Nepal’s newly unveiled budget for fiscal year 2083/84, presented by Finance Minister Dr. Swarnim Wagle, tries to balance traditional macroeconomic prudence for an ambitious policy agenda. Totaling an unprecedented Rs 2.124 trillion, the expansionary fiscal document attempts to aggressively shock a stagnant domestic economy into revival while navigating immense pressure from rising public expectations. The budget navigates the classic “high-ambition and low-capacity” trap by aligning aggressive targets with a decades-long slowdown in domestic revenue mobilization, institutional capacity constraints, and ballooning national debt-service liabilities.
The Revenue Dilemma
The most glaring vulnerability embedded in Nepal’s fiscal architecture is the severe deceleration in revenue mobilization. In the five years preceding the COVID-19 pandemic, Nepal enjoyed a robust average annual revenue growth rate of 14.9 percent; post-pandemic, this collapsed to 8.7 percent. As of late May, actual tax collections stood at a meager Rs 1,026 billion against an initial annual target of Rs 1,480 billion, a realization rate of just 69 percent. Yet, the new budget sets an incredibly ambitious revenue target of Rs 1.404 trillion. Without immediate, systemic formalization of the informal economy, this mechanism risks generating a massive revenue shortfall within the first two quarters. This introduces severe fiscal multiplier risks, as mid-year revenue-driven cuts depress aggregate demand exactly when stimulation is needed.
Rigidity in Recurrent Overhead
The revenue uncertainty is severely exacerbated by rising recurrent expenditure. Fixed administrative costs, social security overhead, and mandatory public obligations consume a staggering Rs 1,270.58 billion, accounting for 59.8 percent of the entire federal budget. This structural rigidity is further locked in by a newly announced 10 percent across-the-board civil service pay raise, coupled with a 10 percent performance-based incentive that effectively yields a 21 percent salary increase for lower-grade public servants starting Shrawan 2083. When nearly sixty cents of every single rupee spent by the state is hard-coded into keeping the administrative machinery running, the fiscal space left for genuine, transformative capital asset creation is severely squeezed.
Two women arrested in Kathmandu for honey trap scheme
Capital Absorption and Debt Trap
To break this cycle, the budget allocates Rs 431.10 billion to capital expenditure, representing 20.3 percent of total spending. While the administration promises that 90 percent of its newly expanded fiscal space will fund productive asset creation, Nepal’s chronic developmental bottleneck has never been budget allocation, but institutional capital absorption. For years, actual capital spending has languished at historic lows, frequently forcing humiliating mid-term rollbacks, such as the current fiscal year's budget slash from an initial Rs 1,964 billion down to Rs 1,688 billion during the mid-term review. Dr. Wagle attempts to resolve this by shifting away from politically fragmented local works toward completing strategic, large-scale "National Pride" projects under strict "mission-mode" delivery metrics. Yet, whether a rigid, risk-averse bureaucracy can suddenly pivot to corporate-style efficiency remains unproven.
Ultimately, bridging the massive chasm between stagnant revenues and expansionary expenditure targets has forced the state to rely heavily on sovereign debt. The budget reveals a staggering structural deficit of Rs 657.29 billion. To finance this fiscal gap, the government plans to mobilize Rs 410 billion in gross internal borrowing and Rs 247.28 billion in foreign loans. This aggressive debt accumulation will lead to a rise in annual public debt principal repayments, creating a dangerous loop in which debt servicing obligations will increasingly eat up future developmental capital. If the government’s targeted 7 percent real economic growth rate fails to materialize, this expansionary leap will inevitably result in another severe mid-term rollback, threatening the credibility of the state's broader reform roadmap.
New Interventions
The budget explicitly bets that an aggressive, regulatory rewriting of institutional incentives can systematically neutralize the macroeconomic stability risks inherent in an expansionary strategy. The budget bets that regulatory overhaul can neutralize these risks by introducing five bold initiatives. First, a tax simplification package doubles the personal income tax exemption, cuts the top rate by 10 percentage points, abolishes excise duties on 360 items, and offers 10 percent automated VAT cashback on digital invoices to boost compliance and consumer liquidity. Second, it downsizes the state apparatus by reducing federal ministries from 22 to 18, dissolving 31 redundant entities, and merging departments, projecting Rs 20 billion in immediate savings.
Third, capital absorption is tackled through a binding “Mission Mode” framework with performance contracts, transfer freezes, and a new project sunset law. A major energy push targets 1,040 MW of new capacity (670 MW hydro, 370 MW solar) and full unbundling of the Nepal Electricity Authority into three independent corporations. Fourth, to offset declining foreign grants, the budget launches innovative financing: a Sovereign Wealth Fund, offshore Nepali rupee bonds, diaspora and green bonds, plus amendments to 15 investment laws and plans to list seven public enterprises for PPPs or strategic sale. Fifth, a digital governance overhaul includes Nepal’s first Sovereign AI Compute Center, centralized software procurement, a national Tech Hub funded by selling 34 percent of Nepal Telecom shares, four new regional economic “Quadrangles,” and a 40 percent capital subsidy pilot for farmers.
Criticism
However, budget also faces sharp criticism. Some economist has criticized the contradictory electricity VAT measure, which imposes a higher effective rate on consumption above 50 units per month and signals “use electricity, but not too much.” This risks undermining the energy push by discouraging domestic hydropower demand at a time when the budget aims to promote EVs, appliances, reduced fossil-fuel imports, and cleaner air, which shows a coordination gap between the Finance and Energy ministries. Broader concerns are skewed on spending priorities: with nearly 60 percent locked into recurrent spending, including the 21 percent salary hike, and only 20 percent for capital investment, the budget risks perpetuating consumption over productive capacity. Additional new taxes, such as the 3 percent tax on private hospital services, an education equity fee on private schools, and higher real estate and capital-gains taxes, are viewed as burdensome on households and markets, prioritizing short-term revenue over incentives for agriculture, industry, import substitution, or youth employment.
Conclusion
Lastly, this budget deliberately risks widening a fiscal deficit to build long-term institutional capacity. Ultimately, preventing another severe mid-term budget downgrade will depend entirely on our collective ability to look beyond raw numbers and demand accountability. The new administration has laid the foundation for economic transformation; success now hinges on whether government administration, policymakers, the private sector, and civil society can rigorously enforce these new budget-discipline mechanisms to turn paper ambitions into real-economy assets. Hence, the new government's administrative capability and performance will be heavily tested in the upcoming mid-term review, and every day leading up to the next budget.
(The author is a fellow at the Nepal Institute for Policy Research (NIPoRe) and has an MSc in Economic Theory and Policy from Bard College, New York.)
