Public Administration 2024 Paper I 50 marks Discuss

Q6

(a) A trend to adopt innovative practices in administrative ethics is gaining ground for improving public trust in government. Discuss. (20 marks) (b) The future of e-governance is shaped by emerging trends for making government services efficient and accessible. Analyse. (15 marks) (c) Undoubtedly, social and historical factors play a significant role in shaping administrative system, but side by side, understanding of these influences is essential for designing responsive governance structure. Examine. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) सरकार में जनता के विश्वास को बेहतर बनाने के लिए प्रशासनिक नैतिकता में नवोन्मेषी प्रथाओं को अपनाने की प्रवृत्ति जोर पकड़ रही है। विवेचना कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) ई-गवर्नेंस का भविष्य सरकारी सेवाओं को कुशल और सुलभ बनाने के लिए उभरते रुझानों से आकार लेता है। विश्लेषण कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) निस्संदेह, प्रशासनिक व्यवस्था को आकार देने में सामाजिक और ऐतिहासिक कारक महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका निभाते हैं, लेकिन साथ ही संवेदनशील शासन संरचना की रचना करने के लिए इन प्रभावों की समझ भी अनिवार्य है। परीक्षण कीजिए। (15 अंक)

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 primary directive is 'discuss' for part (a), while parts (b) and (c) require 'analyse' and 'examine' respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief composite introduction, three distinct sections addressing each sub-part with clear sub-headings, and a unified conclusion that synthesizes how ethics, technology, and contextual understanding together build responsive governance.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Innovative practices in administrative ethics—citizen charters, RTI, social audit, integrity pacts, ethical hacking for transparency, and behavioural ethics nudges; linkage to public trust deficit and trust-building mechanisms
  • Part (a): Distinction between compliance-based and integrity-based ethics approaches; role of institutional mechanisms like Lokpal, CVC, and civil society watchdogs
  • Part (b): Emerging trends in e-governance—AI/ML integration, blockchain for land records, mobile-first governance, API-based interoperability, and data analytics for predictive service delivery
  • Part (b): Challenges of digital divide, cybersecurity threats, data privacy concerns (DPDP Act 2023), and need for digital public infrastructure (DPI) like India Stack
  • Part (c): Social factors—caste, religion, regionalism, linguistic diversity; historical factors—colonial legacy, ICS inheritance, freedom struggle's impact on bureaucracy
  • Part (c): How understanding these influences enables contextual responsiveness—examples of district administration adapting to tribal areas, minority concentration districts, and local governance innovations

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely defines administrative ethics innovations (e.g., integrity pacts, ethical audits), distinguishes e-governance 1.0/2.0/3.0 phases, and accurately identifies social-historical determinants like colonial structural legacy and caste-based social stratification in administrative behaviourBroadly understands ethics, e-governance and social factors but conflates concepts (e.g., treats all IT use as e-governance) or provides generic definitions without specificity to administrative contextMisidentifies core concepts—confuses administrative ethics with general morality, describes e-governance merely as computerization, or presents social factors as obstacles rather than contextual variables
Theoretical anchor20%10Deploys relevant frameworks: for (a) Frederickson's social equity, Denhardt's new public service; for (b) Fountain's technology enactment theory, Dunleavy's digital era governance; for (c) Riggs' prismatic society model, Weidner's development administration or Subramanian's historical-institutional analysisMentions theories superficially without application—names theorists without linking to question specifics, or uses outdated/modernization frameworks inappropriately for Indian contextNo theoretical grounding; relies entirely on descriptive narrative or misapplies theories (e.g., using Weberian ideal-type uncritically for Indian conditions)
Indian administrative examples20%10Rich specificity: for (a) cites Sevottam model, Bapu Surat Singh's social audits in MGNREGA, CVC's integrity index; for (b) details UMANG, DigiLocker, PMGDISHA, Kerala's e-District; for (c) references colonial district collectorate continuity, IAS cadre management reflecting linguistic states reorganization, or tribal PESA implementation challengesSome Indian examples but limited depth—mentions Digital India or RTI without elaboration, or provides state names without specific scheme/programme identificationGeneric or foreign examples dominate; Indian context absent or tokenistic (e.g., only mentioning 'India is diverse' without administrative implications)
Reform / policy angle20%10Critically evaluates reform trajectories: for (a) assesses 2nd ARC recommendations on ethics, PREM guidelines; for (b) analyses National e-Governance Plan, MeitY's policies, data governance framework; for (c) examines administrative reforms commissions' contextual recommendations, LBSNAA training modules on field sensitivityLists reforms without critical assessment—describes policies as achievements without analysing implementation gaps, or presents recommendations without evaluating their contextual appropriatenessNo reform orientation; purely descriptive of status quo, or proposes unrealistic reforms without institutional feasibility assessment
Conclusion & forward look20%10Synthesizes three sub-parts into coherent vision: ethical governance enabled by appropriate technology adoption, both rooted in contextual understanding of India's social-historical complexity; offers specific forward pathways like ethics-tech integration in service delivery, or predictive governance with human-centred designSummarizes each part separately without integration; generic conclusion on 'good governance needed' without connecting the three dimensions or specific actionable insightsAbrupt ending or mere repetition of introduction; no forward look, or utopian vision without grounding in the analysed constraints and opportunities

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 2024 Paper I