MPSC 2024 Prelims Paper-I · Question 40 of 100

Correct — option (1), only statement (b). Note first that the printed order of the choices is unusual: 'only (b)' is printed as option (1) and 'only (a)' as option (2), so a candidate who has decided the answer is 'only (b)' and then marks the second choice out of habit will lose the question. Perspective planning is long-term planning in which the long-range targets of an economy are fixed in advance for a period of fifteen, twenty or twenty-five years, and statement (b) reproduces that definition exactly, including the three spans conventionally named. What makes perspective planning a distinct technique, however, is the second half of the definition, and it is what the wrong statements violate: the long period is not executed as a single plan. It is divided into successive shorter plans, conventionally of five years each, and each of those shorter plans is drawn up so as to carry the economy a stage further towards the long-range targets. The perspective plan therefore supplies direction and the medium-term plans supply execution, which is why statement (c) — 'one plan for entire period of 15 to 20 years' — is wrong: it collapses the two levels into one and describes something no planning authority actually does, since no single plan document can specify twenty years of allocation in usable detail. Statement (a) is wrong for a narrower reason: it gives the span as twenty to twenty-five years and so drops the fifteen-year case, which the standard definition includes and which statement (b) states correctly. Statement (d) is wrong outright, and in the opposite direction: achieving broad objectives and targets within one or two years is annual or short-term planning, the very shortest horizon in the planner's toolkit, and the antithesis of a perspective. So statement (b) alone survives and option (1) is the answer.

• (2)only (a) — This selects statement (a), which gives the horizon of perspective planning as twenty to twenty-five years. The standard definition names three spans — fifteen, twenty or twenty-five years — and statement (a) truncates the range by excluding the fifteen-year case, which is in fact the span most often used in Indian practice. Statement (b), printed immediately below it, gives the same idea with the full range and is therefore the accurate one of the pair. This option is also dangerous for a second reason: it occupies the position a candidate reaches for when the answer is 'only (b)', because the paper prints 'only (b)' first and 'only (a)' second.
• (3)(a) and (c) — This pairs the truncated horizon of statement (a) with statement (c), which contains the substantive error in the question. Statement (c) says perspective planning means one plan for the entire period of fifteen to twenty years, and that is precisely what perspective planning is not. The long period is broken into a series of shorter plans, conventionally five-year plans, each framed to move the economy towards the long-range targets; the perspective plan sets direction while the medium-term plans do the allocating. A single document covering twenty years could not carry the operational detail a plan needs, which is why the two-level structure exists.
• (4)(c) and (d) — This is the weakest option, combining the collapsed single-plan error of statement (c) with statement (d), which contradicts the entire concept. Statement (d) has broader objectives and targets achieved within one or two years — that is annual or short-term planning, used for budgeting and for the year-by-year implementation of a medium-term plan, and it is the shortest horizon in planning practice. A definition of perspective planning that admits a one-to-two-year horizon has abandoned the word 'perspective' altogether, and pairing it with the single-plan claim compounds the error.

Economic planning operates on three nested horizons, and the terminology distinguishes them by length and by function. Perspective planning is the longest: it fixes broad, long-range objectives — the structure of the economy, the level of output, the pattern of investment, the social goals to be reached — for a span of fifteen, twenty or twenty-five years. Medium-term planning, in India the familiar five-year plan, translates that direction into sectoral targets and financial allocations that can actually be administered. Annual or short-term planning takes the medium-term plan and turns one year of it into a budget, adjusting for the harvest, the external situation and revenue actually available. The relationship between the three is hierarchical: each shorter plan is a slice of the longer one, and the longer one supplies the criterion by which the shorter one is judged. The practical case for a perspective plan is that some decisions cannot be evaluated within five years at all — irrigation systems, power capacity, transport corridors, the expansion of higher education — because their costs fall in one plan period and their returns in another. India applied this structure through the Planning Commission era, and after the Commission was replaced the NITI Aayog announced a comparable three-tier framework of a fifteen-year vision document, a seven-year strategy and a three-year action agenda.

