Selective Platform Regulation and Economic Reconfiguration in Nepal: A Critical Sociological Analysis of the 2025 Social Media Ban

OUS Academy in Switzerland
16 hours ago
10 min read

Author: Elena Gonzalez

Affiliation: Independent Researcher

Abstract

In early September 2025, Nepal moved to block access to unregistered social media platforms, leaving only those that had previously registered—most prominently TikTok—legally accessible. This article analyzes the economic and sociological implications of this selective regulatory approach. Building on critical sociology, the paper employs Bourdieu’s theory of capital, world-systems theory, and institutional isomorphism to interpret how a state-mandated reconfiguration of the platform ecosystem can reshape markets, labor, governance, and global dependency relations. The analysis highlights short-run disruptions for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), tourism marketing, and digital gig workers, alongside potential long-run fiscal, developmental, and data-sovereignty gains. It situates Nepal’s policy within comparative global experiences and identifies plausible trajectories—monopolistic lock-in versus competitive compliance—under differing policy sequences and institutional capacities. The article concludes with policy recommendations for safeguarding competition, supporting SME transition, and embedding rule-of-law accountability in platform governance. The study is designed as a theory-informed policy analysis; while it draws on emerging empirical reports, it privileges conceptual clarity to guide future research.

Keywords: Nepal; social media regulation; digital economy; Bourdieu; world-systems; institutional isomorphism; tourism marketing; platform competition; data sovereignty; development policy.

1. Introduction

Social media platforms are no longer ancillary to economic life; they are infrastructural. In Nepal—as across much of the Global South—platforms mediate market discovery, reputation, payments, and customer engagement for tourism operators, craft producers, hospitality firms, and educational services. When a government intervenes to restructure access to these platforms, it does more than regulate speech; it reorganizes the economic field.

In September 2025 Nepal introduced an assertive rule: major social media sites that failed to register domestically would be blocked, while registered services could continue to operate. This policy, which left TikTok and a small number of registered services accessible, immediately reconfigured the digital opportunity structure. The change raises three core questions addressed in this article:

Economic: How does selective platform access affect market competition, price discovery, SME marketing, and labor markets?
Sociological: How do forms of capital (economic, social, cultural, symbolic) realign when an entire communication architecture is reordered?
Global political economy: Does the regulatory move loosen peripheral dependency on external platforms or conversely entrench new forms of single-platform dependency?

To answer these questions, the paper mobilizes critical social theory and development economics to map mechanisms rather than produce definitive causal estimates. The focus is on how regulation restructures incentives and capacities across actors, and what secondary effects may follow in the Nepali context.

2. Policy Context and Immediate Dynamics

2.1 The architecture of the rule

Nepal’s decision sets a binary threshold: registration and compliance (including a liaison presence, tax obligations, and content/cooperation mechanisms) versus non-registration and blocking. The policy combines sovereignty claims (jurisdiction, taxation, data handling) with platform accountability (fraud mitigation, identity misuse, and harmful content). This approach reframes platforms not as neutral conduits but as domestically accountable economic actors.

2.2 Short-run turbulence

Blocking long-used platforms—such as Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, X, YouTube, and others—produces immediate frictions for firms that relied on multi-platform marketing funnels. In the short run, SMEs face:

Customer acquisition shocks: Previously diversified outreach collapses into a narrower, more video-centric channel set.
Conversion frictions: Businesses that used messenger ecosystems for sales and support lose embedded workflows.
Skill mismatch: Many operators trained in image- or text-first channels must rapidly learn short-form video tactics and new ad products.

2.3 The exception and the risk of concentration

Because TikTok (and a handful of others) remained accessible by virtue of registration, Nepal’s marketing and creator economy could tilt toward single-platform concentration. This risks monopsony/monopoly dynamics in advertising pricing, algorithmic exposure, and creator revenue shares. The strategic policy question is not whether to require registration—it is how to avoid substituting one external dependency (multi-platform) for another (single-platform).

Editor’s note for verification (not part of the article body): The state’s move to block unregistered platforms and the exception for registered ones, including TikTok, were widely reported between September 4–8, 2025; multiple outlets confirm the registration requirement, blocking of roughly 26 platforms, and protests in Kathmandu.

