Effectiveness of Poverty Alleviation Programmes in India

A project on “Effectiveness of Poverty Alleviation Schemes in India” For the partial fulfillment of Degree of Bachelor of Arts (Honors) in Economics

Submitted to:

Submitted by:

Ms. Jyoti Koul

Vaishali B.A. (Hons.) Economics

Amity School of Economics

Amity School of Economics

Amity School of Economics Amity University Haryana Gurgaon

STUDENT’S DECLARATION

I VAISHALI, hereby declare that the Project Work with the title (in block letters) “EFFECTIVENESS OF POVERTY ALLEVIATION PROGRAMMES IN INDIA” submitted by me for the partial fulfillment of the degree of B.A. Honors in Economics is my original work and has not been submitted earlier to any other University/Institution for the fulfillment of the requirement for any course of study. I also declare that no chapter of this manuscript in whole or in part has been incorporated in this report from any earlier work done by others or by me. However, extracts of any literature which has been used for this report has been duly acknowledged providing details of such literature in the references.

Signature of Supervisor:

Signature of Student:

Name: VAISHALI Enrolment No.: A50018213002

Place: Gurgaon Date: April 06, 2015

ABSTRACT

The project highlights some of the poverty alleviation programmes of the government to evaluate the contribution of these programmes towards reducing poverty in the country. The poverty alleviation programmes are generally classified into (i) self employment programmes; (ii) wage employment programmes; (iii) food security programmes; (iv) social security programmes; and (v) urban poverty alleviation programmes. The parameter used for evaluation included utilization of allocated funds, change in poverty level, employment generation and number or proportion of beneficiaries.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere thanks to my supervisor Professor Jyoti Koul, who has provided me with guidance and support throughout my project work. I would like to thank Dr. Meenal Sharma Jagtap, for her advice and assistance. I would like to thank all staff members, faculty and fellow classmates for their constant academic interactions with me. I would like to thank all other people who have supported me, though I have not mentioned their names here. Please accept my sincere apologies and thank you very much. Finally, I have to owe the greatest debt to my family. Their support and care is always a substantial source of inspiration.

INTRODUCTION At the beginning of the new millennium, 260 million people in the country did not have incomes to access a consumption basket which defines the poverty line. Of these 75 percent were in the rural areas. India is home to 22 percent of the world’s poor. Such a high incidence of poverty is a matter of concern in view of the fact that poverty eradication has been one of the major objectives of the development planning process. Indeed, poverty is a global issue. Its eradication is considered integral to humanity’s quest for sustainable development. Reduction of poverty in India, is, therefore vital for the attainment on international goals. Poverty alleviation has been one of the guiding principles of the planning process in India. The role of economic growth in providing more employment avenues to the population has been clearly recognized. The growth-oriented approach has been reinforced by focusing on specific sectors which provide greater opportunities to the people to participate in the growth process. The various dimensions of poverty relating to health, education and other basic services have been progressively internalized in the planning process. Central and state governments have considerably enhanced allocations for the provision of education, health, sanitation and other facilities which promote capacity-building and wellbeing of the poor. Investments in agriculture, area development programmes and afforestation provide avenues for employment and income. Plans to reduce poverty levels and bridge the gaps in distribution of wealth have been a part of the Government’s policy since India got its independence. Some of the initial programs concentrated on making the poor self sufficient with respect to the basic necessities like food. Immediately after independence, making food grains available to all residents at controlled prices was an important part of poverty reduction programs. Employment opportunities, agricultural development, primary education and good infrastructure are some of the objectives of programs designed by the government. National Rural Employment Programs, Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Program, and Jawahar Rozgar Yojna are some of the programs introduced by the Indian Government. Poverty alleviation programs addresses the root cause of poverty like illiteracy, high population growth rate, high dependence of farmers on monsoons and outdated techniques to cultivate their lands. Poverty reduction has also been an important part of India’s five-year plans. The current plans to aim at reducing the headcount ratio of consumption poverty by 10 percentage points. It is also expected to reduce educated unemployment, increase work opportunities and increase the real wages for unskilled workers – thus reducing poverty amongst labor classes. But the effectiveness of the poverty alleviation programmes has not been up to the standards set.

