General Comprehension (UPSC) (Part-II)

1. further globalization.

2. more consolidation and deregulation of financial system

3. further diversification of the financial system.

4. more financial inclusion in the economy.

Select the correct answer using the code given below:

Financial markets in India have acquired greater depth and liquidity over the years. Steady reforms since 1991 have led to growing linkages and integration of the Indian economy and its financial system with the global economy. Weak global economic prospects and continuing uncertainties in the international financial markets therefore, have had their impact on the emerging market economies.

Sovereign risk concerns, particularly in the Euro area, affected financial markets for the greater part of the year, with the contagion of Greece's sovereign debt problem spreading to India and other economies by way of higher-than-normal levels of volatility. The funding constraints in international financial markets could impact both the availability and cost of foreign funding for banks and corporates.

Since the Indian financial system is bank-dominated, banks' ability to withstand stress is critical to overall financial stability. Indian banks, however, remain robust, notwithstanding a decline in capital to risk-weighted assets ratio and a rise in non-performing asset levels in the recent past. Capital adequacy levels remain above the regulatory requirements.

The financial market infrastructure continues to function without any major disruption. With further globalization, consolidation, deregulation, and diversification of the financial system, the banking business may become more complex and riskier. Issues like risk and liquidity management and enhancing skill therefore assume greater significance.

Crude mineral oil comes out of the earth as a thick brown or black liquid with a strong smell. It is a complex mixture of many different substances, each with its own individual qualities. Most of them are combinations of hydrogen and carbon in varying proportions. Such hydrocarbons are also found in other forms such as bitumen, asphalt and natural gas.

Mineral oil originates from the carcasses of tiny animals and from plants that live in the sea. Over millions of years, these dead creatures form large deposits under the sea-bed; and ocean currents cover them with a blanket of sand and silt.

As this mineral hardens, it becomes sedimentary rock and effectively shuts out the oxygen, so preventing the complete decomposition of the marine deposits underneath. The layers of sedimentary rock become thicker and heavier. Their pressure produces heat, which transforms the tiny carcasses into crude oil in a process that is still going on today.

Crude mineral oil comes out of the earth as a thick brown or black liquid with a strong smell. It is a complex mixture of many different substances, each with its own individual qualities. Most of them are combinations of hydrogen and carbon in varying proportions. Such hydrocarbons are also found in other forms such as bitumen, asphalt and natural gas.

Mineral oil originates from the carcasses of tiny animals and from plants that live in the sea. Over millions of years, these dead creatures form large deposits under the sea-bed; and ocean currents cover them with a blanket of sand and silt.

As this mineral hardens, it becomes sedimentary rock and effectively shuts out the oxygen, so preventing the complete decomposition of the marine deposits underneath. The layers of sedimentary rock become thicker and heavier. Their pressure produces heat, which transforms the tiny carcasses into crude oil in a process that is still going on today.

Many nations now place their faith in capitalism and governments choose it as the strategy to create wealth for their people. The spectacular economic growth seen in Brazil, China and India after the liberalisation of their economies is proof of its enormous potential and success.

However, the global banking crisis and the economic recession have left many bewildered. The debates tend to focus on free market operations and forces, their efficiency and their ability for self correction. Issues of justice, integrity and honesty are rarely elaborated to highlight the failure of the global banking system.

The apologists of the system continue to justify the success of capitalism and argue that the recent crisis was a blip. Their arguments betray an ideological bias with the assumptions that an unregulated market is fair and competent, and that the exercise of private greed will be in the larger public interest.

Few recognize the bidirectional relationship between capitalism and greed; that each reinforces the other. Surely, a more honest conceptualisation of the conflicts of interest among the rich and powerful players who have benefited from the system, their biases and ideology is needed; the focus on the wealth creation should also highlight the resultant gross inequity.

Many nations now place their faith in capitalism and governments choose it as the strategy to create wealth for their people. The spectacular economic growth seen in Brazil, China and India after the liberalisation of their economies is proof of its enormous potential and success.

