Role of MGNREGA in Creating Assets and Enhancing Agriculture and Allied Activities in Karnataka
December 2023 | Pesala Peter and I. Maruthi
Pesala Peter and I. Maruthi
Under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), the government of India provides for the creation of durable assets. The individual assets creation is helping the farmers in different ways. The current study’s focus is on the role of individual asset creation through MGNREGA and how the programmes/schemes are helping the farmers. During 2019-2020, in India as a whole, a total of 18,60,419 individual assets were created. In the case of Karnataka state in particular, 66,259 individual assets were created. The total assets (individual) created in Karnataka thus formed a significant share. Based on the number of man-days generated by a district, this study divided the districts into high performance and low performance districts. In Karnataka, out of 30 districts, the study selected 10 high performance and 10 low performance districts and one high population district. In each district, one Gram Panchayat (GP) was selected and in each GP, 30 beneficiary households were selected through transit walks in our field visit during the three-year period identified for the study, i.e., 2016-2017, 2015-2016 and 2014-2015. The total sample size was 630. The main objective of the current paper is to investigate how the asset creation has helped the farmers in Karnataka. The main findings of the study are: Nearly half of the households benefited by assets creation during our study. Secondly, the total land cultivation increased. A small number of households benefited from horticulture assets creation and sericulture under the MGNREGA scheme.
Keywords: Individual assets, MGNREGA, Help to agriculture and allied activities, Karnataka
Introduction
Under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) scheme, the government of India provides for the creation of various durable assets. The created assets are very useful to the farmers to extend
__________________________
Pesala Peter, Consultant in ADRTC, Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC), Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru 560072, Karnataka, Email: drpesalapeter@gmail.com
I. Maruthi, Professor in ADRTC, Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC), Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru 560072, Karnataka, Email: maruthi@isec.ac.in
This paper is a part of completed research project “A Decade of MGNREGA: Participatory Assessments and Way Forward in Karnataka” funded by NIRD & PR, Hyderabad. The author thanks Prof. I. Maruthi and the research team for collection of valuable data in the appropriate manner in this project. The usual disclaimer applies. their lands and improve their agricultural production and productivity. The production depends upon the type of asset created by the farmer. Under MGNREGA, individual assets creation is taking place in the entire Karnataka state. In many places, new farm ponds, dug wells, other water harvesting structures, livestock shelters, fish drying yards and other assets are created under the individual asset creation programme. These assets will provide water facilities, infrastructure facilities and other suitable facilities to help enhance agricultural production and productivity. This leads to an increase in the farmer’s income in the long run. There are two types of asset creation under this scheme. The first one is asset creation at community level. This is particularly community work like the construction of roads (cement roads) and community ponds, water conservation etc. Secondly, asset creations at an individual level. The current study is focused on the role of individual asset creation through MGNREGA and how the programme/scheme helps the farmers. For any individual asset creation, farmers require lands in their own names and only then are they able to create assets. Till January 31st, 2020 in India, a total 18,60,419 individual assets were created during 2019-2020. In the same period, 66,259 individual assets were created in the case of Karnataka (MGNREGA website). The share of Karnataka in all-India level is nearly four per cent (3.6 per cent). In India, as of now, a total 4,76,59,406 assetshave been created. Among the asset created states, Andhra Pradesh occupied the first place and it contributed 63,10,718 (13.24 per cent), followed by UP-62,23,302 (13.06 per cent), West Bengal-47,07,243 (9.88 per cent), Madhya Pradesh-43,62,841 (9.15 per cent), Telangana-37,90,360 (7.95 per cent) and Karnataka-30,92,080 (6.49 per cent). In other words, Karnataka occupied the sixth place. According to Mishra (2011), majority of the households reported that MGNREGA helped to creating assets. Due to MGNREGA, most of the marginal and small farmers participated in individual assets creation and it helped to improve the productivity in their own farms.
