What do you think are the hurdles for Nepal?s development?

Please put in orders such as:3, 2,4,1.

The first number is 100 point while the last is 25 point.

1. Social conditions including culture and traditions
2. Politics
3. Geographical location
4. Religion

My answer is 2,3,1,4.

3 and 4 aren't hurdles cos you can't overcome them. prolly 1 is not a hurdle either. i would say 50% - people's mindsets, 50% - politics & economic dev policies...

COMMON SENSE OF PPL.......................WHICH IS ZERO AT THE MOMENT....?

PPL HAVE LOST THEIR ANUSASAN........BRING IT BACK THESE TWO THING.......BELIVE ME IT WORKS

Last but not the least - People like you and me who take the easy way out and choose to contribute to the economy of the foreign countries rather than go back and break "the bikas ko mul". ;)

newlynew, people like us contribute in excess of $1.5B annually to nepal. with toursim and agriculture down, money sent home by immigrant workers is one of the things holding the economy together. methinks expats have done better to serve nepal than the uselsss fools who waste time hanging out at rallies supporting the likes of girije and makune.

of course there are countless people in nepal who work very hard to bring about development, and there are many outside who don't.

Living off remittance is a myopic strategy.

No-one is ?living-off? remittance. Agriculture still accounts for the overwhelming fraction of nepal?s GDP of around $40B. If ppl like us all returned to Nepal to break the ?bikas ko mul,? we would actually break the country?s back. Imagine 1 million or more unemployed blue collar and white collar laborers returning to Nepal. There would be utter chaos: lotsa people without any jobs, minus the $1.5B.

Do you think that the workers who are left their families to sweat and toil in the middle east, for example, took the ?easy way out??

Here?s what I learnt in econ 101: you need money to make money (and to bring about development). Patriotism and idealism will not feed the hungry. There needs to be a healthy balance of money and development workers. If everyone were to become a social worker, there would be no money to fund the effort, especially since foreign aid seems to be on the decline these days.

I kinda subscribe to Adam Smith?s philosophy of specialization of labor. If I can be a successful Wall Street banker making millions a year, I am probably doing better for Nepal by donating that money, than by doing something I am not good at, like becoming a wheat farmer in Nepal.

As far as long term strategy goes, let?s see how things unfold. If the economy improves at a steady rate, a day will come when students and workers (including you and I) can live in our own country and do what we do best. Amen?

correction - Amen.

I was not asking if you agree :)

Wrong again. As long as you are working in Wall Street, NY and Nepalis are working their butts off in the middle east, there will never be "Parkhal Sadak" in Nepal. Last thing Nepal needs is the donations. This is what has made us so lazy.

i was right both times.

"Last thing Nepal needs is the donations."
Do you have any idea how much of the infrastructure in nepal, from the highways to the bridges, is from donations? Do you have any idea what would happen if all of the aid to nepal were to be suddenly terminated?

"donations has made us lazy" - interesting comment.
so by your logic everyone in world who receives donations, from the AIDS stricken ethiopians, to the war ravaged balkans, to the many communities that the international red cross serves, are lazy....

"As long as you are working in Wall Street, NY and Nepalis are working their butts off in the middle east, there will never be "Parkhal Sadak" in Nepal."
go back and read my earlier post about the importance of money in development. the section on adam smith, if you understood it, will also help.

ideology + practicality is the winning combination. blinded ideology alone is bad.

You were wrong all three times and you will be wrong again. All the aid dependent countries are nothing but lazy and corrupt. As long as other countries are building their bridges, they are going to build their own. First thing you gotta do Zalim Bro is wake up and see the reality for yourself and look beyond your first year economics text books and Adam Smith.

these days, free advice is rare especially from complete strangers. thanks for offering it, although i do not need it.

"All the aid dependent countries are nothing but lazy and corrupt." sweeping generalization, i must say. and i guess the you are measuring them on the newlynew "lazy and corrupt" index. with the exception of a few developed countries, that certainly makes a huge fraction of the world lazy and corrupt. interesting....

i have gone beyond my first year econ textbooks. but it seems like you are still stuck trying to understand the basic principles. :)

i think you need to take off you glasses and get a shot of practicality in arm. that might clear up your vision a bit. if not, we can agree to disagree.. i am off to lunch..

That's a good sign Zalim Bro. I notice you have already stopped making references to Adam Smith.

POLITICIANS...
MAOISTS
STANDFORYOURRIGHTS HEHEHHHE
monarchy
indian monopoly (talking about the country's policies towards nepal)
religious extremists (hindu, buddhist, muslims et'al)
and the emergence of forming tribal (caste) groups.i.e the kirats, tamangs, manangays et'al

I would say institutution and you may go wonder what hancyguy is mean by institution. Well I define it as rules, regulation, administrations, the political systems, political parties etc.). We do have institutions but they are not functioning in a way the are supposed to. Got chance to read one research article by Olson (Nobel Prize Winner in Economics) who proved that your level of development depends on what type of institutions you have. Think going back just to 1950 (though we have longer history) and trace how different institutions came into being and whether they were successful or not and compare that to the institutions of the countries like South Korea, Thailand, India (all third countries whose level of development was the same at that time). Now you have a answer on what is holding development back in nepal.

mero bichar ma chai ..hamro mindset huna parcha..

for instance: if you are lazing around the house, everybody will come and say to you..how lazy you are, go and find some work bla bla bla..

ok ..u take your chance, and go and work in a nearby restaurant u know..at least stand on your own feet and make some dough..then the same people will come tomorrow and yell at you.."Thukka! kei kaam napayera, waiter ko kaam garna thalis"

so the bottomline is.....noone wants to do any development and people can't stand people doing any development :) [garna pani didainan, gareko ni dekhna sakdainan ]

विचार थरि थरिका।
विचारहरुको लागि सबैलाई धन्यवाद।
तर विचारहरुको साथसाथै त्यो नंबर छ नि, त्यसलाई पनि लेख्ने कष्ट गर्दिम न।
२,४,१,३ गर्दै।

my answer;
2134

mine is 4123