After the Ballot

Most of the political parties unveiled their election manifestos for the March 5 polls in the third week of February. As in the past elections, they promised growth, jobs, and better governance.

This is not the first time that Nepali voters have heard  promises of prosperity. People  already  know what country’s problems are. There is no confusion about what needs fixing. The main problem  has been  the inability of parties,  once in power, to commit to reforms and stay the course long enough to deliver real results.

As Nepal prepares for a new government after March 5, whoever takes charge, through a majority or a coalition, will face a difficult test. The economic mood is fragile. Growth has slowed, consumption depends heavily on imports, youth mi-gration remains high, and industrial output is weak. Banks have ample liquidity, yet private investment is uneven. Capital spending is uneven, and investor confidence, perhaps the most intangible yet decisive economic factor, remains uncertain.

The political arithmetic suggests a single-party majority unlikely. That means returning to the same old cycle of negotiations, power-sharing deals, ministries divided among partners, and a familiar risk of policies turning into compromise documents rather than clear execution plans. Coalitions are not inherently antireform. But they often dilute reform into slogans, especially when difficult changes threaten bureaucratic discretion, or political patronage.

The economy, however, will not wait. The next government will inherit concrete challenges: revitalize demand without triggering fiscal stress, lift productivity and industrial output,
create jobs at home instead of exporting workers,  make service delivery predictable, and strengthen regulatory institutions that shape  investment decisions. What makes the post-election period different is not just the economic stress, it is the unusual organization of the private sector. The Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FNCCI) and the Confederation of Nepa-lese Industries (CNI) and the election season with more than a wish list. They presented a reform blueprint. They told political parties:  don’t just promise  growth, fix the rules that make growth investable.

When  these private sector demands are compared with promises made by major parties,  Nepali Congress (NC), CPN-UML, Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP),  and Nepali Communist Party (NCP), and Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), we see that manifestos address most of the industry demands. The only problem  is par-ties are  hesitant to reform the state machinery.

The gap between what parties promise and what they deliver is clearly visible. They agree on the “what”: production, jobs, investment, exports, digital governance, infrastructure. But they remain vague on the “how”: legal predictability, tax stability, land and lease reform, decriminalizing economic disputes, limiting arbitrary enforcement, and building institutions that function without discretion.

The postelection landscape, likely to be shaped by coalition arithmetic, will affect implementation of what has been  promised to voters. This is because coalitions  shorten time horizons. Coalition partners will worry less about their five year outcomes and more about political survival. Because of this, they will favor visible projects, distributive spending, and announcements, while postponing reforms that are unpopular, technical, or threatening to bureaucratic power.

There could also be an opportunity though. Coalitions, when forced  to negotiate common  ground, 
can create a new consensus. One consensus already exists: the old model, import-led consumption powered by remittances, has reached its limits. No major party openly defends. All now speaks  of
production, exports, and jobs.

That rhetorical convergence matters as it shows that economic debate has moved from redistribution to production. But production is not built on speeches, it is built on rules.

What parties promised, and what business demanded

Today’s election manifestos look different from a decade ago. They are filled with language  about manufacturing, value addition,  exports, technology, startup ecosystems, industrial corridors,  and  infrastructure. Even parties that once focused mostly on welfare pledges  are now talking about  competitiveness and pri-vate investment.

But the promises target outcomes, not the reforms that make them possible. Parties  promise  jobs,  but rarely explain how businesses will scale. They promise exports, but sidestep trade facilitation, standards, and logistics. They promise industrial growth, but avoid the land, forest, and regulatory bottlenecks that stall projects.

The private sector’s blueprint, by contrast, is detailed and procedural. The FNCCI and CNI have pressed for reforms that make the state predictable. They want time bound  approvals, genuine single-window services, and fewer overlapping mandates. They want contracts enforced, payments secured, and disputes han-dled as commercial  matters, not criminal cases. They want stable tax interpreta-tion, simpler compliance,  and fewer surprise changes. They seek land and lease reforms that allow large-scale industry without turning each project into con-troversy. In short, businesses are asking for a state that works by rules, not relationships.

There is a huge gap between demands made by the private sector and pledges made by political  parties in their election manifestos. Parties  describe the destination, while businesses talk  about the road needed to reach the destination. The new government will be judged on whether it builds that road.

