Public Administration 2022 Paper I 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Elaborate

Q1

Answer the following in about 150 words each : 10×5=50 (a) Public Management takes 'what' and 'why' from Public Administration and 'how' from Business Management. Elaborate. 10 (b) Every human organisation shall start from System-I and ultimately end up with System-IV. Comment on Likert's statement. 10 (c) All tribunals are courts, but all courts are not tribunals. Explain. 10 (d) Classical Organisation Theory formed the bedrock for the modern organisation theories. Analyse. 10 (e) Interaction between the State and Civil society has hitherto been largely neglected, especially in developing countries. Examine. 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित में से प्रत्येक का लगभग 150 शब्दों में उत्तर दीजिए : 10×5=50 (a) लोक प्रबन्ध लोक प्रशासन से 'क्या' और 'क्यों' तथा व्यवसाय प्रबन्ध से 'कैसे' लेता है । विस्तार से समझाइए । 10 (b) प्रत्येक मानवीय संगठन व्यवस्था-I से प्रारम्भ होकर अन्ततः व्यवस्था-IV पर समाप्त होता है । लिकर्ट के कथन पर टिप्पणी कीजिए । 10 (c) सभी न्यायाधिकरण न्यायालय होते हैं, किन्तु सभी न्यायालय न्यायाधिकरण नहीं होते । व्याख्या कीजिए । 10 (d) शास्त्रीय संगठन सिद्धान्त आधुनिक संगठन सिद्धान्तों के लिए आधार सृजित करता है । विश्लेषण कीजिए । 10 (e) विशेषकर विकासशील देशों में, राज्य तथा नागरिक समाज के बीच अन्तःक्रिया अब तक विस्तृत रूप से उपेक्षित रही है । परीक्षण कीजिए । 10

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 Public Administration questions

Directive word: Elaborate

This question asks you to elaborate. 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 question demands elaboration across five distinct sub-parts, each carrying 10 marks with ~150 words each. Allocate roughly equal time and word budget (~3 minutes and 150 words per part). Structure each part with: brief definition/theory → core argument → Indian example → concluding link. For (a), contrast Public Administration's ends with Business Management's means; for (b), trace Likert's Systems 1-4 progression with organizational evolution; for (c), distinguish tribunals from courts via constitutionality and function; for (d), show Classical Theory's foundational influence on subsequent theories; for (e), examine state-civil society gaps in developing nations like India.

Key points expected

  • (a) Public Management synthesis: 'what/why' (public interest, accountability, equity from PA) versus 'how' (efficiency, performance metrics, customer orientation from BM); reference Hood's New Public Management
  • (b) Likert's Systems Theory: System-I (exploitative authoritative) to System-IV (participative group) as organizational evolution; applicability to Indian public sector transformation
  • (c) Tribunal-court distinction: tribunals as statutory/quasi-judicial with technical expertise versus constitutional courts; Article 323-A/B, CAT, NGT examples
  • (d) Classical Theory's legacy: Weber's bureaucracy, Fayol's principles, Taylor's scientific management as foundations for Human Relations, Systems, Contingency theories
  • (e) State-civil society neglect: weak institutional interfaces, consultative deficits, recent corrective mechanisms (NGO partnerships, RTI, social audits)
  • Cross-cutting: New Public Management reforms in India (Performance Monitoring and Evaluation System), participatory governance models

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely defines all five concepts: Public Management's dual inheritance (a), Likert's four systems with correct characteristics (b), tribunal-court jurisdictional differences (c), Classical Theory components (d), and state-civil society interface mechanisms (e); no conflation between systems or theoriesDefines most concepts correctly but blurs boundaries—e.g., conflates tribunals with courts, or mischaracterizes Likert's systems; minor errors in distinguishing PA from PMFundamental misconceptions: treats Public Management as identical to Business Management, reverses Likert's system progression, or claims all courts are tribunals
Theoretical anchor20%10Cites Hood (NPM), Mehr (PA-BM synthesis) for (a); Likert's 1961 'New Patterns of Management' for (b); Wade on administrative law for (c); Urwick, Gulick on Classical Theory's influence for (d); Gramsci/Putnam on civil society for (e); shows theoretical lineage explicitlyMentions some theorists correctly but lacks specificity—e.g., references 'management gurus' without naming, or cites Likert without system detailsNo theoretical anchoring; relies on generic statements or misattributes theories (e.g., attributing Systems Theory to Likert's contemporary)
Indian administrative examples20%10Specific Indian illustrations: PMES, Sevottam for (a); BSNL/MTNL transformation or participatory panchayats for (b); CAT, NGT, TDSAT for (c); Indian Railways' hierarchical structure for (d); MKSS, NCPRI, or National Advisory Council for (e); examples are contemporary and accurateGeneric references like 'government departments' or outdated examples; misses specificity—e.g., mentions 'green tribunals' without naming NGTNo Indian examples, or factually wrong ones (e.g., claiming Supreme Court is a tribunal); purely theoretical treatment
Reform / policy angle20%10Links to current reforms: NPM-inspired initiatives (a), participative management in PSUs (b), tribunal reforms via 74th Law Commission (c), e-governance modernizing classical structures (d), JAM trinity and civil society partnerships (e); shows reform trajectoryMentions reforms superficially without specificity—e.g., 'RTI helps' without explaining mechanism; reform angle present but underdevelopedNo reform or policy dimension; treats all theories as static, ignores contemporary administrative changes
Conclusion & forward look20%10Each sub-part ends with balanced synthesis: (a) PM's contextual limits; (b) System-IV as ideal, not inevitable; (c) tribunalization trends; (d) Classical Theory's enduring relevance; (e) need for institutionalized engagement; forward-looking without being speculativeConclusions present but repetitive or descriptive; merely summarizes points without synthesis; weak forward lookNo conclusion per sub-part, or abrupt endings; missing synthesis across the five parts where possible

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 2022 Paper I