Economics 2024 Paper II 50 marks Evaluate

Q6

(a) Evaluate the policy of Government of India with regard to foreign investment in the country. Do you feel that there is a need for control of their activities ? (20 marks) (b) What steps have been taken by the Government of India to increase exports during the last 10 years ? Have these yielded the desired result ? Examine. (15 marks) (c) Why second green revolution was advocated for India ? Mention the recommendation of the National Commission for Farmers in this regard. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) देश में विदेशी निवेश के सन्दर्भ में भारत सरकार की नीति का मूल्यांकन कीजिए । क्या आप महसूस करते हैं कि उनके क्रिया-कलापों को नियंत्रित करने की आवश्यकता है ? (20 अंक) (b) विगत दस वर्षों में निर्यातों में वृद्धि हेतु भारत सरकार द्वारा कौन से कदम उठाए गए हैं ? क्या इनसे वांछित परिणाम प्राप्त हुए ? परीक्षण कीजिए । (15 अंक) (c) भारत में द्वितीय हरित क्रांति का पक्ष-समर्थन क्यों किया गया ? इस संदर्भ में राष्ट्रीय कृषक आयोग की संस्तुतियों का उल्लेख कीजिए । (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 Economics questions

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 directive 'evaluate' in part (a) demands balanced judgment with evidence, while parts (b) and (c) require 'examine' and explanatory analysis respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of time and words to part (a) given its 20 marks, with 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief integrated introduction, three distinct sections for each sub-part with clear sub-headings, and a conclusion that synthesizes the interconnected themes of investment, export competitiveness, and agricultural transformation.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Evolution of FDI policy from pre-1991 restrictive regime to post-1991 liberalization, sectoral caps (defence, insurance, retail), automatic vs. government route, and balanced assessment of need for regulatory control (national security, profit repatriation, technology transfer concerns)
  • Part (b): Export promotion measures including SEZs, EPCG scheme, RoDTEP, PLI schemes, trade agreements (FTAs with UAE, Australia), and critical evaluation of outcomes via export-GDP ratio, merchandise vs. services export trends, and persistent trade deficit challenges
  • Part (c): Rationale for second green revolution (yield plateau, soil degradation, water crisis, climate change), distinction from first green revolution (sustainable, inclusive, regionally balanced), and specific recommendations of National Commission for Farmers (Swaminathan Commission) including MSP at C2+50%, watershed management, and credit reforms
  • Interlinkage: Connection between FDI in agriculture/food processing, export-oriented agricultural value chains, and second green revolution's productivity goals
  • Critical perspective: Assessment of whether FDI controls protect small farmers, whether export promotion has diversified beyond traditional markets, and implementation gaps in Swaminathan Commission recommendations

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness22%11Demonstrates precise understanding of FDI policy instruments (FDI caps, FEMA, Make in India), export promotion schemes (MEIS replaced by RoDTEP, SEZ Act 2005), and second green revolution concepts (evergreen revolution, sustainable agriculture); correctly distinguishes between FDI and FPI, and between C2 and A2+FL cost concepts in MSP calculationShows basic familiarity with FDI liberalization timeline and export schemes but conflates key concepts (e.g., SEZ with EPZ) or provides incomplete explanation of Swaminathan Commission recommendations; minor errors in policy chronologyConfuses fundamental concepts (e.g., treats FDI and portfolio investment identically), misidentifies export schemes, or fundamentally misunderstands rationale for second green revolution; significant factual errors in policy dates or commission recommendations
Diagram / model12%6Includes relevant diagrams such as FDI inflow trend chart (2000-2023), export composition pie chart showing goods vs. services share, or sustainable agriculture cycle diagram; properly labeled with clear linkage to argumentMentions data trends descriptively without visual representation, or includes poorly labeled diagrams with weak analytical connection; uses tables instead of analytical diagramsNo diagrams or models attempted; or completely irrelevant visual elements that demonstrate misunderstanding of graphical representation in economic analysis
Quantitative reasoning18%9Integrates specific data points: FDI inflows ($83.6 billion peak in 2021-22), export-GDP ratio (~18-20%), sectoral FDI distribution (services 15%, computer software 15%, construction 10%), agricultural growth rate deceleration (3.5% vs. target 4%), and critically analyzes trends with causal reasoningProvides round-figure estimates without specific years, or lists statistics without analytical interpretation; vague references to 'increasing FDI' or 'stagnant exports' without magnitudeNo quantitative evidence cited, or uses fabricated/severely outdated statistics; fails to demonstrate any numeracy in evaluating policy outcomes
Indian / empirical examples24%12Cites specific empirical evidence: FDI policy controversies (Walmart-FDI in retail debate, Vodafone retrospective taxation), export success stories (pharmaceuticals, IT services, marine products), agricultural distress indicators (farmer suicides in Vidarbha, groundwater depletion in Punjab), and state-level variations (Gujarat SEZs vs. Kerala's export-oriented spices)Generic references to 'MNCs' or 'farmers' without specificity; mentions SEZs or green revolution states without concrete illustration; limited regional or sectoral diversity in examplesRelies entirely on hypothetical illustrations or inappropriate international comparisons; no Indian empirical grounding; examples factually incorrect (e.g., attributing first green revolution to wrong decade)
Policy implication24%12Constructs nuanced policy recommendations: for (a) calibrated FDI screening mechanism balancing investment attraction with strategic autonomy; for (b) export diversification strategy addressing ASEAN+3 markets and quality compliance; for (c) actionable steps on Swaminathan Commission implementation with institutional accountability; demonstrates awareness of current policy debates (PLI scheme effectiveness, agricultural marketing reforms)Standard textbook recommendations without contextual adaptation; generic calls for 'more FDI' or 'better exports' without mechanism; superficial treatment of commission recommendations as mere listingNo forward-looking policy suggestions, or contradictory recommendations (e.g., simultaneous demand for FDI liberalization and strict control without reconciliation); fails to address the evaluative component of whether controls are needed

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