Employment Generation programme and the Marginalized: Impact of MGNREGS on Tribes in Wayanad, Kerala.

 

Rajimol M S¹*, Dr. K. Gandadharan²

¹Assistant Professor of Economics, NMSM Govt. College Kalpetta, Wayanad, Kerala and Research Scholar, Department of Applied Economics, Kannur University, Palayad Campus, Thalassery. Kerala, India

²Professor and Head, Department of Applied Economics, Kannur University, Palayad Campus, Thalassery, Kerala, India.

 

ABSTRACT:

MGNREGS is implemented to address the problem of poverty and unemployment in the country. Though a number of poverty alleviation and employment generation programmes have been introduced in the country, it failed miserably to address and find a sustained solution to the problem. Taking a departure from the earlier scheme, MGNREGS is implemented as demand based and legally binding to the implementing authority. Various studies are conducted to examine how far the programme has succeeded in obtaining the desired outcome. The present study focus on the impact of the programme on the most vulnerable and backward communities in an under the developed region of the state of Kerala. The study conducted among 500 Scheduled caste households in the Wayanad district of Kerala. It is found in the field study that the programme has helped in increasing the employment opportunities but failed to make a positive increase in the income status of the household.

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

Following the economic reforms of 1991, the Indian economy has undergone rapid changes in all sectors, and the Hindu rate of growth has become a story of the past. Since 2000 the country experienced rapid economic growth and as a result, a sharp decline in poverty. Unfortunately, growth in employment has failed to keep pace with the economic growth. Agriculture which contributes only 18% to the GDP of the country, continues to employ 47 % of its workers – making a significant proportion of disguises unemployment-- leaving them unemployed in the lean season, putting them into economic crisis and failing to improve the standard of living or bringing them above the poverty line.

 

Though India has implemented a number of poverty alleviation programmes, most of them have miserably failed and had to be wound up because of the poor performance. The need for a programme aiming at employment generation, when there is no job available, thereby reducing the poverty of the rural people was felt by the government, and the MGNREGS was launched as an initiative towards this end.

 

Poverty in India:

Since independence, poverty in India remained one of the subjects of primary concern. Among the many challenges the country had to face, poverty seems to be the simplest to understand and can be placed among the priorities but most difficult to tackle. With 70% of the people unable to meet a square meal a day, the planners and policymakers were in the dark not knowing how to improve the living condition of these socially and economically disadvantaged segment.  Poverty can be effectively tackled only if it is dealt with it root.  However, India being a country with its complex social, economic, cultural and political settings, no single policy or strategy could be a panacea to bring down the poverty level. 

 

To adopt the correct strategy required to solve the problem of poverty, first, there is a need to determine who the poor are and how they can be identified. The problem of solving poverty seems to get complicated further by the emergence of various methodologies to decide who the poor are. The definition of poor and poverty line in the country in recent years have given rise to a serious of debate and discussion on this issue. Unfortunately, these difference in ideas continues to without reaching a consensus or change in the framework.

 

 

Source: OECD Economic Survey India:  2017

Figure No 1

 

There are a number of factors working in close association with each other, which can be traced back to be responsible for this achievement. The trickle-down effect from the economic growth, the correct methodology and more accurate measure to identify the poor, income and employment generation as a result of the poverty alleviation programmes, and various social security measures adopted by the government are the primary forces behind this. One such factor behind this milestone is the MGNREGA programme adopted to employ the unemployed missions of the country (Roser and Ortiz-Ospina 2017).

 

 Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), originally initiated as National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGA), is launched in 2006 to provide employment to the unemployed person. The programme continues with the objective of “enhancing the livelihood security of the households in rural areas of the country by providing at least one hundred days of guaranteed wage employment in every financial year to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work" (Government of India 2005).  The programme is enacted into law to promote livelihood security in India. With its aim to provide ‘at least one hundred days of guaranteed wage employment in every financial year to the unemployed adult member, it has become the largest employment programme in the world (Bhatia, et al. 2016).

