State Restructuring Models \u0026 Their Implications on Regional Development

$: State Restructuring Models \u0026 Their Implications on Regional Development$
TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING

PULCHOWK CAMPUS

THESIS NO:

“State Restructuring Models and Their Implications on Regional

Development”

By:

Amrit Acharya

A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE & URBAN

PLANNING IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN URBAN PLANNING

DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE & URBAN PLANNING

LALITPUR, NEPAL

NOVEMBER, 2014

ii

DECLARATION

I declare that this Thesis has not been previously accepted in substance for any degree

and is not being concurrently submitted in candidature for any degree. I state this

dissertation is the result of my own independent work/ investigation, except where

otherwise stated. I, hereby, give consent for my dissertation, if accepted, to be available

for photocopying and understand that any reference to or quotation from my thesis will

receive an acknowledgement.

Sign_____________________________

(Amrit Acharya)

Date: ……………………………….

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my profound gratitude to Dr. Jibgar Joshi for successfully

guiding me through the various stages of this thesis. He not only provided me support

for acquiring deep insight into the subject, but also was prompt in offering constructive

criticism as and when required, and that too is a must subtle way as possible. The credit

for anything good about my research work is attributed to his guidance.

I am indebted to Prof. Dr. S.R Tiwari whose valuable comments guided in many ways

to make further improvements to this report at various stages. I am grateful to Dr. Kirti

Kusum Joshi, for his valuable comments and suggestion.

I wish to express my gratitude to Prof. Dr. Sudha Shrestha, Program Coordinator

M.Sc. Urban Planning for her continual support. I wish to extend my thanks to Mr.

Rabindra Dawadi for his valuable suggestion during conceptualization of this research

work. His suggestions are highly commendable.

I am very obliged to the staffs of parliament secretariat, Singha Durbar who helped me

by providing hard copies of the reports submitted by State Restructuring Committee

and State Restructuring Commission. I am also obliged to my friends who helped me

during data collection and GIS analysis.

The completion of this study is also dependent upon the patience and understanding

shown by my wife Shringar. I wish my heartiest love to her.

iv

ABSTRACT

Different models of state restructuring have been proposed by individuals, experts,

government bodies and political parties, which have different number of federal states

with their respective delineation and legislative, executive and judicial forms of

government along with tiers of governance. The delineated regions have different

characteristics of geological features, accessibility, ethnic groups, language population,

development level, productive land, energy potential, revenue collection and

expenditure. The study was made to analyze these characteristics of regions as

delineated in different models and find which regions are stronger and which regions

are weaker.

The study was based on the secondary data mainly from sources like government

bodies and departments, reports published by international organizations and other

trusted sources. A database was prepared in ArcGIS for analyzing the values in the

regions delineated in the models. Finally the results were published in the form of

tables, charts and maps. Parameters reflecting the characteristics were established and

weightage was assigned to each parameter and comparison was made on the basis of

total score obtained by each region. The total scores have been compared within the

respective models and also within all the models to find the stronger and weaker

regions.

The study has also identified why some regions are weaker although they have

potentiality of resources. This study will be fruitful to understand how the delineation

of states in the models can affect the integrated national development with resource

distribution and capacity of each regions. It can help to intervene present delineation

so as to make balanced and sustainable regional development.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

Certificate i

Declaration ii

Acknowledgment iii

Abstract iv

Table of Contents v-ix

List of Tables x-xi

List of Figures xii

List of Charts xiii

List of Acronyms xiv

1. CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Problem Statement .......................................................................................... 3

1.3 Objectives: ....................................................................................................... 5

1.4 Research Question: .......................................................................................... 6

1.5 Expected Outcomes ......................................................................................... 6

1.6 Scope & Limitations........................................................................................ 6

2. CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................... 7

2.1 State Restructuring & Regional Development ................................................ 7

2.2 Theoretical Concept of Regionalization .......................................................... 7

2.2.1 Economic (Export) Base Theory ............................................................. 8

2.2.2 Centre Periphery Theory .......................................................................... 8

2.2.3 Industrial Location Theory ...................................................................... 8

2.2.4 Central Place Theory................................................................................ 9

vi

2.2.5 Growth Pole Theory ................................................................................. 9

2.3 Review of Regional Development Efforts in Nepal........................................ 9

2.4 Recent Political Development in Nepal ........................................................ 11

2.4.1 Parliamentary Monarchy (1990-1996) ................................................... 11

2.4.2 Maoist Insurgency (1996) ...................................................................... 11

2.4.3 Royal Massacre (2001) .......................................................................... 11

2.4.4 Suspension of Parliament and Loktantra Andolan (2005-2007)............ 11

2.4.5 Establishment of Federal Republic (2007-2008) ................................... 12

2.5 Federalism ..................................................................................................... 12

2.6 Federal Structure and Interregional Linkages ............................................... 16

2.7 State Restructuring Models ........................................................................... 17

2.8 Concept of Political Parties ........................................................................... 17

2.9 Proposed Federal Models .............................................................................. 20

2.10 Representative Federal Models ..................................................................... 22

2.11 The Three Models ......................................................................................... 22

3. CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY ................................................................. 27

3.1 Study Area ..................................................................................................... 27

3.2 Data Collection .............................................................................................. 28

3.3 Data Analysis and Synthesis ......................................................................... 29

3.4 Method of Analysis ....................................................................................... 30

4. CHAPTER IV: PROFILE OF ECODEVELOPMENT REGIONS .............. 31

4.1 Area in Sq. Km .............................................................................................. 32

4.2 Population Distribution, 2011 ....................................................................... 32

4.3 Population Density (Sq. Km) and Population Growth .................................. 33

4.4 Strategic Road Length, Density and Influenced Population ......................... 34

5. CHAPTER V: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MODELS ....................... 36

5.1 Population & Area ......................................................................................... 36

5.1.1 Committee Model (Model A): ............................................................... 36

5.1.2 Commission Model (Model B): ............................................................. 39

5.1.3 Model Agreed Upon by Parties (Model C): ........................................... 42

5.2 Share of Major Ethnic Groups ...................................................................... 44

vii

5.2.1 Ethnic Share in Model A & Model B: ................................................... 47

5.2.2 Ethnic Share in Model C: ....................................................................... 49

5.3 Land Capability ............................................................................................. 50

5.3.1 Land Capability (Arable Land & Slope) in Model A ............................ 52

5.3.2 Land Capability (Arable land & Slope) in Model B .............................. 54

5.3.3 Land Capability (Arable land & Slope) in Model C .............................. 55

5.4 Road Density and Development Rank .......................................................... 56

5.4.1 Road Density and Development Rank in Model A ............................... 57

5.4.2 Road Density and Development Rank in Model B ................................ 59

5.4.3 Road Density and Development Rank in Model C ................................ 61

5.5 Energy Potentiality ........................................................................................ 62

5.5.1 Hydropower Potentiality in Model A .................................................... 63

5.5.2 Hydropower Potentiality in Model B ..................................................... 64

5.5.3 Hydropower Potentiality in Model C ..................................................... 65

5.6 Revenue to Expenditure (R/E) Ratio and HDI .............................................. 66

5.6.1 (R/E) Ratio & HDI in Model A ............................................................. 67

5.6.2 (R/E) Ratio & HDI in Model B.............................................................. 68

5.6.3 (R/E) Ratio & HDI in Model C.............................................................. 70

6. CHAPTER VI: RESULTS ................................................................................ 72

6.1 Results ........................................................................................................... 72

6.2 Weighted Analysis & Ranking of States ....................................................... 79

6.3 Analysis of Result: ........................................................................................ 83

6.3.1 Population Distribution and Density ...................................................... 83

6.3.2 Major Ethnic Share & State Nomenclature ........................................... 83

6.3.3 Land Capability Distribution ................................................................. 84

6.3.4 Road Density and Development Rank ................................................... 84

6.3.5 Energy Potentiality................................................................................. 85

6.3.6 (R/E) Ratio ............................................................................................. 85

6.3.7 HDI ........................................................................................................ 86

viii

6.4 Overall Ranking of States ............................................................................. 87

7. CHAPTER VII: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION .......................................... 91

7.1 Models and Regional Development .............................................................. 91

7.2 Contribution to Regional Development ........................................................ 91

7.2.1 Committee Model (Model A): ............................................................... 91

7.2.2 Commission Model (Model B): ............................................................. 92

7.2.3 Agreed Model (Model C)....................................................................... 93

7.3 Coalescing of Strong & Weak States ............................................................ 94

7.4 Rights over resources .................................................................................... 94

7.5 Federalism as Boon ....................................................................................... 95

7.6 Power Sharing ............................................................................................... 95

7.7 Financial Capacity ......................................................................................... 95

8. CHAPTER VIII: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ................. 96

8.1 Positive Impacts ............................................................................................ 96

8.2 Negative Impacts ........................................................................................... 96

8.3 Further Research Area Topics ....................................................................... 98

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………… 99

APPENDICES .......................................................................................................... 101

APPENDIX- I: Table Showing Population Share of Ethnic Groups ...................... 102

APPENDIX -II: Area of Arable Land by Eco-development Region ....................... 104

APPENDIX –III: Table Showing Development Rank & Road Density ................... 105

APPENDIX- IV: Map Showing Population Distribution & Density in Model A ..... 106

APPENDIX- V: Map Showing Population Distribution & Density in Model B ..... 107

APPENDIX- VI: Map Showing Population Distribution & Density in Model C ..... 108

APPENDIX- VII: Map Showing Ethnic Share in Model A ...................................... 109

APPENDIX- VIII: Map Showing Ethnic Share in Model B ..................................... 110

APPENDIX- IX: Map Showing Ethnic Share in Model C ....................................... 111

APPENDIX- X: Map Showing Arable Land in Model A ....................................... 112

APPENDIX- XI: Map Showing Arable Land in Model B ....................................... 113

APPENDIX- XII: Map Showing Arable Land in Model C ...................................... 114

APPENDIX -XIII: Map Showing Road Density & Development Rank in Model A 115

APPENDIX-XIV: Map Showing Road Density & Development Rank in Model B 116

ix

APPENDIX-XV: Map Showing Road Density & Development Rank in Model C . 117

APPENDIX-XVI: Map Showing Energy Potential & HDI in Model A ................... 118

APPENDIX-XVII: Map Showing Energy Potential & HDI in Model B ................. 119

APPENDIX-XVIII: Map Showing Energy Potential & HDI in Model C ................. 120

APPENDIX-XIX: Map Showing (R/E) Ratio in Model A ...................................... 121

APPENDIX-XX: Map Showing (R/E) Ratio in Model B ...................................... 122

APPENDIX-XXI: Map Showing (R/E) Ratio in Model C ...................................... 123

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 List of Countries Adopting Federalism .......................................................... 14

Table 2 Major Political Parties of Nepal...................................................................... 17

Table 3 Concept of Major Political Parties to Federal Structure ................................. 18

Table 4 Proposed Federal Models................................................................................ 20

Table 5 Different Federal Models ................................................................................ 26

Table 6 List of Data Collected with Type & Source ................................................... 28

Table 7 Area of Eco-Development Regions ................................................................ 32

Table 8 Population Distribution in Eco Development Regions ................................... 32

Table 9 Population Density 2011 and Growth Rate .................................................... 33

Table 10 Strategic Road Length, Density & Influenced Population ........................... 34

Table 11 Committee Model: Population & Area ......................................................... 36

Table 12 Commission Model: Population & Area ...................................................... 39

Table 13 Model Agreed by Parties: Population & Area .............................................. 42

Table 14 Share of Major Ethnic Groups ...................................................................... 44

Table 15 Ethnic Share in Eco Development Region ................................................... 45

Table 16 Ethnic Share in Model A & Model B .......................................................... 48

Table 17 Ethnic Share in Agreed Model (Model C) .................................................... 49

Table 18 Arable Land of Eco Development Regions .................................................. 51

Table 19 Road Density & Development Rank in Committee Model .......................... 57

Table 20 Road Density & Development Rank in Commission Model ........................ 59

Table 21 Road Density & Development Rank in Agreed Model ................................ 61

Table 22 List of Hydropower Projects ......................................................................... 62

Table 23 Energy Potential in Committee Model ......................................................... 63

Table 24 Energy Potential in Commission Model ....................................................... 64

Table 25 Energy Potential of Agreed Model ............................................................... 65

Table 26 (R/E) & HDI in Committee Model ............................................................... 67

Table 27 (R/E) Ratio & HDI in Commission Model ................................................... 68

Table 28 (R/E) Ratio & HDI in Agreed Model ........................................................... 70

Table 29 Table showing Indicator values in Committee Model (Model A) ................ 73

Table 30 Table Showing Indicator Values in Commission Model (Model B) ............ 75

Table 31 Table Showing Indicator Values in Agreed Model (Model C) .................... 77

Table 32 Table showing Parameter Weightage ........................................................... 79

xi

Table 33 Table showing Rank Score of States in Committee Model .......................... 80

Table 34 Table Showing Rank Score of States in Commission Model ....................... 81

Table 35 Table of Rank Score of States in Agreed Model .......................................... 82

Table 36 Overall Ranking of States-I .......................................................................... 88

Table 37 Overall Ranking of States-II ......................................................................... 89

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Growth Axes .............................................................................................. 10

Figure 2 SR Model Proposed by State Restructuring Committee ........................... 23

Figure 3 SR Model Model Proposed by State Restructuring Commission ............. 24

Figure 4 SR Model Agreed Upon by Political Parties in May 2012 ....................... 25

Figure 5 Raster Data Model ..................................................................................... 29

Figure 6 Vector Data Model .................................................................................... 29

Figure 7 Map showing Parameter values in Model A ............................................. 74

Figure 8 Map showing Parameter values in Model B.............................................. 76

Figure 9 Map showing Parameter values in Model C............................................... 78

xiii

LIST OF CHARTS

Chart 1 Chart Showing Methodology of Study ....................................................... 27

Chart 2 Population Distribution in Eco development Regions ................................ 33

Chart 3 Population Growth Rate 2001-2011 ........................................................... 34

Chart 4 Strategic Road in Development Regions .................................................... 35

Chart 5 Population Distribution in Model A............................................................ 38

Chart 6 Population Density in Model A .................................................................. 38

Chart 7 Population Distribution in Model B ............................................................ 41

Chart 8 Population Density in Model B ................................................................... 41

Chart 9 Population Distribution in Model C ............................................................ 43

Chart 10 Population Density in Model C ................................................................... 43

Chart 11 Area of Arable land in Eco development Regions ...................................... 52

Chart 12 Area of Arable Land in Model A ................................................................ 52

Chart 13 Percentage Are of Slope in Model A .......................................................... 53

Chart 14 Area of Arable Land in Model B ................................................................ 54

Chart 15 Percentage Area of Slopes in Model B ...................................................... 55

Chart 16 Area of Arable Land in Model C ................................................................ 55

Chart 17 Road Density in Model A ........................................................................... 57

Chart 18 Road Density in Model B............................................................................ 59

Chart 19 Road Density in Model C............................................................................ 61

Chart 20 Hydropower Potential in Model A .............................................................. 63

Chart 21 Hydropower Potential in Model B .............................................................. 65

Chart 22 Hydropower Potential in Model C .............................................................. 66

Chart 23 (R/E) & HDI in Model A ............................................................................ 67

Chart 24 (R/E) Ratio & Development Rank in Model B ........................................... 69

Chart 25 (R/E) Ratio & Development Rank in Model C ........................................... 70

xiv

LIST OF ACRONYMS

B.S Nepali Calendar (Bikram Sambat)

VDC Village Development Committee

CA Constituent Assembly

CBS Central Bureau of Statistics

SRC State Restructuring Committee/Commission

EDR Eastern Development Region

CDR Central Development Region

WDR Western Development Region

MWDR Mid-Western Development Region

FWDR Far Western Development Region

MBKM Mithila Bhojpura Koch Madhesh

MMB Madhesh Mithila Bhojpura

LAT Lumbini Abadh Tharuwan

KK Karnali Khaptad

ICIMOD International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development

SPCBN Support to Participatory Constitution Building in Nepal

NPC National Planning Commission

SRN Strategic Road Network

DoR Department of Roads

HDI Human Development Index

Km Kilometer

Sq.km Square Kilometers

Ha/Hec. Hectares

MW Megawatt

PP Page numbers

Ph.D. Doctor of Philosophy

1

CHAPTER I

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

“Region” is taken as the unit of land on the earth that is often chosen, defined and

planned (Dahal 2007). It is an area usually considered as an entity for the purpose of

analysis, administration, planning and policy. The regional dimension is a very

important aspect of development which takes into consideration the essence of spatial

elements. Dahal believes that the analysis of the spatial dimension of the development

is not an easy task since it requires high level of spatial knowledge. In this context,

Friedman in 1964 has outlined the reasons why the economic growth of the regions is

spatially distributed.

Friedman (1964) stated that “Space economy normally evolves from a number of small

and relatively closed regional economies into a fully integrated national economy in

which the significance of locational differences is sharply reduced.” So, it is quite

relevant that planning for regional development entices the formulation of strategic

regional policies as a part of regional planning for integrated national development

where every regions of the country can contribute to meet the national objectives

making an effective use of natural, human & socio-cultural resources along with capital.

Economic (Export) Base, Sector, Centre Periphery, Industrial Location, Central Place

and Growth Pole are the principal regional planning theories.

Regional Development has been regarded as an issue since the Third Plan (1965-1970)

in Nepal but exercises have seemed to be limited. Since 1970, “Strategy” for regional

development has been occupying a place in the successive periodic plans of

Government of Nepal. The Fourth Plan (1970-75), for the first time, adopted an

elaborate spatial strategy for development that formalized the creation of four

development regions in 1972 (Gurung 1969). Growth Centred Approach was

incorporated as one of the major policy issues thereby concentrating the limited

available resources along the growth axes. Later, it was replaced by the concept of

diffused activities in the development regions. During the last two decades, the major

shift has been on the development of remote areas and backward and poverty groups

(C.B. Shrestha, 2007). The process of reduction of regional disparity is slow due to the

2

planning approach with the primacy of sectoral planning (Gurung, 1999; Shrestha,

2006).

The need of an intermediate level in between the Central and Local Level of

government was felt and hence 14 zones were created long ago during the Panchayat

period. But these zones were limited to maintaining law and order rather than carrying

any development works and eventually dissolved in 1990 (Joshi 2006). The people’s

movement in 2006, with the end of a decade long insurgency and monarchy, opted for

the election of constituent assembly. These incidents provoked a situation for state

restructuring in Nepal.

State restructuring issue was the prime issue in the failure of the first constituent

assembly election in Nepal, 2008 and this called for another CA election in 2013.

Federal System has been politically endorsed as a part of state restructuring in Nepal.

But it is still to be decided about the principles or criteria on the basis of which the

delineation of the federal states is to be made. Political parties, ethnic groups and

experts have raised their own models of state restructuring and these models have

divergence set up in federalism. The forms and tiers of governance, head of the state

and devolution of authority are different in these models. “Efforts are underway for

making changes towards the creation of new Nepal with a view to make a Prosperous

Modern and Just Nepal. While the thrust on the economic front is a welcome step,

failure to use the tools of regional planning and sustainable development make one

sceptical about the changes that are taking place more recently”(Joshi 2009).

Regionalism has started to rise up the political agenda in many European countries,

leading to growing experiments with both policy devolution and political devolution,

for instance in France, Italy, Spain and the UK. Paralleling this rise in policy interest

has been a growing academic interest in the ways in which regionalism has been

inserted into state-restructuring processes. (Haughton & Counsell, 2004). It has also

taken the political agenda with the end of 10 ten years insurgency period followed by

people’s movement during the recent years in Nepal. Resource allocation within diverse

socio economic group and extreme physiographic conditions has been a major issue in

state restructuring in Nepal.

This study aims to find out the impacts of representative state restructuring models of

federalism on regional development.

3

Rationale

Voices have been raised against the centralized system of Nepal. These include

domination of the country from Kathmandu (excessive centralism), domination of the

country by a limited group (caste domination), discrimination on caste/ethnic lines, and

failure to meet the needs of the mass of the people (UNDP 2008). Nepal has two tiers

of governance at present, the centre and districts. The national government is too busy

to deal with the local issues and there are no binding obligations for the centre to give

adequate attention to local affairs (Joshi 2009). A coordinating level of government has

been sought in the regional level that would link the centre and the districts for the

devolution of power and resource mobilization. State Restructuring provides the

framework to make an effective regional level government.

