The national employment guarantee scheme and inequities in household spending on food and non-food determinants of health in rural India

International Journal for Equity in Health

Lalit Dandona²  Rakhi Dandona¹  TR Dilip¹ 

[1] Public Health Foundation of India, ISID Campus, 4 Institutional Area, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070, India;Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, 2301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600, Seattle, WA 98103, USA

关键词: Inequity;    India;    Health;    Food;    Employment scheme;    Consumption expenditure;   

Others  :  811211
DOI  :  10.1186/1475-9276-12-84

 received in 2013-06-21, accepted in 2013-10-07,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Introduction

Inequities in a population in spending on food and non-food items can contribute to disparities in health status. The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) was launched in rural India in 2006, aimed at providing at least 100 days of manual work to a member in needy households.

Methods

We used nationally representative data from the consumer expenditure surveys of 2004–05 and 2009–10 and the employment survey of 2009–10 conducted by National Sample Survey Organisation to assess the effect of MGNREGS in reducing inequities in consumption of food and non-food items between poor and non-poor households in the states of India. Variations among the states in implementation of MGNREGS were examined using the employment and unemployment survey data, and compared with official programme data up to 2012–13. Inequity in spending on food and non-food items was assessed using the ratio of monthly per capita consumer expenditure (MPCE) between the most vulnerable (labourer) and least vulnerable categories of households.

Results

The survey data suggested 1.42 billion person-days of MGNRGES employment in the 2009–10 financial year, whereas the official programme data reported 2.84 billion person-days. According to the official data, the person-days of MGNRGES employment decreased by 43.3% from 2009–10 to 2012–13 for the 9 large less developed states of India. Survey data revealed that the average number of MGNREGS work days in a year per household varied from 42 days in Rajasthan to less than 10 days in 14 of the 20 major states in India in 2009–10. Rajasthan with the highest implementation of MGNRGES among the 9 less developed states of India had the highest relative decline of 10.4% in the food spending inequity from 2004–05 to 2009–10 between the most vulnerable and less vulnerable households. The changes in inequity for non-food spending did not have any particular pattern across the less developed states. In the most vulnerable category, the households in Rajasthan that got 100 or more days of work in a year under MGNREGS had a 25.9% increase in MPCE.

Conclusion

MGNREGS seems to have contributed to the reduction in food consumption inequity in rural Rajasthan in 2009–10, and has the potential of making a similar contribution with higher level of implementation of this programme in other states. Non-food consumption inequities benefited less from MGNRGES until 2009–10. The reported decrease in the MGNRGES employment person-days in the less developed states of India from 2009–10 to 2012–13 is of concern.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Dilip et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]WHO Commission on Social Determinats of Health: Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on social determinants of health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008.
• [2]Ministry of Rural Development: Mahatma Gandhi national rural employment guarantee Act 2005: report to the people 2nd Feb 2006 to 2nd Feb 2010. New Delhi: Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India; 2010.
• [3]Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India: NREGA implementation status report for the financial year. [http://164.100.129.6/netnrega/dash_brd.aspx?fin_year=2012-2013 webcite]
• [4]National Sample Survey Organisation: Employment and unemployment situation in India 2009–10. In In NSS report No 537(66/10/1). New Delhi: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India; 2011.
• [5]Dutta P, Murgai R, Ravallion M, Walle DV: Does india’s employment guarantee scheme guarantee employment? In policy research working paper 6003. Washington DC: South Asia Social Protection Unit, Development Research Group, The World Bank; 2012.
• [6]Ghose AK: Addressing the employment challenge: India’s MGNREGA. In working paper No 105. Geneva: International Labour Organization; 2012.
• [7]Dreze J, Khera R: The battle for employment guarantee. 2008. [http://knowledge.nrega.net/1099/1/Public%2520workd_The%2520battle%2520for%2520employment%2520guarantee.pdf webcite]
• [8]Mukherjee D, Sinha UB: Understanding NREGA: a simple theory and some facts. In CDE working paper No 196. New Delhi: Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics; 2011.
• [9]Afridi F, Mukhopadhyay A, Sahoo SS: Female labour force participation and child education in India: the effect of the national rural employment guarantee scheme. In IZA discussion paper no 6593. Bonn: Institute for Study of Labor; 2012.
• [10]Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India: MGNREGA sameeksha - an anthology of research studies on the mahatma Gandhi national rural employment guarantee act, 2005 2006–2012. Edited by Shah M. New Delhi: Orient Black Swan; 2012.
• [11]National Sample Survey Organisation: Level and pattern of consumer expenditure 2009–10. In NSSO report No 538(66/10/1). New Delhi: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India; 2011.
• [12]National Sample Survey Organisation: Level and pattern of consumer expenditure 2004–05. In NSSO report No 508(61/10/1). New Delhi: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India; 2006.
• [13]Ministry of Health and Family Welfare: Annual report to the people on health. New Delhi: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India; 2011.
• [14]Samarthan: Impact assessment of MGNREGS in Rajasthan. In Report submitted to state planning commission. Madhya Pradesh. Bhopal: Samarthan; 2010.
• [15]Ministry of Health and Family Welfare: National rural health mission - framework for implementation. New Delhi: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India; 2007.
• [16]Mohanty SK, Srivastava A: Cost and utilisation of hospital based delivery care in empowered action group (EAG) states of India. Matern Child Health J 2013, 1441-1451.
• [17]Palacios R, Das J, Sun C: India’s Health insurance scheme for the poor: evidence from early experience of Rashtriya Swasthya Bhima Yojana. Centre for Policy Research: New Delhi; 2011.
• [18]Deaton AS, Paxson CH: Aging and inequality in income and health. Am Econ Rev, Pap and Proc (U S ) 1998, 88:248-253.
• [19]Macinko JA, Shi L, Starfield B: Wage inequality, the health system, and infant mortality in wealthy industrialized countries, 1970–1996. Soc Sci Med 2004, 58:279-292.
• [20]Planning Commmission of India: Report of the expert group to recommend the detailed methodology for identication of families below poverty line in the urban areas. New Delhi: Government of India; 2012.
• [21]Subramanyam MA, Kawachi I, Berkman LF, Subramanian SV: Socioeconomic inequalities in childhood undernutrition in India: analyzing trends between 1992 and 2005. PLoS One 2010, 5:e11392.
• [22]Balarajan YS, Fawzi WW, Subramanian SV: Changing patterns of social inequalities in anaemia among women in India: cross-sectional study using nationally representative data. BMJ Open 2013, 3:e002233.
• [23]Blas E, Gilson L, Kelly MP, Labonte R, Lapitan J, Muntaner C, Ostlin P, Popay J, Sadana R, Sen G, et al.: Addressing social determinants of health inequities: what can the state and civil society do? Lancet 2008, 372:1684-1689.