Individual Asset Creation in Karnataka
The study observed that under individual asset creation, the expenditure gradually increased from 2015-2016 to 2017-2018 and then onwards it had declined because the sanctioned amount had been declining gradually (Table 1). It also observed that the individual asset creation is very important for rural households. It was helping the farmers in cultivating different crops on their lands. Most of the money was spent on infrastructure for the promotion of livestock shelter construction/livestock shed construction (40 per cent) and followed by works for improving productivity of land (34 per cent), plantation related works (20 per cent) and rural housing and related works (5.8 per cent) in 2015-2016. In a similar way, in the year 2016-2017, a high amount was spent on works for improving productivity of land (34 per cent). A majority of the amount was spent on rural housing and related works in the remaining three years (2017-2018 to 2019-2020). It indicates that in rural Karnataka, people gave more importance to the construction of houses. This they felt was important to retain their dignity in the village.
Total Assets Completed and Total Expenditure in Karnataka
The study observed that the total completed works are increasing gradually from 2015-2016 (6.95 lakhs) to 2018-2019 (9.46 lakhs). It indicated that there is a positive trend in work completion. There are two components here. The first one is the number of completed works and the second one is ongoing works. The number of completed works data shows that there is an increasing trend. The study observed that the total expenditure was increasing gradually from 1,82,193 lakhs in 2015-2016 to 3,98,489 lakhs in 2019-2020. But in 2017-2018, the total expenditure declined (₹2,99,949). The expenditure is divided into three categories namely: Wage, Material and Skilled Wage and Total Administration Expenditure. Among the three expenditures, Wage expenditure was higher in all study years followed by Material expenditure and Total administration expenditure (Table 2).
Review of Literature
Singh Nandini (2013) focused on MGNREGA’s impact on migration and asset creation. The study observed that women’s participation rate was increasing under MGNREGA work. According to the study, most of the MGNREGA workers had a little land or no land and their lands were devoid of irrigation facilities. The study conducted a focus group discussion in Dokur village of Mahabubnagar district in Andhra Pradesh and found that seasonal migration was higher in the village. Based on secondary information, the study observed that the employment intensity was low while creating rural assets and secondly, the quality and durability also low.
Narayanan, et. al. (2014) in their study, focused on MGNREGA works and their impact in Maharashtra state. The study concentrated mainly on two things: First to verify the assets that have been created under the MGNREGS based on availability of administrative data and recording quality of assets. Secondly, to examine the concern that many of MGNREGS works are only on paper and do not in fact exist. For the assessment of two things, the study selected 20 of the 33 districts in Maharashtra. One block was chosen from each district. The block was selected purposely to represent the best performing blocks in terms of expenditures on the programmes during the financial years 2012-2013. In each block, five Gram Panchyats (GPs) were selected. The study interviewed 4881 beneficiary households and verified 4266 assets spread across 100GPs. Among the 4881 respondents, around 15 per cent were women. According to the authors, the assessment of MGNREG work is a technical subject and based on the opinion of beneficiaries, the study considered aspects of their quality and usefulness. The study considered the beneficiary perceptions and found that the overall beneficiary opinion was that whatever asset was created was very useful, as reported by more than half the respondents. Secondly, 40 per cent of them said that the assets were somewhat useful and only eight per cent of them reported that they were not useful in general. Private land assets were created and it was very useful as reported by 63 per cent of the beneficiary households. Thirdly, a majority of respondents said that irrigation assets helped them to expand the cultivation area and obtain an extra
crop as compared to previous years (in previous years it was fallow land). Fourthly, the construction of toilet was very high and it comes under other works. And the toilet was very useful for the households. About 92 per cent of the beneficiary households’ main occupation was agriculture.
John and Georgia (2016) conducted their study in Pullambadi Block in Tiruchirappalli district in the state of Tamil Nadu. The study followed the purposive sampling method. The study tested chi-square test of goodness-of-fit. And the main findings of the study are: About 93 per cent of respondents felt that MGNREGA did not help them to purchase durable household assets while nearly seven per cent felt the MGNREGA helped them to purchase durable assets. About 55 per cent of the respondents reported that MGNREGA helped them to fulfill their biological needs.
ILO (2016) expressed the view that the MGNREGA scheme has helped women and economically backward communities by creating productive assets. In addition to that, the study mentioned that poverty is also most acute among households headed by females and among SC and ST households in India. The study mentioned that the programme is demand-based and helps those who are willing to work as unskilled labour in rural areas.
