MGNREGA AND WOMEN EMPOWERMENT: A Study of Pannur Village in Chittoor District of Andhra Pradesh in India

MGNREGA AND WOMEN EMPOWERMENT: A Study of Pannur Village in Chittoor District of Andhra Pradesh in India
AJAERD
MGNREGA AND WOMEN EMPOWERMENT: A Study of Pannur
Village in Chittoor District of Andhra Pradesh in India
*1P. Srinivas, 2K. Pandyaraj
1,2
Department of Economics, Vikrama Simhapuri University PG Centre, Kavali, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh,
India
Women empowerment essentially refers to empowering women to change power relations
between them and men in their favour. Public works programmes in India have traditionally
offered a unique opportunity for women to earn cash incomes and provide resources particularly
to poor women that would enable human capital investment especially for children’s education
and nutrition apart from improving women’s bargaining power within the household. The National
Rural Employment Guarantee Act is no exception. MGNREGA offers 33 percent employment to
women, guarantees child care facility at the worksite and provides scope to women to participate
in planning and implementation of MGNREGA and in conducting social audit as members of Gram
Sabha and of Gram Panchayat. Available research studies have shown that women have
participated in MGNREGA on a large scale in most states in India; have received equal wages with
men and earned incomes of their own; single women households and female–headed households
have particularly benefited by MGNREGA as it provided them minimum incomes and food
security; and participating women in general are frequently feeling empowered as they have now
some say in decision making. The present study is an attempt to measure the impact of
MGNREGA on women empowerment and gender equality and the factors attributed to potential
of women empowerment under MGNREGA. The study reveals that MGNREGA can enhance the
women empowerment even though the objective of MGNREGA is either women empowerment or
gender equality.
Keywords: MGNREGA, Public Work Programmes, Women Empowerment, Gender equality, Food Security, Equal wages.
INTRODUCTION
Empowerment refers to increasing strength of individuals
or communities in the different spheres of life such as
economic, political, social, spiritual etc. It also refers to
instilling confidence in people in their own capacities.
Women’s empowerment essentially refers to empowering
women to change power relations between them and men
in their favour. Women in general and women in
developing countries in particular are observed to be
lagging behind men in the different spheres of life such as,
labour and employment, health and nutrition, education
and skills, asset ownership, political and social
participation etc., with the result that power of decision
making in the multiple spheres of life lies more with men
than with women.
Gender Equality and empowerment of women is
recognized globally as a key element to achieve progress
in all areas. UNDP focuses on gender equality and
women’s empowerment not only as human rights; but also,
because they are a pathway to achieving the Millennium
Development Goals and sustainable development. A
critical aspect of promoting gender equality is the
empowerment of women with a focus on identifying and
redressing power imbalances and giving women more
*Corresponding author: Pechetti Srinivas, Assistant Professor,
Department of Economics, Vikrama Simhapuri University PG
Centre, Kavali, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh, India. E-mail:
drpsrinivasvsu@gmail.com, Tel.: +91-9440586837, Fax:
08626243687 Co-author E-mail: kpandyaraj88@gmail.com
Journal of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development
Vol. 4(2), pp. 436-453, May, 2018. © www.premierpublishers.org, ISSN: 2167-0477
Research Article

Srinivas and Pandyaraj 437
autonomy to manage their own lives. Gender Equality and
empowerment of women is recognized globally as a key
element to achieve progress in all areas. Women’s
employment is a critical factor in their progression towards
economic independence and is also considered as an
indicator of their overall status in society (Mammen and
Paxson 2008). The gender gap in employment has
macroeconomic implications as well. Based on data from
2000-2004, the United Nations Economic and Social
Commission for Asia and Pacific (ESCAP) estimates that
if India’s female labour force participation reached parity
with that of United States (86%), its gross domestic
product (GDP) would increase by 4.2 per cent a year and
growth rate by 1.08 per cent representing an annual gain
of $19 billion. A 10 per cent permanent increase in female
labour force participation would lead to increase in growth
rates by 0.3 per cent (UNESCAP 2007).
Public works programmes in India have traditionally
offered a unique opportunity for women to earn cash
incomes in a context where, too often, the ability of women
to work outside the home is severely constrained by social
norms. Existing scholarship suggests that women often
participated overwhelmingly in these programmes to the
extent that some of them were referred to as “women’s
programmes” (Dev 1995). Public works programmes have
therefore been a subject of considerable interest from the
perspective of gender. Further, public works schemes may
provide resources to poor women that would enable
human capital investment especially for children’s
education and nutrition apart from improving women’s
bargaining power within the household (Quisumbing and
Yisehac 2005).
The experiences of previous wage employment
programmes could not able to yield targeted results and as
a result the rural employment scenario was suffering due
to lack of opportunities and built pressure on urban areas
through migration. The severe droughts on one hand and
depletion of natural resources on the other hand have
eroded the base for wage employment opportunities in
rural areas. Further the mechanisation of agriculture
resulting in reducing the labour component leads to
erosion of earning capacity of rural land less poor.
Globalisation has ensured that women’s labour is further
casualised with emphasis on lesser means, education and
skills and fewer productive assets than men. Given their
additional responsibilities within the households, their
range of employment option is severely limited. This
feminisation of poverty is associated with a concentration
of women in the informal sector in agriculture, putting them
beyond the reach of traditional social security measures.
Women thus find themselves vulnerable, are caught in
between unorganised work and household responsibilities,
and lack access to support in the event of seasonal or life
cycle contingencies. In this back ground MGNRGA can be
treated as potential tool for development.
MGNREGA was passed by Indian parliament in 2005 and
the Scheme (each state was expected to design its own
scheme based on the National Guidelines) designed under
the Act was implemented in 200 districts of India in
February 2006. The coverage of the Act was expanded
gradually and since 2008-09 MGNREGA covers the entire
rural India. MGNREGA provides a legal guarantee of 100
days of wage employment at the minimum wage rate
(prevailing in the concerned state) to every rural household
living in rural India. The main objectives of MGNREGA are
(1) to guarantee 100 days of work at the legal minimum
wages to each household that demands work in rural India,
(2) to generate productive assets in the economy and
thereby enhance livelihoods of people and (3) to empower
(Gram) Panchayats and Gram Sabha by ensuring their
participation in the planning and implementation of
MGNREGA, and thereby strengthen decentralized
democracy.
Table 1: Share of women in total person days
generated under MGNREGA (In Percentage)
State 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Andhra Pradesh 58 59 58 58.12 59.55
Assam 24.75 28.13 33.59 36.46 38.99
Arunachal
Pradesh
30.35 30.17 31.64 34.1 34.08
Bihar 34.97 37.32 40.84 43.78 45.37
Chhattisgarh 48.53 49.87 49.02 49.31 51
Gujarat 43.96 43.24 46.21 45.46 44.69
Haryana 41.73 41.65 45.13 45.62 48.78
Himachal
Pradesh
62.51 61.03 63.15 61.8 60.57
Jammu &Kashmir 23.14 25.28 25.28 26.78 24.93
Jharkhand 31.89 32.05 32.75 35.72 37.52
Karnataka 46.59 46.86 47.12 47.21 47.8
Kerala 93.37 92.16 91.27 91.08 87.8
Madhya Pradesh 42.65 43.21 43.15 41.31 38.9
Maharashtra 43.69 43.47 44.52 44.86 47.19
Odisha 33.57 33.78 38.02 39.81 42.84
Punjab 52.74 57.46 57.99 59.97 63.84
Rajasthan 67.76 68.26 69.02 67.03 65.72
Tamilnadu 83.94 85.36 85.02 85.68 84.94
Sikkim 44.76 48.12 47.57 47.88 49.75
Uttar Pradesh 22.17 24.77 29.52 33.21 33.89
Telangana - 61.1 60.77 59.81 61.61
Tripura 47.11 49.36 50.11 49.04 47.63
Uttarakhand 44.87 50.57 51.73 53.97 52.64
West Bengal 35.7 41.4 46.28 46.44 46.33
Nagaland 28.93 31.21 31.28 29.69 28.73
Goa 75.3 74.88 76.9 77.79 77.91
Mizoram 30.16 40.37 37.61 35.17 33.28
Meghalaya 41.62 42.53 42.93 44.28 46.29
Manipur 35.25 38.27 37.26 41.74 52.11
All India 52.82 54.88 55.26 56.13 54.88
Source: MGNREGA Website
As far as women’s role in MGNREGA is concerned,
MGNREGA offers 33 percent employment to women,
guarantees child care facility at the worksite and provides

