General Instructions :-
- Rotate your Mobile Device for Best Performance and Design.
- Total duration of examination is X minutes.
- Total number of questions are 25, which contains 25 questions of English.
- The Question Palette displayed on the right side of screen will show the status of each question using one of the following symbols:
- Not Visited questions in White background colour.
- Answered questions in green colour.
- Unanswered questions in red colour.
- Marked for review questions in purple colour
- The clock will be set at the server. The countdown timer in the top right corner of screen will display the remaining time available to you for completing the examination. When the timer reaches zero, the examination will automatically submit or end by itself. You also can end or submit your examination by clicking on submit button.
- Marked for review status for a question simply indicates that you would like to review the question again.
- Please note that if a question is answered and ‘marked for review’, your answer for that question will be considered in the evaluation.
- You can click on the question palette to navigate faster across questions.
Answering a Question :-
- Procedure for answering multiple-choice type questions:
- To select your answer, click on the button of one of the options.
- To deselect your chosen answer, click again on the button of the chosen option again or click on the Clear Response button.
- To change your chosen answer, click on the button of another option.
- To save your answer, you MUST click on the Save Next button.
- To mark a question for review, click on the Mark for Review & Next button.
- To change answer to a question that has already been answered, select that question from the Question Palette and then follow the procedure for answering that type of question.
- Note that ONLY questions for which answers are either saved or marked for review after answering, will be considered for evaluation.
- To change your answer to a question that has already been answered, first select that question for answering and then follow the procedure for answering that type of question.
- Note that ONLY Questions for which answers are saved or marked for review after answering will be considered for evaluation.
Navigating through sections :-
- Click on the question number in the Question Palette at the right of your screen to go to a question.
- Note that using this option does NOT save your answer.
- Click on Save & Next to save your answer for a question and then move to the next question.
- If you want to keep a question marked for review, click on the button Mark for Review & Next to save your answer for the current question and then proceed to the next question.
Read the following Instruction carefully :-
- This test comprises of multiple-choice questions.
- Each question will have only one of the available options as the correct answer.
- You are advised not to close the browser window before submitting the test.
- In case, if the test does not load completely or becomes unresponsive, click on browser's refresh button to reload.
Marking Scheme :-
- 1 marks will be awarded for each correct answer.
- There will be 0.25 negative marking for each wrong answer.
- No marks will be deducted for un-attempted questions
SECTION
Select the INCORRECTLY spelt word.
Comprehension:
In the following passage, some words have been deleted. Read the passage carefully and select the most appropriate option to fill in each blank.
Ambition is a vital ingredient for success. Without ambition to push us, we will not be (1) ______ of great achievements. We all need that special something (2) _____ ourselves to give us the willpower to reach a higher goal (3)______ we imagine ourselves capable (4)______ Yet, ambition, (5)_______ money and fire, is a good servant, but a bad master.
Select the most appropriate option to fill in blank number 1.
Comprehension:
In the following passage, some words have been deleted. Read the passage carefully and select the most appropriate option to fill in each blank.
Ambition is a vital ingredient for success. Without ambition to push us, we will not be (1) ______ of great achievements. We all need that special something (2) _____ ourselves to give us the willpower to reach a higher goal (3)______ we imagine ourselves capable (4)______ Yet, ambition, (5)_______ money and fire, is a good servant, but a bad master.
Select the most appropriate option to fill in blank number 2.
Comprehension:
In the following passage, some words have been deleted. Read the passage carefully and select the most appropriate option to fill in each blank.
Ambition is a vital ingredient for success. Without ambition to push us, we will not be (1) ______ of great achievements. We all need that special something (2) _____ ourselves to give us the willpower to reach a higher goal (3)______ we imagine ourselves capable (4)______ Yet, ambition, (5)_______ money and fire, is a good servant, but a bad master.
Select the most appropriate option to fill in blank number 3.
Comprehension:
In the following passage, some words have been deleted. Read the passage carefully and select the most appropriate option to fill in each blank.
Ambition is a vital ingredient for success. Without ambition to push us, we will not be (1) ______ of great achievements. We all need that special something (2) _____ ourselves to give us the willpower to reach a higher goal (3)______ we imagine ourselves capable (4)______ Yet, ambition, (5)_______ money and fire, is a good servant, but a bad master.
Select the most appropriate option to fill in blank number 4.
Comprehension:
In the following passage, some words have been deleted. Read the passage carefully and select the most appropriate option to fill in each blank.
Ambition is a vital ingredient for success. Without ambition to push us, we will not be (1) ______ of great achievements. We all need that special something (2) _____ ourselves to give us the willpower to reach a higher goal (3)______ we imagine ourselves capable (4)______ Yet, ambition, (5)_______ money and fire, is a good servant, but a bad master.
Select the most appropriate option to fill in blank number 5.
Identify the sentence that correctly uses the indefinite article.
Read the following passage carefully and certain words in the passage are printed in bold letters to help you locate them easily while answering some of these questions.
The Indian economy is currently passing through aphase of relatively slow growth. However, this should not cloud the fact that over the nine-year period beginning 2005-06, the average annual growth rate was. 7.7 per cent. Against this background, the relevant question is whether India has the capability to grow at 8 to 9 per cent in a sustained way. In short, what is the potential rate of growth of India?
Normally, potential growth is measured using trends with some filters. In one sense, these are backward-looking measures, since they depend on historically observed data. In the case of measuring capacity utilisation in manufacturing, the maximum capacity is very often taken as the maximum output achieved in the recent period. Perhaps, in the case of determining the potential rate of growth of the economy also, one can take the maximum growth rate achieved in the recent past as the lowest estimate of the potential. However, this assumption will be valid only if there is reason to believe that the maximum growth rate achieved in the recent past was not a one-off event and that the growth rate achieved was robust and replicable.
India achieved a growth rate of 9.5 per cent in 2005-06, followed by 9.6 per cent and 9.3 per cent in the subsequent two years. After declining a bit in the wake of International financial crisis, the growth rate went back to 8.9 per cent in 2010-11. In many ways the growth rate achieved in the high phase period of 2005- 06 to 2007-08 was robust. The domestic savings rate during this period averaged 34.9 per cent of GDP. Similarly, the gross capital formation rate averaged 36.2 per cent. The current account deficit (CAD) remained low with an average of 1.2 per cent of GDP. Agricultural growth during this period averaged 5 per cent, and the annual manufacturing growth rate was 11 per cent. The capital flows were large but as the CAD remained low. the accretion to reserves amounted to $144 billion. Inflation during the period averaged 5.2 per cent. The combined fiscal deficit of the Centre and States was 5.2 per cent of GDP, well below the stipulated 6 per cent.Thus on many dimensions the growth rate was robust.
Unlike in the 1980s when the pick-up in growth was accompanied by deterioration in fiscal deficit and current account, the sharp increase in growth between 2005-06 and 2007-08 happened with the stability parameters al desired levels. Also, a booming external environment provided good support.