Saikia (2017) focused on asset creation through MGNREGA in Sibsagar and Dhemaji districts in Assam state. The study concentrated on projects approved, completed and ongoing from2008-2009 to 2015-2016. It selected two blocks in each district. The Gaurisagar development block and Amguri development blocks come under Sibsagar district. Murkongselek development block and Sissiborgaon development block come under Dhemaji district. The study found that the largest completion of work was fisheries, followed by water conservation, water harvesting, rural connectivity, drought proofing, land development, flood control and protection. The performance of Dhemaji district was better as compared to Sibsagar district.
Singh and Jain (2017) studied assets creation in Sangrur and Barnala districts of Punjab. The study used secondary and primary data. It selected ten blocks in Sangrur and three blocks in Barnala district. In each block, a minimum of two villages were selected. The total surveyed villages were 28 and the total beneficiaries were 150. The study found that about 88 per cent of beneficiaries expressed the view that assets created benefited the village community. One village constructed a pond across nearly four acres of land and it helped in raising the water levels. The study’s main observation was that MGNREGA helped to create assets in selected districts in Punjab.
According to Kundu Moumita (2018), most of the planning, strategies and programmes of our country were oriented toward urban society. This study’s aim was to assess the performance of MGNREGA in community asset creation and the study used secondary data. The study used some variables and those were the total number of works, number of ongoing works, and number of completed works, number of assets created and category-wise creation of assets. The study tested percentage, t-test and ANOVA. It examined the performance of MGNREGA in
Durgapur Faridpur block. The study considered six Gram Panchyats and the five financial years (2013-2014 to 2017-2018) for the assessment. The study finds that the completion of works was better in study state (West Bengal) as compared to India. The study observed that the performance of MGNREGA was satisfactory in study area (Durgapur).
Methodology
In Karnataka state, out of 30 districts, the current study selected 10 high performance districts and 10 low performance districts. In addition to that, one high population district was selected for the study. The total sample districts were
21. Based on the number of man-days generated by the district, the study divided high and low performance districts. In each district, one Gram Panchayat (GP) was selected based on the above-said criteria. The 30 beneficiaries selected through transit walk during our field visit during the three-year period were identified for the study, i.e., 2016-2017, 2015-2016 and 2014-2015.Hence the total sample size was 630 (Table 3). The primary data was collected during the months of March- May, 2018. The study emphasized on asset creation through MGNREGA. The study divided pre-asset and post-asset creation and households’ improvement in the study’s 21 GPs. The main objective of the paper was: to investigate how the asset creation helped the farmers in Karnataka state.
Results and Discussion
Among 630 active participating households, 86 per cents (539 households) had land at the time of our study and the remaining 14 per cents (91 households) were landless. Reddy, et. al. (2016) mentioned that most of the SC households’ status was landless. But the MGNREGA scheme as a whole had provided livelihood to the poor people, women, small and marginal farmers, SC and ST. According to our study, the average land size was higher in the OBC (3.02 acres) category, followed by general (2.89 acres), ST (2.56 acres) and SC (1.79 acres). Here the average land size indicates that for SC, average land size is low as compared to the other social groups. Our study results revealed that out of a total 630 active participation households, 45 per cent were benefited by assets creation during our study. Among the social groups, assets creation was more in Other Caste (57 per cent) households, followed by ST (47 per cent), SC (44 per cent) and Backward Caste households (42 per cent). In contrast, 55 per cent of the households did not get the benefit of assets creation during three years (2014-2015 to 2016-2017) (Table 5).
