MAGAR (SHORT
INTRODUCTION)
https://magarworld.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/about-magar/
नेपालको इतिहास, जातजाति, संस्कार, संस्कृति, भाषा, लाेकजीवनबारे लेख रचनामा बहस गर्ने मञ्च ।
MAGAR (SHORT
INTRODUCTION)
https://magarworld.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/about-magar/
Nepal Unplugged: Join the Conversations on Nepal’s Development & Wellness
The Unintended Consequences of a Remittance Economy—and Why
Nepal’s Future Hinges on a Retention Economy
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|||
The newly opened parliamentary
session offered a revealing snapshot of Nepal’s current moment. There were
gestures of significance—the elevation of a non-Khas-Arya Nepali to a position
of power through popular choice, and a formal acknowledgment of historical
injustice toward Dalit communities. These are important signals. They speak to
a deepening of inclusion and a willingness to confront the past.
Much of the discussion that followed
turned to plans and policies—how to ease the lives of migrant workers, how to
mobilize diaspora investment, how to curb corruption, and how to respond to
emerging global uncertainties. These are necessary conversations.
Yet something important was missing.
While we continue to improve the
systems that support outward migration and external inflows, there has been far
less attention to a more fundamental question: how do we build an economy that
can retain its people? We cannot keep sending our human capital to build other
nations while expecting a vibrant and resilient economy at home. In fact, this
is likely to breed perverse incentives, as some research has indicated—what I
refer to as its unintended consequences.
In any case, this essay builds on an
earlier note on Nepal’s Fourth Century, which outlined the “what, how, and
where.” It turns to a related question—one that may deserve greater attention
in the days ahead: why the system must change, and why the shift from a
remittance economy to a retention economy is central to that transition.
There is, of course, a degree of
caution as well. The pace of recent actions has been swift, and moments of
rapid change often benefit from continued reflection and communication. As
decisions move forward, it may be equally important to ensure that the public
understands the thinking behind them—so that clarity comes from leadership
rather than from competing narratives. In that spirit, a brief weekly address
from the Prime Minister directly to citizens could be beneficial.
Still, there is a sense that
something new is in the air. The early signals from Nepal’s new government—from
its 100-point reform agenda to a series of swift administrative moves—reflect
energy, urgency, and a willingness to act. Long-stalled issues are being
revisited, processes are being streamlined, and the system appears to be moving
with a speed not seen in some time.
Moments like this—of hope and
caution, of excitement and trepidation—are filling the air. It brings to mind a
song by Bob Dylan.
“Blowin’ in the Wind” became an anthem
of the 1960s civil rights movement. It did not introduce new ideas. It gave
voice to what people were already sensing—signals that were present,
circulating, and waiting to be acknowledged.
Change, when it comes, often feels
sudden. Nervousness is natural, but hope and expectations also linger for some
time—often referred to as the honeymoon period for a new government.
Nepal today carries such a moment.
For decades, the “signals” have been
in the air. Seven constitutions in seven decades. Governments rising and
falling in rapid succession. Nearly 30 prime ministers in as many years—often
in a revolving-door, musical-chair fashion. At the same time, families making
plans around migration, villages slowly emptying, and young people preparing to
leave rather than to build. These are not separate events. They are connected
expressions of a system that has struggled to hold together.
That system is often described as a
remittance economy.
But this is more than a label. It is
a structure—with unintended consequences.
A System Built on Outflow
Over time, Nepal has built an economy
that is very effective at sending people out and bringing money back. Much less
attention has gone into building an economy that can absorb those same people
at home. One of the country’s most valuable resources—its human capital—has
increasingly been directed outward.
This has had consequences.
The Unintended Consequences
As labor and talent move abroad,
domestic sectors are left thinner. Agriculture struggles to modernize. Industry
remains shallow. Local enterprise finds it harder to grow. In economic terms,
this has some resemblance to what economists call Dutch Disease, where one
dominant inflow weakens other sectors.
But the deeper issue goes beyond
sectoral imbalance.
It is closer to what has been
described in political economy as the “resource curse” or the “paradox of
plenty” (Terry Lynn Karl; Michael Ross). When economies depend heavily on a
single external source of income, they often diversify less, institutions
weaken, and systems begin to organize around control and distribution rather
than production. A perverse incentive begins to emerge, where elites start
competing for access to these remittance deposits.
Granted, Nepal is not an oil economy.
But remittance, as a dominant external inflow, creates similar pressures.
