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. IMPACT OF MGNREGA: ANIMPACT OF MGNREGA: AN
OVERVIEWOVERVIEW
S.Mahendra DevS.Mahendra Dev
IGIDR, MumbaiIGIDR, Mumbai

2. Context and BackgroundContext and Background
Public works programs are an important component ofPublic works programs are an important component of
labor market interventions and social assistancelabor market interventions and social assistance
Rural labor market problem: Acute poverty, disguisedRural labor market problem: Acute poverty, disguised
unemployment, low skills, low occupationalunemployment, low skills, low occupational
diversification.diversification.
Therefore, governments increasingly relied on directTherefore, governments increasingly relied on direct
intervention in the form of public works.intervention in the form of public works.
In the broader context of development: Using surplusIn the broader context of development: Using surplus
labor for capital formation (Ragnar Nurkse, 1957)labor for capital formation (Ragnar Nurkse, 1957)
At global level, many countries have this programme.At global level, many countries have this programme.
India has a long experience in experimenting withIndia has a long experience in experimenting with
labour intensive public works starting from 1960labour intensive public works starting from 1960
The Employment Guarantee Scheme of Maharashtra (EGS)The Employment Guarantee Scheme of Maharashtra (EGS)
1972/731972/73

3. Public works programmes in IndiaPublic works programmes in India
At the national level, there were JRYAt the national level, there were JRY
(Jawahar Rojgar Yojana) and EAS(Jawahar Rojgar Yojana) and EAS
(Employment Assurance Scheme), SGRY(Employment Assurance Scheme), SGRY
(Swarnajayanti Grameen Rozgar Yojana).(Swarnajayanti Grameen Rozgar Yojana).
But, the most important programme now isBut, the most important programme now is
Mahatma Gandhi National Rural EmploymentMahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment
Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).
MGNREGA was introduced in 2006-07MGNREGA was introduced in 2006-07
We have 8 to 9 years experience of the Act.We have 8 to 9 years experience of the Act.
MGNREGA is different from earlierMGNREGA is different from earlier
employment schemes including Maharashtraemployment schemes including Maharashtra
EGSEGS

4. Potential Ten Direct and IndirectPotential Ten Direct and Indirect
Benefits of MGNREGABenefits of MGNREGA
1.1. Creation of Employment: Livelihood securityCreation of Employment: Livelihood security::
increase in consumption, food security andincrease in consumption, food security and
nutrition, reduction in poverty, positive impact onnutrition, reduction in poverty, positive impact on
health and educationhealth and education
2. The most important benefit according to2. The most important benefit according to
workers isworkers is self respectself respect
3.Asset creation: benefit agri. And rural3.Asset creation: benefit agri. And rural
development and environment protectiondevelopment and environment protection
4. Positive impact on agricultural wages4. Positive impact on agricultural wages
5.5. Impact on women empowermentImpact on women empowerment
6. Help marginalized sections SCs and STs6. Help marginalized sections SCs and STs

5. Ten BenefitsTen Benefits
7.7. Reduction in Distress MigrationReduction in Distress Migration
8. Seasonal benefits and insurance function8. Seasonal benefits and insurance function
9.9. Financial InclusionFinancial Inclusion
10.10. Strengthening grass root processesStrengthening grass root processes ofof
democracy infusing transparency and accountabilitydemocracy infusing transparency and accountability
in governance. Particularly involvement ofin governance. Particularly involvement of
panchayats.panchayats. Social audit can improve governance.Social audit can improve governance.
In fact, There is a need to use MGNREGA exp.In fact, There is a need to use MGNREGA exp.
Increase in general and drought years in 2014-15Increase in general and drought years in 2014-15
and 2015-16 in particular.and 2015-16 in particular.
There are extreme views on MGNREGA. It is betterThere are extreme views on MGNREGA. It is better
to examine the evidence based on field studiesto examine the evidence based on field studies

