Summer Training Program 2014

Reserve Bank of India, Delhi

IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF PMEGP

DHRUV JAIN
RURAL PLANNING AND CREDIT DEPARTMENT
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, DELHI

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to convey my gratefulness to the Regional Director Mr. Deepak Singhal,
Reserve Bank of India-Delhi, for giving me the opportunity to work on this project. The
skills and knowledge which I have gained throughout my practical training I perceive as
very valuable component in my future career development.
I take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and deep regards to my mentor,
Mr. Sunil Jolly for his exemplary guidance, monitoring and constant encouragement
throughout the course of this project. The blessing, help and guidance given by him from
time to time shall carry me a long way in the journey of life on which I am about to
embark. Also a special word of thanks to Ms. Vandana Maheshwari , for her valuable
comments, suggestions and direction.
My thanks and appreciation to the HR staff mainly Mr. Tarun Chandra for being willing to
help us throughout the course of my training.
I am thankful to all the respondents for their time, information and cooperation.
I would also like to thank the following people for their constant support and time.
Mr. Vijay Khanduja (LDM, Canara Bank)
Mr. Debashish Ganguli (Bank of Baroda)
Mr. Dushyant Dash (LDM, Canara Bank)
Mr. Mohanty (AGM, PNB)
Mr. Raj Kumar Kalra, (LDM Office, PNB)

Lastly, I thank the almighty, my family and friends for their constant encouragement
without which this assignment would not be possible.

Dhruv Jain
Delhi School of Economics

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following report is based on a study conducted in Delhi to gauge the impact of the
government sponsored scheme PMEGP on its beneficiaries. It encourages self
employment ventures, especially among traditional artisans and unemployed youth,
relating to manufacturing and service sector by providing them credit linked subsidy.
A sample of 35 projects was drawn from the list of beneficiaries given loan in 2012-13 and
results were drawn based on this random sample. The impact of the scheme is evaluated
based on different aspects of development: economic, financial and social.
The key findings of the study are as follows1) Employment Generated

In the sample of 35 projects, the total employment generation is 85 and the

average employment per project is 2.57

22 are New Projects,

Entrepreneurship.

suggesting

that

the

scheme

promotes

2) Migration

86% of the interviewed beneficiaries are Non Migrants.

Even the Migrants in the sample came long before the scheme was
introduced. Thus we cannot say that the scheme catalyses Migration.

3) Income Generation

One unit of subsidy increases the annual income by four times.

This is irrespective of the category of the beneficiaries. The impact of

education, years of experience and training is statistically insignificant even
if the coefficients have correct signs.

4) Targeting, Access and Reliance

17% of the projects are run by previously unemployed youth. There is no

rationing based on category of the applicant.

The average score to the reliability of the scheme as a source of employment

generation, as per the self-reporting of the interviewees, is 8.2

5) Social Mobility

Social Mobility is slow in the short run because the respondents have
prioritized re-capitalizing of the business over immediate consumerism.
However, it will gain momentum in the long run.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
S No.

Topics

Page No.

1.

Overview of the Scheme-PMEGP

2.

Objective of the Study

3.

Methodology

10

4.

Descriptive Statistics

12

5.

Econometric Analysis of the Sample

14

6.

Impact on Income

16

7.

Impact on Financial Inclusion

18

8.

Impact on Social Mobility

19

9.

Case Studies

20

10.

Insights from Self Reporting

24

11.

Issues Identified under PMEGP

25

12.

Conclusion

29

13.

Appendix A- Questionnaire

30

14.

Appendix B- Self Reporting

32

15.

Appendix C- Asset Index

33

16.

Appendix D- Status of PMEGP (2012-14)

34

17.

Appendix E- Sample

38

18.

Bibliography

39

OVERVIEW OF THE SCHEME-PMEGP

Prime
Minister's
Rojgar Yojana

Rural
Employment
Generation
Programme

Prime
Minister's
Employment
Generation
Programme

Figure 1

Prime Ministers Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP) is a credit linked

subsidy programme which was introduced by the Government of India (by merging two
schemes operational till 31.03.2008 - Prime Ministers Rojgar Yojana (PMRY) and Rural
Employment Generation Programme (REGP)) for generation of employment
opportunities through establishment of micro enterprises in rural as well as urban areas.
PMEGP will be a central sector scheme to be administered by the Ministry of Micro, Small
and Medium Enterprises (MoMSME). The Scheme will be implemented by Khadi and
Village Industries Commission (KVIC), a statutory organization under the administrative
control of the Ministry of MSME as the single nodal agency at the National level. At the
State level, the Scheme will be implemented through State KVIC Directorates, State Khadi
and Village Industries Boards (KVIBs) and District Industries Centres (DICs) and banks.
The Government subsidy under the Scheme will be routed by KVIC through the identified
Banks for eventual distribution to the beneficiaries / entrepreneurs in their Bank
accounts. The Implementing Agencies, namely KVIC, KVIBs and DICs will associate
reputed Non Government Organization (NGOs)/reputed autonomous institutions/Self
Help Groups (SHGs) and other relevant bodies in the implementation of the Scheme,
especially in the area of identification of beneficiaries, of area specific viable projects, and
providing training in entrepreneurship development.
Ministry of
MSME
Khadi and Village
Industries
Commission

State KVIC
Directorates

State Khadi and

Village Industries
Boards

District
Industries
Centres

Figure 2

OVERVIEW OF THE SCHEME-PMEGP

Objective of the Scheme1. To generate employment opportunities in rural as well as urban areas of the
country through setting up of new self-employment ventures/ projects/ micro
enterprises.
2. Bringing together widely dispersed traditional artisans/ rural and urban
unemployed youth and giving them continuous and sustainable self-employment
opportunities to the extent possible, at their place to arrest migration.
3. To increase the wage earning capacity of artisans and contribute to increase in the
growth rate of rural and urban employment.

Quantum and Nature of Financial AssistanceCategories of beneficiaries under

Beneficiarys

PMEGP

contribution

Rate of Subsidy (of project cost)

(of project cost)

Area (location of project/unit)

Urban

Rural

General Category

10%

15%

25%

Special (including SC / ST / OBC

05%

25%

35%

/Minorities/Women, Ex-servicemen,
Physically handicapped, NER, Hill and
Border areas etc.
Table 1
Note: (1) The maximum cost of the project/unit admissible under manufacturing sector is Rs.
25 lakh.
(2) The maximum cost of the project/unit admissible under business/service sector is Rs.
10 lakh.
(3) The balance amount of the total project cost will be provided by Banks as term loan

Eligibility Conditions of Beneficiaries1. Any individual, above 18 years of age

2. There will be no income ceiling for assistance for setting up projects under PMEGP.
3. Assistance under the Scheme is available only for new projects sanctioned
specifically under the PMEGP.
4. Self Help Groups, Charitable Trusts, Production Co-operative Societies and
Institutions registered under Societies Registration Act,1860 are also eligible for
assistance under PMEGP.
5. Existing Units (under PMRY, REGP or any other scheme of Government of India or
State Government) and the units that have already availed Government Subsidy

OVERVIEW OF THE SCHEME-PMEGP

under any other scheme of Government of India or State Government are not
eligible.

