[अर्काइभ] यस्तो थियो अर्थमन्त्री महतको दोस्रो बजेट वक्तव्य. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Oversimplification

Presenting a complex issue as if it can be fully understood through a small number of simple comparisons or indicators.

“उक्त तथ्यांकले आजभन्दा २९ वर्ष अघिको बजेटले विकास खर्चलाई प्राथमिकता दिएको देखिन्छ । पछिल्ला वर्षहरुमा राज्यको साधारण खर्च बढ्दै गएको सन्देश त्यतिबेलाको बजेट वक्तव्यले दिएको छ ।” Here, a single pair of budget snapshots (2053/054 vs 2082/083) is used to generalize about a long-term trend and priority shift, without discussing other years, inflation, GDP growth, or structural changes in the state.

3 suggestions

Clarify that the comparison is limited: e.g., “यी दुई वर्षको तथ्यांकले त्यतिबेलाको बजेटमा विकास खर्चको हिस्सा उच्च देखिन्छ, तर सम्पूर्ण २९ वर्षको प्रवृत्ति बुझ्न थप वर्षहरूको तथ्यांक आवश्यक छ।”

Add contextual factors: mention inflation, GDP size, population growth, and structural changes in government responsibilities that may affect current recurrent (साधारण) spending.

Avoid implying a broad trend from two data points; instead, phrase it as a specific observation: “यी दुई वर्षबीचको तुलना गर्दा…” rather than “पछिल्ला वर्षहरुमा राज्यको साधारण खर्च बढ्दै गएको सन्देश…”.

Cherry-picking data / Omission of key information

Selecting specific data points that support an implied conclusion while omitting other relevant data or context that might complicate or weaken that conclusion.

The article compares only two budgets: Mahat’s 2053/054 budget and Paudel’s 2082/083 budget, and then infers that earlier budgets prioritized development spending more and that recurrent spending has increased in recent years. No intermediate years, no series of data, no adjustment for inflation or economic growth, and no mention of changes in social protection policies (e.g., expansion of social security allowances) are provided.

3 suggestions

Include data from multiple intervening fiscal years to show whether the shift in the ratio of साधारण vs विकास खर्च is consistent over time.

Mention that the figures are nominal and not adjusted for inflation or GDP, or provide real/relative measures (e.g., development spending as a share of total budget or of GDP).

Explicitly acknowledge limitations: e.g., “यो तुलना दुई वर्षको बजेटमा आधारित भएकाले सम्पूर्ण दीर्घकालीन प्रवृत्ति पूर्ण रूपमा नदेखिन सक्छ।”

Framing effect / Mild biased framing

Presenting information in a way that subtly encourages a particular interpretation without explicitly arguing for it.

Phrases like “उक्त तथ्यांकले आजभन्दा २९ वर्ष अघिको बजेटले विकास खर्चलाई प्राथमिकता दिएको देखिन्छ । पछिल्ला वर्षहरुमा राज्यको साधारण खर्च बढ्दै गएको सन्देश त्यतिबेलाको बजेट वक्तव्यले दिएको छ ।” frame the past budget as prioritizing development and the present as characterized by rising recurrent spending, which can be read as implicitly positive about the past and negative about the present, without exploring reasons or counterpoints.

3 suggestions

Use more neutral wording: e.g., “त्यतिबेलाको बजेटमा साधारण खर्चभन्दा विकास खर्चको हिस्सा उच्च थियो, हालको बजेटमा भने साधारण खर्चको हिस्सा ठूलो देखिन्छ।”

Add possible explanations rather than implying judgment: e.g., growth of social security, health, and education obligations that increase recurrent spending.

Balance the framing by noting potential benefits of higher recurrent spending (e.g., salaries for teachers/health workers, social protection) alongside the concern about lower capital spending.