When a large share of national income
comes from outside, the internal system begins to reorganize itself—not around
production, but around managing and accessing those inflows. Over time, this is
reinforced by a political economy that has, often unintentionally, facilitated
the large-scale exodus of able-bodied manpower. What begins as a coping
strategy gradually creates perverse incentives at home: it becomes easier to
sustain consumption through external earnings than to build productive capacity
domestically. It also becomes easier to issue policy and programmatic
prescriptions for quick results than to do the hard work of building an
industrial base.
From Production to Flow Management
In effect, value is generated
outside, while the system inside organizes itself around its distribution,
circulation, and control. In a quiet way, this begins to resemble a wealth-pump
economy—where effort and capabilities are exported from the country, and the
imported “income” circulates upward through consumption, real estate, and elite
lifestyles rather than broad-based production.
This is where an extraction–control
nexus takes shape. Value is created outside. Control (of institution and
polity) is exercised inside to capture the imported income.
Banks orient toward remittance flows
and consumption. Training centers for language and overseas skills expand
across cities and towns. Service industries grow around preparing people to
leave. Political actors extend their reach outward—organizing diaspora
networks, building party presence abroad, and maintaining ties that connect to
these external flows.
None of this is necessarily by
design.
But these are the unintended
consequences of the system we have built.
Over time, this changes incentives.
It becomes easier to compete for
access than to create value domestically. Networks begin to matter more than
productivity. Gradually, the system fills up with actors whose role is to
manage, distribute, and control flows rather than to produce. The culture of
bichaulia and commission-based networks expands throughout the system, with the
polity political actors often taking the lead.
When Elites Multiply and Production
Shrinks
This is where we begin to see elite
overproduction—a concept where the number of aspirants to elite positions grows
faster than the number of productive opportunities available.
Today, Nepal has roughly 36,000
political office holders, while the base of entrepreneurs and productive
enterprises remains relatively thin. The imbalance is not just numerical—it
reflects how opportunity is structured.
Implications for Democracy and
Development
The implications go beyond economics.
In systems where income depends less
on domestic production and more on external inflows, the link between citizens,
work, and governance weakens. Accountability softens. Patronage strengthens.
The system leans toward distribution over performance.
Over time, this makes it harder for a
healthy, participatory democracy to deepen and sustain itself.
Many of these effects have been in
the air for years.
What we are seeing today—the
political churn, the public frustration, the search for new leadership—can be
understood as the result of these accumulated pressures finally surfacing.
That is why this moment matters —hope
and energy.
The Shift: From Remittance to
Retention
The question is not whether
remittance is good or bad. The question is whether it should remain at the
center of Nepal’s economic model. What is needed now is a shift: From a remittance
economy to a retention economy.
A retention economy asks a simpler
question:
How do we create enough opportunity
at home so that people have a real choice to stay?
This means building domestic
absorption capacity—an economy that can productively use its own people,
skills, and resources.
In practical terms, this requires
reconnecting what Nepal already has. Agriculture, culture and tourism, and
energy need to work together, not separately. The Higher Education sector needs
to link with local opportunity, so that skills match real economic activity.
And policies need to support those who want to build, produce, and invest
within the country.
None of these ideas are new. What has
been missing is alignment and follow-through—or a Fourth Century vision.
The new leadership now has a narrow
but important window. The task is not just to move faster, but to move
differently—to shift the system away from extraction and toward production.
Toward an economy that does not
mainly send its people out, but one that gives them a reason to stay—and build.
In a quiet way, the system we have
built on exporting manpower has become a victim of its own success. That
success comes with a risk.
That is, this dependence creates an
additional layer of vulnerability. When a large share of national income is
tied to external labor markets, shocks beyond Nepal’s control—geopolitical
tensions, economic slowdowns in host countries, or sudden policy shifts—can
quickly ripple back home. The recent uncertainties in the Middle East are a reminder
of how exposed such a system can be. What appears as a steady inflow can, in
moments of disruption, reveal itself as a fragile lifeline.
The bottom line is that we cannot
build a strong and resilient economy by exporting our people. At some point, we
have to start keeping them—and building here.