To assess whether the high growth phase can be replicated, we need to understand the factors that led to the slowdown since 2011-12. Complicating the analysis of this period is the revision of national income numbers with a new base. The two sets of numbers. present a somewhat differing picture. According to the earlier series, the growth rate of the Indian economy fell below 5 per cent in 2012-13 and 2013-14. But the new series shows a decline below 5 per cent only in 2012- 13. For 2013-14, the new series records a growth rate of 6.6 per cent, as against 4.7 per cent according to the earlier estimate. For 2014-15 and 2015-16, there is only one set of numbers, that is, according to the new series. For both the years the growth rate is above 7 per cent. These are good growth rates under any circumstance,let alone the current global situation. Anyway, we have come down from the growth rate of 9-plus per cent which we had seen earlier.
Three sets of reasons are attributed for the slowdown. First, the external environment had deteriorated sharply. The recovery from the crisis of 2008 was tepid. One country after another in the developed world came under pressure. Strangely. however, international commodity prices including crude oil prices remained high until a couple of years ago. All this had an adverse Impact on developing countries, including India. However, it would be wrong to attribute the slowdown in India primarily to external factors. The domestic factors are the key. Second, there were severe supply bottlenecks. Agricultural production fell sharply in 2009-10 because of a severe drought. This triggered an inflation which lasted for several years thereafter. Coal output fell. Iron ore output fell, partly because of court decisions. The third set of reasons is basically non-economic which led collectively to a weakening of investment. A multitude of issues relating to scams and perceived delays in decision- making created an element of uncertainty in the minds of investors. New investments began to fall.
The rise in investment rate must be supported. by a rise in the domestic saving rate. An increase in investment rate supported by a widening current account deficit is not sustainable and is fraught with serious consequences. Only a current account deficit in the region of 1 to 1.5 per cent is sustainable. Incremental capital output ratio is a catch-all variable which is influenced by a host of factors. Obviously, it depends on technology. It also depends upon the skill of the labour force which in turn depends on the quality of the education system. Another catch-all expression "ease of doing business" is also relevant (i.e.) bureaucratic hurdles which impede speedy execution of projects need to be removed. Thus Improving the productivity of capital needs action on several fronts. Making a prediction about the future is always hazardous. Many things can go wrong. The Indian economy in the recent past has shown that it has the resilience to grow at 8 to 9 per cent. Therefore achieving the required investment rate to support such a high growth is very much in the realm of possibility. However, we need to overcome the current phase of declining investment rate. Investment sentiment is influenced by non-economic factors as well. An environment of political and social cohesion is imperative. Equally, we can get the incremental capital- output ratio (ICOR) to a lower level. Raising the productivity of capital will require policy reforms including administrative reforms as well as firm-level Improvements. The "potential" to grow at 8 to 9 per cent at least for a decade exists. We have to make it happen.
(The topic of the Passage asked in the exam was based on the economic changes in the last 50 years)
In context of the given passage, which of the following is/are the reason for economic slowdown of India?
Read the following passage carefully and certain words in the passage are printed in bold letters to help you locate them easily while answering some of these questions.
The Indian economy is currently passing through aphase of relatively slow growth. However, this should not cloud the fact that over the nine-year period beginning 2005-06, the average annual growth rate was. 7.7 per cent. Against this background, the relevant question is whether India has the capability to grow at 8 to 9 per cent in a sustained way. In short, what is the potential rate of growth of India?
Normally, potential growth is measured using trends with some filters. In one sense, these are backward-looking measures, since they depend on historically observed data. In the case of measuring capacity utilisation in manufacturing, the maximum capacity is very often taken as the maximum output achieved in the recent period. Perhaps, in the case of determining the potential rate of growth of the economy also, one can take the maximum growth rate achieved in the recent past as the lowest estimate of the potential. However, this assumption will be valid only if there is reason to believe that the maximum growth rate achieved in the recent past was not a one-off event and that the growth rate achieved was robust and replicable.
India achieved a growth rate of 9.5 per cent in 2005-06, followed by 9.6 per cent and 9.3 per cent in the subsequent two years. After declining a bit in the wake of International financial crisis, the growth rate went back to 8.9 per cent in 2010-11. In many ways the growth rate achieved in the high phase period of 2005- 06 to 2007-08 was robust. The domestic savings rate during this period averaged 34.9 per cent of GDP. Similarly, the gross capital formation rate averaged 36.2 per cent. The current account deficit (CAD) remained low with an average of 1.2 per cent of GDP. Agricultural growth during this period averaged 5 per cent, and the annual manufacturing growth rate was 11 per cent. The capital flows were large but as the CAD remained low. the accretion to reserves amounted to $144 billion. Inflation during the period averaged 5.2 per cent. The combined fiscal deficit of the Centre and States was 5.2 per cent of GDP, well below the stipulated 6 per cent.Thus on many dimensions the growth rate was robust.
Unlike in the 1980s when the pick-up in growth was accompanied by deterioration in fiscal deficit and current account, the sharp increase in growth between 2005-06 and 2007-08 happened with the stability parameters al desired levels. Also, a booming external environment provided good support.
To assess whether the high growth phase can be replicated, we need to understand the factors that led to the slowdown since 2011-12. Complicating the analysis of this period is the revision of national income numbers with a new base. The two sets of numbers. present a somewhat differing picture. According to the earlier series, the growth rate of the Indian economy fell below 5 per cent in 2012-13 and 2013-14. But the new series shows a decline below 5 per cent only in 2012- 13. For 2013-14, the new series records a growth rate of 6.6 per cent, as against 4.7 per cent according to the earlier estimate. For 2014-15 and 2015-16, there is only one set of numbers, that is, according to the new series. For both the years the growth rate is above 7 per cent. These are good growth rates under any circumstance,let alone the current global situation. Anyway, we have come down from the growth rate of 9-plus per cent which we had seen earlier.
Three sets of reasons are attributed for the slowdown. First, the external environment had deteriorated sharply. The recovery from the crisis of 2008 was tepid. One country after another in the developed world came under pressure. Strangely. however, international commodity prices including crude oil prices remained high until a couple of years ago. All this had an adverse Impact on developing countries, including India. However, it would be wrong to attribute the slowdown in India primarily to external factors. The domestic factors are the key. Second, there were severe supply bottlenecks. Agricultural production fell sharply in 2009-10 because of a severe drought. This triggered an inflation which lasted for several years thereafter. Coal output fell. Iron ore output fell, partly because of court decisions. The third set of reasons is basically non-economic which led collectively to a weakening of investment. A multitude of issues relating to scams and perceived delays in decision- making created an element of uncertainty in the minds of investors. New investments began to fall.
The rise in investment rate must be supported. by a rise in the domestic saving rate. An increase in investment rate supported by a widening current account deficit is not sustainable and is fraught with serious consequences. Only a current account deficit in the region of 1 to 1.5 per cent is sustainable. Incremental capital output ratio is a catch-all variable which is influenced by a host of factors. Obviously, it depends on technology. It also depends upon the skill of the labour force which in turn depends on the quality of the education system. Another catch-all expression "ease of doing business" is also relevant (i.e.) bureaucratic hurdles which impede speedy execution of projects need to be removed. Thus Improving the productivity of capital needs action on several fronts. Making a prediction about the future is always hazardous. Many things can go wrong. The Indian economy in the recent past has shown that it has the resilience to grow at 8 to 9 per cent. Therefore achieving the required investment rate to support such a high growth is very much in the realm of possibility. However, we need to overcome the current phase of declining investment rate. Investment sentiment is influenced by non-economic factors as well. An environment of political and social cohesion is imperative. Equally, we can get the incremental capital- output ratio (ICOR) to a lower level. Raising the productivity of capital will require policy reforms including administrative reforms as well as firm-level Improvements. The "potential" to grow at 8 to 9 per cent at least for a decade exists. We have to make it happen.
