MGNREGA AND WOMEN EMPOWERMENT: A Study of Pannur …The present study is an attempt to measure the impact of MGNREGA on women empowerment and gender equality and the factors attributed

MGNREGA AND WOMEN EMPOWERMENT: A Study of Pannur Village in Chittoor District of Andhra Pradesh in India

AJAERD


*1P. Srinivas, 2K. Pandyaraj

1,2Department of Economics, Vikrama Simhapuri University PG Centre, Kavali, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh, India

Women empowerment essentially refers to empowering women to change power relations between them and men in their favour. Public works programmes in India have traditionally offered a unique opportunity for women to earn cash incomes and provide resources particularly to poor women that would enable human capital investment especially for children’s education and nutrition apart from improving women’s bargaining power within the household. The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act is no exception. MGNREGA offers 33 percent employment to women, guarantees child care facility at the worksite and provides scope to women to participate in planning and implementation of MGNREGA and in conducting social audit as members of Gram Sabha and of Gram Panchayat. Available research studies have shown that women have participated in MGNREGA on a large scale in most states in India; have received equal wages with men and earned incomes of their own; single women households and female–headed households have particularly benefited by MGNREGA as it provided them minimum incomes and food security; and participating women in general are frequently feeling empowered as they have now some say in decision making. The present study is an attempt to measure the impact of MGNREGA on women empowerment and gender equality and the factors attributed to potential of women empowerment under MGNREGA. The study reveals that MGNREGA can enhance the women empowerment even though the objective of MGNREGA is either women empowerment or gender equality.

Keywords: MGNREGA, Public Work Programmes, Women Empowerment, Gender equality, Food Security, Equal wages. INTRODUCTION Empowerment refers to increasing strength of individuals or communities in the different spheres of life such as economic, political, social, spiritual etc. It also refers to instilling confidence in people in their own capacities. Women’s empowerment essentially refers to empowering women to change power relations between them and men in their favour. Women in general and women in developing countries in particular are observed to be lagging behind men in the different spheres of life such as, labour and employment, health and nutrition, education and skills, asset ownership, political and social participation etc., with the result that power of decision making in the multiple spheres of life lies more with men than with women.

Gender Equality and empowerment of women is recognized globally as a key element to achieve progress in all areas. UNDP focuses on gender equality and women’s empowerment not only as human rights; but also, because they are a pathway to achieving the Millennium Development Goals and sustainable development. A critical aspect of promoting gender equality is the empowerment of women with a focus on identifying and redressing power imbalances and giving women more

*Corresponding author: Pechetti Srinivas, Assistant Professor,

Department of Economics, Vikrama Simhapuri University PG

Centre, Kavali, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh, India. E-mail:

[email protected], Tel.: +91-9440586837, Fax:

08626243687 Co-author E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development Vol. 4(2), pp. 436-453, May, 2018. © www.premierpublishers.org, ISSN: 2167-0477

Research Article


Srinivas and Pandyaraj 437

autonomy to manage their own lives. Gender Equality and empowerment of women is recognized globally as a key element to achieve progress in all areas. Women’s employment is a critical factor in their progression towards economic independence and is also considered as an indicator of their overall status in society (Mammen and Paxson 2008). The gender gap in employment has macroeconomic implications as well. Based on data from 2000-2004, the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific (ESCAP) estimates that if India’s female labour force participation reached parity with that of United States (86%), its gross domestic product (GDP) would increase by 4.2 per cent a year and growth rate by 1.08 per cent representing an annual gain of $19 billion. A 10 per cent permanent increase in female labour force participation would lead to increase in growth rates by 0.3 per cent (UNESCAP 2007). Public works programmes in India have traditionally offered a unique opportunity for women to earn cash incomes in a context where, too often, the ability of women to work outside the home is severely constrained by social norms. Existing scholarship suggests that women often participated overwhelmingly in these programmes to the extent that some of them were referred to as “women’s programmes” (Dev 1995). Public works programmes have therefore been a subject of considerable interest from the perspective of gender. Further, public works schemes may provide resources to poor women that would enable human capital investment especially for children’s education and nutrition apart from improving women’s bargaining power within the household (Quisumbing and Yisehac 2005). The experiences of previous wage employment programmes could not able to yield targeted results and as a result the rural employment scenario was suffering due to lack of opportunities and built pressure on urban areas through migration. The severe droughts on one hand and depletion of natural resources on the other hand have eroded the base for wage employment opportunities in rural areas. Further the mechanisation of agriculture resulting in reducing the labour component leads to erosion of earning capacity of rural land less poor. Globalisation has ensured that women’s labour is further casualised with emphasis on lesser means, education and skills and fewer productive assets than men. Given their additional responsibilities within the households, their range of employment option is severely limited. This feminisation of poverty is associated with a concentration of women in the informal sector in agriculture, putting them beyond the reach of traditional social security measures. Women thus find themselves vulnerable, are caught in between unorganised work and household responsibilities, and lack access to support in the event of seasonal or life cycle contingencies. In this back ground MGNRGA can be treated as potential tool for development.

MGNREGA was passed by Indian parliament in 2005 and the Scheme (each state was expected to design its own scheme based on the National Guidelines) designed under the Act was implemented in 200 districts of India in February 2006. The coverage of the Act was expanded gradually and since 2008-09 MGNREGA covers the entire rural India. MGNREGA provides a legal guarantee of 100 days of wage employment at the minimum wage rate (prevailing in the concerned state) to every rural household living in rural India. The main objectives of MGNREGA are (1) to guarantee 100 days of work at the legal minimum wages to each household that demands work in rural India, (2) to generate productive assets in the economy and thereby enhance livelihoods of people and (3) to empower (Gram) Panchayats and Gram Sabha by ensuring their participation in the planning and implementation of MGNREGA, and thereby strengthen decentralized democracy. Table 1: Share of women in total person days generated under MGNREGA (In Percentage)

State 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Andhra Pradesh 58 59 58 58.12 59.55

