A Critical Evaluation of PMGSY Implementation in Haryana: Policy, Funding, and Execution Challenges

Abstract

The Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY), launched in 2000, has been one of India’s flagship programs aimed at enhancing rural connectivity and inclusive growth. Despite its nationwide success, the implementation trajectory across states reveals significant disparities. This paper critically evaluates PMGSY implementation in Haryana during 2016–2023, focusing on policy design, fund utilization, execution quality, and institutional accountability. Haryana, despite its above-average road density and receipt of over ₹2,500 crores under PMGSY, continues to underperform relative to neighbouring states such as Punjab and Rajasthan. The study employs a mixed-method research design combining quantitative analysis of secondary data with qualitative case studies from Bhiwani and Hisar districts. Data were sourced from the Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD), the National Rural Infrastructure Development Agency (NRIDA), Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) reports, and Haryana Statistical Abstracts. Analytical tools include inter-district comparison, fund-utilization efficiency ratios, content analysis of implementation documents, and field-level policy matrix evaluation. Comparative benchmarking with Punjab and Rajasthan is used to contextualize Haryana’s performance. The results demonstrate persistent implementation inefficiencies and governance gaps. Between 2016 and 2023, fund utilization in Haryana fluctuated between 76 and 90 percent, accompanied by disbursement delays of up to eight months. Only 47.2 percent of the targeted rural roads were completed, compared to 89 percent in Punjab and 93.5 percent in Rajasthan. Quality-control issues affected nearly 18 percent of projects, indicating weak contractor supervision and limited third-party auditing. Despite digital governance tools like OMMAS, real-time monitoring and e-accounting systems remain underused. District-level evidence from Bhiwani and Hisar further reveals that local fiscal bottlenecks, weak institutional coordination, and delayed state contributions have hindered progress. In Bhiwani, only 67 percent of allocated funds were utilized, with poor drainage and design deficiencies causing early road deterioration. In Hisar, 62.7 percent of targeted works were completed, but overlapping expenditures with other schemes and manual record-keeping reduced transparency. The social implications are severe: school dropout rates rose in remote areas due to poor accessibility, while transport costs for marginal farmers increased by 15–18 percent, limiting their access to agri-markets. The study argues that Haryana’s PMGSY experience reflects systemic governance failures rather than financial inadequacy. The findings emphasize the necessity of decentralizing planning to empower Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) and ensuring participatory decision-making. Policy recommendations include (i) strengthening local governance and Gram Sabha involvement, (ii) institutionalizing third-party audits and performance-linked funding, (iii) integrating gender-sensitive and climate-resilient road designs, (iv) establishing a dedicated post-construction maintenance fund, and (v) aligning PMGSY objectives with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 9, 11, and 13. By situating Haryana’s case within the broader discourse of fiscal federalism and rural governance, the paper underscores that infrastructural development must transcend expenditure efficiency to encompass institutional reform and community accountability. Aligning PMGSY with sustainability indicators and leveraging digital monitoring can bridge the state’s rural infrastructure gap and enhance socio-economic mobility. The study thus contributes to the evolving debate on rural road governance by providing evidence-based insights for policymakers and development economists seeking to make rural connectivity more inclusive, transparent, and future-ready.