6. Field Surveys: IMPACT OF MGNREGAField Surveys: IMPACT OF MGNREGA
There have been thousands of studies using secondaryThere have been thousands of studies using secondary
data and field data on the impact of MGNREGAdata and field data on the impact of MGNREGA
Almost every research institute/university in India andAlmost every research institute/university in India and
many research institutes abroad did studies on thismany research institutes abroad did studies on this
scheme.scheme.
We cover here only few of the studies ( NREGAWe cover here only few of the studies ( NREGA
Sammeksha, Dreze and Khera, Young Lives, IGIDRSammeksha, Dreze and Khera, Young Lives, IGIDR
study, Dilip Mookherji) to give a flavour on the impactstudy, Dilip Mookherji) to give a flavour on the impact
and concentrate on the following.and concentrate on the following.
(1) Income, livehood Security and well being of hhs.(1) Income, livehood Security and well being of hhs.
(2) Impact on gender and disadvantaged(2) Impact on gender and disadvantaged
(3)(3) NREGA and Child well beingNREGA and Child well being
(4)(4) Creation of AssetsCreation of Assets
(5) Impact on migration(5) Impact on migration
Basically putting together some old and new studiesBasically putting together some old and new studies

7. (1)Impact on Income, livelihoods:Macro(1)Impact on Income, livelihoods:Macro
Macro Level: Employment peaked in 2009-10 withMacro Level: Employment peaked in 2009-10 with
more thanmore than 2.8 billion person days2.8 billion person days (2.2 billion in 2013-14(2.2 billion in 2013-14
and 1.7 billion in 2014-15)and 1.7 billion in 2014-15)
Households provided employment increased from 21Households provided employment increased from 21
million hhs. In 2006-07 tomillion hhs. In 2006-07 to 55 million days in55 million days in 2010-112010-11
and then declined (48 million in 2013-14.)and then declined (48 million in 2013-14.)
Average person days created inAverage person days created in 2014-15: 402014-15: 40
ExpenditureExpenditure Rs.35868 crores in 2014-15;Rs.35868 crores in 2014-15;
0.29% of GDP.0.29% of GDP.
Expenditure spent since 2006-07 on wages: More thanExpenditure spent since 2006-07 on wages: More than
2 ,00,000 crores till 2014-15.2 ,00,000 crores till 2014-15.
Inspite of some leakages,Inspite of some leakages, studies show a positivestudies show a positive
impact of this transfer on household income, foodimpact of this transfer on household income, food
security and health of the hhs.security and health of the hhs.

8. (1) Income and Livelihood Security: Field Studies(1) Income and Livelihood Security: Field Studies
A study on three states show that the share ofA study on three states show that the share of
NREGA income of the poor was highest in A.P.NREGA income of the poor was highest in A.P.
(17%), Rajasthan (10%), Maharashtra (7%).(17%), Rajasthan (10%), Maharashtra (7%).
Several other studies have different shares inSeveral other studies have different shares in
various states.various states.
Modest contribution increase in wages.Modest contribution increase in wages. RecentRecent
studies (using difference-in-difference method)studies (using difference-in-difference method)
show a rise of daily wages 5% to 9% in differentshow a rise of daily wages 5% to 9% in different
states (Dilip Mookherji)states (Dilip Mookherji)
Different studies have also shown positiveDifferent studies have also shown positive
effects on food and non-food consumption,effects on food and non-food consumption,
calories and protein intakes, health, savingscalories and protein intakes, health, savings
(Dilip Mookherji)(Dilip Mookherji)

9. A lifeline for the rural
poor (Dreze and Khera, 2009)
Proportion(%) of sample workers who:
NREGA is very important
to them
71
NREGA helped them to
avoid hunger
69
NREGA helped them to
avoid migration
57
NREGA helped their
family to cope up with
illness
47
NREGA helped them to
avoids demeaning or
hazardous occupations
35

10. Proportion of HHs Reported NREGA asProportion of HHs Reported NREGA as
(Chhabra et al 2009)(Chhabra et al 2009)A.P. M.P. Gujarat Haryan
a
Orissa U.P. Total
Very
importan
t for
family
30.8 55.6 98.1 57.5 34.5 27.8 50.8
To avoid
going
hungry
19.3 45.6 2.2 85.0 84.7 41.9 46.4
Send
children
to
school
13.5 40.3 3.4 90.0 40.3 30.6 36.4
Cope
with
illiness
26.3 29.4 17.2 100.0 50.0 -- 37.1
Helped
to raise
market
wage
94.0 42.8 65.3 100.0 52.4 33.1 64.6

