Development Policy Review, 2017, 0 (0): 1--21

The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment

Guarantee Scheme: A Policy Solution to Rural
Poverty in India?
Rhonda Breitkreuz*, Carley-Jane Stanton, Nurmaiya Brady,
John Pattison-Williams, E.D. King, Chudhury Mishra and
Brent Swallow
The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act
(MGNREGA) was developed by the Indian government to reduce rural
poverty through 100 days of guaranteed employment per year. Using focus
group methods, we explore whether this scheme has provided rights’ based
social protection through guaranteed employment for Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and women in Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Odisha. We found
that the experiences of participating in MGNREGA varied depending on how
MGNREGA wages compared to market wages in the region, as well as local
implementation of the program. Although MGNREGA offered some basic
employment for marginalized groups, it did not provide substantial help to
the most vulnerable. However, there was some evidence of small but
significant shifts in labour relations. Higher wages, more opportunities for
work, better implementation and a greater recognition of the caregiving
responsibilities of women will be required for this policy to fully meet its
goals.

Key words: MGNREGA, policy, poverty reduction, employment guarantee, India

1 Introduction
Despite high rates of economic growth in India since the 1990s, rural poverty
continues to be a policy concern. Over two thirds of India’s population inhabit rural
areas, accounting for 75% of all impoverished citizens in India (IFAD, 2015).
Currently, nearly 30% of rural Indians live below the poverty line (Suneja, 2015;
IFAD, 2015). Risks for rural poverty include caste, employment status, gender and
land ownership (IFAD, 2015). Rural poverty is particularly concentrated among
Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). To illustrate, although SCs make

*Rhonda Breitkreuz, Associate Professor. Department of Human Ecology, University of Alberta.

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, ([email protected]); Carley-Jane Stanton, Department of
Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology, University of Alberta, Nurmaiya Brady, Earth
and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, John Pattison-Williams, Natural Resources Institute,
University of Greenwich; E.D. King, M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai, India;
Chudhury Mishra, M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai, India and Brent Swallow,
Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology, University of Alberta.

© The Authors 2017. Development Policy Review © 2017 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 0 (0)
2 Rhonda Breitkreuz et al.

up approximately 22% of the population and STs make up 11% of the population,
these groups account for 80% of the rural poor (IFAD, 2015; Raghu et al., 2013).
Furthermore, women are over-represented in rural poverty, holding a
disproportionate number of the marginal agricultural jobs with low wages in rural
India (IFAD, 2015). Notably, even with substantial agricultural growth, there have
been economic declines for marginal farmers and landless rural citizens
(Vakulabharanam, 2005).
Recognizing these problems, the Government of India has introduced several
nationwide centralized social schemes to address poverty.1 One such scheme is The
Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (hereafter referred to
as MGNREGA), offering a unique rights-based guarantee of employment to reduce
income and food insecurity in rural areas. Significant investment has been made in
this scheme, amounting to 5.3 billion dollars (Ministry of Rural Development, 2013–
14), or 0.3% of the gross domestic product. Given the size of this policy platform,
the substantial amount of public money invested in it and the potential impact on
rural citizens, it is important to ascertain the extent to which MGNREGA has
reached its stated policy goals. This article sets out to do this through assessing the
extent to which this scheme has been able to provide rights-based social protection
through guaranteed employment for marginalized groups, particularly SC, ST and
women. In addition, we ask a theoretical question: will this policy achieve
meaningful poverty reduction for marginalized citizens in India?
Using a qualitative research design in three case study areas, we endeavour to
answer these questions through findings from a study that involved two key data
collection phases. First, we reviewed MGNREGA policy documents to understand
the key goals of the policies. We then went to the case study sites and conducted 19
focus groups with 219 policy implementers and end users in three rural sites in three
states – Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Odisha – to gauge the extent to which these goals
were realized in our study sites. Study sites were chosen because they were rich in
agrobiodiversity, but also had high rates of poverty, between 60% and 85%
(Breitkreuz et al., 2014)2 .
Our analysis contributes to the literature on MGNREGA in a unique way. It
provides evidence from an in-depth qualitative study that offers insight into policies
from the perspectives and experiences of local people in local sites (an emic
perspective), in the spirit of a critical ethnographic tradition that assumes that the
best way of knowing is to know from within (Smith, 1987). This article will add to
the literature about MGNREGA that to date consists primarily of aggregate
national, state level or multi-state evaluations (Deininger and Liu, 2013; Dreze and
Khera, 2009; Dreze, 2010; Reddy et al., 2010; Azam, 2012; Imbert and Papp, 2015),
or studies that focus on single, or a few, factors such as the relationship between
MGREGA and stunting (Dasgupta, 2013) and malnutrition (Nair et al., 2013). As
an alternative, we offer an analysis from an in-depth, qualitative case study of three
research sites in the states of Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Odisha. Our contribution
does not claim to isolate particular factors or indicators of success. Rather, we

1. In India, the word ‘Scheme’ is used for major policy initiatives introduced by the central government.
2. For a full description of this study, please see Breitkreuz et al., 2014.

© The Authors 2017. Development Policy Review © 2017 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 0 (0)
 MGNREGA and rural poverty in India 3

provide evidence from the ‘subjective voice’ of end users of the policy (that is,
community people in rural sites) as well as local officials who provided insights into
the local contexts and ways that policies are implemented in these areas. Pani and
Iyer (2012: 14) indicate that ‘local processes are typically better captured through
detailed qualitative analysis’ and that is what we endeavour to do here. This study
thus adds to emerging literature on micro-level analysis of multiple dimensions
(Novotn y et al., 2013). Using this approach enables the researcher to discover new,
as yet unconsidered, elements of a particular policy intervention that might get
overlooked in other macro-level approaches. Although the findings are not
generalizable across the whole of India, or the whole of each state in which the
study was conducted, we posit that the insights gained from this approach will
enhance understanding of some aspects of the MGNREGA policy that may not be
evident through other macro-level approaches.

2 Policy context: The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural

Employment Guarantee Act
The MGNREGA programme was implemented following a number of government
employment programmes developed in response to the persistent poverty and
inequality plaguing rural India. MGNREGA is the largest rural employment scheme
in the world. It is described by the Government of India as a rights-based, demand-
driven, self-selecting, bottom-up scheme (Mukundan, 2009). In addition to providing
rural households with supplementary employment, MGNREGA also seeks to
encourage and facilitate the empowerment of women through financial inclusion and
independence, strengthen civic participation, as well as improve the rural landscape
(Planning Commission, 2011).
The Indian employment scheme was introduced in 2005, and was renamed
MGNREGA in 2009, after the scheme had been rolled out across all Indian states.
Under the scheme, adult members of rural households are guaranteed 100 days of
employment each year at the statutory minimum wage rate of the state or greater,
provided they are willing to do unskilled manual labour. Included in this
employment scheme is the guarantee that if the government is unable to provide a
job to a qualified applicant within 15 days of an application being submitted, the
applicant will receive unemployment insurance. The stated goals of this policy are:
1) social protection; 2) the creation of durable assets (such as water security, soil
conservation, higher land productivity) through the manual labour conducted by the
workers; 3) employment of disadvantaged workers such as women, SC and ST; and
4) inclusive growth in rural India through the policy’s impact on livelihood security
and democratic empowerment.

