bihar regs: preliminary findings from the 2009 baseline survey and next steps
Post on 31-Dec-2015
26 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Bihar REGS:Preliminary Findings from the
2009 Baseline Survey and Next Steps
Puja Vasudeva Dutta, Soumya Kapoor, Rinku Murgai, Manasa Putman, Martin Ravallion and
Dominique van de Walle
India’s National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme
NREGS is the largest antipoverty policy in India’s history (and the developing world’s)
– Objectives:• Primary: Employment generation + poverty reduction• Secondary: Asset creation• Other: Strengthening grassroots democratic processes
India’s National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme
• Phasing in: – Introduced in February 2006 in 200 most backward districts– Expanded to additional 130 districts in 2007 – Now covers all 600+ districts in country
• Centre-state financing shares:– Center pays for: (a) wage costs; (b) 75% of material costs; (c)
administrative costs (subject to a maximum limit) – States pay for: (a) 25% of material costs; (b) other administrative
costs; (c) unemployment allowance
NREGS in theory
• 100 days of unskilled manual work per year guaranteed on demand to all rural households
• Apply to GP for jobcard; apply for work• Wage: state statutory min wage (daily/piece rate)• Wages paid weekly through post office account• Unemployment allowance if work not provided• Machines & contractors not allowed• Projects chosen by gram sabha to reflect village
priorities
NREGS in theory
• Mandated worksite facilities:– Safe drinking water– Shade– First aid kit– Creche (5+ children below age 6)
• Gender equity– Equal wages for men & women– No gender discrimination of any kind– Priority for women: 33% should be women
Background
• Bihar is one of the poorest states of India• Yet NREGS participation in Bihar is one of
the lowest in India• Why? No demand for BREGS? Or unfulfilled
demand, and why? • How might coverage be increased in a cost-
effective way?
Data 1. Baseline survey• 3,000 randomly sampled households in 150
villages of rural Bihar surveyed in April-July 2009
• 5,200 adult individuals, one male and one female from each household
2. Trial pilots to improve coverage/performance
3. Follow-up survey: same villages/households in April-July 2010
Three groupsBREGS Demanders (who want BREGS work):
1. Participants in BREGS
2. Non-participants: those who say they would like to work on BREGS but did not obtain work
The rest:
3. Those who do not want to participate in BREGS
Participation is low…
1. Participants:• 24% of households worked in BREGS • 15% of adults worked in BREGS
– 26% of men– 6% of women
• 90% of participants wanted more work
…but demand for work is high
2. Non-participating demanders: Many wanted work but did not get it• 41% of households wanted BREGS work but did
not participate• 36% of adults (43% of men; 30% of women)
3. The rest : 35% did not want BREGS work
Does BREGS guarantee employment?
• Huge excess demand by men and women• Signs of rationing
– People not issued job cards– People turned away from worksites– Worksites not opened
• Women who want BREGS work are less likely to get it than men– 17% of female demanders actually participated– 39% of male demanders actually participated
Not yet
Are there differences between who gets work and who does not?
Pucca roof Pucca floor Owns land Mahadalit SC (other) OBC General0
1020304050607080
2213
41
1124
59
2
2113
37
7
26
53
12
43
25
70
2 7
67
23
%HH by main characteristics
Participants Non-participant demanders Rest
01020304050607080
7 6
32
51
3
51
167
2740
8
4936
168 10
19
73%HH by main income source
Are there differences between who gets work and who does
not?
% Demanders The rest Participants Non-
participants BPL 44 52 29 No ration card 15 16 27 Muslim 3 10 16 Illiterate head Class 8 +
71 7
58 19
42 37
In many respects participants and excess demanders are
similar• Targeting of demand for BREGS is good
when compared to non-participants: – participants are more likely to be lowest caste,
landless, casual laborers, illiterate or poorly educated, poor housing conditions etc.
• But in many respects the non-participating demanders are essentially no worse off than participants.
NREG awareness seems generally low (less so for
participants)
% who answered correctly
Participants Non-participating demanders
Rest
Max no. days? (100/90) 44 24 13 When can work be demanded?
74 56 29
Men & women? 63 50 35 Non-BPL? 65 39 24 Unemployment allowance?
20 21 13
Wage rate? 40 16 8 Contractors allowed? 26 16 13
Awareness is very low for women
% who answered correctly
Participants Non-participating demanders
Rest
M W M W M W Max no. days? (100/90)
52 14 33 13 33 5
When can work be demanded?
77
62
64
46
52
19
Men & women? 64 59 56 43 44 31 Non-BPL? 67 58 45 31 37 19 Unemployment allowance?
23
10
28
13
33
5
Wage? 42 31 23 9 19 3 Contractors? 29 14 23 8 24 8
Perceptions about BREGS
% who answered “yes”
Participants Non-participating demanders
Rest
M W M W M W Can get BREG work when wanted
27
18
10
13
11
10
BREG has increased work opportunities
54
34
23
26
17
15
BREG has reduced migration
36
27
16
22
12
10
BREG work will be here next year
33
13
24
28
18
10
Process: Implementing NREG
•Participatory planning of works
Planning
•HH issued a “job card” on application
Registration
•Adult HH member provided work on demand (s.t. 100 day HH max. limit)
•Unemployment allowance paid if work not provided
•Specified worksite facilities to be provided
Work provision
•Work measurement
•Wages paid on piece-rate basis as per Schedule of Rates
•Payment in cash through bank or post office accounts
Payment of wages
Process issues: jobcards
% Households
Participants Non-participating demanders
Rest
Have jobcard 77 28 11 Of those without :
don’t need did not try tried in process
0 4
22 73
4 11 45 35
62 9 11 11
Why did not try? Don’t know how
91
73
42
No success as don’t know officials
37 55 58
Officials will not give to my family
52 31 29
Process issues: wages
• Wage type: – 65% daily wages; 31% based on work
measurement
• Mode of wage payment:– 45% in own post office accounts– Cash from mates (23%) + contractors (11%)
• Only about half the time were job card entries & signatures done at time of payment
Process issues: worksite characteristics
• Facilities available– Drinking water (64%), Shade for rest (33%), First-
aid kit (16%), Child care facility (6%)
• Use of machines (37%)• Contractor involved (52%)• Worksites where work disrupted (54%)
– Main reasons: Natural causes (59%), stopped by officers (13%), dispute by laborers, farmers, other (25%)
Field observations• Critical role of Mukhiya in program; in practice
Mukhiya often chooses projects and workers• Pressing need for revisions to the Schedule of
Rates – through time and motion studies across regions and groups
• Weakness of transparency mechanisms given high levels of illiteracy
• Possible sources of leakage• Participation of women often conditional on
participation of male HH members
Is greater awareness the key to expanding coverage, esp. for
women?• Two key findings from baseline survey:
large unmet demand + low awareness.– Awareness is a gender issue.
=> Pilot an “awareness intervention”– Video on NREGA; incl. Govt. videos but
adapted to Bihar– Q&A sessions after– All in random subset of the 150 baseline
villages
Would greater monitoring and auditing help?
• NREGA guidelines are not being followed– Unmet demand– Low wages– Contractors galore!– Low participation in project selection
=> Pilot a “monitoring and auditing” (M&A) intervention – Random sample of GPs get extra M&A– Bihar RD letter sent down announcing M&A
Or are both demand and supply side efforts needed?
• Overlapping the M&A with the awareness intervention
=> Three groups1: Awareness intervention only
2: M&A intervention only
3: Both
top related