Congress has promised in its manifesto to provide an assured income of Rs. 6000/-per month or Rs 72000/- per annum to the 5-6 crore poorest families if it comes to power and is claiming it to be the biggest assault on poverty. However, to many economic analysts and development experts, the idea is ill conceived and goes against the interests of the target group and development of the rural areas itself.
Historically speaking, India has been experimenting with different approaches to employment and poverty alleviation, especially in the rural areas since 1960s till date including both wage and self employment schemes. Apart from the pilot projects, the schemes like RLEGP, marginal and small farmers ‘development scheme, Antyodaya, Jawahar Rozgar Yojana, Swarna Jayanti Shahari Rozgar Yojana etc finally culminating in the legally assured employment for 100-150 days in a year under MNAREGA are some examples in place.
MGNAREGA was different from the earlier schemes in more than one way. One, it gave a legally approved guarantee to the manual job seekers to claim paid work (wage employment) for the defined period of time, failing which, within 15 days of their application for job, an assured unemployment allowance.
Thus, it was conceived as a livelihood security. Two, the implementation was assigned to the PRIs. Third, it aimed at creating rural assets in the form of roads, ponds, and such like infrastructure. The objective was that employment should be productive and must have long term impact on rural living. For example, the program aimed at creating infrastructure for water conservation and water harvesting, drought proofing, flood control among others. Fourth, it aimed at recognizing and awarding dignity of labour and self-respect among the poor.
The programe, though, failed to produce desired results because of corruption at the level of the implementing agencies, exploitation of the poor, lack of effective social audit or legal audit which has been documented in several studies in the past. It remains still a laudable and biggest poverty alleviation program if weaknesses inflicting it are well taken care off. For instance, the direct transfer of wages into the bank accounts of the workers, as decided lately by the government can go a long way in this regard.
The NYAY, a cash transfer scheme, not only negates the letter and spirit of MGNAREGA it also would have many undesirable effects. It would be an unearned income creating no real value in the minds of the recipients, for one. It may be used for purposes other than the livelihoods like marriage, birth day celebration or feasts.
Moreover, it may create a problem of corruption emanating from the race for inclusion and exclusion. Following from this the practice of middlemen and bribery would in all probability come into play. The poor may not really benefit as was the case in relation to various earlier schemes including the IRDP and TRYSEM. Additionally, it would render the poor into a lethargic and wasteful manpower.
The scheme, in all its likelihood, would create a new social class of bonded poor or even bonded voters having the potential of changing the character and form of democracy in the long run. Patron-client relationship would emerge in a new form and deepen its roots. Furthermore, rural development, which was at the centre of the MGNAREGA, would fall to the ground and villages would again either depend on the state initiatives and support or will be forced to live under unlivable conditions.
Moreover, funding of the scheme on such a scale would imply that the government would either cut on the development spending or would have to immensely increase tax burden on the tax payers. If the funding is arranged through business, trade or industry it would very adversely affect economic growth, manufacture and overall employment environment. It would not be conducive for investment and research. In other words, it is a concept that is unworkable, anti- development, and even anti-poor.
What is required is that the MGNAREGA should be strengthened to extend its scope of work and time of engagement with a renewed focus on asset generation. Effective anti-corruption mechanisms must be brought in place. Review, monitoring and audit system need to be made more transparent and effective. NYAY could be a populist vote catching strategy, but not in the national interest.
(The author is a political scientist and former Consultant, SSS, IGNOU, New Delhi)