Five-Year Plans of Nepal generally strove to increase output and employment; develop the infrastructure; attain economic stability; promote industry, commerce, and international trade; establish administrative and public service institutions to support economic development; and also introduce labor-intensive production techniques to alleviate underemployment. The social goals of the plans were improving health and education as well as encouraging equitable income distribution.[1] Although each plan had different development priorities, the allocation of resources did not always reflect these priorities. The first four plans concentrated on infrastructure—to make it possible to facilitate the movement of goods and services—and to increase the size of the market. Each of the five-year plans depended heavily on foreign assistance in the forms of grants and loans
Explanation:
First Five-Year Plan
The First Five-Year Plan(1956–61) allocated Rs 330 million for development expenditures of which Rs 220 million were funded by international donors, partly under the Colombo Plan. Transportation received top priority with almost 30% of the budget allocation but rural development, including agriculture, village development, irrigation and forestry also received significant amounts.
Second
After Parliament, which had been established under the 1959 constitution, was suspended in 1960, the Second Plan failed to materialize on schedule. A new plan was not introduced until 1962 and covered only three years, 1962-65. The Second Plan had expenditures of almost Rs 615 million. Transportation and communication again received top priority with about 39 percent of budget expenditures. Industry, tourism, and social services were the second priority. Although targets again were missed, there were improvements in industrial production, road construction, telephone installations, irrigation, and education. However, only the organizational improvement area of the target was met.
The first two plans were developed with very little research and a minimal data base. Neither plan was detailed, and both contained only general terms.The administrative machinery with which to execute these plans also was inadequate. The National Planning Commission, which formulated the second plan, noted the difficulty of preparing plans in the absence of statistical data. Further, as was the case with the first plan, the bulk of the development budget depended on foreign aid—mostly in the form of grants.The failure of these plans was indicated by the government's inability to spend the budgeted amounts.