J. Agric. Econ. Rural Devel. 438
scope to women to participate in planning and
implementation of MGNREGA and in conducting social
audit as members of Gram Sabha and of Gram Panchayat.
Compared to the earlier wage employment programmes,
women like MGNREGA for several reasons. Firstly, it is
locally available. The Act provides that work is to be
provided within five kilo meters of the residence of a
worker. Therefore, women’s participation in the work has
been feasible. Working at a distant place is difficult for
women who happen to take the main responsibility of
household chores. Secondly, there is less chance of
exploitation. There is a statutory minimum wage, and
hence wage earned in NREGA work is much more than
the works under a private employer, more so in backward
areas. The piece rate wages and formation of small and
mixed / solely women groups, have given leverage to
evolve their Journal of Rural and Community Affairs, Vol.
II (I), 2017 Page 43 working norms to suit to their
conditions. Thirdly, there are regularity and predictability of
working hours. As such, not only the members of the
existing workers group prefer NREGA work, but there is
also the possibility of new entrants into the women workers
group. Again, work is limited to eight hours a day, which is
seldom expected in other works. NREGA work can also
protect women against migration in search of work. This
leads to an improvement in the quality of their life through
avoidance of costs and risks associated with migration. It
also helps women who are to look after their kith and kin
suffering from severe ills. Moreover, women can avoid
harsh working conditions and hazardous works at private
work place. Since men want more access to the highly paid
NREGA work (in backward regions), they very often put
resistance to women’s participation (cited in Dheeraja et
al).
In spite of the absence of any direct focus on gender
equality, MGNREGA seems to have benefited women in
multiple ways. In fact, a large number of studies have
shown that women have benefited from MGNREGA in
many ways (Khera and Nayak 2009; Pankaj and Tankha
2010; Hanumantha Rao and Dheeraja 2010; Sudarshan
2011). These studies have shown that women have
participated in MGNREGA on a large scale in most states
in India; have received equal wages with men and earned
incomes of their own; single women households and
female–headed households have particularly benefited by
MGNREGA as it provided them minimum incomes and
food security; and participating women in general are
frequently feeling empowered as they have now some say
in decision making.
In the context of the above findings, the present study
attempts to measure the impact of MGNREGA on women
empowerment and gender equality and the factors
attributed to potential of women empowerment under
MGNREGA.
MGNREGA in Andhra Pradesh
The erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh has
formulated the Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme
called Andhra Pradesh State Rural Employment
Guarantee Scheme in January 2006 in conformity with
National Act. The scheme was renamed as Mahatma
Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme –
Andhra Pradesh (MGNREGS-AP) as amended in the Act.
In the first phase MGNREGS-AP was launched
simultaneously in 13 districts viz. Anantapur, Adilabad,
Chittoor, Kadapa, Nizamabad, Karimnagar, Vizianagaram,
Ranga Reddy, Medak, Khammam, Mahabubnagar,
Warangal, and Nalgonda. In 2007-08 as part of phase II,
the scheme was extended to six more districts viz.
Srikakulam, East Godavari, Prakasam, Nellore, Kurnool
and Guntur, and by 2008-09 and it was extended to the
remaining three districts (West Godavari, Krishna and
Visakhapatnam).
The present Andhra Pradesh state consists of 13 districts,
655 blocks, and 12,996 Gram Panchayats with an area of
1,60, 205 sq kms. It is the eighth largest state in terms of
area. Many research studies have placed Andhra Pradesh
at the forefront in implementing MGNREGS because of the
high level of population awareness of the scheme and
frequent reforms in implementation by Government
relative to other States. Table 2 presents the performance
of MGNREGS in Andhra Pradesh from 2014-15 (after
bifurcation from erstwhile Andhra Pradesh) to 2017-18.
Table 2: Performance of MGNREGS in Andhra Pradesh
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
No of HHs
Demanded
employment
3693349 3962840 4014973 4042829
No of HHs
provided
employment
3323630 3572114 3943530 3495342
Total person
days generated
(in lakhs)
1559.04 1992.1 2053.66 1474.13
% Share of SC
person days
22.77 22.58 22.32 22.48
% ST person
days
11.92 12.32 11.19 9.47
% Women
person days
58.65 57.79 58.12 59.55
Average
person days
per HHs
47.22 55.23 51.9 42.9
No of HHs
completed 100
days of
Employment
382545 588822 580839 158437
No of Districts
Covered in
MGNREGS
13 13 13 13
Funds
availability (in
Lakhs)
304071.74 309414.29 421627,07 361208.65
% of Funds
used
93.37 149.82 107.84 100.68
Total Works
Started
8.81 14.05 22.13 13.18
% of works
Completed
72802 431841 1346692 328676
Source: MGNREGA Website