Assam 24.75 28.13 33.59 36.46 38.99

Arunachal Pradesh

30.35 30.17 31.64 34.1 34.08

Bihar 34.97 37.32 40.84 43.78 45.37

Chhattisgarh 48.53 49.87 49.02 49.31 51

Gujarat 43.96 43.24 46.21 45.46 44.69

Haryana 41.73 41.65 45.13 45.62 48.78

Himachal Pradesh

62.51 61.03 63.15 61.8 60.57

Jammu &Kashmir 23.14 25.28 25.28 26.78 24.93

Jharkhand 31.89 32.05 32.75 35.72 37.52

Karnataka 46.59 46.86 47.12 47.21 47.8

Kerala 93.37 92.16 91.27 91.08 87.8

Madhya Pradesh 42.65 43.21 43.15 41.31 38.9

Maharashtra 43.69 43.47 44.52 44.86 47.19

Odisha 33.57 33.78 38.02 39.81 42.84

Punjab 52.74 57.46 57.99 59.97 63.84

Rajasthan 67.76 68.26 69.02 67.03 65.72

Tamilnadu 83.94 85.36 85.02 85.68 84.94

Sikkim 44.76 48.12 47.57 47.88 49.75

Uttar Pradesh 22.17 24.77 29.52 33.21 33.89

Telangana - 61.1 60.77 59.81 61.61

Tripura 47.11 49.36 50.11 49.04 47.63

Uttarakhand 44.87 50.57 51.73 53.97 52.64

West Bengal 35.7 41.4 46.28 46.44 46.33

Nagaland 28.93 31.21 31.28 29.69 28.73

Goa 75.3 74.88 76.9 77.79 77.91

Mizoram 30.16 40.37 37.61 35.17 33.28

Meghalaya 41.62 42.53 42.93 44.28 46.29

Manipur 35.25 38.27 37.26 41.74 52.11

All India 52.82 54.88 55.26 56.13 54.88

Source: MGNREGA Website As far as women’s role in MGNREGA is concerned, MGNREGA offers 33 percent employment to women, guarantees child care facility at the worksite and provides


J. Agric. Econ. Rural Devel. 438

scope to women to participate in planning and implementation of MGNREGA and in conducting social audit as members of Gram Sabha and of Gram Panchayat. Compared to the earlier wage employment programmes, women like MGNREGA for several reasons. Firstly, it is locally available. The Act provides that work is to be provided within five kilo meters of the residence of a worker. Therefore, women’s participation in the work has been feasible. Working at a distant place is difficult for women who happen to take the main responsibility of household chores. Secondly, there is less chance of exploitation. There is a statutory minimum wage, and hence wage earned in NREGA work is much more than the works under a private employer, more so in backward areas. The piece rate wages and formation of small and mixed / solely women groups, have given leverage to evolve their Journal of Rural and Community Affairs, Vol. II (I), 2017 Page 43 working norms to suit to their conditions. Thirdly, there are regularity and predictability of working hours. As such, not only the members of the existing workers group prefer NREGA work, but there is also the possibility of new entrants into the women workers group. Again, work is limited to eight hours a day, which is seldom expected in other works. NREGA work can also protect women against migration in search of work. This leads to an improvement in the quality of their life through avoidance of costs and risks associated with migration. It also helps women who are to look after their kith and kin suffering from severe ills. Moreover, women can avoid harsh working conditions and hazardous works at private work place. Since men want more access to the highly paid NREGA work (in backward regions), they very often put resistance to women’s participation (cited in Dheeraja et al).

In spite of the absence of any direct focus on gender equality, MGNREGA seems to have benefited women in multiple ways. In fact, a large number of studies have shown that women have benefited from MGNREGA in many ways (Khera and Nayak 2009; Pankaj and Tankha 2010; Hanumantha Rao and Dheeraja 2010; Sudarshan 2011). These studies have shown that women have participated in MGNREGA on a large scale in most states in India; have received equal wages with men and earned incomes of their own; single women households and female–headed households have particularly benefited by MGNREGA as it provided them minimum incomes and food security; and participating women in general are frequently feeling empowered as they have now some say in decision making.

In the context of the above findings, the present study attempts to measure the impact of MGNREGA on women empowerment and gender equality and the factors attributed to potential of women empowerment under MGNREGA.

MGNREGA in Andhra Pradesh

The erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh has formulated the Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme

called Andhra Pradesh State Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme in January 2006 in conformity with National Act. The scheme was renamed as Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme –Andhra Pradesh (MGNREGS-AP) as amended in the Act. In the first phase MGNREGS-AP was launched simultaneously in 13 districts viz. Anantapur, Adilabad, Chittoor, Kadapa, Nizamabad, Karimnagar, Vizianagaram, Ranga Reddy, Medak, Khammam, Mahabubnagar, Warangal, and Nalgonda. In 2007-08 as part of phase II, the scheme was extended to six more districts viz. Srikakulam, East Godavari, Prakasam, Nellore, Kurnool and Guntur, and by 2008-09 and it was extended to the remaining three districts (West Godavari, Krishna and Visakhapatnam).

The present Andhra Pradesh state consists of 13 districts, 655 blocks, and 12,996 Gram Panchayats with an area of 1,60, 205 sq kms. It is the eighth largest state in terms of area. Many research studies have placed Andhra Pradesh at the forefront in implementing MGNREGS because of the high level of population awareness of the scheme and frequent reforms in implementation by Government relative to other States. Table 2 presents the performance of MGNREGS in Andhra Pradesh from 2014-15 (after bifurcation from erstwhile Andhra Pradesh) to 2017-18.

