Economics 2024 Paper II 50 marks Explain

Q2

(a) What schemes are launched by the Government to deal with the problem of unemployment in India ? Why the problem still persists ? (20 marks) (b) Why the Mahalanobis strategy of development was abandoned ? What were its inadequacies ? (15 marks) (c) Explain the problems faced by the Jute industry during pre-independence India. Why the problem aggravated after partition of the country ? (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) भारत में बेरोजगारी की समस्या के निराकरण हेतु सरकार ने किन योजनाओं को शुरू किया है ? यह समस्या अभी भी क्यों बनी हुई है ? (20 अंक) (b) विकास की महालनोबिस रणनीति का क्यों परित्याग कर दिया गया ? इस रणनीति की क्या अपर्याप्तताएं थीं ? (15 अंक) (c) भारत में स्वतंत्रता-पूर्व, जूट उद्योग द्वारा सामना किये गये समस्याओं को समझाइए । देश के बंटवारे के पश्चात् यह समस्या क्यों और गंभीर हो गयी ? (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 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

This question demands explanatory depth across three distinct historical and contemporary themes. Allocate approximately 40% of your response to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief composite introduction, then address each sub-part sequentially with clear internal headings, ensuring you explain causes and consequences rather than merely listing facts. Conclude with a synthesized observation on India's evolving employment-industrial policy nexus.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Major government schemes—MGNREGA, PMKVY/Skill India, Start-up India, Mudra Yojana, PMEGP, National Career Service—with their specific objectives and target groups
  • Part (a): Structural reasons for persistent unemployment—jobless growth, capital-intensive industrialization, skill mismatch, informal sector dominance, demographic pressure, and inadequate manufacturing expansion
  • Part (b): The Mahalanobis strategy's core features—heavy industry bias, public sector dominance, import substitution—and why it was abandoned by the 1980s-90s
  • Part (b): Specific inadequacies—neglect of agriculture and consumer goods, inefficiency in public sector, foreign exchange constraints, failure to generate adequate employment, and regional imbalances
  • Part (c): Pre-independence jute industry problems—foreign ownership, exploitative baldadari system, raw jute export dependence, lack of modernisation, and discriminatory colonial freight policies
  • Part (c): Post-partition aggravation—loss of raw jute producing East Bengal (East Pakistan), truncated supply chains, refugee influx straining West Bengal's economy, and eventual jute mills relocation to Pakistan

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness22%11Precisely defines structural vs. frictional unemployment for (a); accurately characterizes the Mahalanobis model's two-sector framework and its divergence from the Feldman model for (b); correctly identifies the baldadari system and colonial 'freight equalization' distortion for (c). No conflation of strategies or historical periods.Basic definitions of unemployment types and Mahalanobis strategy present but lacks precision on model distinctions; jute industry description mentions partition impact without explaining the East Bengal supply chain severance.Confuses Mahalanobis with Gandhian strategy or Nehru-Mahalanobis with post-1991 reforms; describes unemployment only as 'lack of jobs' without typology; jute answer conflates pre and post-independence problems.
Diagram / model14%7Includes Mahalanobis two-sector model diagram (heavy industry vs. consumer goods) with proper axes and growth paths for (b); may use Lewis dual-sector model or employment elasticity trend graph for (a); illustrates jute industry's geographic displacement with a simple pre/post-partition map sketch for (c).Mentions models without visual representation; describes Mahalanobis strategy in words only; no attempt to diagram employment trends or spatial economic shifts.No diagrams where clearly applicable; or includes irrelevant diagrams (e.g., demand-supply micro diagrams) that do not illuminate the specific questions asked.
Quantitative reasoning16%8Cites specific data: MGNREGA person-days generated (e.g., 2.5+ billion annually), India's employment elasticity decline (0.5 in 1980s to ~0.1 recently), sectoral GDP-employment divergence; Mahalanobis plan's investment allocation percentages (37.5% to basic industries); pre-partition jute's share in India's export earnings (~25%) and post-partition production collapse statistics.Round-figure estimates for unemployment rates or MGNREGA coverage; general statements about 'low employment elasticity' without numbers; qualitative description of jute's importance without quantitative anchors.No quantitative data whatsoever; or uses fabricated/incorrect statistics; confuses absolute employment numbers with rates.
Indian / empirical examples24%12For (a): specific state-level variations (e.g., Kerala's high unemployment despite education, Bihar's MGNREGA implementation); for (b): concrete plan outcomes—Hindustan Machine Tools, Bhilai Steel Plant successes vs. perennially sick units; for (c): names of jute barons (e.g., Birla, Goenka), specific mills (Andrew Yule, Bally), and post-partition events like the 1950 Indo-Pak trade agreement on raw jute.Generic references to 'rural youth' or 'public sector units' without specificity; mentions partition's impact on jute without naming regions, mills, or trade agreements; standard textbook examples without contemporary application.No Indian examples; uses developed country unemployment frameworks (e.g., Phillips curve) without adaptation; jute answer could apply to any colonial commodity extraction.
Policy implication24%12For (a): critiques current schemes' implementation gaps and suggests PLFS-data informed sectoral policies, urban employment guarantee pilots; for (b): draws explicit lessons for contemporary industrial policy (Make in India 2.0, MSME focus); for (c): extracts historical lessons on supply chain resilience and regional economic integration relevant to current eastern India development challenges.Standard recommendations—'better implementation,' 'skill development'—without specificity; acknowledges Mahalanobis lessons but does not connect to current policy; jute answer ends descriptively without policy inference.No forward-looking policy content; or proposes anachronistic solutions (e.g., suggesting FDI liberalization for 1950s jute crisis); purely descriptive across all parts with no evaluative or prescriptive element.

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 2024 Paper II