Experiences of a common man!

Tag: Economics

An infographic of a Data Centre

Is a volatile Nepal ready for AI data centres in 2026?

The exponential proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI), complex machine learning architecture, and pervasive cloud computing are accelerating the global digital economy. At the heart of this digital metamorphosis are data centres. These resource-intensive facilities have evolved rapidly from passive repositories into aggressive computational engines for sustaining the modern global economy. From a market valued at approximately USD 386 billion in 2025, the industry is projected to exceed USD 1.1 trillion by 2035. Nearly 100 gigawatts (GW) of new capacity is expected to come online between 2026 and 2030 alone, doubling global capacity.

The speed of this expansion is, however, bringing up a systemic global resource crisis. The unprecedented increase in demands for electricity, water, and land to train and operate advanced generative models has already strained national power grids, compromised corporate environmental sustainability commitments, and incited socio-political backlash in established digital hubs, including those in the (US).

Consequently, global technology conglomerates and major hyperscale operators, viz. Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, and Google, are actively scouting for alternative locations that can offer abundant renewable energy, a favourable climate for natural cooling, fewer jurisdictions, and cost-effective industrial operational environments. In this context, Nepal has emerged as a potential candidate for a “green data hub”. The eleventh point of the Policies and Programmes for the FY 2026/2027 (2083/84) also reflects the aspiration of developing green computing and high-capacity data centres.

Nepal’s prospect is challenged by a volatile political environment, fluctuating hydropower, and intense geopolitical rivalries between India, China, and the US. Therefore, the persisting question is: “Is Nepal ready?” This article examines the global prospect of AI data centres and the applicability of their extension to Nepal.

1. Macroeconomics of the Data Centre Market

1.1 Market Size and Growth Trajectory

The global data centre market stood at approximately USD 386 billion in 2025 and is on a steep upward trajectory. The market is expected to exceed USD 1.1 trillion by 2034–2035, representing a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of approximately 11–12%. The data centre solutions segment, encompassing hardware and software, is even more dynamic, projected to grow from USD 449 billion in 2024 to USD 1.1 trillion by 2030 at a CAGR of nearly 20%.

Data Centre Market Size 2025 to 2035 (USD Billion)

Physical capacity growth is equally dramatic. Global data centre capacity grew fivefold between 2005 and 2025 to reach 114 GW. The sector is projected to increase by a further 97 GW between 2025 and 2030 — effectively doubling again in five years — potentially reaching 200 GW by 2030. This rapid growth is expected to require up to USD 3 trillion in investment by 2030.

1.2 Demand Drivers

AI and Machine Learning

AI represented around 25% of all data centre workloads in 2025. By 2030, this is expected to reach 50%. According to McKinsey, generative AI alone could account for roughly 40% of data centre demand in 2030. The major hyperscalers have announced combined long-term commitments exceeding USD 500 billion in this sector.

Cloud Computing & Digital Transformation

Cloud computing remains the foundational driver of data centre growth. The number of large hyperscale data centres reached 1,136 by end-2024, roughly double the total five years earlier. Record leasing activity in early 2025 was fuelled by hyperscalers and cloud service providers. The shift to distributed cloud architectures and hybrid cloud models continues to expand the market.

Edge Computing

Edge computing, i.e., placing compute closer to data sources, is driving a new category of smaller, distributed facilities. The edge data centre market is projected to grow from USD 15.4 billion in 2024 to USD 39.8 billion by 2030 at a CAGR of 17.1%, fuelled by 5G deployments and Internet of Things (IoT) adoption.

1.3 Energy: The Major Constraint

Unlike traditional cloud computing paradigms, which rely primarily on central processing units (CPUs) handling sequential, transactional workloads, AI model training and real-time inference require massive, interconnected clusters of graphics processing units (GPUs) and specialized tensor processing units (TPUs) operating in highly synchronous parallel configurations. This architectural change has drastically increased the power consumption of server racks. traditional enterprise data centre racks consumed between 5 to 10 kilowatts (kW) of continuous power. In stark contrast, modern AI-optimized racks regularly exceed 40 kW and are rapidly pushing toward 100 kW per rack.

Share of electricity consumption by data centre and equipment type in 2024
Data Centre Electricity Consumption in 2024. Source: IEA

New engineering paradigms have emerged to address the issues. The market has witnessed a rapid development and deployment of liquid immersion cooling technologies, phase-change materials, and advanced thermal management systems to resolve the extreme thermal exhaust generated by these high-density computational workloads. Leading tech companies are utilizing AI to optimize their hardware efficiencies. For instance, Google reported that between May 2024 and May 2025, it successfully reduced the median energy consumption per Gemini prompt by a factor of 33, and the associated carbon footprint by a factor of 44. These impressive gains were driven by more efficient model architectures, accurate quantized training algorithms, and optimized idling protocols.

However, these per-unit efficiency gains are being overwhelmed by the sheer volume of global compute demand. This dynamic is a textbook illustration of the Jevons Paradox: an economic principle wherein an increase in the efficiency with which a resource is used tends to lower the operational cost, which in turn exponentially stimulates an increase in the total rate of consumption of that resource. As AI becomes cheaper and faster to run on a per-query basis, its integration into every facet of the global economy deepens, driving aggregate power demands to unprecedented levels.

Data centres already consume approximately 2% of global electricity (410 TWh in 2024), with U.S. consumption alone reaching about 190 TWh. The IEA projects that the global consumption could double to 945 TWh globally by 2030.

Data Centre Electricity Consumption by Region. Source: IEA

Fossil Fuel Consumption

The AI boom is inadvertently prolonging the lifecycle of fossil fuels. The IEA notes that though renewable energy is expanding at an annual average rate of 22% and supplying about 27% of current consumption, coal (~30%) and natural gas (~26%) still dominate. Nuclear power accounts for 15%. The IEA forecasts that natural gas and coal will still be required to satisfy over 40% of the additional electricity demand through 2030.

Metric2025 Value2030 ProjectionCAGR
Global Market Size~USD 386 billion~USD 700+ billion~11–12%
Global Capacity~114 GW~200 GW~12–14%
Global Electricity Demand410 TWh (Approx. 2024 baseline)945 TWh (nearly 3% of global demand)N/A
Global Fuel DemandCoal: 30;
Renewables: 27%;
Gas: 26%;
Nuclear: 15%
Coal and Gas to meet >40% of new demandN/A
Hyperscale Facilities~1,136 large facilitiesSignifica8nt increaseN/A
Server Rack DensityTraditional Cloud: 5-10 kW per rackAI Training: 40 kW to 100+ kW per rackN/A
AI Share of Workloads~25%~50%Rapid growth
Average Construction CostUSD 10.7M/MWUSD 11.3M+/MW~6%/yr
Summary of Data Centre Stats. Source: Various

1.4 Regional Landscape

The distribution of the data centre economy reflects a huge disparity. In 2025, North America occupied the largest market share (40%) whereas the Middle East and Africa have less than a 2% share.

Region2025 Market ShareKey MarketsGrowth Outlook & CAGR to 2030
North America~40–41%Northern Virginia, Atlanta, Phoenix, Dallas17% CAGR; lowest vacancy (2.3%); fastest growth
Asia-PacificSecond largestChina, India, Japan, Southeast Asia, Australia12–23% CAGR; fastest-growing; 32–57 GW capacity
Europe~25%London, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Paris, Dublin10% CAGR; power & permitting constraints
Latin AmericaEmergingSantiago, Querétaro, São PauloGrowing; cost-effective alternatives to US
Middle East and Africa< 1–2%UAE, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Nigeria15–16% CAGR; rapid growth from low base

1.5 Investment and FDI

Data centres have become one of the most attractive asset classes for global investment. Greenfield investment in the sector rose by approximately USD 125 billion in 2025, while international project finance increased by USD 30 billion. This surge helped push global FDI up 14% in 2025 to an estimated USD 1.6 trillion.

However, this investment is highly concentrated in France, the US, and the Republic of Korea. Emerging markets seeking to attract this capital face stiff competition and must offer compelling value propositions around power, connectivity, regulatory clarity, and total cost of operation.

2. Socio-Political Backlash and Market Reallocation

The voracious resource appetite of these facilities has sparked severe socio-political backlash in established markets. In the United States, an estimated $156 billion worth of data centre projects were officially blocked, severely delayed, or cancelled in 2025 alone due to a confluence of grid capacity constraints and environmental litigation.

