Impact Study of PMAY - NIRD

National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj (NIRDPR) continuously strives to serve the
nation through research, training, action research and consultancy activities for development of the rural
poor and enhance their quality of life. It aims to:
1. Organise training programmes, conferences, seminars and workshops for senior-level development
managers, elected representatives, bankers, NGOs and other stakeholders;
2. Undertake, aid, promote and coordinate research on its own and/or collaborate with State, national and
international development agencies;
3. Analyse and offer solutions to problems encountered in the planning and implementation of the
programmes for rural development, decentralised governance, panchayati raj and related
programmes;
4. Study the functioning of the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) and rural development programmes
across the States;
5. Analyse and propose solutions to problems in planning and implementation of the programmes for rural
development; and
6. Develop content and disseminate information and transfer technology through periodicals, reports, e-
modules and other publications.
Considering the challenges faced by the government in the development of a large section of rural poor
across the country through its various policies and programmes, NIRDPR as an apex training institute in the
field of rural development, has to cater to the training and capacity development needs of a larger clientele.
To achieve these objectives, a nationwide network of training infrastructure has to play its rightful role. The
clientele includes a large number of elected PRI representatives at different levels, rural development
functionaries, NGOs, bankers and other stakeholders. Capacity building of rural development personnel
and elected representatives is an intrinsic part of the entire rural development process. It helps to improve
their managerial skills while keeping them abreast with the latest changes in strategies, government policies
and programmes to augment their knowledge and working efficiency, resulting in strengthening of the
delivery mechanism for the benefit of all the stakeholders. The challenge is huge and NIRDPR has been
able to play its role in the country’s rural development initiatives by facilitating qualitative changes in the
implementation of programmes through a process of training, research, action research, consultancy,
information dissemination and information building on a continual basis. This has enabled the Institute to
emerge as the National Apex Institute for capacity development in the area of rural development.
In its continuous effort to develop managerial skills of functionaries in the rural development process, the
Institute offers two regular fully residential diploma programmes – one-year Post Graduate Diploma in Rural
Development Management (PGDRDM) and two-year Post Graduate Diploma in Management (Rural
Development). Further, it offers M.Tech Programme on Appropriate Technology & Entrepreneurship (ATE)
and three distance mode programmes - Post Graduate Diploma in Sustainable Rural Development
(PGDSRD), Post Graduate Diploma in Tribal Development Management (PGDTDM) and Post Graduate
Diploma in Geo-Spatial and Technological Applications in Rural Development (PGDGARD). The Institute is
also offering one-year Diploma Programme on Panchayati Raj Governance & Rural Development (DP-
PRGRD) in association with the University of Hyderabad through distance mode.
TRAINING RESEARCH POLICY TECHNOLOGY ACADEMIC INNOVATIVE

& CAPACITY & CONSULTANCY FORMULATION TRANSFER PROGRAMMES SKILLING
BUILDING & ADVOCACY & LIVELIHOOD
VISION
v The vision of NIRDPR is to focus on the policies and programmes that bene t
the rural poor, strive to energise the democratic decentralisation processes,
improve the operation and efficiency of rural development personnel,
promote transfer of technology through its social laboratories, Technology
Park and create environmental awareness.
v As a“think-tank”for the Ministry of Rural Development, NIRDPR, while acting

as a repository of knowledge on rural development, would assist the Ministry
in policy formulation and choice of options in rural development to usher in
the change.
MISSION
v To examine and analyse the factors contributing to the improvement of

economic and social well-being of people in rural areas on a sustainable basis
with focus on the rural poor and the other disadvantaged groups through
research, action research, consultancy and documentation efforts.
v To facilitate the rural development efforts with particular emphasis and focus
on the rural poor by improving the knowledge, skills and attitudes of rural
development officials and non-officials through organising training,
workshops and seminars.
Rural Development Statistics- 2017-18
Impact Assessment of PMAY-G
(Madhya Pradesh, Odisha & West Bengal)
Dr. W. R. Reddy, IAS

Dr. R. Ramesh
Prof. P. SivaRam
CENTRE FOR RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE

National Institute of Rural Development & Panchayati Raj (NIRDPR)
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad – 500030, Telangana, India
www.nirdpr.org.in
© National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj
ISBN: 978-81-941674-7-1
December, 2019
Published by:
National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj
Ministry of Rural Development,
Government of India
Rajendranagar,
Hyderabad - 500030, Telangana, India
www.nirdpr.org.in
Printed at:
Sri Balaji Graphics
(Designers & Printers)
# 1-8-1/B/26, Cellar, Housefed Bhavan,
Baghlingampally, Hyderabad - 500044.
Telanagana, India. 93474 78010
sribalajipress@gmail.com
ii Dr. W. R. Reddy, IAS | Dr. R. Ramesh | Prof. P. SivaRam

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Research is an integral part of NIRDPR’s mandate. Measuring the
progress which the country makes in providing various basic facilities
such as drinking water, sanitation, rural roads, connectivity, housing and
so on are vital for reaching the last man and to identify gaps, if any that
require addressing. The current study on Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana
(PMAY-G) takes a critical look into the changes that this Yojana has
brought about in the lives of those who availed house under PMAY-G.
This study is an impact assessment of PMAY-G implemented in three

States, namely Madhya Pradesh, Odisha and West Bengal. Without
the support of the respective State governments, this study could not
have been initiated. We put on record the cooperation extended by
the Panchayats and Rural Development Departments of these three
States. The Gram Panchayat functionaries and Awas Bandhu of
PMAY-G in the study villages offered to take us to the house of every
beneficiary, who we had selected at random from the universe received.
They deserve a big ‘thank you’. More than the beneficiaries of PMAY-G,
we need to acknowledge the cooperation extended by non-beneficiaries,
who were on the waiting-list. They answered all our questions patiently
and threw lots of insights, which helped us during data analysis and
interpretation.
Dr. W. R. Reddy, IAS, Director General, NIRDPR, threw this challenge

to us and asked if we could do an impact assessment using Randomised
Control Trial (RCT). When this study was being written up and finalised,
he was very critical about the preliminary findings. Every question he
posed made us go back to the data and bring in some more clarity to
this report. He helped to finalise this report. Dr. Reddy also mooted a
Impact Assessment of PMAY-G (Madhya Pradesh, Odisha & West Bengal) iii
discussion in the Faculty Forum on insights that emanate for writing a
policy brief from this study.
Shri Santanu Bowmick, Research Associate, who collected most of the

data required for this study deserves a special mention here. We must
acknowledge the CDC team comprising Krishna Raj, Victor Paul, G. S.
Ravi Kishore and V. G. Bhat for they have been very meticulous in their
editorial work and have been on their toes to bring it out as scheduled.
Dr. R. Ramesh
Prof. P. SivaRam
December, 2019.
iv Dr. W. R. Reddy, IAS | Dr. R. Ramesh | Prof. P. SivaRam

CONTENTS
Abbreviations .............................................................................................. vi
Summary of Findings ................................................................................. vii
Chapter – 1: Introduction & Review of Literature .......................................1
Chapter – 2: Design of the Study ...............................................................11
Chapter – 3: Profile of the Study Area ........................................................18
Chapter – 4: Analysis and Discussion .........................................................33
Chapter – 5: Findings and Conclusion .......................................................53
Impact Assessment of PMAY-G (Madhya Pradesh, Odisha & West Bengal) v

ABBREVIATIONS
CG : Control Group
DBT : Direct Benefit Transfer
ESP : Economic Stimulus Package
GP : Gram Panchayat
IAY : Indira Awaas Yojana
IEC : Information, Education and Communication
LPG : Liquid Petroleum Gas (cooking gas)
MGNREGS : Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme
PMAY-G : Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana – Gramin
PMUY : Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (cooking gas provision scheme)
MFI : Micro Finance Institution
MIS : Management Information System
NIRDPR : National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj
ODK : Open Data Kit (software for mobile-based data collection)
RCT : Randomised Trial Control
SBM-G : Swachh Bharat Mission – Gramin
SECC : Socio-Economic Caste Census
SHG : Self-Help Groups
TG : Treatment Group
vi Dr. W. R. Reddy, IAS | Dr. R. Ramesh | Prof. P. SivaRam

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
This study on the impact of PMAY-G set out answering the following questions:
(i) To what extent were the programme objectives met with regard to improving
the physical living conditions of the target population; and (ii) socio-economic im-
provements experienced by the target population, as a result of owning a new house?
These precisely mean the changes brought about by PMAY-G in physical facilities
or subjective well-being of the people, who availed house under the scheme. Study-
ing the convergence possibilities under PMAY-G and factors constraining effective
convergence was also part of the study.
The study was conducted in three States, viz. Madhya Pradesh, Odisha and West
Bengal (covering 24 Gram Panchayats in six districts, interviewing 1,382 PMAY-G
beneficiaries). The methodology used was RCT (Randomised Control Trial), where
the beneficiaries who availed house ‘already and are living in that house for the past
six months to one year’ were taken as Treatment Group and those who were selected
and have been put on the ‘waiting list’ (that they shall avail house in the upcoming
years) were taken as Comparison Group. The following are some of the important
findings of the study.
Findings
Type of House: The poor who were living in thatched houses, mud houses and
houses with paddy straw roofs have got concrete roofed houses (58 per cent), part-
ly concrete roof plus partly asbestos roofs (25 per cent), and fully asbestos roofs
(17 per cent). Most of the houses are made of brickwork or cement block work.
PMAY-G has provided better housing condition to the beneficiaries by providing
pucca houses. In the comparison group, we found only 66 per cent of the hous-
es electrified, whereas in PMAY houses, we found 81 per cent were electrified.
PMAY-G has slightly reduced congestion in houses by providing two or more
rooms. It has slightly reduced the congestion in occupancy by bringing the median
Impact Assessment of PMAY-G (Madhya Pradesh, Odisha & West Bengal) vii
Summary of Findings
occupancy from 5 to 4.5. About 68 per cent of the households have mentioned about
having got additional space for livelihood activities in-door.
Kitchen: PMAY-G has provided cooking space (kitchen) inside the house.
This has changed the practice of cooking outside, but not to the extent it could
have changed. PMAY-G beneficiaries seem to prefer having one more room
to kitchen. Some have designed their houses to be all rooms and no kitch-
en. A few of them who have constructed kitchen also prefer cooking out-
doors so as to use the kitchen space as another living room. This explains why
Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY), which provides LPG for cooking, had not
picked up amongst the PMAY-G houses to the extent it could have.
Fuel for Cooking: Traditional chulah and firewood still re-

main the main cooking fuel even in PMAY-G houses. LPG is
used only in 14 per cent PMAY-G houses in Madhya Pradesh,
20 per cent in Odisha, and 8 per cent in West Bengal. The PMUY (LPG for cooking)
is not a big success under PMAY-G convergence. The price of LPG and voluntarily
placing oneself under the pressure of having to find money to replace empty cylin-
ders almost every month are reportedly another reasons for PMAY-G beneficiaries
to abstain from applying for LPG for cooking. A third factor is that poor awareness
level with regard to PMUY convergence, even among the Awaas Bandu (Local Mo-
tivators of PMAY-G).
Toilets: Among the PMAY-G households, 65 per cent has toilets, and 35 per cent
do not have toilets. Out of the 65 per cent of the households who have toilets, on an
average (all the three States put together) 10 per cent of them are not using. It shows
that new houses constructed under PMAY-G have provided with toilets to every
household but still, a good number of them do not use toilets. Most of these non-use
cases are reported from Odisha, West Bengal, and very less from Madhya Pradesh.
This is surprising and it requires probing in order to ascertain if the non-use/disuse
is due to behaviour-related reasons or because of poor installations.
viii Dr. W. R. Reddy, IAS | Dr. R. Ramesh | Prof. P. SivaRam

Summary of Findings
Drinking Water: In providing access to piped water supply through convergence

with NRDWP, there has been no much headway made amongst PMAY-G benefi-
ciaries. Most beneficiaries of PMAY-G houses get water through common water
collection points only. The same holds good for other common facilities like waste
collection, drainage and street lights too, which in turn, confirms poor convergence
of PMAY-G with other programmes.
Additional Expenditure Incurred: It was found that about 80 per cent of the bene-
ficiaries has invested additional funds for constructing their PMAY-G assisted hous-
es. The median amount spent was Rs.60,000 in most cases, the amount spent ranges
from Rs.50,000 to Rs.80,000. A few beneficiaries reported to have spent additional
funds ranging from Rs.2,00,000 to Rs.6,00,000 but the number of such beneficiaries
does not go beyond 10 at the maximum (out of 1380 beneficiaries interviewed).
Therefore, such outliers (extreme cases) need not be taken as, the programme driv-
ing the beneficiaries to become indebted - as some studies argue. However, a matter
of concern here is the source from which the beneficiaries generate the additional
fund.
The main sources reported are private moneylenders and building material sup-
pliers (54 per cent), friends and relatives (18 per cent). Five per cent of them
have reported to have used up savings/sold out assets or pledged assets, etc.
Hardly, 3 per cent have gone for SHG/MFI loans and less than one per cent of
them have gone for nationalised banks. During informal interviews, it was found
that they were aware that they could approach banks for availing a loan up to
Rs. 70,000. Some report of having very little hope about convincing a banker to
lend for the purpose of investing in a house being constructed under a government
programme.
House Maintenance Expenditure: With regard to the house maintenance expendi-

ture incurred by PMAY-G beneficiaries, most of them have reported ‘zero mainte-
nance’. The reason, possibly, could be because a new house does not require much
Impact Assessment of PMAY-G (Madhya Pradesh, Odisha & West Bengal) ix

