Public Administration 2024 Paper II 50 marks Discuss

Q2

(a) The National Data and Analysis Platform (NDAP) of NITI Aayog facilitates a robust ecosystem to promote democratisation and inclusivity in development. Discuss. (20 marks) (b) Examine the impact on administration in view of changing relations between political and permanent executive. (20 marks) (c) Decentralised planning enhances economic development and social justice. Analyse. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) नीति आयोग के राष्ट्रीय डाटा एवं विश्लेषण प्लेटफार्म (एन डी ए पी) विकास में प्रजातंत्रीकरण एवं समावेशिता को प्रोत्साहित करने के लिये मजबूत पारिस्थितिकी तंत्र को स्थापित करता है। विवेचना कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) प्रशासन पर राजनीतिक और स्थायी कार्यपालिका के मध्य बदलते संबंधों के प्रभाव का परीक्षण कीजिए। (20 अंक) (c) विकेंद्रीकृत नियोजन से आर्थिक विकास और सामाजिक न्याय में वृद्धि होती है। विश्लेषण कीजिए। (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 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' for part (a) requires balanced exploration with arguments; parts (b) and (c) use 'examine' and 'analyse' respectively, demanding critical evaluation. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks and technical nature, 35% to part (b) for its analytical depth on executive relations, and 25% to part (c) for the 10-mark analysis on decentralised planning. Structure with a brief composite introduction, three distinct sections with sub-headings, and an integrated conclusion linking data-driven governance, executive harmony, and grassroots planning to holistic development.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): NDAP's architecture—API-based platform, interoperability with MOSPI, real-time data access; democratisation through open data for researchers/CSOs, inclusivity via disaggregated data (gender, geography, social groups); limitations like digital divide and data quality concerns
  • Part (b): Evolution from British-era 'amoral' neutrality to post-RTI/post-2014 assertive bureaucracy; impact on policy formulation speed, implementation continuity, and civil service morale; tension between political mandate and administrative advice
  • Part (b): Specific manifestations—coalition compulsions, lateral entry debates, premature transfers, politicisation of postings; institutional safeguards like fixed tenure (DOPT rules), Civil Services Board, and their erosion
  • Part (c): Constitutional basis—73rd/74th Amendments, Article 243G; economic development through participatory resource allocation (MGNREGA, GPDP); social justice via SC/ST/OBC reservation in PRIs, women empowerment (50% reservation)
  • Part (c): Challenges—fiscal decentralisation gaps (14th/15th Finance Commission), capacity deficits, state-level variations (Kerala vs. Bihar models); convergence with SDG localization and SVAMITVA scheme for spatial planning
  • Cross-cutting: Integration of NDAP data for decentralised planning (SDG dashboards); political-bureaucratic interface affecting data integrity and evidence-based policy at local level

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10For (a), accurately defines NDAP's technical features (API-first, NITI Aayog hosting, 15+ ministries integrated) and distinguishes democratisation (access) from inclusivity (representation); for (b), precisely distinguishes political executive (ministers) from permanent executive (civil services) with correct constitutional positions; for (c), correctly identifies decentralised planning as distinct from deconcentration, citing constitutional provisions accuratelyBasic definitions of NDAP as 'data platform' without technical specifics; conflates political-permanent executive with legislature-executive; describes decentralised planning vaguely as 'local development' without constitutional groundingMisidentifies NDAP as census operation or NSSO function; confuses permanent executive with judiciary or legislature; equates decentralised planning with privatisation or NGO-led development
Theoretical anchor20%10For (a), cites open government data theory (Janssen et al.) and digital public goods framework; for (b), applies Riggs' prismatic model or Wilson's politics-administration dichotomy with its post-1947 critiques (Appleby, Riggs); for (c), uses theory of participatory governance (Arnstein's ladder) or fiscal federalism (Oates' decentralisation theorem)Mentions 'transparency' or 'accountability' without theoretical lineage; vague reference to 'good governance'; describes participation without theoretical frameworkNo theoretical references; relies entirely on newspaper-level commentary; misapplies unrelated theories (e.g., Marxism for NDAP)
Indian administrative examples20%10For (a), cites specific NDAP datasets (Health Index, SDG India Index, Aspirational Districts data) and user cases (ISRO, academia, startups); for (b), references specific episodes (2018-19 CBI crisis, coal secretary's stand on coal block allocations, demonetisation implementation); for (c), contrasts Kerala's People's Plan Campaign (1996-97) with Madhya Pradesh's district planning, or cites successful GPDP integration in aspirational districtsGeneric mention of 'NITI Aayog reports' without specificity; general reference to 'bureaucratic resistance' without cases; mentions 'Panchayati Raj' without state-specific illustrationsNo Indian examples; uses foreign cases exclusively (e.g., US federalism for part b); factually incorrect examples (e.g., attributing NDAP to Planning Commission)
Reform / policy angle20%10For (a), evaluates NDAP against Data Governance Quality Index and suggests integration with National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP); for (b), assesses recent reforms (lateral entry, mission Karmayogi, fixed tenure amendments) and their impact on executive relations; for (c), analyses 15th Finance Commission recommendations on local body grants, SVAMITVA, and PM-SVANidhi as planning toolsLists reforms without evaluation; describes NDAP features without policy critique; mentions 73rd Amendment without contemporary relevanceNo reform discussion; purely descriptive; suggests irrelevant or outdated reforms (e.g., reinstating Planning Commission for part a)
Conclusion & forward look20%10Synthesises all three parts: NDAP-enabled evidence-based planning requires harmonious political-permanent executive relations for effective decentralisation; proposes integrated framework—data-driven district planning with protected bureaucratic tenure and political accountability; addresses emerging challenges (AI in governance, climate-adaptive local planning)Separate conclusions for each part without integration; generic 'need for cooperation' ending; no forward-looking elementNo conclusion; abrupt ending; or conclusion contradicting body (e.g., praising centralisation after arguing for decentralisation)

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 II