3. Theoretical Framework

3.1 Bourdieu’s forms of capital and the platform field

Pierre Bourdieu’s framework distinguishes economic, social, cultural, and symbolic capital as resources that actors accumulate and convert. In a platformized economy:

Economic capital includes ad budgets, devices, connectivity, and access to payments.
Social capital manifests as networked followers, communities, and reputational ties.
Cultural capital spans digital literacies: video editing, storytelling, ad optimization, analytics.
Symbolic capital involves legitimacy—verified accounts, trust badges, and institutional endorsements.

A sudden regulatory realignment devalues some capital stocks (e.g., a brand’s millions of Facebook followers) while revaluing others (e.g., creators skilled in short-form video or merchants fluent in TikTok commerce). Actors with portable cultural capital—those who can rapidly transfer skills and narratives across platforms—gain advantage. Conversely, SMEs whose social capital is platform-specific face a wealth shock: their audience graphs are partly stranded.

The state’s move also recalibrates symbolic capital: compliance becomes a mark of legitimacy. Registered platforms gain a state-conferred aura of reliability, while unregistered ones are symbolically downgraded—not by market failure but by regulatory adjudication.

3.2 World-systems theory: core–periphery dependencies

Immanuel Wallerstein’s world-systems perspective invites us to examine how peripheral economies depend on core-produced infrastructures—in this case, global platforms. The benefits (reach, tooling) arrive bundled with dependency risks (policy asymmetry, data extraction, profit repatriation).

Nepal’s registration mandate attempts a counter-dependency move: to internalize jurisdictional leverage (taxation, data access, compliance procedures). Yet if only a subset of core platforms complies, the periphery’s dependency may narrow rather than diversify, potentially intensifying bargaining asymmetry with the few that remain.

From a world-systems lens, optimal outcomes require either (a) multi-core compliance—several major platforms accepting local rules, or (b) semi-peripheral upgrading—development of indigenous platforms and ecosystem services (ad tech, analytics, creator monetization). The worst case is single-core lock-in, where the periphery’s cultural production and SME commerce hinge on one external gatekeeper.

3.3 Institutional isomorphism and regulatory diffusion

DiMaggio and Powell’s institutional isomorphism posits that organizations converge under coercive (legal), mimetic (copying), and normative (professional) pressures. For platforms, regulatory coercion (registration mandates) may induce mimetic compliance across firms seeking legitimacy, especially if denial of access in one jurisdiction sets reputational precedents for others. Over time, a normative infrastructure (local compliance teams, data-handling standards, lawful access procedures) professionalizes.

If Nepal’s policy is perceived as predictable, rule-bound, and aligned with international best practice, it can generate mimetic diffusion: other states adopt similar rules, and platforms preemptively build compliance toolkits. If the policy is seen as volatile or punitive, platforms may exit or delay, raising the cost of isomorphic convergence. Thus, state credibility and due process are decisive.

4. Economic Mechanisms and Sectoral Effects

4.1 SMEs, tourism, and export-oriented services

Tourism contributes materially to Nepal’s GDP, with SMEs using multi-platform storytelling—trekking routes, cultural festivals, homestays—to reach global travelers. The ban temporarily reduces channel diversity, impairing discovery among audiences habituated to Meta platforms and YouTube. SMEs face:

Switching costs: Retraining staff for video-forward marketing; procuring new analytics stack; rebuilding audience graphs.
Attribution gaps: Loss of cross-platform pixels and remarketing lists complicates measurement of return on ad spend (ROAS).
Seasonality risk: For time-sensitive travel seasons, any weeks-long disruption can compress bookings and cash flows.

However, consolidation around registered platforms can lower search costs within that ecosystem: creators and brands adapt to shared norms (vertical video, music trends, challenge formats). Provided that ad tools and commerce integrations are robust, SMEs may rebound with lower creative costs per impression due to standardized content grammar.

Policy lever: Create subsidized “migration kits” (templates, creative support, training) to port content libraries and rebuild audiences under the new legal regime, minimizing downtime.

4.2 Labor markets and the creator–gig economy

Digital creators, media editors, and social managers experience portfolio risk when diversification disappears. A platform-concentrated market can reduce bargaining power for influencers and agencies, and make livelihoods more algorithm-dependent. Yet formalization via registration may increase professionalization: clearer ad inventory rules, lawful contracts, and improved payment rails.

