Strategies and Policies for Alleviation of Rural Poverty in India: Experience of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme

Abstract

Eradication of rural poverty has been a continuing quest of the planning-led development process in India. A plethora of development delivery institutions has emerged over the years to benefit the poor and the disadvantaged groups of the society, and thereby to promote inclusive growth of the economy. The Central government and different state governments have introduced a number of such development delivery institutions to alleviate rural poverty in the country. The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), conceptualised and enacted as an Act of Parliament by the Government of India in September 2005, is one of such development delivery institutions which aims at promoting inclusive and pro-poor economic growth by enhancing sustainable livelihood opportunities for the rural households along with conservation of natural resources. While most of the earlier poverty alleviation programmes have failed, it is expected that the MGNREGS will deliver the desired outcomes. Given that success of any developmental scheme depends on how it is implemented, the present paper is an attempt to identify the factors that have influenced execution of the MGNREGS and understand the socioeconomic changes across the Indian states following its implementation. It is found that implementation of the MGNREGS has varied widely across the states and has been influenced significantly by the caste composition, literacy and economic conditions of rural population and structure of rural workforce. It is also found that there has been considerable increase in monthly per capita consumption

Employment Guarantee Programme and Dynamics of Rural Transformation in India

“…8 Further, the performance of the MGNREGA has deteriorated over the years . However, the experiences at the state level have been mixed (Mishra and Mishra 2015). It is observed that higher utilization of available funds in these states did not have any significant impact on physical performance of the scheme (Table 7.…”