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Area
The study is carried out in Pannur Village (Vijayapuram
Mandal) in Chittoor District of Andhra Pradesh state in
India. Its population is 3254 (2011 census) with most of the
households are either cultivators or agricultural labour and
the major crops are Bajra, Sugar cane and Paddy during
Kharif and in Rabi the major crops are Sunflower,
Sugarcane and Chillies. The total geographical area of the
village is 1756 acres out of which Cultivated land is 1162
acres, non-cultivated land is 154 acres and the forest land
is 440 acres. With regard to education, the village has not
taken good advantage of the available facilities and as a
result of that the literacy rate is only 55.5 per cent. Pannur
is a border village to Tamilnadu State so that the people in
this village can speak both Telugu and Tamil fluently. The
village has very good socio-economic infrastructure. It has
better road links with CC roads and good transportation
facilities with a regular bus service along with auto
rickshaws in and out throughout the day.
Objectives
This study examines the impact of MGNREGS at the
household level, i.e. to study impact of earned incomes of
women (and men) on household consumption, savings
and investments, economic empowerment of women in
terms of their control over household resources, social
impact on intra-household power relations between men
and women and overall well-being of men and women in
the household in the areas of health, education, nutrition
etc. This study was taken up on a pilot basis in the selected
village as a part of Ph.D. Programme.
Methodology
The selection of the sample village is based on the highest
participation of women (91 per cent) in MGNREG Scheme
in the district in the reference year 2016-17. The study is
based on both primary and secondary data. Initially a
careful house-listing was done through a three-page
schedule to collect basic information about all the
households and their participation in MGNREGS. The
village has 805 households (about 10 houses are closed),
but, as the data revealed, 849 job cards were issued in
Pannur. This is because a household was defined as a
nuclear household under MGNREGS. Therefore, an adult
single man as well as an adult single woman are also
treated as a household.
Based on the occupational distribution of the households
a stratified random sample of 50 women households was
drawn for an in-depth study. Primary data is collected
through a structured schedule to capture in-depth
information on the multiple impacts of MGNREGA from the
sample households. The Secondary data on various
aspects like physical and financial performance viz.
Number of job cards issued, No of households
participated, total number of person days created, Average
person days per household, Average wages obtained
under MGNREGA etc. were collected from national
website www.nrega.nic.in and state website
www.nrega.ap.gov.in and also from the Official records of
Pannur Panchayat. Simple mathematics like percentages
and weighted averages are used in the study.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
MGNREGS in Pannur
MGNREGS was introduced in Pannur in the year 2006-07.
Subsequently the Village Assembly, Gram Sabha was
called in the beginning of 2007, where the Sarpanch
informed the village about the act, the rights under the act
and the procedures to be followed to take advantage of
MGNREGS. Since then the MGNREGS has been
implementing well in the village with support from the
district and block authorities.
Table 3: Participation in MGNREGA
Year
Total
HHs
Partici-
pating
HHs
% HH
Partici-
pating
Person
days
Average
person
days
No of HHs
completed
100 days
Average
wage
per day
2012-
13
805 403 50.06 9932 24.64 4 70.49
2013-
14
805 503 62.48 25580 50.85 49 100.09
2014-
15
805 479 59.50 17510 36.55 7 132.21
2015-
16
805 470 58.38 23873 50.79 18 109.18
2016-
17
805 505 62.73 27061 53.58 26 120.82
Source: Official Records of Pannur Panchayat
Table 3 presents the status of participation of households
in MGNREGA during the last five years. The participation
of households in MGNREGS is significant, which ranges
between 50.6 to 62.73 per cent and the average days of
MGNREGS work has been about 25-54 days, less than
stipulated 100 days during the last five years. However,
the number of households completed 100 days are very
less and the maximum number of households are 49 out
of 503 participating households (10 per cent) in the year
2013-14. The average wage rate has been above Rs.
70.00 in 2012-13, rising to Rs. 132 in 2014-15. It was
observed that all the male members in the HHs usually
engaged in other paid work whereas women prefer
MGNREGA work in the village and both men and women
are getting equal wages in MGNREGA.

