Public Administration 2025 Paper I 50 marks Elaborate

Q7

(a) The objective of Liberalization, Privatization and Globalization and of New Public Management was to limit government functions and reduce public expenditure. However both functions and expenditure has increased. Account for the paradox. (20 marks) (b) The basis of comparative study of Public Administration has evolved from institutional approach to the contemporary political economic process approach. Have all these approaches enabled the development of a theory of Comparative Public Administration? Justify your answer. (15 marks) (c) Can competency mapping linked to career development incentivise civil servants commitment to effective service delivery? Elaborate. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) उदारीकरण, निजीकरण और वैश्वीकरण तथा नव लोक प्रबन्ध का उद्देश्य सरकारी कार्यों को सीमित करना और सार्वजनिक व्यय को कम करना था । तथापि कार्यों और व्यय दोनों में वृद्धि हुई है । विरोधाभास के कारण बताइये । (20 अंक) (b) लोक प्रशासन के तुलनात्मक अध्ययन का आधार संस्थागत उपागम से समकालीन राजनीतिक-आर्थिक प्रक्रिया उपागम तक विकसित हुआ है । क्या इन सभी उपागमों ने तुलनात्मक लोक प्रशासन के सिद्धान्त के विकास को आसान बनाया है ? अपने उत्तर की पुष्टि कीजिए । (15 अंक) (c) क्या क्षमता मानचित्रण को सिविल सेवकों के जीवनवृत्ति विकास के साथ जोड़ना प्रभावी सेवा प्रदायगी के प्रति प्रतिबद्धता को प्रोत्साहित कर सकता है ? विस्तार से व्याख्या कीजिए । (15 अंक)

Directive word: Elaborate

This question asks you to elaborate. 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 'elaborate' demands detailed, expansive treatment with logical development of arguments. Structure: Introduction defining LPG-NPM paradox, institutional vs. political-economic approaches, and competency mapping; Body allocating ~40% word budget to part (a) on the paradox (20 marks), ~30% each to part (b) on CPA theoretical evolution (15 marks) and part (c) on competency mapping (15 marks); Conclusion synthesizing how state transformation, comparative method refinement, and HR reforms collectively reshape Indian public administration.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): LPG-NPM paradox explained through 'hollow state' thesis, regulatory expansion, welfare state persistence, and India's experience with rising subsidy burden despite disinvestment
  • Part (a): Counter-arguments including state capacity building, new public goods (digital infrastructure), and regulatory capitalism replacing direct provision
  • Part (b): Trajectory from Riggs' ecological approach to Ferrel Heady's developmental administration, and why CPA remains pre-theoretical despite models like prismatic/sala
  • Part (b): Contemporary political-economic process approach (Evans, Rueschemeyer, Skocpol) and its contribution toward middle-range theory
  • Part (c): Competency mapping framework (SPV-based, behavioural indicators) linked to career progression through ARC-II recommendations and Mission Karmayogi
  • Part (c): Limitations including rank-structure rigidity, seniority principle, and political executive interference undermining incentive alignment

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely defines LPG-NPM paradox as state transformation rather than retrenchment; accurately distinguishes CPA approaches (institutional, behavioural, ecological, political-economic); correctly identifies competency mapping as ARC-II SPV framework applied through iGOT-Karmayogi platformBasic definitions of LPG, NPM, and competency mapping present but conflates paradox with policy failure; lists CPA approaches without clear differentiation; vague on competency mapping mechanicsMischaracterizes LPG-NPM as identical projects; confuses CPA with comparative politics; treats competency mapping as generic skill assessment without administrative context
Theoretical anchor20%10Deploys Hood's NPM dimensions, Rhodes' 'hollowing out', Skocpol's 'bringing state back in' for (a); uses Riggs' Fused-Prismatic-Diffracted, Heady's development administration, and Evans' embedded autonomy for (b); applies McClelland's competency theory and Boyatzis' competency clusters for (c)Mentions some theorists (Hood, Riggs) without systematic application; limited theoretical depth on political-economic approach; superficial treatment of competency theoryNo theoretical framework; random name-dropping without conceptual linkage; entirely descriptive treatment across all parts
Indian administrative examples20%10For (a): cites rising revenue expenditure/GDP ratio, expanding regulatory bodies (TRAI, SEBI, CCI), and welfare schemes (MGNREGA, PM-KISAN); For (b): references Indian experience with prismatic model and contemporary sub-national comparative studies; For (c): details Mission Karmayogi, SPV competency dictionary, and capacity building commissionGeneric mention of liberalization (1991) and some welfare schemes; limited Indian CPA examples; basic reference to training reforms without specificityNo Indian examples or irrelevant illustrations; treats question as purely Western administrative theory; misses Mission Karmayogi entirely
Reform / policy angle20%10For (a): evaluates regulatory state emergence and digital governance expansion; For (b): assesses whether political-economic approach enables predictive theory-building; For (c): critically examines incentive alignment problems—fixed tenure, political transfers, pay compression—and suggests outcome-linked progressionDescriptive coverage of reforms without critical evaluation; accepts CPA approaches as cumulative progress; uncritical acceptance of competency mapping benefitsNo reform evaluation; normative assertions without evidence; ignores implementation gaps in all three parts
Conclusion & forward look20%10Synthesizes paradox as state metamorphosis (regulatory/welfare/digital), CPA as evolving toward contextual middle-range theory, and competency mapping requiring structural reforms (tenure security, domain assignment) to create genuine commitment; proposes integrated governance frameworkSeparate conclusions for each part without synthesis; generic forward-looking statements; no integrative visionMissing or abrupt conclusion; mere summary of points; no forward look or policy recommendations

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 2025 Paper I