Presented at a one day workshop jointly organized by Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research (IGIDR), International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Cornell University, with funding from International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) titled 'Implementation of MGNREGA in India: A Review of Impacts for Future Learning'. The main objective of the workshop was take stock of the current scenario of MGNREGA, assess the impacts it has made over the past decade and emerge with knowledge as to the areas under MGNREGA that still need to be studied and can be opened up with more research.

1. Theme 2:
Labor, migration, wages
Implementation of MGNREGA in India:
A Review of Impacts for Future Learning
Featuring work completed by IFPRI, Cornell University, and
IGIDR with funding from 3ie

2. Introduction
• MGNREGS is a labor-opportunity creation program
• Effects and impacts of the program on various labor
measures can be studied at different levels:
• Household labor supply (partial equilibrium: participants)
• Total levels
• Allocation across tasks and types of work (including migration)
• Allocation across household members (gender, age)
• Aggregate labor market (general equilibrium: participants and
non-participants)
• Total labor days worked
• Migration
• Wages

3. Review of literature
• Household labor supply (partial equilibrium:
participants)
• Imbert and Papp (2014)
• Islam and Sivasankaran (2014)
• Sheahan, Liu, Narayanan, Barrett (in progress)
• Das (2013)
• Narayanan and Ranaware (in progress)
• Aggregate labor market (general equilibrium: participants and
non-participants)
• Imbert and Papp (2014, 2015)
• Azam (2012)
• Berg et al. (2013)
• Zimmermann (2013)
• Narayanan (in progress)

4. Review of literature: Impact on employment
• Overall employment
• No fall in unemployment or drop in number of people not in labor
force (Imbert and Papp 2015)
• No significant increase in total employment for men or women,
implying the program acts like a safety net (Zimmermann 2013)
• Significant increase in public works participation, much higher for
females than males (Azam 2012)
• Increase in total labor force participation, also more pronounced for
women (Azam 2012), especially relative to declining trend found in
later phased in districts (Chowdhury 2011)
• “Crowding out” of private sector employment
• 1.3 percent decrease in private employment days (waged, self-
employed, domestic) in dry season with no significant change in
rainy (Imbert and Papp 2015)

5. Review of literature: Impact on wages
• Most studies use the NSSO data to study wage effects
• 4.7 percent increase in casual labor wages, with impacts in agricultural
off season, using data from directly before and after program started
(Imbert and Papp 2015)
• Much smaller and less precisely estimated effects, and concentrated in
women not men, when using the same data but different estimation
method (Zimmermann 2013)
• 8 percent increase in female casual private sector wages relative to a
1 percent increase for males, showing importance of gender-neutral
MGNREGS wages (Azam 2012)
• 5.3 percent increase in agricultural wages when looking at the duration
of MGNREGS implementation; also finds that wage increases happen
6-11 months after project starts (Berg et al. 2013)
• Wage increases for this segment of the population seen as
good given directive to increase welfare and bargaining power
of the marginalized

6. Review of literature: Impact on migration
• Using survey data from villages matched across three states
with historically high out migration rates (Gujarat, Rajasthan,
Madhya Pradesh), 8 percent of surveyed adults report that
MGNREGS benefits were the reason they did not migrate
(Imbert and Papp 2014)
• Adults living in states with more MGNREGS work days spend
less time outside working outside of their village (Imbert and
Papp 2014)
• Lower incidence of short term migration in early phase districts
in the 2007/08 NSSO data relative to non-phased in districts
(Imbert and Papp 2014)
• A range of qualitative and ethnographic accounts of reduced
migration in Madhya Pradesh (Ambasta et al. 2008), Rajasthan
(Menon 2008), and Tamil Nadu (Jacob 2008)

7. Sheahan et al. (in progress)
• We study the household-specific labor outcomes by comparing
MGNREGS participants with non-participants
• Research questions:
• How does the decision to participate on MGNREGS affect overall
household level labor supply and, if so, how?
• Do the days offered to a MGNREGS project displace labor days
previously devoted to other types of labor or household tasks?
• How does MGNREGS participation by one household member affect
the time allocation of other household members, particularly with
respect to gender and age groups (adults, youth, and children)?
• How do these results vary by agricultural season?
• Data:
• Household-level panel data from primarily poor households in 5
districts of Andhra Pradesh collected before (2004 and 2006) and after
(2008) full MGNREGS phase in
• Match survey data with MGNREGS admin data using job card
numbers of surveyed households
Project paper

8. Sheahan et al. (in progress)
• Results: changes in total labor supply for MGNREGS
participants
• MGNREGS participation by any household member increases total
household labor supply in the summer season only, dominated by
increases in female work only
• Female participation leads to increases in female labor supply in rabi
season (not kharif season)
• Females with lower initial labor supply level are more likely to
participate in MGNREGS which then increases their total household
labor offerings
• Participating households expand their labor supply by about 13 days in
the summer season
• Since the average number of days on MGNREGS for participating
households is 23, this suggests that this addition of days worked is likely
displacing some non-MGNREGS labor
Project paper

