Submit your Article

 The government is completing two years without much to show in terms of meet­ing its own economic and development targets. It promised a high growth rate and better budget execution along with sound governance and formulation as well as imple­mentation of reforms to boost investment. The government was able to pass some invest­ment and social security related bills from the parliament, but their implementation is not satisfactory. In terms of major macroeconomic indicators, the government has undershot its own targets. It promised 8 percent GDP growth in 2018/19, and has set an even more ambitious 8.5 percent target for 2019/20, and a dou­ble-digit growth in a few years. However, according to the Central Bureau of Statistics, the economy is expected to grow at just 6.8 percent at basic prices (7.1 percent at mar­ket prices) in 2018/19. Although this marks the third consecutive year of 6-plus percent growth, it is still less than the government target. It does not indicate the economy is on a solid footing with strong fundamentals. The base year effect after the slump in economic activities due to the earthquake and block­ade, and temporary fiscal stimulus related to post-earthquake reconstruction and spending during the elections, have underpinned high growth rates in past three years. Surprisingly, despite all the talk about investment-friendly laws and regulations, there was a contraction of industrial output and a decline in net for­eign direct investment.

The government is set to miss the growth target in 2019/20 too. Although the finance minister continues to assert that the gov­ernment will be able to achieve the ambi­tious milestone, the consensus forecast right now is around 6 percent. Unfavorable mon­soon together with slower than expected industrial activities are exerting downward pressure on economic activities. In addi­tion to accelerated work in major infrastruc­ture projects, the pick-up in post-earth­quake reconstruction and tourist arrivals will be crucial to sustain around 6 percent growth this fiscal.

Perpetual underachievement

The progress on the fiscal sector is also one of perpetual underachievement. While intro­ducing 2019/20 budget one-and-a-half month before the start of the fiscal year, the govern­ment promised improved budget execution, specifically capital spending, and better coor­dination in terms of planning and implemen­tation among the three tiers of government. However, the data till the second half of this year show that the pace and pattern of budget execution won’t be any different from previ­ous years. Of the Rs 408 billion earmarked for capital budget, it was able to spend less than 15 percent by the first half of 2019/20.

Further, as in the past, we will most likely see bunching of spending in the last quar­ter. The government usually spends or dis­burses about 40 percent of actual capital expenditure in the last month of fiscal, raising concerns over quality of spending and gover­nance associated with public spending. From the beginning the budget lacked a robust, credible and a time-bound implementation plan to spend the earmarked money. There was no improvement in allocative efficiency during budget preparation. The same old issues have been plaguing budget execution: structural weaknesses in project preparation and implementation, low project readiness, bureaucratic hassle in approving and reap­proving projects, poor project management and contractor capacity, high fiduciary risk in project implementation at subnational level, and political interference both at planning and operational levels.

On the revenue front, too, the government is missing its own target. Revenue growth target of around 29 percent was ambitious in the first place, but the finance minister kept asserting that it is achievable. In the second half of 2019/20, the government is facing a revenue shortfall of nearly Rs 90 billion already. Revenue mobilization has been hit by declining imports and general slowdown in industrial activities. It appears the efforts to raise tax and non-tax revenues by boosting economic activities, to plug revenue leakages, and to formalize economic activities have been inadequate. The high government spending but slow revenue growth has led to widening fiscal deficit, which is projected to be above 6 percent of GDP. This deficit binge is putting pressure on interest rates.

Bad to worse

On the monetary front, things are not rosy either. Inflation is rising and will likely over­shoot the government’s 6.5 percent target. The consumer price inflation in each of the first five months of 2019/20 was higher than in the corresponding period in 2018/19. The average inflation so far this fiscal year is 6.3 percent, much higher than 4.6 percent in the first five months of 2018/19. This is largely driven by increase in prices of food and bev­erage, vegetables, fruits and spices. Overall money supply in the economy has declined too owing to the deceleration of remittance inflows. Both deposit and credit growth have slowed, but the latter is still higher than the former. The asset-liability mismatch remains unresolved. The low level of nonperforming assets, as per central bank’s statistics, is too good to be true. Evergreening of bad loans and dubious accounting of banking assets are real possibilities.

The vulnerabilities in the external sector remain. Exports have increased but imports have decreased, leading to a lower trade deficit compared to the first five months of last fiscal. The increase in exports is largely due to the export of palm oil, which alone constitutes 35 percent of total export to India. Nepali traders are adding nominal value to imported palm oil or related raw materials and exporting them to India by taking advan­tage of the preferential tariff. Meanwhile, the decline in imports is due to the decrease in demand for imported vehicles, gold and petroleum products. It has helped to reduce current account deficit, which was already at a high level.

