General Studies 2024 GS Paper III 10 marks 150 words Compulsory Examine

Q1

Examine the pattern and trend of public expenditure on social services in the post-reforms period in India. To what extent this has been in consonance with achieving the objective of inclusive growth? (Answer in 150 words) 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

भारत में सुधारों के उपरांत की अवधि में, सामाजिक सेवाओं पर सार्वजनिक व्यय के स्वरूप एवं प्रवृत्ति का परीक्षण कीजिए। किस सीमा तक यह समावेशी संवृद्धि के उद्देश्य को प्राप्त करने के अनुरूप है? (उत्तर 150 शब्दों में दीजिए)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 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 detailed investigation of the pattern and trend of social sector expenditure post-1991, followed by critical assessment of its linkage with inclusive growth. Structure: brief introduction defining social services and post-reforms period → body analysing trends (education, health, social security) with data → critical evaluation of inclusive growth nexus → conclusion with forward-looking observation.

Key points expected

Post-1991 trend: decline in social sector expenditure as % of GDP in 1990s, partial recovery post-2004, increase post-NFSA 2013 and pandemic
Sectoral pattern: education (3% GDP target vs ~2.9% actual), health (1.15% vs 1.5% target), social security expansion via MGNREGA, PM-KISAN
Inclusive growth linkage: reduced poverty (Tendulkar line), improved HDI, yet persistent regional and social disparities
Critical gap: capital expenditure vs revenue expenditure bias, States' role under FRBM constraints, Central vs State share (Finance Commission recommendations)
Data citation: Economic Survey, RBI State Finances, NITI Aayog SDG India Index
Balanced assessment: achievements (Ayushman Bharat, Samagra Shiksha) vs unfinished agenda (nutrition, quality of spending)

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	2	Correctly interprets 'examine' as requiring both descriptive trend analysis and evaluative judgment; addresses both parts (pattern/trend AND inclusive growth linkage) with proportional weightage	Addresses both parts but treats them sequentially without integration; or overemphasises one part at expense of the other	Misinterprets directive as mere description; ignores inclusive growth evaluation entirely or provides generic unrelated commentary
Content depth & accuracy	20%	2	Accurately identifies pre- and post-2004 trends, distinguishes revenue vs capital expenditure, cites specific schemes (MGNREGA 2005, NFSA 2013, Ayushman Bharat 2018) with correct timelines	Broadly correct trends mentioned but lacks specificity on turning points; conflates social services with economic services; minor chronological errors	Factually incorrect data (e.g., claiming 6% GDP on health); confuses post-reforms with pre-reforms period; includes irrelevant sectors like defence
Structure & flow	20%	2	Logical progression: definition → temporal trend analysis → sectoral breakdown → inclusive growth assessment → synthesis; smooth transitions between descriptive and analytical segments	Coherent but mechanical structure; either too descriptive throughout or abrupt shift to evaluation without data foundation; minor paragraphing issues	Disorganised or fragmented; no clear separation between trend description and evaluation; conclusion missing or repetitive of introduction
Examples / case-law / data	20%	2	Uses precise data: social sector expenditure rising from 5.5% to 7.7% of GDP (2014-2023), education allocation trends, health spending post-COVID; cites Thirteenth Finance Commission or SDG India Index rankings	Mentions approximate figures without sources; generic reference to 'increased spending' without quantification; limited scheme naming without specificity	No data or examples; or entirely incorrect/outdated statistics; examples irrelevant to post-reforms period (e.g., pre-1991 Five Year Plans)
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	2	Nuanced judgment: recognises improved quantity but flags quality/efficiency gaps (leakages, out-of-pocket health expenditure); suggests way forward (outcome budgeting, cooperative federalism); 15th Finance Commission recommendations	Balanced but superficial conclusion ('mixed record'); no specific reform suggestion; restates main points without synthesis	Extreme or unsubstantiated verdict ('complete failure' or 'fully achieved'); no conclusion; or purely aspirational ending without analytical grounding

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 →