fbpx
Wikipedia

Social audit

December 15, 2023

The first Social Audit was carried out in Sweden (1985–88) by John Fry and Ulla Ressner, worklife researchers at the Centre for Swedish Working Life (Arbetslivscentrum) and published in Sweden in 1988 by Allmäna Förlaget, Stockholm (332 pp) under the title "Social Revision av ett Ämbetsverk".[1] It was the result of a three-year study of Sweden's central bureaucracy - The National Labour Market Board (Arbetsförmedlingen). The study was based on interviews and questionnaires with over 1,000 employees at all levels of the organisation throughout the country and became the subject of debate in the Swedish Riksdag (Parliament).[2] Its focus was to assess the correspondence between the work experiences of employees and management on the one hand, and the legislated and collectively agreed upon objectives for service, work environmental and managerial policies in its established definition of effectivity in the workplace. In short, it was an assessment of the institutionalisation of a Democratic Rationality. That critical research resulted in the two researchers being relieved of their permanent positions with the Swedish research institution and paid by the Swedish state to leave Sweden to immigrate to Canada in August 1990.[3]

The term Social audit was also later used to refer to a form of citizen participation that focuses on government performance and accountability. In that context, a social audit is a way of measuring, understanding, reporting and ultimately improving an organization's social and ethical performance. It is qualitatively different from other forms of audit and citizen participation, whose main purpose is to express citizen's voice and promote a more inclusive government, such as public demonstrations, advocacy and lobbying and/or public hearing initiatives.[4]

The central objective of such a social audit is to monitor, track, analyze, and evaluate government performance, thus making public officials accountable for their actions and decisions. As an evaluation of government performance, a social audit exercise can be considered a mechanism of social oversight: that is, the control that citizens can exert on their government officials to ensure that they act transparently, responsibly and effectively.[4]

Social auditing plays various roles. Social audit processes can help focus on bad government performance and/or behaviour and also by denouncing corrupt public officials or disseminating information about a public officials’ asset declaration before an election. A social audit can also significantly contribute to inform the government about the potential impact and consequences of public policies. Moreover, a social audit can also play a critical role in keeping the community informed about government policies and actions and in articulating citizens’ demands and needs that might not be otherwise transmitted through more regular channels, such as elections.[4]

Social audit activities can help measure public policy consistency between promises and actual results. Verifying consistency between plans/programs/policies and actual results can lead to improvements in many governance areas, and can translate into economic and social benefits. It can also play a critical role as an anticorruption tool in preventing corrupt practices and/or in providing evidence to expose wrongdoings. Ultimately, social audit paves the way to strengthen trust and confidence in the democratic governance process.[4]

Background edit

 
The process of a social audit

It is also a way of measuring, understanding, reporting and ultimately improving an organization's social and ethical performance. It as a term was used as far back as the 1950s. There has been a flurry of activity and interest in India and neighboring countries since the 1990s. It is based on the principle that democratic governance should be carried out, as far as possible, with the consent and understanding of all concerned. It is thus a process and not an event.[5]

Civil society organisations (CSOs), non-governmental organisations (NGOs), political representatives, civil servants and workers of Dungarpur district of Rajasthan and Anantapur district of Andhra Pradesh collectively organise such social audits to prevent mass corruption under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).[6]

A grass roots organisation of Rajasthan, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) is believed to have used the concept of the social audit while fighting corruption in the public works in the early 1990s. As the corruption is attributed to the secrecy in governance, the 'Jansunwai' or public hearing and the right to information (RTI), enacted in 2005, are used to fight this secrecy.[7] Official records obtained using RTI are read out at the public hearing to identify and rectify irregularities. "This process of reviewing official records and determining whether state reported expenditures reflect the actual monies spent on the ground is referred to as a social audit."[8] Participation of informed citizens promotes collective responsibility and awareness about entitlements.[9]

Dungarpur district of Rajasthan edit

The mass social audit under the employment guarantee scheme in Dungarpur is the most significant feature of the first phase of implementation of the NREGA in India. Launched on 2 February 2006, the first phase of the NREGA implementation included Dungarpur as one of 200 districts of India. A district in the poor tribal belt of southern Rajasthan, Dungarpur is also the birthplace of the Right to Information movement in India. People take a foot march called 'Padayatra' with the aim of spreading awareness across 237 panchayats (rural self-government institutions) of Dungarpur employing 150,000 labourers at 1,700 worksites, about half of rural households belonging to Below Poverty Line (BPL) group in Census 2001.[10]

