 |
| India’s new VB-G RAM G Bill shifts rural employment from a rights-based, demand-driven model to a centrally controlled, budget-capped scheme.(Representing ai image) |
From MGNREGA to VB-G RAM G: Why India’s Rural Employment Model Is Changing
- Dr.Sanjaykumar pawar
Table of Contents
- Introduction: Why This Bill Matters Now
- MGNREGA at a Glance: A Rights-Based Economic Safety Net
- What Is the VB-G RAM G Bill? Key Provisions Explained Simply
- Demand-Driven vs Supply-Driven: Why This Shift Is Crucial
- Guaranteed Workdays: More on Paper, Less in Practice?
- Fiscal Federalism Under Stress: Rising Burden on States
- Centralisation of Power: Who Decides Where Jobs Exist?
- Technology, Surveillance, and Rural Labour
- Seasonal Work Blackouts: Economic Logic or Livelihood Risk?
- The Government’s Argument: Viksit Bharat @2047 Vision
- Critics’ Perspective: Is This the End of the Right to Work?
- Economic Implications: Employment, Inequality, and Growth
- Data Snapshot: Comparing MGNREGA and VB-G RAM G
- Global Perspective: How Other Countries Design Rural Job Schemes
- What This Means for Rural India: Real-Life Scenarios
- Policy Alternatives: Reform Without Rollback
- Conclusion: Reform or Retreat?
- Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
- Sources & References
1. Introduction: Why This Bill Matters Now
For millions of rural families in India, employment schemes are not abstract policy ideas—they are the difference between staying afloat and slipping into poverty. When crops fail due to drought, when food prices rise faster than wages, or when seasonal migration breaks family support systems, rural job programmes step in as a lifeline. Economists often describe schemes like MGNREGA as macroeconomic stabilisers, but on the ground, they simply mean assured work, food on the table, and dignity in hard times.
It is in this context that the proposed “Viksit Bharat — Guarantee For Rozgar And Ajeevika Mission (Gramin)” (VB-G RAM G) Bill becomes critically important. By seeking to replace the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), 2005, the government is not just introducing a new programme—it is reshaping the very philosophy of rural employment in India. After nearly two decades, a law that treated employment as a legal right is being rewritten as a managed scheme.
At first glance, the proposal looks reassuring. The Bill increases guaranteed workdays from 100 to 125, a move that appears to acknowledge ongoing rural distress. However, this headline change hides a deeper structural shift. Unlike MGNREGA, which allowed people to demand work when they needed it, the new framework places firm limits on spending and locations, effectively turning employment into a supply-controlled benefit rather than an enforceable right.
Why does this matter now? Because India’s rural economy remains fragile despite progress in infrastructure and digital access. Climate shocks, uneven growth, and rising living costs continue to hit rural households hardest. How the country designs its rural employment system today will shape not only livelihoods but also economic stability and social equity in the years ahead.
This article explores what the VB-G RAM G Bill changes, who stands to benefit, who may lose out, and why these choices matter for India’s economic future.
2. MGNREGA at a Glance: A Rights-Based Economic Safety Net
For millions of rural households in India, MGNREGA was never just a government scheme—it was a lifeline. Enacted in 2005, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act fundamentally changed how the Indian state responded to rural poverty, unemployment, and economic distress. Unlike earlier welfare programmes, MGNREGA treated employment not as charity, but as a legal right.
Why MGNREGA Was Revolutionary
What set MGNREGA apart was its rights-based design, which put power directly in the hands of rural citizens:
-
Guaranteed 100 days of wage employment as a legal right
Every rural household could demand up to 100 days of paid work each year. This was enforceable by law, not dependent on political discretion or budgetary generosity. -
Any rural household could demand work
There were no quotas, cut-off lists, or selective regions. If a household applied for work, the government was legally bound to provide it. -
Compensation if work was not provided
If employment was not offered within 15 days, workers were entitled to an unemployment allowance. This clause ensured accountability and discouraged administrative delays. -
Decentralised planning through gram panchayats
Local governments identified works based on community needs—ponds, roads, irrigation channels—making the scheme responsive to local realities rather than top-down planning.
