How can the Mahatma Gandhi
National Rural Employment
Guarantee Scheme become more
sensitive to children’s rights?
Experiences and recommendations from
Dungarpur district, Rajasthan
How can the Mahatma Gandhi National
Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme
become more sensitive to children’s
rights?
Experiences and recommendations from Dungarpur
district, Rajasthan
The Child Sensitive Social Protection programme is a Save the Children initiative in South Asia aimed
at reducing the vulnerability and poverty of children by ensuring that social protection measures lead
to meaningful investments in children. Currently, the programme is being implemented in Bangladesh,
India, and Nepal. This paper is part of a series of documents being developed on the CSSP programme.
Disa Sjoblom, Neema Pant, and Manish Prasad have written this document with substantial inputs from
Archana Rai. The views expressed here are those of the authors. We are grateful to Save the Children staff
in Dungarpur, Rajasthan—Harish Chanderiya, Gajendra Gohil, and Sanjay Moud—for their valuable
support in the development of this document.
3 March 2016
For further information, contact:
Save the Children, Bal Raksha Bharat
Rajasthan State Programme Office
42 Vrindavan Vihar, Kings Road
Jaipur 302021 Rajasthan, India
phone +91-141-4035881, 3220881
www.savethechildren.in
This paper has been produced with support from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland.
© Save the Children Finland, 2016
www.pelastakaalapset.fi/en/
Cover photo credit: Harish Chanderiya
Layout and design: Facet Design, India
4 | How can the MGNREGS become more sensitive to children’s rights?
Table of Contents
1. THE MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT
GUARANTEE ACT
4
2. IMPACT AND PERFORMANCE OF THE MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL
RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME
4
3. MGNREGA AND THE IMPACT ON CHILDREN
5
4. MGNREGA IN DUNGARPUR, RAJASTHAN: FINDINGS FROM THE
CHILD SENSITIVE SOCIAL PROTECTION PROJECT
7
5. PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAMMES AND CHILDREN: WHAT CAN BE
LEARNED FROM OTHER PROGRAMMES?
9
6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROMOTING POSITIVE OUTCOMES
FOR CHILDREN
10
1. PROVIDE MATERNITY ALLOWANCE TO WOMEN WORKERS
10
2. DEVELOP CRÈCHE FACILITIES AT THE ICDS CENTRES
11
3. ENSURING FLEXIBILITY IN TIMINGS FOR WOMEN WITH
SMALL CHILDREN
11
4. STRENGTHEN THE PANCHAYAT TO PROMOTE THE CHILD
SENSITIVITY OF MGNREGA
12
ENDNOTES
13
REFERENCES
How can the MGNREGS become more sensitive to children’s rights? |5
6 | How can the MGNREGS become more sensitive to children’s rights?
The Mahatma Gandhi National
Rural Employment Guarantee Act
The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) is one of the
largest public works programmes in human history. The overarching aim of MGNREGA is to
enhance the livelihood security of the rural poor by providing at least 100 days of guaranteed
wage employment in a financial year to every household whose adult members volunteer to do
unskilled manual work.i In addition to the above aim, the act seeks to empower marginalized
communities, to enhance democratic governance, and to further decentralization.ii MGNREGA
is considered a historic piece of legislation because for the first time it recognizes the right to
work as a fundamental right implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
To achieve the objectives, the government has institutionalized an array of innovative
provisions under MGNREGA- notable among them are self-targeting, demand for work, equal
wages for men and women, reservation of one-third jobs for women, crèches for children, local
employment, and social audits.
How can the MGNREGS become more sensitive to children’s rights? |7
Impact and performance of the
Mahatma Gandhi National Rural
Employment Guarantee Scheme
A large body of evidence indicates that in areas where MGNREGA is being implemented
effectively, it has had a positive impact on rural households in a number of ways.
