Public Administration 2025 Paper II 50 marks Examine

Q7

(a) Many elected women representatives in local governments in India, especially from marginalized backgrounds, often struggle to govern effectively. Examine. (20 marks) (b) Budget is the pivot around which the whole financial administration revolves. Discuss the socio-economic and political implications of budget. (20 marks) (c) Assess the role of Government Process Reengineering (GPR) in promoting good governance. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) भारतीय स्थानीय सरकारों में कई निर्वाचित महिला प्रतिनिधि, विशेषतः वंचित पृष्ठभूमि से, प्रभावी रूप से शासन करने के लिए प्रायः संघर्ष करती हैं। परीक्षण कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) बजट वह धुरी है, जिसके चारों ओर समूचा वित्तीय प्रशासन घूमता है। बजट के सामाजिक-आर्थिक और राजनीतिक पहलुओं की विवेचना कीजिए। (20 अंक) (c) सुशासन को प्रोत्साहित करने में सरकारी प्रक्रिया पुनर्निर्माण (GPR) की भूमिका का मूल्यांकन कीजिए। (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 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' in part (a) requires critical investigation with evidence; part (b) demands 'discuss' with balanced argumentation; part (c) asks to 'assess' with judgment on GPR's effectiveness. Allocate approximately 40% word/time to (a) given 20 marks, 40% to (b) for 20 marks, and 20% to (c) for 10 marks. Structure: brief composite introduction, then dedicated sections for each sub-part with internal conclusions, followed by an integrated forward-looking conclusion.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Structural barriers—patriarchal norms, proxy governance (sarpanch pati), limited education/training, financial dependence, and caste-class intersections that constrain women representatives in PRIs
  • Part (a): Institutional deficits—lack of capacity building, weak support structures, limited functional autonomy of PRIs, and inadequate secretariat assistance
  • Part (b): Budget as political instrument—resource allocation reflecting power relations, distributive justice, and agenda-setting; socio-economic implications for equity, growth, and welfare
  • Part (b): Budgetary process—formulation, enactment, execution, and accountability stages with their respective socio-political dimensions in Indian context
  • Part (c): GPR principles—process simplification, citizen-centricity, ICT integration, time-cost reduction; distinction from mere computerization
  • Part (c): GPR outcomes for good governance—transparency, accountability, service delivery improvement with Indian examples like SVAMITVA, UMANG, or state-level reforms

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely defines proxy governance, sarpanch pati phenomenon, budgetary principles (Wagner's Law, balanced vs developmental budget), and GPR's Hammer-Champy reengineering vs TQM; distinguishes GPR from e-governance and automationBasic definitions of PRI structures, budget stages, and GPR with some confusion between reengineering and incremental reform; misses conceptual nuances like gendered nature of local governanceMisidentifies GPR as mere computerization, conflates budget with accounts, or treats women's participation barriers only as individual deficits without structural analysis
Theoretical anchor20%10Applies feminist political economy (Agarwal's bargaining power), decentralization theory (Ribot's substantive vs nominal), public choice theory (budget as aggregation of preferences), and new public management for GPR; cites Second Administrative Reforms Commission on local governanceMentions 73rd/74th Constitutional Amendments and basic decentralization theory; limited theoretical framing for budget or GPR, mostly descriptiveNo theoretical framework; random mention of committees without connecting to analysis; confuses GPR with traditional Weberian bureaucracy
Indian administrative examples20%10Cites specific evidence: Karnataka's training models, Rajasthan's sarpanch pati studies, Kerala's Kudumbashree-PRI synergy; budget examples—Gender Budget Statement, MGNREGA fund flow analysis; GPR—SVAMITVA scheme, MCA21, Gujarat's SWAGAT, or Delhi's doorstep deliveryGeneral mention of 73rd Amendment, Finance Commission recommendations, and generic e-governance examples without specificity; states like 'some states have training programs'No Indian examples or irrelevant foreign cases; factual errors about constitutional provisions or scheme implementation
Reform / policy angle20%10Proposes actionable reforms: mandatory training with quotas, strengthening DPCs, gender-responsive budgeting institutionalization, participatory budgeting (Karnataka's PB experience), GPR integration with SDG targets; critiques current gaps in implementationLists conventional recommendations like 'more training' or 'more funds' without specificity; acknowledges need for reform but lacks innovative policy suggestionsNo reform suggestions or utopian recommendations without administrative feasibility; ignores existing government initiatives completely
Conclusion & forward look20%10Synthesizes across parts—links women's effective participation to participatory budgeting and GPR-enabled transparency; offers integrated vision of inclusive, efficient, accountable local governance with LPG (localization, participation, gender-mainstreaming) as way forwardSeparate conclusions for each part without integration; generic statement on 'need for political will' without specific forward linkagesNo conclusion or abrupt ending; mere summary of points without synthesis; no forward-looking element

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 II