The regional level government would be helpful to strengthen local national linkages.

It would help to reduce regional disparity and discrimination by providing authoritative

power to the local indigenous people. It would also provide markets for local economy

and also establish rights over the resources within their regional territory. It will help

fulfil the gaps between the centre and district and promote integrated national

development.

Only a few countries of the world have adopted federalism and not all of them are

successful. Economic Prosperity, good governance and democratic culture are the fruits

of successful federalism (Joshi 2009). The form of federalism may depend upon the

political culture, resource base and various other intangible factors.

1.2 Problem Statement

In planning for regional growth in Nepal at present, there are various problems related

to physical, socio-cultural, economic, environmental and other aspects.

Physical Aspects:

The natural and built features make up the physical environment of any area. Natural

features are the resources like land, water bodies and vegetation. These resources are

fixed but the demand is ever increasing and overconsumption has resulted in their

extinction. On the other hand, infrastructures like transportation, water supply and

services are scarcely distributed. Weak resource base of the federal regions is another

4

issue in state restructuring. It is still to be recognized, the growth and development

centres that are growing spontaneously. There is also a need to consider national space

before state restructuring.

Socio-Cultural Aspects:

Nepal has diversity in ethnicity, culture, language, costumes and tradition within its

population according with the physiographic division of mountain, hill and Terai. Lack

of social inclusion and participation of disadvantaged groups and minorities in planning

is another important issue. Rising ethnic tensions during the recent years has resulted

in the will for federalism based on ethnicity rather than resource and infrastructure

distribution among certain ethnic groups.

Economic Aspects:

There are limited employment opportunities in Nepal. Unemployment has induced the

youth population to go abroad for earning their livelihood. Meanwhile, per capita

income of the people is low as compared to other developing countries of the world.

Infrastructure financing depends on the funds from International development agencies,

INGOs and bilateral aids. Land ownership within small population and sectoral

budgetary system. Higher administrative costs of governance and tedious process to

channel finance flow from central to local or action level with a huge time lag. Missing

functional linkages between villages that contribute to regional and national economy.

Environmental Aspects:

Forest areas are cautiously decreasing as per the density of tress although the decrease

in total area covered has not been noticed yet. The haphazard establishment of quarries

by the river side for river bed materials has deepened the river bed narrowing its surface

exposure. It has also resulted in the change in river course and flooding. Unscientific

Cutting of slopes for road construction has considerably increased the problems of soil

erosion and slope failure. The rivers in the urban areas are polluted due to the discharge

of untreated effluents.

Political Aspects:

It has been more than two decades of political instability in Nepal. Insurgency, royal

take over, people’s movement, election of the constituent assembly were the major

5

political incidents that occurred during this period. There is lack of clear majority of

any political party in the recent CA election. People are confused with the changing

attitudes of the politicians for their personal .It is unknown what the politicians really

want and what they advocate. There is no such a thing as “National Interest”.

Other Aspects:

Weak institutional framework and mere coordination within the departments of

government are the other problems related to planning in Nepal. Highly centralized

governance system with the absence of local government representatives for more than

a decade has raised the issue of governance and service deliverability ranging from

regional to local level. The craving for power and tendency to centralize, and this

problem may even grow bigger under federal system as tiers of governance increase.

State restructuring will provide a basis for the formation of regions. It will help in the

identification of the resources in the regions and promote their economic importance.

It would consider participatory approach for the inclusion of backward group and

indigenous people in decision making process by providing power in their own hands.

It would help to establish functional linkages between different regions and promote

economic development. Eventually, it would act as a solution to the problems of

regional imbalance, exclusion, national disintegration and weak economic base.

1.3 Objectives:

The main objectives of this research are:

a) To identify different representative models of federalism put forward by

political parties, constitutional bodies and experts as a part of state restructuring.

b) To analyse spatially, these models based on resource distribution, road

infrastructure, industrial location, revenue collection and expenditure where

applicable.

c) To find out the impacts of these models on the different aspects of regional

development.

6

1.4 Research Question:

My research questions are:

1. What resources are available in the regions envisaged in the models and how

are they distributed?

2. How can these models enhance regional development in Nepal?

1.5 Expected Outcomes

This research is expected to provide a comparative output to find the feasibility of

regions of each model & their impacts on regional development with respect to

physical, socio-cultural, economic, environmental and spatial dimensions. It is also

expected to find out the positive and negative impacts of the models in integrated

national development with improved good governance. The results are expected to be

represented in the form of table, charts and maps.

1.6 Scope & Limitations

The limitation of the study will be:

1. The study covers only three representative models of state restructuring.

2. The analysis will be made based on only six quantifiable parameters:

a. Population Distribution & Density

b. Land Capability (Arable Land & Slope)

c. Energy Potentiality

d. Share of Major Ethnic/ Caste Groups

e. Development Rank & HDI

f. Revenue and Expenditure

3. Principles, criteria and bases upon which models have been proposed are not

included in the analysis.

4. These parameters are regarded important but still may not be sufficient.

5. Only “Arable Land” has been considered in Land Capability for analysis.

6. The weightage for parameters are assigned on the importance of parameters

perceived during the study.

7. The study is based on secondary data provided by the departmental sources of

Nepal Government.

7

CHAPTER II

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 State Restructuring & Regional Development

“State restructuring is something that is directly associated with political re-imagination

of the state as per the spirit of the time and is a continuous process in democracy”

(Bhatta, 2006). It primarily hinges on three organs of the state - the judiciary, legislature

and the executive body. It deals with how best all the three organs of the state can be

made more representative and pro-public so that more and more citizens are collectively

taken into the institutional life of the state and no group/caste/ethnicity/religion is left

behind (Bhatta, 2006). State restructuring mainly involves defining the boundary of the

regions and system of governance with its tiers and devolution of authority.

Wikipedia states “Regional development is the provision of aid and other assistance to

regions which are less economically developed.” It can be achieved through specific

regional development strategies that encompass infrastructural development along with

socio-economic aspects of the regions. Geophysical condition, accessibility, social

infrastructure and feasibility for economic development of the region can guide the

strategies for regional development. These strategies are the necessary conditions for

regional development but still may not be sufficient. The institutional framework

guided by the organs of the state has authority and responsibility as, the other half, to

implement these strategies. When the organs of the state are unable to establish regional

strategies and implement them with sound institutional framework for a long time,

restructuring of the state and its organs is soughed so that every regions can contribute

to integrated national development with the idea of a whole. This can also promote

decentralization, poverty reduction and sustainable regional development.

2.2 Theoretical Concept of Regionalization

Regional development theories seek to explain the delineation criteria of a region

whether it is a formal region characterized by uniformity or homogeneity or a functional

region characterized by interdependence or interrelationship of parts. However, formal

and functional regions may not correlate with administrative need which is necessary

for implementation of any plan. Some regional development theories are:

8

2.2.1 Economic (Export) Base Theory

Developed by R.M Haig in his work on “Regional Plan of New York” in 1928, this

theory assumes that regional economy is the function of basic and non-basic activities.

Basic activities include the production of goods and services for export to other regions

while no basic activities includes goods and service produced for internal consumption.

This indicates that basic activities are the prime movers of regional economy and they

have multiplier effect in it. The multiplier is calculated in terms of employment

generation as:

Multiplier (K) = Employment in Basic + Employment in Non-Basic Activities

Employment in Non-Basic Activities

2.2.2 Centre Periphery Theory

John Friedman in 1966 interpreted the rural urban relation by core and periphery model.

He mentioned that there are three kind of relationship between core and periphery viz.

Independent, High Dependent and Interdependent or symbiotic.

Independent: This relationship occurs in a predominant agrarian economy of rural

regions where market town develops as a center for exchange of surplus agricultural

products and provides basic minimum needs and services to its hinterland. There is a

strong tie between its service area and population. It has no relationship with other

market centers and hierarchy of centers is ruled out.

Highly Dependent: This a relationship where the periphery is exploited by the core.

The centers are highly dependent on their hinterlands with little or no contribution to

hinterland. There is exploitation, one way flow and widening disparity between the core

and periphery in this relationship.

Interdependent: This is symbiotic relation based on mutual beneficial exchanges. The

assumption of the generative relationship is based on the functionally interdependent

system of cities where core and periphery have complementary mutual and harmonious

relationship.

2.2.3 Industrial Location Theory

Alfred Weber in 1909 enunciated the theory of Industrial Location. This theory is based

on the availability of input to industries like land, labour, capital and raw materials for

9

production and market for distribution. There are three main approaches to industrial

location viz. least cost approach, market area analysis and profit maximization

approach. Weber define the least cost approach with the principle that “an entrepreneur

will choose the location where the cost is least”. The cost includes transport and labour

costs.

2.2.4 Central Place Theory

Walter Christaller in 1933 proposed this theory. Centre place is where the service

activities are concentrated. The central places are arranged in space in a hierarchy to

share the market uniformly. Christaller introduced two concepts, Threshold population

and market range to explain the central place. The competition among service provider

for individual service gives the range of service and eventually hexagonal market of a

central place emerges with hierarchy.

2.2.5 Growth Pole Theory

Perraux in 1955 propounded the growth pole theory with the postulates that “Growth

does not appear everywhere and all at once. It appears at points or development poles

with variable intensities and spread along the diverse channels with varying terminal

effects to the whole of nation.” Growth pole is an economic space whereas growth

point or centre is a geographic space. Growth axes are the channels of growth flow. The

concept of this theory are ‘leading industries’ with strong forward and backward

linkage with other sectors or industries, ‘polarization’ with internal, external &

urbanization economies and ‘spread effects’ like trickle down effects.

2.3 Review of Regional Development Efforts in Nepal

In the Third Plan (1965-1970) Nepal was divided into three regions on the basis of

watershed areas of Koshi, Gandaki and Karnali. It was only in the Fourth Plan (1970-

1975) that Regional development strategy was first introduced in Nepal. The strategy

was formalized with the delineation of four development regions in 1972. It was when

the first attempt to incorporate spatial dimension and envisaged a series of north-south

growth axes linking diverse natural regions Himalayas, hills and Terai. Four growth

axes north to south were outlined at four development regions for balanced

development of each region thereby reducing regional disparity. The four growth axes

with their respective growth poles were:

10

Koshi Growth Axis:Biratnagar to Hedagana

Gandaki Growth Axis: Bhairawaha to Jomsom

Karnali Growth Axis:Nepalgunj to Jumla

Kathmandu Growth Axis:Birgunj to Dhunche/ Barabise

Figure 1 Growth Axes (Source: Gurung, 1969)

The industrial policy of 1973 stressed the need to develop cottage industries that were

based on the raw materials of the entire kingdom (Joshi 2006). This was done to attract

private sector in the development of the less developed areas. It was in the Fifth Plan

that FWDR was divided into MWDR and FWDR. The Growth Centred Approach was

replaced by the concept of diffused activities in the development regions. During the

last two decades, the major shift has been on the development of remote areas and

backward and poverty groups (C.B. Shrestha, 2007). The process of reduction of

regional disparity is slow due to the planning approach with the primacy of sectoral

planning (Gurung, 1999; Shrestha, 2006).

Sanctity to the formal development regions, overemphasis to the Small Area

Development Programme (SADP) and the expansion of various Integrated Rural

Development Projects (IRDP) with rural conceptualization and lack of transport

component superseding the regional strategy were the three elements that contributed

to the distortion of regional strategy. (ADB 2005).

11

2.4 Recent Political Development in Nepal

Nepal and the Nepalese have faced a series of political incidents since 1990 before

when it was a constitutional monarch. The recent political development has been

highlighted as:

2.4.1 Parliamentary Monarchy (1990-1996)

Until 1990, Nepal was a constitutional monarchy running under the executive control

of the king. Faced with a people's movement against the absolute monarchy, King

Birendra, in 1990, agreed to large-scale political reforms by creating a parliamentary

monarchy with the king as the head of state and a prime minister as the head of the

government. In the first free and fair elections in Nepal in 1991, the Nepali Congress

was victorious.

In 1994 the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) (CPN (UML)) made

Nepal the first communist-led monarchy in Asia. In mid-1994, parliament was

dissolved due to dissension within the Nepali Congress Party. The subsequent general

election, held 15 November 1994, gave no party a majority and led to several years of

unstable coalition governments. As of the May 1999 general elections, the Nepali

Congress Party once again headed a majority government.

2.4.2 Maoist Insurgency (1996)

In February 1996, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) began a violent insurgency

in more than 50 of the country's 75 districts. About 13,000 police, civilians, and

insurgents were killed in the conflict since 1996.

2.4.3 Royal Massacre (2001)

On June 1, 2001, Crown Prince Dipendra was officially reported to have shot and killed

his father, King Birendra and other family members before turning the gun on himself.

After his death two days later, the late King's surviving brother Gyanendra was

proclaimed king.

2.4.4 Suspension of Parliament and Loktantra Andolan (2005-2007)

On 1 February 2005 King Gyanendra suspended the Parliament, appointed a

government led by himself, and enforced martial law. The King argued that civil

politicians were unfit to handle the Maoist insurgency. A broad coalition called the

Seven Party Alliance (SPA) was formed in opposition to the royal takeover,

12

encompassing the seven parliamentary parties who held about 90% of the seats in the

old, dissolved parliament. On 22 November 2005, the Seven Party Alliance (SPA) of

parliamentary parties and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) agreed on a historic

and unprecedented 12-point memorandum of understanding (MOU) for peace and

democracy.

As per the 12-point MOU, the SPA called for a protest movement, and the Communist

Party of Nepal (Maoist) supported it. This led to a countrywide uprising called the

Loktantra Andolan that started in April 2006. This compelled the king to return the

power in the hands of the people with the reinstatement of the House of Representatives.

On 19 May 2006, the parliament assumed total legislative power and gave executive

power to the Government of Nepal leaving no any rights to the king. Nepal was declared

a secular state abrogating the previous status of a Hindu Kingdom.

2.4.5 Abolition of the Monarchy & Establishment of Federal Republic (2007-

2008)

On 23 December 2007, an agreement was made for the monarchy to be abolished and

the country to become a federal republic with the Prime Minister becoming head of

state. The first election of the constituent assembly was held in April 2008. The 601

member constituent assembly declared Nepal as a federal republic in May 2008 which

ended 240 years of royal rule in Nepal.

Although major political achievements were made during this period, the political

parties could not reach a consensus on the number of and delineation of the states, tiers

of governance and the responsibilities and duties of the head of the state. This lead to

the dissolution of first constitutional assembly and second CA election was held in

November 2013. Nepali Congress became the largest party followed by CPN (UML)

and CPN (United Maoist) according to the CA polls. The challenges of the first CA

have now shifted to the second CA and people are still sceptical about drafting the new

constitution before January 2015.

2.5 Federalism

“Federalism is a political concept in which a group of members are bound together by

covenant with a governing representative head. The term "federalism" is also used to

describe a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided

between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or

13

provinces). Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in

which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state

governments, creating what is often called a federation” (Wikipedia 2014). The names

used to designate the federal system vary from country to country: sometimes it is just

the “federation of…” variations are the “federal republic”, the “union”, the “united

republic” or the “united states”, the “commonwealth” or “confederation” (UNDP

2006).

Most countries in the world do not have federalism. It may not be affordable to some

of them to practice federalism. The success of federalism results in prosperous

economy, democratic culture and a good system of power sharing across the levels of

government. “It has worked in the countries where the federal economy is robust and

enjoys autonomy. It is a self-evident and spontaneous system of governance in a

country like Switzerland; the economy is robust and there exits complete respect for all

the constituencies” (Joshi 2006).

Some examples of the countries that have adopted federalism are mentioned below and

their contribution to national, regional and local development:

Australia: On 1 January 1901 the Australian nation emerged as a federation. Australia

successfully adapted the American concept of state and federal governments possessing

separate sovereignty within the framework of a constitutional monarchy by establishing

the position of state governor to be appointed by the Sovereign on the advice of the

relevant state premier, the Commonwealth Government playing no role in these

appointments. This gives each state a direct link with the Crown that completely

bypasses Canberra

Original states have equal representation in the senate. Although this is not an essential

element of federation, it reflects the view that states (colonies) should be equal in status.

Brazil: In Brazil, there was the fall of the monarchy in 1889. The 1937 Constitution

granted the federal government the authority to appoint State Governors at will, thus

centralizing power in the hands of President. Brazil also uses the Fonseca system to

regulate interstate trade.

The Brazilian Constitution of 1988 introduced a new component to the ideas of

federalism, including municipalities as federal entities. Brazilian municipalities are

14

now invested with some of the traditional powers usually granted to states in federalism,

and although they are not allowed to have a Constitution, they are structured by an

organic law.

Table 1 List of Countries Adopting Federalism

S.

N

Countries Number of Federal Units Year Adopted

(A.D) 1. Argentina 23 Provinces & 1 Autonomous

City

2. Australia 6 States

3. Austria 10 States 1955

4. Papua New

Guinea

18 Provinces & 1 Autonomous

zone

5. Belgium 3 Zones & 3 Lingual communities 1993

6. Bosnia-

Herzegovina

2 Main units & 10 cantons

7. Brazil 26 States & 1 federal district 1891

8. Canada 10 Provinces & 3 Land zones 1867

9. Comoros 3 States

10. Ethiopia 9 States & 3 Chartered Cities 1995

11. Germany 16 Landers 1945

12. India 28 States & 7 Central states 1947

13. Belau 16 States

14. Malaysia 9 Sultanates, 2 States & 2 Federal

zones

1948

15. Mexico 31 States 1957

16. Micronesia 4 States

17. Nigeria 36 Ethnic States 1963

18. Pakistan 4 Provinces 1947

19. Russia 21 Province & 7 Zones 1993

20. South Africa 9 Provinces 1990

21. Spain 17 Provinces & 2 Centre Governed

States

1977

22. St. Kits & Nevis 14 States

23. Sudan 26 Provinces 1991

24. Switzerland 26 Cantons 1291

25. UAE 7 Emirates 1848

26. USA 50 States 1787/1989

27. Venezuela 23 States 1787

28. Iraq 18 States

Source: Committee Report 2010

15

India: The Government of India (referred to as the Union Government) was established

by the Constitution of India, and is the governing authority of a federal union of 29

states and 7 union territories. The government of India is based on a tiered system, in

which the Constitution of India delineates the subjects on which each tier of government

has executive powers. The Constitution originally provided for a two-tier system of

government, the Union Government (also known as the Central Government) and the

State governments. Later, a third tier was added in the form of Panchayats and

Municipalities. In the current arrangement, The Seventh Schedule of the Indian

Constitution delimits the subjects of each level of governmental jurisdiction, dividing

them into three lists:

Union List includes subjects of national importance such as defence of the country,

foreign affairs, banking, communications and currency. The Union Government alone

can make laws relating to the subjects mentioned in the Union List.

State List contains subjects of State and local importance such as police, trade,

commerce, agriculture and irrigation. The State Governments alone can make laws

relating to the subjects mentioned in the State List.

Concurrent List includes subjects of common interest to both the Union Government

as well as the State Governments, such as education, forest, trade unions, marriage,

adoption and succession. Both the Union as well as the State Governments can make

laws on the subjects mentioned in this list. If their laws conflict with each other, the law

made by the Union Government will prevail.

A distinguishing aspect of Indian federalism is that unlike many other forms of

federalism, it is asymmetric. There is special provision for the state of Jammu and

Kashmir as per its Instrument of Accession. Indian federalism has a system of

President's Rule in which the central government takes control of state's administration

for certain months when no party can form a government in the state or there is violent

disturbance in the state.

Switzerland: The Federal Constitution of 18 April 1999 is the third and current federal

constitution of Switzerland. It establishes the Swiss Confederation as a federal republic

of 26 cantons (states), contains a catalogue of individual and popular rights (including

the right to call for popular referenda on federal laws and constitutional amendments),

16

delineates the responsibilities of the cantons and the Confederation and establishes the

federal authorities of government. The general provisions define the characteristic traits

of the Swiss state on all of its three levels of authority: federal, cantonal and municipal.

They contain an enumeration of the constituent Cantons, affirm Cantonal sovereignty

within the bounds of the Constitution and list the national languages – German, French,

Italian and Romansh. They also commit the State to the principles of obedience to law,

proportionality, good faith and respect for international law, before closing with a

reference to individual responsibility.