Identification of beneficiariesThe identification of beneficiaries will be done at the district level by a Task Force
consisting of representatives from KVIC/State KVIB and State DICs and Banks. The Task
force would be headed by the District Magistrate / Deputy Commissioner / Collector
concerned. The Bankers should be involved right from the beginning to ensure that
bunching of applications is avoided. However, the applicants, who have already
undergone training of at least 2 weeks under Entrepreneurship Development Programme
(EDP) / Skill Development Programme (SDP) / Entrepreneurship cum Skill Development
Programme (ESDP) or Vocational Training (VT) will be allowed to submit applications
directly to Banks. However, the Banks will refer the application to the Task Force for its
consideration. Exaggeration in the cost of the project with a view 6 only to availing higher
amount of subsidy should not be allowed. KVIC will devise a score card in consultation
with SBI and RBI, and forward it to the District Level Task Force and other State/District
functionaries. This score board will form the basis for the selection of beneficiaries. This
score card will also be displayed on the websites of KVIC and Ministry. The selection
process should be through a transparent, objective and fair process.

Bank Finance1. The Bank will sanction 90% of the project cost in case of General Category of
beneficiary/institution and 95% in case of special category of the
beneficiary/institution, and disburse full amount suitably for setting up of the
project.
2. Bank will finance Capital Expenditure in the form of Term Loan and Working
Capital in the form of cash credit. Project can also be financed by the Bank in the
form of Composite Loan consisting of Capital Expenditure and Working Capital.
The amount of Bank Credit will be ranging between 60-75% of the total project
cost after deducting 15-35% of margin money (subsidy) and owners contribution
of 10% from beneficiaries belonging to general category and 5% from beneficiaries
belonging to special categories. This scheme will thus require enhanced allocations
and sanction of loans from participating banks. This is expected to be achieved as
Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has already issued guidelines to the Public Sector
Banks to ensure 20 % year to year growth in credit to MSME Sector.
3. Though Banks will claim Margin Money (subsidy) on the basis of projections of
Capital Expenditure in the project report and sanction thereof, Margin Money
(subsidy) on the actual availment of Capital Expenditure only will be retained and

OVERVIEW OF THE SCHEME-PMEGP

excess, if any, will be refunded to KVIC, immediately after the project is ready for
commencement of production.
4. Working Capital component should be utilized in such a way that at one point of
stage it touches 100% limit of Cash Credit within three years of lock in period of
Margin Money and not less than 75% utilization of the sanctioned limit. If it does
not touch aforesaid limit, proportionate amount of the Margin Money (subsidy) is
to be recovered by the Bank/Financial Institution and refunded to the KVIC at the
end of the third year.
5. Rate of interest and repayment schedule
Normal rate of interest shall be charged. Repayment schedule may range between
3 to 7 years after an initial moratorium as may be prescribed by the concerned
bank/financial institution. It has been observed that banks have been routinely
insisting on credit guarantee coverage irrespective of the merits of the proposal.
This approach needs to be discouraged.

Negative List of Projects

1. Any industry/business connected with Meat(slaughtered),i.e. processing, canning
and/or serving items made of it as food, production/manufacturing or sale of
intoxicant items like Beedi/Pan/ Cigar/Cigarette etc., any Hotel or Dhaba or sales
outlet serving liquor, preparation/producing tobacco as raw materials, tapping of
toddy for sale.
2. Any industry/business connected with cultivation of crops/ plantation like Tea,
Coffee, Rubber etc. sericulture (Cocoon rearing), Horticulture, Floriculture, Animal
Husbandry like Pisciculture, Piggery, Poultry, Harvester machines etc.
3. Manufacturing of Polythene carry bags of less than 20 microns thickness and
manufacture of carry bags or containers made of recycled plastic for storing,
carrying, dispensing or packaging of food stuff and any other item which causes
environmental problems.
4. Industries such as processing of Pashmina Wool and such other products like hand
spinning and hand weaving, taking advantage of Khadi Programme under the
purview of Certification Rules and availing sales rebate.
5. Rural Transport (Except Auto Rickshaw in Andaman & Nicobar Islands, House
Boat, Shikara & Tourist Boats in J&K and Cycle Rickshaw.

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

The study aims to evaluate the impact of PMEGP on its beneficiaries. The objective of the
scheme is to generate employment especially for unemployed youth and traditional
artisans and help provide them with a reliable and sustainable source of income. In this
study I intend to gauge the impact of this scheme on both economic and social
parameters.
The dual objectives of an employment generation scheme are those of poverty reduction
and arresting migration. The concept of poverty1 is broader than merely income.
According to Amartya Sen, freedom is the primary goal of development; freedom is also
the principal means of development. It is the enhancement of freedoms that allow people
to lead lives that they have reason to live (Sen, 1999). Development is the process of
expanding human freedom. It also means the removal of major sources of lack of freedoms
such as poverty, all types of discrimination and inequalities, neglect of public facilities,
lack of economic opportunities, social exclusion, state policies that limit freedom and so
on. Thus employment generation coincides with the objective of enhancing freedom and
choices. Also rural to urban migration leads to spatial inefficiencies (Wang, 2005) which
has policy implications. Thus arresting migration becomes of paramount importance.
Keeping this in mind, I evaluate the performance of the scheme based on the following
broad concepts:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)

Employment Generation
Expansion of Income Generation Capability
Standard of Living
Financial Inclusion (inclusion in the banking structure- savings and investment
choices)
(v)
Effect on Migration
(vi) Social Mobility (education, housing and health)
(vii) Targeting
(viii) Rationing (gender, caste, income)

See Sens Capability Approach and Social Justice

METHODOLOGY
In this section, I describe the methodology used to evaluate the impact of PMEGP which
aims to expand the capabilities2 via employment generation. The steps followed for this
evaluation as depicted in the following flowchart.

Figure 3

STEP 1: Review of the Scheme and stating the Maintained Hypothesis

The first step towards an impact evaluation is the review of the theory and existing data if
any. This includes studying the scheme, master circulars on the topic (Circular, 2008)3,
performance reports by the various authorities4 etc. Based on the objective of the scheme
I calibrated the various parameters5 on which the scheme should be evaluated. Keeping in
mind the economic theory, I proposed the maintained hypothesis on the relationship
between the key dependent variables and the various explanatory variables which are
part of the study. This will be covered more extensively in the section on Econometric
Analysis.

Sens capability approach is a moral framework. It proposes that social arrangements should be primarily
evaluated according to the extent of freedom people have to promote or achieve functionings they value.
3 (Circular, 2008) RBI/2008-09/211RPCD.PLNFS.BC. No. 41 /09.04.01/2008-2009
2

4
5

Performance reports can be accessed from http://www.kviconline.gov.in/pmegp/pmegpweb

Refer the Objective section.

10

METHODOLOGY
STEP 2: Collection of Data using a uniform recall period

Preparation of the Questionnaire: After studying what the scheme is all about and
what are its objectives, we move onto the preparation of the set of questions we
would like to know to be able to evaluate the impact of the scheme on the
beneficiaries. This is again a decisive step as this is the stage where we define what
would be the data well get to analyze. A comprehensive questionnaire6 enables
one to make accurate judgments. We used a uniform recall period for both
economic and social parameters. This uniform recall period is one of pre scheme
regime and post scheme regime(1 year after the project was started)7. I have also
prepared a Self-Reporting form8 which records the ratings of the respondents on
various administrative issues related to the scheme.
Routine gathering of data and statistics: This step includes two sub-steps. There
are two types of data that needs to be collected.
o Contact Details of the Beneficiaries- This involved contacting the KVIC office/
Circle Offices of Punjab National Bank, Bank of Baroda, Canara Bank. After
obtaining the contact details, a random sampling was done to pick out
households scattered all over Delhi so that the sample is more representative.
The data received was for the year of 2012-2013.
o Conducting Surveys- This involved visiting the beneficiaries, either their homes
or workplace and getting their response on the questionnaire. Respondents for
whom we did not have the addresses, were contacted telephonically and their
responses were registered via telephonic interviews9.

