-20 budget estimated the fiscal deficit to be at 3.3% of GDP. This has been revised upward to 3.8% of GDP. However, till December 2019, fiscal deficit for the year 2019-20 stands at 4.6% of GDP (taking the latest available GDP figures into account, i.e. the First Advance Estimates for 2019-20 released in January 2020). This increase in fiscal deficit as a percentage of GDP is because of two reasons: (i) an increase in borrowings as compared to the budget estimates, and (ii) a decrease in GDP as compared to the estimate made in the budget. The latter is due to a lower than estimated growth in nominal GDP for the year 2019-20. The 2019-20 budget estimated the nominal GDP to grow at 12% over the previous year, whereas the latest estimates suggest this growth rate to be 7.5% in 2019-20.

Note that, in addition to the expenditure shown in the budget, the government also spends through extra budgetary resources. These resources are raised by issuing bonds and through loans from the National Small Savings Fund (NSSF). The revised estimates for 2019-20 show an expenditure of Rs 1,72,699 crore through such extra-budgetary resources. This includes an expenditure of Rs 1,10,000 crore by the Food Corporation of India financed through loans from NSSF. Since funds borrowed for such expenditure remain outside the budget, they do not get factored in the deficit and debt figures. If borrowings made in the form of extra-budgetary resources are also taken into account, the fiscal deficit estimated for the year 2019-20 would increase from 3.8% of GDP to 4.6% of GDP due to extra-budgetary borrowings of Rs 1,72,699 crore. This does not account for further slippage if the targeted revenue does not materialise.

Recommendations of the 15th Finance Commission for 2020-21

No comments

Rohin Garg and Saket Surya - February 3, 2020 Comments

The Finance Commission is a constitutional body formed by the President of India to give suggestions on centre-state financial relations. The 15^th Finance Commission is required to submit two reports. The first report will consist of recommendations for the financial year 2020-21. The final report with recommendations for the 2021-26 period will be submitted by October 30, 2020. In this post, we explain the key recommendations of the report.

What is the amount of tax devolution to the states, and how is it being calculated?

The Finance Commission uses certain criteria when deciding the devolution to states. For example, income distance criterion has been used by the 14^th and 15^th Finance Commissions. Under this criterion, states with lower per capita income would be given a higher share to maintain equity among states. Another example is Demographic Performance criterion which has been introduced by the 15^th Finance Commission. The Demographic Performance criterion is to reward efforts made by states in controlling their population.

The 15^th Finance Commission used the following criteria while determining the share of states: (i) 45% for the income distance, (ii) 15% for the population in 2011, (iii) 15% for the area, (iv) 10% for forest and ecology, (v) 12.5% for demographic performance, and (vi) 2.5% for tax effort. For 2020-21, the Commission has recommended a total devolution of Rs 8,55,176 crore to the states, which is 41% of the divisible pool of taxes. This is 1% lower than the percentage recommended by the 14^th Finance Commission.

Table 1 below compares the new criteria with the criteria recommended by the 14^th Finance Commission.

Table 1: Criteria for devolution (2020-21)

Criteria	14^thFC 2015-20	15^thFC 2020-21
Income Distance	50.0	45.0
Population 1971	17.5	-
Population 2011	10.0	15.0
Area	15.0	15.0
Forest Cover	7.5	-
Forest and Ecology	-	10.0
Demographic Performance	-	12.5
Tax Effort	-	2.5
Total	100	100

Sources: Report for the year 2020-21, 15^thFinance Commission; PRS.

Uttar Pradesh and Bihar have received the largest devolutions for 2020-21, receiving Rs 1,53,342 crore, and Rs 86,039 crore respectively. Karnataka and Kerala saw the largest decreases in the share of the divisible pool with a decrease of 0.49% and 0.25% respectively. Table 2 below displays the state-wise breakdown of the share in the divisible pool and the total devolution.