Equity concern: Workers with lower cultural capital (e.g., weaker video skills, weaker English proficiency for specific niches) may be left behind. Targeted skilling and inclusive grants can buffer transitional unemployment.

4.3 Fiscal capacity, taxation, and public goods

Registration and local presence improve the state’s capacity to collect taxes on advertising, subscription, and creator payouts. New fiscal space can fund digital literacy, rural connectivity, and cybersecurity. But the tax base depends on multi-firm compliance; single-platform concentration narrows the base and heightens revenue volatility tied to one firm’s policies.

Policy lever: Build an equalization levy or digital services tax with clear thresholds, coupled with tax credits for platforms that support Nepali SMEs (ad credits, training grants).

4.4 Data sovereignty and security

Registration creates channels for lawful requests, incident response, and content cooperation. It can also enable local dispute resolution and consumer protection. Yet data localization demands must balance privacy with interoperability: strict localization without safeguards can expose users to domestic overreach; weak localization forfeits sovereignty to extra-territorial corporate governance.

Governance design: Independent data protection authority, judicial oversight for data access, sunset clauses for emergency powers, and transparent reporting (aggregate statistics on takedowns, fraud enforcement, and lawful requests).

4.5 Competition and antitrust risk

With a narrowed platform set, contestable markets become harder to maintain. The state should pre-empt exclusive dealing, self-preferencing, or opaque moderation that shapes market access. Competitive neutrality can be encouraged through interoperability mandates (e.g., data portability, advertising transparency APIs) and periodic market power assessments.

5. Nepal in the Global Political Economy of Platforms

5.1 From extractive platformization to regulated incorporation

Global platforms extract value via data, ads, and attention, with profits often repatriated to core economies. Nepal’s mandate seeks regulated incorporation: internalizing compliance, taxes, and oversight. If successful, Nepal may upgrade from passive market to rule-setting node in a regional compliance network.

5.2 Comparative lessons

India’s post-2020 bans led to a burst of local apps but also revealed limits in network effects and monetization pipelines.
EU’s DSA/DMA demonstrates that strong, predictable rules can coexist with platform plurality when due process and legal clarity are high.
Indonesia and Brazil show that payments integration and local commerce enablement can turn platforms into development channels—if regulatory bargains protect local sellers and data.

For Nepal, the salient lesson is sequencing: first, many platforms comply; then, competition policy and SME enablement anchor the gains. If compliance remains thin, the country risks an unstable equilibrium of high political cost and low economic payoff.

6. Re-reading the Transition through Bourdieu

6.1 Capital conversions under regulatory shock

Economic → Social capital: Firms must spend to rebuild networks on registered platforms. Early movers may capture outsized symbolic capital (first-mover legitimacy) that compounds reach.
Cultural capital as hedge: Video production skills, analytics fluency, and storytelling become hedging assets against platform churn.
Symbolic capital of compliance: Government-endorsed compliance confers a halo effect on registered platforms; SMEs featured by these platforms can borrow legitimacy and attract customers.

6.2 Field struggle: state, platforms, SMEs, and creators

The field is a contested space where actors deploy capital to shape rules. The state wields coercive power (blocking), platforms wield infrastructural power (algorithms, ad tools), SMEs wield market proximity, and creators wield attention. The outcome depends on alliances: if registered platforms finance creator academies and SME kits while the state ensures competition and due process, the field can stabilize in a welfare-enhancing configuration.

7. Dependency, Semi-Peripheral Upgrading, and Industrial Policy

World-systems theory urges attention to upgrading pathways:

Compliance-led upgrading: Multiple global platforms register, anchor local jobs (policy, trust & safety, engineering support), and contribute taxes.
Ecosystem co-development: Government and donors co-finance local ad-tech, analytics startups, and creator monetization tools to reduce single-platform dependence.
Export of regulatory services: Nepal cultivates expertise in digital regulatory mediation, offering regional services (audit, content risk assessments), creating a niche export in the governance economy.

Risk: If only one or two platforms comply, upgrading stalls; dependency merely shifts from many to few.