12. 2. Impact on Women and Social Groups2. Impact on Women and Social Groups
One of the successes of the NREGS is that theOne of the successes of the NREGS is that the
participation of women in the scheme.participation of women in the scheme.
Share of women in NREGA has been increasingShare of women in NREGA has been increasing
. It was 53% in 2013-14.. It was 53% in 2013-14.
Empowerment of women certainly improved dueEmpowerment of women certainly improved due
to the scheme.to the scheme.
Field surveys reveal that the share of NREGSField surveys reveal that the share of NREGS
income in the total income of women in fourincome in the total income of women in four
states (Rajasthan, Bihar, Jharkhand and H.P)states (Rajasthan, Bihar, Jharkhand and H.P)
was 18%.was 18%.
Access to paid work has had a positive impactAccess to paid work has had a positive impact
on women’s socio economic status and wellon women’s socio economic status and well
beingbeing

13. A job of One’s Own
:Women (Dreze and Khera
2009)
Population 1% of female sample workers who:
Collect their own wages 79
Keep their own wages 68
Earned and cash income
(other than NREGA
wages) during the last
three months
30

14. Women’s Contribution to HH income: RajasthanWomen’s Contribution to HH income: Rajasthan
(Pankaj and Tanka 2010)(Pankaj and Tanka 2010)
Districts Women’s income
from NREGA as
% of total
NREGA income
of HHs
Share of
Women’s
NREGA in the
total annual
income of hhs
(%)
Dungarpur 78.8 21.2
Gaya 61.5 7.9
Kangra 82.1 14.7
Ranchi 67.4 10.9
Total 76.6 14.1

15. Impact on Women and social groupsImpact on Women and social groups
Self help groups and Civil society organizationsSelf help groups and Civil society organizations
encouraged women’s participation in states likeencouraged women’s participation in states like
Rajasthan, Kerala and U.P.Rajasthan, Kerala and U.P.
Impact on disadvantaged social groupsImpact on disadvantaged social groups
Evidence suggests that MGNREGA isEvidence suggests that MGNREGA is
succeeding as a self targeting programme withsucceeding as a self targeting programme with
high participation from marginalized groupshigh participation from marginalized groups
including SCs and STsincluding SCs and STs
Share of SC (22.6%) and ST (17.6) together inShare of SC (22.6%) and ST (17.6) together in
NREGA participation was 40% of total.NREGA participation was 40% of total.
Works on private lands of the marginalised alsoWorks on private lands of the marginalised also
helped SCs and STs to some extenthelped SCs and STs to some extent

16. NREGA labourers: Rural India’s
“working class” (Dreze and Khera, 2009)
Proportion(%) of sample workers who:
Live in Kaccha House 81
Belongs to S.C./S.T.
families
73
Are illiterate 61
Have no electricity at
home
72

17. Impact on Social Groups: 6 states field surveyImpact on Social Groups: 6 states field survey
(Chhabra, 2009)(Chhabra, 2009)
Proportion of Hhs reported NREGA as
SC ST OBC OC
Brought
significant
change in life
57.4 55.6 56.7 30.0
To avoid
hungry
48.4 46.1 49.5 30.1
Send
children to
school
37.8 34.1 36.1 21.5
Helped to
cope illness
38.0 34.9 38.5 23.1
Raise market
wages
67.1 56.9 66.4 56.2
Helped repay
our debts
40.5 46.1 41.7 24.5

18. 3. NREGA and Child Well Being3. NREGA and Child Well Being
The NREGA seems to have some positiveThe NREGA seems to have some positive
impact on child well beingimpact on child well being
Long term benefits for children in terms ofLong term benefits for children in terms of
reducing, malnutrition, ill-health and improvereducing, malnutrition, ill-health and improve
education.education.
We have already seen above NREGS hadWe have already seen above NREGS had
positive impact on women’s well being.positive impact on women’s well being.
Women’s well being and empowerment areWomen’s well being and empowerment are
crucial for the well being of children.crucial for the well being of children.
One of the gaps is lack of care facilities at workOne of the gaps is lack of care facilities at work
sites in many cases.sites in many cases. Due to lack of crecheDue to lack of creche
facilities, women with small children hesitate tofacilities, women with small children hesitate to
participate.participate.