First, by ensuring wage employment, MGNREGA has to an extent contributed towards reducing
the economic vulnerability of poor households and aided them in coping with seasonal, health,
and household shocks. A field study conducted in six states of India showed that 57 per cent of
the sampled workers had used a part of the MGNREGA income to cope with various household
illnesses.iii Second, employment under MGNREGA has led to improvement in food security
of the rural poor and has enhanced their food basket. A survey in Andhra Pradesh found a
positive correlation between fewer meals forgone and participation in MGNREGA.iv Third,
by providing employment during lean seasons and drought conditions, MGNREGA has been
instrumental in reducing distress migration, especially of women and children in the states of
Odhisa, Andhra Pradesh,v and Madhya Pradesh.vi
There are also indications that MGNREGA may have led to an overall increase in agricultural
wages by 5.3 per cent.vii This has been corroborated by a study that noted that public sector
hiring under MGNREGA has crowded out private-sector work and has increased privatesector wages resulting in welfare gains for the poor.viii
Findings from the field also indicate that MGNREGA has enhanced the decision-making
powers of women within the household.ix Positive association between working in MGNREGA
and enhanced mobility and increased confidence among women have been highlighted in a
number of studies. It has been pointed out that working under MGNERGA has led to women
coming out of the house, working side by side with men, and interacting with various local
officials. However, it has also been highlighted that since the household allocation of work
has remained unchanged, MGNREGA might, in fact, have led to an increase in women’s work
burden by increasing their work time.x Further, researchers have also questioned the simplistic
nature of the analyses of women’s financial control under MGNREGA and have noted that the
freedom to keep a small portion of the money earned cannot be equated with the empowerment
of women.xi
Despite significant successes under MGNREGA, implementation faces many challenges. Some
of the most pertinent problems are fabrication of job cards, fudging of muster rolls, improper
measurement of work, delay and non-payment of wages, non-payment of unemployment
allowance, lack of facilities at the worksite, lack of awareness among people about the provisions
of MGNREGA, and delay in implementation.xii Another set of challenges faced by MGNREGA
is related to uneven implementation and performance within and across states. On the one
hand, there are states like Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, and Andhra Pradesh where MGNREGA
has performed well. On the other hand, there are states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar where the
performance of MGNREGA has been below average. xiii
8 | How can the MGNREGS become more sensitive to children’s rights?
MGNREGA and the impact on children
Both national and international evidence has demonstrated that public works programmes
increase household income and can thus benefit children in multiple ways. This said, evidence
has also highlighted that these programmes can have an unanticipated negative impact on
children. In the context of MGNREGA, the outcomes for children are mixed.
An increasing number of studies and evaluations demonstrate that MGNREGA is having
a positive impact on children’s education, especially in terms of increased enrolment and
retention, reduction in absenteeism, and increased expenditure on education at the household
level.xiv Research studies also indicate a possible positive relation between employment under
MGNREGA and improved educational attainments of children.xv Conversely, it has also been
noted that MGNREGA is leading to the withdrawal of children from school and to a higher rate
of absenteeism among children, primarily because of children being substituted for mothers
or elders in households for undertaking sibling care, cooking, and other homestead-related
activities.xvi Although straightforward causal evidence does not exist, preliminary data indicate
that due to the increased burden of household work, MGNREGA has in some places also led
to lower educational attainments, including poor academic results and grade repetition among
children.xvii In addition to the above-mentioned negative effects, concerns have been voiced
that girls’ education may be affected more adversely because traditional gender roles ascribe
household and sibling-care responsibilities to girls.xviii
Chronic poverty and livelihood shocks are the key factors that induce households to resort to
child labour. It has been noted that MGNREGA, by increasing the income of poor households,
may have discouraged poor families from sending children to work. A longitudinal study by
the Young Lives project found that the registration of a household member under MGNREGA
reduced the likelihood of child labour for boys by 13.4 per cent and for girls by 8.2 per cent. xix
However, it has also been suggested that MGNREGA may lead to a rise in child labour due to
the increased availability of employment opportunities. A study underlining the mixed impact
of MGNREGA on child labour concludes:
On [the] one hand, additional income in the household can increase [the] resources spent
on children’s education and reduce child labo[u]r. However, if wages in the economy
increase or [if] adults take up new jobs[,] child labo[ur]r could increase. Our results show
an increase in [the] time spent on education for younger children and an increase in [the]
time spent working outside the household for older children.xx
How can the MGNREGS become more sensitive to children’s rights? |9
Instances of children working at MGNREGA worksites have also come to light. In some cases,
adolescents and youths are found to be working as proxy workers for their parents or along
with their parents.xxi In this context, a Young Lives’ study in Andhra Pradesh noted that women
often marked their attendance at worksites and then left their 14–16-year-old daughters to
work in their place.xxii
Existing evidence regarding the impact of MGNREGA on the health and nutritional outcomes
of children is limited and less conclusive. Data show that participation of households in
MGNREGA might lead to improved child nutritional outcomes due to an enhanced food
basket.xxiii On the other hand, some studies indicate that mothers working under MGNREGA
compromise on infant feeding and care, especially timely and exclusive breastfeeding. xxiv
10 | How can the MGNREGS become more sensitive to children’s rights?
MGNREGA in Dungarpur, Rajasthan:
Findings from the Child Sensitive
Social Protection Project
Despite the poor implementation of MGNREGA in many places, Dungarpur district in
Rajasthan is an example of the good performance of the scheme. Factors such as a proactive
civil society, high level of awareness, and functioning accountability and transparency
mechanisms have contributed to its success. But the key driver in the case of Dungarpur has
been a responsive administrative structure.xxv Another factor that makes MGNREGA’s success
notable in Dungarpur is the overwhelming participation of women, which at certain places
in the district has crossed even 85 per cent.xxvi It is in this context, that is, high participation
of women, that the limitations of MGNREGA manifest themselves, the most important being
lack of appropriate childcare while women are at the worksites. xxvii
This section presents the key findings from short assessments1 carried out as part of Save
the Children’s Child Sensitive Social Protection (CSSP)2 project in Dungarpur district in
Rajasthan. The findings show that the mother’s employment under MGNREGA has led to
negative impacts on children in terms of education, health, nutrition, and care. Some of the
key findings are:
1. Children’s withdrawal from school and loss of school days: Evidence from the CSSP
project demonstrates a negative association between women’s participation in MGNREGA
and children’s education. It has been found that many children are being substituted for
mothers in providing sibling care as well as in performing household chores, leading to
children either dropping out of school or being absent from school for prolonged periods.
