INTRODUCTION:

The National Rural Employment Guarantee scheme (NREGS), now renamed as “Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guaranteed Scheme/Act” has now emerged as one of the important tools for Rural Development and for combating hunger and unemployment. The National Rural Employment guarantee Act (NREGA, also known as National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, NREGS) is Indian Legislation enacted on August 25, 2005. The Scheme comes into force on 5th September 2005 in 200 Districts in India and extended to another 130 District later. In April 2008 MGNREGS expanded to cover the entire India.

MGNREGS is a Historical Employment Scheme in India. It provides a legal guarantee for at least one hundred days of employment in every financial year to adult members (above 18 year of Age) of any rural household willing to do. Public work related unskilled manual work to people living below poverty line in rural India. It attempts to bridge the gap between the rich and poor in the country. Roughly one third of the stipulated work force must be women. The MGNREGS achieves twin Objective of rural Development and Employment.

The MGNREGS program encompasses important rural development activities such as rural connectivity, working towards measures of flood control and protection such as construction and repair of embankments etc. Water conservation and harvesting is one of the other important tasks carried out by the employed. Digging of new tank / ponds, percolation tanks and construction of small check dams are also carried out under this scheme. Micro Irrigation work such as construction of small canals is also carried out. The scheme also provides irrigation facilities to bland owned by people coming under SC/STs beneficiaries of land reforms, Indira Awas Yojana etc. Renovation of traditional water bodies is also carried out. This involves desalting of tanks/ponds, old canals, open walls, etc.

GRAM PANCHAYAT PARASDIHA

Land Development is also given importance. The employed are given work such as land leveling, forestation, tree plantation in rural village- Parasdiha, District- Balrampur, Chhattisgarh, India. Gram Panchayat Parasdiha has One Primary School, One Middle School, One Health Care facilities available and other facilities are not available. 80 percent of the villagers are literate and sex ratio is 918.

Although there is little unemployment in Gram Panchayat Parasdiha, workers receive a tiny amount of pay for agricultural work or forestation. The village is not around the Industry, to increase the Income of rural people. Poverty is steel a huge problem in the Gram Panchayat Parasdiha. It is in the poverty stricken rural village that the standard of living is the lowest.

OBJECTIVES:

1. To identify the Impact of MGNREGS on the beneficiaries in the study area.

2. To assess the change in the generation of Employment and Income due to the implementation of MGNREGS in the Study are.

HYPOTHESIS

1. To test the significant change in the generation of employment due to the implementation of MGNREGS.

2. To test the relationship between Income of the beneficiaries and implementation of the Programme.

METHODOLOGY:

The stratified random sampling method has been adopted to select the sample size for the present study. The study area covers One Village, Out of 200 beneficiaries; the researcher has chosen 60 samples from One Village. The Two Group Considered is Agricultural Laborers and Non-Agricultural Laborers. The researchers have adopted the personal Interview-Schedule method for collecting Primary data. Period of Survey was Between April- 2016 to March- 2017. The Statistical tools Percentage method, Graphic method and χ² (Chi-Square) test applied for the hypothesis testing and data analysis.

Chi-Square formula is following extract:

χ² ₌ Σ [(ƒ_o-ƒ_e)² ÷ ƒ_e]

χ² ₌Chi- Square

ƒ_o ₌ Observed Frequency

ƒ_{e =}Expected Frequency

IMPACT OF MGNREGS ON THE BENEFICIARIES

The main Objective of the MGNREGS has been to generate gainful employment opportunities for unemployment and under employment persons through the Creation of durable community assets and increases the level of the rural people. The first section of the study focuses on the socio-economic status of the beneficiaries of MGNREGS in Gram Panchayat Parasdiha for the community, family status and Income. They provide the base for studying the impact of this Program.

Table- 1 show that Category and Gender wise Distribution of the Beneficiaries. It is clear that Out of 60 respondents, 32 are agricultural labourers and 28 are Non-agricultural labourers. Of 60 respondents, 50.0 percents are male and 50.0 percents are female.

Table- 2 show that cast wise Distribution of the Beneficiaries. It is clear that SC are predominant among beneficiaries 40 percent followed by OBC 33.33 percents.

Table- 3 shows that age wise classification of the Beneficiaries. It is clear that Age Group 30-40 (43.34 percents) followed by Age Group 40-50 (38.33 percents).