 

Brief History of Employment Generation Programmes in India:

Since independence, the government has adopted a number of policy measures to eradicate extreme poverty from the country and to improve the living condition of the economically deprived segment. The Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS) initiated in 1972 to starve off death and deprivation from the severe famine that hit Maharastra can be the forerunner of the MGNREGA scheme. By becoming as an act in 1979, EGS gave rural dwellers the legal right to demand work from the state, as seen in the famous slogan ‘Magel Tyala Kaam (whoever desires work shall get it).  As Sen and Dreze (1991) pointed out, the EGS provided created jobs on a massive scale, and up to one-fifth of the rural population in many districts are said to have received cash for work.  Road-building, soil conservation and irrigation were some of the productive tasks undertaken under EGS.  The pro-poor targeting of the EGS was considered highly effective in the early years of its implementation but steadily worsened with the government raising the wage rate to meet the minimum wage in 1988 (Gaiha 2000). As the minimum wage exceeded the existing agricultural market wage, the non-poor also began to demand EGS jobs. With the increased demand for job and increased budget allocation, the poor were disproportionately excluded from the programme (Bhatia, et al. 2016)

 

Later in 1989, merging the two existing Schemes, Jawahar Rojgar Yojana (JRY) was introduced as an employment programme. This program was aimed to provide employment to the poor who were paid in cash and in food. Studies pointed out that the programme could make little impact on poverty as the majority of the participants belongs to the above poverty line group. (Neelakantan 1994). The programme was expensive and not well targeted, with only 22 percent of the funds ever reaching a poor household (Bhatia, et al. 2016).  In 1993 Employment Assurance Scheme was introduced to provide employment to the poor, especially the farmers who had little or no work during the offseason.  The scheme was targeted in nature and implemented in backward areas which needed better attention. The low work take-up, the poor implementation and ineffective targeting made the programme also a failure. In addition, the top-down administration of the EAS encouraged gross irregularities and a high percentage of fictitious workers, as districts struggled to spend their allocated funds. (PEO 2000). In 2001, Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana ( SGRY) was introduced with the twin objective of rural employment and rural infrastructure. Learning from the past experiences, the government introduced MGNREGA in 2005 which by law became a right of the poor household to have employment for 100 days  (Government of India 2005).

 

 

 

 

 

Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGA):

The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, legislation passed in 2005 and implemented in 2006 onwards was later renamed as Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme in 2009.   All adults living in rural areas are eligible to be a beneficiary of the scheme irrespective of their poverty level. The scheme provides unskilled work which is mainly aimed at building and providing infrastructure and public goods and for the village or community. Wage levels are determined by the statutory minimum wage, although actual daily payments may be lower, depending on factors such as the hours worked and task progress verified.

 

OBJECTIVE OF MGNREGA:

MGNREGA is a complex scheme, with programme components on both the labour demand and supply, involving a wide range of institutions and stakeholders and affecting a range of potential (intended and unintended) economic and social outcomes. Although the main objective of MGNREGA is to alleviate poverty by providing work in rural areas, MGNREGA has several other stated objectives:

 

(i)  Expanding earning sources for the rural poor; (ii)  Strengthening natural resources via works that deal with famine and deforestation, and that lead to sustainable growth; (iii) Strengthening grass-roots democratic procedures; (iv) Empowering women; (v) Inserting visibility and responsibility into government; and (vi) Strengthening decentralization.  It is estimated that since inception, a sum of Rs  411634.78 Crore has been spent and 2401.64 Crores of person-days of employment were generated under the programmes as on 01.08.2017 (Ministry of Rural Development, GOI. 2017).    

 

Table No 1. Performance of the MGNREGA in terms of providing employment

	Cumulative Number of Households Issued Job cards	No. Of Households Who Have Demanded Employment	No. Of Households Provided Employment	% of No of HH provided employment to Demanded Employment	Person-days In Lakhs - Total	Person-days In Lakhs - SCs	% of SC Person days to Total person days
2006-07	37850390	21188894	21016099	99.18	9050.54	2295.23	25.36
2007-08	64740595	34326563	33909132	98.78	14367.95	3942.34	27.44
2008-09	100145950	45516341	45112792	99.11	21632.48	6335.9	29.29
2009-10	112548976	52920154	52585999	99.37	28359.46	8644.81	30.48
2010-11	119824434	55756087	54947068	98.55	25715.24	7875.65	30.63
2011-12	125025265	51128994	50645132	99.05	21876.36	4846.85	22.16
2012-13	166991184	41965919	41570020	99.06	14066.05	3142.07	22.34
2013-14	218743901	51752717	47562524	91.90	21766.12	5026.851	23.09
2014-15	127798634	46477514	41371357	89.01	16618.47	3723.51	22.41
2015-16	129299492	53480845	48133082	90.00	23514.43	5241.974	22.29
2016-17	126661298	56932274	51225601	89.98	23578.21	5019.201	21.29