Summary of Findings
maintenance. Some beneficiaries have reported to have spent Rs. 2000- 6000, and
their number is too small. Reportedly, the new PMAY-G house has lightened the
house maintenance burden, which otherwise in the mud/dilapidated house, used to
be too high almost every year.
Conclusion
Taking into account the physical facilities such as type of house, electricity connec-
tion, kitchen, toilet, bathroom, natural ventilation, natural light and space for liveli-
hood activities, etc., when the overall objective well-being of the PMAY-G benefi-
ciaries is measured in comparison to those on the waiting list, we can conclude that
PMAY-G beneficiaries have the mean positive difference of 31.9 per cent in Madhya
Pradesh, 26.9 per cent in Odisha and 39 per cent in West Bengal. The T-test conduct-
ed also shows a significant difference between the PMAY-G beneficiaries against the
Comparison Group (those on the ‘waiting list’ living in the old dilapidated house).
In terms of effect size (Cohen’s d), we find that as far as Madhya Pradesh and Odis-
ha are concerned, the programme has made ‘Very Large’ effect; and in West Bengal,
the programme has made a ‘Huge Effect’. On convergence possibilities - except
with some programmes such as SBM-G or MGNREGS - the programme still has
not made any perceptible headway.
In terms of subjective well-being (socio-psychological well-being), on indicators

such as Social Status, Self-worth, Confidence Level, Feeling of Ownership, Feeling
of Safety & Security, Self-perceived Improvement in Health, Overall Quality of
Life, and Satisfaction about the New House, we find the PMAY-G beneficiaries feel
much better, compared to the Comparison Group. It can be concluded that the new
PMAY-G has made a significant impact on the lives of beneficiaries – both in terms
of physical facilities provided and subject well-being.
Policy Implications
Policy issues with regard to PMAY convergence with other programmes require
x Dr. W. R. Reddy, IAS | Dr. R. Ramesh | Prof. P. SivaRam

Summary of Findings
major changes. For example, once a set of beneficiaries have been selected under
PMAY-G, other facilities such as toilet, solar light, LPG and yard connection for
drinking water provision, etc., from other programmes (e.g. SBM-G, NRDWP,
PMUY, etc.) must be get marshalled into a pack and delivered. This can avoid the
beneficiaries stepping into every office of the government that implements each of
these programmes. Secondly, we find that Awas Bhandus (PMAY-G Local Moti-
vators) in many places are doing commendable work in local coordination. They,
in fact, seem to help speed up progress. But, they are unaware of the convergence
possibilities. They can be trained in various schemes that a PMAY-G beneficiary can
avail. Possibly, this can also facilitate convergence to take momentum.
Impact Assessment of PMAY-G (Madhya Pradesh, Odisha & West Bengal) xi

xii Dr. W. R. Reddy, IAS | Dr. R. Ramesh | Prof. P. SivaRam
CHAPTER – 1
INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
Public housing programme in the country started with the rehabilitation of ref-
ugees’ immediately after Independence and since then, it has been a major focus
area of the government as an instrument of poverty alleviation. Rural housing pro-
gramme, as an independent programme, started with Indira Awaas Yojana (IAY) in
January, 1996. Although IAY addressed the housing needs in the rural areas, certain
gaps were identified during the course of performance audit in 2014. These gaps
include non-assessment of housing shortage, lack of transparency in the selection
of beneficiaries, low quality of house, lack of technical supervision and lack of con-
vergence, loans not availed by beneficiaries and weak mechanism for monitoring,
and limiting the impact and outcomes of the programme. In order to address these
gaps in the rural housing programme and in view of Government’s commitment to
providing “Housing for All” by 2022, the scheme of IAY has been restructured into
Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana - Gramin (PMAY-G) with effect from 1st April, 2016.
PMAY-G aims to provide a pucca house with basic amenities to all house-
less households and households living in kutcha and dilapidated house by 2022.
The immediate objective is to cover one crore households living in kutcha house/
dilapidated houses in three years from 2016-17 to 2018-19 and ensure construction
of quality houses, using local materials, designs and masons specially trained in
quality workmanship. For houses to become homes, adequate care for adopting a
habitat approach through convergence is proposed.
Key Features of PMAY-G

• The minimum unit (house) size enhanced from the existing 20 sq.mt. to
25 sq.mt including a dedicated area for hygienic cooking.
Impact Assessment of PMAY-G (Madhya Pradesh, Odisha & West Bengal) 1

CHAPTER - 1
• Enhancement of unit assistance from Rs. 70,000 to Rs. 1,20,000 in plains and from
Rs. 75,000 to Rs.1,30,000 in hilly States, difficult areas and IAP districts. The
cost of unit (house) assistance is to be shared between Central and State gov-
ernments in the ratio 60:40 in plain areas and 90:10 for north-eastern and hilly
States.
• Identification of beneficiaries using SECC-2011 data. The identification and

selection of the beneficiaries shall be done by the community through the Gram
Sabha, from the SECC 2011 list, based on the housing deficiency and other
social deprivation parameters.
• The beneficiaries of PMAY-G. in addition to being provided financial assis-

tance. shall also be offered technical assistance in the construction of the house.
If the beneficiary so chooses, he/she will be facilitated to avail loan from fi-
nancial institutions for an amount of up to Rs. 70,000. A special module for
orientation of beneficiaries for demystifying concepts of construction costs and
process. All payments through DBT to beneficiary’s Bank/Post office accounts
registered in AwaasSoft MIS.
• Provision of toilets at Rs. 12.000 and 90/95 days of unskilled wage labour un-
der MGNREGA over and above the unit cost.
• Use of effective convergence for provision of electricity, piped drinking water

facility, rainwater harvesting, LPG gas connection under Ujjwala scheme, solar
initiatives, backyard fruit plants, poultry, goatery, dairy shed, solid and liquid
waste management, etc.
• Creating a menu of housing designs based on local typologies incorporating

local materials, traditional knowledge and aesthetics. Specially designed ma-
son training certificates proforma on-site to improve the quality of homes and
enhance the skills of participants.
2 Dr. W. R. Reddy, IAS | Dr. R. Ramesh | Prof. P. SivaRam

Introduction & Review of Literature
• Saturation approach in housing provision using Gram Panchayat, block or dis-

trict as a unit, wherever possible.
Role of Gram Panchayat

Under the PMAY-G, Gram Panchayats have been given the most critical role to
play in the actual implementation of the scheme. These include the following:
• The GP finalises priority list of eligible beneficiaries prepared on the basis of

SECC-2011 data by convening a Gram Sabha.
• The GP through Gram Sabha prepares the list of additional beneficiaries who
though eligible have been left out from the list of eligible beneficiaries.
• The GPs should ensure maximum participation in the Gram Sabha held to final-
ise the priority list of beneficiaries.
• They should arrange the meeting of beneficiaries either at the level of the Vil-
lage Panchayat or for a cluster of Village Panchayats, depending on the number
of beneficiaries, and facilitate the orientation of beneficiaries on different as-
pects of the scheme.
• The Gram Panchayats with the help of the Gram Sabha would identify families
who cannot construct houses on their own and help in identifying NGOs/Civil
Society Organisations of repute to handhold such beneficiaries to construct the
houses in time.
• The GPs assist in identifying common land and other lands including govern-
ment land for allotment to the landless beneficiary.
• The GPs may facilitate the beneficiaries in accessing materials required for
construction at reasonable rates and also the trained masons needed for con-
struction.

CHAPTER - 1
• The Gram Panchayats would ensure convergence with other schemes of the
Centre and State so that the beneficiary of PMAY-G avails the benefits of these
schemes.
• They should discuss the progress of the scheme in their scheduled meetings.
• They should also proactively assist the social audit teams to conduct Social
Audit.
• The Gram Panchayat should identify and monitor the local level functionary
who would be tagged with each house sanctioned for ensuring completion of
the construction of the house without delay.
In order to enable the Panchayats to play its role effectively, the State govern-
ment may do the following:
• Organise training programme to equip the Panchayats to carry out the tasks
assigned to them.
• Provide the Panchayats IEC material, particularly on materials and building

technologies.
• Provide a share of administrative expenses commensurate with workload.
• Issue an order specifying the roles and responsibilities of each tier of Pancha-
yat as appropriate to the States.
The condition of housing in rural India continues to be problematic due to rea-

sons such as, inter alia, poverty in rural areas; priority of the poor towards liveli-
hoods search; lack of idea on cost-effective housing designs that the poor can afford;
near absent institutional assistance when a poor person wants to construct a house.
Therefore, they continue to live in an insecure habitat. Such conditions can also
be attributed to ignorance and a sense of insecurity which significantly affect their

social life. The poor need institutional assistance, especially technical and financial.
Importance of housing has been identified in almost every five-year plan document
starting, perhaps from the ninth five-year plan (1997-2002) as an important aspect
of social sector development.
There are studies that show (for instance, Sudarshnam and Ajantha Kumar,
(2005)) social sector development demands appropriate policies and programmes
formulated and ensured by adequate investment supported by State so that mar-
ginalised and vulnerable section of the population can access basic facilities [such
as housing] based on their needs and not on their ability to pay. In the words of
Gaur K.D. (1996), food and shelter are two necessary needs of an individual and the
absence of the two is a curse to the society that can lead to social deprivation of the
poor. Homelessness can be expressed in social segregation. Adequate effort must be
put to remove poverty and houselessness. Sudarshnam and Ajantha Kumar (2005)
further state that in terms of the durability of houses and other standards like sani-
tation, clean drinking water and others the situation is not up to standards. The rural
houses are mostly huts, sheds, shacks and to call these a ‘house” is not justifiable.
According to Sudarshnam and Kumar (2005), rural houses are deficient in many
aspects. They lack durability and are not conducive to hygienic living. Rural hous-
es are not constructed in a proper manner in order to withstand natural calamities.
Arguments given by Sudarshnam and Kumar bring out the issues that continue to
exist in ongoing housing schemes in the country.
Pro-poor policies and programmes on rural housing are dire needs, given the
size of the rural population, which continues to live in houses that are unsafe to live
in. PMAY-G is another significant step towards fulfilling the housing needs of the
poor. Researchers have analysed the impact of earlier rural housing programmes.
Taking a dip into the existing research-based literature on this subject would be in
order for being able to write a clear road map for a study on the impact of PMAY-G.

CHAPTER - 1
Review of Literature
(Anand, 2017) in his study titled: ‘Housing for the Poor and the Impact of IAY
in Rural India: Present Context’ has analysed the impact of housing for rural poor in
India in rural poverty eradication with reference to the major housing scheme of the
Indian government, i.e., Indira Awaas Yojana (IAY). It is based on secondary data.
He argues that rural housing has been marginalised both in wider policy discussions
as well as within the debate on rural issues because rural housing needs are generally
subordinated to urban housing needs in policy priority. Yet, housing is essential for
the well-being and social security of rural households.
Compared to urban areas, rural areas are more deprived. With incomes gener-
ally lower than the urban areas and seasonal unemployment, many households find
it difficult to gain ownership of homes. This has implications for social sustainabil-
ity of rural communities and is causing increased polarisation as younger people
migrate to the urban areas in search of jobs leaving behind their old folk and chil-
dren, resulting in a negative impact on rural enterprise and economic viability. He
concludes that a house must have connectivity to drinking water supply, sanitation,
electricity, etc., in order to give a feeling of security to its inhabitants. Housing, as a
basic need, has evolved as a prime component not only in providing shelter but also
by providing employment opportunities and aiding local development. This article
puts across that the emphasis of rural housing should be more on inclusiveness and
on quality improvement. When a poor man owns a house, it helps in giving him a
self-identity, and that the housing sector has a positive impact on the overall stan-
dard of living of the rural people.
(Kumar K. K., 2016) in his research paper titled: ‘Impact of Rural Housing
Schemes on Human Development in India – An Analysis’ has analysed the problems
of rural housing programmes on human development in Karnataka taking into ac-
count, besides IAY, other major programmes of the Government of India. This study
argues that housing is known to have multiple linkages with the rest of the econo-
my and investments in housing have orchestrated impact in the region and on the

broader economy. This paper intends to analyse the various major housing schemes
of the Government of India. It is based on secondary data. The authors have
attempted to explain the multiplier effect of the housing programme to the weaker
sections of the population in Karnataka. They have found that the State Government
of Karnataka has been very pro-active in creating a multiplier effect combining IAY
with other major development programmes in order to gear up human development
efforts in the State.
(Kumar, June 2014) has made a review of the work of the Working Group on
Rural Housing for the Twelfth Five-Year Plan, which was published in Economic
and Political Weekly (Vol.49, Issue No.26-27). The working group has estimated
the rural housing shortage in India to be 43.13 million in 2012. Using the latest data
sets - Census 2011 and the National Sample Survey housing condition round for
2008-09 - and the improved methodology used by the technical group on the ur-
ban housing shortage, this paper re-estimates the rural shortage to be 62.01 million
in 2012. Households living in temporary houses and in congested conditions were
found to be mainly responsible for the rural housing shortage. The results suggest
the need for holistically focusing on eradicating shelter deprivation in rural India
and contributing to an enhancement of the quality of life of the people.
Drawbacks in terms of provision of sanitation, drinking water and others in

preceding housing project were analysed by Nirmal Kumar et al. (2004). They have
concluded that rural houses are not treated as engineering structures. Rather, they
are built without proper planning of drainage, sewage and lack a building plan.
It has been observed that the technical knowledge related to the construction of
building and rural infrastructure is not percolating down to remote villages.
Therefore, measures must be taken in order to strengthen the dissemination of infor-
mation relating to the transfer of technology, use of environment-friendly materials
and credit /subsidy/ finance, etc. Avtar (2005) confirms that the issue pertaining to
the scenario of convergence of various schemes is quite miserable. A village where
rural housing programme has been implemented lack basic amenities like water