SPECIFIC INTRODUCTION

The government has relied mainly on three approaches for reduction of poverty. The first entails pursuit of higher economic growth which will improve the levels of living of all groups of people in the society including the poor, the second involves direct anti poverty programmes and the third has stressed high priority to government expenditure on social sectors. Some of the major poverty alleviation programmes that have been launched by the Government of India are as follows: 1. Legal elimination of bonded laborers. 2. Preventing the centralization of wealth by modifying the law. 3. Antyodaya plan. 4. Small Farmers Development Programme (SFDP) 5. Drought Area Development Programme (DADP) 6. Twenty Point Programme 7. Food for work programme 8. Minimum needs programme (MNP) 9. Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP) 10. National Rural Employment Programme 11. Rural Labor Employment Guarantee Programme (RLEGP) 12. Training of Rural Youth for Self Employment Scheme (TRYSEM Scheme) 13. Jawahar Rojgar Yojna (JRY) 14. Swarna Jayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojna 15. National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP) 16. Rural Housing Programme. 17. Jawahar Gram Samridhi Yojna 18. Indira Awaas Yojna 19. Pradhan Mantri Rojgar Yojna 20. Nehru Rozgar Yojna (NRY) 21. Self Employment Programme for the Urban Poor (SEPUP) 22. Employment Assurance Scheme 23. Prime Minister’s Integrated Urban Poverty Eradication Programme (PMIUPEP) 24. Public Distribution System 25. Mid-Day Meal Scheme 26. Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA) Poverty, however, can be eradicated only when the various facilities and concessions for the upliftment of the downtrodden actually reach them. Then, there should be proper utilization of these concessions and facilities. The focus of attention should not be on individual households but on the group of households. The assets of the individual household should be pooled together to start occupation when are technically feasible and economically viable.

Therefore, from these major programmes I decided to select 5 Poverty Alleviation Programmes for further analysis as part of this project. The Poverty alleviation programmes I have selected are: 1. Swarna Jayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojna 2. Indira Awaas Yojna 3. Public Distribution System 4. Mid-Day Meal Scheme 5. Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA)

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this project work are:

1. Conducting research about the various Poverty Alleviation Programmes currently running India and selecting 5 for this project. 2. Analyzing and evaluating the extent of success/failure of the selected Programmes. 3. Finding conclusion and suggesting beneficial reforms for enhancing the performance of these programmes.

1. SWARNA JAYANTI GRAM SWAROZGAR YOJNA

Swarna Jayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojna is a holistic programme covering all aspects of self employment for rural BPL population. It is an amalgamation of six major programmes which preceded it, viz., IRDP, DWCRA, SITRA, TRYSEM, MWS and GKY. The programme was announced in 1997 to commemorate 50 years of India’s independence, and initiated in 1999/2000. Objective To bring the rural BPL families above the poverty line by ensuring appreciable increase in income on a sustainable basis through creation of self employment (swarozgari) opportunities through a mix of credit and subsidy. Brief of the scheme The scheme is based on the assumption that poverty is a Multi-dimensional problem and needs to be tackled holistically through a multi-pronged strategy. Woven around the mechanism of Self-Help Groups (SHGs), the SGSY has been designed to break the financial, technical and market constraints that the individual BPL households face to cross the threshold of poverty line. The main components of the scheme include: 1. Formation of SHGs of rural poor households; 2. Capacity building training for managing the SHGs and skill training to take up microenterprises; 3. Strengthening thrift and credit in SHGs by providing revolving fund support; 4. Credit linkage with banks/other financial institutions and back ended subsidies for eligible SHGs/ members to take up microenterprises; 5. Provision of support for marketing and infrastructure creation to strengthen the forward and backward linkages; 6. Technology inputs for microenterprises. In addition, 15% of the total SGSY allocation is earmarked for special SGSY projects in the nature of pioneer/ innovative projects capable of triggering growth impulses. The scheme involves selection of key activities and planning of activity clusters. The scheme is implemented through District Rural Development Agencies (DRDAs) with active involvement of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs), banks; line Departments of the state governments and Non-Government Organizations (NGOs). Subsidy under the SGSY to individual swarozgaris is uniform at 30% of the project cost, subject to a maximum of Rs.7,500. In respect of SCs/Sts and disabled persons, the subsidy is 15% of the project cost, subject to a maximum of Rs 10,000. For groups of swarozgaris (SHGs),

the subsidy is 50 growth impulses to ensure a time bound programme for bringing specific number of rural BPL families above the poverty line.

