Explore Policy Nepal
In editorial reviewNepali translation awaiting review

Social norms: status display, group loyalty and social pressure

Costly ceremonies, favouring “one’s own people” in jobs and contracts, and close watching of other people’s lives: what the law says, what the evidence shows and where it is thin.

Contested choiceWhether, and how far, the state should regulate private ceremonies and spending

The Social Practices (Reform) Act, 2033 limits guests, wedding processions and display, and lets the government set spending ceilings. A high-level commission reporting to the Ministry of Finance found these limits are not followed, said they have at times been used to target particular people, and recommended repealing the Act.111

Long-term goalMerit and impartiality in public jobs, contracts and services

Law already bars officials from deciding matters in which they or close relatives have an interest, and civil-service recruitment runs through competitive examination. Surveys and civil-society reviews still report widespread use of personal connections and nepotism.893

Urgent problemSocial and family control over women’s and girls’ movement and choices

The national health survey records husbands who insist on knowing where their wives are at all times, and many married women who do not take part in decisions about visiting their own family. Qualitative research describes girls judged by the extended family and community.104

Updated 2026-10-25 · Version 2 · Sources · Change history

Most recent source check 2026-10-25 · Scheduled source check due 2026-11-24. Individual sources retain their own check dates below.

Have a practical improvement? Use this issue as background for your own proposal. You choose what to write and when to publish.

Start a proposal about this issue → · Read related discussions

Question 1 What is the issue, and why does it matter?

Many people in Nepal describe three everyday pressures: costly display at weddings, rites and festivals; favouring “one’s own people” (आफ्नो मान्छे) in jobs, contracts and politics; and close attention to, and talk about, other people’s private lives. This page treats each as a question that can be measured, not as a judgement about Nepalis or any group. Similar patterns are described in many societies; the evidence below is limited to what has been found for Nepal.

Concern about display spending is old enough to be written into law. The Preamble of the Social Practices (Reform) Act, 2033 (1976) says the Act was made to control and reform the growing competitive show and wasteful spending in social practices.1

The sociologist Madhusudan Subedi describes afno manchhe (“one’s own people”) as reciprocal relationships with an implicit hierarchy, built on kinship and marriage but also on party, profession and business ties. He writes that such networks give moral and financial support, and also open a “back door” for less competent people, push qualified outsiders towards frustration and emigration, and feed corruption. He presents it as a general sociological problem, comparable to guanxi in China, and not exclusive to Nepal. His evidence is interviews, observation and media reading, not a survey.2

In Transparency International’s 2020 survey, 29 per cent of Nepali respondents who had used public services in the previous 12 months said they had used personal connections to get them, compared with 12 per cent who paid a bribe.3

Social watching matters most where it limits choices. In a 2016 qualitative study in Kapilvastu, Makawanpur and Dang, many adolescent girls described feeling highly stressed, dominated by fathers and elder brothers and judged by the extended family and community, and being constantly rebuked about decency and family honour.4

Question 2 What do current law and policy say?

Article 28 of the Constitution makes the privacy of a person, their residence, property, documents, data, correspondence and matters relating to their character inviolable, except in accordance with law.5

The Social Practices (Reform) Act, 2033 bars wedding processions of more than 51 people including musicians (no more than 11 musicians, no hired dancers and no fireworks), wedding feasts for more than 51 guests beyond close relatives, and feasts for more than 25 at birth, naming, rice-feeding, sacred-thread and similar rites and at death rites. It also bans showy display of dowry or gifts and lavish lighting of houses. The government may cap spending on these occasions by notice in the Nepal Gazette.1

Under the same Act, the local government must first counsel a person about to do a prohibited act and inform the district office if they persist. The Chief District Officer may demand the guest list after a complaint, police investigate, cases must be filed within 35 days, and the Chief District Officer decides them, with appeal to the District Court.1