Overall, the economic activities and gov­ernment’s performance are not up to the expectation. Progress in most indicators is undershooting the target set when the finance minister presented the budget for 2019/20. The government needs to be realistic about what can be done in the short-term given the constraints it is facing, particularly on financing ballooning expenditure needs and its capacity to deliver. The economy is not on a stable footing and the often talked about dividends from political stability is yet to be realized. The working culture of bureaucracy and the government is not much different from the past trend.

Bombastic statements about the soundness of the economy alone are not going to please worried investors. Some industries (such as cement, iron & steel, and hotels) that drasti­cally expanded capacity in the hope of accel­erated infrastructure development are now facing overcapacity or excess production. The tepid demand is affecting cashflows, which in turn hurt firms’ ability to repay interest and principal on time. There is a possibility that the loans owned by these industries and by small to medium scale hydropower projects might go bad. This will drastically affect the nonperforming assets of the banking sector

We are on the brink, yet again, it appears. Public outrage is rising against the old and the new crops of Homo Deus that have successful­ly corrupted to the core the new political system that replaced, barely a decade ago, the old, dys­functional one following a wave of political movements and a bloody, decade-long insurgency.The massive political change—marked by the toppling of rem­nants of a monarchy severely weakened after the Royal Mas­sacre of June 1, 2001, and decla­ration of the unitary democratic state into a federal democrat­ic republic—became possible after a marriage of convenience between the ‘revolutionary force’ and the political parties that had a key role in making the multi­party polity unpopular by using ‘democracy’ to protect their petty political interests.

Apparently, such a change would not have been possible without generous support of the international community to Maoist leadership and main­stream political parties, which had become an albatross around the neck of the ‘democratic pol­ity’, after engaging in one scam after the other. Chief among them were the Lauda Air Scam, Chi­na Southwest Air Scam, Dhamija Scam, LC Scandal, and the Sudan APC Scam. At the height of cor­ruption, there were rumors that candidates eyeing the job of gov­ernment school teacher or police officer had to pay certain sums to higher-ups.

Going by those scams, irregular­ities and blatant breach of public trust, it appeared the leaders were in a hurry to compensate for years spent in jail for democracy and human rights. Now, it is an open secret that the dear neighbor was providing safe haven to Maoist leadership and siding with main­stream parties in putting an end to the old polity with the monar­chy, which was showing certain proclivity towards the northern neighbor.

Consigning the old polity to the dustbin of history was in the interest of both the West and the dear neighbor. By systematically dismantling traditional institu­tions and belief systems, the west, especially some European coun­tries, could conduct all sorts of social experiments here.

For the dear neighbor, ensuing chaos during the switch from the old polity to the new one could turn out to be a boon as it would give it yet another opportunity to fish in the troubled waters of Nepal. Indeed, the recent gifting of more of our lifelines, includ­ing the Arun and Upper Karna­li, without a two-third majority in the parliament for the dubi­ous deals (thanks to a watered down constitution), is a clear proof of this.

The territorial aggression of our land, formalized by cartographic aggression, and the government’s inability to raise a strong voice against it, will do little to increase public trust in this system. The inability of the Nepali state to maintain territorial integrity, one of the foremost duties of a state, means that the state is fledgling, yet again.

At the time of a deepening crisis in the life of this country, public trust towards the state is on the wane, what with irregularities in the purchase of a wide-body air­craft, a high-level scam involving the transaction of government land in Baluwatar (Lalita Niwas scam), plus a controversial lease of the property of the royals.

As if this were not enough, maligning of the new political system continues with the polit­ical leadership making, very recently, a controversial appoint­ment in a highly visible consti­tutional position, with rare sup­port from the much-maligned main opposition. Various inter­est groups have already started crying foul against this appoint­ment, taking it as a blow to transitional justice.

At this point, yours truly thinks it will be relevant to note that Nepal has for years been revolv­ing around two seasons: The win­ter of discontent and the summer of unrest. People are not hitting the streets, but their discontent towards the state, and especially the functioning of the govern­ment, is growing. Anyway, the freezing winter is not an appro­priate season for protests. Rather, this is the season when anger and frustration against the prevailing system keeps building. With grad­ual rise in temperatures, public outrage is likely to reach a boiling point and push the masses on to the streets, giving birth to anoth­er season of political unrest.