USA: Federalism in the United States is the evolving relationship between state

governments and the federal government of the United States. American government

has evolved from a system of dual federalism to one of associative federalism. Because

the states were pre-existing political entities, the U.S. Constitution did not need to

define or explain federalism in any one section but it often mentions the rights and

responsibilities of state governments and state officials in relation to the federal

government. The federal government has certain express powers (also called

enumerated powers) which are powers spelled out in the Constitution, including the

right to levy taxes, declare war, and regulate interstate and foreign commerce. Other

powers (the reserved powers) are reserved to the people or the states.

2.6 Federal Structure and Interregional Linkages

The success of a federal system will depend on the application of regional planning.

The linkage between national and local level of planning is an important aspect that

will deepen decentralization for poverty alleviation and national integration. The

connection between ecological regions based on mutual interest will be necessary for

sustained economic growth.

The resource sufficient local bodies like municipalities and VDCs will function well if

they are made autonomous. “Autonomy at local level should be pursued irrespective of

the system of government” (Joshi 2006). Federal government shall help the different

local entities to resolve conflicts in the sharing of natural resources among different

constituent stakeholders. On the other hand, the central government should part some

of the resources it is holding and should not hold undue power. The principle of

autonomy can be applied in resource regions.

17

Economic linkage with territorial rights will allow the regions to share the resources for

their mutual development. Domestic product should be given priority in use rather than

foreign products. The state will fail in performing its duties if it cannot protect domestic

products. External dependency will increase if there exist a competition between the

states. International trade should be regulated by the centre to protect domestic product.

In International context, the geographical location of Nepal between two giant countries

India and China can be used as an interregional linkage to use the infrastructural

developments made therein. The mountain regions can benefit from the trickle down

effects of China whereas Terai region with the same from India.

2.7 State Restructuring Models

With the declaration of Nepal as a federal state in 2008, various state restructuring

models have been proposed by political parties, economist, ethnic communities,

experts, regional leaders and geographers. These models vary on which basis the

restructuring of state is to be done. The delineation of the state and proposed tiers of

governance with devolution of authority have seemed to be the major challenges in the

process.

2.8 Concept of Political Parties

Before understanding the concept of political parties, a review of their seats in the

second CA election was made. Of the total seats of 601, the table shows the seats won

by the major political parties in the second CA election:

Table 2 Major Political Parties of Nepal

Name of Parties Seats Total

(FTTP) Proportional

Nepali Congress 105 91 196

Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–

Leninist)

91 84 175

Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) 26 54 80

Rastriya Prajatantra Party Nepal 0 24 24

Madhesi Jana Adhikar Forum, Nepal

(Loktantrik)

4 10 14

(FPTP: first-past-the-post) Source: Wikipedia 2014

Table 3 Concept of Major Political Parties to Federal Structure

Name of

Party

Objective Principle/ Criteria Proposed Federal Model Tiers of Government and

Devolution of Authority

Nepali

Congress

Diversity in

Ethnicity,

Language, Culture

& Religion and

region as the basis

of Nepal’s

Nationality.

National sovereignty,

geographical location

and suitability,

population, natural

resource endowment,

economic potential,

interdependence among

regions, ethnic,

language and cultural

agglomeration

Right to Self-Governance and

autonomy to local bodies

Bicameral Parliament at the

centre and unicameral at the

province

Prime minister as Chief

Executive, Election of

President from the members

of central and provincial

parliaments.

Three tiered: Central, Province and

Local

Foreign affairs, monetary policy,

national defence, customs, Large

hydroelectric projects, Airways,

Highways and other National Level

Projects in the jurisdiction of central

government.

Communist

Party of

Nepal

(Unified

Marxist–

Leninist)

Federal structure of

governance

considering ethnic,

linguistic, cultural

and geographical

specificities

Geographical location

and specificities,

population & ethnic

concentration, language,

culture, administrative

accessibility, economic

social interdependence,

capability, potentials,

natural resources and

history

Number, size and coverage of

provinces not made explicit

Foreign affairs, monetary policy,

national defence, customs, Large

hydroelectric projects, Airways,

Highways and other National Level

Projects in the jurisdiction of central

government

19

Name of

Party

Objective Principle/ Criteria Proposed Federal Model Tiers of Government and

Devolution of Authority

Unified

Communist

Party of

Nepal

(Maoist)

Institutionalization

of republic,

democratization,

ethnic and

territorial

autonomy and right

to self-

determination,

reduction in

disparity, group

solidarity,

psychological

unity.

Ethnic (common

language, geography,

economy and

psychological structure)

and territorial identity,

nationalities, ethnic

structure, geographical

accessibility, major

langue and economic

potential.

11 autonomous republic

states: Seti Mahakali and

Bheri-Karnali based on

territorial identity, Magarat,

Tharuwan, Tamuwan, Newa,

Tamsaling, Kirat,

Limbhuwan, Kochila and

Madhes based on ethnic

identity and Mithila,

Bhojpura, and Abadh sub-

states based on identity of

major languages. Bicameral

parliament at centre and

unicameral at state.

3 tiered government

Defense, Foreign affairs, inter-state

trade, monetary policy, central bank,

customs revenue, large hydro-

electricity projects, railways,

airways, national highways and

central university in the center.

Proportional elected representation

in lower house and equal

representation of all states in upper

house, executive president elected

directly. Governors and chief

ministers in the states.

Rastriya

Prajatantra

Party Nepal

Autonomous

federal governance

based on ethnic,

geographical

characteristics and

economic potential

Hindu Kingdom and

Constitutional Monarch as

head of state. Prime minister

as chief executive.

Local Bodies: Districts,

municipalities and VDCs with the

right to self-governance.

Madhesi Jana

Adhikar

Forum, Nepal

(Loktantrik)

Participatory,

Consensual and

inclusive

democracy, right to

self determination

Regional Autonomy Madhes as an autonomous

state and autonomous areas

within state. Bicameral

parliament at the centre.

President as Chief executive

with 5 year term.

Legislative, Executive and Judicial

bodies in each state

(Source: Sharma et al. 2009)

2.9 Proposed Federal Models

Pitamber Sharma and Narendra khanal with Subash Chandra Tharu in 2009 have been

found to have collected and studied different federal models proposed by experts,

individuals and persons with political affiliation. Furthermore, State Restructuring

committee for the distribution of state power and State Restructuring Commission have

proposed different models. The highlights of the number, name and size of proposed

federal units is presented in the following table:

Table 4 Proposed Federal Models

S.N Models Proposed by

& Year Designation

Number

of

Provinces/

Regions

Criteria Basis

for

names

1. State Restructuring

Commission, 2012

High Level

National

Commission

10 , 6 E, L, C, GC,

FN, AD,

NR, ID, CA

E, R, P

2. State Restructuring

Committee, 2010

Committee of

Constituent

Assembly

14 E, L, C, GC,

FN, AD,

NR, ID, CA

E, R, P

3. Agreed by Politcal

Parties, 2012

Agreement of

Political Parties 11 E, GC NA

4. Alok K. Bohara

2007/08

NRN,

Economist

4:12 E, L, CA R

5. Amaresh Narayan

Jha 2006

Madhesi

Activist 10 E, L,C E, L

6. Baburam Acharya

2005

Historian 4:15 H H

7. Bal Krishna

Mabubhang

- 11 E NA

8. Bhawani Baral

2004/06

Social Activist 10+1

=

E E

9. Brikhesh Chandra

Lal

TMLP 4:11:5 E, L, C, Eco P

10. Chandra Kanta

Gyawali 2007 Lawyer 8 PoR P

11. CPN (Maoist)

Political Party 13 E, L, C, Ter E, L

12. Govinda Neupane

2000

Social Activist 11 or 8 E, L E, L

13. Harka Gurung

2000/06

Geographer,

Planner

5:25 FN, AD M, R,

P 14. K.B Gurung 2006 Janjati Activist 11:06 E, L, C E, L

15. Krishna Khanal - 13 or 14 E, L, C,CA,

Acc

NA

16. Kumar Y. Tamang

2006

CPN Maoist 11 E, L, C E, L

17. Lok Raj Baral -

5 CA, NU NA

21

S.N Models Proposed by

& Year Designation

Number

of

Provinces/

Regions

Criteria Basis

for

names

18. Mangal Siddhi

Manandhar et al.

2008

CPN-UML 12 E, L, C E, L

19. Narhari Acharya

2005/06

Nepali

Congress

9 Eco R

20. Nepal Majdoor

Kishan Party Political Party 14 ZN M, R,

P

21. Nepal Sadbhawana

Party (Anandidevi)

Political Party 3 Eco NA

22. Pari Thapa 2006 Janamorcha-P 9 E, L, C E, L

23. Pitamber Sharma

2006/07

Geographer,

Regional

Planner

6:19 E, L, CA M,R,P

24. Prem B. Singh 2006 Political

Activist

14 E, L, C E, P

25. Rajendra Shrestha

2006

CPN-UML 14 E, L, C E, L,P

26. Ram Chandra

Acharya 2007

NRN,

Economist 4+1:13 E, L, C, CA,

Acc R, P

27. Shankar Pokhrel

2006

CPN-UML 15 E, L, C, Acc P

28. Surendra K.C 2006 Historian 8 or 5 E, L, CA E, R

(Source: Committee Report 2010, Commission Report 2012, Sharma et al. 2009)

Note: E=Ethnicity; L= Language; C= Culture; GC= Geographical Continuity; NR=Natural Resource;

ID= Infrastructural Development; H=History; M=Mountain Range & Peaks; R=River/Watershed;

P=Place Name; FN=Financial Resources; AD=Administration; CA=Comparative Advantages &

Complementarities; ACC=Accessibility; NU= National Unity; TER=Territory; ZN=Zones;

Eco=Ecology; NA=No Details Available; NRN=Non Resident Nepalese; TMLP: Tarai Madhes

Loktantrik Party

The number of proposed federal states range from just 3 (Nepal Sadbhawana Party-

Anadidevi) to 15 by Shankar Pokharel as mentioned by above table. Out of 28 models,

4 have proposed fewer than 5 federal states, 11 have proposed 5-10 federal states and

13 have proposed 11-15 federal states. However, the number of districts within the

federal states ranges from 12 to 25. Then names of federal states have been kept using

criteria of ethnic identity, mountain ranges and peaks, rivers, historical places etc.

There are two models with 10 and 6 federal states proposed by Commission where

majority of members have supported the ten state model. There are also the models that

do not propose any change in the existing structure but only seek greater

22

decentralization and devolution of power, proposed by Rastriya Janamorcha-Chitra

Bahadur K.C and Nepal Majdoor Kishan Party.

Although the model proposed by Gurung does not advocate a federal structure, his

proposal to restructure and reorganize existing districts to 25 can be used to delineate

the federal regions. “Consolidation of districts will considerably enlarge their area of

coverage and reduce administrative costs by two thirds.”(Gurung 2005).

Since Nepal has a diversity in culture, language and ethnicity, it would be a tedious task

to delineate exactly the regions and their boundary of the rights to resources. The study

made by Sharma et al. in 2009 showed that the share of the concerned group in federal

unit considered its ancestral homeland is less than 40% in most of the cases.

2.10 Representative Federal Models

The proponents of federal models come from different backgrounds. There are

government committee, commission and individuals with their expertise on politics,

law, geography and social studies. Apart from these there are parties and NRNs as

proponents of the state restructuring models. In this context, it would be wise to

consider the models proposed by bodies or organization that consider the social aspects

and are more likely to be implemented. In Nepal, state restructuring has been considered

a social complex rather than a technical problem that is often solved by experts.

2.11 The Three Models

The selected three models for study are:

A. Fourteen State Model Proposed by State Restructuring Committee in 2010

B. Ten State Model Proposed by State Restructuring Commission in 2012

C. Eleven State Model Agreed Upon by Political Parties in 2012

A. Model Proposed by State Restructuring Committee (Model A)

Figure 2 State Restructuring Model Proposed by State Restructuring Committee (Source: Committee Report 2010)

B. Model Proposed by State Restructuring Commission (Model B)

Figure 3 State Restructuring Model Proposed by State Restructuring Commission (Source: Commission Report 2012)

25

C. Model Agreed Upon by Political Parties (Model C)

Figure 4 State Restructuring Model Agreed Upon by Political Parties in May 2012 (Source: SPCBN)

26

The table below shows a comparative study of the selected models based on objectives, criteria, Federal model and tiers of governance:

Table 5 Different Federal Models

Model Principle/ Criteria Proposed Federal Model Tiers of Government Devolution of

Authority

Model A

Committee

Based on Identity: Ethnic, Communities, Linguistic,

Historical and Geophysical.

Bases of Capability: Geophysical Continuity,

administrative accessibility, availability of natural

resources and feasibility of economic development.

14 Federal States.


bodies both at the state and Federation.

Elected Council at Local Level

3 tier structure with Federal, State and Local

level.

Autonomous, Protected & Special zones

within the states.

Monetary system, foreign affairs, army,

security, national boundary agreements

within the centre

Model B

Commission

Based on Identity: Ethnic, Communities,

Linguistic, Historical and Geophysical.




10 Federal States with one non

Geophysical “Dalit” State.


bodies both at the state and Federation.

Elected Council at Local Level

3 tier structure with Federal, State and Local

level.

Autonomous, Protected & Special zones

within the states.

Monetary system, foreign affairs, army,

security, national boundary agreements

within the centre.

Model C

Agreed Upon

Based on Identity: Ethnic, Communities, Linguistic,

Historical and Geophysical.




11 Federal States.

Names and structuring of bodies not

made explicit.

No details about Tiers and power sharing

between the federal and state government.

CHAPTER III

3. METHODOLOGY

This chapter consists of the description of the study area, source of data, database

preparation and methods of data analysis used in this study. The following chart shows

the graphical representation of methodology.

3.1 Study Area

Restructuring of the state requires a thorough study of all the areas within its bounded

territory. The delineation of the regions in the models is made within the international

boundary of Nepal. So, the territory of Federal Democratic Republic Nepal has been

selected as the study area in this research.

VDC

District

Ecodev

Data Collection

Model Boundary

Image Parameter Data

Digitize & Geo-Reference

Model Boundary

Attributes to Space

GIS

GIS Analysis

Output Data

Analysis of Output

Results

Chart 1 Chart Showing Methodology of Study

28

3.2 Data Collection

The study is based on secondary data collected from different departmental bodies of

Nepal Government. The socio-economic data has been collected from the Central

Bureau of Statistics. The data have also been collected from the reports published by

government bodies and international organization like UNDP, Department of roads and

others secondary sources. Data have been collected through the reports published by

commission and committee themselves. Relevant GIS database has been collected from

Survey department for quantifying the resource distribution in different regions at

district level where available. The following table shows the data with their type and

sources of collection.

Table 6 List of Data Collected with Type & Source

S.N Data Type Source

1 Delineation of

Regions: SR

Committee

Hard Copy Report of “Constitution Assembly State

Restructuring & Distribution of State

Power Committee” 2010 via Parliament

Secretariat

2 Delineation of

Region: SR

Commission

Hard Copy Report of “State Restructuring Advisory

High Level Commission” 2012 via

Parliament Secretariat

3 Delineation of

Region: Model C

Soft Copy (SPCBN)

4 Population Data Soft Copy National Report of Central Bureau of

Statistics 2011

5 Development Rank Soft Copy “Districts of Nepal” jointly published by

CBS, ICIMOD and SNV-Nepal 2003.

6 Strategic Road

Length

Soft Copy Department of Roads web portal.

7 Revenue and

Expenditure

Soft Copy Consolidated Financial Statement

2011/12, Financial Comptroller General

Office

8 Arable Land Soft Copy CBS web portal

29

S.N Data Type Source

9 Hydropower

Potential

Soft Copy http://www.ippan.org.np/HPinNepal.html

10 HDI Soft Copy Nepal Human Development Report 2014,

jointly published by UNDP & NPC

11 GIS Database:

National

Boundary, District

Boundary, VDC

Boundary, Slope,

Major Rivers

Soft Copy Survey Department of Nepal

3.3 Data Analysis and Synthesis

The data collected through various sources were synthesised through Microsoft Excel

and entry was made Geographic Information System (GIS). Database has been created

and spatial analysis has been made of the parameters where applicable in the GIS.

Unit of Analysis: Different parameters have been defined putting their values for arable

land, population density, development rank, HDI, energy potentiality, slope and

infrastructural development. These parameters either represented in raster data model

or vector data model based on their type.

Raster Data Model: Each cell in the layer represents one of the parameters. Parameters

like population density and slope can be represented through this data model.

Figure 6 Vector Data Model

Vector Data Model: The data has been represented through point, lines or polygons.

Parameters like hydropower potential has been represented through this data model.

The polygons of boundaries and major rivers are represented through this data model.

Conversion of the data model has been made from one to another as per requirement

and significance soughed in the analysis.

Figure 5 Raster Data Model

30

3.4 Method of Analysis

Different layers of parameters have been built in the GIS using the values obtained from

secondary data collection. Raster layers of population and population density have been

prepared with the entry of VDC level data from CBS. Similarly, district level data

related to development rank, HDI and infrastructural development have been used to

create their respective data layers. Data related to population growth and arable land

have been used of the level of eco-development regions. The weighted data layer was

produced finally for each models to provide a ranking to their respective regions.

The boundary of the models for each region were digitized and geo-referenced using

the image files collected from various sources. Spatial analyst tool and zonal statistical

tools are used to quantify the parameters within a certain region of each models. These

tools calculate the total values of parameter based on the cell values and their count,

which lie within the boundaries. Errors were found to be less than 5% in comparing the

total standard values of parameters.

31

CHAPTER IV

4. PROFILE OF ECODEVELOPMENT REGIONS

Nepal is a landlocked country that is bordered with the Himalayas in the north to China

and India to the East, West and South. Though it occupies only 0.3% and 0.03% of the

total land area of Asia and World respectively, it has extreme topography and climate.

The altitude varies from 70m at south to the highest peak Mt. Everest, 8848m at North.

The east west stretch of the country is 885 Km in average with mean breadth 193 Km

north to south. Geographically, Nepal is divided into three zones viz. The Himalayan

region, The Hilly Region and the Terai Region north to south based on elevation.

Politically, Nepal is divided into 5 Development Regions, 14 zones and 75 districts.

There is one metropolitan city, Kathmandu, 4 sub metropolitan cities, 130

municipalities and 3633 Village Development Committees (VDC).

