Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP)
GenesisThe CDP launched in 1952 could not bring expected change in improving the conditions
of rural masses or there was not much achievement in the areas of agricultural development.
The apparent failure of the CDP was the main reason for the evolution of the IRDP. The
main drawbacks of the CDP were
- Uneven distribution of the benefits of the programme
- Absence of clearly defined priority in the programmes.
- The inability of the CDP to recognise and solve the inherent conflicts in the inter and
intra target groups.
- Lack of mass participation.
- More bureaucratic
So, it was considered necessary to go in firstly for a programme directed mainly at
agriculture and secondly to attempt the process of development in selected areas. Thus, in 1960
Intensive Agricultural District Programme (IADP) was formed and implemented. In this
programme, efforts to boost agricultural production were concentrated in areas with better
prospects of higher yields (package programme).
The success achieved in increasing agricultural production under IADP, led the Government to
extend the programme to other districts with slight modifications under the name of Intensive
Agricultural area Programme (IADP) in 1964.
The food situation became alarming, particularly due to successive famines during 1064-
67 and this happened despite intensive efforts in selected areas. In order to overcome this crisis,the GOI launched a new agricultural strategy known as High Yielding Varieties Programme
(HYVP) in 1966. The achievement was the single goal of increasing agricultural production.
This unusual shift in the rural development strategy in favour of increasing agricultural
production led to the accentuation of regional disparities on one hand and economic inequalities
among different sections of the population on the other. Various reports revealed that the gains
of intensive development efforts, including institutional credit flew more towards large and
resourceful farmers to the neglect of small farmers, landless labourers, tenants and artisans.
On realisation of the above, there was a shift in the rural development strategy. The main
purpose of such a change in the approach was to make deliberate efforts to flow development
benefits to the poorer sections and the backward areas. Accordingly, Small Farmers
Development Agency (SFDA); Marginal Farmers and Agricultural Labourers (MFAL);
Drought Prone Area Programme (DPAP); Hill Area Development Programme (HADP) etc.,
were implemented.
The beneficiary-oriented programmes as well as area development programmes, despite
some successes could not make much dent into the problem of poverty and unemployment.
Considering the magnitude and dimensions of rural poverty, the rural development strategy,
therefore, took a major turn in its emphasis, content, coverage and methodology. This resulted in
launching of the programme “Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP) in 1978-79,
covering 2,300 development blocks and extended to all the 5011 blocks in 2^nd October, 1980.
For implementing the programme, DRDA was set up at district level. IRDP envisages the
integration of methodology and approach of both beneficiary oriented programmes as well as
area development efforts for the purpose of poverty alleviation as well as increasing productivity.
The goal of poverty alleviation was achieved by having two main instruments.
(i) a set of self employment schemes for the poor i.e., IRDP and its two sub-programmes of
TRYSEM and DWCRA.
(ii) Wage employment programmes like NREP (1980) and RLEGP (1983). These have now
been merged into Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY0).
While the programes under set (I) aim at giving the poor family an income generating
asset, the latter set (ii) provides direct income to the poor through wage employment.
Objectives of IRDP
The main objectives are creating assets, employment, increased income, removal of
poverty and minimising inequality. The guide lines given to achieve the objectives include:
(i) to provide gainful employment and increase the purchasing power of rural poor.
(ii) The job opportunities must be provided through the application of science and
technology in making optimum use of existing local resources.
(iii) The programme must be simple enough to operate and be economically viable
to ensure quick self-reliance of its beneficiaries.
For achieving its objective of rural poverty alleviation, IRDP aimed at the provision of
assets to the identified poor in the form of Government subsidy and bank credit on reasonable
rate of interest.
Operation
For managing the programme a corporate governmental agency name as District Rural
Development (DRDA) was set up at district level. TH DRDA is guided and directed and
supported by a governing council headed by the Project Officer of DRDA. The District
Collector, Heads of District Officers, legislators, Panchayat Union Chairmen and some other
non-officials from the member.
The existing development block was strengthened to enable it to bear the additional
responsibility of implementing DRDA directed and supported programmes. IRDP is a centrally
sponsored scheme implemented by DRDA of the states. The scheme is funded on 50:50 basis by
the centre and the states.
The integration involves several categories of:
(i) Spatial integration (integration between areas)
(ii) Sectoral integration (integration between agriculture, off-farm activities, industries, etc.)
(iii) Integration in economic and social development.
(iv) Integration of total area and target group aproach.
(v) Integration of human and other resources.
(vi) Integration of income generating schemes.
(vii) Integration of credit with technical services.
Thus IRDP involves integration both in its means and ends.
Short comings
Since 1985 the Government has promoted concurrent evaluation of the implementation
and impact of the programme. These evaluation had indicated that there has been some increase
in income but only a minority of them could cross the newly determined poverty line of 6400
rupees. Various evaluation indicated the followings:
the resources provided were inadequate in majority of the cases;
there were large number of over dues due to one reason or the other
poor quality of assets provided to the beneficiaries in many cases;
the follow up of the beneficiaries was inadequate;
delay in provision of assets and preliminary high costs incurred by beneficiaries;
lacking of training facilities to farmers;
delay in releasing subsidy;
bribes taken by various functionaries concerned;
very inadequate supporting facilities or services;
non-availability of loans for making capital; and
lack of guidance about insurance cover.
Selection of beneficiaries the ‘very poor’ are overlooked, by and large.