How MGNREGA Protected the Rural Economy
Beyond wages, MGNREGA played a crucial economic role. It set a floor for rural wages, reduced distress migration, and supported household consumption during bad agricultural seasons. For women, it created unprecedented access to paid work close to home. For marginal farmers and landless labourers, it provided income stability when crops failed or markets fluctuated.
The Economic Analogy: An Automatic Stabiliser
Economists often describe MGNREGA as an automatic stabiliser, similar to unemployment insurance in advanced economies. When droughts, floods, or economic slowdowns hit rural India, demand for work under MGNREGA automatically rose. Government spending expanded in response to real need—without requiring fresh policy decisions each time.
This built-in flexibility was MGNREGA’s greatest strength. It allowed the rural economy to absorb shocks and recover faster.
Why This Matters Today
The proposed shift away from this demand-driven model removes that flexibility. When employment is capped by budgets instead of need, the risk of economic distress shifts back onto rural households.
In simple terms, MGNREGA worked because it trusted people to know when they needed work. Any move away from this principle risks weakening one of India’s most important economic safety nets.
3. What Is the VB-G RAM G Bill? Key Provisions Explained Simply
The Viksit Bharat — Guarantee For Rozgar And Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill, commonly called the VB-G RAM G Bill, is set to replace the MGNREGA, a rural employment law that has supported millions of households for nearly two decades. While the government presents this Bill as a modern reform aligned with the Viksit Bharat 2047 vision, its structure signals a major policy shift that directly affects how rural jobs are created, funded, and accessed.
what the Bill actually changes—and why it matters.
1. Replacing MGNREGA Entirely
The Bill does not amend MGNREGA; it replaces it completely. This is significant because MGNREGA was a rights-based law, meaning rural households could legally demand work. Under the VB-G RAM G framework, employment becomes a scheme-based benefit, not a guaranteed right. This shift reduces the legal accountability of the government to provide work during times of distress.
2. More Workdays, But With Limits
The Bill increases guaranteed employment from 100 days to 125 days per household per year. On the surface, this sounds like a positive move. However, the increase is tied to fixed budget ceilings. If funds run out, additional workdays exist only on paper. In practical terms, more days do not automatically mean more jobs.
3. Spending Will Be Pre-Fixed, Not Need-Based
One of the biggest changes is that the Centre will decide State-wise allocations in advance. Unlike MGNREGA, where funds could be increased based on demand (for example, during droughts or economic shocks), the VB-G RAM G Bill caps spending. This makes the programme supply-driven, not responsive to real-time rural distress.
4. Selective Coverage of Rural Areas
Under the new Bill, the Union government will notify which rural areas are eligible for the scheme. This ends the universal nature of MGNREGA. Villages facing sudden unemployment or climate-related hardship may be excluded if they are not officially notified.
5. Higher Financial Burden on States
States will now be required to contribute 40% of total expenditure, up from around 10% earlier. For fiscally weaker States, this could mean fewer projects, delayed wages, or reduced participation—deepening regional inequalities.
6. Digital Monitoring Becomes Law
The Bill legally mandates tools like Aadhaar-based payments, mobile attendance apps, and geo-tagging. While these aim to improve transparency, they can also exclude workers without reliable internet access or digital literacy.
If MGNREGA was like an ATM—you could withdraw support when you needed it—VB-G RAM G is like a fixed monthly allowance, decided in advance, no matter how big the emergency. For rural households living close to the edge, that difference can be life-changing.
4. Demand-Driven vs Supply-Driven: Why This Shift Is Crucial
At the heart of the debate around replacing MGNREGA with the VB-G RAM G scheme lies one fundamental question: Who carries the risk when the rural economy is under stress—the government or the worker? The answer depends entirely on whether a programme is demand-driven or supply-driven.
