 |
Vol. 4 :: No. 2 February,
2002 (Magh
- Falgun)
|
Editorial
|
||
|
||
Editorial |
| HMG Should Perform, Donors Shouldn’t
Dictate
Despite five decades of development planning and foreign assistance flows, Nepal’s abject poverty is still so acute that two Nepalese out of every five continue to live under the poverty line. Immature democratic institutions and the shortage of capacities in government bodies have led to disappointing outcomes in the implementation of development policies. Nepal’s striking geographic and social disparities in the development spectrum underline the intricate relationship between poverty reduction and good governance. Besides, the debt servicing and increasing security expenditures are exhausting the resources available for improving rural living conditions. Absence of the prioritization of resources, haphazard expenditure trend, and non-application of sound project management have severely limited the utilization of the vital resources of the country and slowed down economic growth. Foreign resources have been accepted and used without following any clear-cut policy. Even when the government comes out with some initiatives to utilize aid effectively, the donors, being mostly concerned with pushing forward their own aid strategies, are reluctant to honour and respond to our government’s priorities. As a result, aid is under utilized. Therefore, foreign resources would have been better utilized, had the donors provided such assistance based on Nepal’s real needs and requirement, instead to sticking to their priorities and interests. However, the donor community has so far shown its indifference and inability to assist Nepal to place itself in the list of countries eligible for debt relief. The donors are found to be sticking to their respective schemes or projects without giving adequate attention to HMG’s situation and needs, a discouraging note for a country like Nepal where development challenges are so complex and overriding. If the donors fail to match their commitment to providing adequate amounts of grant, both for the government and the private sector, in the envisaged areas and sectors so prominently highlighted at the NDF meetings, or if they attempt to impose their own agenda giving least priority to HMG’s concerns, priorities and programmes, then the relevance and significance of such consultations would be largely eroded. So the donors proactive support for putting Nepal in the category of debt-relief countries and operationalizing the debt relief mechanism is highly desirable. While the cooperation and understanding of the donor community is absolutely essential to mobilize greater resources for uplifting performance and the prospects of development, much also needs to be done by the government on the domestic front. There is the need for doing away with administrative hassles and procedural complexities as otherwise only unproductive investments backed by equally inefficient implementation will take the country in reverse gear. Keeping fiscal deficit within limits through improvement on domestic resource mobilization, curtailment of unproductive expenditure, prioritization and efficient utilization of development expenditure, maintenance of credibility in the government’s policies and programs and sincerely pursuing the norms of financial discipline are other necessary steps for the government. Keeping debt-financing and debt-servicing requirements under prudent and sustainable limits by maintaining long-term indebtedness within manageable proportions so as to release adequate resource for development activities is equally important for poverty reduction. |
|
|
Cover Feature
| Editorial
| Opinion
Poll |
Inner-View | Letters
| Voices |
Business
News | Management | |
|
Send your feedback to the editor: bizage@ecomail.com.np |