←back to thread

560 points whatsupdog | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
screye ◴[] No.45168757[source]
Nepal is an interesting nation.

Compared to nearby poor nations, Nepal is safe and its people are perceived to be welcoming. It's the only serious candidate for being a ski-nation in all of mainland Asia. If Nepal wanted, it could transform itself into a Bali style tourist destination and ascend towards being a middle economy. Unlike India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, which have to solve 1-billion-people scale problems, at 30 million, Nepal can resort to scaled down solutions.

Nepal's refusal to leverage the (few) advantages of its geography is baffling.

The internal politics are even more bizarre. As a communist-adjacent nation, it has a closed off economy with deep suspicion towards free markets. Yet, the national messaging alternates between blaming India or China for all their problems. The local populace (like every populace) eats this up. From my observations, neither nation affects Nepal's economics much. (national security is a separate conversation)

> protests reflect young people's widespread frustration with government action to tackle corruption and boost economic opportunities.

South Asia is coming off a recent protest->overthrow movement in Bangladesh. The youth protesters had similar complaints. Yet, the outcome was an even less democratic system which now owed favors to the violent parts of the society that helped complete the ouster. Similarly, Nepal has a history of political instability and violent ousters, most of which had led of very little economic change.

The youth's complaints are valid and I support their protests. However, do the protesters have an outcome in mind ? They want an improved economy. But, will they be okay with opening Nepal up to free markets ? This may mean selling resort building contracts to major western ski companies. It may mean opening unsafe sweatshops for Adidas to make shoes there. It may mean resource exploration by foreign mining companies.

I say this, because this is a South Asian disease. We want our nations to have a strong economy. But, economic liberalization can sometimes look like colonization, and this hurts the ego of proud global-south nations. We want progress, while keeping all foreign influence at bay. We want social welfare, but the nation is bankrupt. It's paradoxical. When our nations do move towards markets, it happens at gunpoint (1991) or with steep political costs (Farm Bill, GST) to the the incumbent.

Not sure what the solution is here. But, the last decade has made me suspicious towards protest movements that do not have positive policy outcomes in mind. The student's anger is valid, but impressionable students are the the time-honored vanguard used by more powerful opposition to trigger coups.

replies(2): >>45169154 #>>45170973 #
1. kylehotchkiss ◴[] No.45170973[source]
> It's the only serious candidate for being a ski-nation in all of mainland Asia

Indian Himalayas have ski resorts.

> If Nepal wanted, it could transform itself into a Bali style tourist destination and ascend towards being a middle economy.

Landlocked country with little natural resources. Who's funding this project? Watch a YouTube about the Kathmandu-Pokhara road. Infrastructure is not easy there.

> Nepal's refusal to leverage the (few) advantages of its geography is baffling.

They grow rice on hills, have a thriving mountaineering ecosystem, and build dense cities in the valleys large enough to support them. How are they not leveraging them?

> As a communist-adjacent nation, it has a closed off economy with deep suspicion towards free markets.

The county to their south went this way after the Raj, for what I believe are fair reasons. I can see how that influenced Nepal's hesitancy to open up more to international brands.

> Yet, the national messaging alternates between blaming India or China for all their problems.

They aren't wrong! India had "interstate entry taxes" up until 2017 - taxes that cargo had to pay in each state on the way to the ports. It wasn't even the just the national governments making life harder to Nepali, it was individual states!

> However, do the protesters have an outcome in mind

Their anger is justification enough. It's tough for college graduates in the region to find a career that matches their education level.

> But, will they be okay with opening Nepal up to free markets?

Nepal isn't as closed to free markets as you keep insinuating. There are malls with Asian brands where people can go shop. Not having as many American brands makes sense given the logistics problems. There are western restaurants. There are western hotel brands. There are Indian hotel brands.

> This may mean selling resort building contracts to major western ski companies.

Taj, Oberoi, Leela (Indian resort brands) could probably build a wonderful one. And they haven't, I presume they have the numbers demonstrating this doesn't work economically.

> It may mean opening unsafe sweatshops for Adidas to make shoes there.

There's no world where that makes sense economically. See my note about India previous state tariffs/state taxes. Just presume there's all sorts of hidden middlemen between KTM and ports.

> It may mean resource exploration by foreign mining companies.

China would be there already if it was viable (read more about the few roads north to China)

> with steep political costs (Farm Bill, GST) to the the incumbent.

Your wording makes me think you are Indian. If I'm correct, The best thing you can do is encourage more Indians to go enjoy what Nepal has to offer now, so they can afford to invest in some of the improvements you propose :)