Source of Assets Information in Sample Households in Karnataka
Awareness of the assets creation scheme is very important to rural households. In rural areas, some of the programme’s potential beneficiaries are not aware due to lack of sources, facilities, not being interested and other reasons. To get individual assets, awareness is very important regarding who is providing facilities and we brought to fore this information here. Among the asset creation households (284), nearly 55 per cent of them approached the GP head to get the asset creation, followed by those who approached the Gram Panchayat Secretary (GPS)/Gram Rozgar Sevak (GRS) (40 per cent), offered by GP head (seven per cent), selected for the benefit by the GS (0.7 per cent) and paid commission to get it (0.35 per cent). Among the social groups, to get the asset creation, 57 per cent of SC households approached the GP head and 69 per cent of ST households approached the GPS/GRS, a majority of the BC beneficiary households approached the GP head (56 per cent) and in a similar way, 56 per cent of OC category households approached the GP head (Table 5).
Type of Asset Creation in Sample Households in Karnataka
Abraham (2016) studied the creation of assets in the four south Indian states of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The durability of assets created under MGNREGA varied from place to place. The study finds that a majority of the assets required maintenance. Our study identified a total of 33 assets created in 2014-2015. Among the assets, the construction of livestock shelters (30 per cent) were the highest, followed by farm pond (21 per cent), toilet
/sanitation (15 per cent), plantation and farm forestry (12 per cent), and dug wells, sericulture and development of fallow or waste lands (three per cent). In general, most of the rural households own cattle/animal sheds. To ensure safety of cattle or
protection from the rain/cold, households constructed cattle sheds/houses. Within the SC community, 43 per cent benefited through the construction of livestock shelters, followed by house construction (29 per cent), dugs (14 per cent) and development of fallow or waste land (14 per cent). In the case of ST households, 40 per cent benefited from the construction of livestock and 24 per cent of BC households benefited from the construction of livestock shelters, and in the case of OC, 25 per cent of them benefited from plantation and farm forestry (Table 6). The assets creation increased during 2015-2016 as compared to 2014-2015.
In the mentioned year, 79 households benefited from assets creation. Among the households, 52 per cent come from BC category, followed by SC (22 per cent) ST (15 per cent), and OC category (11 per cent) households benefited during the mentioned year. Among the assets, 39 per cent of them benefited from livestock shelters, followed by house construction (20 per cent), farm pond (14 per cent), toilet/sanitation (11 per cent), water recharge/ irrigation (five per cent), sericulture (four per cent), dug wells (one per cent), other water harvesting structures (one per cent), horticulture (one per cent), plantation and farm forestry (one per cent), and development of fallow or waste lands (one per cent). Within the social groups, 35 per cent of the SC households benefited from livestock shelters followed by house construction (24 per cent) and toilets (12 per cent). In the case of ST, 42 per cent of them benefited from livestock shelters and nearly 37 per cent of BC households benefited from livestock shelters and 20 per cent from house construction. In a similar way, 56 per cent of OC category households benefited from livestock shelters (Table 6).
A Neetha and Dimple Tresa Abraham (year not mentioned) in their study stated that the livestock shelter was the major work under category-B and that a majority of the households utilized it in Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh (MP) states. The study observed that the beneficiaries’ prospects improved and the assets creation was useful for creating hygienic sheds for cattle rearing, and incomes were rising due to these sheds. The incomes were earned through developing the dairy sector and the incomes rose higher in Karnataka as compared to MP. According to the study, livestock infrastructure works had a greater impact in terms of improvement in income when constructed under MGNREGA in Karnataka. As per the study’s observation, a majority of the works was maintained and this infrastructure helped in directly or indirectly improving the income and it varied from household to household. It not only improved the beneficiary households’ income but also the cattle/animals housed under such improved shelters were disease free; the cattle in turn yielded the dung and urine that was utilized for fertilizing crops, improving yields. This was a positive sign in Karnataka. The construction of cattle sheds is a labour intensive work, and hence many rural labourers benefited.
According to our study, a majority of people constructed livestock shelters and benefited in different ways. A majority (198) of the households were benefited in 2016-2017. Among the households, BCs (51 per cent) were the highest, followed by OC category (24 per cent), SC (15 per cent) and ST (11 per cent). Among SCs, 38 per cent were benefited by the construction of livestock shelters followed by houses (34 per cent). An equal percentage of STs were benefited by the construction of livestock shelters (33 per cent) and houses (33 per cent). In the case of BC households, 39 per cent of them benefited by livestock shelters, followed by houses construction (30 per cent) and the construction of farm ponds (12 per cent). The OC category households benefited by house construction (35 per cent) and livestock shelters (31 per cent). Among the all activities, 36 per cent of the households’ were benefited by livestock shelters (Table 6).
