All governments in the past have promised more inclusive and accountable governance, along with improved service delivery, but public expectations have largely remained unmet. Why does Nepal struggle to turn good intentions and policies into real outcomes? Why does economic development progress more slowly than in other countries?
This indicates a structural gap that can be described as a 3P deficiency in policymaking: People, Process, and Performance. These are the foundational pillars of effective policy design and implementation. Their absence leads to systemic underperformance. This article discusses how Nepal’s policy sector suffers from a shortage of skilled policy analysts, reliance on ad hoc processes, weak performance, and a lack of accountability.
The People Deficiency
Sound and effective policies can only be designed by competent people involved in the policymaking process. It is widely acknowledged that public institutions in Nepal face a chronic shortage of specialized human resources. The Nepalese bureaucracy struggles to attract and retain skilled professionals in areas such as policymaking, economic modeling, environmental regulation, public health, digital governance, and infrastructure systems management.
Technical positions are often filled by generalists without domain-specific expertise. Policy formulation tends to be reactive rather than grounded in comprehensive and rigorous analysis of societal problems. Feasibility studies and impact assessments often become procedural formalities or copy-paste exercises rather than substantive work, leading to policy withdrawal or unintended consequences. This was evident during the government’s proposed amendment to the Guthi Bill in 2019, which triggered widespread protests, particularly among the Newar community in Kathmandu.
There are two main reasons for the shortage of competent policy professionals. The first is the absence of core policymaking education and structured training for aspiring professionals, who require both conceptual understanding and practical exposure. In Nepal, higher education in public policy is limited. A few programs exist in Public Administration or Public Policy and Management, but a dedicated, focused master’s program in public policy has long been absent. However, a positive development is that a newly established university is launching a master’s program in Public Policy.
Prospective employers, students, and universities in Nepal do not fully recognize the importance of academic programs in public policy. The discipline is often overlooked and undervalued. A well-structured public policy program could fill this gap and produce competent professionals.
Wake up Nepali Congress
Another reason for the deficiency is the politicization of appointments and transfers, which are often not based on expertise or capability. Key positions in government and semi-government institutions are frequently influenced by political loyalty rather than merit. This situation was even more severe in the past. Frequent changes in coalition governments led to policy reversals and a loss of institutional memory.
Addressing this deficiency requires structural reform: transparent, merit-based appointments, lateral entry for skilled professionals, specialized education, and training in evidence-based policymaking.
I recently attended a high-level program that included Nepal’s senior bureaucrats, including the Chief Secretary and several secretaries. During the discussion, there was broad acknowledgment that the government faces a serious shortage of competent public policy professionals—individuals equipped with the analytical skills and technical expertise required for effective policymaking. This candid recognition underscores the urgent need to strengthen Nepal’s policymaking capacity across the entire policy cycle, from analysis and design to implementation and evaluation.
The Process Deficiency
Nepal’s policymaking, often criticized, remains ad hoc, politicized, and largely reactive. Policies are shaped by immediate pressures, crises, or political interests, rather than careful planning and rigorous research. As a result, decisions are often made without adequate data analysis or meaningful stakeholder consultation. Nepal’s health insurance program and the construction of regional international airports illustrate these shortcomings.
Effective policymaking requires standard tools and policy cycles, including impact assessments, cost-benefit analysis, and structured monitoring frameworks. In practice, however, Nepal lacks consistent application of these processes. Policy decisions are often made first and justified later, rather than being evidence-driven from the outset. A study by the Policy Research Institute (PRI) found that policymaking in Nepal is frequently shaped by political commitments, personal networks, lobbying, and administrative discretion rather than objective evidence.
The PRI study also highlights structural gaps, including an unfavorable environment for knowledge use, reliance on outdated information, and limited use of data analysis and evaluation. Consequently, Nepal’s Fifteenth Plan emphasized strengthening data systems and developing skilled human resources to support evidence-based policymaking. Similarly, the Sixteenth Plan calls for improved policy consistency and stronger institutional capacity.
Policy work is often carried out in isolation, leading to contradictions, duplication, weak coordination, and delays. Coordination among federal, provincial, and local governments remains weak due to inadequate institutional mechanisms.
Nepal’s budget frequently introduces numerous programs and incentives that are unfunded, underfunded, or overlapping. Government entities struggle to fully utilize allocated budgets, revealing weaknesses in planning, procurement, and execution. Policies are often issued without clear implementation mechanisms, leaving agencies unprepared during execution. For example, a senior government official reportedly was unaware of the operational mechanism of the Nagdhunga–Sisnekhola Tunnel even after its completion.
The Performance Deficiency
Performance deficiency is the third gap in Nepal’s policymaking, alongside people and process. Even well-designed policies often fail to deliver expected results on time. Many are formulated without adequate understanding of local realities, making implementation difficult. Weak bureaucratic capacity and a lack of accountability further undermine performance.
Numerous projects fail to deliver on schedule. Initiatives such as the Melamchi Water Supply Project, major highways, Hulaki Marg, and several hydropower projects have suffered from cost overruns, delays, and poor quality. Problems begin at the outset with weak project selection, poor preparation, procurement challenges, inadequate supervision, political interference, contractor–politician nexus, and frequent staff transfers. Delays have become so routine that they are now widely expected.
Budget reviews tend to focus on expenditure rather than outcomes and quality. Lessons from both successful and failed projects are rarely institutionalized. Although accountability mechanisms such as the Office of the Auditor General and parliamentary committees exist, follow-up is weak and enforcement remains minimal. Reward and punishment systems are rarely applied effectively.
Nepal’s policymaking challenges can be addressed through deliberate reforms that close gaps in these three areas. The newly elected government, with its strong mandate, has an opportunity to implement decisive reforms that can transform policy intentions into tangible results and fulfill long-standing political promises.
The author is affiliated with the School of Public Policy, University of Nepal.
