Does renaming MGNREGA address rural distress?

The Union government’s move to rename the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) and increase the number of guaranteed workdays has resurfaced an old debate: What does renaming a welfare programme truly accomplish for the people it is meant to serve? When political contestation is stripped away, the main concerns lie in social acceptance, financial effectiveness, and the quality of service delivery.  Replacing the current framework, the parliament has passed the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Aajeevika Mission [Gramin] (VB-G RAM G) Bill.

The primary objective of this bill is to provide wage employment through public works in rural areas. With this action, a “demand-driven framework” will give way to a “supply-driven scheme”. The original National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, announced in 2005, was conceived as a rights-based protection system for rural households willing to perform unskilled manual labour.

The proposed renaming fits a longer pattern. The Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan was earlier rebranded as the Swachh Bharat Mission, accompanied by new branding and expanded sanitation goals. Rural LPG connections, initially offered under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak project, were subsequently included in the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana, with a change in name and emphasis. In the housing sector, Indira Awaas Yojana was renamed Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Gramin, once again combining design modifications with a new title. A large share of central initiatives has followed this trajectory, shifting from names associated with particular leaders or generic sectoral terms to flagships carrying the “Pradhan Mantri” brand.

Renaming schemes, even when budgets for benefits are maintained or enhanced, has clear financial implications. A nationwide change in terminology necessitates new workplace signage, redesigned logos, revised letterheads and forms, and modifications to management information systems, mobile apps, and portals. Panchayat offices, block development offices, banks, and post offices must invest time and administrative effort to update records and software entries and retrain employees where necessary. These are not striking expenses, but they are real, because every rebranding exercise diverts funds and personnel time away from activities such as social audits, payment processing and project supervision. 

There is also a government dimension. Disagreements between the Centre and states over how scheme names and logos appear on signboards and official materials have, in recent years, hindered approvals and even triggered fund stoppages. In 2023, the Union government issued a warning that if states rebrand centrally sponsored schemes such as Ayushman Bharat or PM Awas Yojana under their own names, central releases would be suspended until the original branding and terminology were restored. When this happens, projects and payments on the ground are delayed, as implementing agencies must redo utilisation certificates and compliance reports. From an economic perspective, every renaming cycle carries an opportunity cost, as resources spent on rebranding could otherwise be deployed for better technology, wider coverage, or improved infrastructure.

Large programmes also depend heavily on years of established name recognition. “NREGA ka kaam”, which stands for dependable work under a legally guaranteed programme, has been a part of village vocabulary for nearly two decades. Renaming such a familiar scheme inevitably creates a transition period. During this phase, workers may be uncertain whether the earlier programme continues, whether rules have changed, or whether re-registration is required. In low-literacy settings, even small ambiguities can discourage participation.

Official concerns over the scheme names highlight a real issue. Inconsistent titles across states can weaken accountability and reduce understanding of entitlements. When some states attempted to rename Ayushman Bharat Health and Wellness Centres, the Union minister cautioned that such changes could lead to closure if people did not recognise the service. Schemes like health insurance, scholarships and others are sensitive to this kind of misunderstanding and can lower participation. Renaming also strains the administrative capacity because digital systems and financial agreements all link centrally sponsored programmes to specific titles. Any changes would cause approvals and payments to be delayed while officials make adjustments. This increases coordination costs if the deeper problems of underfunding and delays are not addressed.

The MGNREGA debate reinforces one basic notion: outcomes depend on designs; not labels. If adequately funded and implemented, the increase in the number of guaranteed workdays can significantly enhance rural earnings. Changing the acronym does not increase employment or wage payments. Timely payments, practical and climate-resilient assets, improved planning, and complementary programmes for urban and green jobs are more important. For communities, the core question is: Are jobs available, are wages paid on time and are services easily accessible? Names only matter if they help people utilise their rights, and performance is what counts.

(Stevenson is a research assistant, and Areesh is the head, Department of International Relations, Peace and Public Policy, St Joseph’s University, Bengaluru)

(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.)