Table 2: Performance of MGNREGS in Andhra Pradesh

2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 No of HHs Demanded employment

3693349 3962840 4014973 4042829

No of HHs provided employment

3323630 3572114 3943530 3495342

Total person days generated (in lakhs)

1559.04 1992.1 2053.66 1474.13

% Share of SC person days

22.77 22.58 22.32 22.48

% ST person days

11.92 12.32 11.19 9.47

% Women person days

58.65 57.79 58.12 59.55

Average person days per HHs

47.22 55.23 51.9 42.9

No of HHs completed 100 days of Employment

382545 588822 580839 158437

No of Districts Covered in MGNREGS

13 13 13 13

Funds availability (in Lakhs)

304071.74 309414.29 421627,07 361208.65

% of Funds used

93.37 149.82 107.84 100.68

Total Works Started

8.81 14.05 22.13 13.18

% of works Completed

72802 431841 1346692 328676

Source: MGNREGA Website



MATERIALS AND METHODS Study Area The study is carried out in Pannur Village (Vijayapuram Mandal) in Chittoor District of Andhra Pradesh state in India. Its population is 3254 (2011 census) with most of the households are either cultivators or agricultural labour and the major crops are Bajra, Sugar cane and Paddy during Kharif and in Rabi the major crops are Sunflower, Sugarcane and Chillies. The total geographical area of the village is 1756 acres out of which Cultivated land is 1162 acres, non-cultivated land is 154 acres and the forest land is 440 acres. With regard to education, the village has not taken good advantage of the available facilities and as a result of that the literacy rate is only 55.5 per cent. Pannur is a border village to Tamilnadu State so that the people in this village can speak both Telugu and Tamil fluently. The village has very good socio-economic infrastructure. It has better road links with CC roads and good transportation facilities with a regular bus service along with auto rickshaws in and out throughout the day. Objectives This study examines the impact of MGNREGS at the household level, i.e. to study impact of earned incomes of women (and men) on household consumption, savings and investments, economic empowerment of women in terms of their control over household resources, social impact on intra-household power relations between men and women and overall well-being of men and women in the household in the areas of health, education, nutrition etc. This study was taken up on a pilot basis in the selected village as a part of Ph.D. Programme. Methodology The selection of the sample village is based on the highest participation of women (91 per cent) in MGNREG Scheme in the district in the reference year 2016-17. The study is based on both primary and secondary data. Initially a careful house-listing was done through a three-page schedule to collect basic information about all the households and their participation in MGNREGS. The village has 805 households (about 10 houses are closed), but, as the data revealed, 849 job cards were issued in Pannur. This is because a household was defined as a nuclear household under MGNREGS. Therefore, an adult single man as well as an adult single woman are also treated as a household. Based on the occupational distribution of the households a stratified random sample of 50 women households was drawn for an in-depth study. Primary data is collected through a structured schedule to capture in-depth

information on the multiple impacts of MGNREGA from the sample households. The Secondary data on various aspects like physical and financial performance viz. Number of job cards issued, No of households participated, total number of person days created, Average person days per household, Average wages obtained under MGNREGA etc. were collected from national website www.nrega.nic.in and state website www.nrega.ap.gov.in and also from the Official records of Pannur Panchayat. Simple mathematics like percentages and weighted averages are used in the study. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION MGNREGS in Pannur MGNREGS was introduced in Pannur in the year 2006-07. Subsequently the Village Assembly, Gram Sabha was called in the beginning of 2007, where the Sarpanch informed the village about the act, the rights under the act and the procedures to be followed to take advantage of MGNREGS. Since then the MGNREGS has been implementing well in the village with support from the district and block authorities. Table 3: Participation in MGNREGA

Year Total HHs

Partici-pating HHs

% HH Partici-pating

Person days

Average person days

No of HHs completed 100 days

Average wage

per day

2012-13

805 403 50.06 9932 24.64 4 70.49

2013-14

805 503 62.48 25580 50.85 49 100.09

2014-15

805 479 59.50 17510 36.55 7 132.21

2015-16

805 470 58.38 23873 50.79 18 109.18

2016-17

805 505 62.73 27061 53.58 26 120.82

Source: Official Records of Pannur Panchayat Table 3 presents the status of participation of households in MGNREGA during the last five years. The participation of households in MGNREGS is significant, which ranges between 50.6 to 62.73 per cent and the average days of MGNREGS work has been about 25-54 days, less than stipulated 100 days during the last five years. However, the number of households completed 100 days are very less and the maximum number of households are 49 out of 503 participating households (10 per cent) in the year 2013-14. The average wage rate has been above Rs. 70.00 in 2012-13, rising to Rs. 132 in 2014-15. It was observed that all the male members in the HHs usually engaged in other paid work whereas women prefer MGNREGA work in the village and both men and women are getting equal wages in MGNREGA.

http://www.nrega.nic.in/

http://www.nrega.ap.gov.in/


Table 4: Expenditure on MGNREGA in Pannur

Year Labour

cost (in lakh)

Material cost (in lakh)

Total (in lakh)

% of Labour cost to total

cost

2012-13 7.00 0.35 7.35 95.23

2013-14 25.6 1.83 27.43 93.32

2014-15 23.15 4.67 27.82 83.21

2015-16 26.06 5.14 31.2 83.53

2016-17 32.7 26.67 59.37 55.08

Total 114.51 38.66 153.17 74.76

Source: Official Records of Pannur Panchayat Table 4 presents the expenditure pattern during 2012-13 to 2016-17 on MGNREGA in Pannur Village. The total amount spent on MGNREGS in the village in the five years from 2012-13 to 2016-17 is Rs.153.17 lakh, with the share of the wage component on an average being 74.76 per cent and the share of material component on an average being 25.24 per cent. This is a positive sign, as it indicates that 25 percent funds have been spent on the material component to construct durable assets. Impact of MGNREGS on Women in Pannur Village MGNREGA has potential to enhance women’s economic independence through which women empowerment since it is gender sensitive in its formulation. Through the various provisions and guidelines in the Act, the legislation visualizes that women have an equitable access to work, affirmative conditions at work/on sites, equal payment of wages and representation in decision making bodies. To assess the women empowerment and the factors attributed to it, a pilot study was taken up by selecting only women households in Pannur Village of Chittor Districts of Andhra Pradesh during June 2017.The data has been analysed and interpreted in order to know the impact of MGNREGA and participation of women in the selected village. Table 5 presents the distribution of sample households on the basis of their age, marital status, Education and Occupation. As regards the age groups of the participants, the highest participation is from the age group of 36 to 45 years constituting 48 per cent followed by 26-35 years and then by 46-55 age group. Again, married women constitute 88 percent of the total MGNREGS workers, followed by widows/ divorcees/ deserted women, who constitute about 10 percent of the total participants. Based on the educational status of the respondents 20 per cent are illiterates, 20 per cent were completed high school education, 18 per cent were completed primary education, 16 per cent were completed secondary education, another 16 per cent are literates and only 10 per cent of the respondents were completed above high school education. With regard to occupation, 88 per cent of the respondents are small and marginal farmers, 8 per cent of the respondents are agricultural labour and only 4 per cent of the respondents are non-agricultural labour.