STEP 3: Data Analysis

Based on the surveys conducted, the data was then analyzed in two ways.
(i)

(ii)

Subjective Analysis- In this section, different cases as observed during the field
visits have been summarized based on their individual experiences. It gives us a
micro view of the success/ failure of the scheme under consideration.
Econometric Analysis- In this section, quantitative analysis of the data is done.
All the cases are analyzed together to give a macro view of the impact of the
scheme i.e. what has been the impact of the scheme on an overall basis. For this
purpose STATA 12 is used. I have assumed that there are no time fixed effects.

Refer Appendix A for the complete questionnaire

This is done to avoid differences in growth rates observed for two beneficiaries, mainly on account of
greater business-running time.
8 Refer Appendix B for the Self Reporting Form
9 Some researchers argue that telephonic interviews are better than face to face interviews because of
minimum interviewee bias, low hawthorne effect and greater efficiency.
6
7

11

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
A random sample of 35 projects/ beneficiaries was taken from the list of those who were
disbursed loans under PMEGP in 2012-13 period. The sample was drawn such that it
consists of beneficiaries from across all the districts of Delhi (keeping in mind the rural
areas as well) and across banks so that it is a representative sample. I have also kept in
mind the ratio of male to female applicants and proportions of various categories in the
population data while selecting the sample. This section gives the descriptive statistics of
the sample taken.
1. The average income earned before the loan is taken is 0.93 Lacs per annum.
2. The average income earned after the loan is taken is 4.5 Lacs per annum.
An increase in the average income earned is a crude indicator of the income
augmenting effect of the scheme.
3. The average loan amount is 5.4 Lacs.
4. The average subsidy received is 1.2 Lacs.
5. The average education of the applicants in the sample is 11 years.
6. The proportion of females in the sample is 37% which is close to the population
figure of 32% for the year 2012-13.
7. The profile of respondents based on the category is as following:

Figure 4

8. Majority of the applicants (69%) took loan to start a new project. This suggests
that the scheme promotes entrepreneurship and provides self employment
opportunity. However we do find few respondents (31%) who took the loan to
expand their already existing project. This is against the guidelines of the scheme
as it is strictly stipulated that all sanctions will be given for New Projects.
9. Majority of the loans are taken for manufacturing purposes.

12

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
10. The proportion of migrants in the sample is 14% suggesting that the most of the
beneficiaries are residents of Delhi and that the scheme cannot be attributed to as
a cause of migration because even the migrants in the sample were those who
came years ago even before the scheme was introduced.

Figure 5

11. The majority of the respondents have undertaken projects that are providing them
with a regular source of income. This coincides with the objective of the scheme in
promoting ventures that provide a sustainable and continuous source of income.
Only projects like beauty parlors, boutiques, cyber caf etc which are prone to
unforeseen demand fluctuations10 or projects that involve supply side seasonal
restrictions, show a boom bust revenue cycles.

Figure 6

12.

The average employment generated per project is 2.52 which is way below the
target of 8 person per project as set by the KVIC for the year 2012-13.

This can be due to increase in competition or lack of innovation in services. Also technological innovation
and easy access to internet facilities in the smart phones have made projects like cyber cafs non viable.
10

13

ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF THE SAMPLE

I begin the econometric analysis of the impact evaluation by stating our identification
strategy. I have used a uniform recall period to record the income in the pre scheme
regime and post scheme regime (one year after the disbursement). Since this is a
sufficiently narrow time frame, any change in the growth of income can be safely assumed
to be a result of the income augmenting effect of the scheme.
We now look at the theoretical aspects of the impact of a credit linked subsidy. Firstly, if
we believe that the scheme leads to an expansion of income generation frontier, the
change in income as a result of this intervention should be positively related to the
amount of subsidy granted. Secondly, income before the intervention and income after the
intervention should be positively related. This is because, income before the scheme is a
proxy variable for the motivation of the beneficiary, which otherwise cannot be measured.
Economic theory postulated that economic agents would like to maintain a minimum
standard of living and this is usually rigid downwards. Thus people with higher income
before the scheme can be assumed to be as likely (if not more) as people previously
unemployed, to well utilize their funds in order to achieve the desired objective. I have
also constructed an asset index11 to determine whether the subsidy leads to any upward
social mobility. If the scheme is indeed having a positive impact in all aspects of the lives
of the beneficiaries then it might as well get captured in upward social mobility and access
to good quality health, education and housing facilities. It is at this stage that I point out
the shortcoming of this analysis which is the lack of data on the beneficiaries12 with the
authorities.
We estimate the following Regression equations-

1) INCA=+1 INCB+2 Subs+3 D1+4 D2+5 D3+6 Edu+

2) =+1 Subs+2 D1+3 D2+4 D3+5 Edu+
3) =+1 Subs+2 D1+3 D2+4 D3+5 Edu+
: Change in Income

D1 : Category Dummy

D2 : Training Dummy

: Asset-Index

D3 : Purpose Dummy

Edu: Years of Education

Subs: Subsidy

INCA: Income After

INCB: Income Before

Refer Appendix C for the construction of the Asset Index

Banks delete the details of those beneficiaries whose loan has been repaid. For our purpose this data was
extremely important because it would have given us sufficiently broad data frame. However, any limitations
in this context are only because of lack of proper data storage and management on behalf of the authorities.
11
12

14

ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF THE SAMPLE

The following table presents our Maintained Hypothesis (Gujarati, 5th edition)13 on the
key relationships between our dependent variables14 and the various explanatory
variables15.

Variable

Expected Sign
of Coefficient
(Reg1)

Expected Sign
of Coefficient
(Reg2)

Expected Sign
of Coefficient
(Reg3)

INCB

Positive

Subs

Positive

Positive

Positive

Edu

Positive

Positive

No Relation

D1

No Relation

No Relation

No Relation

D2

Positive

Positive

No Relation

D3

Negative*

Negative*

No Relation

Table 2
* Since the omitted category is Expansion

Ideally, we are likely to expect a positive relationship between the amount of subsidy and
income after the scheme otherwise the objective of the scheme fails. We may also expect a
positive impact of education level on the income after the scheme/change in income,
because higher education signals a better ability to plan the project, internalizing any
exogenous factors related to the business. We also expect an upward social mobility with
increase in the amount of subsidy via expansion of income generation frontier.

Hypothesis about the causal relationship that is theoretically true.

Variables on the left hand side of the regression equation. They are function(s) of the outcomes of an
intervention.
15 Variables used to explain an intervention or causal relationship.
13
14

15

IMPACT ON INCOME
1. We use the first regression specification and present the following results.

