India stands as the architect of one of the world’s most ambitious social programs: a job guarantee that legally entitles every rural household to paid employment.
Launched in 2005 under a Congress party government, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) granted every rural household the right to demand up to 100 days of paid manual labor each year at a legally mandated minimum wage.
This initiative held profound significance in a nation where 65% of its 1.4 billion residents reside in rural areas, with nearly half dependent on agriculture, a sector generating insufficient income and contributing only 16% to India’s GDP.
By providing unskilled public work across almost all districts, excluding fully urban ones, the scheme has become a crucial component of rural livelihoods, buffering against economic downturns. It is also one of the most extensively studied anti-poverty programs globally, notable for its equity: over half of the estimated 126 million workers are women, and approximately 40% are from “scheduled castes” or tribes, among India’s most marginalized communities.
The current Narendra Modi government, initially critical and later inclined to reduce the program, turned to it during crises, most notably the Covid-19 pandemic, when a massive return migration from cities to villages sharply increased the demand for work. Economists suggest the scheme bolstered rural consumption, alleviated poverty, improved school attendance, and, in some regions, increased private-sector wages.
Recently, the government introduced a new law that repeals and rebrands the scheme. The program, renamed MGNREGA in 2009 to honor Mahatma Gandhi, has now removed his name entirely.
While the renaming has attracted political attention, the more substantive changes lie in the actual provisions of the new law, known as G RAM G for short.
It increases the annual employment guarantee from 100 to 125 days per rural household and retains the provision that workers not provided jobs within 15 days are entitled to an unemployment allowance.
Under the original scheme, the federal government covered all labor wages and most material costs, roughly a 90:10 split with the states.
Funding will now follow a 60:40 split between the federal government and most states, potentially raising states’ contribution to 40% or more of the total project cost. The federal government retains control, including the power to notify the scheme and decide state-wise allocations.
States remain legally responsible for providing employment or paying unemployment allowances, even as the central government allocates $9.5 billion for the scheme in the current financial year, ending next March.
The government presents the reforms as a modernized, more effective, and corruption-free program aimed at empowering the poor.
“This law stands firmly in favor of the poor, in support of progress, and in complete guarantee of employment for the workers,” stated federal agriculture minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan.
Critics, including opposition parties, academics, and some state governments, caution that capping funds and shifting costs to states could dilute a rare legal right in India’s welfare system.
“It is the culmination of the long-standing drive for centralisation of the scheme under the Modi government. But it is more than centralisation. It is the reduction of employment guarantee to a discretionary scheme. A clause allows the federal government to decide where and when the scheme applies,” development economist Jean Dreze told us.
Prof. Dreze suggests the increase to 125 guaranteed workdays per household may appear to be a major revamp but is a “red herring.” A recent report by LibTech India, an advocacy group, found that only 7% of rural households received the 100 days of work guaranteed under the scheme in 2023-24.
“When the ceiling is not binding, how does it help to raise it? Raising wage rates, again, is a much better way of expanding benefits. Second, raising the ceiling is a cosmetic measure when financial restrictions pull the other way,” Prof. Dreze notes.
These and other concerns appear to have motivated a group of international scholars to petition the Modi government in defense of the original scheme, warning that the new funding model could undermine its purpose.
“The [scheme] has captured the world’s attention with its demonstrated achievements and innovative design. To dismantle it now would be a historic error,” an open letter, led by Olivier De Schutter, UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, cautioned.
To be sure, the scheme has faced persistent challenges, including underfunding and delays in wage payments. West Bengal’s program, for example, has faced deep cuts and funding freezes since 2022, with the federal government halting funds over alleged non-compliance.
Yet despite these challenges, the scheme appears to have delivered measurable impact.
An influential study by economists Karthik Muralidharan, Paul Niehaus, and Sandip Sukhtankar found that the broader, economy-wide impacts of the scheme boosted beneficiary households’ earnings by 14% and cut poverty by 26%. Workers demanded higher wages, land returns fell, and job gains were larger in villages, the study found.
But many argue the scheme’s durability also underscores a deeper structural problem: India’s chronic inability to generate enough non-farm jobs to absorb surplus rural labor.
Agriculture has consistently lagged behind the broader economy, growing just 3% annually since 2001–02, compared with 7% for the rest of the economy.
Critics such as Nitin Pai of the Takshashila Institution, a think-tank, contend that the scheme alleviates distress but does little to raise long-term rural productivity and may even reduce incentives for agricultural reform.
“With [the scheme] we’re merely treating a serious underlying malaise with steroids,” said Mr. Pai in a post on X.
The government’s Economic Survey 2023–24 questions whether demand under the scheme truly reflects rural hardship.
If that were the case, data should show higher fund use and employment in poorer states with higher unemployment, the survey says.
Yet, it notes, Tamil Nadu, with under 1% of the country’s poor, received nearly 15% of the scheme’s funds, while Kerala, with just 0.1% of the poor, accounted for almost 4% of federal allocations.
The survey adds that the actual work generated depends largely on a state’s administrative capacity: states with trained staff can process requests on time, directly influencing how much employment is provided.
Despite these anomalies, the case for the scheme remains strong in a country where many depend on low-income rural work and where the deeper challenge is the lack of quality employment.
Even headline figures on rising labor participation in India can be misleading: more people “working” does not always mean better or more productive jobs.
A recent paper by economists Maitreesh Ghatak, Mrinalini Jha, and Jitendra Singh finds that the country’s recent rise in labor force participation, especially among women, reflects economic distress rather than growth-driven job creation.
The authors say the increase is concentrated in the most vulnerable forms of work: unpaid family helpers and self-employed workers, who have very low productivity and falling real earnings.
“The recent expansion in employment reflects economic distress leading to subsistence work, rather than growth-driven better quality job creation,” they state.
The evidence suggests people are driven into subsistence work by necessity, not drawn into better-quality jobs by a stronger economy.
This ensures that the world’s largest jobs guarantee scheme will remain central to the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of Indians – whether the revamped version will strengthen it or undermine its impact remains to be seen.
Follow BBC News India on Instagram, YouTube, X and Facebook.
A new definition of what constitutes as the Aravalli hills could dilute environmental protections, say activists.
The collision happened early on Saturday in the north-eastern state of Assam, local officials say.
Lucknow recently joined a select list of global cities recognised for their fine food.
The fresh protests are sparked by the death of one of the leaders of protests that ousted ex-PM Sheikh Hasina.
The five cases in Madhya Pradesh state come weeks after a similar incident was reported in Jharkhand state.