Submit your Article

Nepal has been captivated by cautious optimism following the electoral victory of Balendra Shah and the RSP, instilling a renewed sense of possibility in governance and the broader polity. However, this moment is a critical juncture: ensuring that this new era of alternative politics doesn’t make the same mistakes as the past—as governance is ultimately guided by the policies this upcoming government chooses to pursue.

RSP’s political campaign concentrated heavily on governance—drawing on citizen experiences with administrative staff, lapses in policy implementation, or overall vacuous policymaking. In the past, policy debates have centered around observable relationships—for example, how expedited transportation networks will lead to rapid economic growth. It’s understandable how this is appealing, we’re hardwired to identifying developed cities with clean and wide roads. However, places with pre-existing growth trends consistently attract better infrastructure, and as a result—better developed road networks. This ambiguity in causality is rarely acknowledged as we’ve stopped at observational correlation to apply a temporary band-aid—disregarding underlying issues. 

This isn’t restricted to just road networks—policy debates have consistently centered around visible relationships—patterns that appear obvious but aren’t structurally understood. In most cases, cause and effect move both ways—we can’t isolate road networks from economic activity, nor the other way around. This ambiguity is further complicated by other underlying factors—affecting both transportation and economic networks. This form of misidentified causality ultimately fails to address policy targets and might even cause unintended negative externalities. This misidentification is not strictly an individual or political problem at the core—it’s simply about adjusting our approach to policymaking. We need to be able to establish clear causality in complex systems where observable relationships are not accounting for endogenous dynamics underneath. This can be done if policymaking is guided by thorough analysis: comparing regions with or without the policy, testing policies through randomized controlled trials (RCTs) before implementing broad scale reform and quantitatively tracking variance across implementation contexts. This will require recalibrating usual policymaking but will provide much higher returns on government effort and expenditure—resulting in effective outcomes and avoiding unintended harms.

This recalibrated policymaking can come into effect with our concerns over low exports—generally attributed to weak governance institutions or an unstable oversight mechanism. However, this relationship could very well run in the opposite direction—successful exporting industries or business communities could have instead led to the development of strong institutions and increased oversight to guarantee quality. Policymakers are challenged to distinguish between these explanations. Here is where government policies need to avoid blanket approaches and check for sectoral variation, difference-in-differences with policies already in place, and natural quasi-experimental variation with untreated regions. The results will allow policymakers to understand what actually drives exports, avoid allocating resources to unfocused reforms, and focus on interventions that actually improve export performance. 

This strategy needs to expand well beyond export policy—observable outcomes in society are a result of broader equilibria shaped by interacting forces, and bad policy has often reinforced these underlying equilibria. We have consistently chased after symptoms instead of addressing root causes—what we observe are outcomes, not explanations. This political moment provides us with an opportunity to change this approach—a critical juncture as to how we decide to move forward.

The RSP has made efficient governance and expert policymaking a core electoral tenet—raising both opportunity and expectations from these new political actors. Our policies have largely been concentrated around observable relationships and unclear causality—an issue that isn’t fixed just by better policy design, but rather by a better understanding of what drives outcomes. The success of this electoral shift will depend not just on new policies, but rather on how carefully the outcomes of these new policies are understood. 

It has become a trend of sorts for government officials to write books after their retirement. The seasoned bureaucrats put their years of experience and expertise into writing. Nepal Ma Udarbad, Prayog Ra Parinam (‘Liberalism in Nepal: Experiments & Results’) is one such book written by former auditor general and finance secretary Bhanu Prasad Acharya.

The book is not just a record of the author’s experiences, as he clarifies in the introduction. Launched a few months ago, the book is a compilation of different dimensions of the country’s tryst with liberalism. The author also introduces to the readers semantic politics—an area that deserves more discussion.

There have been many debates about liberalism in Nepal. But there have been very few free and fair ones as people tend to interpret it in their own ways. We often hear that economic liberalism started in Nepal after the 1990 political changes has not benefited the country. The author subtlely poses the question of whether it is liberalism or its practitioners who should be blamed for its supposed failure in Nepal.

Acharya mostly treads on neutral ground. His experiences as the auditor general and the finance secretary are most impartially presented. Perhaps the book would have been more enjoyable had he also talked about some of his personal challenges. But he doesn’t, but neither does he resort to slandering or accusing anyone.

The book is divided into eight sections, with each except the last containing theoretical information. Before entering a subject, the author lays out historical evidence and theoretical background. He often quotes world-renowned economists, philosophers and politicians on most of the topics, which shows his skills as an investigator and researcher. The author's tireless work is also reflected in the list of references. Reading the 469-page-book is a breeze given its use of simple words and its easy presentation style, which should also make it useful for students.

Acharya has done a good job of showing the relation between liberalism and its practitioners, and explaining the development of liberalism, the role of public and private sectors in liberalism, the politics of foreign aid, and public financial accountability.

In the second chapter the author discusses industry and trade under economic liberalization. The efforts of India and China in economic reform, experience of privatization and its weaknesses, and development of the private sector are also highlighted. The history of Nepal’s WTO membership is examined in detail, as are the ensuing economic reforms.

The writer has provided detailed information on foreign investment in Nepal, liberalization in trade and service sectors, and protection of intellectual property rights. Some other interesting topics include: the role of regulatory bodies, the parallel economy (black market), and dissatisfaction with liberal policy implementation. But readers may not find detailed information on these popular topics.

In subsequent chapters, the author discusses liberalization of the financial sector, bad debts, and donor interest. Contemporary examples help us understand about syndicates, revenue, and the efforts and challenges of liberalization in health and education.

Another strength of this book is the use of data. The author has ample statistics to back his arguments. He could have added his own ideas based on experience, but he doesn’t. Instead, he makes the book rich by combining various theories and facts.

There are two additional sections on the author’s experiences as the auditor general experience and while working in the Nepali bureaucracy. Although the information is useful, it has not been analyzed in connection with liberalism. Toward the end of the book, the author also discusses his experiences with former prime minister Marichman Singh Shrestha and former finance minister Dr. Yadav Prasad. They are interesting too albeit irrelevant to the topic at hand.

In the last part of the book, the author offers some suggestions. Emphasizing the importance of a liberal state, he suggests focusing on institutional development and state-building. He brings up general issues such as respecting a person’s merits, investing in education, and ensuring accountability. He emphasizes a change of mindset and going beyond conventional ways to understand development.

This book is a combination of in-depth research and experience. The simple presentation of different topics will be of immense help for all students of political economy. Educational institutions can use it as a reference for the study of political science and economics.