Public Administration 2022 Paper I 50 marks Discuss

Q7

(a) The results of Washington Consensus were far from optimal for transitional economies. In this background, discuss the change of direction towards post-Washington Consensus. 20 (b) A sound budgeting system is one which engenders trust among citizens that the government is listening to their concerns. Elaborate this in the context of budgetary governance. 15 (c) Performance problems are rarely caused simply by lack of training and rarely can performance be improved by training alone. Critically analyse the statement. 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) वाशिंगटन आम सहमति के परिणाम संक्रमणकालीन अर्थव्यवस्थाओं के लिए इष्टतम से दूर थे। इस पृष्ठभूमि में, उत्तर-वाशिंगटन आम सहमति की ओर दिशा में परिवर्तन का विवेचन कीजिए। 20 (b) एक सुदृढ़ बजटीय व्यवस्था वह है जो नागरिकों में विश्वास पैदा करती है, कि सरकार उनके सरोकारों को सुनती है। बजटीय शासन के संदर्भ में इसका विस्तार कीजिए। 15 (c) निष्पादन समस्याएँ बिरले ही केवल प्रशिक्षण की कमी के कारण होती हैं और शायद ही कभी केवल प्रशिक्षण से निष्पादन में सुधार किया जा सकता है। कथन का आलोचनात्मक विश्लेषण कीजिए। 15

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

Directive word: Discuss

This question asks you to discuss. 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 'discuss' in part (a) requires a balanced examination of both Washington Consensus failures and post-Washington Consensus evolution, while parts (b) and (c) with 'elaborate' and 'critically analyse' demand depth in budgetary trust mechanisms and training limitations respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief contextual introduction for each part, analytical body addressing the specific directive, and a synthesizing conclusion that connects to contemporary governance challenges.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Washington Consensus tenets (stabilization, liberalization, privatization) and their suboptimal outcomes in transitional economies (Russia, Eastern Europe, Latin America) leading to inequality and vulnerability
  • Part (a): Post-Washington Consensus shift—Joseph Stiglitz's critique, emphasis on institutions, governance, social capital, and inclusive growth; contrast with original WC's market fundamentalism
  • Part (b): Budgetary governance as trust-building—transparency, participative budgeting, accountability mechanisms; OECD principles of budgetary governance and their citizen-centric dimensions
  • Part (b): Indian examples—Outcome Budget, Performance Budget, Citizens' Charter, RTI's role in budget transparency, and recent initiatives like Budget App/union budget as reform tools
  • Part (c): Performance management beyond training—systems theory, organizational culture, motivation theories (Herzberg, McGregor), job design, and systemic barriers to performance
  • Part (c): Holistic performance improvement strategies—re-engineering processes, addressing resource constraints, leadership quality, and creating enabling environments alongside capability building

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely defines Washington Consensus (Williamson's ten prescriptions), distinguishes it from post-Washington Consensus (institutional economics, human development focus); accurately explains budgetary governance pillars (transparency, participation, accountability); correctly identifies performance as multi-factorial requiring systemic intervention beyond individual trainingBasic understanding of WC as market reforms and post-WC as corrective; generic mention of budget transparency; simplistic view that training has limited role without explaining whyConfuses Washington Consensus with Bretton Woods institutions generally; conflates budgetary governance with mere accounting; treats statement in (c) superficially without conceptual grounding
Theoretical anchor20%10Cites Stiglitz (Whither Socialism?, Globalization and Its Discontents), Dani Rodrik (institutional diversity), Amartya Sen (development as freedom); for (b) references Allen-Schick budgetary governance framework; for (c) applies systems theory (Katz-Kahn), organizational behavior theories (McGregor's Theory X/Y, Herzberg's two-factor), and performance management models (OPM, 360-degree)Mentions Stiglitz critique vaguely; general reference to OECD budget principles; cites one motivation theory without application to performance contextNo theoretical framework; relies on commonsense assertions; confuses theories or cites irrelevant thinkers
Indian administrative examples20%10For (a): India's 1991 reforms as selective WC adoption with post-WC modifications (social safety nets, gradualism); for (b): Outcome Budget 2005-06, Performance Budget, MTEF, participative budgeting in Kerala/Pune, RTI's budget disclosure impact, recent 'Budget for New India' citizen engagement; for (c): Training limitations seen in civil service performance—Mission Karmayogi as systemic reform beyond traditional trainingGeneric mention of 1991 reforms; basic reference to Indian budget process; mentions training institutes (Sardar Patel, Lal Bahadur Shastri) without critical analysisNo Indian examples; or irrelevant examples (pre-independence era for contemporary governance); factual errors about budget institutions
Reform / policy angle20%10For (a): Analyses how post-WC informed UN Millennium Development Goals, Sustainable Development Goals, and India's inclusive growth policies; for (b): Evaluates FRBM Act, fiscal transparency initiatives, and challenges in sub-national budget governance; for (c): Proposes comprehensive performance reforms—process re-engineering, Results Framework Document, SPARROW, and addressing structural constraints alongside capability buildingLists reforms without analytical linkage to theoretical shifts; describes budget reforms chronologically without governance perspective; suggests training expansion as partial solutionNo reform discussion; or purely descriptive without critical evaluation; proposes solutions contradicting the question's premise
Conclusion & forward look20%10Synthesizes across parts: governance quality as bridging Washington Consensus failures, budgetary trust, and performance systems; connects to contemporary challenges (post-COVID fiscal stress, digital governance, capacity-building 2.0 under Mission Karmayogi); offers balanced, forward-looking perspective on evolving development administration paradigmsSummarizes main points separately for each part without integration; generic conclusion about good governance importanceNo conclusion; or abrupt ending; or conclusion contradicting body of answer; purely rhetorical without substantive forward look

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