Administrative Organization – UPSC Civils IAS Main Examination Topic wise Comprehensive Material

Theories systems, contingency; Structure and forms: Ministries and Departments, Corporations, Companies, Boards and Commissions; Ad hoc and advisory bodies; Head Quarters and Field relationships; Regulatory Authorities; Public-Private Partnerships.

Theories, Systems Contingency
1. “The process of Change may create crises in the system.” Comment (1999/20)

2. Examine the view that systems theory, despite its promises to the contrary, followed similar patterns that characterised the structural classical theories. (1996 30)

3. How does systems Theory help to delineate functional and dysfunctional characteristics of a public bureaucracy? 988/60)

Structure and Forms
1. “The distinction between line and staff is relative rather than absolute.” Discuss (2007/20)

2. Afairly adequate analysis of the Administrative Organization in Government is possible when we treat “bureaucracy as a structure’ and ‘administration’ as a function’. Discuss. (2001/60)

3. Why do all administrative organizations consider hierarchy as the many splendoured technique? Discuss (2001/60)

4. Differentiate between managerial and functional aspectsofco-ordination. How isco-ordination achieved? (1998/30)

6. Hierarchic control, whereby instructions are passed down the line is not the only dimension of control. Comment. (1995/20)

7. Much of what the recruit learns in an organisation is communicated after the fashion of Bentham’s ‘dog law’.’ Discuss. (1995/30)

8. “The distinction between line authority and professional expertness is also less clear-cut in reality than the abstract concepts of line and staff make ear. Discuss. (1994/30)

It is difficult to state any demarcating principle to differentiate between Line and staff functions of agencies. Discuss. (1992/30)

9. “And therefore Modem Civilization has an unprecedented need of organisation Development (OD). comment. (1987/20)

10. “The distinction between line and staffis a distinction withouta difference. Comment (1987/20)

1. “Centralization inclines toward power and domination. Decentralization,  on the other hand, inclines toward competition and self-determination “Discuss. (1997/30)

2. “Decentralization is never just a technical exercise, with intentions and effects neatly confined to questions of economy and efficiency.”Comment. (1993/20)

3. “Decentralization has a more important justification than more administrative efficiency. Comment (1992/20)

4. Account for the growing tendency ofcentralization in the modern state. (1991/60)

5. “The essence of delegation is to confer discretion upon others, to use their judgement in meeting specific problems within the framework of their duties. Comment (1991/20

6. Explain the impactof privatisation on public administration with special reference to (2010/60)

Ministries and Departments Corporations, Companies
1. “There is no doubt the departmentalisation is fraught with complexities. These are in part technical, in part political,” Discuss. (2009/20)

2. To claim that acompany oracorporation form is always more effective than a departmental form of organization is an outdated view. The real test of a sound structure is its capacity to balance decisional autonomy and operational flexibility with optimal accountability.” Critically examine this statement. (2008 / 60)

3. “Public corporations are not an end in themselves but an extension of the government activities designed to promote public welfare. -Substantiate (2002/20)

4. The Departmental pattern of undertaking does not offer the necessary, autonomy, flexibility and entrepreneurship to Management’. Examine. (1992/30)

5. “A Public Corporation is a combination of Public ownership, public accountability and business managements for public ends. Comment. (1991/20)

Boards and Commissions
1. “The Commission form of organization would tend to be a “headless fourth branch’ of government.” (1999/20)

Headquarters and Field relationships
1. “Headquarter and Field relationships determine the tendor of implementation of programs. Comment  (1998/20)