Communities are increasingly mobilizing against the daily emissions of massive diesel backup generators. Furthermore, agricultural and municipal water conflicts are escalating. A single Meta facility in Georgia, for instance, utilizes approximately 500,000 gallons of water daily for its evaporative cooling arrays, directly competing with local farming requirements during drought conditions.

In response to such frictions and the broader threat of utility grid oversupply, hyperscalers are exhibiting strategic hesitation. Investment analysts from TD Cowen reported in early 2026 that Microsoft had terminated select leases with at least two private data centre operators across multiple US markets, cancelling hundreds of megawatts of capacity due to severe power delivery delays. The firm likened this to Meta’s previous withdrawal from data centre leases during the scaling down of its metaverse initiatives. Furthermore, Microsoft has paused Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) for multiple domestic sites, leading to market speculation regarding temporary AI compute overcapacity, or alternatively, a strategic reallocation of capital expenditures toward international markets with fewer regulatory frictions.

3. Geopolitics and Weaponization of Cloud Computing

Data centres are critical national security infrastructure. Weaponization of cloud computing and strategic competition between the US and China have defined the geopolitics in recent years. The US has imposed restrictions on the sale and transfer of advanced semiconductors (most notably Nvidia‘s cutting-edge architectures) to Chinese entities. The rationale is to strategically throttle China’s advances in AI-driven military logistics, autonomous weapons systems, and domestic surveillance apparatuses.

Despite restrictions, the Chinese state entities, research institutions, and tech giants are renting raw computing power from hyperscale data centres located in third-party countries. For example, in late 2025, investigations revealed that INF Tech, a Shanghai-based start-up, had been remotely accessing approximately 2,300 restricted, leading-edge Blackwell chips housed in an Indonesian data centre to train complex AI systems for scientific applications. Similarly, Chinese tech giants Alibaba and ByteDance have leveraged Nvidia clusters housed in Southeast Asian facilities to train their latest large language models. In another significant manoeuvre, China’s Tencent executed a $1.2 billion agreement with a Japanese cloud provider to secure remote access to 15,000 advanced B200 chips.

This regulatory loophole is forcing US policymakers to fundamentally reassess their strategy. To maintain the efficacy of hardware embargoes, the US will inevitably have to implement and enforce complex export restrictions on cloud computing services themselves. This means Washington will dictate not just who can purchase chips but also who can remotely log into servers globally, effectively weaponizing access to digital infrastructure.

Geotechnology disputes, thus, are new realities in international relations and diplomacy. Cross-border data flows, which were the unquestioned bedrock of the early internet, now face strict national oversight under the evolving doctrine of “digital sovereignty”. Governments fear that allowing sensitive citizen or government data to be processed on foreign soil exposes them to extraterritorial surveillance, economic espionage, or sudden geopolitical leverage.

This dynamic is fuelling intense competition for influence across the Global South. Both China and India view themselves as the natural leaders of this bloc. While India has facilitated strategic diplomatic manoeuvres, such as enabling the African Union’s entry into the G20, and aims to attract USD 200 billion in data centre investments to position itself as a trusted, development-focused AI partner for the developing world. The signing of the MOU between Nepal’s Kathmandu University and India’s BHASINI on June 6, 2026, for the development of artificial intelligence, digital public infrastructure, and natural language processing (NLP) in the presence of the foreign ministers of both countries is a significant geopolitical move.

China still has a massive financial superiority over India. Its outward direct investment (ODI) in 2023 amounted to nearly $180 billion, dwarfing India’s $110 billion. Beijing utilizes this capital to integrate nations into its technological sphere; for instance, Pakistan operates within the China Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS) and hosts special economic zones designed explicitly to attract relocated Chinese technological firms under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). In this fiercely contested environment, any nation offering to host neutral data infrastructure becomes an immediate focal point for superpower proxy competition.

4. Nepal’s Position

4.1 Current State of Data Centre and IT Services

Nepal’s data centre industry is nascent but growing. The first government-owned facility, the Government Integrated Data Centre (GIDC), was set up in 2009. The country’s first commercial data centre was established by Access World Tech Pvt. Ltd. in 2013. Most facilities are clustered around Kathmandu.

As of 2025–2026, Nepal has its first data centre company, Ncell. It’s Nakkhu Data Centre has been recently certified Tier 3. The first Tier 3 certified and purpose-built data centre, however, is Data World (a subsidiary of WorldLink Communications). It has 14 strategically located facilities across the country. A new development milestone arrived in May 2026 when Bichuten announced plans to build Tier 4 Hyperscale Data Centres in Chobhar, Kathmandu and Birgunj. These two will have a combined capacity of 5 MW, with all power sourced from Nepalese hydroelectric sources.

The IT service sector is growing as well. Given Nepal’s challenging topography and landlocked status, it is exceedingly difficult for physical Nepalese manufactured goods to compete with the industrial-scale output of neighbouring India and China. However, the “weightless” and borderless nature of IT service exports presents a distinct comparative advantage.
Current trends indicate significant latent potential. By 2022, Nepal exported IT services worth an estimated Rs 67 billion, and the sector is now generating over $1 billion annually. These IT service exports contribute approximately 1.4% to the country’s GDP and bolster foreign currency reserves by 5.5%.

4.2 Political Vision

The government has established highly ambitious targets to exponentially accelerate this growth. Policymakers aim to increase IT service export earnings from the current $1 billion to an astounding $30 billion by 2030, alongside the creation of 500,000 specialized domestic jobs to absorb a young national workforce projected to reach 22 million by the end of the decade.

To facilitate this transition, the government has drafted the Digital Nepal Framework (DNF) 2.0 in 2025. Expanding upon the original 2019 DNF 1.0, which sought to digitize eight key sectors through 80 distinct initiatives, the draft DNF 2.0 identifies data hosting and cloud infrastructure readiness as critical dependencies for national socioeconomic transformation. The framework explicitly prioritizes the establishment of energy-efficient, green data centres that align with international benchmarks like LEED and Uptime Institute standards. The framework also encompasses broad digitalization efforts, including a National Biometric ID system (with 17 million citizens already registered), eHaat Bazaar platforms for precision agriculture, and the widespread implementation of Digital Signatures. The Policies and Programmes for FY 2083-84 (2026-27) also reflect these aspirations.

Market projections reflect optimism regarding these policy shifts. The Nepal Data Center Market is forecast to grow from an estimated $171.86 million in infrastructure value in 2024 to $530.52 million by 2035, representing a CAGR of 10.00%. The broader data centre services market is expected to reach $407.15 million by 2035 at a 10.44% CAGR. Domestic players are already scaling up. For instance, WorldLink Communications has attracted significant FDI from the British International Investment (BII) and the Dolma Impact Fund to expand its enterprise solutions and subsidiary Data World Limited.

Nepal MarketCurrent / BaselineFuture Target (2030/2035)
IT Service Exports~$1.0 Billion (2024) $30.0 Billion (Target 2030)
IT Sector Job CreationCurrent informal dominance (82%) +500,000 specialized jobs (Target 2030)
Data Center Infrastructure Market$171.86 Million (2024) $530.52 Million (Forecast 2035)
Data Center Total Market SizeN/A (Emerging)$407.15 Million (Forecast 2035)
Summary Stats for Nepal’s IT and Data Centre Market

4.3 The Case FOR Nepal as a Data Centre Hub

Abundant Clean & Affordable Hydroelectric Power

Nepal’s most compelling competitive advantage is its extraordinary hydropower endowment. The country has an estimated hydropower potential of approximately 83,000 MW, of which around 43,000 MW is considered technically and economically feasible. As of April 2026, 4,340 MW has been harnessed, meaning the vast majority of this resource remains untapped.

Nepal has already become the first country in South Asia to sell surplus electricity on the Indian Energy Exchange market. By the 2025–2026 fiscal year, Nepal is projected to have a maximum surplus of 2,456 MW available for export. Crucially, almost all of the country’s electricity comes from hydropower, a renewable source that is increasingly prioritised by data centre operators seeking to meet net-zero commitments.

Energy costs represent the single largest operating expense for data centres, typically comprising 30–40% of total costs. Clean, affordable power directly addresses the dominant constraint facing the global industry today.

Natural Cooling Advantage

Nepal’s Himalayan geography offers significant natural cooling. Data centres generate enormous heat and require sophisticated (and energy-intensive) cooling systems. Nepal’s cool mountain climate, particularly at higher altitudes, could reduce power consumption for cooling, improving Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) ratios. Some existing Nepalese facilities already report PUE figures below 1.4, competitive with global benchmarks. Combined with abundant cold river water for water-side cooling, Nepal’s natural environment could substantially lower the total cost of data centre operation.

