General Studies 2025 GS Paper III 15 marks 250 words Compulsory Explain

Q11

Explain how the Fiscal Health Index (FHI) can be used as a tool for assessing the fiscal performance of states in India. In what way would it encourage the states to adopt prudent and sustainable fiscal policies ? (Answer in 250 words) 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

समझाइए कि किस प्रकार राजकोषीय स्वास्थ्य सूचकांक (एफ एच आई) भारत में राज्यों के राजकोषीय प्रदर्शन के आकलन के उपकरण के रूप में प्रयोग किया जा सकता है। किस प्रकार यह राज्यों को विवेकपूर्ण तथा संपोषणीय राजकोषीय नीतियों को अपनाने के लिए प्रोत्साहित करेगा ? (उत्तर 250 शब्दों में दीजिए)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 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 clarifying the mechanism of FHI as an assessment tool and its causal link to prudent fiscal behaviour. Structure: brief introduction defining FHI → body explaining its parameters and assessment methodology → analysis of incentive mechanisms for fiscal discipline → conclusion on limitations and way forward.

Key points expected

Definition of FHI as a composite index measuring state fiscal health across five parameters: debt, deficit, revenue mobilisation, expenditure quality, and fiscal capacity
Explanation of how FHI enables inter-state comparison and benchmarking through ranking system
Analysis of incentive mechanism: competitive federalism, market discipline through bond yields, and Centre's conditional grants/loans
Specific parameters like debt-to-GSDP ratio, interest payments to revenue receipts, and own tax revenue growth
Reference to NITI Aayog's State Energy & Climate Index or RBI's State Finances Report as analogous frameworks
Critical view on limitations: data lag, uniform weightage ignoring state-specific contexts, and need for complementary institutional reforms

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	3	Clearly distinguishes between FHI as an 'assessment tool' (diagnostic function) and its 'incentive mechanism' (behavioural change), addressing both parts of the question with appropriate weightage	Addresses both parts but conflates assessment and incentive functions or gives disproportionate space to one aspect	Misinterprets FHI as merely a ranking exercise or fails to address how it encourages prudent policies; treats it as FRBM compliance tool
Content depth & accuracy	20%	3	Accurately identifies all five FHI parameters (debt, deficit, revenue, expenditure, capacity) with correct formulae; explains composite scoring methodology and its link to market borrowing costs	Mentions 3-4 parameters with general descriptions; vague on scoring mechanism or conflates FHI with FRBM targets	Incorrect parameters (e.g., confusing with HDI components) or factually wrong about implementing agency; states FHI is legally binding
Structure & flow	20%	3	Logical progression: definition → parameters → assessment mechanism → incentive channels → critical conclusion; smooth transitions between tool function and policy impact	Adequate structure but abrupt shifts between assessment and incentives; some repetition or imbalance in section lengths	Disorganised with mixed ideas; no clear separation between what FHI measures and how it influences behaviour; abrupt ending
Examples / case-law / data	20%	3	Cites specific state examples (e.g., Odisha's improvement in own tax revenue, Punjab's debt concerns) or references RBI State Finances Report 2023-24 data; mentions 15th Finance Commission's use of similar metrics	Generic reference to 'high debt states' or 'performing states' without naming; mentions NITI Aayog without specific index context	No Indian examples; irrelevant international comparisons (e.g., US state credit ratings) without adaptation to Indian federal context
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	3	Balanced conclusion acknowledging FHI's utility for transparency while noting limitations (cyclical sensitivity, political economy of deficits); suggests complementary reforms like independent fiscal councils	Standard conclusion on FHI's importance for cooperative federalism without critical nuance; no forward-looking suggestion	Purely descriptive ending or exaggerated claim that FHI alone ensures fiscal discipline; no recognition of implementation challenges

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 →