Table 4: Expenditure on MGNREGA in Pannur
Year
Labour
cost
(in lakh)
Material cost
(in lakh)
Total
(in lakh)
% of Labour
cost to total
cost
2012-13 7.00 0.35 7.35 95.23
2013-14 25.6 1.83 27.43 93.32
2014-15 23.15 4.67 27.82 83.21
2015-16 26.06 5.14 31.2 83.53
2016-17 32.7 26.67 59.37 55.08
Total 114.51 38.66 153.17 74.76
Source: Official Records of Pannur Panchayat
Table 4 presents the expenditure pattern during 2012-13
to 2016-17 on MGNREGA in Pannur Village. The total
amount spent on MGNREGS in the village in the five years
from 2012-13 to 2016-17 is Rs.153.17 lakh, with the share
of the wage component on an average being 74.76 per
cent and the share of material component on an average
being 25.24 per cent. This is a positive sign, as it indicates
that 25 percent funds have been spent on the material
component to construct durable assets.
Impact of MGNREGS on Women in Pannur Village
MGNREGA has potential to enhance women’s economic
independence through which women empowerment since
it is gender sensitive in its formulation. Through the various
provisions and guidelines in the Act, the legislation
visualizes that women have an equitable access to work,
affirmative conditions at work/on sites, equal payment of
wages and representation in decision making bodies. To
assess the women empowerment and the factors
attributed to it, a pilot study was taken up by selecting only
women households in Pannur Village of Chittor Districts of
Andhra Pradesh during June 2017.The data has been
analysed and interpreted in order to know the impact of
MGNREGA and participation of women in the selected
village.
Table 5 presents the distribution of sample households on
the basis of their age, marital status, Education and
Occupation. As regards the age groups of the participants,
the highest participation is from the age group of 36 to 45
years constituting 48 per cent followed by 26-35 years and
then by 46-55 age group. Again, married women constitute
88 percent of the total MGNREGS workers, followed by
widows/ divorcees/ deserted women, who constitute about
10 percent of the total participants. Based on the
educational status of the respondents 20 per cent are
illiterates, 20 per cent were completed high school
education, 18 per cent were completed primary education,
16 per cent were completed secondary education, another
16 per cent are literates and only 10 per cent of the
respondents were completed above high school
education. With regard to occupation, 88 per cent of the
respondents are small and marginal farmers, 8 per cent of
the respondents are agricultural labour and only 4 per cent
of the respondents are non-agricultural labour.
Table 5: Distribution of the respondents on the basis of their
Age, Marital Status, Education and Occupation (N=50)
Indicator No. of respondents Percentage
Age
Below 25 years 3 6
26 to 35 12 24
36 to 45 24 48
46 to 55 7 14
56 to 65 4 8
Total 50 100
Marital Status
Married 44 88
Unmarried 1 2
Widow 5 10
Total 50 100
Education
Illiterate 10 20
Literate 8 16
Primary 9 18
Secondary 8 16
High School 10 20
And above 5 10
Total 50 100
Occupation
Farmers 44 88
Agricultural Labour 4 8
Non-Agricultural
labour
2 4
Total 50 100
Source: Field Study
i) Changes in Income levels
MGNREGA enables the households especially the women
households to enhance their income levels with the
provisions in the Act like equal wages, equitable access to
work, specific working hours, work site facilities, timely
wages etc. Table 6 presents the annual income levels of
the sample households before and after participation of
MGNREGS. There is a substantial increase in the income
levels of the households after participation of MGNREGA
in the village. It is evident from the table 6, the households
below Rs. 10000/- and Rs. 10001-20000 per annum
before MGNREGA were 26 per cent and 58 per cent
respectively where the households for the same income
levels after participation of MGNREGA were zero per cent.
The households between Rs. 20001-30000 and Rs. 30001
to 40000 per annum before MGNREGA was 14 per cent
and 2 per cent respectively whereas the households for
the same income levels after participation of MGNREGA
were 4 per cent each. The households belong to Rs. 40001
to 50000 and above Rs. 50000 per annum before
MGNREGA were zero per cent each against the
households for the same income levels after participation
of MGNREGA were 20 per cent and 72 per cent. Most of
the studies (Xavier and Mari 2014, Khera and Nayak 2009;
Hanumantha Rao and Dheeraja 2010) supported this
argument that the income levels of women households
have been increased significantly after their participation
in MGNREGA.

Table 6: Income levels of households before and after participation of MGNREGS
Income Level (per annum)
Before After
No. of respondents Percentage No. of respondents Percentage
Below 10000 13 26 0 0
10001 to 20000 29 58 0 0
20001 to 30000 7 14 2 4
30001 to 40000 1 2 2 4
40001 to 50000 0 0 10 20
above 50000 0 0 36 72
Total 50 100 50 100
Source: Field Study
ii) Changes in Consumption pattern
MGNREGA has made considerable impact on
consumption pattern of the beneficiaries. They have
started using the increased income (basically earned from
MGNREGA employment) towards the purchase of better
clothes, providing quality education to their children, better
health and purchase household assets. Table 7 presents
the share of total income spent by the sample households
towards domestic consumption before and after
participation of MGNREGS. The proportion of total income
spent towards food before MGNREGA stands at 69 per
cent and it is decreased to 34 per cent after participation
of MGNREGA. There is a considerable change in the
consumption pattern towards education, health and
household assets which stands 14 per cent, 5 per cent and
1 per cent respectively before participation of MGNREGA
and it is increased to 26 per cent, 11 per cent and 12 per
cent respectively after participation of MGNREGA. It is
evident from the studies by Xavieri and Mari (2014) and
Bhupual et al (2014) that the greater part of increased
income earned by women through MGNREGA is utilized
for food and education of the children.
Table 7: Share of total income spent towards domestic
consumption before and after participation of
MGNREGS
Item Before (%) After (%)
Food 69 34
Clothing 11 17
Education 14 26
Health 5 11
Household asset 1 12
Total 100 100
Source: Field Study
iii) Changes in savings pattern
Increased income through participation in MGNREGS
induced the sample households to save more for the future
and also makes them to change their pattern of savings.
After participation in MGNREGS the households became
aware of basic financial literacy and they started savings
on modern financial assets like insurance and also started
savings in various Government social security schemes.
Table 8 presents the savings pattern of the sample
households before and after participation of MGNREGS.
The preferential modes of saving of the households before
participation of MGNREGS are Bank Account (40 per
cent), Chits (38 per cent) and SHGs (20 per cent) and after
participation of MGNREGS, their preferential modes of
savings has been changed towards modern financial
assets like insurance (34 per cent) and various
Government social security schemes (36 per cent) etc. It
is evident from the study of Vinita Arora et al (2013) which
reveals that majority of women could be able to save some
money due to increased income only because of
MGNREGA.
Table 8: Saving pattern of the households before and
after participation of MGNREGS
Mode of
saving
Before After
No. of
respondents
Percentage
No. of
respondents
Percentage
Bank
account
20 40 10 20
Insurance 1 2 12 34
Chits 19 38 5 10
SHGS 10 20 10 20
Government
schemes
0 0 13 36
Total 50 100 50 100
Source: Field Study
iv) Changes in investment pattern
As a result of increase in overall income level of the
households due to participation of both wife and husband
in MGNREGS, they have started using this income for
investing on various physical and financial assets like
purchasing gold, investment on constructing new house,
purchase of cattle and purchase of implements useful for
agriculture. Table 9 shows that the investment of sample
households before and after participation of MGNREGS.
The priority areas of investment by the households before
MGNREGA are land (62 per cent), home (16 per cent) and
cattle (16 per cent). After participation in MGNREGS the
priority areas of investment changed towards purchase of
gold (22 per cent), agricultural implements (22 per cent),
cattle (30 per cent) and home (20 per cent).It is evident
from the study of Gupta and Ahmad (2014) that the
increased income through MGNREGA provided the poor