(The topic of the Passage asked in the exam was based on the economic changes in the last 50 years)
According to the given passage, what does 'ease of doing business imply?
Read the following passage carefully and certain words in the passage are printed in bold letters to help you locate them easily while answering some of these questions.
The Indian economy is currently passing through aphase of relatively slow growth. However, this should not cloud the fact that over the nine-year period beginning 2005-06, the average annual growth rate was. 7.7 per cent. Against this background, the relevant question is whether India has the capability to grow at 8 to 9 per cent in a sustained way. In short, what is the potential rate of growth of India?
Normally, potential growth is measured using trends with some filters. In one sense, these are backward-looking measures, since they depend on historically observed data. In the case of measuring capacity utilisation in manufacturing, the maximum capacity is very often taken as the maximum output achieved in the recent period. Perhaps, in the case of determining the potential rate of growth of the economy also, one can take the maximum growth rate achieved in the recent past as the lowest estimate of the potential. However, this assumption will be valid only if there is reason to believe that the maximum growth rate achieved in the recent past was not a one-off event and that the growth rate achieved was robust and replicable.
India achieved a growth rate of 9.5 per cent in 2005-06, followed by 9.6 per cent and 9.3 per cent in the subsequent two years. After declining a bit in the wake of International financial crisis, the growth rate went back to 8.9 per cent in 2010-11. In many ways the growth rate achieved in the high phase period of 2005- 06 to 2007-08 was robust. The domestic savings rate during this period averaged 34.9 per cent of GDP. Similarly, the gross capital formation rate averaged 36.2 per cent. The current account deficit (CAD) remained low with an average of 1.2 per cent of GDP. Agricultural growth during this period averaged 5 per cent, and the annual manufacturing growth rate was 11 per cent. The capital flows were large but as the CAD remained low. the accretion to reserves amounted to $144 billion. Inflation during the period averaged 5.2 per cent. The combined fiscal deficit of the Centre and States was 5.2 per cent of GDP, well below the stipulated 6 per cent.Thus on many dimensions the growth rate was robust.
Unlike in the 1980s when the pick-up in growth was accompanied by deterioration in fiscal deficit and current account, the sharp increase in growth between 2005-06 and 2007-08 happened with the stability parameters al desired levels. Also, a booming external environment provided good support.
To assess whether the high growth phase can be replicated, we need to understand the factors that led to the slowdown since 2011-12. Complicating the analysis of this period is the revision of national income numbers with a new base. The two sets of numbers. present a somewhat differing picture. According to the earlier series, the growth rate of the Indian economy fell below 5 per cent in 2012-13 and 2013-14. But the new series shows a decline below 5 per cent only in 2012- 13. For 2013-14, the new series records a growth rate of 6.6 per cent, as against 4.7 per cent according to the earlier estimate. For 2014-15 and 2015-16, there is only one set of numbers, that is, according to the new series. For both the years the growth rate is above 7 per cent. These are good growth rates under any circumstance,let alone the current global situation. Anyway, we have come down from the growth rate of 9-plus per cent which we had seen earlier.
Three sets of reasons are attributed for the slowdown. First, the external environment had deteriorated sharply. The recovery from the crisis of 2008 was tepid. One country after another in the developed world came under pressure. Strangely. however, international commodity prices including crude oil prices remained high until a couple of years ago. All this had an adverse Impact on developing countries, including India. However, it would be wrong to attribute the slowdown in India primarily to external factors. The domestic factors are the key. Second, there were severe supply bottlenecks. Agricultural production fell sharply in 2009-10 because of a severe drought. This triggered an inflation which lasted for several years thereafter. Coal output fell. Iron ore output fell, partly because of court decisions. The third set of reasons is basically non-economic which led collectively to a weakening of investment. A multitude of issues relating to scams and perceived delays in decision- making created an element of uncertainty in the minds of investors. New investments began to fall.
The rise in investment rate must be supported. by a rise in the domestic saving rate. An increase in investment rate supported by a widening current account deficit is not sustainable and is fraught with serious consequences. Only a current account deficit in the region of 1 to 1.5 per cent is sustainable. Incremental capital output ratio is a catch-all variable which is influenced by a host of factors. Obviously, it depends on technology. It also depends upon the skill of the labour force which in turn depends on the quality of the education system. Another catch-all expression "ease of doing business" is also relevant (i.e.) bureaucratic hurdles which impede speedy execution of projects need to be removed. Thus Improving the productivity of capital needs action on several fronts. Making a prediction about the future is always hazardous. Many things can go wrong. The Indian economy in the recent past has shown that it has the resilience to grow at 8 to 9 per cent. Therefore achieving the required investment rate to support such a high growth is very much in the realm of possibility. However, we need to overcome the current phase of declining investment rate. Investment sentiment is influenced by non-economic factors as well. An environment of political and social cohesion is imperative. Equally, we can get the incremental capital- output ratio (ICOR) to a lower level. Raising the productivity of capital will require policy reforms including administrative reforms as well as firm-level Improvements. The "potential" to grow at 8 to 9 per cent at least for a decade exists. We have to make it happen.
(The topic of the Passage asked in the exam was based on the economic changes in the last 50 years)
On what factors does incremental capital output ratio NOT depend?
Read the following passage carefully and certain words in the passage are printed in bold letters to help you locate them easily while answering some of these questions.
The Indian economy is currently passing through aphase of relatively slow growth. However, this should not cloud the fact that over the nine-year period beginning 2005-06, the average annual growth rate was. 7.7 per cent. Against this background, the relevant question is whether India has the capability to grow at 8 to 9 per cent in a sustained way. In short, what is the potential rate of growth of India?
Normally, potential growth is measured using trends with some filters. In one sense, these are backward-looking measures, since they depend on historically observed data. In the case of measuring capacity utilisation in manufacturing, the maximum capacity is very often taken as the maximum output achieved in the recent period. Perhaps, in the case of determining the potential rate of growth of the economy also, one can take the maximum growth rate achieved in the recent past as the lowest estimate of the potential. However, this assumption will be valid only if there is reason to believe that the maximum growth rate achieved in the recent past was not a one-off event and that the growth rate achieved was robust and replicable.
India achieved a growth rate of 9.5 per cent in 2005-06, followed by 9.6 per cent and 9.3 per cent in the subsequent two years. After declining a bit in the wake of International financial crisis, the growth rate went back to 8.9 per cent in 2010-11. In many ways the growth rate achieved in the high phase period of 2005- 06 to 2007-08 was robust. The domestic savings rate during this period averaged 34.9 per cent of GDP. Similarly, the gross capital formation rate averaged 36.2 per cent. The current account deficit (CAD) remained low with an average of 1.2 per cent of GDP. Agricultural growth during this period averaged 5 per cent, and the annual manufacturing growth rate was 11 per cent. The capital flows were large but as the CAD remained low. the accretion to reserves amounted to $144 billion. Inflation during the period averaged 5.2 per cent. The combined fiscal deficit of the Centre and States was 5.2 per cent of GDP, well below the stipulated 6 per cent.Thus on many dimensions the growth rate was robust.