Table- 1 Distribution of the Beneficiaries by Gender

Category	Male	Female	Total
Agricultural Labourers	16 (50.0)	16 (50.0)	32 (53.3)
Non- Agricultural Labourers	14 (50.0)	14 (50.0)	28 (46.7)
All- Beneficiaries	30 (50.0)	30 (50.0)	60

Source: Field Survey

Table- 2 Cast-wise Distribution of the Beneficiaries

Category	ST	SC	OBC	Total
Agricultural Labourers	08 (25.0)	14 (43.75)	10 (31.25)	32 (53.3)
Non- Agricultural Labourers	08 (28.57)	10 (35.71)	10 (35.72)	28 (46.7)
All- Beneficiaries	16 (26.67)	24 (40.0)	20 (33.33)	60

Source: Field Survey

Table- 3 Age-wise Classification of the Beneficiaries

Category	20-30	30-40	40-50	50- Above	Total
Agricultural Labourers	04 (12.5)	14 (43.75)	13 (40.63)	01 (3.12)	32 (53.3)
Non- Agricultural Labourers	05 (17.86)	12 (42.86)	10 (35.71)	01 (3.57)	28 (46.7)
All- Beneficiaries	09 (15.0)	26 (43.34)	23 (38.33)	02 (3.33)	60

Source: Field Survey

IMPACT OF MGNREGS ON EMPLOYMENT

Table- 4 shows that Average Additional Employment status of the Beneficiaries Before and After MGNREGS in Man-days. Agricultural Laboures Employment Increase in 34.52 percentage And 30.39 percentage Employment Increase in Non-agricultural laboures. It is clear that highest increase in employment Agricultural laboures than the Non-agricultural laboures. The percentage increase in the annual employment of the all beneficiaries as a whole was about 64.91.

Table-4: Average Additional Employment status of the Beneficiaries Before and After MGNREGS in Man-days

(No. of Man-Days) (Average per Household)

Category	Before MGNREGS	After MGNREGS	Employment in MGNREGS	Percentage Increase in Employment
Agricultural Labourers	168	226	58	34.52
Non- Agricultural Labourers	181	236	55	30.39
All- Beneficiaries	349	462	113	64.91

Source: Field Survey

IMPACT OF MGNREGS OF INCOME

The Category wise Average Additional Income generated in the households of the Beneficiaries Before and After MGNREGS is given in the Table-5.

From table- 5 shows that the average annual income of the all beneficiaries Rs 14141.5 and Rs 22973 per household before and after the implementation of the program. At the gross level the changes in the average annual income Rs. 8831.5 per household. As the Category wise, it was Rs. 8866 for the agricultural labourers and Rs. 8797 for the non-agricultural labourers. The percentage increase in the annual income of the beneficiaries as a whole was about 62.5. The annual household average income of the agricultural labourers increase by 65.52 percentage and increase by 59.64 percentage for the non-agricultural labourers. It is clear that the contribution of MGNREGS for the people doing agricultural labourers was higher than the non-agricultural labourers.

Table- 5: Average Additional Income Generated in the household of the Beneficiaries Before and After MGNREGA

Category	Before MGNREGS	After MGNREGS	Income in MGNREGS	Percentage Increase in Income
Agricultural Labourers	13532	22398	8866	65.52
Non- Agricultural Labourers	14751	23548	8797	59.64
All- Beneficiaries	14141.5	22973	8831.5	62.45

Source: Field Survey

Table- 6

Source of Variation	Calculated Value of χ²	Table Value of χ²at 5% Level
DEBB - DEAB	0.0514	3.841

DEBB – Day of Employment Before Benefit

DEAB – Day of Employment After Benefit

Source: Calculated from primary data

Table- 7

Source of Variation	Calculated Value of χ²	Table Value of χ²at 5% Level
AIBB - AIAB	5.74	3.841

AIBB – Annual Income before Benefit

AIAB – Annual Income after Benefit

Source: Calculated from primary data

RESULTS AND DESCUSSION:

Hypothesis1. There is significant change in the generation of employment due to the implementation of MGNREGS. The results are shown: χ²test of average household employment of the beneficiaries between pre and post benefit period.

From Table -6 it is understood that the calculated value of χ²=0.0514 which is less than the Table Value of χ²=3.841at 5% level of significant and 1 degree of freedom. Hence the alternative hypothesis is accepted and rejects the Null hypothesis. It means that there is significant change in the level of employment of the beneficiary’s household has increased after receiving benefits from the program and the impact of MGNREGS on the generation of employment is remarkable.