3 Background literature
As a flagship programme of the Government of India, MGNREGA has received
considerable attention from politicians, policy think tanks, and scholars. Studies of
MGNREGA consist primarily of larger-scale evaluations using administrative data to

© The Authors 2017. Development Policy Review © 2017 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 0 (0)
4 Rhonda Breitkreuz et al.

understand implementation of the programme in various states. These studies have

revealed important findings about implementation costs, challenges and successes,
impacts on migration, impacts on household income and employment, and uptake of
the programme by marginalized groups such as ST, SC and women. Taken together, a
number of key themes are evident across the literature.
First, there is significant variability in implementation and uptake of
MGNREGA across various states (Khera, 2011). Key to implementation is the
availability of work. On average, the number of days available for work have been
lower than that guaranteed by the Act. Earlier studies show that in the 200 districts
in which MGNREGA was enacted in 2006–2007, only 17 days of employment were
available on average per rural household (Dreze, 2010). More recent data suggest,
however, that the opportunity for work may be increasing. Stahlberg (2012) showed,
for instance, that the average number of days worked per householder was 54. This
number is significantly higher than in 2006–2007, but is well below the policy ceiling
of 100 days per year per household.
There is also notable variation in the allocation of resources (for the categories
of wages, materials and administrative costs) for MGNREGA across states. The
average percentage of MGNREGA funds spent on wages in 2009–2010 was 67.5%,
but there was notable variability. Relevant to our study, in Tamil Nadu it was
reported that 98% of the funds were spent on wages. In Kerala, approximately 88%
of the funds were spent on wages, whereas in Odisha, just over 60% of the funds
was spent on wages. Interestingly, in Tamil Nadu, the expenditures for
administrative costs were about 2%, In Kerala they were approximately 5%, and in
Odisha the administrative costs were just under 40% (Stahlberg, 2012). The reasons
for such significant variability for administrative costs are unknown but ‘leakage’ is
suspected to be one reason for high administrative costs (Stahlberg, 2012). However,
although spending most of the budget on wages may seem optimal, it may also be
that spending all the money on wages means that states are not making capital
investments to improve the quality of the jobs and infrastructure projects. The Act
indicates that 60% of the expenditures should be spent on wages, with the remaining
40% spent on materials (Bhupal, 2012).
Second, some studies found that MGNREGA reduced migration in certain
states (Liu and Barrett, 2012), while other studies found that MGNREGA had
minimal impact on migration (Novotn y et al., 2013). Novotny et al. (2013) found
that 93% of MGNREGA participants in their study indicated that, even if there
were no employment options available under MGNREGA, they still would not go
elsewhere for work.
Third, there is evidence that awareness of MGNREGA by rural citizens was
scant in some areas, and this decreased the likelihood of participation on the part of
some of the poorest households. Minimal public engagement and limited or no
access to television or cell phones on the part of the poorest households has been
correlated with minimal uptake of the programme. However, the availability of
information increased the likelihood of uptake by more affluent rural citizens
(Shankar et al., 2011). Furthermore, there is some evidence that some MGNREGA
spots may be reserved for those in the middle class (Liu and Barrett, 2012), thereby
diluting the positive impacts for the poorest (Niehaus and Sukhtankar, 2013). One
© The Authors 2017. Development Policy Review © 2017 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 0 (0)
 MGNREGA and rural poverty in India 5

study found that although MGNREGA has been used by the poorest in a national
level analysis, in one state it was used by community members who were relatively
well off (Jha et al., 2009; Liu and Barrett, 2012).
Fourth, there is evidence of uptake of the programme by a number of targeted
groups, particularly ST and SC (Deininger and Liu, 2013; Dreze and Khera, 2010)
and women (Dev, 2011; Dreze, 2010; Dreze and Khera, 2009). When breaking down
participation according to group for the whole of India, Stahlberg (2012) found that
the average number of days of participation in MGNREGA in 2009–10 was 48 for
women, 21 for ST and 31 for SC. Furthermore, Dreze and Khera (2009) found that
approximately 70% of the women kept their wages. Importantly, the participation
of women in MGNREGA varies greatly across states. Khera and Nayak (2009), for
instance, found that in their sample of six states, the proportion of women among
the MGNREGA workers ranged from 5% in one region of Uttar Pradesh to 71%
in a district within the state of Rajasthan.
When looking at the breakdown of total participation according to group,
Reddy and Upendranadh (2010) found that the target groups of the programme –
SC, ST and women – had disproportionately higher rates of participation in
comparison to their portion of the population, suggesting that the programme is
meeting its goal of targeting these groups. However, there was significant variation
across states. Notably, Kerala and Tamil Nadu had the highest rates of women
participants, with over 85% participation in Kerala and 80% in Tamil Nadu (Reddy
and Upendranadh, 2010). Other states, however, had much lower participation.
Jammu and Kashmir, for instance, had participation rates as low as 6% for women.
Odisha’s female participation rate was 38%. The participation rates of SC and ST
were also higher than the share of the population that they represented. For
instance, in Tamil Nadu, SC constitute 19% of the population but over 60% of the
participation days in MGNREGA. Participation of SC in Kerala and Odisha was
also higher than their proportion of the population, but the effects were not nearly
as dramatic as in Tamil Nadu (Reddy and Upendranadh, 2010).
The uptake by women is not surprising, given that women tend to receive lower
wages and could probably earn better wages from MGNREGA than the market
(Sudarshan et al., 2010). To illustrate, in their study of three states, Sudarshan et al.
found that wages in MGNREGA were 125 Indian rupees as compared to 70–80
Indian rupees (Rs) for agricultural work in the private sector. Some researchers
argue that MGNREGA, through improving women’s wages, has broadened
consumption options for women, and enhanced their economic independence
(Pankaj and Tankha, 2010). Critics have pointed out, however, that due to the
menial work it offers, in combination with low wages, MGNREGA really just
contributes to the feminization of poverty (Ghosh, 1998: 16). Studying women’s
participation in MGNREGA, Sudarshan et al. (2010), found that the employment
scheme fell short in terms of understanding life course issues for women, such as
child rearing, and also failed to adequately consider the physical capabilities of
women, particularly older women. In contrast, Carswell and De Neve (2014) found
that MGNREGA had positive effects on women as well as the poorest households
in Tamil Nadu by providing them with a safety net.

© The Authors 2017. Development Policy Review © 2017 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 0 (0)
6 Rhonda Breitkreuz et al.