Unlike in the 1980s when the pick-up in growth was accompanied by deterioration in fiscal deficit and current account, the sharp increase in growth between 2005-06 and 2007-08 happened with the stability parameters al desired levels. Also, a booming external environment provided good support.
To assess whether the high growth phase can be replicated, we need to understand the factors that led to the slowdown since 2011-12. Complicating the analysis of this period is the revision of national income numbers with a new base. The two sets of numbers. present a somewhat differing picture. According to the earlier series, the growth rate of the Indian economy fell below 5 per cent in 2012-13 and 2013-14. But the new series shows a decline below 5 per cent only in 2012- 13. For 2013-14, the new series records a growth rate of 6.6 per cent, as against 4.7 per cent according to the earlier estimate. For 2014-15 and 2015-16, there is only one set of numbers, that is, according to the new series. For both the years the growth rate is above 7 per cent. These are good growth rates under any circumstance,let alone the current global situation. Anyway, we have come down from the growth rate of 9-plus per cent which we had seen earlier.
Three sets of reasons are attributed for the slowdown. First, the external environment had deteriorated sharply. The recovery from the crisis of 2008 was tepid. One country after another in the developed world came under pressure. Strangely. however, international commodity prices including crude oil prices remained high until a couple of years ago. All this had an adverse Impact on developing countries, including India. However, it would be wrong to attribute the slowdown in India primarily to external factors. The domestic factors are the key. Second, there were severe supply bottlenecks. Agricultural production fell sharply in 2009-10 because of a severe drought. This triggered an inflation which lasted for several years thereafter. Coal output fell. Iron ore output fell, partly because of court decisions. The third set of reasons is basically non-economic which led collectively to a weakening of investment. A multitude of issues relating to scams and perceived delays in decision- making created an element of uncertainty in the minds of investors. New investments began to fall.
The rise in investment rate must be supported. by a rise in the domestic saving rate. An increase in investment rate supported by a widening current account deficit is not sustainable and is fraught with serious consequences. Only a current account deficit in the region of 1 to 1.5 per cent is sustainable. Incremental capital output ratio is a catch-all variable which is influenced by a host of factors. Obviously, it depends on technology. It also depends upon the skill of the labour force which in turn depends on the quality of the education system. Another catch-all expression "ease of doing business" is also relevant (i.e.) bureaucratic hurdles which impede speedy execution of projects need to be removed. Thus Improving the productivity of capital needs action on several fronts. Making a prediction about the future is always hazardous. Many things can go wrong. The Indian economy in the recent past has shown that it has the resilience to grow at 8 to 9 per cent. Therefore achieving the required investment rate to support such a high growth is very much in the realm of possibility. However, we need to overcome the current phase of declining investment rate. Investment sentiment is influenced by non-economic factors as well. An environment of political and social cohesion is imperative. Equally, we can get the incremental capital- output ratio (ICOR) to a lower level. Raising the productivity of capital will require policy reforms including administrative reforms as well as firm-level Improvements. The "potential" to grow at 8 to 9 per cent at least for a decade exists. We have to make it happen.
(The topic of the Passage asked in the exam was based on the economic changes in the last 50 years)
On the basis of the given passage, which of the following options cannot be inferred?
Read the following passage carefully and certain words in the passage are printed in bold letters to help you locate them easily while answering some of these questions.
The Indian economy is currently passing through aphase of relatively slow growth. However, this should not cloud the fact that over the nine-year period beginning 2005-06, the average annual growth rate was. 7.7 per cent. Against this background, the relevant question is whether India has the capability to grow at 8 to 9 per cent in a sustained way. In short, what is the potential rate of growth of India?
Normally, potential growth is measured using trends with some filters. In one sense, these are backward-looking measures, since they depend on historically observed data. In the case of measuring capacity utilisation in manufacturing, the maximum capacity is very often taken as the maximum output achieved in the recent period. Perhaps, in the case of determining the potential rate of growth of the economy also, one can take the maximum growth rate achieved in the recent past as the lowest estimate of the potential. However, this assumption will be valid only if there is reason to believe that the maximum growth rate achieved in the recent past was not a one-off event and that the growth rate achieved was robust and replicable.
India achieved a growth rate of 9.5 per cent in 2005-06, followed by 9.6 per cent and 9.3 per cent in the subsequent two years. After declining a bit in the wake of International financial crisis, the growth rate went back to 8.9 per cent in 2010-11. In many ways the growth rate achieved in the high phase period of 2005- 06 to 2007-08 was robust. The domestic savings rate during this period averaged 34.9 per cent of GDP. Similarly, the gross capital formation rate averaged 36.2 per cent. The current account deficit (CAD) remained low with an average of 1.2 per cent of GDP. Agricultural growth during this period averaged 5 per cent, and the annual manufacturing growth rate was 11 per cent. The capital flows were large but as the CAD remained low. the accretion to reserves amounted to $144 billion. Inflation during the period averaged 5.2 per cent. The combined fiscal deficit of the Centre and States was 5.2 per cent of GDP, well below the stipulated 6 per cent.Thus on many dimensions the growth rate was robust.
Unlike in the 1980s when the pick-up in growth was accompanied by deterioration in fiscal deficit and current account, the sharp increase in growth between 2005-06 and 2007-08 happened with the stability parameters al desired levels. Also, a booming external environment provided good support.
To assess whether the high growth phase can be replicated, we need to understand the factors that led to the slowdown since 2011-12. Complicating the analysis of this period is the revision of national income numbers with a new base. The two sets of numbers. present a somewhat differing picture. According to the earlier series, the growth rate of the Indian economy fell below 5 per cent in 2012-13 and 2013-14. But the new series shows a decline below 5 per cent only in 2012- 13. For 2013-14, the new series records a growth rate of 6.6 per cent, as against 4.7 per cent according to the earlier estimate. For 2014-15 and 2015-16, there is only one set of numbers, that is, according to the new series. For both the years the growth rate is above 7 per cent. These are good growth rates under any circumstance,let alone the current global situation. Anyway, we have come down from the growth rate of 9-plus per cent which we had seen earlier.
Three sets of reasons are attributed for the slowdown. First, the external environment had deteriorated sharply. The recovery from the crisis of 2008 was tepid. One country after another in the developed world came under pressure. Strangely. however, international commodity prices including crude oil prices remained high until a couple of years ago. All this had an adverse Impact on developing countries, including India. However, it would be wrong to attribute the slowdown in India primarily to external factors. The domestic factors are the key. Second, there were severe supply bottlenecks. Agricultural production fell sharply in 2009-10 because of a severe drought. This triggered an inflation which lasted for several years thereafter. Coal output fell. Iron ore output fell, partly because of court decisions. The third set of reasons is basically non-economic which led collectively to a weakening of investment. A multitude of issues relating to scams and perceived delays in decision- making created an element of uncertainty in the minds of investors. New investments began to fall.
