CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction to the Study

Unemployment in rural areas is India’s biggest issue, with a vast majority of the
population depending on agriculture and informal work. It is more acute in the case of states
such as Meghalaya, where difficult terrain, poor infrastructure, and limited market linkage
make livelihood generation highly dependent on seasonal farming and wage labor. In such
situation, access to stable and predictable employment is crucial, especially for vulnerable
sections of society like women who generally encounter additional barriers in term of social
norm, physical burden of work, and lack of decision-making power.

To tackle long-standing issues in rural areas, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural
Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) was enacted by the Government of India and came
into force in 2006. This landmark legislation was a significant step in Indian policy as it
provided a legal guarantee of wage employment to rural households. Under MGNREGA, every
rural household with adult members willing to do unskilled manual work is entitled to receive
up to 100 days of paid employment in a financial year. The scheme is right-based and demand-
driven, which means the state is obligated to provide work if it is requested by eligible
individuals.

The main function of MGNREGA is to bring livelihood security to rural families by

offering wage employment at those periods when agriculture or other informal work are not
available. Along with job generation, the act is also concentrated on building durable rural
assets such as roads, ponds, wells, check dams, and plantations. The assets are aimed at
strengthening the local economy and enhancing agricultural productivity in the long term. One
of the significant contributions of MGNREGA is to promote social inclusion, particularly for
women, Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST), and other weaker sections through the
provision of equal wages and active participation in decision-making and planning.

MGNREGA also decentralizes planning by engaging Gram Sabha or Village

Employment Council (VECs) to decide and sanction the type of work to be undertaken. In
Meghalaya, where well-established governance norms like Dorbar shnong and VECs prevail,
the programme integrates contemporary public administration with local custom to ensure that
development projects are relevant to the community needs (Nongsiej,2022).
 The operational structure of MGNREGA is decentralized and community based. It
starts with rural households applying for a job card, issued by the Local Gram Sabha or Village
Employment council (VEC). Once the card is issued, any adult member of the household can
demand work at any time. The government is required to provide employment within 15 days
of receiving the application. If it fails to do so, the applicant becomes eligible for employment
allowance as compensation.

The work assigned must be located within 5 kilometers of the applicant residence. The
wages are to be paid within 15 days of completing the work, directly into bank account of the
worker. This is done to reduce corruption and ensure transparency. To maintain public
accountability, the scheme also includes Social Audits, and Management Information System
(MIS) on a real-time basis are also covered under the scheme. Implementation is supervised
from time to time through community meetings and public display of records. These measures
are being taken to prevent misuse of funds and protect the rights of workers (Ministry of Rural
development,2023; edi.bard.edu).

Although MGNREGA has been successful in reducing rural poverty, increasing

incomes, and empowering women in many parts of India, its operation in hilly and tribal states
such as Meghalaya faces unique challenges. Difficult terrain, lack of road connectivity,
irregular monitoring and lack of digital infrastructure can lead to delays in wage payments,
reduced workday offered and limited community awareness about the scheme. These issues
are particularly significant for women, who are most likely to experience problem in access to
worksites, managing household responsibilities alongside labor and dealing with payment
delayed.

This study was undertaken in two villages of East Khasi Hills District: Nongjrong, a
relatively remote village under Mawkynrew Block, and Kynton U Mon, which is part of
Nongkrem circle in Mawryngkneng Block. These two villages differ in terms of physical
accessibility and development indicators, providing a good basis for comparative analysis. In
both areas, women are actively involved in agricultural and daily wage labor, and MGNREGA
play a critical role in supporting their livelihoods.

The study focuses entirely on women workers, since women constitute a major segment
of rural workers under MGNREGA and are affected directly by the implementation and
planning of the scheme. Through employment access, nature of work provided, and impact of
delayed payment, this study attempts to highlight the real challenges and suggest improvements
that are context-specific and gender-sensitive.

The scope of the study is geographically and demographically specific. The study is
confined to two of the chosen villages-Nongjrong and Kynton U Mon of East Khasi Hills
Districts of Meghalaya and it focuses only on women beneficiaries of MGNREGA. The reason
for focusing on these two villages is that they represent different levels of accessibility,
development, and governance support.

The study is based on primary data, which has been gathered through structured
questionnaires. It aims to examine the number of working days, their satisfaction with the kind
of work assigned and how delays in wage payments affected their daily lives and household
economy. Though the study does not attempt to generalize for the entire states or country, it
offers insight that are deeply grounded in local realities, and which may be useful for improving
MGNREGA implementation in other similar regions.

1.2 Historical Background

India’s path towards rural employment and poverty reduction has been a long and
progressive one. Governments since the post-independence period have launched successive
schemes to end rural poverty, improving livelihoods and filling the age-old gap of under-
employment. The early efforts began in the 1960s and 1970s, with schemes such as the Rural
Manpower programmed (RMP) and the Crash Scheme for Rural Employment (CSRE), were
primarily designed to offer short-term wage employment to the rural poor. However, these
schemes lacked comprehensive planning, and did not offer sustainable livelihood
opportunities. (Ministry of Rural Development [MoRD], 2006).

In the 1980s, employment policies became more organized with the initiation of
programs such as the National Rural Employment Programme (NREP) and the Rural Landless
Employment Guarantee Programme (RLEGP). This initiative can help to eradicate rural
poverty by generating employment as well as creation of permanent assets in the community
like irrigation canal, roads, and rural infrastructure. These later came to be incorporated into
Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY) and later into the Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana (SGRY)
in the early 2000s. Though helpful in some ways, these schemes did not guarantee employment
by law, and people often faced issues like delays, poor planning and lack of transparency (Rao,
2007).
 The real change came with the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS),
which proved that a legally backed employment programme could be effective. Building on
that success, the Government of India passed the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment
Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) in 2005, marking a shift from welfare to right-based employment.
The Act became operational across the country from 2006 across 200 districts and was
gradually expanded to cover the entire country. It was the first law of its kind in the world that
make employment a legal entitlement for rural households (MoRD,2006).

In Meghalaya, MGNREGA was implemented through collaboration with traditional

governance systems, especially the Dorbar shnong and Village Employment Councils (VEC).
These institutions have played an important role in planning, implementation and monitoring.
Despite this structure, the State still faces major implementation challenges due to difficult
terrain, poor infrastructure, and limited digital access (Nongsiej, 2022).

This study looks at how MGNREGA works in two villages in the East Khasi Hills
district of Meghalaya:

Nongjrong, located under Mawkynrew Block, is a remote and hilly village with poor
road connectivity and basic infrastructure. The local economy is largely dependent on
agriculture and daily wage labor. Due to its geographical isolation, the implementation of
welfare schemes such as MGNREGA face challenges of delayed wages and limited work
opportunities. Women in Nongjrong often participate in MGNREGA to supplement
agricultural income during off-seasons.

Kynton u Mon, located under Nongkrem circle in Mawryngkneng Block. The village
has more regular access to government services, including banking and transportation. Most
residents here earn their livelihood by securing employment as daily wage laborers, and
MGNREGA acts as a useful alternative or complementary source of income. With improved
infrastructure and administrative outreach, MGNREGA implementation in Kynton u Mon is
overall more organized and effective.

By choosing these two villages with varied geography and infrastructural terrain, the
study hopes to understand how local conditions affect the implementation and effectiveness of
MGNREGA-especially among rural Meghalaya’s women workers.
1.3 Statement of Problem

MGNREGA promises 100 days of paid work each year to rural households, but many
women workers in Meghalaya still face challenges in getting full benefits from the scheme. In
rural villages like Nongjrong and Kynton U Mon, there are concerns about the gap between
promised and actual employment. Along with this, issues such as the type of work provided,
workers’ satisfaction with their jobs, and delays in wage payment continue to affect the success
of the scheme. These problems may directly impact on the livelihood and financial well-being
of rural households. Although MGNREGA has been widely studied at the national and state
levels, there is limited research that focuses on small villages in Meghalaya. Therefore, this
study aims to examine how MGNREGA is functioning in Nongjrong and Kynton u Mon, and
how rural workers are experiencing the scheme in terms of work availability, jobs satisfaction
and wage payment.

1.4 Research Gap

While there is a good amount of research on MGNREGA, there is very limited literature
that explores the actual number of workdays rural workers receive compared to the guaranteed
100 days, their satisfaction with the kind of work provided under the scheme, and how delay
in MGNREGA wage payments affect the livelihood and financial condition of workers. To
contribute to this gap, the present study compares two villages from different blocks and
directly captures the voices of the beneficiaries through fieldwork.

