General Studies 2024 GS Paper II 15 marks 250 words Compulsory Evaluate

Q18

e-governance is not just about the routine application of digital technology in service delivery process. It is as much about multifarious interactions for ensuring transparency and accountability. In this context evaluate the role of the 'Interactive Service Model' of e-governance. (Answer in 250 words) 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

ई-गवर्नेंस सेवा प्रदायगी की प्रक्रिया में डिजिटल प्रौद्योगी का नैतिक कार्यों में अनुप्रयोग मात्र ही नहीं है। इसमें पारदर्शिता और जवाबदेयता को सुनिश्चित करने के लिए विविध प्रकार की अन्तरक्रियाएँ भी हैं। इस सन्दर्भ में ई-गवर्नेंस के 'इन्टरैक्टिव सर्विस मॉडल' का मूल्यांकन कीजिए। (उत्तर 250 शब्दों में लिखिए)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 General Studies questions

Directive word: Evaluate

This question asks you to evaluate. 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

Evaluate demands a balanced judgment of the Interactive Service Model's effectiveness, not mere description. Structure: brief introduction defining the model → body analyzing its role in transparency/accountability with strengths and limitations → conclusion with nuanced assessment and way forward.

Key points expected

  • Clear distinction between routine digitization (one-way service delivery) and Interactive Service Model's two-way/citizen-centric communication
  • Explanation of how interactive features (feedback loops, grievance redressal, participatory platforms) ensure transparency and accountability
  • Critical assessment of strengths: reduced information asymmetry, real-time monitoring, citizen empowerment
  • Critical assessment of limitations: digital divide, exclusion of marginalized, superficial consultation without substantive change
  • Specific Indian examples: MyGov platform, CPGRAMS, Swachh Bharat app, state-level participatory portals
  • Balanced conclusion on whether the model truly transforms governance or merely creates digital façades

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%3Demonstrates clear grasp that 'evaluate' requires judgment on effectiveness, not just description; distinguishes Interactive Service Model from other e-governance models (broadcast, critical flow models); addresses both 'transparency' and 'accountability' dimensions explicitlyPartially understands evaluation demand but drifts into description; mentions transparency or accountability but not both; conflates all e-governance models without differentiationTreats question as 'describe' or 'explain'; fails to distinguish Interactive Service Model; ignores either transparency or accountability; writes generic e-governance essay
Content depth & accuracy20%3Accurately explains interactive mechanisms (feedback systems, participatory budgeting, social audits via digital platforms); critically analyzes both empowering potential and risks of tokenism; references relevant frameworks (UNDP's e-participation ladder, World Bank's digital governance indicators)Basic understanding of interactive features but superficial analysis; mentions some benefits without critical depth; minor conceptual inaccuracies in describing governance mechanismsConfuses Interactive Service Model with basic online services; content largely irrelevant or factually wrong; lacks understanding of governance-accountability linkages
Structure & flow20%3Logical progression: context setting → model explanation → transparency mechanisms → accountability mechanisms → critical evaluation → conclusion; smooth transitions; each paragraph advances the argument; word economy within 250-word constraintAdequate structure but some disjointed sections; either too descriptive in parts or conclusion rushed; word distribution uneven with some sections over/under-developedDisorganized or haphazard flow; no clear argument thread; repetitive content; grossly exceeds word limit or severely underwrites; missing introduction or conclusion
Examples / case-law / data20%3Specific, relevant Indian examples: MyGov for policy consultation, CPGRAMS for grievance redressal, JAM trinity with feedback loops, state examples like Karnataka's Sakala/Seva Sindhu; mentions Digital India Programme targets vs. actual participatory metrics; distinguishes successful from failed interactive initiativesGeneric mention of Digital India or MyGov without specificity; examples partially relevant but not clearly tied to interactive features; no data or metrics on participation levelsNo Indian examples or irrelevant foreign examples only; examples actually describe broadcast model not interactive model; factually incorrect case references
Conclusion & analytical edge20%3Nuanced judgment: acknowledges Interactive Service Model's transformative potential while noting implementation gaps (digital divide, elite capture, bureaucratic resistance); suggests concrete improvements (offline-online integration, mandatory response timelines, participatory budgeting integration); ends with forward-looking governance visionBalanced but somewhat generic conclusion; mentions challenges but offers weak or standard recommendations; lacks distinctive analytical insightNo conclusion or abrupt ending; purely descriptive summary; uncritical celebration or blanket dismissal of the model; no recommendations or way forward

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 General Studies 2024 GS Paper II