The realism test

Parties  make bold promises in their election manifestos. However, governing is constrained by budgets, bureaucracy, and political risk. The real test of any manifesto rests on four constraints.

First, fiscal space. The government faces structural revenue pressure. Spending demands — social 
protection, salaries, federal transfers, infrastructure — are high, while revenue reforms are politically sensitive. LDC graduation adds an-other layer of complexity as that would need  concessional finance recalibrations, competitive export requirements, and stronger pressure to build productivity.

Parties  promise  investments and jobs. But without a stable, production-oriented tax system, that  state will rely on short-term revenue fixes. That affects invest-ment planning — one of the major  complaints of the private sector. Second, institutional coordination. Nepal does not lack agencies, it lacks coordination. Compliance costs stem from overlapping jurisdictions, repeated approvals, unclear rules, and discretionary interpretation.

Digitization can reduce paperwork, but if institutional design remains fragmented, it will simply move the same friction online. The private sector has called on the state to build a genuine single-window architecture, limit discretion, and redesign enforcement so that commercial  disputes are not treated as criminal offences.

Third, political risk. The reforms businesses seek most are also the reforms parties fear most. Decriminalizing business offences, introducing anticipatory bail, limiting arrests, and replacing jail terms with financial penalties are political sensitive. In a public mood angry about corruption, parties fear being labeled “pro business.” But there is a distinction parties must learn to communicate: predictable rules are not elite privilege. They are the foundation of jobs. If businesses do not invest, there is no hiring. If factories don’t expand, migration  continues. Predictability is not a concession, it is a growth strategy.

Fourth, administrative capacity. Even reformminded governments face limits. Ministries are  overloaded, agencies are resisting  losing discretionary power, and  Coalition partners negotiate appointments and projects. Reform requires a center that can enforce deadlines.

What matters most, therefore, is not what parties print in their manifestos. What matters is what  they do in their first 100 days in office. Dr Ramesh Paudel, former member of the National Planning Commission and assistant professor of economics at Tribhuvan University, says the new government must begin with a hard question: why did Nepal lag while others ad-vanced?

“The problems are enormous,” Paudel said. “From excess liquidity in the bank-ing channel  to slow growth and underproduction. The new government must assess  why Nepal has not achieved the same level of economic progress as other countries over the past three decades. There is a huge gap in production, consumption, and education. This gap must be corrected.”

Paudel argues  that structural problems require  coordinated effort, not scattered attention. He calls for proper human resource mapping, identifying workforce needs by sector, aligning education and training, and building human capital systematically. Education reform, he says, must support production and longterm growth. Above all, he points to youth unemployment. Nepal’s youth unemployment rate stands at 20.6%, the highest in South and Southeast Asia, according  to World Bank data. Official figures show at least three million of Nepal’s 30 million people are overseas, mainly in the Middle East. Unofficial estimates put the number closer to seven million. For a country that speaks of prosperity, this is the sharpest measure of lost con-fidence.

Money everywhere, confidence nowhere

One of Nepal’s central economic puzzles is the gap between liquidity and investment. Banks have 
sufficient liquidity to finance productive activity. However, private investment remains weak to low confidence. More than Rs 870 billion has been  parked  at the central bank due to persistent excess liquidity.

This is not just a monetary issue. It is a governance issue. When  entrepreneurs and firms doubt  that rules will remain stable, contracts will be enforced, and approvals will be granted without discretion, they choose caution.  They delay expansion and avoid long term bets.

Former Commerce Secretary Purushottam Ojha says investment must be revived by rebuilding  confidence. Unless production increases, he adds, exports will not improve, whether in agriculture, services, information technology, or manufacturing. “Investment is essential across all sectors,” Ojha said. “The government’s primary responsibility is to create an environment that restores investor confidence.”

Rohit Gupta, vice president of the CNI, echoes that frustration. Although parties talk about prosperity, confidence of the private sector is historically low, he adds. “The perception toward the private sector is that it invests only to exploit the economy,” Gupta said. “But the private sector is an important pillar of Nepal’s economy. Unless it is confident, the economy cannot become resilient.”

Economists and industry leaders alike say the new government’s toughest task is not drafting another plan. It is convincing businesses, and people,  that the state will deliver consistently.