Section 174 of the Muluki Criminal Code, 2074 forbids either side of a marriage from demanding movable or immovable property or dowry, or making it a condition, beyond customary small gifts and the jewellery worn. It carries up to three years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to Rs 30,000 or both; harassing a bride or her relatives over dowry after marriage carries up to five years or Rs 50,000 or both, and property taken must be returned.6

The Privacy Act, 2075 gives everyone the right to keep matters of private life such as sexuality, sexual relations, pregnancy or abortion, genetic or gender identity and illness confidential, and forbids anyone to make such matters public by writing, speaking, publishing or electronic means in a way that harms the person or damages their reputation. Part 3 of the Criminal Code also makes some invasions of privacy offences, such as listening to or recording a private conversation without consent.76

Section 18 of the Good Governance (Management and Operation) Act, 2064 forbids an official from deciding a matter in which they have a direct interest, or which would directly affect a likely heir, another close relative, or a business run by a member of their household.8

Civil-service posts filled by open competition are advertised by the Public Service Commission, and candidates must pass an examination; the names of those appointed to gazetted posts are published. Transparency International Nepal notes, however, that there is no specific law on preventing conflicts of interest beyond the Good Governance Act’s guidance.9

Question 3 What is known, uncertain or disputed?

Known

Transparency International’s Global Corruption Barometer surveyed 1,000 adults in Nepal by telephone between 22 June and 24 July 2020. Among those who had used each service in the previous 12 months, use of personal connections was 20 per cent for public schools, 26 per cent for public clinics and health centres, 20 per cent for identity documents, 18 per cent for utilities and 24 per cent for police; 29 per cent overall. Results are weighted to be nationally representative; Transparency International warns that telephone interviewing, used because of COVID-19, may have strong mode effects.3

In the Nepal Demographic and Health Survey 2022, 68 per cent of currently married women aged 15–49 took part, alone or jointly with their husband, in decisions about visits to their own family or relatives; 72 per cent did so for their own health care and 60 per cent for major household purchases.10

The same survey found that 35 per cent of women aged 15–49 who had ever had a husband or partner had experienced at least one controlling behaviour from him: 24 per cent said he is jealous or angry if they talk to other men, 21 per cent that he insists on knowing where they are at all times, 6 per cent that he does not let them meet female friends, and 5 per cent that he tries to limit contact with their family. The share experiencing three or more such behaviours was 8 per cent in 2011, 9 per cent in 2016 and 8 per cent in 2022. These are household measures; they do not measure gossip or watching by neighbours.10

The High-Level Economic Reform Suggestion Commission found that the Social Practices (Reform) Act’s limits on processions, guests, feasts and decoration, and the duty to show spending to the Chief District Officer, are not followed in practice, but have at times been used to harass or act against particular people and to send security personnel to wedding ceremonies. It also noted that dowry is already an offence under Section 174 of the Criminal Code.11

Ceremonial gifts carry both status and obligation. In an anthropological study of Magar villagers in Argal, Baglung (fieldwork in 1998), Man Bahadur Khattri found that gifts at rites of passage are given according to the giver’s socio-economic status and raise the giver’s prestige, and that they follow generalised reciprocity whose purpose is to keep strong social bonds between kin groups. It is one community and an old study.12

Transparency International Nepal’s 2023 review of Nepal’s implementation of the UN Convention against Corruption says the civil service remains marred by inefficiencies, political patronage and nepotism, and that recusal for conflicts of interest is generally practised by the judiciary but not strictly enforced in the civil service.9

In the National Statistics Office’s Nepal Living Standards Survey IV (2022/23), 55.8 per cent of household loans were taken for “other personal use”, 23.5 per cent for household consumption and 20.7 per cent for business or farm use. The share for “other personal use” was 21.9 per cent in 1995/96, 29.3 per cent in 2003/04 and 43.1 per cent in 2010/11. The report does not show ceremonies, festivals or social obligations as a separate loan purpose, and the pages read do not define “other personal use”.13