Strategic Location Between Two Giant Economies

Nepal is landlocked between India and China, two of the world’s largest and fastest-growing data economies. India’s data centre market is projected to reach over 4 GW capacity by 2030, expanding at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 23%. Asia-Pacific as a whole is the fastest-growing data centre region globally, with a projected 12–23% CAGR. Nepal’s geographic position could, if adequately connected, offer low-latency reach to both markets and serve as a neutral hub for regional data processing and storage.

By positioning itself as a sovereign, green data conduit, Nepal can cleverly leverage its strategic geography to attract competing streams of infrastructure financing. The United States, viewing secure digital infrastructure as a core component of its broader Indo-Pacific Strategy, is already heavily involved in modernizing the nation’s energy sector. The $500 million Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Nepal Compact is explicitly designed to increase the availability of electricity by financing critical high-voltage cross-border transmission lines, such as the Nijgadh–Motihari 400 kV link.

Green Brand Positioning

The global data centre industry is under mounting pressure to decarbonize. Hyperscalers are competing to secure renewable energy at scale, and renewable energy credentials are increasingly a prerequisite for major contracts. Nepal, where virtually 100% of electricity comes from hydropower, is in a unique position to offer one of the world’s greenest data centre environments. This green positioning could be a decisive differentiator when competing for environmentally conscious US operators subject to investor ESG (Environment, Social, and Governance) scrutiny.

Emerging Policy Momentum and Low Land Costs

The almost two-thirds majority government provides a political window to establish clear policy frameworks and incentive structures for foreign data centre investment. Land costs in Nepal remain a fraction of those in established markets. In primary U.S. markets, average monthly asking rates now exceed USD 200 per kW, which Nepal could substantially undercut. The combination of low land prices, cheap power, and natural cooling could offer a compelling total cost of ownership for certain workloads.

FDI Diversification and Economic Development

Nepal is heavily reliant on remittances (accounting for roughly 25–27% of GDP) and tourism. Data centre investment would bring in substantial FDI, creating skilled employment, building technical capacity, and generating long-term recurring revenue from power sales and services. Each direct data centre job is estimated to create 7.4 ancillary jobs in the broader economy. Investment in data centres would also accelerate Nepal’s own digital transformation, expanding access to cloud services, e-commerce, and digital public services.

4.4 The Case AGAINST

Seismic Vulnerability

Nepal sits on one of the world’s most seismically active zones. The 2015 Gorkha earthquake (7.8 Mw) caused catastrophic infrastructure damage and is a stark reminder of the country’s exposure. In September 2024, flooding and landslides affected 20 hydropower plants and reduced electricity production by at least 1.1 GW. For data centre operators, particularly hyperscalers housing mission-critical workloads, seismic risk is a serious deterrent.

Connectivity Bottlenecks

Nepal is landlocked and entirely dependent on its neighbours for international internet connectivity. The country’s internet bandwidth flows through India and China, both of which have been known to restrict cross-border data flows for geopolitical reasons. This creates a single point of failure for any data centre claiming to offer reliable global connectivity. Latency to key U.S. or European markets is high compared to established hubs in Singapore, the UAE, or even India.

For U.S.-based companies considering Nepal for data hosting, the connectivity question is near-disqualifying for latency-sensitive workloads. It may be less of an issue for cold storage, backup, archival, or batch AI training workloads, but these are lower-value use cases that generate less revenue.

Absence of Regulatory Framework

As of June 2026, Nepal has no comprehensive legal or regulatory framework governing data centres and their environmental impact, foreign data hosting, or data sovereignty. Local residents adjacent to existing, smaller-scale data centres in the Kathmandu Valley (such as the Ncell facility in Nakkhu) already report severe noise and vibration pollution, a continuous, low-frequency humming from cooling arrays that causes nearby houses to vibrate and disrupts sleep patterns. When grid failures occur, these facilities activate massive diesel generators, which residents report emit toxic black smoke daily.

For U.S. companies subject to U.S. data governance requirements (including potential export control regulations, data localisation rules under contracts with U.S. federal agencies, and GDPR-equivalent obligations for European user data), the absence of a clear Nepalese data centre regulatory framework is a significant obstacle. There is no equivalent of Singapore’s Model Data Centre framework, Ireland’s data centre planning guidance, or India’s new Digital Personal Data Protection Act to provide investment certainty.

Infrastructure and Skills Gap

Nepal’s existing data centre infrastructure is small-scale and domestically focused. The country has no experience connecting hydropower directly to a hyperscale data centre. Transmission infrastructure, substations, and grid stability are not yet calibrated for the power demands of large facilities. The skilled technical workforce required to operate and maintain hyperscale data centres, viz., electrical engineers, cooling specialists, network engineers, data centre technicians, etc., is scarce.

Building this workforce requires significant investment in training and potentially substantial salary premiums to attract talent.

Seasonal Power Variability

Nepal’s hydropower output is significantly seasonal. During the monsoon season (June–September), rivers run high and power is abundant, sometimes exceeding domestic and export demand. Although the Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA) projects that the nation will technically stop electricity imports during the dry season by 2026 and possess a maximum surplus of 2456 MW, independent analysts warn that the underlying supply remains highly fragile. During winter dry seasons, however, river flows drop sharply, and Nepal has historically imported electricity from India.

This seasonal mismatch, which is one of the factors challenging Nepal’s EV revolution, is a material risk for data centre operators who require 99.9%+ uptime, year-round, without fluctuation. This scenario also negates the “green compute” value proposition that initially attracts them. The prime minister’s assertion in parliament that increasing household consumption will result in power cuts is a clear deterrent for large-scale data centre operation. Addressing this requires significant investment in storage-type hydropower plants, battery storage, or guaranteed backup arrangements, none of which are currently in place at scale.

Geopolitical and Policy Instability

Nepal’s political history is marked by frequent government changes — the country has had over a dozen governments in the past two decades. Political protests and riots are also common. As such, policy continuity for long-horizon infrastructure investments (data centres have 15- to 25-year asset lives) is a legitimate concern. The government’s vision is compelling, but it depends on sustained political will across multiple electoral cycles.

Additionally, Nepal’s position between India and China creates complex geopolitical dynamics. India has imposed restrictions on the export of power from projects with Chinese involvement.

On the other hand, the dynamics in US-China relations could give rise to intense geopolitical rivalry. If US operators establish advanced computing facilities in Nepal, these servers become highly prized strategic assets for China. Because Nepal is physically linked to China via the 4 Gbps Rasuwagadhi optical fibre route, Beijing could easily lease computational bandwidth from US facilities based in Kathmandu. Moreover, any data centre that attracts Chinese investment or uses Chinese hardware could face complications with U.S. customers who are subject to U.S. national security review processes (such as CFIUS reviews or restrictions under the CHIPS Act framework).

This places Kathmandu in an impossible diplomatic position. Refusing the US could risk American sanctions, the immediate withdrawal of hyperscale FDI, and the freezing of MCC infrastructure funds. Conversely, accommodating US demands and severing Chinese data access would enrage Beijing, likely triggering economic coercion, border trade blockades, or a halt to Chinese infrastructure investments under the Belt and Road Initiative. This proxy conflict is already visible. During the recent visit of US Assistant Secretary of State Samir Paul Kapur to Kathmandu in April 2026, Chinese diplomat Cao Jing held near-parallel meetings, explicitly warning Nepal against the ramifications of the MCC Compact and urging the rejection of US satellite networks like Starlink.

Compounding this geopolitical friction is Nepal’s own chaotic approach to data sovereignty. The newly implemented Data Centre and Cloud Service Directives, 2025, mandate strict data localization, requiring all foreign operators to enlist with the local Department of Information Technology and mandating that domestic financial payment systems host their data strictly with these enlisted entities. Additionally, the Nepalese government has expressed intent to restrict the transmission of “sensitive data” outside its borders to enforce social media censorship and ensure local tax compliance. These heavy-handed, government-mandated backdoors and stringent localization prerequisites are highly unappealing to Western hyperscalers, who demand jurisdictional autonomy to protect global user privacy and shield their proprietary models from state interference.

No Proof of Concept Yet

Perhaps the most fundamental challenge is the absence of a demonstrated track record. There is no operational hyperscale or even mid-scale foreign-owned data centre in Nepal. There is no evidence that the economic case of cheap hydropower + natural cooling offsetting seismic construction premiums + connectivity costs actually works in practice. Without a pilot facility that validates the business model, risk-averse institutional capital will remain on the sidelines. This creates a classic chicken-and-egg problem: no investment without evidence, no evidence without investment.