MGNREGA: When Work Is a Right, Not a Favour
MGNREGA was built on a simple but powerful idea: if a rural household needs work, the government must provide it. Employment was not dependent on annual targets or fixed quotas. People could walk into their gram panchayat, demand work, and the State was legally bound to respond.
This made MGNREGA unique in India’s welfare architecture. During droughts, crop failures, pandemics, or inflationary periods, demand for work naturally rose—and the budget expanded to meet that demand. Economists call this counter-cyclical spending: when the economy slows, public spending increases to protect incomes and consumption.
In human terms, this meant food on the table during bad years, reduced distress migration, and a wage floor that prevented exploitation. The risk of economic uncertainty rested with the State, not the worker.
VB-G RAM G: When Work Depends on Allocation
The VB-G RAM G Bill flips this logic. Instead of responding to demand, the government will now fix the budget in advance. Employment will be available only within these pre-determined limits, regardless of how many people need work.
Once a State’s allocation is exhausted, the guarantee effectively ends—even if families are struggling. There is no legal obligation to expand funding in response to droughts, floods, or economic downturns. In practice, this turns a guaranteed right into a rationed benefit.
For rural workers, this introduces uncertainty. You may be entitled to 125 days of work on paper, but whether those days actually exist depends on budgets, notifications, and approvals far removed from the village level.
Why Economists Are Concerned
Supply-driven schemes tend to fail precisely when they are needed most. During recessions or climate shocks, fixed budgets run out quickly. Public spending does not rise to stabilise incomes, which weakens rural demand and slows overall economic recovery.
Most importantly, the risk shifts from the State to the worker. When jobs disappear, families are forced to borrow, migrate, or cut consumption. This makes rural households far more vulnerable to economic shocks—especially in an era of climate uncertainty.
Tkohe shift from demand-driven to supply-driven employment is not a technical change. It is a philosophical shift—from protecting livelihoods to managing expenditure. And for millions of rural Indians, that difference is deeply personal.
5. Guaranteed Workdays: More on Paper, Less in Practice?
At first glance, the proposal to raise guaranteed rural employment from 100 days to 125 days under the VB-G RAM G Bill sounds like a clear win for workers. More days of work should mean more income, greater security, and less distress migration. But when we look beyond the headline number, the promise begins to weaken.
In reality, guaranteed workdays only matter if work is actually available. And under the new framework, several structural changes risk turning this promise into a paper assurance rather than a lived reality.
Why 125 Days May Not Translate Into Real Jobs
The problem lies not in the number of days, but in how the scheme is designed:
-
Budgets are capped:
Unlike MGNREGA, which allowed funding to expand when demand rose, the VB-G RAM G scheme fixes State-wise allocations in advance. Once the money runs out, work stops—regardless of how many families still need employment. -
Regions are selectively notified:
Employment will only be available in rural areas notified by the Union government. This breaks the universality that made MGNREGA effective and leaves many vulnerable villages outside the safety net. -
States must pay more:
For most States, the cost-sharing formula shifts from roughly 10% to 40%. Poorer States with limited fiscal space may simply be unable to finance the promised 125 days, forcing them to restrict work.
A Real-World Scenario: When Drought Hits
Imagine a drought-affected State where crop failure pushes thousands of families to seek wage work. Under MGNREGA, rising demand would automatically justify higher spending. The Centre could release additional funds, ensuring that households continued to receive employment.
Under VB-G RAM G, the same State may exhaust its annual allocation within six months. Once the budget ceiling is hit, no new work can be sanctioned, even if villagers are legally “entitled” to 125 days. The guarantee exists on paper—but not on the ground.
Economic Reality vs Political Messaging
From an economic perspective, this shift weakens one of India’s most important shock absorbers. Rural employment schemes are meant to expand during crises, not shrink. By disconnecting guaranteed days from actual demand, the new Bill risks increasing rural insecurity rather than reducing it.
