This morning my mom sent me an article that I’ve also seen circling around facebook called “Nepal, on the Brink of Collapse.” I read it and was immediately put off by its suggestion of impending crisis and doom. The title says it all.
Although the authors describe the political situation in detail and I agree with their calls for less bribery and corruption, I take issue with some of their claims and suggestions…
When describing Nepal, people often mention its poverty, as did this article. The article notes, “with a per-capita gross domestic product of $490, Nepal is one of the poorest countries in the world; unemployment is at 45 percent.” What do they mean when they say that unemployment is at 45 percent? That part needs to be clarified. Are they including subsistence farmers who don’t necessarily earn a monetary income? This mention of poverty isn’t central to the article, but I think it’s important to quickly note the problem with its suggestion that less commercial activity, spending and buying means a loss. I wrote about this a bit in this article about poverty and wealth in Nepal.
Yes, Nepal is poor by world standards and there are many people who don’t have adaquate shelter, food, or clothing. But a standard of poverty set by the West is not necessarily the right one because Western countries often measures levels of poverty based on income and gross domestic product. This what I wrote in another post about poverty in Nepal:
According to The World Bank, Nepal is the poorest country in South Asia… between 30 and 40 percent of people in Nepal live below the international poverty line, which means they live on less than $1.25 a day. The problem with this definition of poverty is that…it ignores the fact that quality of life does not necessarily go down with decreased income. A lot of the people that would fall under the poverty line in Nepal are subsistence farmers who grow what they eat and don’t need much money to survive on or even live well. For about a month two years ago, I stayed with a Sherpa farming family a rural area of Nepal that practiced subsistence farming…they had a very small income. I’m not sure if they would fall under the international poverty line, but they were quite poor by Western standards…But were these people really poor? When I think of poverty, I think of destitution and squalid conditions, but this family was definitely not living in that type of situation. They had a comfortable house, they owned land and always had enough to eat.
More money doesn’t necessarily mean higher quality of life. And less income doesn’t necessarily mean deprivation or loss.
Besides being turned off by this article’s claim about money and poverty, I was confused by their suggestion that foreign aid should be withheld in order to “emphasize the need for compromise.”
Towards the end of the article, the authors suggest:
The global community can show its concern by threatening to withhold aid, which makes up 3.4 percent of Nepal’s economy. Donors should insist that the new constitution be completed, emphasizing the need for compromise, particularly in the debates around ethnic representation and federalism.
I fear that this would have awful results. Yes, there is corruption that surrounds foreign aid; not all of it gets to people who really need it, but what about the organizations that do put it to good use? What about all of the people that this aid is helping? Besides, wouldn’t cutting out a large section of the economy only bring more disruption to Nepal?
My last concern with the article is the way that it ignores all of the change that’s happening beyond the confines of the politicians and government. What we noticed while living there was that there are a lot of amazing things going on despite corruption, political fighting, and little governmental support. People are side-stepping red tape and rules in order to both get on with their lives and enact change. It’s not always easy to do this, and I don’t think it’s a long term solution, but it is happening and it can be effective. For one, the economy felt alive and growing. I would often hear about new restaurants and businesses opening while we were there. Some INGO’s and NGO’s, run by Nepalis and foreigners, are also continuing to do incredible work. I’ve head of some who are able to work with government and others who learn to work around it. Schools are also continuing to be effective and innovative, including the school I worked at. They have done amazing things over the years, educated hundreds of kids, and brought new ideas about education to Kathmandu and rural areas, even during the decade-long conflict.
People are strong and innovative. Even in the face of a bleak political situation, they continue to live their lives and make change happen. I think that the article aptly highlights some of the problems with the government in Nepal, but it’s too inflamatory and doesn’t give the whole side of the story.
I’d love to hear what other people have to say about it. What do you think?