However, the global banking crisis and the economic recession have left many bewildered. The debates tend to focus on free market operations and forces, their efficiency and their ability for self correction. Issues of justice, integrity and honesty are rarely elaborated to highlight the failure of the global banking system.

The apologists of the system continue to justify the success of capitalism and argue that the recent crisis was a blip. Their arguments betray an ideological bias with the assumptions that an unregulated market is fair and competent, and that the exercise of private greed will be in the larger public interest.

Few recognize the bidirectional relationship between capitalism and greed; that each reinforces the other. Surely, a more honest conceptualisation of the conflicts of interest among the rich and powerful players who have benefited from the system, their biases and ideology is needed; the focus on the wealth creation should also highlight the resultant gross inequity.

1. refers to the false ideology of capitalism.

2. underlies the righteous claims of the free market.

3. shows the benevolent face of capitalism.

4. ignores resultant gross inequity.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Many nations now place their faith in capitalism and governments choose it as the strategy to create wealth for their people. The spectacular economic growth seen in Brazil, China and India after the liberalisation of their economies is proof of its enormous potential and success.

However, the global banking crisis and the economic recession have left many bewildered. The debates tend to focus on free market operations and forces, their efficiency and their ability for self correction. Issues of justice, integrity and honesty are rarely elaborated to highlight the failure of the global banking system.

The apologists of the system continue to justify the success of capitalism and argue that the recent crisis was a blip. Their arguments betray an ideological bias with the assumptions that an unregulated market is fair and competent, and that the exercise of private greed will be in the larger public interest.

Few recognize the bidirectional relationship between capitalism and greed; that each reinforces the other. Surely, a more honest conceptualisation of the conflicts of interest among the rich and powerful players who have benefited from the system, their biases and ideology is needed; the focus on the wealth creation should also highlight the resultant gross inequity.

1. Now public sector has lost its relevance in the industrialization process.

2. Public sector does not perform satisfactorily.

3. Entrepreneurship in private sector is expanding.

4. Effective competition policies are available now.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct in the given context?

Net profits are only 2.2% of their total assets for central public sector undertakings, lower than for the private corporate sector.

While the public sector or the State-led entrepreneurship played an important role in triggering India's industrialization, our evolving development needs, comparatively less-than-satisfactory performance of the public sector enterprises, the maturing of our private sector, a much larger social base now available for expanding entrepreneurship and the growing institutional capabilities to enforce competition policies would suggest that the time has come to review the role of public sector.

What should the portfolio composition of the government be? It should not remain static all times. The airline industry works well as a purely private affair. At the opposite end, rural roads, whose sparse traffic makes tolling unviable, have to be on the balance-sheet of the State. If the government did not own rural roads, they would not exist. Similarly, public health capital in our towns and cities will need to come from the public sector. Equally, preservation and improvement of forest cover will have to be a new priority for the public sector assets.

Take the example of steel. With near-zero tariffs, India is a globally competitive market for the metal. Indian firms export steel into the global market, which demonstrates there is no gap in technology. Indian companies are buying up global steel companies, which shows there is no gap in capital availability. Under these conditions, private ownership works best.

Private ownership is clearly desirable in regulated industries, ranging from finance to infrastructure, where a government agency performs the function of regulation and multiple competing firms are located in the private sector. Here, the simple and clean solution - government as the umpire and the private sector as the players is what works best. In many of these industries, we have a legacy of government ownership, where productivity tends to be lower, fear of bankruptcy is absent, and the risk of asking for money from the tax payer is ever present. There is also the conflict of interest between government as an owner and as the regulator. The formulation and implementation of competition policy will be more vigorous and fair if government companies are out of action.

Net profits are only 2.2% of their total assets for central public sector undertakings, lower than for the private corporate sector. While the public sector or the State-led entrepreneurship played an important role in triggering India's industrialization, our evolving development needs, comparatively less-than-satisfactory performance of the public sector enterprises, the maturing of our private sector.

A much larger social base now available for expanding entrepreneurship and the growing institutional capabilities to enforce competition policies would suggest that the time has come to review the role of public sector.