Two factors are believed to be responsible for making the social audit a reality in Rajasthan: first, the presence of activist groups that monitored the public money spent on drought and relief works; and second, the involvement of the working class in demanding employment as an entitlement. Moreover, for the first time in a public programme, the NREGA includes transparency and public scrutiny as the statutory provisions under Section 23 and Section 17 respectively (as outlined in Chapter 11 of the NREGA Operational Guidelines).[11][12]

These social audits highlight: a significant demand for the NREGA, less than 2 per cent corruption in the form of fudging of muster rolls, building the water harvesting infrastructure as the first priority in the drought-prone district, reduction of out-migration, and above all the women participation of more than 80 per cent in the employment guarantee scheme. The need for effective management of tasks, timely payment of wages and provision of support facilities at work sites is also emphasised.[13][14]

Anantapur district of Andhra Pradesh edit

Across all 13 districts of Andhra Pradesh under NREGA, 54 social audits are conducted every month starting from July 2006. The scale and frequency of social audits on NREGA works in Andhra Pradesh are the first in India.[15] Under National Food For Work Programme (NFFWP), before NREGA, AP received more than 3 million tonnes of rice between September 2001 and July 2002, enough to feed twenty million workers for nearly a year, with a market value of Rs 30 billion or $65 million.[16][17] Due to ineffective mechanisms for limiting corruption, the 2001–2 NFFWP in AP was a failure. It was recommended that the checks and controls must be built into the design of such programmes.[18] Section 17 of the NREGA mandates the regular conduct of social audits on all aspects of the scheme.[19]

Initially, in collaboration with MKSS and ActionAid, the Department of Rural Development (DoRD) of Andhra Pradesh assisted the social audit process through the Strategy and Performance Innovation Unit (SPIU). Since May 2009, the Society for Social Audits Accountability and Transparency (SSAAT), an autonomous body, is responsible for the conduct of social audits in the state.[20] While the director of the SPIU was a civil servant, the director of SSAAT is an activist.[21][22][23] In January 2011, Andhra Pradesh introduced a separate vigilance cell in the Rural Development Department to ensure follow up and enforcement of social audit findings.[24]

In Andhra Pradesh, after DoRD and SSAAT, the management structure consists of state resource persons (SRPs), district resource persons (DRPs), and the village social auditors (VSAs). The SRPs identify and train the DRPs who in turn identify and train the VSAs. While the SRPs manage daily activities like scheduling the social audit, contacting district officials, ensuring follow up and enforcement of social audit findings, the DRPs manage the actual conduct of the social audit, for instance, filing RTI applications, and contacting the 'Mandal' level officials to organise logistics and public hearing. To conduct the actual social audit, the volunteers among the NREGA beneficiaries are selected from 'gram sabhas' or village assemblies by DRPs.[25]

An application under the RTI to access relevant official documents is the first step of the social audit. Then the management personnel of the social audit verify these official records by conducting field visits. Finally, the 'Jansunwai' or public hearing is organised at two levels: the Panchayat or village level and the Mandal level. The direct public debate involving the beneficiaries, political representatives, civil servants and, above all, the government officers responsible for implementing the NREGA works highlights corruption like the practice of rigging muster rolls (attendance registers) and also generates public awareness about the scheme. [26]

To assess the effectiveness of the mass social audits on NREGA works in Andhra Pradesh, a World Bank study investigated the effect of the social audit on the level of public awareness about NREGA, its effect on the NREGA implementation, and its efficacy as a grievance redressal mechanism. The study found that the public awareness about the NREGA increased from about 30 per cent before the social audit to about 99 per cent after the social audit. Further, the efficacy of NREGA implementation increased from an average of about 60 per cent to about 97 per cent. Finally, the effectiveness of the social audit as a grievance redressal mechanism was measured to be around 80 per cent.[27][28]

