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

Q1

Explain the difference between computing methodology of India's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) before the year 2015 and after the year 2015. (Answer in 150 words)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

भारत की सकल घरेलु उत्पाद (जी.डी.पी.) के वर्ष 2015 के पूर्व तथा वर्ष 2015 के पश्चात् परिकलन विधि में अंतर की व्याख्या कीजिए । (150 शब्दों में उत्तर 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 a clear exposition of methodological differences between pre-2015 and post-2015 GDP computation, not mere listing. Structure as: brief intro noting 2015 base year change → body comparing key methodological shifts (base year, data sources, coverage, deflation method) → conclusion on implications for data reliability.

Key points expected

Change of base year from 2004-05 to 2011-12 and shift to market prices instead of factor cost
Adoption of MCA-21 database for corporate sector data replacing RBI sample studies
Inclusion of indirect taxes and exclusion of subsidies (GDP at market prices vs. factor cost)
Shift from Annual Survey of Industries (ASI) to GST-based data and revised labor input metrics
Change in deflation methodology from WPI-based to CPI-based for certain sectors
Expanded coverage of informal sector and unorganized manufacturing through new surveys

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	2	Answer demonstrates 'explain' by clarifying causal relationships between methodological changes and their measurement effects, not merely listing differences; shows awareness that 2015 refers to 2011-12 base year implementation.	Lists differences in bullet points without explaining why changes matter or how they alter GDP measurement; treats pre/post as isolated facts.	Misinterprets directive as 'describe' or 'enumerate'; provides only definitions of GDP without addressing methodological shift; confuses 2015 with other years.
Content depth & accuracy	20%	2	Precisely identifies MCA-21 database, market price vs. factor cost shift, ASI to GST transition, and CPI deflation; no factual errors on base year or CSO/NSO institutional roles.	Mentions base year change and some data source differences but conflates factor cost/market price distinction or omits MCA-21 specifics; minor inaccuracies on coverage expansion.	Confuses GDP with GNP, states incorrect base years, claims methodology changed in 2014 or 2016, or asserts India switched to PPP-based calculation.
Structure & flow	20%	2	Logical progression: contextual intro → systematic comparison across 3-4 dimensions (price valuation, data sources, sectoral coverage, deflation) → synthesis; smooth transitions between pre/post phases.	Separates pre-2015 and post-2015 into two blocks without integrated comparison; some repetition or abrupt shifts between points; adequate but mechanical organization.	Disorganized listing without chronological or thematic logic; mixes pre and post features randomly; no paragraph breaks or signposting within word limit.
Examples / case-law / data	20%	2	Cites specific illustrative impacts: GDP revision showing 2013-14 growth at 6.9% vs. earlier 4.7% estimate; mentions sectors most affected (manufacturing, services); references NSO/CSO institutional transition.	Vague reference to 'higher GDP numbers post-2015' without specific year or magnitude; mentions MCA-21 without explaining what it replaced or why it matters.	No data or examples; irrelevant mention of other countries' GDP methods; confuses GDP methodology with demonetization or GST implementation impacts.
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	2	Brief critical assessment: notes improved informal sector coverage but ongoing data quality concerns; mentions 2019 back-casting exercise or debate with former CEA Subramanian's critique; forward-looking observation on quarterly data reliability.	Neutral summary restating that new method is 'more accurate' without justification; generic statement on better policy-making without specific link to methodology.	No conclusion or abrupt ending; makes normative claims ('best methodology') without evidence; introduces unrelated issues like environmental accounting or HDP.

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 →