19. Impact on children with Young Lives dataImpact on children with Young Lives data
The Young Lives project is in four countriesThe Young Lives project is in four countries
Ethiopia, Vietnam, Peru and India (only combinedEthiopia, Vietnam, Peru and India (only combined
State of Andhra Pradesh in India).State of Andhra Pradesh in India).
In this project 1In this project 1stst
Round survey was done in 2002.Round survey was done in 2002.
2000 households with a 1 year child and 10002000 households with a 1 year child and 1000
households with an 8 year old child were randomelyhouseholds with an 8 year old child were randomely
selected.selected. They are tracked 15 years. ResurveysThey are tracked 15 years. Resurveys
were done during the 2007 (round 2) and 2009-10were done during the 2007 (round 2) and 2009-10
(round 3).(round 3).
(1) One study on A.P. using Young Lives data(1) One study on A.P. using Young Lives data
shows that there is a positive relationship betweenshows that there is a positive relationship between
NREGA participation and anthropometric scoresNREGA participation and anthropometric scores
(health outcomes)(health outcomes)

20. Impact on children with Young LivesImpact on children with Young Lives
Although these results are not robustAlthough these results are not robust
On the other hand, the study finds robust resultsOn the other hand, the study finds robust results
on child labour. It reduces child labour for boyson child labour. It reduces child labour for boys
by 13.4% and for girls by 8.9%.by 13.4% and for girls by 8.9%.
(2) A recent study using young lives data (Mani,(2) A recent study using young lives data (Mani,
Behrman, Galab and Reddy, 2014)Behrman, Galab and Reddy, 2014) examinedexamined
the impact of the NREGA on Schooling andthe impact of the NREGA on Schooling and
Intellectual Human Capital.Intellectual Human Capital.
This paper uses a quasi-experimental frameworkThis paper uses a quasi-experimental framework
to analyze the impact of NREGA on schoolingto analyze the impact of NREGA on schooling
enrollment, grade progression,enrollment, grade progression, readingreading
comprehension test scores, math test scorescomprehension test scores, math test scores
and Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT)and Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT)
scoresscores

21. Impact of NREGA on ChildrenImpact of NREGA on Children
They used three rounds of Young Lives data.They used three rounds of Young Lives data.
They find that the program has no effect onThey find that the program has no effect on
enrollmentenrollment
but has strong positive effects on gradebut has strong positive effects on grade
progression, reading comprehension test scoresprogression, reading comprehension test scores
and PPTV scores.and PPTV scores.
This effect in A.P. is similar to the effects ofThis effect in A.P. is similar to the effects of
conditional cash transfer programs implementedconditional cash transfer programs implemented
in Latin America.in Latin America.
The findings have important policy implicationsThe findings have important policy implications
Public works programs can be extremelyPublic works programs can be extremely
beneficial in improving children’s human capital.beneficial in improving children’s human capital.

22. Impact on children contd.Impact on children contd.
Cost-effectiveness analysis based solely onCost-effectiveness analysis based solely on
labour force participation and incomelabour force participation and income
underestimate the total gains.underestimate the total gains.
Effects on intellectual human capital are likely toEffects on intellectual human capital are likely to
have substantial spillover effects andhave substantial spillover effects and
intergenerational effects which are not easilyintergenerational effects which are not easily
measurablemeasurable
The gains from receiving the program early onThe gains from receiving the program early on
remain significant for primary school.remain significant for primary school.
The timing of these interventions is criticalThe timing of these interventions is critical
particularly for femalesparticularly for females

23. (4) Impact on Assets(4) Impact on Assets
MGNREGA ‘s impact is mixed. In some placesMGNREGA ‘s impact is mixed. In some places
they created quality assets and in some othersthey created quality assets and in some others
asset quality is poor.asset quality is poor.
NSSO survey shows that around 99% of hhsinNSSO survey shows that around 99% of hhsin
Rajasthan, 82% in M.P. and 64% in A.P. wereRajasthan, 82% in M.P. and 64% in A.P. were
using the assets createdusing the assets created
Research indicates that wherever villageResearch indicates that wherever village
communities have taken enthusiasticallycommunities have taken enthusiastically
supported by an able, capable local governancesupported by an able, capable local governance
institutions, the results were positiveinstitutions, the results were positive
In other instances, lags in process andIn other instances, lags in process and
procedure have reduced the efficiency of assetsprocedure have reduced the efficiency of assets
(NREGA Sameeksha)(NREGA Sameeksha)

24. Playing with mud?
(Dreze and Khera 2009)
Proportion(%) of sample worksite where the
survey team felt that:
NREGA had led to the creation of useful
assets in their village
83
The work they were doing on NREGA
was useful
92
Proportion(%) of sample worksite where the
survey team felt that:*
The assets being created or repaired was
useful (very useful)
87(32)
The work done was useful (very useful) 81(29)

