Question Description
PASSAGE IIMost champions of democracy have been rather reticent in suggesting that democracy would itself promote development and enhancement of social welfare – they have tended to see them as good but distinctly separate and largely independent goals. The detractors of democracy, on the other hand, seemed to have been quite willing to express their diagnosis of what they see as serious tensions between democracy and development. The theorists of the practical spirit - “Make up your mind: do you want democracy, or instead, do you want development?”- often came ,at least to start with , from East Asian countries, and their voice grew in influence as several of these countries were immensely successful – through the 1970s and 1980s and even later – in promoting economic growth without pursuing democracy.To deal with these issues we have to pay particular attention to both the content of what can be called development and to the interpretation of democracy (in particular to the respective roles of voting and of public reasoning). The assessment of development cannot be divorced from the lives that people can lead and the real freedom that they enjoy. Development can scarcely be seen merely in terms of enhancement of inanimate objects of convenience, such as a rise in the GNP (or in personal incomes), or industrialisation – important as they may be as means to the real ends. Their value must depend on what they do to the lives and freedom of the people involved, which must be central to the idea of development.If development is understood in a broader way, with a focus on human lives, then it becomes immediately clear that the relation between development and democracy has to be seen partly in terms of their constitutive connection, rather than only through their external links. Even though the question has often been asked whether political freedom is “conductive to development”, we must not miss the crucial that political liberties and democratic rights are among the “constitutive components” of development does not have to be established indirectly through their contribution to the growth of GNP.Q. According to the passage, why is a serious tension perceived between democracy and development by the detractors of democracy? a)Democracy and development are distinct and separate goalsb)Economic growth can be promoted successfully without pursuing a democratic system of governancec)Non-democratic regimes deliver economic growth faster and far more successfully than democratic ones.d)All the statements (a), (b) and (c) given above are correct in this context.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for UPSC 2024 is part of UPSC preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the UPSC exam syllabus. Information about PASSAGE IIMost champions of democracy have been rather reticent in suggesting that democracy would itself promote development and enhancement of social welfare – they have tended to see them as good but distinctly separate and largely independent goals. The detractors of democracy, on the other hand, seemed to have been quite willing to express their diagnosis of what they see as serious tensions between democracy and development. The theorists of the practical spirit - “Make up your mind: do you want democracy, or instead, do you want development?”- often came ,at least to start with , from East Asian countries, and their voice grew in influence as several of these countries were immensely successful – through the 1970s and 1980s and even later – in promoting economic growth without pursuing democracy.To deal with these issues we have to pay particular attention to both the content of what can be called development and to the interpretation of democracy (in particular to the respective roles of voting and of public reasoning). The assessment of development cannot be divorced from the lives that people can lead and the real freedom that they enjoy. Development can scarcely be seen merely in terms of enhancement of inanimate objects of convenience, such as a rise in the GNP (or in personal incomes), or industrialisation – important as they may be as means to the real ends. Their value must depend on what they do to the lives and freedom of the people involved, which must be central to the idea of development.If development is understood in a broader way, with a focus on human lives, then it becomes immediately clear that the relation between development and democracy has to be seen partly in terms of their constitutive connection, rather than only through their external links. Even though the question has often been asked whether political freedom is “conductive to development”, we must not miss the crucial that political liberties and democratic rights are among the “constitutive components” of development does not have to be established indirectly through their contribution to the growth of GNP.Q. According to the passage, why is a serious tension perceived between democracy and development by the detractors of democracy? a)Democracy and development are distinct and separate goalsb)Economic growth can be promoted successfully without pursuing a democratic system of governancec)Non-democratic regimes deliver economic growth faster and far more successfully than democratic ones.d)All the statements (a), (b) and (c) given above are correct in this context.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for UPSC 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for PASSAGE IIMost champions of democracy have been rather reticent in suggesting that democracy would itself promote development and enhancement of social welfare – they have tended to see them as good but distinctly separate and largely independent goals. The detractors of democracy, on the other hand, seemed to have been quite willing to express their diagnosis of what they see as serious tensions between democracy and development. The theorists of the practical spirit - “Make up your mind: do you want democracy, or instead, do you want development?”