In the mid of October, about 30 Economists wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister asking him not to dilute the provisions of MNREGA. Here are 5 things that the government did/ was trying to do, and here is what the economists had to say to him. In 5 bullet points.
[su_dropcap size=”4″]1[/su_dropcap] Social Benefits at a low cost.
MNREGS costs less than 0.3% of GDP. employs about 50 million households per annum. Majority of NREGA workers are women, close to half are dalits or adivasis. Creates productive social assets.
[su_dropcap size=”4″]2[/su_dropcap] Corruption has declined, can be curbed.
While corruption remains a concern, experience shows that it can be curbed, and the battle against corruption in NREGA has helped to establish new standards of transparency in other social programmes as well.
No doubt, the programme could and should do even better. But the gains that have been achieved are substantial and amply justify further efforts to make it a success.
[su_dropcap size=”4″]3[/su_dropcap] Bring back compensation for delayed payments.
Against this background, it is alarming to hear of multiple moves (some of them going back to the preceding government) to dilute or restrict the provisions of the Act. Wages have been frozen in real terms, and long delays in wage payments have further reduced their real value. The Act’s initial provisions for compensation in the event of delayed payments have been removed.
[su_dropcap size=”4″]4[/su_dropcap] Don’t dilute Labour: Material ratio to 51:49.
The labour-material ratio is sought to be reduced from 60:40 to 51:49 without any evidence that this would raise the productivity of NREGA works. For the first time, the central government is imposing caps on NREGA expenditure on state governments, undermining the principle of work on demand.
[su_dropcap size=”4″]5[/su_dropcap]Don’t restrict to 200 districts, keep it All India.
Last but not least, the central government appears to be considering an amendment aimed at restricting the NREGA to the country’s poorest 200 districts. This runs against a fundamental premise of the Act: gainful employment that affords basic economic security is a human right. Even India’s relatively prosperous districts are unlikely to be free from unemployment or poverty in the foreseeable future.