CHAPTER - 1
supply, sanitation, disposal of wastewater, solid waste, etc. This can be attributed as
causes for the environmental deterioration and pollution of common resources such
as land, water, soil and air in rural areas. One thing which comes out on the scene
is the persistent connectivity of sanitation and basic amenities which establish link-
ages with the housing schemes. These basic amenities are related to health and are
generally taken as a social indicator in the overall assessment of social well-being.
The place of childbirth was considered as an important facilitating factor for main-
taining improved health, particularly of infants. However, a child delivered in un-
hygienic condition (home) has a direct bearing on his/her birth (Veena Kumari and
Singh, 2004). Veena and Singh argue that housing is a key input in economic, social
and civic development. On the social side, housing in better times generates wealth
by appreciating in value, providing secure premises for income-generating activi-
ties and opening the door to credit. Incremental investment in the housing allows
poor families to improve their asset base over time, as resources become available.
Moreover, clean and warm housing is an essential input for disease prevention and
healthcare.
Research carried out by Srinivasan (1988) came up with the idea of applying
appropriate technology in the construction of rural houses. He viewed that in the
context of increasing housing needs, resources available for construction need to be
appropriated in the best possible manner. According to Srinivasan, locally available
resource must be incorporated in construction to the maximum extent. The familiar-
ity of the local artisans with correct uses of indigenous material and acceptance by
the people are positive advantages. Srinivasan (1988) found that a large number of
rural houses are constructed with non-durable material like mud, grass thatch, etc.
Such construction requires frequent maintenance besides being highly vulnerable to
fire and natural hazards like rain, floods and earthquakes. The livable quality of the
houses leaves much to be desired. The technology should aim at improving the du-
rability and livability of houses. Extension of the same argument has been located in
the work of Mathur (1989) where he linked rural housing technology with poverty
eradication. According to him, adoption of appropriate technologies can contribute

largely to mitigate the economic and social problems faced by rural poor families in
eradicating poverty by the use of self-reliance in building technology, conservation
of energy and maximum use of local reserves with gainful utilisation of traditional
skills. Concern for appropriate technology in rural housing was also discussed by
Dutt (2002). He discussed that one of the major problems in rural housing is the lack
of awareness and information about the various technical inputs required for habitat
development.
Significance of having household assets was highlighted by Abhiroop Muk-

hopadhyay and Indira Rajaraman (2012) with reference to economic benefits sug-
gesting that housing is the major durable asset owned by households and in rural
India, it has more significance. Housing varies by quality and therefore, transition in
housing quality is potentially useful makers of the confidence of a household in its
future income stream.
Kumar K. K. (2016) has conducted one of the recent studies on the impact of
rural housing within the realm of human development. Kumar also linked the hous-
ing scheme with larger rural economy. He took a detailed study of some villages in
Karnataka and has built an argument that housing project has multiplying connec-
tivity with other policies and schemes which need to be viewed in the pretext of hu-
man development. PMAY-G can be one of the schemes which can help in bringing
an appropriate assessment of many policies for the benefit of rural poor through its
mechanism or provision of convergence. One of the main concerns affecting rural
development is bringing about a qualitative change in the lives of rural poor through
scheme convergence within and across ministries. The Habitat Development Work-
ing Group on Rural Housing (12th Five Year Plan, 2011) came with a recommenda-
tion that a ‘hamlet’ should be treated as the ‘unit of convergence’ rather than a vil-
lage. The convergence of IAY with schemes delivering other elements of a holistic
habitat such as sanitation, water supply, domestic energy and insurance cover needs
to be strengthened. Convergence also needs to be explored with MGNREGA and
Backward Regions Grant Fund (BRGF) for the physical development of habitats.

CHAPTER - 1
Development Facilitators, (2009), New Delhi has conducted an evaluation of

rural housing programme (IAY) under Economic Stimulus Package (ESP) in se-
lected Naxal-affected districts of Jharkhand, Bihar and Odisha. This study has been
carried out for the Research Division of NITI Aayog, GoI, New Delhi. (i) The study
found that earning of respondents in post-ESP regime was noted to have increased
marginally, and the proportion of beneficiaries not meaningfully engaged in any
activity prior to ESP intervention noted to be declined after getting an IAY house
(ii) Increased scope for work opportunities were reported as beneficiaries were
engaged in construction activities of other fellow IAY beneficiaries, 44 per cent
reported scope for exposure to other avenues of employment as women IAY benefi-
ciaries were engaged in small business activities by becoming members in Self-Help
Groups (SHGs) (iii) Other valued non-monetary outcomes perceived by a majority
of beneficiaries was reduction of discomforts or inconveniences after having pucca
units and indicating possession of pucca IAY dwelling units had impacted sustain-
able living (iv) Augmentation of social security was indicated to be one of the im-
pacts as migration by younger people leaving behind elderly persons was reduced
after possession of IAY houses. Increased wage employment opportunity nearby
through MGNREGS was stated to have diminishing effects on seasonal migration
of adolescents and youths (v) Use of savings to better health of household members
by ensuring sanitation and drinking water within households. Over-all, the level
of satisfaction owing to the possession of IAY units depicted positive valuation of
dwelling units by respondents in terms of fostering societal rejuvenation and im-
proved social status.
Studies conducted have focused on ‘benefits of rural housing programme as

a component in some other larger studies or social impact of housing with specific
indicators. New PMAY – the revised/revamped rural housing programme - has not
been studied for its socio-economic impact on the rural poor. Hence, this study is
taken up.

CHAPTER – 2
DESIGN OF THE STUDY
Introduction
The Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana – Gramin (PMAY-G) was launched in the month
of April 2016, which aims at providing a pucca house with basic amenities to
all houseless households and those households living in kutcha and dilapidated
house, by 2022. The immediate objective is to cover 10 million households living
in kutcha/dilapidated houses in three years from 2016-17 to 2018-19. In addition
to enhanced financial assistance and the increased size of the house, several other
features such as beneficiary support services and convergence elements have gone
into the new framework of PMAY-G, in order to make the outcome perceptible.
So much so, the concept of ‘green development’ requires bearing in view when it
comes to the choice of construction technologies, design typologies and material
use. The e-Governance mechanism of the programme has been made robust through
AwaasSoft, which is expected to respond to the newer requirements.
The guideline shows that transparency and accountability have significantly been
improved, especially in the selection of beneficiaries and the construction of houses in
PMAY-G. Another milestone in PMAY-G is geo-tagging to each and every house with
photographs of beneficiaries. Furthermore, the convergence of other development
programmes such as drinking water, sanitation, waste management, electricity,
cooking gas and other amenities shall improve the quality of life of beneficiaries.
Therefore, in the changing scenario, there is a need to study the impact of PMAY-G on
the aspects such as social status, health improvement, rural livelihoods enhancement,
perceived self-worth, satisfaction and improvement in other amenities, etc., for
understanding the grassroots level realities, which in turn, can be shared with the
PMAY-G Programme Division of the Ministry of Rural Development, Government
of India. In order to put this study in proper perspective, a review of existing studies

CHAPTER - 2
with similar themes was made. [Ref: Chapter - 1 of this report]. Studies conducted
have focused on ‘benefits of rural housing programme as a component in some other
larger studies or social impact of housing with specific indicators. New PMAY-G
the revised/revamped rural housing programme - has not been studied for its socio-
economic impact on the rural poor. Moreover, none of the study reviewed has come
out measuring the difference rural housing programme has made on the lives of the
rural poor in terms of objective well-being and subjective feelings. Hence, this study
is taken up.
Statement of the Problem

The PMAY-G is an improvement over the previous rural housing programme not
only in terms of the criteria adopted for beneficiary selection but also in several other
aspects, including the community participation and financing. The convergence
elements are expected to make a greater impact on improving the quality of living of
people with other amenities such as drinking water, sanitation, waste management,
cooking fuel and other amenities. There are studies conducted on the impact of IAY
programme, which was the earlier version of PMAY-G. However, there are hardly
any studies carried out to understand the extent to which programme objectives of
PMAY-G are being fulfilled to impact on rural social development. Therefore, this
study is taken up with the following research questions and research objectives:
(i) To what extent were the programme objectives met with regard to improving the
socio-economic conditions of the target population?, and (ii) what are the changes
brought about by PMAY-G in physical facilities or subjective well-being of people?
Objectives of the Study

1. To assess the overall socio-economic changes brought about on the lives of
beneficiaries of PMAY-G at household and community levels
2. To study the extent of convergence of development programmes with PMAY-G

and factors constraining effective convergence

Design of the Study
Research Methods
Research Design: This study aims at bringing out ‘the socio-economic impact’ of
PMAY-G programme on the target group in a real-life situation. Therefore, we have
followed Experimental Research Design (using RCT) with a pragmatic research
approach. We have worked with Treatment Groups and a Comparison Groups in
each of the study States. Those who got their house constructed under PMAY-G
have been taken as Treatment Group, and those who were on the ‘waiting-list’
were taken as Comparison Group. [Ten respondents on the waiting list of PMAY-G
beneficiaries in every Gram Panchayat made the Comparison Group for this study].
These groups were very similar in socio-economic standing, and so there was
almost no chance of any sampling bias to occur. These two were our groups for
establishing the ‘difference or impact’. We have conducted interviews and FGDs as
well. Mixed methods approach was followed in order to obtain statistically credible
results. Experimental Research Design ensures internal validity, which is essentially
used to determine cause-effect relationships. Pragmatism ensures external validity
and maximises applicability and generalisability.
Source of Data: Gram Panchayat Offices and Block Development Office were
the main source of secondary data – of people who were already living in houses
constructed under PMAY-G (or almost ready to occupy) and those who were on the
waiting list. List of beneficiaries that got their houses sanctioned after April 2016
and completed before February 2018 have been taken for Treatment Group. The
list of beneficiaries of PMAY-G on the waiting list during the same period in the
respective Gram Panchayats has been taken as Comparison Group for this study.
Sampling: The study covered 24 Gram Panchayats in three States covering

six districts in 12 Blocks. Two Gram Panchayats in each selected Block
were covered. Thus, there were four GPs studied in each selected district.
The study States were selected covering regions that are plain, coastal and
hilly – after ranking the States based on the coverage of beneficiaries under

CHAPTER - 2
PMAY-G after April, 2016. One State per region was selected, viz. (i) Madhya
Pradesh [Plain], (ii) Odisha [Coastal] and (iii) West Bengal [hilly]. The list of Gram
Panchayats selected based on these criteria is given as Annexure- 1. For the purpose
of this study 1,383 PMAY-G beneficiaries and 250 waitlisted beneficiaries have
been interviewed.
The respondents were selected based on the list of beneficiaries (Treatment Group);
those on the waiting list to get benefited in the upcoming years (Comparison Group).
This helped to avoid any selection bias, for their socio-economic background was
very similar. Online Sample Size Calculator was used for determining sample size
from each Gram Panchayats with a view to getting results with 95 per cent confidence
level or with 5 per cent margin of error. Excel Random Number Generator was
used for selecting respondents (sample fraction) for this study from the total list
of PMAY-G beneficiaries (sampling frame) obtained from the respective Gram
Panchayats. In order to ensure Statistical Power, we have gone for States, districts,
blocks and Gram Panchayats where PMAY-G has made the highest coverage during
the period under reference. This, in other words, means that we get the adequate
number of samples, especially in our Treatment Group so that statistical treatment
of data makes sense.
Data Collection: We prepared two different questionnaires – one for TG and the
other for CG. They were almost similar but for a few differences that may not be
applicable to CG. Mobile app-based ODK (Open Data Kit, which is an open-source
software) was used for data collection. Use of mobile application brought down
the time; otherwise, we would have spent entering data from the questionnaire into
Excel sheets. Data were collected from respondents using a mobile app and was
saved in the mobile phone for which no internet connectivity was required. Every
evening, data from the mobile phone were uploaded into the server at NIRDPR when
we got access to internet connectivity (in a hotel room in the field). Data sent from
ODK mobile app to the server at NIRDPR opens as Excel sheets, completely saving