For example, a mother of five small children said:
“Komal will not go to school. If she goes to school, then who will look after the other
children?”
— Lakshmi Bai, mother of five children
Interviews with and direct observation of 20 families spread across two gram panchayats (20 villages). The findings
were substantiated through interactions with adults and children in additional villages.
1
The CSSP project aims to improve the access of poor families and their children to government social protection
programmes and to encourage parents to invest in the development needs of their children.
2
How can the MGNREGS become more sensitive to children’s rights? |11
Further, discussions and interviews have revealed that even if children are enrolled in school
and are attending school normally, their education is disrupted during the MGNREGA months
due to the demands of sibling care.
“My son is the eldest and he looks after the other children when I go for work
. . . so during the MGNREGA months he does not go to school.”
— Geeta Devi, mother of three children
2. Increase in the workload of children: Qualitative data from the CSSP project reveal that
children are increasingly compensating for the time spent by mothers at the worksites.
Children are engaged in a range of work, including sibling care, cooking, fetching water
from far-off places, washing, and working on homesteads, at the expense of time spent in
studying and playing.
3. Inadequate attention to feeding and nutrition of children: It was found that knowledge
and awareness of infant feeding and care practices among mothers in general is inadequate
in Dungarpur district. Rapid assessments indicate that employment under MGNREGA
further compromises the feeding and care of infants due to lack of time for providing
adequate, exclusive, and timely breastfeeding and care. Mothers of young children (one
month to one year in age) stated that during the time they are at the worksite (which is often
located far from the house) children are not provided proper nourishment and care. The
mother of a five-month-old girl child told us:
“Since the work site is not near, I am not able to come home and breastfeed
my daughter.”
— Tulsi Devi
In some cases, it was found that women start working under MGNREGA within a month
after delivery, leaving their infants mostly in the care of older siblings who themselves are
very young.
4. Inadequate care and supervision of infants and children: Related to the above point are
concerns about the safety and protection of infants as well as siblings deputed to care for the
former. In many cases, it was found that the children responsible for taking care of siblings
are too young for this task and need care and supervision themselves. In one case, a threeyear-old was found to be looking after an infant sibling.
5. Incidence of child labour at MGNREGA worksites: Although child labour under
MGNREGA in Dungarpur district was not found to be widespread, instances of children
working alongside their parents at MGNREGA worksites, especially during school holidays,
have been reported.
12 | How can the MGNREGS become more sensitive to children’s rights?
Public works programmes and
children: What can be learned from
other programmes?
To maximize positive outcomes for children, many public works and employment- generation
programmes have integrated child-sensitive provisions into their schemes. This section
delineates some of the measures undertaken nationally as well as internationally to address the
development of children as part of public works programmes.
One aspect of child sensitivity implies that women are given the time off required to take
care of a newborn child. Given below are some examples of public works programmes that
have introduced variants of maternity cover. In India, the Government of Chhattisgarh has
introduced the Motherhood Benefit Scheme for women employed under MGNREGA. Under
the scheme, women who hold MGNREGA job cards and who have worked for at least 15
days in a year are entitled to a maternity allowance equivalent to one month’s wages. The
scheme specifies that the maternity allowance can be availed by women either during the
third trimester or immediately after delivery (till one month after delivery).xxviii Globally, the
Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP) of Ethiopia and the Nutrition Sensitive Social Safety
Net (NSSSN) of Djibouti xxix have incorporated components that allow pregnant and lactating
women to delegate their work to other members of the household. In the case of PSNP, if
there are no adult family members to take up the work, women are eligible for receiving direct
support (which can be either in cash or in kind) of equivalent value from the fourth month of
pregnancy till ten months after delivery.
An important aspects of child sensitivity is that children should stay with a responsible
caretaker and in safe spaces while their mothers are at work. Thus, certain public works and
employment-generation programmes have incorporated childcare facilities into their design.
The Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP) of Ethiopia, the Expanded Public Welfare
Programmes (EPWP) of South Africa, and programmes in Argentina and Peru are examples
of initiatives that provide community child care facilities near the worksites or in the villages.
Certain projects in Argentina provide not only childcare facilities but also child-tutoring
services and community kitchens. Under South Africa’s EPWP social sector programmes,
childcare services also include community-based early childhood development programmes
for children under the age of five years and home-based community care within the range of
works undertaken as part of public works projects.