In the previous round, the Nepal Living Standards Survey 2010/11, the Central Bureau of Statistics defined “other personal use” to cover loans for durable goods, for buying or improving a dwelling, and for “marriage/family events/festivals and others”; that group was 43.1 per cent of household loans. The questionnaire recorded “marriage/family events” as a separate loan-purpose code, but the published table does not show it separately. Loans for ceremonies are therefore inside this group, and their own share cannot be read from the report.1415

The 2010/11 Nepal Living Standards Survey asked households what they had spent in the past 12 months on “marriages, births, and other ceremonies”, on dowry and bride price given or received, on funerals and on religious ceremonies. Its report left spending on “marriages, dowries, funerals, charity and other social and religious functions” out of the consumption measure because such spending is lumpy, and published no separate figure for it. The 2022/23 report divides average household consumption (Rs 523,413 a year) only into food (51.7 per cent), rent (11.8 per cent), education (5.2 per cent) and other non-food items (31.4 per cent).151413

Uncertain

How much Nepali households spend on weddings, festivals and other ceremonies, and how much of their borrowing is for them, is still not established here. The Nepal Living Standards Survey collected this information in 2010/11, but neither its 2010/11 nor its 2022/23 statistical report publishes a national figure for ceremony spending or for ceremony loans; ceremony loans sit inside the broad “other personal use” group. A figure would need analysis of the survey’s household-level data, which we have not done. The 2022/23 questionnaire was not opened, so whether it kept the same questions is not confirmed.

Whether remittances are mainly spent on display is not supported by the one study opened. Using the 2018 Nepal Household Risk and Vulnerability Survey, Byanjankar and co-authors found that remittances raise spending on food, energy, clothing, durable goods, education and farm investment, while the effect on ceremonial spending is not pronounced. Only the abstract was read; the full paper is behind a paywall.16

How widespread gossip and social surveillance are, and how they affect mental health, privacy and women’s mobility across Nepal, is not measured by any national survey found. The evidence opened is qualitative (three districts in 2016) or measures control within marriage rather than by neighbours and the wider community.410

How often the Social Practices (Reform) Act is enforced is unknown: no case counts were found. The commission’s finding that it is not followed, and has been misused, is a judgement in an official report, not a count.11

Disputed

Whether the state should limit private celebrations is disputed. The 2033 Act treats competitive display and wasteful spending as something to control by law. The High-Level Economic Reform Suggestion Commission judged the Act wholly irrelevant today, said people’s consumption expands economic activity and creates jobs, and recommended repealing it.111

Whether kinship and “own people” networks are mainly a problem or mainly a support is disputed, and the same source shows both. Subedi describes family networks as a source of moral and financial support, jobs and access to doctors and schools, while arguing that the same networks undermine merit and feed corruption. Khattri describes ceremonial gift exchange as a way of keeping kin bonds strong as well as a display of prestige.212

How far law should reach into talk about other people is disputed. The Privacy Act and the Criminal Code already make some disclosure of private matters and some invasions of privacy offences. Human Rights Watch has said the revised Penal Code criminalises speech on vague grounds, such as speech that may “annoy” someone, and notes that UN experts have recommended abolishing all criminal defamation laws.7617

Questions 4–5 What are the options, and what do they cost and achieve?

Options are listed in no particular order. Policy Nepal does not recommend one; real policies often combine them.

Enforce the existing ceremony limits111

Keep the Social Practices (Reform) Act and apply it: local governments counsel families, the Chief District Officer acts on complaints, and the government uses its power to set spending ceilings by Gazette notice.

Benefits
  • Uses a law that already exists; no new legislation is needed.
  • Supporters argue that a common, public limit eases the pressure on families who would otherwise feel obliged to match their neighbours.
Costs
  • Enforcement needs police and administrative time for private events.
  • The commission found the limits have at times been used to harass particular people, and enforcement could repeat that.
Trade-offs
  • Relief from social competition against the liberty of families to celebrate as they choose and the risk of selective enforcement.
What does implementation require?
  • Publish clear guidance for local governments and Chief District Officers, record complaints and cases so that enforcement can be measured, and decide whether to issue a spending ceiling under Section 14.