- often came ,at least to start with , from East Asian countries, and their voice grew in influence as several of these countries were immensely successful – through the 1970s and 1980s and even later – in promoting economic growth without pursuing democracy.To deal with these issues we have to pay particular attention to both the content of what can be called development and to the interpretation of democracy (in particular to the respective roles of voting and of public reasoning). The assessment of development cannot be divorced from the lives that people can lead and the real freedom that they enjoy. Development can scarcely be seen merely in terms of enhancement of inanimate objects of convenience, such as a rise in the GNP (or in personal incomes), or industrialisation – important as they may be as means to the real ends. Their value must depend on what they do to the lives and freedom of the people involved, which must be central to the idea of development.If development is understood in a broader way, with a focus on human lives, then it becomes immediately clear that the relation between development and democracy has to be seen partly in terms of their constitutive connection, rather than only through their external links. Even though the question has often been asked whether political freedom is “conductive to development”, we must not miss the crucial that political liberties and democratic rights are among the “constitutive components” of development does not have to be established indirectly through their contribution to the growth of GNP.Q. According to the passage, why is a serious tension perceived between democracy and development by the detractors of democracy? a)Democracy and development are distinct and separate goalsb)Economic growth can be promoted successfully without pursuing a democratic system of governancec)Non-democratic regimes deliver economic growth faster and far more successfully than democratic ones.d)All the statements (a), (b) and (c) given above are correct in this context.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for PASSAGE IIMost champions of democracy have been rather reticent in suggesting that democracy would itself promote development and enhancement of social welfare – they have tended to see them as good but distinctly separate and largely independent goals. The detractors of democracy, on the other hand, seemed to have been quite willing to express their diagnosis of what they see as serious tensions between democracy and development. The theorists of the practical spirit - “Make up your mind: do you want democracy, or instead, do you want development?”- often came ,at least to start with , from East Asian countries, and their voice grew in influence as several of these countries were immensely successful – through the 1970s and 1980s and even later – in promoting economic growth without pursuing democracy.To deal with these issues we have to pay particular attention to both the content of what can be called development and to the interpretation of democracy (in particular to the respective roles of voting and of public reasoning). The assessment of development cannot be divorced from the lives that people can lead and the real freedom that they enjoy. Development can scarcely be seen merely in terms of enhancement of inanimate objects of convenience, such as a rise in the GNP (or in personal incomes), or industrialisation – important as they may be as means to the real ends. Their value must depend on what they do to the lives and freedom of the people involved, which must be central to the idea of development.If development is understood in a broader way, with a focus on human lives, then it becomes immediately clear that the relation between development and democracy has to be seen partly in terms of their constitutive connection, rather than only through their external links. Even though the question has often been asked whether political freedom is “conductive to development”, we must not miss the crucial that political liberties and democratic rights are among the “constitutive components” of development does not have to be established indirectly through their contribution to the growth of GNP.Q. According to the passage, why is a serious tension perceived between democracy and development by the detractors of democracy? a)Democracy and development are distinct and separate goalsb)Economic growth can be promoted successfully without pursuing a democratic system of governancec)Non-democratic regimes deliver economic growth faster and far more successfully than democratic ones.d)All the statements (a), (b) and (c) given above are correct in this context.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for UPSC. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for UPSC Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of PASSAGE IIMost champions of democracy have been rather reticent in suggesting that democracy would itself promote development and enhancement of social welfare – they have tended to see them as good but distinctly separate and largely independent goals. The detractors of democracy, on the other hand, seemed to have been quite willing to express their diagnosis of what they see as serious tensions between democracy and development. The theorists of the practical spirit - “Make up your mind: do you want democracy, or instead, do you want development?”