Fifth, some commentators have suggested that the introduction of MGNREGA

has provided some additional leverage to labourers by providing them with
negotiating power (Carswell and De Neve, 2014; Dreze, 2010). This happens
because, in many locations, wages are higher through MGNREGA than through
private employment arrangements, forcing landowners to increase their wage
offerings for agricultural work in order to compete with MGNREGA wages.
Novotn y et al. (2013) found that the vast majority of local employers (mostly
farmers) and local officers (those knowledgeable about MGNREGA and its impact
on local labour markets) in their study strongly supported the statement that
MGNREGA had ‘significant harmful effects on the local labour market’ (ibid.: 335).
Other research has found an increase in social tension as a result of successful
implementation of MGNREGA programmes (De Neve and Carswell, 2011).
Sixth, corruption has been cited as a problem in MGNREGA implementation,
widely associated with the issue of underpayment due to wage skimming by
administrators and over reporting (Kapur, 2010; Niehaus and Sukhtankar, 2012;
2013). Village post offices, where cash payment of wages have traditionally been
paid, have been accused of tampering with pay or charging unnecessary transaction
fees to workers. As a result, the payment of wages into the personal bank accounts
of MGNREGA workers through direct cash transfers has been increasingly
advocated as a way to reduce the embezzlement of funds. The over reporting of
wages or false reporting of MGNREGA worker muster rolls (to fulfil and maximize
worker requirements and financial allocation) have also been identified (Niehaus and
Sukhtankar, 2012; 2013). Other identified instances of systemic corruption include
misappropriation of funds for materials and overall unaccounted financial leakage
within the programme.
In reviewing the argument about why the implementation of social policies is
poor, Kapur (2010) argues that part of the reason that implementation of schemes
falls apart at the local level is because public programmes are understaffed. Thus,
although the bureaucracy in India is large, staffing in local sites is not. Similarly, in
their study of MGNREGA spanning three states, Reddy et al. (2010) found that the
commitment, capacity and preparedness of local governance structures impacted the
effectiveness of the employment scheme in different locations.
Two studies are worth discussing in more detail due to their strong research
designs and comprehensive findings. Deininger and Liu (2013) conducted a
comprehensive study of MGNREGA in the state of Andhra Pradesh. Because they
collected data over time (before MGNREGA was introduced in 2004 and then twice
subsequently, in 2006 and 2008), they were able to make linkages between the
MGNREGA scheme and some key indicators of well-being. They found that the
policy had significant impacts. Short-term impacts included higher nutritional intake
and medium-term impacts included non-financial asset accumulation. They also
found it was women, SC, ST and those seeking casual labour who obtained most
benefit.
In reviewing various evaluations of MGNREGA in recent years, Dreze (2010:
514) states that in locations in which employment is available, MGNREGA is the
‘new lifeline for rural poor’. In line with this statement, Dreze and Khera (2009)
conducted a study of approximately 1,000 workers in 100 worksites across six states
© The Authors 2017. Development Policy Review © 2017 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 0 (0)
 MGNREGA and rural poverty in India 7

in northern India. Their findings show that MGNREGA reached the poorest
citizens, with 73% of workers in the Scheduled Tribe/Scheduled Caste categories
(Dreze and Khera, 2009). Using the same data set, Dreze and Nayak (2009) showed
that women accounted on average for only 32% of the MGNREGA workers among
the six states, though there was substantial variation among states: Rajasthan, for
instance, had a MGNREGA female participation rate of 71%, whereas Uttar
Pradesh had a 5% female participation rate. Importantly, of the female workers in
MGNREGA, over two thirds were able to keep the wages they earned through the
MGNREGA programme (Dreze and Khera, 2009). Dreze and Khera argue that the
concept of ‘right to work’ was in play because MGNREGA legislation was shown
to reduce the exploitation of workers and to serve as an organizational tool for
rural workers. They also found that, in addition to providing employment for the
most marginalized workers, MGNREGA led to the creation of useful assets in the
community.
In sum, although MGNREGA has appeared to provide some much needed
employment for India’s most marginalized workers, a major limitation of the scheme
to date has been its ability to generate employment to meet the demand for work. In
addition, corruption appears to be an impediment to successful implementation.
This finding is more prevalent in some states than others.
Despite the large number of empirical studies investigating the impact of the
MGNREGA, there are few studies that offer an in-depth, qualitative analysis of
implementation and outcomes of MGNREGA in specific sites. Notable exceptions
include the study by Sudarshan et al. (2010) in Himachal Pardesh, Kerala and
Rajasthan, and Carswell and De Neve’s (2014) mixed method study in Tamil Nadu.
We argue that qualitative studies are important, too, in order to provide a voice to
participants themselves, as well as to get an in-depth understanding of what is
happening at a local level. In light of these research goals, our study aimed to
understand better how MGNREGA was experienced in the day-to-day life of rural
participants.

4 Methods
This study was part of a larger agricultural research project, Alleviating Poverty and
Malnutrition in Agrobiodiversity Hotspots (APM), which was conducted jointly by
the MS Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF) in India, and the Faculty of
Agriculture, Life and Environmental Sciences at the University of Alberta in
Canada. The larger APM project was developed to explore ways to improve farming
techniques, enhance nutritional outcomes and reduce poverty in areas of India with
rich, agrobiodiverse land. It aimed to address the disparity between richness in
biodiversity and abject poverty in three agrobiodiversity hotspots in India:
Wayanad, Kerala; Kolli Hills, Tamil Nadu; and Jeypore, Odisha. In conjunction
with the larger APM project, our study team conducted a review of policies in India
intended to address the issues of food insecurity, malnutrition, poverty and
employment. Sites for this study were selected because although they featured rich
agrobiodiversity in one or more crop species, inhabitants experienced rates of

© The Authors 2017. Development Policy Review © 2017 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 0 (0)
8 Rhonda Breitkreuz et al.

poverty of between 60–85% and low human development indicators (Breitkreuz

et al., 2014). The broad purpose of our study was to explore the reach of national
social policy initiatives in the three rural study sites in Kerala, Tamil Nadu and
Odisha, to ascertain which policies were accessible in these areas. In addition, we
aimed to explore the implementation of large-scale national policies at a local level,
to identify areas of convergence as well as gaps between policy goals and
implementation.
The data used in this article were drawn from mixed-methods research that involved
two key phases. The first entailed a systematic, in-depth review of relevant policy
documents, including policy drivers, goals and outcomes as available from government
sources, non-governmental policy think tanks and scholarly literature. The second phase
entailed qualitative data collection through focus groups with policy implementers and
end users in three rural areas of India, comparing their experiences with the policy claims
of relevant national social policies, including the MGNREGA 2005.
In total, 19 focus groups were conducted for this study with a total of 219
participants. We used focus groups because they are an effective way to gather a
significant amount of data on a particular issue for which not much is known,
providing the opportunity to identify key themes on the phenomenon of interest that
can then be explored in more depth (Morgan, 1997). Three pilot focus groups were
conducted in March 2013 in Odisha to test the focus group questions and determine
whether focus groups would be an effective way to collect data for this project.
During the fall of 2013 another 16 focus groups were conducted in three study sites
in the States of Odisha, Tamil Nadu and Kerala. All three sites were located in
agrobiodiverse regions with high rates of SC and ST.3 All focus groups were
facilitated by a member of the research team, with assistance from other colleagues
from the MS Swaminathan Research Foundation. Participation in this study was
voluntary, and written informed consent was obtained.
Each focus group consisted of five to 20 participants, with an average of 12
participants per focus group. These groups lasted between 90 and 120 minutes, and
tea and snacks were served to participants upon completion of the groups. We
sampled both policy implementers and end users. In each site, we had one focus
group of policy implementers, covering a broad range of social and/or agricultural

3. Site 1 is located in north-east Kerala. The area has large populations of very low-income minority
tribal groups, most of which are known to hold very small (on average 0.4 ha) plots of land.
Agriculture is the main source of livelihood, with the principal crops including coffee, tea, cocoa,
pepper and rubber, while seasonal crops such as rice, bananas, tubers and fruits serve as the local food
sources. The region has substantial disparity in land ownership and associated economic status.
Education in Kerala is strong, with the state having the highest literacy rates in India at 94%. Site 2 is
located at the southern end of the Eastern Ghats range in Tamil Nadu. The main inhabitants in the
area are Malayalis, one of the Scheduled Tribes of India. The area is 97% tribal. The majority of
households are poor, owning small or marginal farm holdings. Rice and minor millets are the locally-
produced staple foods, and important fruit crops are jackfruit and hill banana. The literacy rate in
Tamil Nadu is relatively high at 80%. Site 3 is located in the southwest part of Odisha State at the
northern end of the Eastern Ghats. The literacy rate is just under 50%, significantly lower than the
state average of 73%. Odisha is the poorest of the APM project sites, with 83.8% of people living
below the poverty line. 13% of the population here are part of a Scheduled Caste and nearly 50%
were members of Scheduled Tribes. The main crop grown is rice.

