Thursday, June 30, 2011
Can we ever escape poverty in Nepal?
Nepal, throughout history, has always been a poor nation. There have been many researches done on Nepal’s poverty, many reasons given for it, many facets blamed, and many solutions proposed. However, poverty in Nepal persists, even today. In 2010, Nepal has now, officially, become the poorest nation in Asia.
In this context, we find asking ourselves why we are so poor, and if we can ever escape from poverty. Education (especially that of women), fertility rate (children per woman), gender gap, health of the population, and the composition of the population itself have been significant in determining poverty levels. Studying the effects of these factors in Nepal should help us determine why we are poor, and if we can escape poverty.
Studies have shown that a nation with a high fertility rate experiences lower economic growth as well as higher poverty levels. In the beginning of the 1800’s, a Nepali woman was giving birth to 6.2 children on average. While other countries were successfully lowering the fertility rate per woman, Nepal showed no improvement for the next 170 years. Until late 1970’s, Nepali women were still giving birth to 6.2 children on average.
Studies have shown that a nation with a high fertility rate experiences lower economic growth as well as higher poverty levels. In the beginning of the 1800’s, a Nepali woman was giving birth to 6.2 children on average. While other countries were successfully lowering the fertility rate per woman, Nepal showed no improvement for the next 170 years. Until late 1970’s, Nepali women were still giving birth to 6.2 children on average.
In order to make sure that at least a couple of their children survive, Nepali women were giving birth to too many kids. But improved economic policies coupled with pouring in of foreign-aid started having an impact in the 1970s. More girls enrolled in schools; hospitals and health facilities became better; health education and family planning were promoted.
All these efforts resulted in the empowerment of girls and women, and taught them the benefits of small families. As a result, Nepal has experienced a significant drop in the fertility rate since 1970’s. A Nepali woman today gives birth to 2.9 children on average, and the fertility rate in Nepal is now on-par with most developed nations. This is something that Nepali women should be proud of.
All these efforts resulted in the empowerment of girls and women, and taught them the benefits of small families. As a result, Nepal has experienced a significant drop in the fertility rate since 1970’s. A Nepali woman today gives birth to 2.9 children on average, and the fertility rate in Nepal is now on-par with most developed nations. This is something that Nepali women should be proud of.
Despite lowering fertility rates, we were still failing to save our infants and children from various diseases. Diseases that had been cured and eradicated in the West were still killing our newborns and children. Even today, 46 infants out of 1,000 do not see their second birthday in Nepal. In an effort to save the children, the government started vaccinating them in the 1970’s. By 2010, more than 80 percent of infants in Nepal have received the DPT and measles vaccines. This tremendous rise in vaccination rates has ensured that newborns and infants will survive and grow up to be the youth that will shape the economic and social future of our country.
 |
| Source: National Labor Force Survey 2008 |
However, the progress that we made since 1970 in improving the life and living standards of our children has gone to waste since 1990. The democracy was supposed to improve things, and not deteriorate them. The latest labor force survey of Nepal, in 2008, showed that 1 million males and 1 million females between 5 and 9 years of age, and 1.2 million males and 1.1 million females between 10 and 14 are active in the labor force i.e. they work. Why are these 4.3 million kids working? If these kids are not helped, they will grow up to become youths with low skills and little to no education. And, that means a rise in poverty.
About 60% of our population is below 25 years of age. So, ours is an increasingly younger society. Youths in urban areas are becoming more literate each year. Education and increasing literacy among the young population has also shrunk the gender gap in urban areas. As they become more literate, they gain invaluable knowledge on topics like sex and family planning. But, youths in rural areas have not had the same opportunities as their urban counterparts. Rural youths lag behind in literacy rates and overall quality of education.
Therefore, any program designed to reduce poverty levels should focus on our most populated demographic: the youth and specifically, the rural youth. If we want to escape poverty, we should invest more in health and education so that the nation’s youth become literate and productive. But an analysis of public expenditure on education shows that there has been no increase since the 1990’s. Foreign-aid disbursement for education has been very inconsistent and has not contributed in reducing illiteracy or poverty. Also, total spending on health has not increased; and our government only contributes about 30 percent to the total share of health costs. This shortfall of spending on health has affected millions of people who cannot afford even basic healthcare. Many, mostly in rural areas, do not have access to a doctor. Disease prevention and health education programs lack funding. These shortcomings will not allow us to escape poverty anytime soon.
After 1990, we failed to capitalise on the progress made between 1970 and 1990. The post-democracy environment was supposed to liberate the country of illiteracy and poverty through increased spending on health and educational infrastructure and programmes. But, that environment seems to have been a myth propagated by various politicians, governments and foreign donors.
Government inaction on health and education does grave injustice to millions of rural Nepalis who have been lied to and cheated by the government for the last 15 years. Our efforts at reducing poverty and inequality are limited to long-term five- or ten-year plans. Policymakers should understand that while poverty reduction does need a long-term plan, it is also imperative to formulate short-term policies to help the poor. Focusing only on long-term solutions will be of little use to the millions suffering from poverty today. We need short-term solutions that are fast, efficient and effective.
This opinion piece was published in The Kathmandu Post on October 21, 2010 under the title "Unmet Expectations".
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
Post a Comment