Design of the Study
the time required for data entry and data cleaning. The data were ready for analysis
and statistical treatment straight after ‘data collection stage’. ‘Data collection’ itself
served the purpose of ‘data entry’ as well.
Period Covered: PMAY-G is an improvised programme over IAY. Studies

are required to determine the impact in terms of ‘socio-economic and quality of
living indicators’ on the target beneficiaries of PMAY-G. Thus, this study covered
beneficiaries of PMAY-G reported on the PMAY-G website of the MoRD as of
2017-18 (December) 2017. At the Block and Gram Panchayat level, we have made
sure that we take into account those beneficiaries who got their houses sanctioned
after April, 2016 and completed before February, 2018.
Scope of the Study

This study has covered PMAY-G houses sanctioned and completed
between April, 2016 and December, 2018. It does not cover houses
constructed under IAY nor under any of the State government
programmes or through NGO/CSR funding. It covers only beneficiaries of
PMAY-G houses. It focuses on socio-economic impact, which is operationally
defined below.
Operational Definitions
Impact: The difference PMAY-G has made in the lives of beneficiaries of the
programme was measured in terms of objective well-being and subjective well-
being.
Objective Well-being: This is about the changes brought about in the physical
conditions of dwelling objectively verifiable through indicators such as:
• Type of materials used in construction and roofing
• Number of rooms
• Electricity connection

CHAPTER - 2
• Availability of toilet
• Separate kitchen for cooking
• Type of fuel used for cooking
• Natural lighting and ventilation
• Drinking water supply
• Drainage, etc.
Subjective Well-being: This is about the changes that have come about at the ‘gut
feeling’ subjectively stated/expressed.
• Satisfaction about having a house
• Feeling of ‘Ownership’
• A Sense of Improved ‘Social Status’
• Self-perceived improvement in ‘Self-Worth’
• Self-perceived improvement in ‘Confidence level’
• Self-perceived improvement in ‘Health’
• Feeling of ‘Safety and Security’
• Improvement in Overall Standard of Living
Economic Indicators:
• Extra money spent
• Source of borrowing, if borrowed
• Money spent on Repair and Maintenance
• Space for taking up livelihood activities
• Type of fuel used for cooking
Analytical Framework
As mentioned in the design of the study, this is a study using Experimental Design

Design of the Study
where we had Treatment Groups and Comparison Groups from six districts of three
States. After controlling for extraneous/confounding variables, any improvement
(difference) made by the Treatment Group over the Comparison Group has been
construed as the impact of the programme. Besides Descriptive Statistics such as
mean, mean difference, median, range, Standard Deviation and graphic presentations,
appropriate inferential statistical tools such as variances, T-test, Cohen’s D, and
ANOVA have been used for data analysis. Pragmatic trials bring out maximal
heterogeneity in all aspects. This helps policymakers to have an active interest in
pragmatic trials since these are designed to answer the question most relevant to a
decision maker’s agenda: effectiveness of an intervention in the routine practice.
Chapter Scheme
Chapter – 1: Introduction
Chapter – 2: Design of the Study
Chapter – 3: Profile of the Study States
Chapter - 4: Analysis and Discussion
Chapter - 5: Findings and Conclusion

CHAPTER – 3
PROFILE OF THE STUDY AREA
This section describes the demographic profile of the respondents under this study.
It starts with profile such as the age of the respondents, gender, education, marital
status, family type, family size, livelihood details, involvement in MGNREGS,
bank account details, etc., and also provides the State-wise number of respondents
included in this study. All these together put across the contributions of PMAY-G to
the socio-economic and subjective well-being of the PMAY-G beneficiaries.
States under Study

Madhya
State Odisha West Bengal
Pradesh
Total Total Total
District Sagar Rajgarh Baleshwar Ganjam Bankura Purulia
No. of
Respon- 191 216 407 182 211 393 301 281 582
dents
46.9 100.0 100.0

Per cent 53.1 46.3 53.7 100.0 51.7 48.3
per per per
within State per cent per cent per cent per cent per cent per cent
cent cent cent
Note: Total Number of respondents: 407 + 393 + 582 = 1382
Demographic Profile of the Respondents

Table 1 shows the number of respondents (male and female) interviewed State-
wise with break-up details on districts. In Madhya Pradesh, Sagar (191) and
Rajgarh (216) districts were selected for this study. From these districts, we
had 407 respondents proportionate to the total that was in the list of PMAY-G
beneficiaries, who got their houses constructed (Treatment Group) during
the period under reference. Among them, 92 were women and others were
men. In Odisha, at Baleshwar (182) and Ganjam (211) districts, we had 393
respondents. Among them, there were 144 women and the rest were men.

Profile of the Study Area
In West Bengal, at Bankura (301) and Purulia (281) districts, we had 582 respondents.
Among them, 290 were women, and the rest were men. In total, we had 1,382
respondents; among them 62 per cent were men and 38 per cent were women.
Table 1
State and District-wise Distribution of Respondents
Total Total Number of
State District
Male Female Respondents
150 41 191
Sagar
(78.5 per cent) (21.5 per cent) (13.8 per cent)
Madhya Pradesh
165 51 216
Rajgarh
110 72 182
Baleshwar
Odisha
139 72 211
Ganjam
55 246 301
Bankura
West Bengal
237 44 281
Purulia
856 526 1382
Total
(61.9 per cent) (38.1 per cent) (100 per cent)
Source: Primary Data (Figures in brackets are percentage to the total).
Table 2 shows the age of the respondents who got houses sanctioned under PMAY-G.
The table shows that most of the heads of the households (900/1382) in this study
are in the age bracket of 30-53 years. If we split this group further and analyse, we
find that most of them (500/900) are within the age group of 30-41 years, which is
nearly the appropriate age when one needs to own a good house to live in, so as to
be able to focus on livelihoods-related search. This is to say that the age at which the
houseless poor people get house is appropriate. Thus, it can be stated that in terms
of the ‘age of the beneficiaries selected under the PMAY-G’, it is found they are at
an appropriate age to own a house.

CHAPTER - 3
Table 2
Distribution of the Respondents by Age of the Head of the Household
Age-Group District State
State District under 66 and
18-29 30-41 42-53 54-65 Total Total
18 above
14 72 61 28 16 191
Sagar 0 (7.3 per (37.7 per (31.9 per (14.7 per (8.4 per (100 per
Madhya cent) cent) cent) cent) cent) cent)
Pradesh 21 98 62 25 10 216 407
Rajgarh 0 (9.7 per (45.4 per (28.7 per (11.6 per (4.6 per (100 per
cent) cent) cent) cent) cent) cent)
11 53 60 43 15 182
Baleshwar 0 (6.0 per (29.1 per (33.0 per (23.6 per (8.2 per (100 per
Odisha 393
14 77 53 49 18 211
Ganjam 0 (6.6 per (36.5 per (25.1 per (23.2 per (8.5 per (100 per
40 134 69 47 11 301
Bankura (16.0 per (44.5 per (22.9 per (15.6 per (3.7 per (100 per
0
West cent) cent) cent) cent) cent) cent)
582
Bengal 2 66 95 95 23 281
Purulia 0 (7.0 per (23.5 per (33.8 per (33.8 per (8.2 per (100 per
102 500 400 287 93 1382
0
Total (10.3 per (36.2 per (28.9 per (20.8 per (6.7 per (100 per 1382
(0)
Source: Primary Data.
Table 3 shows the caste-wise distribution of respondents’ families. We find there is a fair
distribution among various caste categories, which means a fair share of sanction is found
among the SC/STs and among the OBCs and General Category people. The SC/ST put
together on one side, and the OBC and the General Category put together on the other side
weighed almost equal. Going by population proportion of SC/ST in India or in the States
under reference, it might look inequity in distribution. But, going by the inclusive policy

of the government, the distribution is justifiable that a good number of SC/ST households
(695) along with an equal number of OBCs and General Category households (687) have
got houses sanctioned under PMAY-G.
Table 3
Caste-wise Distribution of Respondents
Caste
State District Total
SC ST OBC General
30 29 115 191
17
Sagar (15.7 per (15.2 per (60.2 per (100 per
(8.9 per cent)
Madhya cent) cent) cent) cent)
Pradesh 28 158 30 216
Rajgarh (13.0 per 0 (73.1 per (13.9 per (100 per
cent) cent) cent) cent)
76 50 41 182
15
Baleshwar (41.8 per (27.5 per (22.5 per (100 per
(8.2 per cent)
Odisha
153 34 22 211
2
Ganjam (72.5 per (16.1 per (10.4 per (100 per
(9.0 per cent)
180 101 301

13 7
Bankura (59.8 per (33.6 per (100 per
(4.3 per cent) (2.3 per cent)
cent) cent) cent)
West Bengal
89 45 128 281
19
Purulia (31.7 per (16.0 per (45.6 per (100 per
(6.8 per cent)
Total 556 139 577 110 1382
40.2 per
10.1 per cent 41.8 per cent 8.0 per cent 100.0 per cent
cent
Table 4 shows the distribution of respondents by religion. Obviously for India, we find
among the beneficiaries most of them are Hindus (87 per cent), some are Muslims (11 per
cent) and a few belong to Christianity.

CHAPTER - 3
Table 4
Distribution of Respondents by Religion
Religion
Hindu Muslim Christian
187 4 0 191
Sagar
Madhya
Pradesh
191 25 216
Rajgarh 0
179 0 3 182
Baleshwar
Odisha
191 0 20 211
Ganjam
198 103 0 301

Bankura
West
Bengal
260 21 0 281
Purulia
1206 153 23 1382

Total
(87.3 per cent) (11.1 per cent) (1.7 per cent) (100 per cent)
Table 5 shows that most of the beneficiaries (87 per cent) are married and are living with
their families while others are either widowed or divorced, living with or without other
family members.

Table 5
Marital Status of the Respondents
Marital Status
Single Married Divorced Widow
2 166 23 191
0
Sagar (1.0 per (86.9 per (12.0 per (100 per
Madhya
Pradesh
3 195 18 216
0
Rajgarh (1.4 per (90.3 per (8.3 per (100 per
8 153 3 18 182
Baleshwar (4.4 per (84.1 per (1.6 per (9.9 per (100 per
cent) cent) cent) cent) cent)
Odisha
11 171 1 28 211
Ganjam (5.2 per (81.0 per (0.5 per (13.3 per (100 per
7 269 3 22 301
Bankura (2.3 per (89.4 per (1.0 per (7.3 per (100 per
West
Bengal
7 254 20 281
0
Purulia (2.5 per (90.4 per (7.1 per (100 per
38 1208 7 129 1382

Total (2.7 per (87.4 per (0.5 per (9.3 per (100 per
Table 6 shows that everyone has a bank account, and reportedly all the accounts are active.

CHAPTER - 3
Table 6
Bank Account Holding Particulars of Respondents
Bank Account
Yes Active
191 191 191
Sagar
Madhya (100 per cent) (100 per cent) (100 per cent)
Pradesh 216 216 216
Rajgarh
(100 per cent) (100 per cent) (100 per cent)
182 182 182
Baleshwar
Odisha
211 211 211
Ganjam
301 301 301
Bankura
West (100 per cent) (100 per cent) (100 per cent)
Bengal 281 281 281
Purulia
Total 1382 (100) 1382 (100) 1382 (100)
Table 7 shows that surprisingly, most respondents either never went to school (53 per cent)
or have had only primary level of education (42 per cent), [despite the fact that most of them
are in the age group of 30 – 53 years (read along with Table -2)]. This data support the thesis
that there is a direct correlation between educational attainments and poverty levels. All the
beneficiaries selected are poor and almost all of them are illiterates or have had primary
level education. This proves the thesis that illiterates tend to get mired in the poverty sludge.
This, to some extent, validates that right beneficiaries have been selected.

Table 7
Educational Status of the Respondents
Education
State District Inter- Total
Illiterate Primary Secondary Graduate
mediate
114 73 1 2 1
191
Sagar (59.7 per (38.2 per (0.5 per (1.0 per (0.5 per
(100)
Mad- cent) cent) cent) cent) cent)
hya
Pradesh 94 113 6 1 2 216
Rajgarh (43.5 per (52.3 per (2.8 per (0.5 per (0.9 per (100 per
69 87 22 4 182
Balesh- 0
(37.9 per (47.8 per (12.1 per (2.2 per (100 per
war
Odisha
74 130 7 211
0 0
Ganjam (35.1 per (61.6 per (3.3 per (100 per
265 34 2 301
0 0
Bankura (88.0 per (11.3 per (0.7 per (100 per
West
Bengal
113 144 23 1 281
0
Purulia (40.2 per (51.2 per (8.2 per (0.4 per (100 per
729 581 61 8 3 1382

Total (52.7 per (42.0 per (4.4 per (0.6 per (0.2 per (100 per

CHAPTER - 3
Table 9
Distribution of Respondent by Family-type
Family Type
Nuclear Joint
136 55 191
Sagar
Madhya Pradesh
145 71 216
Rajgarh
154 28 182
Baleshwar
Odisha
173 38 211
Ganjam
218 83 301
Bankura
West Bengal
96 185 281
Purulia
922 460 1382

Total
Table 10 shows the ‘family size’. We found 55 per cent of the families have had more than
five members in the family. In terms of families being nuclear or joint, we find about 67 per
cent are nuclear families and 33 per cent belong to joint-families (See Table 9).