मुक्त कमैयाको बदलिएको जीवन : बगरमा पसिना, राजमार्गमा व्यापार
रासस, २०८३ वैशाख २७ गते ६:२२
२७ वैशाख, कञ्चनपुर । पूर्वपश्चिम महेन्द्र राजमार्ग भएर गुड्ने
सवारीसाधन केही बेरका लागि कृष्णपुर नगरपालिकाको वनहरा क्षेत्रमा रोकिन्छन् ।
सडकछेउमा खरले छाएर बनाएका साना टहरा छन् । ती टहराभित्र हरिया काँक्रा, तरबुजा, खरबुजा र
लौका सजाइएका छन् । चर्को गर्मीमा शीतलता खोजिरहेका यात्री त्यहीँ रोकिन्छन्, फलफूल किन्छन् र फेरि यात्रामा अघि बढ्छन् ।
तर सडक
किनारको यो सानो व्यापार केवल यात्रीको तिर्खा मेटाउने माध्यम मात्रै होइन, मुक्त कमैया परिवारको जीविकासँगै सङ्घर्ष र आत्मनिर्भरतासँग
जोडिएको छ ।
कृष्णपुर
नगरपालिका–२ का नीरज रानाले विगत चार वर्षदेखि वनहरा नदीको बगरमा फलाएका फलफूल र
तरकारी बेचेर परिवारको गुजारा चलाइरहेका छन् । राजमार्ग किनारमै व्यापार गर्दै
आएका रानाका अधिकांश ग्राहक सवारीचालक र यात्री हुन् ।
‘बिहानदेखि साँझसम्म सडकछेउमा बसेर
तरकारी तथा फलफूल बिक्री गर्दा हुने आम्दानीले परिवारको दैनिक खर्च धानिएको छ,’ उनले भने ।
राना मुक्त
कमैया बस्तीमा बस्छन् । सरकारले करिब तीन दशकअघि पुनस्र्थापनाका क्रममा उनलाई पाँच
कट्ठा जमिन उपलब्ध गराएको थियो । त्यही जमिनमा कच्ची घर बनाएर उनको परिवार बस्दै
आएको छ ।
माघ
महिनादेखि उनी वनहरा नदी किनारमा बगर खेती गर्छन् । बगरमा काँक्रा, तरबुजा, खरबुजा, लौका र तितेकरेला उत्पादन हुन्छ भने घरनजिकैको बारीमा मकै
लगाउने गरिएको छ । उत्पादन भएका तरकारी र फलफूल राजमार्ग छेउमै बिक्री गरिन्छ ।
‘दैनिक पाँच हजार रुपैयाँजतिको बिक्री
हुन्छ,’ रानाले भने, ‘सिजनभरिमा ५० हजारदेखि एक लाख रुपैयाँसम्म आम्दानी हुन्छ । यही
आम्दानीले परिवार चलिरहेको छ ।’
वनहरा
मुक्त कमैया बस्तीका ८० भन्दा बढी परिवार अहिले बगर खेतीमा संलग्न छन् । नदी
किनारको बगरमा उत्पादन गरिएका तरकारी तथा फलफूल बिक्री गर्न थालेको करिब छ वर्ष
भएको स्थानीय बताउँछन् । स्थानीय किसान शिवलाल रानाले बगर र अरूको खेत ‘लिज’
(भाडा) मा लिएर खेती गर्दै आएका छन् । यस वर्ष उनले सात कट्ठामा तरबुजा तथा १० कट्ठामा
लौका, घिरौँला र करेला लगाएका छन् ।
‘गत वर्ष तरबुजा नबिक्दा घाटा लाग्यो, त्यसैले यस वर्ष कम रोपेको छु, काँक्रा
बढी लगाएको छु,’
शिवलालले भने, ‘सिजनमा पाँच लाख रुपैयाँसम्मको बिक्री हुन्छ, जसबाट दुई-तीन लाख रुपैयाँसम्म बचत हुन्छ ।’
उनका
अनुसार खेती नै परिवारको मुख्य आयस्रोत हो । ‘अरू गरिखाने आधार छैन,’ उनले थपे, ‘यसैबाट
वर्षभरिको खर्च धान्नुपर्छ ।’
सडक
किनारमा तरबुजा प्रतिकिलो २५, काँक्रा ४०, घिरौँला ६० र तितेकरेला ५० रुपैयाँ प्रतिकिलोमा बिक्री भइरहेको
छ । काँचो मकै भने प्रतिघोगा १५ रुपैयाँमा बिक्री हुने गरेको छ । गर्मी मौसममा
ताजा काँक्रा र तरबुजा किन्न धेरै यात्री वनहरा क्षेत्रमा रोकिने गरेका छन् ।
तरकारी