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1 Continued

	Person-days In Lakhs - STs	% of ST Person days to Total person days	Person-days In Lakhs - Others	% of Others Person days to Total person days	Person days In  Lakhs - Women	% of Women Person days to Total person days	Average Person days Per Household	Number Of Households Who Availed 100 Days Of Employment
2006-07	3298.73	36.45	3456.59	38.19	3679.01	40.65	43.1	NA
2007-08	4205.6	29.27	6219.98	43.29	6109.1	42.52	42.4	NA
2008-09	5501.64	25.43	9794.94	45.27	10357.27	47.88	48.0	6521268
2009-10	5874.31	20.71	13840.34	48.80	13640.49	48.10	53.9	7083663
2010-11	5361.83	20.85	12477.87	48.52	12274.28	47.73	46.8	5561812
2011-12	4091.84	18.70	12937.67	59.13	10526.65	48.12	43.2	4166070
2012-13	2214.22	15.74	8709.76	61.920	7473.85	53.13	33.8	1365649
2013-14	3858.464	17.73	13145.46	60.39	11638.28	53.47	45.8	4578683
2014-15	2819.298	16.96	10075.65	60.62	9120.38	54.88	40.2	2491994
2015-16	4184.61	17.80	14087.84	59.91	12994	55.26	48.9	4847949
2016-17	4153.192	17.61	14405.816	61.09	13235.92	56.14	46.0	3991194

Source: MGNREGA database, Government of India

 

Employment Generation under MGNREGS:

It is not easy to evaluate a programme, like MGNREGA regarding its objectives since the objectives are set as long-term targets, and many of them are qualitative which is very difficult to measure.  However, in terms of the physical achievements, the following table helps us to understand the performance in terms of the demand for the job, the number of households who received employment and the number of person-days of work provided. 

 

A quick glance at the above table indicates that there has been a substantial increase in the demand for works from MGNREGA from its implementation at all India level. Unfortunately, the state machinery has not been able to fully satisfy the growing demand for work, as seen in the difference between the number of households which demanded work and the actual number of work provided. The unmet demand for work which was less than 1 % in the 2008-09 has increased to more than 10 % in 2016-17. Further, the average person days per household also did not show much improvement.   The number of households who got 100 days of employment also has shown a decreasing trend.

 

The total number of households who received employment through the programme has shown a decline in 2013-14 but has gradually increased by 2016-17. Considering the category wise participation, a separate analysis of SC and ST are useful to find how far the programme has helped the vulnerable section.  The participation of the vulnerable group has shown a substantial reduction over the years. The participation of SCs has improved up to 30% in 2009-10 and 2010-11 but gradually declined to 21. %. In the following years. The condition of STs has never shown any improvement. The share of others in the participation has increased from 45 % to 61 %, showing an increase in absolute as well as relative terms.

 

A positive outcome of the programme is the increasing participation of the women. Of the total person-days of employment provided, 56.14% of the total days were allotted to women. This increased participation, without doubt, is capable of bringing radical change in the social and economic status of the participants. Further, the direct benefit associated with the programmes are also distributed among the participants in such a way that it benefits the entire household.

 

Impact of MGNREGS among Vulnerable Household

The study also examined the impact of the scheme on reducing poverty among the vulnerable group mainly the SC, ST etc. It is seen that the poverty reduction among the delits and SCs are higher (37.6%) than the entire MGNREGA participants taken together (32%). Against this, the impact of the scheme on the ST and the Adivasis are only 27.5% which means the scheme failed to deliver its objective among them in comparison to the rest of the participants. One reason for this low effect on Adivasis is their very high initial poverty ratio (75.8%) and low mean per capita consumption level. (Desai, Vashishtha and Joshi 2015) Since they are mostly treated at par with the rest of the group, they continue to be at the bottom of the poverty line

 

