UNDERSTANDING LIVELIHOOD STRATEGY IN RURAL INDIA IS PUBLIC

UNDERSTANDING LIVELIHOOD STRATEGY IN RURAL INDIA: IS PUBLIC WORKS SCHEME (MGNREGS) ALTERNATIVE OR COMPLEMENTARY TO OUTMIGRATION? Dr. Nandan Kumar, Centre for Excellence in CSR, TISS, Mumbai Prof. R. B. Bhagat, IIPS, Mumbai

WHAT IS MGNREGS? 100 din ki rozgar guarantee, yaad rakho uncle aur aunty (100 days of employment guarantee, please remember uncle and aunty)

EXPECTED IMPACT OF MGNREGA ON MIGRATION 1. Transfer of income in rural area 2. Rise in rural wage rate 3. Development of rural infrastructure 1. Rise in Rural Income 2. Rural development and empowerment of local community Reduction in rural out-migration

WHAT IS MGNREGA IN REALITY? Objective Reality Demand driven Supply driven Entitlement based Availability based 100 days per family 40 days per family Inclusion of women overachieved Poorly implemented in poor states, delayed payment, no compensation if employment is not provided

DEMAND FOR MGNREGA The extent of real demand is not known, as the programme is still supply driven v. In the year 2009 -10, 29 billion persondays v. In 2014 -15, 17 billion persondays and v. In 2018 -19, 26 billion persondays

SCENARIO OF MIGRATION IN CENSUS 2011 q Census data defines migration by the differences of place of origin and destination q Proportion of migrant population in India has increased from 28 percent in 1991 to 38 percent q Migration for employment related reasons was 8. 8 percent in 1991, 9. 5 percent in 2001 and 10. 2 percent in 2011, which just 3 percent of total population q Short-duration, rural to urban and interstate out-migration for employment has increased between 1991 to 2011

OBJECTIVES üTo assess the level of out-migration from the in India in recent times üTo understand the socio-economic aspects of participation in MGNREGS and Out-migration üTo differentiate between the demography of participation in MGNREGS and Out-migration üTo analyse the effect of MGNREGS in decreasing out-migration from rural India

DATA AND METHODS q. Source of data – India Human Development Survey (IHDS-II) data of 2011 -12 q. Out-migrants – Absent member from household, who are not sharing the same roof or same kitchen for more than six months in last year q. Seasonal migrants – Those who left the household to find seasonal or shortterm work and returned back in last five year or in last one year

PARTICIPATION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN OUT-MIGRATION AND MGNREGA IN INDIA AND STATES

LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT IN VILLAGES 35 30 25 29. 6 26. 5 20 19. 8 22. 4 22. 1 16. 7 15 10 5 0 All India More developed villages Out-migration MNREGS Less developed villages

SOCIAL CATEGORIES 35 31. 2 28. 1 30 23. 1 25 28 26. 3 21. 2 26. 5 19. 8 18. 7 16. 8 20 15 28. 3 27. 5 12. 1 10 4. 3 5 0 Forward caste OBC Dalit Adivasi Out-migration Muslim MGNREGS Christian, Sikh, Jain All India

LAND-HOLDINGS 32 28. 3 27. 2 26. 5 23. 6 21. 8 19. 9 19. 2 No up to 2. 5 Acres 2. 5 to 5 Acres Out-migration 17. 3 5 Acres and Higher MGNREGS 19. 8 All India

MAIN SOURCE OF LIVELIHOOD 60 49. 9 50 40 30 20 32. 2 28. 5 19. 5 18. 8 20. 4 25. 8 31. 6 26. 5 22. 8 19. 8 10. 5 5. 5 10 5. 3 0 Agriculture and allied Agricultural Labour Non-agricultural Labour Artesian and Petty Traders Out-migration Salaried MGNREGS Others All India

POVERTY 26. 5 24. 6 18 Non-poor 26. 5 19. 8 18. 6 Poor Out-migration All India MGNREGS