1.5 Research Objectives

a) To analyses the gap between the 100 days of guaranteed employment and actual
number of workdays received under MGNREGA
b) To understand people’s satisfaction with the kind of work they do under MGNREGA.

c) To understand how delays in MGNREGA wage payments affect the livelihood and
financial condition of workers.
1.6 Research Question

a) How many days of work do rural workers receive under MGNREGA compared to the
number of days they were promised?
b) Are workers satisfied with the type of work given under MGNREGA?
c) How does the delay in wage payments under MGNREGA affect the financial well-
being of rural workers?
1.7 Theoretical Framework
This study is based on economic ideas that help explain how government programmes
like MGNREGA can improve people’s lives in rural areas. These theories show how
providing jobs and wages through public programmes can reduce poverty and contribute
to rural development, especially for women workers in remote areas.
Keynesian Economic Theory: Developed by British Economist John Maynard
Keynes, this theory suggests that government spending can boost economic activity and
reduce unemployment. It argues that in periods of low private demand or economic
slowdown, the government needs to invest in creating employment. MGNREGA follows
this approach by allocating government resources directly into rural economies through
wage employment. In the case of Nongjrong and Kynton u Mon village, where employment
opportunities are scarce and seasonal wage are earned, MGNREGA helps raise rural
household earnings. This income is used to cover living expenditures such as food, health,
or agriculture, creating a positive demand cycle in the local economy.
Multiplier Effect: Multiplier effect is an extension of Keynesian theory. It implies that
every rupee a women worker earns wages through MGNREGA and uses that income to
buy rice or vegetables, she is supporting the shopkeeper, who in turn spends his earnings
elsewhere, multiplying the impact of the original wage. In rural villages like Nongjrong
and Kynton u Mon, where economic life is very limited, this circulation of money through
MGNREGA wages helps support other livelihoods too. It shows that even a short-term job
under MGNREGA can have a wider economic benefit.
Lewis Dual Sector Model: The model, proposed by W. Arthur Lewis, explains the
shift of workers from the traditional agricultural sector to more productive non-agricultural
employment. Agriculture is the main livelihood in rural villages such as Nongjrong, but it
is often irregular and low paying. MGNREGA is a secondary source of income, beside
farm work and farming, helping to reduce over-dependence on agriculture. In Nongjrong,
for example, where most people depend on farming and daily labor, MGNREGA is a safety
net during slow agricultural periods. It upholds the Lewis model concept of moving surplus
labor into more productive sectors.
Income security and Social Protection Theory: This theory supports the idea that the
state must protect people from falling into extreme poverty, especially in rural and informal
economies. MGNREGA is a social protection measure legally guaranteeing up to 100 days
of paid work. In Meghalaya, especially in hilly and remote areas like Nongjrong, this
guaranteed work becomes a crucial safety net for women and poor households. When farm
 work is unavailable or wages are delayed in the other sector, MGNREGA ensures that
families have some basic income to cover their needs. This prevents short-term crises and
promotes long-term wellbeing.
These four theories together form a description of the value and working of
MGNREGA in maintaining rural livelihoods. They reveal how public employment
improves income, strengthens the local economy and offers protection during uncertain
times. This theoretical foundation supports the study’s aim to assess how MGNREGA
benefits women workers in remote villages and whether it truly address rural poverty,
underemployment, and economic vulnerability in areas like Nongjrong and Kynton u Mon.

1.8 Concept and Definitions

This study uses several important concepts to understand the impact of MGNREGA on
workers in two villages of East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya.

I. MGNREGA (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act)

MGNREGA is a landmark government scheme that assures rural households up to 100
days of wage employment every year, with the condition that they are willing to
participate in unskilled manual labor. It was designed to ensure poverty eradication in
rural India, reduce distress migration, and develop rural infrastructure in a positive way.
The Act is an important contributor to the assurance of income security to farm labor,
particularly during off-season when there is less agricultural work.
II. Wage Employment
Wage employment is employment for which workers are paid in the form of work they
perform, unlike self-employment or unpaid family labor. Under MGNREGA, workers
are paid for the number of working days they work on activities such as road
construction, water conservation and other public works. This focus is on providing fair
and timely wages to improve workers’ livelihoods.
III. Workdays Demanded and Workdays Received
This concept refers to the gap between the number of workdays a household requests
under MGNREGA and the actual number of days they are provided with work. Rural
households should be able to access the full 100 days of work; however, the study
examines how frequently the actual number of working days falls short, a common
issue in many regions, including the study villages.
 IV. Delayed Wage Payments
Delayed payment of wages is a common issue in the implementation of MGNREGA.
Workers often do not receive their wages on time, which affects their ability to manage
household expenses like food, healthcare and education. The study implies the impact
of delay payments, particularly in Nongjrong, where the delay severely impacts
workers’ financial stability.
V. Livelihood and Livelihood Security
Livelihood is a source from which people or households acquire their earnings. It
includes farming, wage labor, and any other economic activity.
Livelihood Security means having guaranteed and stable sources of earning toward
basic needs. MGNREGA provides livelihood security since it provides a guaranteed
income source, particularly off-season times for agricultural farming.
VI. Rural Employment
Rural employment includes all jobs in rural areas, whether in agriculture, MGNREGA
work, or other sectors. This concept is essential because MGNREGA was designed to
address underemployments in rural India so that rural workers get employment in their
localities, particularly during off-seasons for agriculture.
VII. Satisfaction with the type of Work.
Satisfaction with the type of work means the degree to which employees are satisfied
with the kind of work they are doing under MGNREGA. For instance, the work of road
construction, or water harvesting could be suitable depending on the physical
capabilities and preferences. These studies also explore how these factors contribute to
workers’ overall satisfaction with the scheme.
VIII. Below Poverty Line (BPL) and Above Poverty Line (APL)
The term BPL and APL are used to categorize households based on their income. Those
with lower incomes are classified as BPL, while those above are APL. This
classification helps to assess which households rely more heavily on welfare
programme like MGNREGA. In this study, BPL households are given particular
attention as they are the most vulnerable and dependent on such schemes for income
IX. Village Employment Council (VEC)
The village Employment council (VEC) is a local institution responsible for the
implementation of MGNREGA at the grassroots level. VECs play a vital role in
identifying projects, approving work schedules, and ensuring transparency in the
 scheme’s ensuring that MGNERA is tailored to local needs and implemented
effectively.
X. Social Audits
Social audits are rural village -level exercises that engage local citizens in tracking
transparency and accountability in the functioning of MGNEGA. Social audits enable
villagers to question whether the money is being spent appropriately, whether the work
is being conducted in accordance with agreement, and whether the individuals are
benefited. Social audits increase the transparency of the programme and assist in
determining areas for reform.
XI. Income from Multiple Sources
Agriculture, livestock, daily wage labor, and government schemes like MGNREGA are
the universal sources of household income in rural areas. Information about the
contribution of MGNREGA as a source of household income and other household
income sources helps to assess the contribution of MGNREGA toward livelihood
security. Household income from agriculture, MGNREGA, and other sources is utilized
in this analysis to frame an overall picture of the financial welfare of rural households.

1.9 Chapter Scheme

This chapter is organized into five chapters, each focusing on a specific part of the
research. The chapter-wise structure is as follows:

Chapter 1: Introduction: This chapter presents the research topic and provides
background information on rural jobs and the MGNREGA scheme. The chapter presents the
introduction of the study, historical background, statement of the problem, research gap,
research objectives, research question, theoretical framework, concept and definition, chapter
scheme and limitation of the study.

Chapter 2: Review of literature Review: This chapter presents details of past studies
on MGNREGA. It indicates the extent to which the scheme has raised rural jobs, empowered
women, income generation, and social inclusion. It also discusses the challenges in
implementation, especially related to wage delays and infrastructure gaps and highlights the
regional context of Meghalaya.

Chapter 3: Research Methodology: The chapter discusses how the study was
conducted. It outlines the research design, area of the study, sampling method, nature and
source of data, data collection tools. It also explains the method used to analyze the data and
mentions the limitation faced during the fieldwork. The study relied on primary data collection
using structured questionnaires from women beneficiaries of MGNREGA in two selected
villages.

Chapter 4: Data analysis and Interpretation: This Chapter introduces the field data
collected from the field and analyses it based on objectives of the study. It provides the socio-
economic profile of the respondents, working day received, satisfaction regarding the nature of
work, and effect of delayed wage payment. The changes and suggestions made by the
respondents have also been introduced. Tables and percentage have been utilized to make the
analysis easy and understandable.

Chapter 5: Conclusion and Summary: The last chapter summarizes the major finding
from the field, drawing conclusion based on objectives.

1.10 Limitation of the Study

While this study gives useful insights into how MGNREGA is implemented from the
perspective of women worker in Nongjrong and Kynton U Mon villages, there are some
limitations that must be noted.

1. Geographical Limitation: The study was carried out in just two villages, namely,
Nongjrong under Mawkynrew block and Kynton U Mon under Nongkrem circle,
Mawryngkneng Block. Because of this, the findings may not reflect the situation in
other villages or regions with different levels of development, infrastructure or
administrative capacity.
2. Focus Solely on Female beneficiaries: The study included specifically women
workers only in MGNREGA to study their experiences. This helped to understand their
specific experience under MGNREGA, but it did not include the views of male workers,
programme officials, or village leaders, who may also play important roles in
implementation.
3. Limited Sample Size: Due to time constraints, the sample size was restricted to 60
women respondents selected through random sampling. Although efforts were made to
include different age groups and household backgrounds, the small size of the sample
may not represent the full diversity of all beneficiaries in the state.
4. Respondent Bias: Since data was collected through direct interviews using structured
questionnaires, some respondents may have given socially desirable answers or recent
 experiences. A few participants were hesitant to share financial details, which may have
affected the accuracy of income-related information.

Despite these limitations, the research offers valuable insights into the realities of
women workers and the functioning of MGNREGA in rural areas of Meghalaya.
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter reviews previous studies on MGNREGA, especially those focusing on

rural employment, women’s participation, and wage-related issues. It highlights key findings
from national and regional research, including work done in Meghalaya. The review helps to
identify what has already been studied and where the gap lie-particular in understanding the
lived experiences of women workers in remote villages.