Type of Asset Creation during Three Years (2014-2015 to 2016-2017)
The study pooled together three years and analyzed the data. The data results reveal that 284 households benefited from 310 individual assets. Here 26 of the households benefited by two assets. In the study area, 36 per cent of them benefited from the construction of livestock shelters, followed by house (27 per cent), farm pond (10 per cent), plantation and farm forestry (seven per cent) and the lowest asset was horticulture (one per cent). A study by Chauhan and Rajdeep (2016) finds that nearly 80 per cent of respondents had livestock shelters at the time of the interview. Our study data reveals that livestock shed construction was more than other assets.
In a similar way, our study results reveal that among the social group asset creation households, BC (51 per cent) were the highest, followed by OC category (20 per cent), SC (17 per cent) and ST (12 per cent). Nearly 38 per cent of the SC households constructed livestock shelters followed by house construction (30 per cent) and the lowest assets created included other water harvesting structures (two per cent), horticulture (two per cent) and development of fallow or waste lands (two per cent). Among the ST households, 37 per cent constructed livestock shelters and the lowest assets were created in plantation and farm forestry (eight per cent). There was not much difference in BC households and nearly 37 per cent of households constructed livestock shelters and similar results were found in OC households (Table 7). The construction of farm ponds and other water harvesting structures and dug wells helped to increase the beneficiaries’ income. A study by Neethaand Dimple Tresa Abraham observed that in districts like Tumakuru and Ramanagara in Karnataka, check dams and farm ponds were constructed to tackle the climate stress, particularly scarcity of water. The construction of check dams, farm ponds and other irrigation facilities improved income in many ways. Because of availability of water during a critical phase, crop yield may be increased. In a similar way, the net sown area has a possibility to increase and due to this reason, the total income may be increased. Our study showed that households also
benefited by irrigation facilities and improved their income through the farm activities.
Irrigation Facility for Individual Assets under MGNREGA
The study examined how many farmers cultivated a particular crop before the asset creation period and how many acres were cultivated after asset creation. Through this, we were able to know if cultivation of land increased after MGNREGA. According to Kundu and Sanjib (2016) MGNREGA generated income for the poor and improved the agricultural productivity and profitability in the long run by creating assets. Land development, water conservation, water harvesting, drought proofing, flood control, etc., serve to improve the yield per unit of land and this leads to increase in agricultural growth. The study emphasized on irrigation facilities provided under MGNREGA in the area. The study found that MGNREGA raised the irrigation facilities and due to this, cropping intensity was increased in almost all selected districts in West Bengal (WB) state during the study period. Our study results reveal that before asset creation, 37 households cultivated different crops namely mulberry (12 households), ragi (six households), areca-nut (four households), jowar (4 households), coconut (two households), maize (two households), paddy (two households), sugarcane (two households) and wheat (one household). All 37 households’ total cultivated land was 68 acres and their (37 households) income earned was ₹13,50,950. All the households were benefited by irrigation facilities from MGNREGA during our study period. After this benefit, their total land cultivation increased by 4.25 acres overall. The land increased in BC category households, and mulberry crop was cultivated in increased land. Sugarcane was cultivated in one acre of land that belongs to a BC
category farmer. In a similar way, 0.50 acres increased in the cultivation of areca nut and the cultivators belonged to BC category. The value of crop increased in almost all crops. For a few crops, the total value increased a little and they are: mulberry, sugarcane, areca nut and paddy (Table 6). The production was considerably increased, and due to this reason, the value of the crop increased significantly.