Public works programmes in several countries have factored in flexible timings to ensure a
better balance between child care responsibilities and work demands. Internationally, the Jefes
How can the MGNREGS become more sensitive to children’s rights? |13
programme of Argentina was one of the first public works programme to ensure flexible timings
for women. It gave women the option of a half day’s work and required part-time commitment.
Other programmes that provide the option of flexible work schedules and timings are PSNP of
Ethiopia and EPWP of South Africa. NSSSN of Djibouti not only offers part-time employment
to women (five hours a day with a one-hour break) but also gives them the option of pursuing
less demanding work, including artisan and home-based work.
Some public works programmes have introduced components of behaviour change
communication (BCC) to improve children’s nutritional, health, and educational outcomes.
NSSSN of Djibouti has a nutrition component that includes BCC activities on pre- and postnatal
care, infant care and feeding practices, and food supplementation for infants and toddlers.
14 | How can the MGNREGS become more sensitive to children’s rights?
Recommendations for promoting
positive outcomes for children
Based on Save the Children’s findings of the impact of MGNREGA on children in Dungarpur
district, four key recommendations are put forward to the Government of Rajasthan to make
MGNREGA more sensitive to children’s needs and rights. Although the recommendations are
specific to Dungarpur district, they would also apply to the state more widely.
1. Provide maternity allowance to women workers
From the perspective of children’s survival and future health, and of their cognitive and social
development, maternal health during the late stages of pregnancy and the initial months after
birth are the most critical periods. Recognizing this, MGNREGA has made provision for lighter
work for pregnant and lactating women. However, additional efforts are needed to ensure that
women employed under MGNREGA are able to take care of their children and have time
to breastfeed them in the early months. To ensure this, a maternity allowance equivalent to
50 days’ wages can be provided to those pregnant women whose families have worked with
MGNREGA for at least 50 days in the last year. Further, the allowance can be restricted to the
first two live deliveries. Women can be given the flexibility to avail the allowance any time after
five months of pregnancy to the time the child is six months old.
2. Develop crèche facilities at the ICDS centres
While MGNREGA has a provision for establishing crèches at worksites, experience has shown
that this is not a feasible option in the context of Dungarpur district. It has been observed that
women prefer to leave their children at home, often unsupervised or left in the company of
older siblings, which has negative implications not only for the safety, protection, and health of
younger children, but also burdens older children with a responsibility that they are ill prepared
to shoulder. To address the situation effectively, the government should set up crèche facilities
at the ICDS (Integrated Child Development Services) centres by integrating the provisions for
establishing crèches under MGNREGA with the ICDS scheme.3 This will not only ensure the
safety and protection of children but will also enable children to avail the health and nutrition
services provided under the ICDS scheme. Additionally, it will help in the targeting of pregnant
and lactating women under the ICDS scheme.
3
Development of crèches at ICDS centres will also aid in establishing convergence between the various programmes
implemented by the government.
How can the MGNREGS become more sensitive to children’s rights? |15
A creche facility for MGNREGA workers set up by Save the Children in collaboration with the district administration.
Further, the government can also ensure that the schedules of the ICDS centres (opening
and closing times) are in accordance with the MGNREGA work schedule. The setting up of
crèches and keeping them open for a longer time might entail the engagement of additional
staff (like assistants) at the ICDS centres for which the existing provision of employing one
woman as caretaker for children at the worksite can be used. In collaboration with the district
government of Dungarpur, Save the Children has developed five ICDS centres as crèche
facilities for MGNREGA workers who have children below the age of three years.
As per the MGNREGA guideline, one workday comprises nine hours of work (including a
one-hour break). Findings from the CSSP project confirm that women employed under
MGNREGA, especially those with small children, face significant challenges in balancing
work pressures and childcare responsibilities. Long hours of work not only inhibit exclusive
and timely breastfeeding that is essential for children below the age of six months, but also
adversely affect the complementary feeding of older infants. Thus, there is an acute need to
provide a flexible schedule of work for women with children below three years of age. To
operationalize this, the government can consider providing the option of half a day’s work or
reducing the hours of work, or conversely increasing the numbers of days of work for women
(that is, doubling the number of days of work).
16 | How can the MGNREGS become more sensitive to children’s rights?
4. Strengthen the panchayat to promote the child sensitivity of MGNREGA
Evidence from Save the Children’s CSSP project in Dungarpur district suggests that the
panchayat (village council), if given adequate guidance and support, can play a powerful role
in reducing child labour and in ensuring that children are at school or at the ICDS centre by
using MGNREGA as a platform around which to build their efforts. The panchayat can take
a lead role in addressing the issue and can also work with other actors in the village that have
responsibilities related to the education, care, and protection of children. More concretely, the
approach to this can be as follows.
1. Outline soft conditions for child sensitivity in the MGNREGA guideline:
Apart from stating that crèche facilities should be made available for children whose
parents work under MGNREGA, there is no further mention of children in the MGNREGA
guideline. The guideline can be amended to urge the panchayat and the people working
under MGNREGA to ensure that children (1) do not work at the site; (2) attend school;
and (3) are properly taken care of while their parents are at the site. A short and practical
version of the guideline can be shared with the panchayat.