2.2. Review of Literature

Impact on Rural Employment and Income Generation.

Haque (2011) analyzed the net impact of MGNREGA and has observed that
MGNREGA contributed to increasing the wage rate in the rural India as well as reducing the
income inequality and making the economic security for marginalized groups such as
Scheduled Tribes (STs), Scheduled Castes (SCs) and women stronger. The research also
observed that MGNREGA had empowered people and reduced their dependence on low-paid
and insecure work. Most of the states had workers reporting that they could spend money on
food, school fees, and save some amount from wages paid to them under MGNREGA

Reddy et al. (2014) examined the impact of the scheme in Andhra Pradesh and found
that agricultural wages increased after the implementation of MGNREGA especially for
women. Rural workers were motivated by the scheme to demand fair wages for work on private
land. Households also reported that they were less likely to migrate for work as they could now
obtain paid work within the village. This brought stability to their lives and helped them stay
together as a family.

In Meghalaya state, particularly in districts such as East Khasi Hills, where farming is
the main occupation, but income is low, MGNREGA has played a very important role. Dkhar
et al. (2016) discovered that the scheme was a stable and sustainable source of income to poor
households, especially when agricultural income was low. Although not everyone did receive
the entire 100 working days annually, the 30 to 50 day-to-day expenses such as food, transport
and minor health bills.
 Shaikh Tabrez et al. (2019), in their study on the impact of MGNREGA in rural
Meghalaya, also found that the scheme helped increase family income and improve food
security. The study mentioned that many families were able to avoid taking loans during
difficult times because they had some earnings from MGNREGA. Even a few weeks of work
in a year helped families cover essential needs and feel more financially secure.

Tirkey and Sangma (2024) added that MGNREGA not only provided paid employment
but also improved the role of women within households. When women earned money through
the scheme, they became more involved in family decisions, especially about saving and
spending. This gave them more respect and confidence. The study also mentioned that the work
done under MGNREGA- such as building ponds or village paths- helped create useful
community assets that supported farming and made life easier in the village.

Worker Satisfaction and Gender Empowerment.

Haque (2011) noted that female beneficiaries, particularly those from the marginalized
sections, became empowered and assertive in decision-making within the intra-household
setting upon participating in MGNREGA. The earnings received not only met the basic
household expenditure but also conferred upon them dignity and self-esteem. This transition
from dependent to provider brought more respect and voice within the household.

Similarly, Tirkey and Sangma (2024) discovered that women’s involvement in

MGNREGA contributed to raising their economic and social status both in their families and
among their communities. According to their research, as soon as women start receiving
remuneration from the scheme, they became more actively engaged in activities like budgeting,
saving, and making decisions regarding sending their children to School or taking them to the
doctor. Additionally, the work experience being offered under MGNREGA assisted in
subverting traditional gender roles, as women were being watched performing contributory
public work along with men in public spaces. The increased visibility had brought about further
self-assurance and social acceptance.

Tamilmani (2025), in afield study conducted in Tamil Nadu, noted that MGNREGA
bridged the gap between male and female remuneration dependent the rural level The program
provided some women, especially those who were illiterate or lack previous experience in the
labor force, with the chance to have access to regular income. Subsequently, the women gained
more economic independence and self-esteem, and greater involvement in decision-making
within the household. But the study also exposed some underlying challenges. Pay delay
stopped women from completely depending on the scheme, and social restrictions according
to gender roles as well as intrafamily limits still deterred some women from joining public
work.

Malhotra and Kour (2023) had observed that women’s enrollment under MGNREGA
has increased over the years, particularly from the poor sections. In their research, better-
educated or rights-conscious women were in greater demand for working under the scheme.
Literacy levels and gender parity at the village level also played an important role. This
indicates that the more educated women are, the more empowered they feel to enter and engage
in the scheme.

Wage Delays and Livelihood Impact.

Reddy et al. (2015) and Sarkar et al (2024) also highlighted the fact that delayed
payments are a significant drawback in the free flow of MGNREGA. In their work, it has been
revealed that when workers are not paid timely, they lose motivation and tend to backtrack
from enrolling themselves in the scheme in the very first place. They are rather left frustrated,
particularly if they have waited weeks or even months to be paid the money that they have
already earned. Such a delay is contrary to the ultimate objective of the scheme, which is put
in place to offer quick relief to poor households during unemployment or lower agricultural
yields.

Bhat and Mariyappan (2016) and Mishra (2024) also highlighted that certain groups of
people, including women and weaker sections, still get affected by securing employment under
MGNREGA. The causes behind this are inadequate proper information, limited awareness
regarding their rights, and even prejudice in certain situations at the grass-roots level. In most
regions, people are unaware about how to approach or make complaints if things fail to
materialize. The reports further stated that poor planning, lack of materials, and poor
management at the village level are likely to decelerate the process starting from workers’
registration to project completion and remittance.

Apart from this, Nongsiej (2022) also referred to how important local governance is in
leading the scheme toward success. The study revealed that dorbar and village Employment
council (VEC) have a significant role in facilitation of work arrangement, beneficiaries’
selection, and official-worker liaison between officials and workers. Where these local
institutions are operated and found, MGNREGA works effectively, serving greater people.
With lower or no support or no coordination, its implementation is affected. That implies that
the involvement of the people and effective local leadership is required for implementing
MGNREGA effectively.

Impact on Rural Infrastructure and Community Assets

Sarkar et al. (2011) revealed that frequent involvement in MGNREGA positively

affected the overall well-being of rural households. The individuals who received employment
under the scheme on a regular basis not only received renumeration but also experienced
improvement in their life conditions through the provision of worthwhile assets like village
roads, ponds, and other minimum infrastructure. These innovations saved family income, made
services more accessible to them, and allowed them to feel more secure in the future.

Beri and Yadawa (2024) and B. Sinha et al. (2017) highlighted how MGNREGA has
contributed to building critical rural infrastructure, especially in remote areas that lack
development. Project like water conservation structure, land development, and plantation work
were not just giving jobs- it was enabling long-term development. The Researcher discovered
that all these activities enhanced farming and increased the availability of water arid regions.
According to another major factor, technology has been used. Techniques such as satellite
imaging and GPS mapping have been used to track projects, making the process more
transparent and governed. Due to this, MGNREGA jobs have become accountable and useful
for the entire community.

Regional Variations and the Need for Policy Reform

Gokul (2021), Akshay and Venkateswalu (2024) have studied the outcomes of the
implementation of MGNREGA in India’s rural labor markets in different regions. They found
that the results are not identical in all states. For example, in Kerala, many more people take
part and get steady work in a good way and really improve their daily life. But in states like
Uttar Pradesh, the participation rate is very low and there are various problem loke poor
management, lack of awareness and weak systems in such states. Most of these differences are
because of how the scheme is being implemented at the state level as well as the local
conditions. Therefore, the researchers suggest that each state should come up with its own plan
which will suit all regions.

Beri and Yadawa (2024) focusing on skill training for rural workers as well as their
active participation at all levels of the MGNREGA implementation can enhance its
effectiveness. The study pointed out that stagnation in employment opportunities and
meaningful work within the village continues to suffer from deep poverty and high rate of
migration across many regions in India. By providing proper skill development opportunities
under MGNREGA – such as training in water conservation and sustainable farming so that
rural worker can gain valuable abilities that enable them to earn better incomes even after
MGNREGA work ends. Also, when villagers- especially women and people from weaker
section of society are provided an opportunity to be involved in determining the nature of work
to be undertaken under MGNREGA, the scheme become useful and productive for society. In
such a situation, the scheme turns out to serve the genuine needs of the village. Hence Beri and
Yadawa believed that skills training and involving the community are not just extra things but
very important part of MGNREGA. These steps make the scheme more effective in fighting
poverty in villages and reducing people from migrating to other areas in search of jobs.
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter outlines the method used to study the impact of MGNREGA on rural
employment in Nongjrong and Kynton u Mon. It explains how data was collected through
surveys. Primary data was used to understand the experience of workers, income changes and
overall effectiveness of the scheme. The approach followed in this study helps in achieving the
research objectives clearly and systematically.

3.2 Data and Methods Used

Research Design

This study adopts descriptive and comparative research design. It aims to describe the
real-life experiences of rural workers under MGNREGA and to compare how the scheme has
been implemented in two different villages. The study is focused on understanding the number
of workdays received, worker satisfaction, and the effects of delayed wage payments.

Area of Study

The study was undertaken in two villages-Nongjrong and Kynton u Mon, both in the
East Khasi Hills District of Meghalaya. The two villages were selected as two levels of
development and accessibility to public services, although in the same district.

Nongjrong is a small and remote village in Mawkynrew Block of East Khasi Hills
District, Meghalaya. The village has natural beauty, especially its stunning sunrise views, the
Nongjrong viewpoint offers a peaceful view of valley covered in clouds. The Umngot river
flow below surrounded by lush green hills. Though naturally beautiful, the village remains
underdeveloped. Agriculture is what most people in Nongjrong rely on to sustain their
households. Other employment sources are scarce, and the village has restricted access to bank
services, health facilities, and transport. The greater part of families lacks employment and
income during the off-season.

In this situation, the mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act
(MGNREGA) plays an important role. It provides villagers wage employment in the form of
road construction, and water conservation. It is the source of livelihood for most households
when no other work is available. Even though the scheme faces problems like delayed
payments and less than 100 days of work, it still helps reduce hardship in the village.
MGNREGA give people in Nongjrong a chance to earn wages, stay in their village, and
improve their standard of living.