Repeal the ceremony limits and rely on the dowry offence116

Repeal the Social Practices (Reform) Act, as the High-Level Economic Reform Suggestion Commission recommended, and deal with dowry demands and dowry harassment under Section 174 of the Criminal Code.

Benefits
  • Removes rules that the commission found are not followed and have been misused.
  • Keeps a criminal penalty for the most harmful conduct, dowry demands and harassment.
Costs
  • Removes the only legal statement that competitive display spending is a public concern.
  • Families who feel pressure to spend lose a rule they could point to.
Trade-offs
  • Personal liberty and simpler law against a public signal that lavish spending is discouraged.
What does implementation require?
  • Parliament would pass a repealing Act; police and prosecutors would continue to apply Section 174 of the Criminal Code to dowry cases.

Make favouritism harder in hiring, contracts and services893

Pass a dedicated conflict-of-interest law, require officials to record and publish when they step aside from a decision because of a personal or family interest, and enforce recusal in the civil service as strictly as in the courts.

Benefits
  • Targets the point where loyalty to “one’s own people” turns into unequal treatment by the state.
  • Regulates public officials, not private family life.
Costs
  • Needs administrative effort to keep and check records of interests and recusals.
  • Rules alone may not change practice: Transparency International Nepal finds that existing standards are not effectively implemented.
Trade-offs
  • Stronger safeguards against slower decisions where many officials have some link to the parties involved, especially in small communities.
What does implementation require?
  • Parliament would enact the law; each public body would keep a recusal register; oversight bodies would check compliance. Survey questions on use of personal connections, such as Transparency International’s, would show whether practice changes.

Make existing privacy protections known and usable57617

Inform people, especially women and young people, of their rights under Article 28, the Privacy Act and Part 3 of the Criminal Code against public disclosure of private matters and recording without consent, and make complaints easier, without creating new speech offences.

Benefits
  • Protects people whose private lives are exposed, for example online, using rights that already exist.
Costs
  • Public information and complaint handling need staff and money.
  • More complaints could also be used to silence criticism, a risk Human Rights Watch raises about vague speech offences.
Trade-offs
  • Privacy against free expression: ordinary talk about others is not, and should not become, an offence; the line falls at disclosing protected private matters and recording without consent.
What does implementation require?
  • Plain-language guidance in Nepali and other languages; training for police and local judicial committees; recording of complaints under the Privacy Act so use can be measured.

Measure the problem and support change through schools and communities410

Add questions on ceremony spending and borrowing, use of connections and social pressure to regular national surveys, and fund school and community programmes that discuss these norms, especially restrictions on girls.

Benefits
  • Fills the main gap on this page: there is little national data on these questions.
  • Works through persuasion rather than penalties, so it raises fewer liberty concerns.
Costs
  • Survey questions and programmes cost money, and results take years to show.
  • Programmes that tell communities how to live can be resented as outside interference.
Trade-offs
  • Slow, voluntary change against faster but more coercive legal options.
What does implementation require?
  • Work with the bodies that run national surveys; build on qualitative findings such as the GAGE study, which says that laws against harmful practices exist but prevailing social norms need to be addressed directly.

Combining options

Most of these options can be combined. Merit safeguards in public jobs and contracts, privacy protection, and better measurement address different parts of the problem and do not conflict. On ceremony spending, enforcing the 2033 limits and repealing them are alternatives: the law can go one way or the other. A middle course is possible, such as keeping only the dowry offence in the Criminal Code while using surveys and community programmes to address display spending without penalties.

Question 6 Who is responsible?

