Monday, August 8, 2011
Youths and Poverty in Nepal: The Connection
.
I made a presentation, on behalf of Dr Bishnu Dev Pant-- the Executive Director of IIDS, at the National Conference on Youth and Development organized by the Rotary International District 3292. The conference was held in Hattiban, Lalitpur on September 17-18, 2010. The following was my presentation titled "Youth and Poverty in Nepal: The Connection".
I made a presentation, on behalf of Dr Bishnu Dev Pant-- the Executive Director of IIDS, at the National Conference on Youth and Development organized by the Rotary International District 3292. The conference was held in Hattiban, Lalitpur on September 17-18, 2010. The following was my presentation titled "Youth and Poverty in Nepal: The Connection".
According to the United Nations, over a billion people in the world today live in unacceptable poverty. Most of these people live in low-income countries that suffer from malnutrition; hunger; limited access to education; higher mortality rates; social discrimination; lack of participation in civil decision-making; homelessness and inadequate housing. The UN suggests that the best way to escape poverty and develop economically in these poverty-stricken countries is through programs designed to uplift the youths in these countries. The UN believes that program focusing on the youths is much more effective than programs focusing on other demographics when it comes to lifting a nation out of poverty.
While on the topic of youths, the latest National Labor Force Survey (NLFS) of 2008 mentions that around 60 percent of the Nepalese population is below 25 years of age. If the ratio holds today, it means that around 18 million people in this country are below 25 years of age. This shows that most people in this country are young. If Nepal wants to develop, it should follow the suggestion of the United Nations, and increase its funding for programs that help the youths. Programs supporting education, health, family planning and employment for youths should receive more funding.
At the start of 1800, a Nepali mother was giving birth to 6.2 children on average, compared to 7 children by an American woman, and 4.5 children by a Norwegian woman. This shows that in the beginning of 1800, Nepal was better than America but worse than Norway in terms of fertility rate. However, the industrial revolution in the US that began in the early 1800s, started to develop the US economy. As a result, healthcare facilities and nutritional intake improved among its population. Programs on health, education, poverty reduction, sanitation and hygiene started receiving increased budgets. So, the fertility rate went down.
In comparison, Nepal saw no economic development until the 1970s. As a result, a Nepali woman was still giving birth to 6.2 children on average in 1970. However, foreign aid started pouring into Nepal beginning in the 1970s, especially in the field of health and education. This resulted in improving health and education facilities. As a result, the fertility rate in Nepal started dropping during and after the 1970s. Today, on average, a woman in the US gives birth to 2.2 children, a Norwegian woman gives birth to 1.9 children, and a Nepali woman gives birth to 2.9 children. This statistic goes on to show that although Nepal was slow to start the progress, it has rapidly caught up with most developed nations when it comes to lowering the fertility rate.
Between 1990 and 2008, the fertility rate (birth per woman) in Nepal declined from 5.16 to 2.9. On the other hand, births per 1000 teenage mothers (aged between 15 and 19) between 1998 and 2008 declined from 126 to 98. This shows that on average, a Nepali woman gave birth to 50 percent fewer babies in 2008 compared to 1990, while an average Nepali teenage mother gave birth to about 33 percent fewer babies in 2008 compared to 1998.
So, there is a markedly noticeable improvement since the 1990 democracy in terms of fertility rate. The possible factors that resulted in this improvement could be the increasing female education, the equality laws, increased opportunities for minorities and women in government services, and increasing foreign and domestic aid for minorities and women.
The improvement in fertility rate, which is comparable to developed nations like the US and Norway, is a matter of pride for all the Nepalese women. However, Nepal has a long way to go in terms of infant mortality rate. Less than 3 infants out of 1000 live births die in Norway, and about 6 infants out of 1000 live births die in the US before their first birthday. However, 46 infants out of 1000 live births die in Nepal before their first birthday. This high infant mortality rate suggests that Nepal still lacks the proper healthcare facilities and infrastructure to ensure the survival of its babies. Nepal cannot, seriously, expect to develop and prosper economically if it continues to lose its future labor force through infant mortality.
However, there’s some good news in this front. The immunization rates for DPT and Measles in Nepal was below 10 percent in 1980. This shows that despite a decade of introduction of these vaccines, the population was skeptical on using the vaccines. But, the vaccination rate was around 80 percent in 2008. The increasing vaccination rate coincides with the lowering fertility rate in Nepal. This shows that women in Nepal, before 1970, were giving birth to too many children to ensure at least a couple of them survived diseases like Diphtheria, Polio, Tetanus, Measles, and Mumps. Once the population discovered that vaccination was increasing the survival rate of babies, they started having fewer babies. And, this is good news in the fight against poverty in Nepal as well. Research has shown that poverty has a strong correlation with fertility rate.
Another factor that correlates with poverty is the literacy rate. As youths become more literate, they gain invaluable information on sex, family planning and diseases. Such knowledge informs and empowers the population to make right choices. Statistics show that literacy rate among youths has increased in the last few decades. Today, about 76 percent of female youths, and 80 percent of male youths in Nepal are literate. Grouped together, the time series of youth literacy in Nepal shows that around 80% of all youths, aged between 15 and 24, are literate.
This is exciting news for the future of Nepal. About 60 percent of Nepal’s population is below 25 years of age. So, we are a country full of young people. The youths in this country are the driving force of the nation and its economy. So, an increase in the literacy rates among Nepalese youths suggests that our population is becoming more literate, more educated, and therefore, more productive.
Since youths make most of the population in Nepal, and therefore most of its labor force, it becomes our responsibility to make sure that we provide education and training to them so that they can compete with the global labor force. Total expenditure on education has increased since 1990. Foreign aid for education is very low, has erratic fluctuations, and not very contributing in promoting education.