Kynton u Mon is a small village situated below the Nongkrem circle of

Mawryngkneng Block, East Khasi Hills district, Meghalaya, and It is situated about 44 km
from Nongjrong village and has better road connectivity, making it more accessible to nearby
town, markets, health Centre, and educational facilities. The village has fewer people, and most
of the households are sustained by daily wage labor, and small-scale trade to earn a living. In
comparison to more rural areas, Kynton u Mon is better linked with government schemes and
has better access to government facilities. MGNREGA is one of the largest schemes in the
village, which offer wage employment to residents in the village.

People have participated in works such as road construction, and water conservation.
Payments are generally made through bank accounts and villagers are aware of how to request
work and monitor their job cards. Kynton u Mon illustrates how improved infrastructure, and
awareness can increase scheme for rural development.

These villages were chosen to compare different levels of MGNREGA implementation in

areas with varying access to MGNREGA work and support systems.

Sampling Method

The universe of the study includes all MGNREGA workers residing in the two selected
villages-Nongjrong and Kynton U Mon village that have at least one person actively engaged
in MGNREGA work.

To ensure fairness, the simple random sampling method was used. A total of 60 female
respondents were selected 30 from Nongjrong and 30 from Kynton U Mon using the simple
random sampling method. The sample includes women of a different age groups, education
levels, and family backgrounds, making it possible to study diverse experiences across the two
locations.

Nature and Source of Data

The study is based entirely on primary data. All information was collected directly from
the respondents using a structured questionnaire during fieldwork in the two selected villages.
No secondary data or official records were used in the analysis.
Data Collection Tool:

A structured questionnaire was used as the main tool for collecting data. The questionnaire
included both closed-ended and a few open-ended questions, allowing for both quantitative and
qualitative insights. The key sections in the questionnaire were:

• Basic socio-economic profile: age, education, family size, landholding, and incomes
• Employment details: number of workdays promises vs. received under MGNREGA
• Satisfaction with the type of work provided
• Wage-related issues: Duration of wage delay receipt
• Impact of delayed payments on food, school expenses, health, and household
functioning

Method of Data Analysis:

The data collected was grouped, classified, and analyzed using the following methods:

• Percentage analysis was used to summarize the data and make comparisons between
the two villages.

All data analysis was done using Microsoft Excel, including the use of functions like
AVERAGE and formulas to calculate percentages, totals, and generate summary tables and
charts.
 CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

4.1 Introduction

This chapter provides the data analysis and interpretation of the surveys conducted with
structured questionnaires from two villages, i.e., Nongjrong and Kynton u Mon. The results are
shown through tables and percentages to explain the key findings. The analysis covers the
socio-economic background of respondents, the gap between the 100 days of guaranteed
employment and actual number of workdays received under MGNREGA, level of satisfaction
and the effect of delayed payment on livelihood and financial conditions and compares the
implementation of the scheme between the two villages.

4.2. Socio-Economic Profile of Respondents

This section provides the socio-economic background of the respondents, including

their age, education level, land ownership, household income, and occupation. Understanding
these variables helps contextualize their dependence on MGNREGA and its impact on their
livelihood.

4.2(a). Age Distribution.

Table 4.2(a): Distribution of respondents’ age group wise

Age Nongjrong Village Kynton U Mon village
Group No. of Respondents (N) Percentage (%) No. of Respondents (N) Percentage (%)
20-30 3 10.0 6 20.0
31-40 6 20.0 14 46.7
41-50 10 33.3 8 26.7
51-60 11 36.7 2 6.7
Total 30 100.0 30 100.0
Source: Field survey, 2025

Table 4.2(a) illustrates the age-wise distribution of women respondents engaged under
MGNREGA from both Nongjrong and Kynton U Mon villages. The data reveals a noticeable
difference in participation across age groups, showing the unique socio-economic trend in each
village.

Table 4.2(a) shows that among respondents in Nongjrong, the older age groups
dominate with 36.7% in the 51-60 age group and 33.3% in the 31-40 age group. This indicates
that MGNREGA remain one of the primary sources of livelihood for older and middle-aged
women in Nongjrong. The reason behind this pattern is that farm cultivation is the primary
source of livelihood for most households in Nongjrong. As farm activity is seasonal in nature,
women usually involve themselves in MGNREGA activities during off-season periods for
additional family income. The absence of younger women in the 20-30 years category may be
because they are involved in farming activity or working as migrant labor.

Kynton U Mon village sees greater participation at the young age groups, led by 31-
40 age groups with 46.7% followed by 26.7% among the 41-50 category and 20-30 year with
20%. This means that younger women in this village are more engaged in public employment.
Compared to Nongjrong, Kynton u Mon would be more likely to have access to information
and government services, which likely to encourages more women from younger groups to
register and participate in MGNREGA work.

The difference in age profiles across the two villages reflects their economic base and
awareness. While Nongjrong reliance on farming lead older women to employ MGNREGA as
a secondary source of revenue, Kynton U Mon younger women benefit from easier
accessibility and awareness and employ the scheme more widely.

4.2(b)Households Size of Respondents

Table 4.2(b): Distribution of Respondents Households size

Household size Nongjrong village Kynton U Mon Village
Groups No. of respondents (N) Percentage No. of Respondents (N) Percentage
Small (1-5) 11 36.7 18 60
Medium (6-10) 18 60.0 12 40
Large
1 3.3 0 0
(More than 10)
Total 30 100.0 30 100
Source: Field Survey,2025

Table 4.2(b) presents the size of households of MGNREGA respondents in Kynton U

Mon and Nongjrong Villages. The size of households has been defined as small, medium, and
large members.

In Nongjrong village, 60% of respondents belong to medium-sized households with (6-

10). 36.7% are small-sized households ranging from (1-5), and only 3.3% are large-sized
families. This indicates that Nongjrong households are generally moderate in size. There were
no joint families, which means that most households are nuclear but may still consist of 6 or
more members because of additional children or dependent relatives.
 In Kynton U Mon village, the pattern is slightly different. While 60% of the respondents
there have small families (1-5) members, 40% are of medium-sized families. No large family
was mentioned in this village, which could reflect smaller family sizes and fewer dependents.

When comparing both villages, Nongjrong has relatively larger households than
Kynton u Mon. This is due to more reliance upon farming in Nongjrong, which allows bigger
numbers of members in household to be engaged in farming. Smaller households in Kynton U
Mon may reflect a trend toward nuclear families or more stable wage employment outside the
home.

Overall, the relatively lower households’ sizes in both villages indicate that most
families can send at least one or two members to work under MGNREGA, depending on their
needs and the availability of adult workers. This directly affects participation rates and how the
scheme supports rural livelihoods.

4.2(c). Literacy level

Table 4.2(c): Distribution of sample respondents according to literacy level

Nongjrong Village Kynton U Mon village
Education
No. of respondent (N) Percent (%) No. of Respondent (N) Percent (%)
Illiterate 13 43.3 0 0.0
Primary 14 46.7 13 43.3
Secondary 3 10.0 15 50.0
Graduate 0 0.0 2 6.7
Total 30 100.0 30 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2025

Table 4.2(c) presents a comparison of educational levels of MGNREGA respondents

in Kynton U Mon and Nongjrong Village. In Nongjrong, out of 30 respondents, 43.3% are
illiterate, 46.7% have only studied up to primary level, and only 10% have studied up to
secondary level. None of the respondents of Nongjrong have graduated. This indicates that
many of the respondents of Nongjrong lack access to tertiary education while literacy at the
basic level is still an issue.

Conversely, Kynton U Mon village reflects a far better education scenario. Out of the
30 respondents, none are illiterate, 43.3% have achieved education at least up to primary level,
50% have been educated till the secondary level, and 6.7% have even graduated. This indicates
that most of the Kynton U Mon respondents have at least basic level education, and some of
them have surpassed.
 The table clearly shows that Kynton U Mon has a stronger educational profile compared
to Nongjrong. While many people in Nongjrong continue to face illiteracy and low educational
levels, respondents in Kynton U Mon have better access to education and more opportunities
to study beyond the basic level. This difference may be due to better infrastructure of schools,
improved awareness, and greater support for education in Kynton U Mon. It also highlights the
need for more effort to improve the education system in Nongjrong so that people there can
have equal chances for learning and development.

4.2(d). Land Ownership

Table 4.2(d): Distribution of respondents according to size of Land Holding

Nongjrong Village Kynton U Mon Village
Land Assets
No. of respondent (N) Percentage (%) No. of respondent (N) Percentage (%)
Landless 0 0.0 23 76.7
Small (<1 AC) 12 40.0 7 23.3
Medium (2 ac) 16 53.3 0 0.0
Large (>2 acres) 2 6.7 0 0.0
Total 30 100.0 30 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2025

Table 4.2(d) shows landholding comparison of Nongjrong and Kynton u Mon village.
The table shows a large difference in land accessibility among the two villages’ respondents.
Among Nongjrong’s respondents, all 30 respondents possess land of which most are medium
landowners (53.3%), and each owns 2 acres of land. It is followed by 40% of small farmers
who have 1 acre of land and 6.7% of big farmers have more than 2 acres of land. Interestingly,
in Nongjrong, there are no respondents belonging to the landless category. This distribution
shows that most households in Nongjrong depend on agriculture as their main occupation and
have a relatively stable land base to support their livelihood.