Federal
Federal Parliament

Can amend or repeal the Social Practices (Reform) Act, the Criminal Code, the Privacy Act and the Good Governance Act, and pass a conflict-of-interest law.19

Federal
Chief District Officers and Nepal Police

Under the Social Practices (Reform) Act, police investigate and file cases, and the Chief District Officer may demand guest lists and decides the cases.1

Local
Rural municipalities and municipalities

Must counsel people about to break the Social Practices (Reform) Act and inform the district office if they persist.1

Independent body
Public Service Commission

Advertises civil-service posts filled by competition and selects candidates by examination.9

Shared
Every public official and body

Must not decide matters in which they, a likely heir, a close relative or a household business has a direct interest.8

Federal
Ministry of Health and Population

Runs the Nepal Demographic and Health Survey, the main national source on women’s decision-making and controlling behaviour cited here.10

Question 7 What have parties and leaders said and done?

What was said or promised is shown apart from what was recorded as done. Every entry needs a dated source. A missing entry means the position is not established, not that someone opposes or is neutral.

Party manifestos were not yet searched for statements on ceremony spending, nepotism or social pressure for this draft, so no party position is shown. A missing entry means the position is not established, not that a party supports or opposes any option. The High-Level Economic Reform Suggestion Commission’s recommendation to repeal the 2033 Act is a commission recommendation, not a government decision. See where parties stand now, in their own documents →

Said or promised

Position not established in reviewed sources.

Recorded actions and outcomes

Position not established in reviewed sources.

Question 8 What would progress look like, and when do we check again?

IndicatorLatest official figureOfficial targetRevisit
Public-service users who used personal connections to get the service (Transparency International survey)3 29% of those who used public services in the previous 12 months (Survey 22 June – 24 July 2020)3 No official target found When Transparency International publishes the next Global Corruption Barometer covering Nepal
Currently married women aged 15–49 who take part in decisions about visiting their own family or relatives10 68% (NDHS 2022)10 No official target found When the next Nepal Demographic and Health Survey report is published
Ever-partnered women aged 15–49 whose husband or partner shows three or more controlling behaviours10 8% (9% in 2016; 8% in 2011) (NDHS 2022)10 No official target found When the next Nepal Demographic and Health Survey report is published
Status of the Social Practices (Reform) Act, 2033111 In force in the Law Commission’s consolidated text; repeal recommended by the High-Level Economic Reform Suggestion Commission (2081 Chaitra) (2026-10-25)111 No official target found 2027-04
A dedicated conflict-of-interest law98 None; Section 18 of the Good Governance Act is the general rule (TI Nepal report, March 2023; Act text checked 2026-10-25)98 No official target found 2027-04

How we know this

Grouped by type of evidence. Government plans show what government intends; they are not proof of results. Party material shows what a party says.

Constitution & law

  1. सामाजिक व्यवहार (सुधार) ऐन, २०३३ (Social Practices (Reform) Act, 1976) — Nepal Law Commission (lawcommission.gov.np), consolidated textनेपाल कानून आयोग, Act No. 31 of 2033 (Lalmohar 2033-07-04); consolidated with amendments to 2072-11-13. Preamble, PDF p. 1; Sections 7–10, PDF p. 4; Sections 11–15, PDF p. 5; Sections 15–19, PDF p. 6. Checked 2026-10-25
  2. The Constitution of Nepal (English translation, incl. first and second amendments) — Nepal Law Commission, Government of Nepalनेपाल कानून आयोग, Gazette publication 20 September 2015; amended 2016 and 2020. Article 28 (Right to Privacy), PDF p. 15. Checked 2026-10-25
  3. मुलुकी अपराध संहिता, २०७४ (Muluki Criminal Code, 2074), consolidated text — Nepal Law Commission, Government of Nepalनेपाल कानून आयोग, 2074 BS; consolidated text. Section 174 (विवाहमा लेनदेन गर्न नहुने), printed p. 67; Part 3 Chapter 1 and Section 293, printed p. 117. Checked 2026-10-25
  4. वैयक्तिक गोपनीयता सम्बन्धी ऐन, २०७५ (The Privacy Act, 2075) — Nepal Law Commission, Government of Nepalनेपाल कानून आयोग, 2075 BS. Section 3(1)–(4), PDF p. 3. Checked 2026-10-25
  5. सुशासन (व्यवस्थापन तथा सञ्चालन) ऐन, २०६४ (Good Governance (Management and Operation) Act, 2064), consolidated text — Nepal Law Commission, Government of Nepalनेपाल कानून आयोग, 2064 BS; consolidated with amendments of 2072, 2075 and 2081. Section 18(1), PDF p. 13. Checked 2026-10-25

