I am not at all happy to start the article by sticking technical terms of economics in a foreign language . It has no other intention than to shock the government and policy makers a little more . It is not wrong from any perspective to expect a clear national-level strategy and roadmap for its own economic development from a government that has received a new and unprecedented mandate, rather than the governments of old coalitions whose future is uncertain . It is the duty of a good and conscious citizen to raise awareness, express opinions and opinions in that direction .

National development policy and propaganda

The first sentence of the world-famous novel ‘Anna Karenina’ by Russian writer Leo Tolstoy is as follows: ‘All happy families are alike . Every grieving family grieves in its own way.’ No matter what economic growth or development is, not only are there many similarities between countries that have achieved success in it, but when we study such countries in a comparative manner, it becomes clear that the number of models they adopt to achieve significant economic progress is not very large. It is certainly not that we should adopt someone else’s model exactly. It is a natural process to see and analyze which models countries in a situation like ours have used to move forward on the path of progress.

The context we are trying to discuss here is why a national development policy and its widespread publicity are necessary in simple language that everyone can understand. It is appropriate to start this discussion with federalism. Strategic cooperation between the federal government’s policies, programs, and budgets and the economic plans of 6,743 wards is inevitable. The job of laying the foundation for that is certainly the responsibility of the federal government. The discussion on the country's economic transformation in the federal parliament and the discussion in the village gatherings organized by the local level while formulating policies, programs and budgets should basically be oriented in the same direction. The basis for this is the clear and simple economic policy of the federal government and its widespread publicity. The geography that the governments of all three levels are trying to develop and the people they are trying to make happy are the same.

Not only that, but the federal government, provincial governments and every office at the local level must have given high priority to policies and programs that achieve the main goals of the national economic development strategy while formulating policies, programs and budgets for the coming year. Let's look at an example. The ghost of AI has been haunting the country. In every policy and development discussion, the argument that Nepal would be the first country in the world if we had just two or four AIs is everywhere. Of course, AI is not as easy and light a subject as it is discussed in our public dialogues. This sensitive and related topic to the future of the country is now not just a general technology but an 'industry', i.e. the AI ​​industry. Innumerable issues are connected to which areas the state should initially start and expand the use of AI, its hardware-software, ensuring energy infrastructure, foreign cooperation, human resources, including the production of skilled manpower, ethics and cyber security. Without clarity on all these issues, the AI ​​usage policy formulated by each level and office can create further problems and confusion.

Such clarity is indispensable not only for the three levels of government, but also for cooperation with the private sector, for expanding investment and creating jobs, which Nepal needs the most. It is time for us to accept the fact that economic policy is not limited to the economy, but in fact, it is politics and implement it properly. It may sound a bit unpleasant to hear, but our current thinking and preparation for it seem a little lacking. For this, the government should be ready to rewrite the 16th Five-Year Periodic Plan. The country will not progress by having long-term thinking and planning on one side and immediate programs on the other. The Nepali people's yearning to break away from this great mistake made by Nepali politics since 2048 BS should never be ignored. Not only that, if preparations are lacking now, the government should also be ready to prepare by the winter session of the parliament and bring a new periodic plan and a supplementary budget based on it. An entire year should not be wasted under the pretext of covering up.

The key question: The model of state intervention

The key question of all these processes is the model of intervention in the economy of the Nepali state, its general consensus and its continuity for a certain period. First of all, we should be clear on one issue. In our economy, where per capita income is around 1500 US dollars, rapid economic growth is difficult only due to the regulatory role of the state. It is difficult to transform the complex dimensions of the economy such as the inability to spend the budget it has prepared itself, the low credit flow despite high liquidity in banks, the slow pace of trade deficit and inflation control, the inability to create significant employment in any new sector, the multifaceted problems in infrastructure development, and the problems of production and productivity seen in the best sectors including agriculture through general regulation alone.

