I think we have grossly overrated the term 'Development'. It has probably been more than fifty years that, say average Nepali in Urban areas, have had access to education. We can conservatively assume, say, at least 30% of Nepali population are aware of what constitutes a developed society. The common variables; roads, dams, canals, irrigation, optimal agricultural production, jobs, thriving industries, access of technology and automation in industrial output, human rights, secured border, free flow of human and financial capital, policing, democracy where all citizens participate in the policy formulations, robust checks and balances of Government through strong judiciary, protection of minorities and the rights protecting vulnerable etc. All these standards and variables of 'Development' are measured against other countries that are perceived to have managed these variables in a better way. Quantifiable measure like Human Development Index comes to mind. Many of us are aware and may have read academic journals, papers and books about why poor countries remain poor. What are the maladies and what are the solution. For example, in their widely accepted book 'Why Nations Fail' the writers duo Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson concluded that it is the robustness of democratic governance and consistency of the system that supports it (The Bureaucracy) when it is rigid and structural, the nation progress. Now you and I can both say 'gimme a break' after we read that book. As if all the learned people of Nepal do not already know about it. We are at a stage where we should give up on our high expectations from ourselves (from our politicians and our society as a whole). Even with all the resources in our hand and all the good intentions, we may not make a choice that yields higher financial returns for our country. We may not agree between the varying goals of financial return, economic incentive and social rewards. To elaborate further, I was working in Legal Department of a Bank in Nepal that was owned 75% by another Financial Institution listed in LSE, a member of FTSE 100 (and 25% by Nepali public). That Financial Institution had a policy of owning 100% Equity in their subsidiaries in Asia, Africa and Middle East, wherever they could. Something tied to their capitalization policy and controls they employed from such legal structures. That was just their policy. I am not sure why (probably most of us can make an educated guess). Being a big bank, there was a mild effort to lobby through Nepal’s WTO Accession Package at Fifth Ministerial Conference in Cancun (The Cancun Accession). Nepal had already faced major problem in the area of tariff binding, in particular for agricultural commodities. On the areas of services (Banking included) Nepal was asked to undertake commitment to open up 70 services sub-sectors where Nepal was also requested to make commitments for 100 percent equity participation by foreigners within a period of five years. However, Nepal stood firm on its position and only allowed up to 80 percent foreign equity participation. With WTO Accession on those terms, it was easy for NRB to deny the request for buyback of 25% publicly traded stocks (of that Bank). Now assume you are democratically elected and all powerful Prime Minister of Nepal with all good intentions for your country. That decision may not sound too awful. But probably you may still get plenty of backlash from this same Sajha Community on why did you even allow 80% Equity Ownership by Foreigner in sensitive Service Sub Sectors? But for Carlos Slim and Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud of the worlds it does not matter if you are Lichtenstein or Isle of Mann or Panama. They want a 100% Owned Opaque but Safe Wholesale Bank. Not in our watch. Who is for that kind of permission? This is just one juxtaposition that contradicts a good macro economic and social policy agenda with plain vanilla financial mathematics. Just one. At this stage of complexity in Nepal we have now created legacy of cross conflicts and multitude of interests that infringes upon one another. For Example try hypothetically creating a Sajha User Community Memorandum that lays out the Rules for Participants and Readers of this Website. The Ambrosias of this community will immediately impinge upon the trolling rights of Divorce Guys of this community. A policy granting 100% land owning rights to foreigners will immediately give up Sovereign Rights of Nepalis because Indians who have more money will start buying Land. 100% Ownership in Media is a No No because you will only read how good PM Modi is in the News Papers. But these examples are Black and White types. There are many gray areas in policy making, the variables of which are unknown, therefore the outcomes of decision either helps one group or harms another. Therefore a unanimously agreed and popular policy decisions are almost impossible to achieve. Then what is the purpose of my Litany? This is not a useful or a unique example. You might say, people like me who have pessimistic outlook are the reason why our country is lagging behind. The Youth of Nepal ought to be working together for one holistic and ideal purpose: The ‘Development’ of our country. But this multitude of interest and conflicts in Policy Level Decisions are not unique to Least Developed Countries. Even in US, with world’s highest GDP, the Ghetto Citizens of Chicago and Philly do not have access to the same kind of education or access to wealth that you and I have. Then there is no singularity to this problem. The Fiscal Conservatives tell us that they should not be given handouts (food stamps, WIC) because they will be parasites. The Liberal Progressives tell us that they should be allowed to Abort (fund Planned Parenthood), they should not be allowed to carry Guns (Gun Rights Restrictions), they should be able to go to the same schools that high property tax payers send their children to (with better Charter Schools, re-districting of School Districts etc). When I stroll around Ghettos of South Side Chicago, I constantly ask (to myself) why Brother, why are you so doped in Weed? Can’t you go to the the Public Library and read? But that is a typical Brown (Nepali) Supremacist in me thinking like that, without the context of Black Oppression and history of gentrification of suburbs. My point being – it may be virtually too late to expect that we will change for good. And then we will have a good constitution. A progressive economy to look forward to. Those are all ideals that we should leave behind. Seriously, we are wrong in expecting a conventional ‘Development’ outcome for our country. That is NOT going to happen. We are seeing that old ‘Capitalism’ is gradually failing (Kudos to Tom Piketty for Capital in twenty first century). We already saw the fate of ‘Marxism’.

My point is only that our conventional wisdom about approach to development will not work for our country. It is not working for India or Philippines. You may say it is working by showing and comparing HDIs and other Development Indexes for China, Botswana, India and Phillipines. But go to Siwan in Bihar, Isabela in Basilan, Philippines, some rural place in Botswana and the HDIs will become all too clear. I don’t have two hundred years to wait for Nepal to have electric trams connecting Siraha to Dang. That is going to happen but not through conventional Government and Politicians of today. Which is why I say, we ditch this expectation about economic development by the Government for the people. The real accesses to the riches of the world will come through Global Citizens that push the boundaries of legacy political borders and status quo. The Mark Zuckerbergs, the Steve Jobs, the Mahabir Puns, The Malala Yousafzai and the Ujjwal Thapas of the world. Where current set of rules, e.g Petrol = OPEC, Navy/Air Force = NATO, Foreign Aid = G20 will gradually be challenged by disruptive technologies. Some of us may be at the forefront of those disruptions and many of us may not. But it is NOT the consensus “Government” and friendly Himal, Pahad, Terai that will accomplish such feat.

Source used:
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/cdp/cdp_background_papers/bp2014_23.pdf