HOUSEHOLDS PARTICIPATING IN MGNREGS AND THEIR MIGRATION STATUS 72. 5 Not Worked in MGNREGS 27. 5 76. 9 Worked MGNREGS 23. 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 Percentage of households Non-Migrant Households 60 70 80 90

NO. OF DAYS WORKED IN MGNREGS AND THEIR MIGRATION STATUS 30. 0% 25. 1% 25. 0% 20. 0% 23. 3% 20. 7% 21. 7% 17. 7% 19. 2% 22. 1% 15. 0% 10. 0% 5. 0% 0. 0% 1 to 19 days 20 to 39 days 40 to 59 days 60 to 79 days 80 to 99 days 100 days and above Total

NO. OF DAYS WORKED IN MGNREGS AND SEASONAL MIGRATION 10% 12. 0% 10. 0% 8. 4% 7. 8% 7. 2% 6. 5% 6. 8% 7. 8% 6. 0% 3. 1% 4. 0% 4% 2. 0% 0. 0% 1 to 19 days 20 to 39 days 40 to 59 days 60 to 79 days 80 to 99 days 100 days and Worked for more any day Number of days worked in MGNREGS Not worked Total

ll nt ig ra M ry ur bo la 315 ab ou r nt l ra ig nm no la Sa 200 A 369 s bo ur la 817 Bu sin es A G RE N r bo u 730 la bo ur la 800 M G re tu gr ic ul on -a N ul tu re gr ic y hu sb an dr 1000 A al m ni 600 A ul tu re ic gr A SEX RATIO OF PARTICIPANTS 1200 1070 774 658 400 294 0 77

AGE-GROUP OF PARTICIPANTS 49. 5 39. 7 26. 5 30. 5 18. 7 0. 4 10. 8 0 to 14 8. 8 15 to 29 30 to 44 MGNREGS Workers 45 to 60 Migrants 10. 8 4. 4 60 and above

EDUCATION OF PARTICIPANTS 52. 2 17 15. 4 8. 7 None 11. 1 Below Primary 18. 8 16. 1 Primary Completed 11. 5 Middle Completed Migrants 14. 7 14. 6 5 Secondary MGNREGS Workers 2. 8 Higher Secondary 10. 8 1. 3 Bachelor and above

CONTRIBUTION OF REMITTANCE AND WAGE FROM MGNREGS IN RURAL INCOME Remittance MGNREGA Wage [VALUE] [VALUE] Agriculture Business [VALUE] Non-agricultural Wage [VALUE] Transfers from government/ NGOs Agricultural Wage Salary Others

Village Type More Developed Village ® Less Developed Village Social Groups Forward caste ® OBC Dalit Adivasi Muslim Christian, Sikh, Jain Land Holdings No Land ® up to 2. 5 Acres 2. 5 to 5 Acres and Higher Main Source of livelihood Agriculture and allied ® Agricultural Labour Non-agricultural Labour Artesian and Petty Traders Salaried Others Consumption Quintile Poorest ® Poor Middle Richer Richest Participation in MGNREGS No Participation ® 1 to 29 days 30 to 59 days 60 to 89 days 90 days and above Regions North-West (Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Chandigarh, Uttarakhand, Haryana, Delhi, Rajasthan) ® North and Central (Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh) North-East (Sikkim, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura) East (Bihar, Jharkhand, West- Bengal, Orissa) Exp(B) 1. 26*** 1. 01 0. 93 1. 09 0. 88* 0. 86 1. 25*** 1. 23*** 1. 45*** 0. 88* 0. 77*** 0. 88* 1. 29*** 2. 99*** 1. 18*** 1. 34*** 1. 66*** 2. 24*** 1. 09 0. 98 1. 01 0. 88* 1. 73*** 0. 38*** 1. 13*

CONCLUSION q. The implementation of social safety net is yet to be intensified in the area of high out-migration q. There is a social contrast in participation in out-migration and MGNREGS. Therefore, successful implementation of the programme many not curb the volume of migration q. With the deployment of different human capital a labourer’s household may harness the benefit of both the programme q. Therefore, both the livelihood strategies are complementary, not alternative of each other

Thank you