© The Authors 2017. Development Policy Review © 2017 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 0 (0)
 MGNREGA and rural poverty in India 9

policies relevant to the area. We organized the end-user focus groups according to
landowning status and gender. In each site we had four focus groups of end users:
one for landless men, one for landless women, one for landowning men and one for
landowning women.4 In our Kerala study site, we also had a group of tribal men,
and in Tamil Nadu, all of the groups were tribal as the entire study site was a
designated tribal area.
A semi-structured interview format was employed. Semi-structured interviews
are designed to seek information about a particular topic, covering various domains
of knowledge, while still maintaining the flexibility of an unstructured interview
(Richards and Morse, 2007). The areas of interest for the purposes of these
interviews included questions regarding the kinds of government policies/
programmes that were available to people in the area to help them meet their
families’ needs. Participants were asked what makes these programmes helpful or
unhelpful, who has access to these programmes and what would they change about
these programmes if they could. Using this approach, an interview guide was
developed to shape the course of the interview and ensure that particular areas of
interest were considered, but this was used more as an aide-memoire than a rigid
interview protocol. The aide-memoire was adapted over the periods of the focus
groups as the concurrent data analysis revealed data collection needs (such as
divergent findings or emerging themes that required further exploration). Issues and
emerging insights garnered from earlier focus groups were also introduced in later
focus groups for verification. Using this approach, the interviewers were free to
probe at certain points to elicit more in-depth information, and ask questions in a
way likely to elicit responses. This style allowed for consistent data to be collected,
while leaving room for important and enriching data to emerge (Mayan, 2009).
Focus groups with end users were conducted in the native language of the area
(Malayalam, Tamil or Odia) and translation was provided by project staff provided
by the MS Swaminathan Research Foundation. Transcripts were developed as the
focus groups proceeded. The transcribers were two student research assistants from
the University of Alberta who were employed for this project, and are co-authors of
this article. Detailed field notes were made by the research team following each
focus group. Information in the field notes included summaries of the interview as
well a brief documentation of points that seemed particularly important. The
research team met after each focus group to review the transcripts, discuss key
points and identify recurring themes using the constant-comparison method (Strauss
and Corbin, 1998). This method involves comparing two or more descriptions of
experiences or key events and looking for similarities and differences across
participants (Mayan, 2009). These descriptive themes were condensed into a
preliminary report which summarized information about the implementation process
of key national social policies across sites.
The first author and research assistants then conducted an in-depth thematic
analysis of the interview data to ensure the rigour of the preliminary analysis, and to

4. Note the ‘landowning women’ groups consisted of women who were married to landowning men.
Women in India do not typically own land, but we called this group ‘landowning women’ to
distinguish their status from ‘landless’ women.

© The Authors 2017. Development Policy Review © 2017 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 0 (0)
10 Rhonda Breitkreuz et al.

refine, develop and expand on recurring themes, and search for and analyze
‘negative cases’ (i.e. any inconsistencies) (Mayan, 2009). This was done through an
iterative process of reading the transcripts and writing analytical notes throughout
the process, searching for commonalities and noting points of divergence. By
comparing chunks of coded data to look for commonalities, a process called ‘axial
coding’ (Strauss and Corbin 1998), interrelationships between codes were discovered,
and these codes were merged to create comprehensive themes. Through this in-depth
analysis, key themes were identified in the data, and discussed by the research team
through a dialogical process, leading to a nuanced understanding of the key issues
raised by the participants. Under these comprehensive themes, key factors were
delineated, as described in the findings below.

5 Findings
Overall, two main findings emerge from our analysis. First, there were some notable
differences in usage and implementation between study sites. The experiences of
participating in MGNREGA varied according to how MGNREGA wages
compared to market wages in the region and the implementation of the programme
within the local sites. Gender and social status also seemed to impact the experience
of MGNREGA for many participants. Second, although MGNREGA did offer
some important opportunities for employment for women, SC and ST, thereby
providing access to wages to purchase food and other essential items, on balance it
did not substantially help the most marginalized in the long term. This was due to
the predominance of low wages compared to the private market (as in Kerala and
Tamil Nadu), or lack of work (as in Odisha). Importantly, participants in all project
sites indicated that the wages offered by MGNREGA were not sufficient to support
their families. However, despite lack of evidence of any substantial improvements in
wages, employment and overall life circumstances, there was some evidence of small
but notable shifts in labour relations. We explore these themes in the following
section.
We also utilized survey data collected by the larger research project to provide
some descriptive statistics on MGNREGA use in our study sites. For this part of
the study, 1801 households were surveyed (1500 intervention households and 301
non-intervention households) within our three study sites. Included in the survey
were questions on MGNREGA usage. Descriptive analyses were conducted on these
data which are detailed below.

5.1 MGNREGA Implementation

5.1.1 Usage. MGNREGA was implemented in all three regions, Kerala, Tamil Nadu
and Odisha, and the vast majority of participants were highly knowledgeable about
the programme. In Kerala, 46% of focus group participants had worked for
MGNERGA, and the average number of days worked through the programme was
57. Both men and women used MGNREGA as last resort employment. In Tamil
Nadu, 72% of survey participants used MGNREGA, and the average number of

© The Authors 2017. Development Policy Review © 2017 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 0 (0)
 MGNREGA and rural poverty in India 11

days worked was 68. In Tamil Nadu, MGNREGA was used primarily by women,
because men generally migrated to the states of Kerala or Karnataka for higher-paid
employment. In Odisha, while 61% of participants worked for MGNREGA, there
were fewer days of work available to labourers though the programme; the average
number of days was 36. MGNREGA was used in Odisha by both women and men
(Raghu, 2013).
MGNREGA is designed to be a programme of last resort. In all three sites,
participants indicated the alternative to participating in MGNREGA was working
for local farmers for the prevailing wage in the private agricultural market. In
Kerala, the majority of both male and female participants preferred this private
agricultural work due to higher wages and the provision of meals at the worksite. At
the same time, however, some of the female participants in Kerala indicated that
they preferred MGNREGA because they were treated better, and that the hours of
work fitted in better with their childcare responsibilities.
In Tamil Nadu, MGNREGA was used primarily by women. Men in Tamil
Nadu commonly migrated to Kerala or Karnataka in order to gain higher-paying
employment during the agricultural off season. In this site, women indicated that
although there was a childcare centre that worked well for them, they were not
treated very well on MGNREGA worksites and therefore they used the programme
as a last resort. Implementation issues here may have impacted the experience of the
women.
In Odisha, unlike our other two sites, the wages in MGNREGA were equal to
or higher than those in the private market. Many participants, both male and
female, indicated that they would prefer to work for MGNREGA rather than as
agricultural workers in the private market because of the better working conditions.
However, in Odisha there were not enough days of work available to the workers,
and participants who illegally used others’ job cards and bribed the officials reported
the highest number of days worked in the programme.