2. Develop a monitoring system for the children of MGNREGA workers:
When the muster roll (list of workers) is being prepared for seasonal MGNREGA work, it
can be expanded to include the names and ages of the children of the workers. The meth
(supervisor) should inform all workers on the first day of the soft conditions related to
children in the MGNREGA guideline.
School administrators and ICDS staff should be given a copy of the muster roll and should
use it to track the attendance of the children on a daily basis when the MGNREGA work
is ongoing. The muster roll should be submitted to the panchayat after the completion of
the seasonal work. In collaboration with teachers and ICDS workers, the panchayat should
follow up with individual households when needed to encourage parents to adhere to the
MGNREGA guideline.
The Child Welfare Officer (under the Integrated Child Protection Services scheme) could
make random visits to MGNREGA sites to check that children are not being substituted
for their parents in work. A report should be prepared and shared with the panchayat and
the rural development department.
3. Facilitate the panchayat in developing and operationalizing norms for the promotion of
child sensitivity:
The panchayat can be facilitated in developing locally evolved norms to promote overall
sensitivity towards the development needs and rights of children linked to MGNREGS
Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee |17
as well as more generally. This needs to be preceded by discussion and analysis of the
problems and their causes, and followed up by reflection on the progress made so far. This
can be a part of the gram sabha (village assembly) agenda and can also form part of the
annual planning of the panchayat. This will enhance the work related to MGNREGA and
strengthen efforts aimed at ensuring the well-being of children more broadly. The norms
should be disseminated through wall-paintings and should be read out at the MGNREGA
site and on other relevant occasions and should be followed by discussion and analysis.
With the help of Save the Children, five panchayats in Dungarpur district have already
developed locally agreed norms related to prevention of child labour, promotion of school
attendance, and provision of support to children and families in distress.
A community takes pledge against child labour in the MGNREGA.
18 | How can the MGNREGS become more sensitive to children’s rights?
Endnotes
Ministry of Rural Development. MGNREGA Briefing Book, 2013.
http://nrega.nic.in/Netnrega/WriteReaddata/Circulars/Briefing_booklet13.pdf
i
Ministry of Rural Development. Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act
2004: Report to the People (2014, New Delhi).
ii
Reetika Khera and Nandini Nayak. “Women Workers and Perceptions of the National Rural
Employment Guarantee Act.” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 44, no. 43, 24–30 October
2009, pp. 4–57. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25663707
iii
Quoted in Ministry of Rural Development. MGNREGA Sameeksha 2012: An anthology of
research studies on the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (2006–
2012): A report by the Ministry of Rural Development. Authored by Mihir Shah, Neelakshi
Mann, and Varad Pande.
http://www.indiawaterportal.org/articles/mgnrega-sameeksha-2012-anthology-researchstudies-mahatma-gandhi-national-rural-employment
iv
K. Kareemulla, K. Srinivas Reddy, C. A. Rama Rao, Shalander Kumar and B. Venkateswarlu.
“Soil and Water Conservation Works through National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme
(NREGS) in Andhra Pradesh: An Analysis of Livelihood Impact.” Agricultural Economics
Research Review, vol. 22, 2009, pp. 443–450.
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/57501/2/14-K-Kareemula.pdf
v
Centre for Science and Environment. “An Assessment of the Performance of the National Rural
Employment Guarantee Programme in Terms of its Potential for Creation of Natural Wealth
in India’s Villages.” Report prepared for the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of
India, 2008.
http://www.ruraldiksha.nic.in/green/2008%20CSE.pdf
vi
vii
Oxford University. www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2012/120726.html
Clément Imbert and John Papp. “Equilibrium Distributional Impacts of Government
Employment Programs: Evidence from India’s Employment Guarantee.” PSE Working Papers
n°2012-14. 2012. <halshs-00680451>
https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00680451
viii
Ashok Pankaj and Rukmini Tankha. “Empowerment Effects of the NREGS on Women Workers:
A Study in Four States.” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 48, no. 30, 24 July 2010, pp. 45–55.
ix
How can the MGNREGS become more sensitive to children’s rights? |19
http://re.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/Empowerment%20Effects%20of%20the%20
NREGS.pdf
x
UN Women. MGNREGA and Women Empowerment. India, 2011.
Holmes, Rebecca, Nidhi Sadana and Saswatee Rath. “Gendered risks, poverty and vulnerability
in India: Case study of the Indian Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee
Act (Madhya Pradesh).” October 2010.
xi
Overseas Development Institute, London, and Indian Institute of Dalit Studies.
Jean Drèze and Reetika Khera. “The Battle for Employment Guarantee.” Frontline, vol. 26, no.
