renders below this block, the homepage copy came first, so every share of every blog post or PYQ page rendered the homepage card with og:url=upscanswercheck.com. Removed 2026-08-09; do not reintroduce. --> %sveltekit.head%
Political Science & IR 2024 Paper II 50 marks Comment

Paper II — Q2

(a) "Deglobalisation is displacing globalisation." Comment. (20 marks) (b) What are the distinctive features of the post-modern…

(a) "Deglobalisation is displacing globalisation." Comment. (20 marks) (b) What are the distinctive features of the post-modern state in the advanced capitalist economies ? Analyse. (15 marks) (c) What were the limitations of NAFTA ? How did its replacement by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement counter them ? Explain. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) "विवैश्वीकरण वैश्वीकरण को विस्थापित कर रहा है।" टिप्पणी कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) उन्नत पूंजीवादी अर्थव्यवस्थाओं में उत्तर-आधुनिक राज्य की प्रमुख विशेषताएं क्या हैं ? विश्लेषण कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) नाफ्टा की क्या खामियां थीं ? संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका-मैक्सिको-कनाडा समझौते द्वारा इसके प्रतिस्थापन ने उनका प्रतिकार कैसे किया ? व्याख्या कीजिए। (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 Political Science & IR questions

Directive word: Comment

This question asks you to comment. 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

Begin with a brief introduction acknowledging the tension between globalisation and deglobalisation forces. For part (a) 'Comment,' provide a balanced assessment of whether deglobalisation is truly displacing globalisation or merely transforming it—allocate ~40% of content (350-400 words) given 20 marks. For part (b) 'Analyse,' examine distinctive features of post-modern states with theoretical depth—~30% (250-300 words). For part (c) 'Explain,' address NAFTA's limitations and USMCA's corrections with specific provisions—~30% (250-300 words). Conclude by synthesising how these three phenomena interconnect in contemporary global political economy.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Distinguishes between deglobalisation as reversal versus transformation; cites evidence (trade protectionism, supply chain regionalisation, data localisation) alongside counter-evidence (digital globalisation, climate governance interdependence); references scholars like Dani Rodrik or Joseph Stiglitz on 'hyperglobalisation' critique
  • Part (a): Evaluates whether current trends (Brexit, US-China decoupling, COVID-19 supply chain shifts) constitute structural displacement or cyclical adjustment; addresses regionalisation as middle path
  • Part (b): Identifies post-modern state features—hollowed sovereignty, networked governance, shift from welfare to competition state (Philip Cerny), privatisation of security, regulatory capitalism, and multi-level governance
  • Part (b): Analyses theoretical foundations drawing on Bob Jessop's 'Schumpeterian workfare state,' Strange's 'retreat of the state,' or Fukuyama's state-building critique; connects to advanced capitalist economies specifically
  • Part (c): Lists NAFTA limitations—labour rights enforcement gaps, environmental standards weaknesses, investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) asymmetries, Mexican agricultural displacement, absence of digital trade provisions
  • Part (c): Explains USMCA corrections—labour enforcement mechanisms (rapid response panels), environmental chapter with binding commitments, ISDS limitation (Canada out, US-Mexico restricted), rules of origin tightening (auto sector), digital trade chapter, sunset clause
  • Part (c): Assesses whether USMCA truly countered limitations or merely repackaged protectionist interests; references specific provisions like Article 32.10 (non-market economy clause)

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%10For (a) 'Comment,' offers nuanced balanced judgment rather than binary conclusion, recognising dialectical relationship; for (b) 'Analyse,' breaks post-modern state into causal mechanisms and interconnections, not mere description; for (c) 'Explain,' establishes clear cause-effect between NAFTA flaws and USMCA remediesAddresses all three directives but treats (a) as opinion piece without scholarly framing; (b) lists features without analytical depth; (c) describes both agreements without clear linkage between problem and solutionMisinterprets directives—treats 'Comment' as 'Describe,' 'Analyse' as 'List,' or 'Explain' as 'Compare'; ignores directive-specific demands entirely or conflates all three into undifferentiated narrative
Content depth & accuracy20%10Demonstrates command of IPE scholarship (Rodrik's 'trilemma,' Strange's structural power, Cerny's competition state); accurate on USMCA provisions (labour annex, automotive rules of origin at 75%); correct on NAFTA Chapter 11 controversies; distinguishes post-modern from post-colonial stateGenerally accurate but oversimplifies—claims deglobalisation is 'complete reversal,' treats post-modern state as merely 'weak state,' or lists USMCA changes without specificity; minor factual errors on dates or provisionsSubstantial inaccuracies—confuses USMCA with TPP, misidentifies post-modern state characteristics as applying to developing states, fundamentally misunderstands deglobalisation as equivalent to autarky; conflates NAFTA with other agreements
Structure & flow20%10Clear tripartite structure with proportional weighting (40:30:30); smooth transitions between parts showing thematic integration (e.g., how post-modern state capacity affects trade agreement preferences); effective signposting; introduction frames all three componentsAll three parts present but unevenly developed—(a) overextended at expense of (b) or (c); or parts treated as disconnected mini-essays without overarching framework; some organisational logic but weak transitionsDisorganised—parts merged indistinguishably or severely imbalanced (e.g., 80% on (a), cursory treatment of others); no introduction or conclusion; random arrangement of points; word allocation ignores mark distribution
Examples / case-law / data20%10For (a): COVID-19 supply chain data, WTO trade statistics showing regionalisation, India's PLI schemes as strategic trade; for (b): UK privatisation, EU regulatory state, US homeland security post-9/11; for (c): specific USMCA provisions (Annex 31-A labour monitoring, Article 14 digital trade), GM vs. Mexico labour dispute caseSome relevant examples but generic—mentions 'Brexit' without specifics, 'privatisation' without cases, or 'labour rights' without USMCA mechanisms; Indian examples absent or forced; data mentioned without sourcesFew or no concrete examples; relies entirely on assertion; examples factually wrong (e.g., claiming USMCA eliminated all ISDS); irrelevant examples (discussing WTO instead of NAFTA/USMCA); no contemporary illustrations
Conclusion & analytical edge20%10Synthesises three parts into coherent argument about transformation of global order—how deglobalisation pressures reshape post-modern state strategies and trade architecture; offers original insight (e.g., USMCA as template for 'managed interdependence'); addresses India's relevance (IPEF, FTAs with developed economies)Brief conclusion summarising main points without synthesis; or strong on one part but ignores others; no original insight; generic closing statement about 'need for cooperation'No conclusion or abrupt ending; conclusion merely restates question; contradicts own argument; completely ignores one or more parts in final assessment; no analytical elevation beyond description

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 2024 Paper II