The Eco development regions of Nepal are:

1) Eastern Mountain

2) Eastern Hill

3) Eastern Terai

4) Central Mountain

5) Central Hill

6) Central Terai

7) Western Mountain

8) Western Hill

9) Western Terai

10) Mid-Western Mountain

11) Mid-Western Hill

12) Mid-Western Terai

13) Far Western Mountain

14) Far Western Hill

15) Far Western Terai

4.1 Area in Sq. Km

The table below shows the area of Eco development Regions in Sq.km

Table 7 Area of Eco-Development Regions

Regions Mountains Hills Terai Total

Area % of

DR

Area

% of

DR

% of

DR

Area % of

DR

Area % of

Total Far

Western

7932 40.60% 6762 34.61% 4845 24.80% 19539 13.28%

Mid-

Western

21351 50.38% 13710 32.35% 7317 17.27% 42378 28.79%

Western 5819 19.79% 18319 62.31% 5260 17.89% 29398 19.97%

Central 6277 22.90% 13987 51.03% 7146 26.07% 27410 18.62%

Eastern 10438 36.68% 10749 37.77% 7269 25.54% 28456 19.33%

Total 51817 35.21% 63527 43.16% 31837 21.63% 147181 100.00%

Source: (Joshi 2006)

4.2 Population Distribution, 2011

Table 8 Population Distribution in Eco Development Regions

Regions

Mountains Hills Terai Total

Pop 2011 % of

DR

Pop 2011 % of

DR

Pop 2011 % of

DR

Pop 2011 %

of

Tot

al

Far

Western

463,345 18.15 862,215 33.78 1,226,957 48.07 2,552,517 9.63

Mid-

Western

388,713 10.96 1,687,497 47.58 1,470,472 41.46 3,546,682 13.3

9

Western 19,990 0.41 2,811,135 57.06 2,095,640 42.54 4,926,765 18.6

0 Central 517,655 5.36 4,431,813 45.89 4,707,517 48.75 9,656,985 36.4

5 Eastern 392,089 6.75 1,601,347 27.55 3,818,119 65.70 5,811,555 21.9

3 Total 1,781,792 6.73 11,394,007 43.01 13,318,705 50.27 26,494,504 100.

00 Source: (CBS 2011)

33

Chart 2 Population Distribution in Eco development Regions

4.3 Population Density (Sq. Km) and Population Growth

Table 9 Population Density 2011 and Growth Rate

Regions Mountains Hills Terai Total

No. of

Distri

cts

Pop

Den

sity

Gro

wth

Rat

e

No. of

Distri

cts

Pop

Dens

ity

Grow

th

Rate

No. of

Distri

cts

Pop

Dens

ity

Grow

th

Rate

No. of

Distri

cts Far

Western

3 58 1.64

%

4 128 0.79

%

2 253 2.33

%

9

Mid-

Western

5 18 2.58

%

7 123 1.46

%

3 201 1.95

%

15

Western 2 3 -

2.00

%

11 153 0.06

%

3 398 1.95

%

16

Central 3 82 -

0.67

%

9 375 2.51

%

7 505 1.97

%

19

Eastern 3 38 -

0.25

%

8 149 -

0.25

%

5 525 1.57

%

16

Total 16 39 20 75

(Data Source: CBS 2011)

2,552,517

3,546,682

4,926,765

9,656,985

5,811,555

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

Far Western Mid-Western Western Central Eastern

Population Distribution in Ecodevelopment Regions 2011

Mountain Hill Terai

34

Chart 3 Population Growth Rate 2001-2011

4.4 Strategic Road Length, Density and Influenced Population

Table 10 Strategic Road Length, Density & Influenced Population

Regions Area (Sq. Km) Population

2011

Road

Length

(Km)

Influenced

Population

(2001) per

Km

Road Density

( Km per 100

Km2)

Far Western 19539 2,552,517 549.42 1566 8

Mid-Western 42378 3,546,682 1883.5 1600 4

Western 29398 4,926,765 1665.54 2744 6

Central 27410 9,656,985 2684.34 2992 10

Eastern 28456 5,811,555 1974.22 2707 7

Total 1,47,181 26,494,504 8757.02 - -

Source: DoR 2006/07

1.64%

2.58%

-2.00%

-0.67% -0.25%

0.79%1.46%

0.06%

2.51%

-0.25%

2.33%1.95% 1.95% 1.97%

1.57%

-3.00%

-2.00%

-1.00%

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%


Population Growth Rate 2001-2011

Mountains Hills Terai

35

Chart 4 Strategic Road in Development Regions

Mid-Western development region occupies the largest area (28.79%) of the total area

of Nepal with more than half (50.38%) of its area occupied by mountainous terrain. Its

bounds 13.39 % of the total population of 2011. The central region that occupies only

18.60 % of the total area gives shelter to 36.45% of the total population of the state.

This indicates a high population pressure in the central region. The lengths of strategic

road in the central region account to 30.65% of the total strategic road length. About

66% of the population of FWDR live in only about 26% of the area in Terai. There is

negative growth rate of population in the mountains of eastern, central and western

region. However, there is a rapid increase in central hills. FWDR has the least length of

strategic road and influence population per Km but has second highest road density.

The distribution and density of population show the hierarchal rank as CDR, EDR,

WDR, MWDR and FWDR in terms of regional development.

549.42

1883.51665.54

2684.34

1974.22

1566 1600

27442992

2707

8 4 6 10 7


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Strategic Road in Development Regions 2006

Road Length (Km) Influenced Population (2001) per Km Road Density ( Km per 100 Km2)

36

CHAPTER V

5. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MODELS

An analysis has been made based on parameters of different models. These parameters

are Population density and growth, share of ethnic groups, Land Capability (Slope &

Arable), Development Rank, Infrastructural Development & HDI, Energy Potentiality,

Expenditure and Income.

5.1 Population & Area

5.1.1 Committee Model (Model A):

This model has fourteen states which are tabulated below. Please refer Appendix IV.

Table 11 Committee Model: Population & Area

S

.

N

Name of the

State Name of Districts

Area

(Sq.km)

Populatio

n

2011

Pop

Den

sity

(Per

Sq.k

m)

1 Jadan State Most Part of Humla, Mugu &

Dolpa

14,620 58,729 4

2 Khaptad State Darchula, Dadeldhura,

Baitadi, Doti, Bajhang,

Achham & a part of Bajura

13,523 1,271,303 94

3 Karnali State

A part of (Bajura, Humla,

Mugu, Dolpa), Kalikot,

Jumla, Dailekh, Jajarkot,

Rukum, Surkhet & Salyan

17,833 1,568,866 88

4 Tamuwan

State

Manang, Mustang & Most

Parts of (Kaski, Lamjung,

Gorkha)

12,051 666,737 55

5 Magarat State

Rolpa, Myagdi, Pyuthan,

Baglung, Arghakhanchi,

Palpa & parts of

(Nawalparasi, Tanahu, Parbat,

Kaski & Rukum)

14,653 2,002,277 137

6 Tamsaling

State

Part of (Dhading, Nuwakot,

Sindhupalchowk,

Kavrepalanchowk, Lalitpur,

Makwanpur) & Rasuwa

9,918 1,419,064 143

7 Sherpa State Part of (Sankhuwasabha,

Solukhumbu, Dolakha &

Sindhupalchowk)

4,867 89,986 18

37

S

.

N

Name of the


Area

(Sq.km)

Populatio

n

2011

Pop

Den

sity

(Per

Sq.k

m)

8 Sunkoshi State Part of Dolakha, Ramechhap,

Sindhuli, Okhaldhunga,

Udayapur)

5,144 721,879 140

9 Newa State Kathmandu, Bhaktapur & part

of (Makwanpur, Lalitpur,

Kavre)

929 2,606,158 2805

10 Narayani State Chitwan & part of (Parbat,

Syangja, Kaski, Lamjung,

Tanahu, Gorkha, Dhading,

Nawalparasi, Makwanpur &

Nuwakot)

7,530 1,885,720 250

11 Limbuwan

State

Ilam, Taplejung, Panchthar,

Terathum & part of (Morang,

Dhankuta & Sankhuwasabha)

8,768 900,817 103

12 Kirat State

Khotang, Bhojpur & part of

(Solukhumbhu, Udayapur,

Dhankuta, Sankhuwasabha &

Okhaldhunga)

8,441 876,972 104

13

Mithila-

Bhojpur-Koch

Madhesh State

Parsa, Bara, Rautahat, Sarlahi,

Mahottari, Siraha, Saptari,

Sunsari, Jhapa, Most part of

Morang & part of Udayapur

14,059 7,933,002 564

14

Lumbini

Abadh

Tharuwan

State

Kanchanpur, Kailali, Bardiya,

Banke, Dang, Kapilbastu,

Rupandehi & part of

Nawalparasi

15,392 4,477,661 291

Total 147,730 26,479,173 179

The above table shows the population distribution in the states proposed by state

restructuring committee. It shows that Karnali is the largest (17833 sq.km) of all states

with the density of only 88 person per sq.km whereas Newa is the smallest (929) with

the population density of 2805 person per sq.km. There is a significant differences in

the densities between these two states. Newa, which has the capital city Kathmandu in

it has the highest density and exceeds the Mithila-Bhojpur-Koch-Madhes (MBKM)

state, the second highly denser state, vastly by 2241 person per sq.km. It shows an

intense population pressure in the Newa state than any other state proposed by this

model.

38

From the pie chart below it can also be seen that out of 14 states, the three states,

MBKM, Lumbini-Abadh-Tharuwan and Newa contain more than 50% of the

population of country. Similarly, the seven states Khaptad, Limbuwan, Kirat, Sunkhosi,

Tamuwan, Sherpa and Jadan jointly have less than 20% of the total population. This

shows that population distribution in the regions of this model is highly skewed. This

indicates that there may the scarcity of skilled or unskilled human resources in the

sparsely population regions and require to hire or burrow from other regions that are

densely populated.

The charts below show the distribution and density of population in this model:

Chart 5 Population Distribution in Model A

Chart 6 Population Density in Model A

29.96%

16.91%

9.84%

7.56%

7.12%

5.92%

5.36%

4.80%

3.40%

3.31%2.73%

2.52%

0.34%

0.22%Population Distribution in %

Mithila-Bhojpur-Koch Madhesh

StateLumbini Abadh Tharuwan State

Newa State

Magarat State

Narayani State

Karnali State

Tamsanling State

Khaptad State

Limbuwan State

564291

2805

137 25088 143 94 103 104 140 55 18 4

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Population Density (2011) in person/sq.km

Pop Density

39

5.1.2 Commission Model (Model B):

This model has ten states which are tabulated below. Please refer Appendix V.

Table 12 Commission Model: Population & Area

S

.

N

Name of

the State Name of Districts

Area

(Sq.km

)

Populatio

n

2011

Pop

Density

(Per

Sq.km)

1

Karnali -

Khaptad

State

Humla, Mugu, Dolpa, Jumla,

Bajura, Baitadi, Dadeldhura,

Doti, Jajarkot, Surkhet, Salyan,

Darchula, Achham and part of

Kailali and Rukum

47097 2939883 62

2

Tamuwan

State

Mustang, Manang & most parts

of Kaski, Lamjung and Gorkha

12071 649731 54

3

Tamsaling

State

Rasuwa, Nuwakot, Sindhuli

Sindhupalchowk, Dolakha,

Ramechhap, Makwanpur and

part of (Chitwan, Lalitpur,

Dhading, Solukhumbu &

Udaypur)

17747 2272354 128

4

Magarat

State

Ropa, Pyuthan, Myagdi,

Baglung, Arghakhanchi, Palpa

and part of (Rukum, Syangja,

Tanahau, Chitwan, Gorkha, &

Nawalparasi)

15180 1977763 130

5

Limbuwan

State

Taplejung, Panchthar, Illam,

Terthum and part of

(Sankhuwasabha, Dhankuta &

Morang)

8768 900821 103

40

The above table shows the population distribution, area, and population density of the

model proposed by state restructuring commission. It shows that Madhes-Mithila-

Bhojpura state has the highest population (30.77%) followed by Madhes-Abadh-

Tharuwan (16.66%). The highly populated 3 states have more than 58% of the total

population. Tamuwan has the least share of population (2.45%).

Similarly, Newa state has the highest (2545) population density of all the regions in this

model whereas Tamuwan has the least density (54). The second highest density of

6

Newa State Kathmandu, Bhaktapur and Part

of (Lalitpur, Dhading,

Makwanpur, & Kavre)

1038 2642766 2545

7

Madhes

Mithila

Bhojpura

Bara, Parsa, Rautahat, Sarlahi,

Mahottari, Dhanusha, Siraha,

Saptari, Sunsari, Morang, Jhapa

& part of (Udayapur, Chitwan,

Nawalparasi)

15833 8153860 515

8

Madesh-

Abadh-

Tharuwan

Banke, Bardia, Kailali,

Kanchanpur, Dang, Kapilbastu,

Rupandehi & part of

Nawalparasi

13975 4413723 316

9

Kirat State Khotang, Bhojpur & major part

of Solukhumbu,

Sankhuwasabha and part of

(Okhaldhunga, Dhankuta,

Udayapur)

11077 894263 81

10

Narayani

State

Part of (Chitwan, Nawalparasi,

Dhading, Gorkha, Lamjung,

Syangja, Parbat, Myagdi,

Baglung, Kaski & Nuwakot)

4990 1650295 331

Total 147774 26495460 179

41

Madhes Mithila Bhojpura is only 515 which is less by 2030 than the Newa State. In this

model too, the population distribution is skewed but less than the committee model. It

may difficult for KK, Kirat and Tamuwan states for human resource management in

their respective regions.

Chart 7 Population Distribution in Model B

Chart 8 Population Density in Model B

The population pressure is on the Newa state that contains the capital city. On the other

hand, there are chances of natural resources exploitation due to the overuse by highly

dense population.

30.77%

16.66%

11.10%

9.97%

8.58%

7.46%

6.23%

3.40%

3.38%2.45%

Population Distribution in %Madhes Mithila Bhojpura

Madesh-Abadh-Tharuwan

Karnali - Khaptad State

Newa State

Tamsaling State

Magarat State

Narayani State

Limbuwan State

Kirat State

Tamuwan State

515316

62

2545

128 130331

103 81 54

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000


Pop Density

42

5.1.3 Model Agreed Upon by Parties (Model C):

Before the dissolution of the first constituent assembly, parties had reached an

agreement on the delineation of states on May 15th, 2012. Please refer map in Appendix

VI. This model contains 11 states:

Table 13 Model Agreed by Parties: Population & Area

S

.

N

Name of the


Area

(Sq.km)

Populatio

n

2011

Pop

Densit

y (Per

Sq.km

)

1

State 2 (Mid

Hill &

Mountain)

Humla, Mugu, Dolpa, Jumla,

Kalikot, Jajarkot, Dailekh,

Surkhet and part of (Salyan &

Rukum)

31018 1461191 47

2 State1

(FWDR)

Darchula, Bajhang, Bajura,

Baitadi, Doti, Achham,

Dadeldhura, Kanchanpur

19785 2552674 129

3 State 5

(West Hill &

Mountain)

Mustang, Manang, Gorkha,

Tanahu, Syangja, Parbat, Kaski,

Lamjung and part of (Baglung &

Myagdi)

18000 1976648 110

4 State 3

(West &

Mid-West

Terai)

Bardiya, Banke, Dang,

Kapilbastu, Rupandehi,

Nawalparasi

11997 3565858 297

5 State 8

(Central Hill

& Mountain)

Rasuwa, Sindhupalchowk,

Dolakha, Kavre, Ramechhap,

Sindhuli and part of (Dhading &

Nuwakot)

12575 1479688 118

6 State 4

(Western

Hill)

Rolpa, Baglung, Myagdi,

Pyuthan, Gulmi, Palpa,

Arghakhanchi and part of

(Salyan & Rukum)

10961 1470553 134

7 State 11

(East Hill &

Mountain)

Taplejung, Terthum, Panchthar,

Illam, Dhankuta and part of

Sankhuwasabha

9824 967114 98

8 State 6

(Central Hill

& Inner

Terai)

Chitwan, Kathmandu,

Bhaktapur, Lalitpur and part of

(Dhading, Nuwakot,

Sindhupalchowk, Kavre &

Makwanpur)

7728 4049581 524

9 State 9

(Central Hill

& Mountain)

Soukhumbu, Okhaldhunga,

Khotang, Bhojpur, Udaypur &

part of Sankhuwasabha

11669 1026309 88

10 State 7

(Central

Terai)

Parsa, Bara, Rautahat, Sarlahi,

Mahottari, Dhanusha, Siraha &

Saptari

9595 5405058 563

11 State 10

(Eastern

Terai)

Sunsari, Morang, Jhapa 4631 2541381 549

Total 147783 26496055 179

43

The above table shows the population distribution, area, and population density of the

model agreed by political parties. State 7 in the central Terai has the highest population

(20.4%) followed by state 6 (15.28%) that has the capital city Kathmandu in it whereas

state 11 in the eastern hill & mountains has the least population (3.65%). The population

distribution in this model is less skewed than the other two models discussed above.

Chart 9 Population Distribution in Model C

Similarly, the chart below shows the population density. It can be seen that states 7, 6

and 10 have density higher than 500 whereas states 2, 9 & 11 have density less than

100. State 7 has the highest density (563) followed by state 10 (549). However, there is

not much difference in the regions of this model as compared to previous models.

Chart 10 Population Density in Model C

This model has a better population distribution in its regions than the previously

discussed two models.

20.40%

15.28%

13.46%9.63%

9.59%

7.46%

5.58%

5.55%

5.51%

3.87% 3.65%Population Distribution in %

State 7 State 6

State 3 State 1

State 10 State 5

State 8 State 4

State 2 State 9

State 11

563524

297

129

549

110 118 134

4788 98

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

State 7 State 6 State 3 State 1 State 10 State 5 State 8 State 4 State 2 State 9 State 11


Pop Density

44

5.2 Share of Major Ethnic Groups

Nepal has diversity in caste, ethnicity and language along with its geophysical diversity.

Major castes include Chhetri, Brahman, Magar, Tharu, Kami, Newar, Tamang,

Musalman, Yadav and Rai. Brahman & Chhetri are regarded as upper caste in Nepal whereas

castes like Sarki, Damai & Kami as lower castes. The table below shows the percentage

share of each caste in national population according to 2011 census.

Table 14 Share of Major Ethnic Groups

S.N Caste/ Ethnicity Population

2011

Percentage

of Total

Remarks

1 Chhetri 4,398,053 16.60%

2 Brahman-Hill 3,226,903 12.18%

3 Magar 1,887,733 7.12%

4 Tharu 1,737,470 6.56%

5 Tamang 1,539,830 5.81%

6 Newar 1,321,933 4.99%

7 Kami 1,258,554 4.75%

8 Musalman 1,164,255 4.39%

9 Yadav 1,054,458 3.98%

10 Rai 620,004 2.34%

11 Gurung 522,641 1.97%

12 Damai 472,862 1.78%

13 Thakuri 425,623 1.61%

14 Limbu 487,300 1.84%

15 Sarki 374,816 1.41%

16 Teli 369,688 1.40%

17 Chamar/Harijan/Ram 335,893 1.27%

18 Koiri/Kuswaha 306,393 1.16%

19 Musahar 234,490 0.89% Less than 1%

20 Kumai 231,129 0.87% Less than 1%

21 Dashnami/ Sanyashi 227,822 0.86% Less than 1%

22 Dhanuk 219,808 0.83% Less than 1%

23 Dusadh/Paswan/Pasi 208,910 0.79% Less than 1%

24 Mallaha 173,261 0.65% Less than 1%

25 Kewat 153,772 0.58% Less than 1%

26 Kathbaniya 138,637 0.52% Less than 1%

27 Brahman-Terai 134,106 0.51% Less than 1%

28 Kalwar 128,232 0.48% Less than 1%

29 Kanu 125,184 0.47% Less than 1%

30 Kumal 121,196 0.46% Less than 1%

31 Gharti/Bhujel 118,650 0.45% Less than 1%

32 Hajam/Thakur 117,758 0.44% Less than 1%

33 Rajbansi 115,242 0.43% Less than 1%

34 Sherpa 112,946 0.43% Less than 1%

45

S.N Caste/ Ethnicity Population

2011

Percentage

of Total

Remarks

35 Dhobi 109,079 0.41% Less than 1%

36 Tatma/Tatwa 104,865 0.40% Less than 1%

37 Lohar 101,421 0.38% Less than 1%

38 Khatwe 100,921 0.38% Less than 1%

39 Others 2,012,666 7.60%

40 Total 26,494,504 100.00%

Data Source: CBS, 2011

Chhetri is the dominant (12.88%) caste followed by Brahman Hill (12.18%) and Magar

(7.12%). The table shows the hierarchical order of castes having greater than 1 lakh population,

according to their share in national population. Only 18 identified castes have share greater than

1% in total national population whereas twenty other identified caste or ethnic groups have

their share less than 1% in national population.

Most of the states in the models proposed by the SR committee and SR commission have been

named on the basis of dominant ethnic group with the greatest share within that state.

Limbuwan state represents the region with major ethnic group as Limbu, Kirat for Rai, Newa

for Newar, Magarat for Magar, Tamuwan for Gurung, Tharuhat for Tharu, Tamsaling for

Tamang and Madhes for Madhesi community that include castes like Yadav and Brahman

Terai. However, castes like Kami, Musalman, Sarki and Damai have not been used to name the

states although they share a significant portion of population within their respective region and

also in national population. Although the commission model has proposed a non-geographical

state for Dalits (Sarki, Kami, Damai), it seems to be unpractical to administrate such a non-

physical region and deliver service to the people. The table below shows the three major castes

in the Eco development regions with their respective share of population and dominant ethnic

group:

Table 15 Ethnic Share in Eco Development Region

S.

