General Studies 2021 GS Paper II 10 marks 150 words Compulsory Explain

Q8

Can the vicious cycle of gender inequality, poverty and malnutrition be broken through microfinancing of women SHGs? Explain with examples. (Answer in 150 words) 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

क्या लैंगिक असमानता, गरीबी और कुपोषण के दुष्चक्र को महिलाओं के स्वयं सहायता समूहों को सूक्ष्म वित्त (माइक्रोफाइनेंस) प्रदान करके तोड़ा जा सकता है? सोदाहरण स्पष्ट कीजिए। (उत्तर 150 शब्दों में दीजिए)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 General Studies 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' requires demonstrating causal mechanisms by which microfinance to women SHGs disrupts the interlinked cycle of gender inequality, poverty and malnutrition. Structure as: brief introduction acknowledging the vicious cycle → body explaining pathways (economic empowerment → decision-making power → nutrition/health outcomes) with evidence → conclusion on limitations and enabling conditions.

Key points expected

Recognition of the three-way vicious cycle: gender inequality restricts economic opportunities → poverty → inadequate nutrition → reinforcing gender disadvantage
Economic empowerment pathway: credit access enables income-generating activities, asset building and reduced dependency
Intra-household bargaining power: women's control over income shifts resource allocation toward child nutrition, health and education
Social capital and collective action: SHGs create solidarity, voice against domestic violence, and access to government schemes
Empirical evidence from India: SHG-Bank Linkage Programme, NRLM, Kudumbashree, or specific studies showing nutrition outcomes
Limitations/conditions: loan diversion by male relatives, repayment pressure, need for complementary inputs (financial literacy, health services)

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	2	Clearly establishes causal chain showing how microfinance specifically targets each node of the vicious cycle; distinguishes between correlation and mechanism	Mentions microfinance benefits for women and poverty reduction but treats linkages superficially without explicit causal logic	Describes SHGs or microfinance generally without addressing the specific interconnection of gender inequality-poverty-malnutrition
Content depth & accuracy	20%	2	Covers economic, social and nutritional pathways with accurate reference to intra-household resource allocation theory and empowerment frameworks	Covers 2-3 pathways correctly but misses critical nuances like joint liability risks or over-indebtedness concerns	Generic statements about women empowerment without substantive content on how malnutrition specifically is addressed
Structure & flow	20%	2	Logical progression from problem identification → mechanism explanation → evidence → balanced assessment; tight integration within 150 words	Understandable structure but either disproportionate sections or weak transitions between economic and nutritional impacts	Disorganised points without clear sequence; repetition or abrupt shifts that confuse the argument
Examples / case-law / data	20%	2	Specific Indian examples: NRLM/SBLP coverage data, Kudumbashree's nutrition outcomes, Bandhan's 'Targeting the Hardcore Poor' RCT, or state-specific SHG models	Vague reference to 'Kudumbashree' or 'SHG-Bank Linkage' without specific outcomes; or only Bangladesh Grameen mentioned without Indian context	No concrete examples; or incorrect/invented data; purely theoretical answer without empirical grounding
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	2	Nuanced conclusion acknowledging that microfinance is necessary but insufficient alone—requires convergence with health services, education, and addressing patriarchal norms; suggests policy integration	Balanced conclusion mentioning limitations but without specific enabling conditions or policy suggestions	Unqualified affirmative answer ('yes it can be broken') or purely pessimistic conclusion without analytical basis; no forward-looking element

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 →