In addition, another truth to be learned from the experience of countries that have made significant progress in economic development since 1950 is that we ourselves are witnesses to modern history where the state itself has been leading the economy until the per capita income reached at least $3,000 and at most $5,000. In our current economy, where there is a great impact on the entire economy and gross domestic product when there is less or more rain during the rainy season, the interventionist role of the state is inevitable.

At this time, the federal government, the provinces and local levels should have been in intensive discussions with the private sector on such issues. Our national debate should also have focused on that. The new government's policies, programs, and budget should be its embodiment. In addition, the continuation of such a strategy for a certain period of time is also a political commitment. Only in such a situation can the state's economic policy be promoted in meetings and conferences organized by Nepalis living abroad. Local government employment coordinators receive guidance on what issues to prioritize in their programs. Homestay operators are clear on the agenda for discussions with foreign guests. Etc. Etc. Based on the world's experience since 1930, it is seen that a suitable solution will be found when discussing the role of the state in the economy by focusing on three models. Here, a brief discussion of those three models is given.

New Deal and Big Deal

In the 1930s, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt used the term 'New Deal' when introducing a policy to lift America out of crisis. Even after that, this terminology seems to have been used in many countries to turn their economies in a completely new direction, especially focusing on the green economy and information technology. Usually, when there is a lack of alignment between the financial resources of the state and the priorities of the national economy, such a policy is adopted. That is, when the state and private sector investment in areas where the state has a competitive advantage is low, the direction of the flow of the entire economy is changed.

Agriculture, water resources and tourism are the three pillars of the Nepali economy and three generations of Nepalis have spent their lives believing that Nepal's future lies in this. In the case of America, Roosevelt tried to take the American economy in a new direction by adhering to the policy of relief, recovery, and structural reform, i.e. the three ‘Rs’. Gaining the trust of citizens through reforms in the banking sector, increasing citizen confidence through reforms in the social welfare sector, creating the basis for employment and industrialization through state-centered large physical infrastructure projects, and reforms in the agricultural sector, which was the backbone of the then American economy, were focused on price stability, income protection, and rural development.

In essence, 'New Deal' policies are proposed in two main situations. First, it is difficult to expect a radical improvement in the economy from a simple improvement in the current structure and flow of capital. In cases where investment is attracted to other areas rather than the areas where investment should be more, the state restructures the entire economy by focusing on the areas where investment is needed. The negative effects that changes in the flow of capital may bring are also addressed at the same time. Second, when the current main priority of the state is limited to certain areas and long-term economic growth is difficult, the state itself seems to be taking the lead and implementing 'New Deal' policies in the development of industries in completely new areas. This practice is especially common in the context of making the green economy or information technology the main center of the national economy.

If the financial flow from the area from which the state should prosper is also low, the development of infrastructure is also weak, and there is a shortage of quality human resources, then a change in the direction of the entire economy is inevitable for overall development, and at such times, ‘New Deal’ policies are adopted.

In the ‘Big Deal’, which is different from the ‘New Deal’, the state takes the lead in merging, eliminating, and creating new industries within the country. Basically, this is an industrial policy. In cases where there is a problem in quality improvement and competitiveness due to the production done by many entrepreneurs on a small scale in the same area within the country, each major product is concentrated in one industrial company or group under the coordination of the state. For example, if 3-4 companies manufacture vehicles and memory chips, 1-2 of them are concentrated to produce only vehicles and the remaining 1-2 companies are concentrated to produce only memory chips. That is, businesses merge between the private sector under the coordination of the state. Such a policy adopted by Korea in 1990 is discussed as a model.

Both of the above methods are usually adopted only when the economy is in a complex crisis. America in the 1930s or Korea in the 1990s also adopted such a policy only after the economic crisis. We need a national debate on what level of crisis the structural problems of the Nepali economy are and whether Nepal needs a 'New/Big Deal' or not, as practiced when the green economy or information technology economy was declared the state's main 'new growth sector' since 1990.