What should the portfolio composition of the government be? It should not remain static all times. The airline industry works well as a purely private affair. At the opposite end, rural roads, whose sparse traffic makes tolling unviable, have to be on the balance-sheet of the State. If the government did not own rural roads, they would not exist. Similarly, public health capital in our towns and cities will need to come from the public sector.

Take the example of steel. With near-zero tariffs, India is a globally competitive market for the metal. Indian firms export steel into the global market, which demonstrates there is no gap in technology. Indian companies are buying up global steel companies, which shows there is no gap in capital availability. Under these conditions, private ownership works best.

Private ownership is clearly desirable in regulated industries, ranging from finance to infrastructure, where a government agency performs the function of regulation and multiple competing firms are located in the private sector. Here, the simple and clean solution - government as the umpire and the private sector as the players is what works best.

In many of these industries, we have a legacy of government ownership, where productivity tends to be lower, fear of bankruptcy is absent, and the risk of asking for money from the tax payer is ever present. There is also the conflict of interest between government as an owner and as the regulator. The formulation and implementation of competition policy will be more vigorous and fair if government companies are out of action.

Net profits are only 2.2% of their total assets for central public sector undertakings, lower than for the private corporate sector. While the public sector or the State-led entrepreneurship played an important role in triggering India's industrialization, our evolving development needs, comparatively less-than-satisfactory performance of the public sector enterprises, the maturing of our private sector.

A much larger social base now available for expanding entrepreneurship and the growing institutional capabilities to enforce competition policies would suggest that the time has come to review the role of public sector.

What should the portfolio composition of the government be? It should not remain static all times. The airline industry works well as a purely private affair. At the opposite end, rural roads, whose sparse traffic makes tolling unviable, have to be on the balance-sheet of the State. If the government did not own rural roads, they would not exist. Similarly, public health capital in our towns and cities will need to come from the public sector.

Take the example of steel. With near-zero tariffs, India is a globally competitive market for the metal. Indian firms export steel into the global market, which demonstrates there is no gap in technology. Indian companies are buying up global steel companies, which shows there is no gap in capital availability. Under these conditions, private ownership works best.

Private ownership is clearly desirable in regulated industries, ranging from finance to infrastructure, where a government agency performs the function of regulation and multiple competing firms are located in the private sector. Here, the simple and clean solution - government as the umpire and the private sector as the players is what works best.

In many of these industries, we have a legacy of government ownership, where productivity tends to be lower, fear of bankruptcy is absent, and the risk of asking for money from the tax payer is ever present. There is also the conflict of interest between government as an owner and as the regulator. The formulation and implementation of competition policy will be more vigorous and fair if government companies are out of action.

Net profits are only 2.2% of their total assets for central public sector undertakings, lower than for the private corporate sector. While the public sector or the State-led entrepreneurship played an important role in triggering India's industrialization, our evolving development needs, comparatively less-than-satisfactory performance of the public sector enterprises, the maturing of our private sector.

A much larger social base now available for expanding entrepreneurship and the growing institutional capabilities to enforce competition policies would suggest that the time has come to review the role of public sector.

What should the portfolio composition of the government be? It should not remain static all times. The airline industry works well as a purely private affair. At the opposite end, rural roads, whose sparse traffic makes tolling unviable, have to be on the balance-sheet of the State. If the government did not own rural roads, they would not exist. Similarly, public health capital in our towns and cities will need to come from the public sector.

Take the example of steel. With near-zero tariffs, India is a globally competitive market for the metal. Indian firms export steel into the global market, which demonstrates there is no gap in technology. Indian companies are buying up global steel companies, which shows there is no gap in capital availability. Under these conditions, private ownership works best.

Private ownership is clearly desirable in regulated industries, ranging from finance to infrastructure, where a government agency performs the function of regulation and multiple competing firms are located in the private sector. Here, the simple and clean solution - government as the umpire and the private sector as the players is what works best.

In many of these industries, we have a legacy of government ownership, where productivity tends to be lower, fear of bankruptcy is absent, and the risk of asking for money from the tax payer is ever present. There is also the conflict of interest between government as an owner and as the regulator. The formulation and implementation of competition policy will be more vigorous and fair if government companies are out of action.