Table 5: Distribution of the respondents on the basis of their Age, Marital Status, Education and Occupation (N=50)

Indicator No. of respondents Percentage

Age

Below 25 years 3 6

26 to 35 12 24

36 to 45 24 48

46 to 55 7 14

56 to 65 4 8

Total 50 100

Marital Status

Married 44 88

Unmarried 1 2

Widow 5 10

Total 50 100

Education

Illiterate 10 20

Literate 8 16

Primary 9 18

Secondary 8 16

High School 10 20

And above 5 10

Total 50 100

Occupation

Farmers 44 88

Agricultural Labour 4 8

Non-Agricultural labour

2 4

Total 50 100

Source: Field Study

i) Changes in Income levels

MGNREGA enables the households especially the women households to enhance their income levels with the provisions in the Act like equal wages, equitable access to work, specific working hours, work site facilities, timely wages etc. Table 6 presents the annual income levels of the sample households before and after participation of MGNREGS. There is a substantial increase in the income levels of the households after participation of MGNREGA in the village. It is evident from the table 6, the households below Rs. 10000/- and Rs. 10001-20000 per annum before MGNREGA were 26 per cent and 58 per cent respectively where the households for the same income levels after participation of MGNREGA were zero per cent. The households between Rs. 20001-30000 and Rs. 30001 to 40000 per annum before MGNREGA was 14 per cent and 2 per cent respectively whereas the households for the same income levels after participation of MGNREGA were 4 per cent each. The households belong to Rs. 40001 to 50000 and above Rs. 50000 per annum before MGNREGA were zero per cent each against the households for the same income levels after participation of MGNREGA were 20 per cent and 72 per cent. Most of the studies (Xavier and Mari 2014, Khera and Nayak 2009; Hanumantha Rao and Dheeraja 2010) supported this argument that the income levels of women households have been increased significantly after their participation in MGNREGA.


Srinivas and Pandyaraj 441 Table 6: Income levels of households before and after participation of MGNREGS

Income Level (per annum) Before After

No. of respondents Percentage No. of respondents Percentage

Below 10000 13 26 0 0

10001 to 20000 29 58 0 0

20001 to 30000 7 14 2 4

30001 to 40000 1 2 2 4

40001 to 50000 0 0 10 20

above 50000 0 0 36 72

Total 50 100 50 100

Source: Field Study ii) Changes in Consumption pattern MGNREGA has made considerable impact on consumption pattern of the beneficiaries. They have started using the increased income (basically earned from MGNREGA employment) towards the purchase of better clothes, providing quality education to their children, better health and purchase household assets. Table 7 presents the share of total income spent by the sample households towards domestic consumption before and after participation of MGNREGS. The proportion of total income spent towards food before MGNREGA stands at 69 per cent and it is decreased to 34 per cent after participation of MGNREGA. There is a considerable change in the consumption pattern towards education, health and household assets which stands 14 per cent, 5 per cent and 1 per cent respectively before participation of MGNREGA and it is increased to 26 per cent, 11 per cent and 12 per cent respectively after participation of MGNREGA. It is evident from the studies by Xavieri and Mari (2014) and Bhupual et al (2014) that the greater part of increased income earned by women through MGNREGA is utilized for food and education of the children. Table 7: Share of total income spent towards domestic consumption before and after participation of MGNREGS

Item Before (%) After (%)

Food 69 34

Clothing 11 17

Education 14 26

Health 5 11

Household asset 1 12

Total 100 100

Source: Field Study iii) Changes in savings pattern Increased income through participation in MGNREGS induced the sample households to save more for the future and also makes them to change their pattern of savings. After participation in MGNREGS the households became aware of basic financial literacy and they started savings on modern financial assets like insurance and also started savings in various Government social security schemes.

Table 8 presents the savings pattern of the sample households before and after participation of MGNREGS. The preferential modes of saving of the households before participation of MGNREGS are Bank Account (40 per cent), Chits (38 per cent) and SHGs (20 per cent) and after participation of MGNREGS, their preferential modes of savings has been changed towards modern financial assets like insurance (34 per cent) and various Government social security schemes (36 per cent) etc. It is evident from the study of Vinita Arora et al (2013) which reveals that majority of women could be able to save some money due to increased income only because of MGNREGA. Table 8: Saving pattern of the households before and after participation of MGNREGS

Mode of saving

Before After

No. of respondents

Percentage No. of

respondents Percentage

Bank account

20 40 10 20

Insurance 1 2 12 34

Chits 19 38 5 10

SHGS 10 20 10 20

Government schemes

0 0 13 36

Total 50 100 50 100

Source: Field Study iv) Changes in investment pattern

As a result of increase in overall income level of the households due to participation of both wife and husband in MGNREGS, they have started using this income for investing on various physical and financial assets like purchasing gold, investment on constructing new house, purchase of cattle and purchase of implements useful for agriculture. Table 9 shows that the investment of sample households before and after participation of MGNREGS. The priority areas of investment by the households before MGNREGA are land (62 per cent), home (16 per cent) and cattle (16 per cent). After participation in MGNREGS the priority areas of investment changed towards purchase of gold (22 per cent), agricultural implements (22 per cent), cattle (30 per cent) and home (20 per cent).It is evident from the study of Gupta and Ahmad (2014) that the increased income through MGNREGA provided the poor



and women improved their means to invest on income generating activities or assets thus leads to financial inclusion. Table 9: Investment pattern of households before and after participation of MGNREGS