and women improved their means to invest on income
generating activities or assets thus leads to financial
inclusion.
Table 9: Investment pattern of households before and
after participation of MGNREGS
Area of
investment
Before After
No. of
respon-
dents
Percentage
No. of
respon-
dents
Percentage
Investment on
land
31 62 3 6
Investment on
gold
0 0 11 22
Investment on
house /home
8 16 10 20
Investment on
cattle
8 16 15 30
Investment on
agriculture
implements
1 2 11 22
Any other 2 4 0 0
Total 50 100 50 100
Source: Field Study
v) Changes in Decision making of women on domestic
spending and savings
Table 10: Decision making of women on spending
and savings before and after MGNREGS (Percentage)
Sl.
No
Item
Before After
Self Husband Both Self Husband Both
1 Food 44 20 36 88 2 10
2 Clothing 14 66 20 46 4 50
3
Children’s
Education
30 48 22 52 6 42
4 Health 50 18 32 78 10 12
5
Household
assets
18 72 10 50 14 36
6 Transport 20 58 22 54 8 38
7
Social and
religious
events
34 36 30 94 0 6
8 Savings 44 40 16 92 2 6
Source: Field Study
Decision making by women on spending and savings at
their homes is one of the important indicators of women
empowerment. Keeping this in view, the sample
households were enquired about the degree of change in
decision making towards spending on domestic goods like
food, clothing, children’s education, health, household
assets, transport, social and religious events and savings.
Table 10 presents the proportion of change in decision
making of women on spending towards domestic goods
and savings before and after participation of MGNREGS.
It reveals that there is a positive change in the decision
making on spending for various domestic goods and
savings which were earlier dominated by male members
in the family. This may be due to contribution made by the
women to the family income through wages obtained in
MGNREGA. The studies undertaken by Ministry of Rural
Development, Govt. of India (2015) and Woodrow Wilson
School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton
University (2012) supports this argument that the decision-
making power of women in household finances and
community affairs has increased considerably after
participation in MGNREGA.
vi) Potential of Women Empowerment
For assessing the women empowerment potential of
MGNREGA by means of a field study, the following factors
have been considered: (i) Better Financial planning and
discipline, (ii) Freedom to spend and save the earnings,
(iii) Freedom from moneylenders and bankers, (iv)
Deciding on purchase of household goods, (v) Freedom to
decide on children’s education, (vi) Raising voice against
injustice, (vii) Expressing opinion in meetings/discussions,
(viii) Election campaigning / contesting in elections,
(ix)Public speaking ability.
Suitable weights are attached to the responses of the
respondents viz. the 50 women workers under study as
follows: ‘Yes’ Weight 2, ‘To Some Extent’ Weight 1, and
‘No’ Weight 0. The factors leading to women
empowerment can be categorized based on their
empowerment potential into three major groups viz. High
Empowerment (Average Score above 1.33), Moderate
Empowerment (Average Score between 0.67 to 1.33) and
Low Empowerment (Average Score below 0.67).
From Table 11, it is noted that MGNREGA has got an
appreciably high level of potential for women
empowerment. This is evidences from the high average
score of 1.61 considering all the nine factors together.
Besides, it is noted that the social empowerment potential
is the highest compared to economic and social factors.
This may be attributed to very high score for individual
factors like freedom to decide on children’s education
(3.36) and deciding on purchase of household goods
(1.68). However, it is to be noted that the average score
for the factor of raising voice against injustice is stands
moderate (1.12).With respect to economic empowerment
too, the overall potential for empowerment is high at the
level of 1.56; and among the three individual factors in this
group the factor ‘better financial discipline’ has got a very
high score of 1.64, followed by another factor ‘Freedom to
spend and save the earnings’ with a very high score of
1.54 while the third factor ‘freedom from money lenders’
has also got a high score of 1.50. With respect to political
empowerment, the average score for the three factors put
together (1.23) as well as the individual scores for the three
different factors are quite moderate. In short, it may be
pointed out that MGNREGA implementation has given rise
to very high level of social empowerment, high level of
economic empowerment and quite moderate level of
political empowerment of rural women.

