|
|
Nikhil Raj
|
The heterogeneity of poor, food insecure people and the communities in which they reside necessitates a portfolio approach in which policy makers, programme managers and donor agencies may consider selecting from a choice vector of different instruments, including IT-based to respond to emerging needs.
Background
Enabling improvements in the livelihoods security status through food security for the marginalized and vulnerable communities has been a key concern of policy makers. It has been clearly established by a number of previous studies that the problem of hunger in India is essentially due to lack of entitlement or purchasing power to access food. The growth of working poor, increasing informalisation and casualisation of the workforce, indicates that the decline in the entitlement status at the household has further rendered these groups vulnerable to shocks and distress. With the realisation by the early seventies that the trickle down of growth efforts had actually failed to trickle to the poorest of the poor, direct state intervention with targetted programme of poverty alleviation acquired centre stage in Indian development planning exercises. The late 1970s and early 1980s saw the launch of a number of self and wage employment generation programmes. Food for Work (FFW) Programme has been a major element in this list.
The wage employment programmes have been successful in addressing the concern of current poverty through the provision of productive employment in public works leading to creation of public assets and rural infrastructure. Also, several programmes relating to the provision of basic infrastructures were also introduced subsequently in rural areas. Furthermore, policy prescriptions were made and statutory provisions introduced for the empowerment of the people and their participation in the development process. The recent revival of FFW in India should also be seen as a response to the Supreme Court decision on the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) of 2001 by the Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) against the government in the wake of starvation in Orissa (Deshingkar and Johnson, 2002).
Despite the novelty of the FFW programme, a number of studies show that macro issues of governance, leakages, lack of social inclusion and relative inefficiencies in the monitoring system continue to plague the programme from realising its full potential. There is a clear need for exploring suitable IT-based systems to improve monitoring and at the same time keep the programme moving in the desired directions. It is time now that the recent attempts at exploring feasible IT-based options (such as those being conceptualised by agencies like the World Food Programme (WFP) in the recent past) could be intensified and some pilot interventions tried out.
Mapping the regional performance
In this section, an attempt has been made to examine the performance of the reach and penetration of some key FFW programmes.
Some recent trends
Since 2002, all FFW programmes have been brought under the umbrella of the Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojna (SGRY). It is well known that the FFW programme in the country has passed through several changes in its evolution trajectory. These modifications in the FFW may be construed as the maturity of the programme and the recognition on the part of policy makers of its significance in fighting food insecurity at the household level. However, the changes also make it difficult to conduct rigorous comparative inter-temporal analysis. However, based upon availability of some recent data on Employment Assurance Scheme (EAS) for the year 2001-02 and SGRY (I and II) for the years 2002-03(Annual Reports, MRD, GoI), this section seeks to map the performance of various regions/states in terms of critical parameters of the objectives and functioning of the FFW in India.
Box item, Nikhil Raj
|
Tenth Plan
outlook for implementation of the wage
employment programme indicates the following broad contours:
Unhindered focus on the Target Group and
Target Areas;
Dealing with situations arising out of natural
calamities;
Optimal utilisation of surplus foodgrains
stock for
covering part of wage payment under the programme;
Involving women Self Help Groups SHGs in the
implementation of the programme;
Continuing with the strategy of infrastructure
development through wage employment programme;
Facilitating zoning to take care of
guidelines to include specific areas/regions. |
Employment generation and funds utilisation