खरिद गर्न पुगेका सवारीचालक रमेश बोहराले यहाँ पाइने उत्पादन ताजा र सस्तो हुने
भएकाले आफू प्रायः किनमेल गर्ने गरेको बताए ।
‘राजमार्गमै ताजा तरकारी र फलफूल पाइन्छ, यहाँका काँक्रा र तरबुजा निकै मीठा हुन्छन्,’ उनले भने, ‘स्थानीय
किसानको उत्पादन किन्दा उनीहरूलाई पनि सहयोग पुग्छ ।’
तर
सडकछेउमै व्यापार गर्नुपर्ने बाध्यताले दुर्घटनाको जोखिम पनि बढाएको छ । तीव्र
गतिमा गुड्ने सवारीसाधनका कारण असुरक्षा रहेको व्यवसायी मुक्त कमैया बताउँछन् ।
तरकारी तथा
फलफूल बिक्रीमा संलग्न धीरेन्द्र रानाले सुरक्षित बजार व्यवस्थापनको आवश्यकता
औँल्याए । ‘नगरपालिकाले सुरक्षित बिक्री केन्द्र बनाइदिए सहज हुन्थ्यो,’ उनले भने, ‘व्यवस्थित
ठाउँ भए दुर्घटनाको जोखिम कम हुन्थ्यो तर अहिलेसम्म कुनै पहल भएको छैन ।’
बगर
खेतीबाट राम्रो आम्दानी भए पनि त्यसका लागि ठुलो लगानी र मिहिनेत आवश्यक पर्ने
उनीहरूको भनाइ छ । खेती सुरु गर्न मात्रै ३० हजारदेखि एक लाख रुपैयाँसम्म खर्च
हुने गरेको छ । मलखाद, बिउबिजन, जोताइ–खोदाइ, सिँचाइ र
गोडमेलमै धेरै रकम खर्च हुने किसान अनिता रानाले जानकारी दिइन् ।
‘खेती गर्न सजिलो छैन, दिनरात मिहिनेत गर्नुपर्छ,’ उनले भनिन्, ‘राम्रो
स्याहारसुसार गरे मात्रै उत्पादन राम्रो हुन्छ ।’
स्थानीय
जुगमानी चौधरीले बगरमा उत्पादन भएका तरकारी बिक्री गरेरै घरका लागि खाद्यान्न
जुटाउने गरिएको बताइन् । ‘खेतीबाट आएको पैसाले चामल, नुन र तेल
किन्छौँ,’ उनले भनिन्, ‘यसले घरधन्दा धानेको छ ।’
विरा
रानाका अनुसार बगर खेतीले मुक्त कमैया परिवारको जीवनमा परिवर्तन ल्याउन थालेको छ ।
‘बगरमा बगाएको पसिना खेर जाँदैन,’ उनले भने, ‘परिश्रम गरे उत्पादन राम्रो हुन्छ, आम्दानी पनि हुन्छ । यही खेतीले जीविका चलिरहेको छ ।’
रानाका
अनुसार पहिले दैनिक मजदुरीका लागि गाउँगाउँ धाउनुपर्ने अवस्था थियो । अहिले भने
आफ्नै उत्पादन बिक्री गरेर परिवार धान्न सकिने अवस्था बनेको छ । वनहराका मुक्त
कमैया परिवारका लागि बगर खेती आम्दानीको स्रोत मात्र नभई आत्मनिर्भरताको आधार
बन्दै गएको छ ।
तर कृषि
अनुदान, सिँचाइ, बिउबिजन
तथा बजार व्यवस्थापनका सरकारी कार्यक्रम भने अझै मुक्त कमैया परिवारसम्म पुग्न
सकेका छैनन् । अधिकांश आफ्नै लगानी र श्रममा निर्भर छन् ।
‘यदि सरकारले थोरै सहयोग गरिदियो भने उत्पादन
अझ बढाउन सकिन्छ,’
लीलावती वडायकले भनिन्, ‘बजार व्यवस्थापन र कृषि सामग्रीमा सहयोग पाए आम्दानी पनि
बढ्थ्यो ।’
वनहरा नदी
किनारको बगर अहिले मुक्त कमैया परिवारको आशा बनेको छ । बिहानदेखि साँझसम्म पसिना
बगाएर उत्पादन गरिएका तरकारी र फलफूलले मुक्त कमैया परिवारको घरखर्च मात्र धानेको
छैन, आत्मसम्मानसहित बाँच्ने आधार पनि बनेको
छ ।
About The Culture of Magar MAGAR (SHORT INTRODUCTION) https://magarworld.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/about-magar/ Magar is one of th...