Table 11: Factors attributed to potential of women Empowerment under MGNREGA
Factors related to Socio Economic and Political
Empowerment of Women
Yes (Weight
2 )
To Some extent
(Weight 1)
No
(Weight 0)
Total
Score
Weight Average
Score
Better and financial discipline 34 14 2 82 1.64
Freedom to spend and save the earnings 34 9 7 77 1.54
Freedom from money lenders and bankers 29 17 4 75 1.5
Total Score for 3 factors on Economic Empowerment 234 1.56
Deciding on purchase of household goods 40 4 6 84 1.68
Freedom to decide on children’s education 78 12 5 168 3.36
Raising voice against injustice 17 22 9 56 1.12
Total Score for 3 factors on Social Empowerment 308 2.05
Expression opinion meetings/discussions 22 21 7 65 1.30
Election campaigning/contesting in elections 20 25 5 65 1.30
Public speaking ability 12 30 8 54 1.08
Total Score for 3 factors on Political Empowerment 184 1.23
Grand Total Score for the 9 Social, Economic and Political factors 726 1.61
Source: Field Study
CONCLUSION
The study reveals that MGNREGA can enhance the
women empowerment even though the objective of
MGNREGA is neither women empowerment nor Gender
equality. This is because MGNREGA does provide women
(both engaged in the labour market or working as
housewives) an opportunity to earn (minimum) wages and
incomes; to mobilize to develop collective strength (in the
form of SHGs or in any other forms); and to participate in
village level institutions like Gram Sabhas, Vigilance
Committees, Social audits etc. The study has shown that
by accessing these opportunities, women MGNREGA and
women’s empowerment tend to influence intra-household
relationships in their favour and tend to acquire improved
bargaining within and outside the home. Though these
developments do break some barriers to gender equality,
they do not remove all the barriers to women’s
empowerment. That is, MGNREGA by and of itself cannot
achieve complete gender equalities in the economy and
the society. This is because empowerment of women,
basically, is brought about not by one programme but by
an enabling macro environment, including enabling
macroeconomic environment.
REFERENCES
Arora V., Upadhyay & Kulshreshtha L. R. (2013). Mahatma
Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee
Scheme; A Unique Scheme for Indian Rural Women,
International Journal of Economic Practices and
Theories,3(2).
Aasif Ali, Shashank Shekhar & Tariq Ahmad (2018).
Women empowerment and gender equality under
MGNREGA: A great revolution in rural life. International
Journal of Advance Research and Development, 3(3).
Battacharyya Susmita (2017). Impact of MGNREGA on
Sustainable Livelihood of Women. Journal of Rural and
Community Affairs, 2(1).
Bhupal, Ganita Sam, Abdoul G. (2014).Female Income
and Expenditure on Children: Impact of the National
Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme in India, Applied
Econometrics and International Development vol. 14(2)
Dev, Mahendra S. (1995). Alleviating Poverty and
Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Scheme.
Economic &Political Weekly, 30 (41-42), 2663-76.
Dheeraja C. & Madhuri N.V. (2013). Report on Factors
facilitating participation of women in Mahatma Gandhi
NREGS. Hyderabad, National Institute of Rural
Development.
Hanumant Rao & Dheeraja, C.2010.Report on changing
gender relations through MGNREGS in the states of
Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. Hyderabad, National
Institute of Rural Development.
Govind Kelkar (2011). MGNREGA: Change and Continuity
in Gender Relations. Journal of Economic and Social
Development, VII (2)
Gupta S K & Ahmad Fearooz, (2014).MGNREGA &
Financial Inclusion- A Case Study, International Journal
of Scientific Research and Education, 2 (10), 2062-
2070.
Khera, R. & N. Nayak (2009). Women Workers and
Perceptions of the National Rural Employment
Guarantee Act. Economic & Political Weekly, 44 (43),
49-57.
Mammen, Kristin, and Christina Paxson. (2008). Women’s
Work and Economic Development. The Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 14 (4): 141–164.
Ministry of Rural Development, (2015). Report on
Nationwide Evaluation of the Flagship Programme of
Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment
Guarantee Act, Govt. of India, New Delhi
Pankaj, A. and R. Tankha (2009). Women’s Empowerment
through Guaranteed Employment”, New Delhi, Institute
for Human Development.
Quisumbing, A. R. and Y.Yisehac (2005). How Fair Is
Workfare? Gender, Public Works and Employment in
Rural Ethiopia. Policy Research Working Paper Series
3492, The World Bank.

Sudha Narayana, Upasak Das (2014). Women
Participation and Rationing in the Employment
Guarantee Scheme. Economic and Political Weekly,
XLIX (46).
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International
Affairs, Princeton University (2012). MGNREGA
Implementation: A Cross State Comparison
Xavier G, Mari G (2014). Impact of MGNREA on Women
Empowerment with special reference to Kalakkanmoi
Panchayat in Sivgangai District, Tamil Nadu, SSRG
International Journal of Economics and Management
Studies, I(1).
UNESCAP. 2007. Economic and Social Survey of Asia
and the Pacific. Economic and Social Commission for
Asia and the Pacific.
Accepted 23 April 2018
Citation: Srinivas P., Pandyaraj K. (2018). MGNREGA
AND WOMEN EMPOWERMENT: A Study of Pannur
Village in Chittoor District of Andhra Pradesh in India.
Journal of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development,
4(2): 436-453.
Copyright: © 2018 Srinivas and Pandyaraj. This is an
open-access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original author and source are cited.

Annexure I
VIKRAMA SIMHAPURI UNIVERSITY
POST GRADUATE CENTRE, KAVALI
Schedule-I: Questionnaire for Women Beneficiary of MGNREGA
1. Background Information:
1.1). Name of the Block _______________________
1.2). Name of the GP ________________________
1.3). Name of the village ________________________
1.4). What are factors responsible for your participation in MGNREGA ?
1) Economic Factors (Wages)
2) Motivating Factors (Less work higher wages)
3) Social Factor (Change in life style
4) Any other ____________________
2 .Respondent’s Details
2.1) Name ______________________
2.2) Age
1) Below 25 years 2) 26 to 35 3) 36 to 45 4) 46 to 55 5) 56 to 65 6) above 65 years
2.3) Caste
1) SC 2) ST 3) BC 4) OC 5) Minorities
2.4) Education
1) Illiterate 2) Literate 3) Primary 4) Secondary 5) High School 6) And above
2.5) Marital Status
1) Married 2) Unmarried 3) Widow 4) Divorce 5) Public Separated 6) Any other
2.6) Occupation
1) Farmers 2) Agri labour 3) Non Agri Labour 4) Entrepreneur 5) Business 6) Any other
2.7 Husband’s occupation
2.7) No. of Family Members
Age group No of Male No of Females Total
0-3 years
3-6
6-14
15-49
50 Above
2.8) Income levels of households
1) Up to 5000 2) 5001-10,000 3) 10,001- 15,000 4) 15,001 to 20,000 5) 20,001 to 25,000 6) 25,000 above
2.9) Operational land holdings status
1) Land less 2) Below 1 acre 3) 1.0 to 2.5 acres 4) 2.5 to 5 acres 5) 5.0 to 10 acres 6) above 10 acres
2.10 Size of the land holdings___
2.10) Economic dependence in the household
Earners________ Dependence_________
2.11) Do you have ration card?
1) Yes 2) No
2.12). If yes, what type of card you have ?
1) White card 2) Pink Card 3) Anthyodhaya
2.13) Decision making at the house hold level?
1). Food a) Self b) Husband c) Both d) Others
2). Clothing a) Self b) Husband c) Both d) Others
3). Children’s Education a) Self b) Husband c) Both d) Others
4). Health a) Self b) Husband c) Both d) Others
5). Children’s marriages a) Self b) Husband c) Both d) Others
6). Attending Social Gatherings a) Self b) Husband c) Both d) Others
7). Visiting the relatives a) Self b) Husband c) Both d) Others