Shortcomings 1. Divergence between objectives and design:- the objectives of SGSY state that it aims to assist people who are most vulnerable. However, a safe borrower is an earning member at the time of group formation, owns land, and whose aggregate family income at the time of group formation is ‘healthy’. The criteria are inconsistent with the scheme, which aims to provide credit-cum-subsidy to the poor in order that they may undertake an incomegenerating activity. Those who do not have ‘healthy’ income or assets, such as land, would need assistance. Moreover, assuming the poor are asset-less and that incomegenerating assets with training will bring them out of poverty ignores the myriad factors that are crucial to BPL families becoming self-reliant, such as access to basic services like drinking water, healthcare and education. 2. Lack of support to SHGs:- Supporting agencies, such as DRDAs and NGOs, play a critical role in forming SHGs, preparing proposals and still development. Yet, these agencies sometimes did not facilitate the process as envisaged, as a result of which, applications by SHGs for loans were rejected by banks due to deficient applications, unviable proposals, and late submissions. SHGs were also constrained by low absorptive capacity and skill levels. As a result, they engaged in less productive activities for which banks are reluctant to advance credit. In some, SGSY has not performed its role of “Social Engineering” which was imperative for the success of the SHG Bank Linkage programme. 3. Selection Bias:- As per the scheme design, Gram Panchayats are responsible for forming the groups, which limits peoples ownership and control over the group’s activities. BPL is the main criteria used to select beneficiaries and groups are formed based on activities. Members have common interests and skills, which is contrary to the understanding that heterogeneous groups are able to overcome individual shortcomings and thus able to mitigate risks better. While SHG swarozgaris are formed by the Gram Panchayat and more beneficiaries can volunteer, individual swarozgaris are selected by the Sarpanch. Since SGSY is primarily targeted at BPL families, there are several instance where non BPL families are selected, thus crowding out intended beneficiaries. 4. Gap between sanction and disbursal of loans:- Banks have been slow to process loan applications and to disburse loans after they have been sanctioned. The lack of coordination between banks and government agencies results in further delays in release of credit. Given that the scheme relies primarily on bank credit, delays hamper timely progress of the entire scheme cycle. Bans are reluctant to disburse credit because the recovery rate for government schemes such as IRDP and DWRCA was poor. Since the scheme is a credit-cum-subsidy scheme, delay in release of subsidy by DRDAs to banks for the delays release of the aid. Financial irregularities, such as banks that charge

beneficiaries interest on the subsidy portion and non-payment of interests for subsidies kept in savings accounts, further hinder the operation of the scheme.

Recommendations 1. Knowledge about the scheme and its various aspects is limited. There is a need to create awareness about the scheme which can be done through electronic and print media. 2. In Self Employment Programmes, care should be taken at the time of selection of beneficiaries. Only those beneficiaries who have the potential to start and manage the economic activity should be covered under the Scheme. 3. The scheme lays heavy emphasis on the formation of Women Self Help Groups. Around 50% of the groups formed in each block are expected to be exclusively for women. But, unfortunately, not much has been done to promote Women SHGs in the state. This issue needs to be addressed immediately. The allocation and release of the funds should be curtailed. 4. The officials mentioned that they find it difficult to arrange a minimum of 8 members in a Woman SHG. Therefore, it is suggested that a woman SHG with a minimum of 4 members should also be allowed/recognized. 5. It was found that there is lack of coordination between Banks and the Implementing Agencies. Due to illiteracy, the borrowers were not able to complete the formalities in time. The banks were hesitant to sanction loans to applicants who are BPL because of their inability to repay loans. It is suggested that the banks should be directed to ensure that illiterate people and the people residing in far flung areas are also covered under the scheme. 6. There is a need to enhance the loan amount and decrease the rate of interest considerably, so that the borrowers are able to repay their loans on time. 7. Proper training programmes regarding financial and administrative management, maintenance of records and marketing facility should be arranged by the certain reputed agencies, both for SHGs and Individual Beneficiaries. 8. The State Government should play a direct role in marketing the products of SGSY beneficiaries and facilitate the marketing of the goods produced by the beneficiaries. 9. Inherent skills of the swarozgaris have not been upgraded. They are not in a position to apply the modern skills and re-designs in their products and activities. Hence, there is a need to involve some national level credible NGO, local Engineering colleges and Industrial Training Institutes for upgrading the technical skills of swarozgaris to use modern techniques and thereby increase their productivity and efficiency.