- often came ,at least to start with , from East Asian countries, and their voice grew in influence as several of these countries were immensely successful – through the 1970s and 1980s and even later – in promoting economic growth without pursuing democracy.To deal with these issues we have to pay particular attention to both the content of what can be called development and to the interpretation of democracy (in particular to the respective roles of voting and of public reasoning). The assessment of development cannot be divorced from the lives that people can lead and the real freedom that they enjoy. Development can scarcely be seen merely in terms of enhancement of inanimate objects of convenience, such as a rise in the GNP (or in personal incomes), or industrialisation – important as they may be as means to the real ends. Their value must depend on what they do to the lives and freedom of the people involved, which must be central to the idea of development.If development is understood in a broader way, with a focus on human lives, then it becomes immediately clear that the relation between development and democracy has to be seen partly in terms of their constitutive connection, rather than only through their external links. Even though the question has often been asked whether political freedom is “conductive to development”, we must not miss the crucial that political liberties and democratic rights are among the “constitutive components” of development does not have to be established indirectly through their contribution to the growth of GNP.Q. According to the passage, why is a serious tension perceived between democracy and development by the detractors of democracy? a)Democracy and development are distinct and separate goalsb)Economic growth can be promoted successfully without pursuing a democratic system of governancec)Non-democratic regimes deliver economic growth faster and far more successfully than democratic ones.d)All the statements (a), (b) and (c) given above are correct in this context.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of PASSAGE IIMost champions of democracy have been rather reticent in suggesting that democracy would itself promote development and enhancement of social welfare – they have tended to see them as good but distinctly separate and largely independent goals. The detractors of democracy, on the other hand, seemed to have been quite willing to express their diagnosis of what they see as serious tensions between democracy and development. The theorists of the practical spirit - “Make up your mind: do you want democracy, or instead, do you want development?”- often came ,at least to start with , from East Asian countries, and their voice grew in influence as several of these countries were immensely successful – through the 1970s and 1980s and even later – in promoting economic growth without pursuing democracy.To deal with these issues we have to pay particular attention to both the content of what can be called development and to the interpretation of democracy (in particular to the respective roles of voting and of public reasoning). The assessment of development cannot be divorced from the lives that people can lead and the real freedom that they enjoy. Development can scarcely be seen merely in terms of enhancement of inanimate objects of convenience, such as a rise in the GNP (or in personal incomes), or industrialisation – important as they may be as means to the real ends. Their value must depend on what they do to the lives and freedom of the people involved, which must be central to the idea of development.If development is understood in a broader way, with a focus on human lives, then it becomes immediately clear that the relation between development and democracy has to be seen partly in terms of their constitutive connection, rather than only through their external links. Even though the question has often been asked whether political freedom is “conductive to development”, we must not miss the crucial that political liberties and democratic rights are among the “constitutive components” of development does not have to be established indirectly through their contribution to the growth of GNP.Q. According to the passage, why is a serious tension perceived between democracy and development by the detractors of democracy? a)Democracy and development are distinct and separate goalsb)Economic growth can be promoted successfully without pursuing a democratic system of governancec)Non-democratic regimes deliver economic growth faster and far more successfully than democratic ones.d)All the statements (a), (b) and (c) given above are correct in this context.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for PASSAGE IIMost champions of democracy have been rather reticent in suggesting that democracy would itself promote development and enhancement of social welfare – they have tended to see them as good but distinctly separate and largely independent goals. The detractors of democracy, on the other hand, seemed to have been quite willing to express their diagnosis of what they see as serious tensions between democracy and development. The theorists of the practical spirit - “Make up your mind: do you want democracy, or instead, do you want development?”- often came ,at least to start with , from East Asian countries, and their voice grew in influence as several of these countries were immensely successful – through the 1970s and 1980s and even later – in promoting economic growth without pursuing democracy.To deal with these issues we have to pay particular attention to both the content of what can be called development and to the interpretation of democracy (in particular to the respective roles of voting and of public reasoning). The assessment of development cannot be divorced from the lives that people can lead and the real freedom that they enjoy. Development can scarcely be seen merely in terms of enhancement of inanimate objects of convenience, such as a rise in the GNP (or in personal incomes), or industrialisation – important as they may be as means to the real ends. Their value must depend on what they do to the lives and freedom of the people involved, which must be central to the idea of development.If development is understood in a broader way, with a focus on human lives, then it becomes immediately clear that the relation between development and democracy has to be seen partly in terms of their constitutive connection, rather than only through their external links. Even though the question has often been asked whether political freedom is “conductive to development”, we must not miss the crucial that political liberties and democratic rights are among the “constitutive components” of development does not have to be established indirectly through their contribution to the growth of GNP.Q. According to the passage, why is a serious tension perceived between democracy and development by the detractors of democracy? a)Democracy and development are distinct and separate goalsb)Economic growth can be promoted successfully without pursuing a democratic system of governancec)Non-democratic regimes deliver economic growth faster and far more successfully than democratic ones.d)All the statements (a), (b) and (c) given above are correct in this context.