There will be no dearth of support for this protest from domestic and foreign forces with diverse vested interests. A much-maligned and discredited political leadership would do well to make sincere effort to garner public trust towards the politi­cal system if it

Province 5 is gearing up for an Investment Summit in next few months to attract domestic and foreign investment into provincial level infrastructures and to finance other development works. But the federal government’s laws on for­eign direct investment (FDI) give the Department of Industry (DoI) full authority to decide whether to let provincial governments process any foreign investment. The fed­eral government alone needs $15 billion a year in investment to meet infrastructure gaps, and struggles to keep up with the demands of the provincial and local governments. Yet despite the dire financial need of local and federal governments, there is no conducive environment for investors. Unfavorable regulatory envi­ronment, lack of infrastructure and absence of credit facility are major hindrances for the country’s small and medium enterprises. Large infrastructure projects face even more complex challenges such as in availability of land and long-term financing mechanism. Although the World Bank’s new Doing Business Index has por­trayed Nepal as a better destina­tion for investment compared to some earlier years, actual invest­ment is minimal. The FDI inflow in 2018/19 was around $130 million, or 25.7 percent less than previous year. Overall non-farm enterprise growth in the country is bleak. Yet Nepal has still been ranked 94th in 2020, almost 16 positions up from last year’s position among 190 countries ranked.

Government efforts to attract FDI and engage private sector to develop infrastructures seem mostly ritual­istic. The Ministry of Finance, and especially finance minister Yubaraj Khatiwada, made possible the For­eign Investment and Technology Transfer Act (FITTA) 2019 and the Public-Private Partnership and Investment Act (PPPIA) 2019. These bills were major ‘showpieces’ during the March 2019 investment summit. But the summit organized to present Nepal as a favorable global invest­ment destination has yielded almost no fruit. Nepal’s competition is with countries such as Bangladesh, Kenya and Philippines, which have made significant strides in terms of attract­ing FDI.

Implementation is always a criti­cal hurdle in Nepal. The PPPIA aims to make Investment Board of Nepal (IBN) more functional by dividing it into investment and PPP units, in order to more efficiently manage pure investments and PPP activi­ties. But the government has shown no interest in this pragmatic mea­sure. Only endorsing bills won’t be enough to get more FDI if the acts cannot be implemented.

Engagement of domestic private sector in infrastructures and invest­ment in services is also limited as the government perception of property rights is negative. Finance Minister Khatiwada’s remarks on imposition of property tax while transferring inherited property has played a role in keeping the private sector away from economic activities. Overall performance of the economy might seem healthy as our growth figures are above the average of the past one decade. But the non-farm enter­prises growth is declining and con­tribution of manufacturing sector in GDP is decreasing.

It is a challenge to attract invest­ment given the long list of indus­tries and businesses restricted for foreign investment. Moreover, lack of institutional coordination and communication among institutions such as the Department of Indus­try (DoI), the Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB) and the IBN creates further hindrances for foreign investors. Similarly, undermining the merito­cratic process in appointment of top leaderships of such institutions has direct impact in undermining insti­tutional good governance. In the absence of institutional good gover­nance within key organizations, the process of attracting foreign invest­ment and engaging private sector remains hamstrung. Having a team of weak negotiators on the other side of the table is a waste of time for genuine investors.

In the federal context, provin­cial and local governments should be allowed to attract investment without any intervention from the center, and these provincial and local governments should also be empowered to manage small to medium size foreign investment. Similarly, the government decision to increase minimum FDI threshold from $50,000 to $500,000 has sig­nificant implications on FDI inflow. This policy hurts small and medium enterprises (SMEs), which have been a major driver of Nepal’s service sector. In fact, the contribution of service sector, almost 57 percent of the economy, has been increasing in the past one decade. Against this backdrop, the government should revisit its new FDI cap O

The author is an economist

 While talking about our econ­omy, we can analyze it in two ways. One is describing the positive things that have hap­pened. The second is to describe what positive things have not hap­pened or the negative things that have. Most people focus only on negatives but I would like to discuss both the sides. First, let’s discuss positive things. For the past 25-30 years, education has improved by a lot, so has peo­ple’s lifespan. We live to be 70 now than die at 35, as my school textbook used to inform me. So people’s aver­age lifespan has doubled. Of course, there are people, for instance the Dalits of the far-west or western hills, who do not average 70 years. But that is something we have to work on.

Poverty has been reduced by almost half, a huge achievement. From around 42 percent in 1995, the proportion of absolutely poor or very poor who do not get two meals a day has come down to 21 percent. It is a huge achievement.

There are, of course, 20-21 percent who are still poor, who do not have two meals a day. Also, 35 percent of our children are stunted as they do not have nutritious diet. Being stunted means not only are you are physically deficient you are also mentally ill.