Table 3

A scatter plot of income before the loan and income after the loan shows that there is a
positive relationship between the two. The above regression results show that a 1 unit
increase in the subsidy granted leads to a 4.14 unit increase in the annual income of the
beneficiary. This is a strong result suggesting that the scheme has a positive income
augmenting effect. The coefficients of income before and subsidy are positive and
statistically significant, in accordance with the theory. The impact of education on income
after the scheme is a perverse result but its coefficient is statistically insignificant. We see
that the category dummies with general as the omitted category have statistically
insignificant coefficients. We did expect training to influence income generation capacity
but the results are contrary. However the coefficient is statistically insignificant.

2. We use the second regression specification and present the following results.
We look at the impact of the subsidy on the change in income as a robustness test for our
evaluation. The scatter plot shows an upward trend between the change in income and
subsidy. This positive relationship indicates that the scheme is successful in augmenting
the income of the beneficiaries.

16

IMPACT ON INCOME

Figure 7

The following regression (specification 2) shows that 1 unit of subsidy will lead to a 6.3
units of change in income. The change in income measures how quickly the scheme will be
able to create an income augmenting effect. The change in income as a result of the scheme
is not dependent on the level of education suggesting that the effect of the scheme is not
biased in favor of the well educated. No causal relationship is observed between the two.
Even category dummies have statistically insignificant coefficients.

Table 4

17

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL INCLUSION

Financial Inclusion (Rangarajan, 2006) is defined as the process of ensuring access to
financial services and timely and adequate credit where needed by vulnerable groups
such as weaker sections and low income groups at an affordable cost.
In arriving at the impact in a broader sense, we look at aspects of the scheme that has
promoted financial inclusion. The banks necessitate the beneficiaries to open an account
with them, if they dont have one.
35

No. of Applicants

30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Pre Scheme

Post scheme

Savings Acc

25

33

Financial Investment

Figure 8

We can see the number of savings accounts have gone up indicating greater access to
banking facilities to those who otherwise did not have an account previously. However
one must exercise caution at this point. Merely the opening of accounts, in no way implies
that people have started to save more. On the contrary, the respondents claimed that their
savings are low and in some cases zero because of increased expenses, inflation and need
for constant re-capitalization of the business. Financial investments like FDs, LICs, and
Mutual Funds are very uncommon among the surveyed beneficiaries. This observation is
not surprising, given our narrow data frame because many businesses have a long
gestation periods before there is any substantial saving. Moreover, education level and
financial literacy play an important role in shaping the savings behavior of the individual.
To conclude, it can be said that no major achievement towards financial inclusion has
been seen suggesting that concerted efforts need to be taken to achieve this goal.

18

IMPACT ON SOCIAL MOBILITY

Social mobility is defined as movement of individuals, families, households, or other
categories of people within or between layers or tiers in an open system of social
stratification16. The movement can be in a downward or upward direction. A positive
impact of the scheme will be reflected in upward social mobility. I have measured this
using a uniform recall period to collect data on various parameters like health services,
education of children, housing, and durable goods that reflect the standard of living.
I also constructed an Asset Index17 to see the relative change in the standard of living with
respect to the pre intervention regime.
The results on social mobility are in tandem with the economic theory. The theory claims
that while social mobility is slow in the short run, it will catch up in the long run under the
conditions of a sustainable income generation. The sample data suggest that the social
mobility is slow. This is attributed to the narrow data frame of the study. The respondents
were more interested in recapitalizing their business and investing their savings in their
business and not indulge in immediate consumerism. Theory suggests that it takes a
reasonable amount of time before people move to the higher rung of the social strata.
Demand for health services (private/public) are subject to individual preferences. In our
sample not much switch has been observed from public to private. Housing is another big
investment and we have not seen any change (from rented to own) in the sample. These
results should be dealt with caution. It is only over time that any conclusions can be made.
If anything, the schemes positive impact on expanding the income generation frontier will
be instrumental in bringing about a change in the long run. We do observe more volatility
in the education of the children. In the sample many respondents have moved to private
education for their children after an increase in their income due to the scheme. This is
more evident for boys and suggests a female bias. The most volatile component of social
mobility is the standard of living as mimicked by consumer durables like television,
washing machine, laptop etc and wealth (car, real estate etc). The assets index captures
this volatility by dividing the consumer durables into two categories- fast moving and
medium moving assets and including change in wealth which is moves slowly. The sample
suggests that the movement on average is extremely sluggish. From the estimation of the
third regression equation we are able to conclude that the relationship between social
mobility and amount of subsidy is very weak and there does not appear to be a significant
causal effect.

Open stratification systems are those in which at least some value is given to the achieved status characteristics in a
society.
16

17

Refer Appendix C for the construction of the Asset Index

19

CASE STUDIES
In this section we present some case studies that brings the diverse experiences of the
beneficiaries. In a credit linked subsidy scheme like PMEGP, it was realized that success or
failure of the projects were subjective based on various factors which differed from case to
case. Thus with the help of the following success and failure stories a glimpse of the
impact of PMEGP on peoples life is described.
Dr. Deepali Bhardwaj, a
dermatologist applied for a
PMEGP loan from Bank of Baroda
in 2011 to buy a machine that
would be used to manufacture
her face packs on a large scale.
Her work her seen a dream run
after the loan. From a humble
income of 50K per month to
around 5 Lacs a month at
present, she exemplifies how far
one can go with a PMEGP loan.
She has seen tremendous change
in her life after this endeavor
succeeded. She talks of how this loan has helped her achieve more financial stability and a
greater appetite to risk in order to achieve her bigger dreams.

Mr. Sunil Kumar, a graduate who previously worked as a computer operator took a
PMEGP loan from Punjab National
Bank in 2012 to manufacture an
electronic chip used in a set top box.
His earnings from his earlier job was
around 8K per month. He now runs
his own business and has employed
6 people under him. His monthly
income is around 35K per month
and this is just the beginning for
him. He feels that with time it going
to get better as he establishes him in
the market. He has not planned any
expensive purchases as yet as he is
keen on recapitalizing his business.

20

CASE STUDIES
Mrs. Kavita C Raksha took a PMEGP
loan from Punjab National Bank Kalkaji,
to buy an oven for her bakery which she
runs along with her husband. She took a
loan of 5 Lacs and now her monthly
income has gone up by 125%. This is a
tremendous change. The couple has
been living a righteous life and believes
that hard work and is their biggest
wealth. Even at a ripe age of 72, they
have been able to make a difference in
their lives just by their spirit. They serve
as a role model for the younger
generation.

Mr. Pravesh took a PMEGP loan from

Canara Bank in 2012. He was previously
unemployed and decided to start his own
cardboard manufacturing plant. He
received 22 Lacs from the bank. His
monthly income from the project is
around 80K in the peak season and 35K
in the slack season. He has been able to
purchase a car from his savings. He feels
that the scheme has helped in achieving
a better standard of living and income.
He also appreciated the trainings and
found them useful to his work. This is
another example to show how the
scheme has promoted entrepreneurship in the youth who were previously unemployed.
Another similar story is that of Mr. Lokesh Kumar, who got the loan form Punjab National
Bank in 2012. He also took the loan for the same reason. Although his manufacturing unit
is also doing well, he complaints that the discrepancy between the expected loan amount
and the actual loan amount led to problems in starting his business in the first place.