To access the impact of the programme on, a comparison is made on the income induced consumption of the participations.  On comparing the data for two different periods, it was seen that the poverty would have increased to 38 % from the existing 31.3 % if we exclude income from MGNREGA. Since poverty fell by 20.9 percentage points between 2004–05 and 2011–12, 32.1% of poverty, reduction for MGNREGA participants is due to MGNREGA employment.  The study further throws light into the MGNREGA effect at the subgroup s of temporal poverty, i.e., those who escaped poverty and who remained poor in both periods. It is seen that of the participants who escaped poverty, 13.4% would have remained poor had it not been for MGNREGAS.  Further, 7.1% of the non-poor in these periods would have slipped into poverty if the scheme were not implemented. Thus, the programme uplifted the living condition of the poor and brought 14 million persons above poverty line (Desai, Vashishtha and Joshi 2015).

Table No 2. Impact of MGNREGS with and without induced consumption.

MGNREGA Participants		Poverty ratio		Percentage point decline	Percentage decline	Contribution of MGNREGA to poverty reduction.
		2004-05	2011-12
Rural Population	With induced consumption	52.2	31.3	20.9	40.0
	Without induced consumption	52.2	38.0	14.2	27.2	32.1
Dalit/Scheduled Caste	With induced consumption	54.3	33.8	20.5	37.8
	Without induced consumption	54.3	41.5	12.8	23.6	37.6
Adivasi/ Scheduled Tribe	With induced consumption	75.8	45.7	30.1	39.7
	Without induced consumption	75.8	54.0	21.8	28.8	27.6
Less Developed Villages	With induced consumption	57.8	34.1	23.7	41.0
	Without induced consumption	57.8	42.1	15.7	27.2	33.8
More Developed area	With induced consumption	43.5	26.5	17.0	39.1
	Without induced consumption	43.5	31.1	12.4	28.5	27.1

Source: (Bhatia, et al. 2016)

 

Regional Impact: A case of Wayanad:

A field study was undertaken among the Scheduled Tribes in Wayanad district, Kerala to understand the impact of MGNREGS among them in the study area.  The selection of Wayanad was guided by the fact that it is the district in Kerala with the highest number scheduled tribes. The multi-stage stratified sampling method was adopted to select the households from 3 different panchayaths.  The panchayat thus selected were Thirunelli, Noolpuzha and Kaniyambetta which represent three different taluks in the district.  500 households were thus selected which consists of 164 participatory households and 336 non-participatory households. With the help of a well-structured scheduled, information was collected, and the data were analyzed with the help of simple statistical tools.

 

Though the panchayath is a home for a large number of tribal groups, the selected panchayath has 6 tribal groups. A socio-economic profile of these groups shows that the Kurichiya and Mullakuruma groups are socially and economically better off than the Adiya, Paniya, Kattunayika and  Urali.

 

MGNREGS Participation:

The MGNREGS participation is from 2007-08 to till date was examined, to get an understanding on the dependency of the programme and to examine the changing trend in its participation. As per the regulation, a household is entitled to 100 days of work in a year. If there is an increase in the participation, it can be viewed as a result of the effective delivery of the programme.  The table below shows the number of days a household is provided employment through the programme.

 

Table No.  3. Participation Trend in MGNREGS 2007-08 to 2015-16

Year	Number of Days worked
	0 Days	1-25 Days	26-50 Days	51 -75 Days	76-99 Days	100 Days	Average number of Working Days
2007-08	58	83	53	4	0	0	18.44
2008-09	37	69	70	18	2	2	27.41
2009-10	37	50	73	25	10	3	32.27
2010-11	34	52	63	26	11	12	36.11
2011-12	37	38	65	30	15	13	38.26
2012-13	29	40	64	37	14	14	41.53
2013-14	31	33	70	33	19	12	42.43
2014-15	26	43	101	22	5	1	33.15
2015-16	15	36	79	38	25	5	45.12

Source: Field Survey 2015

 

From the table, it is seen that there is an increase in the average number of days worked over the years. In the initial years of the programme, the individuals who either did not go to work or who did not get work at all (zero days of work) were very high which declined in the subsequent years.   An increasing trend in it participation and the increased average number of days worked over the years show that the programme has gained acceptance among the tribal group.

 

 

Source: Field Survey 2015

Fig. no. 2 Average MGNREGS working days of STs in the study area 2007-08 to 2015-16

An increasing trend in the participation of the programme can be either because there is an increasing acceptance of the programme or because there is an increasing level of unemployment. To examine which factor has contributed more to the increased level of participation, the total number of days the individual has worked for the year 20015-16 is examined.

