Javabeans,

I don't see why you want to leave information gathering upto me. I have challenged you to produce  "a research" (which you claim exists in a large number) that is at least good enough. If someone is making an argument, it is upto them to provide evidence. I hate people who make reference to "research", and yet provide no real citation of it.

Chinese and Indians didn't provide dual citizenship, did they? Since you made a remark, it is within my right to ask you to provide the proof. If you can't provide proof, I don't see why I need to read your other arguments.

And it is constructive. I favor dual citizenship in Nepal for some other (mainly emotional) reasons. But I am not going to accept it just because someone says it has been 'proved' to be conducive to economic prosperity.

Most of the developed countries in the today's world became developed due to Industrial Revolution. Japan , then, entered this world in early 1900s. I don't see any role of expat there. The Arabians became 'developed' because of oil, then. The 'small tigers' of Asia, who then entered developed world in 80s, too were only partially helped by developed countries, and in any case, I don't think they instituted this dual citizenship.