The data presented in table 1 shows Age, Educational status, Caste, Size of family, Land holding, Occupation, Annual income, Sources of information, social participation and Extension contacts.
The data in Table 1, the bulk of MGNREGA beneficiary 42.50 percent belong in the middle age group, followed by the young age group (35.00%) and the senior age group (22.50%). The results for the age groups mentioned above are consistent with (
Marin and Vineeth’s 2012) findings. The majority of MGNREGA participants who were middle-aged or younger are likely beneficiaries of the programme because of the lengthy commutes between work locations and the energy-intensive projects undertaken, such as excavating farm ponds.
It is evident that the more than one fourth (26.66%) of the MGNREGA workers were functionally literate, most of the (46.67%) MGNREGA workers were illiterate, about 15 percent of the workers of MGNREGA have undergone primary school education, about a difference of (5%), the MGNREGA workers fell into middle school education (10%), Very few workers have completed their higher school education. Education can be accumulated either through formal study or through informal study. The result of the study is parallel to the findings of
Argade (2010). MGNREGA recipients only completed secondary school, they may benefit from using materials such as pamphlets, folders and other materials that provide information about MGNREGA activities. Posters, demonstration films, specimens and other materials can be utilized to raise awareness of the features of MGNREGA among the illiterate and those with primary school education.
From the Table 1 it is found that the 47.50 per cent MGNREGA beneficiaries belong to the schedule class, followed by 30.00 per cent belong to the backward class category and 22.50 per cent fell into the general caste category. The result of the study is somewhat parallel to the
Debabrata and Bandyopadhyay (2013). It is revealed that the Majority (50.83%) of the MGNREGA beneficiaries were having medium size of family, followed by 30.00 per cent of the MGNREGA beneficiaries were having small size of family and 19.17% of MGNREGA beneficiaries were having large size of family. The result of the study is parallel to the findings of
Argade (2010). It is because of their limited resources, impoverished people may have restricted their family size to a medium size, realising the challenges of raising a large number of children. There may be a high level of knowledge regarding small families and family planning, which will enhance both the health and the family environment. It is evident that the more than 50 per cent of the MGNREGA beneficiaries were have less than 1 acre of land, followed by the 28.33 per cent of the MGNREGA beneficiaries were have 1-2-acre lands and few of the MGNREGA beneficiaries were have more than 2 acres of land. The result of the study is parallel to the findings of
Parahad (2011). The reason for marginal and tiny land holdings could be attributed to family breakup causing land fragmentation. The large land holding may be the result of appropriate ancestry continuance.
Table 1 makes it clear that 39.17 per cent, or 47, of the MGNREGA beneficiaries were labourers. These were followed by 34.17 per cent, or 41, of the MGNREGA beneficiaries who were labourers in addition to engaging in agriculture and 26.66 per cent of the MGNREGA beneficiaries who were labourers in addition to engaging in some small business, such as operating stalls. The study’s outcome is consistent with
Marin and Vinneth’s (2012) findings. As a result, it can be said that the bulk of MGNREGA recipients worked mostly as labourers due to a lack of sufficient educational background to find employment. They were solely dependent on labourers because of this. The selected MGNREGA recipients were engaged in farming and labour because it was their ancestors’ customary vocation and because they lacked sufficient education, which led to their employment as labourers.
Table 1 makes it clear that 40.00% of MGNREGA beneficiaries earned less than Rs.50,000 annually, followed by 35.00% who earned between Rs.50,000 and Rs.100,000 annually and 25.00%, or one-fourth of the beneficiaries, who earned more than Rs.100,000 annually. The studies agree with
Argade’s (2010) findings. MGNREGA’s primary goal is to improve the economic circumstances of rural impoverished people by giving them access to employment possibilities. Given that the majority of respondents had low incomes, MGNREGA should assist people in rising beyond the poverty line by raising their income.
Table 1 makes clear that 43.33% of MGNREGA beneficiaries had medium levels of information sources, followed by 39.17% with low levels and 17.50% with only high levels. The results shown above are consistent with those of
Khalache and Gaikwad (2011). Perhaps in the current era of mass media and electronic media, Majority of MGNREGA recipients learned about the programme from friends, family, Gramme Sevak, television, radio, newspapers and technical officers (MGNREGA). The medium level of information sources may have been caused due to the lack of time, a lack of mass media, inadequate communication tools and a low degree of comprehension. According to the Table 1, 48.33 per cent of MGNREGA beneficiaries participated in society at a medium level, followed by 32.50 per cent who participated at a low level and 19.17 per cent who participated at a high level. The results shown above are consistent with those of
Bhandari 2014 and
Bansode et al., 2013. The majority of the respondents had membership of very few organization organisations, such as cooperative societies, Gram Panchayats cooperative societies,
etc., which may be the likely to be the probable reason of these outcomes. Another possible explanation for their medium social participation could be that they hesitate to participate in formal and non-formal groups because of the dominance of higher castes, higher income groups and higher socioeconomic status people’s. Low social participation was due to lack of time and interest, lack of perceived benefits and local politics.
It is clear from table 1 that 47.50% of MGNREGA beneficiaries had medium extension contacts, followed by 34.17 per cent who had low extension contacts and 18.33 per cent who had high and low extension contacts respectively. The results are consistent with those of
Rathod and Damodhar (2015). The majority of MGNREGA beneficiaries most likely fall into the medium category of extension contacts due to their eagerness to work with agriculture assistants, gramme sevaks and other technical officers; this might be good relationships with extension workers and are interested in solving problems with them. MGNREGA beneficiaries received information about the programme from a variety of sources, including friends, family, KVK SMS, agriculture officers, assistants and NGOs that assist recipients in expanding their outreach.
