Management 2022 Paper II 50 marks Compulsory Discuss

Q5

(a) Is State participation in business essential? Discuss the objectives of liberalization, privatization and globalization. (10 marks) (b) Take the case of Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL). Assume that HUL emphasizes on sustainability in its products and operations at global level. Are you in agreement that the company is successful because it could effectively embed sustainability into its products and operations? Give your arguments for or against the issue. (10 marks) (c) Critically examine the various initiatives taken by the Government of India in respect of export-import policy. Give examples from India's trade with the Asian countries. (10 marks) (d) Do you think free entry and exit of Multinational Corporations (MNCs) is healthy for the growth of Indian economy? Discuss the business strategies of MNCs in this context. (10 marks) (e) Using a small case study, discuss the contents of a good and workable strategic plan for management and operational control of public sector enterprises in India. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) क्या व्यवसाय में राज्य की सहभागिता अत्यावश्यक है? उदारीकरण, निजीकरण एवं भूमंडलीकरण के उद्देश्यों की विवेचना कीजिए। (10 अंक) (b) हिन्दुस्तान यूनिलिवर लिमिटेड (एच० यू० एल०) का प्रकरण (केस) लीजिए। मान लीजिए कि एच० यू० एल० वैश्विक स्तर पर अपने उत्पादों एवं परिचालनों की धारणीयता (सस्टेनेबिलिटी) पर जोर देती है। क्या आप सहमत हैं कि कम्पनी सफल है क्योंकि वह अपने उत्पादों एवं परिचालनों में धारणीयता को प्रभावी रूप से अन्तःस्थापित कर सकी? इस विषय पर पक्ष अथवा विपक्ष में अपने तर्कों को प्रस्तुत कीजिए। (10 अंक) (c) भारत सरकार द्वारा आयात-निर्यात नीति के संबंध में उठाए गए विभिन्न उपक्रमों का आलोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए। एशिया के देशों के साथ भारत के व्यापार के उदाहरण दीजिए। (10 अंक) (d) क्या आप मानते हैं कि बहुराष्ट्रीय निगमों (एम० एन० सी०) के मुक्त प्रवेश एवं निकास भारतीय अर्थव्यवस्था के विकास के लिए स्वास्थ्यकर है? इस संदर्भ में एम० एन० सी० की व्यावसायिक रणनीतियों की विवेचना कीजिए। (10 अंक) (e) एक लघु प्रकरण-अध्ययन (केस स्टडी) का उपयोग करते हुए भारत में सार्वजनिक क्षेत्र के प्रतिष्ठानों के प्रबंध एवं परिचालन नियंत्रण हेतु एक अच्छी एवं व्यावहारिक रणनीतिक योजना की विषयवस्तु की विवेचना कीजिए। (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 Management questions

Directive word: Discuss

This question asks you to discuss. 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 'discuss' demands a balanced, analytical treatment with arguments for and against. Structure the answer with a brief introduction on India's economic transformation since 1991, then allocate approximately 20% time to each sub-part (a)-(e): (a) presents both sides on state participation before detailing LPG objectives; (b) argues for/against HUL's sustainability-success linkage with evidence; (c) critically evaluates EXIM policy initiatives with Asian trade examples; (d) debates MNC entry-exit with strategy analysis; (e) constructs a mini case study on PSU strategic planning. Conclude with integrated insights on public sector management in a globalized economy.

