Scholarship Financing in Nepal: Justice, Transparency, and National Purpose in a Mixed Education System

Abstract

Background: Scholarship policy is usually discussed in terms of access, while its financing receives far less attention. In mixed education systems, the legal obligation may be clear even when the final cost is difficult to trace.

Methods: This qualitative comparative policy analysis examines Nepal alongside India, Pakistan (Punjab), Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. Laws, regulatory documents, official program materials, recent peer-reviewed studies, and selected court decisions were read through four lenses: burden allocation, financing transparency, financing justice, and national purpose.

Results: The cases reveal different ways of linking equity obligations to finance. India uses statutory reimbursement; Punjab uses public vouchers; Sri Lanka uses student-linked public financing; Bangladesh and Nepal place the immediate obligation more directly on institutions, with no equivalent general reimbursement mechanism identified in the material reviewed. In Nepal, the obligation is visible, but national reporting leaves the final economic incidence too unclear to identify who ultimately absorbs the cost.

Conclusion: Nepal should first make existing scholarship finance visible before committing to large-scale reimbursement or other shared-financing mechanisms. Novelty: The article separates access justice from financing justice and treats cost incidence as a governance question rather than an assumed burden.