(a) What are the major components of public expenditure on agriculture in India? Would you recommend any changes in the pattern of public expenditure on agriculture to stimulate agricultural growth? (20 marks)

(b) Analyse the significance of plannin

Question

(a) What are the major components of public expenditure on agriculture in India? Would you recommend any changes in the pattern of public expenditure on agriculture to stimulate agricultural growth? (20 marks)

(b) Analyse the significance of planning in the context of market-based development in India. (15 marks)

(c) Examine the procurement policy of the Government of India in the post-liberalisation period and its impact on agricultural prices. (15 marks)

UPSC Answer Check · Accepted Answer

The directive 'analyse' for part (b) (highest marks among single parts) requires breaking down components and examining interrelationships, while parts (a) and (c) demand description and critical examination respectively. Structure: Introduction linking agricultural public investment to growth → Part (a): Components (40% time/words) with reallocation recommendations → Part (b): Planning-market interface (30%) → Part (c): Procurement evolution post-1991 (30%) → Conclusion on integrated policy framework. Allocate approximately 200-250 words per part with proportional depth to marks.
- Part (a): Distinguish between productive (irrigation, R&D, extension) vs non-productive (subsidies, interest waivers) expenditure; cite declining share of capital formation in total agri-expenditure (CEA data)
- Part (a): Recommend rebalancing from input subsidies (fertilizer, power, water) toward investment in irrigation, agri-R&D, and market infrastructure; reference Chand-Radhakrishnan Committee or Ramesh Chand's work
- Part (b): Explain indicative planning's role in market economy—NITI Aayog's three-year action agenda, strategic planning for public goods, correcting market failures in agriculture
- Part (b): Analyse tension between decentralized market signals and centralized planning; reference M.S. Swaminathan's critique or Twelfth Plan's 'inclusive growth' framework
- Part (c): Trace shift from universal procurement to targeted MSP operations; examine Decentralized Procurement Scheme (DCP), eNAM, and PM-AASHA components
- Part (c): Evaluate price distortion effects—crowding out private trade, regional price divergence (northwest vs eastern India), buffer stock costs vs farmer income support

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Concept correctness	22%	11	Precise distinction between recurrent and capital expenditure in agriculture; accurate exposition of indicative planning theory; correct characterization of post-liberalization procurement as shifting from quantity-based to price-based support with nuanced understanding of MSP mechanics	Basic understanding of expenditure categories but conflates subsidies with investment; generic description of planning without market economy context; oversimplified view of procurement as either fully market-distorting or fully beneficial	Confuses public expenditure with private investment; treats planning as synonymous with Five-Year Plans without adaptation; fundamental misunderstanding of MSP as floor price versus procurement price
Diagram / model	14%	7	For (a): Expenditure composition pie chart or trend line showing declining capital formation; for (b): Market-planning interface framework diagram; for (c): MSP-price floor diagram showing deadweight loss vs income transfer trade-off	Simple tabular presentation of expenditure data without visual integration; textual description where diagram would clarify; no graphical analysis of price effects	No diagrams where clearly applicable; irrelevant or incorrectly labeled figures; diagrams that contradict textual analysis
Quantitative reasoning	18%	9	Cites specific data: agri-GDP share of public investment (below 0.5% currently), fertilizer subsidy burden (~₹2 lakh crore), procurement quantity trends (40+ million tonnes for rice/wheat), MSP-APC margin calculations; uses CAG or CEA figures	Round-number approximations without sources; vague references to 'declining' or 'increasing' trends without magnitude; no comparative statistics across states or time periods	No quantitative evidence; invented statistics; misinterprets percentage shares as absolute values or vice versa
Indian / empirical examples	24%	12	For (a): References PM-KISAN, APMC reforms, or state-level variations (Punjab's subsidy dependence vs Andhra's irrigation focus); for (b): NITI Aayog's SDG India Index, Aspirational Districts Programme; for (c): FCI's excess stocks, Shanta Kumar Committee recommendations, Bihar's de facto MSP absence	Generic mention of Green Revolution or FCI without specific periodization; passing reference to NITI Aayog without functional analysis; no regional differentiation in procurement experience	No Indian examples; inappropriate international comparisons without domestic grounding; anachronistic references (Planning Commission as current institution)
Policy implication	22%	11	Integrated recommendations: shifting to DBT for subsidies, strengthening NABARD's role in planning, procurement diversification toward oilseeds-pulses (PM-AASHA), WTO-compliant support measures; addresses implementation constraints (fiscal federalism, state capacity)	Standard reform prescriptions without prioritization; recognizes trade-offs but doesn't resolve them; generic calls for 'better planning' or 'efficient procurement'	Contradictory recommendations (expanding subsidies while demanding fiscal consolidation); no recognition of political economy constraints; purely theoretical suggestions ignoring administrative feasibility

Q6

Directive word: Analyse

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Key points expected

Evaluation rubric

Practice this exact question

More from Economics 2021 Paper II