Sociology 2023 Paper I 50 marks Explain

Q7

(a) Explain how economic globalization has brought changes in the patterns of employment in the 21st century. (20 marks) (b) Do you think that the social media has brought significant changes in the forms of protest? Argue your case. (20 marks) (c) Assess critically A. G. Frank's 'theory of development of underdevelopment'. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) समझाइए कि आर्थिक भूमंडलीकरण ने कैसे 21वीं सदी में रोजगार के प्रतिमानों में बदलाव किया है। (20 अंक) (b) क्या आपको लगता है कि सोशल मीडिया ने विरोध करने के तरीकों में महत्वपूर्ण बदलाव किया है? इस मामले में तर्क दीजिए। (20 अंक) (c) ए० जी० फ्रैंक के 'अल्पविकास का विकास सिद्धांत' का आलोचनात्मक मूल्यांकन कीजिए। (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 Sociology questions

Directive word: Explain

This question asks you to explain. 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 'explain' for part (a) demands causal mechanisms, while (b) requires 'argue your case' (evaluative stance) and (c) demands 'assess critically' (balanced critique). Allocate approximately 40% time/words to (a) given 20 marks, 35% to (b) for its argumentative complexity, and 25% to (c) for the 10-mark critical assessment. Structure: brief integrated introduction → three distinct sections with clear sub-headings → synthesis conclusion connecting all three to broader globalization debates.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Flexible accumulation, informalization, gig economy, feminization of workforce, global division of labour (Standing, Castells)
  • Part (a): Indian evidence — IT sector boom, SEZs, contract labour rise, platform economy (Ola, Zomato, Amazon Flex)
  • Part (b): Social media as mobilization tool — hashtag activism, connective action, networked individualism (Castells, Bennett/Segerberg)
  • Part (b): Indian cases — CAA-NRC protests, farmers' protest (Twitter/X, TikTok before ban), MeToo India; counter: slacktivism, digital divide in protest participation
  • Part (c): Frank's core-periphery, metropolis-satellite, historical-structural analysis of underdevelopment as active process
  • Part (c): Critiques — ignores internal class structures, over-deterministic, empirical anomalies (East Asian NICs, contemporary China-India divergence)

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%10For (a), explains causal mechanisms of employment change, not just lists features; for (b), constructs a genuine argument with thesis-antithesis-synthesis rather than descriptive pros-cons; for (c), 'assess critically' produces balanced evaluation with both Frank's contribution and limitations weighted.Recognizes three different directives but treats them similarly—(a) becomes descriptive, (b) lists points without clear stance, (c) summarizes Frank without substantive critique.Misreads all directives as 'describe' or 'write notes'; no argumentative structure in (b), no critique in (c), no causal explanation in (a).
Theoretical framing20%10Deploys Standing on precariat, Castells on network society for (a); Castells' networked power or Tilly's repertoire of contention for (b); Frank's dependency theory with precise terminology (metropolis-satellite, lumpenbourgeoisie) and counter-theories (Cardoso's associated-dependent development, Warren's classical Marxist critique) for (c).Names theorists correctly but applies concepts loosely or as labels without integration into argument.No named theories; or confuses Frank with Wallerstein/Prebisch; or cites generic 'Marx said' without specificity.
Indian / empirical examples20%10For (a): PLFS data on informalization, Oxfam reports on gig workers, specific SEZ cases (Sriperumbudur, Noida); for (b): farmers' protest TikTok/YouTube strategies, CAA-NRC Instagram activism, digital divide in protest participation (rural-urban, gendered); for (c): Indian colonial experience as illustration of Frank's thesis, but also post-1991 growth as partial counter.Mentions 'IT sector' or 'farmers protest' without disaggregated data or specific platforms; treats India as undifferentiated case.No Indian examples; or only generic global references (US Rust Belt, Arab Spring) without Indian grounding.
Multi-paradigm analysis20%10For (a): neoliberal efficiency vs. Marxian exploitation vs. Polanyian double movement; for (b): techno-optimist (democratization) vs. critical political economy (surveillance capitalism, platform power); for (c): dependency vs. modernization vs. world-systems; shows how paradigms yield different policy prescriptions.Acknowledges 'different views exist' in passing but doesn't systematically contrast paradigms or their implications.Single-paradigm treatment; or eclectic mixing without showing tensions between frameworks.
Conclusion & sociological imagination20%10Synthesizes across (a)-(b)-(c) to argue that globalization creates contradictory spaces—simultaneous precarization and new solidarities, digital empowerment and new dependencies; connects to Mills' sociological imagination (personal troubles of gig worker/protestor linked to public issues of global restructuring); suggests research or policy direction.Summarizes each part separately without cross-cutting synthesis; conclusion adds no analytical value.No conclusion, or abrupt ending; or conclusion merely restates question without development.

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 Sociology 2023 Paper I