21

CASE STUDIES
Mrs. Babita Bhatt, is a resident of Janakpuri.
She started making her cushions and
bedcovers from her home. In 2012, she took
a PMEGP loan to scale it up. Earlier she could
earn around 15K per month from her work.
After taking up the loan she bought more
machines, hired more labor and even rented
a place to start her project. Now she earns
around 35K per month, which is an
improvement of more than double. She
pointed out the need for contingency funds
as there are phases in the business when
need for immediate funds become vital. She
also complaints that the amount she got from
the bank was half of what she expected.

Mr. Manoj Kumar took a PMEGP

loan in 2012 to expand his
garment shop. However due to
health issues, he was unable to
work for a few months. Hence he
could not reap the potential
benefits from his expanded unit,
resulting in unanticipated interest
burden with no substantial
income generation from the new
unit. This led to losses as the
scheme warranted timely interest
payments. Even lump sum
prepayment option that could
have saved him further interest
was not allowed. Thus the scheme proved to be a major liability to the beneficiary.
Although he does feel that the scheme is good for those who are committed to utilize the
funds diligently.

22

CASE STUDIES
Ms. Radhika, who had been running a beauty parlor in Pitampura for more than 5 years,
took the loan from Canara Bank in 2012 to
scale it up with better products and services
as a conscious effort to attract more
customers. Even though she invested the loan
money in her parlor with the hope that a relaunch might give her the required
momentum but as time passed by she found
it increasingly difficult to break even because
of increasing competition from other parlors
in her locality. She cites her lack of planning
and market competition as the major reason
for her failure. This example highlights how
some businesses are prone to a boom-bust
pattern of growth. Contrary to her case is
that of Mrs. Shaheen Parveen, who took the
loan in 2012 for the same reason. She was
previously earning 10K per month. After
successfully re-launching her parlor she saw an increase in her income of about 50%. She
even employs 3 full time workers in her parlor. Here we juxtapose a success story with a
failure just to drive the point that the most important thing that crucially determines the
success of the scheme is individuals plan for his/her project.
Mr. Siraj applied for loan under
PMEGP to open up a cyber cafe.
Since it is not a part of the
negative list it has been
sanctioned by the bank. However,
the bank manager feels that a
cyber cafe wouldnt fetch enough
or to say wont be a successful
venture given the new era of
smart phones which have reduced
the need for a cyber cafe
tremendously. Since the loan has
been sanctioned, the person will now be opening up a cyber cafe which most likely
wouldnt be profitable and thus the loan taken would be futile adding more to the debt
than to his income. Siraj took the PMEGP loan in 2012. Initially he saw regular customers
but with time the numbers have declined. He now faces a slack in his business due to
investment in a venture that now faces a demand crunch.

23

INSIGHTS FROM SELF REPORTING

In order to compare the overall experience (with the scheme) of the beneficiaries on a
unilinear scale, I drafted a self reporting form18 that allows the respondents the scheme
on various key aspects like loan delivery, time taken in processing, usefulness of the
trainings, reliance of the scheme, income augmenting effect etc.
I present the average ratings19 of 35 respondents on the key aspects of the scheme:

Figure 9

18
19

The respondents believe that the scheme is well designed and has a strong vision.
They believe that the scheme is reliable and that they can suggest their peers about
the same.
That the scheme is successful in having a positive income augmenting effect is
validated by a high self reporting score of 8.06.
However the area in which the scheme slacks is its effective implementation by the
banks. On an average the respondents suggest that the experience with the banks
can be made more user-friendly.
Processing time is the biggest issue that the respondents have talked about. They
feel that this is the biggest challenge to the effectiveness of the scheme.
Aspects of application process and loan delivery also need improvement.

Refer Appendix B for self reporting form

On a scale of 0-10, 0 is the lowest score and 10 is best score.

24

ISSUES IDENTIFIED UNDER PMEGP

1. Issues related to the Banks and KVIC/KVIB
Time Taken in Processing
a) On an average, the sample data shows that the time taken in processing the
application and disbursement of loan to the beneficiary by the banks has been
very long. The average score to the time taken in processing, as per the selfreporting of the interviewees, is 4.7 (on a scale of 1 to 10)
b) Some banks have asked the applicants to demonstrate their capability to utilize
the funds well by asking them to show their work place. The problem that the
respondents have pointed out with this is that the rent cost incurred by them is
usually a significant proportion of the loan amount. To elaborate; In the case of
Mr. Sunil Kumar, the bank asked him to show his factory at the time he applied
for the loan. The monthly rent of the factory was 10000. The bank took 3
months to disburse his loan by which time he had already spent 30K on the
rent of his factory from which he had not earned a single rupee. He got 3 Lacs
from the bank but had already wasted 10% of this amount on the rent. This is a
significant loss to the beneficiaries since the rent cost is very high and the time
taken in processing usually eats up the scarce capital.
c) Some respondents also point out that the time taken in the process dwindles
the need for the loan amount. Given the competitive nature of many
businesses, time taken is loan delivery is equivalent to lesser probability of
successfully capturing the market because every second loss is the loss of
opportunity to capitalize on the first movers advantage (In oligopolistic
competition players having the first move enjoy higher profits). The more time
it takes in the sanctioning and disbursement more is the likelihood of
somebody replacing you from the industry. Also for those seeking the loan to
expand their already existing projects, this becomes more crucial. If someone
needs to stock up his inventories in a window of 2 months and he gets the loan
in 4 months time, then the need for that money is greatly reduced.
Suggestion- Speedy processing and notification using an online-portal which also
explains the grounds for which loan request is rejected. This saves transportation,
rent and time costs of the applicants.

Interest Calculation and Payments

a) A no. of respondents have pointed out that Banks do not clarify the
installments (amount and dates) beforehand. The data collected shows that
while some respondents have faced a progressively decreasing trend in
interest payments, some have continued to pay the same amount for years and

25

ISSUES IDENTIFIED UNDER PMEGP

in few cases the interest payments have increased with time. The problem that
people face with this is one of lack of awareness. Those who are less educated
are not aware of the options of interest payments that suit their earning
potential. The banks try to make advantage of this in order to recover it loan in
time. Less informed applicants are not able to bargain their convenient interest
payments and are thus distressed with interest burden.
b) Some respondents have pointed out that their interest payments began the
very next month after they took the loan while other have pointed out that the
banks gave them a lee way of 6 months before their first interest payment. This
is surprising and antithetical in principle and practice because those who have
taken the loan are not in a position to face immediate interest burden as all
their capital in invested in fixed assets or working capital.
c) Also a very common grievance is one of the non availability of Pre-payment
option. Many respondents have pointed out that the loan locks them down for
a period of 5 years and they are thus unable to borrow from the banks for any
further need of funds. Even if they have the capacity to clear their outstanding
dues before the duration of the loan repayment, the banks do not allow them to
pre pay their dues. In few cases this has resulted in unnecessary borrowings
(for fixed capital) from the moneylenders who charge usurious interest rates.
In case of Mr. Bhim Rao, loan was taken for his namkeen shop. However he
suffered from partial paralysis and hence could no longer work. He wanted to
repay his loan as soon as possible but was not allowed.
d) In general, respondents are less happy with the way/formula in which interest
is calculated and feel that the banks charge them interest on the entire
principle including the subsidy.
Suggestion- A Uniform Interest Calculation procedure should be followed across
Banks.