N

Eco

Developme

nt Region

Populatio

n 2011 Major

Castes Population

Percentage

share in

Eco

developme

nt Regions

(%)

Dominan

t Caste/

Ethnicity

1 Eastern

Mountain

392089 Chhetri 60336 15.39 Limbu

Limbu 61510 15.69

Others 55690 14.20

2 Eastern Hill 1601347 Chhetri 294189 18.37 Rai

Rai 332878 20.79

Limbu 184542 11.52

46

3 Eastern

Terai

3818119 Chhetri 330956 8.67 Brahman

Hill Brahman

Hill

394840 10.34

Others 628081 16.45

4 Central

Mountain

517655 Chhetri 115874 22.38 Tamang

Brahman

Hill

53409 10.32

Tamang 159659 30.84

5 Central Hill 4431813 Brahmin

Hill

791845 17.87 Tamang

Tamang 923466 20.84

Newar 854569 19.28

6 Central Terai 4707517 Musalma

n

527645 11.21 Yadav

Yadav 543697 11.55

Others 810865 17.22

7 Western

Mountain

19990 Gurung 6311 31.57 Gurung

Kami 1331 6.66

Others 8683 43.44

8 Western Hill 2811135 Chhetri 416239 14.81 Brahman

Hill Brahman

Hill

622389 22.14

Magar 593321 21.11

9 Western

Terai

2095640 Brahman

Hill

301642 14.39 Brahman

Hill Tharu 252159 12.03

Others 309121 14.75

10 Mid-

Western

Mountain

388713 Chhetri 168278 43.29 Chhetri

Kami 45707 11.76

Thakuri 63238 16.27

11 Mid-

Western Hill

1687497 Chhetri 632137 37.46 Chhetri

Magar 363521 21.54

Kami 271498 16.09

12 Mid-

Western

Terai

1470472 Chhetri 259014 17.61 Tharu

Brahman

Hill

126452 8.60

Tharu 466084 31.70

13 Far Western

Mountain


Brhaman

Hill

51611 11.14

Kami 34440 7.43

14 Far Western

Hill


Brahman

Hill

112318 13.03

Others 80449 9.33

15 Far Western

Terai

1226957 Chhetri 294416 24.00 Tharu

Brahman

Hill

168294 13.72

Tharu 437996 35.70

The above table shows that the dominant castes in each eco development regions are

Limbu, Rai, Brahman Hill, Tamang, Chhetri, Tharu, Yadav and Gurung. The share of

major ethnic group is less than 35% in all the eco-development regions except for

Chhetri. It shows that at least remaining 68% of people belong to other caste or

communities and living together with the dominant ethnic group. This shows that

47

Nepalese society is highly heterogeneous in caste and accordingly in their respective

language, culture and costumes. Out of 15 eco-development regions Brahman &

Chhetri have dominance in 7 regions but no state has been named accordingly in any

of the models studied. It can be seen in above table that Chhetri have more than 63%

share in Far Western mountain & more than 54% in Far Western Hill.

The delineation of the state in each model has been made on the basis of Eco

development regions and their respective ethnic groups. In this study, deduction of the

ethnic share in eco development regions has been made to tabulate major ethnic group

of each state in the models studied.

5.2.1 Ethnic Share in Model A & Model B:

The delineation of models proposed by committee (Model A) and commission (Model

B) are similar and contain the same eco development region. The difference is Jadan,

Khaptad and Karnali states of the committee model have been merged to create a greater

Karnali-Khaptad state in the commission model. Sherpa & Sunkoshi states have been

omitted in the commission model to create a greater Kirat and Tamsaling states thereby

reducing the number of states. So, the ethnic share has been compared in case of 14

states of the committee model in the table below. Please refer Appendix VII & VIII.

48

Table 16 Table showing Ethnic Share in Model A & B

S

.

N

State Name

Respective Eco

development

Region

Dominant

Caste

Share

of

Domin

ant

Caste

(%)

Remarks

1 Jadan State Mid & Far

Western Mountain Chhetri 53.35 Average

2 Khaptad State Far Western

Mountain & Hill Chhetri 59.09 Average

3 Karnali State Mid-Western Hill Chhetri 37.46

4 Tamuwan State Western Mountain Gurung 31.57

5 Magarat State Western Hill Brahman

Hill

(Magar

=21.11%)

22.14

6 Tamsaling State Central Hill &

Mountain Tamang 25.84 Average

7 Sherpa State Central Mountain Tamang

(Sherpa=3.2

0%)

30.84

8 Sunkoshi State Central Hill Tamang 20.84

9 Newa State Central Hill Tamang

(Newar

=19.28%)

20.84

10 Narayani State

Central & Western

Hill & Central

Terai (Chitwan

only)

Brahman

Hill 22.14

Highest of

Yadav, Tamang

& Brahman Hill

11 Limbuwan State Eastern Hill &

Mountain Limbu 15.69

12 Kirat State Eastern Hill &

Mountain Rai 20.79

13

Mithila-Bhojpur-

Koch Madhes

State

Eastern & Central

Terai Yadav 11.55

Higher of

Brahmin Hill &

Yadav

14 Lumbini Abadh

Tharuwan State

Western, Mid-

Western & Far

Western Terai

Tharu 33.35 Higher of

Brahmin Hill &

Tharu

49

It can be see that Chhetri have majority in Jadan and Khaptad states with more than

50% share of population and with 37.46% in Karnali state. Similarly, Brahman Hill

have their dominance in Magarat (22.14%) and Narayani states (22.14) whereas Tharu,

Limbu, Tamang & Gurung have their dominance in the states named after themselves.

However, there is no dominance of Magar in Magar state, Newar (19.28) in Newa state

and Sherpa (3.20%) in Sherpa state. There is dominance of Tamang (30.84%) in Sherpa

state and also in Newa state (20.84). Yadav have a slight dominance on Mithila-

Bhojpur-Koch-Madhes state with a percentage of 11.55.

The nomenclature of the states in this models can be quite disputable as most the castes

have a mere dominance over others in their respective regions. There is no clear

scientific reason why Chhetri and Brahman have been deprived of nomenclature of the

states. On the other hand, the distribution of caste and ethnic groups in the regions is so

well mixed that the ethnic nomenclature may bring chaos to harmonically living

Nepalese society at present. Although, every ethnic groups in the regions would have

equal rights, there is misperception in the people of this ethnic nomenclature. Looking

at the above ethnic distribution, the implementation of this nomenclature is still

skeptical.

5.2.2 Ethnic Share in Model C:

The nomenclature in this model was not found during the study. However, the states

have been named as State 1, State 2 and so on for the analysis. The table below shows

the dominant caste in 11 states of the models. Please refer Appendix IX.

Table 17 Ethnic Share in Agreed Model (Model C)

S

.

N

State

Name

Respective Eco

development

Region

Dominant

Caste

Share of

Domina

nt Caste

(%)

Remarks

1 State 2

(Mid-Western Hill

& Mountain) Chhetri 40.37 Average

2

State1 (FW Mountain,

Hill & Terai)

Chhetri 59.09 Higher of Chhetri

& Tharu &

Average

50

The above table shows that Chhetri & Brahman Hill have their dominance in 5 out of

11 states whereas dominance of Tamang can be seen in 3 states and of Rai, Yadav and

Tharu in one state each. This model seems to consider greater ethnic diversity as

compared to other two models. State 10 which has dominance of Brahman Hill, has

been created a different state from MBKM state of the previous models. Similarly, State

6 has been made from the Narayani State of the previous models curtailing the portion

of the western hill and adding Kathmandu valley that has dominance of Newar

community. State 1 has been made of the total area of Far Western Development Region

where Chhetri have dominance.

5.3 Land Capability

Land capability of the states is another important parameter in the this study as it plays

a major role in identifying the land area that can be used for agriculture, horticulture,

cattle rearing, locating of industries and even for development of transport and other

infrastructure. Land Capability in this study cover two characteristics viz. Arable land

& the slope of land. Arable land is the land where agricultural production can be made.

Similarly, the slope is important to determine the ease with which settlements can

3 State 5

(West Hill &

Mountain) Brahman Hill 22.14

Higher of

Brahman Hill &

Gurung

4 State 3

(West & Mid-West

Terai) Tharu 31.70

Higher of

Brahmin Hill &

Tharu

5 State 8

(Central Hill &

Mountain) Tamang 25.84 Average

6 State 4

(Western Hill) Brahman Hill 22.14

7 State 11

(East Hill &

Mountain) Rai 20.79 Higher of Rai &

Limbu

8

State 6 (Central Hill &

Terai) Chitwan

only

Tamang 20.84 Higher of

Brahman Hill &

Tamang

9 State 9

(Central Hill &

Mountain) Tamang 25.84 Average

10 State 7 (Central Terai) Yadav 11.55

11 State 10 (Eastern Terai) Brahman Hill 10.34

51

reside, infrastructure can be developed and overall economic growth can be attained.

Humans have always chosen a place that has flatter terrain than a steep terrain. The

following table shows the area of arable land in thousand hectares of different eco

development regions.

Table 18 Arable Land of Eco Development Regions

Developmen

t region

Mountai

n

% of

Mountai

n

Hill

% of

Hill Terai

% of

Terai Total

Eastern 63.5 31.72% 214.

4

24.85% 431.4 33.34% 709.3

Central 63.6 31.77% 213.

2

24.71% 413.6 31.96% 690.4

Western 2 1.00% 225.

5

26.13% 193.5 14.95% 421

Mid-Western 37.1 18.53% 145.

1

16.82% 147.5 11.40% 329.7

Far-Western 34 16.98% 64.7 7.50% 108 8.35% 206.7

200.2 100.00% 862.

9

100.00

%

1294 100.00

%

2357.

1 Source: Source:cbs.gov.np/wp-content/uploads/2012/Agriculture/.../Chapter05.pdf

The above table shows that Eastern Region has the highest (33.34%) arable land

followed by Central, Western and Mid-Western Region of the total arable land area of

Terai. Similarly, Western Hills have the most arable land (26.13%) followed by Eastern

and Central region in the hills. In case of Mountains, Central region has the highest

(31.77%) arable land followed by Eastern and Mid-Western Region. Eastern, Central

& Western regions have a greater portion of arable land compared to MWDR & FWDR.

52

Similarly the chart below shows portion of arable land in thousand hectares according

to eco development Regions.

Chart 11 Area of Arable land in Eco development Regions

The data of Eco DR has been used to find the area of arable land in different regions of

the models using “Zonal Statistics” tool of ArcGIS software.

5.3.1 Land Capability (Arable Land & Slope) in Model A

The following chart shows the arable land in 14 states of the committee model. Please

refer Appendix X.

Chart 12 Area of Arable Land in Model A

63.5 63.6

237.1 34

214.4 213.2 225.5

145.1

64.7

431.4413.6

193.5

147.5

108

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

EDR CDR WDR MWDR FWDR

Area of Arable Land 2001/02 ('000 Hectare)

Mountain Hill Terai

54240.566730.4

170624140196

290999

159278

33521.595109.2

19806.1

208332129332134099

590289

224129

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

Arable Land 2001/02 (in hectares)

Arable Land

53

It can be seen that MBKM state has the greatest area (25.48%) followed by Magarat

state (12.56%) and Lumbini Abadh Tharuwan (9.67%) of the total arable area of Nepal.

Newa state has the least (0.85%) arable land followed by Sherpa, Jadan & Khaptad

states. Only 5 of the 14 states have arable land above average (165478 hectares). This

indicates that remaining 9 states that are mostly in the mountain or hill regions may

have to depend upon the richer states for food or agricultural products. The chart below

shows the percentage of area with different slope categories of different states in

degrees.

Chart 13 Percentage Are of Slope in Model A

The table shows three states viz. Lumbini, MBKM and Newa have more than 60% of

their area with slope of 0 to 5 degrees. Narayani has almost 60% of its area with the

same slope. This indicates that the terrain is flat in these states so farming and other

development activities like road construction, canal construction etc. can be carried

more easily as compared to other states that have less than 40% area with slope less

than 5 degrees. A considerable portion of area with slope greater than 30 degree is in

Sherpa (2.22%), Tamuwan (1.83%) and Jadan (1.27%) states compared to other

regions.

Better road infrastructure attract location of new industries as the transportation cost for

raw materials and finished products is greatly reduced. Passengers along with materials

used in daily consumption by the people can be transported easily in the flatter terrain.

In this instance, MBKM and Lumbini Abadh states in the Terai region seem to be more

advantageous over the other states that are situated in mountainous and hilly region.

However, Newa state seems to have flatter slope due to the presence of Kathmandu

0.00%20.00%40.00%60.00%80.00%

100.00%120.00%

Percentage Area of Slope in Degrees

0 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 15 15 to 20 20 to 30 30 to above

54

valley and Pokhara valley shares a portion of flatter terrain to the Tamuwan state though

they lie in the central and western hilly regions respectively.

5.3.2 Land Capability (Arable land & Slope) in Model B

The following chart shows the arable land in hectares in the states of commission

model. Please refer Appendix XI.

Chart 14 Area of Arable Land in Model B

Like in case of committee model, it can be seen that Madhes Mithila Bhojpura state has

the greatest share (28.02%) of the total arable land area of Nepal followed by Magarat

(13.11%) and Karnali Khaptad (13.10%). Only 4 of the 10 states have their arable land

more than the average (231744). Newa state has the minimum (0.96%) arable land

within it. Newa state has the highest population density but the lowest arable area makes

it the weakest state in agricultural production of all the states and represents its

dependency to its surrounding states Tamsaling and Narayani.

303694

140635

281327 303710

129332

22138.1

649333

207789155540 123937

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000


Arable Land

55

Chart 15 Percentage Area of Slopes in Model B

The slope chart in commission model shows that Madhes Mithila Bhojpura has the most

flat (96.61%) terrain followed by Madhes Abadh Tharuwan (88.38), Newa (63.44) and

Narayani (51.78%) states respectively that have terrain slopes less than 5 degrees. 6 out

of 10 states have less than 40% area with flatter slope.

5.3.3 Land Capability (Arable land & Slope) in Model C

The following chart shows the arable land in thousand hectares in the states of agreed

model. Please refer Appendix XII.

Chart 16 Area of Arable Land in Model C

This model shows that the share of arable land in their respective areas in relatively

even in distribution than the other two models discussed above. It can be seen that states

7, 5, 2 & 4 have a greater share of arable land. State 7 has the same delineation of

MBKM state of the commission model without 3 districts Sunsari, Morang and Jhapa

and has the greatest share (17.31%) of arable land. State 1 has the least (5.17%) of the

total arable area of the country in this model but is more of the least (Newa: 0.85 &

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%



218998124388

274373200445 180790 210150

130534204786 172131

401176

199787

0

200000

400000

600000



Arable Land

56

0.96) of above two models. 7 out of 11 states are almost equal or greater than the

average (210687) which represents that there is less disparity in the distribution of

arable land as compared to the above two models.

In this model, states 7, 10 and 3 of the Terai have a relatively flatter terrain than other

8 states that lie in the mountains or hills. States 5, 2 and 8 have the sloppiest terrain and

cover the hills and mountains of the western, mid-western and central regions

respectively.

In comparing the slopes of all three models, Sherpa state in the committee model has

the greatest portion (20.84%) of sloppy area greater than 15 degrees, followed by

Tamuwan state (17.85%) of the commission model and state 2 (15.41%) of the agreed

model. It also indicates that slope distribution in the agreed model is quite even than

the other two models.

5.4 Road Density and Development Rank

Road network as major part of infrastructure development plays a vital role in any

region. The presence of road network attracts other developmental works like

establishment of Industries and social infrastructure even in the remote areas of the

states. Road reduces the friction of distance between growth centres and service

delivery centres. In this study, road density refers to the total length of strategic road

present in 100 sq.km area of any region. Data (2006) of the district level provided by

DoR was used to determine the road density of the regions in the models.

Development rank in this study, is the hierarchy of districts as tabulated in the report

prepared by the joint study of ICIMOD and CBS in 2003. Three indicator groups viz.

Poverty & Deprivation, Socio-Economic and Infrastructural Development and Women

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%




57

empowerment were used to determine the development rank of the districts. These

indicators groups consisted of their respective indicators. In our study, this rank was

used to determine the overall rank of the regions in different models.

5.4.1 Road Density and Development Rank in Model A

Table 19 Road Density & Development Rank in Committee Model

State name

Mean Road

Density

(km/100km2)

Average

Development

Rank

Revised

Development

Rank Newa State 42.76 6.13 1

Tamuwan State 2.23 18.97 2

Narayani State 8.22 19.31 3

Limbuwan State 6.43 22.86 4

Kirat State 4.29 30.20 5

Sherpa State 2.54 32.60 6

Lumbini Abadh Tharuwan State 10.20 32.85 7

Magarat State 7.17 34.94 8

Tamsaling State 8.30 37.66 9

Mithila-Bhojpur-Koch Madhesh

State

12.70 41.39 10

Sunkoshi State 5.24 46.03 11

Karnali State 4.37 58.72 12

Khaptad State 5.50 65.79 13

Jadan State 0.39 70.94 14

The above table and below chart show the mean road density and development rank of

each region of the committee model. Newa state has the highest road density (42.76)

followed by MBKM state (12.70) and LAT state (10.20). Jadan has the least road

density (0.39) followed by Tamuwan (2.23) and Sherpa (2.54). Please refer Appendix

XIII.

Chart 17 Road Density in Model A

0.395.50 4.37 2.23

7.17 8.302.54 5.24

42.76

8.22 6.43 4.2912.70 10.20

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

Mean Road Density (km/100 km2) 2006

Mean Road

Density

58

Similarly in comparing the development rank, Newa is ranked the first followed by

Tamuwan, Narayani & Limbuwan state. Jadan is the least developed state followed by

Khaptad and Karnali according to the above rank table. Newa state in both the cases

has been the best of all other states. However, MBKM state is in the 10th rank in the

rank table though it has been ranked second in the road density. This indicates that

poverty and deprivation with social development and women empowerment is

considerably low in this state.

59

5.4.2 Road Density and Development Rank in Model B

Table 20 Road Density & Development Rank in Commission Model

State name Mean Road

Density

(km/100km2)

Average

Development

Rank

Revised

Development

Rank

Newa State 39.03 10.46 1

Tamuwan State 2.25 18.96 2

Narayani State 7.75 20.77 3

Limbuwan State 6.43 22.86 4

Kirat State 3.40 28.87 5

Madesh-Abadh-Tharuwan 10.33 32.57 6

Magarat State 7.29 34.38 7

Madhes Mithila Bhojpura 12.23 38.57 8

Tamsaling State 7.08 39.94 9

Karnali - Khaptad State 3.54 64.09 10

Chart 18 Road Density in Model B

Like in the committee model Newa state stands alone with (39.03) km road length per

100 sq.km area in the commission model. Similarly, MMB and MAT states follow

Newa with 12.23 and 10.33 km. Tamuwan state has the least road density of strategic

road with only 2.25 Km per 100sq.km followed by Kirat (3.40) and Karnali-Khaptad

(3.54) state. In comparing development rank Newa, Tamuwan and Narayani states are

3.54 2.257.08 7.29 6.43

39.03

12.23 10.33

3.407.75

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.0040.0045.00


Mean Road Density

60

in the first, second and third place. Although MMB and MAT states have better

strategic road density against others, their ranks in development table are below rank 5.

The mean rank of Karnali Khaptad state (last in the rank) differs the second last state,

Tamsaling in the rank table by a significant difference of 25. This also indicates that

the districts in the Karnali Khaptad state are far backward in development. Please refer

Appendix XIV.

61

5.4.3 Road Density and Development Rank in Model C

Table 21 Road Density & Development Rank in Agreed Model

State name Mean Road

Density

(km/100km2)

Average

Development

Rank

Revised

Development

Rank

State 10 12.77 8.99 1

State 5 3.69 18.92 2

State 6 14.27 20.77 3

State 11 6.19 22.09 4

State 3 10.68 31.13 5

State 9 3.39 32.46 6

State 4 7.71 38.09 7

State 8 6.01 43.51 8

State 7 12.70 55.97 9

State 1 5.98 59.33 10

State 2 2.48 64.21 11

Chart 19 Road Density in Model C

The above chart shows strategic road density of 2006 in the model agreed in 2012 May.

It shows that State 6 (Kathmandu valley with Chitwan) has the highest density followed

by state 10 (Sunsari, Morang & Jhapa) and state 7 (Central Terai) with values 14.27,

12.77 and 12.70 respectively. State 2 (MW mountains & hills) has the least density of

the strategic road network. State 10, 5 (Pokhara with Manang & Mustang) and 6 are

ranked at top of development table while states 7, 1 and 2 are at the bottom that include

Central Terai, FWDR and MW hills and mountains respectively. Please refer map in

Appendix XV.

12.77

3.69

14.27

6.19

10.68

3.39

7.71

6.01

12.70

5.98

2.48

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00



Mean Road Density

62

The interstate difference between the richest and poorest states in the road densities is

lowest in the agreed model (10.29) followed by commission model (36.78) and

committee model (42.37). This indicates the disparity in the distribution of strategic

roads is less in the agreed models than in the other two models.

