Public Administration 2021 Paper II 50 marks Evaluate

Q4

(a) As a constitutionally mandated body the Finance Commission stands at the centre of fiscal federalism. Evaluate the role of Finance Commission in ensuring just and equitable resource sharing among the states and the union. (20 marks) (b) Recent market approaches to public services present serious challenges to traditional and state-sponsored public service values. Evaluate the statement in the context of Indian administration. (20 marks) (c) The increasing criminalization of politics is a major threat to the basic fabric of Indian democracy. Comment. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) एक संवैधानिक आदेश प्राप्त निकाय के रूप में वित्त आयोग राजकोषीय संघवाद का केंद्र बन चुका है। संघ और राज्यों के मध्य संसाधनों के न्यायपूर्ण तथा समान सहभाजन को आश्वस्त करने में वित्त आयोग की भूमिका का मूल्यांकन कीजिये। (20 अंक) (b) लोक सेवाओं की वर्तमान बाजार उपागमों ने परम्परागत और राज्य प्रायोजित लोक सेवा मूल्यों को गंभीर चुनौतियाँ प्रस्तुत की हैं। भारतीय प्रशासन के संदर्भ में इस कथन का मूल्यांकन कीजिये। (20 अंक) (c) राजनीति का बढ़ता अपराधीकरण भारतीय लोकतंत्र की आधारभूत बनावट के लिये एक प्रमुख खतरा है। टिप्पणी कीजिये। (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 Public Administration questions

Directive word: Evaluate

This question asks you to evaluate. 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 'evaluate' demands balanced judgment with evidence-based assessment across all three parts. Allocate approximately 40% time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks and constitutional complexity; 35% to part (b) for its analytical depth on market-state tension; and 25% to part (c) for its 10 marks. Structure each part with brief introduction, multi-dimensional analysis, and synthesized conclusion.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Constitutional mandate of Finance Commission under Article 280; evolution from 1st to 15th FC; horizontal and vertical devolution formulas; equity vs efficiency trade-offs; special category status debates; GST compensation mechanism tensions
  • Part (a): Critique of FC's effectiveness—population vs performance criteria, fiscal capacity distance model, cooperative federalism challenges, recent disputes over tax devolution percentages
  • Part (b): New Public Management (NPM) and Public Choice Theory vs. traditional Weberian values; PPP models, privatization, outsourcing in Indian context; efficiency-equity-accountability tensions
  • Part (b): Specific Indian illustrations—discom privatization debates, metro rail PPPs, health insurance schemes, education vouchers; citizen charter dilution concerns; regulatory capture risks
  • Part (c): Quantitative dimensions—ADR/ECI data on criminal candidates, Law Commission 244th report, Supreme Court directions (Verma Committee, Public Interest Foundation case); systemic causes and democratic legitimacy erosion
  • Part (c): Reform trajectory—fast-track courts for MPs, decriminalization of minor offenses, inner-party democracy, state funding of elections, ECI autonomy strengthening

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precise exposition of Article 280 provisions, FC's recommendatory vs binding nature; accurate distinction between NPM and traditional public administration; correct legal framework on criminalization (Section 8 RPA, 2013 disqualification amendment, Lily Thomas judgment)Basic awareness of FC existence and tax sharing; general familiarity with privatization debates; superficial mention of criminal politicians without legal specificsConfusion between Finance Commission and Planning Commission; conflating market approaches with liberalization generally; vague assertions without constitutional/statutory grounding
Theoretical anchor20%10Deploys Musgrave's theory of fiscal federalism, Tiebout model, Oates' decentralization theorem for (a); Hood's NPM framework, Bozeman's public values theory, Frederickson's new public administration for (b); democratic theory (Schumpeter, Dahl) and principal-agent problems for (c)Mentions federalism or decentralization loosely; recognizes efficiency vs equity tension; acknowledges representation crisis without theoretical framingNo theoretical scaffolding; purely descriptive treatment across all parts; misapplied theories
Indian administrative examples20%10Specific FC recommendations (15th FC's 41% devolution, revenue deficit grants, disaster relief criteria); concrete cases like Delhi Metro PPP, NHAI toll concessions, health sector contracting-out; data-driven analysis of criminalization trends (2019, 2024 Lok Sabha statistics)Generic mention of GST or 14th FC; general reference to privatization; awareness of criminal MPs phenomenon without empirical backingNo Indian examples; hypothetical or foreign illustrations only; factually incorrect references
Reform / policy angle20%10Critical assessment of FC's Terms of Reference limitations, demand for permanent status, distinction between FC and GST Council domains; nuanced evaluation of Social Impact Bonds, performance-based contracting with safeguards; comprehensive reform roadmap for decriminalization including ECI-executive-judiciary coordinationStandard reform suggestions without prioritization; one-sided advocacy for or against market approaches; conventional electoral reform laundry listNo reform dimension; purely backward-looking analysis; impractical or constitutionally unviable suggestions
Conclusion & forward look20%10Synthesized conclusion recognizing interconnection—fiscal federalism health affects service delivery quality which influences democratic legitimacy; balanced verdict on market-state balance; realistic yet aspirical vision for institutional regeneration; brief integrative closing statementSeparate conclusions for each part without integration; summary restatement without forward projection; abrupt or missing conclusionNo conclusion; contradictory final positions; purely rhetorical closing without substantive content

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 II