Amount of the Sanctioned Loan

a) One of the major issues with PMEGP is one of discrepancy between the
expected loan amount and actual (disbursed) loan amount. The majority of
applicants have claimed that they applied for higher loan amount and have
received a lower sanctioned amount. This discrepancy has significant negative
impact on the project outcomes and success of the scheme in general. If the
amount applied for, is significantly greater than the actual loan then the
prospects of the success of the project are greatly reduced. For example, in the
case of Mr. Kamal Kumar, the applied amount was 5 Lacs and the sanctioned
amount was 2.5 Lacs. A 50% reduction in the amount will not only lead his

26

ISSUES IDENTIFIED UNDER PMEGP

project unviable but also he was not able to purchase working capital at all. As
a result he had to borrow money from the market in order to purchase variable
inputs; an amount on which he has to pay more interest and will not get any
subsidy. While, in the case of Mrs. Satto devi, the sanctioned loan was so below
her expectations that she did not avail of it at all.
b) Respondents feel that the way in which the financial viability of the projects is
done by the authorities is not very sensitive to the ground realities and is very
opaque. They feel that a higher loan amount is imperative to the success of
their project. As I have pointed out in the econometric analysis that there is a
significant positive impact of the amount of subsidy and the income after the
project; we can see that the difference between the two gets captured by the
low rate of growth of income after the loan.
c) Since the willingness to pay of the borrowers cannot be demonstrated abinitio, this leads to the honest and hardworking people paying up the price (in
terms of smaller sanctions in related businesses) in lieu of the defaulters. This
is a popular phenomenon called Adverse Selection (Akerlof, 1970)20 and can
only be tackled through a signaling effect21 from the borrower which in this
case is difficult as the loan is an unsecured one.
d) The interviews have lead to the conclusion that the authorities should either
sanction the expected loan amounts or if the deduction is more than 20% of
the expected loan amount, then the loan should not be sanctioned at all. This
hold good only for those applicants who are staring off a new project. This is
necessary because a lower amount will not be successful in generating a
sufficient flow of income given the fact that many businesses have a minimum
gestation period of 3-4 months.
Suggestion- The discrepancy between the expected and the actual loan amount
needs to be evaluated more subjectively keeping in mind the ground realities of
the nature of the project. Creation of a Contingency Funds for a genuine need of
the beneficiary will go a long way in generating stable and successful project.

It refers to a market process in which undesired results occur when buyers and sellers have asymmetric
information(access to different information)
20

Signaling is the idea that one party (termed the agent) credibly conveys some information about itself to another
party (the principal)
21

27

ISSUES IDENTIFIED UNDER PMEGP

2. Issues related to the Beneficiaries
Lack of Planning
An aspect of PMEGP that merits some attention is the choice of projects that are
sanctioned loans. Since the sanction is done on the basis of a negative list, any
project outside the list becomes eligible for it. For example the proposal of a cyber
caf, although viable will not be very successful given the age of smart phones and
cheap internet access. Also aspects such as unanticipated increase in the market
competition in projects which do not offer any special service is a part of the
repercussions lack of planning involving product differentiation. This is seen very
clearly in projects like Beauty Parlors and Boutiques. Thus it is important to
subjectively assess the projects at the application stage itself and sanction loans
only to those that can stand the test of the market. Otherwise the loan becomes
more of a burden for the borrower or worse an NPA.

Willingness to Pay
Since it is not possible to measure motivation of a borrower; in the wake of an
unsecured loan, the banks face a high possibility of defaults. In the case of Mr. Amit
Yadav, the bank is not able to recover the loan as yet and the person bought a fridge
from the loan money. If we want to tackle such issues we need to ensure that
repayment system is designed in a way that there is no incentive for the borrower
to default. This can be done by giving some bonuses to those who clear their dues
in time. Those who are borrowing for expanding their existing businesses are more
likely to be motivated to utilize the funds well while first time borrowers who want
to start a new project are less likely to be using the funds well.

Propensity to indulge in Risky Ventures

There is a tendency for people to experiment with the loan because of an absence
of effective recovery mechanism. This is called the problem of Moral hazard
(Stiglitz, 1984)22.

A moral hazard is a situation in which a party is more likely to take risks because the costs that could result will not
be borne by the party taking the risk.
22

28

CONCLUSION
In conclusion I would like to say that the Prime Ministers Employment Generation
Programme is indeed a big step towards creating self employment ventures for the
unemployed with focus on the youth and traditional artisans. One of the objectives of the
scheme is to help create sustainable and continuous income flow for the beneficiary. After
studying the scheme closely, I come to the conclusion that achievement of this objective is
contingent upon the projects that individuals undertake. Any credit link subsidy is like an
opportunity that provides the initial big push but the onus lies on the individual to make
the best use of this opportunity. Thus we can say that the scheme is conceptually designed
in a way to provide the income augmenting effect. The study also finds that the scheme
promotes entrepreneurship and development. The scheme provides the loan to both rural
and urban population in order to arrest migration from the rural to the urban sector.
There is no cause- effect relationship between the scheme and migration. If anything,, the
scheme would inhibit it. The key objective of this scheme is employment generation. I find
that this objective has been under-achieved. The KVICs target for the year 2012-13 was 8
people per project and a total employment target of over 2500. The sample data finds an
average employment per project of only 2.56, which is way below the target. Simple
extrapolation would suggest that the estimates from the population data will be close to
the sample estimates. Thus, either there is a over-ambitious target set by the KVIC or the
loans are being given to the projects without keeping in mind their employment
generation spillover. This issue needs to be solved so that the outcomes are in tandem
with the objective. Another objective was to support artisanship. The sample data was
unable to include them because of the mere absence of such projects in the population
data. The scheme is without any bias towards the weaker sections of the social strata. The
only criterion followed in the sanctioning of the loan is the projects economic and
technical viability. Thus there is equal opportunity for both men and women irrespective
of their category. Although social mobility observed from the sample is slow in the short
run, it can be attributed to the narrow data frame of the study. However, I am hopeful of an
upward social mobility in the long run. Thus the scheme is successful in having a positive
impact by providing the big push to all the motivated beneficiaries.

29

APPENDIX A
The following Questionnaire was used for the survey:
FOR THE BENEFICIARY PMEGP
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
31)

Name:___________________________________________________________________________________
Age:_____________________________________________________________________________________
Special Category (SC/ST/OBC/PH):_____________________________________________________________
Address:_________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
Contact no.:______________________________________________________________________________
Gender:
MALE
FEMALE
Migrant: YES
NO
If yes, from where________________________________________
Reason for Migration_______________________________________________________________________
Educational Qualification____________________________________________________________________
Technical Qualification:_____________________________________________________________________
From where did you come to know about PMEGPA)Newspaper Ad
B)Campaign
C)Bank
D)Peers
E)Broker
F)Other________________
How did you get the loan?
DIRECT
INDIRECT (Any payments involved)
Any Training obtained under PMEGP: YES
NO
Occupation before PMEGP enrolment__________________________________________________________
Income before enrolment under PMEGP (Rs. per month):__________________________________________
Purpose of Loan- New Project (Previously unemployed)
Change of Occupation
Expansion of already existing project
Bank from which loan is obtained?____________________________________________________________
When did you apply for the Loan?_____________________________________________________________
When was the PMEGP loan sanctioned?:_______________________________________________________
Amount of loan money received from the bank:__________________________________________________
Amount of Subsidy:________________________________________________________________________
What was the percentage subsidy you were entitled to under the scheme?____________________________
Any collateral offered?______________________________________________________________________
Name of the project________________________________________________________________________
Nature of Business unit:
Manufacturing unit
Service Unit
Business Unit
Type of Project:
Individual Project
Group Project
Nature of Income Flow:
Seasonal
Regular
Income from project (Rs. per month):__________________________________________________________
Other Sources of Income(if any):______________________________________________________________
Other source of financing for the project
YES
NO

Source of Finance

Tick

Percentage

Bank
Relatives
Non-banks/money lenders
Other

32)
33)
34)
35)

Any infrastructural support/ tool kits provided______________________________________

Do you use your Savings A/c:
YES
NO
Financial Investment:
YES
NO
If yes, nature of investment:___________________________________________________________

30

APPENDIX A
SOCIAL INDICATORS
35) Marital Status: Married

Unmarried

Divorced

36) No. of
children(Boys):______________________________(Girls):____________________________
37) Sex of Household Head
Male
Female
S. no.

