UPSC Public Administration Model Question Paper for IAS Mains Exam - 2015
UPSC Public Administration Model Question Paper for IAS Mains Exam - 2015
Paper-1 : Administrative Theory
Q1."DECISIONS ARE NOT MADE BY 'ORGANIZATIONS',BUT BY 'HUMAN BEINGS' BEHAVING AS MEMBERS OF ORGANIZATIONS. "HOW DO BERNARD & SIMON CONCEPTUALIZE THE RELATION BETWEEN THE DECISIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE & ORGANIZATIONAL AUTHORITY?
Answer:
In order to find the roots of the organizational studies and the reasons for the success of business organizations, it is important to consider Barnard. In his book, "The Functions of the Executive", Barnard conceptualizes organizations as "cooperative social systems" that should maintain the subtle balance between the constraints imposed by formal organization and the demands arising out of informal group behavior for the long-term preservation of cooperation. According to Barnard, a formal organization is a "system of consciously coordinated activities of two or more persons". The organization exists to overcome the cognitive and biological limitations of individuals, permitting them to achieve certain ends that would not otherwise be achieved by individual action. All organizations have a purpose, but this purpose does not produce cooperative activity even if the participants accept it. The existence of organizations somewhat depends on their ability to generate sufficient incentives to obtain the contributions of participants. From Barnard's point of view, organizations are natural systems, which are more an end in themselves than they are a means. They are a structure of relations which participants seek to preserve because of the benefits they derive from membership. Barnard's model goes beyond the naïve statement that labor and capital should cooperate and that this cooperation would reduce conflict or increase productivity. In fact, he stresses that, organizations, "by very nature are cooperative systems and cannot fail to be so". In addition, he says that organizations cannot fail to have a natural purpose, which is the main task of the executive to emphasize to the organization's members. As stated before, Simon suggests organizations help men to overcome their bounded rationality. He challenged the validity of the classic label "Homo economicus" by rejecting the notion of unlimited rational optimization in human behavior. Simon views that the basic features of organization structure and function derive from the characteristics of human problem solving and rational human choice. The organization provides a structured social environment in which "that behavior which is rational from the standpoint of this environment is also rational from the standpoint of group values and group situation". Furthermore, he declares that a theory of administration should be concerned with decision- making and action. He points out the task of "deciding" pervades the entire administrative organization as much as the task of "doing" – indeed, both are integrally joined. In fact, he stresses that decisions are not made by organizations but by human beings behaving as members of organizations.
Q2. IT IS POSSIBLE TO CONCEIVE GOVERNANCE WITHOUT GOVERNMENT.EXPLAIN WITH EXAMPLES.
Answer:
Governance without government has emerged as an alternative or functional equivalent to government. While there seems to be an increasing demand, the promise of governance to compensate for the weakness or failure of government rests on a major premise. Governments have to be strong enough so that non-governmental actors have an incentive to cooperate, and governments are not afraid of being captured. If this premise held, it would result in a serious dilemma for areas of limited statehood: The greater the demand for governance without government, the less likely it is to emerge and to be effective, precisely because government is weak. Conceptualizing governance as structure and process helps us delineate governance without government from other forms of institutionalized modes of coordination in the provision of common goods. In sum, governance without government refers to the involvement of non-governmental actors(companies, civil society) in the provision of common goods through non-hierarchical coordination. It ranges from consultation and cooperation, delegation, and co-regulation to private self-regulation in and outside the control of government. Governance without government, hence, can involve governmental actors as long as they refrain from using their coercive powers, i.e. do not rely on statehood. Governance without government does not cover lobbying and mere advocacy activities of non-governmental actors aimed at governments as well as supranational and international organizations .
Paper-2 : Indian Administration
Q1. CIVIL SERVICE NEUTRALITY IS BASED ON RULE OF LAW. EXPLAIN.
Answer:
Civil service reconcile a variety of competing obligations – to the legislature; to the public; to professional duty and personal moral belief; to the rule of law; and to the minister. How these obligations are balanced in particular cases reflects institutional structures and individual preferences. Public administration is not and has never been a mechanistic apparatus – it is and has always been normative. The civil service is an 'organ of government' with a separate constitutional personality from the government of the day. The civil service, however, remains, a means to ends set by legislative or cabinet policy makers. The notion that civil servants individually or the civil service collectively has ends of their or its own seems inimical to principles of democratic legitimacy and the rule of law. That is why only to accommodate a variety of competing interests and constitutional obligation Civil services neutrality is based on the rule of law of the land.
Q2. GOOD-GOVERNANCE AND DEMOCRACY ARE CONTRADICTORY. COMMENT.
One of the most commonly accepted definitions of “democracy” relies on procedural indicators of electoral democracy: universal suffrage, elections registering voter preferences faithfully, unbiased choice among alternatives, and these choices or preferences become the basis for constituting holders of public office ,without reference to whether the government that is produced is “good governance.” Nor do discussions of “good governance” usually mention elections, whether democratic or otherwise. In fact, because the two concepts rely on very different criteria, it is not clear that, in the discourse, “good governance” includes “democracy.” Clearly, “democracy” alone is not a sufficient cause of “good governance.” While for UNDP, a “good government” is expected to provide also for sustainable human development and “participation” usually in the form of NGOs rather than an electoral process. Military regimes thus are among the first to embrace some components of good governance, a condition in which there may be no rule of law, no government transparency, no free media, and no elections, but including responsiveness, efficiency and effectiveness. One source of this seeming contradiction between “democracy” and “good governance” is the ambivalent attitudes among citizens as to the efficacy of democracy. This is especially the case in Thailand, where, in a poll taken shortly after the Constitution of 1997 became effective, 82.6 percent of respondents recorded that democracy was “preferable to all other kinds of government,” but only 51.3 percent felt that democracy was “equally or more important than economic development”. In other words, democracy is important, but other regime features may be more important than democracy. This tension and the seeming contradictions that may exist between “democracy” and “good governance” formed the cleavage that led to the overthrow of a democratically elected regime in 2006, and the subsequent removal of two successive governments after a semblance of electoral democracy was restored. Because this cleavage has posed the fundamental political polarization of Thai society, the underlying ambivalence in attitudes in which “democracy” and “good governance” pose contradictory alternatives .