The situation in Kynton U Mon is very different. There are a vast majority of
respondents (76.7%) who are landless and landless and only 23.3% who are small farmers have
1 acre of land. Kynton U Mon has no medium or large landholders. This indicates that most
households in Kynton u Mon may not be engaged in farming due to lack of land and are likely
to depend on wage labor or public employment schemes like MGNREGA for income.

Table 4.2(d) clearly highlights a significant difference in ownership between the two
villages. In Nongjrong, most households own land, with many having small to medium-sized
holdings. This suggests that farming is likely an important source of livelihood for the people
in this village. On the other hand, many households in Kynton U Mon are landless, with very
few owning even small plots of land. As a result, many households in Kynton U Mon may face
economic challenges and depend more on wage labor for their income.

To better understand the landholding situation, it is important to examine how much of

the land is under cultivation. Table 3.4 below gives the proportion of the cultivated land among
the respondents in Nongjrong and Kynton u Mon villages. This helps us to understand the role
of farming in agriculture for their income.

Table 4.2(e): Land Under Cultivation of Respondents

Nongjrong Village Kynton U Mon village
Cultivation Status No. of Respondents No. of Respondents
Percentage (%) Percentage (%)
(N) (N)
Yes 30 100 5 16.7
No 0 0 25 83.3
Total 30 100 30 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2025

Table 4.2(e) shows Land under cultivation of Respondents of Nongjrong and Kynton u
Mon village. In Nongjrong village, all respondents (100%) stated that they have land that is
under cultivation. This indicates that agriculture is the primary livelihood activity in the village
and land for farming is being cultivated across nearly all respondents.

In Kynton U Mon village, only 16.7% of respondents identified that land is under
cultivation and the other 83.3% do not have any cultivated land. This suggests that the majority
of Kynton U Mon Respondents are landless or are not engaged in cultivation and possibly rely
on non-agricultural livelihoods or daily wages labor.

4.2(f) Crop Cultivation Category

Table 4.2(f): Distribution of Respondents by Crop Cultivation Category

Nongjrong Village Kynton U Mon village
Crops Category No. of No. of
Percentage Percentage
Respondents (N) Respondents (N)
No Agriculture
0 0.0 18 60.0
(Daily wage labour)
Food Crops
7 23.3 12 40.0
(Rice, Vegetables)
Horticultural crops
6 20.0 0 0.0
Oranges, Gingers
Both Food & Horticulture 17 56.7 0 0.0
Total 30 100.0 30 100.0
Source: Field Survey,2025
 Table 4.2(f) presents the distribution of respondents based on the type of crops
cultivated in Nongjrong and Kynton u Mon villages. It highlights clear differences in the
agricultural engagement of two villages.

In Nongjrong village, all respondents (100%) are engaged in some form of cultivation.
56% of the respondents produce Food Crops like rice and vegetables and Horticulture crop like
oranges and ginger. This shows a diversified crop system, where households depend on
multiple sources of agricultural produce for both consumption and income. 23.3% of the
respondents cultivate Food Crops, while 20% grow only horticultural crops. This distribution
reveals that agriculture is the primary livelihood activity in Nongjrong and makes a large
contribution to rural incomes.

In Kynton u Mon village, the data shows a significantly lower involvement in farming
activities. 60% of the respondents are not engaged in agriculture and are bound to rely on non-
agricultural activities for their livelihoods. 40% of the respondents cultivate only Food Crops.
No Respondents in Kynton u Mon who reported cultivating horticultural crops or combining
Food and Horticulture. This indicated diversified farming that is less prevalent in this village.

The different patterns in the two villages reflect both economic and environmental
differences. Nongjrong, with its larger engagement in farming, has more cultivable land, more
fertile soils, and stronger traditions of agricultural livelihood. Meanwhile in Kynton u Mon,
has higher number of non-farming households implies they has limited access to agricultural
land or increasing dependence on wage labor and other source of Income.

Overall, the table indicates how trends in livelihood in both villages greatly differ from
each other. Agriculture remains the backbone in Nongjrong, and non-agricultural employment
plays a bigger role in Kynton u Mon village.

4.2(g). Occupation

Table 4.2(g): Main occupation of Respondent Beside MGNREGA

Nongjrong village Kynton U Mon village
Occupation
No. of Respondent (N) Percentage (%) No. of Respondent (N) Percentage (%)
Farming 23 76.7 0 0.0
Labourer 0 0.0 25 83.3
Both Farming &
7 23.3 5 16.7
Labourer
Total 30 100.0 30 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2025
 Table 4.5 presents a clear comparison of the main occupation of respondents from
Nongjrong and Kynton u Mon aside from their involvement in MGNREGA. In Nongjrong, a
substantial majority-76.7% identify farming as their primary occupation. Notably, no
respondent from Kynton U Mon reported farming as their mainland livelihood. On the other
hand, labor work is overwhelmingly predominant in Kynton U Mon, with 83.3% of
respondents engaged in this sector, while this occupation does not appear among Nongjrong
respondents. There is also a group of individuals in both villages engaged in both farming and
labor work: 23.3% in Nongjrong and 16.7% in Kynton U Mon. Farming emerges as the
dominant occupation in Nongjrong, whereas labor is the primary occupation in Kynton U Mon.
Though smaller proportion in each village combines both activities, this dual engagement is
more common in Nongjrong. Overall, the data highlights a pronounced contrast in livelihood
patterns: Nongjrong relies more heavily on agriculture, while Kynton U Mon is characterized
by greater dependence on wage labor as the principal source of income.

4.2(h). Household Income of respondents (monthly).

Table 4.2(h): Household Income of respondents.

Nongjrong Village Kynton u Mon village Nongjrong village Kynton u Mon village
(Before MGNREGA) (Before MGNREGA) (After MGNREGA) (After MGNREGA)
Income Range
(Rs/Month) No. of No. of No. of No. of
Percent Percent Percent Percent
Respondents Respondents Respondents Respondents
(%) (%) (%) (%)
(N) (N) (N) (N)
3000-6000 9 30.0 17 56.7 5 16.7 7 23.3
6001-9000 7 23.3 13 43.3 10 33.3 20 66.7
9001-12000 8 26.7 0 0.0 7 23.3 3 10.0
12001-15000 4 13.3 0 0.0 6 20.0 0 0.0
15001-18000 2 6.7 0 0.0 2 6.7 0 0.0
Total 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0 30 100.0
Source: Field Survey,2025

Table 4.6 shows comparative analysis of household income in Nongjrong and Kynton
U Mon villages before and after their being part of MGNREGA. The income is classified into
five categories, ranging from Rs 3000-6000 to Rs 15001-18000 per month. This section shows
the change in the trend of income, highlights the changes and analyzes how the scheme
influenced rural livelihoods.

In Nongjrong village, before MGNREGA, most families were in the lower income
group. Around 30% of them were getting (3000-6000) rupees, and 23.3% were getting (6001-
9000) rupees. 26.7% were getting (9001-12000) rupees, and 16.7% were getting (12001-
15000) rupees. Only 6.7% earned above 15000 rupees per month. This trend in income shows
that while some households were comparatively stable in terms of income from agriculture and
other sources, a significant portion still earned less than 9000 rupees per month.

After MGNREGA, a positive change is seen. The number of households earning (3000-
6000) rupees dropped from 30% to 19.7%, showing a decline in low-income households. The
percentage for the (9001-12000 rupees) increased from 27.7% to 30 %, and the (12001-15000
rupees) dropped from 16.7% to 20%. It shows that households gradually moved into higher
income. The income group of (6001-9000) rupees was a stable group at 23.3% but now served
as a transitional group rather than the upper limit.

The data show that after MGNREGA, most households who previously had an income
below 6000 rupees per month were able to cross that and shift to higher income levels. The
growth demonstrates that MGNREGA pay gave an additional means of earnings, which
benefited the most during the off-season in farm work. People were able to easily manage daily
expenditure. The program not only relieved acute low income but also stabilized family income
that previously had seasonal or irregular income from agriculture.

In Kynton u Mon, before MGNREGA, the situation was more challenging. Most of the
respondents,56% earned only (3000-6000 rupees) per month, and 43.3 % earned (6001-9000).
There was no household that was earning above 9000 rupees, and this indicates that households
were highly relying on casual wage labor without any agricultural labor, and almost everyone
had very low earnings.

After MGNREGA, the transformation was marked. The poor households in the lowest
group declined from 56.7% to 23.3%, while the households with an income lying in the range
of (6001-9000) increased largely from 43.3% to 66.7%. Further, 10% of the households shifted
to the (9001-12000 rupees) category-a class with no representation earlier.

The change indicates that MGNREGA acted as a primary source of livelihood for most
families in Kynton u Mon. The scheme helped people who were previously stuck in the lowest
income category move into slightly better financial positions. Though no households reached
the highest income levels, the fall in extremely low-income households (over 30%) is a clear
sign of progress. It suggests that the scheme plays a crucial role in lifting families above the
poverty line and reducing daily financial pressure.

For better estimation of the economic condition of the respondents, per capita income
was calculated by dividing the family income by the number of family members. Based on that,
families were considered as BPL (Below Poverty Line) or APL (Above Poverty line) according
to the rural poverty line of Rs. 1632 per head per month, which is widely used in rural India.

