Q1
Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Compare and contrast Marshallian and Walrasian approaches of the stability in equilibrium. (10 marks) (b) Using generalised Lorenz dominance show that lower inequality represents a higher social welfare state. (10 marks) (c) Examine the relationship between business cycle and changes in autonomous expenditure. (10 marks) (d) Does government borrowing always crowd out the private investment ? Illustrate. (10 marks) (e) The slope of the IS schedule will become steeper if the government reduces the rate of proportional tax but will not change at all if the government reduces the level of a lump sum tax. True or false ? Explain. (10 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
निम्नलिखित प्रत्येक प्रश्न का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए : (a) संतुलन में स्थिरता के मार्शलीयन तथा वालरासीयन दृष्टिकोण की तुलना करें एवं अन्तर प्रदर्शित करें । (10 अंक) (b) सामान्यीकृत लॉरेंज प्रभुत्व का प्रयोग करते हुए दर्शाइए कि निम्नतर असमानता एक उच्चतर सामाजिक कल्याण की स्थिति को व्यक्त करती है । (10 अंक) (c) व्यापार चक्र एवं स्वायत्त-व्यय में परिवर्तन के मध्य स्थित सम्बन्ध का परीक्षण कीजिए । (10 अंक) (d) क्या सरकारी-उधार निजी-निवेश के होने को सदैव रोकता है ? उदाहरण देकर समझाइए । (10 अंक) (e) यदि सरकार अनुपाती कर की दर को घटा दे तो IS वक्र अधिक खड़ी ढाल वाला हो जायेगा किन्तु यदि एकमुश्त कर का स्तर घटाया जाये तो IS वक्र का ढाल परिवर्तित नहीं होगा । सत्य अथवा असत्य ? समझाइए । (10 अंक)
Directive word: Compare and contrast
This question asks you to compare and contrast. 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 question demands comparative analysis across five distinct micro and macroeconomic topics. Allocate approximately 30 words per mark (150 words × 5 parts). Structure each part with a precise definition, core theoretical mechanism, and brief illustration. For (a) contrast Marshall's partial equilibrium with Walras's general equilibrium stability conditions; for (b) mathematically link Lorenz dominance to social welfare functions; for (c) use multiplier-accelerator interaction; for (d) analyze crowding-out with IS-LM framework; for (e) derive IS slope algebraically. No conclusion needed; maximize content density.
Key points expected
- (a) Marshallian stability: price adjustment in single markets via excess demand; Walrasian stability: tâtonnement process in all markets simultaneously; contrast partial vs general equilibrium, speed of adjustment assumptions
- (b) Generalised Lorenz curve incorporates mean income; dominance requires non-intersection and higher mean; Atkinson's theorem linking inequality aversion to welfare; social welfare as function of mean and equality
- (c) Autonomous expenditure shifts as impulse source; multiplier effect on income; accelerator principle generating cyclical fluctuations; Samuelson-Hicks model of damped/explosive cycles
- (d) Crowding-out mechanism via interest rates; full vs partial crowding-out conditions; Ricardian equivalence as counter-argument; circumstances of crowding-in through infrastructure investment
- (e) IS slope derivation: -[1-c(1-t)]/d or equivalent; proportional tax reduction increases multiplier, steepens IS; lump-sum tax affects intercept only, slope unchanged; algebraic proof essential
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concept correctness | 25% | 12.5 | Precisely distinguishes Marshall's price-adjustment from Walras's quantity-adjustment tâtonnement; correctly states Atkinson's welfare theorem; accurately identifies autonomous expenditure as cycle driver; recognizes conditions for partial crowding-out; mathematically proves tax effects on IS slope | Basic definitions correct but conflates Marshall/Walras mechanisms; states Lorenz dominance without welfare link; describes business cycle without multiplier-accelerator; treats crowding-out as automatic; asserts IS slope result without derivation | Fundamental confusion between stability concepts; misinterprets generalised Lorenz curve; conflates autonomous and induced expenditure; believes crowding-out is always complete; incorrect or missing algebraic reasoning for IS slope |
| Diagram / model | 20% | 10 | Sketches Marshallian supply-demand adjustment; draws Walrasian excess demand functions; illustrates Lorenz dominance with intersection analysis; presents IS-LM for crowding-out; shows IS rotation for tax change—all diagrams properly labeled with axes and equilibrium shifts | Mentions diagrams without drawing; draws partial diagrams with missing labels; sketches standard Lorenz without generalised version; presents only IS curve without LM for crowding-out analysis | No diagrams attempted; incorrect axes or curves; draws irrelevant diagrams (e.g., Phillips curve); diagrams contradict verbal explanation |
| Quantitative reasoning | 20% | 10 | Explicit slope conditions for stability; mathematical statement of Lorenz dominance (L₁(p) ≥ L₂(p)); multiplier formula with numerical intuition; derives IS slope = -(1-c(1-t))/d showing tax rate in denominator; compares magnitudes of effects | Qualitative statements about stability; mentions mean income without integration; states multiplier without formula; describes IS steepness without derivation; no numerical illustration | No mathematical content; incorrect formulas; confuses proportional and lump-sum tax effects algebraically; omits quantitative analysis entirely where required |
| Indian / empirical examples | 15% | 7.5 | Cites India's post-2008 fiscal stimulus effects on crowding-out; references NSSO consumption expenditure for Lorenz applications; mentions Indian business cycle synchronization with global autonomous shocks; notes GST as proportional tax reform affecting IS | Generic developed country examples; mentions India without specificity; empirical references unrelated to theoretical framework | No empirical grounding; factually incorrect Indian examples; irrelevant case studies |
| Policy implication | 20% | 10 | Derives policy lessons: market design implications of stability conditions; progressive taxation for welfare dominance; counter-cyclical fiscal policy timing; debt management to minimize crowding-out; tax structure effects on monetary-fiscal policy mix effectiveness | Brief policy mention without theoretical linkage; generic statements about government intervention; no specific policy recommendations derived from analysis | No policy discussion; contradictory policy implications; confuses normative and positive analysis |
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 Economics 2021 Paper I
- Q1 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Compare and contrast Marshallian and Walrasian approaches of the stability in e…
- Q2 (a) Explain the differences between Cournot model of duopoly with similar product and differentiated product. (15 marks) (b) What type of c…
- Q3 (a) Show that differences in underlying expectation lead to differences in Keynesian and classical aggregate supply curve. (15 marks) (b) A…
- Q4 (a) Derive short-run aggregate supply curve following Lucas, when expectations are not realised, assuming that labour market clears. What w…
- Q5 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Explain Rosenstein-Rodan's view that economic underdevelopment is the outcome o…
- Q6 (a) Evaluate Kuznets' inverted U shaped curve hypothesis of income distribution. Does it hold good for less developed countries as well ? (…
- Q7 (a) Discuss the theory of acquired advantage in international trade using suitable examples. (15 marks) (b) Do you think that movement of t…
- Q8 (a) If the government raises taxes on labour income and interest income, explain how potential GDP and economic growth are affected. (15 ma…