See also edit

References edit

  1. ^ http://libris.kb.se/bib/7269108, see also Dagens Nyheter 1/8/1987 'Stora Problem på AMS
  2. ^ "Riksdagens protokoll 1987/88:16 Protokoll 1987/88:16 - Riksdagen".
  3. ^ See: Radio Sweden September 1990 “Good Morning World” reportage as well as the article:“Black-listed in Sweden: Critical researchers gagged” in the Swedish newspaper ‘Arbetaren nr 24/1 1992’, and 'Good Girls go to heaven, where do the rest go?' in Vi Människor Nr. 3, 1992
  4. ^ a b c d Andersson, Lena (2020), What is Social Audit?, Europe-Georgia Institute, Malmö University, Swedish Institute
  5. ^ "4. Training module on social audit".
  6. ^ Dobhal, Harsh (2011). Writings on Human Rights, Law, and Society in India: A Combat Law Anthology : Selections from Combat Law, 2002–2010. Socio Legal Information Cent. p. 420. ISBN 978-81-89479-78-7.
  7. ^ Goetz, A.M and Jenkins J, "Accounts and Accountability: Theoretical Implications of the Right to Information Movement in India", 1999, Third World Quarterly, 20(3).
  8. ^ Aiyar, Yamini and Samji, Salimah, "Transparency and Accountability in NREGA – A Case Study of Andhra Pradesh 29 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine", Accountability Initiative, 1 February 2009, pages 8–9.
  9. ^ Chandoke, N, "Engaging with Civil Society: The democratic Perspective", Non‐governmental Public Action Program, 2007, Center for Civil Society, London School of Economics and Political Science
  10. ^ Dobhal, Harsh (2011). Writings on Human Rights, Law, and Society in India: A Combat Law Anthology : Selections from Combat Law, 2002–2010. Socio Legal Information Cent. pp. 419–422. ISBN 978-81-89479-78-7.
  11. ^ "The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 (NREGA) – Operational Guidelines." 11. Transparency and Accountability: Public Vigilance and Social Audits: Chapter 11, page 55. Nrega.
  12. ^ Sivakumar, Sowmya K., "Walking with a purpose", Frontline, 23(9): 6–19 May 2006, Retrieved: 25 October 2013.
  13. ^ Malekar, Anosh (21 May 2006). . InfoChange News & Features. Archived from the original on 26 October 2013. Retrieved 25 October 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  14. ^ Ghildiyal, Subodh (11 June 2006). . The Times of India. Archived from the original on 29 October 2013. Retrieved 25 October 2013.
  15. ^ Aiyar, Yamini and Samji, Salimah, "Transparency and Accountability in NREGA – A Case Study of Andhra Pradesh 29 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine", Accountability Initiative, 1 February 2009, page 12.
  16. ^ Deshingkar, Priya and Johnson, Craig, "State Transfers to the Poor and Back: The Case of the Food for Work Programme in Andhra Pradesh", Overseas Development Institute:London, August 2003, page 1.
  17. ^ Farooq, Omer (23 August 2002). "India corruption row halts food aid". BBC News. Retrieved 25 October 2013.
  18. ^ Deshingkar, Priya and Johnson, Craig, "State Transfers to the Poor and Back: The Case of the Food for Work Programme in Andhra Pradesh", Overseas Development Institute:London, August 2003, page 29.
  19. ^ "The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 (NREGA) – Operational Guidelines." 11. Transparency and Accountability: Public Vigilance and Social Audits: Section 17, page 60. Nrega.
  20. ^ Subbarao, Kalanidhi; Ninno, Carlo del; Andrews, Colin; Claudia Rodríguez-Alas (11 December 2012). Public Works as a Safety Net: Design, Evidence, and Implementation. World Bank Publications. pp. 254–256. ISBN 978-0-8213-9461-8.
  21. ^ Aakella, K. V. and S. Kidambi (2007), “Social audits in Andhra Pradesh: A Process in evolution, "Economic and Political Weekly,42 (47)
  22. ^ Bharadwaj, Kritika "Interview with SSAAT on the Indian Mid Day Meal Scheme" The World Outline, 13 August 2013
  23. ^ "Social Audits Accountability and Transparency (SSAAT)" Retrieved 26 October 2013
  24. ^ "Transparency in Action" WorldBank, East Asia Pacific, Retrieved 26 October 2013
  25. ^ Akella, K and Kidambi, S (2007) "Social Audits in Andhra Pradesh: A process in evolution" Economic and Political Weekly, November 2007, Retrieved 26 October 2013
  26. ^ Aiyar, Yamini and Samji, Salimah, "Transparency and Accountability in NREGA – A Case Study of Andhra Pradesh 29 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine", Accountability Initiative, 1 February 2009, pages 12–16.
  27. ^ Pokharel, Atul; Aiyar, Yamini; Samji, Salimah (2008) "Social Audits: from ignorance to awareness. The AP experience 29 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine" World Bank, Intellecap and SPIU (AP govt), 1 February 2008, Retrieved 26 October 2013.
  28. ^ Aiyar, Yamini and Samji, Salimah, "Transparency and Accountability in NREGA – A Case Study of Andhra Pradesh 29 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine", Accountability Initiative, 1 February 2009, pages 17–23.