The following table shows the number and percentage of families falling under each
category in Kynton U Mon and Nongjrong village. This helps to compare the income levels of
the families and the number of families below the minimum basic level.

Table 4.2(i): Percentage of BPL and APL Households of Respondents

Nongjrong Village (Before

Kynton U Mon village
MGNREGA)
Before After
Groups After Persons Persons
Persons MGNREGA Before MGNREGA MGNREGA
MGNREGA (N) (N)
(N) Percentage Percentage (%) Percentage
Percentage (%) (Before) (After)
(%) (%)
BPL 21 70 70 24 18 80 60
APL 9 30 30 6 12 20 40
Total 30 100 100 30 30 100 100
Source: Field survey,2025

Table 4.2(i) indicates the status of APL and BPL households in Nongjrong and Kynton
U Mon villages prior to the launch of the MGNREGA scheme. Out of the total 30 households
surveyed in Nongjrong, 21 households (70%) were categorized as BPL and 9 household (30%)
as APL. Similarly, in Kynton U Mon, out of the total of 30 households, 24 households (80%)
were categorized as BPL and only 6 households (20%) were APL. This indicates that most of
the households in the two villages were weaker economically, but Kynton U Mon had slightly
larger percentage of BPL households than in Nongjrong. Conversely, Nongjrong had a
relatively more percentage of APL families than Kynton U Mon. This comparison gives a clear
picture of the economic status of both villages prior to the introduction of MGNREGA.

APL and BPL of Household After MGNREGA: Table 4.7 show the numbers and
percentage of Below Poverty Line (BPL) and Above Poverty Line (APL) household of
Nongjrong and Kynton u Mon village. In Nongjrong village, there are 30 households of which
21 households (70%) fall under the BPL category and 9 households (30%) fall under APL
category. It is evident from this that a large majority of households in Nongjrong still live in
poverty despite getting work under MGNREGA. In Kynton U Mon, there are 30 households
of which 18 households (60%) fall under the BPL category and 12 households (40%) fall under
the APL category.
 Overall, the data indicates the regional trend in the effect of MGNREGA on regions.
This may be due to differences in the effectiveness of program implementation, the number of
workdays provided, or local economic conditions.

4.3. Objective-wise Data Analysis

4.3(a). Objective 1: To analyses the gap between the 100 days of guaranteed employment
and actual number of workdays received under MGNREGA

The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) is a

right-based programme that ensures all rural households at least 100 days of wage employment
in an income year. The aim is to improve livelihood security, reduce rural poverty, and enable
economic support through public works. However, in actual implementation, most of the
households received much less than the guaranteed. This section presents the gap between the
promised 100 days, and the days received for beneficiaries in Nongjrong and Kynton U Mon
villages.

To measure this, information was collected from Nongjrong and Kynton U Mon
Villages to find out how many days the respondent worked in the last year. This helps us to
understand whether the scheme meets the employment needs of rural workers. The table below
presents the distribution of workdays received by the respondents in both villages.

Table 4.3(a): Distribution of workdays Received by Workers

Range of workdays Nongjrong village Kynton U Mon village
received (days) No. of Respondent(N) Percentage (%) No. of Respondent(N) Percentage (%)
10-20 6 20 0 0.0
21-30 18 60 0 0.0
31-40 6 20 1 3.3
41-50 0 0 6 20.0
51-60 0 0 3 10.0
61-70 0 0 9 30.0
71-80 0 0 7 23.3
81-90 0 0 2 6.7
91-100 0 0 2 6.7
Total 30 100 30 100.0
Source: Field Survey, 2025

Table 4.3(a) clearly shows the unequal distribution of MGNREGA work to the two
villages. Even though both villages are entitled to 100 days of work per household, the actual
number of workdays received by respondents is highly unequal, particularly in Nongjrong.
 In Nongjrong, no respondents were provided with work by MGNREGA for more than
40 days. In fact, 60% of them were only received 21-30 days, and 20% were only received 11-
20 days and 20% of them received only 31-40 days. This means that all respondents in
Nongjrong received less than half the 100 days guarantees to them. This reflects a serious
implementation gap. The fact that no one received even close to 60 days or even the entire 100
days indicates that rural workers in Nongjrong were mostly not able to gain an adequate benefit
from MGNREGA scheme.

These results clearly show that the programme is not fully reaching its objective in
Nongjrong. Most of the laborers here are unable to obtain enough work under MGNREGA.
This may be due to problems such as poor planning, delays in starting projects, lack of available
funds, or ineffectiveness of the Village Employment Council (VEC).

Overall, the data suggests that the amount of workday received in Nongjrong is
extremely low, and the gap between what is promised (100 days) and what is received is very
wide. This reduces the benefit of the programme for poor households, particularly those who
rely upon this income for a living. The gap also shows that there is still a need to improve
implementation, increase awareness and to ensure that the villagers are supporting in accessing
their full entitlements under MGNREGA.

In Kynton U Mon, the number of workdays received by respondents is slightly higher.

The data shows that 30% of them received 61-70 days, 23.3% received 71-80 days, and 13.4%
received over 80 days including some who complete the full 100 days entitlement. Only 3.3%
received 31-40 days and no one received below 30 days. This reflects that MGNREGA
implementation in Kynton U Mon could be more active or organized. The respondents in this
village would have access to more regular work under the scheme, which would have given
them more income and reduced dependence on casual and informal sources of employment.
However, the gap still shows that the full 100 days is rarely achieved, even in better-performing
areas.

This pattern suggests that the scheme was being implemented more effectively in
Kynton U Mon. The increased number of workdays could be because of better planning, early
sanctioning of projects, regular availability of funds and stronger support from the Village
Employment Council. It may also indicate that the villagers are better aware of their rights and
actively seek work when needed. Although not everyone received the full 100 days, many came
close to it. This shows that when the scheme is well-managed, it can provide meaningful
support to rural households. MGNREGA seems to have more impact on Kynton U Mon, as the
villagers had easier access to employment and income security. However, the remaining gap
still shows that more efforts are needed to reach the full potential of the programme.

4.3(b). Objective 2: To understand people’s satisfaction with the kind of work they do
under MGNREGA.

This section focuses on understanding how workers felt regarding the nature of work
provided under MGNREGA. In both Nongjrong and Kynton u Mon village, the main type of
work included Road construction, building footpaths, water conservation, and constructing
small pond. These are typically carried out in a group and require physical effort such as
digging, carrying stone or lifting materials.

Since all the respondents in this study are women, their level of satisfaction depends on
whether they found the work suitable for them. To understand better, their responses were
collected and compared between Nongjrong and Kynton U Mon villages.

The following tables show the number of workers from both villages who were very
satisfied, satisfied and neutral with the kind of task they were assigned.

Table 4.3(b): Satisfaction Level of respondents

Nongjrong Village Kynton U Mon village
Satisfaction
No. of Percentage No. of Percentage
Level
Respondent(N) (%) Respondent (N) (%)
Very satisfied 0 0.0 3 10.0
Satisfied 17 56.7 16 53.3
Neutral 13 43.3 11 36.7
Total 30 100.0 30 100.0
Source: Field Survey,2025

Table 4.3(b) illustrates the response of MGNREGA workers from both Kynton U Mon
and Nongjrong villages to see whether they were satisfied with the quality of work received.
In Nongjrong, over half of the respondents (56.7%) reported that they were satisfied,
with the other 43.3%, provided a neutral answer, indicating that they were not extremely
positive or negative. Contrary to expectation, none of the respondents in Nongjrong reported
to be very satisfied. This suggests that although many people accepted the work, they did not
find it satisfied or very satisfied. The neutral response might indicate a lack of strong positive
feelings toward the work, possibly due to the type of work, the quality or how it was managed.
The same is found in Kynton U Mon village. Approximately 53.3% reported that they
were satisfied with the standard of work, although lower compared to Nongjrong. But 10% of
the people in Kynton U Mon said they were very satisfied, and 36.7% gave a neutral response.
This shows that a few people in Kynton U Mon were happier with the work than those in
Nongjrong.
Both villages reported a high rate of respondents who were satisfied with the work done
under MGNREGA. But the major difference is that while Kynton U Mon had some of its
respondents (10%) very satisfied, Nongjrong had none. This means that the work in Kynton U
Mon was slightly of better quality or more effectively planned and managed. Also, Kynton U
Mon had fewer neutral responses than Nongjrong. This may suggest that there were more
employees in Kynton u Mon who had clear opinions about the work, while in Nongjrong, many
were unsure or didn’t feel strongly.
4.3(c). Objective 2: To understand people’s satisfaction with the kind of work they do
under MGNREGA.