Table 10
Size of Family (Treatment)
Family Size
Less than 5 5 -8 8<
191
Sagar 55 123 13
(100)
Madhya Pradesh
216
Rajgarh 68 134 14
(100)
182
Baleshwar 118 61 3
(100)
Odisha
211
Ganjam 114 94 3
(100)
301
Bankura 149 142 10
(100)
West Bengal
281
Purulia 117 150 14
(100)
1382
Total 621 704 57
(100)
Table 11 shows that many families (nearly 67 per cent) have children too, of less than 14
years old. The number of families having children is more in Madhya Pradesh and West
Bengal and it is slightly less in Odisha. Table 12 shows that the number of children at
school-going age is more in all the States under study.

CHAPTER - 3
Table 11
Distribution of Respondents’ Families having Children (0-14 Years)
Families Having Children

Yes No
139 52 191
Sagar
Madhya Pradesh
165 51 216
Rajgarh
93 89 182
Baleshwar
Odisha
123 88 211
Ganjam
212 89 301
Bankura
West Bengal
191 90 281
Purulia
929 459 1382

Total

Table 12
Distribution of Children at School-going Age
If children all are going school

No Children
Yes No
in Family
52 44 95
191
Sagar (27.2 per (23.0 per (49.7 per
(100 per cent)
cent) cent) cent)
Madhya
Pradesh
51 76 89
216
Rajgarh (23.6 per (35.2 per (41.2 per
(100 per cent)
cent) cent) cent)
90 72 20
182
Baleshwar (49.5 per (39.6 per (11.0 per
(100 per cent)
cent) cent) cent)
Odisha
88 111
12 211
Ganjam (41.7 per (52.6 per
(5.7 per cent) (100 per cent)
cent) cent)
88 173 40
301
Bankura (29.2 per (57.5 per (13.3 per
(100 per cent)
cent) cent) cent)
West
Bengal
90 137 54
281
Purulia (32.0 per (48.8 per (19.2 per
(100 per cent)
cent) cent) cent)
459 613
310 1382
Total (33.2 per (44.4 per
22.4 per cent) (100 per cent)
cent) cent)
Source: Primary data

CHAPTER - 3
Table 15 shows the number of PMAY-G beneficiaries, who are NREGS job card
holders. We find that nearly 95 per cent of them are NREGA job card holders. This
is almost uniform in all the three States under study. This goes to confirm that the
selection of beneficiaries has been properly done in all the three States under study.
Table 15
Distribution of Respondents by their MGNREGA Job Card
MGNREGA Job card

Yes No
172 19 191
Sagar
Madhya Pradesh
202 14 216
Rajgarh
164 18 182
Baleshwar
Odisha
203 8 211
Ganjam
285 16 301
Bankura
West Bengal
281 281
Purulia 0
(100 per cent) (100 per cent)
1307 75 1382
Total
Table 16 shows the number of PMAY-G beneficiaries who also got benefited under NREGS,
while their house was under construction. Nearly 88 per cent of the PMAY-G beneficiaries
have got wages for 90 days of employment under MGNREGS for involving themselves in
constructing their own houses. The remaining 12 per cent have not benefited under NREGS
convergence, the reasons for which are unknown. It requires exploring.

Table 16
MGNREGA Convergence
MGNREGA Convergence
Yes No
178 13 191
Sagar
Madhya Pradesh
205 11 216
Rajgarh
162 20 182
Baleshwar
Odisha
206 5 211
Ganjam
254 47 301
Bankura
West Bengal
205 76 281
Purulia
1210 172 1382

Total
Table 17 shows the involvement of the beneficiaries of PMAY-G in any other

additional livelihood activities to have secondary/subsidiary source of income – in
addition to their primary source of income. It was found that 37 per cent of the
families have an additional member (other than the head of the household), involved
in adding to the income of the family by involving themselves in goat/sheep rearing,
maintaining a cow for milking or involved in some kind of handcrafts making, etc.

CHAPTER - 3
Table 17
Distribution of Respondents by their Family Members’ Livelihood Status
Family members’ involvement in

State District other livelihood activities Total
Yes No
10 181 191
Sagar
Madhya
Pradesh
25 191 216
Rajgarh
61 121 182
Baleshwar
Odisha
103 108 211
Ganjam
150 151 301

Bankura
West Bengal
162 119 281
Purulia
511 871 1382

Total

CHAPTER – 4
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter discusses the focal point of this research study that is the impact of
PMAY-G on the beneficiaries of the programme. As put across in the research design
part of this report, we have taken Control Groups (waitlisted beneficiaries) from
each study village to be able to compare the difference the programme has made on
the lives of the PMAY-G beneficiaries (Treatment Group). This is presented in two
parts. Part-I deals with the objective well-being and economic benefits and Part–II,
deals with subjective well-being that the beneficiaries report. In order to make it
easy to comprehend, an attempt has been made to make a graphic presentation, as
far as possible.
Housing Condition: Condition of housing (in terms of materials used for constructing
and the type of roof) is one important indicator one can take up for measuring the
change brought about in the condition of housing.
ŽŶƚƚƌŽů'ƌŽƵ
ƵƉ dƌĞĂƚŵ
ŵĞŶƚ'ƌŽ
ŽƵƉ
Others, Concret
1% e house
Thattched with full
houuses, asbestos
23% roof,
17%
Partly
Mud Kucchha Concreet
houses (woood, e roof + Concrett
with tiled mudd, asbestoos e
roof padddy sheet, (pucca))
(dilapidatt straw
w), 25% houses,
ed), 14% % 62%% 58%
Figure 4.1: Housing Condi on Figure 4.1a: Housing Condi on

(Control Group) (Treatment Group)

CHAPTER - 4
Figures 4.1 & 4.1a show the housing condition of the PMAY-G beneficiaries who
are already living in the house constructed with the assistance of the PMAY-G, in
comparison to the housing condition of those waiting to get a house sanctioned. We
found (in Figure 4.1a) that 58 per cent of the beneficiaries (TG) have got houses that
are pucca concrete, about 25 per cent have concrete houses with asbestos roofs and
the remaining 17 per cent have a partial concrete roof and partial asbestos. Most of
the houses are made of brickwork or cement block work. A look at the Comparison
Group (Fig: 4.1) shows that most of them live in mud houses that have a paddy straw
roof (62 per cent) or thatch roof (23 per cent). There were mud wall houses with tiled
roof (14 per cent) as well. About a one per cent of the houses have been constructed
with a variety of materials that are indescribable – too abysmal for words. PMAY-G
has offered better housing condition to the beneficiaries by providing pucca houses.
To what extent it has improved their level of well-being compared to those who are
yet to get a house shall be taken up for analysis, later in this section.
Houses Electrified: Electrification of houses is an important indicator in the rural

housing programme. The PMAY-G framework of implementation states that houses
should be electrified under rural electrification programme or under MNRE’s( Min-
istry of New and Renewable Energy) solar electrification scheme.
ϯϰй ϭϵй
zĞĞƐ zĞƐƐ
ϲϲй
EŽ ϴϭй EŽ
Figure 4.2: Electrification Figure 4.2a: Electrification

(Control Group) (Treatment Group)

Analysis and Discussion
A comparison of Figure 4.2 against Figure 4.2a reveals that 34 per cent of the
households in the Control Group do not have electricity facility, whereas in the
Treatment Group only about 19 per cent of the households do not have electricity
connection. Thus, the houses electrified have gone up from 66 per cent to 81 per
cent. Among the 19 per cent of the households, who do not have electricity, many of
them reported that they have applied for power connections, but they are yet to get
connected to a power grid. People are unaware of electrification through solar unless
implementing officers explain the possibilities with solar and educate the people.
We found solar lights in only one village in Odisha.
Family Size and Congestion: Number of occupants in a house is an indicator of

any housing programme. It must help reduce the congestion in occupancy.
Figure 4.3: Family Size and Congestion
The number of members occupying a house is an important indicator of any rural

housing programme. The box and whisker plot above shows the occupancy status of

CHAPTER - 4
the Control Group on the right side and the occupancy status of Treatment Group on
the left side. It indicates that PMAY-G has slightly reduced the congestion in occu-
pancy by bringing the median occupancy from 5 to 4.5.
Availability and Use of Kitchen: General measure of housing as a facility shall

include kitchen and toilet. PMAY-G is no exception to that rule. The researchers
studied the availability and use of kitchen in PMAY-G houses in comparison to the
Control Group houses. The data are presented in the following pie-diagram (See
Figure: 4.4).
CONTROL TREATMENT
Families that
use kitchen,
37.20%
No , 51.60% No, 36.98%
Families that
Yes, 48.40% Yes, 63.02% use kitchen,
61.00%
Yes, 63.02%
Yes, 48.40% Families that

don't
Families that use, 2.02%
don't use
11.20%
Figure 4.4: Availability and Use of Kitchen
Figure 4.4 shows that 48 per cent of the houses in the Control Group (left) have kitchen and
52 per cent did not have a kitchen that means they cook outside. Even among the
48 per cent who have a kitchen about 11 per cent do not use the kitchen and they
also cook outside. Among the Treatment Group, 63 per cent of the households have
kitchen, and 37 per cent do not have kitchen, which means that they have opted to
have one additional room in place of a kitchen. Even among the 63 per cent who

have kitchen, 2 per cent of the families cook outside, and have started using the
space meant for kitchen as another room for use. This shows the tendency to have
additional room for occupancy rather than having a kitchen for cooking. Perhaps,
the kitchen is used hardly one or two hours a day, whereas a room can be used for
more than 10 hours a day.
Cooking Fuel: The PMAY-G suggests the beneficiaries to avail LPG under PMUY
(Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana). This is suggested as part of the possible con-
vergence under PMAY-G. Figure 4.5 shows a comparative picture of what type of
cooking fuel is used by Treatment Group vis-à-vis the Control Group.
Fuel used for cooking (Control)

120.00%
100.00% 96.00% 95.30%

91.80%
80.00%
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
4.00% 4.70% 5.90%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.20% 1.20%
0.00%
Madhya pradesh Odisha West Bengal
Traditional Chula by using wood (Control) Smokeless Chula (Control)

LPG (Control) Kerosene stove (Control)
Figure 4.5: Cooking Fuel Used (Control Group)

CHAPTER - 4
Fuel used for cooking (Treatment)

100.00% 92.90%
90.00%
79.40%
80.00%
70.00%
61.20%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00% 24.80%
19.80%
20.00% 14.00%
10.00% 6.70%
0.00% 0.70% 0% 0.00% 0.30%
0.00%
Madhya pradesh Odisha West Bengal
Traditional Chula by using wood (Treatment) Smokeless Chula (Treatment)

LPG Gas (Treatment) Kerosene stove (Treatment)
Figure 4.5a: Cooking Fuel Used (Treatment Group)
Figures 4.5 and 4.5a show that traditional chulah and firewood still remain the main
cooking fuel even in PMAY-G houses. Over 92 per cent of the households in Control
Group use traditional chulah with firewood and there is no noticeable difference in
the Treatment Group except in the case of Odisha where nearly 20 per cent of the
people report to be using LPG. LPG is used only in 14 per cent PMAY-G houses in
MP (which is 4 per cent in CG), 20 per cent in Odisha (which is 5 per cent in CG)
and 8 per cent in WB (which is 6 per cent in CG).
Availability and Use of Toilet: Availability and use of Toilet is another indica-
tor in PMAY-G convergence, which must happen through Swachh Bharat Mission
(SBM-G) or through MGNREGS. Figure 4.6 shows the availability and toilet use in
amongst Control Group and Treatment Group.

KEdZK>;'Ϳ dZdDEd;d'Ϳ
&ĂŵŝůŝĞƐǁŚŽ &ĂŵŝůŝĞƐǁŚŽ
ĚŽŶΖƚ zĞƐ ĚŽŶΖƚ
ƵƐĞ͕ϲй ;ŽŶƚƌŽůͿ͕ϯϬ ƵƐĞ͕ϵ͘ϳϬй
zĞƐ
й ;dƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚͿ͕
&ĂŵŝůŝĞƐǁŚŽ &ĂŵŝůŝĞƐǁŚŽ ϲϰ͘ϰϳй
ƵƐĞ͕Ϯϰй ƵƐĞ͕ϱϰ͘ϳϴй
EŽ
;dƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚͿ͕
ϯϱ͘ϱϯй
EŽ
;ŽŶƚƌŽůͿ͕ϳϬ
й
Figure 4.6: Availability and Use of Toilets
Figure 4.6 shows that among the Control Group. 30 per cent has toilets and 70 per
cent does not have toilets. Among the 30 per cent in CG who have toilet, 6 per cent
does not use it. Among the Treatment Group, 65 per cent of the households have
toilets and 35 per cent don’t have toilets. Out of the 65 per cent of the households
in Treatment Group who have toilets, on an average (all the 3 States put together)
10 per cent of them are not using. It shows new houses constructed under PMAY-G
have provided people with toilets but still, a good number of them do not use toilets.
Most of these non-use cases are reported from Odisha, West Bengal and very less
from Madhya Pradesh. This is surprising and it requires probing in order to ascertain
if the non-use/disuse is due to behaviour-related reasons or because of poor instal-
lations.
Drinking Water: Domestic water supply facility, especially house service connec-
tion for the houses constructed under PMAY-G, is another measure of convergence
that can improve the quality of living of PMAY-G beneficiaries. Figures 4.7 and
4.7a show the status of drinking water provision to the Control Group and Treatment
Group in the study States.