External links edit

December 15, 2023
social, audit, this, article, multiple, issues, please, help, improve, discuss, these, issues, talk, page, learn, when, remove, these, template, messages, article, lead, section, need, rewritten, please, help, improve, lead, read, lead, layout, guide, april, 2. This article has multiple issues Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page Learn how and when to remove these template messages The article s lead section may need to be rewritten Please help improve the lead and read the lead layout guide April 2022 Learn how and when to remove this template message This article s lead section contains information that is not included elsewhere in the article Please help improve the lead April 2022 Learn how and when to remove this template message The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject You may improve this article discuss the issue on the talk page or create a new article as appropriate April 2022 Learn how and when to remove this template message Learn how and when to remove this template message The first Social Audit was carried out in Sweden 1985 88 by John Fry and Ulla Ressner worklife researchers at the Centre for Swedish Working Life Arbetslivscentrum and published in Sweden in 1988 by Allmana Forlaget Stockholm 332 pp under the title Social Revision av ett Ambetsverk 1 It was the result of a three year study of Sweden s central bureaucracy The National Labour Market Board Arbetsformedlingen The study was based on interviews and questionnaires with over 1 000 employees at all levels of the organisation throughout the country and became the subject of debate in the Swedish Riksdag Parliament 2 Its focus was to assess the correspondence between the work experiences of employees and management on the one hand and the legislated and collectively agreed upon objectives for service work environmental and managerial policies in its established definition of effectivity in the workplace In short it was an assessment of the institutionalisation of a Democratic Rationality That critical research resulted in the two researchers being relieved of their permanent positions with the Swedish research institution and paid by the Swedish state to leave Sweden to immigrate to Canada in August 1990 3 The term Social audit was also later used to refer to a form of citizen participation that focuses on government performance and accountability In that context a social audit is a way of measuring understanding reporting and ultimately improving an organization s social and ethical performance It is qualitatively different from other forms of audit and citizen participation whose main purpose is to express citizen s voice and promote a more inclusive government such as public demonstrations advocacy and lobbying and or public hearing initiatives 4 The central objective of such a social audit is to monitor track analyze and evaluate government performance thus making public officials accountable for their actions and decisions As an evaluation of government performance a social audit exercise can be considered a mechanism of social oversight that is the control that citizens can exert on their government officials to ensure that they act transparently responsibly and effectively 4 Social auditing plays various roles Social audit processes can help focus on bad government performance and or behaviour and also by denouncing corrupt public officials or disseminating information about a public officials asset declaration before an election A social audit can also significantly contribute to inform the government about the potential impact and consequences of public policies Moreover a social audit can also play a critical role in keeping the community informed about government policies and actions and in articulating citizens demands and needs that might not be otherwise transmitted through more regular channels such as elections 4 Social audit activities can help measure public policy consistency between promises and actual results Verifying consistency between plans programs policies and actual results can lead to improvements in many governance areas and can translate into economic and social benefits It can also play a critical role as an anticorruption tool in preventing corrupt practices and or in providing evidence to expose wrongdoings Ultimately social audit paves the way to strengthen trust and confidence in the democratic governance process 4 Contents 1 Background 2 Dungarpur district of Rajasthan 3 Anantapur district of Andhra Pradesh 4 See also 5 References 6 External linksBackground edit nbsp The process of a social auditIt is also a way of measuring understanding reporting and ultimately improving an organization s social and ethical performance It as a term was used as far back as the 1950s There has been a flurry of activity and interest in India and neighboring countries since the 1990s It is based on the principle that democratic governance should be carried out as far as possible with the consent and understanding of all concerned It is thus a process and not an event 5 Civil society organisations CSOs non governmental organisations NGOs political representatives civil servants and workers of Dungarpur district of Rajasthan and Anantapur district of Andhra Pradesh collectively organise such social audits to prevent mass corruption under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act MGNREGA 6 A grass roots organisation of