From poverty to power - Oxfam-Québec
From poverty to power - Oxfam-Québec From poverty to power - Oxfam-Québec
4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY SOCIAL PROTECTIONHOW CHANGE HAPPENS CASE STUDY:INDIA’S CAMPAIGN FOR A NATIONAL RURALEMPLOYMENT GUARANTEEFor the first time in history, citizens of rural India are nowguaranteed a job. Within 15 days of a valid application, thegovernment is legally obliged to provide 100 days of unskilledwork per year on public works programmes. Activists, politicians,and academics have hailed the National Rural EmploymentGuarantee Act (NREGA), passed in August 2005, as vital forimproving the lot of rural workers.The Act was born of drought and rural distress in the state ofRajasthan, where civil society networks denounced the failure ofpublic food distribution and employment programmes to preventstarvation. Activists submitted a petition to the Supreme Court in2001 on the ‘Right to Food’, which received favourable interimdirectives. Encouraged, they drafted a Rajasthan StateEmployment Guarantee Act in 2003, though this was notimplemented.However, the activists’ success in rallying civil society reflectedthe growth of rights-based approaches in India, favouring ademand-based system over the passive beneficiary employmentprogrammes of the past.From 2001, Congress Party leaders, including party presidentSonia Gandhi, raised the issue in the national party. Congresshad been in opposition nationally since 1996, but held power inRajasthan. In 2003, the party suffered a demoralising loss in theRajasthan election and in other states, leading most to believethat it had no chance in the 2004 national election.Luckily for NREGA activists, impending political defeat weakenedthe resistance of fiscal conservatives in the Congress leadershipto a potentially costly employment guarantee, and also gaveimpetus to those who argued that Congress needed a strong,positive policy programme to revive its fortunes. These factorsled to an employment guarantee being included in the 2004Congress national manifesto.Although unrelated to its presence in the manifesto, theCongress alliance’s surprise victory in the 2004 general election,and its formation of a majority government with the support ofCASE STUDY217
FROM POVERTY TO POWERCASE STUDYtwo left-wing parties that had achieved unprecedented success,marked a watershed for the proposal. Electoral successreinforced the political arguments for action in the minds ofCongress leaders. Taken by surprise at its own victory, theparty’s leadership needed to rapidly cobble together a policyprogramme. The employment guarantee policy was not onlyready to go, but the presence of the left-wing parties would inany case have made it difficult to remove from the programme.A newly formed National Advisory Council, chaired by SoniaGandhi and including influential figures closely associated withthe NREGA, such as professor and activist Jean Drèze, activistAruna Roy, and Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, drew up a draftact based on the civil society draft from Rajasthan.By the time the National Rural Employment Guarantee Bill wassubmitted to Parliament in December 2004, however, theMinistry of Finance had introduced a number of clauses to limitthe government’s potential financial liability, sparking a row withactivists and left-wing leaders.A determined campaign, involving a 50-day march across thecountry’s poorest districts to spread awareness of the concept ofthe right to employment, sit-in protests, direct contacts withpoliticians, and public hearings – all of which won substantialmedia coverage – increased risks for politicians who openlysupported the Ministry of Finance restrictions, because theywould be seen as ‘anti-poor’.Before the bill was re-submitted to Parliament, Sonia Gandhiintervened to remove two of the Ministry of Finance’s demands:that the guarantee of employment could be terminated byadministrative decree; and that employment would be restrictedto applicants holding Below Poverty Line cards. She was alsosuccessful in ensuring that the scheme would be implementedmainly through the panchayats (elected village governments)rather than by national bureaucracies, an option preferred by theMinistry of Rural Development.At the last moment, a ‘corruption clause’ was inserted, permittingsuspension of the scheme should corruption be detected.Activists feared that this would create an incentive not to exposecorruption. In addition, despite attempts by activists to securestate minimum wages under the scheme, an amendment218
- Page 184 and 185: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH THE CHANGING W
- Page 186 and 187: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH PRIVATE SECTOR
- Page 188 and 189: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH PRIVATE SECTOR
- Page 190 and 191: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH PRIVATE SECTOR
- Page 192 and 193: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH PRIVATE SECTOR
- Page 194 and 195: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH PRIVATE SECTOR
- Page 196 and 197: GOING FOR GROWTHFifty years ago, Ko
- Page 198 and 199: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH GOING FOR GROW
- Page 200 and 201: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH GOING FOR GROW
- Page 202 and 203: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH GOING FOR GROW
- Page 204 and 205: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH GOING FOR GROW