CHAPTER - 4
Figure 4.7: Drinking Water Supply Facility (Control Group)
Figure 4.7a: Drinking Water Supply Facility (Treatment Group)

In providing access to piped water supply, there is no much headway made. Most
beneficiaries of PMAY-G houses get water through common water collection points
only. We find that there is no much difference between CG and TG when it comes to
drinking water facility. The dependence is still on common water collection points.
The same holds good for other common facilities like waste collection, drainage and
street lights too confirming once again poor convergence of PMAY-G with other
programmes.
Space Available for Livelihoods: It often happens that houses provided under
government programmes ignore the livelihood requirements of the beneficiaries
(Palanithurai, 2008).
Figure 4.8 analyses this fact in the case of PMAY-G beneficiaries in comparison
with Control Group.
Figure 4.8: Space Available for Livelihoods

CHAPTER - 4
Figure 4.8 shows that only 33 per cent of the houses under Control Group have had
space for livelihoods, whereas in Treatment Group 68 per cent of the households
have mentioned about having got additional space for livelihood activities in-door.
PMAY-G houses have become facilitative of livelihood activities in rural areas.
Extra Expenditure Incurred: The Government of India provides Rs.1,20,000 for

constructing house under PMAY-G. It often happens that the beneficiaries tend to
invest additional funds from their own sources with a view to constructing a house
to their liking. Figure 4.9 shows the additional investment made by beneficiary
households.
Figure 4.9: Additional Investment Made by PMAY-G Beneficiaries

It was found that about 80 per cent of the beneficiaries have invested additional
funds for constructing their PMAY-G assisted houses. The median amount spent
was Rs. 60,000 and most people have spent an amount ranging from Rs. 50,000 to
Rs.80,000 as we find in the box plot above, there are some outliers ranging from
Rs. 2,00,000 to Rs. 6,00,000 but the number of such beneficiaries do not go be-
yond 10 at the maximum. Therefore, such extreme cases need not be taken as the
programme driving the beneficiaries to become indebted - as some studies argue.
The PMAY-G guidelines clearly say that beneficiaries can borrow (at a differential
rate of interest) up to Rs.70,000 from banks if they need additional funds for con-
struction. If the beneficiaries made huge investments beyond their means, it should
be within their sanction and sanity.
Figure 4.10 shows the source from where the PMAY-G beneficiaries arranged
additional funds to be able to meet the extra investment, they thought they needed.
3%0% Borrow from Private Money

5%
Lenders
Did not spend extra money
17%
37% Personal help from friends /
relatives
Credit from Material Suppliers
Savings used up/ assets sold /

assets pledged
18% SHG/MFI Loan
Loan from Banks

20%
Figure 4.10: Sources of Additional Funds for Investment

CHAPTER - 4
Figure 4.10 shows that only 20 per cent of the PMAY-G beneficiaries have
constructed the house within the amount sanctioned from the Programme. About
80 per cent of the beneficiaries have borrowed funds from various sources. The
main sources reported are: 37 per cent from private moneylenders, 18 from friends
and relatives and 17 from materials suppliers. Five per cent of them have reported
to have used up savings/sold out assets or pledged assets, etc. Hardly, 3 per cent
have gone for SHG/MFI loans and less than one per cent of them have gone for
nationalised banks. The predominant source has been non-institutional sources such
as private moneylenders, building material suppliers, relatives and friends. Why
is it that many have not approached banks, remains unexplained, although some
report of having very little hope about convincing a banker to lend for the purpose
of investing in a house being constructed under a government programme?
House Maintenance Expenditure
Figure 4.11: House Maintenance Expenditure (CG)

Figure 4.12: House Maintenance Expenditure (CG)
Figure 4.11 shows the house maintenance expenditure that the Control Group re-
ported incurring. It shows they incur median Rs. 2000 in Madhya Pradesh and West
Bengal, Rs. 3000 in Odisha. The range goes up to Rs. 5000-Rs.6000 per annum.
There is a need for people living in old, thatched and dilapidated house to keep at-
tending to repairs constantly. Thus, they incur this expenditure. Figure 4.12 shows
the house maintenance expenditure incurred by the Treatment Group (beneficiaries
of PMAY-G). We find most of them have reported zero maintenance. The reason,
possibly, could be because of the new houses require not much maintenance. Some
beneficiaries have reported to have spent Rs. 2000-6000 and their number is too
small, although.

CHAPTER - 4
Part – I
Results – Objective Well-being

Taking into account physical facilities such as type of house, electricity connection,
kitchen, toilet, bathroom, natural ventilation, natural light and space for livelihood
activities, etc., we measure the overall objective well-being of the Treatment Group
and Control Group. Figure 4.13 shows a comparison of these facilities in percent-
age terms. Figure 4.14 shows the mean difference of the same facilities in the study
States.
Figure 4.13: Physical Facilities (Treatment – Control)

DEŝĨĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ;WŚǇƐŝĐĂůĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐͿ
DĂĚŚǇĂWƌĂĚĞƐŚ ϯϭ͘ϵй
KĚŝƐŚĂ Ϯϲ͘ϵй
tĞƐƚĞŶŐĂů ϯϵй
Figure 4.14: Mean Difference in Facilities
Figures 4.13 and 4.14 show the mean difference in facilities. We have Treatment
Group on the left and Control Group on the Right. The mean positive difference is
31.9 per cent in Madhya Pradesh, 26.9 per cent in Odisha and 39 per cent in West
Bengal. The same is plotted in a line graph in Figure 4.15 below, which clearly put
across the difference PMAY-G has made in terms of providing house as a physical
facility.

CHAPTER - 4
Figure 4.15: The Difference PMAY-G has made
Results of T-Test
Moving beyond descriptive statistics, an attempt was made to use T-test from
inferential statistics in order to find out if inferential statistics also supports the
internal validity of our inference.

T-Test
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
95 per cent
Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Std. Std. Error
Mean Lower
Deviation Mean
Pair 1 Madhya
Pradesh
Treatment 32.22222 38.47330 12.82443 2.64903
& Madhya
Pradesh Control
Pair 2 Odisha
Treatment & 25.33333 25.70506 8.56835 5.57468
Odisha Control
Pair 3 West Bengal
Treatment &
38.66667 20.67607 6.89202 22.77363
West Bengal
Control
Paired Samples Test

Paired
Differences
95 per cent
Confidence t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Interval of the
Difference
Upper
Pair 1 Madhya
Pradesh
Treatment
61.79541 2.513 8 .036
and Madhya
Pradesh
Control
Pair 2 Odisha
Treatment and 45.09199 2.957 8 .018
Odisha Control
Pair 3 West Bengal
Treatment and
54.55970 5.610 8 .001
West Bengal
Control

CHAPTER - 4
We find the ‘significance’ / P-value to be less than 0.05 in all the States, which
indicates that there is a significant difference. Hence, we accept H1 i.e., there is a
difference due to intervention.
Effect Size
We wanted to move beyond ‘P-value’ in order to find out the ‘Effect Size’. These
effect sizes estimate the amount of the variance within an experiment that is
“explained” or “accounted for” by the experiment’s model. We used Cohen’d and
Sawilowsky (2009) method of finding out the effect size. We calculated the effect
size and fixed our values into Sawilowsky (2009) chart.
Table 4.1: Effect Size

EFFECT SIZE d Our Values Reference
Very Small Effect 0.01 Swailowsky, 2009
Small Effect 0.20 Cohen, 1988
Medium Effect 0.50 Cohen, 1988
Large Effect 0.80 Cohen, 1988

0.83 (MP),
Very Large Effect 1.20 Swailowsky, 2009
0.98 (Odisha)
Huge Effect 2.0 1.80 (WB) Swailowsky, 2009
Note: The table above contains descriptors for the magnitude of d=0.01 to 2.0, as
initially suggested by Cohen (1988) and expanded by Sawilowsky (2009).
We find that as far as Madhya Pradesh and Odisha are concerned the effect size is
‘Very Large’ and in West Bengal, the programme has made a ‘Huge Effect’.

Part – II
Subjective Well-being (Socio-Psychological)

There are certain subjective well-being elements we included in the study. They
are analysed separately. They include: Social Status, Self-worth, Confidence Level,
Feeling of Ownership, Feeling of Safety & Security, Self-perceived Improvement in
Health, Overall Quality of Life, and Satisfaction about the New House. Figure 4.16
shows the subjective well-being measured for the Treatment Group in comparison
to the Control Group.
Figure 4.16: Subjective Well-being of PMAY-G beneficiaries’ vis-à-vis

Control Group
Figure 4.16 shows all the parameters of subjective well-being, and we find the
Treatment Group feels much better when compared to the Control Group. Subjective
well-being goes to say that a housing programme provides not only a safe and secure
house to live in. The agency value of the person, who is becoming a new house

CHAPTER - 4
owner goes up, his social status steps up, self-worth expands, his confidence level
raises and his voice in the society becomes audible. That way, the contribution of
PMAY-G to poor families is very much perceptible in the study States.

CHAPTER – 5
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
This study on the impact of PMAY-G set out answering some specific research
questions. They are: (i) To what extent were the programme objectives met with
regard to improving the physical conditions of living of the target population (ii)
socio-economic improvements experienced by the target population, as a result of
owning a new house? These precisely mean the changes brought about by PMAY-G
in physical facilities or subjective well-being of the people, who availed house under
the PMAY-G. Studying the extent of convergence of development programmes with
PMAY-G and factors constraining effective convergence was also part of the study.
The study was conducted in three States (covering 24 Gram Panchayats in six
districts), viz. Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, and West Bengal. The methodology used is
RCT (Randomised Control Trial), where the beneficiaries who availed house already
and are living in the past six months to one year are taken as Treatment Group, and
those who were selected and have been put in the waiting list to avail house in the
upcoming years are taken as Comparison Group. The following are the results of
the study.
General Findings
Most (900/1382) of the head of the beneficiaries, who got houses sanctioned under
PMAY-G, are in the age bracket of 30-53 years. If we split this group further and
analyse, we find that most of them (500/900) are within the age group of 30-41
years, which is nearly the appropriate age when one needs to own a good house to
live in, so as to be able to focus on livelihoods-related search. This is to say that
the age at which the houseless poor people get house is appropriate. Thus, it can be
stated that in terms of the ‘age of the beneficiaries selected under the PMAY-G’, it is
found they are at an appropriate age to own a house.

CHAPTER - 5
We found that there is a fair distribution among various caste categories, meaning
a fair share of sanction is found among the SC/STs and among the OBCs and
General Category of people. The SC/ST put together on one side and the OBC
and the General Category put together on another weighed almost equal. Going by
population proportion of SC/ST in India or in the States under reference, it might
look inequity in distribution. But, going by the inclusive policy of the government,
the distribution is justifiable that a good number of SC/ST households (695) along
with an equal number of OBCs and General Category households (687) have got
houses sanctioned under PMAY-G.
In terms of families being nuclear or joint, we found that about 67 per cent are nuclear
families and 33 per cent belong to joint-families. With regard to the ‘family size’, we
found that 55 per cent of the PMAY-G beneficiaries’ families have more than five
members in the family. There are families with eight or more than eight members
too. We analysed if there were any members of the beneficiaries’ family involved
in livelihoods that add to the family kit (adding to the overall household income). It
was found that 37 per cent of the families have an additional member (other than the
head of the household), involved in adding to the income of the family by involving
themselves in goat/sheep rearing, maintaining a cow for milking, or involved in
some kind of handcrafts making, etc.
Specific Findings
Type of House:The poor who were living in thatched houses, mud houses and houses with
paddy straw roofs have got concrete roofed houses (58 per cent), Concrete + asbestos roofs
(25 per cent), and fully asbestos (17 per cent). Most of the houses are made of
brickwork or cementblock-work. PMAY-G has provided better housing condition
to the beneficiaries by providing pucca houses. In the comparison group, we found
only 66 per cent of the houses electrified, whereas in PMAY-G houses, we found 81
per cent electrified.
Congestion in Occupancy: PMAY-G has slightly reduced congestion in houses by