10. The insurance cover provided to the SHGs should be ensured and insurance charges should be borne by the Government exclusively since the BPL category beneficiaries are not able to bear expenses, independently

2. INDIRA AWAAS YOJANA The Indira Awaas Yojana (AIY), a centrally sponsored scheme of Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India is one of the most important poverty alleviation programmes in the country which play a vital role to uplift the living standard of poor people in rural areas. This scheme is being implemented in all the districts. Objective To provide a financial aid to the members of SCs/STs, freed bonded laborers, widows and nextof-kin, to defense personnel/paramilitary forces killed in action (irrespective of their income criteria), ex-servicemen and retired members of paramilitary forces residing in rural areas. Also, to other non scheduled castes/scheduled tribes rural poor below the poverty line for the construction of their dwelling units by providing them a sum amount as financial assistance. Impact Since 1985, 25.2 million houses have been constructed under the scheme. Under the Bharat Nirmaan Phase I Project, 6 million houses were targeted and 7.1 million actually constructed from 2005-06 to 2008-09. Additional, 12 million houses are planned to be constructed or renovated under the Bharat Nirmaan Phase II. According to Official 2001 figures, the total rural housing shortage is 14.825 million houses. A Software called ‘AWAAS Soft’ was launched in July 2010 to assist in improved administration of this scheme.

Shortcomings Although performance of Indira Awaas Yojna has been improved since its inception, yet a great deal remains to be done. The IAY scheme was not going as per the guidelines and unable to achieve its all objectives. Maximum beneficiaries and non beneficiaries, even some of the officials of DRDAs were not fully aware of the components of the scheme and their responsibilities in implementing the scheme. Some weak points of the scheme are as follows: 1. There was a lack of awareness among rural people about IAY. 2. Media is playing just negligible role to spread awareness of IAY among rural people. 3. There was a lack of responsibility among the concerned people/officials in implementing the scheme regarding the quality of raw material used and proper utilization of funds. 4. The system parameter for selection of beneficiaries was not found adequate. The possibility of partialities, biasedness was found selection of beneficiaries by panchayats and concerned officials, officers also. 5. During the work of evaluation study it has also been witnessed that there was negligible involvement of NGOs. 6. Monitoring was not properly done by the concerned authorities. 7. Skilled labor was not used for construction of dwelling units under the scheme. 8. It was also found that no latest technology was being used in construction of dwelling units so that some improvement may be made with low cost of construction. 9. Covered area of dwelling units was found very much smaller than what was required. 10. No special attention was paid on basic amenities like supply of water and drainage etc. in these dwelling units. 11. It was found that lump sum amount of Rs. 45,000/- in plain areas and Rs. 48,500/- in hilly areas is less than estimated cost of these dwelling units. Recommendations

1. There is a need to create awareness about this scheme. It can be done by giving wide publicity to the scheme through electronic and print media. 2. The Covered area of the dwelling units under the scheme should also be enhanced. 3. The concerned officers should discharge their duties with responsibility in implementing this scheme. 4. The lump-sum amount being provided presently to the beneficiaries under this scheme should be increased up to estimated cost of dwelling units. 5. The authorities should pay a special attention to the basic amenities like supply of water and drainage in these dwelling units. 6. The authorities should also use the latest and cheapest technology for durable construction of these dwelling units. 7. The authorities should also engage technical/skilled labor for construction of dwelling units. 8. The monitoring of Indira Awaas Yojna should be made and essential feature in functioning of panchayats and staff engaged in rural development schemes and they should be assigned their responsibility to monitor/encourage all the activities under this scheme.

3. PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Public Distribution System in India is a Food Security system to our people. It is established by the Government of India under Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (PDS) and State Governments to India, it distributes subsidized food and non-food items to the people living in below poverty. Major commodities distributed such as rice, wheat, sugar and kerosene, through a Public Distribution Shops known as Ration Fair Price Shops established in several States across the country. This system has been considered as the most important food based safety net introduced by the Government of India. The unique objective of PDS is to provide essential consumer goods at cheap and subsidized price to the consumers. This helps to the poor people from the impact of rising prices. Bearing the food grains PDS has also been used in India for the distribution of edible oils, sugar, coal, kerosene and cloth. PDS distributes whole commodities worth more than Rs.30,000 crore annually to about 160 million families and is considered the largest network of its kind.

Objectives

1. The main objective of PDS, at least when it started and was universal, was to ensure that the poor in our country, who lack purchasing power to buy enough food to quench their hunger, are able to purchase at least rice and wheat through ration shops at cheap prices. It was also meant to protect the public at large from higher prices of rice, wheat and coarse cereals and pulses by supplying these at lower than market prices to any consumer having a ration card. The scheme was universal when it started, but was then targeted in 1993 because of our fiscal situation in 1991 and the promises we made to World Bank in return for obtaining funds from it, and because of the idea that the system should only be meant for the poor and not the rich who have the capacity to pay higher prices. 2. The second objective was something which came up as the outcome of the Green Revolution: increased productivity of food crops (rice and wheat). Such increased productivity meant that while demand had not increased greatly, the supply had increased sharply thanks to introduction of fertilizers, HYV seeds and other scientific practices within our rural hinterland, particularly in North and West India. Increase in production would have led to fall in prices of crops with not much increase in demand, which would have been catastrophic for our farmers. Hence, the government had also introduced the policy of Minimum Support Price at which rice and wheat would be procured from our

farmers by the Food Corporation of India (FCI), which started in 1965. The idea behind all this was that grains procured through FCI would be distributed through ration shops for the general public at subsidized rates, while buffer stocks would be maintained for ensuring enough availability at times of drought and floods for the affected populations. And thus, national food security would be ensured.

Shortcomings

The general study reveals about shortcomings in the form of corruption about the system of PDS. The defects are:1. Consumers may receive inferior quality of food grains in ration shop; it may be increased day by day. 2. Fraudulent dealers replace good supplies received from the Food Corporation of India with inferior stock and sell FCI stock in the black market.

3. Fair price shop owners act unlawfully to create large number of bogus cards to sell food grains in the open market. 4. Many ration shop dealers resort to malpractices, illegal diversions of commodities, holding and black marketing due to the minimum salary received by them. 5. Numerous malpractices make safe and nutritious food inaccessible and unaffordable to many poor thus resulting in their food insecurity. 6. Identification of households to be denoted status and distribution to granted PDS services has been highly irregular and diverse in various States. 7. Regional allocation and coverage of fair price shops are unsatisfactory and the core objective of price stabilization of essential commodities has not met. 8. Fair Price Shops dealers indulge malpractices in inappropriate weighting the materials. 9. Many BPL families are not able to acquire ration cards either because they are seasonal migrants or because they live in unauthorized colonies. Also many mortgage their ration cards for money. 10. Lack of clarity in the planning and structuring of social safety and security programmes in India has resulted in the creation of numerous cards for the poor and limited

information about the overall use of ration cards for the poor has discouraged BPL families from registering for new cards. Several schemes have increased the number of people aided by PDS, but the number is still extremely low. Poor supervision in fair price shops and lack of accountability by the citizen has spurred a number of intermediaries who consume a good portion of the stock meant for poor. There is no clarity as to which families should be included in the BPL list and which excluded. The stick assigns to a single family cannot be bought in installments. This is a decisive barrier to the efficient functioning and overall success of PDS in India.