Rajasthan Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan MKSS is believed to have used the concept of the social audit while fighting corruption in the public works in the early 1990s As the corruption is attributed to the secrecy in governance the Jansunwai or public hearing and the right to information RTI enacted in 2005 are used to fight this secrecy 7 Official records obtained using RTI are read out at the public hearing to identify and rectify irregularities This process of reviewing official records and determining whether state reported expenditures reflect the actual monies spent on the ground is referred to as a social audit 8 Participation of informed citizens promotes collective responsibility and awareness about entitlements 9 Dungarpur district of Rajasthan editThe mass social audit under the employment guarantee scheme in Dungarpur is the most significant feature of the first phase of implementation of the NREGA in India Launched on 2 February 2006 the first phase of the NREGA implementation included Dungarpur as one of 200 districts of India A district in the poor tribal belt of southern Rajasthan Dungarpur is also the birthplace of the Right to Information movement in India People take a foot march called Padayatra with the aim of spreading awareness across 237 panchayats rural self government institutions of Dungarpur employing 150 000 labourers at 1 700 worksites about half of rural households belonging to Below Poverty Line BPL group in Census 2001 10 Two factors are believed to be responsible for making the social audit a reality in Rajasthan first the presence of activist groups that monitored the public money spent on drought and relief works and second the involvement of the working class in demanding employment as an entitlement Moreover for the first time in a public programme the NREGA includes transparency and public scrutiny as the statutory provisions under Section 23 and Section 17 respectively as outlined in Chapter 11 of the NREGA Operational Guidelines 11 12 These social audits highlight a significant demand for the NREGA less than 2 per cent corruption in the form of fudging of muster rolls building the water harvesting infrastructure as the first priority in the drought prone district reduction of out migration and above all the women participation of more than 80 per cent in the employment guarantee scheme The need for effective management of tasks timely payment of wages and provision of support facilities at work sites is also emphasised 13 14 Anantapur district of Andhra Pradesh editAcross all 13 districts of Andhra Pradesh under NREGA 54 social audits are conducted every month starting from July 2006 The scale and frequency of social audits on NREGA works in Andhra Pradesh are the first in India 15 Under National Food For Work Programme NFFWP before NREGA AP received more than 3 million tonnes of rice between September 2001 and July 2002 enough to feed twenty million workers for nearly a year with a market value of Rs 30 billion or 65 million 16 17 Due to ineffective mechanisms for limiting corruption the 2001 2 NFFWP in AP was a failure It was recommended that the checks and controls must be built into the design of such programmes 18 Section 17 of the NREGA mandates the regular conduct of social audits on all aspects of the scheme 19 Initially in collaboration with MKSS and ActionAid the Department of Rural Development DoRD of Andhra Pradesh assisted the social audit process through the Strategy and Performance Innovation Unit SPIU Since May 2009 the Society for Social Audits Accountability and Transparency SSAAT an autonomous body is responsible for the conduct of social audits in the state 20 While the director of the SPIU was a civil servant the director of SSAAT is an activist 21 22 23 In January 2011 Andhra Pradesh introduced a separate vigilance cell in the Rural Development Department to ensure follow up and enforcement of social audit findings 24 In Andhra Pradesh after DoRD and SSAAT the management structure consists of state resource persons SRPs district resource persons DRPs and the village social auditors VSAs The SRPs identify and train the DRPs who in turn identify and train the VSAs While the SRPs manage daily activities like scheduling the social audit contacting district officials ensuring follow up and enforcement of social audit findings the DRPs manage the actual conduct of the social audit for instance filing RTI applications and contacting the Mandal level officials to organise logistics and public hearing To conduct the actual social audit the volunteers among the NREGA beneficiaries are selected from gram sabhas or village assemblies by DRPs 25 An application under the RTI to access relevant official documents is the first step of the social audit Then the management personnel of the social audit verify these official records by conducting field visits Finally the Jansunwai or public hearing is organised at two levels the Panchayat or village level and the Mandal level The direct public debate involving the beneficiaries political representatives civil servants and above all the government officers responsible for implementing the NREGA works highlights corruption like the practice of rigging muster rolls attendance registers and also generates public awareness about the scheme 26 To assess the effectiveness of the mass social audits on NREGA works in Andhra Pradesh a World Bank study investigated the effect of the social audit on the level of public awareness about NREGA its effect on