1, 3–16 January 2009. http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2601/stories/20090116260100400.
htm
xii
xiii
Ministry of Rural Development. MGNREGA Sameeksha 2012, New Delhi, 2012
A study of female labour force participation and its impact on children’s education in Andhra
Pradesh found that greater participation of mothers in MGNREGA is positively associated with
more time spent by children in school and with their better educational attainment. Farzana
Afridi, Abhiroop Mukhopadhyay, and Soham Sahoo. “Female Labour Force Participation and
Child Education in India: The Effect of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme.”
IZA Discussion Paper no. 6593, 2012. http://ftp.iza.org/dp6593.pdf
xiv
xv
S. Mahendra Dev. “NREGA and Child Well Being.”
Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, January 2011. http://www.igidr.
ac.in/pdf/publication/WP-2011-004.pdf
Mahnaz Islam and Anitha Sivasankaran. “How does child labour respond to changes in adult
work opportunities? Evidence from NREGA.” 2014. .
http://scholar.har vard.edu/files/asivasankaran/files/nrega_draft_2januar y2014.
pdf?m=1389195961
xvi
Also see Shreyasee Das and Abhilasha Singh. “The Impact of Temporary Work Guarantee
Programs on Children’s Education: Evidence from the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural
Guarantee Act from India.” SSRN Electronic Journal, January 2013.
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2368011
A study by Li and Sekhri found that a mother’s work in MGNREGA increases the probability
of grade repetition by the child and results in slightly lower (though not significant) enrolment
in government schools. Tianshu Li and Sheetal Sekhri. “The Unintended Consequences of
Employment Based Safety Net Programs.” 2013.
http://people.virginia.edu/~ss5mj/unintendedeffects_safetynets.pdf
xvii
A UN Women’s study notes that there is a higher probability of girls withdrawing from
schools than boys. The study found that during the period of MGNREGA work, absenteeism
among girls increases substantially as it pushes girls to undertake household work and to
substitute for their mothers in caring for younger siblings. UN Women, 2011.
xviii
Vinayak Uppal. “Is the NREGS a Safety Net for Children? Studying the Access to the National
Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme for the Young Lives Families and Its Impact on Child
xix
20 | How can the MGNREGS become more sensitive to children’s rights?
Outcomes in Andhra Pradesh”. Young Lives Student Paper. Msc thesis in Economics for
Development, University of Oxford, 2009.
http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/PDF/Outputs/YoungLives/Uppal_MSc_paper_09.pdf
Islam and Sivasankaran. “How does child labour respond to changes in adult work
opportunities? Evidence from NREGA.” 2014.
xx
Stephen Devereux and Colette Solomon. “Employment Creation Programmes: The
International Experience.” Issues in Employment and Poverty Discussion Paper 24. Economic
and Labour Market Analysis Department, International Labour Office, Geneva, 2006. https://
www.ids.ac.uk/files/disc24.pdf
xxi
xxii
Dev, NREGA and Child Well Being.
xxiii
Uppal. “Is the NREGS a Safety Net for Children?”.
M. Nair, Proochista Ariana, and Premila Webster. Impact of mothers’ employment on
infant feeding and care: A qualitative study of the experiences of mothers employed through
the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. 2014.
BMJ Open 2014;4:e004434 doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004434
xxiv
Bhatia, Bela, and Jean Drèze. “Employment Guarantee in Jharkhand: Ground Realities.”
Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 41, no. 29, 22 July 2006, pp. 3198–3202.
xxv
The reason for such a high rate of workplace participation of women is partially due to males
migrating to the adjoining states for wage employment. Focus on children under six. New Delhi:
Citizens Initiative for the Rights of Children under Six, 2006.
xxvi
Although MGNREGA does mandate the provision of crèches at worksites provided that
there are more than five children below the age of six years, implementation till now has been
weak. There are few crèches, and the few crèches that do exist have no safety features, and hence
women find it unsafe to bring children to worksites.
xxvii
Anuja Jaiswal. “Chhattisgarh to give motherhood allowance to women under MNREGA.”
Times of India, 15 June 2013.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/raipur/Chhattisgarh-to-give-motherhood-allowanceto-women-under-MNREGA/articleshow/20606823.cms
xxviii
The Nutrition Sensitive Social Safety Net of Djibouti is a conditional public works programme
targeted at pregnant women and lactating mothers. It provides 50 days of work for women in a
year that can be delegated to male members so that women can take care of children.
xxix
How can the MGNREGS become more sensitive to children’s rights? |21
References
Afridi, Farzana, Abhiroop Mukhopadhyay, and Soham Sahoo. “Female Labour Force
Participation and Child Education in India: The Effect of the National Rural Employment
Guarantee Scheme.” IZA Discussion Paper no. 6593, 2012.
http://ftp.iza.org/dp6593.pdf
Antonopoulos, Rania. “The Right to a Job, the Right Types of Projects: Employment Guarantee
Policies from a Gender Perspective.” Working Paper no. 516, The Levy Economics Institute of
Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson, New York, 2007.
http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_516.pdf
Antonopoulos, Rania and Kijong Kim. “Social Protection: Opportunities for Promoting
Gender Equality Agenda.” Fe Dergi, vol. 3, no. 2, 2011, pp. 68–84. .
http://cins.ankara.edu.tr/6_6.pdf
Bhatia, Bela, and Jean Drèze. “Employment Guarantee in Jharkhand: Ground Realities.”
Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 41, no. 29, 22 July 2006, pp. 3198–3202.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4418471
Centre for Science and Environment. “An Assessment of the Performance of the National Rural
Employment Guarantee Programme in Terms of its Potential for Creation of Natural Wealth
in India’s Villages.” Report prepared for the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of
India, 2008.
http://www.ruraldiksha.nic.in/green/2008%20CSE.pdf
Citizens Initiative for the Rights of Children Under Six. Focus on Children under Six.
New Delhi: Citizens Initiative for the Rights of Children Under Six, 2006.
Das, Shreyasee, and Abhilasha Singh. “The Impact of Temporary Work Guarantee Programs
on Children’s Education: Evidence from the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Guarantee Act
from India.” SSRN Electronic Journal, January 2013.
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2368011
Dev, S. Mahendra. “NREGS and Child Well Being.”
Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, January 2011. http://www.igidr.
ac.in/pdf/publication/WP-2011-004.pdf
Devereux, Stephen, and Colette Solomon. “Employment Creation Programmes: The
International Experience.” Issues in Employment and Poverty Discussion Paper 24. Economic
and Labour Market Analysis Department, International Labour Office, Geneva, 2006.
https://www.ids.ac.uk/files/disc24.pdf
Drèze, Jean, and Reetika Khera. “The Battle for Employment Guarantee.” Frontline, vol. 26, no.
1, 3–16 January 2009.
http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2601/stories/20090116260100400.htm
22 | How can the MGNREGS become more sensitive to children’s rights?
Hirway, Indira. “MGNREGA and Women Empowerment.” 2011. http://www.unwomensouthasia.
org/assets/MGNREGAWomensEmpowerment_IndiraHirway.pdf
Holmes, Rebecca, Nidhi Sadana and Saswatee Rath. “Gendered risks, poverty and vulnerability
in India: Case study of the Indian Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee
Act (Madhya Pradesh).” October 2010. Overseas Development Institute, London, and Indian
Institute of Dalit Studies.
Holmes, Rebecca, and Nicola Jones. “Rethinking Social Protection Using a Gender Lens.”
Working Paper 320. Overseas Development Institute, London, 2010.
http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/6273.pdf
Holmes, Rebecca, and Nicola Jones. “Putting the Social Back into Social Protection: A
Framework for Understanding the Linkages between Economic and Social Risks for Poverty
Reduction.” Background Note. Overseas Development Institute, London, 2009.
http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/4289.pdf
Human Development Report Rajasthan (An Update 2008). Prepared for the Government of
Rajasthan under Planning Commission–GOI and UNDP-assisted project ‘Strengthening State
Plans for Human Development’ by Institute of Development Studies, Jaipur, 2008.
http://statistics.rajasthan.gov.in/Upload/hd_final.pdf
Imbert, Clément, and John Papp. “Equilibrium Distributional Impacts of Government
Employment Programs: Evidence from India’s Employment Guarantee.” PSE Working Papers
n°2012-14. 2012. <halshs-00680451>
https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00680451
Islam, Mahnaz, and Anitha Sivasankaran. “How Does Child Labor Respond to Changes in
Adult Work Opportunities? Evidence from NREGA.” 1 January 2014. http://scholar.harvard.
edu/files/asivasankaran/files/nrega_draft_2january2014.pdf?m=1389195961
Jaiswal, Anuja. “Chhattisgarh to Give Motherhood Allowance to Women under MNREGA.”
Times of India, 15 June 2013.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/raipur/Chhattisgarh-to-give-motherhood-allowanceto-women-under-MNREGA/articleshow/20606823.cms
Joshi, Varsha, Surjit Singh and K. N. Joshi. “Evaluation of NREGA in Rajasthan.” Institute of
Development Studies, Jaipur, 2008.
Kelkar, Govind. “Gender and Productive Assets: Implications of National Rural Employment
Guarantee for Women’s Agency and Productivity.” Presented at the FAO–IFAD–ILO Workshop
on “Gaps, trends and current research in gender dimensions of agricultural and rural
employment: Differentiated pathways out of poverty”, Rome, 31 March–2 April 2009.
How can the MGNREGS become more sensitive to children’s rights? |23
http://www.fao-ilo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/fao_ilo/pdf/Presentations/Workshop_
papers__presentations/Kelkar_PPT_presentation.pdf
Khera, Reetika. “Empowerment Guarantee Act.” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 43, no.
35, 30 August 2008, pp. 8–10.
http://re.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/EPW.pdf
Kareemulla, K., K. Srinivas Reddy, C. A. Rama Rao, Shalander Kumar and B. Venkateswarlu.
“Soil and Water Conservation Works through National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme
(NREGS) in Andhra Pradesh: An Analysis of Livelihood Impact.” Agricultural Economics
Research Review, vol. 22, 2009, pp. 443–450.