 

Table No.  4 Distribution of Household on the Basis of Total Working Days for the Year 2015

Caste	Participant Household							Total	Non-Participant household.
	0 Days	1-50 Days	51 -100 Days	101-150 Days	151-200 Days	201-250 Days	251 to 300 Days		0 Days	1-50 Days	51 -100 Days	101-150 Days	151-200 Days	201-250 Days	251 to 300 Days	Total
Adiya	0	0	7	6	6	0		19	29	21	42	68	31	2	0	193
Kattunaika	0	1	13	19	11	0		44	44	21	60	68	29	1	0	223
Kurichiya	0	15	13	5	2	2		37	38	1	9	14	13	0	2	77
Mulla Kuruma	3	5	17	5	5	1		36	83	5	16	36	15	0	0	155
Paniya	0	14	14	16	5	0		49	40	78	87	68	18	9	29	329
Urali	0	1	5	6	1	0		13	8	6	16	32	15	0	0	77
Total	3	36	69	57	30	3		198	242	132	230	286	121	12	31	1054

Source: Field Survey 2015

 

To measure the changes in the labour participation, the average number of working days for the year 2015-16 were calculated. It is found that the average working days for the entire sample were 90.7698 with a standard deviation of 72.72859. When we consider the participants of MGNREGS, the average working days were 101.4798 with a standard deviation of 48.96. The figures for the non-participants of MGNREGS taken separately were 89.01 and 75.79 respectively. This suggests that the MGNREGS participants have higher employment days. Thus, the increasing trend in participation is not because of increase in the unemployment days, but because of the increasing acceptance of the programme. The household also considers it as an opportunity to supplement the household income by demanding job in the off seasons where there is little work or no work at all.

 

Expenditure:

Monthly per capita expenditure is used as a proxy indicator to measure the impact of MGNREGS on poverty levels of the household. The impact is likely to be positive, if the increase in income has translated into an increase in expenditure, particularly on food and essential items of the household.

 

Table 5. Distribution of Household on the Basis of total monthly expenditure

Caste	Participant Household						Total	Non-Participant household.
	Adiya	Kattunaika	Kurichiya	Mulla Kuruma	Paniya	Urali		Adiya	Kattunaika	Kurichiya	Mulla Kuruma	Paniya	Urali	Total
0-2500	0	1	0	1	2	1	5(3.%)	6	6	2	0	10	2	26(7.7%)
2500-5000	12	20	12	13	24	6	87(53.%)	41	32	11	30	69	21	204(60.8%)
5000-7500	6	12	10	16	11	4	59(36%)	19	19	3	13	26	3	83(24.7%)
7500-10000	3	2	6	2	0	0	13(8%)	1	6	0	2	12	1	22(6.5%)
10000-12500	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1(0.3%)
Total	21	35	28	32	37	11	164(100%)	67	63	16	45	118	27	336(100%)

Source: Field Survey 2015

 

The average monthly expenditure for the participant household is Rs. 5080 and it is Rs 4625 for the non-participants households. The expenditure pattern shows the participant household has higher monthly expenditure than the non-participant household.  The major items of household expenditure are grouped into four categories.

 

1.      Expenditure on food (Ef)

2.      Basic facility expenditure (Eb) which include expenditure on electricity charges, telephone charges, water charges, and newspaper/ magazine charges.

3.      Entertainment expenditure (Ee) which includes the amount spend for entrainment like cinema, TV cable charges, and expenditure on faire and related activities.

4.      Other expenditure (Eo) which includes expenditure on clothes, social and religious functions, fuel, liquor, rent, education, medicine,  transportation and other items

 

To examine whether the increase in income has resulted in an increase in consumption, a regression analysis is undertaken keeping monthly household expenditure as dependent variable and Expenditure on food (E_f), Basic facility expenditure (E_b), Entertainment expenditure (E_e) and Other expenditure (E_o) as explanatory variables.