Table 3: Share of states in the centre’s taxes

State	14^th Finance Commission		15^th Finance Commission		Devolution for FY 2020-2021
State	Share out of 42%	Share in divisible pool	Share out of 41%	Share in divisible pool	(In Rs crore)
Andhra Pradesh	1.81	4.31	1.69	4.11	35,156
Arunachal Pradesh	0.58	1.38	0.72	1.76	15,051
Assam	1.39	3.31	1.28	3.13	26,776
Bihar	4.06	9.67	4.13	10.06	86,039
Chhattisgarh	1.29	3.07	1.4	3.42	29,230
Goa	0.16	0.38	0.16	0.39	3,301
Gujarat	1.3	3.1	1.39	3.4	29,059
Haryana	0.46	1.1	0.44	1.08	9,253
Himachal Pradesh	0.3	0.71	0.33	0.8	6,833
Jammu and Kashmir	0.78	1.86	-	-	-
Jharkhand	1.32	3.14	1.36	3.31	28,332
Karnataka	1.98	4.71	1.49	3.65	31,180
Kerala	1.05	2.5	0.8	1.94	16,616
Madhya Pradesh	3.17	7.55	3.23	7.89	67,439
Maharashtra	2.32	5.52	2.52	6.14	52,465
Manipur	0.26	0.62	0.29	0.72	6,140
Meghalaya	0.27	0.64	0.31	0.77	6,542
Mizoram	0.19	0.45	0.21	0.51	4,327
Nagaland	0.21	0.5	0.23	0.57	4,900
Odisha	1.95	4.64	1.9	4.63	39,586
Punjab	0.66	1.57	0.73	1.79	15,291
Rajasthan	2.31	5.5	2.45	5.98	51,131
Sikkim	0.15	0.36	0.16	0.39	3,318
Tamil Nadu	1.69	4.02	1.72	4.19	35,823
Telangana	1.02	2.43	0.87	2.13	18,241
Tripura	0.27	0.64	0.29	0.71	6,063
Uttar Pradesh	7.54	17.95	7.35	17.93	1,53,342
Uttarakhand	0.44	1.05	0.45	1.1	9,441
West Bengal	3.08	7.33	3.08	7.52	64,301
Total	42	100	41	100	8,55,176

Sources: Reports of 14^th and 15^th Finance Commission; PRS.

What are the various grants recommended by the 15^th Finance Commission?

The Terms of Reference of the Finance Commission require it to recommend grants-in-aid to the States. These grants include: (i) revenue deficit grants, (ii) grants to local bodies, and (iii) disaster management grants.

14 states are estimated to face a revenue deficit post-devolution. To make up for this deficit, the Commission has recommended revenue deficit grants worth Rs 74,341 crore to these 14 states. Additionally, three states (Karnataka, Mizoram, and Telangana) have received special grants worth Rs 6,674 crore. The special grants are being given to compensate for a decline in the sum of tax devolution and revenue deficit grants in 2020-21 as compared to 2019-20.

The Commission has recommended a total of Rs 90,000 crore for grants to the local bodies in 2020-21. This amounts to an increase over the Rs 87,352 crore allocated for 2019-20 for the same. The new allocation is 4.31% of the divisible pool. Of this sum, Rs 60,750 crore has been recommended for rural local bodies, and Rs 29,250 crore for urban local bodies. These grants will be made available to all three tiers of Panchayat- village, block, and district.

To promote local-level mitigation activities, the Commission has recommended the setting up of National and State Disaster Management Funds. Recommended grants for the State Disaster Risk Management Fund is Rs 28,983 crore, while the allocation for the National Disaster Risk Management Fund is Rs 12,390 crore.

Apart from these, guidelines for performance-based grants and sector-specific grants have been outlined. The Commission has recommended a grant of Rs 7,375 crore for nutrition in 2020-21. Sectors for which sector-specific grants will be provided in the final report include: (i) nutrition, (ii) health, (iii) pre-primary education, (iv) judiciary, and (v) railways.

For more details, please see our summary of the report.

Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act: Review of implementation

Subscribe to the PRS Blog