This section examines the impact of delays in wages under MGNREGA on workers’
day-to-day lives. Even though MGNREGA aims to generate employment and bring about
financial security, delay in payments can reduce its intended purpose, particularly among the
poor households that depend timely wages for essential needs.
The following table is a comparison of how the workers from Nongjrong and Kynton
U Mon villages responded to delayed wages, and what kind of effect it had on their daily life.
Table 4.3(c): Duration of Delay in Wage Receipts (2024)
Nongjrong Village Kynton U Mon village
Delayed Duration No. of Respondent
No. of Respondent(N) Percentage (%) Percentage (%)
(N)
No Delayed 0 0.0 15 50
2- week 0 0.0 15 50
3 Month 3 10.0 0 0
4 Month 10 33.3 0 0
5- Month 5 16.7 0 0
6- Month 12 40.0 0 0
Total 30 100.0 30 100
Source: Field survey, 2025

Table 4.3(c) reflects a comparative analysis of delayed MGNREGA wage payments

made to respondents of Nongjrong and Kynton U Mon villages. In Nongjrong, not even one of
the respondents received their wages under MGNREGA within two weeks. Rather, 13.3%
waited for 4 months, 33.3% waited for 5 months, another 13.3% waited for 5 months and the
maximum 40% waited for 6 months. This means that more than 70% of workers waited
between four to six months to receive the wages that they had earned through manual labor.
This indicates a long-standing problem of wage payment and implies that Nongjrong payment
system is not working as planned. Since MGNREGA is a right-based, demand driven
programme for guaranteeing timely income during periods of unemployment or low economic
activity, such extensive delays defeat its main objective.
In Kynton U Mon village, 50% of the respondents said their wages were received within
2 weeks, while the remaining 50% reported no delays at all. This means none of the workers
in Kynton U Mon faced serious wage delays, and their financial situation would be more stable
compared to those in Nongjrong. This relatively smooth wage delivery system in Kynton U
Mon indicates better functioning at the local level, possibly due to stronger planning, better use
of digital systems, and management of funds.
Understanding the delay in MGNREGA wage payments is not enough without looking
at how it affects workers’ daily lives. In rural areas, even small delays can create financial
pressure, especially for women who rely on this income for basic needs. The following section
looks at how these delays affected households in both Nongjrong and Kynton U Mon.
A. Nongjrong village.
In Nongjrong village, most of the population relies primarily on agriculture and daily
wage labor for their livelihood. MGNREGA, thus, is not their sole means of income. However,
they still take up work under the scheme, particularly during off-seasons of farming or when
there is no daily labor. While delayed wages may not have affected their survival as directly as
in other places, the delay still caused frustration and financial inconvenience, especially
because they had already worked but did receive their payment on time.
Loss of trust and disappointment: Many workers shared that they felt discouraged
because they completed the work but did not receive wages for many months. This made them
lose trust in the scheme. They indicate that they would have looked for another job if they
received pay on time.
Time and effort wasted: As they have spent that time on other paid work or
cultivation, most of them felt it wasn’t worth their time working under MGNREGA. The long
wait for payment made them feel like their time and energy were wasted.
Small Financial Stress: Even though they had other sources of income, the expected
MGNREGA wages were still part of their household budget. The delay created a small
financial gap-for example, they couldn’t buy items they had planned for or had to postpone
certain household needs.
So, while the effect was not serious in terms of survival, the delay in payment still
affected people’s trust, motivation to work, and household planning.
 B. Kynton U Mon village.
In Kynton u Mon village, people mostly work as daily laborers and depend on their
earnings to meet daily needs. MGNREGA is one of their income sources, and it is very helpful
for them to manage their family. In this village, the wage payment system was relatively better,
as 50% of workers received their wages within two weeks, and no one had to wait longer than
four months. Consequently, the negative effects of wage delays were not very serious.
Basic needs were managed well: Most families were able to cover their daily
expenses, such as food and necessities, without facing serious shortages or stress.
Better financial planning: Timely payments allowed families to plan their expenditure
every month in a more systematic way. This covers school expenses, small medical expenses
and festival-related costs.
Beneficial in lean employment times: For workers who did not get daily labor jobs
regularly, MGNREGA provided useful financial support. Timely wages helped maintain
household stability during such times.
Overall, Kynton U Mon were less affected by delayed wage payment due to better
implementation of the payment system and the presence of alternative source of income. The
scheme helped with its purpose by offering reliable support when needed, thereby contributing
to the overall financial well-being of the households.
4.4. Suggestions and Changes desired by Respondents in MGNREGA work (Nongjrong
and Kynton U Mon).
During the field survey, women beneficiary of Nongjrong and Kynton U Mon villages
were asked an open-ended question: “what changes would you like to see in MGNREGA work
in your village?”. This question was included to know the opinion of the workers regarding
how the programme could be made better so that it could meet their needs better.
The responses gathered offer important insight into the practical difficulties rural
women face, and improvements they believe could make MGNREGA more meaningful in their
daily lives. Below is the analysis of the changes expressed by respondents from Nongjrong and
Kynton U Mon villages.
4.4.1 Nongjrong Village: Suggestions and Changes Desired by Respondents in
MGNREGA Work.
Nongjrong is a village in which majority of households rely on agriculture and casual
labor for their livelihood. The implementation of MGNREGA here plays an important role,
particularly during off-season when there is no work on farms. However, based on the
responses gathered during the survey, the workers feel that the scheme could be improved to
make a more lasting and meaningful impact on their lives. The key points have been grouped
into themes for clarity.
Focus on work with long-term benefits: Several respondents state that MGNREGA
projects should not only provide short-term employment but also contribute to the long-term
development of the village. They want the program to create assets that will be useful in the
future, such as plantation, irrigation structures, or soil and water conservation works. These
types of work not only help the community but also improve agricultural productivity.
Increase in the number of working days, particularly off-season: Women workers
strongly felt that the present number of working days offered under MGNREGA is inadequate.
The majority felt that more working days need to be offered through the scheme, especially
during the off-season of agriculture. This would help reduce the financial burden on households
and support them during periods of low or no income from farming.
Ensure Regular and Continuous Work: Respondents pointed out that MGNREGA
work in Nongjrong is often irregular and unpredictable. They suggest that government
employment should make work available on a regular basis, rather than just a few days in a
year. Regular work would help improve income stability and allow families to plan their
household spending better.
Align Project with Village Needs: Respondents expressed that the type of work
chosen under MGNREGA should match the actual needs of the village. The respondents felt
that the chosen schemes barely benefit the people directly. On the other hand, they suggested
more meaningful work such as building small irrigation canals, and conserving nature-based
water sources.
Improve Infrastructure Through MGNREGA: Several women explained that there
are numerous broken or unfinished infrastructures in their village that require repair. They
suggested that MGNREGA be used for:
• Repairing village roads, which are normally damaged during monsoon.
• Construction or repair pf old water tanks, wells and pipelines to have improved access
to drinking water.
These projects would not only enhance living conditions but also create beneficial and
durable community assets.
Encourage Environmental and Sustainable development: Some respondents
emphasized the implementation of MGNREGA from an environmental perspective. They
suggest that activity like tree plantation and watershed development should encouraged under
the scheme. The activity conserves the environment, prevents soil erosion, and support
agriculture activity in the long term.
Increase wages Rates to Match Basic Needs: A common concern raised was that the
current wages paid under MGNREGA are insufficient to meet daily household expenses. They
argued that the government to revise the wages to align with inflation and rising cost of food,
healthcare, and schooling.
4.4.2 Kynton U Mon village: Suggestions and Changes Desired by Respondents in
MGNREGA Implementation.
In Kynton u Mon village, respondents expressed thoughtful insight on how the
functioning of MGNREGA can be bettered to address changing needs of the community.
Although they did recognize the contribution of the scheme toward wage employment, many
women workers pointed out the necessity for improved planning, maintenance of assets and
support for livelihood-related infrastructure. The following key points summarize the changes
they wished to see:
Repair and Maintenance of Existing Assets: Respondents suggested that
MGNREGA must focus more on repairing and maintaining the assets already created,
including roads, footpath, and drainage. Rather than launching new projects every year, the
community recommended revisiting old works that have deteriorated over time. This would
ensure better utilization of resources and sustain the benefits of earlier investments.
Undertaking Project with Long-term Usefulness: Some workers highlighted the
need for choosing projects that give long-term value to the village. For example, road
connectivity and water conservation projects were cited as essential areas that would enhance
both daily life and agricultural productivity. It was observed that long-term projects should be
given preference over temporary or less relevant work activities.
Support for livelihood-Enhancing Infrastructure: The building of pig shed under
MGNREGA was recommended by respondents who practice livestock farming. This kind of
infrastructure, they said, would support income-generating activities directly and align
programmed more closely with the community’s actual economic needs.
Construction of Public Toilets: Another requirement was the construction of public
toilets under MGNREGA. Most respondents said that there is a shortage of such facilities in
important areas of the village and that their provision would enhance the health and hygiene of
the public.
Increase Daily Wages to Match Cost of Living: As in Nongjrong, the workers in
Kynton u Mon also indicated that the current wage is not adequate to cover basic household
expenses. They requested wages to be readjust according to current market levels and rural
living expenses.
Chapter 5
Summary And conclusion
5.1 Introduction
This chapter examines the overall summary of the study, based on the key findings
collected from fieldwork in Nongjrong and Kynton U Mon villages. It summarizes the key
concepts expressed in the earlier chapters and reflects on how far the Mahatma Gandhi national
Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) has succeeded in creating rural jobs and
supporting households in the selected villages. The summary is arranged based on the key
findings from analysis, three research objectives, followed by policy implication. The chapter
ends with a brief conclusion, highlighting the strengths and challenges of the scheme as
observed during the study.
5.2. Key Findings from the Analysis.
This section explored the experience of women beneficiaries under Mahatma Gandhi
National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) in two villages, namely Nongjrong
and Kynton U Mon, of East Khasi Hills District of Meghalaya. Findings are based on primary
data obtained through structured questionnaires and personal interaction with respondents. The
findings of key significance are presented below:
All Respondents Have Job Cards: All respondents from Nongjrong and Kynton u
Mon villages reported informed they held a valid job card under MGNREGA. This indicates
that all the respondents were formally registered and eligible to participate in the scheme.
No Member of the Household in Government Services: None of the respondents or
their family members were involved in government services such as teachers, health workers,
or any government service. This shows that their primary source of income is from
MGNREGA, farming, or daily wage labor.
Difference in Daily Wage Rates: Nongjrong MGNREGA wage rate was 250 rupees
per day while Kynton u Mon wage rate was 254 rupees per day. Although the difference is
small, it may reflect variation in wage revision or processing at the administrative levels of the
two blocks.
Shortage in access to the Entire 100 Days of Employment: MGNREGA guarantee
of 100 days of wage employment annually, most of the women respondents received fewer
than half of the guaranteed workdays. In Nongjrong, most of the respondents had access to
only 21 to 30 days of employment, and none of the respondents had access to more than 40
days of employment. This indicates a huge mismatch in demand and supply for employment.
On the other hand, Kynton u Mon performed better in that most of the respondents had between
61 and 80 working days.
Physical Nature of work often challenging for Women: The nature of work assigned
under MGNREGA in both villages consisted of physically demand jobs such as road
construction, digging drain, and water conservation activities. In Nongjrong, women expressed
more dissatisfaction, while in Kynton u Mon, some respondents found the work more
meaningful and suitable to the needs of the village.
Levels of Satisfaction Varied significantly Between the two Village: fewer than half
of the respondents in Nongjrong were not satisfied with the type of work they were given.
Women in Kynton U Mon, however, expressed higher satisfaction levels, indicating that the
work was productive in some way, such as construction of footpath.
Delays Payments Negatively Affected livelihoods: In Nongjrong, all women
respondents reported facing wage delays of 3 to 6 months. This delay created a problem in
managing basic household needs like buying basic needs. In Kynton U Mon, most women
received wages on time or faced only minor delays of one or two weeks.
MGNREGA acts as Supplementary, Not Primary Income Source: Women in both
villages considered MGNREGA a secondary support. However, the delays in Payment reduced
its usefulness, especially in time of financial need.
Demand for Locally Relevant and Long-term Community Assets: Respondents in
both villages wanted MGNREGA activities to be concentrated more on long-term benefits such
as road construction, water resources, and agriculture-related works. In Nongjrong, Women
wanted more plantation and water conservation projects. In Kynton U Mon, women suggested
repairing existing roads, footpaths and water storage facilities.
Wages are Not Enough for Basic Needs: Women from both villages believed that the
daily wage provided under MGNREGA is not sufficient to address their basic daily needs,
especially when prices of food, health, and education is rising. There were demands to raise
the daily wage to make the scheme more beneficial.
Location and Local governance Influenced implementation: MGNREGA
implementation was found to be stronger in Kynton U Mon compared to Nongjrong. In Kynton
U Mon, the presence of a nearby bank within the Nongkrem circle, improved road connections
and a more active local government had facilitated programme operations. This makes it easier
for workers to access their wages, check account details, and complete banking processes
without much difficulty. In Nongjrong, there is poor road connectivity and absence of nearby
bank make it difficult for women to access their wages. They need to travel long distances,
especially when payments are delayed, which adds both physical and financial stress. These
challenges reduce the overall impact of the scheme and highlight the importance of improving
basic infrastructure in remote rural areas.
Worker Feel safe at the Worksite: All the respondents have mentioned that they feel
safe when they work in MGNREGA workplaces. The workplace is typically within the village
or nearby, which makes workers feel comfortable and secure. Safety is particularly significant
to women workers, as it encourages them to continue working in public wage employment
without fear or hesitation.
Equal opportunity for women: All respondents agreed that are given equal
opportunity to be part of MGNREGA schemes. Women and men have no difference in the
distribution of work or wage payments. This means that the programmed is supports gender
equality, which is one of its core objectives. In both villages, women are actively involved in
MGNREGA work and feel that their contribution is recognized and valued.
Wages are Received Through Bank Accounts: All respondents confirmed that they
receive their wages directly into their bank accounts. This shows that the Direct Benefit
Transfer (DBT) system is in place. It helps improve transparency and reduces chances of
corruption. However, in Nongjrong village, some of the respondents reported facing difficulties
in getting access to their wages. The village lacks banking facilities nearby, so beneficiaries
often must travel long distances to withdraw money. Some respondents also complained of
Adhaar linking issues like name mismatch or biometric failure, which caused a delay in their
salary credit. These issues render rural households unable to avail optimum benefits from the
scheme even where there is payment infrastructure.
No basic Facilities at the Worksite: All the respondents mentioned that basic facilities
such as drinking water, shade, first aid were not available at the MGNREGA worksites.
According to the MGNREGA guideline, these facilities should be provided. The lack of such
services affects the comfort and well-being of the workers, especially women and older people.
Social Audit is conducted: All respondents reported that social audits are conducted
in their village, once a year. The audits are conducted in an open session, where officials read
out details of what has been done, what wages have been paid, and what has been spent.
Villagers are allowed to ask questions and give their feedback. Although some villagers do not
understand the process, most of them agreed that the audit helps to maintain transparency. This
shows that there is a basic system to check and monitor the implementation of MGNREGA in
both villages.
5.3. Conclusion Based on Objectives
This section provides a brief overview of all the three principal objectives of the study.
By going through the responses from the field and comparing the two villages, it is easier to
understand how well MGNREGA is working on the ground.
The scheme has succeeded in generating temporary jobs for rural people, particularly
jobless or landless with no stable employment. In Nongjrong, where most households depend
on farming and labor, MGNREGA contributed significantly towards their employment during
the off seasons. However, in villages, most individuals didn’t receive the guaranteed minimum
100 days of employment under the act. This implies that although the scheme is helpful, its full
potential is not being reached.
Objective 1: To analyses the gap between the 100 days of guaranteed employment and
actual number of workdays received under MGNREGA
In Nongjrong village, most women reported that even though they were willing to work
more days, they received only around (21-40) days of employment. This falls far short of the
100-day guarantee under MGNREGA. The respondents of this village were also not provided
with more than 40 days of work. The gap between promises and supply of work is a key issue
here.
In Kynton U Mon village, most of the women got (51-80) days of work, and few got
more than that. This proves that although MGNREGA is better implemented in the case of
Kynton U Mon, it still does make it to the complete employment guarantee.
In both villages, fewer workdays were provided especially in Nongjrong, where work
accessibility was significantly more limited.
Objective 2: To understand people’s satisfaction with the kind of work they do under
MGNREGA.