9. Sheahan et al. (in progress)
• Results: mechanisms for expanded labor supply
• 3 possibilities
• wage factors
• a buffer against a sudden collapse in labor demand
• non-wage factors (dignity, safety, flexibility, etc.)
• We look specifically at wage factors, i.e. gap between the household
daily wage rate (in 2006) and the village MGNREGS daily wage rate
(in 2008)
• The expansion of total household labor supply does not appear to be
moderated by the difference between household wages pre-
MGNREGS and the village MGNREGS wage
• The female wage gap is an integral component of labor supply
expansion for females in MGNREGS participating households in the
kharif and rabi seasons
• Suggests that wage factors are not the most important ones driving
changes in total or gender-specific household labor supply
Project paper

10. Sheahan et al. (in progress)
• Results: allocation of time across tasks and hh members
• 1 day increase in the number of MGNREGS days provided by any
household member “crowds out” 0.9 days of non-MGNREGS labor
in the kharif season, 0.7 in the rabi season, and 0.5 in summer
• Mostly drawn from private casual labor, however 1 day of MGNREGS
work does not completely displace 1 full day of private casual labor
• No evidence of an increase in time spent on paid or unpaid work for
the youth and children of MGNREGS households, even a very
modest decrease in time on unpaid work (like household chores)
• MGNREGS “crowds in”:
• male migration (although for a very small set of households) and
• female time spent on-farm and in non-farm self-employment activities in
rabi and kharif seasons respectively (makes sense given flexibility of
MGNREGS days)
Project paper

11. Das (2015)
• Hypothesis
Role of MGNREGA in reducing migration. To gauge the impact of
participation and intensity of participation in terms of number of days
of work and annual earnings from programme.
• Field survey in four GPs (two blocks) in the Cooch Behar district,
West Bengal.
Findings
• Participation as no impact on short-term migration but intensity has
a negative significant impact.
• No impact on longer term migration.
Project paper

12. Das (2015)
Total
Individuals
who migrated
in 2011
Individuals
who did not
migrate
Difference
Number of
days worked
in
MGNREGA
in 2010
20.3 12.7 20.9 8.2**
Annual
earnings
(Rs.)
2378.7 1393.5 2448.5 1054**
Project paper

13. Das (2015)
• Households in Haldibari block migrates due to low demand for
agricultural works in lean season.
• Most of the households which receive more than about 50 days have
stopped migrating in Falimari GP.
• In Dawaguri GP, earlier migration was high. Has reduced substantially
due to MGNREGA.
• No major effect on longer migration was found. A worker from Falimari
GP (marble floor) says:
“Why would I do so? I work in cities to get Rs. 250-300 and if I stay
back to work in MGNREGA I would only get Rs. 130 and that too just
for 100 days (if at all I get). I can earn the same money if I spent just
two months in the cities”
Project paper

14. Narayanan and Ranaware (in progress)
• Does MGNREGA create dependency ?
• Do workers exit the labour market and work exclusively in
MGNREGA?
• Or do they “kick away the ladder”?
• What is the extent of these two phenomena and who does what
and why?
• Dynamics of Participation
• ICRISAT villages in Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh – Field
survey (funded by ICRISAT), administrative data.
Project paper

15. Narayanan and Ranaware (in progress)
Preliminary Findings
• Women tend to rely on the MGNREGA longer than men,
who have a greater rate of attrition from the MGNREGA
• SC/ST and Backward communities/other minorities tend
to attrition less quickly than general castes.
• Differentiated role of MGNREGA – some are “stayers”,
others are “leavers” who worked in early years and have
not returned. Others are late entrants or work in spells.
• Age profile of MGRNEGA workers suggest, older men are
more likely to work compared to older women or younger
women. Younger women are disproportionately present
on worksites in the study villages.
Project paper

16. Narayanan and Ranaware (in progress)

17. Narayanan and Ranaware (in progress)
Project paper

18. Wages in ICRISAT villages
• Econometric analysis of high frequency, monthly wage
data from these six villages (2005-20013).
• High frequency monthly data for different tasks by gender and village
(Since 2005)
• Female: Sowing/transplanting, Weeding, Harvesting, Casual, Construction
• Male: Land preparation (ploughing), Weeding, Harvesting, Casual,
Construction
• Male and female : farm and construction wages
• Wage gaps in farm and construction
• Fieldwork in the six ICRISAT villages (September –
October 2014). Funded by VDSA, ICRISAT.

19. 0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
2012 2013 2014
SHIRAPUR KALMAN KANZARA KINKHED
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
DOKUR AUREPALLE
Person days of MGNREGA

20. Wages in ICRISAT villages

21. Reported wages in MGNREGA

24. Findings
• MGNREGA is mainly summer work, a majority would do
nothing otherwise.
• Latent but unfulfilled demand from SC/DNT in Akola villages
• Limited impact of MGNREGA on wages; intensity of the
program has impact on average farm wages.
• Overall farm wages is associated with an increase in
MGNREGA wages, but does not hold across tasks with task
specific analysis.
• Female weeding, but not on other operations
• Male land preparation but not on other operations
• Cropping pattern choices in favour of labour intensive crops
exert a greater influence (e.g. cotton area expansion for
women)

25. More information about project
outputs can be found at:
http://www.igidr.ac.in/mgnrega/