By Our Reporter
The government’s newly unveiled policy and program document carries a familiar tone. It promises reform, talks about growth, highlights a few priority sectors, and paints a hopeful picture of Nepal moving toward middle-income status. On paper, it sounds like movement. In practice, the bigger question remains the same one that has haunted nearly every policy announcement in recent years: who will carry it out, how, and by when? That part, inconveniently, still looks foggy.
This year’s document does contain some encouraging aspects. It speaks of lowering production costs, making the economy more competitive, and giving greater attention to sectors such as information technology, green energy, agriculture, and hydropower. These are not trivial priorities. Nepal needs exactly these sectors to expand if it wants to create jobs, raise exports, and stop sending so many young workers abroad. The country cannot build a stronger economy by relying forever on remittances and imports while pretending that hope is a development model.
Still, the core criticism is hard to ignore. The policy outlines where the government wants to go, but it says very little about the route. That matters. Economic transformation does not happen because a document uses the word “transformation” several times. It happens when the state aligns laws, institutions, investment channels, and bureaucracy around a common purpose. Nepal has struggled with that for years. Ministries often work in silos. Regulations overlap. Projects stall because one office waits for approval from another office, which is waiting for a committee that has not met since some forgotten Tuesday.
The document’s biggest weakness is not lack of ideas. It is lack of integration. Prioritizing information technology is useful, but what does that mean without skilled workforce planning, export incentives, digital infrastructure, and reliable power? Promoting green economy sounds admirable, but where is the financing framework for private investment? Calling agriculture a priority is almost ceremonial at this point. Every government says it. Farmers, meanwhile, still deal with poor irrigation, weak market access, and middlemen who somehow earn more than the people growing the food. A miracle of economics, apparently.
Another major concern lies in what the policy leaves unsaid. It avoids serious discussion on restructuring bloated state institutions or reducing recurrent public spending. Nepal’s public expenditure continues to tilt heavily toward salaries, administration, and routine spending rather than capital investment. Without changing that balance, ambitious growth targets become decorative. A government cannot promise structural reform while carefully sidestepping the structure.
The timing also makes the omission more glaring. Inflation has squeezed households for months. Consumer confidence remains weak. Businesses are hesitant to expand. At the same time, banks are sitting on a large pool of investable liquidity that is not flowing into productive sectors. This should be a moment for a sharp policy push to connect idle capital with enterprise, manufacturing, and infrastructure. Yet the current framework does not clearly explain how that money will move into the real economy. The gap between available funds and actual investment remains one of the strangest features of Nepal’s economy: money exists, but trust does not.
That trust deficit matters more than any single tax policy. The private sector is cautious, not because it lacks interest, but because it has seen too many policy shifts, delays, and political distractions. Investors do not need grand speeches. They need consistency. If a project approval takes years, if contracts get stalled in procedural limbo, and if rules change midway, no amount of promotional slogans will attract serious domestic or foreign investment.
Some measures in the new policy could help. Tax relief for parts of the middle class may boost spending. Efforts to curb under-invoicing could improve revenue collection. New flexibility in hydropower and electricity trade could open investment opportunities. These are useful steps. But they remain fragments. Fragments do not create transformation. A coherent national strategy does.
That is the real test now. Nepal does not suffer from a shortage of plans. It suffers from policy fatigue. Citizens have heard too many announcements that never moved beyond press releases. The government now has a chance to prove that this year will be different, but only if it shifts from declaration to delivery.
The upcoming budget must fill the missing gaps. It should identify clear sector targets, deadlines, institutional responsibilities, and measurable outcomes. More importantly, the government must show political discipline to follow through after the applause in parliament fades. Reform begins with policy. Transformation begins with implementation. Nepal has had enough of the first. It urgently needs the second.
Login to add a comment