The rise in investment rate must be supported. by a rise in the domestic saving rate. An increase in investment rate supported by a widening current account deficit is not sustainable and is fraught with serious consequences. Only a current account deficit in the region of 1 to 1.5 per cent is sustainable. Incremental capital output ratio is a catch-all variable which is influenced by a host of factors. Obviously, it depends on technology. It also depends upon the skill of the labour force which in turn depends on the quality of the education system. Another catch-all expression "ease of doing business" is also relevant (i.e.) bureaucratic hurdles which impede speedy execution of projects need to be removed. Thus Improving the productivity of capital needs action on several fronts. Making a prediction about the future is always hazardous. Many things can go wrong. The Indian economy in the recent past has shown that it has the resilience to grow at 8 to 9 per cent. Therefore achieving the required investment rate to support such a high growth is very much in the realm of possibility. However, we need to overcome the current phase of declining investment rate. Investment sentiment is influenced by non-economic factors as well. An environment of political and social cohesion is imperative. Equally, we can get the incremental capital- output ratio (ICOR) to a lower level. Raising the productivity of capital will require policy reforms including administrative reforms as well as firm-level Improvements. The "potential" to grow at 8 to 9 per cent at least for a decade exists. We have to make it happen.
(The topic of the Passage asked in the exam was based on the economic changes in the last 50 years)
According to the given passage, which of the following option is the best reason which support the author's conclusion that high growth is very much in the realm of possibility?
Read the following passage carefully and certain words in the passage are printed in bold letters to help you locate them easily while answering some of these questions.
The Indian economy is currently passing through aphase of relatively slow growth. However, this should not cloud the fact that over the nine-year period beginning 2005-06, the average annual growth rate was. 7.7 per cent. Against this background, the relevant question is whether India has the capability to grow at 8 to 9 per cent in a sustained way. In short, what is the potential rate of growth of India?
Normally, potential growth is measured using trends with some filters. In one sense, these are backward-looking measures, since they depend on historically observed data. In the case of measuring capacity utilisation in manufacturing, the maximum capacity is very often taken as the maximum output achieved in the recent period. Perhaps, in the case of determining the potential rate of growth of the economy also, one can take the maximum growth rate achieved in the recent past as the lowest estimate of the potential. However, this assumption will be valid only if there is reason to believe that the maximum growth rate achieved in the recent past was not a one-off event and that the growth rate achieved was robust and replicable.
India achieved a growth rate of 9.5 per cent in 2005-06, followed by 9.6 per cent and 9.3 per cent in the subsequent two years. After declining a bit in the wake of International financial crisis, the growth rate went back to 8.9 per cent in 2010-11. In many ways the growth rate achieved in the high phase period of 2005- 06 to 2007-08 was robust. The domestic savings rate during this period averaged 34.9 per cent of GDP. Similarly, the gross capital formation rate averaged 36.2 per cent. The current account deficit (CAD) remained low with an average of 1.2 per cent of GDP. Agricultural growth during this period averaged 5 per cent, and the annual manufacturing growth rate was 11 per cent. The capital flows were large but as the CAD remained low. the accretion to reserves amounted to $144 billion. Inflation during the period averaged 5.2 per cent. The combined fiscal deficit of the Centre and States was 5.2 per cent of GDP, well below the stipulated 6 per cent.Thus on many dimensions the growth rate was robust.
Unlike in the 1980s when the pick-up in growth was accompanied by deterioration in fiscal deficit and current account, the sharp increase in growth between 2005-06 and 2007-08 happened with the stability parameters al desired levels. Also, a booming external environment provided good support.
To assess whether the high growth phase can be replicated, we need to understand the factors that led to the slowdown since 2011-12. Complicating the analysis of this period is the revision of national income numbers with a new base. The two sets of numbers. present a somewhat differing picture. According to the earlier series, the growth rate of the Indian economy fell below 5 per cent in 2012-13 and 2013-14. But the new series shows a decline below 5 per cent only in 2012- 13. For 2013-14, the new series records a growth rate of 6.6 per cent, as against 4.7 per cent according to the earlier estimate. For 2014-15 and 2015-16, there is only one set of numbers, that is, according to the new series. For both the years the growth rate is above 7 per cent. These are good growth rates under any circumstance,let alone the current global situation. Anyway, we have come down from the growth rate of 9-plus per cent which we had seen earlier.
Three sets of reasons are attributed for the slowdown. First, the external environment had deteriorated sharply. The recovery from the crisis of 2008 was tepid. One country after another in the developed world came under pressure. Strangely. however, international commodity prices including crude oil prices remained high until a couple of years ago. All this had an adverse Impact on developing countries, including India. However, it would be wrong to attribute the slowdown in India primarily to external factors. The domestic factors are the key. Second, there were severe supply bottlenecks. Agricultural production fell sharply in 2009-10 because of a severe drought. This triggered an inflation which lasted for several years thereafter. Coal output fell. Iron ore output fell, partly because of court decisions. The third set of reasons is basically non-economic which led collectively to a weakening of investment. A multitude of issues relating to scams and perceived delays in decision- making created an element of uncertainty in the minds of investors. New investments began to fall.
The rise in investment rate must be supported. by a rise in the domestic saving rate. An increase in investment rate supported by a widening current account deficit is not sustainable and is fraught with serious consequences. Only a current account deficit in the region of 1 to 1.5 per cent is sustainable. Incremental capital output ratio is a catch-all variable which is influenced by a host of factors. Obviously, it depends on technology. It also depends upon the skill of the labour force which in turn depends on the quality of the education system. Another catch-all expression "ease of doing business" is also relevant (i.e.) bureaucratic hurdles which impede speedy execution of projects need to be removed. Thus Improving the productivity of capital needs action on several fronts. Making a prediction about the future is always hazardous. Many things can go wrong. The Indian economy in the recent past has shown that it has the resilience to grow at 8 to 9 per cent. Therefore achieving the required investment rate to support such a high growth is very much in the realm of possibility. However, we need to overcome the current phase of declining investment rate. Investment sentiment is influenced by non-economic factors as well. An environment of political and social cohesion is imperative. Equally, we can get the incremental capital- output ratio (ICOR) to a lower level. Raising the productivity of capital will require policy reforms including administrative reforms as well as firm-level Improvements. The "potential" to grow at 8 to 9 per cent at least for a decade exists. We have to make it happen.
(The topic of the Passage asked in the exam was based on the economic changes in the last 50 years)
On the basis of your reading, choose an appropriate title for the the pa passage.
Choose the word/group of words which is MOST SIMILAR in meaning to the word/group of words printed in bold as used in the passage.
ACCRETION
Choose the word/group of words which is MOST SIMILAR in meaning to the word/group of words printed in bold as used in the passage.
IMPEDE
Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words have been printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.
Brexit has evoked a spate of comments. These comments fall into broadly two categories. The first set of comments focusses on the short-term and medium- term impact of Brexit on the U.K., Europe and the rest of the world including India. The second goes into the reasons behind this decision of the British. Globalisation has been interpreted in many ways. In broad terms, globalisation denotes the free movement of goods,services, capital, funds, Ideas, technology and people across countries. Many people think globalisation is a recent phenomenon. This is not true. This has been going on for centuries. What has made it unique in recent times is the speed of the movement. Great Britain and many other countries in Europe have reached the present level of economic development only because of this free movement. In both demographic and geographic terms, Britain is a small country. It is not the size of the domestic market that determined its growth.. London could not have emerged as the financial centre. of the world but for the free flow of capital.