If one confines to 15 major states, it is found that at an aggregate level the average magnitude of man days of employment generated under EAS was nearly 1.5 times in 2001-02, compared to the corresponding figures under SGRY I and SGRY II. (EAS 14.42 million mandays; SGRY I 9.27 million man days and SGRY II 9.15 million man days of employment was generated), However, inter-state variations seem to have narrowed down under the SGRY compared to the performances recorded by the 15 major states under EAS in 2001-02. (Table 1)
Table 1, Nikhil Raj
| Table
1: Man-days
generated under EAS and SGRY I &
II |
| States |
Man days Generated (in Lakhs) |
| EAS |
SGRY I |
SGRY II |
| 2001/02 |
2002/03 |
2002/03 |
| Andhra Pradesh |
159.45 |
27.33 |
80.18 |
| Bihar |
138.13 |
0 |
70.39 |
| Chhattisgarh |
299 |
217.31 |
73.98 |
| Gujarat |
30.42 |
23.53 |
17.87 |
| Jharkhand |
121.37 |
39.43 |
22.41 |
| Karnataka |
142.4 |
89.47 |
79.32 |
| Kerala |
33.111 |
16.38 |
11.69 |
| Madhya Pradesh |
225.82 |
162.2 |
132.42 |
| Maharashtra |
217.08 |
74.34 |
77.37 |
| Orissa |
244.16 |
114.69 |
141.61 |
| Rajasthan |
9.75 |
93.64 |
56.27 |
| Tamil Nadu |
132.51 |
104.64 |
100 |
| Uttar Pradesh |
313.63 |
8.6 |
8.64 |
| Uttranchal |
12.38 |
333.18 |
352.36 |
| West Bengal |
84.22 |
85.93 |
148.58 |
| Average |
144.23 |
92.71 |
91.54 |
| Source: Ministry of
Rural
Development (MoRD), Annual Reports, Govt. of India. |
A look at the status of funds utilisation (Table 2) at the aggregate level among the same 15 major states indicates that the low level of mandays of employment generated under the SGRY may be attributed to the decline in funds utilisation under SGRY (a little over 50 per cent) compared to those observed for EAS (nearly 75 per cent). However the correlation between these two variables is rather weak, particularly between case of SGRY I and SGRY II.
Table 2, Nikhil Raj
| Table
2:
Status of funds utilisation across states (as % to total available) |
| States |
EAS |
SGRY I |
SGRYII |
| Andhra Pradesh |
93.91 |
50.57 |
45.80 |
| Bihar |
44.53 |
53.14 |
44.34 |
| Chhattisgarh |
89.48 |
81.19 |
83.50 |
| Gujarat |
50.22 |
34.20 |
41.30 |
| Jharkhand |
62.32 |
31.37 |
20.49 |
| Karnataka |
82.34 |
63.39 |
61.85 |
| Kerala |
91.54 |
71.85 |
57.35 |
| Madhya Pradesh |
84.26 |
72.05 |
65.76 |
| Maharashtra |
86.57 |
48.09 |
57.38 |
| Orissa |
88.79 |
47.84 |
49.97 |
| Rajasthan |
86.81 |
64.77 |
54.89 |
| Tamil Nadu |
88.41 |
63.19 |
65.19 |
| Uttar Pradesh |
57.89 |
45.37 |
38.91 |
| Uttranchal |
69.61 |
30.32 |
43.94 |
| West Bengal |
45.23 |
38.29 |
51.84 |
| Source: as in Table
1 |
In order to understand the regional variations under the FFW, a cross classification of the above data set has been attempted separately for EAS and SGRY. Table 3 maps the relative ranking of the states on the two key parameters discussed above. The methodology has been to rank the states on each of the parameters (say funds utilisation or man-days of employment generated) and then to further group the states on a three tier structure (top/middle/ low). The states ranked from 1 to 5 on each parameter have been slotted in the top tier, those ranked between 6-10 have been slotted in the middle category and the states showing a ranking between 11-15 have been classified as low performing states (Raj, 2004).
Table 3, Nikhil Raj
| Table
3:
Cross-classification of states by ratio of man-days generated to
targets and
funds utilised to availability under EAS in 2001/02 |
Ratio of Funds Utilised to Availability |
|
Ratio of Man days Generated to Targets |
|
Low |
Middle |
Top |
Top
|
-
|
Kerala
Tamil Nadu
|
Andhra Pradesh
Chhattisgarh
Orissa
|
Middle |
Uttranchal |
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
|
Karnataka
Madhya Pradesh
|
Low |
Bihar, Jharkhand
Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal
|
Gujarat |
-
|
| Source: Computed
from Data given
in the MoRD, Annual Reports, 2002-03 |
Table 3 clearly shows that, while Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Orissa have been the relatively better performers, their eastern counterparts (Bihar, Jharkhand and West Bengal), including Uttar Pradesh have been at the extreme end, both in terms of funds utilisation and employment generated. Assuming that funds utilisation may be a proxy for governance and employment generation as a proxy to project management, it may be safely inferred that the states in the extreme low corner of the above matrix depict cases of both relative inefficiency in governance and project management as well.