Key points expected

  • (a) Arguments for and against state participation in business; objectives of LPG (liberalization, privatization, globalization) with reference to 1991 economic reforms and subsequent policy shifts
  • (b) Critical evaluation of whether HUL's sustainability focus (Unilever Sustainable Living Plan, plastic reduction, water conservation) directly drives its market leadership in India; counter-arguments on pricing, competition, and greenwashing risks
  • (c) Critical examination of EXIM policy initiatives: FTP 2015-20, SEZs, EPCG, MEIS/SEIS schemes, with specific examples from India's trade with China, ASEAN, Japan, South Korea (trade deficits, RCEP stance, bilateral agreements)
  • (d) Balanced assessment of MNC free entry-exit: FDI benefits (capital, technology, employment) versus concerns (profit repatriation, domestic competition, regulatory arbitrage); business strategies (adaptation, joint ventures, local sourcing, lobbying)
  • (e) Mini case study of a PSU (e.g., NTPC, ONGC, or BSNL) illustrating strategic plan components: mission/vision, environmental scanning, SWOT, objectives, strategy formulation, implementation, and operational control mechanisms (MOU system, performance contracts)

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precise definitions of LPG, EXIM policy instruments, sustainability frameworks (Triple Bottom Line), MNC entry modes (FDI, FII, joint ventures), and PSU strategic planning concepts (MOU system, Navratna status); accurate distinction between privatization and disinvestment; correct identification of FTP schemesGenerally correct concepts but some confusion between related terms (e.g., liberalization vs. privatization), vague definitions of EXIM schemes, or superficial treatment of sustainability metrics without framework specificityMajor conceptual errors: conflating globalization with liberalization, misidentifying EXIM policy instruments, confusing MNC strategies with domestic firm strategies, or fundamental misunderstanding of PSU autonomy mechanisms
Framework citation20%10Explicit use of appropriate frameworks: Porter's Diamond for MNC competitiveness, PESTEL for environmental scanning in (e), stakeholder theory for sustainability analysis, strategic management process ( Chandler/Ansoff) for PSU planning; references to Rangarajan Committee, Disinvestment Commission reports, or NITI Aayog recommendationsImplicit use of frameworks without naming them, or named frameworks applied mechanically without integration; passing mention of committees without connecting to analysis; generic strategic planning steps without theoretical groundingNo identifiable framework; random listing of points without analytical structure; irrelevant framework application (e.g., using marketing 4Ps for EXIM policy analysis)
Case / Indian example20%10Rich, specific examples: for (b) HUL's specific initiatives (Project Shakti, plastic waste reduction targets, sustainable sourcing from Indian farmers); for (c) India's trade with specific Asian partners (ASEAN FTA, CEPA with Japan/Korea, trade deficit with China, RCEP withdrawal); for (e) detailed PSU case with quantifiable performance indicatorsGeneric examples without specificity (e.g., 'HUL does green marketing' without naming initiatives); broad regional references ('Asian countries') without naming specific nations or agreements; PSU case lacking operational detailNo Indian examples; irrelevant or invented cases; examples from other countries when Indian context is demanded; confused identity of PSUs (e.g., citing private sector firms as PSUs)
Multi-perspective analysis20%10For (a) balanced view on state participation (market failure arguments vs. efficiency critique); for (b) weighs sustainability against profitability, competition, and consumer price sensitivity; for (c) evaluates EXIM policy from exporter, importer, and fiscal perspectives; for (d) presents both pro-FDI and swadeshi viewpoints; for (e) addresses multiple stakeholder interests in PSU governanceOne-sided analysis or superficial balance (brief mention of opposite view without development); perspectives present but not integrated; missing critical dimension for one sub-partCompletely one-sided arguments; no critical examination where demanded (especially parts a, c, d); ideological stance without evidence; ignores directive words like 'critically examine'
Conclusion & recommendation20%10Synthesized conclusion linking all five parts: nuanced position on evolving role of state in economy, calibrated openness to MNCs with safeguards, modernized EXIM policy priorities, sustainability as competitive necessity not sufficient condition, and professionalized PSU governance; specific, actionable recommendations (e.g., independent regulator for PSUs, sunset clauses for EXIM subsidies, mandatory sustainability reporting)Summary-style conclusion restating main points without synthesis; generic recommendations ('government should do more'); no clear position on contested issues in parts a, b, dNo conclusion or abrupt ending; new arguments introduced in conclusion; contradictory positions across sub-parts left unresolved; purely descriptive closing without evaluative stance

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 Management 2022 Paper II