(a) "The Gramscian theory of hegemony provides many valuable insights into the nature of global power." Comment. (20 marks) (b)…

(a) "The Gramscian theory of hegemony provides many valuable insights into the nature of global power." Comment. (20 marks) (b) The return of trade barriers and economic sanctions has diminished the spirit of GATT. In this context, discuss the factors contributing to the decline of WTO in recent times. (15 marks) (c) Do you agree with the view that the EU has thus far proved to be the most successful experiment in the regional integration processes ? Account for its successes and also some of the recent challenges that it is faced with. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) "ग्राम्शी द्वारा प्रतिपादित आधिपत्य सिद्धांत वैश्विक शक्ति की प्रकृति में कई मूल्यवान अंतर्दृष्टि प्रदान करता है।" टिप्पणी कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) व्यापार बाधाओं एवं आर्थिक प्रतिबंधों की वापसी ने GATT की भावना को क्षीण कर दिया है। इस संदर्भ में, वर्तमान समय में WTO की अवनति के लिए योगदान देने वाले कारकों की चर्चा कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) क्या आप इस विचार से सहमत हैं कि ई.यू. क्षेत्रीय समन्वयन प्रक्रिया में अब तक का सबसे सफल प्रयोग प्रमाणित हुआ है ? इसकी सफलताओं तथा हाल ही में उसके सम्मुख आई कुछ चुनौतियों का स्पष्टीकरण 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

The directive 'comment' for part (a) requires a balanced appraisal with both supportive analysis and critical evaluation, while parts (b) and (c) demand 'discuss' and agreement-based 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 as: integrated introduction linking hegemony-multilateralism-regionalism; three distinct body sections with clear sub-headings; and a synthesizing conclusion on the future of global economic governance.

Key points expected

Part (a): Gramsci's concept of cultural/intellectual hegemony vs. realist military-economic dominance; distinction between domination and hegemony; application to US soft power, global media, and neoliberal ideology; critical engagement with limitations (structural determinism, overemphasis on consent)
Part (a): Counter-hegemonic movements and war of position; relevance to multipolarity and rising powers challenging Western narratives; Indian perspective on cultural autonomy vs. globalization
Part (b): GATT's principles of non-discrimination (MFN, national treatment) vs. current protectionism; specific factors: Appellate Body paralysis (US blocking appointments), bilateralism over multilateralism, geopolitical weaponization of trade (US-China, Russia sanctions), developing country dissatisfaction with special treatment
Part (c): EU's achievements: single market, eurozone, Schengen, enlargement success, normative power; comparative success against ASEAN, AU, SAARC, MERCOSUR
Part (c): Recent challenges: Eurozone crisis legacies, Brexit, migration crises, rule of law disputes (Poland, Hungary), pandemic response fragmentation, energy security post-Ukraine, democratic deficit debates

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	10	For (a), executes 'comment' with balanced appreciation and critique of Gramscian hegemony, avoiding mere description; for (b), 'discuss' covers multiple causal factors with interconnections; for (c), presents nuanced 'agree with qualifications' stance rather than binary answer, with explicit evaluative criteria for 'success'	Addresses directives adequately but (a) becomes descriptive summary of Gramsci, (b) lists factors without causal depth, (c) takes clear position without robust comparative justification	Misinterprets directives—(a) as 'explain' without critique, (b) as 'enumerate', (c) as purely descriptive without evaluative stance; or conflates all three parts into undifferentiated narrative
Content depth & accuracy	20%	10	Demonstrates sophisticated grasp: for (a) distinguishes Gramscian from Coxian/Gilpin hegemony; for (b) accurately cites specific WTO crises (AB 2019 suspension, MC12 outcomes); for (c) references EU institutional specifics (co-decision, OLP, subsidiarity) and distinguishes supranational from intergovernmental domains	Covers core concepts adequately but with imprecision—conflates hegemony types, generalizes WTO problems without specifics, describes EU institutions without functional analysis	Major conceptual errors—treats Gramsci as realist, confuses GATT with WTO founding purposes, fundamental misunderstanding of EU institutional architecture; or significant factual inaccuracies on dates, treaties, or current events
Structure & flow	20%	10	Clear tripartite structure with explicit transitions; each part has internal logical progression (thesis-antithesis-synthesis for (a), causal chain for (b), criteria-application-challenges for (c)); effective integrative introduction and conclusion that weave the three themes into coherent argument about evolving global governance	Three distinct sections present and identifiable, but weak transitions between parts; internal organization functional but predictable; introduction and conclusion generic without synthesis	Poorly demarcated parts or merged into confusing narrative; missing introduction/conclusion; illogical internal sequencing (e.g., discussing EU challenges before establishing success criteria); significant repetition across parts
Examples / case-law / data	20%	10	Rich, contemporary illustrations: for (a) cites India's IT soft power or Bollywood as counter-hegemonic cultural production; for (b) references specific disputes (US-Steel Tariffs, India-Sugar, EU-Civil Aircraft), MC12 vaccine waiver, and India's stance at WTO; for (c) cites specific crises (2015 refugee influx, Brexit negotiations, NextGenerationEU recovery fund) with dates/treaty references	Some relevant examples but dated or generic—Cold War cultural hegemony, vague 'trade wars' without specifics, standard EU enlargement dates without crisis illustrations; Indian examples absent or superficial	Minimal or irrelevant examples; relies entirely on textbook generalizations; factual errors in case references; or complete absence of contemporary illustrations despite question's explicit temporal framing ('recent times', 'thus far')
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	10	Synthesizes three parts into coherent thesis: hegemony's evolving forms explain both WTO crisis (consent breakdown) and EU resilience (regional hegemony alternative); offers forward-looking insight on India's role in reforming multilateralism; demonstrates original critical voice on whether regional integration models are transferable	Separate conclusions for each part without integration; restates main points without advancing argument; limited critical voice—primarily summarizes established positions	Missing or extremely brief conclusion; mere summary of what was written; no critical engagement or forward projection; or contradictory conclusions across parts without acknowledgment

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 →