MGNREGA needed reform, but G RAM G dismantles rural job guarantee, says Jean Drèze
Renowned economist Jean Drèze, who played a pivotal role in the formulation of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (later renamed the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, or MGNREGA) as a member of the National Advisory Council (NAC) during the Congress-led UPA government, spoke to Open about the Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin), or the VB-G RAM G legislation – also called G RAM G -- which replaces MGNREGA as the scheme offering job guarantees to rural households.
The new Bill, introduced in the Lok Sabha on December 15 and tabled for discussion on December 17, was passed in the recently concluded Winter Session amid strong opposition protests over the removal of Mahatma Gandhi’s name and the greater financial burden placed on states. A section of the Opposition also dubbed the VB-G RAM G Bill the “bulldozer” Bill. Edited excerpts from the interview with Drèze, the Belgium-born Indian economist who currently lives in Ranchi:
In a recent column, you talk about implementation challenges for the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (MGNREGA), which has now been repealed. Can you explain them?
There are different challenges for different stakeholders—the government, MGNREGA workers, local functionaries, and so on. For instance, the government may feel that enforcing productivity norms is a challenge, while workers are more concerned with holding the state accountable. That said, I think two aspects of MGNREGA would be considered major challenges by most. One is the timely and reliable payment of wages. Delays and other lapses in wage payments have done enormous harm to the entire programme and caused grave injustice to workers. Another major challenge is containing corruption. A lot of progress had been made on this by 2011–12, but there was a setback later, partly due to over-reliance on technological safeguards that proved weak, if not counter-productive. Unfortunately, the VB-G RAM G Bill does not help address these issues.
You tend to suggest that instead of fixing these problems, the government has decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Why does it surprise you that this government has rushed through the VB-G RAM G Bill in Parliament?
I am not particularly surprised. As soon as it came to power in 2014, the NDA government tried to roll back MGNREGA—for instance, by restricting it to specific districts or imposing expenditure caps. It had to backtrack under public pressure. The VB-G RAM G Bill reintroduces these restrictions with a vengeance.
What, according to you, are the main problems with the new proposals?
The main problems are the wholesale repeal of MGNREGA (including “all rules, notifications, schemes, orders and guidelines made thereunder”) under Section 37; the “switch-off clause” that allows the central government to decide where and when the new scheme applies; the state-wise “normative allocations” that effectively cap expenditure; and the 60:40 cost-sharing within those allocations. There is also the problem of hyper-centralisation: the Centre retains all significant powers, while all significant obligations are palmed off to state governments.
Those who favour repealing MGNREGA argue that the new proposals merely make the states more financially accountable. What are your thoughts?
This is a misreading. A measure of cost-sharing, if justified, could have been introduced through a simple amendment to MGNREGA.
You had quarrels with previous governments too—you told me in an interview in 2011 that “in many states, the local administration is also turning hostile, because NREGA means extra work, more accountability, and no easy gravy”. You had also said that ‘narega marega’ (NREGA will die) had become a popular slogan in government circles.
What I pointed out at that time was that there are many vested interests against MGNREGA, including, at times, the local administration. The repeal of MGNREGA today is consistent with that view.