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/57501/2/14-K-Kareemula.pdf
Khera, Ritika, and Nandini Nayak. “Women Workers and Perceptions of the National Rural
Employment Guarantee Act.” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 44, no. 43, 24–30 October
2009, pp. 4–57. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25663707
Li, Tianshu, and Sheetal Sekhri. “The Unintended Consequences of Employment Based Safety
Net Programs.” 2013. http://people.virginia.edu/~ss5mj/unintendedeffects_safetynets.pdf
Ministry of Rural Development. MGNREGA Briefing Book, 2013.
http://nrega.nic.in/Netnrega/WriteReaddata/Circulars/Briefing_booklet13.pdf
Ministry of Rural Development. Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act
2004: Report to the People, 2014.
Ministry of Rural Development. MGNREGA Sameeksha 2012: An anthology of research studies
on the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (2006–2012): A report
by the Ministry of Rural Development. Authored by Mihir Shah, Neelakshi Mann, and Varad
Pande.
http://www.indiawaterportal.org/articles/mgnrega-sameeksha-2012-anthology-researchstudies-mahatma-gandhi-national-rural-employment
Nair, Manisha, et al. “Effect of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee
Act (MGNREGA) on Malnutrition of Infants in Rajasthan, India: A Mixed Methods Study.”
2013. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0075089
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0075089
Nair, Manisha, Proochista Ariana and Premila Webster. “Impact of Mothers’ Employment on
Infant Feeding and Care: A Qualitative Study of the Experiences of Mothers Employed through
the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act.” BMJ Open, vol. 4, issue 4,
2014.
<BMJ Ope 2014;4:e004434 doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004434
Narayanan, Sudha. “Employment Guarantee, Women’s Work and Childcare.” Economic and
Political Weekly, vol. 43, no. 9, 1 March 2008, pp. 10–13.
Pankaj, Ashok, and Rukmini Tankha. “Empowerment Effects of the NREGS on Women Workers:
A Study in Four States.” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 48, no. 30, 24 July 2010, pp. 45–55.
24 | How can the MGNREGS become more sensitive to children’s rights?
http://re.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/Empowerment%20Effects%20of%20the%20
NREGS.pdf
Pradhan, Sanjay Kumar. “NREGS and Its Implementation in Haryana.” South Asia Politics, vol.
8, no. 2, 2009, pp. 21–25
Ravi, Shamika, and Monika Engler. “Workfare in Low Income Countries: An Effective Way to
Fight Poverty? The Case of India’s NREGS.” 2009.
http://www.isid.ac.in/~pu/conference/dec_09_conf/Papers/ShamikaRavi.pdf
Shah, Tushaar Natwarlal, Shilp Verma and R. Indu. Asset Creation through Employment
Guarantee? Synthesis of Student Case Studies of 40 MGNREGA Works in 9 States of India.
International Water Management Institute, 2010.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215680010_Asset_Creation_through_
Employment_Guarantee_Synthesis_of_Student_Case_Studies_of_40_MGNREGA_Works_
in_9_States_of_India
Sudarshan, Ratna. “India’s National Rural Employment Guarantee Act: Women’s Participation
and Impacts in Himachal Pradesh, Kerala and Rajasthan.” CSP Research Report 06. Centre for
Social Protection, Institute of Development Studies, New Delhi, 2011.
http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/ResearchReport06FINAL.pdf
Sudarshan, Ratna. “NREGA in Palakkad, Kerala.” Paper presented at the IHD–UNIFEM
Workshop on Women’s Employment through Guaranteed Employment, 31 August 2009, India
International Centre, New Delhi, 2009.
Sudarshan, Ratna. “Women’s Participation in the NREGA: The Interplay between Wage Work
and Care.” Paper presented at the Ten Years of War Against Poverty Conference, Chronic
Poverty Research Centre, Manchester, UK, 5–11 September 2010.
http://www.chronicpoverty.org/publications/details/women-s-participation-in-the-nrega/ss
Tcherneva, Pavlina R., and L. Randall Wray. “Gender and the Job Guarantee: The impact of
Argentina’s Jefes program on female heads of poor households.” Working Paper No. 50. Center
for Full Employment and Price Stability, University of Missouri, Kansas City, 2005.
http://www.cfeps.org/pubs/wp-pdf/WP50-Tcherneva-Wray.pdf
UN Women. MGNREGA and Women Empowerment. India, 2011.
Uppal, Vinayak. “Is the NREGS a Safety Net for Children? Studying the Access to the National
Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme for the Young Lives Families and Its Impact on Child
Outcomes in Andhra Pradesh”. Young Lives Student Paper. Msc thesis in Economics for
Development, University of Oxford, 2009.
http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/PDF/Outputs/YoungLives/Uppal_MSc_paper_09.pdf
How can the MGNREGS become more sensitive to children’s rights? |25
28 | How can the MGNREGS become more sensitive to children’s rights?