The states of south (Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka), the western states (Maharashtra and Rajasthan) and Madhya Pradesh depict potentials for instantaneous improvement, if either of the variables, i.e governance or project management are immediately addressed. On the other hand, while Uttranchal shows relatively poor performance in terms of project management (or ratio of man-days generated to target), it ranks among the middle category of states as far as funds utilization (or governance) is concerned. Probably it appears that Chhattisgarh has left all the new states far behind both in terms of governance and micro level project management. The state of Gujarat, portrays a picture of poor governance and somewhat better micro level project management.
Coverage of vulnerable groups in FFW
In order to obtain a picture of the coverage of the FFW programmes among the vulnerable groups, this paper relies on available data for EAS (for 2001-02) and SGRY I and II (for 2002-03). Two specific categories among the vulnerable groups have been considered, namely the women and the landless for drawing the larger picture. As regards the EAS, it is found that Andhra Pradesh is the only state which has been able to provide top coverage of women and landless in the programme (Table 4). When compared to the earlier matrix for the aggregate man-days generated the states of Chhattisgarh and Orissa do not show similar relative coverage of these vulnerable groups. While gender dimension of employment seems to have been adequately addressed in Chhattisgarh (and not so much in case of Orissa), the disaggregated picture clearly shows that the coverage of landless in the programme is relatively the lowest in these two states.
Table 4, Nikhil Raj
| Table
4: Cross
- classification of states by proportion of man-days generated under
EAS for
women and landless persons in 2001/02 |
Proportion of man-days generated for women |
|
Proportion of man-days generated for
landless |
|
Low |
Middle |
Top |
| Top |
Chhattisgarh,
Kerala |
Madhya
Pradesh |
Andhra Pradesh |
Middle |
Orissa |
Jharkhand,
Karnataka,
Maharashtra |
Gujarat
Tamil Nadu
|
| Low |
Uttranchal |
Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal
|
Bihar
Rajasthan
|
| Source: as in Table
3 |
Interestingly, a state like Kerala ranks among the lowest states as far as proportion of man-days of employment generated for landless as part of the FFW programme is concerned. In case of West Bengal, a state placed in similar political situation (having a long history of left-led governments), gender dimensions seem to have been accorded a low priority under the employment coverage of the EAS. Political affiliations of the state governments (with avowed pro-poor policies), thus do not seem to be a major explanatory variable in the coverage of vulnerable groups, for if it were so, both these states should have found a slot in the top category of states, both for coverage of women and landless under the EAS scheme. (Table 4).
A comparative analysis of the relative coverage of women and landless across states under the EAS and SGRY I and II programmes further indicates that the merger of all FFW programmes under the SGRY banner has led to visible changes for some states, such as Tamil Nadu. The state finds the top rank for employment generated, both for women and the landless categories. The improvement in coverage is more in terms of man-days of employment generated for women in Tamil Nadu under the SGRY I and II programmes compared to EAS in 2001-02.
| Table 5:
Cross-classification of states by proportion of man-days generated
under SGRY I
for women and landless persons in 2002/03 |
Proportion of man-days generated for women |
|
Proportion
of man-days generated for landless |
|
Low |
Middle |
Top |
Top |
Rajasthan |
Maharashtra |
Andhra
Pradesh
Madhya
Pradesh
Tamil Nadu
|
Middle |
Kerala
Orissa
|
Chhattisgarh
Karnataka
|
Gujarat |
Low |
Bihar
Uttar Pradesh
|
Jharkhand
Uttaranchal
|
West Bengal |
| Source: as in Table
4 |
Similarly, the merger of all FFW programmes under the FFW also appears to have translated in better and improved coverage of landless in Uttranchal. At the other end of the spectrum lie the states of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, where no such perceptible change is observed. The change in the nature of the programme (from FFW under EAS to all FFW under SGRY) has failed to register any significant improvement in the inclusivity and coverage of vulnerable groups in the FFW programmes.