Recommendations 1. The monitoring team may act vigilantly; it really strengthens to detect corruption. For this, the Government may impart resources through tax payers. 2. A Local Official personnel will be chosen to act head to the vigilant team. 3. FCI and other important agencies should provide quality food grains for distribution, which is a tall order for an agency that has no real incentive to do so. 4. The Government may also reduce the quantity of foods to the family reasonably, but they should provide high quality foods to the beneficiaries. 5. Margin of profit should be increased for honest business, in which case the market system is more apt anyway. 6. Adequate checks and raids should be conducted to eliminate bogus and duplicate cards. 7. The government should take necessary steps to open many more fair price shops in rural areas. 8. The fair price dealers seldom display rate chart and quantity available in front of the shop, it should be enforced compulsorily. 9. To monitor the FPS, the local people centered committee should be established.

4. MID DAY MEAL SCHEME The Mid Day Meal Scheme launched by the Government in 2004 emphasized its implementation in its Common Minimum Programme. It envisages provision of cooked, nutritious Mid Day Meal to Primary and Secondary School children. Importantly, it mentions setting-up of an appropriate mechanism for quality checks. Despite the broad based efforts of the Central Government for more than a decade and a half and a few pioneering efforts earlier on, the problem of malnutrition, anemia, deficiency in vitamin A and Iodine is very common amongst children in India. In fact today, 94% of children in the age group of 6-9 are mildly, moderately, or severely underweight. About 67.5% of children under 5 years and 69% of adolescent girls suffer from anemia due to iron and folic acid deficiency. In fact, the MDM Scheme implemented in Delhi in the late 90s was found to be wanting on many evaluation parameters. A nationwide study by Planning Commission in 2010 also shows the MDM Scheme to be wanting on several evaluation parameters. The poor performance, however, is in stark contrast to the actual spending under this programme. An amount of Rs.1,400 crore was spent on this Scheme in the year 2003-04 and the budget of the Central Government had allocated Rs.7,324 crore for this scheme in the year 2007-08.

Shortcomings

1. The officials only come to do checks when there is a complaint or serious cases. 2. The food items are stored and cooked in unhealthy conditions. 3. Poor quality of food is provided to the schools. 4. There is widespread corruption due to which schools get only a small portion of allotted food. 5. Food received is often laced with stones and worms. 6. There have been instances where children were made to rub the playground soil on the dishes and giving them a quick rinse. 7. Grain in kept in decrepit conditions in central warehouses. 8. Usually there are no proper schools and/or kitchen to prepare a proper meal. 9. Poor Availability of Utensils.

Recommendations

1. To engage private agencies which would be expected to follow certain hygiene norms for food preparation. 2. Food inspectors may be deployed to periodically check quality of prepared meals. 3. Moreover, meals could be complemented by giving ‘chikki’, ‘sukhdi’, occasional nutrition bar and/or fruits like banana on some days. This will add variety and assured nutrition to the children. 4. Public-Private Partnership may be considered for delivery of nutrition bars through food giants such as ITC. 5. Partial substitution of delivery of loose grains by packaged items may also improve accountability in the supply chain. 6. In the near future, possibilities of using nutritionally fortified GM food grains such as Golden Rice may be considered for the mid day meals. 7.

5. MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE ACT (MNREGA)

The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act is an Indian labor law and social security measure that aims to guarantee the Right to Work. It aims to ensure livelihood security in rural areas by providing at least 100 days of wage employment in a financial year to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work. Starting from 200 districts on February 2, 2006, the MNREGA covered all the districts of India from April 1, 2008. The statute is hailed by the Government as “the largest and most ambitious social security and public works programme in the world”. World Development Report 2014, The World Bank termed it a “Stellar example of rural development”. Objectives 1. Enhancing livelihood security in rural areas by providing at least 100 days of guaranteed wage employment in a financial year, to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work. 2. To create durable assets, such as roads, canals, ponds, wells. Features 1. Employment is to be provided within 5 km of an applicant’s residence, and minimum wages are to be paid. 2. If work is not provided within 15 days of applying, applicants are entitled to an unemployment allowance. 3. MNREGA is to be implemented by Gram Panchayats. The involvement of contractors is banned. 4. Labor intensive tasks like creating infrastructure for water harvesting, drought relief and flood control are preferred. 5. The Act explicitly mentions the principles financing pattern and most importantly the detailed measures to ensure transparency and accountability.