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of PASSAGE IIMost champions of democracy have been rather reticent in suggesting that democracy would itself promote development and enhancement of social welfare – they have tended to see them as good but distinctly separate and largely independent goals. The detractors of democracy, on the other hand, seemed to have been quite willing to express their diagnosis of what they see as serious tensions between democracy and development. The theorists of the practical spirit - “Make up your mind: do you want democracy, or instead, do you want development?”- often came ,at least to start with , from East Asian countries, and their voice grew in influence as several of these countries were immensely successful – through the 1970s and 1980s and even later – in promoting economic growth without pursuing democracy.To deal with these issues we have to pay particular attention to both the content of what can be called development and to the interpretation of democracy (in particular to the respective roles of voting and of public reasoning). The assessment of development cannot be divorced from the lives that people can lead and the real freedom that they enjoy. Development can scarcely be seen merely in terms of enhancement of inanimate objects of convenience, such as a rise in the GNP (or in personal incomes), or industrialisation – important as they may be as means to the real ends. Their value must depend on what they do to the lives and freedom of the people involved, which must be central to the idea of development.If development is understood in a broader way, with a focus on human lives, then it becomes immediately clear that the relation between development and democracy has to be seen partly in terms of their constitutive connection, rather than only through their external links. Even though the question has often been asked whether political freedom is “conductive to development”, we must not miss the crucial that political liberties and democratic rights are among the “constitutive components” of development does not have to be established indirectly through their contribution to the growth of GNP.Q. According to the passage, why is a serious tension perceived between democracy and development by the detractors of democracy? a)Democracy and development are distinct and separate goalsb)Economic growth can be promoted successfully without pursuing a democratic system of governancec)Non-democratic regimes deliver economic growth faster and far more successfully than democratic ones.d)All the statements (a), (b) and (c) given above are correct in this context.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice PASSAGE IIMost champions of democracy have been rather reticent in suggesting that democracy would itself promote development and enhancement of social welfare – they have tended to see them as good but distinctly separate and largely independent goals. The detractors of democracy, on the other hand, seemed to have been quite willing to express their diagnosis of what they see as serious tensions between democracy and development. The theorists of the practical spirit - “Make up your mind: do you want democracy, or instead, do you want development?”- often came ,at least to start with , from East Asian countries, and their voice grew in influence as several of these countries were immensely successful – through the 1970s and 1980s and even later – in promoting economic growth without pursuing democracy.To deal with these issues we have to pay particular attention to both the content of what can be called development and to the interpretation of democracy (in particular to the respective roles of voting and of public reasoning). The assessment of development cannot be divorced from the lives that people can lead and the real freedom that they enjoy. Development can scarcely be seen merely in terms of enhancement of inanimate objects of convenience, such as a rise in the GNP (or in personal incomes), or industrialisation – important as they may be as means to the real ends. Their value must depend on what they do to the lives and freedom of the people involved, which must be central to the idea of development.If development is understood in a broader way, with a focus on human lives, then it becomes immediately clear that the relation between development and democracy has to be seen partly in terms of their constitutive connection, rather than only through their external links. Even though the question has often been asked whether political freedom is “conductive to development”, we must not miss the crucial that political liberties and democratic rights are among the “constitutive components” of development does not have to be established indirectly through their contribution to the growth of GNP.Q. According to the passage, why is a serious tension perceived between democracy and development by the detractors of democracy? a)Democracy and development are distinct and separate goalsb)Economic growth can be promoted successfully without pursuing a democratic system of governancec)Non-democratic regimes deliver economic growth faster and far more successfully than democratic ones.d)All the statements (a), (b) and (c) given above are correct in this context.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice UPSC tests.