Definitional questions in MPSC's economy section are usually built by taking one standard textbook definition and printing it alongside three near-misses, each of which alters a single element — the length of the horizon, the number of plans, or the level of detail. The defence is to hold definitions in their full form rather than in gist, because a gist cannot distinguish 'fifteen, twenty or twenty-five years' from 'twenty to twenty-five years'. This question also rewards ordinary carefulness with the answer sheet: the paper prints its options in the order 'only (b)', 'only (a)', '(a) and (c)', '(c) and (d)', reversing the sequence a reader expects, so the numeral marked must be checked against the text of the option rather than assumed from the order of the statements. One further distinction is worth keeping alongside this one, because MPSC tests both and candidates conflate them: horizon and method are separate axes. Perspective, medium-term and annual planning classify a plan by how far ahead it looks, while indicative and imperative planning classify it by how strongly it binds the actors — a perspective plan can be either.

• Perspective planning is long-term planning in which long-range targets are set in advance for a period of fifteen, twenty or twenty-five years.
• A perspective plan is not executed as a single plan; the long period is divided into successive shorter plans, conventionally of five years, each framed to advance the long-range targets.
• Medium-term planning, the five-year plan in Indian practice, converts long-range direction into sectoral targets and financial allocations, while annual planning turns one year of that into a budget.
• Long-horizon planning exists because projects such as irrigation systems, power capacity and transport corridors incur costs in one plan period and yield returns in another, so they cannot be judged within a single five-year plan.
• After the Planning Commission was replaced by the NITI Aayog, a three-tier framework was announced consisting of a fifteen-year vision document, a seven-year strategy and a three-year action agenda.

• Marking the option number that matches the statement letter; this question prints 'only (b)' as option (1) and 'only (a)' as option (2), reversing the expected order
• Treating a perspective plan as a single document covering the whole period, when its defining feature is that it is executed through a series of shorter plans
• Accepting a truncated horizon such as twenty to twenty-five years when the standard definition names fifteen, twenty or twenty-five
• Confusing perspective planning with annual planning, which sets and achieves targets within one or two years and lies at the opposite end of the range of horizons

MPSC tests planning terminology through definitional statement questions of exactly this shape, in which one statement reproduces the textbook definition and the others alter a number or a structural feature. The same treatment is applied to indicative versus imperative planning, to rolling plans, and to the distinction between financial and physical planning. Because the wrong statements differ from the right one by a single element, the topic rewards learning definitions verbatim and being able to say not only what a term means but what it is being contrasted with.

No directly related past PYQ was found.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  Which of the following best describes the relationship between a perspective plan and the five year plans framed within it ?

  • (a)The perspective plan replaces the five year plans entirely for its duration
  • (b)The perspective plan sets long-range targets, and successive five year plans are framed to carry the economy towards them
  • (c)The five year plans set the targets and the perspective plan reports on whether they were met
  • (d)The two are independent exercises with no relationship between their targets

  Answer(b) The perspective plan sets long-range targets, and successive five year plans are framed to carry the economy towards them — the long horizon supplies direction and the medium-term plans supply the sectoral targets and allocations that can actually be administered. A perspective plan is never executed as a single document covering its whole span.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  Planning in which broad objectives and targets are set and achieved within a single year, chiefly for budgeting and for implementing one instalment of a medium-term plan, is known as which of the following ?

  • (a)Perspective planning
  • (b)Rolling planning
  • (c)Annual or short-term planning
  • (d)Indicative planning

  Answer(c) Annual or short-term planning — the shortest of the three nested horizons, which converts one year of a five year plan into a budget while adjusting for the harvest, the external situation and revenue actually available. Perspective planning covers fifteen to twenty-five years, while indicative planning describes a method of steering rather than a length of horizon.