The gamut of financial services offered by
London is geared to meet world demand and not that of Britain alone. Even after the exit from the EU, Britain cannot remain as an isolated island. It has to be part of an international trade regime which allows for free trade. What then could have motivated a little more. than 50 per cent of the population to come out of the EU? It has something to do with the nature of the relationship within the EU. The EU has evolved over the last seven decades. From a loose arrangement, it has become a light bureaucratic organisation with its Jurisdiction extending to multifarious activities. When
the euro was created as a common currency, Britain opted out of it. The European Central Bank sets a common monetary policy stance for all member countries. This itself has been a source of irritation to many member countries. This came out prominently at the time of the Greek crisis, With the loss of one Instrument of control namely, the exchange rate variation the entire burden of adjustment had to be through employment and output changes. As one commentator put it, the EU has moved up its aspiration from the idea of 'common' market to 'single market. It is this transition which half of Britain has resented. The complex set of regulations emanating from Brussels has made at least a section of the British people feel that they have lost 'independence'. Some of the elite of Britain who voted to 'leave' feel this way. They think that control has moved to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. What has Induced the 'non-elite' to vote for Brexit was the EU's migration policy. The free movement of people has been the last straw that broke the camel's back. The low-paid Jobs in the U.K. have been taken over by migrants predominantly from Eastern Europe. In an economy which has been growing slowly (even though the U.K. is a better performer than other European countries in recent years), this has come as a shock. The spirit of 'nationalism still runs high. The poor in Britain feel that they have been cheated by the migrants. Absorbing migrants is not new for Britain. The Asian and African migrants constitute significant proportion of the population. All this happened when the economy was strong and growin But this is not the situation now, and the resentment in one sense natural. However, looked at globally, the poor in the countries from which people migrate hav benefited. The British have also gained to the extent that the free movement of people has enabled highly skilled professionals to find positions all over Europe. The 'leave vote thus was motivated by two considerations: one, the degree of integration that the FU was trying to impose, and two, the migration policy which allowed a free movement of people across countries. Globalisation is not really the devil. If the EU arrangement had been restricted only to free movement of goods, services, capital and funds, it could not have led to any deep resentment. It is the attempt at greater economic integration that has been interpreted as a loss of sovereignty and resented. Globalisation, with its emphasis on efficiency (since goods and services will get produced at the least cost centres), can lead to greater inequality theoretically. Within a country also, the more efficient including professionals gain disproportionately. This situation. gets worse if economies are growing slowly. The U.S. has always prided itself on saying that the system they have is 'people's capitalism. Inequalities do not matter much when economies are growing strongly and when new entrants to the labour force find employment easily. Countervalling measures are needed to take care of the adverse impact of globalisation. For this reason, we cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater. The developed countries face a serious dilemma. They have reached a stage in their development when further growth will be slow. This will have implications for absorbing the labour that gets added to the market. Complicating the situation is technological development which is increasingly labour-saving. New technologies have a twofold impact. First, they reduce the demand for labour in general. Second, in particular they make unskilled and semi-skilled work redundant. They demand new skills for which retraining may be needed. Distribution of Income has thus become an issue which needs to be dealt with directly. Brexit is not a blow against globalisation per se. Labour does not stand the same category as capital, even though both are factors of production. Migration hurts when the economy is at a low ebb. Britain, along with other developed countries, faces a basic problem of coping with a growth potential which is far lower than the growth rate they had seen before 2008.
To what aspect this article is devoted by the author?
Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words have been printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.
Brexit has evoked a spate of comments. These comments fall into broadly two categories. The first set of comments focusses on the short-term and medium- term impact of Brexit on the U.K., Europe and the rest of the world including India. The second goes into the reasons behind this decision of the British. Globalisation has been interpreted in many ways. In broad terms, globalisation denotes the free movement of goods,services, capital, funds, Ideas, technology and people across countries. Many people think globalisation is a recent phenomenon. This is not true. This has been going on for centuries. What has made it unique in recent times is the speed of the movement. Great Britain and many other countries in Europe have reached the present level of economic development only because of this free movement. In both demographic and geographic terms, Britain is a small country. It is not the size of the domestic market that determined its growth.. London could not have emerged as the financial centre. of the world but for the free flow of capital.
The gamut of financial services offered by
London is geared to meet world demand and not that of Britain alone. Even after the exit from the EU, Britain cannot remain as an isolated island. It has to be part of an international trade regime which allows for free trade. What then could have motivated a little more. than 50 per cent of the population to come out of the EU? It has something to do with the nature of the relationship within the EU. The EU has evolved over the last seven decades. From a loose arrangement, it has become a light bureaucratic organisation with its Jurisdiction extending to multifarious activities. When
the euro was created as a common currency, Britain opted out of it. The European Central Bank sets a common monetary policy stance for all member countries. This itself has been a source of irritation to many member countries. This came out prominently at the time of the Greek crisis, With the loss of one Instrument of control namely, the exchange rate variation the entire burden of adjustment had to be through employment and output changes. As one commentator put it, the EU has moved up its aspiration from the idea of 'common' market to 'single market. It is this transition which half of Britain has resented. The complex set of regulations emanating from Brussels has made at least a section of the British people feel that they have lost 'independence'. Some of the elite of Britain who voted to 'leave' feel this way. They think that control has moved to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. What has Induced the 'non-elite' to vote for Brexit was the EU's migration policy. The free movement of people has been the last straw that broke the camel's back. The low-paid Jobs in the U.K. have been taken over by migrants predominantly from Eastern Europe. In an economy which has been growing slowly (even though the U.K. is a better performer than other European countries in recent years), this has come as a shock. The spirit of 'nationalism still runs high. The poor in Britain feel that they have been cheated by the migrants. Absorbing migrants is not new for Britain. The Asian and African migrants constitute significant proportion of the population. All this happened when the economy was strong and growin But this is not the situation now, and the resentment in one sense natural. However, looked at globally, the poor in the countries from which people migrate hav benefited. The British have also gained to the extent that the free movement of people has enabled highly skilled professionals to find positions all over Europe. The 'leave vote thus was motivated by two considerations: one, the degree of integration that the FU was trying to impose, and two, the migration policy which allowed a free movement of people across countries. Globalisation is not really the devil. If the EU arrangement had been restricted only to free movement of goods, services, capital and funds, it could not have led to any deep resentment. It is the attempt at greater economic integration that has been interpreted as a loss of sovereignty and resented. Globalisation, with its emphasis on efficiency (since goods and services will get produced at the least cost centres), can lead to greater inequality theoretically. Within a country also, the more efficient including professionals gain disproportionately. This situation. gets worse if economies are growing slowly. The U.S. has always prided itself on saying that the system they have is 'people's capitalism. Inequalities do not matter much when economies are growing strongly and when new entrants to the labour force find employment easily. Countervalling measures are needed to take care of the adverse impact of globalisation. For this reason, we cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater. The developed countries face a serious dilemma. They have reached a stage in their development when further growth will be slow. This will have implications for absorbing the labour that gets added to the market. Complicating the situation is technological development which is increasingly labour-saving. New technologies have a twofold impact. First, they reduce the demand for labour in general. Second, in particular they make unskilled and semi-skilled work redundant. They demand new skills for which retraining may be needed. Distribution of Income has thus become an issue which needs to be dealt with directly. Brexit is not a blow against globalisation per se. Labour does not stand the same category as capital, even though both are factors of production. Migration hurts when the economy is at a low ebb. Britain, along with other developed countries, faces a basic problem of coping with a growth potential which is far lower than the growth rate they had seen before 2008.