Governance is the bigger issue Regardless of what has been  promised, and who is making the  promise, there is one factor that keeps resurfacing — governance makes the difference.

Keshav Acharya, former executive director of Nepal Rastra Bank, believes governance is an even  bigger issue than the economy itself. “Governance failure has weakened the economy,” he said. “If  governance improves, the economy will automatically improve.”

Acharya argues  that Nepal’s current framework, including bureaucracy, civil service laws, and many outdated laws, cannot deliver effective results. He calls for deep  institutional reform in bodies such as the Commission for the Investi-gation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB), and other key regulatory agencies. Although these institutions are meant to uphold governance, he says many are plagued  by political interference and loyalty-based ap-pointments.

“Transparency is essential,” Acharya says. “Appointments at Nepal Rastra Bank, the Nepal Insurance Authority, the Securities Board of Nepal, the Nepal Stock Exchange, and the CIAA should  be transparent and meritbased. The Public Service Commission should be revamped, and a specialized  unit created under  it to handle politically influenced appointments.”

Acharya’s main concern is that meritocracy has collapsed.  He points to allegations of money  changing hands for key appointments and questions raised in Parliament that were never properly  investigated.

Recent scandals  have reinforced the perception that the system protects the powerful. The Bhutanese refugee scam implicated high ranking officials accused of turning Nepali citizens into fake refugees and sending  them to the United States for money. In July 2023,  60.7 kilograms of gold were seized after clearing airport customs, concealed inside motorcycle brake shoes. Investigators later claimed the same network smuggled nearly 3,000  kilograms of gold through shell companies. The alleged kingpin has yet to face justice.

The private sector has long raised concerns about policy corruption. Controversial decisions  are  often labeled as collective Cabinet  decisions  which shields political leadership from the  investigation under  Section 4(b) of the CIAA Act. Cases such as the Giri Bandhu land swap, Nepal Trust lease extension, and the Ncell share sale controversy sparked public debate, but accountability remained limited. For years, once a file reached the Cabinet, it was effectively untouchable. Only recently has this protection started to face scrutiny.

Economist Pushkar  Bajracharya sees governance as key to economic recovery. If reforms are serious, he sees room for improvement. Without them, he does not expect a quick revival, as investment remains weak. “I do not see investment increasing  immediately, nor do I see investor confidence strengthening in the short term,” Bajracharya  said. “Only if policy stability is ensured and delivery mechanisms function effectively will investment improve. Only then will eco-nomic growth follow.”

He argues  that reducing  corruption lowers the cost of doing business. When costs fall and rules  become predictable, investment can start to flow. According to Bajracharya, strong governance must come first.

What the numbers say about corruption

Even after the Gen Z protests, parties returned to voters with fresh promises of transparency and  clean government. However, perception indicators show little has changed.

Nepal’s score in the 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index published by Transparency International  remained unchanged at 34 out of 100. With this score, Nepal ranked  109th out of 182 countries. Perception is not the same as proof in any single case. But it matters because it shapes behavior.  It affects whether a firm expects fair treatment. It affects whether young people believe merit will be rewarded. It affects whether foreign investors trust contracts will be enforced. It also determines whether people believe elections will improve public services.

Digitization is not a slogan The private sector has pushed digitization  not just as a familiar promise,  but as a governance tool. Acharya argues  digitization  must be embedded inside administrative systems to reduce discretion and improve transparency.

After Khanal became finance minister, he introduced a digital approval  system for memos and  official notes alongside paper  based  procedures. Khanal said at that time that reforms would move toward a fully online, hassle free, and faceless  tax system  to cut bureaucracy and build trust with the private sector.

Acharya says such efforts should become a sustained movement. He also points to where digitization could matter immediately for investors: the Department of Industries and the Investment Board of Nepal. Investors should not visit offices in person just to move files, he adds.

Dr Gunakar Bhatta, former executive director of NRB, says the biggest gains of digitalization are  in high-contact services  like land registration, property transfers, and vehicle registration and  renewals. “There are the places where citizens face long queues and often lose a full day. Digitization reduces unnecessary human involvement, minimizes hardship, and discourages unofficial payments,” he said. “If done properly, people will experience real relief.”

Bhatta says efficiency gaps also exist outside government. “In public transport, buses  may wait excessively at stops, turning short journeys into long ones. Digital tracking and scheduling could improve efficiency and convenience,” he added.