Area of investment

Before After

No. of respon-dents

Percentage No. of

respon-dents

Percentage

Investment on land

31 62 3 6

Investment on gold

0 0 11 22

Investment on house /home

8 16 10 20

Investment on cattle

8 16 15 30

Investment on agriculture implements

1 2 11 22

Any other 2 4 0 0

Total 50 100 50 100

Source: Field Study v) Changes in Decision making of women on domestic spending and savings Table 10: Decision making of women on spending and savings before and after MGNREGS (Percentage) Sl. No

Item Before After

Self Husband Both Self Husband Both

1 Food 44 20 36 88 2 10

2 Clothing 14 66 20 46 4 50

3 Children’s Education

30 48 22 52 6 42

4 Health 50 18 32 78 10 12

5 Household assets

18 72 10 50 14 36

6 Transport 20 58 22 54 8 38

7 Social and religious events

34 36 30 94 0 6

8 Savings 44 40 16 92 2 6

Source: Field Study Decision making by women on spending and savings at their homes is one of the important indicators of women empowerment. Keeping this in view, the sample households were enquired about the degree of change in decision making towards spending on domestic goods like food, clothing, children’s education, health, household assets, transport, social and religious events and savings. Table 10 presents the proportion of change in decision making of women on spending towards domestic goods and savings before and after participation of MGNREGS. It reveals that there is a positive change in the decision making on spending for various domestic goods and savings which were earlier dominated by male members in the family. This may be due to contribution made by the

women to the family income through wages obtained in MGNREGA. The studies undertaken by Ministry of Rural Development, Govt. of India (2015) and Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University (2012) supports this argument that the decision-making power of women in household finances and community affairs has increased considerably after participation in MGNREGA. vi) Potential of Women Empowerment For assessing the women empowerment potential of MGNREGA by means of a field study, the following factors have been considered: (i) Better Financial planning and discipline, (ii) Freedom to spend and save the earnings, (iii) Freedom from moneylenders and bankers, (iv) Deciding on purchase of household goods, (v) Freedom to decide on children’s education, (vi) Raising voice against injustice, (vii) Expressing opinion in meetings/discussions, (viii) Election campaigning / contesting in elections, (ix)Public speaking ability. Suitable weights are attached to the responses of the respondents viz. the 50 women workers under study as follows: ‘Yes’ Weight 2, ‘To Some Extent’ Weight 1, and ‘No’ Weight 0. The factors leading to women empowerment can be categorized based on their empowerment potential into three major groups viz. High Empowerment (Average Score above 1.33), Moderate Empowerment (Average Score between 0.67 to 1.33) and Low Empowerment (Average Score below 0.67). From Table 11, it is noted that MGNREGA has got an appreciably high level of potential for women empowerment. This is evidences from the high average score of 1.61 considering all the nine factors together. Besides, it is noted that the social empowerment potential is the highest compared to economic and social factors. This may be attributed to very high score for individual factors like freedom to decide on children’s education (3.36) and deciding on purchase of household goods (1.68). However, it is to be noted that the average score for the factor of raising voice against injustice is stands moderate (1.12).With respect to economic empowerment too, the overall potential for empowerment is high at the level of 1.56; and among the three individual factors in this group the factor ‘better financial discipline’ has got a very high score of 1.64, followed by another factor ‘Freedom to spend and save the earnings’ with a very high score of 1.54 while the third factor ‘freedom from money lenders’ has also got a high score of 1.50. With respect to political empowerment, the average score for the three factors put together (1.23) as well as the individual scores for the three different factors are quite moderate. In short, it may be pointed out that MGNREGA implementation has given rise to very high level of social empowerment, high level of economic empowerment and quite moderate level of political empowerment of rural women.


Srinivas and Pandyaraj 443 Table 11: Factors attributed to potential of women Empowerment under MGNREGA

Factors related to Socio Economic and Political Empowerment of Women

Yes (Weight 2 )

To Some extent (Weight 1)

No (Weight 0)

Total Score

Weight Average Score

Better and financial discipline 34 14 2 82 1.64

Freedom to spend and save the earnings 34 9 7 77 1.54

Freedom from money lenders and bankers 29 17 4 75 1.5

Total Score for 3 factors on Economic Empowerment 234 1.56

Deciding on purchase of household goods 40 4 6 84 1.68

Freedom to decide on children’s education 78 12 5 168 3.36

Raising voice against injustice 17 22 9 56 1.12

Total Score for 3 factors on Social Empowerment 308 2.05

Expression opinion meetings/discussions 22 21 7 65 1.30

Election campaigning/contesting in elections 20 25 5 65 1.30

Public speaking ability 12 30 8 54 1.08

Total Score for 3 factors on Political Empowerment 184 1.23

Grand Total Score for the 9 Social, Economic and Political factors 726 1.61

Source: Field Study CONCLUSION The study reveals that MGNREGA can enhance the women empowerment even though the objective of MGNREGA is neither women empowerment nor Gender equality. This is because MGNREGA does provide women (both engaged in the labour market or working as housewives) an opportunity to earn (minimum) wages and incomes; to mobilize to develop collective strength (in the form of SHGs or in any other forms); and to participate in village level institutions like Gram Sabhas, Vigilance Committees, Social audits etc. The study has shown that by accessing these opportunities, women MGNREGA and women’s empowerment tend to influence intra-household relationships in their favour and tend to acquire improved bargaining within and outside the home. Though these developments do break some barriers to gender equality, they do not remove all the barriers to women’s empowerment. That is, MGNREGA by and of itself cannot achieve complete gender equalities in the economy and the society. This is because empowerment of women, basically, is brought about not by one programme but by an enabling macro environment, including enabling macroeconomic environment. REFERENCES Arora V., Upadhyay & Kulshreshtha L. R. (2013). Mahatma

Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme; A Unique Scheme for Indian Rural Women, International Journal of Economic Practices and Theories,3(2).