4.5 Comparative Scorecard

FactorNepal’s PositionVerdict
Renewable Energy~83,000 MW potential; nearly 100% hydro gridStrong Advantage
Energy CostLow; competitive with regional peersAdvantage
Natural CoolingHimalayan climate; cool temperaturesAdvantage
Policy FormulationNew policies with focus on data centre and green computingPromising
Skilled WorkforceLimited; significant gap vs. global benchmarksWeakness
Regulatory FrameworkData centres absent from EIA and other regulationsCritical Gap
Seismic RiskHigh; among most active zones globallyMajor Challenge
Geopolitical EntanglementComplex; India-China Dynamics;
US cloud export controls conflicting with Chinese terrestrial fibre access.
Risk Factor
ConnectivityLandlocked geography; absolute physical reliance on Indian/Chinese fibre.Significant Weakness

4.6 Strategic Recommendations for Nepal

1. Establish a legal and regulatory framework. Draft and pass a Data Centre Act that addresses building standards for seismic zones; environmental impact requirements; data sovereignty and cross-border transfer rules; and a licensing regime for foreign operators. Draw on Singapore, Ireland, and India as models.

2. Build a proof-of-concept facility. Partner with a development finance institution (such as the IFC or ADB) and a credible technology operator to construct and operate a single mid-scale (5–10 MW) internationally certified data centre powered directly by a dedicated hydropower source. Document the full economics.

3. Invest in hydropower generation, transmission and grid stability. The connection between hydropower generation and data centre campuses requires dedicated and reliable transmission infrastructure and backup systems to address seasonal variability. This is a prerequisite, not an afterthought.

4. Resolve connectivity dependency. Work with India and Bangladesh, and potentially directly with submarine cable landing stations via Bangladesh, to diversify and secure international bandwidth. Explore partnerships with regional internet exchange points.

5. Develop the workforce pipeline. Partner with Tribhuvan University and technical institutes to create data centre operations and engineering curricula. Establish apprenticeship agreements with international operators.

6. Target appropriate workload types first. Rather than competing head-on with Singapore or the UAE for latency-sensitive workloads, focus initially on cold storage, AI training (batch, not real-time inference), backup and archival, and sustainability-driven offloading from carbon-heavy facilities.

7. Create a stable investment environment. Offer political stability and security against riots; long-term tax certainty (10+ year agreements); land lease guarantees; and repatriation of profits provisions that survive changes in government. Consider a special economic zone model for data centre campuses.

5. Conclusion

Nepal’s proposition as a data centre hub is genuinely compelling in theory. The combination of vast untapped clean energy, natural cooling, and low land costs addresses the most acute constraint facing the global industry today: power. The political will is present. The timing as the world scrambles for green computing capacity is, in principle, favourable.

However, the structural challenges are substantial and largely unaddressed. Seismic risk, connectivity dependence, regulatory vacuum, workforce gaps, and seasonal power variability are deal-breakers for hyperscalers operating at the frontier of global digital infrastructure, where uptime and data sovereignty are non-negotiable.

Nepal’s most realistic near-term path is to build credible proof with one well-documented, internationally certified, hydropower-connected facility and let the economics speak. If the math works, the investment will follow. If it does not, Nepal will have learned a critical lesson before committing national resources at scale.

The opportunity is real. The hard work of converting ambition into investable reality has barely begun.

Major population statistics of Nepal

Population concerns Nepal is looking to address with the 2082 Policy

On the occasion of World Population Day on July 11 (Ashadh 27), Nepal published a new population policy. The Prime Minister’s statement, “Get married at twenty and have three children by thirty,” got huge attention in the social media. As with many of the statements the PM makes, it turned into jokes and memes. Many youths also criticised the government for creating unemployment and focusing on sending the productive population abroad. Although the statement created a buzz, it also made the youths on social media miss serious concerns put forth by the National Population Policy, 2082.

Some population statistics (Source: Population | National Population and and Housing Census 2021 Results)

1. Declining Growth Rate

The 2021 National Population and Housing Census (NPHC) averages Nepal’s annual growth rate of 0.92% per year in the decade 2068-2078 B.S. (2011-2021). This is a decline from 1.35% per year in the 2068 (2011) Census. Similarly, the total fertility rate (TFR) has fallen to 1.94, well below the desired 2.1. In the last decade, population policies talked about demographic dividend—the higher number of youths contributing to national development. The new trends indicate that Nepal may be losing that edge and have raised many concerns for the future.

1.1 Potential Negative Demographic Dividend

A decrease in the population growth rate implies a smaller number of children and the reduction of the active population, aged 15-59, in the future. Although Nepal hasn’t been able to utilise its 62% active population, a reduction indicates an even worse scenario, where there will be a shortage of human resources for production. This will negatively affect human capital formation and the economic growth.

1.2 Aging Population

In 2068, the population above 60 was 8.1% of the total population. The population of the elderly is now 10.21%. Improved health care has and will shoot up the number even higher in the coming decades. The government may have to spend more on the elderly’s health. The reduced active population will have to spend more on the care of their parents, creating economic pressure.

1.3 Underutilisation of Infrastructure

A lower population may not have the need for a large number of infrastructures. Also, the lack of human resources owes to the decline in development and economic activities.

1.4 Reversal of Family Planning Programmes

The government will now have to encourage youths to have more children, and the PM’s statement seems relevant in that context. However, the majority of the youth are not ready to get married, let alone have three children by their thirties. Employment opportunities are scarce, inflation is high, and there is no encouragement to industries and entrepreneurship. Given our situation, it is easier to press for a lower number of children. How can one think of marrying and having three children when surviving alone is a struggle?

2. Rapid Out-Migration

Nepal has a high rate of out-migration. For instance, in 2023, the Department of Immigration’s data showed that 70,915 (36,663 men and 34,251 women) left the country to reside elsewhere permanently. Similarly, 808,415 Nepali citizens went for foreign employment, of which 89.5% were males. Moreover, 108,542 (~55% male and 45% female) students went abroad to pursue their studies. Very few return back to Nepal. Out-migration driven by globalisation has not only reduced the population but also deprived Nepal of skilled human resources vital for national development.

The fact that more people are settling in other countries with their families means that Nepal is losing its source of remittance. Although the Nepalese diaspora has been contributing to various development endeavours, it is uncertain whether they will continue doing so if they don’t have any familial roots in Nepal.

3. Drastic Change in Technology

In the last five years, technology has changed at a breakneck pace, changing the way the world operates. Many labour-intensive works are now being replaced by automation, robotics, and artificial intelligence (AI). Nepal lags behind in the development and adoption of new technologies. There is also a possibility of reduced labour demand in developed countries. The National Population Policy acknowledges that the rapid growth in technology might elevate the problem of unemployment at home and abroad.

Policy Proposals to Solve the Above Problems

To address the problems caused by low growth rate, the National Population Policy 2082 proposes to revisit and revise family planning programs to align with current and future demographic trends and strengthen reproductive health services. The open-ended policy wording means that for now, the government will work towards increasing birth rate and modifying family planning programmes.

The policy aims to make foreign employment skill-based, prioritise the knowledge on AI, and utilize the human resources on national development. For internal migration, the policy aims to strengthen information and data systems, increase economic activities in rural areas to create employment, and systematize internal migration through integrated settlement development.

For addressing the challenges brought about by technology, the policy proposes revising the education system to be entrepreneurship, and production-focused, prioritize skill and competence enhancement in new technologies and artificial intelligence (AI) for Nepali workers, and increasing investment in productive sectors like tourism, modern agriculture, infrastructure development, and forest product processing to expand employment and self-employment opportunities.

Ground Realities

Despite elaborate policy proposals, the ground realities show a different picture. Infrastructures are subpar, the quality of education is questionable, the influence of globalisation is insurmountable, and the frustration of the youth is higher than Mount Everest. There is no way the government can stop the youth from going abroad in search of opportunities. It might even encourage out-migration to improve the economy via remittance. Unless Nepal improves infrastructures and encourages the youth for entrepreneurship and mass employment, the National Population Policy has very little chance of success.

Why Nations Fail

Understanding Corruption: Lessons from Why Nations Fail

During the Arab Spring of 2011, Egyptians said something that we Nepalis often say as well:

“We are suffering from corruption, oppression and bad education. We are living amid a corrupt system which has to change.”