Government plans & policy

  1. उच्चस्तरीय आर्थिक सुधार सुझाव आयोगको प्रतिवेदन: आर्थिक सुधारको मार्गचित्र — High-Level Economic Reform Suggestion Commission (उच्चस्तरीय आर्थिक सुधार सुझाव आयोग), report submitted to the Ministry of Finance, 2081 Chaitra 29 (BS); linked from mof.gov.np/content/1497. Legal reform chapter, para 19 (सामाजिक व्यवहार सुधार ऐन २०३३), printed pp. 88–89 (PDF pp. 155–156); recommendation 33(ड), printed p. 93 (PDF p. 160). Checked 2026-10-25

Official data

  1. Nepal Demographic and Health Survey 2022 — Ministry of Health and Population, Nepal; New ERA; ICF (The DHS Program), June 2023. Section 15 (women's participation in decision making; Figure 15.4), printed p. 398 (PDF p. 444); Table 15.7, printed p. 413; Section 17.5.1 and Figure 17.3 (controlling behaviours, trends), printed p. 453 (PDF p. 499). Checked 2026-10-25
  2. Nepal Living Standards Survey IV 2022/23: Statistical Report — National Statistics Office, Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, Government of Nepalराष्ट्रिय तथ्याङ्क कार्यालय, प्रधानमन्त्री तथा मन्त्रिपरिषद्को कार्यालय, June 2024 (first edition). Box 17.1 (summary statistics of household loans, 1995/96–2022/23), printed p. 283 (PDF p. 302); section 17.5, printed p. 282; Table 17.4 (household loans by purpose), printed p. 287 (PDF p. 306); Table 11.2 (household consumption by expenditure category), printed p. 191 (PDF p. 210). Checked 2026-10-25
  3. Nepal Living Standards Survey 2010/11: Statistical Report, Volume Two — Central Bureau of Statistics, National Planning Commission Secretariat, Government of Nepal (copy hosted by the World Bank Microdata Library), November 2011. Section 10.2.6 (excluded non-food expenditures), printed p. 27 (PDF p. 51); section 16.5 and footnote 22 (definition of other personal use), printed p. 88 (PDF p. 112); Table 16.4 (household loans by purpose), printed p. 94 (PDF p. 118). Checked 2026-10-25
  4. Nepal Living Standards Survey 2010/11: Household Questionnaire — Central Bureau of Statistics, Government of Nepal (copy hosted by the World Bank Microdata Library), Questionnaire dated 17 February 2012 in the page footer. Section 6 Part B (infrequent non-food expenditures), items 321–328, PDF p. 18; Section 15 Part A (borrowing), question 15.06 purpose code 09 "Marriage/family events", PDF p. 58. Checked 2026-10-25

