The government has not been able to manage a sufficient budget for development as much as it needs. On the other hand, the government cannot spend the development budget it allocates.

This is the tragedy of all three levels of government every year. It is not only the federal government that is suffering from political instability, but also the supposedly stable and strong local governments. The inability to spend even the minimal development budget allocated is evidence of the pervasive inefficiency in our state system. This shows that there are weaknesses in all aspects including budget management skills, priority of plan selection, budget allocation, budget disbursement, and phased process of plan implementation.

Therefore, if the disappointing spending of the development budget is to be improved, a serious review and improvement is required in all processes from plan selection to implementation process. Otherwise, the implementation of development construction will be delayed, and questions will also arise about its quality.

For the current fiscal year, the federal government had allocated Rs 407 billion for capital expenditure. In the first 6 months, the federal government has been able to spend only 12.12 percent of the allocated capital expenditure. Birgunj Metropolitan City, which allocated Rs 985 million for capital expenditure, has been able to spend 33.14 percent in the first 6 months.

Similarly, Lalitpur, which allocated Rs 4.5 billion 7.77 billion, has spent 16 percent. Kathmandu, which allocated Rs 15.5 billion 1.77 billion, has spent 15.81 percent. Bharatpur, which allocated Rs 2.58 billion 4.33 billion, has spent 15.6 percent.

Pokhara, which allocated Rs 4.83 billion 8.2 billion, has spent 8.69 percent. Biratnagar, which allocated Rs 1.94 billion 3.2 billion, has been able to spend only 7.85 percent on capital expenditure. The average half-yearly expenditure of the 6 metropolitan cities is only 16.92 percent.

The formation method and work compatibility of the federal government and the local government are different. The federal government has been unstable. Again, the scope of work of the federal government is also vast. There is also a burden of inheritance. But there is not much complexity with the local government. Since it is a directly elected executive head, there is no worry that the government will collapse untimely. There are also no significant differences in the implementation of development plans.

Similarly, the local government is considered as the initiator of development. Its job is to implement plans that are directly relevant to the people and will bring immediate benefits. Since there is more information on local concerns, it is relatively easy to identify, plan, and implement them.

The geography of the metropolis is also relatively easy. Therefore, it is more favorable to spend the development budget. However, it is strange that the local government is not able to spend the expected development. Metropolitan cities should review and improve their working methods.

There has been a tendency to not spend much or not be able to spend until half of the fiscal year. Only towards the end of the fiscal year does the work of opening tenders, signing project agreements, making payments, etc. gain momentum. When it comes to the end, it is seen that the expenditure has increased somewhat. However, at that time, the aim is to increase the expenditure rate.

Such a tendency leads to misuse of public taxes. The quality of construction work is compromised. This situation has not been reduced. When development expenditure is low, capital formation and employment creation are also affected.

In fact, even though some work is being done, the expenditure may appear low because the payment has not been made. However, it does not increase the expenditure percentage much. The Gen-G movement is also considered a reason for the low expenditure this time. It is said to have increased political uncertainty and distracted the country's attention. Some offices were burned down. It has created some confusion.

However, if development expenditure had been reduced only this time, such issues could have been considered a reason. The situation was similar last year. The average capital expenditure of the six metropolitan cities in the 7 months of the previous fiscal year was only 17.90 percent. Therefore, the problem is not in the specific year, but in our working methods and policy arrangements.

The government's working style, structural coordination and trend factors play a role in the low capital expenditure. There is unreasonable hassle in the work from starting contracts to 'site clearance' in government projects from the federal to local levels. Therefore, the process from plan selection to budget allocation and mobilization should be made development-friendly and practical.