General Studies 2023 GS Paper III 15 marks 250 words Compulsory Examine

Q11

Most of the unemployment in India is structural in nature. Examine the methodology adopted to compute unemployment in the country and suggest improvements. (Answer in 250 words) 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

भारत में सबसे ज्यादा बेरोजगारी प्रकृति में संरचनात्मक है। भारत में बेरोजगारी की गणना के लिए अपनाई गई पद्धति का परीक्षण कीजिए, और सुधार के सुझाव दीजिए। (उत्तर 250 शब्दों में दीजिए)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 General Studies 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' requires a critical investigation of the unemployment measurement methodology, testing its adequacy for capturing structural unemployment. Structure: Introduction acknowledging structural unemployment dominance → Body critically analyzing current measurement tools (PLFS, CWS, CDS, Usual Status) with their limitations → Suggesting improvements → Conclusion with forward-looking synthesis.

Key points expected

Definition of structural unemployment and why it dominates in India (skills mismatch, technological displacement, informal sector dominance)
Critical analysis of PLFS methodology: Usual Status, CWS, CDS approaches and their failure to capture disguised unemployment/underemployment
Specific limitations: infrequent surveys, inadequate capture of informal sector, lack of real-time data, definitional issues
Suggested improvements: quarterly surveys, satellite accounts for informal sector, skill mismatch indices, integration with educational databases, use of big data/AI for real-time monitoring
Reference to Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) 2017-18 onwards replacing NSSO's quinquennial surveys
Mention of ILO standards and India's deviation in measurement practices

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	3	Demonstrates clear grasp that 'examine' requires critical investigation, not mere description; explicitly links structural unemployment characteristics to measurement gaps; addresses both 'examine methodology' and 'suggest improvements' components with balanced treatment	Understands basic directive but treats it descriptively; mentions structural unemployment superficially; covers methodology and suggestions but without critical linkage between them	Misinterprets directive as 'describe' or 'list'; ignores structural unemployment context; treats methodology and suggestions as separate unrelated sections
Content depth & accuracy	20%	3	Accurately distinguishes between CWS, CDS, Usual Status with specific reference periods; correctly identifies why these fail for structural unemployment; suggests technically sound improvements (e.g., time-use surveys, skill surveys); cites PLFS 2017-18 transition correctly	Mentions survey types but confuses reference periods or definitions; identifies some limitations but misses structural-specific gaps; suggestions are generic (more surveys, better data) without methodological specificity	Confuses unemployment types or survey methodologies; makes factual errors (e.g., calling NSSO annual); suggestions are vague or irrelevant; omits PLFS entirely
Structure & flow	20%	3	Logical progression: structural context → current methodology critique → specific gaps → targeted improvements → synthesis; smooth transitions between sections; each paragraph serves distinct analytical purpose within 250-word constraint	Recognizable structure but some sections overlap; methodology and suggestions not well-integrated; minor abrupt transitions; word management adequate but not optimized	Disorganized or missing logical flow; repetitive content; abrupt jumps between unrelated points; poor word management (incomplete conclusion or disproportionate sections)
Examples / case-law / data	20%	3	Cites specific PLFS rounds (2017-18, 2019-20, 2022-23) with unemployment rate trends; references specific sectors with structural unemployment (textiles post-GST, IT automation); mentions comparable country practices (US JOLTS, EU Labour Force Survey)	Mentions PLFS generally without specific rounds; vague sectoral references; no international comparisons; data points mentioned without precision	No specific data, surveys, or examples; generic statements like 'unemployment is high'; no sectoral or temporal specificity
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	3	Synthesizes that measurement reform must precede effective structural unemployment policy; offers nuanced insight (e.g., moving from 'employment' to 'work' measurement, gig economy integration); forward-looking without being speculative; ties back to India's demographic challenge	Standard summary conclusion; restates suggestions without synthesis; generic forward-looking statement; no distinctive analytical insight	Missing or abrupt conclusion; mere repetition of points; no connection to broader economic policy; ends with platitudes

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 →