8. Institutional Isomorphism: Will Platforms Converge?

Three pressures can encourage convergence:

Coercive: Access to a growing market conditioned on registration, tax, and cooperation.
Mimetic: Once a competitor registers and thrives (e.g., better ad yields), others imitate to avoid legitimacy loss.
Normative: Professionalization of compliance staff, localized safety protocols, and shared reporting standards.

Bottlenecks: Ambiguous legal drafting, unpredictable enforcement, or politicized content controls may dampen isomorphic pressure. Therefore, clarity, consultation, and credible commitment are central to successful convergence.

9. Scenarios and Forecasts

9.1 Competitive Compliance (best case)

3–5 major platforms register within a quarter.
Advertising markets stabilize; SMEs regain diversified funnels.
Government revenues rise modestly; funds deployed to skills and connectivity.
Creator economy diversifies income streams; platform rivalry improves ad transparency.

9.2 Single-Platform Lock-In (intermediate risk)

Only a small subset (e.g., TikTok plus a few apps) remains.
Market power concerns surface: higher ad prices, unpredictable algorithmic reach.
SMEs lose negotiating leverage; creators face platform risk concentration.
Tax base is narrow and volatile.

9.3 Prolonged Fragmentation (worst case)

Extended stand-off; circumvention tools proliferate; informal markets grow.
Trust erodes between state and citizens; compliance becomes performative.
Investment climate cools; digital services exports stagnate.

10. Policy Recommendations

Transparent Compliance Pathway: Publish a granular, checklist-style compliance guide; commit to turnaround times for registrations and appeals.
Competition Safeguards: Enforce data portability, ad transparency APIs, and non-discriminatory access for SME commerce features; conduct periodic market power reviews.
SME Transition Support: National program of creative training, micro-grants for production gear, and credits for first-party data rebuilding (opt-in customer lists, CRM).
Labor Protections for Creators: Model contracts, dispute resolution mechanisms, and tax simplicity for micro-entrepreneurs.
Data Governance: Independent data protection authority, judicial oversight for access, transparency reports, and sunset clauses on extraordinary powers.
International Coordination: Align with regional partners on baseline compliance standards to lower transaction costs for platforms and avoid regulatory arbitrage.
Local Ecosystem Development: Co-finance analytics firms, ad-ops services, and creator marketplaces; partner with universities and TVETs for certification.
Monitoring and Evaluation: Quarterly indicators—SME ad spend recovery, platform registration count, creator income diversification, tax revenues, and consumer complaints—to iteratively refine the regime.

11. Methodological Note and Limitations

This article is a theory-informed policy analysis. It triangulates early news reports with established academic theory to derive mechanisms and scenarios. The rapidly moving situation implies that empirical magnitudes (e.g., number of registered platforms, short-run economic losses) require future survey and administrative-data studies. Theoretical mapping, however, remains valuable to guide immediate policy choices.

12. Conclusion

Nepal’s selective platform regulation is a consequential experiment in reasserting digital sovereignty within a globally intermediated economy. It can catalyze institutional upgrading—fiscal capacity, professionalized compliance, safer online markets—if and only if it avoids the trap of single-platform dependency and arbitrary enforcement. Bourdieu’s lens clarifies how capital stocks are revalued; world-systems theory warns against reproducing dependency in narrower form; institutional isomorphism explains how predictable rules can induce broad compliance.

The strategic horizon is clear: diversified compliance, competitive neutrality, and inclusive transition support. Achieving these will determine whether the policy becomes a model for balanced digital development—or a cautionary tale of well-intended regulation that inadvertently concentrated power and constrained opportunity.

References

Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. Crown.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). “The Forms of Capital.” In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Greenwood.
Castells, M. (2010). The Rise of the Network Society (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). The Costs of Connection: How Data Is Colonizing Human Life and Appropriating It for Capitalism. Stanford University Press.
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1983). “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality.” American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
Mansell, R., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2020). Advanced Introduction to Platform Economics. Edward Elgar.
OECD. (2021). Tax Challenges Arising from Digitalisation – Economic Impact Assessment. OECD Publishing.
Scott, W. R. (1998). Institutions and Organizations. Sage.
van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & de Waal, M. (2018). The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World. Oxford University Press.
Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Duke University Press.
World Bank. (2023). Digital Transformation in South Asia: Opportunities and Challenges. World Bank.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. PublicAffairs.