Aasif Ali, Shashank Shekhar & Tariq Ahmad (2018). Women empowerment and gender equality under MGNREGA: A great revolution in rural life. International Journal of Advance Research and Development, 3(3).

Battacharyya Susmita (2017). Impact of MGNREGA on Sustainable Livelihood of Women. Journal of Rural and Community Affairs, 2(1).

Bhupal, Ganita Sam, Abdoul G. (2014).Female Income and Expenditure on Children: Impact of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme in India, Applied Econometrics and International Development vol. 14(2)

Dev, Mahendra S. (1995). Alleviating Poverty and Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Scheme. Economic &Political Weekly, 30 (41-42), 2663-76.

Dheeraja C. & Madhuri N.V. (2013). Report on Factors facilitating participation of women in Mahatma Gandhi NREGS. Hyderabad, National Institute of Rural Development.

Hanumant Rao & Dheeraja, C.2010.Report on changing gender relations through MGNREGS in the states of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. Hyderabad, National Institute of Rural Development.

Govind Kelkar (2011). MGNREGA: Change and Continuity in Gender Relations. Journal of Economic and Social Development, VII (2)

Gupta S K & Ahmad Fearooz, (2014).MGNREGA & Financial Inclusion- A Case Study, International Journal of Scientific Research and Education, 2 (10), 2062-2070.

Khera, R. & N. Nayak (2009). Women Workers and Perceptions of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. Economic & Political Weekly, 44 (43), 49-57.

Mammen, Kristin, and Christina Paxson. (2008). Women’s Work and Economic Development. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14 (4): 141–164.

Ministry of Rural Development, (2015). Report on Nationwide Evaluation of the Flagship Programme of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, Govt. of India, New Delhi

Pankaj, A. and R. Tankha (2009). Women’s Empowerment through Guaranteed Employment”, New Delhi, Institute for Human Development.

Quisumbing, A. R. and Y.Yisehac (2005). How Fair Is Workfare? Gender, Public Works and Employment in Rural Ethiopia. Policy Research Working Paper Series 3492, The World Bank.


J. Agric. Econ. Rural Devel. 444 Sudha Narayana, Upasak Das (2014). Women

Participation and Rationing in the Employment Guarantee Scheme. Economic and Political Weekly, XLIX (46).

Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University (2012). MGNREGA Implementation: A Cross State Comparison

Xavier G, Mari G (2014). Impact of MGNREA on Women Empowerment with special reference to Kalakkanmoi Panchayat in Sivgangai District, Tamil Nadu, SSRG International Journal of Economics and Management Studies, I(1).

UNESCAP. 2007. Economic and Social Survey of Asia and the Pacific. Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific.

Accepted 23 April 2018 Citation: Srinivas P., Pandyaraj K. (2018). MGNREGA AND WOMEN EMPOWERMENT: A Study of Pannur Village in Chittoor District of Andhra Pradesh in India. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, 4(2): 436-453.

Copyright: © 2018 Srinivas and Pandyaraj. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are cited.

Srinivas and Pandyaraj 445 Annexure I

VIKRAMA SIMHAPURI UNIVERSITY POST GRADUATE CENTRE, KAVALI

Schedule-I: Questionnaire for Women Beneficiary of MGNREGA 1. Background Information: 1.1). Name of the Block _______________________ 1.2). Name of the GP ________________________ 1.3). Name of the village ________________________ 1.4). What are factors responsible for your participation in MGNREGA ? 1) Economic Factors (Wages) 2) Motivating Factors (Less work higher wages)

3) Social Factor (Change in life style 4) Any other ____________________

2 .Respondent’s Details 2.1) Name ______________________ 2.2) Age 1) Below 25 years 2) 26 to 35 3) 36 to 45 4) 46 to 55 5) 56 to 65 6) above 65 years 2.3) Caste 1) SC 2) ST 3) BC 4) OC 5) Minorities 2.4) Education 1) Illiterate 2) Literate 3) Primary 4) Secondary 5) High School 6) And above 2.5) Marital Status 1) Married 2) Unmarried 3) Widow 4) Divorce 5) Public Separated 6) Any other 2.6) Occupation 1) Farmers 2) Agri labour 3) Non Agri Labour 4) Entrepreneur 5) Business 6) Any other 2.7 Husband’s occupation 2.7) No. of Family Members

Age group No of Male No of Females Total

0-3 years

3-6

6-14

15-49

50 Above

2.8) Income levels of households 1) Up to 5000 2) 5001-10,000 3) 10,001- 15,000 4) 15,001 to 20,000 5) 20,001 to 25,000 6) 25,000 above 2.9) Operational land holdings status 1) Land less 2) Below 1 acre 3) 1.0 to 2.5 acres 4) 2.5 to 5 acres 5) 5.0 to 10 acres 6) above 10 acres 2.10 Size of the land holdings___ 2.10) Economic dependence in the household Earners________ Dependence_________ 2.11) Do you have ration card? 1) Yes 2) No 2.12). If yes, what type of card you have ? 1) White card 2) Pink Card 3) Anthyodhaya 2.13) Decision making at the house hold level? 1). Food a) Self b) Husband c) Both d) Others 2). Clothing a) Self b) Husband c) Both d) Others 3). Children’s Education a) Self b) Husband c) Both d) Others 4). Health a) Self b) Husband c) Both d) Others 5). Children’s marriages a) Self b) Husband c) Both d) Others 6). Attending Social Gatherings a) Self b) Husband c) Both d) Others 7). Visiting the relatives a) Self b) Husband c) Both d) Others

J. Agric. Econ. Rural Devel. 446 8). Agricultural activities a) Self b) Husband c) Both d) Others 9). Participation and labour a) Self b) Husband c) Both d) Others 10). Expenditure and self a) Self b) Husband c) Both d) Others 11). Purchasing of assets a) Self b) Husband c) Both d) Others 12). Participation in village development Organizations

a) Self b) Husband c) Both d) Others 13). Participation in rural development Programmes

a) Self b) Husband c) Both d) Others 14). Participation in panchayat raj institutions

a) Self b) Husband c) Both d) Others 3. Awareness of the Respondent about MGNREGA 3.1) Are you aware of MGNREGA? 1) Yes 2). No 3.2) If yes, what is the source of information?