Another positive is that we are growing at about 6.5 percent, which is not very high but not very low either. It is about the approximate growth in India and now also in China. So the growth rate is rea­sonably high, although it is not the rate we should be satisfied with; we should grow at about 10 percent annually. Plus, in infrastructures such as roads and hydro, we are doing well. We will be self-sufficient in hydro production starting next year and there will be surplus to sell. The NEA has thus been asking us to cook food with electricity.

Now let’s talk about the problems. First, I say one-fifth population is absolutely poor that cannot afford two meals a day. That is a sad sta­tistics and should trouble our state and government that promised to institutionalize socialism.

Socialism is particularly needed for the poor, females, Dalits and other marginalized groups. It is not an immediate priority for those who are well off. But our government would have failed if it cannot meet the needs of the very poor, women, Dalit and so forth.

Inscribing socialism in the con­stitution is one thing but actually implementing it is another. So the government should think seriously about what socialism means. Of course, the constitution does not merely says socialism, it also says socialism based on democratic norms and values. So it is not social­ism of the variety implemented in the Soviet Union or China.

It is more democratic socialism, or socialist democracy as they call it in Northern Europe, which means you have individual liberty, freedom of association and so forth. It also means the economy to a large mea­sure will be run along capitalist lines but revenue will be spent on social welfare. There is some way to go have that kind of socialism in Nepal.

The second point is that we do not have an investment-friendly cli­mate. We live at a time the Foreign Direct Investment is open across the world. The fact that we are poor does not mean we should have no investment.

Investment can flow across the world in principle. But there are hin­drances in Nepal obstructing people from investing. The government should open up to international investment. Now, a sizable number of people in Nepal can invest. But their investment is going mainly in three or four areas: land deals, con­struction, schools, and health.

Other sectors are short of invest­ment. For instance, there is insuffi­cient investment in tourism, agricul­ture, even in hydro. It is important that we take all possible steps to open investment in other areas, the principal avenues through which poverty can be reduced.

Poverty in Nepal was reduced by half within the 25 years primarily, not exclusively, as many Nepalis were employed in South East Asia, West Asia and other countries. So why can’t we have more jobs right here? Investment is the prime ave­nue through which we can increase employment.

Some sectors are growing, for example hydro and roads but agri­culture has no investment, even though it creates 60 percent jobs in Nepal. We have come a long way from the time agriculture contrib­uted 75 percent of total GDP in 1970.

Now, it is more like 25 percent. But the number of people who rely on it is still high. So agriculture may not generate as much GDP as it did but continues to provide job oppor­tunities to most of the population.

Many rely on agriculture, at least for their household income. If agro productivity continues to decline many will suffer. It vital that agricul­ture productivity be increased; and in its subsectors like hatchery, dairy, fruit cultivation, green vegetable cultivation, it has increased. We now hear stories like how a family earns up to Rs 1.5-2 million a year from the orange they grow.

You can grow vegetables, tree crops and other products. Tree crops will be very important in dry areas. They are water-efficient unlike other crops which require much water. Tree crops, of course, pay back in 10-15 years, not immedi­ately. It is not like you bring a cow and it starts giving milk right away. Tree crops take longer but their rate of return is much higher and they are much more climate-change friendly. So growing trees and for­ests is important.

With bigger roads and even rail­roads between Nepal and China, we can sell high value crops in their markets. Even bus and truck corri­dors with China will open up huge opportunities for Nepal.

It is important that the govern­ment gives due attention to agricul­ture. That will help especially the poor in rural areas. Health and edu­cation are fundamentally important for growth but in a narrow way. Hydropower, agriculture produc­tivity, tourism and connectivity are important for Nepal and we must open up more with China. It is not only an economic imperative but also a political one. We are now like a stadium with only one gate so in my life-time I experienced three blockades. We cannot let happen that again.

We must open all avenues of exchanges and connectivity with other neighbors and friends rather relying on only one neighbor. That is imperative from both economic and strategic viewpoints.

Finally, it is important we govern well. The main problem in Nepal is governance, particularly in the bureaucracy and political parties. The parties have monopolized most sectors, capturing universities, bureaucracy, school boards, and community forestry. Monopoliza­tion of power by political parties leads to economic depression. The bureaucracy is too bound by rules.

Some bureaucrats are not working properly, while others live in fear. Corruption has not decreased. So how can there be economic growth? There should be timely decisions at the source. The main blockage is in Singhadurbar O

Based on a conversation with Kamal Dev Bhattarai