Anjan Shrestha, Senior Vice President of FNCCI, ties service delivery to trust. “Rebuilding that trust requires systems that are predictable, accessible, and accountable,” he said. While the government has issued a citizen ID, National Identity Card (NID) sys-tem, and linked them to platforms like Nagarik App, its full potential has not been  realized. The NID system could support tax collection  and social security delivery. However, implementation of the NID has been uneven, and many people are facing difficulties in using the cards effectively.

Digitization is not just about apps. It is about reducing  discretion, shortening queues, and  making corruption harder. It is about designing systems where favoritism  becomes structurally difficult, as Acharya puts it.

The private sector and the politics of suspicion

Nepal’s private sector faces more than market risk. It faces a trust problem. For years, business leaders  have said that politics often treats profit as a moral problem, not as a source of jobs and revenue. Bajracharya  says Nepal still carries the perception that earning money is somehow  wrong. “This mindset must change,” Bajracharya said. “A healthy economy requires recognizing that wealth creation, when done ethically and legally, is essential for development.” Gupta says the private sector does not need  special favors, it needs consistent policy and a stable environment. “Private investment has been  shrinking for the past five to seven  years. Many things promised in manifestos are exaggerated," he said. “The focus should be on meaningful  dialogue and formation of a high-level Economic Development Committee with private sector representation.”

Shrestha says the key question is how the state collaborates effectively with the private sector,  which contributes around 80% of the economy, that drives growth. He says the government has talked about public private partnership, but effective implementation is weak. “The driving force of the economy is the private sector,” Shrestha said. “The state should not be opening  industries. The  roles of the private sector and the state must be clearly defined.” The state’s role is to set rules, enforce them fairly, and provide public goods. When  it fails at those tasks, both people and businesses suffer. Make people feel the change. 

Reform becomes real when it improves daily life. Acharya says people will not feel change  unless service delivery improves  in the offices they visit most. These are the spaces where delays and middlemen erode trust, he adds.

Legal reform is equally important for business confidence. Anup Raj Upreti, managing partner at  Pioneer Law Associates, says the new government must quickly fix outdated business laws.  He  identifies  anticipatory bail as a pressing  issue. "Entrepreneurs say the current framework leaves room for criminal complaints to be misused  in commercial  disputes.

Reform would not protect wrongdoing. It would protect due process and legitimate business  activity,” he said. “A clear and balanced system would signal that the state backs enterprise while  enforcing accountability."

The other sector that needs similar urgency, according  to Upreti, is the energy  sector. "Nepal’s  hydropower push cannot advance under  legal ambiguity. The long-pending Electricity Bill must be passed, along with hedging regulations to manage  foreign exchange risk. Without proper hedging tools, large projects remain exposed to currency swings. That raises financing costs and deters investors,” he said. “Clear rules would unlock domestic and foreign capital.”

Solving bottlenecks, not inventing punishments

Nepal’s development delays have become so frustrating that politicians sometimes reach for dramatic language. During his election campaigning,  NC President Gagan Kumar Thapa reacted to a provocative remark by RSP Senior Leader Balendra Shah, who said contractors should be tied to trees if they fail to complete projects on time.

Thapa’s reply is a useful policy argument. He said delays will not be solved by punishment alone. The real reasons slowing projects are outdated laws and procedural bottlenecks.

He said roads, bridges, and other infrastructure could move faster once 41 outdated laws are enacted or amended to remove legal obstacles.

Nepal’s infrastructure record  is marked by delays. Many road and bridge projects have stretched on for years, sometimes more than a decade, due to overlapping laws, payment delays, land acquisition hurdles, and weak accountability. The government has terminated hundreds of stalled contracts. However, that can create uncertainty and discourage serious firms from bidding. Projects such as the Chitwan-Butwal section of the East-West Highway and Kathmandu Tarai/Madhesh Fast Track show how procedural hurdles  can paralyze mega projects. These delays spill over into the entire economy.

Another case shows how bureaucracy slows licensing processes for mines for cement production. Nearly 99 percent of Nepal’s limestone mines fall within forest areas. Cement producers must secure approvals from both the Department of Forests and the Department of Mines and Geology.
The process often stalls due to a lack of coordinated procedures. A cement industry owner  says 38 mining related files have been  stuck for more than two years. In total, around 58 files across sectors are pending clearance.