How do we end up in such corrupt systems? How do these systems lead nations to failure? Is it possible to escape the vicious cycle of corruption and failure? If so, how?
These are the kinds of questions Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson attempt to answer in their book Why Nations Fail.

Main Thesis of the Book

Acemoglu and Robinson present their argument as follows:
A country progresses when state power is centralised and inclusive economic and political institutions are established. Centralised power here does not imply authoritarianism, but rather the assurance of a capable and strong legal rule within the state. Similarly, inclusiveness means the meaningful participation of all segments of society in the political and economic system.

If any one of the three—centralised governance, inclusive economic institutions, or inclusive political institutions—is missing, the state moves towards failure. If none of the three are present, the nation becomes completely dysfunctional.

The effects of small policy decisions become much more significant during critical junctures in history. For example, during the Black Death in Europe, a population decline led to different consequences: in Britain, Magna Carta facilitated the abolition of serfdom, while in Eastern Europe, serfdom became more entrenched. The changes brought about in Britain by Magna Carta and the end of serfdom laid the groundwork for the Industrial Revolution and enabled Britain to become the world’s wealthiest and most powerful nation.

Geography, Culture, and Disease

While presenting their argument, Acemoglu and Robinson emphasise that geography, culture, and disease do not play a significant role in determining a nation’s success. They illustrate this with several examples:

  • The two Nogales cities, divided by the U.S.–Mexico border, share the same geography, history, and culture but exhibit vastly different economic and political outcomes.
  • North and South Korea, in spite of similar culture and geography, have radically different institutional setups and living standards.
  • Botswana and its neighbouring countries in Africa also share environmental and historical traits but differ in governance and development outcomes.

The argument is that despite similar geography or culture, the economic and political structures in place have a far greater influence on the quality of life and development trajectories of the population.

Threats to Inclusive Institutions

Acemoglu and Robinson express concern that even inclusive institutions may gradually turn extractive due to rising political and economic inequality.

They cite historical examples such as

  • The Roman Empire, which eventually collapsed.
  • The Roman Republic and the Venetian Republic, both of which saw their inclusive institutions deteriorate as political and economic power became concentrated among elites.

As power became limited to a few hands, innovation stagnated, and people began migrating and trading elsewhere. This highlights how fragile institutions can be when not adequately protected or regulated.

Even in countries regarded today as inclusive and successful—such as Britain—the journey was neither direct nor uninterrupted. Between the 1215 Magna Carta and the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the state was not particularly inclusive, nor was it very successful in promoting economic development.

Rulers and Innovation

Why do rulers resist innovation and technological advancement? Is it because they don’t understand them?
Acemoglu and Robinson argue no—rulers often fully understand innovation but oppose it because it threatens their power.

Technological change and innovation can undermine the very foundation of extractive systems, so those in power suppress innovations that do not benefit them directly.

For instance, before the Glorious Revolution of 1688, British kings and queens blocked numerous technological advances. However, after 1688, wealthy merchants and scientists, enriched through colonial profits, began to gain influence and push for innovation.

Britain, Colonies, and Failed Nations

Britain displayed dual behaviour—within Britain, inclusive institutions gradually took shape, while in its colonies, the British deliberately established extractive institutions for resource exploitation.

Examples include:

  • Slave trade in Africa, where the British were major participants. Although slavery was eventually outlawed in Britain due to public opposition, African states continued to engage in it.
  • In contrast, in colonies like America, Canada, and Australia, where resources and indigenous populations were limited, inclusive institutions started to develop—often unintentionally.

This illustrates how the design of institutions depends on state policy and necessity.
The book also discusses how the Spanish and the Portuguese in Latin America and the Dutch in South-east Asia, engaged in oppressive colonial behaviour similar to the British.

The authors also discuss failed nations, with Somalia being the prime example. In Somalia, the absence of centralised power led to no political development and no focus on economic issues. Despite fertile land and access to the sea, Somalia suffers from instability, conflict, and extreme poverty.

The Uncertainty of History

History does not always move in a straight or predictable direction. Nations that appear inclusive at one time can later become extractive. Why Nations Fail acknowledges this uncertainty and emphasises that the future of a nation depends on whether its government can control such shifts.

For example, the book discusses the rise of the Robber Barons in 19th-century America:

  • These were powerful industrialists like Andrew Carnegie (steel), John D. Rockefeller (petroleum), and J.P. Morgan (banking), who established monopolies by crushing smaller competitors and consolidating power.
  • Their influence extended to the U.S. Congress, making them extremely politically powerful.

However, in the early 20th century, President Theodore Roosevelt committed to breaking up these monopolies. He was followed by William Taft and Woodrow Wilson, who promoted competition by dismantling monopolies.

This paved the way for a more competitive economic environment and encouraged new wealth creators like Bill Gates. Had competition not been restored, the U.S. might have ended up like Mexico, where industry often operates under political and economic favouritism.

Virtuous Cycle

A virtuous cycle occurs when a liberal and inclusive economy demands equally inclusive politics, and those politics in turn promote further economic inclusiveness.
This mutually reinforcing relationship strengthens over time.

Historical examples include

  • Britain after the Glorious Revolution, and
  • The United States after the Declaration of Independence.

The earlier example of the dismantling of monopolies in the U.S. is one such case of a virtuous cycle in action.

Another example is when Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to limit the power of the U.S. Supreme Court, but Congress refused, thereby asserting the independence of institutions and preventing concentration of power.

Vicious Cycle

A vicious cycle arises when extractive political institutions use the economy for their own benefit, and in turn, those who gain economic power use it to dominate politics.

This cycle reinforces inequality and authoritarianism over time.

Examples of countries caught in such a cycle include:

  • Somalia
  • Argentina
  • North Korea

In these countries, wealth and power remain concentrated, while most people remain excluded from both political participation and economic opportunity.

Escape from the Vicious Cycle

It is possible to escape the vicious cycle of extractive politics and economics, but it requires making both politics and markets more inclusive.

One notable example is South Korea:

  • In the 1960s, General Park Chung-hee became president. While his rule was authoritarian, he significantly improved the economy.
  • After his assassination, his successor, Chun Doo-hwan, became even more repressive.
  • However, as economic development and public awareness grew, South Koreans gained the courage to challenge authoritarianism.

This led to the establishment of a democratic system in South Korea from 1997 onwards.

Unstable Economic Growth

Even under extractive political systems, economic growth is possible—because rulers can still benefit from such growth.
However, this kind of growth:

  • Rarely improves the lives of ordinary people, and
  • Is usually unsustainable in the long run.

To illustrate this, the authors cite:

  • The Soviet Union under Stalin: His policies made the USSR a military power but ultimately led to fragmentation and collapse.
  • Modern China: While China has experienced rapid economic growth, the authors argue that without the development of inclusive political institutions, this growth cannot be sustained, and the country is likely to transition towards democracy in the future.

Some Problems in the Book

Why Nations Fail focuses almost exclusively on internal institutions within a nation and neglects other critical factors such as:

  • Geopolitics and the influence of international institutions,
  • The role of global economic policies and aid frameworks.

For example:

  • After the Great Depression of the 1930s, the United States adopted Keynesian economics, which later influenced Europe.
  • Global events like the Bretton Woods Conference (1944), the Marshall Plan, the end of the Gold Standard under Nixon, and the rise of neoliberalism under Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, along with the policies of the IMF, World Bank, and the Washington Consensus, all had profound effects on developing nations—but the book largely ignores them.
  • Similarly, it overlooks how Western intelligence agencies have influenced regime change in emerging economies and how policies from so-called “successful nations” can undermine developing ones.

The book also struggles with historical accuracy in some ancient contexts:

  • It claims that the Natufian civilization collapsed due to extractive institutions, but there is insufficient evidence to support this.
  • Likewise, while Egyptian and Sumerian states left behind ample evidence of exploitation, the Maya civilization cannot conclusively be said to have fallen due to institutional extraction.

Other omissions:

  • Singapore is not discussed, despite its one-party rule (nominally democratic) and remarkable development.
  • In the case of China, the constitutional amendment that allowed Xi Jinping a third term is not addressed—even though it significantly strengthened the Chinese Communist Party’s grip on power.

Stylistically, the book repeats its core thesis many times, making it seem as though the authors want to emphasize that their model is the only truth. This repetition can become tedious.

Furthermore, due to the uncertainty of history and the many special circumstances involved, the model proposed by Acemoglu and Robinson lacks predictive power.
It may help analyze past events, but by focusing solely on institutions, it overlooks many other dimensions of political and economic change.

