September 22 – GS4/Ethics: 2025 | UPSC Daily Answer Writing Practice PDF Download

Case Study

Vikram is an urban planner in a fast-growing metropolitan city. His department has been tasked with overseeing the redevelopment of an old industrial area into a modern residential neighborhood. The project promises to rejuvenate a dilapidated part of the city and provide affordable housing for hundreds of families. However, the area in question is also home to a vibrant but lower-income community that has lived there for decades.

While the local government has promised that the redevelopment will bring economic opportunities and better living standards, Vikram has begun to uncover troubling details. Many of the residents have been living there for years and have a strong social and cultural attachment to the area. They also run small businesses that are crucial for their livelihoods. The redevelopment plan includes tearing down their homes and businesses, displacing them, and relocating them to a different part of the city, far from their current community and support systems. Moreover, there is a lack of detailed information on how the government will ensure affordable housing for the displaced families or whether they will be properly compensated.

Vikram is also aware that there are significant financial interests behind the project. Several influential real estate developers stand to gain immensely from the redevelopment, and their lobbying efforts have heavily influenced the planning process. Vikram, who was initially excited about the project’s potential to revitalize the city, now feels conflicted. On one hand, the redevelopment could bring economic growth, but on the other hand, it may cause social harm to the marginalized community that lives there.

As the project progresses, Vikram is put under pressure by his superiors to approve the project without further scrutiny, as delays could risk funding and affect the city’s overall development plan. He is aware that his career could suffer if he raises objections or calls for a review of the plan. At the same time, he is troubled by the ethical implications of displacing vulnerable communities for the sake of economic development and real estate profit.

Questions:

1. What are the key ethical dilemmas involved in this situation?
2. How should Vikram handle the apparent conflict of interest in this situation, with powerful developers pushing for the project and the displacement of a marginalized community?

3. Can economic growth justify the displacement of a community? What ethical principles should guide policymakers when planning such development projects.

Answers:

Introduction 

The case focuses on Vikram, an urban planner faced with an ethical dilemma regarding a redevelopment project. While the project promises economic growth, it also threatens to displace a marginalized community that has long been settled in the area. Vikram is under pressure from vested interests to approve the project without proper safeguards, forcing him to choose between professional compliance and moral responsibility.
This situation resonates with John Rawls’ theory of justice, which advocates that genuine development should be fair and beneficial to the least advantaged members of society.

Key Ethical Dilemmas 

• Professional Duty vs Ethical Integrity: Vikram faces the challenge of adhering to professional expectations while ensuring fairness and justice for all stakeholders.
• Urban Development vs Social Justice: The redevelopment offers potential infrastructure and economic benefits but poses a risk to the vulnerable community with deep social and cultural ties to the area.
• Personal Career Security vs Moral Courage: Vikram must weigh the potential impact on his career against his moral values and the rights of the affected citizens.
• Efficiency and Timelines vs Comprehensive Scrutiny: Approving the project promptly may keep the city’s development on track, but neglecting critical aspects like compensation and rehabilitation could have long-term negative consequences.
• Real Estate Interests vs Public Welfare: Vikram needs to balance the significant gains for powerful developers with the welfare and rights of the existing residents.
• Government Promises vs Ground Reality: Official assurances of affordable housing and community upliftment may not align with the actual needs and rights of the displaced community.

Handling Conflict of Interest 

Vikram should take a proactive and transparent approach to address the conflict of interest in the redevelopment project:

• Seek Detailed Documentation and Transparency: Vikram should formally request comprehensive documentation regarding rehabilitation, compensation, and affordable housing provisions. This approach builds an evidence-based case without appearing confrontational.
• Initiate a Stakeholder Consultation Process: Proposing a public consultation or stakeholder hearing involving the local community, NGOs, and planning authorities would add democratic legitimacy to the planning process and highlight overlooked social concerns.
• Recommend a Socio-Economic Impact Assessment: Suggesting a rapid socio-economic impact assessment can help quantify the effects on livelihoods and cultural aspects. This professional step adds weight to concerns raised and demonstrates due diligence.
• Propose a Revised, Inclusive Development Plan: Vikram can propose alternatives such as in-situ redevelopment, phased relocation, or inclusion of Economically Weaker Section (EWS) housing. This balances development with social justice considerations.
• Use Internal Reporting Mechanisms: If faced with unethical pressure, Vikram should utilize formal departmental communication channels to flag concerns. This protects him from retaliation while maintaining a record of ethical due diligence.
• Engage Civil Society and Legal Avenues Discreetly (if needed): If safeguards for the displaced community are not upheld, Vikram can discreetly alert watchdog bodies, citizen groups, or legal aid organizations to potential rights violations.
• Document His Position: To safeguard his professional integrity, Vikram should maintain internal memos or minutes outlining his suggestions and concerns. This ensures accountability in case issues arise later.

By acting as a responsible planner who integrates development with ethical governance, Vikram can uphold both public interest and personal integrity.

Economic Growth and Community Displacement 

Economic growth is crucial for a nation’s progress, but it should not justify the displacement of communities without careful consideration. Displacement can have severe and long-lasting impacts on vulnerable populations, and development should be inclusive and equitable. Here are some reasons why displacement cannot be blindly justified by growth, along with ethical principles that should guide policymakers:

• Human Rights and Dignity: Every individual has the right to shelter, livelihood, and social identity. Prioritizing economic growth over these fundamental rights raises ethical concerns.
• Social Disruption and Cultural Loss: Communities are more than just physical spaces; they encompass social relationships, cultural heritage, and informal economies that are often irreplaceable. Displacing them can lead to significant social disruption and cultural loss.
• Disproportionate Impact: The benefits of economic growth often accrue to corporations and elites, while the displaced communities bear the brunt of the negative consequences. This creates developmental injustice.
• Historical Precedents: Past experiences, such as large dam projects like the Narmada Valley project, demonstrate that poorly managed displacement can result in increased poverty, social alienation, and unrest.

Ethical Principles to Guide Policymakers:

• Utilitarianism with Safeguards: Aim for the greatest good, but ensure that no group bears an undue burden of progress. Justice and Equity (Rawlsian Ethics): Displaced communities should be compensated in a way that improves their condition, not worsens it. The least advantaged should benefit from the development. Principle of Informed Consent: Engage in transparent dialogue with affected communities and obtain their free, prior, and informed consent before proceeding with development plans. Rehabilitation as a Right, Not Charity: Resettlement should be treated as a fundamental right, ensuring that displaced individuals have an equivalent or better quality of life in their new locations. Sustainability and Inclusivity: Development should balance economic, social, and environmental concerns, aligning with the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) principle of “leaving no one behind.” Accountability and Transparency: Policymakers must ensure open processes, independent reviews, and mechanisms for grievance redress to protect the rights of the displaced.

Conclusion: 

Vikram’s situation highlights the complex interplay between development and social justice. While economic growth is vital, it should not come at the expense of ethical responsibility or human suffering. By advocating for transparency, inclusive planning, and the protection of displaced communities’ rights and dignity, Vikram can navigate this challenging landscape and contribute to a more equitable urban development process.