The global economy is undergoing profound changes, particularly with the return of Donald Trump to the presidency in January 2025. In his first 100 days, his administration has rolled out a comprehensive set of economic measures, including tariffs that impact goods and commodities imported from various countries. This shift has prompted a worldwide response, with many nations imposing their own tariffs on American imports, leading to a complex web of trade relations.
China has felt the brunt of these tariffs, but Nepal’s goods are not exempt either, facing an approximate 10% tariff. This is a relatively modest rate compared to other South Asian countries, which experience higher tariffs, further complicating Nepal’s trade dynamics.
The restructuring of U.S. foreign aid under Trump’s administration has led to the downsizing of USAID and a significant reduction in the number of civil servants. This shift aims to alleviate America’s burgeoning debt but has had noticeable ramifications for countries like Nepal. Currently, U.S. funding to Nepal is nearly non-existent, affecting multiple sectors in the nation’s economy. While this reduction forces Nepal to rely less on external aid—a potential positive— it also compels the government to urgently seek alternative funding channels, which strains resources and planning.
In light of the evolving international economic landscape, Nepal must reevaluate its fiscal policies. There is a pressing need for strategies that are less reliant on foreign aid and that promote sustainable economic growth from within. The Ministry of Finance has asserted that while the country’s economy isn’t in dire straits, with a target of achieving a GDP growth rate of 6%, the reality is that preliminary figures for the current fiscal year indicate a growth of just around 3%.
Historically, the allocation of budgets in Nepal paints a concerning picture. Since the fiscal year 1990/91, 36 budgets have been presented, but only the first four exceeded a 62% allocation for development expenditures. In 1993/94, the GDP growth reached an impressive 8%, but the subsequent years have seen a gradual decline in development expenditure, settling at around 35% in recent budgets. This drop reveals a worrying trend where more budgetary allocations seem to serve political interests rather than aiding the population effectively.
Moreover, the unfavorable trade balance significantly hampers Nepal’s economic growth, with exports making up less than 10% of total imports. Import duties contribute to government revenue but fall short of being a sustainable growth strategy. Despite being an agrarian society, a substantial portion of foreign currency earned through tourism and remittances is spend on importing basic food items. The increasing trend of young Nepalis seeking education and employment abroad further exacerbates the situation, highlighting the absence of plans to leverage Nepal’s demographic dividend.
Nepal’s proposed national pride projects demand substantial investments but often face delays, causing frustration among the populace. When completed on time, these projects could provide significant economic boosts, yet timelines are rarely established, leading to numerous failures. The government must tackle these pressing economic issues head-on with robust policies.
Several key recommendations emerge from this situation. First, a pro-nationalist stance should guide the government in adopting import-substitution policies to encourage local production. Additionally, strict economic austerity measures are imperative. This involves cutting non-essential expenditures, including lavish spending on vehicles and overseas study tours, as well as reviewing perks provided to politicians and bureaucrats.
Next, the government should prioritize productive investments and demonstrate the political will to disallow unproductive ventures. Concrete policies aimed at attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) will be essential in fostering growth. The current coalition government also holds the power to amend constitutional provisions, reducing the number of representatives in both federal and provincial parliaments, which could streamline governance and decrease recurrent expenditures.
Critics, including President Trump, have voiced concerns about the costs associated with Nepal’s federalism—citing an expenditure of $19 million annually on this structure—which raises questions about its necessity and efficiency. With 275 members in Parliament, the representation ratio stands at about 106,000 constituents for each member, which is disproportionately high compared to neighboring countries. For instance, one representative in India serves roughly 2.5 million people, while those in Pakistan and Bangladesh represent about 759,000 and 500,000 constituents, respectively. A reduction of Parliamentary members could alleviate some financial burdens and shift focus toward more viable candidates driven by credibility rather than financial resources.
In conclusion, Nepal finds itself at a crossroads due to shifting global dynamics and internal challenges. To establish a resilient economy, the government must craft policies that foster independence from foreign aid, revitalize local industries, and streamline governance effectively. By committing to these principles, Nepal can position itself for sustainable growth in an uncertain economic landscape.
Source link
