Economics 2025 Paper II 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Discuss

Q5

Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Discuss the components of food processing schemes introduced by the Government of India. (10 marks) (b) Do you agree with the view that India's Foreign Trade Policy, 2023-2028 will boost country's trade surplus and generate employment? Give reasons. (10 marks) (c) What are the structural shortcomings of the 'Public Distribution System (PDS)' in India? Explain. (10 marks) (d) Justify the importance of 'Disinvestment Policy' of India. (10 marks) (e) What are the implications of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) reforms for Indian federalism? Discuss. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित में से प्रत्येक प्रश्न का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए : (a) भारत सरकार द्वारा आरम्भ की गई खाद्य प्रसंस्करण योजनाओं के घटकों पर चर्चा कीजिए। (10 अंक) (b) क्या आप इस दृष्टिकोण से सहमत हैं कि भारत की विदेश व्यापार नीति, 2023-2028 देश के व्यापार अधिशेष को बढ़ावा देगी और रोजगार का सृजन करेगी? कारण बताइए। (10 अंक) (c) भारत में 'सार्वजनिक वितरण प्रणाली (पी० डी० एस०)' की संरचनात्मक कमियाँ क्या हैं? व्याख्या कीजिए। (10 अंक) (d) भारत की 'विनिवेश नीति' के महत्व को न्यायसंगत सिद्ध कीजिए। (10 अंक) (e) भारतीय संघवाद के लिए वस्तु एवं सेवा कर (जी० एस० टी०) सुधारों के क्या निहितार्थ हैं? विवेचना कीजिए। (10 अंक)

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

Directive word: Discuss

This question asks you to discuss. 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 'discuss' requires presenting multiple perspectives with balanced analysis across all five sub-parts. Allocate approximately 30 words (20% time) per sub-part, ensuring each response has a brief contextual opening, 2-3 substantive points addressing the specific directive, and a concise forward-looking conclusion. For (b), explicitly state agreement/disagreement with reasoning; for (d), use 'justify' structure with argument-evidence-conclusion; for (e), maintain federalism focus in GST analysis.

Key points expected

  • (a) Food processing schemes: PM Kisan SAMPADA Yojana components (Mega Food Parks, Integrated Cold Chain, Food Safety Infrastructure, Operation Greens); Pradhan Mantri Formalisation of Micro Food Processing Enterprises (PMFME); Production Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme for food processing
  • (b) FTP 2023-2028: Districts as Export Hubs, E-Commerce Export Hubs, SCOMET liberalisation, Rupee trade mechanism; critical assessment of trade surplus potential (import intensity of exports) and employment generation (MSME linkage)
  • (c) PDS structural shortcomings: Inclusion-exclusion errors (Aadhaar seeding issues), leakages and diversion (FCI data), nutritional deficiency (cereal-centric vs protein deficiency), inter-state disparity in TPDS implementation, digitisation gaps
  • (d) Disinvestment justification: Resource mobilisation for infrastructure/social sector, efficiency gains (CPSE performance data), strategic disinvestment rationale, Atmanirbhar Bharat in strategic sectors, fiscal deficit containment
  • (e) GST and federalism: Vertical and horizontal fiscal imbalance (15th Finance Commission concerns), GST Council voting mechanism (33% states weight), revenue compensation discontinuation impact, concurrent taxation erosion, IGST settlement delays

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness25%12.5Accurately identifies all scheme components (SAMPADA sub-schemes, FTP 2023 pillars, PDS mechanism flaws, disinvestment types-strategic vs minority, GST constitutional provisions 101st Amendment); no conceptual conflation between food processing and agriculture schemes or between trade policy and trade agreementsIdentifies major schemes with minor inaccuracies (e.g., conflating Operation Greens with Operation Flood) or vague descriptions of GST Council structure; misses distinction between strategic and minority disinvestmentFundamental errors (e.g., stating FTP 2023 replaced EXIM policy 2015, confusing PDS with TPDS mechanics, treating disinvestment as privatisation synonym, misidentifying GST as replacing only Central taxes)
Diagram / model10%5Includes relevant visual framework where applicable: PDS supply chain flowchart showing leakage points, GST revenue sharing pie diagram, or Laffer curve logic for disinvestment revenue; properly labelled with economic variablesAttempts schematic representation (e.g., simple FTP 2023 component list as pseudo-diagram) or describes diagram verbally without drawing; diagram present but economically impreciseNo diagram where clearly applicable (PDS supply chain, GST flow) or completely irrelevant visual; misdrawn economic model (e.g., incorrect axes for trade surplus analysis)
Quantitative reasoning15%7.5Integrates specific data points: food processing sector growth (11% CAGR, 2022-23), India's trade deficit ($78bn 2022-23) vs FTP targets, PDS coverage (81 crore beneficiaries), disinvestment target vs achievement (FY24: ₹17k cr vs ₹51k cr target), GST collections (₹1.87 lakh cr monthly peak) and compensation cess timelineUses rounded figures or outdated statistics (pre-2020 data); mentions quantitative trends without specific numbers (e.g., 'increasing trade deficit' without magnitude)No quantitative reference where essential (FTP employment claims, PDS leakage estimates of 40%+); factually wrong data (e.g., GST implemented in 2016, not 2017)
Indian / empirical examples25%12.5Cites specific empirical evidence: Mega Food Park locations (Haridwar, Chittoor), FTP 2023's Tiruppur textile hub case, PDS success stories (Tamil Nadu universal PDS vs Bihar exclusion errors), successful disinvestments (LIC IPO, BPCL strategic sale delay), GST federalism conflicts (Kerala compensation cess demand, Tamil Nadu dissent on rate structure)Generic references (e.g., 'many states implemented PDS reforms') without naming; mentions schemes without locating in specific state/sector context; no contemporary empirical anchorNo Indian examples or irrelevant international comparisons (e.g., US food stamps for PDS); hypothetical scenarios replacing actual policy implementation evidence
Policy implication25%12.5Forward-looking critical assessment: for (a) links food processing to doubling farmers' income; for (b) evaluates FTP 2023's employment potential against labour-intensive sector focus; for (c) proposes PDS reform (cash transfer vs in-kind) with feasibility caveats; for (d) balances strategic autonomy with efficiency; for (e) suggests GST Council reform (dispute resolution mechanism) with constitutional amendment feasibilityDescriptive policy continuation without critical evaluation; generic recommendations ('government should improve implementation') without mechanism; unidirectional assessment (only positive or only negative)No policy implication or conclusion; purely historical description; politically partisan stance without economic reasoning; recommendations contradicting stated government policy without justification

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