KATHMANDU — This reflection draws on my lived experience across Sweden, Britain, Canada, and Nepal—not to advance any ideology, but to ask a moral question that transcends political labels.
I write as an engineering educator from Nepal who had the privilege of witnessing different social worlds. In the early 1970s, I worked alongside Swedish engineers at Volvo, Gothenberg, Sweden observing a society that viewed social protection not as charity but as collective responsibility.
In England, I completed my master's degree (1976-78) in "System Engineering" during the final years before Thatcherism transformed British politics. In Canada during the early 1990s, I earned my PhD in Engineering Management while globalization reshaped economies worldwide.
After five decades of teaching and learning one unsettling question haunts me: "Are we abandoning the idea that society bears collective responsibility for its most vulnerable members?"
When Welfare Was a 'Moral Choice'
The welfare states I encountered in Scandinavia, Britain, and Canada may not be perfect. They struggled with inefficiency, fiscal pressures, and political disputes. Yet they rested on a simple moral principle: "economic progress should improve human well-being, not merely increase national wealth."
Healthcare was a 'right', not a 'privilege'. Education expanded opportunity. Social security protected citizens against misfortune. These institutions reflected a belief that "human dignity should not depend entirely on the marketplace."
Four Decades of Transformation
Globalization has lifted hundreds of millions—particularly in Asia—out of extreme poverty. Markets have generated extraordinary wealth. Yet prosperity/wealth has become increasingly concentrated. Many workers experience stagnant incomes, insecure employment, and declining social mobility.
For Nepal, these trends are impossible to ignore. We contribute almost nothing to global carbon emissions, yet face severe climate risks. Our universities educate talented young people who often leave because opportunities remain limited. Public institutions struggle as fiscal constraints force difficult choices between investment and social protection.
The Forces of Erosion
Several pressures have combined to weaken welfare systems:
- Global competition encourages lower taxes and reduced public spending
- Aging populations increase pension and healthcare costs
- Technological change transforms labour markets faster than education can adapt
- Political polarization makes long-term reform increasingly difficult
These are genuine challenges. They cannot simply be blamed on one ideology or generation. Yet amid these pressures, economics risks becoming detached from ethics. When policy focuses exclusively on efficiency and growth, it overlooks the human purpose those goals are meant to serve.
What Truly Defines a "Society"
A society should be judged by how it treats those with the least power: children born into poverty, elderly citizens, people with disabilities, displaced communities, workers whose livelihoods disappear through forces beyond their control.
The great welfare states of the twentieth century demonstrated that markets and compassion need not be enemies. Their future requires reform—demographic change, technological disruption, and global competition demand new approaches. But reform should strengthen the social contract, not abandon it.
The Structural Truth
As an engineering educator, I remind my students that every durable structure depends on sound foundations. When foundations weaken, even magnificent buildings become vulnerable. The same is true of "societies".
Trust, fairness, opportunity, and compassion are not sentimental ideals—they are structural pillars of stable democracies and prosperous economies. If inequality widens while public trust declines, no amount of economic growth alone will guarantee social stability.
The Defining Question
The twenty-first century's defining question may not be 'how much wealth humanity can create', but 'how wisely and fairly that wealth is shared'.
The choice before us is not between markets and governments, nor between capitalism and socialism. We all have to acknowledge that societies should recognize our shared humanity, and agree that " Excluded should be Included". Compassion is not an obstacle to progress. It is one of its highest achievements.
Conclusion: The Welfare Eclipse
I have lived in four countries across five decades. I have seen social contracts built—and quietly dismantled. In Sweden, I learned that protection is not charity. In England, I witnessed the turning point. In Canada, I saw globalization's promise and its cost. In Nepal, I watch young talent leave because hope is scarce at home.
We are told that efficiency demands sacrifice. That global competition leaves no room for compassion. That the welfare state is a luxury we can no longer afford. This is not economics. This is a choice.
We are choosing to accept inequality as inevitable. We are choosing to measure progress by GDP rather than dignity. We are choosing to let foundations crumble while we celebrate the height of our buildings. A society that abandons its most vulnerable will not stand. The only question is: "when did we stop believing that compassion was strength?"
Best wishes for a world that remembers.
