combine with other key characteristics (such as the amount of arable land), to “push” people to migrate, which increases their risk factor for contracting HIV and AIDS, further facilitating the spread of HIV and AIDS in Nepal.
1.4 Economy
Although Nepal has seen some statistical improvement in its economic condition since the first edition of this book was published a decade ago, the country remains one of the world’s least developed nations. Nepal is listed as 157/187 (30th poorest) in the Human Development Index Rankings (UNDP 2013), with a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita income of $1,300 and approximately one quarter of its population still living below the poverty line (CIA 2013). Nepal is mainly an agrarian society where nearly 75 percent of the population is economically dependent upon agriculture, which makes up over one-third of Nepal’s GDP (CIA 2013). Given the declining ability for Nepalese to meet their own basic agricultural needs due to the growing population and land degradation, future economic prospects are poor. Nepal is an underdeveloped nation with strong economic ties to India as a result of Nepal’s geographic proximity, historical relationships, and landlocked status. Also, Nepal has historically relied heavily upon foreign aid to meet her needs. Foreign aid (as a percentage of the GNP) had grown from 8 percent in 1984 to nearly 13 percent in 1987 (latest figures available, Savada 1991). Likewise, foreign aid accounted for 64 percent of the development expenditures between 1956 and 1990 (latest figures available, Savada 1991). And latest figures estimate foreign aid to make up 5–6 percent of the GDP, 55 percent of Nepal’s capital expenditure and 25 percent of its total expenditure (Dahal 2008).
To understand Nepal’s present economic condition it is necessary to understand its economic past. Nepal, under the despotic leadership of the rogue prime minister’s hereditary line (the Ranas), practiced a protectionist policy of isolationism and was cut off from the rest of the world for over a hundred years (1846–1950). Karan and Ishii (1994) observe:
Nepal’s chaotic political development in the first half of the nineteenth century precluded any real attention to the economic needs of its people. When autocratic stability was imposed by the prime ministers of the Rana regime after 1846, the administrative structure was reinforced to provide economic aggrandizement for the extensive Rana family, to the extent that Nepal’s revenues, land ownership, and economic opportunities were almost totally the prerogatives of the ruling family. (Karan and Ishii 1994:1)
Prior to this period Nepal had also suffered under the consequences of a two-year war (1814–1816) with the British (Anderson 1987:20–23), which had been preceded by the consolidation (through warfare) in 1769 of several tiny hilltop kingdoms into the Kingdom of Nepal under the leadership of Prithvi Narayan Shah (EIU 1996:71). It was King Prithvi Narayan Shah who first established the modern nation-state known today as Nepal (Savada 1991:15–19). Nepal, therefore, had suffered the consequences of underdevelopment (as a result of political instability and despotic rule) for nearly two hundred years. Blaikie, Cameron, and Seddon (1979:25) observe that “Nepal had no economic planning of any kind prior to 1951.”
The year 1951 saw the overthrow of the Rana government and the return of the rightful royal monarch to the throne. King Mahendra Shah took control of Nepal in 1951, ending its “virtual economic seclusion” (Johnson 1983:155) and marking Nepal’s emergence into the modern world. Shah threw Nepal’s doors open to the outside world and attempted to lift Nepal from its poverty by guiding the revitalization of the country through its introduction into the global community as a fully functioning economic member (Bista 1991:1). Nepal’s economy, however, was still “rooted in the medieval past” (Karan and Ishii 1994:1).
Since 1951, Nepal has pursued various economic strategies with limited success (Bista 1991:1; Savada 1991:107). In 1955 the government announced the first of several five-year economic development plans (Uppal 1977:17; Lohani 1984:181; Karan and Ishii 1994:1) designed to facilitate economic and social development. However, by the mid 1990s “the development strategies introduced in the 1950s and 1960s had not had the results predicted by their advocates” (Schloss 1983) and Nepal “had not advanced economically in the last 45 years” (EICU 1996:79). Although the last decade has certainly seen some statistical economic improvement, many would contend that the civil war actually set Nepal’s economic development back a decade and that any statistical improvement noted has mostly been limited to the capital city of Kathmandu.
Bikaas is the Nepali word meaning ‘development’. Bikaas has been a major theme for Nepal ever since it opened its doors to the world in the 1950s. At that time Nepal quickly adopted an attitude toward economic development that was intended to raise it out of its poverty and bring it into the world economy. Despite the attempts, Nepal remains one of the least developed countries (LDC) in the world.
Economic development has taken various forms in Nepal in the last half-century, which have received reproach from multiple critics. Several authors stress the negative effects of economic development models upon Nepali culture (Pandy 1992; Pigg 1993; Pigg 1995b; Shrestha 1993; Zurick 1993) and upon the environment (Bell 1994; Ecologist 1993; Economist 1993; Hausler 1993; Nicholson-Lord 1994; Sill 1991; Singh 1993). To be fair, however, Schloss (1983:1) points out that in evaluating the economic and political consequences of the development paradigms pursued by Nepal over the last fifty years, we must realize that although the results of economic development methods followed throughout the eight five-year plans have had only a minimal impact upon most Nepalis, “it is also evident that no [emphasis his] development strategy would have done any better without the development of these basic infrastructure [those pursued under the first five plans] programs. Kathmandu made the right choice in the 1950s.”
Schloss also tells us “it is only now that alternative options on growth models are feasible” (1983:1). Recently international planners have begun to examine the problems created by the development strategies pursued and have begun to look at sustainable solutions to the issues raised (Gevers 1991; Zimmerer 1991; Zurick 1992). The government of Nepal has been slow to respond to these concerns but some headway is now beginning to be forged. It is clear, however, that Nepal still has a long way to go. As discussed further in chapter three, many aspects of Nepal’s economy have created various push/pull factors that have, in turn, created greater exposure to the wider world. Unfortunately, this has also created a greater exposure to HIV and AIDS.
1.5 Geography
Although much of Nepal’s underdevelopment is owed to history, much also is owed to her topography. The area of Nepal is 147,181 square kilometers (56,136 square miles), approximately the size of Tennessee (Guido-O’Grady 1995). In just over one hundred miles (as the crow flies), Nepal’s altitude climbs from about two hundred meters (685 feet) in the south to over 8,800 meters (29,035 feet) on the peak of Mt. Everest in the north (Burbank 1992:8). According to recent figures (CIA 2013), only sixteen percent of Nepal’s land is arable. Lohani (1984) divides Nepal into three topographical and ecological zones: (1) the mountains (the northern third of the country), which are sparsely populated (10% of Nepal’s population) and difficult to farm (5% of the total cultivated land), (2) the mid-hills (the middle area of the country), which exhibit a higher population density (53% of Nepal’s population live here) and low agricultural yields on terraced farms, and (3) the Terai (the lower third, bordering India), where population density is lower (37% of Nepal’s population) and agricultural productivity higher (65% of cultivated land).14 As can be noted from these figures, cultivation in the mid-hills is less productive per capita than in the Terai, where the land is more suitable for farming and the population less dense. One publication suggests that “the difficult topography of the country has posed a serious problem in transporting and marketing agricultural products” (EIU 1996:78). Steep terrain also exacerbates deforestation and erosion.
Perhaps more significant than topography is Nepal’s status as a landlocked country. According to Blaikie, Cameron, and Seddon (1979:12), sixteen of the twenty-five least developed countries in the world are landlocked. There seems to be a link between a nation’s being landlocked and its status as a least developed country. According to several authors (Blaikie et al. 1979; Karan and