Shortcomings

1. Denial of Registration:- Reports from the field point to incidents of denial of registration to single-women-headed households and physically challenged individuals. Discrimination based on caste has also been noted in some states like Gujarat. 2. Distribution of job cards:- According to data provided on the MNREGA website, maintained by the Ministry of Rural Development, the percentage of job cards issued to registered households varies across states. For some states like Maharashtra it stands at 12%, while for others such as Andhra Pradesh it is over 90%. 3. Unsolicited fees being charged for work application forms:- Fees for application forms are being charged in many states like Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Jharkhand. The fee ranges from Rs. 5 to Rs. 50 in some states. Forms are also sold openly in local markets which flouts the MNREGA guidelines that states that applications may even be submitted to the Gram Panchayat on a plain piece of paper. 4. Presence of Contractors:- like in many other rural development programmes, contractors are increasingly becoming a threat to the MNREGA. The Act clearly states that no contactor is permitted in the implementation of these projects but private contractors are slowly finding their way into the system 5. Absence of Worksite facilities:- The MNREGA provides for facilities for safe drinking water, shade for children, periods of rest and a first-aid box at the worksite (Section 27, Schedule II of the NREGA). But a lot has to be done to ensure these facilities, the notable absence of which is a problem that cuts across the states. Small children remain unattended, in the heat. As a consequence, women are hesitant to bring their children to the sites. It also forces them to rethink about applying for work in the first place. 6. Non-availability of muster rolls at the worksites:- It is rare indeed to find muster rolls at the worksites. Reports from across MNREGA districts show that ‘kutcha’ muster rolls/attendance sheets are being maintained by people at worksites. Rough notebooks and diaries are being used to mark attendance and make wage payments. 7. Delay in wage payments:- Delays in wage payments have always been a matter of concern in employment programmes, and this issue continues to plague MNREGA. Wage payments are delayed for weeks, sometimes months. 8. Payment of less than the minimum wage:- In many states, workers do not earn minimum wages. For instance, in Gujarat’s Sabarkantha district the paid wage is as low as Rs. 4 to

Rs. 7; in Kalahandi district of Orissa workers earn between Rs. 40 – Rs. 50, whereas the minimum wage is Rs. 55. Women are paid even less – about Rs. 30 per day. In some states like Jharkhand, workers are paid as little as Rs. 10.

Recommendations 1. Regulation of Job Cards:- Offenses such as not recording employment related information in job cards and unlawful possession of job cards with elected PRI representatives MNREGA functionaries should be punishable under the Act. 2. 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 raisin awareness about MNREGA. 3. 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. 4. Utilization of funds:- The Committee found that a large no. of funds allocated for MNREGA have remained unutilized. The Committee recommends that the Department of Rural Development should analyze reasons for poor utilization of funds and take steps to improve the same. In addition, it should initiate action against officers found guilty. 5. Context specific projects and convergence: Since states are at various stages socioeconomic 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 MNREGA. 6. 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. 7. Regular Monitoring: National Level Monitors (NLM) are deployed by the Ministry of Rural Development for regular and special monitoring of MNREGA and to enquire into complaints regarding mis-utilization 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 6 months. 8. Training of functionaries: Training and capacity building of elected representatives and other functionaries of PRIs must be done regularly as it will facilitate their involvenemnt in the implementation of MNREGA. 9.