If not a policy departure

, then the Nepali economy is looking for a policy departure or 'policy departure'. Agriculture, water resources and tourism are the three pillars of the Nepali economy and three generations of Nepalis have spent their lives believing that Nepal's future lies in this. For the past decade, information technology has been viewed as the fourth pillar. In modern Nepal, these issues are limited to just a topic of conversation. Many improvements and ease in the energy sector are certainly commendable. But even though the picture is not clear about how many jobs are being created in energy and its contribution to revenue, there is no uniformity in the approach to view it.

Where are we in the development of the four sectors mentioned above? Due to the inadequacy or lack of coherence of what, development as per the idea could not take place and a national policy is indispensable regarding its policy starting point. Here too, the state has an intervening role. In addition, on the one hand, a focused analysis of the five dimensions mentioned below about the agriculture, tourism, water resources and information technology sectors is necessary, while on the other hand, a clear policy-level, operational unity with these sectors and Nepal's manufacturing industry is equally important. Now let's discuss the basic dimensions that need to be discussed before the policy departure:

First, what is the condition of investment and capital in the backbone of our economy? पर्याप्त लगानी भएर पनि विकास हुन नसकेको हो वा लगानीको अभाव छ ? कतै निजी क्षेत्रको लगानी वृद्धिमा नकारात्मक प्रभाव पुर्‍याउने अनुदानका नीति वा कार्यक्रमहरू त छैनन् ? नयाँ ज्ञान एवं प्रविधि विकासमा लगानीको अवस्था कस्तो छ ? दोस्रो, प्रविधिको प्रयोगको अवस्था कस्तो छ ? खासगरी हामी प्रविधिका कुन–कुन क्षेत्रमा कसरी आत्मनिर्भर बन्दै जाने भन्ने विषयमा राष्ट्रिय रोडम्यापबिना अगाडिको बाटो तय गर्न कठिन हुने विषयलाई अब कदापि नजरअन्दाज गर्नु हुँदैन । यसको राष्ट्रिय सहकार्यको मोडल आवश्यक छ ।

तेस्रो र हामीले सबैभन्दा कम ध्यान दिएको पक्ष जनशक्ति हो । हरेक क्षेत्रमा हामीलाई आवश्यक गुणस्तरीय जनशक्ति कति हुन् र हामी त्यसलाई कसरी उत्पादन गर्दै छौं भन्ने हो । जुन क्षेत्रमा केन्द्रित भएर देशको विकास गर्ने भनिएको छ, सोही क्षेत्रमा अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय रूपमा प्रतिस्पर्धी संस्थाहरूको विकासमा हाम्रो अलमल यथावत् छ । शैक्षिक एवं अनुसन्धान संस्थाहरूको संरचनागत सुधार नेपालको अर्थतन्त्रको नीतिगत प्रस्थानको प्रथम प्राथमिकता हुनुपर्छ । चौथो, बजारको पहिचान र त्यसमा राज्य र निजी क्षेत्रको सहकार्य । आर्थिक रूपमा उल्लेखीय प्रगति गरेका देशहरूलाई हेर्‍यो भने राज्यको नेतृत्वमा आन्तरिक बजार प्रवर्द्धन र बाह्य बजार विस्तार गरेका प्रशस्तै उदाहरण छन् । खासमा आर्थिक वृद्धिका लागि यो नै एक मात्र बाटो पनि हो । हामीसँग पनि राष्ट्रिय नीति आवश्यक हुन्छ । पाँचौं, आवश्यक पूर्वाधारको विकास आवश्यक हुन्छ । पहिला सडक र बिजुलीलाई पूर्वाधारका प्रमुख आधार मान्ने गरिन्थ्यो । अहिले सूचना प्रविधि र प्रयोगशालाहरूको महत्त्व बढेको छ । अर्थात् स्थानीय विश्वविद्यालय र अनुसन्धान केन्द्रहरूको क्षमताले पूर्वाधारको अवस्थालाई निर्धारण गर्ने गर्छ ।