Economics 2025 Paper I 50 marks Explain

Q8

(a) Explain the role of World Trade Organization (WTO) in the present context. Discuss the merits and demerits of TRIMs and TRIPs. 10+10=20 (b) Do you think that economic growth and sustainable development are contrary to each other ? Justify your answer. 15 (c) Explain the role of planning in the development process in the context of increasing significance of market economy. 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) वर्तमान परिप्रेक्ष्य में विश्व व्यापार संगठन (WTO) की भूमिका की व्याख्या कीजिए । ट्रिम्स (TRIMs) और ट्रिप्स (TRIPs) के गुण और दोषों की विवेचना कीजिए। 10+10=20 (b) क्या आप मानते हैं कि आर्थिक संवृद्धि एवं संपोषित विकास एक-दूसरे के विपरीत हैं ? अपने उत्तर को न्यायसंगत ठहराइए। 15 (c) बाजार अर्थव्यवस्था के बढ़ते महत्व के संदर्भ में विकास प्रक्रिया में नियोजन की भूमिका की व्याख्या कीजिए। 15

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 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 directive 'explain' demands conceptual clarity with cause-effect linkages across all three parts. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, and 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief introduction on global economic governance → body addressing each sub-part sequentially with clear sub-headings → conclusion synthesizing how multilateral trade rules, sustainability concerns, and planning-market balance shape India's development strategy.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): WTO's contemporary role in dispute settlement (Appellate Body crisis), special and differential treatment for developing countries, and MC12 outcomes; TRIMs benefits (transparency, investment flow) vs costs (restricted industrial policy space); TRIPs merits (innovation incentives) vs demerits (access to medicines, biopiracy concerns)
  • Part (a): Critical analysis of TRIMs and TRIPs with reference to India's experience—Automotive sector under TRIMs, and pharmaceutical compulsory licensing under TRIPs (Novartis case)
  • Part (b): Analysis of growth-sustainability tension through environmental Kuznets curve, decoupling debate, and SDG framework; justification required on whether contradiction is inherent or contingent on technology/policy
  • Part (b): Indian empirical evidence—Kerala model vs Gujarat model, NITI Aayog SDG India Index rankings, or renewable energy transition showing compatibility/incompatibility
  • Part (c): Evolution from dirigisme to indicative planning; NITI Aayog's role in cooperative federalism, strategic planning, and SDG localization; planning's continued relevance in infrastructure, human capital, and market failure correction
  • Part (c): Specific Indian planning instruments—Five-Year Plans to NITI Aayog's Three-Year Action Agenda, PM Gati Shakti, and sectoral missions demonstrating planning-market synergy

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness25%12.5Precise definitions of WTO agreements (GATT 1994, TRIMs Agreement, TRIPs Agreement), accurate distinction between binding vs non-binding constraints; for (b) correctly distinguishes between weak and strong sustainability; for (c) accurately contrasts indicative vs imperative planning and NITI Aayog vs Planning Commission functionsBroadly correct definitions but conflates TRIMs with TRIPs or misses specificity of agreement articles; treats growth-sustainability as simple trade-off without nuance; describes planning evolution superficially without conceptual depth on indicative mechanismsFundamental errors—confuses WTO with World Bank/IMF functions, misidentifies TRIMs as trade in services, presents growth and sustainability as absolutely contradictory without qualification, or claims planning has been abolished in India
Diagram / model15%7.5For (b): Environmental Kuznets Curve with inverted-U shape properly labeled (income on X-axis, environmental degradation on Y-axis), with Indian trajectory marked; or sustainable development interlinkages diagram; for (c): planning-market interface framework showing complementarity zonesBasic EKC sketch without proper labeling or explanation of turning point mechanism; generic development model without question-specific adaptation; diagrams present but not integrated into argumentNo diagrams where appropriate; or irrelevant diagrams (e.g., demand-supply for trade agreements); incorrectly drawn EKC showing linear relationship
Quantitative reasoning10%5Uses specific data: India's share in global merchandise trade (~1.7%), WTO dispute cases filed by India (200+), patent filing trends pre/post TRIPs, SDG India Index scores (Kerala 75/100 vs Bihar 52/100), or plan outlay trends showing indicative planning shiftRound-figure approximations without sources; vague references to 'increasing trade share' or 'improving sustainability metrics' without numbers; quantitative claims made but not tied to specific analytical pointsNo quantitative evidence; or fabricated statistics; misrepresents scale (e.g., claims India files majority of WTO disputes when US/EU dominate)
Indian / empirical examples25%12.5Rich specificity: for (a)—India's TRIMs notification compliance (1997-2000), Novartis v. Union of India (2013) on Section 3(d) of Patents Act, or Indo-US solar dispute (DS456); for (b)—Mahanadi basin conflicts, India's net-zero commitment trajectory, or EKC evidence from CPCB data; for (c)—NITI Aayog's Aspirational Districts Programme, PM Gati Shakti Master Plan, or National Infrastructure PipelineGeneric Indian references without specificity—mentions 'pharma industry' without Novartis case, 'environmental problems' without location, 'Five Year Plans' without distinguishing 12th Plan features; examples listed but not analyzedNo Indian examples; or inappropriate examples (e.g., using Chinese SEZs for TRIMs analysis, or European Green Deal for India's sustainability challenge); examples factually wrong (e.g., claiming India opposed TRIPs at Doha when it sought flexibility)
Policy implication25%12.5Forward-looking prescriptions: for (a)—reforming WTO special and differential treatment for emerging economies, using TRIPs flexibilities for vaccine access, industrial policy space within TRIMs; for (b)—green growth strategies, circular economy principles, or 'doughnut economics' application; for (c)—NITI Aayog's role in climate-SDG integration, competitive sub-federalism, or strategic state capacity building; all recommendations grounded in preceding analysisGeneric policy conclusions—'India should reform WTO', 'growth should be sustainable', 'planning should continue'—without operational specificity; recommendations not clearly derived from analysis; mixes up institutional roles (e.g., suggests NITI Aayog should allocate plan funds)No policy implications; or contradictory recommendations (e.g., advocates for stronger TRIPs enforcement while demanding cheaper medicines); proposes abolishing WTO or returning to license raj without justification; policy suggestions ignore India's LDC graduation and changed status

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 2025 Paper I