Siddha Raj Pant

Over 20 million poor Nepalis do not receive proper service delivery from the state. Poverty is a socially, politically and economically complex issue, but it is quite delineable from the perspective of service delivery. Availability of and access to opportunities vis-à-vis services like healthcare, education, transport, electricity, housing, and communication differentiate rich from poor.

Our established management practices colour our lenses through which we perceive the world. The myth of ‘public good’ associated with these services leads both the providers and the recipients to believe that these should be under public domain. Therefore, the state is always struggling to improve the delivery of these services through its establishments, however sparsely located. Needless to say, billions of rupees in aid received each year is pumped into these areas through state mechanisms, commissions and committees. However, qualitative performance has been dismal.

The private sector is also gradually taking root in the service business in Nepal. In towns and urban areas, services like education, healthcare, transportation and communication are increasingly shifting to the private hands. This is not because the government is favouring private providers but because it cannot simply compete with the private providers in these areas. Communication, the media, education and healthcare, and consumer commodities are some of the sectors government can do nothing more than let it grow in the private hands.

Nevertheless sceptics are reluctant to accept the market forces. Affordability of privately provided services is debated injudiciously. During my research in a slum area in Pokhara, it was revealed that the poor households who are denied electricity connections by Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA) on the grounds of failing to produce the title deed are paying Rs 100 per month for less than 100 watt-hours of electricity consumption, which is more than double the charges by NEA. Despite availability of electricity, access is denied, which results in paying poverty premium.

As a matter of fact, to combat poverty, making services available is not enough. Access to good quality services should also be easy. Evidently, the incidence of poverty continues to be higher in the areas where essential services like education and healthcare are provided only by the state. Schools lack qualified teachers and hospitals are without adequate equipment, medicines and trained personnel. News of watchmen teaching classes or attending to patients in rural areas is rife. A state mechanism that manages and provides these services has little or no incentive for innovation.

In order to improve the livelihood of the people, they should be provided opportunities at competitive prices not by subsidies that distort market mechanisms. It is only possible by commercialising activities that meet their needs while maintaining control to check exploitation. One way to achieve this would be through promoting public-private partnerships at all levels and sectors.