As if on cue, a steady crop of stories have appeared in the media detailing instances of corruption in rural employment schemes just as the National Rural Employment Guarantee Bill is set to become an Act in Parliament. Stories such as "rural jobs scheme set to ruin India" or "Rs 9 crore employment fraud" have, in turn, inspired editorial comment that have dismissed this scheme as "hare-brained". Obviously, their intent is to fuel a sense of cynicism regarding this worthwhile attempt to provide a universal, self-targeting guarantee of 100 days of employment to every rural household.

When leakages are highlighted or it is pointed out that majority of beneficiaries of employment schemes earn less than the minimum wage or that muster rolls are being inflated, the purpose is clearly to highlight that money is going down the drain. With estimates ranging from Rs 40,000 crore to Rs 150,000 crore to implement such a scheme, such stories naturally raise questions as to where these resources are to come from. There are dark hints that such a massive commitment will only worsen the already strained finances of the central government with no commensurate benefits in erecting a social safety net.

The focus of such stories is the track record of the Employment Guarantee Scheme in Maharashtra or the National Food for Work Programme that was launched in the poorest 150 districts in November 2004 and will be phased out when the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act becomes operational in these very same districts and elsewhere. There are no prizes for guessing that such a scheme will not be immediately scaled up to cover the country as a whole, but only gradually over time. There are indications that 250-odd districts will be the initial focus of this worthwhile effort.

Most of these stories, however, don't tell us more than what has been known for long. Wasn't it the late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi who stated that only 15 paise out of every rupee of rural development expenditures reach the poor? Economist Jean Dreze has also highlighted the findings of a survey conducted by a team of students from the Jawaharlal Nehru University and Delhi University in six districts to examine the track record of the National Food for Work Programme: Guidelines are not being enforced in the matter of maintaining muster rolls and minimum wages are not being paid, barring Rajasthan.

But there is a big difference between the recent media stories and the survey findings referred to above. The former inspire editorial comment stating that before going ahead with the National Rural Employment Guarantee Bill, the government must first provide a "full and detailed" account of National Food for Work scheme that was implemented in the 150 districts: What are the results in terms of the people employed, assets created, poverty reduced and expenses involved? The caveat is that unless the answers are assuring enough, the government has no right to guarantee jobs.

In sharp contrast, Dreze's articles forcefully indicate that if the government is indeed serious about guaranteeing employment, there is a need to ensure that guidelines are enforced; that this scheme can work only if basic safeguards are in place, which includes better monitoring and so on. Instead of fueling widespread doubts, such insights only provide a reality check to make them work better with political will. There is also a sense that such a scheme is very much in order given the pervasive agrarian crisis in the economy, which is reflected in rising poverty levels and declining foodgrains absorption.

Contrary to the massive estimates of Rs 150,000 crore ($35 billion) floating around, the actual tab is pegged at close to Rs 15,000 crore in 250-odd districts in which the National Employment Guarantee Act will get initially operational. Raising the required resources in this context thus will hardly be a problem as the government spends a huge amount of money -- amounting to 1 per cent of GDP -- on rural development every year. There was never a shred of doubt that this employment guarantee scheme was only an extension of existing rural development schemes that have been in operation for long.

As the bulk of rural development outlays are employment-related, there is considerable scope for the various schemes to be dovetailed and refashioned as an employment guarantee scheme. The Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana is currently the premier scheme for generating casual wage employment and in its earlier incarnations it was known as the Jawahar Rozgar Yojana or the Jawahar Gram Samridhi Yojana, which was then combined with the Employment Assurance Scheme to form the SGRY in 2001. The EAS incidentally had a similar objective to generate 100 days of employment.

What then is the problem if the job guarantee scheme represents an extension of casual wage employment schemes of yesteryear? Looked at in this light, this entire hullabaloo about resources of Rs 150,000 crore suddenly looks misplaced. Officials who have considerable experience in administering such schemes stick to the Rs 15,000 crore number as the required tab for the employment guarantee scheme. The former takes into account all the rural households in the country multiplied by the minimum wage whereas the latter only takes into account the fact that even at the worst of times; only 30,000 to a maximum of 100,000 persons have sought work in various districts in Maharashtra.

The upshot is that these stories in the media should not deflect the attention of the government in going ahead with this worthwhile scheme. Maharashtra's scheme certainly helped in staving off hunger and especially famine in 1973. The UPA government is now on the cusp of a historic opportunity to erect a countrywide social safety net that enhances livelihood security. It should not waver in its resolve to get the National Rural Employment Guarantee Bill passed in Parliament and implement it initially in 250-odd districts before scaling it up to the rest of the countryside.

N Chandra Mohan is an economic commentator