FOR THE SAKE LIVELIHOOD : CHILD LABOUR still a big problem which cannot be solved with the enactment of labour laws and regulations.

Around 50% child labourers go to school in Dhanusha

Janakpur, Mar. 13 (RSS) The child labourers, aged between 10 and 14 years of age are reported to have been found in great number in Dhanusha district.

According to the statistics published by the District Development Committee, in the district there are about 55,000 children between the age of 10 and 14 years, 45.77 per cent of whom are labourers.

The survey conducted in 101 VDC's shows that only 50.45 per cent of the child labourers go to school.

There are 192 govt. primary schools, 16 lower secondary schools and 36 secondary schools, 2 higher secondary schools and 2 campuses in the district.

The rural parents in the district still lack general awareness about the importance of sending their children to schools. eventhough they are aware of it, the poverty-stricken and jobless parents cannot afford to provide school to their children.

Hence the general trend in the rural areas is that a son joins labour force by the time he is 10.

Even those who can afford education for the children are putting them to household works or to farming activities.

According to the in-charge of Janakpur Labour Office Nabin Pokharel, 31 children working at a number of industries in the district.

District development committee chairman ramcharit sah ascribed the increasing number of child labour to lack of public awareness.

Social worker Rudra Narayan Jha stresses the need for the government to launch special programme designed to resolve the problem of child labour.

The local people believe that the number of child labour will drop once the economic condition of the poor families improve.

Workshop on cheese production

Kathmandu, Mar. 13 (RSS): National Dairy Development Board and Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) jointly organised a five-day workshop on cheese production for the first time in Nepal.

Technical personnel of the Dairy Development Corporation and cheese producing entrepreneurs of the Himali and hilly regions of the Kingdom as well as executive director of the corporation Ram Milan Upadhyaya, resident representative of the FAO Rudder and Representative of Rome-based FAO Jurijen Draijer attended the workshop.

FAO representative Rudder, speaking at the workshop, said that various programmes being conducted in Nepal by the organisation since 1951 had gone a long way in consolidating the bilateral relations.

He expressed the confidence that further cooperation would be forthcoming in the field of dairy.

The workshop held discussions on the various problems confronted in the production of cheese, and took decision to resolve the problems.

The workshop also constituted a five-member ad hoc committee to recommend the constitution of a cooperatives of the cheese producers after considering the need for coordination, removing the unhealthy competition in this field at present, and producing high quality products.

Taking Stock
Missed opportunity for internal reform

Hari Uprety

After almost two decades of pro-market restructuring of economies, the world appears to be suffering from a reform-fatigue of sorts. Whether one looks at the international scenario or, in the case of Nepal, the domestic one, there is a perceptive decline in rhetoric on market reform.

This may come as good news to those who were opposed to the plunder of state assets and strategic leverages in the name of reform. But the same cannot be said for those awaiting this bogey to restructure the economy to so that the sphere of domestic business is increased. Indeed, external sector liberalization had taken the centrestage throughout the last decade in Nepal, marginalizing the domestic imperative to carry out some internal liberalization. The domestic sector still suffers from a high dose of market imperfections, distortions and bureaucratic rigidities. What’s more, some of these imperfections were brought about by the policy of reform itself.

It is quite obvious that the openness agenda was swindled away by the external sector during all these reform years. The radical steps taken by policymakers would have otherwise been politically dangerous. It was only the political change of 1990 that gave legitimacy to the policies. People’s aspiration for change was, in a way, squandered over a policy fad that was sweeping the globe at the time. Now that the fad appears to be on the wane, it is time to ponder over the real possibilities for reform, that existed in at least three areas of the domestic sector, when the new polity came into being.

First, by 1990, liberalizing the internal markets and making it easier for the domestic small scale enterprises sector was a long overdue area for reform. Second, the governments could have taken tough decisions to end political interference in the day to day affairs of the state enterprises infusing some efficiency into them. And, third, tax nets could have been widened so that more revenues would be available to finance the much needed anti-poverty programmes.

On the contrary, the small scale sector was all but wiped out in the name of import liberalization. Many of them closed down because of the cheaper imports that resulted. And new small enterprises had difficulty to come into being because state funds to finance new ventures were virtually absent. The private sector banks saw it more profitable to invest in the booming import business rather than in production. While ‘priority sector’ lending to prop up the small businesses sector was getting unpopular among the newly established private banks, they started to even introduce hire-purchase schemes to import capital goods.

In the enterprise reform sector, the government owned corporations were the only ones targetted, as if the private ones needed no improvement. Even in this narrow perspective on enterprise reform, instead of streamlining the state enterprises, successive governments started burdening the already overstaffed corporations to break their back. Forget about infusing some professionalism into them by appointing management professionals. Rank political activists were allowed in through direct political appointments. Whatever professionalism was there was quickly thrown out of the window and politicking started to rule the roost. Even today, most of the corporations do not have management professionals, but political activists.

On the one hand, if the government itself was ruining the chances of survival of these unfortunate enterprises in an unprecedented manner, at the same time, it was also arguing that governments should not and cannot run them. And thus started the privatization process, and one of the most controversial processes of policy implementation in the past century.

Finally, the revenue administration saw such upheavals that there were times when the government had to change tax structures several times a year, apart from the annual change carried out during the budget announcement, just to meet the regular expenditure. The tax administration came under fire not only from the taxpayers, but from the business community and even parliamentary probe committees citing wrong procedures and widespread malpractices.

The polity ushered in after the people’s movement in 1990 ensured that elections keep taking place and parties keep functioning. At a time when government coffers were seen incapable of financing even the day to day functioning of the bureaucracy and was initiating a downsizing process, it would surely be a challenging task to finance these vital aspects of multiparty politics.

In other words, the voracious appetite of party funds needed to be filled by the small domestic sector if the multiparty polity was to continue. Since there have been political forces of various hues making their presence felt in the country, this meant that the limited resources had to be distributed among them first, before even financing the government needs. Debates about how best to finance these fundamental aspects of democracy did come up with the inevitable distortions taking place. But an answer has yet proved to be elusive. Even if there is an answer to this question, whether it is taxation, donations, extortions or even a symbiotic relationship between the giver and the taker, the concern here should have been with the smallness of the pie rather than the mode to finance politics.

Shrinking possibilities of financing the development programmes through revenues started haunting the governments, especially in the latter half of the decade. This forced them to seek ever larger amounts of aid to finance even minor projects. And, since donors were making themselves scarce for grants, loan assistance had to be sought. As a result, debt started to mount. At the same time, politics started to be radicalized and the spectre of a security situation loomed large ultimately forcing the state to raise the regular spending that had so far proved to be affordable for the tax regime in place. The dependency syndrome was penetrating deep and making governance itself appear unsustainable.

When governance itself is in such a precarious state, it is time to ask some questions: How can Nepal make the polity of its own choosing affordable and one that can deliver the goods? Can a country like Nepal handle the politics of pluralism at a time when its economics has been going from one crisis to another? If so how is it to be done? And, who are to tighten their belts for the painful process that has become so necessary?

These are radical questions searching for radical answers. And radical moves can be made only during abnormal circumstances which can provide a ready cover against petty politicking that can derail any long-term or fundamental restructuring.

Since the cover provided by the political change of 1990 is no more, there is very little hope that governments can actually dare to turn the policy tide that is sweeping the Nepalese economy off its feet. When pains have to be inflicted on the populace for their own good, you have a strange kind of politics going on. And, popular politics during such crisis times is not likely to sustain anyone in power for long. Will the Nepalese come out of this vicious circle, ever?