Land Development Facility for Individual Assets Creation under MGNREGA
Rao (2014) has stated that the beneficiary farmers were confidently overcoming poverty through multiple sources of MGNREGA project. Our study shows some of the farmers were benefited through the land development programme under MGNREGA. Before being benefited by MGNREGA land development activity, a total of eight households cultivated different crops namely: Horse gram (two households) followed by ragi (two households), areca-nut (one household), coconut (one household), paddy (one household) and sugarcane (one household). The total eight households’ land was 12 acres. After being benefited by land development facility from MGNREGA, the same eight farmers cultivated the same crops, but they extended 1.5 acres of land. The extended 0.5 acres of land was cultivated with horse gram and the farmer belongs to BC category. In the same way, 0.5 acres were increased for ragi and sugarcane (0.5 acre) farmers and the farmers belong to BC category (Table 9). The study observed that BC category households were benefited more as compared to other social groups.
Horticulture and Sericulture Individual Assets Creation under MGNREGA
The study’s sample households did not benefit from fisheries related activities. Out of the total sample households, only 15 households benefited from horticulture assets creation; social group wise details are presented in Table 10. The SC and ST did not get benefit under horticulture component and it indicated that they may not be aware of the information about horticulture. The sericulture assets were created in Ramanagara district. According to Gupta (2013) sericulture is high employment and low capital intensive. This is the most labour-friendly and socio- economic improvement sector. India is one of the biggest raw material customers in this field in the global market. Most of the sericulture sector workers in Karnataka are women. The Ramanagara cocoon market is the biggest market in Karnataka. The main findings of the study were: The number of female workers who worked in the households, access of technology, and number of man hours created have an impact on employment generation. Our study data covered Herindyapanahalli GP, where mulberry crop is cultivated under sericulture. Thus the silk market was located in Ramanagara district and this is the biggest silk market in Karnataka. According to Krishna kumare, et. al. (2017) Karnataka produced more silk than any other state in India. The main findings of the study are: The cultivated area in Karnataka increased from 1,77,943 hectares in 2008- 2009 to 2,08,947 hectares in 2015-2016. In addition to that, the production of silk Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) had increased by four per cent from 2003-2004 to 2014-2015. In our study, five horticulture households also benefited from MGNREGA. After asset creation, their total annual income increased from
₹2,08,000 to ₹2,75,500. The BC average income was ₹8,750 and followed by OC category (₹40,500) (Table 10). The sericulture farmers were benefited but the details were not available at the time of our investigation.
Conclusions
The government of India has provided for the creation of various durable assets under MGNREGA scheme in India. The created assets were very useful to the farmers to extend their land and improve their agriculture production. The main
findings of our study are: Nearly 45 per cent of the farmers benefited by assets creation during our study. Among the social groups, assets creation was more in the OC community. The study observed that OC households were having more land due to this reason they benefited more assets as compared to SC, ST and BC households.
Our study identified total 33 assets created in 2014-2015. Among them, the construction of livestock shelters was the highest. The assets creation increased during 2015-2016 as compared to 2014-2015. In the mentioned year (2015-2016),
79 households benefited from assets creation. Among the households, BCs benefited more. A majority of the rural households benefited in 2016-2017. The study examined how many farmers cultivated a particular crop in the pre- and post- asset creation period and many acres were cultivated in post-asset creation. The total land cultivation increased by 4.25 acres. It indicates the cultivation of land increased. All crops value was increased. Through land development, individual asset creation was extended by 1.5 acres of land during our study period. The total households that benefited from livestock shelters were 113.A small number of households benefited from horticulture asset creation and sericulture under the MGNREGA scheme. According to our study, a majority of them constructed livestock shelters and benefited at different levels.
References
Abraham, Vinoj (2016), MGNREGA: Political Economy, Local Governance and Asset Creation in South India, Working Paper 471, CDS.
Bhargava, Rashmi (2013), An Empirical Study of Assets Creation through Employment Generation by MGNREGA in Rajasthan, Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 4(19):117- 126.
Chauhan, Kalpesh kumar Ambalal and Rajdeep Singha (2016), An Analysis of the Impact of MGNREGA within the Livelihood Framework: Study of a Gujarat Village, India, The International Journal of Humanities and Social Studies, 4(12): 26-30.
Gupta, Harshit (2013), Employment Generating Factors in Sericulture in Karnataka and Marketing Research on Promotional Strategies of KSIC, Fiscal Policy Institute Project Report, Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow.
ILO Social Protection Department (2016), Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, ILO, pp.1-4.