6. Fiscal Federalism Under Stress: Rising Burden on States
Cost-Sharing Comparison
| Scheme | Centre Share | State Share |
|---|---|---|
| MGNREGA (Effective) | ~90% | ~10% |
| VB-G RAM G (Most States) | 60% | 40% |
For poorer States with weak tax bases, this is a structural disadvantage.
Economic Concern
This undermines cooperative federalism, forcing States to either:
- Cut other welfare spending
- Limit employment generation
7. Centralisation of Power: Who Decides Where Jobs Exist?
One of the most significant yet least discussed changes in the VB-G RAM G Bill lies in Section 5(1). Under this provision, the Union government will decide which rural areas are eligible for employment under the scheme. This marks a sharp break from MGNREGA’s universal, rights-based design.
Why This Matters for Rural Jobs
-
Jobs are no longer guaranteed everywhere
Under MGNREGA, any rural household could demand work. Now, employment exists only in areas approved by the Centre, leaving many villages outside the safety net. -
Local governments lose decision-making power
Gram panchayats, which best understand local needs like drought, migration, or crop failure, are sidelined. Planning shifts upward, away from the ground reality. -
One-size-fits-all policymaking
Rural distress is uneven. Central notifications may miss sudden local crises, making the scheme less responsive during emergencies. -
Increased political and administrative control
When eligibility depends on notification, access to work risks becoming discretionary rather than an enforceable right.
A Simple Analogy
This approach is like a hospital treating patients based on pre-set quotas instead of medical need. People may be sick, but if their ward isn’t on the list, they’re turned away.
Economic Impact
Centralising job decisions weakens rural employment security, reduces flexibility during economic shocks, and undermines the core principle that made MGNREGA effective—work on demand.
8. Technology, Surveillance, and Rural Labour
At the heart of the VB-G RAM G Bill is a deeper push to hard-wire technology into rural employment. What began under MGNREGA as administrative tools is now being formalised into law. On paper, this looks like modernisation. On the ground, it feels far more complicated.
The Bill mandates three key digital systems:
- Aadhaar-based wage payments
- Mobile app–based attendance
- Geo-tagging of worksites
For policymakers sitting in Delhi, these tools promise efficiency. For a rural worker standing in a field with a weak network signal, they often determine whether wages arrive—or not.
Why the Government Supports Digitisation
Supporters of the new framework argue that technology brings long-overdue discipline to rural spending.
- Leakage control: Aadhaar-linked payments reduce ghost beneficiaries and middlemen.
- Greater transparency: Geo-tagged worksites make it easier to verify whether work actually happened.
- Real-time monitoring: App-based attendance allows faster reporting and oversight.
From a fiscal perspective, these systems help the Centre track every rupee. In theory, this builds trust in public spending and strengthens accountability.
The Ground Reality for Rural Workers
However, rural labour markets do not operate in ideal digital conditions.
- Patchy internet connectivity means attendance uploads often fail.
- Biometric errors—especially for older workers or manual labourers—lead to rejected payments.
- Lack of smartphones or digital literacy excludes women, elderly workers, and migrant families.
When a fingerprint doesn’t scan or an app crashes, the worker is marked absent—even after a full day’s labour. Wages get delayed for weeks, sometimes months. For households living hand-to-mouth, this delay is not an inconvenience; it is a crisis.
Surveillance vs Support
What makes the VB-G RAM G Bill different is that it locks these technologies into law, leaving little room for flexibility or human discretion. Technology shifts from being a support system to a gatekeeper.
Instead of asking:
Did the worker do the job?
The system asks:
Did the device accept the data?
If the answer is no, payment stops—regardless of effort or need.
The Bigger Economic Question
Technology should reduce friction, not create new barriers. In rural employment, where the scheme is often the last safety net, digital tools must adapt to people—not the other way around.