What has been the reason for the infuriation of the member countries of European Union?
Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words have been printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.
Brexit has evoked a spate of comments. These comments fall into broadly two categories. The first set of comments focusses on the short-term and medium- term impact of Brexit on the U.K., Europe and the rest of the world including India. The second goes into the reasons behind this decision of the British. Globalisation has been interpreted in many ways. In broad terms, globalisation denotes the free movement of goods,services, capital, funds, Ideas, technology and people across countries. Many people think globalisation is a recent phenomenon. This is not true. This has been going on for centuries. What has made it unique in recent times is the speed of the movement. Great Britain and many other countries in Europe have reached the present level of economic development only because of this free movement. In both demographic and geographic terms, Britain is a small country. It is not the size of the domestic market that determined its growth.. London could not have emerged as the financial centre. of the world but for the free flow of capital.
The gamut of financial services offered by
London is geared to meet world demand and not that of Britain alone. Even after the exit from the EU, Britain cannot remain as an isolated island. It has to be part of an international trade regime which allows for free trade. What then could have motivated a little more. than 50 per cent of the population to come out of the EU? It has something to do with the nature of the relationship within the EU. The EU has evolved over the last seven decades. From a loose arrangement, it has become a light bureaucratic organisation with its Jurisdiction extending to multifarious activities. When
the euro was created as a common currency, Britain opted out of it. The European Central Bank sets a common monetary policy stance for all member countries. This itself has been a source of irritation to many member countries. This came out prominently at the time of the Greek crisis, With the loss of one Instrument of control namely, the exchange rate variation the entire burden of adjustment had to be through employment and output changes. As one commentator put it, the EU has moved up its aspiration from the idea of 'common' market to 'single market. It is this transition which half of Britain has resented. The complex set of regulations emanating from Brussels has made at least a section of the British people feel that they have lost 'independence'. Some of the elite of Britain who voted to 'leave' feel this way. They think that control has moved to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. What has Induced the 'non-elite' to vote for Brexit was the EU's migration policy. The free movement of people has been the last straw that broke the camel's back. The low-paid Jobs in the U.K. have been taken over by migrants predominantly from Eastern Europe. In an economy which has been growing slowly (even though the U.K. is a better performer than other European countries in recent years), this has come as a shock. The spirit of 'nationalism still runs high. The poor in Britain feel that they have been cheated by the migrants. Absorbing migrants is not new for Britain. The Asian and African migrants constitute significant proportion of the population. All this happened when the economy was strong and growin But this is not the situation now, and the resentment in one sense natural. However, looked at globally, the poor in the countries from which people migrate hav benefited. The British have also gained to the extent that the free movement of people has enabled highly skilled professionals to find positions all over Europe. The 'leave vote thus was motivated by two considerations: one, the degree of integration that the FU was trying to impose, and two, the migration policy which allowed a free movement of people across countries. Globalisation is not really the devil. If the EU arrangement had been restricted only to free movement of goods, services, capital and funds, it could not have led to any deep resentment. It is the attempt at greater economic integration that has been interpreted as a loss of sovereignty and resented. Globalisation, with its emphasis on efficiency (since goods and services will get produced at the least cost centres), can lead to greater inequality theoretically. Within a country also, the more efficient including professionals gain disproportionately. This situation. gets worse if economies are growing slowly. The U.S. has always prided itself on saying that the system they have is 'people's capitalism. Inequalities do not matter much when economies are growing strongly and when new entrants to the labour force find employment easily. Countervalling measures are needed to take care of the adverse impact of globalisation. For this reason, we cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater. The developed countries face a serious dilemma. They have reached a stage in their development when further growth will be slow. This will have implications for absorbing the labour that gets added to the market. Complicating the situation is technological development which is increasingly labour-saving. New technologies have a twofold impact. First, they reduce the demand for labour in general. Second, in particular they make unskilled and semi-skilled work redundant. They demand new skills for which retraining may be needed. Distribution of Income has thus become an issue which needs to be dealt with directly. Brexit is not a blow against globalisation per se. Labour does not stand the same category as capital, even though both are factors of production. Migration hurts when the economy is at a low ebb. Britain, along with other developed countries, faces a basic problem of coping with a growth potential which is far lower than the growth rate they had seen before 2008.
Which of the following is one of the reasons for major section of British people to vote against European Union?
Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words have been printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.
Brexit has evoked a spate of comments. These comments fall into broadly two categories. The first set of comments focusses on the short-term and medium- term impact of Brexit on the U.K., Europe and the rest of the world including India. The second goes into the reasons behind this decision of the British. Globalisation has been interpreted in many ways. In broad terms, globalisation denotes the free movement of goods,services, capital, funds, Ideas, technology and people across countries. Many people think globalisation is a recent phenomenon. This is not true. This has been going on for centuries. What has made it unique in recent times is the speed of the movement. Great Britain and many other countries in Europe have reached the present level of economic development only because of this free movement. In both demographic and geographic terms, Britain is a small country. It is not the size of the domestic market that determined its growth.. London could not have emerged as the financial centre. of the world but for the free flow of capital.