25. Projects at IGIDRProjects at IGIDR
3ie funded collaborative study with IFPRI, Cornell3ie funded collaborative study with IFPRI, Cornell
University and IGIDR, 2013-15University and IGIDR, 2013-15
Government of Maharashtra supported study toGovernment of Maharashtra supported study to
assess usefulness of MGNREGA assets, 2014assess usefulness of MGNREGA assets, 2014
ICRISAT-funded study Village Dynamics in SouthICRISAT-funded study Village Dynamics in South
Asia (Andhra Pradesh, Telengana andAsia (Andhra Pradesh, Telengana and
Maharashtra), 2014-15Maharashtra), 2014-15
EU-funded FoodSecure Project on PublicEU-funded FoodSecure Project on Public
Distribution System and MGNREGA, 2014-15.Distribution System and MGNREGA, 2014-15.
Collaborative study with Stanford University onCollaborative study with Stanford University on
using mobile phones to improve implementation,using mobile phones to improve implementation,
Surguja, Chhattisgarh, 2014-17.Surguja, Chhattisgarh, 2014-17.

26. IGIDR study on MaharashtraIGIDR study on Maharashtra
IGIDR study (led by Sudha Narayanan): Study ofIGIDR study (led by Sudha Narayanan): Study of
over 4100 MGNREGA assets across 100over 4100 MGNREGA assets across 100
villages in 20 districts in Maharashtravillages in 20 districts in Maharashtra
indicate that 87% of the works exist andindicate that 87% of the works exist and
function and over 75% of them are directly orfunction and over 75% of them are directly or
indirectly to agriculture.indirectly to agriculture.
The bulk of the rest constitutes rural roads thatThe bulk of the rest constitutes rural roads that
connect habitations to farms and access to agri.connect habitations to farms and access to agri.
marketsmarkets
The study also finds that 92% of the randomlyThe study also finds that 92% of the randomly
selected users report that their main occupationselected users report that their main occupation
is farming;is farming; half of them are small and marginalhalf of them are small and marginal
farmers owning less than 1.6 hect. of land.farmers owning less than 1.6 hect. of land.

27. IGIDR study on AssetsIGIDR study on Assets
An overwhelming 90% of respondents consideredAn overwhelming 90% of respondents considered
the works very useful or somewhat useful: only 8%the works very useful or somewhat useful: only 8%
felt the works were useless.felt the works were useless.
Sudha Narayanan says that inspite of problemsSudha Narayanan says that inspite of problems
MGNREGA is theMGNREGA is the best institutional mechanismbest institutional mechanism
available to cope with two profound challengesavailable to cope with two profound challenges
India will face in the coming years.India will face in the coming years.
The first is increasing cultivation on marginal lands.The first is increasing cultivation on marginal lands.
need to increase the productivity of the marginalneed to increase the productivity of the marginal
lands.lands.
The second challenge relates to building theThe second challenge relates to building the
resilience of Indian agriculture. Climate changeresilience of Indian agriculture. Climate change cancan
reduce yields.reduce yields.

28. Other Studies: Impact on AssetsOther Studies: Impact on Assets
Indian Institute of Science study of over 2000 hhsIndian Institute of Science study of over 2000 hhs
in 40 villages in A.P., Rajasthan and M.P. andin 40 villages in A.P., Rajasthan and M.P. and
Karnataka (quoted in Sudha Narayanan)Karnataka (quoted in Sudha Narayanan)
documents clear benefits in terms of reduced soildocuments clear benefits in terms of reduced soil
erosion, increased water availability, groundwatererosion, increased water availability, groundwater
recharge and biomass.recharge and biomass.
Tata-International water management studies ofTata-International water management studies of
best examples of 140 MRNREGA assets in 75best examples of 140 MRNREGA assets in 75
villages in Bihar, Gujarat, Kerala and Rajasthanvillages in Bihar, Gujarat, Kerala and Rajasthan
suggest that for a majority of assets the recoverysuggest that for a majority of assets the recovery
of investment happens within just one year of theof investment happens within just one year of the
completion of works (Quoted in Sudhacompletion of works (Quoted in Sudha
Narayanan)Narayanan)
They found too that additional water led to savingsThey found too that additional water led to savings

