Public Administration 2025 Paper I 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Discuss

Q5

Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) E-advocacy model of e-governance can facilitate democratization of public policy making. Discuss. (10 marks) (b) Neo-liberal policies have enhanced the scope and opportunities of taxation for the government. Explain. (10 marks) (c) Policy analysis process is limited if possible outcomes and alternate potential policies are neglected. Discuss. (10 marks) (d) Values and ethics in civil services are shaped by global practices and trends. Explain. (10 marks) (e) Economic development alone is not a sufficient component for women development and empowerment. Discuss. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित प्रत्येक प्रश्न का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में लिखिए : (a) ई-गवर्नेंस का ई-एडवोकैसी प्रतिमान लोक नीति निर्माण के लोकतंत्रीकरण को सुगम बना सकता है । विवेचना कीजिए । (10 अंक) (b) नव-उदारवादी नीतियों ने सरकार के लिए कराधान के विषय-क्षेत्र और अवसरों को बढ़ा दिया है । व्याख्या कीजिए । (10 अंक) (c) यदि संभावित परिणामों और वैकल्पिक संभाव्य नीतियों की उपेक्षा की जाती है तो नीति विश्लेषण प्रक्रिया सीमित हो जाती है । विवेचना कीजिए । (10 अंक) (d) सिविल सेवाओं के मूल्यों एवं नैतिकता को वैश्विक प्रथाएँ और प्रवृत्तियाँ स्वरूपित करती हैं । व्याख्या कीजिए । (10 अंक) (e) महिलाओं के विकास एवं सशक्तिकरण के लिये केवल मात्र आर्थिक विकास ही पर्याप्त घटक नहीं है । विवेचना कीजिए । (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 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 question demands critical discussion across five sub-parts (a-e), each carrying 10 marks with ~150 words limit. Allocate approximately 30 words per sub-part, ensuring balanced coverage: for (a) explain e-advocacy mechanisms like online consultations; for (b) discuss GST, tax buoyancy post-liberalization; for (c) analyze Herbert Simon's bounded rationality; for (d) reference Nolan Committee, UN Code of Ethics; for (e) critique GDP-feminism linkage. Structure each sub-part as: definition → argument with evidence → balanced critique → brief conclusion.

Key points expected

(a) E-advocacy model: defines citizen-to-government (C2G) interaction through digital platforms enabling participatory policy-making; cites MyGov, PRAGATI platform for democratized feedback loops
(b) Neo-liberal taxation: explains shift from physical to financial asset taxation, GST as broad-based consumption tax, increased tax-to-GDP ratio post-1991 reforms
(c) Policy analysis limitations: references Herbert Simon's 'satisficing' vs. comprehensive rationality; need for multi-criteria decision analysis and scenario planning
(d) Global ethical influences: Nolan Committee's Seven Principles, UN Public Service Code of Ethics, RTI as indigenous counter-trend to global homogenization
(e) Women empowerment critique: Amartya Sen's 'development as freedom', Martha Nussbaum's capabilities approach; need for social, political, legal empowerment beyond economic metrics

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Concept correctness	20%	10	Precisely defines e-advocacy as C2G model distinct from G2C/G2G; correctly identifies neo-liberal tax shift from direct to indirect taxes; accurately distinguishes 'comprehensive' from 'incremental' policy analysis; properly characterizes global ethics frameworks; correctly critiques GDP-centric development models	Basic definitions present but conflates e-advocacy with general e-governance; vague reference to 'tax reforms' without neo-liberal specificity; mentions policy analysis steps without theoretical grounding; lists ethics codes without explaining global-local tension; equates economic and women development partially	Misidentifies e-advocacy as service delivery; confuses neo-liberalism with socialism; describes policy implementation instead of analysis; ignores global dimension in ethics; treats economic development as sufficient for empowerment
Theoretical anchor	20%	10	Cites Meijer's e-governance models for (a); Stiglitz's market-friendly state for (b); Lindblom's disjointed incrementalism vs. Simon's bounded rationality for (c); Fred Riggs' ecological approach for global-local ethics synthesis in (d); Naila Kabeer's resources-agency-achievement framework for (e)	Mentions generic theories without application—e.g., names 'liberalization' without theoretical framework; references 'rational decision making' without Simon; cites 'ethics' without Nolan or UN codes; mentions 'gender' without capability or empowerment theory	No theoretical references; relies on commonsense assertions; misattributes theories (e.g., calls GST 'Marxist'); confuses policy analysis with policy evaluation theories
Indian administrative examples	20%	10	For (a): MyGov consultations, PRAGATI platform, Digital India; for (b): GST Council, tax buoyancy increase from 10.1% (2012-17) to 16.3% (2020-23), faceless assessment; for (c): NITI Aayog's SDG monitoring vs. Planning Commission's approach; for (d): Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964 amendments, RTI Act 2005 as indigenous ethics; for (e): Beti Bachao Beti Padhao, SHG-Bank linkage, women's reservation debates	Generic references to 'Digital India' or 'GST' without specificity; vague mention of 'five year plans' for policy analysis; general reference to 'corruption' for ethics; broad citation of 'women's schemes' without naming	No Indian examples; uses foreign cases exclusively (e.g., only US e-governance); irrelevant examples (MNREGA for taxation); anachronistic references (pre-1991 tax structure for neo-liberalism)
Reform / policy angle	20%	10	For (a): suggests MyGov 2.0 with AI-enabled sentiment analysis; for (b): proposes unified GST rate structure, property tax digitization; for (c): recommends predictive policy analytics, regulatory sandbox approach; for (d): advocates Lokpal institutionalization, ethics audit mechanism; for (e): pushes for gender budgeting 2.0, women's leadership in PRIs with fiscal autonomy	Generic reform suggestions without specificity—'improve digital infrastructure,' 'simplify taxes,' 'better policy analysis,' 'strengthen ethics,' 'more women empowerment'; no connection to current policy discourse	No reform suggestions; purely descriptive; regressive proposals (e.g., reducing digital participation); ignores contemporary policy debates entirely
Conclusion & forward look	20%	10	Synthesizes five sub-parts into coherent thesis: technological democratization (a) and ethical globalism (d) must converge with inclusive policy analysis (c) and progressive taxation (b) for genuine empowerment (e); ends with specific forward look—e.g., 'AI-augmented participatory governance with constitutional morality as anchor'	Separate conclusions for each sub-part without synthesis; generic closing—'government should work for people'; repetitive summary of points already made	No conclusion; abrupt ending; contradictory final statements (e.g., praising neo-liberalism after critiquing it); missing sub-parts in conclusion

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 →