1). Panchayat 2).Media 3). Gram Panchayat 4). Gram Sabha 3.3)Do you have job card? 1).Yes 2). No 3.4). If yes when did you get?__________________________ 3.5). Where did you get the job card?

1). Panchayat office 2).Gram Sabah 3).BDO 4).any other______ 3.6). Did you face any problem getting the job card? 1).Yes 2).No 3.7). If yes, what kind of problem you faced? 3.8). Are you aware of the provisions related to women in MGNREGA 1). Facilities to be provided at the work site? 1).Yes 2).No 2). Type of works to be taken up 1).Yes 2).No 3). Right to minimum wages 1).Yes 2).No 4). Equal wages for men and women workers 1).Yes 2).No 5). Crediting wages directly to the bank account 1).Yes 2).No 6). Unemployment allowances 1).Yes 2).No 7). Conducting Social audits 1).Yes 2).No 8). Appointing as member in local monitoring committee 1).Yes 2).No

9). Officials to be contacted for grievance redresses 1).Yes 2) .No 10). Works to be provided within a 5km distance 1).Yes 2). No 11) MGNREGA works are boots to agriculture and thud provide more local employment?

1) yes, 2) No 3.9).Did you participate in the social audit in MGNREGA 1).Yes 2). No 3.10). If yes, how many times did you participate during last three years ____________ 3.11).Whether your GP is organising social audit 1). Yes 2). No 3.12). If yes, please provide the details during the last five years?

SI.NO Year Numbers

1 2016-17

2 2015-16

3 2014-15

4 2013-14

5 2012-13

3.13).Did you find any loopholes in the utilization of funds by participating in social audit? 1). Yes 2). No 3.14).Whether you are getting work under MGNREGA on demand as prescribe in the act With in15 days? 1). Yes 2). No 3.15) What is the type of participation in social Audits? 1) Mere participation 2) Participation in discussion

Srinivas and Pandyaraj 447 3) Raised doubts 4) Raised objections 5) Fact proving efforts 4. Participation of women 4.1). Why do you prefer MGNREGA work than the other available works ? 1) Work is available locally 2) Higher wage rates than the other works 3) It gives an opportunity to spend money for necessaries/comports 4) No harassments from the employees 5) Prefer to work in their own village 6) No other work is available in village 4.2) How many days you have participated in MGNREGA work during last five years

Sl. No.

Year Total No of days of employment

Total No. of days employment in MGNREGA

% of MGNREGA Employment in Total employment

1 2016-17

2 2015-16

3 2014-15

4 2013-14

5 2012-13

4.3) Do you felt that the seasons of MGNREGA implementation is suitable (or) match to fill the unemployment seasons 1) Yes 2) No 4.4). Did you face any kind problems in participation of MGNREGA Work during the last five years 1). Yes 2).No 4.5). If yes, what are the problems you are faced? 1). At the household level ___________________________________ 2). At the work site level ____________________________________

3). Any other _____________________________________ 4.6).Whether you getting wages equal to the men under MGNREGA?

1). Yes 2). No 4.7). If no, what are reasons for not getting the equal wages 4.8). What is the amount of wages obtained through MGNREGA during the last five years

Sl. No Year Total amount Average wage per day

1 2016-17

2 2015-16

3 2014-15

4 2013-14

5 2012-13

4.9).What is the mode of getting wages? 1). By hand 2). Through bank account 3). Through post office 4). Any other 4.10).Do you have Bank Account/Post Office Account? 1)Yes 2) No 4.11). If yes, what is the purpose of taking bank account and when did you taken it 1). Purpose_______________________ 2). Year_______________________ 4.12).Whether you are getting the wages within 15 days as per the act

1).Yes 2). No 4.13). What kind of facilities are provided at the work site? 1). Shade? 1).Yes 2). No 2). Crèche 1). Yes 2). No 3). Drinking water 1). Yes 2). No 4). First aid 1). Yes 2). No

J. Agric. Econ. Rural Devel. 448 5. Impact of MGNREGA on Women 5.1). Main Occupation of the respondent?

Occupation Before After

House-Wife

Farmer

Agri labour

Non agri labour

Business

Entrepreneur

Any other

5.2). Annual income of the HH by main occupation and other occupation

Sources of income Total no of HH Income inRs

Cultivation/Farming

Agricultural labour

Non-Agri labour 1) 2)

Private job

Govt job

Business

Entrepreneur

MGNREGA worker

Any other

Grand total

5.3). Changes in the income level

Income level Before After

1.Below 5000

2.5001 to 10,000

3.10,000 to 15,000

4.15,000 to 20,000

5.20,000 to 25,000

6. Above 60,000

5.4). Changes in consumption level

Consumptions Before After

1.Food

2.Clothing

3.Education

4.Health

5.House hold assets

6.Transport

7.Alcohol

8.Finacial security

9. Care for children

Total

5.5). Changes in savings level

Savings Before After

1.Bank account

2.Insurance

3.Chits

4.SHGS

5.Savings on govt schemes

6.Any other

Srinivas and Pandyaraj 449 5.6). Changes in investment level

Investments Before After

1. Investment on land

2. Investment on gold

3. Investment on house/home

5. Investment on cattle

6. Investment on agriculture implements

4. Any other

5.7). How did you spent the income earned through MGNREGA during last three years ?