Nepal’s Context

Although Nepal is mentioned only briefly in the book, when viewed through the lens of Acemoglu and Robinson’s model, we can conclude that:

Nepal has fallen into a vicious cycle due to an extractive political system that has fostered an extractive economy.

Historically:

  • The formation of modern Nepal is generally considered to have begun when Prithvi Narayan Shah defeated Kantipur in 1768 (1825 BS).
  • During his unification campaign, power was centralized among his courtiers and military officers (known as Bhai-Bhardars), but this did not result in political unification.
  • Nepal’s defeat beyond the Mahakali River in wars against the British showed weak political and military presence in those areas.
  • Even today, some parts of Nepal lack meaningful state presence, leading to lawlessness and elite exploitation.

During the Rana regime, there was a strong centralized authority, but it remained confined to a small elite.
Education was reserved for the ruling class, and reforms were often suppressed:

  • Reformist figures like Dev Shumsher and Padma Shumsher were exiled.
  • When Gehendra Shumsher attempted to manufacture modern weapons, Chandra Shumsher sabotaged his efforts.
  • Though Chandra did outlaw sati and slavery, and established Tri-Chandra College, access remained highly restricted.

In 1951, democracy was introduced, but power remained in the hands of a few elites.
Even the first popularly elected parliament and government failed to deliver significant change.

Later, King Mahendra’s Panchayat system developed roads and industries but lacked public participation and saw elite capture.

After the restoration of democracy (1990), the people’s movement (2006), and the establishment of a republic, Nepal has still not overcome elite dominance.
With limited economic resources and concentrated wealth, public frustration with the republic is growing.

Although some socio-economic indicators have improved, weak governance has hindered visible national development.

To change Nepal’s condition, there is a need for innovation and competitive industrialization. However, political leaders fear that empowering the public will weaken their grip on power, and thus continue to act extractively.

Conclusion

Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson’s Why Nations Fail is a useful book for understanding the role of internal institutions in a country’s economic development and prosperity.

However, because it does not account for geopolitical influences, its thesis remains limited. The examples in the book should not be taken at face value, but read critically and with broader context in mind.

For readers unable to undertake deep research, the emphasis on institutions may seem conclusive—but it is essential to approach this book with caution and analytical awareness.

Why Nations Fail

राष्ट्र किन असफल हुन्छन् – समीक्षा Why Nations Fail

सन् २०११ मा अरब स्प्रिङ्ग भइरहँदा इजिप्सियनहरूले भनेका यी कुरा हामी नेपालमा पनि भनिरहन्छौँ —

“We are suffering from corruption, oppression and bad education. We are living amid a corrupt system which has to change.”


अर्थात्, “हामी भ्रष्टाचार, दमन र कुशिक्षाले पीडित छौँ । हामी यस्तो भ्रष्ट प्रणालीमा छौँ जुन परिवर्तन हुनै पर्छ ।”

भ्रष्ट प्रणालीमा हामी कसरी पुग्छौँ ? कसरी त्यस्तो प्रणालीले देशलाई नै असफल बनाउँछ ? के भ्रष्टाचार र असफलताको दुष्चक्रबाट उम्किन सकिन्छ ? सकिन्छ भने कसरी ? यस्तै प्रश्नका उत्तर ड्यारोन एसेमोलु र जेम्स रबिन्सनले Why Nations Fail किताबमार्फत् दिने प्रयास गरेका छन् ।

पुस्तकमा समेटिएका विषयहरू

पुस्तकको मुख्य थेसिस

एसेमोलु र रबिन्सन आफ्नो तर्क यसरी राख्छन्–कुनै पनि देशको उन्नति तब हुन्छ जब राज्यशक्ति केन्द्रीकृत हुन्छ र समावेशी आर्थिक तथा राजनीतिक संस्थाहरूको निर्माण गर्छ ।

यहाँ केन्द्रीकृत राज्यशक्ति भन्नाले निरङ्कुशता नभई राज्यभित्र सक्षम र सबल कानूनी शासनको प्रत्याभूति हो । त्यस्तै, समावेशिताको अर्थ राज्यका सम्पूर्ण पक्षको राज्यमा अर्थपूर्ण सहभागिता भन्ने बुझिन्छ । यदि केन्द्रीकृत शासन, समावेशी आर्थिक र राजनीतिक संस्थाहरू मध्ये कुनै एकको मात्रै कमी भयो भने पनि राज्य असफलतातर्फ उन्मुख हुन्छ । तीनवटै अवस्था भएनन् भने राष्ट्र पूर्णतः असफल हुन्छ ।

राज्य लिएका ससाना नीतिहरूको प्रभाव विशेष परिस्थिति (Critical juncture) मा अझै गहिरो गरि देखापर्छ । जस्तै, युरोपमा ब्ल्याक डेथले जनसङ्ख्यामा असर पार्दा बेलायतमा म्याग्ना कार्टाको प्रभावले दासत्वको अन्त्य भयो तर पूर्वी युरोपमा दासत्व झनै बढ्यो । म्याग्ना कार्टा र दासत्व उन्मुलनले बेलायतमा ल्याएका परिवर्तनले औद्योगिक क्रान्तिलाई टेवा दियो र विश्वको सबैभन्दा धनी र शक्तिशाली राष्ट्र बन्न सक्यो ।

भूगोल, संस्कृति र रोगको प्रभाव

एसेमोलु र रबिन्सनले आफ्नो तर्क प्रस्तुत गर्ने क्रममा राष्ट्रको सफलतामा भूगोल, संस्कार, र रोगको खासै भूमिका नहुने कुरा उल्लेख गरेका छन् । यसका लागि प्रस्तुत गरेका केही उदाहरण हुन्: एरिजोना, अमेरिका र मेक्सिकोका सीमाले छुट्याएको एउटै ईतिहास, भूबनोट र संस्कृति भएका दुई नोगेल्स शहर, उत्तर र दक्षिण कोरिया, बोट्स्वाना र उसका छिमेकी मुलुकहरू आदि । उस्तै भूगोल र संस्कृति भए पनि यी ठाउँमा स्थापित फरकफरक आर्थिक र राजनीतिक संरचनाले जनताको जीवनमा भिन्नभिन्न तरिकाले असर पार्ने तर्क लेखकहरूको छ ।

समावेशी संस्थामाथि खतरा

आर्थिक-राजनीतिक असमानताका कारण समावेशी संस्थाहरू (inclusive institutions) पनि बिस्तारै शोषक (extractive) बन्न सक्नेतर्फ पनि लेखकद्वयले संशय व्यक्त गरेका छन् । यसको मुख्य उदाहरणका रूपमा रोमन साम्राज्य र त्यसको असफलताबाट निस्किएको रोमन गणतन्त्र र भेनिसलाई प्रस्तुत गरेका छन् । त्यहाँ आर्थिक र राजनीतिक शक्ति सीमित व्यक्तिहरूमा पुगेपछि नवप्रवर्तन रोकिएको र मानिसहरू नयाँ सहज ठाउँमा बसाइँसराइ र व्यापार गर्न थालेको विषयले संस्थाहरू कति संवेदनशील हुन्छन् भन्ने थाहा हुन्छ । अहिले समावेशी र सफल भनिएको बेलायतमा सन् १२१५ मा म्याग्ना कार्टाको घोषणा र सन् १६८८ मा गौरवमय क्रान्ति (Glorious Revolution) को बिचमा राज्य खासै समावेशी नभएको र जनताको आर्थिक विकास गर्न राज्य त्यति सफल नभएको इतिहास पनि प्रस्तुत गरेका छन् ।

शासक र नवप्रवर्तन

शासकहरू नवप्रवर्तन र प्रविधि अपनाउन किन चाहँदैनन् ? के उनीहरूले प्रविधि नबुझेर त्यसो गरेका हुन् ? एसेमोलु र रबिन्सन भन्छन्–शासन शक्ति हुनेहरूका लागि नवप्रवर्तन र प्रविधि चुनौती हुन् उनीहरूको शोषक प्रणाली विरुद्ध । उनीहरू जुन प्रविधि र प्राविधिकले आफ्नो फाइदा नहुने देख्छन्, तिनलाई नष्ट गरिदिन्छन् । बेलायतमा १६८८ को गौरवमय क्रान्तिपूर्व राजा र रानीले थुप्रै प्रविधि रोकेका रहेछन् । १६८८ पछि भने उपनिवेशबाट कमाएर धनी भएका व्यापारी र वैज्ञानिकहरूको आवाज सशक्त हुँदै गएको देखिन्छ ।