5.1.2 Payment structures. The method of payment for MGNREGA work varied
both between and within sites, and method of payment seemed to affect the
extent to which there was corruption. In some cases, payment was made directly
in cash, and in other situations, the payment went directly to a bank account.
When payments were made directly to a bank account, there was no opportunity
for ‘service charges’ or ‘skimming’, thereby reducing corruption. Also, some
project sites paid workers on a daily rate, while others based wages on the
amount of work completed.
In Kerala and Odisha, payments for MGNREGA were made via direct transfer
to bank accounts and based on a daily rate. Participants in Odisha stated that the
shift to direct payments of MGNREGA wages into bank accounts had eliminated
corruption and skimming of wages in the area. In Tamil Nadu, payment was made
weekly in cash, based on work completed, and there were reports of ‘service charges’
or skimming of wages by government officials.

5.1.3 Access to unemployment insurance. A stated requirement of the MGNREGA

programme is to provide unemployment insurance for those who cannot find work
© The Authors 2017. Development Policy Review © 2017 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 0 (0)
12 Rhonda Breitkreuz et al.

with the programme for 15 days after applying for a job card. However,
unemployment insurance was not mentioned in any of the sites. In Kerala and
Tamil Nadu unemployment insurance may have been irrelevant as participants were
able to get up to 100 days of employment if requested. However, in Odisha, where
participants were not able to access the full 100 days of employment, there was no
mention of unemployment benefits for those who had applied for a job card but
received no work.

5.1.4 Wage discrepancies. According to the reported wages of study participants, there
was a differentiation of wages paid to MGNREGA workers, despite the assertion in
most groups that there was a standard wage for all workers. As indicated in Table 1,
there were wage discrepancies in MGNREGA across sites, and between men and
women, and in some cases the wage was lower than the minimum wage. When asked
about wage discrepancies, participants indicated that women could not get the amount
of hard labour done in a day that was expected of those working with MGNREGA,
therefore they could be paid lower wages within this programme. Landless women in
our Tamil Nadu site indicated that they only received Rs 148 if they were able to
complete the work and dig the whole area. They had to clear and dig three square
metres of land about 30 centimeters deep. The women indicated that they could not
achieve this in a day, nor could most men. Therefore, they would not get the full day
wages. In the private market, the key reason cited for varying wages was ‘different pay
for different work’. When this reason was cited, it was clear that there was a gendered
element to the pay. Policy implementers in our Tamil Nadu site indicated that male
labourers in the private market were paid Rs 350 per day, on average, and women
were paid Rs 200 per day, on average.
In Kerala, participants in the landless women’s group indicated they were paid
Rs 125 for work under MGNREGA (Rs 55 less than men), but made no mention of
inequality between genders and socioeconomic groups under the programme.
Instead, when asked about MGNREGA wages for women and men, participants all
indicated that the wages were equal between the genders. A possible explanation for
participants’ lack of recognition of wage discrepancy may be that private wages in
Kerala were highly variable, and depended on the type of work done, location and
gender of the worker. Wages in the private market ranged from Rs 350–550 for men
and Rs 125–225 for women. It may also be that inequality in wages between the
genders was so common than it was perceived as fair.
In Tamil Nadu, policy implementers stated that the private market wages in their
state were Rs 350 for men and Rs 200 for women. Participants in the women’s focus
groups, however, indicated that private wages in the agricultural sector were
significantly lower for women, at Rs 120–150. Participants, especially men, stated that
they preferred to work in the private market because of the relatively higher wages.
In Odisha, the MGNREGA wages were raised if the work on a particular project
was difficult; the head engineer had the ability to increase pay to up to Rs 420 per day
for harder work in difficult soil. Participants in Odisha indicated that both women and
men earned the same wage under MGNREGA (Rs 150), and that the private wage for
agricultural work was higher for men (Rs 150) than women (Rs 100).

© The Authors 2017. Development Policy Review © 2017 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 0 (0)
 MGNREGA and rural poverty in India 13

Table 1: MGNREGA and private wages for men and women by APM
project site

Project Site Group MGNREGA Private State Type of Work

Wage Wage Minimum Done by
Wage5 MGNREGA
Workers
Kerala Men Rs 180 Rs 350–550 Rs 150 Farm pond
development;
road
construction
Women Rs 180; Rs 125–225 Roadway
Rs 125 for cleaning;
landless clearing fields
women
Tamil Nadu Men Rs 100–148 Rs 350 Rs 100 (men, Digging
6 hours);
Rs 85
(women,
5 hours)
Women Rs 70–120 Rs 120–150 Cleaning brush
and shrubs along
roadways; pond
construction
Odisha Men Rs 150–240 Rs 150 Rs 90 Road construction
and repair; pond
excavation;
housing and
community
infrastructure
Women Rs 150 –240 Rs 110 Pond excavation;
construction of
latrines in primary
schools; housing
construction;
road construction

Source: The authors

5.2 Impact of MGNREGA on labour relations

The implementation of MGNREGA seemed to provide some labourers with more

power, thus influencing labour relations in ways that were advantageous for
marginalized workers, even when MGNREGA wages were lower than those
provided through private employers. However, the hierarchy of social and gender
relations appeared to remain intact within MGNREGA.
In Kerala, there was evidence that MGNREGA provided negotiating power to
workers, even though the MGNREGA wages were lower than those offered in the

© The Authors 2017. Development Policy Review © 2017 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 0 (0)
14 Rhonda Breitkreuz et al.

private market. Participants in the landed women’s focus group discussed

disagreements about working conditions and hours from the implementation of the
programme, with workers demanding meals and shorter hours. Several comments
were made in this group, expressing the perspective from landowners that labourers
had increased power. One participant in this group said: ‘Labourers have started to
demand whatever they feel like, and the wages are becoming different for each type
of work, which is becoming an issue. The farmers have to pay whatever they
demand or else they will have no one to work in their fields.’ Another comment
from this group indicated the same: ‘The labourers have an upper hand now.
Farmers have to beg them to work and say they will pay wage, feed them.’ Yet
another comment was: ‘The labourers have many demands now. There is a large
demand for them, so farmers must pay and provide what they ask.’
There were also indications that MGNREGA affected wages in Kerala. Farmers
in this region were permitted to use their MGNREGA job card6 to work on their own
farm ponds as well as hire additional labourers to work on these ponds. Farmers
indicated that workers demanded higher pay and had stronger market power when
determining wages because of MGNREGA. However, because of the low prices for
crops, farmers stated they could not afford to pay labourers the wages they demanded.
They indicated that more MGNREGA workers should be used for work on farmland.
Labourers, however, stated that allowing MGNREGA workers to work on private
farmland on the farm ponds lowered the market private wage for the same work. The
inconsistency between the farmers’ and the labourers’ experiences with wage relations
under MGNREGA may be due to the highly variable private wages in the area as
reported in the landed women’s focus groups. Private wages vary depending on the
type of work done. For some work, the workers demanded Rs 550 per day. There was a
different wage for different places as well. The minimum wage for men was Rs 400 per
day. One participant said: ‘There is no fixed wage, and depending on the situation and
place, they ask for different wages for the same job.’ Another participant indicated that
she paid Rs 300 but her neighbour across the road paid the same people higher wages.
In Tamil Nadu, the policy-makers talked about how labourers and farmers could
not agree on labour conditions since MGNREGA came in. Labourers could only
work on private land in Tamil Nadu through MGNREGA if they were building farm
ponds. Landowners could hire themselves and workers through MGNREGA to build
ponds on private land. There was no indication from the focus group participants that
MGNREGA wages acted as a price floor or impacted private wages in Tamil Nadu.
However, due to MGNREGA, labourers demanded payment on a weekly basis.
In Odisha, there was evidence that MGNREGA offered a wage floor for
labourers. The MGNREGA wage was equal to or more than the private wage for

