Evaluation of NREGA Wells in Jharkhand

A common criticism of the National Rural Employment Guarantee programme is that it does not lead to the creation of permanent assets and a sustained increase in incomes. This fi eld study of the construction of wells in one block in Ranchi district of Jharkhand shows that asset creation under this programme can result in the creation of income-generating assets. K rishna Bhagat of Purio Gram Panchayat in Ratu block (Ranchi district) has approximately four acres of agricultural land. Before 2010, he grew only one crop on that plot, p addy. However, in February 2010, he got a well sanctioned for himself under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA), using what he described as his “connections”. He did not have to pay a bribe to get the well sanctioned, but to get it constructed, he did have to shell out Rs 25,000 from his own pocket, to meet material costs. In July 2010, construction of his well was completed, and he used the water from the well to grow l ady’s fi nger and wheat in the winter. When we met him, his summer crops of tomato, beans, and bottle gourd were a lmost ripe. Apart from Krishna’s land, the well water irrigates an additional four acres of land belonging to others. A piece of land which used to give about Rs 20,000 a year in profi ts, now gives almost twice that amount. In the same gram panchayat, Biglah Oraon was also allotted an NREGA well in 2009. The sanctioned cost of the well was Rs 2,26,800, but Biglah had to spend an additional Rs 70,000, because money sanctioned for material expenditure was inadequate, and because he had to pay bribes at various stages. Biglah had to borrow money from his brother as well and use the entire proceeds from selling that year’s paddy crop to get the well completed. On several occasions he had to pay workers from his own pocket too, as wage payments from the block administration were delayed. D espite these losses and other problems, Biglah does not regret his decision of constructing a well; in the acre of land in which he earlier grew paddy, he now sows potato, peas, wheat, sugar cane and tobacco. A common criticism of the NREGA is the poor quality of assets created under the programme. Gupta (2011), for instance, argues that instead of creating productive assets, NREGA is a “make-work” scheme. According to a World Bank (2011) report, many public works are said to be “washed away the next monsoon”. The report attributes the inferior quality of public works to the inadequate attention given to the objective of asset creation in the NREGA. However, there is not much evidence available on the productive aspects of NREGA works.1 This article presents the fi ndings of an informal evaluation of NREGA wells in Ranchi district (Jharkhand), as a modest contribution towards more informed debate on this subject. To assess the economic impacts of the wells, we compare the construction costs with the productivity gains. This involves comparing the cultivation costs and value of crops grown in the “command area” of the wells before and after construction.2 Information on the process of constructing the wells, their diverse uses, and the perceptions of the respondents was also collected. We focus on completed wells. It is important to note that a signifi cant proportion of NREGA wells in Jharkhand remain incomplete, for reasons ranging from delays in wage payments to inadequate planning and limited capacity of local institutions. Incomplete wells are not only useless and a waste of resources and labour, but also discourage people from taking up water conservation works under the Act (Mahapatra et al 2011).