5.5 Energy Potentiality

Energy to any country is like water to living beings. With the technological

advancement human life has been made easier with machines. But these machines

require energy to function whether it is at home, office or industry. Vehicles and

construction machines also need energy to operate. No energy means no work and

ultimately no development.

It is often stated that Nepal has a huge potentiality of hydropower generation from its

fast flowing rivers. So, hydropower potential projects of different states in the models

have been determined and compared with one another to determine which has the most

and least hydropower potential. A total of 22,294 MW of potential has identified by

data collection. The list of hydropower projects with their names and capacity used in

the study is tabulated as below:

Table 22 List of Hydropower Projects

S.N Name

Capacity

(MW)

S.N Name Capacity

(MW)

1 Kankai 60 14 Upper Marsyangdi 121

2 Tamor Mewa 100 15 Upper Seti 122

3 Lower Arun 308 16 Madi 86

4 Arun III 402 17 Upper Modi 42

5 Upper Arun 335 18 Andhikhola storage 180

6 Dudh Koshi 300 19 Raughat 27

7 Thulo Dhunga 25 20 Chameliya 30

8 Likhu 4 51 21 West Seti 750

9 Upper Tamakoshi 250 22 Pancheswor 6480

10 Khimti II 27 23 Karnali Chisapani 10800

11 Langtang Storage 218 24 Upper Karnali 300

12 Budhi Gandaki 600 25 Budhi Ganga 20

13 Kali Gandaki 2 660 Total 22294

63

5.5.1 Hydropower Potentiality in Model A

The following tables shows the hydropower potential of different states in the

committee model. Please refer map in Appendix XVI.

Table 23 Energy Potential in Committee Model

S.

N

State Name No. of

Project

s

Total Capacity (MW)

5 Khaptad State 4 7280

5 Kirat State 5 1370

5 Limbuwan State 1 100

5 Lumbini Abadh Tharuwan State 1 10800

5 Magarat State 3 249

5 Mithila-Bhojpur-Koch Madhes

State

1 60

5 Narayani State 3 1382

5 Sherpa State 1 250

5 Sunkoshi State 2 78

5 Tamsaling State 1 218

5 Tamuwan State 2 207

5 Karnali State 1 300

5 Jadan State 0 0

5 Newa State 0 0

5 Total 22,294

The table shows LAT state has the highest capacity (10800) of hydropower generation

and is much larger than the potentiality of any other state with only one number of

project. Khaptad has the second largest capacity (7280) followed by Narayani (1382)

at third with 4 and 3 no. of projects. Kirat has 5 no. of projects which is the most of all

the states in this model.

Chart 20 Hydropower Potential in Model A

7280

1370100

10800

249 601382

250 78 218 207 300 0 00

2000400060008000

1000012000

Hydropwer Potential of States in Megawatts (MW)

Total Capacity in MW

64

Although these states were seen to be weaker in comparison of the earlier parameters,

they seem to be stronger in case of hydropower potential. Jadan state is weak in case of

this parameter as well as it has no potential. Similarly, Newa state has no potential of

hydropower generation although it has dominance over earlier discussed parameters.

5.5.2 Hydropower Potentiality in Model B

The following table shows the hydropower potential of different states in the

commission model. Please refer map in Appendix XVII.

Table 24 Energy Potential in Commission Model

S.

N

State Name No. of

Project

s

Total Capacity (MW)

5 Karnali - Khaptad State 5 7580

5 Kirat State 5 1370

5 Limbuwan State 1 100

5 Madhes-Abadh-Tharuwan 1 10800

5 Madhes Mithila Bhojpura 1 60

5 Magarat State 4 909

5 Narayani State 2 722

5 Tamsaling State 4 546

5 Tamuwan State 2 207

5 Newa State 0 0

5 Total 22,294

It can be seen that LAT state with one hydropower project (Karnali Chisapani) has the

greatest potential followed by Karnali Khaptad state and Kirat state. All other states

have at least one project in their territory except Newa state that has no any potential.

The following chart shows the potential in this model.

65

Chart 21 Hydropower Potential in Model B

As in the case of previous model, the same project (10800) has the influence in MAT

state making it the state having highest potential followed by Karnali Khaptad state

Kirat state. Newa state does not enclose any project making it potential less state as in

the commission model.

5.5.3 Hydropower Potentiality in Model C

The following table shows the hydropower potential of different states in the agreed

model. Please refer map in Appendix XVIII.

Table 25 Energy Potential of Agreed Model

S.

N

State Name No. of

Project

s

Total Capacity (MW)

5 State 1 4 7280

5 State 10 1 60

5 State 11 1 100

5 State 2 1 300

5 State 3 1 10800

5 State 4 3 249

5 State 5 4 929

5 State 6 1 660

5 State 8 4 546

5 State 9 5 1370

5 State 7 0 0

5 Total 22,294

It can be seen that state 3 has the greatest 10800 project within it followed by State 1

with 7280 MW potentiality and state 9 which significantly has lower potentiality than

the upper two like the previous models. State 7 (Central Terai) has no hydropower

7580

1370 100

10800

60 909 722 546 207 00

5000

10000

15000

Hydropower Potential of States in Megawatts (MW)

Total Capacity MW

66

potential identified and is in the weakest in comparison of this parameter. Please see

the chart below for illustration.

Chart 22Hydropower Potential in Model C

In comparing three models, the same 10800 MW project has the leading role in

potentiality of the states. Five of the 11 states have their potentiality less than 500 MW

and there is significant difference in the potentiality between first, second and third

highly potential states.

The present peak demand of electricity is about 1100 MW in Nepal but the supply in

the dry season is such that there are more than 14 Hours of load shedding. The demand

is gradually increasing annually. Only a few small projects can fulfill the increasing

demand. In this context, the project development of such large project (10800) may be

a matter of discussion at present.

5.6 Revenue to Expenditure (R/E) Ratio and Human Development Index (HDI)

Revenue and expenditure are the measure of economic activities that take place in the

regions. Revenue to expenditure ratio of the districts has been calculated and analysed

spatially in the GIS to find out the ratio in different states of each models. Consolidated

Financial statements of 2012/13 published by Financial Comptroller General Office has

been used in the analysis. Revenue or Income come from the tax or other sources.

Similarly, Expenditure may be recurrent, capital and financial.

Similarly, HDI measures the positive growth and change in human wellbeing in

individual and collective basis. It is a composite statistic of life expectancy, education

7280

60 100 300

10800

249929 660 546

1370

00

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000


Hydropwer Potential of States in Megawatts (MW)

Capacity in Megawatts

67

and income indices. District level (2011) data published by UNDP in 2014 was used to

determine the indices of the states using GIS. The values of regions in each models

have been analysed and comparison has been made.

5.6.1 (R/E) Ratio & HDI in Model A

The following table shows (R/E) ratio and HDI in committee model. Please refer map

in Appendix XIX.

Table 26 (R/E) Ratio & HDI in Committee Model

S.

N

State Name Mean R/E Ratio Mean HDI

1 Jadan State 0.02 0.39

2 Khaptad State 0.03 0.40

3 Karnali State 0.03 0.41

4 Tamuwan State 0.11 0.52

5 Magarat State 0.05 0.46

6 Tamsaling State 0.69 0.48

7 Sherpa State 0.31 0.48

8 Sunkoshi State 0.05 0.46

9 Newa State 1.49 0.59

10 Narayani State 0.64 0.51

11 Limbuwan State 0.16 0.50

12 Kirat State 0.06 0.49

13 Mithila-Bhojpur-Koch Madhesh

State

3.46 0.45

14 Lumbini Abadh Tharuwan State 0.70 0.47

Chart 23 (R/E) & HDI in Model A

0.02 0.03 0.03 0.11 0.05

0.690.31

0.05

1.49

0.640.16 0.06

3.46

0.70

0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.00

Mean I/E Ratio & HDI of States

MEAN R/E Ratio HDI

68

(R/E) Ratio

MBKM state has the highest I/E ratio (3.46) followed by Newa and LAT which have

values 1.49 and 0.70 respectively. Tamsaling and Narayani States have I / E ratio

comparable to these stronger states while the others are still incomparable. Values

greater than 1 represent that the revenue collection is higher than the total expenditure

of the states. Only LAT and Newa states have values greater than 1 which indicates

only these two states generate higher revenues than expenditure they make. However,

8 out of 14 states have revenues less than 20% of the expenses they make. This further

indicates that the expenses of these states are to be borne by the high earning states or

other sources of central government. Jadan, Khaptad and Karnali are weakest states

with respect to I/E ratio as well.

HDI

Similarly, in comparing HDIs of different states Newa, Tamuwan, Narayani &

Limbuwan states are at the top of hierarchical order. Karnali, Khaptad, Jadan and

MBKM are at the bottom of the hierarchical table which indicate that FWDR and

central region have lower values of HDI.

5.6.2 (R/E) Ratio & HDI in Model B

The following table shows (R/E) ratio and HDI in commission model. Please refer map

in Appendix XX.

Table 27(R/E) Ratio & HDI in Commission Model

S.

N


1 Karnali - Khaptad State 0.03 0.40

2 Tamuwan State 0.11 0.52

3 Tamsaling State 0.49 0.47

4 Magarat State 0.08 0.47

5 Limbuwan State 0.16 0.50

6 Newa State 1.34 0.58

7 Madhes Mithila Bhojpura 3.22 0.46

8 Madesh-Abadh-Tharuwan 0.73 0.47

9 Kirat State 0.07 0.49

10 Narayani State 0.35 0.51

69

Chart 24 (R/E) Ratio & Development Rank in Model B

(R/E Ratio)

Like in the committee model MMB (3.22) and Newa states (1.34) in this model have

higher (I/E) ratio followed by MAT state and Tamsaling states respectively. Five out of

10 states in this model have their revenue collection less than 20 % of expenditure.

Karnali Khaptad State has the lowest (I/E) ratio followed by Kirat and Magarat states.

HDI

Newa, Tamuwan and Narayani have the highest HDI with values 0.58, 0.52 and 0.51

values respectively. Karnali-Khaptad, MMB and Magarat have the lowest HDI indices

making them weaker in comparison of this parameter. Newa seems to be the strongest

of all other states as it lies top in the HDI ranking and second (R/E) ratio ranking.

However, MMB lies at the second last of HDI ranking although it is at the top of (I/E)

table.

0.03 0.110.49

0.08 0.16

1.34

3.22

0.73

0.070.35

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50


MEAN R/E Ratio HDI

70

5.6.3 (R/E) Ratio & HDI in Model C

The following table shows (R/E) ratio and HDI in agreed model. Please refer map in

Appendix XXI.

Table 28 (R/E) Ratio & HDI in Agreed Model

S.

N


1 State 2 0.02 0.41

2 State 1 0.11 0.41

3 State 5 0.10 0.52

4 State 3 0.76 0.48

5 State 8 0.42 0.46

6 State 4 0.05 0.45

7 State 11 0.05 0.50

8 State 6 1.13 0.52

9 State 9 0.07 0.49

10 State 7 4.35 0.42

11 State 10 1.71 0.51

Chart 25 (R/E) Ratio & Development Rank in Model C

0.02 0.11 0.10

0.76

0.42

0.05 0.05

1.13

0.07

4.35

1.71

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00



MEAN R/E Ratio HDI

71

(R/E) Ratio

The above illustration shows that State 7, 10 and 6 have (R/E) ratio greater than 1

representing Revenue collected is higher in the states than the expenses they make. This

indicates that these states are self-sufficient from financial aspects. 6 out of 11 states

collect less than 20% revenue of the expenses they make. State 2 is the weakest in

revenue collection and collects only two percent revenue of the expenses it makes. In

such circumstances, states require financial support from external sources to function.

In this model, there are three states having I/E ratio greater than 1 compared with only

two states in the previous models.

HDI

States 5, 6 10 have the best HDI indices in this model which include top cities Pokhara,

Kathmandu and Biratnagar respectively. States 1& 2 have the least HDI indices in this

model.

72

CHAPTER VI

6. RESULTS

6.1 Results

The analysis shows that different states in the models have different values, distribution

and density of the parameters established. The quantified values of Population

distribution with density, share of major ethnic groups, infrastructural development

with development, arable land, energy potentiality, income and expenditure of the states

and HDI indicate the strength and weakness of each regions and their likeliness of

stability and sustainability. The results have been tabulated differently as below for

further analysis:

A. Tables showing Indicator Values in Three Different Models

B. Tables showing Scores of Indicator and ranking of States in each models.

C. Overall Ranking of States based of all Models based on Total Score

73

Table 29 Table showing Indicator values in Committee Model (Model A)

S.

N State Name

AREA

Sq.km

Pop

2011

Pop

Density

person/

Sq.km

Major

Ethnic

Group

Share

of

Major

Ethnic

Group

Arable

Land

(Hectares)

Hydrop

ower

Potentia

l (Mw)

R/E

Rati

o

2012

/13

Road

Dens

ity

Km/

100

Sq.k

m

Mea

n

Devel

opme

nt

Rank

Revi

sed

Dev

Ran

k

Mea

n

HDI

2011

1 Jadan State 14620.80 58729 4.02 Chhetri 53.35% 54241.00 0.00 0.02 0.39 70.94 14 0.39

2 Khaptad State 13523.40 1271303 94.01 Chhetri 59.09% 66730.00 7280.00 0.03 5.50 65.79 13 0.40

3 Karnali State 17832.34 1568866 87.98 Chhetri 37.46% 170624.00 300.00 0.03 4.37 58.72 12 0.41

4 Tamuwan State 12051.03 666737 55.33 Gurung 31.57% 140196.00 207.00 0.11 2.23 18.97 2 0.52

5 Magarat State 14653.36 2002277 136.64 Brahman

Hill

22.14% 290999.00 249.00 0.05 7.17 34.94 8 0.47

6 Tamsaling State 9918.09 1419064 143.08 Tamang 25.84% 159278.00 218.00 0.69 8.30 37.66 9 0.48

7 Sherpa State 4866.96 89986 18.49 Tamang 30.84% 33522.00 250.00 0.31 2.54 32.60 6 0.48

8 Sunkoshi State 5144.30 721879 140.33 Tamang 20.84% 95109.00 78.00 0.05 5.24 46.03 11 0.46

9 Newa State 929.06 2606158 2805.17 Tamang 20.84% 19806.00 0.00 1.49 42.76 6.13 1 0.59

10 Narayani State 7530.64 1885720 250.41 Brahman

Hill

22.14% 208332.00 1382.00 0.64 8.22 19.31 3 0.51

11 Limbuwan State 8767.73 900817 102.74 Limbu 15.69% 129332.00 100.00 0.16 6.43 22.86 4 0.51

12 Kirat State 8441.40 876972 103.89 Rai 20.79% 134099.00 1370.00 0.06 4.29 30.20 5 0.49

13 Mithila-Bhojpur-

Koch Madhesh

State

14059.35 7933002 564.25 Yadav 11.55% 590289.00 60.00 3.46 12.70 41.39 10 0.45

14 Lumbini Abadh

Tharuwan State

15392.44 4477661 290.90 Tharu 33.35% 224129.00 10800.0

0

0.70 10.20 32.85 7 0.47

74

Figure 7 Map showing Parameter values in Model A

75

Table 30 Table Showing Indicator Values in Commission Model (Model B)

S.

N State Name

Area

Sq.km

Pop

2011

Pop

Density

person/

Sq.km

Major

Ethnic

Group

Share

of

Major

Ethnic

Group

Arable

Land

(Hectares)

Hydropo

wer

Potential

(Mw)

R/E

Ratio

2012/

13

Road

Density

Km/100

Sq.km

Revise

d Dev

Rank

Mean

Dev

Rank

Mea

n

HDI

2011

1 Karnali -

Khaptad State 47096.67 2939883 62.00 Chhetri 49.96% 303694.00 7580.00 0.03 3.54 10.00 64.09 0.40

2 Tamuwan

State 12070.40 649731 54.00 Gurung 31.57% 140635.00 207.00 0.11 2.25 2.00 18.96 0.52

3 Tamsaling

State 17747.16 2272354 128.00 Tamang 25.84% 281327.00 546.00 0.49 7.08 9.00 39.94 0.47

4 Magarat State 15179.95 1977763 130.00 Brahman

Hill 22.14% 303710.00 909.00 0.08 7.29 7.00 34.38 0.47

5 Limbuwan

State 8767.73 900821 103.00 Limbu 15.69% 129332.00 100.00 0.16 6.43 4.00 22.86 0.51

6 Newa State 1038.88 2642766 2545.00 Tamang 20.84% 22138.00 0.00 1.34 39.03 1.00 10.46 0.58

7 Madhes

Mithila

Bhojpura

15838.60 8153860 515.00 Yadav 11.55% 649333.00 60.00 3.22 12.23 8.00 38.57 0.46

8 Madhesh-

Abadh-

Tharuwan

13975.03 4413723 316.00 Tharu 33.35% 207789.00 10800.00 0.73 10.33 6.00 32.57 0.47

9 Kirat State 11079.13 894263 81.00 Rai 20.79% 155540.00 1370.00 0.07 3.40 5.00 28.87 0.49

10 Narayani State 4989.52 1650295 331.00 Brahman

Hill 22.14% 123937.00 722.00 0.35 7.75 3.00 20.77 0.51

76

Figure 8 Map showing Parameter values in Model B

77

Table 31 Table Showing Indicator Values in Agreed Model (Model C)

S.

N

State

Name

Area

Sq.km

Pop

2011

Pop

Densit

y

person

/Sq.k

m

Major

Ethnic

Group

Share

of

Major

Ethnic

Group

Arable

Land

(Hectares

)

Hydro

power

Potenti

al

(Mw)

R/E

Rati

o

2012

/13

Road

Densi

ty

Km/1

00

Sq.k

m

Mean

Devel

opme

nt

Rank

Re

vis

ed

De

v

Ra

nk

Mea

n

HDI

2011

1 State

2 31017.70 1461191 47.00 Chhetri 40.37% 218998.00 300.00 0.02 2.48 64.21 11 0.41

2 State

1 19785.36 2552674 129.00 Chhetri 59.09% 124388.00 7280.00 0.11 5.98 59.33 10 0.41

3 State

5 17999.74 1976648 110.00 Brahman

Hill 22.14% 274373.00 929.00 0.10 3.69 18.92 2 0.52

4 State

3 11996.77 3565858 297.00 Tharu 31.70% 200445.00 10800.0

0 0.76 10.68 31.13 5 0.48

5 State

8 12574.82 1479688 118.00 Tamang 25.84% 180790.00 546.00 0.42 6.01 43.51 8 0.46

6 State

4 10960.49 1470553 134.00 Brahman

Hill 22.14% 210150.00 249.00 0.05 7.71 38.09 7 0.45

7 State

11 9824.52 967114 98.00 Rai 20.79% 130534.00 100.00 0.05 6.19 22.09 4 0.50

8 State

6 7728.18 4049581 524.00 Tamang 20.84% 204786.00 660.00 1.13 14.27 20.77 3 0.52

9 State

9 11669.24 1026309 88.00 Tamang 25.84% 172131.00 1370.00 0.07 3.39 32.46 6 0.49

10 State

7 9595.27 5405058 563.00 Yadav 11.55% 401176.00 0.00 4.35 12.70 55.97 9 0.42

11 State

10 4631.41 2541381 549.00 Brahman

Hill 10.34% 199787.00 60.00 1.71 12.77 8.99 1 0.51

78

Figure 9 Map showing Parameter values in Model C

79

6.2 Weighted Analysis & Ranking of States

Parameters have been assigned a weightage value such that maximum value is given more

points and other values based on the ratio of maximum value in each parameters. The total

value of 100 points has been divided to these parameters. The points obtained by each

region or state is simply calculated by adding the values of each parameter in different

models. The following table shows the weightage assigned to each parameter in this

research:

Table 32 Table showing Parameter Weightage

SN Parameter Scoring Unit Score

1 Population No. 20

2 Share of Major Ethnic Group Percentage 10

3 Arable Land

Hectares 10

4 Hydropower Potential Megawatt 10

5 Road Density Km/100 Sq.km 10

6 Revenue/Expenditure Ratio Ratio 20

7 Human Development Index No. 10

8 Development Rank No. 10

Total 100

The state with highest population receives 20 points whereas the state having least

population receives 0 points. The intermediate values between maximum and minimum

receive points based on their ratio to maximum value. Similarly, points for other parameters

are calculated based on their weightage assigned in the above table. Greater weightage has

been given to population and R/E ratio than the other parameters as population

concentration indicates the possibility of growth of the region and R/E ratio the ability to

collect financial resources.

