By Our Reporter
Festivals are supposed to bring relief and celebration. For many Nepali households this year, they are instead arriving with a bigger grocery bill. Prices of food and other essentials have climbed just when household demand is rising, exposing once again how poorly Nepal manages its consumer market.
The numbers are difficult to reconcile with the government’s own claims. Industry Minister Dipak Kumar Sah told Parliament that government intervention had helped reduce prices by 10 percent. Yet retail data show prices of many essentials rising between 2 and 36 percent over six months. Coriander powder rose nearly 36 percent, coriander seeds 30 percent, white soybeans more than 21 percent and chickpea lentils 20 percent. Chicken prices have also risen sharply in recent months.
Sugar offers an even clearer picture of the disconnect. Shops advertising government backed sugar at Rs 110 per kg have reportedly run out of stock, while some retailers are charging Rs 140 to Rs 150. A government claim that prices have fallen means little to a family paying considerably more at the checkout counter.
Not every increase necessarily results from profiteering. Production costs rise. Transport becomes expensive. Supplies can tighten. Recent poultry price increases, for example, have been attributed by producers to higher feed, medicine and transport costs as well as supply constraints.
But Nepal’s recurring festival inflation cannot simply be blamed on market forces. Every year, demand rises around Dashain, Tihar and Chhath. Traders know it. Consumers know it. Most importantly, the government knows it months beforehand. Yet authorities repeatedly react after prices have already risen.
That makes the present situation particularly uncomfortable for the Balen Shah government. It came to office promising a different approach to governance. If that means anything, consumers should see the difference in how institutions work, not merely hear assurances from ministers.
Instead, the government transferred the director general of the Department of Commerce at precisely the time when market surveillance needed strong leadership. The post remained vacant while consumers entered the busiest shopping period of the year. Reports have also raised wider concerns about frequent transfers weakening market administration.
The government says monitoring continues. Minister Sah said on October 2 that violations would be punished and announced plans for data driven, risk-based monitoring. He also cited a Rs 300,000 fine imposed on state owned Salt Trading Corporation as evidence that enforcement applies to everyone. These are useful steps, but occasional inspections and fines cannot substitute for a functioning market regulation system.
The problem is structural. Nepal needs regular collection of wholesale and retail prices, scrutiny of abnormal margins, stronger supply forecasting and quick investigation when prices jump without a convincing reason. Monitoring should begin before festival demand peaks, not after consumers complain.
Government agencies should also track the journey of major essentials from importer or producer to wholesaler and retailer. If an item leaves the wholesale market at one price and reaches consumers at a sharply inflated price, regulators should be able to identify where the increase occurred.
Fair price shops can provide temporary relief, and state companies are operating subsidised outlets this festival season. But a few government counters cannot discipline an entire national market.
The Balen government promised to clean up longstanding distortions. Market regulation is a practical test of that promise. Consumers do not need ministers telling them prices have fallen when their grocery bills tell them otherwise. They need stable supplies, transparent prices and regulators willing and able to act before festival demand becomes another opportunity to squeeze household budgets.
Login to add a comment