Social Indicators

Before PMEGP

After PMEGP

1.

No. of children vaccinated

B:

G:

B:

G:

2.

Children going to private school

B:

G:

B:

G:

3.

Children going to public school

B:

G:

B:

G:

4.

Own house/ rented

Health Services

Public/Govt
Hospital

Private Hospital

Local Dispensary

Others

Water

No water
supply within
500 yards

Community hand
pump/tube/well/bore
well/tank

Community
Tap

Private hand
pump/ tube
well bore/well

Sanitation

Open
Defecation

Community

Private

Status of
Children in a
Household

Working
Children &
not
Attending any
School/

Working Children but

attending School/ NFE/

Children not
working as well
as not attending
any Classes

Children not
working and
attending
School
Regularly

Type of Stove

Wooden

kerosene

LPG

Coal

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

Assets Present
Television
Refrigerator
Mobile
Air-cooler
Air-conditioner
Cycle
Scooter/Motorcycle
Car
Laptop/computer
Land in village(acre)
Shop/factory

Baseline

Private
piped
Water

Endline

38) Anything else you want to share(Bottlenecks/Current problem):______________________

31

APPENDIX B
The following Self Reporting form was used for the survey:
SELF REPORTING
Name(Optional)___________________________

Scheme____________________________

On a scale of 1-10 Rate the following :

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)

9)

Application Process of Scheme

Loan Delivery
Experience with the bank
Time taken in processing
How helpful was the
training(if any) ?
Were you satisfied with the
amount of loan sanctioned?
How successful is the scheme
in increasing your income
How reliable do you find
this scheme as a means to
increase/support income
generating opportunities?
How would you rate the
scheme (Overall)?

1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5
5

6
6
6
6
6

7
7
7
7
7

8
8
8
8
8

9
9
9
9
9

10
10
10
10
10

YES
1
2

NO
4
5

10

10

10

) ___________________________

____________________________

1-10
1)

10

2)

10

3)

10

4)

10

10

7)

10

8)

10

9)

10

5)
6)

)?

32

APPENDIX C
Construction of the Asset Index
An Asset Index was created to look at the change in standard of living of the PMEGP
beneficiaries.
We classified the consumer durables purchased by the beneficiaries and investments in
fixed capital (like purchase of shop) into 3 categories. These categories are
I.
II.
III.

Fast Moving Assets- Television, Refrigerator, Mobile, Cooler

Medium Moving Assets-Air Conditioner, Laptop, Motorcycle/Scooter
Slow Moving Assets- Car, Purchase of Shop, Renovation/Construction.

Each of these assets are scored on the basis of change in their holding. To be more clear, if
a person did not own a TV before the loan but bought a TV with his increased income in
the post scheme regime, we give him a positive score.
The scoring of various assets are as follows:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.

All fast moving assets are given a score of +1

All medium moving assets are given a score of +2
Renovation/Construction is given a score of +3
Purchase of a new Car is given a score of +5
Purchase of Shop/Home/Factory is given a score of +10

After scoring all the assets we construct the Individual asset index by summing the score
of all the assets in that particular asset class (Fast/Medium/Slow)
Once we have constructed the Individual Asset Indexes for the 3 asset classes, we obtain
the final Asset Index as follows:

= Ii /3,

where i is the asset class

For Example:
If the Fast Moving Index is 2, the Medium Moving Index is 2 and the Slow Moving Index is
8, then the asset index is (2+2+8)/3=4.

33

APPENDIX D
Status of PMEGP (2012-14) in Delhi
A. No. of Applications (District wise)
We notice major improvements over the year in the no. of applications from North
West, North and East Delhi. Central and New Delhi have not shown much increase
in volume of applications. South Delhi continues to be the leader in the no. of
applications.

(2012-13)

(2013-14)

B. Data on No. of Application/No. of Sanctioned Loans/No. of Disbursed Loans

There has been an increase in the no. of applications over the year implying more
awareness about the scheme but there has not been a significant improvement in
the no. of sanctioned loans. However the no. of disbursed loans has increased
implying that the rejection rate at the level of the Banks has gone down.
1200

2012-13
2013-14

1000
800
600
400
200
0
Applications

Sanctioned

Disbursed

Figure 10

34

APPENDIX D
C. Data on No. of Rejected Loans/ No. of Incomplete applications/ No. of loans
returned/ No. of applications with unknown status
While the no. of applications has increased in 2013-14, the rejection rate is higher
for 2013-14 than for 2012-13. Also the no. of returned loans has doubled and can
be attributed to less than expected loan amount sanctioned by the banks.
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

2012-13
2013-14
No. of
rejected
loans

No. of
incomplete
applications

No. of loans
No. of
returned application
(unknown
status)

Figure 11

D. Gender wise data on No. of Applications/No. of Sanctioned Loans

We see an increase in the no. of applications of both men and women. However the
no of male applicants are considerably higher in both the years vis-a-vis the no. of
female applicants. Also the sanction rate for males is better than for females. This
indicates a better chance of getting the loan for male applicants. Although over the
year the sanction rate for females has improved significantly.
1200
1000
800
600

2013-14

400

2012-13

200
0
No. of Male
Applicants

No. of
sanctions
(male)

No. of
Female
applicants

No. of
sanctions
(female)

Figure 12

35

APPENDIX D
E. Profile of Applicants based on Category
The majority of applicants belong to General category. SC and OBC applicants are
far behind. ST and PH applications are negligible. Over the year we have seen an
increase in the no. of applications from the General category, while a decline in the
no. of applications of the SC category. This is contrary to the expectations because
the subsidy provided by the scheme is greater for the SC and ST categories.

F. Rationing Based on Category

The no. of sanctioned loans for General category have doubled over the year.
However there has not been much improvement of the sanction rate for SC and ST.
Even though sanction rate for the OBCs have tripled but this is because the no. of
applications are low in volume.

Percentage

Sanctioned Loans
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

No. of
sanctions
(gen)

No. of
sanctions
(SC)

No. of
sanctions
(ST)

No. of
sanctions
(OBC)

No. of
sanctions
(PH)

2012-13

58

14

11

2013-14

104

18

31

36

APPENDIX D
G. Performance of PMEGP (official data)

PMEGP- PERFORMANCE -2012-13

KVIC
B.E. TARGET-2012-13

Sr.
NO

State/Div/UT

No.of
MM
Proj. (Rs.lakhs)

No. of
applicat
No.of
ions
Emp. Appli. placed
Received
(Nos)
before
DLTFC

No.of Appli.
Sanctioned by
banks

Disbursement made by
nodal branches
No.of
No.of
No.of
Appli.
Appli.
Appli.
Recomm
Consid
Forward
ended
ered
ed to
No.of
MM
No.of
MM
Empl.
by
by
banks
DLTFC
banks Proj (Rs.lakh) Proj. (Rs.lakh) (Nos)

Achievement % to target

Proj.

