(a) Critically examine the impact of Globalisation on the developing countries of the world. 20 (b) What do you mean by…

(a) Critically examine the impact of Globalisation on the developing countries of the world. 20 (b) What do you mean by offensive and defensive realism ? 15 (c) Discuss the various constraints on American hegemony today. Which of these are likely to become more prominent in the future ? 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) विश्व के विकासशील देशों पर वैश्वीकरण के प्रभाव का आलोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए । 20 (b) आक्रामक और रक्षात्मक यथार्थवाद से आपका क्या तात्पर्य है ? 15 (c) वर्तमान के अमेरिकी आधिपत्य पर विभिन्न बाधाओं की चर्चा कीजिए । इनमें से किनकी भविष्य में अधिक प्रमुख होने की संभावना है ? 15

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 Political Science & IR questions

Directive word: Critically examine

This question asks you to critically 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 'critically examine' for part (a) requires balanced evaluation with both positive and negative dimensions, while parts (b) and (c) demand definitional clarity and forward-looking analysis respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief composite introduction, three distinct sections for each sub-part with internal balance, and a synthesizing conclusion that connects globalization's uneven effects to realism's explanatory power and hegemonic constraints.

Key points expected

Part (a): Economic globalization's dual impact—FDI inflows and technology transfer versus deindustrialization and agricultural distress in developing countries
Part (a): Cultural and political dimensions—homogenization vs. hybridization, erosion of state sovereignty vs. new spaces for civil society mobilization
Part (b): Offensive realism (Mearsheimer): power maximization, hegemonic ambition, regional expansion; Defensive realism (Waltz/Glaser): security maximization, balancing behavior, structural constraints on expansion
Part (b): Theoretical distinctions in assumptions about anarchy, uncertainty, and the offense-defense balance; empirical applications to great power behavior
Part (c): Contemporary constraints—multipolar trends (China/Russia), alliance burden-sharing crises, domestic polarization, and legitimacy deficits in international institutions
Part (c): Future prominence assessment—relative decline of economic dominance vs. persistent military-technological superiority; India's role as swing state

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	10	Demonstrates precise grasp of 'critically examine' for (a) by weighing contradictory evidence rather than listing pros/cons; for (b) distinguishes offensive/defensive realism through causal mechanisms not just definitions; for (c) addresses both temporal dimensions (today/future) with explicit prioritization logic	Addresses all three parts but treats (a) descriptively without genuine critical tension; (b) provides textbook definitions without theoretical differentiation; (c) lists constraints without temporal analysis or comparative weighting	Misidentifies directives—treats (a) as 'discuss', (b) as 'define', or (c) as 'list'; misses the 'which are likely to become more prominent' requirement entirely; conflates offensive and defensive realism
Content depth & accuracy	20%	10	For (a): cites specific mechanisms (race-to-bottom, premature deindustrialization, global value chains); for (b): accurately attributes theoretical innovations to Mearsheimer, Waltz, and Glaser with correct empirical predictions; for (c): identifies structural vs. contingent constraints with IR theory grounding	Covers all parts with acceptable accuracy but lacks theoretical specificity—generic references to 'globalization benefits' or 'realism about power'; constraints on US hegemony described without systemic context	Factual errors—confuses offensive realism with classical realism, misidentifies defensive realism as neoliberal institutionalism; anachronistic or incorrect examples; conflates hegemony with empire
Structure & flow	20%	10	Clear tripartite organization with proportional weighting (a:b:c ≈ 2:1.5:1.5); effective signposting between parts showing thematic connections (e.g., how globalization enables China's rise affecting US hegemonic constraints); smooth transitions that build cumulative argument	Three separate sections present but unevenly developed; minimal cross-referencing between parts; functional but mechanical organization without integrative framing	Disproportionate allocation—over-emphasis on (b) or (c) at expense of high-mark (a); parts appear as disconnected mini-essays; missing or confusing transitions; no conclusion or abrupt ending
Examples / case-law / data	20%	10	For (a): India-specific evidence (SEZ experiences, agrarian distress post-1991, IT sector dualism); comparative developing country cases (Bangladesh garment industry, African commodity dependence); for (c): concrete instances (Afghanistan withdrawal, AUKUS formation, dollar weaponization) with temporal specificity	Some relevant examples present but underdeveloped—generic 'India' references without sectoral specificity; for (b) no empirical illustrations; for (c) dated examples (Iraq 2003) without contemporary updating	Absent or irrelevant examples; invented data or theories; exclusively Western case studies ignoring question's developing country focus; no contemporary instances for (c)
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	10	Synthesizes three parts into coherent argument about structural transformation of international order—how globalization's uneven development feeds realist competition and hegemonic transition; offers normative or predictive insight on India's strategic positioning; demonstrates independent judgment on which constraints are structural vs. cyclical	Summarizes main points without genuine synthesis; predictable conclusion about 'complexity' or 'need for cooperation'; no explicit return to theoretical frameworks introduced	Absent conclusion or mere restatement of question; contradictory final position; introduces entirely new arguments in conclusion; no engagement with the 'which are likely to become more prominent' evaluative requirement

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 →