Without safeguards, grievance redressal, and offline alternatives, digitisation risks turning a welfare guarantee into a technocratic filter, quietly excluding the most vulnerable.
Modernisation is necessary. But when technology decides who eats and who waits, efficiency without empathy becomes exclusion.
9. Seasonal Work Blackouts: Economic Logic or Livelihood Risk?
One of the most debated provisions in the proposed VB-G RAM G Bill is the allowance to pause rural employment work during peak agricultural seasons. On paper, the idea sounds economically sensible. In practice, it risks ignoring how rural livelihoods actually function in India today.
To understand why, we need to move beyond theory and look at lived rural realities.
What the Government Argues
The government’s rationale is straightforward:
- Avoid farm labour shortages during sowing and harvesting
- Ensure agriculture, the backbone of rural India, gets adequate manpower
- Prevent overlap between public works and private farm employment
From a planning perspective, this assumes that rural workers can smoothly shift from government employment to farm work when needed. In a stable and predictable agrarian economy, such coordination might work.
But rural India is neither stable nor predictable.
Why the Ground Reality Is Different
For millions of rural households, employment decisions are not strategic—they are survival-driven.
1. Most Rural Workers Do Not Own Land
A large share of MGNREGA workers are:
- Landless labourers
- Marginal farmers with uneconomical plots
- Women workers supplementing household income
For them, peak agricultural season does not guarantee work. Pausing public employment during this period removes their only assured income source.
2. Agricultural Income Is Highly Uncertain
Unlike salaried jobs, farm employment depends on:
- Weather conditions
- Market prices
- Crop success
A delayed monsoon or pest attack can wipe out farm labour demand overnight. When public employment is paused, workers are left with no fallback option.
3. Climate Shocks Have Blurred “Seasons”
Climate change has disrupted traditional agricultural calendars:
- Erratic rainfall
- Extended droughts
- Unseasonal floods
In many regions, it is no longer clear when peak season begins or ends. A rigid blackout period assumes certainty in an economy defined by volatility.
The Hidden Economic Risk
Pausing rural employment during agricultural seasons:
- Transfers economic risk from the State to the worker
- Weakens rural wage floors
- Increases distress migration to cities
Instead of acting as a shock absorber, the employment scheme becomes pro-cyclical, shrinking precisely when households need it most.
The Bigger Assumption—and the Problem
At its core, this provision assumes a stable rural economy with reliable farm incomes and predictable labour demand.
That economy does not exist.
Rural India today is shaped by climate uncertainty, fragmented landholdings, and informal labour markets. Designing policy around ideal conditions rather than real ones risks turning a safety net into a seasonal trap.
10. The Government’s Argument: Viksit Bharat @2047 Vision
The government presents the VB-G RAM G Bill as a cornerstone of its long-term vision: Viksit Bharat @2047. According to official statements, the new framework is designed to align rural development with a modernized, digitally connected, and climate-resilient India. Here’s a breakdown of the key pillars cited by policymakers:
-
Better Infrastructure: Roads, electricity, irrigation, and housing have improved significantly over the last two decades. The government argues that enhanced physical infrastructure can provide alternative employment opportunities and reduce dependency on traditional wage schemes.
-
Digital Inclusion: With expanded internet connectivity and widespread mobile adoption, rural households now have access to banking, e-governance, and online marketplaces. The government believes digital tools can facilitate efficient work allocation, monitoring, and payment systems under VB-G RAM G.
-
Diversified Livelihoods: Rural economies are no longer solely dependent on agriculture. Non-farm activities—like small-scale manufacturing, services, and entrepreneurship—have expanded. The government contends that these alternatives reduce the need for a purely wage-based employment guarantee.
-
Climate Resilience: Investments in water conservation, renewable energy, and sustainable farming practices aim to strengthen rural communities against climate shocks. The Bill is framed as part of a broader strategy to link employment programs with environmental sustainability.
Critical Question
While these pillars reflect progress, the central question remains: If rural India has already transformed so significantly, why does guaranteed employment remain necessary?