80

Table 33 Table showing Rank Score of States in Model A (Committee Model)

S.N State Name

Pop

2011

(20)

Share

of

Major

Ethnic

Group

(10)

Arable

Land

(Hectare

s) (10)

Hydro

power

Potent

ial

(Mw)

(10)

R/E

Ratio

2012/13

(20)

Road

Density

Km/100

Sq.km

(10)

Mean

Develop

ment

Rank

(10)

Mean

HDI

2011 (10)

Total

Score

(100) Rank

1 Mithila-Bhojpur-Koch

Madhesh State 20.00 1.95 10.00 0.06 20.00 2.97 4.17 7.64 66.79 1

2 Lumbini Abadh

Tharuwan State 11.29 5.64 3.80 10.00 4.05 2.39 5.37 7.98 50.51 2

3 Newa State 6.57 3.53 0.34 0.00 8.61 10.00 9.14 10.00 48.18 3

4 Narayani State 4.75 3.75 3.53 1.28 3.70 1.92 7.28 8.69 34.90 4

5 Khaptad State 3.21 10.00 1.13 6.74 0.17 1.29 0.73 6.76 30.02 5

6 Tamsaling State 3.58 4.37 2.70 0.20 3.99 1.94 4.69 8.07 29.54 6

7 Magarat State 5.05 3.75 4.93 0.23 0.29 1.68 5.07 7.88 28.88 7

8 Tamuwan State 1.68 5.34 2.38 0.19 0.64 0.52 7.33 8.86 26.94 8

9 Limbuwan State 2.27 2.66 2.19 0.09 0.92 1.50 6.78 8.56 24.98 9

10 Kirat State 2.21 3.52 2.27 1.27 0.35 1.00 5.74 8.27 24.63 10

11 Karnali State 3.96 6.34 2.89 0.28 0.17 1.02 1.72 7.02 23.40 11

12 Sherpa State 0.23 5.22 0.57 0.23 1.79 0.59 5.40 8.19 22.22 12

13 Sunkoshi State 1.82 3.53 1.61 0.07 0.29 1.23 3.51 7.78 19.84 13

14 Jadan State 0.15 9.03 0.92 0.00 0.12 0.09 0.00 6.63 16.93 14

81

Table 34 Table Showing Rank Score of States in Commission Model

S.

N State Name

Pop

2011

(20)

Share

of

Major

Ethnic

Group

(10)

Arable

Land

(Hectare

s) (10)

Hydrop

ower

Potenti

al (Mw)

(10)

R/E

Ratio

2012/13

(20)

Road

Density

Km/100

Sq.km

(10)

Mean

Develop

ment

Rank

(10)

Mean

HDI

2011

(10)

Total

Score

(100) Rank

1 Madhes Mithila Bhojpura 20.00 2.31 10.00 0.06 20.00 3.13 3.98 7.99 67.47 1

2 Madhesh-Abadh-

Tharuwan

10.83 6.68 3.20 10.00 4.53 2.65 4.92 8.18 50.98 2

3 Newa State 6.48 4.17 0.34 0.00 8.32 10.00 8.37 10.00 47.69 3

4 Karnali - Khaptad State 7.21 10.00 4.68 7.02 0.19 0.91 0.00 7.01 37.01 4

5 Tamsaling State 5.57 5.17 4.33 0.51 3.04 1.81 3.77 8.09 32.30 5

6 Narayani State 4.05 4.43 1.91 0.67 2.17 1.99 6.76 8.84 30.81 6

7 Magarat State 4.85 4.43 4.68 0.84 0.50 1.87 4.64 8.18 29.98 7

8 Tamuwan State 1.59 6.32 2.17 0.19 0.68 0.58 7.04 9.08 27.65 8

9 Kirat State 2.19 4.16 2.40 1.27 0.43 0.87 5.50 8.51 25.33 9

10 Limbuwan State 2.21 3.14 1.99 0.09 0.99 1.65 6.43 8.77 25.28 10

82

Table 35 Table of Rank Score of States in Agreed Model (Model C)

S.N State Name

Pop

2011

(20)

Share

of

Major

Ethnic

Group

(10)

Arable

Land

(Hectares)

(10)

Hydropower

Potential

(Mw)

(10)

R/E

Ratio

2012/13

(20)

Road

Density

Km/100

Sq.km

(10)

Mean

Development

Rank

(10)

Mean

HDI

2011

(10)

Total

Score

(100) Rank

1 State 7 20.00 1.95 10.00 0.00 20.00 8.90 1.28 8.08 70.21 1

2 State 3 13.19 5.36 5.00 10.00 3.49 7.48 5.15 9.23 58.92 2

3 State 6 14.98 3.53 5.10 0.61 5.20 10.00 6.77 10.00 56.19 3

4 State 10 9.40 1.75 4.98 0.06 7.86 8.95 8.60 9.81 51.41 4

5 State 1 9.45 10.00 3.10 6.74 0.51 4.19 0.76 7.88 42.63 5

6 State 5 7.31 3.75 6.84 0.86 0.46 2.59 7.05 10.00 38.86 6

7 State 8 5.48 4.37 4.51 0.51 1.93 4.21 3.22 8.85 33.07 7

8 State 4 5.44 3.75 5.24 0.23 0.23 5.40 4.07 8.65 33.01 8

9 State 11 3.58 3.52 3.25 0.09 0.23 4.34 6.56 9.62 31.19 9

10 State 9 3.80 4.37 4.29 1.27 0.32 2.38 4.94 9.42 30.79 10

11 State 2 5.41 6.83 5.46 0.28 0.09 1.74 0.00 7.88 27.69 11

83

6.3 Analysis of Result:

6.3.1 Population Distribution and Density

The distribution of national population in the states are highly imbalanced as we see

from the results of the analysis. Population distribution of the states in the committee

model vary from less than 1% to 30% among the 14 states and 2.45% to 30.77% in the

commission model of 10 states. However, this imbalance is little less in the agreed

model of 11 states with 3.65% to 20.40%. MBKM in Model A, MMB in model B and

State 7 represent almost same geographical area (Central Terai) and are at the top of

their respective rank tables. Al these three states have highest score of population

parameters in their respective models.

Similarly, population density vary from 4 to 2805 in the committee model, 54 to 2545

in the commission model and 47 to 563 in the agreed model. Discrepancies in the

density show the different population pressure in the states. The denser states attract

more people from sparser states making the difference more which results in regional

imbalance and disparity. On the other hand, sparser region depend on denser regions

for human resource and there are chances of natural resource exploitation in the denser

states.

6.3.2 Major Ethnic Share & State Nomenclature

The analysis shows states have been named after ethnic groups like Chhetri, Brahman-

Hill, Magar, Tharu, Tamang, Newar, Yadav, Rai, Sherpa, Gurung and Limbu.

Although, Kami & Muslaman, have a greater share in national population compared to

Rai, Limbu, Gurung and Sherpa, no physical states have been assigned after them

though they belong to indigenous group. Chhetri and Brahman Hill have dominance in

5 states in all the models although the states have not been named after them. However,

agreed model has not been named after ethnic or caste groups.

In comparing the scores of this parameter, states in the Mid & Far Western Mountains

& Hill are ranked top. Chhetri have dominance in these regions but no state has been

named after them.

Although identity has been one of the aspects to be considered in state restructuring

process it has risen tensions between different ethnic groups who had been living

together peacefully since long. This tension has forced people to migrate from Terai to

84

Hill or Hill to Terai disturbing regional harmony and balance thereby affecting overall

regional development due to frequent strikes as the result of such tension.

6.3.3 Land Capability Distribution

States have imbalance in the distribution of arable land too in all the models. Newa has

the highest population density with the lowest area of arable land making it dependant

on other states for food and agricultural products. Far Western Mountains and Hills

named as Jadan, Khaptad and Karnali in different models cover a significant area of

land but have lesser arable area. Similarly, MBKM & LAT have scored more on in

arable land distribution followed by Magarat and Narayani state in model A whereas

MMB and Karnali Khaptad states in model B and State 7 & State 5 in model C.

States in the Terai have greater arable land that have potential of greater agricultural

production. Higher agricultural production contribute to better income of the people

engaged in the basic sector as they can make export to other states as well. States having

no portion of Terai land have lower arable land and thus lower agricultural productivity.

More or less balance in the distribution of arable land has been found in the agreed

model.

Similarly, states having more sloppy area with little flat terrain have to spend more on

infrastructural development due to difficulty in overcoming such terrain for

development works like road or canal construction. States that solely have the Terai

terrain are exempt of this difficulty making them stronger of other regions that have

considerable portion of sloppy terrain.

6.3.4 Road Density and Development Rank

Road density is the measure of infrastructural development in any region. Kathmandu

valley in the Newa state in committee and commission model has the highest strategic

road density which is much lesser in other states of all the models. This indicates

infrastructural development is much focused on Kathmandu valley. FWDR has the

lowest road density compared to eastern, central and western regions. Road Density

values differ from 0.39 to 42.76 km per 100 sq.km in the committee model, 2.25 to

39.03 in the commission model and 2.48 to 14.27 in the agreed model. The difference

is lowest in the agreed model and considerably comparable with one another states.

85

Thus there is imbalance in distribution of strategic road network in the committee and

commission model.

Similarly, Development ranks of the western states in each models is more than the

eastern and central states in each models. However, states in the Terai are ranked lower

in this case although they have better road density. Lower development rank indicates

poverty and deprivation, less infrastructural and social development and less

empowerment of women in the states. It means there is disparity in health facilities

provision, maternal care, life expectancy and other social infrastructure in the Western

Hilly and mountainous states and the states of Terai.

6.3.5 Energy Potentiality

Hydropower potentiality of the states represent the capacity to generate electricity using

the water resources they have. States in the Far western Hills and Mountains have the

greatest capacity to generate hydropower compared to other regions. Hydropower

production can be used to earn capital by selling excess energy to other regions.

Although, Khaptad and Karnali states seemed weaker in other parameters, they have a

greater potential of hydropower generation. This makes a stronger resource base for

these states. Industries are attracted if there is continuous supply of electricity.

Consequently, overall regional development can be achieved with the development of

other infrastructures. Newa and Jadan states have no potential for hydropower

generation and depend upon other states for electricity to run their industries.

There is a deficit of energy at present in Nepal but can be overcome with the

development of hydropower projects. Project as large as 10800 Megawatt can be used

to export energy to our big neighbours like China and India. This would contribute to

not only the beholding state but also for the whole nation. However, financing of such

project may not possible by the state government and should planned by national

government through international sources.

6.3.6 (R/E) Ratio

Revenue or income is the most important requirement to run any state or government.

Higher revenue means there is enough to spend for carrying out development works.

Income to expenditure ratio is greater than 1 in only 2 states in the committee model

and commission model and in 3 states of the agreed model. This indicates other states

86

incur more expenses than the revenues they collect and depend upon central

government for their administration and development. This also implies greater number

of states with no capacity of revenue collection may not be fruitful to the country as the

costs of running them will be higher.

On the other hand, the states that have more revenue collection have either economic

linkage with India or China or there are major growth centres of the country.

Kathmandu and Kaski have two big growth centres viz. Kathmandu, the capital city

and Pokhara while Morang, Rupandehi, Banke and Kailali districts have economical

linkage with India while Sindhupalchowk has with China. The states that enclose these

districts are at the top of table and stronger than other states in all the models. This

implies more linkages (road & economical) with the growth centres of India and China

with each state are required to strengthen the respective state economy and contribute

to overall regional development with the trickle down benefits of these two giant

nations.

6.3.7 HDI

Similarly, HDI of the states that have growth centres in them have higher value of

indices than those which have rural areas in them. States in the FWDR and Terai have

relatively lower HDI as compared to the states of eastern, central and western hills and

mountains. This also implies life expectancy, education level and income of the people

in the region is relatively lower than other states. Differences in HDI is more in model

A rather than model B and model C. However, the scores of states in this parameter are

quite even as compared to other parameters.

87

6.4 Overall Ranking of States

The scores obtained by all 35 states of different models have been tabulated in an

overall ranking table that shows stronger and weaker states based on the comparison of

total scores. This table shows which state of which model is stronger and what points it

has got under different parameters. The state at overall rank 1 is the strongest and at

overall rank 35 is the weakest. The letters in the parenthesis represent their respective

models viz. “A” for SR Committee Model, “B” for SR Commission model and “C” for

agreed model.

88

Table 36 Overall Ranking of States-I

S.N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 S

tate

Nam

e

Sta

te 7

(C

)

Mad

hes

Mit

hil

a

Bhojp

ura

(B

)

Mit

hil

a-B

hojp

ur-

Koch

Mad

hes

h S

tate

(A

)

Sta

te 3

(C

)

Sta

te 6

(C

)

Sta

te 1

0(C

)

Mad

hes

h-A

bad

h-

Thar

uw

an (

B)

Lum

bin

i A

bad

h

Thar

uw

an S

tate

(A

)

New

a S

tate

(A

)

New

a S

tate

(B

)

Sta

te 1

(C

)

Sta

te 5

(C

)

Kar

nal

i -

Khap

tad S

tate

(B)

Nar

ayan

i S

tate

(A

)

Sta

te 8

(C

)

Sta

te 4

(C

)

Tam

sali

ng S

tate

(B

)

Pop 2011 (20) 20.00 20.00 20.00 13.19 14.98 9.40 10.83 11.29 6.57 6.48 9.45 7.31 7.21 4.75 5.48 5.44 5.57

Share of Major

Ethnic

Group(10) 1.95 2.31 1.95 5.36 3.53 1.75 6.68 5.64 3.53 4.17 10.00 3.75 10.00 3.75 4.37 3.75 5.17

Arable Land

((10) 10.00 10.00 10.00 5.00 5.10 4.98 3.20 3.80 0.34 0.34 3.10 6.84 4.68 3.53 4.51 5.24 4.33

Hydropower

Potential (10) 0.00 0.06 0.06 10.00 0.61 0.06 10.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 6.74 0.86 7.02 1.28 0.51 0.23 0.51

R/E Ratio

2012/13 (20) 20.00 20.00 20.00 3.49 5.20 7.86 4.53 4.05 8.61 8.32 0.51 0.46 0.19 3.70 1.93 0.23 3.04

Road Density

(10) 8.90 3.13 2.97 7.48 10.00 8.95 2.65 2.39 10.00 10.00 4.19 2.59 0.91 1.92 4.21 5.40 1.81

Mean Dev.

Rank(10) 1.28 3.98 4.17 5.15 6.77 8.60 4.92 5.37 9.14 8.37 0.76 7.05 0.00 7.28 3.22 4.07 3.77

Mean HDI 2011

(10) 8.08 7.99 7.64 9.23 10.00 9.81 8.18 7.98 10.00 10.00 7.88 10.00 7.01 8.69 8.85 8.65 8.09

Total Score (100) 70.21 67.47 66.79 58.92 56.19 51.41 50.98 50.51 48.18 47.69 42.63 38.86 37.01 34.90 33.07 33.01 32.30

Rank in Model 1 1 1 2 3 4 2 2 3 3 5 6 4 4 7 8 5

Overall Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Table 37 Overall Ranking of States-II

S.N 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 S

tate

Nam

e

Sta

te 1

1 (

C)

Nar

ayan

i S

tate

(B

)

Sta

te 9

(C

)

Khap

tad S

tate

(A

)

Mag

arat

Sta

te (

B)

Tam

sali

ng S

tate

(A)

Mag

arat

Sta

te (

A)

Sta

te 2

(C

)

Tam

uw

an S

tate

(B

)

Tam

uw

an S

tate

(A

)

Kir

at S

tate

(B

)

Lim

buw

an S

tate

(B)

Lim

buw

an S

tate

(A)

Kir

at S

tate

(A

)

Kar

nal

i S

tate

(A

)

Sher

pa

Sta

te (

A)

Sunkosh

i S

tate

(A

)

Jadan

Sta

te (

A)

Pop 2011 (20) 3.58 4.05 3.80 3.21 4.85 3.58 5.05 5.41 1.59 1.68 2.19 2.21 2.27 2.21 3.96 0.23 1.82 0.15

Share of Major

Ethnic Group(10) 3.52 4.43 4.37 10.00 4.43 4.37 3.75 6.83 6.32 5.34 4.16 3.14 2.66 3.52 6.34 5.22 3.53 9.03

Arable Land (10) 3.25 1.91 4.29 1.13 4.68 2.70 4.93 5.46 2.17 2.38 2.40 1.99 2.19 2.27 2.89 0.57 1.61 0.92

Hydropower

Potential (10) 0.09 0.67 1.27 6.74 0.84 0.20 0.23 0.28 0.19 0.19 1.27 0.09 0.09 1.27 0.28 0.23 0.07 0.00

R/E Ratio 2012/13

(20) 0.23 2.17 0.32 0.17 0.50 3.99 0.29 0.09 0.68 0.64 0.43 0.99 0.92 0.35 0.17 1.79 0.29 0.12

Road Density (10) 4.34 1.99 2.38 1.29 1.87 1.94 1.68 1.74 0.58 0.52 0.87 1.65 1.50 1.00 1.02 0.59 1.23 0.09

Mean Dev. Rank

(10) 6.56 6.76 4.94 0.73 4.64 4.69 5.07 0.00 7.04 7.33 5.50 6.43 6.78 5.74 1.72 5.40 3.51 0.00

Mean HDI 2011

(10) 9.62 8.84 9.42 6.76 8.18 8.07 7.88 7.88 9.08 8.86 8.51 8.77 8.56 8.27 7.02 8.19 7.78 6.63

Total Score (100) 31.19 30.81 30.79 30.02 29.98 29.54 28.88 27.69 27.65 26.94 25.33 25.28 24.98 24.63 23.40 22.22 19.84 16.93

Rank in Model 9 6 10 5 7 6 7 11 8 8 9 10 9 10 11 12 13 14

Overall Rank 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

The above table shows the ranking of all 35 states against one another of three different

models. The ranking is done on the basis the total scores obtained by the states. The

states at the top of the table are the strongest and at the bottom, the weakest. State 7 in

model C, MMB in model B and MBKM in model A are at the rank 1, 2 & 3 respectively

and the strongest states but represent similar regions of central Terai. Similarly, in the

4th, 5th & 6th position are the states from model C (Agreed model) viz. State 3 (Western

& Mid-Western Terai), State 6 (Kathmandu valley & Inner Central Terai) and State 10

(Jhapa, Morang, and Sunsari). MAT & LAT states occupy the 7th & 8th rank but this

region is already represented by state 3 in the 4th rank. Newa states are in 9th and 10th

rank in model A & B and have already been represented by state 6 in the 5th rank.

Similarly, State 1 and State 5 are at 11th & 12th of rank that enclose FWDR and Pokhara

Valley with neighbouring districts respectively. Narayani, State 8 and State 4 are the

following regions in the hierarchical order and these are in the central & western Hills.

These states have economic linkage with Kathmandu growth centre and Pokhara

growth centre making themselves stronger.

However, States at the bottom of the rank table are weaker and may not be capable of

self-sustaining. Most of states of model A & B that have ethnic names are at the bottom

of the rank table which indicate that the regions bounded by them are comparatively

weaker and may not sustain. State 2 is the weakest state in model C (Agreed Model).

Jadan is the weakest state followed by Sunkoshi, Sherpa, Karnali, Kirat, Limbuwan,

Tamuwan and Magarat. This implies that the regions made by such delineation should

be avoided as far as practicable. Delineation of such states may increase regional

disparity making them weaker instead of fostering regional growth. If competitive

environment exists, the stronger regions will grow stronger and weaker, weaker. The

pre-existing regional disparity will further increase resulting in instability.

The table also shows that 8 out of 11 states in model C (Agreed Models) above the

average rank. This implies there are stronger regions in model C than the regions

delineated in model A and model B. The speciality of this model is that it considers the

integration of ecological regions mountain, hill and terai than the previous two models.

If the best model has to be chosen, Model C is recommended on the basis of this study.

91

CHAPTER VII

7. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

7.1 Models and Regional Development

One aspect of development refers to the provision of aid and assistance to the regions

that are less economically developed. Geophysical condition, accessibility, social

infrastructure and feasibility for economic development of the region can guide the

strategies for regional development. In this study, models have enclosed different

regions that have diverse geophysical condition and varying levels of infrastructure and

social development. The objective of regional development has been to contribute to

integrated national development thereby increasing intraregional equity but decreasing

interregional disparity. Increase in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and National

income is only possible by creating sustainable regions that can facilitate local

development as well. So, it is necessary for the regions proposed by these models to be

sustainable through functional linkage with other regions as well and foster local as

well as national growth by strongly tying the central and local level.

