Economics 2021 Paper II 50 marks Examine

Q4

(a) Do you think that India experienced a major break in GDP growth and its sectoral composition during the 1980s? Give reasons. (20 marks) (b) Examine the relative role of demand side factors in determining national income in India. (15 marks) (c) Do you think that non-income dimensions should be treated as complementary to income dimension in measuring poverty in India? Give reasons. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) क्या आप समझते हैं कि 1980 के दशक में भारत ने सकल घरेलू उत्पाद (जी. डी. पी.) की वृद्धि तथा इसकी क्षेत्रीय संरचना में एक बड़े अवसर (ब्रेक) का अनुभव किया था? कारण बताइए। (20 अंक) (b) भारत में राष्ट्रीय आय के निर्धारण में मांग पक्ष कारकों की सापेक्ष भूमिका की जांच कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) क्या आप समझते हैं कि भारत में निर्धनता की माप के लिए गैर-आय आयामों को आय आयाम के पूरक के रूप में माना जाना चाहिए? कारण दीजिए। (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 Economics questions

Directive word: Examine

This question asks you to examine. 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 'examine' requires critical investigation with balanced argumentation. Structure: brief introduction acknowledging the three distinct themes; allocate ~40% word/time to part (a) given its 20 marks, ~30% each to (b) and (c). For (a), present both 'break' thesis (DeLong, Rodrik-Singh) and 'continuity' counter (Nayyar, Virmani); for (b), use Keynesian AD-AS framework with sectoral decomposition; for (c), contrast unidimensional (Tendulkar/Rangarajan lines) vs multidimensional (MPI, Alkire-Foster) approaches. Conclude with integrated insights on measurement-policy nexus.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Debate on 1980s growth break—arguments for (Delong 2003, Rodrik-Singh 2001 on attitudinal shift/pro-business) vs against (Nayyar's structural continuity, Virmani's 1981 break, Srivastava's 1979-80 acceleration)
  • Part (a): Sectoral composition shift—tertiarisation beginnings, industrial growth without productivity surge, agriculture's declining share with rural distress
  • Part (b): Demand-side decomposition—consumption (private/public), investment (gross fixed capital formation, inventory), net exports; sectoral demand multipliers
  • Part (b): Indian empirical patterns—consumption-led growth vs investment constraints, post-1991 external demand role, rural demand collapse 2016-19
  • Part (c): Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) methodology—Alkere-Foster dual cutoff, NITI Aayog 2021 baseline, 10 indicators across health/education/living standards
  • Part (c): Complementarity thesis—MPI captures capability deprivation (Sen), income poverty misses informal vulnerability; convergence/divergence cases (Kerala vs BIMARU)
  • Part (c): Operational challenges—data frequency, weighting controversies, policy targeting trade-offs between BPL cards and MPI gradation

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness22%11Precise distinction between Hindu rate of growth (3.5%) vs 1980s acceleration (5.6%); correct application of Keynesian cross/AD-AS for (b); accurate exposition of MPI methodology with capability approach foundations for (c); nuanced handling of 'break' vs 'acceleration' terminologiesBasic growth rate comparisons without methodological context; generic demand-side listing without sectoral specificity; conflates MPI with SDGs or HDI without explaining dual cutoffConfuses 1980s with 1991 reforms; presents supply-side determinants for (b); treats MPI as mere non-income add-on without methodological grasp
Diagram / model18%9AD-AS diagram showing demand shifts with Indian price-output characteristics; investment-savings gap framework for external balance; optional: Lorenz curve/Poverty gap diagram for (c) with MPI deprivation intensity visualizationStandard AD-AS without Indian modifications (vertical AS assumption); diagrams present but not integrated with argument; missing diagrams for 20-mark sectionNo diagrams despite model applicability; incorrect axes labels; diagrams decorative without analytical use
Quantitative reasoning20%10Specific data: growth rate 1950-80 (~3.5%) vs 1980-90 (~5.6%); sectoral shares (agriculture ~35% to ~30%, services rising); consumption/GDP ratio trends (~65% to ~60%); MPI headcount 2015-16 vs 2019-21 decline; investment-GDP troughs and peaksRound figure approximations without period specificity; qualitative 'increase/decrease' without magnitude; missing quantitative anchor for highest-mark sectionNo numerical evidence; incorrect data (e.g., 1991 growth cited for 1980s); fabricated statistics
Indian / empirical examples22%11For (a): EPW debates (Nayyar vs DeLong), SEBI 1988, MRTP relaxation; for (b): NSSO consumption surveys, KLEMS India productivity data, auto/rural demand indicators; for (c): NITI Aayog MPI reports, NFHS-5 health deprivation, PDS leakage studies showing income-only targeting failuresGeneric 'India is agrarian' statements; standard examples without specificity (e.g., 'green revolution' for 1980s); missing empirical grounding for one sub-partNo Indian evidence; irrelevant international examples dominating; anachronistic examples (demonetization for 1980s)
Policy implication18%9For (a): lessons for current growth (investment quality vs quantity); for (b): counter-cyclical fiscal, consumption stimulus vs structural investment debate; for (c): MPI-guided targeting (Aspirational Districts), universal basic services vs targeted cash; integrated conclusion on measurement-policy feedback loopsGeneric 'government should do more' recommendations; policy implications stated but not derived from analysis; disconnected per-part conclusionsNo policy implications; irrelevant policy prescriptions (monetary policy for structural poverty); purely descriptive ending

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 II