Public Administration 2022 Paper II 50 marks Examine

Q3

(a) "The New Economic Reforms during the past three decades have not only reduced the scope of industrial licensing and areas reserved exclusively for Public Sector but also infringed the autonomy of existing public sector undertakings". Examine. 20 (b) "National Institution for Transforming India (NITI) Ayog has become super cabinet in formulating the development agenda of our country". Examine the statement by giving suitable examples. 20 (c) Despite the constitutional status, the District planning committees remained a non-entity in preparation and implementation of plans. Discuss. 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) "विगत तीन दशकों के दौरान हुए नवीन आर्थिक सुधारों ने न केवल औद्योगिक लाइसेंस (अनुज्ञापन) के क्षेत्र और सार्वजनिक क्षेत्र के लिये अन्य आरक्षित क्षेत्र को घटाया है बल्कि विद्यमान सार्वजनिक उपक्रमों की स्वायत्तता को भी अतिक्रमित किया है।" परीक्षण कीजिए। 20 (b) "राष्ट्रीय भारत परिवर्तन संस्थान (नीति) आयोग हमारे देश की विकास कार्यसूची तैयार करने में 'सुपर केबिनेट' बन चुका है।" उपयुक्त उदाहरणों सहित इस कथन का परीक्षण कीजिए। 20 (c) संवैधानिक स्थिति के बावजूद जिला नियोजन समितियाँ योजनाओं को तैयार करने और उन्हें क्रियान्वित करने में अस्तित्वहीन बनी रही हैं। विवेचन कीजिए। 10

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

Directive word: Examine

This question asks you to 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 'examine' requires critical investigation of all three propositions with balanced evidence. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, 35% to part (b) for its 20 marks, and 25% to part (c) for 10 marks. Structure: brief integrated introduction → systematic treatment of each sub-part with distinct paragraphs → synthesized conclusion addressing the trajectory from centralized planning to decentralized cooperative federalism.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Analysis of LPG reforms (1991 onwards) showing reduction in industrial licensing via abolition of MRTP Act, de-reservation of PSUs through successive disinvestment policies, and erosion of PSU autonomy via Navratna/Maharatna categorization, MoU framework and strategic disinvestment
  • Part (a): Critical evaluation of whether reduced autonomy enhanced efficiency (competitive neutrality) or weakened public purpose (strategic sectors like defence, railways)
  • Part (b): Assessment of NITI Aayog's 'super cabinet' characteristics—replacement of Planning Commission's top-down allocation with bottom-up SDG localization, Governing Council as platform for Chief Ministers, and dominance in policy formulation (Aspirational Districts Programme, Atal Innovation Mission)
  • Part (b): Counter-arguments on NITI Aayog's limitations—lack of constitutional/statutory backing unlike Planning Commission, absence of resource allocation power, dependence on PMO for enforcement
  • Part (c): Constitutional mandate of DPCs under Article 243ZD, 74th CAA, contrast with actual functioning—lack of elected representation, bureaucratic capture, absence of technical expertise, failure to integrate Panchayat and Municipal plans
  • Part (c): Reasons for DPC failure—state government reluctance, absence of mandatory funding, weak capacity building, and recent corrective attempts (SVAMITVA, People's Plan Campaign)

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precise understanding of LPG reform instruments (industrial policy resolutions, disinvestment stages), NITI Aayog's seven pillars and Governing Council structure, and DPC constitutional provisions (74th CAA, Article 243ZD) with accurate chronology and terminologyBasic familiarity with reforms and NITI Aayog but conflates Planning Commission functions with NITI Aayog, or misstates DPC constitutional statusConfuses industrial licensing with foreign investment, treats NITI Aayog as renamed Planning Commission with same powers, or ignores constitutional basis of DPCs entirely
Theoretical anchor20%10Applies relevant frameworks: for (a) public choice theory, new public management; for (b) cooperative federalism, network governance; for (c) decentralized planning theory, subsidiarity principle—demonstrating analytical depthMentions federalism or decentralization in generic terms without linking to specific theoretical constructs or their application to the three casesNo theoretical framework; purely descriptive narrative of events and institutions without conceptual scaffolding
Indian administrative examples20%10Specific illustrations: for (a) BHEL/ONGC autonomy changes, strategic disinvestment of Air India, BPCL; for (b) Aspirational Districts Programme (Champaran, Balrampur), SDG India Index, National Data Analytics Platform; for (c) Kerala's People's Plan Campaign, West Bengal's DPC functional status contrasted with Uttar Pradesh's paper existenceGeneral references to 'some PSUs' or 'certain states' without naming specific enterprises, districts, or comparative state experiencesNo concrete Indian examples; relies entirely on abstract statements or inappropriate international comparisons
Reform / policy angle20%10Critical policy analysis: for (a) evaluates efficiency vs. equity trade-offs in PSU reform; for (b) assesses NITI Aayog's shift from resource allocator to knowledge partner—strengths and gaps; for (c) connects DPC failure to larger decentralization deficit and suggests SVAMITVA, capacity building reformsDescribes policies without critical evaluation; accepts stated objectives at face value without examining implementation gaps or unintended consequencesMerely lists reforms chronologically; no analysis of policy continuity, change, or effectiveness across the three domains
Conclusion & forward look20%10Synthesizes three parts into coherent narrative on evolving state-market-federalism balance; proposes specific forward measures (PSU professionalism with autonomy safeguards, NITI Aayog statutory backing, DPC empowerment through 6th Schedule-like provisions); demonstrates administrative reform visionSeparate conclusions for each part without integration; generic recommendations lacking specificity to the three institutional domainsNo conclusion or abrupt ending; or purely repetitive summary without forward-looking perspective or synthesis across economic reform, federal institution, and local planning themes

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 II