7.2 Contribution to Regional Development

The models in this study contain regions that have different qualities regarded as

strength or weakness. Every region, how strong or weak it is, is equally important as

other regions as all of them share the common boundary of a nation with similar interest.

The implication of all the models to regional development are briefly discussed below.

7.2.1 Committee Model (Model A):

The fourteen state model has tried to delineate most of the regions based on ethnicity

as identity with 3 tier structure viz. Federal, State and local level. There are also

autonomous, protected & special zones within the states. There are only two states in

the Terai while the remaining 12 are in the hills or mountains. These two states contain

almost half of the national population and almost all of the portion of the East-West

Highway that has played a role as a growth axis where development centres have

flourished as cities along it. These growth centres are further connected to gateway

towns that have economical linkage with Indian towns from where goods and

machineries are imported to Nepal. These two states collect significant portion of

revenue by enforcing customs and tax which the source of income for national

92

government. On the other hand, these two states have a major portion of arable land

where food production is high and regarded as the greenbelt of Nepal.

As the theory of industrial location suggests the industries are located where the labour

is cheaper and transportation costs are minimum, these states are more advantageous

over the others that do not enough stretch of road infrastructure. These states have

greater number of industries. The increased basic activities within them have induced

multiplier effect in regional economy thereby contributing to regional development.

As we go up to the states of hilly and mountainous terrain, we find limited accessibility

with sparse road density and population. The roads constructed as growth axes from

North to South have somehow reduced the friction of sloppy terrain and distance. These

roads connect the growth points of the hills to the development centre of Terai and serve

an economic function. Some states in this model have no direct linkage to gateway

cities of India or China and have to depend on other connecting states. There is no

possibility of collecting revenues from customs. However, states that contain the basin

or watershed of Koshi, Gandaki and Karnali have better energy potentiality, the usage

of which would generate income for them by selling the excess energy and contribute

to regional development.

Some states in the Himalayan region have scenic beauty and attract a lot of tourist every

year. The tourist visits have yielded income to the local People and tax to the

government. If some portion of it is retained within the state, it would contribute to its

development directly. On the other hand, there is a single gateway town towards China

limiting the economical linkage only to Tamsaling state. States like Jadan neither have

road infrastructure, nor linkage or scenic beauty, nor energy potentiality or arable land.

The contribution of such states to regional development will be minimum unless

effective regional strategies have been undertaken.

7.2.2 Commission Model (Model B):

This 10 state model has been delineated with minor modification to 14 state committee

model. Jadan, Karnali & Khaptad of 14 state model have been merged to create a greater

Karnali-Khaptad state while the states like Sunkoshi and Sherpa have been omitted.

Both the states of Terai have been joined unlike the previous model where they were

separated. Newa state, which has capital city in it has a huge agglomeration of

population and economic activities. It has better revenue collection, road density and

93

HDI. The trickle down benefits of Newa may be useful to surrounding states like

Tamsaling. So Newa has contributed to overall regional development of central hills

and mountains. Similarly, Karnali Khaptad state seems stronger and has larger potential

for hydropower generation the usage of which can be source of income for whole the

hills and mountains of mid and far western region contributing to regional development.

States in the mountains and hills that have no linkage with China, tourist destinations,

energy potential are relatively weaker and have less contribution to national income.

Kirat & Limbuwan have less contribution as compared to other states in this model.

7.2.3 Agreed Model (Model C)

This 11 state model shows less interstate differences in the parameters studied as

compared to previous two models. The far western region is a single state that consists

of all ecological regions and has functional linkage with India in the west and south

whereas with China in the north. It has a portion of arable land and huge potentiality of

hydropower generation. This state can make a significant contribution to regional

development of the far western development region. However, state 2 of the mid-

western development region has the largest area but lower parameter values which

indicate that the region has been backward in development. It includes the districts of

Karnali zone that are regarded to be the remotest areas of Nepal. The contribution of

this state is minimum to the regional development of the mid-western region. Similarly,

State 9 followed by state 11 in the Eastern hills and mountains are weaker and

contribute less to regional and national development. However, all other states of this

model are above the middle rank 18 of the overall rank table indicating these regions

are more stronger with better capability of self-sustaining. More capable regions can

contribute more to overall national development thereby fostering their own regional

development. The population, resources and other infrastructure are quite evenly

distributed in this model than the other two models. This indicates lesser disputes within

the states over the resources and the rights to use them that might arise in future.

Although the models delineate stronger or weaker regions, only sound regional

development strategies can guide overall regional development in the context of overall

prosperity of Nepal. It may not be that states that seem stronger at present only

contribute to regional development. The development potential may be unleashed

through strategic placing of infrastructure or service delivery in these weaker states so

that they can induce regional growth and contribute to national development.

94

The main objective of state restructuring in the perspective of regional development has

been to reduce regional disparity among regions & ethnic groups by providing the rights

over the resources within their bounded territory. A coordinating level of government

between the central and local government has been sought that would strongly guide

resource flow from center to local level.

All of the models proposed federal models directly or indirectly advocate delineation

for major ethnic groups who have been residing there since long. It has been stated that

the principle and criteria for delineating these models are based on the basis of identity

and capability. The question arises “Does just delineating the boundaries under the

federal system ensure regional development?” The present discussion has spent much

time in the number and delineation of states only without giving significant attention

to the overall federal system.

7.3 Coalescing of Strong & Weak States

Nepal has diversity in ecological and ethnic distribution despite its small area. In this

context, there is no certainty that any form of federalism that has been successful in

other countries will work for Nepal. There is a fear that weaker states will be weaker

and stronger states more stronger if delineation is made without considering their self-

sufficiency or sustainability. This implies stronger and weaker regions should be

coalesced so that disparity would reduce amongst the regions.

On the other hand, there are views like just coalescing the stronger and weaker regions

does not foster regional growth because the resources have to be shared. The capacity

of stronger states to compete in international market will reduce as more investments

are to be made to weaker states where return is not quickly possible. So, it would be

wise to coalesce stronger & weaker regions separately so that strategic intervention can

be made separately for stronger and weaker regions. These strategic intervention would

be based on research that would unleash the potentiality of the regions that seem to be

weaker in the studied parameters. These potentiality can be just medicinal herbs, tourist

destination or high valued cash crops as a resource base for the regions.

7.4 Rights over resources

Apart of delineation, the rights of people over the resources bounded by their

designated territory are more important. Providing more rights to the dominant ethnic

95

group may bring chaos to other ethnic group that have more than half the dominance

in all states of all models. Water resources are important and more sensitive. The water

resources like river (natural boundary) are mostly used to delineate regions and make

boundaries. There may be disputes between the states who has more rights over these

boundary resource. Hydropower potentiality may be claimed by one another in case of

Nepal.

7.5 Federalism as Boon

It is also not necessary that the state or regional government will definitely tie up the

link between central and local government. Instead, if inefficient it will obstruct the

channel of resource flow from central level to action level with the increase in tier of

governance. The craving for power and tendency to centralize with undue influence of

political parties will make the federal system more ineffective than the present so called

decentralization system. There is unwillingness of the government officials to leave the

center as facilities are concentrated at the capital. There are also risks associated with

the implementation of federal rules. So, federal system should not be taken as a boon

or magic stick that will change the development scenario at once.

7.6 Power Sharing

The sharing of power between the federal, state and local government is another

important factor that need to be considered during the state restructuring process. Only

providing the map showing delineation does not actually strengthen the economic

status of the people and cater growth. Operation rights should be vested to the state

government so that action level can accomplish their works without obstruction.

Planning and monitoring can be the function of central government. Defense, Foreign

affairs, monetary policies, central banks, customs revenue, large hydro-electricity

projects, national highway and railways should be in the jurisdiction of federal

government.

7.7 Financial Capacity

There is an increase in administrative cost to run the government and delivering service

to the people with the increase in government tier. The more number of states incur

more cost to the central government ultimately. So, less number of states is more

favorable from this point of view.

96

CHAPTER VIII

8. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The overall rank table depicts the stronger and weaker regions by comparing the total

score obtained by the regions in each models. State 7 in model C, MMB in model B

and MBKM in model A are the strongest of all regions and represent the same

geographical area, central Terai. This region is followed by western & mid-western

Terai and represented as State 3. Similarly, State 6 with Kathmandu valley & inner

central Terai and state 10 with eastern Terai follow the above two regions in the rank

table. The states with region of central and western hills follow the above regions in the

hierarchy of strength. Similarly, Limbuwan & Kirat (Eastern Hills & Mountains),

Karnali (Mid-Western Mountains & Hills), Sherpa and Sunkoshi are weaker and are at

the bottom of rank table. All these weaker states are proposed by SRC (model A).The

region of Mid-western Mountain named as Jadan in model A is the weakest of all

regions.

8.1 Positive Impacts

The federal models discussed in this study are likely to have both the positive and

negative impacts to regional development. Positive impacts include the formation an

intermediate governing body that would try to guide local development providing

authoritative rights to the local people. Power would be easily devolved to the grass

root level and local people would be brought to the center of governance. It would

further deepen decentralization and promote infrastructural and social development so

that living standard of the people would be raised. It would provide autonomy to the

local level government like municipalities and VDC so that they can make spontaneous

benefits of the resource base they have. This would contribute to poverty alleviation

which is one of the strategies of regional development. The success of these models

will lead to prosperous economy and sustainable development.

8.2 Negative Impacts

Negative impacts include the added administrative cost to the federal government.

Inefficient allocation of power and responsibilities to the state government would only

increase redundancy in service delivery and resource flow. Initially a lot of financial

97

resources have to be spent in building infrastructure for service delivery by the nation.

With the increased tier, there is possibility of the loss of resources from center to local

level. If states compete with one another, the stronger states might be stronger while

the weaker more weaker unless the central government protects the weaker states. The

ambiguities may occur in resource sharing between the states and there may be rise in

interstate tension. This would endanger national unity between the autonomous states.

However, a system itself cannot be good or bad but depends upon how it is used. Good

power sharing and democratic culture in the local level will certainly promote overall

growth irrespective of any governing system. The consequences of the failure of federal

system may be more devastating than the exiting so called decentralization system.

The expectation of people from state restructuring is to build “A prosperous Nepal” by

using their rights over the resources that are beneficial to them. The life standard of

backward groups and communities is desired to be raised by their increased access to

the system of government and participation in governance along with poverty

alleviation. It would be more important to seek the class discrimination within the

ethnic groups rather than a single ethnic group as a whole so that people under the

poverty with limited access to the state would be empowered irrespective of any caste.

The following recommendations has been made on the basis of this study:

The local government should be powerful and authoritative rights should be vested

to it without comprising the sustainable use of regional resources.

There should be the constitutional recognition of the local government so that its

autonomy and development role will be enhanced and its status with power will be

protected.

The potentiality of forests, medicinal herbs and underground mineral resources

should be explored to find the ultimate resource base of the regions through extensive

research.

The federal or central government should release undue power and undue rights over

the resources it holds.

Economic and transportation linkage are to be built to ensure integration among the

different eco-development regions.

Focus in the development of strategic roads linking Terai, Hills and Mountains have

to be done in the Mid-Western Hills and Mountains.

98

Integration of eco-development regions between hills and terai with the idea of a

whole with sustainable use of resources will only lead to sustainable regional

development.

Programs and policies to improve life Expectancy, literacy rate and women

empowerment have to be introduced especially in the central terai and mid-western

hills and mountains.

Stronger and weaker regions should not compete with one another instead they

should complement one another.

Strategic regional plans for strengthening the regions are to be made to address the

weakness rather than sharing it.

The political economic analysis of the models would bring different other issues as

well.

8.3 Further Research Area Topics

The interregional relationship between the states is much important in fostering the

development in local, regional and national level with their collaborative efforts. It is

difficult for the states of the same nation to sustain without functional linkages and

synergy with their neighboring states as they make a common greater region as a whole.

So an extensive research in local, regional and national level has to be done to find out

to which extent these collaborative efforts foster development in different levels and

how can inter-state collaboration be enhanced for national integrity and development.

Besides, research at the local and regional level has to be done to unleash their resource

potential so that they can contribute to integrated national development.

99

REFERENCES

1. Dahal, Kedar 2007, ‘‘Emergence of Regional Development Agenda in Nepal

An Essay in Honour of Dr. Harka Gurung.’’ The Himalayan Review 38

(2007) pp.101-117

2. Shrestha, C.B 2007, ‘‘Harka Gurung’s Contribution in Regional

Development of Nepal.” The Himalayan Review 38 (2007) pp.53-58

3. Haughton G. and Counsell D. “Regions and sustainable development:

regional planning matters.” The Geographical Journal, Vol. 170, No. 2, June

2004, pp. 135–145

4. Gurung, Harka. “Nepal Development Strategy for Development”. Working

Paper Series No.3, June 2005. Asian Development Bank

5. Gurung Harka. “Regional Development Planning for Nepal”. National

Planning Commission, 1969

6. Joshi, Jibgar, “Regional Strategies for Sustainable Development in Nepal.”

Postscript: “Shaping Federal Structure in Nepal”, 2009 (Reprint)

7. Sharma P, Khanal with Tharu. “Towards a Federal Nepal An Assessment of

Proposed Models” 2009

8. Joshi, Jibgar. “Deepening Decentralization for Poverty Alleviation in

Nepal.” CAMAD Journal, Volume 10, NO. 2, Issue 20, October 2007 (Ashwin

2064), pp. 15– 23.

9. Malla, Umesh B. “Transition and Change in Nepal: State Restructuring

Agenda from Development Planning Perspective” Seminar Paper, pp. 58-

68, 13th National Convention, Nepal Engineer’s Association, April 2013

10. Choe, K. & Pradhan, P. “Unleashing Economic Growth Region Based

Development Strategy for Nepal.” 2010 Philippines, Asian Development

Bank

11. Ghai, Y. & Cottrell. “Federalism and State Restructuring in Nepal” Report

of the conference organised by Constitutional Advisory Support Unit, UNDP.

March 2007

12. Singh P.K, “Role of Emerging Highway Towns as a Growth Point” A case

of Golbazaar & Choharwa in Siraha District, MSc Urban Planning Thesis,

January 2007

100

13. Report of “State Restructuring & Distribution of State Power Committee”,

2010 (Nepal)

14. Report of “ Constituent Assembly State Restructuring Commission”, 2012

15. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

16. http://www.cbs.gov.np/?page_id=1101

17. http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id

=74336

18. En. Wikipedia.org/wiki/politics of Nepal

19. En. Wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism #Brazil

20. www.annapurnapost.com/en/new/political/11698

21. http://www.trcollege.net/study-material/24-economics/50-weber-s-theory-of-

industrial-location

22. http://www.csiss.org/classics/content/67

23. http://www.ccd.org.np/index.php?action=resources

APPENDICES

APPENDIX-I

Table Showing Population Share of Ethnic Groups

103

APPENDIX -II

Area of Arable Land by Eco development Region 2001/2002 (In thousand hectares)

Development region Mountain % of Mountain Hill % of Hill Terai % of Terai Total

Eastern 63.5 31.72% 214.4 24.85% 431.4 33.34% 709.3

Central 63.6 31.77% 213.2 24.71% 413.6 31.96% 690.4

Western 2 1.00% 225.5 26.13% 193.5 14.95% 421

Mid-Western 37.1 18.53% 145.1 16.82% 147.5 11.40% 329.7

Far-Western 34 16.98% 64.7 7.50% 108 8.35% 206.7

200.2 100.00% 862.9 100.00% 1294 100.00% 2357.1

Percentage Area of Arable Land by Eco-development Region 2001/2002

Development region Mountain Hill Terai Total

Eastern 63.5 214.4 431.4 709.3

% of Dev. Region 8.95% 30.23% 60.82% 100.00%

Central 63.6 213.2 413.6 690.4

% of Dev. Region 9.21% 30.88% 59.91% 100.00%

Western 2 225.5 193.5 421

% of Dev. Region 0.48% 53.56% 45.96% 100.00%

Mid-Western 37.1 145.1 147.5 329.7

% of Dev. Region 11.25% 44.01% 44.74% 100.00%

Far-Western 34 64.7 108 206.7

% of Dev. Region 16.45% 31.30% 52.25% 100.00%

Total 200.2 862.9 1294 2357.1

Source:cbs.gov.np/wp-content/uploads/2012/Agriculture/.../Chapter05.pdf

105

APPENDIX -III

Table Showing Development Rank & Road Density of Districts

S.N District Road

Density

(Km/100K

m2)

Devel

opme

nt

Rank

S.N District Road

Density

(Km/100K

m2)

Develop

ment

Rank

1 Taplejung 1.00 33.00 38 Tanahu 3.00 22.00

2 Panchthar 12.00 23.00 39 Syangja 9.00 16.00

3 Ilam 13.00 12.00 40 Kaski 12.00 9.00

4 Jhapa 12.00 3.00 41 Manang 6.00 6.00

5 Morang 12.00 11.00 42 Mustang 1.00 10.00

6 Sunsari 15.00 14.00 43 Myagdi 1.00 19.00

7 Dhankuta 15.00 7.00 44 Parbat 1.00 25.00

8 Terhathum 5.00 17.00 45 Baglung 8.00 20.00

9 Sankhuwasabh

a

2.00 18.00 46 Gulmi 6.00 24.00

10 Bhojpur 3.00 31.00 47 Palpa 10.00 27.00

11 Solukhumbu 0.00 29.00 48 Nawalparasi 9.00 8.00

12 Okhaldhunga 4.00 39.00 49 Rupandehi 9.00 37.00

13 Khotang 4.00 38.00 50 Kapilbastu 11.00 13.00

14 Udayapur 9.00 43.00 51 Arghakhanchi 13.00 54.00

15 Saptari 18.00 47.00 52 Pyuthan 9.00 42.00

16 Siraha 12.00 58.00 53 Rolpa 13.00 50.00

17 Dhanusa 16.00 46.00 54 Rukum 8.00 64.00

18 Mahottari 18.00 65.00 55 Salyan 2.00 60.00

19 Sarlahi 14.00 61.00 56 Dang 11.00 45.00

20 Sindhuli 4.00 49.00 57 Banke 12.00 21.00

21 Ramechhap 5.00 51.00 58 Bardiya 10.00 30.00

22 Dolakha 6.00 41.00 59 Surkhet 9.00 34.00

23 Sindhupalchok 6.00 48.00 60 Dailekh 9.00 28.00

24 Kavrepalancho

k

11.00 15.00 61 Jajarkot 11.00 63.00

25 Lalitpur 29.00 5.00 62 Dolpa 2.00 59.00

26 Bhaktapur 82.00 4.00 63 Jumla 0.00 67.00

27 Kathmandu 54.00 1.00 64 Kalikot 1.00 69.00

28 Nuwakot 12.00 36.00 65 Mugu 4.00 70.00

29 Rasuwa 3.00 53.00 66 Humla 0.00 75.00

30 Dhading 8.00 44.00 67 Bajura 1.00 74.00

31 Makwanpur 11.00 26.00 68 Bajhang 1.00 71.00

32 Rautahat 8.00 68.00 69 Achham 2.00 73.00

33 Bara 14.00 55.00 70 Doti 8.00 72.00

34 Parsa 3.00 52.00 71 Kailali 7.00 66.00

35 Chitawan 9.00 2.00 72 Kanchanpur 8.00 40.00

36 Gorkha 2.00 32.00 73 Dadeldhura 10.00 35.00

37 Lamjung 1.00 33.00 74 Baitadi 9.00 56.00

75 Darchula 12.00 62.00

Source: Development Rank UNDP Report 2003, Road Density, DoR 2006

106

APPENDIX- IV

107

APPENDIX- V

108

APPENDIX- VI

109

APPENDIX- VII

110

APPENDIX- VIII

111

APPENDIX- IX

112

APPENDIX- X

113

APPENDIX-XI

114

APPENDIX-XII

115

APPENDIX- XIII

116

APPENDIX-XIV

117

APPENDIX-XV

118

APPENDIX-XVI

119

APPENDIX-XVII

120

APPENDIX-XVIII

121

APPENDIX-XIX

122

APPENDIX-XX

123

APPENDIX-XXI

State Restructuring Models \u0026 Their Implications on Regional Development

Documents

Transcript of State Restructuring Models \u0026 Their Implications on Regional Development