8). Agricultural activities a) Self b) Husband c) Both d) Others
9). Participation and labour a) Self b) Husband c) Both d) Others
10). Expenditure and self a) Self b) Husband c) Both d) Others
11). Purchasing of assets a) Self b) Husband c) Both d) Others
12). Participation in village development Organizations
a) Self b) Husband c) Both d) Others
13). Participation in rural development Programmes
14). Participation in panchayat raj institutions
3. Awareness of the Respondent about MGNREGA
3.1) Are you aware of MGNREGA?
1) Yes 2). No
3.2) If yes, what is the source of information?
1). Panchayat 2).Media 3). Gram Panchayat 4). Gram Sabha
3.3)Do you have job card?
1).Yes 2). No
3.4). If yes when did you get?__________________________
3.5). Where did you get the job card?
1). Panchayat office 2).Gram Sabah 3).BDO 4).any other______
3.6). Did you face any problem getting the job card?
1).Yes 2).No
3.7). If yes, what kind of problem you faced?
3.8). Are you aware of the provisions related to women in MGNREGA
1). Facilities to be provided at the work site? 1).Yes 2).No
2). Type of works to be taken up 1).Yes 2).No
3). Right to minimum wages 1).Yes 2).No
4). Equal wages for men and women workers 1).Yes 2).No
5). Crediting wages directly to the bank account 1).Yes 2).No
6). Unemployment allowances 1).Yes 2).No
7). Conducting Social audits 1).Yes 2).No
8). Appointing as member in local monitoring committee 1).Yes 2).No
9). Officials to be contacted for grievance redresses 1).Yes 2) .No
10). Works to be provided within a 5km distance 1).Yes 2). No
11) MGNREGA works are boots to agriculture and thud provide more local employment?
1) yes, 2) No
3.9).Did you participate in the social audit in MGNREGA
1).Yes 2). No
3.10). If yes, how many times did you participate during last three years ____________
3.11).Whether your GP is organising social audit
1). Yes 2). No
3.12). If yes, please provide the details during the last five years?
SI.NO Year Numbers
1 2016-17
2 2015-16
3 2014-15
4 2013-14
5 2012-13
3.13).Did you find any loopholes in the utilization of funds by participating in social audit?
1). Yes 2). No
3.14).Whether you are getting work under MGNREGA on demand as prescribe in the act
With in15 days? 1). Yes 2). No
3.15) What is the type of participation in social Audits?
1) Mere participation
2) Participation in discussion

3) Raised doubts
4) Raised objections
5) Fact proving efforts
4. Participation of women
4.1). Why do you prefer MGNREGA work than the other available works ?
1) Work is available locally
2) Higher wage rates than the other works
3) It gives an opportunity to spend money for necessaries/comports
4) No harassments from the employees
5) Prefer to work in their own village
6) No other work is available in village
4.2) How many days you have participated in MGNREGA work during last five years
Sl.
No.
Year Total No of days of
employment
Total No. of days
employment in MGNREGA
% of MGNREGA Employment in
Total employment
1 2016-17
2 2015-16
3 2014-15
4 2013-14
5 2012-13
4.3) Do you felt that the seasons of MGNREGA implementation is suitable (or) match to fill the unemployment seasons
1) Yes 2) No
4.4). Did you face any kind problems in participation of MGNREGA
Work during the last five years
1). Yes 2).No
4.5). If yes, what are the problems you are faced?
1). At the household level ___________________________________
2). At the work site level ____________________________________
3). Any other _____________________________________
4.6).Whether you getting wages equal to the men under MGNREGA?
1). Yes 2). No
4.7). If no, what are reasons for not getting the equal wages
4.8). What is the amount of wages obtained through MGNREGA during the last five years
Sl. No Year Total amount Average wage per day
1 2016-17
2 2015-16
3 2014-15
4 2013-14
5 2012-13
4.9).What is the mode of getting wages?
1). By hand
2). Through bank account
3). Through post office
4). Any other
4.10).Do you have Bank Account/Post Office Account? 1)Yes 2) No
4.11). If yes, what is the purpose of taking bank account and when did you taken it
1). Purpose_______________________
2). Year_______________________
4.12).Whether you are getting the wages within 15 days as per the act
1).Yes 2). No
4.13). What kind of facilities are provided at the work site?
1). Shade? 1).Yes 2). No
2). Crèche 1). Yes 2). No
3). Drinking water 1). Yes 2). No
4). First aid 1). Yes 2). No

5. Impact of MGNREGA on Women
5.1). Main Occupation of the respondent?
Occupation Before After
House-Wife
Farmer
Agri labour
Non agri labour
Business
Entrepreneur
Any other
5.2). Annual income of the HH by main occupation and other occupation
Sources of income Total no of HH Income inRs
Cultivation/Farming
Agricultural labour
Non-Agri labour
1)
2)
Private job
Govt job
Business
Entrepreneur
MGNREGA worker
Any other
Grand total
5.3). Changes in the income level
Income level Before After
1.Below 5000
2.5001 to 10,000
3.10,000 to 15,000
4.15,000 to 20,000
5.20,000 to 25,000
6. Above 60,000
5.4). Changes in consumption level
Consumptions Before After
1.Food
2.Clothing
3.Education
4.Health
5.House hold assets
6.Transport
7.Alcohol
8.Finacial security
9. Care for children
Total
5.5). Changes in savings level
Savings Before After
1.Bank account
2.Insurance
3.Chits
4.SHGS
5.Savings on govt schemes
6.Any other

5.6). Changes in investment level
Investments Before After
1. Investment on land
2. Investment on gold
3. Investment on house/home
5. Investment on cattle
6. Investment on agriculture implements
4. Any other
5.7). How did you spent the income earned through MGNREGA during last three years ?
Items Amount spent
2016-17 2015-16 2014-15
1.Food
2.Clothing
3.Education
4.Health
5.House hold assets
6.Transport
7.Alcohol
8. Any other
5.8 Did you find any change in decision making on spending after participation of Mgnrega ?
1) Food 1) Yes 2) No
2) Clothing 1) Yes 2) No
3) Education 1) Yes 2) No
4) Health 1) Yes 2) No
5) Transport 1) Yes 2) No
6) Social and religious gatherings 1) Yes 2) No
5.10). Participation of respondent in Social and Political activities
Activities Before After
As a SHGs member in Gramma Sabha meetings
Village developmental activities
Tackling social issues
Helping other members
Participation in political meetings
Contesting as people representative to constitutional bodies
5.11). Use of MGNREGA income by type of use
Type of use Amount spent % of amount
Food
Health
Clothing
Education
Transport
HH assets
Repairing of house
Repayment of old debt
Social and religious gatherings
Savings
Any other

