For verification of this paper, please visit on http://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/resonance.php#8

After independence, the Government of India has played a significant role in ensuring the welfare and wellbeing of the citizens. One of the ways that government achieves this objective is by implementing various policies and schemes aimed at improving the quality of life of the people. Most of the schemes have been rural areas specific because of predominance of rural population in the country. Rural areas have been traditionally neglected and people living in these areas often lack access to basic amenities and services. Through these schemes, government cover all the parameters and aims towards the socio-economic transformation of the rural areas. In social dimension, these schemes help in social development of the poor, promoting equality and reducing inequalities in social indicators and providing social safety nets for vulnerable groups. Economically, they help in providing both capacity and opportunities for the poor and disadvantaged rural households to participate, and to benefit from the economic development of the country. Poverty alleviation and creating employment opportunities which tends to improve the living standard of the people are the basic goals in economic dimension. Politically, the government provides opportunities for the disadvantaged and low-income population in rural areas, including women to participate in election processes effectively and equally at the village level and beyond. It has been observed by many studies that some regions have performed remarkably well and others have lagged behind in the introduction and implementation of government schemes. While some of the schemes have performed quite well, if not exactly as expected, others have been spectacular failures and a complete waste of nation's financial and human resources. It is significant to note that the impact of these schemes can vary depending on factors such as level of implementation, the extent of coverage and the overall effectiveness of the administration. To know the policy impact of various government programmes, one must recognize the realities on the ground and the experiences of beneficiaries. The present study was conducted in one of the prosperous states in India, Haryana which has 65.12 per cent of its people living in rural areas. The state has witnessed a remarkable economic growth during the last three decades, on average better than the national level. On the basis of Human Development Index calculated by Government of Haryana, the most developed district of the state i.e. Gurugram (HDI value: 0.88) was selected for the study. Schemes launched by both central and state governments have been implemented in the district. Main features of these schemes include providing food at subsidised rates, giving direct benefit transfers and income support to farming families, mid-day meals in schools, etc. Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM-KISAN), Antyodya Anna Yojana (AAY), Pradhan Mantri UJJWALA Yojana, etc. are the examples of such schemes.

Grewal et.al. (1985), Pamecha and Sharma (2015), Shettar (2016), Hwang et.al. (2018) revealed in their study that various Government schemes have helped the beneficiary households to increase their consumption levels, increased income led to improvement in living conditions, most of the beneficiaries were thankful for such schemes and they believed that such development programmes should be promoted for the improvement of socio-economic status. Whereas, Subbarao (1985), Bagchee (1987), Raheja (2015), Kumar (2022) found that schemes were not being implemented properly. Various problems like wrong identification of beneficiaries, favouritism prevailing while preparing the list of the beneficiaries and distributing the benefits, lack of conceptual clarity, inadequate funds and inadequate understanding of complex environment, etc. led to failure of such schemes. In designing such development programmes, means of providing a range of services—from distribution of benefits to aftercare advice and support—should be assessed and measures should be taken to overcome the limitations.

The primary data was collected with the help of pre tested interview schedule of the sample households. A stratified multistage sampling technique was used for the survey. In the first stage, district Gurugram was selected out of twenty-two districts of the state on the basis of highest HDI value i.e., 0.88. Then in the second stage, out of the total four blocks in the district, two blocks were randomly selected and in the third stage, four villages from each block were randomly selected. Thus, a total of eight villages were surveyed for the study. Finally, a random sample of 240 respondent households was chosen from sub-strata of different land holding groups (landless, marginal, small and medium). For analysing data, simple statistical tools such as ratio, average and percentage were used.

1. Out of the total 240 households selected randomly, 114 are beneficiaries and 126 are non-beneficiary households. Table 1 shows the distribution of beneficiary and non-beneficiary households according to the different strata of selected households.

Source: Authors’ calculation

2. Table 2 shows that the percentage increase in the value of total assets of beneficiary households is worked out as 13.95 and 0.36 per cent among landless and marginal holding households respectively. No increase in assets have been found in small and medium holding households in Gurugram.The percentage increase in income due to implementation of government schemes decreases with an increase in the size of holdings i.e., 10.89, 6.20, 3.57 and 1.42 per cent among landless, marginal, small and medium holding households respectively.The percentage change in consumption expenditure due to implementation of government schemes registered 33.64, 18.57, 12.21 and 5.67 per cent among landless, marginal, small and medium holding households respectively.The findings suggest that landless and marginal holding households benefits the most from government schemes as they are the most vulnerable and economically disadvantaged groups in rural areas. In contrast, small and medium holding households have greater level of access to land, credit, technology, etc. and hence they are in better position to take advantage of market opportunities. However, these households also face some challenges in the form of low productivity or lack of information about best practices. Therefore, while government schemes benefit small and medium holding households as well but the benefits are more significant for landless or marginal holding households.

Source: Authors’ calculation

3. Table 3 shows the comparative analysis of assets, income and consumption expenditure of beneficiary and non-beneficiary sample households. The calculated t values for the overall difference in household assets, income and consumption expenditure between beneficiary and non-beneficiary households are 3.72, 3.58 and 5.29 respectively. These values are found to be statistically significant at α = 0.01, 0.05 and 0.10 significance level. The results show that non beneficiary households are better off and have higher assets value, higher income and higher consumption expenditure as compared to beneficiary households. This can be attributed to the fact that government schemes have been designed to target the most vulnerable sections of the society who may not have proper access to resources and assets. Moreover, good financial condition of non-beneficiary households don’t allow them to meet the eligibility criteria for government schemes, which could mean that they are already better of economically. It also indicates that government schemes are helping beneficiary households to improve their standard of living.

Source: Authors’ calculation

1. Ahuja, U. R., Tyagi, D., Chauhan, S., & Chaudhary, K. R. (2011). Impact of MGNREGA on rural employment and migration: A study in agriculturally-backward and agriculturally-advanced districts of Haryana. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 24(347-2016-16987), 495-502. 2. Jadoun, Y. S., Jha, S. K., Bhadauria, P., Kale, R., & Singh, R. (2014). Impact of “Integrated Murrah Development Scheme”(IMDS) on dairy farmers of Haryana state of India. 3. Khanna, I., & Subramanian, A. (1982). Lessons from Antyodaya for the integrated rural development. Vikalpa, 7(3), 227–234. 4. Pamecha, S., & Sharma, I. (2015). Socio-Economic Impact of MGNREGA-A Study undertaken among beneficiaries of 20 villages of Dungarpur district of Rajasthan. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 5(1), 1-4. 5. Rawal, V. (2008). Ownership Holdings of Land in Rural India: Putting the Record Straight. Economic and Political Weekly, 43(10), 43–47. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40277229 6. Shettar, R. M. (2016). Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana: Issues and Challenges. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 18(2), 17-24. 7. Vijay Nayak, & Shailaja Prasad. (1984). On Levels of Living of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Economic and Political Weekly, 19(30), 1205–1213. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4373471