Public Administration 2021 Paper I 50 marks Critically examine

Q3

(a) Integration of different streams of administrative thought to propound a universal administrative theory is hindered by the impact of culture. Critically examine. (20 marks) (b) Judicial review, prevention of misuse or abuse of administrative power and provision of suitable remedies are the basic principles of administrative law. Justify as how various organs of the State are able to uphold these principles. (15 marks) (c) Regulation is an old but increasingly necessary mode of social coordination and political intervention into societal processes. Examine it in the context of globalization. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) एक सार्वभौमिक प्रशासनिक सिद्धांत को प्रतिपादित करने के लिए प्रशासनिक चिंतन की विभिन्न धाराओं का समाकलन संस्कृति के प्रभाव से बाधित होता है। आलोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) न्यायिक समीक्षा, प्रशासनिक शक्ति के अनुचित उपयोग या उसके दुरुपयोग की रोकथाम तथा उपयुक्त उपचार संबंधित प्रावधान प्रशासनिक विधि के मूल सिद्धांत हैं। राज्य के विभिन्न अंग इन सिद्धांतों को पृथ करने में कैसे सक्षम हैं, सिद्ध कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) विनियमन, सामाजिक प्रक्रियाओं में सामाजिक समन्वय और राजनीतिक हस्तक्षेप की एक पुरानी एवं निरंतर आवश्यक विधि है। वैश्वीकरण के संदर्भ में इसका परीक्षण कीजिए। (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 Public Administration 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) demands balanced analysis with evidence; parts (b) and (c) require 'justify' and 'examine' respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, and 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief integrated introduction, three distinct sections with clear sub-headings, and a synthesizing conclusion linking administrative theory, law, and globalized regulation.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Analysis of why cultural context (Hofstede's dimensions, Riggs' prismatic society) impedes universal administrative theory; counter-arguments on administrative convergence through NPM and digital governance
  • Part (a): Critical evaluation of Dwight Waldo's 'administrative state' versus Ferrel Heady's comparative administration, and contemporary hybrid models like India's mix of Weberian and traditional structures
  • Part (b): Justification through constitutional mechanisms—Article 32/226 for judicial review, Article 311 for service safeguards, and Lokpal/Lokayukta for abuse prevention
  • Part (b): Functional separation: judiciary (PIL, writ jurisdiction), legislature (parliamentary committees, delegated legislation oversight), executive (CVC, RTI) in upholding administrative law principles
  • Part (c): Historical regulation (Licence Raj) versus globalization-era regulatory shift (TRAI, SEBI, competition Commission); regulatory capture risks and independent regulatory agencies
  • Part (c): Global regulatory convergence (Basel norms, WTO SPS/TBT agreements) versus regulatory arbitrage; India's balancing through 'calibrated globalization' in sectors like FDI and data protection

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precise definitions across all parts: for (a) distinguishes etic vs emic approaches; for (b) accurately distinguishes judicial review from administrative appeal and certiorari from prohibition; for (c) distinguishes economic regulation from social regulation and identifies self-regulation vs co-regulationGenerally correct definitions with minor conflations—e.g., treats judicial review broadly without specificity, or confuses regulation with deregulation in globalization contextFundamental errors: confuses judicial review with judicial activism, misidentifies administrative law principles as constitutional law exclusively, or describes globalization as purely deregulatory without regulatory dimension
Theoretical anchor20%10For (a): Riggs' ecological approach, Hofstede, and Ferrel Heady's synthesis; for (b): Dicey's rule of law, Wade and Forsyth on administrative law, and Baxi's critique; for (c): Majone's regulatory state, Stigler's capture theory, and Braithwaite's responsive regulation—integrated without listingMentions 2-3 theorists correctly but superficially or in isolation; e.g., cites Riggs without explaining prismatic model's relevance, or mentions Dicey without contrasting red light/green light theoriesAbsent or incorrect theorists; generic references to 'Western models' without naming; confuses administrative law theorists with constitutional law scholars
Indian administrative examples20%10For (a): Panchayati Raj's cultural embeddedness vs LPG reforms' convergence pressure; for (b): Specific cases—Vineet Narain (CVC), PUCL (telephone tapping), Nagaraj (reservation in promotion); for (c): RBI's transition from controller to regulator, TRAI's independence tensions, and draft Data Protection BoardGeneric references to 'Indian Constitution' or 'recent reforms' without specificity; mentions Lokpal without 2013 Act details, or cites globalization without concrete sectoral regulationNo Indian examples, or inappropriate ones (e.g., citing criminal law cases for administrative law); examples factually wrong (e.g., attributing SEBI to 1991 instead of 1992)
Reform / policy angle20%10For (a): Suggestive synthesis through 'glocalization' of administrative practices; for (b): Recommendations on administrative tribunals' strengthening, pre-legislative consultation, and sunset clauses for delegated legislation; for (c): Regulatory impact assessment, international regulatory cooperation, and addressing democratic deficit in independent regulatorsMentions reforms descriptively without evaluative edge—e.g., lists 2nd ARC recommendations without assessing implementation; or notes globalization's regulatory demands without policy responseNo reform dimension; purely descriptive answer; or suggests reforms incompatible with constitutional framework (e.g., abolishing judicial review for administrative efficiency)
Conclusion & forward look20%10Synthesizes three parts into coherent argument: administrative theory's cultural contingency necessitates robust legal frameworks and adaptive regulation in globalized context; forward look addresses AI governance, regulatory sandboxes, and India's G20 presidency role in shaping global administrative standardsSummarizes each part separately without integration; generic 'need for balance' conclusion without specific contemporary relevanceAbsent conclusion or mere repetition of introduction; no forward look; or conclusion contradicts body of answer

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 Public Administration 2021 Paper I