The answer lies in the uneven and incomplete nature of rural development:
- Regional Disparities: While some districts enjoy modern infrastructure and digital access, many others still struggle with limited roads, unreliable electricity, and inadequate social services.
- Income Inequality: Non-farm income is concentrated in certain areas and among select households, leaving millions dependent on wage-based work for survival.
- Vulnerability to Shocks: Agriculture remains sensitive to monsoons, floods, and droughts. Rural workers continue to face seasonal unemployment and low wages.
- Digital Divide: Internet penetration and digital literacy are still inconsistent, limiting the effectiveness of technology-driven schemes.
while the government’s vision of Viksit Bharat is ambitious and forward-looking, the ground reality tells a different story. Guaranteed employment, as ensured under MGNREGA, continues to serve as a critical safety net, especially for marginalized communities. Any reform must reconcile the aspiration of a modern, digitally connected rural India with the persistent inequalities and vulnerabilities that remain widespread.
11. Critics’ Perspective: Is This the End of the Right to Work?
The proposed Viksit Bharat — Guarantee For Rozgar And Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill (VB-G RAM G) has sparked a wave of criticism from rural rights activists and civil society organizations. While the government frames it as a step toward modernizing rural employment, critics argue it fundamentally undermines the hard-earned right to work guaranteed under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).
1. From Right to Discretionary Benefit
One of the most pointed criticisms comes from Nikhil Dey, founder of the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS). He argues that the new Bill dismantles a constitutional-style entitlement, converting it from a guaranteed right into a discretionary scheme. Under MGNREGA, any rural household could demand work, and the government was legally obligated to provide it. In contrast, the VB-G RAM G Bill introduces fixed allocations and State-wise limits, meaning that even if work is needed, it may not be available once the budget is exhausted.
2. Centralization of Power
Critics also highlight that the Bill centralizes authority in the hands of the Union government. Unlike MGNREGA, which allowed local governments and panchayats to plan work according to local needs, the VB-G RAM G Bill lets the Centre decide where and how employment is provided. This reduces the flexibility and accountability of the scheme, making beneficiaries more dependent on bureaucratic discretion rather than their legal entitlement.
3. Weakening Accountability
The NREGA Sangharsh Morcha has called the Bill a rollback, not a reform. They point out that the enforceable right to work under MGNREGA ensured accountability at both State and Central levels. The new scheme, with its budget caps and selective notifications, lacks this accountability. Citizens may no longer have a legal mechanism to claim employment, effectively eroding the safeguard against rural distress.
4. Implications for Rural Livelihoods
For millions of rural workers, this shift could mean uncertainty and vulnerability. Where MGNREGA acted as a reliable income floor during agricultural off-seasons or economic downturns, the VB-G RAM G Bill introduces financial and bureaucratic barriers. Critics warn that this could exacerbate rural inequality and force many households into distress migration.
In essence, while the VB-G RAM G Bill promises modernization and efficiency, critics argue that it replaces a rights-based safety net with a budget-driven model, centralizes control, and reduces accountability. For activists like Nikhil Dey and organizations such as the NREGA Sangharsh Morcha, this is not reform—it is a step backward in the fight for rural economic rights.
12. Economic Implications: Employment, Inequality, and Growth
The proposed VB-G RAM G Bill is more than a legislative change—it could reshape the economic landscape of rural India. While the Bill promises an increase in guaranteed workdays from 100 to 125, its supply-driven design and capped allocations carry far-reaching implications for employment, inequality, and overall growth.
Short-Term Impact
-
Reduced Rural Wage Floor
By capping allocations and centralizing control, rural workers may face delays or outright unavailability of work, even when demand is high. This effectively lowers the rural wage floor, which historically acted as a stabilizer for rural incomes. Reduced wages could lead to increased financial stress among small and marginal households. -
Increased Distress Migration
With employment opportunities constrained to select regions and budgets, many rural workers may be forced to migrate to urban centers in search of work. Distress migration not only strains urban infrastructure but also disrupts rural communities and agricultural productivity.
