Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
International Journal of Rural Management
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pellissery, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Articles

Local Determinants of Exclusion and Inclusion in Rural Public Works Programmes

A Political Economy Approach

Sony Pellissery

Sony Pellissery is at St. Cross College, St. Giles, Oxford University, OX1 3LZ, UK. E–mail: sony.pellissery{at}gmail.com

Rural India is set to experience another wave of rural public works programmes (PWP). The major inspiration in this venture is 25-year-old Employment Guarantee Scheme of the government of Maharashtra (MEGS). Though various evaluations have been done on the MEGS, the principle of self-targeting, the hallmark of the MEGS and being adopted in the proposed all-India PWP, has not been critically evaluated. This article is bridging this gap, and suggesting some cautions in applying the principle of self-selection to the ‘un-free’ rural labour market of India. Based on data of ethnographic fieldwork of eight months in the region of Marathwada, the article identifies political constraints that exclude some villages from being included in the MEGS. Even when public works are in place in the villages, the local elite who have informal ownership of these projects could block the entry of some of the poorest households to these programmes. Such local elite in liaison with some ethnic groups could ‘reward’ works to them, and exclude some other groups. Besides, the poorest households, trapped in the tied-labour markets seasonally migrating to different districts, may easily fall out from the benefits of such self-targeting.

International Journal of Rural Management, Vol. 1, No. 2, 167-184 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/097306800500100202


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?