Krishnakumare, B., S. Niranjan and Sneha Dohare (2017), Agribusiness Potential of Sericulture in Karnataka, International Journal of Commerce and Business Management, 10(1): 42-47.
Kundu, Amit and Sanjib Talukdar (2016), Asset Creation through National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) and Its Impact on West Bengal Agriculture: A District Level Analysis, Journal of Global Economy, 12(3): 151-166.
Maruthi, I. and Pesala Peter (2018), Factors Influence to Participate MGNREGA Work: A Case Study in Shettihalli GP in Karnataka, Journal of Economic Policy and Research, 13(2): 47-56.
———- (2019), A Decade of MGNREGA Participatory Assessments and Way Forward in Karnataka State, Report submitted to NIRD&PR, Hyderabad.
Mishra, Sushanta Kumar (2011), Asset Creation under MGNREGA: A Study in Three Districts of Madhya Pradesh, IMJ, 3(3):19-30.
Narayanan, Sudha, Krushna Ranaware, Upasak Das and Ashwini Kulkarni (2014), MGNREGA Works and their Impacts: A Rapid Assessment in Maharashtra, Final Report submitted to the Government of Maharashtra, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research Goregaon East, Mumbai 400065.
Neetha, N. and Dimple Tresa Abraham (2017), MGNREGA, Asset Creation and Rural Development, An Evaluation of Category B Assets in Selected States, Centre for Women’s Development Studies (CWDS), New Delhi.
Peter, Pesala (2021), Who Participated in MGNREGA Work: A Case Study of Andhra Pradesh, The Indian Journal of Economics, Vol.CI, PART-III (402): 371-385.
Peter, Pesala and I. Maruthi (2019), Impact of MNREGA on Rural Households: Selected GPs in (North) Karnataka, IASSI Quarterly: Contributions to Indian Social Sciences, 38(3): 492-505.
———- (2020), Asset Creation through MGNREGA – A Study of Yellur Gram Panchayat in Udupi
District of Karnataka, Journal of Economic Policy and Research, 15(2): 2-13.
———– (2020), Assets Inequalities: A Study of Antharagange Gram Panchayat in Shivamogga
District of Karnataka, Journal of Economic Policy and Research, 15(1): 78-87.
———- (2020), Impact of MGNREGA on Labour Migration: A Case Study of Devaragudinihal GP,
Dharwad district, Karnataka, BJPA, XVII(1): 123-134.
———- (2021), Participation in Rural Labour Work under MGNREGA: Case of Karnataka, Journal
of Rural Development, 40(5): 650-664.
Rao, K. Hanumantha (2014), Can the Rights-based NREGA Reduce Poverty? Debating Poverty, pp.
26-31.
Reddy, P. Divakar, N. Vijay Kumar, T.M. Dinesh and K. Shruthi (2016), Impact of MGNREGA on Income, Expenditure, Savings Pattern of Beneficiaries in North-Eastern Karnataka, Economic Affairs, 61(1):101-106.
Reddy, Y. Gangadhara and Aswath, G.R. (2016), Performance of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in Karnataka, India, International Research Journal of Social Sciences, 5(1): 15-19.
Saikia, Mayuri (2017), Sustainable Asset Creation under MGNREGA Scheme in Assam-A Study of Sivasagar and Dhemaji Districts, International Journal of Scientific Research and Management (IJSRM), 5(10): 7308-7323.
Shenbagaraj, P. and S. Arockiasamy (2013), Impact of MGNREGA on Local Development: A Study of Ottapidaram Blocks in Thoothukudi District, Tamil Nadu, International Journal of Innovative Research and Development, 2(4):37-47.
Singh, Raminder Jit and P.K. Jain (2017), MGNREGA and Creation of Durable Assets: A Study in Sangrur and Barnala Districts of Punjab, India, International Journal of Human Resource Management and Research, 7(1): 29-36.
Thangamalar, S.S., Kalaivani S. Palaniswamy and K.R. Ashok (2016), Impact of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act activities on agriculture as perceived by Farmers, Journal of Social Sciences, 12(2): 113-116.