The state of Kerala depicts similar coverage of vulnerable groups (relative rank of the state) under the EAS and SGRY. It is also important to note some of the consistent performing states such as Maharashtra and Karnataka. Both these states however, continue to find a berth in the middle category among the 15 major states ranked in terms of mandays generated, both at the aggregate and disaggregate level (as measured in terms of coverage of vulnerable groups under EAS and SGRY I & II). Overall it emerges that the change in the institutional nature of the FFW programme to a comprehensive umbrella scheme of SGRY has led to distinct improvement in the coverage of women, but probably at a cost, i.e. lower coverage of landless.
Need and scope for IT intervention for better monitoring
With Information Technology (IT) being increasingly utilised to improve governance and micro-level project management in the development sector in India, it is felt that time is ripe for some serious considerations to introduce these measures for the various FFW programmes.
This section is an attempt to bring out the need for IT-based interventions for improving the functioning of the above development interventions in India. As regards the FFW, the analysis is based upon the authors field experience of process overview of management of World Food Programme led FFW in collaboration with the Forest department in select states of Rajasthan, Orissa and Uttaranchal. (Raj and Monga, WFP-TCS 2003). Findings from this exercise warranted developing a model that would seek to address both the short and long run management of the FFW programmes managed by the Forest departments. The findings also strongly indicate the possibility of developing a co-ordinated IT-based intervention for enabling food security at the household and the individual levels and monitoring the same.
The mechanism of IT-based monitoring would require to take into cognisance that the food distributed as part of the FFW programme, which is managed by the forest departments is based on a complex process. It begins at the Range level consisting of identification of beneficiaries for Food for Work (FFW), distribution of coupons to the beneficiaries (FFW) against workdays, recording of monthly distribution of foodgrains and workdays generated and also monthly amount collected against the foodgrains distributed, as part of the contribution to the generated fund. The next process at the Division level involves generation of consolidated monthly and quarterly reports to be submitted onward to the State Project Director of WFP with a request for quantity of foodgrains demanded. The real allocation of foodgrains to the divisions is done at the state level and the reports are sent onward to the WFP Head Quarters for monitoring the utilisation of the foodgrains allocated for the FFW beneficiaries.
Given the need for maintaining critical foodgrains limits to ensure smooth flow of foodgrains to the FFW beneficiaries, the model proposes the use of a smart card-based system. The model suggests that each potential beneficiary could be given a smart card (based upon local Below Poverty Line (BPL) surveys) and the distribution of coupons and the actual off take of the foodgrains could be easily monitored as soon as the relevant transactions are made. The model, however, also recognises the need for a certain degree of convergence between the various levels of authorities involved in the implementation of FFW programmes. On the other hand, given that in the changed paradigm, all the FFW programmes have been brought under the SGRY, the complexities seem to have further compounded. The policy makers and programme implementers may however begin the application of the model at least on a pilot basis for the FFW programme managed by the Forest department, where the movement of foodgrains and the implementation model is relatively linear.
Conclusion
FFW has a key role in insuring the poor against poverty and hunger and thus addressing their livelihoods security concerns. The heterogeneity of poor, food-insecure people and the communities in which they reside necessitates a portfolio approach in which policy makers, programme managers and donor agencies may consider selecting from a choice vector of different instruments (including IT based) to respond to emerging needs. Risks are always involved in the one size fits all approach, and this is no less true of food-for-work than for any other type of intervention.
References
Deshingkar, P and Johnson, C (2002), State Transfer to the Poor and Back: The Case of the Food For Work Programme in Andhra Pradesh, ODI Working Paper, London, ODI.
Ministry of Rural Development (various years), Annual Report, Government of India, New Delhi.
National Sample Survey Organisation (2001), Level and Pattern of Consumption Expenditure, 55th Round (July 1999-June 2000), Department of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India, New Delhi.
Raj, Nikhil (2004), Food for Work Programme: Evolution and Emerging Trends, paper prepared for UN World Food Programme, New Delhi
Raj, Nikhil & Monga, A. (2003), Food and Beneficiary Tracking System: Feasibility Study Report, World Food Programme Tata Consultancy Services, New Delhi.
Author: Nikhil Raj is currently working with United Nations World Food Programme in India.
|