For heavy industries, the lack of a one-window system is damaging. Usage rights renewals can take 18 months to three years, even though mining licenses may last 15 to 30 years. This patchwork of approvals, overlapping jurisdiction, and redundant steps demoralize industrialists and makes planning difficult.

Land acquisition creates another hurdle. Cement companies require  large areas for plants and  quarries.  But the land ownership ceiling makes acquiring land at scale difficult. Business leaders say there should be exemptions for legitimate industrial use.

Business leaders  and corporate lawyers alike agree the Companies Act, 2006 is outdated and that it  does not fit a digital, global economy. They say amendments should simplify compliance,  raise governance standards, and ease capital raising. "Modern  rules would attract  investors and reduce bottlenecks for small and medium enterprises," Upreti said. These priorities  also mirror proposals from the Nepali business bodies which have laid out detailed recommendations on anticipatory bail and broader legal reform.

If legal reforms move quickly, it could boost investment. If it stalls, the cost will show up in  delayed  projects, idle factories, and lost jobs. Gupta says reforming  forest regulations and land  issues is essential. “The Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Land Reform must be restructured to move forward effectively,” he said. “This would lift the morale of the private sector.”

Advocate Semanta Dahal highlights problems in the hydropower sector, includ-ing unclear power   purchase agreements and inconsistent license issuance by the Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA). He also criticizes procurement practices that prioritize lowest cost over quality and value. “Weak procurement delays projects and produces poor infrastructure,” he added.

Repeated legal amendments that extend deadlines for stalled contracts risk normalizing delay. When flexibility replaces accountability, there is no meaning of project timelines.

Bringing in investment,  and using what Nepal already has Nepal has long sought foreign investment in hydropower, telecommunications, and manufacturing. After liberalization in the early 1990s, the country opened to private and foreign capital. Multinationals such as Dabur, Unilever, and ITC entered the market. They brought capital, technology transfer, and jobs.

Today, the scale of investment needed is far larger. An estimated investment of $20 billion is  needed each year to become a middle income country. That is not possible without substantial foreign direct investment. However, FDI inflows are modest.

Between mid-July 2025 and mid-January 2026,  Nepal received FDI commitments worth Rs 39.23 billion across 475 projects. In the same period a year earlier, commitments stood at Rs 25.78 billion for 354 projects, according to the Department of Industry. The trend is positive, but the amounts are still small.

Dahal says Nepal’s foreign relations should focus more on economic cooperation. He highlights India as particularly  important. In tourism, he suggests large Indian hotel chains could help attract  high-end visitors. Tourism has potential, but per capita spending is flat. Data show foreign tourists spent an average of $41 per day in 2023, compared to $40.5 in 2022.

Bhatta says Nepal should diversify FDI into education, health, and artificial intelligence. He says 
IT presents a strong opportunity as Nepal already exports software and IT services  in significant 
volume.

According to the Nepal Association for Software and IT Services Companies (NAS IT), IT service exports have reached about Rs 145 billion, roughly $1 billion a year. This, however, does not mean abandoning hydropower or manufacturing. Nepal should focus on sectors where it can compete, use local talent, and grow exports without being crippled by transit costs and bureaucracy.

Ojha points to weaknesses in Nepal’s trade structure. He says Nepal’s export base is weak because a large portion consists of third country raw materials. “Around 47% of our exports are palm oil,  soybean oil, and sunflower oil, which are not indigenous Nepali products,” Ojha said. “To  strengthen trade, we must promote indigenous products.”

He also points to market access challenges through tariff and non tariff barriers. The United  States, Nepal’s second-largest export destination, imposes  a minimum 10% tariff on Nepali products. Nepal signed a trade agreement with the US in 2011 but has not fully used it. “Benefits under  the Nepal Trade Preference Program, granted in 2015,  have already expired,” Ojha said. “Nepal must
work diplomatically to expand  trade opportunities.”

Trade with China shows a sharp imbalance. In seven  months, imports from China reached about Rs 240 billion, while exports stood at around Rs 900 million. The gap is massive.