CONCLUSION

Although the Poverty Alleviation Programmes in India have been made with a good intent of the heart, they have not been completely successful due to some administrative shortcomings on the part of the Government of India and malicious profit earning intent of the middlemen involved. Some factors that I have been able to narrow down from the 5 programmes I had selected for the project are: 1. Corruption: Former Prime Minister, Rajeev Gandhi had once said that, “Out of every 100 paisa allotted for public welfare only 14 paisa reaches the target audience.” The percentage of India’s population living below the poverty line in 2004-05 was estimated at 27.8 percent. The government has been able to reduce this rate by only an average of 0.74 percent since 1993. Statistics clearly indicate that the poverty alleviation programmes have had a minimal effect on poverty levels in India. The plans look effective on paper but their implementations in reality has been a major setback. The actual funds that reach the beneficiaries are very little compared to the funds allocated for welfare schemes. 2. Lack of Awareness: Since the major chunk of the population in India is illiterate a lot of times the people are not aware of the schemes that the Government is running for them and even if they are they do not completely understand how to access the benefits of these schemes or how these schemes are beneficial for them. 3. Negligence: The government employees and the other representatives working on these schemes have no initiative to make sure that the schemes are properly implemented which leads to a laid back attitude and negligence on part of these officials. 4. Discrimination and Bias: The officials working on these schemes sometimes work with bias against some classes of people due to their mindsets and hence end up discriminating against them by not providing them with services that they have a right to e.g. discriminating against women or not lending money to a certain creed of people such as the extreme poor. 5. Infrastructure: In some of the instances of the failure of a scheme have been due to lack of proper infrastructure necessary for the proper implementation of the scheme. E.g. lack of proper storerooms in schools and proper kitchens in case of the Mid Day Meal Scheme.

BIBLIOGRAPHY



http://m.moneycontrol.com/news/current-affairs/india-ignored-watningsproblemsmidday-meal-scheme_922020.html



http://www.youraticlelibrary.com/poverty/21-major-alleviation-programmes-launched-inindia/23415



Shodhganga.infibnet.ac.in:8080/jspui/bitstream/10603/9993/6/06_chapter%201.pdf



http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/fiveyr/9th/vol2/v2c2-1.htm



http://medind.nic.in/iby/t07/i10/ibyt07i10p364.pdf



http://indiabudget.nic.in/es2005-06/chapt2006/chap103.pdf



http://vhai.org/ceo/icdhi-publications/Poverty%20Alleviation%20Programmes%20in %20India.pdf



http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/sereport/ser/std_priorpoorAP.pdf



http://youthkiawaaz.com/2012/04/analysis-the-mahatma-gandhi-national-ruralemployment-guarantee-act-recent-ict-innovations/



http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4402099? sid=21105867775031&uid=2134&uid3738256&uid=70&uid388020691&uid=60&uid=3 &uid=2&uid=2460337935&uid=83&uid=63&uid=388020681&uid=2460338175



http://planningcommission.gov.in/plans/planrel/fiveyr/10th/volume2/v2_ch3_2.pdf



https://window2india.com/cms/admin/article.jsp?aid=2666



http://aiggpa.mp.gov.in/attachments/article/52/SGSY%20REPORT_Karanpreet.pdf



http://www.ekalavvya.com/national-social-assistance-programme-nsap/



http://mospi.nic.in/mospi_new/upload/tppmar12/pub_tpp_2006.pdf? status=1&menu_id=137



http://www.quora.com/How-effective-has-the-Public-Distribution-System-PDS-been-inIndia-in-Realising-its-objectives



http://thegolbaljournals.com/gra/file.php?val=June_2014_1402916990_7d44e_41.pdf



http://fciweb.nic.in/upload/Public-dist/Brief%20note%20on%20TPDS%20&%20OWS %209.9.11.pdf



http://cdf.ifmr.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/SGSY-Brief.pdf



http://agridr.in/tnauEAgri/eagri50/AEXT191/lec11.pdf



http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indira_Awaas_Yojana



http://forumias.com/discussion/2048/public-distribution-system-objectives-functioninglimitations-revamping-p1



http://isindexing.com/isi/papers/1409296533.pdf



http://esharyana.gov.in/Data/Evaluation%20Study/IAY.pdf



http://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/ESCAP-SSWA-DevelopmentPaper_1306_1.pdf



http://infochangeindia.org/poverty/features/nrega-challenges-in-implementation.html



http://www.prsindia.org/theprsblog/?p=3013