Independent research

  1. Madhusudan Subedi, “Afno Manchhe: Unequal Access to Public Resources and Institutions in Nepal”, vol. 8, pp. 55–86 (doi:10.3126/dsaj.v8i0.10722) — Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology (Tribhuvan University, via NepJOL), 2014. Abstract and Introduction, pp. 55–58 (definition; ‘not exclusive to Nepal’; method); family afno manchhe, pp. 66–68; consequences and Section 7 Conclusion. Checked 2026-10-25
  2. Samuels, Ghimire, Tamang and Uprety, “Exploring Nepali adolescents’ gendered experiences and perspectives” (research brief) — Gender and Adolescence: Global Evidence (GAGE), ODI, London, October 2017. Psychosocial wellbeing, p. 6; conclusions on family honour, p. 13; policy and programming implications (legal structures exist but prevailing social norms need addressing), p. 14. Checked 2026-10-25
  3. Civil Society Parallel Report on the Implementation of Chapter II (Prevention) & Chapter V (Asset Recovery) of the UNCAC in Nepal — Transparency International Nepal and UNCAC Coalition, March 2023. Civil service recruitment, printed p. 34 (PDF p. 37); deficiencies (political patronage and nepotism), printed p. 36 (PDF p. 39); §4.1.5 conflict of interest and recusal, printed p. 40 (PDF p. 43). Checked 2026-10-25
  4. Man Bahadur Khattri, “Rites of Passage: Flow of Gifts”, vol. 4, pp. 111–128 — Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology (Tribhuvan University, via NepJOL), 2010. Abstract, p. 111; gifts by socio-economic status and prestige, p. 114. Checked 2026-10-25
  5. Byanjankar, Bhatta, Singh and Devpura, “Remittances and Household Welfare: Evidence from Nepal’s Survey Data”, vol. 61(8), pp. 2490–2506 (doi:10.1080/1540496X.2025.2451181) — Emerging Markets Finance and Trade (Taylor & Francis); abstract via IDEAS/RePEc, 2025. Abstract. Checked 2026-10-25
  6. Nepal: Amend Laws Undermining Free Expression — Human Rights Watch, 3 September 2019. Paragraphs on the revised Penal Code and criminal defamation. Checked 2026-10-25

Representative surveys

  1. Global Corruption Barometer Asia 2020: Citizens’ views and experiences of corruption — Transparency International, November 2020. Nepal country page, printed p. 48 (PDF p. 50): overall and per-service personal-connection and bribery rates; Methodology and fieldwork table (Nepal: Effience 3, 22 June – 24 July 2020, n = 1,000), printed pp. 35–36. Checked 2026-10-25

Every statement on this page links to the source above. We do not invent or estimate facts: official records lead for official acts, other sources are named for what they are, and where a record is missing or unclear, we say so. Our approach

Change history
  1. 2026-10-25 — First researched draft of the social norms issue page (status: review; Nepali draft needs native review). (Owner request of 2026-10-25 to cover show-off culture, groupism and attention to other people's lives in the National Agenda. Framed as measurable questions (ceremony spending, favouritism, social surveillance), not as claims about Nepalis or Asians. All sources opened on 2026-10-25; legacy-font law texts read from rendered page images. The NSO's Nepal Living Standards Survey IV report could not be reached (connection refused) and is not cited. Party positions not yet researched.)
  2. 2026-10-25 — Version 2. Added Nepal Living Standards Survey evidence on loan purposes and ceremony spending: three new 'known' items (NLSS IV 2022/23 Box 17.1, Table 17.4 and Table 11.2; NLSS 2010/11 Volume Two section 10.2.6, footnote 22 and Table 16.4; NLSS 2010/11 household questionnaire Sections 6B and 15A) and three new sources. Replaced the 'uncertain' item on ceremony spending and borrowing. Its previous text was: "How much Nepali households spend on weddings and other ceremonies, and how much they borrow for them, is not established here. No nationally representative figure was found in the sources opened. The National Statistics Office’s Nepal Living Standards Survey IV report could not be reached from our location on 2026-10-25, so its tables were not checked; that is the first place an editor should look." (nsonepal.gov.np responded again later on 2026-10-25, and the NLSS IV statistical report was downloaded and its tables read. The published tables have no ceremony, festival or social-obligation category for loans or consumption, so the gap remains; only printed figures were added and nothing was computed.)