- Page 206 and 207: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH GOING FOR GROW
- Page 208 and 209: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH GOING FOR GROW
- Page 210 and 211: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH GOING FOR GROW
- Page 212 and 213: SUSTAINABLE MARKETSIn using markets
- Page 214 and 215: PART FOURLiving with risk 198Social
- Page 216 and 217: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY LIVING WIT
- Page 218 and 219: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY LIVING WIT
- Page 220 and 221: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY LIVING WIT
- Page 222 and 223: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY LIVING WIT
- Page 224 and 225: SOCIAL PROTECTIONIt may seem surpri
- Page 226 and 227: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY SOCIAL PRO
- Page 228 and 229: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY SOCIAL PRO
- Page 230 and 231: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY SOCIAL PRO
- Page 232 and 233: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY SOCIAL PRO
- Page 236 and 237: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY SOCIAL PRO
- Page 238 and 239: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY FINANCEwil
- Page 240 and 241: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY FINANCEinc
- Page 242 and 243: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY HUNGER AND
- Page 244 and 245: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY HUNGER AND
- Page 246 and 247: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY HUNGER AND
- Page 248 and 249: HIV, AIDS, AND OTHER HEALTH RISKSPr
- Page 250 and 251: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY HEALTH RIS
- Page 252 and 253: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY HEALTH RIS
- Page 254 and 255: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY HEALTH RIS
- Page 256 and 257: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY HEALTH RIS
- Page 258 and 259: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY HEALTH RIS
- Page 260 and 261: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY HEALTH RIS
- Page 262 and 263: THE RISK OF NATURAL DISASTERJanuary
- Page 264 and 265: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY NATURAL DI
- Page 266 and 267: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY NATURAL DI
- Page 268 and 269: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY NATURAL DI
- Page 270 and 271: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY NATURAL DI
- Page 272 and 273: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY NATURAL DI
- Page 274 and 275: CLIMATE CHANGEWe have a word for it
- Page 276 and 277: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY CLIMATE CH
- Page 278 and 279: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY CLIMATE CH
- Page 280 and 281: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY CLIMATE CH
- Page 282 and 283: 4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY CLIMATE CH
4 RISK AND VULNERABILITY SOCIAL PROTECTIONHOW CHANGE HAPPENS CASE STUDY:INDIA’S CAMPAIGN FOR A NATIONAL RURALEMPLOYMENT GUARANTEEFor the first time in his<strong>to</strong>ry, citizens of rural India are nowguaranteed a job. Within 15 days of a valid application, thegovernment is legally obliged <strong>to</strong> provide 100 days of unskilledwork per year on public works programmes. Activists, politicians,and academics have hailed the National Rural EmploymentGuarantee Act (NREGA), passed in August 2005, as vital forimproving the lot of rural workers.The Act was born of drought and rural distress in the state ofRajasthan, where civil society networks denounced the failure ofpublic food distribution and employment programmes <strong>to</strong> preventstarvation. Activists submitted a petition <strong>to</strong> the Supreme Court in2001 on the ‘Right <strong>to</strong> Food’, which received favourable interimdirectives. Encouraged, they drafted a Rajasthan StateEmployment Guarantee Act in 2003, though this was notimplemented.However, the activists’ success in rallying civil society reflectedthe growth of rights-based approaches in India, favouring ademand-based system over the passive beneficiary employmentprogrammes of the past.<strong>From</strong> 2001, Congress Party leaders, including party presidentSonia Gandhi, raised the issue in the national party. Congresshad been in opposition nationally since 1996, but held <strong>power</strong> inRajasthan. In 2003, the party suffered a demoralising loss in theRajasthan election and in other states, leading most <strong>to</strong> believethat it had no chance in the 2004 national election.Luckily for NREGA activists, impending political defeat weakenedthe resistance of fiscal conservatives in the Congress leadership<strong>to</strong> a potentially costly employment guarantee, and also gaveimpetus <strong>to</strong> those who argued that Congress needed a strong,positive policy programme <strong>to</strong> revive its fortunes. These fac<strong>to</strong>rsled <strong>to</strong> an employment guarantee being included in the 2004Congress national manifes<strong>to</strong>.Although unrelated <strong>to</strong> its presence in the manifes<strong>to</strong>, theCongress alliance’s surprise vic<strong>to</strong>ry in the 2004 general election,and its formation of a majority government with the support ofCASE STUDY217