Medium-Term Impact
-
Higher Inequality Between States
The new cost-sharing model (60:40 for most states) puts a disproportionate burden on fiscally weaker states. This could widen the development gap, creating higher inequality between States, as richer states can afford to implement the scheme more effectively. -
Lower Consumption Demand
Rural wages are a key component of domestic consumption, driving demand for goods and services across the economy. Reduced rural employment or delayed payments will directly suppress consumption demand, impacting sectors ranging from agriculture to retail and manufacturing.
Long-Term Impact
-
Weakens Inclusive Growth
Rural employment schemes have historically contributed to inclusive growth by ensuring minimum income levels and social security for the most vulnerable. A supply-driven scheme risks leaving many behind, slowing poverty reduction and economic convergence. -
Undermines Climate Resilience
Employment under schemes like MGNREGA often supports climate-resilient infrastructure—water conservation, afforestation, and soil restoration. Limiting access under VB-G RAM G may undermine long-term climate resilience, reducing the rural economy’s ability to cope with environmental shocks.
Rural wages are not just social welfare—they are a macro-economic engine that supports domestic demand, stabilizes incomes, and promotes equitable growth. Shifting from a demand-driven to a supply-driven framework could compromise this engine, affecting millions of rural households and the broader economy.
13. Data Snapshot: Comparing MGNREGA and VB-G RAM G
Visual to clearify -
Data Snapshot: Comparing MGNREGA and VB-G RAM G
📊 Bar Chart: Centre vs State Contribution
📈 Line Graph: Employment Demand vs Budget Allocation
14. Global Perspective: How Other Countries Design Rural Job Schemes
India isn’t the only country grappling with the challenge of providing employment in rural areas. Around the world, governments have experimented with rural job schemes to address poverty, economic shocks, and social inequality. Studying these models can provide valuable insights for policymakers, especially in the context of India’s shift from MGNREGA to the VB-G RAM G Bill.
Here’s a closer look at three notable examples:
1. Argentina: Expanding Employment Guarantees During Crises
Argentina’s rural and urban employment programmes are designed to respond dynamically to economic distress. During recessions or agricultural crises, the government expands work opportunities, ensuring that vulnerable communities continue to earn wages. This demand-driven approach allows employment schemes to act as economic stabilizers, cushioning the population from income shocks while stimulating local economies.
Flexibility is central. The government does not limit the number of jobs in advance, allowing the programme to scale based on actual need.
2. South Africa: Linking Public Works to Social Protection
South Africa integrates its rural employment schemes with broader social protection measures. The Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) not only provides temporary employment but also connects workers to skills training, social grants, and healthcare services. By combining income support with long-term capacity building, South Africa ensures that public works programmes do more than provide wages—they enhance livelihoods and resilience.
Employment programmes work best when paired with social protection and skill development.
3. Brazil: Decentralised Rural Employment Planning
Brazil has embraced decentralized planning for rural job creation. Local municipalities have the authority to identify work priorities, ensuring that employment schemes meet community-specific needs. Unlike fixed national quotas, local planning allows for agile responses to droughts, floods, or local economic disruptions, making the programme more inclusive and adaptive.
Local control and decentralization lead to better alignment with actual community needs.
The Common Thread: Flexibility Over Caps
Across these examples, a clear pattern emerges: successful rural employment schemes are flexible, not capped. Whether it’s scaling up in a crisis, linking jobs with social services, or empowering local governments, adaptability ensures that employment guarantees truly meet the needs of the rural poor.
For India, this global perspective highlights a critical lesson: moving to a budget-capped, supply-driven model, as proposed in the VB-G RAM G Bill, risks undermining the core purpose of rural employment schemes—protecting livelihoods when and where they are most needed.