In Nongjrong village, most of the respondents had a neutral level of satisfaction. Most
participants claimed that while they were thankful for getting a job, they felt disconnected from
the kind of job that was assigned. The work was often repetitive, physically demanding and not
always aligned with their capabilities or interests.
In Kynton U Mon, most of the respondents believed that the work was more
worthwhile and comparatively less demanding, like fixing roads or minor drainage work. Some
used other sources of income to manage the delay.
 Overall, satisfaction was higher in Kynton U Mon than in Nongjrong. Yet in both
villages, women indicated that the work must be planned by the need of community and
workers.
Objective 3: To understand how delays in MGNREGA wage payments affect the
livelihood and financial condition of workers
In Nongjrong, all respondents experienced wage delays, some up to 3 to 6 months. This
caused major difficulties in managing basic household expenses. Some reported they could not
purchase basic needs. Although agriculture and casual labor as primary sources of income,
delayed payment made it harder for them to afford necessities or manage emergencies.
In Kynton u Mon village, the impact of delayed pay was much less. 50% of the women
get their pay on time, and the rest had only short delays (1-2 weeks). Most of them reported
that this did not affect their financial well-being. Some used other sources of income to manage
during the delay.
5.4 Conclusion
This study has examined the implementation and impact of MGNREGA on rural
women in two villages of East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya i.e. Nongjrong and Kynton u Mon. The
objectives were to learn how women perceive the scheme in relation to accessibility of work,
satisfaction with the work performed, and the effect of delayed wage payment on their
livelihoods.
The study identifies that although MGNREGA plays a significant role in giving work
and income to rural women, the scheme operation is not equal in both villages. The women in
Nongjrong were given fewer working days than they should have receives and had very long
delays in getting payment of wages. Most of the respondents were dissatisfied or neutral about
the nature of work given, which was physically demanding and not directed to their needs.
These problems were compounded by the lack of good roads and lack of local banking services.
In Kynton u Mon village, majority of the respondents said they had regular work and
received wages on time. They were most satisfied with the type of work provided. With better
infrastructure and availability of facilities like banks, it made the scheme more effective in this
village. However, women shared that wages were not enough, and the number of workdays
could be improved.
An important outcome of this study is the changes desired by respondent, most of them
suggested changes such as increasing wages to match the cost of living, starting work during
off-season, and engagement in long-term and useful project like water conservation, road
maintenance, and plantation. The women in both villages showed an awareness of their need
and an interest to participate in determining the direction of the programme’s future.
Overall, the study concludes that MGNREGA has had a positive impact, but there are
various challenges that limit its full potential. To make the programme more effective, local
needs must be considered, payment system must be improved, and community voices
especially women, must be heard during planning and decision-making processes. With better
planning and stronger local support, MGNREGA has the potential to be an even more effective
instrument for enhancing livelihood security and rural development in Meghalaya and other
similar regions.