5. The state minimum wage was taken from the Government of India Ministry of Labour and
Employment (2013).
6. Households must apply for an MGNREGA job card through their Gram Panchayat to be eligible to
work. A job card entitles a household of up to three adults 100 days of employment with the usage of
the 100 days left to the discretion of the household (can be shared among the adults or used by one
individual). Job cards must include the names, age, sex and photographs of the benefactors along with
a unique identification number which identifies residence area. The cards are valid for a period of five
years and must be renewed upon expiration to retain eligibility.

© The Authors 2017. Development Policy Review © 2017 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 0 (0)
 MGNREGA and rural poverty in India 15

both men and women, and participants reported that the implementation of the
scheme had caused an overall increase in wages in the labour market, in and out of
the agriculture sector. However, participants in Odisha received significantly fewer
days of employment than those in the other study sites and indicated that they
would like more work through the MGNREGA programme.

5.3 Impact of MGNREGA on women’s employment

Women in our study sites were more likely than men to work for MGNREGA, but
there were a number of issues within the programme that created barriers to
women’s successful participation. In particular, the type of work available through
MGNREGA and the lack of adequate child care were cited as ongoing issues for
many women participants.
Women were still disadvantaged workers even within MGNREGA. In addition
to receiving lower wages, women reported that they were not always treated very
well by their site supervisors, and were often given work that was too difficult for
them. In addition, their unpaid care responsibilities for children and home meant
that they could often not work the long hours that men worked, and they were
sometimes docked pay for this. In Kerala, landless women indicated that they
sometimes used childcare facilities, or, more often, took their babies to the fields. In
Tamil Nadu, women were more likely to put their children in Anganwadi Centres,
which are childcare facilities, so that they could work in the fields. Interestingly,
despite the challenges faced by women as MGNREGA workers, they generally
viewed the programme as positive, perhaps because it provided them with
opportunities to earn their own wages.
Although some of the women preferred working for MGNREGA because of
more flexible hours and the ability to bring their children to the worksite, others
also mentioned that they did not get treated very well by their superiors and that the
work was too difficult. Landless women in Tamil Nadu were particularly articulate
about their challenges with MGNREGA. While the participants confirmed that the
official upper wage limit was Rs 148, the work required to earn that wage was based
on what a man can complete in a day, despite the fact that the majority of
MGNREGA workers were women. Because the work was paid according to what
was accomplished, women tended to get paid less because they did not get as much
done. There were two reasons for this. First, they found the work difficult,
particularly in cases where they were digging, and were unable to complete the
required digging work. Second, women indicated that they had to work around the
schedules of their children, and so women with children tended to work a shorter
day. Women indicated that the wages they received from the MGNREGA
programme ranged from Rs 70–90 to a maximum of Rs 120.

6 Discussion
The development and implementation of MGNREGA as a rights-based policy
initiative shows a commitment to the creation of a policy framework to address, by

© The Authors 2017. Development Policy Review © 2017 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 0 (0)
16 Rhonda Breitkreuz et al.

offering focused employment guarantee programmes to marginalized community

members, some of the injustices experienced by the most vulnerable members of
Indian society. This article explores the implementation of MGNREGA within
specific sites in three states in India: Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Odisha. It shows some
of the implementation successes and challenges from the perspective of end users
and frames these challenges within the context of delivery of a rights-based
approach in a liberalized developing economy.
Our findings suggest that the MGNREGA programme was known to end users
in all three regions, although usage was uneven among the regions. Usage was
highest in the Tamil Nadu and Kerala sites, and lowest in the Odisha site, although
participants indicated that they would prefer more days in the Odisha site. Our
findings on usage are consistent with other studies that have found that usage is
higher in Kerala and Tamil Nadu and consistently lower in Odisha (Reddy and
Upendranadh, 2010). Wages varied among the sites, and among men and women.
MGNREGA wages were higher for men in both Kerala and Tamil Nadu, but the
same for both genders in Odisha. Payment structures varied among the regions, and
access to unemployment insurance was not mentioned in any of the sites. Ruparelia
(2013: 570) notes that, in theory, the rights-based approach sets ‘new standards for
genuine social citizenship’. A rights-based approach departs from traditional
methods of social provision by guaranteeing rights through a legal framework; in
the case of MGNREGA, through an employment guarantee. In this way, it offers
marginalized citizens meaningful access to rights previously beyond their grasp.
However, like Ruparelia (2013), we argue that the extent to which these rights can
be guaranteed is contingent upon effective governance structures that can overcome
social, political and economic barriers that both accept and reinforce deeply
entrenched inequalities between citizens.
Our study suggests that there may be limitations to the extent to which a
rights-based approach can work within current social and economic realities in
India. Although our conclusions are tentative, our in-depth analysis suggests that,
even among the targeted groups, there was a sometimes subtle, but prevailing,
hierarchy. In Tamil Nadu, for example, where the majority of men migrated to
Kerala and Karnataka as seasonal agricultural labourers, work was available for
women or other low status social groups. In other words, women appeared less
likely to use MGNREGA if men needed it for employment, as was the case in
Odisha. This may not have had anything to do with the implementation of
MGNREGA, but rather be due to the pre-existing social norms that granted men,
and particularly those who owned land, more entitlement. A recent study supports
our conclusions. Athreya et al. (2014) found that in India, overall, only 10% of the
households that use MGNREGA were able to get 100 days of work, and the
majority of users were men.
In addition to social barriers that may have impacted self-selection into
MGNREGA, there were clear cases of gender- and class-based inequalities with
implementation of the program. Our landless women participants’ stories showed
that recognition of different gendered realities, such as responsibilities for child care
and differences in physical strength, were not acknowledged within the
implementation of MGNREGA, with the outcome being lower wages and, in some
© The Authors 2017. Development Policy Review © 2017 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 0 (0)
 MGNREGA and rural poverty in India 17

