Is Nepal becoming a country that is easier to leave than to live in?

If a young person can earn substantially more in a foreign labour market than in Nepal, migration becomes a rational economic decision. If a graduate cannot find work related to their education, leaving becomes understandable. If a skilled worker sees limited opportunities for advancement at home, an overseas offer can become difficult to reject.

The problem, therefore, is not that Nepalis migrate.

The deeper problem is when migration becomes the default solution to problems that should be addressed within Nepal.

Nepal's domestic labour market continues to struggle with the quality and quantity of jobs. The World Bank has described slow job creation outside agriculture as a structural weakness, while noting that young workers are migrating because domestic employment prospects remain limited. Another World Bank assessment says underemployment affects about 43 percent of the workforce and that roughly 90 percent of jobs are informal.

This helps explain why even educated young people can feel trapped between two choices: accept work that does not match their qualifications, or search for opportunities elsewhere.

There is also a difference between having a job and having a viable career.

A person may find employment in Nepal and still struggle to afford housing, education, healthcare, transportation and other household expenses. A job may provide income without providing stability, social security or a credible path for advancement. In such circumstances, comparing a domestic salary with an overseas salary is not merely a question of numbers. It becomes a question of what kind of life each income can support.

The attraction of leaving is therefore about more than money.

It is also about predictability.

Young people want to know whether their qualifications will be rewarded, whether businesses will expand, whether institutions will function fairly and whether hard work will produce tangible progress. When these expectations weaken, migration becomes not only an economic strategy but also an expression of frustration.

Yet it would be wrong to portray Nepal as a country where nothing works and everyone wants to leave. Nepal has made significant progress in reducing poverty, expanding education, improving infrastructure and increasing access to services. The National Statistics Office's Nepal Living Standards Survey 2022/23 recorded a poverty headcount rate of 20.27 percent, while literacy and school attendance have improved considerably over previous decades.

Nor is migration itself inherently negative.

People should have the freedom to study, work and build lives wherever they choose. Overseas employment can provide valuable skills, savings, networks and experience. Returning migrants can also bring capital and knowledge that can benefit the domestic economy.

The concern arises when the country becomes better at sending people abroad than at creating opportunities for them at home.

That distinction matters.

A healthy economy can have significant migration without depending on it. A country can benefit from remittances while simultaneously developing industries capable of generating productive employment domestically. The challenge for Nepal is to turn migration from an escape route into one component of a broader economic strategy.

The World Bank's recent assessments point in that direction, calling for stronger domestic job creation, better skills development, greater productivity, export growth, entrepreneurship and reforms that increase the benefits Nepal receives from migration.

The government has also adopted a National Labour Migration Policy, showing that migration is now being treated as a major policy issue rather than simply an individual choice.

But policies alone will not persuade young Nepalis to stay.

People stay when staying makes economic and social sense.

That means a graduate should be able to imagine building a career in Nepal. A skilled worker should be able to earn a reasonable income without spending years waiting for a government position. An entrepreneur should be able to start and expand a business without being overwhelmed by bureaucratic obstacles. A family should be able to believe that education will lead to opportunity rather than simply becoming preparation for departure.

The question, then, is not whether Nepal should stop its people from leaving. It cannot, and it should not.

The real question is whether Nepal can become a country where leaving is a choice rather than a necessity.

For decades, migration has helped Nepalese households cope with limited opportunities at home. But if the country's young, educated and working-age population increasingly sees its future elsewhere, remittances alone cannot be considered a substitute for domestic economic transformation.

A country becomes easier to leave than to live in when its citizens can see a clearer future beyond its borders than within them.

Nepal's challenge is to change that calculation.

The goal should not be to close the airport departure gates. It should be to build an economy in which more people look at those gates and feel that they have a genuine choice about whether to walk through them.