Agriculture 2023 Paper I 50 marks Discuss

Q8

(a) What is the need for agricultural price policy? Write its objectives. Discuss the criteria for deciding minimum support price (MSP) for each crop. (20 marks) (b) Why are the evaluation of extension programmes needed? Explain the various types of evaluation and also discuss the steps involved in the evaluation process. (20 marks) (c) Discuss the causes of waterlogging and its effects on crop production. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) कृषि मूल्य नीति की क्या आवश्यकता है? इसके उद्देश्यों को लिखिए। प्रत्येक फसल के लिए न्यूनतम समर्थन मूल्य (एम० एस० पी०) निर्धारण करने के मानदण्डों का वर्णन कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) विस्तार कार्यक्रमों के मूल्यांकन की आवश्यकता क्यों है? मूल्यांकन के विभिन्न प्रकारों की व्याख्या कीजिए और मूल्यांकन प्रक्रिया में शामिल चरणों का भी वर्णन कीजिए। (20 अंक) (c) जलभराव के कारणों और फसल उत्पादन पर इसके प्रभावों का वर्णन कीजिए। (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 Agriculture questions

Directive word: Discuss

This question asks you to discuss. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

The directive 'discuss' demands a comprehensive, analytical treatment with balanced coverage across all three sub-parts. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks and multi-layered demand (need, objectives, MSP criteria); 40% to part (b) for its evaluative depth; and 20% to part (c). Structure with a brief introduction highlighting interlinkages between price policy, extension effectiveness, and resource management, followed by clearly demarcated sections for each sub-part, and a concluding synthesis on integrated agricultural development.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Need for price policy (price fluctuations, market imperfections, income protection); objectives (farm income stability, food security, resource allocation); MSP criteria—A2+FL cost, market price trends, demand-supply, international prices, inter-crop parity, terms of trade, effect on consumers (CACP recommendations)
  • Part (a): Distinction between CACP and government announcement; mention of Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices role and Swaminathan Committee recommendations on C2+50%
  • Part (b): Need for extension evaluation—accountability, resource optimization, technology adoption assessment, farmer feedback; types—formative, process, summative, impact evaluation; steps—planning, baseline, implementation monitoring, outcome assessment, feedback integration
  • Part (b): Specific mention of T&V system evaluation or KVK impact studies; distinction between efficiency and effectiveness in extension
  • Part (c): Causes—excessive irrigation, poor drainage, seepage from canals, heavy rainfall, impermeable subsoil, inadequate surface drainage; effects—root asphyxiation, nutrient leaching, salinization, yield decline, shift to tolerant crops
  • Part (c): Regional examples—Punjab-Haryana waterlogging in command areas, Indira Gandhi Canal command area problems; mention of bio-drainage or subsurface drainage solutions

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness25%12.5Precise definitions across all parts: for (a) correctly distinguishes A2+FL vs C2 cost concepts and CACP's advisory role; for (b) accurately differentiates formative/process/summative/impact evaluation with correct sequencing of evaluation steps; for (c) correctly identifies physical vs physiological waterlogging and capillary rise mechanismBasic definitions correct but conflates cost concepts (A2+FL vs C2) or evaluation types; vague on waterlogging mechanisms; minor conceptual errors in MSP determination criteriaFundamental errors: confuses MSP with procurement price, treats all evaluation types as identical, misidentifies waterlogging causes (e.g., attributes solely to rainfall), or omits core concepts entirely
Quantitative reasoning15%7.5For (a) cites specific MSP data (e.g., paddy MSP ₹2,183/qtl 2023-24) or CACP cost calculations; for (c) provides quantitative impact (e.g., 2.5 million ha waterlogged in India, 10-50% yield reduction); uses comparative statistics across crops or regionsMentions approximate figures without precision; generic references to 'increased MSP' or 'large area affected'; no specific cost-benefit ratios or evaluation metrics in part (b)No quantitative data; or incorrect/obsolete statistics; purely qualitative treatment where numbers are expected and readily available in standard sources
Indian context examples20%10Rich contextualization: for (a) references specific crops (wheat, paddy, pulses) and state variations; for (b) cites ATMA, KVK, or T&V evaluation studies (e.g., World Bank T&V assessment); for (c) names specific command areas (Sardar Sarovar, IGNP, Bhakra), mentions SCARP or NABARD watershed programsGeneric references to 'Indian agriculture' or 'government schemes' without specificity; mentions only commonly known examples (Green Revolution); no regional differentiationExamples absent or inappropriate; uses foreign case studies where Indian examples are standard; or factually wrong associations (e.g., attributes waterlogging to drought-prone regions)
Diagram / process20%10For (a) includes MSP determination flowchart or price stabilization mechanism diagram; for (b) presents evaluation cycle/process flow or PERT chart for extension evaluation; for (c) draws waterlogging cross-section showing perched water table, drainage layout, or bio-drainage schematic; all diagrams properly labeled and integrated with textOne relevant diagram present but poorly labeled or not explicitly referenced in answer; OR describes processes verbally without visual representation where diagram would aid clarityNo diagrams where expected (especially waterlogging mechanism or evaluation steps); OR irrelevant/ornamental diagrams with no explanatory value; diagrams contradict textual explanation
Policy / extension angle20%10Critical policy analysis: for (a) discusses MSP limitations (distortion, procurement bias, WTO concerns), suggests decoupled income support; for (b) emphasizes participatory evaluation, farmer-led indicators, digital extension monitoring; for (c) links to MGNREGA drainage, PMKSY, or command area management authorities; demonstrates systemic thinking across all three domainsDescriptive policy coverage without critique; lists schemes without analysis; mentions evaluation importance but doesn't address institutional constraints in extension; conventional solutions for waterlogging without innovationPurely theoretical treatment ignoring current policy context; no mention of relevant schemes (PM-AASHA, ATMA, PMKSY); fails to connect three sub-parts thematically; or advocates obsolete/discredited approaches

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →

More from Agriculture 2023 Paper I