circumstances, worse working conditions, for women. It seemed that there was a
poor understanding of, and lack of provision for, women’s responsibilities for
caregiving. Even if childcare was available, as in the case of Tamil Nadu, women’s
sole responsibility for their children was not considered in the programme.
Participants in Tamil Nadu seemed to have the most challenges with MGNREGA
implementation, including challenges with site supervisors and not getting proper
payment. This situation may have existed because the majority of men in Tamil
Nadu leave to do work in Kerala or on ‘the plains’, so it was primarily women who
used MGNREGA. It may be that because it was primarily a women’s programme
in Tamil Nadu, there were more abuses of power in MGNREGA sites.
In addition, tribal men in Kerala, one of the most marginalized groups we
encountered, had very low rates of participation in the MGNREGA programme.
Thus, although the MGNREGA programme may be meeting its targets in terms of
employing higher than average numbers of women, SC and ST, it may also be that
when we drill a little deeper we see that within these groups a hierarchy remains
where those who are more privileged still have greater access to work in the
programme. In short, there appeared to be continued marginalization of some of
these target groups.
On the other hand, MGNREGA did seem to bring about slight improvement
in terms of labour relations for some groups. Like Dreze (2010) and Novotny et al.
(2013), we found that MGNREGA did shift labour relations in some circumstances,
giving a modest increase in bargaining power to labourers who, in some instances,
were able to request better wages or better working conditions. Part of the reason
for this was that MGNREGA offered choice to workers. In Odisha, the choice
allowed for better wages and better working conditions, therefore raising the bar for
employers. In other situations, such as in Kerala, MGNREGA did not offer better
wages, but it did offer better working conditions for some employees, thereby giving
marginalized workers a choice, even if it was a less financially attractive one. This
effect in itself seemed meaningful to workers, and suggests that more than just
economic considerations influenced their employment decisions. Rather, a sense of
control and personal power may also have been a factor. In addition, women
indicated that having an opportunity to earn their own wages was not insignificant.
Like Khera and Nayak (2009), women in our study reported that, for the most part,
they had control over the money they earned. Our study did not allow for
quantitative estimates of the labour market effects of MGNREGA. However, our
results are consistent with the Imbert and Papp (2015: 254) estimates of an
aggregate increase in casual labour wage of 4.2% and an aggregate decrease in
private sector work of 1.8%.
On balance, however, our analysis suggests that, although there may be some
income benefits in the short term, marginalized citizens in the Indian context are
unlikely to experience significant long-term benefits due to MGNREGA. Although
we do not want to diminish the importance of increasing opportunities for
employment and income for India’s most marginalized, we argue that it is important
to consider the extent to which the programme has transformative potential for
these groups. Without dismissing notable positive outcomes, such as the provision of
employment for enhanced food security and changes in labour relations (Carswell
© The Authors 2017. Development Policy Review © 2017 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 0 (0)
18 Rhonda Breitkreuz et al.

and De Neve, 2014; Khera and Nayak, 2009), our findings suggest that, to date,
MGNREGA may not be providing the desired transformative changes for Indian
society’s most disadvantaged groups. The modest employment and income gains
offered through MGNREGA job opportunities will not substantially improve
income or, in turn, food insecurity for these groups. We suggest that in order to
enhance food security and well-being through employment in India, longer-term
solutions for employment security will need to be explored. One potential pathway
for meaningful transformation is through women’s self-help groups. Although
beyond the scope of this analysis, it is important to note that there were some
indications in our focus groups that government- and NGO-sponsored self-help
groups that enabled women to gain capital through pooling together to purchase
animals and sell animal products may be something to build on. This finding is
consistent with the study done by Pellissery and Jalan (2011) that found that
although MGNREGA did not provide social transformation for women, self-help
groups have the potential to be transformative for women through fostering
solidarity and developing assets. Programs that link Self-Help Groups and the
National Rural Livelihood Mission to MGNREGA (Ministry of Rural
Development, 2012) may be further able to build capacity among women by
providing them with opportunities to leverage their limited resources through
pooling their assets.
If we accept Sen’s (1992) argument that capabilities are key to creating
meaningful choice for marginalized groups within society, we suggest that further
steps are needed in order for transformation to be achieved through MGNREGA.
First, higher wages coupled with opportunities for more days of work are needed to
enhance income and food security for India’s most marginalized. Second, realistic
labour options are needed for women to empower them in meaningful ways.
Building on skills women already have could be one way to strengthen their
employability. Third, opportunities are needed for participants to enhance their job
skills through MGNREGA. In short, building the skills capacity of labourers
through a programme like MGNREGA could be beneficial for enhancing rural
livelihoods and community development.
Another recommendation that is supported by this study is the benefit of
continued use of technology to provide payment directly into bank accounts in the
form of direct cash transfers. This approach also contributes to the transformative
potential of MGNREGA through reduced corruption and guaranteed payment for
programmes such as MGNREGA by cutting out middlemen or unauthorized
administrative fees. Increasing the use of technology to implement schemes could
enhance monitoring and has the potential to reduced corruption and cronyism.7
Technology through the use of databases and information systems also increases the
transparency and accountability of programmes. However, like Khera and Nayak
(2009), we suggest that implementation of this system must be done carefully to ensure
that women have their own accounts in order to maintain control of their funds.

7. Part of the MGNREGA program is to conduct social audits and to make information about fund
allocation and utilization of the scheme accessible to the public (Ministry of Rural Development,
2015). This may also reduce corruption in the implementation of the scheme.

© The Authors 2017. Development Policy Review © 2017 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 0 (0)
 MGNREGA and rural poverty in India 19

MGNREGA has the potential to enact change in social norms through legal
channels. Although progress may be slow, there is reason for cautious optimism.
Invoking a legal solution may, over time, change norms, behaviours and approaches,
thereby opening a space for enhanced social inclusion. Changing these norms may, in
turn, provide additional opportunities for MGNREGA to be successful in local sites.

first submitted July 2015

final revision accepted December 2015

References
Athreya, V.B., Rajagopal, A. and Jayakumar, N. (2014) Report on Some Aspects of
Food Security Policy Interventions. Chennai: MSSRF.
Azam, M. (2012) The Impact of Indian Job Guarantee Scheme on Labour Market
Outcomes: Evidence from a natural experiment. IZA Discussion Paper No. 6548.
Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor.
Bhupal, D.S. (2012) ‘Indian Experience of Sustainable and Inclusive Economic
Growth: An evaluation of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment
Guarantee Scheme’, Review of Applied Socio-Economic Research 3(1): 22–34.
Breitkreuz, R.; Stanton, C.J.; Brady, N.; Pattison, J.; Swallow, B.; Nambi, V.A.;
Chaudhury, M.; Abubaker, S.; King, Ol and Raj, A. (2014). Alleviating Poverty
and Malnutrition in Agrobiodiversity Hotspots In India. Social Policy Review,
Final Report. Department of REES, University of Alberta & the MS
Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai, India.
Carswell, G. and De Neve, G. (2014) ‘MGNREGA in Tamil Nadu: A story of
success and transformation?’, Journal of Agrarian Change 14(4): 564–85.
Dasgupta, P. (2013) ‘Employment Generation Schemes and Long Term
Development: A case study of the NREGA in India’, in M.J. Murray and M.
Forstater (eds), Employment Guarantee Schemes: Job creation and policy in
developing countries and emerging markets. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Deininger, K. and Liu, Y. (2013) Welfare and Poverty Impacts of India’s National
Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme: Evidence from Andhra Pradesh. Policy
Research Working Paper No. 6543. Washington, DC: World Bank.
De Neve, G. and Carswell, G. (2011) ‘MGNREGA and the Return of Identity
Politics in Western Tamil Nadu’, Forum for Development Studies 38: 205–10.
Dev, M. (2011) MGNREGA and Child Well-being. Working Paper 2011-004.
Mumbai: Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research.
Dreze, J. (2010) ‘Employment Guarantee and the Right to Work’, in N.G. Jayal and
P. Mehta (eds), The Oxford Companion to Politics in India. Oxford: New Delhi.
Dreze, J. and Khera, R. (2009) ‘The Battle for Employment Guarantee’, Frontline 26
(1): 3–16.
Ghosh, J. (1998) Assessing Poverty Alleviation Strategies for their Impact on Poor
Women: A study with special reference to India. Geneva: United Nations
Research Institute for Social Development.
© The Authors 2017. Development Policy Review © 2017 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 0 (0)
20 Rhonda Breitkreuz et al.