5.12. Did you find any change in decision making on spending after participation of Mgnrega
Items Before After
Food Self Husband Both Self Husband Both
Clothing
Education
Health
Transport
Social & religious events
HH assets
Savings
MGNREGA Income
5.13). Impact on empowerment of women
Sl.No. Factors High Moderate Low
1 Better financial and discipline
2 Expression opinion meetings/ discussions
3 Raising voice against injustice
4 Freedom to spend and save the earnings
5 Freedom from money lenders and bankers
6 Deciding on purchase of household goods
7 Election campaigning/ contesting in elections
8 Freedom to decide on children’s education
9 Public speaking ability

Annexure II
Results of Field Survey
2.2.2.Age of the respondents * 2.2.5.Marital Status Cross tabulation
Age of the respondents Marital Status Total
Married Unmarried Widow
Below 25 years 2 1 0 3
26 to 35 11 0 1 12
36 to 45 23 0 1 24
46 to 55 6 0 1 7
56 to 65 2 0 2 4
Total 44 1 5 50
Education and Occupation Cross tabulation
2.2.6.Occupation Total
Farmers Agri labour Non Agri labour Any other
Illiterate 8 1 0 1 10
literate 7 1 0 0 8
Primary 8 1 0 0 9
Secondary 7 0 1 0 8
High school 9 1 0 0 10
And above 5 0 0 0 5
Total 44 4 1 1 50
Age of the respondents and Occupation Cross tabulation
Age of the respondent 2.2.6.Occupation Total
Farmers Agri labour Non Agri labour Any other
Below 25 Years 3 0 0 0 3
26 to 35 11 1 0 0 12
36 to 45 20 3 1 0 24
46 to 55 7 0 0 0 7
56 to 65 3 0 0 1 4
Total 44 4 1 1 50
Changes in income levels of the respondent before and After participation in MGNREGA
Before After
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Below 5000 13 26.0 0 0
5001 to 10000 29 58.0 0 0
10000 to 15000 7 14.0 2 4
15000 to 20000 1 2.0 2 4
20000 to 25000 0 0 10 20
above 60000 0 0 36 72
Total 50 100 50 100
Changes in savings levels of respondent before and after participation in MGNREGA
Before After
Bank account 20 40.0 1 2.0
Insurance 1 2.0 18 36.0
Chits 19 38.0 5 10.0
SHGS 10 20.0 1 2.0
Savings on govt schemes 0 0 25 50.0
Total 50 100.0 50 100.0

Changes in investment levels of respondent before and after participation in MGNREGA
Before After
Investment on land 31 62.0 3 6.0
Investment on gold 0 0 11 22.0
Investment on house /home 8 16.0 10 20.0
Investment on cattle 8 16.0 15 30.0
Investment on agriculture implements 1 2.0 11 22.0
Any other 2 4.0 0 0
Total 50 100.0 50 100.0
1. Did you find any change in decision making spending on food Before and after participation of Mgnrega
Before After
Self 22 44 44 88
Husband 10 20 1 2
Both 18 36 5 10
Others 0 0 0 0
Total 50 100 50 100
2. Did you find any change in decision making spending on Clothing Before and after participation of Mgnrega
Before After
Frequenc
y
Percent Frequenc
y
Percent
Self 7 14 22 44
Husband 33 66 2 4
Both 10 20 25 50
Others 0 0 1 2
Total 50 100 50 100
3. Did you find any change in decision making spending on Education Before and after participation of Mgnrega
Before After
Self 15 30 26 52
Husband 23 46 2 4
Both 11 22 21 42
Others 1 2 1 2
Total 50 100 50 100
4.Did you find any change in decision making spending on Health Before and after participation of Mgnrega
Before After
Self 25 50 39 78
Husband 9 18 5 10
Both 16 32 6 12
Others 0 0 0 0
Total 50 100 50 100
5.Did you find any change in decision making spending on Transport Before and after participation of Mgnrega
Before After
Self 10 20 27 54
Husband 29 58 4 8
Both 11 22 19 38
Others 0 0 0 0
Total 50 100 50 100

6. Did you find any change in decision making spending on Social and religious events Before and after
participation of Mgnrega
Before After
Self 17 34 47 94
Husband 18 36 0 0
Both 15 30 3 6
Others 0 0 0 0
Total 50 100 50 100
7. Did you find any change in decision making spending on Household assets Before and after participation of
Mgnrega
Before After
Self 9 18 25 50
Husband 36 72 7 14
Both 5 10 18 36
Others 0 0 0 0
Total 50 100 50 100
8. Did you find any change in decision making spending on Savings Before and after participation of Mgnrega
Before After
Self 22 44 46 92
Husband 20 40 1 2
Both 8 16 3 6
Others 0 0 0 0
Total 50 100 50 100
9. Did you find any change in decision making spending on Mgnrega income Before and after participation of
Mgnrega
Before After
Self 22 44 48 96
Husband 7 14 1 2
Both 21 42 1 2
Others 0 0 0 0
Total 50 100 50 100

MGNREGA AND WOMEN EMPOWERMENT: A Study of Pannur Village in Chittoor District of Andhra Pradesh in India

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to MGNREGA AND WOMEN EMPOWERMENT: A Study of Pannur Village in Chittoor District of Andhra Pradesh in India

Similar to MGNREGA AND WOMEN EMPOWERMENT: A Study of Pannur Village in Chittoor District of Andhra Pradesh in India (20)

More from Premier Publishers

More from Premier Publishers (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

MGNREGA AND WOMEN EMPOWERMENT: A Study of Pannur Village in Chittoor District of Andhra Pradesh in India