15. What This Means for Rural India: Real-Life Scenarios
The shift from MGNREGA to the VB-G RAM G Bill isn’t just a policy change—it has real consequences for millions of rural households. While headlines talk about more guaranteed workdays, the practical impact depends heavily on state finances, local conditions, and budget allocations. Let’s break it down with two likely scenarios.
Scenario 1: Drought-Affected District
Imagine a district hit by severe drought. Under the old MGNREGA system:
- Families could demand work when agricultural income failed.
- The Centre could adjust budgets to meet rising demand.
Under the VB-G RAM G Bill, the rules change:
- Employment is capped by pre-fixed allocations, regardless of need.
- High demand for work may exhaust the budget early, leaving families without any legal recourse.
- Workers have no guarantee beyond the allocated amount, even during crises.
Impact on families: People may be forced to migrate temporarily, sell assets, or take on informal, low-paying work. What was once a safety net now risks becoming a gap in support.
Scenario 2: Poor State Government
Now consider a State with a limited tax base and stretched finances. The Bill requires States to contribute 40% of total expenditure, a sharp jump from the 10% under MGNREGA. Consequences include:
- State governments may limit employment creation to avoid overspending.
- Some districts may see fewer work opportunities, even if there’s high demand.
- Local administrations may struggle to maintain existing infrastructure projects, affecting both employment and community development.
Impact on rural communities: Families in poorer States could face reduced job access, higher vulnerability to economic shocks, and growing inequality between regions.
Across rural India, the new system risks systemic exclusion, not efficiency. Instead of automatically providing work where it’s needed most, the scheme favors budget constraints and centralised control. Rural households are left to navigate a patchwork of allocations and priorities, undermining the purpose of a rights-based employment guarantee.
16. Policy Alternatives: Reform Without Rollback
While reform of India’s rural employment system is necessary, it shouldn’t come at the cost of eroding the rights-based framework that has supported millions for decades. The shift from MGNREGA’s demand-driven model to a supply-driven scheme under the VB-G RAM G Bill raises serious economic and social concerns. True reform should strengthen rural livelihoods, not weaken them.
Here are practical alternatives that can modernize the system while protecting workers’ rights:
- Maintain a demand-driven structure – Rural households should continue to have the legal right to work, ensuring employment responds to real-time economic needs.
- Improve accountability mechanisms – Transparency in fund allocation, timely wage payments, and robust grievance redressal systems can reduce leakages and corruption.
- Increase the Centre’s fiscal responsibility – Shifting excessive financial burden to States risks reducing job availability. Greater central funding ensures equitable access for all regions.
- Use technology as support, not filter – Digital tools like geotagging, attendance apps, and Aadhaar payments should make implementation easier, not exclude those without access.
By adopting these measures, India can modernize rural employment schemes without rolling back hard-won rights, ensuring a balance between efficiency, equity, and worker empowerment.
17. Conclusion: Reform or Retreat?
The VB-G RAM G Bill reflects a broader policy shift—from rights to targets, from citizens to beneficiaries, from need-based spending to budget discipline.
While the vision of Viksit Bharat is aspirational, development cannot be built by weakening the last safety net of the rural poor.
True reform strengthens institutions.
This Bill, as it stands, replaces empowerment with control.
18. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q1. Does the Bill increase rural employment?
Not necessarily. More guaranteed days do not matter if budgets are capped.
Q2. Why is demand-driven employment important?
It automatically responds to economic distress, unlike fixed allocations.
Q3. How does this affect States financially?
Most States must now fund 40% of costs, straining budgets.
Q4. Is MGNREGA being scrapped entirely?
Yes, the Bill seeks to replace it legislatively.
Q5. Can the Bill be amended?
Yes, through parliamentary debate and committee review.
19. Sources & References
- The Hindu, December 16, 2025 – Sobhana K. Nair
- Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005
- VB-G RAM G Bill, 2025 (Circulated Draft)
- Statements from MKSS and NREGA Sangharsh Morcha
No comments:
Post a Comment