Despite an increase in total education spending, there has been no increase in public education spending since 1990. After 1990, increase in public expenditure on education has been less than 1 percent. To call that increase ‘unsatisfactory’ would be an understatement. Urban areas do not suffer from this lack in spending as they have increased private spending on education. However, lack of public funding affects the rural areas because they are not attractive to private spenders. Rural youths lack the same opportunities as their urban counterparts in terms of access to affordable education.
For a country that keeps mentioning the issues of education and poverty as its topmost agendas, a public spending increase of less than 1 percent in the last 20 years does not help sustain its image of ‘trying’. An increase of less than 1 percent does not qualify as trying; it suggests ‘giving up’. This governmental give-up has resulted in millions of rural youths who will be undereducated if not uneducated, and will be poor all their life.
Besides education, the factor that affects poverty is the health of the population. We should provide healthcare and medical benefits to our citizens in order to make our labor force healthy and productive. However, the total health spending as a percent of GDP has declined in the last decade. This lack of healthcare spending has resulted in an unfit and unhealthy population. This, in turn, has resulted in declining productivity and sustained poverty rates.
The worst is that out of the total spending on health, government’s contribution is only around 31 percent. Most spending is incurred by private sector, which is bad news since private sector investment in healthcare is always limited to urban areas. So, there are millions of rural Nepalese who lack basic healthcare due to low private and public spending in rural areas. The government needs to address these issues, and increase its health related spending in rural areas if it wants to improve the quality of life among rural population and lower their poverty level. We have always known that health is wealth. So, we cannot even think about reducing poverty levels unless we improve the health related investments.
One positive facet of the current Nepalese demography is that the ratio of young literate females to males has increased steadily since 1990. This suggests that although there are millions of youths in Nepal who lack education, among the ones who are educated, female youths are becoming equally educated as male youths. This gender equality in education has contributed in reducing poverty, increasing productivity in the labor force, and improving the overall economy.
Speaking of poverty, national poverty declined by 10.9 percent between 1996 and 2004. Urban poverty declined by 1.5 percent each year, and rural poverty declined by 1.08 percent each year during this period. This difference in urban and rural poverty decline suggests that there has not been a conscious effort to reduce rural poverty, and that rural areas need more help.
Although extreme poverty, those making less than 1.25 USD a day, has lowered significantly, the Gini coefficients have shown a significant increment. Between 1995/96 and 2003/04, the Gini index in rural areas increased from 30.8 to 34.9; increased from 42.7 to 43.6 in urban areas; and increased from 34.2 to 41.4 nationally. Also, the highest 10 percent of earners have increased their share of national income, and lowest 10 percent earners have seen a decline in their share. In other words, the poor are getting poorer, and the rich are getting richer.
The increase in the Gini index and the degradation in the income share ratios suggest that our society is becoming more unequal every year. These statistics also show that there has not been a conscious effort to help those at the bottom of the society. The poor, essentially, have been left to fend off poverty on their own. In other words, if anything has been done by the government or the various NGOs and INGOs in this country to alleviate poverty and help the poor, the statistics do not show it. Until and unless the people at the bottom of the income strata are helped, alleviation of poverty and the thought of an equal society will remain unfulfilled in Nepal.
Since agriculture is still the major component of our GDP, the decline in agriculture in Nepal has meant that more people are unemployed and poor. The agricultural contribution to GDP is at its lowest level during the last 30-40 years. The liberalization of Nepalese economy post-1990 democracy was always bound to allocate resources, including capital and labor, to other sectors of the economy like manufacturing and service. While agriculture was always en route to decline, the decline has occurred too rapidly, without giving the agricultural labor an opportunity to train and educate itself so that it may be employed in other booming sectors.
Government’s failure to act on this matter has resulted in millions of agricultural laborers losing their jobs with no alternatives. Lack of training and education has resulted in these laborers not being able to find jobs in other sectors within Nepal. As a result, they have been forced, in a way through government inaction, to seek employment overseas. While such overseas employment brings remittances and is beneficial in the short-term, it is not a desirable outcome of the unemployment and poverty situation. A long-term solution to the agricultural unemployment and poverty is to provide education, health benefits and jobs to these laborers and retain them in our economy. As a growing economy, we cannot afford to lose our labor force in its prime working age to some other country. We should develop policies to keep our youths at home.
A glaring and sobering statistic in the fight against poverty comes from the latest National Labor Force Survey conducted in 2008. The survey showed that 1 million male and 1 million female children between the ages of 5 and 9 are active in the labor force i.e. they work. Another 1.2 million male and 1.1 million female children between the ages of 10 and 14 are also active in the labor force. We already have programs and laws designed to ensure that children in Nepal do not have to work. The fact that a government sponsored survey showed these results, and there was no subsequent action taken to mitigate the issue of child labor, shows a systemic failure of our government.
This shows that we, as a society, have failed in our duties to educate and take care of our children. These 4.3 million children deserve better. If these children stay active in the labor force, they will grow up to become youths with little to no education. And, an increase in number of youths with little to no education means poverty will rise again in Nepal. This is a current problem, and a major one at that. Somebody needs to ask our government: Why are these 4.3 million children in Nepal working, and is there something being done to help them?
In conclusion, Nepal currently suffers from poor spending in health and education. Rural areas have been neglected, and rural youths do not have equal access to various amenities like their urban counterparts. There are too many children active in the labor force, and these children are being robbed of their childhood while our society looks the other way. The abandonment of our rural youths and our children will lead to increase in poverty level in Nepal when these children and youths grow up and become a member of our labor force. In order to grow and develop economically, we need to nurture and educate our children and youths. We need to provide healthcare benefits to all our citizens. Only then can we even dream about economic development and alleviation of poverty in Nepal.
Labels: GINI, inequality, poverty, youth
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
Post a Comment