Items Amount spent

2016-17 2015-16 2014-15

1.Food

2.Clothing

3.Education

4.Health

5.House hold assets

6.Transport

7.Alcohol

8. Any other

5.8 Did you find any change in decision making on spending after participation of Mgnrega ? 1) Food 1) Yes 2) No 2) Clothing 1) Yes 2) No 3) Education 1) Yes 2) No 4) Health 1) Yes 2) No 5) Transport 1) Yes 2) No 6) Social and religious gatherings 1) Yes 2) No 5.10). Participation of respondent in Social and Political activities

Activities Before After

As a SHGs member in Gramma Sabha meetings

Village developmental activities

Tackling social issues

Helping other members

Participation in political meetings

Contesting as people representative to constitutional bodies

5.11). Use of MGNREGA income by type of use

Type of use Amount spent % of amount

Food

Health

Clothing

Education

Transport

HH assets

Repairing of house

Repayment of old debt

Social and religious gatherings

Savings

Any other

J. Agric. Econ. Rural Devel. 450 5.12. Did you find any change in decision making on spending after participation of Mgnrega

Items Before After

Food Self Husband Both Self Husband Both

Clothing

Education

Health

Transport

Social & religious events

HH assets

Savings

MGNREGA Income

5.13). Impact on empowerment of women

Sl.No. Factors High Moderate Low

1 Better financial and discipline

2 Expression opinion meetings/ discussions

3 Raising voice against injustice

4 Freedom to spend and save the earnings

5 Freedom from money lenders and bankers

6 Deciding on purchase of household goods

7 Election campaigning/ contesting in elections

8 Freedom to decide on children’s education

9 Public speaking ability


Annexure II Results of Field Survey

2.2.2.Age of the respondents * 2.2.5.Marital Status Cross tabulation

Age of the respondents Marital Status Total

Married Unmarried Widow

Below 25 years 2 1 0 3

26 to 35 11 0 1 12

36 to 45 23 0 1 24

46 to 55 6 0 1 7

56 to 65 2 0 2 4

Total 44 1 5 50

Education and Occupation Cross tabulation

2.2.6.Occupation Total

Farmers Agri labour Non Agri labour Any other

Illiterate 8 1 0 1 10

literate 7 1 0 0 8

Primary 8 1 0 0 9

Secondary 7 0 1 0 8

High school 9 1 0 0 10

And above 5 0 0 0 5

Total 44 4 1 1 50

Age of the respondents and Occupation Cross tabulation

Age of the respondent 2.2.6.Occupation Total

Farmers Agri labour Non Agri labour Any other

Below 25 Years 3 0 0 0 3

26 to 35 11 1 0 0 12

36 to 45 20 3 1 0 24

46 to 55 7 0 0 0 7

56 to 65 3 0 0 1 4

Total 44 4 1 1 50

Changes in income levels of the respondent before and After participation in MGNREGA

Before After

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Below 5000 13 26.0 0 0

5001 to 10000 29 58.0 0 0

10000 to 15000 7 14.0 2 4

15000 to 20000 1 2.0 2 4

20000 to 25000 0 0 10 20

above 60000 0 0 36 72

Total 50 100 50 100

Changes in savings levels of respondent before and after participation in MGNREGA

Before After


Bank account 20 40.0 1 2.0

Insurance 1 2.0 18 36.0

Chits 19 38.0 5 10.0

SHGS 10 20.0 1 2.0

Savings on govt schemes 0 0 25 50.0

Total 50 100.0 50 100.0


Changes in investment levels of respondent before and after participation in MGNREGA

Before After


Investment on land 31 62.0 3 6.0

Investment on gold 0 0 11 22.0

Investment on house /home 8 16.0 10 20.0

Investment on cattle 8 16.0 15 30.0

Investment on agriculture implements 1 2.0 11 22.0

Any other 2 4.0 0 0

Total 50 100.0 50 100.0

1. Did you find any change in decision making spending on food Before and after participation of Mgnrega

Before After


Self 22 44 44 88

Husband 10 20 1 2

Both 18 36 5 10

Others 0 0 0 0

Total 50 100 50 100

2. Did you find any change in decision making spending on Clothing Before and after participation of Mgnrega

Before After

Frequency

Percent Frequency

Percent

Self 7 14 22 44

Husband 33 66 2 4

Both 10 20 25 50

Others 0 0 1 2

Total 50 100 50 100

3. Did you find any change in decision making spending on Education Before and after participation of Mgnrega

Before After


Self 15 30 26 52

Husband 23 46 2 4

Both 11 22 21 42

Others 1 2 1 2

Total 50 100 50 100

4.Did you find any change in decision making spending on Health Before and after participation of Mgnrega

Before After


Self 25 50 39 78

Husband 9 18 5 10

Both 16 32 6 12

Others 0 0 0 0

Total 50 100 50 100

5.Did you find any change in decision making spending on Transport Before and after participation of Mgnrega

Before After


Self 10 20 27 54

Husband 29 58 4 8

Both 11 22 19 38

Others 0 0 0 0

Total 50 100 50 100


6. Did you find any change in decision making spending on Social and religious events Before and after participation of Mgnrega

Before After


Self 17 34 47 94

Husband 18 36 0 0

Both 15 30 3 6

Others 0 0 0 0

Total 50 100 50 100

7. Did you find any change in decision making spending on Household assets Before and after participation of Mgnrega

Before After


Self 9 18 25 50

Husband 36 72 7 14

Both 5 10 18 36

Others 0 0 0 0

Total 50 100 50 100

8. Did you find any change in decision making spending on Savings Before and after participation of Mgnrega

Before After


Self 22 44 46 92

Husband 20 40 1 2

Both 8 16 3 6

Others 0 0 0 0

Total 50 100 50 100

9. Did you find any change in decision making spending on Mgnrega income Before and after participation of Mgnrega

Before After


Self 22 44 48 96

Husband 7 14 1 2

Both 21 42 1 2

Others 0 0 0 0

Total 50 100 50 100

MGNREGA AND WOMEN EMPOWERMENT: A Study of Pannur …The present study is an attempt to measure the impact of MGNREGA on women empowerment and gender equality and the factors attributed

Documents