बेलायत, उपनिवेश, र असफल राष्ट्रहरू

बेलायत र उसका उपनिवेशहरूमा भने द्वैधता देखिन्छ । बेलायत भित्र समावेशी संस्थाहरू क्रमशः स्थापना भइरहँदा बेलायतीहरूले उपनिवेशहरूमा भने स्रोत दोहनका लागि शोषकी संस्थाहरू स्थापना गरेका थिए । अफ्रिकामा दासहरूको किनबेच गर्नेमा बेलायतीहरू प्रमुख थिए । बेलायतमा विरोध बढ्दै जाँदा दासत्व गैरकानुनी त भयो तर अफ्रिकाका राज्यहरू दासत्वबाट टाढिएनन् । अर्कोतिर स्रोत र रैथानेहरूको अभाव भएका ठाउँमा (अमेरिका, क्यानडा, अस्ट्रेलिया) भने नचाहँदा नचाहँदै समावेशी किसिमका संस्था स्थापित हुँदै गएराज्यको नीति र आवश्यकता अनुसार संस्थाहरू निर्माण हुन्छन् भन्ने यहाँबाट बुझिन्छ । बेलायतीबाहेक दक्षिण अमेरिकामा स्पेनी र पोर्चुगिज अनि दक्षिण पूर्वी एसिया डचहरूले गरेका आततायी व्यवहारको ईतिहास पनि पुस्तकमा समेटिएको छ ।

पुस्तकमा असफल राष्ट्रहरूको पनि चर्चा छ । तीमध्ये मुख्यतः सोमालिया हो । त्यहाँ केन्द्रीकृत शक्ति नहुँदा राजनीतिक विकास हुनै सकेन । आर्थिक मुद्दाहरू पनि कहिले पनि उठेनन् । फलस्वरूप, मलिलो माटो र समुद्रमा पहुँच भएर पनि सोमालिया अस्थिरता, द्वन्द्व र चरम गरीबीको शिकार भएको छ ।

इतिहासको अनिश्चितता

इतिहास ठ्याक्कै यही दिशामा जान्छ भन्न सकिँदैन र कुनैबेला समावेशी भनिएका राष्ट्र पछि शोषक पनि बन्न सक्छन् भन्ने तर्क Why Nations Fail भित्र भेटिन्छ । तिनलाई सरकारले नियन्त्रण गर्न सक्छ कि सक्दैन भन्ने कुराले राष्ट्रको भविस्य निर्धारण गर्छ । उदाहरणका लागि अमेरिकामा १९औं शताब्दीमा उदाएका लुटेरा ब्यारोनहरू (Robber Barons) लाई लिन सकिन्छ । त्यस समय थोरै पुँजीबाट ठूला उद्योगी बनेकाहरूले आफ्नो प्रभाव बढाउन साना उद्योगलाई धराशायी बनाउने, आफूभित्र गाभ्ने र प्रतिस्पर्धा निष्तेज गर्ने काम गरेका थिए । उदाहरणका लागि एन्ड्र्यु कार्नेगीले स्टील, जोन डी. रकफेलरले पेट्रोलियम र जे. पी. मोर्गनले बैङ्किङ क्षेत्रमा मोनोपोली बनाएका थिए । अमेरिकी कङ्ग्रेसमा पनि उनीहरूको बलियो प्रभाव थियो । यद्यपि बीसौँ शताब्दीको सुरुवातमा राष्ट्रपति बनेका थियोडोर रूजवेल्टले मोनोपोलीहरू बन्द गर्ने प्रतिबद्धता गरे र उनी पछि आएका विलियम टाफ्ट र उड्रो विल्सनहरूले मोनोपोलीहरूलाई टुक्र्याएर प्रतिस्पर्धालाई प्रोत्साहन गरे । प्रतिस्पर्धाकै कारण अमेरिका नयाँ लगानीको लागि आकर्षक हुन थाल्यो र बिल गेट्सजस्ता धनाड्य आउन सके । प्रतिस्पर्धालाई प्रोत्साहन गर्न नसकेको भए मेक्सिकोमा जस्तो राजनीतिक र आर्थिक प्रभावको आधारमा उद्योग सञ्चालन गर्नुपर्ने हुन सक्थ्यो भन्ने तर्क एसेमोलु र रबिन्सनले गरेका छन् ।

सुचक्र (Virtuous Cycle)

उदार र समावेशी अर्थतन्त्रले त्यस्तै राजनीति माग गर्ने र समावेशी राजनीतिले समावेशी अर्थतन्त्रलाई प्रोत्साहन गर्ने चक्र नै सुचक्र हो । यस्तो चक्र बेलायतमा गौरवमय क्रान्तिपछि र अमेरिकामा स्वतन्त्रताको घोषणापछि देख्न सकिन्छ । अघिल्लो खण्डमा उल्लिखित अमेरिकी मोनोपोलीहरूको अवसान सुचक्रको एउटा उदाहरण हो । अर्को उदाहरण अमेरिकामै फ्रयाङ्क्लिन डी. रूजवेल्टले सर्वोच्च अदालतको शक्ति सीमित गर्न चाहेको तर संसदले अस्वीकार गरेको प्रसङ्ग पनि हो ।

दुष्चक्र (Vicious Cycle)

शोषक राजनीतिले अर्थतन्त्रलाई आफ्नो स्वार्थको लागि प्रयोग गर्ने र आर्थिकरूपमा सबल भएकाहरूले आफ्नो पक्षमा राजनीति गर्ने शिलशिलालाई दुष्चक्र भन्न सकिन्छ । धेरैजसो अफ्रिकी, दक्षिण अमेरिकी र एसियाली देशहरू यस्तो चक्रमा फसेका छन् । सोमालिया, अर्जेन्टिना, र उत्तर कोरियालाई उदाहरणका रूपमा लिन सकिन्छ ।

दुष्चक्रबाट उन्मुक्ति

शोषक राजनीति र अर्थतन्त्रको दुष्चक्रबाट उम्किन सम्भव छ । यसका लागि राजनीति र बजार दुवै समावेशी बन्दै जानुपर्छ । उदाहरणका लागि दक्षिण कोरियामा १९६० को दशकमा जनरल पार्क चुङ ही राष्ट्रपति बने । उनले राजनीतिक रूपमा अधिनायक शैली लिए पनि अर्थतन्त्रमा भने निकै सुधार गरे । उनको हत्यापछि राष्ट्रपति बनेका चुन डु-ह्वान झनै क्रूर बन्न थाले । तर अर्थतन्त्रको र चेतनाको विकासले उक्त शासन व्यवस्थालाई चुनौती दिने साहस दक्षिण कोरियालीहरूलाई दियो । फलस्वरूप दक्षिण कोरियामा १९९७ देखि लोकतान्त्रिक व्यवस्था कायम भयो ।

अस्थिर आर्थिक प्रगति

शोषक राजनीति भएका ठाउँमा पनि आर्थिक वृद्धि सम्भव हुन्छ किनकि शासकहरू उक्त आर्थिक वृद्धिको लाभ लिन पाउँछन् । त्यस्तो आर्थिक वृद्धिले जनताको जीवनमा भने खासै सकारात्मक प्रभाव पार्न सक्दैन । पारिहाले पनि त्यस्तो वृद्धि दिगो हुन सक्दैन । यसका लागि लेखकद्वयले स्टालिनकालीन सोभियत संघ र हालको चीनलाई उदाहरणका रूपमा प्रस्तुत गरेका छन् । स्टालिनले लिएका नीतिले सोभियत संघलाई सैन्य शक्ति त दियो तर कालान्तरमा खण्डित गरिदियो । चीनले समावेशी राजनीतिक संस्थाको विकास नगरेमा त्यहाँको आर्थिक विकास दिगो नहुने र भविस्यमा लोकतान्त्रिक व्यवस्थातर्फ अघि बढ्ने सम्भावना देखिन्छ, किताबले भन्छ ।

