Why urban job guarantee scheme is not bad

Aravind Unni & Tikender Panwar

Aravind Unni
Thematic Lead for Urban Poverty Reduction, Indo-Global Social Service Society, New Delhi 

Tikender Panwar
Former Deputy Mayor of Shimla

The announcement of the Urban Livelihood Guarantee Scheme as part of the people's progressive agenda which eventually may turn into a what many believe to be the 'common minimum programme' of the opposition parties has raised quite a few eyebrows. 

The declaration has been followed by a string of critiques on how the envisaged scheme, unlike its more effectual rural counterpart, MNREGA, will only result in wasteful expenditure, and that it is emblematic of India's failure to address inequality. The scheme also fundamentally recognises the vagaries and insecurities present in the urban livelihood opportunities that huge sections of our presently invisible city dwellers face.

Though unemployment and under-employment have always been electoral issues, come the voting day in 2019, it is believed that they will be more so. Recently, it was debated that the figures of unemployment and under-employment are amongst the highest in the last few years. Hovering around the eight per cent mark, the urban unemployment outdoes the rural one by one percentage point.

These figure signals dire conditions in the urban sector, where a secure livelihood for some remains a genuine concern. The worst affected are the most marginal — the informal sector workers who form 80 per cent of the workforce in the urban area. Living on a bare hand-to-mouth existence, the worker and her/his family fall into extreme vulnerability in case of uncertainties in the labour market or personal losses beyond their control and cannot recover from the ensuing debt cycles.

For instance, take the case of 20 million domestic 'workers' — the household help or bai, as she is more commonly known. Toiling in a number of houses, without any contract or recognition at work, minus any social security, she is generally paid less than half a dollar an hour. The maids are exploited by the patriarchal-societal forces. There are very few other options to get jobs in the urban sector for these women. Domestic workers end up being dependent on the whims of employers for wages. They fear losing jobs at the slightest bout of illness or any other emergency. 

Or, take the case of building construction workers, who are seen in the early morning hours in labour nakas, chowks or addas. Comprising more than 50 million in urban India, they are paid poorly, with employment for them available sometimes only 10 to 15 days in a month.

This is the narrative of most of the marginal informal sector workers in urban India. The more than 30 million such workers labour without any social security net. They are forced to work for abysmally low wages, that is, whenever they are able to find work. They constitute the bulk of 800 million people of India who live on a mere Rs 20 a day.

These vagaries and uncertainties are exacerbated by the erratic and erroneously employed macro-economic policies such as demonetisation and GST which have had a huge negative impact on a host of informal sector livelihoods. 

The National Employment Guarantee Scheme, if brought about, must speak for the 'bai' or the 'labourer' that the dominant policy narrative has generally failed to see. This hardworking urban workforce needs support for hard times. The poor labourers need a fallback mechanism to keep their families safe, and so that they can continue to contribute as a healthy workforce for our cities.  

The urban employment guarantee  scheme needs to be conceived differently from the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) to suit the dissimilar contexts. Urban unemployment is not restricted to unskilled manual labour, unlike in the rural side. 

The scheme can be merged or  approached in synchronisation with the National Urban Livelihoods Mission (NULM) as also the various skill-building programmes that allow skill training and promise better livelihood opportunities. That way, it will become a means of empowerment and self-reliance to the workers. At the moment, the skills building training has resulted in an abysmal low of 15 per cent placements. 

The scheme must be formulated to also cater to the problem of educated unemployed in the urban areas. 

The Urban Livelihood Guarantee Scheme should ensure that able-bodied and marginally skilled workforce in the urban sector is also gainfully employed.

This scheme, if launched, will be a path-breaking initiative. It recognises that our economic growth has still not trickled down to the margins. A substantial number of deserving urban toilers stands to benefit from this scheme and it will help them lead a life of dignity and security. 

The introduction of the scheme shall lead to such welcome spinoffs as higher investment in public infrastructure in the urban areas, higher wage rates and an increase in women workers’ participation. 

This is on a line similar to the  highly successful programmes on urban livelihoods in China  and some developed nations in the West. It is high time that we followed suit.