With graduation from LDC status approaching, Ojha says preferential access  to European and  American markets could weaken. “Nepal must negotiate to retain or replace  benefits or explore  alternative markets such as the Middle East, Far East, and Australia,” he said. “Nepal should  promote IT related products and ser-vices that are less dependent on physical transit.”

The Industrial Enterprises Act, 2020 also needs reform. Businesses cite overlapping approvals,  inconsistent definitions, and regulatory grey areas in the Act. A simple framework would cut transaction costs and create a more predictable investment climate, they say Intellectual property reform is also overdue. The Industrial Property Bill before the House  of Representatives should replace  the outdated Patent, Design, and Trademark Act, 1965. Amendments to the Copyright Act,
2002 are also pending.  Strong IP protection is not just a legal update, it supports innovation, branding, and technology-driven growth.

The agenda the manifestos  did not answer If manifestos were enough, Nepal would already be prosperous. The missing link is execution, and execution depends on institutions, incentives, and clarity.

Bhatta proposes starting with institutional reform. The new government, he says, should quickly  review the structures of ministries, departments, service delivery mechanisms, and regulatory  bodies and make changes within months.

Dahal calls for implementing recommendations of the Business Ready Report and strengthening competition and insolvency  laws where Nepal’s score is poor. He suggests forming a dedicated parliamentary committee to fast-track reforms.  Dahal also urges revisiting the Public Procurement Act so quality and value matter alongside  cost. “Many projects stuck at the Office of the Investment Board Nepal (OIBN) and Department of Industry should be resolved.

Acharya says Parliament itself has been lagging, with slow lawmaking and time wasted on unnecessary debates instead of critical economic legislation.

Similarly, Paudel pushes for measurable targets and visible service standards, including reliable  drinking water in provincial capitals, and practical support for production like road upgrades and  cold storage facilities.

Shrestha says Nepal must identify and strengthen its competitive advantages between India and  China, and treat production based  industries differently from trading businesses. “India provides  incentives tied to jobs created,” he said. Ac-cording to Shrestha, Nepal should also promote local  products, such as processing medicinal herbs with value addition before export.

Bajracharya  says economic revival is a gradual process and not something that happens overnight. 
But he is clear that without governance improvements, revival will not happen.

On paper, Nepal can imagine a $100 billion economy. Paudel says the vision is not impossible.  “Nepal is projected to generate nearly 5,000  megawatts within the next four years. Tourist arrivals, currently around one million a year, can increase,” he said. “However, these targets cannot be met with the current working style.”

He says money sitting in banks must be converted into productive investment. “Part of the foreign  reserves can also be invested carefully. Directing $3-4  billion into productive sectors could add  about 2% to growth,” he added.  “Effective use of Rs 6 trillion in capital spending, combined with 
reserve investment, could lift growth to 9-10  percent growth. But this will be possible only with strong commitment.

The numbers may be debated, but the central issue is not. Nepal’s biggest gap is not ideas, it is delivery.

What prosperity would look like Nepal’s last few years have been  defined by two realities:  political instability and economic drift. The September protests exposed how thin public patience had become. Elections have reset the political map, again. Economic reset, however, will not come  from speeches alone.

The government’s first responsibility, as multiple voices argue, is to create a predictable and clean investment climate. If corruption declines, the cost of doing business will fall. If approvals become time bound  and traceable, investment becomes easier. If public services become transparent and efficient, trust starts to return. And if trust returns, the pile of idle money can move.

People  will judge the new government by results, not promises. They will judge it by whether a  land transfer can be done without wasting  a day. Whether a license can be renewed without a middleman?  Whether a business can close legally without months of paperwork? Whether a mining renewal is processed in weeks, not years? Whether procurement rewards quality, not connections? Whether appointments become merit based? They will also judge the government by whether jobs and wages become sufficient to make migration  a choice, not an escape.

Prosperity after the polls is not a mystery. The route is visible in the same complaints Nepalis  repeat every day. Clean up governance, remove bottlenecks, digitize the points where discretion  breeds rent seeking, treat the private sector as a partner in wealth creation, not a suspect, and deliver services  fast enough that people feel the state is working for them.

Nepal has promised transformation for decades. After the September uprising and fresh elections,  demand for change is louder than ever. The cost of failure is clearer too.

(The cover story of March 2026 issue of New Business Age magazine.)