Economics 2024 Paper II 50 marks Distinguish

Q7

(a) Distinguish between fiscal federalism, fiscal consolidation and cooperative federalism. Comment on the outcome of cooperative federalism in India. (20 marks) (b) Whether the role of women in agriculture has changed after liberalisation in India ? Comment. (15 marks) (c) Explain the various estimates of rural poverty in India. What measures have been adopted by the Government to reduce it ? (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) राजकोषीय संघवाद, राजकोषीय समेकन तथा सहकारी संघवाद में भेद कीजिए । भारत में सहकारी संघवाद की उपलब्धियों पर टिप्पणी कीजिए । (20 अंक) (b) भारत में उदारीकरण के उपरांत, क्या कृषि में महिलाओं की भूमिका बदल गई है ? टिप्पणी कीजिए । (15 अंक) (c) भारत में ग्रामीण निर्धनता के विभिन्न अनुमानों को समझाइये । इसको कम करने हेतु, सरकार द्वारा कौन से उपाय अपनाये गए हैं ? (15 अंक)

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

Directive word: Distinguish

This question asks you to distinguish. 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 'distinguish' in part (a) requires clear differentiation between three interrelated concepts, while 'comment' in (a), (b) and (c) demands analytical evaluation with evidence. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks weightage, with 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief introduction defining fiscal federalism; systematic comparison table for (a); analytical narrative on women's changing roles post-1991 for (b); multi-estimate poverty analysis with policy evaluation for (c); and a synthesizing conclusion on federalism-poverty-agriculture linkages.

Key points expected

  • For (a): Clear conceptual distinction between fiscal federalism (vertical/horizontal resource distribution), fiscal consolidation (deficit reduction path), and cooperative federalism (Centre-State collaboration); evaluation of GST Council, NITI Aayog replacing Planning Commission, and 15th Finance Commission recommendations as cooperative outcomes
  • For (a): Critical assessment of cooperative federalism outcomes—successes (GST implementation, disaster response during COVID-19) versus limitations (Centre's dominance in CSS, delayed GST compensation, Article 282 bypassing States)
  • For (b): Analysis of pre-liberalization feminization of agriculture (high female workforce participation in subsistence farming) versus post-1991 changes—casualization, declining female workforce participation (NSSO data), rise in livestock/poultry feminization, and emerging feminization of farm management due to male outmigration
  • For (b): Evaluation of structural adjustment impacts—reduced public investment in agriculture affecting women disproportionately, SEZ-induced land acquisition displacing women cultivators, and new opportunities in contract farming, agro-processing, and FPOs
  • For (c): Explanation of rural poverty estimation methodologies—Tendulkar Committee (2009), Rangarajan Committee (2014), and Multidimensional Poverty Index (NITI Aayog 2021); comparison of headcount ratios and severity measures across these estimates
  • For (c): Comprehensive coverage of anti-poverty measures—MGNREGA (employment), PM-KISAN (income support), National Food Security Act (consumption), Awas Yojana (housing), and Ayushman Bharat (health); plus state-specific innovations like Kerala's Kudumbashree
  • Cross-cutting synthesis: Link between cooperative federalism effectiveness and poverty outcomes; how women's agricultural marginalization perpetuates rural poverty; need for gender-responsive fiscal federalism

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness22%11Precise definitions distinguishing fiscal federalism's constitutional division of powers from fiscal consolidation's macro-stabilization objective and cooperative federalism's institutional collaboration; accurate characterization of women's role shift from 'invisible workers' to de facto farm managers; correct exposition of Tendulkar vs Rangarajan methodology differences including PPP adjustments and normative vs absolute poverty linesBasic definitions provided but conflates fiscal federalism with cooperative federalism or treats them as sequential stages; describes women's participation decline without explaining structural causes; lists poverty lines without explaining methodological distinctionsConfuses fiscal federalism with federalism generally, fiscal consolidation with monetary policy; makes factually incorrect claims about women's land ownership post-liberalization; cites outdated Lakdawala or Alagh estimates without context
Diagram / model12%6Constructs a three-circle Venn diagram showing overlaps between the three fiscal concepts; presents a flow diagram of poverty estimation methodology from consumption data to headcount ratio; or illustrates the 'feminization U-curve' of agricultural workforce participationSimple tabular comparison of the three fiscal concepts without visual integration; mentions poverty line diagrams without drawing them; no diagram for women's agricultural transitionNo diagrams or models; or irrelevant diagrams (e.g., Laffer curve for fiscal consolidation) that demonstrate conceptual confusion
Quantitative reasoning18%9Cites specific data: female workforce in agriculture declining from 72% (1993-94) to 54% (2017-18) per Periodic Labour Force Survey; rural poverty headcount ratio falling from 41.8% (Tendulkar 2011-12) to 21.2% (Tendulkar 2011-12 rebased) or 25.7% (Rangarajan); GST revenue collection trends; 15th Finance Commission's 41% vertical devolution formulaRound-figure approximations (e.g., 'poverty declined significantly') without specific years or sources; mentions 'declining female participation' without percentages; general reference to 'high fiscal deficit' without numbersNo quantitative data; or incorrect/outdated statistics (e.g., using 2004-05 NSSO data as current); confuses urban and rural poverty figures
Indian / empirical examples24%12For (a): GST Council as cooperative federalism exemplar with voting structure, NITI Aayog's SDG India Index, 15th FC's disaster management grants; for (b): Operation Flood's impact on women dairy cooperatives (Amul, NDDB), self-help group movement (Kudumbashree, DWCRA), feminization in rice cultivation in Kerala and Punjab's contrasting experiences; for (c): MGNREGA's 100 days guarantee with 33% women participation, PM-KISAN's ₹6,000 annual transfer, NFSA's 5 kg/person entitlement, Aspirational Districts ProgrammeGeneric mention of GST and MGNREGA without operational details; general reference to 'women in dairy' without specific schemes; lists anti-poverty programmes without implementation contextNo Indian examples; or inappropriate examples (e.g., discussing urban poverty for a rural question; citing non-existent schemes); foreign examples dominating (e.g., US federalism, EU CAP)
Policy implication24%12Critical evaluation of cooperative federalism's limitations for poverty reduction—recommendation for greater State autonomy in CSS design; gender-responsive budgeting in agriculture (allocative efficiency arguments); need for universal basic income replacing fragmented transfers; land rights reform linking fiscal federalism (State subject) to women's empowerment; convergence of MGNREGA with skilling for structural transformationDescriptive list of ongoing schemes without evaluative framework; generic recommendations ('government should do more'); no connection between federalism structure and poverty outcomesNo policy implications; or unrealistic/impractical suggestions (e.g., abolishing GST without alternative); purely normative statements without economic reasoning

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