Hypothesis 2. There is no relationship between the Income and implementation of MGNREGS. χ²test to compare the annual family income of the beneficiaries between Pre and Post benefit periods.

From table -7 it I clear that the calculated value of χ²= 5.74 which is greater than the Table value of χ²= 3.84 at 5% level of significant and 1 degree of freedom. Hence the Null hypothesis is rejected and accepted the alternative hypothesis. The Impact of MGNREGS on Income is more significant.

SUGGESTIONS:

1. MGNREGS program implementation, administrative and technical officer regularly to make effective, employees must be, and they must be trained. The program can be implementation effectively.

2. MGNREGS prevailing wage rate is lower in the program. Wage rate should be determined on the basic of current rate of the inflation.

3. Responsibility of work should be specified and honest officer should be rewarded and dishonest officer should be punished.

4. Weekly payment of wage and should be bank accounts. Employment is not available, must be provided unemployment allowance.

5. At the local level should be a core committee, must be a member to 3-5. All work should be in charge of the committee. Gram panchayat should be the monthly meeting of the committee. Work on all issues should be discussed among members.

CONCLUSION:

It may be said that the MGNREGS in the gram panchayat parsdiha has made a positive contribution in creating social assets. But the quality of life of rural people is not a significant social and economic change. Rural poverty can be overcome. It is the scheme provided only a temporary solution to the problem of poverty. To overcome the problem of poverty under the scheme other areas such as water conservation, flood control, irrigation canal construction, plant-planting etc., should be included.

REFRENCES:

1. Akthar, Jawed, S.M., and Abdul Azeez, N.P. (2012), “Rural Employment Guarantee Programme and Migration” Kurukshetra, Kurukshetra Publications, Vol. 60, No 4.

2. Banerjee, Kaustav and Saha, Partha (2010), “the NREGA, the Maoists and Development Woes of Indian State” Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 65, No. 28.

3. Bhargava, K. Ani (2013), The Impact of India's rural employment Guarantee on Demand for Labor Saving Technology, University of California.

4. B.G. Harish, N. Nagaray, M.G. Chandrakanth (2011), Impacts and Implications of MGNREGA on labour supply and Income Generation for Agriculture in central Dry Zone of Karnataka.

5. Gupta, Namita, (2010), “An Analysis of NREGA: A Case Study of Punjab District Mohali” Indian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. LVI, No.,2.

6. Hirway, Indira, (2005), "NREGA: its consequences and problems", Economic and Political Weekly, 33, No. 40.

7. Jeya shree P., Subramaniam K. Murli N., Michel John Peter S., (2010) “Economic Analysis of Mahatma Gandhi NREGS: A Study” Southern Economist, 01 Aug, Page No. 13-36.

8. Khera R. and Nandini Nayak (2009), “Women Workers and Perceptions of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act” Economic & Political Weekly, Vol. XLIV, No.43.

9. Leelavathi P. (2011), “Impact of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act on The Well Being of The Rural Poor in Andhra Pradesh” IASSI Quarterly: Contribution to Indian Social Science, Vol. 30, No. 2.

10. Naidu G.V., Gopal T., Maybhushan K., (2010) “Impact of NREGA on the living condition of Rural Poor” Southern Economist, August 01, Page No. – 17-20.

11. Pamech Dr. Suman, Sharma Indu, (2015) “Socio-economic Impact of MNREGA – A Study Undertaken among Beneficiaries of 20 Villlages of Dungarpur District of Rajasthan” International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 5, Issue 1, January.

12. Shah Mihir, Shanker V. and Ambasta P. (2008) “Two years of NREGA: The Road Ahed” Economic Political Weekly, Feb. 23.

13. Sudarshanam, G. and Rao, V.S. (2009), “Social Inclusion Strategies and the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme” Indian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. LV, No.4.

14. Thomasa, Bigi and Bhatia, Ruby, (2008) “Impact of NREGA Scheme: A Study on Andhra Pradesh” Indian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. LIV No.4, Oct.-Dec.

15. Yadav, Raj, Hans and Garg, Nidhi (2010), “Socio-economic Condition of MGNREGA Workers in Distric Rewari” Social Welfare, Vol. 57 No.5.

Received on 11.03.2018 Modified on 19.04.2018

Int. J. Ad. Social Sciences. 2018; 6(2):109-112.

DOI: 10.5958/2454-2679.2018.00011.7