Economics 2025 Paper II 50 marks Examine

Q3

(a) Examine the objectives and components of the Green Revolution in India. (20 marks) (b) Why does inter-State disparity in income persist in India despite plethora of development initiatives undertaken by the Government of India? Analyse. (15 marks) (c) Point out the main challenges faced by the small-scale and cottage industries in Indian economy. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) भारत में हरित क्रान्ति के उद्देश्यों और घटकों का परीक्षण कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) भारत सरकार द्वारा किए गए विकास सम्बन्धी अनेक प्रयासों के बावजूद भारत में आय में अन्तर-राज्यीय असमानता क्यों बनी हुई है? विश्लेषण कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) भारतीय अर्थव्यवस्था में लघु एवं कुटीर उद्योगों के समक्ष आने वाली मुख्य चुनौतियों का उल्लेख कीजिए। (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 Economics questions

Directive word: Examine

This question asks you to examine. 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 'examine' for part (a) and 'analyse' for part (b) demand critical investigation with evidence, while part (c) requires systematic enumeration. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief composite introduction, three distinct sectional bodies addressing each sub-part sequentially, and a concluding synthesis linking agricultural transformation, regional inequality, and MSME challenges to inclusive growth.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Objectives of Green Revolution—food self-sufficiency, price stability, rural income growth; Components—HYV seeds (IR-8, Kalyan Sona), chemical fertilizers, controlled irrigation, institutional credit (cooperatives), minimum support prices
  • Part (a): Distinguish between Wheat Revolution (Punjab, Haryana, UP) and Rice Revolution (later phase); mention regional concentration and environmental externalities
  • Part (b): Structural factors—historical agro-climatic endowments, colonial legacy of infrastructure, market access disparities; Policy factors—ineffective targeting of CSS, fiscal capacity constraints of backward States, agglomeration economies in advanced States
  • Part (b): Analyse persistence through lens of New Economic Geography—circular causation, human capital divergence, differential FDI absorption; cite NITI Aayog SDG index or per capita income Gini across States
  • Part (c): Credit constraints—delayed disbursement, collateral requirements, high interest rates from informal sources; Technology and marketing challenges—lack of R&D, weak forward linkages, e-commerce penetration gaps
  • Part (c): Regulatory burden—compliance costs under GST, labour laws, environmental clearances; Competition from organised sector and imports post-FTAs; mention PMEGP, SFURTI limitations

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness25%12.5Precisely defines Green Revolution's technological package (Borlaug's dwarf wheat varieties, double-cropping) and distinguishes it from broader agricultural revolutions; for (b) correctly applies concepts of cumulative causation, convergence hypothesis, and structural transformation; for (c) accurately distinguishes cottage (household-based, traditional) from small-scale (factory-based, modern) industries per MSMED ActLists Green Revolution components without distinguishing between wheat and rice phases; mentions 'regional imbalance' generically for (b) without theoretical grounding; conflates cottage and small industries or omits definitional nuanceConfuses Green Revolution with White/Blue Revolutions; treats regional disparity as purely policy failure without structural analysis; describes MSME challenges only as 'lack of funds' without specificity
Diagram / model15%7.5For (a): sketches yield response curve showing diminishing returns to fertilizer use or regional production possibility frontiers; for (b): employs Williamson's inverted-U hypothesis of regional inequality or Myrdal's circular causation diagram; for (c): value chain diagram showing bottlenecks from raw material to marketMentions 'inverted-U' or 'circular causation' without drawing; includes simple tabular presentation of State-wise growth rates instead of analytical diagram; diagrams present but not integrated with explanationNo diagrams despite analytical potential; includes irrelevant diagrams (e.g., AD-AS model); diagrams drawn incorrectly or without labels
Quantitative reasoning20%10Cites specific data: wheat production rise from 12.3 to 55 million tonnes (1960-90); current inter-State per capita income ratio (e.g., Goa vs Bihar at 8:1); MSME contribution to GDP (~30%) and employment (~110 million); uses CAGR or coefficient of variation where relevantMentions 'self-sufficiency achieved' or 'regional gaps exist' without numbers; provides approximate figures without years; quantitative references scattered without synthesisNo quantitative evidence; incorrect statistics (e.g., wrong decades for Green Revolution); fabricated numbers without plausible basis
Indian / empirical examples25%12.5For (a): Punjab-Haryana success vs Eastern India exclusion, groundwater depletion in Malwa belt; for (b): specific contrast of Tamil Nadu/Telangana (industrial dynamism) vs Bihar/Odisha (structural stagnation), role of SEZs; for (c): Moradabad brass, Tirupur textiles, Khurja pottery with specific constraint illustrationGeneric reference to 'Punjab farmers' or 'Bihar poverty'; mentions one or two clusters without elaborating challenges; examples cited but not explicitly linked to analytical pointsNo Indian examples; uses developed country cases inappropriately; examples factually wrong (e.g., locating industry clusters in wrong States)
Policy implication15%7.5For (a): critiques input subsidy distortion, suggests precision agriculture and crop diversification; for (b): recommends fiscal federalism reforms (15th Finance Commission), place-based policies, improved factor mobility; for (c): proposes cluster development (SFURTI 2.0), digital platform integration, handloom mark protection—shows awareness of recent schemesLists schemes (PM-KISAN, MUDRA) without critical evaluation; recommendations generic ('government should help'); policy discussion confined to naming programmes without mechanismNo policy discussion; anachronistic recommendations (e.g., more Green Revolution in current form); policy suggestions contradict economic logic or constitutional provisions

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 II