Paper II — Q1
Answer the following in about 150 words each: (a) Discuss the main limitations of the comparative method to the study of…
Answer the following in about 150 words each: (a) Discuss the main limitations of the comparative method to the study of Political Science. (10 marks) (b) What are the main challenges faced by the developing countries in the era of globalisation? (10 marks) (c) Discuss the commonalities between the Marxist and Realist approach to the study of International Politics. (10 marks) (d) Bipolar structure of the world is more stable than the multipolar one. Comment. (10 marks) (e) National Interest is an essentially contested concept. Comment. (10 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
निम्नलिखित में से प्रत्येक का लगभग 150 शब्दों में उत्तर दीजिए। (a) राजनीति विज्ञान के अध्ययन में तुलनात्मक प्रणाली की मुख्य सीमाओं का विवेचन कीजिए। (10 अंक) (b) वैश्वीकरण के दौर में विकासशील राष्ट्रों को किस तरह की मुख्य चुनौतियों का सामना करना पड़ रहा है? (10 अंक) (c) अंतर्राष्ट्रीय राजनीति के अध्ययन में मार्क्सवादी एवं यथार्थवादी दृष्टिकोणों के बीच की समानताओं का विवेचन कीजिए। (10 अंक) (d) विश्व की द्विध्रुवी संरचना बहुध्रुवी की अपेक्षा ज्यादा स्थिर होती है। टिप्पणी करें। (10 अंक) (e) राष्ट्रीय हित एक मूलतः विवादित संकल्पना है। टिप्पणी करें। (10 अंक)
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 question demands critical discussion across five distinct sub-parts, each carrying 10 marks with a 150-word limit. Allocate approximately 30 words/2-3 minutes per sub-part, ensuring balanced coverage. For (a), identify methodological limitations like ethnocentrism and value-bias; for (b), analyse structural inequities in globalisation; for (c), compare Marxist and Realist materialist foundations; for (d), evaluate stability arguments using Cold War evidence; for (e), deconstruct contested definitions of national interest. Structure each part as: brief context → 2-3 analytical points → concise synthesis.
Key points expected
- (a) Limitations of comparative method: ethnocentrism (Western bias), problem of equivalence (comparing apples and oranges), value-neutrality impossibility, over-generalisation risks, and methodological individualism vs holism tension
- (b) Globalisation challenges for developing countries: erosion of sovereignty (IMF conditionalities), digital divide, deindustrialisation, agricultural distress (WTO disputes), brain drain, and asymmetric interdependence
- (c) Marxist-Realist commonalities: materialist conception of power, conflict as inherent, state-centric analysis (though Marx adds class), scepticism of idealism, and emphasis on economic foundations of politics
- (d) Bipolar stability thesis: Waltz's structural realism, mutual deterrence clarity, reduced miscalculation risks; counter-arguments: proxy wars, rigidity, and multipolar flexibility (Mearsheimer)
- (e) National interest as contested: realist (survival) vs liberal (values) vs Marxist (class interest); changing definitions across time (India's shift from non-alignment to multi-alignment); subjectivity in identification
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demand-directive understanding | 20% | 10 | Correctly interprets each directive: 'discuss' for (a) and (c) requires balanced argumentation; 'what' for (b) demands analytical listing; 'comment' for (d) and (e) needs evaluative stance with thesis-antithesis-synthesis; no part is merely descriptive | Partially grasps directive differences; treats 'discuss' and 'comment' similarly without distinct evaluative depth for latter; some parts drift into pure description | Misreads directives uniformly; writes descriptive notes for all parts; confuses 'comment' with 'describe'; fails to provide analytical or evaluative content anywhere |
| Content depth & accuracy | 20% | 10 | Demonstrates command across all five domains: names scholars appropriately (Przeworski on comparison, Amin on globalisation, Waltz vs Wallerstein, Gallie on essentially contested concepts); theoretical precision without jargon dumping | Covers most parts with acceptable accuracy; some scholar names missing or misattributed; conflates Marxist and Realist differences while discussing commonalities; vague on bipolarity mechanisms | Major factual errors (e.g., calling comparative method value-free); confuses bipolarity with multipolarity; misidentifies national interest as uncontested; superficial or incorrect theoretical claims |
| Structure & flow | 20% | 10 | Each 150-word segment follows micro-structure: clear opening stance, 2-3 logically connected points, crisp closure; transitions between parts are visually distinct; no paragraph exceeds 3 sentences; maintains parallel weight across (a)-(e) | Generally organised but uneven part lengths; some parts lack internal coherence; one or two segments disproportionately long; weak or absent closures in 2-3 parts | Rambling structure with no part demarcation; single block of text or poorly separated paragraphs; severe imbalance (e.g., 200 words on one part, 50 on another); no discernible argument flow |
| Examples / case-law / data | 20% | 10 | Strategic exemplification: (a) cites Almond's structural-functionalism limitations; (b) references India's 1991 reforms or African debt crises; (d) uses Cold War stability vs WWI multipolar instability; (e) contrasts Nehruvian vs Modi-era national interest definitions | Some relevant examples but inconsistent application; generic references (e.g., 'developing countries' without naming); misses India-specific illustrations where expected; examples not tightly linked to theoretical points | Virtually example-free or uses inappropriate/invented cases; no contemporary or historical references; fails to ground abstract concepts in empirical reality across all five parts |
| Conclusion & analytical edge | 20% | 10 | Each part ends with synthesis or critical insight: (a) suggests comparative method's continued relevance despite limitations; (d) nuances stability claim with post-Cold War evidence; (e) acknowledges contestation as productive for democratic deliberation; demonstrates original evaluation | Most parts have weak or formulaic closures; summaries replace synthesis; limited critical distance from textbook positions; one or two parts end abruptly without conclusion | No conclusions in any part; purely descriptive throughout; no evidence of independent evaluation; regurgitates standard positions without synthesis or critique |
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 Political Science & IR 2022 Paper II
- Q1 Answer the following in about 150 words each: (a) Discuss the main limitations of the com…
- Q2 (a) How has the electoral democracy augmented the participation of people in the democrat…
- Q3 (a) Critically examine the rise of People's Republic of China (PRC) as a great power and…
- Q4 (a) Identify and evaluate the reasons for deadlock in the WTO negotiations on fisheries b…