 

The regression result of the participant households is:

E_T = .455 E_f+ .078 E_b + .070E_e + .512 E_o

 

The regression result for the non- participants household  is E_T = .442E_f+ .071E_b + .064E_e + .515E_o

 

The regression result shows that both the groups, follow more or less similar pattern of expenditure. However, there are some differences between these groups. The major determinant of the total expenditure of both the groups is the expenditure on clothes, social and religious functions, fuel, liquor, rent, education, medicine, transportation and other items which are grouped as other items. Since the majority of the household owns a house, the rent is zero, and in the case of those who have no houses, they live in the house of their relatives without paying rent. The expenditure on medicine and education are nominal as they are utilising services provided by the public institutions. The proportion of the food expenditure on total expenditure of the participant household is comparatively higher than that of the non-participatory households.

 

Spending pattern of Income from MGNREGS:

It is important to understand how the additional income earned by the participants are utilized. Since the participants are poor, the additional income earned from the project can have a positive economic impact only if the increased income is used for consumption of food or essential commodities by the household. This is examined with the help of the following table.

 

Table No. 6 Utilisation / Spending pattern of MGNREGA Wage

Source: Field Survey 2015

 

The utilization of the income from MGNREGS reveals that 95.5 % of the household spend the income for consumption of essential commodities.  The income has not been used for saving, investment, maintenance of the house, purchase of consumer durables, educational purpose or to avail healthcare facilities. This is because the participants are from poor families who are otherwise unemployed. Therefore, the additional income can only be used to supplement their household consumption expenditure.

 

CONCLUSION:

Though there had been a number of studies which pointed out the poor performance of the MGNREGA scheme, a closer examination reveals that it has been successful in delivering compared to the earlier programmes. It has helped the tribes in the study regions to increase the days of employment and their consumption expenditure.  Considering the socio-economic and cultural diversity of the country, we cannot use it as a panacea to overcome the poverty, nor we can expect an immediate positive result. It takes time to reap the full harvest from the seeds we are sowing. The past failure and the present lessons must help us to look forward, correcting the shortcoming we have, focusing on areas which need higher attention and paying more attention to the vulnerable group. Only a well planned and properly executed programme can bring changes to the society which will distribute its fruits to the socially and economically marginalized. 

 

 

 

REFERENCES:

1.       Agarwal, Vibhuti. India Hits Its U.N. Poverty-Cutting Target, but Misses Others. 2 February 2015. 18 August 2017. <https://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2015/02/05/india-hits-its-u-n-poverty-cutting-target-but-misses-others/>.

2.       Bhatia, Raag, et al. Examining the Evidence on the effectiveness of India's Rural employment Guarantee Act. New Delhi: 3ie Working Paper 27, International initiative for Impact Evaluation, 2016.

3.       Chandy, Laurence and Geoffrey Gertz. Two Trends in Global Poverty. 17 May 2011. 30 August 2017. <https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/two-trends-in-global-poverty/>.

4.       Desai, Sonalde, Prem Vashishtha and Omkar Joshi. Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act: A Catalyst for Rural Transformation. New Delhi.: Indian Human Development Survey, National Council of Applied Economic Research, 2015.

5.       Dreze, Jean and Amrithya Sen. The Political economy of hunger- Volume : Famine Prevention, Wider studies in Development Economics. Clarendon Press, 1st Edition., 1991.

6.       Gaiha, R. “On the targetting of the Employment Guarantee Scheme in the Indian State fo Maharashtra.” Economic Planning (2000): No 33, Pages 203-219.

7.       Government of India. THE NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE ACT, 2005. New Delhi: The Gazette of India, Government of India, 2005.

8.       Ministry of Rural Development, GOI. 01 August 2017. 01 August 2017. <http://mnregaweb4.nic.in/netnrega/all_lvl_details_dashboard_new.aspx>.

9.       Neelakantan, M. “Jawahar Rozgar Yojana: An assessment through concurrent evaluation.” Economic and Political Weekly, (1994): 29(49), pages.3091–97.

10.     PEO. "Study on the assessment of poverty alleviation schemes in Maharashtra. New Delhi: Program Evaluation Organization, Planning Commission, Government of India, 2000.

11.     Roser, Max and Esteban Ortiz-Ospina. Global Extreme Poverty. May 2017. <https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty/>.

12.     World Bank. Taking on Inequality: Poverty Shared Prosperity 2016. Washington DC 20433: World Bank group, 2016.

 

 

Received on 21.10.2017       Modified on 18.11.2017

Accepted on 28.12.2017      ©A&V Publications All right reserved