the NREGA implementation and its efficacy as a grievance redressal mechanism The study found that the public awareness about the NREGA increased from about 30 per cent before the social audit to about 99 per cent after the social audit Further the efficacy of NREGA implementation increased from an average of about 60 per cent to about 97 per cent Finally the effectiveness of the social audit as a grievance redressal mechanism was measured to be around 80 per cent 27 28 See also editMGNREGA Economy of India Economic development in India Poverty in IndiaReferences edit http libris kb se bib 7269108 see also Dagens Nyheter 1 8 1987 Stora Problem pa AMS Riksdagens protokoll 1987 88 16 Protokoll 1987 88 16 Riksdagen See Radio Sweden September 1990 Good Morning World reportage as well as the article Black listed in Sweden Critical researchers gagged in the Swedish newspaper Arbetaren nr 24 1 1992 and Good Girls go to heaven where do the rest go in Vi Manniskor Nr 3 1992 a b c d Andersson Lena 2020 What is Social Audit Europe Georgia Institute Malmo University Swedish Institute 4 Training module on social audit Dobhal Harsh 2011 Writings on Human Rights Law and Society in India A Combat Law Anthology Selections from Combat Law 2002 2010 Socio Legal Information Cent p 420 ISBN 978 81 89479 78 7 Goetz A M and Jenkins J Accounts and Accountability Theoretical Implications of the Right to Information Movement in India 1999 Third World Quarterly 20 3 Aiyar Yamini and Samji Salimah Transparency and Accountability in NREGA A Case Study of Andhra Pradesh Archived 29 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine Accountability Initiative 1 February 2009 pages 8 9 Chandoke N Engaging with Civil Society The democratic Perspective Non governmental Public Action Program 2007 Center for Civil Society London School of Economics and Political Science Dobhal Harsh 2011 Writings on Human Rights Law and Society in India A Combat Law Anthology Selections from Combat Law 2002 2010 Socio Legal Information Cent pp 419 422 ISBN 978 81 89479 78 7 The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 NREGA Operational Guidelines 11 Transparency and Accountability Public Vigilance and Social Audits Chapter 11 page 55 Nrega Sivakumar Sowmya K Walking with a purpose Frontline 23 9 6 19 May 2006 Retrieved 25 October 2013 Malekar Anosh 21 May 2006 The big hope Transparency marks the NREGA in Dungarpur InfoChange News amp Features Archived from the original on 26 October 2013 Retrieved 25 October 2013 a href Template Cite web html title Template Cite web cite web a CS1 maint unfit URL link Ghildiyal Subodh 11 June 2006 More women opt for rural job scheme in Rajasthan The Times of India Archived from the original on 29 October 2013 Retrieved 25 October 2013 Aiyar Yamini and Samji Salimah Transparency and Accountability in NREGA A Case Study of Andhra Pradesh Archived 29 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine Accountability Initiative 1 February 2009 page 12 Deshingkar Priya and Johnson Craig State Transfers to the Poor and Back The Case of the Food for Work Programme in Andhra Pradesh Overseas Development Institute London August 2003 page 1 Farooq Omer 23 August 2002 India corruption row halts food aid BBC News Retrieved 25 October 2013 Deshingkar Priya and Johnson Craig State Transfers to the Poor and Back The Case of the Food for Work Programme in Andhra Pradesh Overseas Development Institute London August 2003 page 29 The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 NREGA Operational Guidelines 11 Transparency and Accountability Public Vigilance and Social Audits Section 17 page 60 Nrega Subbarao Kalanidhi Ninno Carlo del Andrews Colin Claudia Rodriguez Alas 11 December 2012 Public Works as a Safety Net Design Evidence and Implementation World Bank Publications pp 254 256 ISBN 978 0 8213 9461 8 Aakella K V and S Kidambi 2007 Social audits in Andhra Pradesh A Process in evolution Economic and Political Weekly 42 47 Bharadwaj Kritika Interview with SSAAT on the Indian Mid Day Meal Scheme The World Outline 13 August 2013 Social Audits Accountability and Transparency SSAAT Retrieved 26 October 2013 Transparency in Action WorldBank East Asia Pacific Retrieved 26 October 2013 Akella K and Kidambi S 2007 Social Audits in Andhra Pradesh A process in evolution Economic and Political Weekly November 2007 Retrieved 26 October 2013 Aiyar Yamini and Samji Salimah Transparency and Accountability in NREGA A Case Study of Andhra Pradesh Archived 29 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine Accountability Initiative 1 February 2009 pages 12 16 Pokharel Atul Aiyar Yamini Samji Salimah 2008 Social Audits from ignorance to awareness The AP experience Archived 29 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine World Bank Intellecap and SPIU AP govt 1 February 2008 Retrieved 26 October 2013 Aiyar Yamini and Samji Salimah Transparency and Accountability in NREGA A Case Study of Andhra Pradesh Archived 29 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine Accountability Initiative 1 February 2009 pages 17 23 External links editAndersson Lena 2020 What is Social Audit Europe Georgia Institute Malmo University Swedish Institute Report of the CAG on Performance Audit of MGNREGA Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act MGNREGA Reports of the Planning Commission on NREGA Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Social audit amp oldid 1184515388, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.