पुस्तकमा रहेका केही समस्याहरू

Why Nations Fail मा राष्ट्रभित्रका संस्थाहरू बाहेक अरू पक्षहरूलाई नकारिएको छ । भूगोल र भूराजनीतिको प्रभावको विषयमा पुस्तकमा चर्चा छैनअन्तर्राष्ट्रिय संस्थाहरूको प्रभावका कारण देशले लिने नीतिका विषयमा पनि पुस्तक मौन छ । उदाहरणका लागि अमेरिकामा सन् १९३० को आर्थिक मन्दी (The Great Depression) पछि लोकतान्त्रिक समाजवादमा आधारित किन्सीयन अर्थतन्त्र लागू भयो । त्यसैको सिको युरोपले पनि गर्‍यो । त्यस्तै, सन् १९४४ को ब्रेट्टन उड्स सम्मेलन, दोस्रो विश्वयुद्धपछि युरोपको पुनर्निर्माणका लागि अपनाइएको मार्शल प्लान, रिचर्ड निक्सनद्वारा गरिएको गोल्ड स्टान्डर्डको अन्त्य, सन् १९८० पछि अमेरिकामा रोनाल्ड रेगन र बेलायतमा मार्गारेट थ्याचरको सहमतिपछि उदाएको नवउदारवाद, त्यसमा आधारित IMF र World Bank का गतिविधि, Washington Consensus र तिनले भूराजनीतिमा पारेका प्रभावलाई पूरै बेवास्ता गरिएको छ । त्यसैगरी पश्चिमा गुप्तचर संस्थाहरूले गर्ने शासन परिवर्तन, उदीयमान अर्थतन्त्रमा धक्का लाग्ने गरी “सफल राष्ट्र”हरूले लिने नीतिलगायतका विषय पनि यस मोडलमा अटेका छैनन् ।

प्राचीन राज्यहरूको असफलताका बारेमा लेखिएका कुराहरू संस्थामा आधारित थिए भन्ने कुरा अलि अमिल्दो लाग्छ । नाटुफियन सभ्यताको अन्त्य शोषणका कारण भएको हो भन्ने तर्कलाई पुष्टि गर्ने पर्याप्त आधार रहेनछन् । शिकारी नै भए पनि वासस्थान बनाएर बस्न थालेका उनीहरू राज्यका रूपमा संगठित थिए भन्न सकिँदैन । बरू इजिप्सियन र सुमेरियन राज्यका शोषणका अनगिन्ती प्रमाण भेटिने रहेछन् । त्यस्तै, माया सभ्यताको अन्त्य शोषणकै कारण भएको भन्न सकिने प्रमाण पुग्दैन ।

सिङ्गापुरको एकदलीय शासन व्यवस्था (लोकतान्त्रिक भनिए पनि) र त्यहाँ भएको विकास समेटिएको छैन । चीनका सन्दर्भमा सी चीन फिङले तेस्रो कार्यकालका लागि गरेको संविधान संशोधनले चिनियाँ कम्युनिस्ट पार्टीको शासनलाई अझै बलियो बनाउने देखिएको छ ।

लेखकहरूले आफ्नो मूल थेसिस किताबभरी दोहोराइरहन्छन् । यस्तो लाग्छ कि पटकपटक एउटै कुरा भनेर यही एउटा तर्क नै सम्पूर्ण सत्य हो भन्ने देखाउन खोजेका हुन् । एउटै कुरा दोहोरिरहँदा केही झिँझो पनि लाग्छ । यद्यपि, विशेष परिस्थितिको विश्लेषण र इतिहासको अनिश्चितताका कारण एसेमोलु र रबिन्सनको मोडलमा पूर्वानुमान गर्ने क्षमता (predictability) को कमी छ । भइसकेका घटनाको विश्लेषणका लागि भने केही मद्दत अवश्य गर्छ तर संस्थाहरूलाई मात्रै प्राथमिकता दिने हो भने राजनीतिक र आर्थिक परिवर्तनका अन्य आयामलाई केलाउन सकिँदैन

नेपालको सन्दर्भ

पुस्तकमा नेपालको नाम केही ठाउँमा भेटिनुबाहेक विस्तृत चर्चा छैन । यद्यपि, एसेमोलु र रबिन्सनको मोडलभित्र राख्दा नेपालमा शोषक राजनीतिक व्यवस्थाले चलाएको शोषक आर्थिक प्रणालीका कारण हामी दुष्चक्रमा परेका छौँ भन्न सकिन्छ ।

आधुनिक नेपालको सुरुवात पृथ्वीनारायण शाहले वि. सं. १८२५ मा कान्तिपुरलाई हराएपछि भएको मान्ने गरिन्छ । त्यस समयमा राज्य विस्तारमा सहायता गर्ने भाइभारदारमा शक्ति केन्द्रीत थियो । राज्य विस्तार हुँदै गर्दा भौगोलिक एकीकरण भए पनि राजनीतिक एकीकरण हुन सकेन । अङ्ग्रेजसँग महकालीपारि नेपालले हार्नुको कारण त्यहाँ नेपालको राजनीतिक र सैन्य शक्तिको कमजोर उपस्थिति पनि थियो । अझै पनि नेपालका कतिपय ठाउँमा राज्यको उपस्थिति छैन जसले गर्दा कानुनी शासनको अभाव छ र सीमित व्यक्तिहरूले शोषण गरिरहेकै छन् ।

राणाकालमा देशमा बलियो शासन त आयो तर त्यो पनि भाइभारादारकै मिलेमतोमा सीमित थियो । राणा र पहुँचवालाका लागि मात्रै शिक्षाको व्यवस्था गर्ने तर केही नयाँ गर्न खोज्दा खेद्ने चलन राणाहरूले नै चलाए । शिक्षा र राजनीतिमा सुधार ल्याउन चाहेने देवपद्म समशेरहरू लखेटिए । गेहेन्द्रले वीर गन बनाएर हतियार कारखाना चलाउँदा चन्द्रले भाँजो हाले । चन्द्रले सती प्रथा र दासत्वको अन्त्य गरे र त्रिचन्द्र कलेजको स्थापना पनि गरे । यद्यपि कलेजमा जोकोहीको पहुँच थिएन ।

२००७ सालमा प्रजातन्त्र स्थापना भए पनि शासन केही सम्भ्रान्तका लागि मात्रै सीमित भयो । पहिलो आम निर्वाचनबट बनेको संसद र सरकारले पनि जनजीवनमा खासै परिवर्तन ल्याउन सकेन । त्यसपछि राजा महेन्द्रले सुरु गरेको पञ्चायत व्यवस्थाले सडक सञ्जाल विस्तारउद्योगहरू स्थापना गर्‍यो तर जनताको प्रत्यक्ष सहभागिता सुनिश्चित गर्न सकेन । केही सम्भ्रान्तको पकड (elite capture) पञ्चायतमा देखियो ।

तर जुन पकडको विरुद्धमा प्रजातन्त्रको पुनःस्थापना, लोकतान्त्रिक आन्दोलन र गणतन्त्रको स्थापना भयो, त्यसलाई पराजित गर्न नेपाल अझै सक्षम भएको छैन । सीमित स्रोत र अर्थतन्त्र पनि सीमित व्यक्तिमा केन्द्रीत भएकाले गणतन्त्रप्रति पनि जनतामा वितृष्णा उब्जिन थालेको छ । केही आर्थिक-सामाजिक सूचकहरूमा नेपालको प्रगति त देखिएको छ तर सुशासन कमजोर हुँदा जनताले देख्ने गरी देशको विकास हुन सकेको छैन ।

नेपालको अवस्था फेर्न नवप्रवर्तनलाई प्राथमिकता दिँदै प्रतिस्पर्धात्मक औद्योगिकीकरण गर्नुपर्ने आवश्यकता छ । तथापि त्यसो गरेमा जनता सक्षम हुने र आफ्नो राजनीतिक शक्ति कमजोर भई सत्ताबाट बाहिरिनुपर्ने डरका कारण राजनीतिक नेतृत्व झन्झन् शोषक बन्दै गएको छ ।

अन्त्यमा,

ड्यारोन एसेमोलु र जेम्स रबिन्सनको Why Nations Fail आर्थिक विकास र समृद्धिमा राष्ट्रका आन्तरिक संस्थाहरूको महत्त्वका बारेमा बुझ्न उपयोगी छ । यद्यपि यसमा अन्य भूराजनीतिक पक्षलाई स्थान नदिएको हुँदा यसको थेसिस सीमित छ । पुस्तकमा दिइएका उदाहरणलाई जस्ताको तस्तै ग्रहण गर्नुभन्दा अन्य पक्षलाई पनि विचार गर्दै पढ्नुपर्ने हुन्छ । गहन अध्ययन गर्न नसक्ने पाठकका लागि संस्थाको महत्त्व मात्रै महत्त्वपूर्ण लाग्न सक्ने हुँदा यस पुस्तकलाई सावधानीपूर्वक पढ्नु उचित हुन्छ ।

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén

SUBSCRIBE

Sign up to receive awesome content in your inbox.

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.