Q4
(a) Do you subscribe to the view that private sector is a key driver to economic development of India? Give reasons in support of your answer. (20 marks) (b) The economic growth has caused deterioration in income distribution in India during liberalisation period. Comment. (15 marks) (c) Discuss the rationale for continuance of power and irrigation subsidy in the agriculture sector in India. (15 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) क्या आप इस मत से सहमत हैं कि भारत में आर्थिक विकास हेतु निजी क्षेत्र एक प्रमुख चालक है ? अपने उत्तर के पक्ष में कारण दीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) उदारीकरण की अवधि में, आर्थिक संवृद्धि ने भारत में आय के वितरण में गिरावट पैदा की है। इस कथन की समीक्षा कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) भारत में कृषि क्षेत्र में ऊर्जा तथा सिंचाई हेतु सहायकी की निरंतरता को बनाए रखने के औचित्य का परीक्षण कीजिए। (15 अंक)
Directive word: Evaluate
This question asks you to evaluate. 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 critical evaluation across three dimensions: private sector's developmental role, inequality trends post-liberalisation, and agricultural subsidy rationale. Structure with a brief integrated introduction, then dedicate approximately 40% of content to part (a) given its 20 marks, 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Use directive-specific approaches: 'evaluate' for (a) with balanced arguments, 'comment' for (b) requiring nuanced assessment, and 'discuss' for (c) covering multiple perspectives. Conclude with synthesis on state-market balance in Indian development.
Key points expected
- Part (a): Arguments for private sector as driver (investment, employment, innovation, efficiency) versus limitations (capital intensity, regional imbalance, profit motive vs. public goods); reference post-1991 growth acceleration and sectors like IT, telecom, manufacturing
- Part (a): Critical evaluation with counter-arguments—informal sector persistence, jobless growth, crony capitalism, need for state in infrastructure, education, health; cite World Bank data on private investment share
- Part (b): Assessment of inequality trends—Gini coefficient movements, Palma ratio, wealth concentration (Oxfam reports); distinction between income and consumption inequality using NSSO/PLFS data
- Part (b): Nuanced 'comment'—whether growth caused deterioration or was accompanied by poverty reduction (Tendulkar vs. Rangarajan lines); role of skill-biased technological change, globalisation, informalisation
- Part (c): Rationale for power and irrigation subsidies—food security, input cost reduction for small farmers, equity considerations, Green Revolution legacy, political economy compulsions
- Part (c): Counter-arguments and reform imperatives—groundwater depletion (Punjab, Haryana), fiscal burden, inefficient water use, DBT alternatives, solar pump promotion under PM-KUSUM
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concept correctness | 20% | 10 | Precise use of economic concepts: for (a) distinguishes between private sector, organised/unorganised, and public-private partnership; for (b) correctly interprets inequality measures (Gini, Theil index) and distinguishes between growth-inequality trade-off versus inclusive growth; for (c) accurately explains price vs. income support, marginal cost pricing, and externalities in irrigation | Basic understanding of concepts but conflates terms (e.g., treats private sector as synonymous with corporate sector only) or misstates inequality trends; superficial treatment of subsidy types | Major conceptual errors—confuses private sector with privatisation, attributes all inequality to liberalisation without nuance, or misunderstands subsidy incidence and deadweight loss |
| Diagram / model | 15% | 7.5 | For (a): Lewis dual-sector model showing labour transfer or Kuznets curve with Indian adaptation; for (b): Lorenz curve shifts or Kaleckian profit-wage distribution; for (c): subsidy incidence diagram showing consumer-producer surplus or groundwater extraction externality model | Generic diagrams without proper labelling or application to Indian context; Kuznets curve mentioned without explaining inverted-U hypothesis relevance | No diagrams where clearly applicable, or incorrect diagrams (e.g., standard supply-demand without adaptation to subsidy analysis) |
| Quantitative reasoning | 20% | 10 | Specific data usage: for (a) private investment/GDP ratio trends, sectoral growth rates; for (b) Gini trends from 0.31 (1993) to 0.38+ (2011), top 1% income share (Chancel-Piketty), wealth Gini ~0.82; for (c) subsidy burden as % of agricultural GDP, groundwater depletion rates in Punjab | Vague references to 'rising inequality' or 'high subsidy burden' without specific figures; approximate time periods without precision | No quantitative backing, incorrect statistics, or fabricated data; failure to distinguish between different data sources (NSSO vs. PLFS vs. WID) |
| Indian / empirical examples | 25% | 12.5 | Rich empirical grounding: for (a) SEZ performance, Startup India, PLI scheme outcomes, comparison with East Asian developmental states; for (b) sectoral inequality (agriculture vs. services), regional divergence (Bihar vs. Gujarat), NREGA as corrective; for (c) Punjab-Haryana groundwater crisis, Telangana Rythu Bandhu as alternative, PM-KUSUM implementation | Some Indian examples but generic (e.g., merely mentioning 'Green Revolution' without specificity) or outdated references; limited sectoral or regional granularity | Exclusively theoretical treatment or inappropriate foreign examples (e.g., discussing US farm subsidies without Indian adaptation); no engagement with contemporary policy |
| Policy implication | 25% | 12.5 | Balanced, evidence-based recommendations: for (a) strategic role for state in coordination failures, industrial policy revival; for (b) progressive taxation, social protection expansion, skill development; for (c) targeted subsidy reform, PM-KUSUM scaling, water pricing with safety nets, shift to income support (Rythu Bandhu/Bharat model) | Generic policy suggestions without prioritisation or implementation feasibility; either complete abolition or uncritical defence of subsidies without reform pathway | Ideologically rigid stance (wholesale privatisation or status quo preservation) without analytical basis; no connection between diagnosis and prescription; ignores political economy constraints |
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 2022 Paper II
- Q1 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Outline the factors that caused decline of handicrafts during British rule in I…
- Q2 (a) Highlight the major features of National Income trend and its sectoral composition during the last five decades. (20 marks) (b) Describ…
- Q3 (a) Do you think that Multi Dimensional Poverty Index (MPI) is a better measure of poverty? Give reasons in support of your answer. What is…
- Q4 (a) Do you subscribe to the view that private sector is a key driver to economic development of India? Give reasons in support of your answ…
- Q5 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Do you think that Indian development planning is a transition from centralised…
- Q6 (a) What is the objective of exchange rate management? Do you think that the present regime of exchange rate management has been satisfacto…
- Q7 (a) Critically examine the various poverty alleviation programmes in India since 1970's. (20 marks) (b) Differentiate between Current Accou…
- Q8 (a) What are the various methods of privatisation? Point out the methods adopted by the government for disinvestment in India. Comment on t…