MM

Averag
e MM
EDP
per
given project
(Rs.lakh
Employ.
)

Estimate
d
average
project
cost
(Rs.lakh)

Applications
rejected by
Banks

22

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

160

368.98

1280

13

13

11

8.40

2.83

16

2.50

0.77

1.25

0.71

2.02

NORTH ZONE
2 Delhi

PMEGP- PERFORMANCE -2012-13

KVIB
No.of Appli.
Sanctioned by
banks

B.E. TARGET-2012-13

Sr.
NO

State/Div/UT

No.of M. M (Rs.
Proj. in lakhs)

Emp.
(Nos)

No. of
applicat
No.of
ions
Appli.
placed
Received
before
DLTFC

No.of
Appli.
Recom
mended
by
DLTFC

No.of No.of
Appli. Appli.
Forwar Conside
ded to red by No.of
banks banks Proj

Disbursement made by nodal

branches

Estimat
ed
Average
Appliaverag
MM per
cations
EDP
e
project
rejegiven
project
(Rs.lakh
cted by
cost
Employ.
)
Banks
(Rs.lak
h)

Achievement % to target

MM
(Rs.lakh)

No.of
Proj.

MM
(Rs.lakh)

Empl.
(Nos)

Proj.

MM

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

161

368.98

1288

832

832

256

159

159

40

26.66

40

26.66

128

24.84

7.23

9.94

28

0.67

1.91

22

NORTH ZONE
2

Delhi

PMEGP- PERFORMANCE -2012-13 (As on 26.11.2012 )

TOTAL
No.of Appli.

B.E. TARGET-2012-13
Sr.
NO

State/Div/UT

No. of
applicat
No.of
ions
No.of M.M (Rs.in Emp. Appli. placed
Received
Proj.
lakhs) (Nos)
before
DLTFC

1
2
NORTH ZONE

2 Delhi

321

737.96 2568

845

Disbursement made by

No.of Sanctioned by
Nodal branches
Appli.
banks
Consid
ered
No.of
MM
No.of
MM
Empl.
by
Proj (Rs.lakh) Proj. (Rs.lakh) (Nos)
banks

No.of
Appli.
Recom
mende
d by
DLTFC

No.of
Appli.
Forward
ed to
banks

10

11

12

13

14

163

163

51

35.06

44

29.49

845 260

15

Achievement % to
target

Proj.

MM

Emplo
y.

16

17

18

EDP
given

19

144 13.71 4.00 5.61 28

AppliEstimated
Average
cations
average
MM per
rejected
project
project
by
cost
(Rs.lakh)
Banks (
(Rs.lakh)
in nos)

20

21

22

0.67

1.92

37

APPENDIX E
The following people were part of the sample for the study selected randomly from the
population data (KVIC, 2012-13, 2013-14). Here are some of their details.
Name
Jitendra Singh
Nawab Ansari
Manoj Kumar
Bhim Rao
Parvesh
Radhika
Vinod Kumar
Ajay Kumar
Dheeraj Ladwal
Manoj Kumar
Amit Yadav
Siraj ul Haq
Srishti Mehta
Rakesh Jain
Prashant Goel
Dhanesh Raj
Arun Dutt
Sunita
Geeta Sharma
Kavita C Raksha
Rizwana Begam
Gaurav Ahuja
Pinki
Vikram Sharma
Sushma
Lokesh Kumar
Sudesh Rani
Gaurav Bomibatra
Shaheen Parveen
Sunil Kumar
Sultan
Kamal Kumar
Babita Bhatt
Deepali Bhardwaj
Mahipal Singh

Category
Gen
OBC
Gen
ST
Gen
Gen
Gen
SC
SC
Gen
OBC
OBC
Gen
Gen
Gen
Gen
Gen
SC
Gen
Gen
SC
Gen
SC
Gen
ST
OBC
SC
Gen
Gen
Gen
Gen
SC
Gen
Gen
SC

Contact No. Bank

8802366065 BoB
9350779811 BoB
9212550124 BoB
8802356317 BoB
9873787874 Canara
9210607133 Canara
9312228263 Canara
9211232584 Canara
9650614252 PNB
9811750995 PNB
8860494372 PNB
9310523384 PNB
9899404721 BoB
9210842497 Canara
9212563713 Canara
9250593233 Canara
9811327046 Canara
7827284142 Canara
7503539378 Canara
8800738990 PNB
8527755464 BoB
8750503880 PNB
9210881249 PNB
9711128182 PNB
9871854959 PNB
9810668753 PNB
8287362718 PNB
8800486510 PNB
9990984618 PNB
9990516159 PNB
9211337044 PNB
9871184240 PNB
9990951027 PNB
9560550000 BoB
8860777270 BoB

Project
Flour Mill
Invertor Manufacturing
Garment Shop
Namkeen Shop
Cardboard Roll
Radhika Beauty Parlor
NS Enterprises, Printings
Plastic Manufacturing
Website designing and Photography
Embroidery work
Bought a fridge
Cyber Caf
Tea manufacturing and assemblying
Art and Craft/Soft Toys etc.
Silver Dora making
Hardware, Computer Services
Flour Mill
Stitching Work
Hosiery, Leggings
Bakery
Shirt and Jeans Making
Service Unit
Stiching Suits
Computer Hardware and Software
Stiching Suits
Wooden moulding
Beauty Parlor
Printing Press
Beauty Parlor
Wire Making/ Electronics
Photocopy Shop
Watch Making
Stitching Work
Skin and Hair Clinic
Shoes Manufacturing ans Sales

Knowledge about PMEGP

Newspaper Ad
Broker
Peers
Peers
Bank
Bank
Campaign
Newspaper Ad
Peers
Peers
Peers
Newspaper Ad
Peers
Newspaper Ad
Campaign
Peers
Peers
Newspaper Ad
Peers
Peers
Bank
Peers
Peers
Campaign
Peers
Newspaper Ad
Bank
Bank
Newspaper Ad
Newspaper Ad
Newspaper Ad
Peers
Peers
Newspaper Ad

Income After(Rs. Per month)

10000
14500
11000
5000
75000
6000
28000
15000
23000
50000
7500
7000
20000
23000
13000
25000
25000
10000
17500
22500
5500
18000
42500
17500
15000
60000
22000
13000
20000
30000
10000
20000
35000
500000
12000

38

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akerlof, G. (1970). The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market
Mechanism. QJE .
Circular, M. (2008). Prime Minister's Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP).
Reserve Bank of India.
Gujarati, D. (5th edition). Basic Econometrics. The McGraw Hill.
KVIC. (2012-13, 2013-14). Case Forwadings.
Rangarajan, C. (2006). The committee on Financial Inclusion.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom.
Stiglitz, J. (1984). Equilibrium unemployment as a worker discipline device. AER .
Wang, J. V. (2005). Aspects of the rural-urban transformation of countries. Journal of
Economic Geography .

39