Fault Lines in MGNREGA: Gender, Wage Rate and Technology
When Deepti was denied her right to an equitable and necessary education, she had made up her mind regarding her future, promising herself that she would earn her own living even if they were just menial tasks. However, only when she went up to the employment in charge of her village to avail her 100 days of work, did she find out about the work-per-household basis of the scheme. She had yet again denied her right to work and earn because employment for her brother was made a greater priority than employment for her. In fact, women in rural areas who wish to work and earn money are not allowed to do so owing to the various fault lines of the scheme, the household basis being one of them. Issues like these depict the need for gender-sensitive implementation mechanisms in social protection programs to have effective gender-transformative outcomes. Research into the execution of MGNREGA has shown that while the scheme has been designed in a gender-sensitive manner, providing various kinds of compensations for female workers, its implementation falls substantially short of this objective.
The objective of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 is to provide for the augmentation of livelihood security of households by providing at least a hundred days of guaranteed wage employment for every financial year to every rural household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work. The design features of the MGNREGA portray a significant characteristic of women’s role as decision-makers outside of their households. There exist several provisions in the act that focuses on women’s participation in local governance institutions to navigate the kinds of work to be carried out by them. The reservations for women in central and state councils, and appropriate timings for social audits that allow women to participate, are all reflective of the importance that the Act gives to considering women as citizens/ decision-makers. However, the framework of MGNREGA fails to counter structural constraints (such as, gender norms) that put up restrictions on women’s voice and mobility in these collective spaces. Although in the previous fiscal year, women availed of more than 50 per cent of employment created under the scheme, not more than 20 per cent of them have been able to fully utilise the benefits of the act, being paid much less than the men and facing uncountable social barriers.
Some of the instruments mentioned in the MGNREGA are: -
● provision measures, which provide relief from deprivation;
● preventive measures, which attempt to prevent deprivation;
● promotive measures, which aim to enhance incomes and capabilities; and
● transformative measures, which seek to address concerns of social justice and exclusion.
Currently, women in most states remain disadvantaged by MGNREGA’s adherence to group and task-based payments. This payment system also discriminates against women who are at different stages of their life cycle. Pregnant and lactating women, and elderly women are less preferred and consequently, gravely underpaid. Often, the nature of work that is assigned to women and men is deeply gendered, being framed by gender norms around roles and tasks. A clear example of this is that most of the digging work is allotted to men while women are responsible for the lifting and moving of soil. Since digging and cultivation are also considered more time-consuming and harder than lifting and moving soil, gendered division of labour under MGNREGA translates to men being paid better as digging is perceived to be harder work than lifting and moving soil. In addition, drudgery with very low returns, and the serious lack of support for their unpaid care work responsibilities that gender norms imposed on them, only discriminate against, and deplete their physical and emotional capabilities.
However, gender-responsive implementation is not the only area where MGNREGA lacks. At present, 17 out of 29 states’ state minimum wage rates are much higher than the MGNREGA wage rates. Numerous judgements passed until now have defended the existing wage rate, declaring that the MGNREGA wage rate cannot be less than the minimum agricultural wage rate of the state. A study by Azim Premji University concluded that out of the payments made, 78 per cent were not made on time, and 45 per cent of them did not include compensation for delayed payment, which is something mentioned in the clauses of the Act. Owing to these ridiculously low wage rates and late payments, there has been a lack of interest among workers in getting affiliated under any MGNREGA schemes. This situation has also made the way for contractors and middlemen to take control locally, increasing corruption and loss of accountability. The increase in corruption and weakening accountability has resulted in the excessive dependence of implementation of MGNREGA on technology, one of them being, real-time MIS. Evidence points out that real-time MIS has led to MGNREGA becoming less transparent for workers and reduced accountability of frontline functionaries.
Policymakers have pointed out that the gender-sensitive design does not always translate to gender-positive outcomes. In spite of innovative and adequate gender-responsive clauses in the scheme, there has not been much transformative change in gender power relations. While considering women’s roles as workers, it is essential that the design and implementation of social protection programs are addressed in accordance with structural barriers and gendered divisions of labour within and outside the home. Actions of pre-supposing women as primary carers and men as the ‘workers’ need to stop to get women their share in the employment guaranteeing scheme. It is essential to review mechanisms such as the MIS, which is currently not a true measure of performance, are reviewed by professionals and trained policymakers to create a better employer-employee relationship. Rather than employing economic orthodoxy, it is critical that the government acknowledges the graveness of the crisis and adopt corrective measures to revive the economy.
This article has been written by Shambhavi Tewari, a senior at Seth M.R. Jaipuria School, Lucknow, India and a member of the Rethinking Economics India Network. She is pursuing the ISC Diploma in Humanistic Studies and is interested in gender violence in conflict regions in India and across the world. Occasionally indulges in literary and cultural comparativism through her heaps of books, while performing postmodernist critiques of public policies in her head.