The gamut of financial services offered by
London is geared to meet world demand and not that of Britain alone. Even after the exit from the EU, Britain cannot remain as an isolated island. It has to be part of an international trade regime which allows for free trade. What then could have motivated a little more. than 50 per cent of the population to come out of the EU? It has something to do with the nature of the relationship within the EU. The EU has evolved over the last seven decades. From a loose arrangement, it has become a light bureaucratic organisation with its Jurisdiction extending to multifarious activities. When
the euro was created as a common currency, Britain opted out of it. The European Central Bank sets a common monetary policy stance for all member countries. This itself has been a source of irritation to many member countries. This came out prominently at the time of the Greek crisis, With the loss of one Instrument of control namely, the exchange rate variation the entire burden of adjustment had to be through employment and output changes. As one commentator put it, the EU has moved up its aspiration from the idea of 'common' market to 'single market. It is this transition which half of Britain has resented. The complex set of regulations emanating from Brussels has made at least a section of the British people feel that they have lost 'independence'. Some of the elite of Britain who voted to 'leave' feel this way. They think that control has moved to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. What has Induced the 'non-elite' to vote for Brexit was the EU's migration policy. The free movement of people has been the last straw that broke the camel's back. The low-paid Jobs in the U.K. have been taken over by migrants predominantly from Eastern Europe. In an economy which has been growing slowly (even though the U.K. is a better performer than other European countries in recent years), this has come as a shock. The spirit of 'nationalism still runs high. The poor in Britain feel that they have been cheated by the migrants. Absorbing migrants is not new for Britain. The Asian and African migrants constitute significant proportion of the population. All this happened when the economy was strong and growin But this is not the situation now, and the resentment in one sense natural. However, looked at globally, the poor in the countries from which people migrate hav benefited. The British have also gained to the extent that the free movement of people has enabled highly skilled professionals to find positions all over Europe. The 'leave vote thus was motivated by two considerations: one, the degree of integration that the FU was trying to impose, and two, the migration policy which allowed a free movement of people across countries. Globalisation is not really the devil. If the EU arrangement had been restricted only to free movement of goods, services, capital and funds, it could not have led to any deep resentment. It is the attempt at greater economic integration that has been interpreted as a loss of sovereignty and resented. Globalisation, with its emphasis on efficiency (since goods and services will get produced at the least cost centres), can lead to greater inequality theoretically. Within a country also, the more efficient including professionals gain disproportionately. This situation. gets worse if economies are growing slowly. The U.S. has always prided itself on saying that the system they have is 'people's capitalism. Inequalities do not matter much when economies are growing strongly and when new entrants to the labour force find employment easily. Countervalling measures are needed to take care of the adverse impact of globalisation. For this reason, we cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater. The developed countries face a serious dilemma. They have reached a stage in their development when further growth will be slow. This will have implications for absorbing the labour that gets added to the market. Complicating the situation is technological development which is increasingly labour-saving. New technologies have a twofold impact. First, they reduce the demand for labour in general. Second, in particular they make unskilled and semi-skilled work redundant. They demand new skills for which retraining may be needed. Distribution of Income has thus become an issue which needs to be dealt with directly. Brexit is not a blow against globalisation per se. Labour does not stand the same category as capital, even though both are factors of production. Migration hurts when the economy is at a low ebb. Britain, along with other developed countries, faces a basic problem of coping with a growth potential which is far lower than the growth rate they had seen before 2008.
Which of the following statement is false regarding the impact of globalization?
(I) Globalization that stresses on productivity leads to inequality.
(ii) Globalization has been attributed as the primary reason for the loss of supremacy in British people by the author.
(iii) Globalization is a major factor which helped London in becoming a financial center of the World.
Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words have been printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.
Brexit has evoked a spate of comments. These comments fall into broadly two categories. The first set of comments focusses on the short-term and medium- term impact of Brexit on the U.K., Europe and the rest of the world including India. The second goes into the reasons behind this decision of the British. Globalisation has been interpreted in many ways. In broad terms, globalisation denotes the free movement of goods,services, capital, funds, Ideas, technology and people across countries. Many people think globalisation is a recent phenomenon. This is not true. This has been going on for centuries. What has made it unique in recent times is the speed of the movement. Great Britain and many other countries in Europe have reached the present level of economic development only because of this free movement. In both demographic and geographic terms, Britain is a small country. It is not the size of the domestic market that determined its growth.. London could not have emerged as the financial centre. of the world but for the free flow of capital.
The gamut of financial services offered by
London is geared to meet world demand and not that of Britain alone. Even after the exit from the EU, Britain cannot remain as an isolated island. It has to be part of an international trade regime which allows for free trade. What then could have motivated a little more. than 50 per cent of the population to come out of the EU? It has something to do with the nature of the relationship within the EU. The EU has evolved over the last seven decades. From a loose arrangement, it has become a light bureaucratic organisation with its Jurisdiction extending to multifarious activities. When
the euro was created as a common currency, Britain opted out of it. The European Central Bank sets a common monetary policy stance for all member countries. This itself has been a source of irritation to many member countries. This came out prominently at the time of the Greek crisis, With the loss of one Instrument of control namely, the exchange rate variation the entire burden of adjustment had to be through employment and output changes. As one commentator put it, the EU has moved up its aspiration from the idea of 'common' market to 'single market. It is this transition which half of Britain has resented. The complex set of regulations emanating from Brussels has made at least a section of the British people feel that they have lost 'independence'. Some of the elite of Britain who voted to 'leave' feel this way. They think that control has moved to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. What has Induced the 'non-elite' to vote for Brexit was the EU's migration policy. The free movement of people has been the last straw that broke the camel's back. The low-paid Jobs in the U.K. have been taken over by migrants predominantly from Eastern Europe. In an economy which has been growing slowly (even though the U.K. is a better performer than other European countries in recent years), this has come as a shock. The spirit of 'nationalism still runs high. The poor in Britain feel that they have been cheated by the migrants. Absorbing migrants is not new for Britain. The Asian and African migrants constitute significant proportion of the population. All this happened when the economy was strong and growin But this is not the situation now, and the resentment in one sense natural. However, looked at globally, the poor in the countries from which people migrate hav benefited. The British have also gained to the extent that the free movement of people has enabled highly skilled professionals to find positions all over Europe. The 'leave vote thus was motivated by two considerations: one, the degree of integration that the FU was trying to impose, and two, the migration policy which allowed a free movement of people across countries. Globalisation is not really the devil. If the EU arrangement had been restricted only to free movement of goods, services, capital and funds, it could not have led to any deep resentment. It is the attempt at greater economic integration that has been interpreted as a loss of sovereignty and resented. Globalisation, with its emphasis on efficiency (since goods and services will get produced at the least cost centres), can lead to greater inequality theoretically. Within a country also, the more efficient including professionals gain disproportionately. This situation. gets worse if economies are growing slowly. The U.S. has always prided itself on saying that the system they have is 'people's capitalism. Inequalities do not matter much when economies are growing strongly and when new entrants to the labour force find employment easily. Countervalling measures are needed to take care of the adverse impact of globalisation. For this reason, we cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater. The developed countries face a serious dilemma. They have reached a stage in their development when further growth will be slow. This will have implications for absorbing the labour that gets added to the market. Complicating the situation is technological development which is increasingly labour-saving. New technologies have a twofold impact. First, they reduce the demand for labour in general. Second, in particular they make unskilled and semi-skilled work redundant. They demand new skills for which retraining may be needed. Distribution of Income has thus become an issue which needs to be dealt with directly. Brexit is not a blow against globalisation per se. Labour does not stand the same category as capital, even though both are factors of production. Migration hurts when the economy is at a low ebb. Britain, along with other developed countries, faces a basic problem of coping with a growth potential which is far lower than the growth rate they had seen before 2008.
What is the peril of migration?
Choose the word/group of words which is MOST SIMILAR in meaning to the word/group of words printed in bold as used in the passage.
EVOKED
Choose the word/group of words which is MOST SIMILAR in meaning to the word/group of words printed in bold as used in the passage.
SPATE
Five statements are given below, labelled a, b, c, d and e. Among these, four statements are in logical order and form a coherent paragraph. From the given options, choose the option that does not into the theme of the paragraph.
Five statements are given below, labelled a, b, c, d. and e. Among these, four statements are in logical order and form a coherent paragraph. From the given options, choose the option that does not fit into the theme of the paragraph.
Five statements are given below, labelled a, b, c, d, and e. Among these, four statements are in logical order and form a coherent paragraph. From the given options, choose the option that does not fit into the theme of the paragraph.
krekitne =
sahikitne =
yekya =
kitnatime =