Findings and Conclusion
providing two or more rooms. It has slightly reduced the congestion in occupancy
by bringing the median occupancy from 5 to 4.5.
Kitchen: PMAY-G has provided cooking space (kitchen) inside the house. This
has changed the practice of cooking outside, but not to the extent it could have
changed. PMAY-G beneficiaries seem to prefer having one more room to kitchen.
Some have designed their houses to be all rooms and no kitchen. A few of them
who have constructed kitchen also prefer cooking outside so as to use the kitchen
space as another living room. This explains why PMUY (LPG gas) has not picked
up amongst the PMAY-G houses to the extent it could have.
Fuel for Cooking: Traditional chulah and firewood still remain the main cooking
fuel even in PMAY-G houses. The LPG is used only in 14 per cent PMAY-G houses
in MP (which is 4 per cent in CG), 20 per cent in Odisha (which is 5 per cent in CG)
and 8 per cent in West Bengal (which is 6 per cent in CG). The PMUY (LPG for
cooking) is not a big success under PMAY-G convergence. The price of LPG and
voluntarily placing oneself under the pressure of having to find money to replace empty
cylinders every time it runs empty are reportedly the reasons that prevent PMAY-G
beneficiaries from applying for LPG connections. The awareness level with regard to
PMUY convergence is also poor, even among the Awaas Bandu (Local Motivators of
PMAY-G).
Toilets: With regard to the availability and use of toilets, among the Control Group 30 per
cent have toilets and 70 per cent don’t have toilets.Among the 30 per cent CG who have toilet
6 per cent of them do not use. Among the Treatment Group, 65 per cent of the
households have toilets and 35 per cent do not have toilets. Out of the 65 per cent of
the households in Treatment Group who have toilets, on an average (all the 3 States
put together) 10 per cent of them are not using. It shows new houses constructed
under PMAY-G have provided with toilets to every household but still, a good
number of them do not use. Most of these non-use cases are reported from Odisha,
West Bengal and very less from Madhya Pradesh. This is surprising and it requires

CHAPTER - 5
probing in order to ascertain if the non-use/disuse is due to behaviour-related reasons

or because of poor installations.
Drinking Water: In providing access to piped water supply through

convergence with NRDWP, there has been no much headway made amongst
PMAY-G beneficiaries. Most beneficiaries of PMAY-G houses get water
through common water collection points only. We find that there is no much
difference between CG and TG when it comes to drinking water facility.
The dependence is still on common water collection points. The same holds good
for other common facilities like waste collection, drainage and street lights too
confirming once again poor convergence of PMAY-G with other programmes.
Space for Livelihoods: Under Control Group only 33 per cent of the houses has had
space for livelihoods, whereas in Treatment Group 68 per cent of the households
have mentioned about having got additional space for livelihood activities in-door.
PMAY-G houses contribute to livelihood activities by providing additional space for
livelihoods.
Additional Expenditure Incurred: It was found that about 80 per cent of the
beneficiaries have invested additional funds for constructing their PMAY-G assisted
houses. The median amount spent was Rs. 60,000 in most cases, the amount spent
ranges from Rs.50, 000 to Rs.80, 000 a few beneficiaries reported to have spent
additional funds ranging from Rs.2,00,,000 to Rs.6,00,000 but the number of such
beneficiaries does not go beyond 10 at the maximum (out of 1,380 beneficiaries
interviewed). Therefore, such outliers (extreme cases) need not be taken as, the
programme driving the beneficiaries to become indebted - as some studies argue
(cite). The PMAY-G guidelines clearly say that beneficiaries can borrow (at a
differential rate of interest) up to Rs.70,000 from banks if they need additional funds
for construction. If the beneficiaries made huge investments beyond their means, it
should be within their ability and sanity.
Source of funds for Additional Investment: It was found that only 20 per cent of
the PMAY-G beneficiaries have constructed the house within the amount sanctioned

from the Programme. About 80 per cent of the beneficiaries have arranged additional
funds from various sources. The main sources reported are private money lenders
and building material suppliers (54 per cent), friends and relatives (18 per cent). Five
per cent of them have reported to have used up savings/sold out assets or pledged
assets etc. Hardly, three per cent have gone for SHG/MFI loans and less than one
per cent of them have gone for nationalised banks. The predominant source has been
non-institutional sources such as private money lenders, building material suppliers,
relatives and friends. During informal interviews, it was found that they were aware
that they could approach banks for availing a loan up to Rs.70,000. Some report
of having very little hope about convincing a banker to lend for the purpose of
investing in a house being constructed under a government programme.
House Maintenance Expenditure: The median expenditure incurred by those in the

Comparison group was Rs.2000 in Madhya Pradesh andWest Bengal, Rs.3000 in Odisha.
The range goes up to Rs.5000- 6000 annual. There is a need for people living in
old, thatched houses and dilapidated houses to keep attending to repairs almost
every year. Thus, they incur this expenditure. With regard to the house maintenance
expenditure incurred by the Treatment Group (beneficiaries of PMAY-G), most of
them have reported ‘zero maintenance’. The reason, possibly, could be because a
new house does not require much maintenance. Some beneficiaries have reported
to have spent Rs.2000-6000 and their number is too few. New PMAY-G house has
lightened the house maintenance burden.
Conclusion
Taking into account physical facilities such as type of house, electricity
connection, kitchen, toilet, bathroom, natural ventilation, natural light and space
for livelihood activities, etc., when we measure the overall objective well-
being of the PMAY-G beneficiaries in comparison to those on the waiting list,
we can conclude that PMAY-G beneficiaries have the mean positive difference
is 31.9 per cent in Madhya Pradesh, 26.9 per cent in Odisha and 39 per cent in
West Bengal. The T-test conducted also shows a significant difference between the

CHAPTER - 5
Treatment Group and Comparison Group. In terms of effect size, we find that as far
as Madhya Pradesh and Odisha are concerned the effect size is ‘Very Large’ and in
West Bengal, the programme has made a ‘Huge Effect’.
In terms of subjective well-being (socio-psychological well-being), on indicators

such as Social Status, Self-worth, Confidence Level, Feeling of Ownership, Feeling
of Safety & Security, Self-perceived Improvement in Health, Overall Quality of
Life, and Satisfaction about the New House, we find the Treatment Group feels much
better, compared to the Control Group. It can be concluded that the new PMAY-G
has made a significant impact on the lives of beneficiaries.
Policy Issues
1. Kitchen: PMAY-G has provided cooking space (kitchen) inside the house.
Although this has changed the practice of cooking outside, not to the extent it
could have changed. PMAY-G beneficiaries seem to prefer having one more
room in place of a kitchen. Some have designed their houses to be all rooms and
no kitchen. A few of them who have constructed kitchen also prefer cooking
outside, so as to use the kitchen space as another living room. This explains, in
a way, why PMUY, (LPG gas) has not picked up amongst the PMAY-G houses,
to the extent it could have.
2. Cooking Fuel: With the convergence of PMUY, LPG cylinders could have
made way into PMAY-G houses. But, it has not happened to the extent, it could
have. Besides their usual practice of cooking outside the house, the money
required for replacing empty cylinders is also reported as a factor preventing
the PMAY-G beneficiaries from applying for LPG for cooking. This stands in
the way of PMAY and PMUY convergence.
3. Toilet Use: It was found that 10 per cent of the toilets constructed along with
PMAY-G houses remain unused. Is it to do with the behaviour-related factors of
the community in question, or poor installation rendering the toilet not usable?
This requires probing.

4. Drinking Water: The NRDWP has a target of providing piped water supply
as yard connections to most rural households by 2022. In providing access
to piped water supply to PMAY-G houses, there is no much headway made
in this regard. Most PMAY-G houses get water through common water
collection points only. The same holds good for other common facilities like
waste collection, drainage, and street lights too confirming once again poor
convergence of PMAY-G with other programmes.
5. Source of Borrowing: 80 per cent of the PMAY-G beneficiaries have availed

loan to be able to meet the additional expenditure in house construction.
Nearly 72 per cent of them have borrowed from private moneylenders and from
other private sources such as material suppliers or from friends and relatives.
It shows that banks are of little use to PMAY-G beneficiaries. Hardly three
per cent of the beneficiaries borrow from banks or SHGs and MFIs in order to
meet the additional expenditure required for construction. Many of them are
aware of the PMAY-G guidelines which suggest that beneficiaries can avail up
to Rs.70,000 bank loan from any commercial bank. Yet, we find most of the
PMAY-G beneficiaries choose to remain away from the banks. It is a policy
matter to look into. Being a member of SHG and their linkage with banks could
facilitate availing bank loan for house construction under PMAY-G. Those
SHG members who are part of Bandhan bank in the study area have availed
such loans - their number is not big, though.
6. Awas Bandhu: We find that Awas Bandhus (PMAY-G Local Motivators) in

many places (e.g. West Bengal, Odisha) are doing commendable work in local
coordination. They, in fact, seem to help speed up progress. But, they are unaware
of the convergence possibilities. They can be trained in various schemes that
a PMAY-G beneficiary can avail. Possibly, this can help convergence to take
momentum.

CHAPTER - 5
References
Ninth Five-Year Plan (1997-2002), Vol. II, Planning Commission, Government of

India, New Delhi, p.5.
G. Sudharshnam and M. Ajantha Kumar, “Rural Housing for Weaker Sections- A

Study of Indira Awaas Yojana (IAY)”, Indian Journal of Public Administration, Vol.
Liv, No.1 2005.
K.Venkataiah and R.Nageswara Ra, Kurukshetra, July, 1984.
K. D. Gaur, “Housing for the Rural Poor”, Kurukshetra, May-June, 1996, p.90.
Chandra Dutt, Kurukshetra, October, 2002.
G.C. Mathur, Kurukshetra February, 1991.
K.S. Srinivasan Kurukshetra October, 1988.
Working Group on Rural Housing for the 12th Five-Year Plan, Ministry of Rural
Development, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi, 2011.
Abhiroop Mukhopadhyay and Indira Rajaraman, Economic and Political Weekly,

Vol XLVII, No.12, 2012.
Anand. P (2017), Housing for Poor and the Impact of IAY in Rural India: Present
Context, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Research.

RESEARCH REPORTS SERIES
I. Role of PRls in Management of Rural Health Care and Family Welfare

Services: An Exploratory Study
2. The State-Sponsored Innovative Rural Development Programmes - The VDB

of Nagaland
3. Management of Public Distribution in Two States - Gujarat and Karnataka
4. Viability of Service Area Approach to Small Farmers
5. Social Security to the Poor : Efficacy of PDS and WEPs in Karnataka
6. Participatory Planning : A Study of the Planning Process in Kerala
7. Micro Credit for Micro Enterprises
8. Planning for Kohir Mandal
9. Demography of Crimes in Rural Areas : Causes and Remedies
10. Impact Assessment of Wage Employment (JRY and EAS) Programmes in

Selected Areas of Uttar Pradesh
11. Working of Tribal Panchayats in Bilaspur District, Madhya Pradesh
12. Functional and Financial Devolution on Panchayats (A Study in Daman &

Diu and Dadra & Nagar Haveli)
13. People’s Perception of Panchayati Raj in Kerala
14. Nyaya Panchayats in India : A Study

15. Emerging Leadership among SCs/STs under New Panchayati Raj Act in
Karnataka
16. The Role of Panchayati Raj in Natural Resource Management: A Study of

Two Village Panchayats in Tamil Nadu
17. Community Polytechnics and Rural Development

Research Reports Series
18. Role of Melas in Marketing of Rural Industries Products
19. Impact of Committee System in Promoting Devolution of Panchayats : A

Study in West Bengal
20. Planning for Sustainable Rural Environment through Watersheds and Water
Harvesting Structures : A Process Study
21. Impact Assessment of Wage Employment (JRY & EAS) Programmes in

Selected Areas of Bihar
22. Decentralisation of Power in Schedule V Areas : Interface Between

Panchayati Raj Institutions and Line Departments
23. Participatory Micro Level Planning : A Study of the 11th Janmabhoomi

Programme of Andhra Pradesh
24. Management of Panchayati Raj Finances in Andhra Pradesh : A Study in
Medak District
25. A Study on Wage Employment Programme in Kurnool (Andhra Pradesh) and

Surat (Gujarat) Districts
26. Self-employment Projects-Group Approaches
27. Management of Public Distribution System in Two States (Kerala and Orissa)
28. Capacity Building of SHGs to take up Micro-Enterprises under SGSY : A

Quick Study in Jalna District, Maharashtra
29. Rural Infrastructure and Welfare of the Poor
30. Organisational and Institutional Arrangements across the Watershed

Programmes: A Study of Kerala Model
31. Rural Road Links : A Study of Sagar District in Madhya Pradesh
32. Micro Credit Interventions in Promoting Micro Enterprises
33. Impact of Integrated Wasteland Development Programme (Phase-II) (IIWDP)

: A Study in Uttar Pradesh

34. Entrepreneurship Development among Rural Women
35. Employment. Earnings and Environment among Diamond Cutting Workers in

Gujarat
36. Direct Funding to Watershed Community : Process and Impact
37. Employment and Levels of Living Among Cane and Bamboo Artisans in
Tripura
38. Strategies for Marketing of Rural Industries Products
39. Activities for Women under Cluster Approach and their Capacity-Building
under SGSY - A Study in Five States
40. Management of Rural Development Programmes with Special Reference to

JGSY: A Study
41. Changing Pattern of District Administration with Particular Reference to the

Role of the Collector in Panchayati Raj
42. Panchayati Raj Finances in Maharashtra : A Quick Study
43. InstitutionaI and Infrastructural Impediments in Rural Industrialisation in

