India’s rural employment guarantee is entering its most consequential transition since 2005. The Viksit Bharat-Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act, 2025, or VB-G RAM G, will replace MGNREGA from July 1, 2026. The government has released draft rules for consultation, setting the terms for the shift from an open-ended demand-driven framework to a system of annual normative allocations.
This is not a routine administrative change. MGNREGA’s central feature was that expenditure followed demand. Any rural household seeking unskilled manual work could ask for employment. If work was not provided within the stipulated period, the law provided for unemployment allowance. The new law retains the language of guarantee and increases the number of guaranteed days from 100 to 125. But its financing architecture changes the meaning of that guarantee.
READ | MGNREGA recast: Why the mission model risks rural jobs
Normative allocation changes the MGNREGA bargain
Under MGNREGA, the Centre met the full wage cost for unskilled manual work, along with a large share of material and administrative costs. The new law makes the programme a centrally sponsored scheme. For most states, the cost-sharing ratio will be 60:40. For the North-eastern and Himalayan states, it will be 90:10.
The more important change lies in the proposed state-wise normative allocation. The Centre will determine annual allocations at the start of the financial year. Any expenditure beyond the approved allocation will be borne by the state government or Union Territory administration. This alters the risk-bearing structure of India’s rural jobs programme. Earlier, higher labour demand meant higher expenditure. Now, higher demand may first run into a fiscal ceiling.
The shift is wider than a budgeting formula. VB-G RAM G also changes the cost-sharing structure of the rural jobs programme. The scheme will now operate as a centrally sponsored scheme, with a 60:40 Centre-state sharing ratio for most states and 90:10 for North-eastern and Himalayan states. The law raises the employment guarantee from 100 to 125 days and retains unemployment allowance, but the fiscal burden on states increases. This matters because a state that must share routine costs, bear spending beyond its allocation, and pay unemployment allowance has an incentive to contain registered demand rather than expand work when distress rises.
The government’s argument is straightforward. MGNREGA’s open-ended structure created budget uncertainty, supplementary demands for grants, and wage-payment delays when allocations fell short of actual demand. A normative budget, in this view, will impose discipline and bring the rural jobs programme closer to other centrally sponsored schemes.
That case is not trivial. MGNREGA has had serious implementation weaknesses. Wage delays, poor work completion, weak social audits, ghost entries and uneven asset quality have been persistent complaints. A better designed programme should address these failures. But there is a difference between improving implementation and changing the fiscal logic of a legal guarantee.
Rural employment demand is not a Finance Commission variable
The draft framework links allocations partly to the horizontal devolution logic used by the Sixteenth Finance Commission. Finance Commissions distribute central tax revenues among states using criteria such as population, income distance, area, forest and ecology, demographic performance and tax effort. The Sixteenth Finance Commission was mandated to recommend the distribution of net tax proceeds for 2026-31.
This logic works for fiscal equalisation. It is less suited to employment distress. Labour demand does not always follow a tax-devolution formula. A state with a relatively stronger fiscal profile can still face severe local unemployment after a drought, flood, crop failure or construction slowdown. A poorer state may lack the administrative capacity to spend its allocation quickly. Rural distress is local, seasonal and often sudden.
That is why the old MGNREGA design mattered. Its fiscal looseness was also its social protection strength. When distress rose, the programme could expand. During the Covid-19 pandemic, it absorbed returning migrant workers and became one of the few available income supports in rural India. A capped or quasi-capped system may not respond with the same elasticity.
READ | MGNREGA dilution risks undermining the right to work
Performance-linked rural jobs funding may penalise weak states
From FY27, part of the normative allocation will depend on performance indicators such as timely wage payments, social audit compliance, work completion and other criteria to be specified later. For Union Territories, performance criteria may carry still greater weight.
This appears reasonable on paper. A programme spending large public money should reward better execution. But welfare performance is not independent of state capacity. The weakest states often have the weakest staffing, poorest digital systems, difficult terrain and thinner audit capacity. Penalising them through lower allocations may widen regional gaps instead of improving outcomes.
There is also a federal concern. The Centre will retain the power to define additional performance indicators. That creates room for bureaucratic control over fund flows. States already complain about delayed releases and compliance-heavy reporting in centrally sponsored schemes. A rural jobs guarantee will become more vulnerable if the Centre’s discretion expands while the states carry more fiscal risk.
Digital delivery cannot substitute for employment rights
India’s welfare delivery has benefited from digitisation. It has also produced exclusion. Aadhaar authentication failures, bank-account mismatches, connectivity gaps and payment bottlenecks have hurt MGNREGA workers in several states. These problems are not marginal. They affect precisely those households that depend most on public employment.
If VB-G RAM G combines tighter allocations with heavier digital compliance, exclusion risks will rise. The households most likely to lose out will be landless labourers, women workers, older workers, migrant-returnee families and rural households in remote regions. A guarantee that becomes difficult to claim is no longer a guarantee in practice.
READ | MGNREGA reform risks weakening rural India’s last safety net
The government is right to seek better assets, stronger audits and more predictable budgeting. It is also right to recognise that rural India has changed since 2005. But rural vulnerability has not disappeared. Agriculture remains exposed to weather shocks. Non-farm rural employment remains uneven. Migration is still distress-driven in many regions.
Rural employment policy needs flexibility, not just discipline
The central question is simple. Can India preserve a legal right to rural employment while capping the fiscal exposure of the Union government? The answer depends on whether the new rules provide a credible mechanism for additional funds when demand exceeds the normative allocation.
Without such a mechanism, states will become cautious. They may ration work, delay approvals, or discourage demand once their central allocation is exhausted. That would create a de facto employment cap, even if the statute continues to speak of a guarantee.
A better reform would have separated three issues. First, keep the legal guarantee demand-responsive. Second, improve accountability through audits, work quality checks and transparent wage-payment tracking. Third, create a rules-based contingency window for droughts, floods, migration shocks and local employment collapses.
VB-G RAM G may still be shaped by public consultation. The draft rules are open for feedback until June 21. This is where the government must clarify how it will protect the guarantee when demand rises beyond the annual allocation. Fiscal discipline is necessary. But in a rural employment law, discipline cannot mean shifting risk from the Union budget to the poorest households.