Imbert, C. and Papp, J. (2015) ‘Labor Market Effects of Social Programs: Evidence
from India’s employment guarantee’, American Economic Journal: Applied
Economics 7(2): 233–63.
IFAD (2015) ‘Rural Poverty Portal’, http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/country/
home/tags/india (accessed 1 December 2015).
Jha, R.; Bhattacharya, S.; Gaiha, R. and Shankar, S. (2009) ‘“Capture” of anti-
poverty programs: An analysis of the National Rural Employment Guarantee
Program in India’, Journal of Asian Economics 20(4): 456–64.
Kapur, D. (2010) ‘Political Economy of the State’, in N.G. Jayal and P.B. Mehta
(eds), The Oxford Companion to Politics in India. Oxford: New Delhi.
Khera, R. (ed.) (2011) The Battle for Employment Guarantee. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Khera, R. and Nayak, N. (2009) ‘Women Workers and Perceptions of the National
Rural Employment Guarantee Act’, Economic and Political Weekly 44(43): 49–57.
Liu, Y. and Barrett, C. B. (2012) ‘Heterogeneous Pro-Poor Targeting in India’s
National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme’, Economic and Political
Weekly 48(10): 46–53.
Mayan, M. J. (2009) Essentials of Qualitative Inquiry. Walnut Creek: Left Coast
Press.
Ministry of Rural Development (2015) The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural
Employment Guarantee Scheme Act 2005. Government of India, http://www.nre
ga.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx (accessed 3 August 2015).
Ministry of Rural Development (2013–14) ‘Outcome Budget of Government of
India. 2013–2014’, Government of India, http://rural.nic.in/sites/budget.asp
(accessed 14 October 2015).
Ministry of Rural Development (2012) Convergence of the MGNREGS, NRLM and
the CFT Strategy: 250 Block Pilot. Government of India. http://nrega.nic.in/ne
tnrega/WriteReaddata/Circulars project_for_converegence _of_MGNREGS_
and_NRLM.pdf (accessed 10 Nov 2015).
Morgan, D. (1997) Focus Groups as Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Mukundan, N. (2009) Rural Development and Poverty Eradication in India. New
Delhi: New Century Publications.
Nair, M.; Ariana, P.; Ohuma, E.O.; Gray, R.; De Stavola, B. and Webster, P.
(2013) ‘Effect of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee
Act (MGNREGA) on Malnutrition of Infants in Rajasthan, India: A mixed
methods study’, PLOS ONE 8(9): e75089.
Niehaus, P. and Sukhtankar, S. (2013) ‘The Marginal Rate of Corruption in Public
Programs: Evidence from India’, Journal of Public Economics 104: 52–64.
Novotn y, J., Kubelkova, J. and Joseph, V. (2013) ‘A Multi-dimensional Analysis of
the Impacts of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee
Scheme: A tale from Tamil Nadu’, Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 34
(3): 322–41.
Pani, N. and Iyer, C. (2012) ‘National Strategies and Local Realities: The Greenfield
approach and the MGNREGAS in Karnataka’, India Review 11(1): 1–22.

© The Authors 2017. Development Policy Review © 2017 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 0 (0)
 MGNREGA and rural poverty in India 21

Pankaj, A. and Tankha, R. (2010) ‘Empowerment Effects of the MGNREGAS on

Women Workers: A study in four states’, Economic and Political Weekly 45:
45–55.
Pellissery, S. and Jalan, S.K. (2011) ‘Towards Transformative Social Protection: A
gendered analysis of the Employment Guarantee Act of India (MGNREGA)’,
Gender & Development 19(2): 283–94.
Planning Commission (2011) Midterm Appraisal: Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007–
2012). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Reddy, D.; Tankha, R.; Upendranadh, C. and Sharma, A. (2010) ‘National Rural
Employment Guarantee as Social Protection’, IDS Bulletin 41(4): 63–76.
Raghu, P.; Swallow, B.; Manaloor, V.; Kalaiselvan, N.N.; Mahana, R.; Arunraj, R.;
Gurumoorthy, V.; Tigga, S.; Misra, C.; Siddick, A.; Nambi, V.; King, E.D.;
Gopi, G. and Ndlovu, P. (2013). Alleviating Poverty and Malnutrition in Agro-
biodiversity Hotspots: Baseline Report. Chennai: MSSRF. April 2, 2013.
Reddy, D. and Upendranadh, C. (2010) National Rural Employment Guarantee:
Issues, concerns and prospects. Oxfam India Working Paper Series V. New
Delhi: Oxfam India.
Richards, L. and Morse, J. M. (2007) Readme First for a User’s Guide to Qualitative
Methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Ruparelia, S. (2013) ‘India’s New Rights Agenda: Genesis, Promises, Risks’, Pacific
Affairs 86(3): 569–90.
Sen, A. (1992) The Political Economy of Targeting. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Shankar, S., Gaiha, R. and Jha, R. (2011) ‘Information, Access and Targeting: The
National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme in India’, Oxford Development
Studies 39(1): 69–95.
Smith, D.E. (1987) The Everyday World as Problematic: A feminist sociology.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Stahlberg, S. (2012) ‘India’s Latest and Largest Workfare Program: Evaluation and
recommendations’. Unpublished. Stanford: Center on Democracy,
Development, and the Rule of Law. Available at http://cddrl.stanford.edu/
publications/indias_latest_and_largest_workfare_program_evaluation_and_
recommendations.http://cddrl.stanford.edu/publications/indias_latest_and_
largest_workfare_program_evaluation_and_recommendations.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Procedures and
techniques for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Suneja, V. (2015). Why ending poverty in India means tackling rural poverty and
power. Oxfam. Available at: https://blogs.oxfam.org/en/blogs/15-02-03-why-end
ing-poverty-india-means-tackling-rural-poverty-and-power. (Accessed 1
December 2015.
Sudarshan, R., Bhattacharya, R. and Fernandez, G. (2010) ‘Women’s Participation
in the NREGA: Some observations from fieldwork in Himachal Pardesh,
Kerala, and Rajasthan’, IDS Bulletin 41(4): 77–83.
Vakulabharanam, V. (2005) ‘Growth and Distress in a South Indian Peasant
Economy During the Era of Economic Liberalisation’, Journal of Development
Studies 41(6): 971–97.

© The Authors 2017. Development Policy Review © 2017 Overseas Development Institute.
Development Policy Review 0 (0)