Dindigul District, Tamil Nadu
44. Gram Sabha : A Study in Two States
45. Social Mobilisation for Elimination of Child Labour : A Study of MVF
46. Participatory Management of Land Resources with Special Reference to JFM

: Impact on Andhra Pradesh
47. Functioning; Performance and Leakage in Public Distribution System : A

Study in Three States
48. Impact Assessment of JRY and EAS Programmes in Tripura
49. A Case Study of Savings and Investments of Rural Households in Sagar

District of Madhya Pradesh
50. Emerging Leadership in the Tribal Area

51. Partnership in Community-initiated Forest Management System : Conflicts

and Prospects
52. Training Towards Capability-Building among Various ClienteIe Groups In

Watershed
53. Muga/Eri Silk Production and Constraints : A Process Study in Assam and
Mizoram
54. Community Interventions in Traditional Rain Water Harvesting-Drinking Water
55. Capacity Building of Community-Based Organisations : A Study
56. Empowerment of Weaker Sections - The Barefoot College, SWRC, Tilonia
57. Positive and Inhibiting Factors in Cluster Approaches and Group Functioning
of Micro Enterprises under SGSY
58. Post-Literacy and Continuing Education : A Study in Yamunanagar District of

Haryana
59. Infrastructure for Rural Poor
60. Functioning of PDS in North-Eastern States
61. Assessment of Targeted PDS in Rural India
62. Rural Road Connectivity : A Process Study of PMGSY
63. Marketing Channels for Select Products of SGSY
64. Farmers’ Suicides in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka
65. Working of Women’s Thrift Cooperatives under MACS Act in A.P. - A Study
66. Decentralised Planning and Management of Primary Health Care Services

under Panchayati Raj Institutions
67. Implementation of SGRY in Chhattisgarh
68. Quick Study on Performance of SHGs and DWCRA Implemented by

Government and Non-Government Organisations

69. Poverty, Gender and Reproductive Choice - An Analysis of Linkages
70. Empowerment of Women in PRIs : A Study in Six Select States
71. Flood Disaster Management: A Study
72. Risk, Vulnerability and Coping Mechanisms in Rainfed Agriculture : A Study

in Three States
73. Gramsat: Utility and Effectiveness
74. Micro-Level Experiments in Food Security - A Study across States
75. Community Based Resource Management - A Study of Forest Panchayats of

Uttaranchal
76. Agrarian Relations and Rural Poverty in Post-Reforms Period : A Study of

Bihar and Orissa
77. Implementation of IAY : Issues and Achievements : A Nation-wide Study
78. Interventions of Livelihood Options for HIV and AIDS Affected People in the
Rural Areas
79. Effectiveness of Watershed Development on Environment Conservation : A

Case Study in Jharkhand and Madhya Pradesh
80. Gender and MGNREGS
81. Stakeholders’ Participation and Equity Aspects of Watershed Development: A

Study in Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan
82. Stress Audit : For Rural Development Institutions At District and Block Level
83. Marketing Strategies for Traditional Fishery Products
84. Approaches to Forest Management : A Comparative Study of JFM and Self -

Initiated Forest Management
85. Crisis in Handloom Industry: A Study in Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu
86. Competency Mapping : For Rural Development Officials

87. Status of Land Allotted to Poor under Land Distribution Programmes - An

Evaluation in Selected States
88. Behavioural Competencies Requirement for MGNREGS Administration
89. Pro-Poor Strategy for Micro-Credit Delivery System
90. Comparative Study of Institutional Arrangements and Farming Systems :

Viable Options for Small and Marginal Farmers
91. A Study on Marketing Infrastructure for Fruits and Vegetables in India
92. Impact of Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) on the Food Security of the Poorest
of the Poor in Rural Areas
93. Impact of Federations in Economic Improvement of SHG Members : A Study

Across Two States of India
94. Inclusion Of Persons With Disabilities Under MGNREGS : A Study Across

Three States
95. Role of Exclusive Credit Linkage Programme for Occupational Dynamics

Among Fisherwomen – A Study in Andhra Pradesh & Tamil Nadu States
96. Land and Water Use Practices for Sustainable Smallholders’ Livelihoods :
A Study in Four States
97. e-Connectivity of Panchayats
98. Factors Facilitating Participation of Women in Mahatma Gandhi NREGS
99. Empowerment of Landless: An Analysis of Land Distribution and Land

Purchase Programmes of Andhra Pradesh
100. Factors Affecting Participation of Tribals in MGNREGS: A Comparative Study
101. Watershed and its Impact on Poverty Alleviation and Sustainable

Livelihoods: A Comparative Study in Six States
102. Study of Marketing of SGSY Products in Pune District of Maharashtra: Case

of Public Private Partnership

103. Traditional Irrigation System in Bihar
104. Effectiveness of Watershed Management : A Study of Some Successful

Watershed Projects in Five States
105. Role of Technology in Entrepreneurship Development and Emerging Gender

Relations in Poor Women
106. Agrarian Distress, Coping Mechanisms and Ramifications of Debt Waiver

Scheme (A Study in Telangana State)
107. Research Study on Nutrition Security and Equity in its Access in Watershed
Development Programmes

VISION
v The vision of NIRDPR is to focus on the policies and programmes that bene t
the rural poor, strive to energise the democratic decentralisation processes,
improve the operation and efficiency of rural development personnel,
promote transfer of technology through its social laboratories, Technology
Park and create environmental awareness.
v As a“think-tank”for the Ministry of Rural Development, NIRDPR, while acting

as a repository of knowledge on rural development, would assist the Ministry
in policy formulation and choice of options in rural development to usher in
the change.
MISSION
v To examine and analyse the factors contributing to the improvement of

economic and social well-being of people in rural areas on a sustainable basis
with focus on the rural poor and the other disadvantaged groups through
research, action research, consultancy and documentation efforts.
v To facilitate the rural development efforts with particular emphasis and focus
on the rural poor by improving the knowledge, skills and attitudes of rural
development officials and non-officials through organising training,
workshops and seminars.
Rural Development Statistics- 2017-18
National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj (NIRDPR) continuously strives to serve the
nation through research, training, action research and consultancy activities for development of the rural
poor and enhance their quality of life. It aims to:
1. Organise training programmes, conferences, seminars and workshops for senior-level development
managers, elected representatives, bankers, NGOs and other stakeholders;
2. Undertake, aid, promote and coordinate research on its own and/or collaborate with State, national and
international development agencies;
3. Analyse and offer solutions to problems encountered in the planning and implementation of the
programmes for rural development, decentralised governance, panchayati raj and related
programmes;
4. Study the functioning of the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) and rural development programmes
across the States;
5. Analyse and propose solutions to problems in planning and implementation of the programmes for rural
development; and
6. Develop content and disseminate information and transfer technology through periodicals, reports, e-
modules and other publications.
Considering the challenges faced by the government in the development of a large section of rural poor
across the country through its various policies and programmes, NIRDPR as an apex training institute in the
field of rural development, has to cater to the training and capacity development needs of a larger clientele.
To achieve these objectives, a nationwide network of training infrastructure has to play its rightful role. The
clientele includes a large number of elected PRI representatives at different levels, rural development
functionaries, NGOs, bankers and other stakeholders. Capacity building of rural development personnel
and elected representatives is an intrinsic part of the entire rural development process. It helps to improve
their managerial skills while keeping them abreast with the latest changes in strategies, government policies
and programmes to augment their knowledge and working efficiency, resulting in strengthening of the
delivery mechanism for the benefit of all the stakeholders. The challenge is huge and NIRDPR has been
able to play its role in the country’s rural development initiatives by facilitating qualitative changes in the
implementation of programmes through a process of training, research, action research, consultancy,
information dissemination and information building on a continual basis. This has enabled the Institute to
emerge as the National Apex Institute for capacity development in the area of rural development.
In its continuous effort to develop managerial skills of functionaries in the rural development process, the
Institute offers two regular fully residential diploma programmes – one-year Post Graduate Diploma in Rural
Development Management (PGDRDM) and two-year Post Graduate Diploma in Management (Rural
Development). Further, it offers M.Tech Programme on Appropriate Technology & Entrepreneurship (ATE)
and three distance mode programmes - Post Graduate Diploma in Sustainable Rural Development
(PGDSRD), Post Graduate Diploma in Tribal Development Management (PGDTDM) and Post Graduate
Diploma in Geo-Spatial and Technological Applications in Rural Development (PGDGARD). The Institute is
also offering one-year Diploma Programme on Panchayati Raj Governance & Rural Development (DP-
PRGRD) in association with the University of Hyderabad through distance mode.
TRAINING RESEARCH POLICY TECHNOLOGY ACADEMIC INNOVATIVE

& CAPACITY & CONSULTANCY FORMULATION TRANSFER PROGRAMMES SKILLING
BUILDING & ADVOCACY & LIVELIHOOD

Impact Study of PMAY - NIRD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impact Study of PMAY - NIRD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impact Study of PMAY - NIRD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj (NIRDPR) continuously strives to serve the

TRAINING RESEARCH POLICY TECHNOLOGY ACADEMIC INNOVATIVE

v As a“think-tank”for the Ministry of Rural Development, NIRDPR, while acting

v To examine and analyse the factors contributing to the improvement of

Dr. W. R. Reddy, IAS

CENTRE FOR RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE

ii Dr. W. R. Reddy, IAS | Dr. R. Ramesh | Prof. P. SivaRam

This study is an impact assessment of PMAY-G implemented in three

Dr. W. R. Reddy, IAS, Director General, NIRDPR, threw this challenge

Shri Santanu Bowmick, Research Associate, who collected most of the

iv Dr. W. R. Reddy, IAS | Dr. R. Ramesh | Prof. P. SivaRam

Summary of Findings ................................................................................. vii

Chapter – 1: Introduction & Review of Literature .......................................1

Chapter – 2: Design of the Study ...............................................................11

Chapter – 3: Proﬁle of the Study Area ........................................................18

Chapter – 4: Analysis and Discussion .........................................................33

Chapter – 5: Findings and Conclusion .......................................................53

Impact Assessment of PMAY-G (Madhya Pradesh, Odisha & West Bengal) v

vi Dr. W. R. Reddy, IAS | Dr. R. Ramesh | Prof. P. SivaRam

Fuel for Cooking: Traditional chulah and ﬁrewood still re-

viii Dr. W. R. Reddy, IAS | Dr. R. Ramesh | Prof. P. SivaRam

Drinking Water: In providing access to piped water supply through convergence

House Maintenance Expenditure: With regard to the house maintenance expendi-

Impact Assessment of PMAY-G (Madhya Pradesh, Odisha & West Bengal) ix

In terms of subjective well-being (socio-psychological well-being), on indicators

x Dr. W. R. Reddy, IAS | Dr. R. Ramesh | Prof. P. SivaRam

Impact Assessment of PMAY-G (Madhya Pradesh, Odisha & West Bengal) xi

Key Features of PMAY-G

Impact Assessment of PMAY-G (Madhya Pradesh, Odisha & West Bengal) 1

• Identification of beneficiaries using SECC-2011 data. The identification and

• The beneﬁciaries of PMAY-G. in addition to being provided ﬁnancial assis-

• Use of eﬀective convergence for provision of electricity, piped drinking water

• Creating a menu of housing designs based on local typologies incorporating

2 Dr. W. R. Reddy, IAS | Dr. R. Ramesh | Prof. P. SivaRam

• Saturation approach in housing provision using Gram Panchayat, block or dis-

Role of Gram Panchayat

• The GP ﬁnalises priority list of eligible beneﬁciaries prepared on the basis of

Impact Assessment of PMAY-G (Madhya Pradesh, Odisha & West Bengal) 3

• Provide the Panchayats IEC material, particularly on materials and building

• Provide a share of administrative expenses commensurate with workload.

The condition of housing in rural India continues to be problematic due to rea-

4 Dr. W. R. Reddy, IAS | Dr. R. Ramesh | Prof. P. SivaRam

Impact Assessment of PMAY-G (Madhya Pradesh, Odisha & West Bengal) 5

6 Dr. W. R. Reddy, IAS | Dr. R. Ramesh | Prof. P. SivaRam

Drawbacks in terms of provision of sanitation, drinking water and others in

Impact Assessment of PMAY-G (Madhya Pradesh, Odisha & West Bengal) 7

8 Dr. W. R. Reddy, IAS | Dr. R. Ramesh | Prof. P. SivaRam

Signiﬁcance of having household assets was highlighted by Abhiroop Muk-

Impact Assessment of PMAY-G (Madhya Pradesh, Odisha & West Bengal) 9

Development Facilitators, (2009), New Delhi has conducted an evaluation of

Studies conducted have focused on ‘beneﬁts of rural housing programme as

10 Dr. W. R. Reddy, IAS | Dr. R. Ramesh | Prof. P. SivaRam

Impact Assessment of PMAY-G (Madhya Pradesh, Odisha & West Bengal) 11

Statement of the Problem

Objectives of the Study

2. To study the extent of convergence of development programmes with PMAY-G

12 Dr. W. R. Reddy, IAS | Dr. R. Ramesh | Prof. P. SivaRam

Sampling: The study covered 24 Gram Panchayats in three States covering

Impact Assessment of PMAY-G (Madhya Pradesh, Odisha & West Bengal) 13