29. (5) Impact on Migration(5) Impact on Migration
MGNREGA has had a more direct and positiveMGNREGA has had a more direct and positive
impact on reducing distress migration as comparedimpact on reducing distress migration as compared
to migration taken up for other reasonsto migration taken up for other reasons
Some studies indicate that MGNREGA has reducedSome studies indicate that MGNREGA has reduced
migration by providing work closer to home andmigration by providing work closer to home and
decent working conditions.decent working conditions.
A study on Anantapur, A.P. observed that theA study on Anantapur, A.P. observed that the
scheme brought down the migration levels fromscheme brought down the migration levels from
about 27% to 7% in the sample. (NREGAabout 27% to 7% in the sample. (NREGA
Sammeksha)Sammeksha)
Another case study on one block in Bastar:Another case study on one block in Bastar:
migration declined from 4500 to 500.migration declined from 4500 to 500.
Some reports indicate that in certain places theSome reports indicate that in certain places the
reduction in distress migration has beenreduction in distress migration has been reversedreversed

30. Concluding ObservationsConcluding Observations
Letter to PM by some economists says the followingLetter to PM by some economists says the following
Despite many problems, MGNREGA has achievedDespite many problems, MGNREGA has achieved
significant results.significant results.
At a relatively modest cost (0.3% of GDP) about 50At a relatively modest cost (0.3% of GDP) about 50
million households are getting some employment.million households are getting some employment.
A majority of NREGA workers are women, and closeA majority of NREGA workers are women, and close
to half are Dalits or Adivasis.to half are Dalits or Adivasis.
A large body of research shows that the NREGAA large body of research shows that the NREGA
has several benefits , including the creation ofhas several benefits , including the creation of
productive assetsproductive assets
Recent research also shows that corruption levelsRecent research also shows that corruption levels
have steadily declined over time.have steadily declined over time.

31. Concluding ObservationsConcluding Observations
EPW editorial says: Why this Attack onEPW editorial says: Why this Attack on
MGNREGA?MGNREGA?
According to editorial, four positive outcomesAccording to editorial, four positive outcomes
stand outstand out
(a) provide some income security to rural poor(a) provide some income security to rural poor
(b) productive assets in and outside agriculture(b) productive assets in and outside agriculture
(c) High female participation and empowerment(c) High female participation and empowerment
(d) Modest tightening of rural labour market(d) Modest tightening of rural labour market
However,However, there are many problems in the designthere are many problems in the design
and implementationand implementation; corruption; wages are paid; corruption; wages are paid
late; gram sabhas do not always have technicallate; gram sabhas do not always have technical
power; not always paid attention to quality assetspower; not always paid attention to quality assets

32. Concluding ObservationsConcluding Observations
The evidence on MGNREGA shows wide variationsThe evidence on MGNREGA shows wide variations
across states with regards to implementationacross states with regards to implementation
Lower income states such as Bihar, Odisha andLower income states such as Bihar, Odisha and
Jharkhand with limited administrative capacities lagJharkhand with limited administrative capacities lag
behind ‘five star’ states (Kerala, Tamil Nadu,behind ‘five star’ states (Kerala, Tamil Nadu,
Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, A.P.) (DilipRajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, A.P.) (Dilip
Mookherji)Mookherji)
It has many benefitsand many problems.It has many benefitsand many problems.
NREGA has significant positive impact on social
sector
There are many problems with MGNREGA but little
evidence that removal or dilution of the program is
the solution.

33. Concluding ObservationsConcluding Observations
We need to think of ways of improving theWe need to think of ways of improving the
performance.performance.
If properly implemented, the potential benefits as theIf properly implemented, the potential benefits as the
ten benefits listed by me are large.ten benefits listed by me are large. It can be usedIt can be used
not only as social protection program but also asnot only as social protection program but also as
rural transformation program.rural transformation program.
But one has to be pragmatic. We can not doBut one has to be pragmatic. We can not do
miracles with 0.3% of GDP.miracles with 0.3% of GDP.
Policy makers must continue to follow the two-foldPolicy makers must continue to follow the two-fold
strategy of letting the economy grow faststrategy of letting the economy grow fast andand
attacking poverty directly through poverty alleviationattacking poverty directly through poverty alleviation
programmes to reduce poverty and inequality andprogrammes to reduce poverty and inequality and
improve employment and social sectorimprove employment and social sector
MGNREGS is part of these effortsMGNREGS is part of these efforts

34. THANK YOUTHANK YOU