Economics 2023 Paper I 50 marks Explain

Q4

(a) Explain the concept of "sterilization" in the context of monetary approach to balance of payments. (20 marks) (b) Tax burden is distributed between buyers and sellers in the ratio of elasticities of demand and supply. Explain. (15 marks) (c) Discuss Friedman's restatement of Quantity Theory of Money. Under what conditions, it reduces to classical Quantity Theory of Money? Explain. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) भुगतान-संतुलन के मौद्रिक दृष्टिकोण के संदर्भ में, "स्टरिलाइजेशन" की अवधारणा की व्याख्या कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) क्रेताओं और विक्रेताओं के मध्य कर-भार मांग और पूर्ति लोचों के अनुपात में वितरित होता है। व्याख्या कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) फ्रिडमैन के मुद्रा-परिमाण-सिद्धांत के पुनर्कथन की विवेचना कीजिए। यह किन दशाओं में, प्रतिष्ठित मुद्रा-परिमाण-सिद्धांत में परिवर्तित हो जाता है? समझाइए। (15 अंक)

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

Directive word: Explain

This question asks you to explain. 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 explanatory depth across three distinct theoretical domains. Allocate approximately 40% of time and words to part (a) given its 20 marks weight, with 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief integrated introduction, then tackle each sub-part sequentially with clear sub-headings, ensuring diagrams for (a) and (b), and conclude with a synthesis on monetary policy transmission. Secondary directives include 'discuss' for part (c).

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Sterilization defined as offsetting foreign exchange intervention's monetary impact; distinction between sterilized vs. non-sterilized intervention; monetary approach framework with money supply = domestic credit + foreign reserves; T-account representation of RBI's balance sheet during intervention
  • Part (a): Impossible Trinity (Trilemma) connection; conditions for effective sterilization; costs including quasi-fiscal costs and interest rate distortions; Indian experience with sterilization bonds (MSS) post-2003
  • Part (b): Tax incidence formula derivation showing buyer's share = Es/(Ed+Es) and seller's share = Ed/(Ed+Es); mathematical proof using equilibrium conditions; limiting cases of perfectly elastic/inelastic curves
  • Part (b): Graphical demonstration with supply and demand shifts; application to GST incidence debates in India; distinction between statutory and economic incidence
  • Part (c): Friedman's money demand function (M/P = f(Yp, rb-rm, re-rm, πe-rm)); permanent income vs. current income; stability of money demand function; portfolio approach
  • Part (c): Conditions reducing to classical QTM: when substitution elasticities approach zero, making money demand interest-inelastic; return to proportional k in Cambridge equation; comparison with Fisher's MV=PT and Cambridge M=kPY

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness25%12.5Precise definitions across all parts: for (a) correctly identifies sterilization as neutralizing reserve money impact of forex flows; for (b) accurately states incidence ratio formula with correct elasticity placement; for (c) distinguishes Friedman's permanent income, expected returns, and stable demand function from naive classical versionBroadly correct definitions but confuses sterilization with intervention itself, misplaces elasticity ratios in incidence formula, or conflates Friedman's restatement with original Fisherian equation without specifying stability conditionsFundamental errors: treats sterilization as fiscal policy, reverses buyer-seller burden ratios, or presents Friedman as identical to classical QTM without qualification
Diagram / model20%10Three clear diagrams: (a) T-accounts/RBI balance sheet showing sterilization mechanics or money market with LM shifts; (b) standard tax incidence diagram with shaded burden areas and elasticity annotations; (c) money demand function stability graph or portfolio choice frameworkTwo adequate diagrams with minor errors in labeling or missing one part entirely; diagrams present but not explicitly linked to textual explanationMissing diagrams for high-mark parts, incorrect curves (e.g., shifting wrong curve for tax incidence), or hand-drawn quality without clear axes labels
Quantitative reasoning20%10For (b), derives incidence shares mathematically from equilibrium conditions with partial derivatives; for (a), presents sterilization algebra (ΔH = ΔDC + ΔR); for (c), specifies money demand function with arguments and discusses parameter stability econometricallyStates formulas without derivation; mentions elasticities in ratio form but doesn't show why; presents Friedman's function without discussing coefficient implicationsNo mathematical treatment; purely verbal explanation of quantitative relationships; incorrect formulas stated as facts
Indian / empirical examples20%10For (a), cites RBI's Market Stabilization Scheme (MSS) 2004, sterilization costs, or 2013 taper tantrum experience; for (b), references GST Council debates on rate structure and incidence; for (c), mentions Indian money demand stability studies (RBI working papers) or financial deepening effectsGeneric mention of RBI intervention without specific scheme; no Indian tax example; vague reference to inflation targeting without money demand contextNo Indian examples; purely theoretical treatment; incorrect examples (e.g., fiscal deficit as sterilization tool)
Policy implication15%7.5Synthesizes across parts: sterilization's limits under capital mobility (impossible trilemma); tax design implications for efficiency vs. equity; monetary targeting vs. inflation targeting debate in India post-Friedman; central bank independence and quasi-fiscal costsLists policy points per part without integration; mentions sterilization costs or GST design separately without overarching frameworkNo policy discussion; purely descriptive theoretical treatment; irrelevant policy recommendations not grounded in 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 2023 Paper I