IGNOU MPS Assignment Answer 2024


Answer five questions in all, selecting at least two questions from each section. Each question is to be answered in about 500 words. Each question carries 20 marks.


  1. Political science can deal with ‘state building’ better than ‘nation building’ Explain.
  2. Briefly describe the main approaches to the study of Nationalism.
  3. In what ways has globalization affected state sovereignty? Explain.
  4. What do you understand by self–determination? Evaluate the debate on self–
  5. Write a short note on each part of the following questions in about 250 words:
    a) Gramsci on Civil Society
    b) Pluralist liberal theory of the state


  1. What do you understand by ethnic identity? Why do ethnic groups get politically activated?
  2. Write a short note on each part of the following questions in about 250 words:
    a) Characteristics of military regimes
    b) Maurice Duverger’s classification of Party Systems
  3. Describe and evaluate the position of developing countries on key issues in the environment debate
  4. Write a short note on each part of the following questions in about 250 words:
    a) Development approach to participation
    b) Eco-feminism
  5. Describe and evaluate major trends of Human Development in developing countries.

Click Here download Assignment Questions from Official IGNOU website

IGNOU MPS Assignment Answer 2024

Note: Students should write Only 5 Questions-Answers in this paper, i.e- If you write any 2 Answers in Section-I then you have to write any 3 Answer in Section-II. In that way If you write any 3 Answers in Section-I then you have to write any 2 Answer in Section-II

Answer five questions in all, selecting at least two questions from each section. Each question is to be answered in about 500 words. Each question carries 20 marks.


Political science, as a discipline, encompasses the study of governance, political systems, and the functioning of states. When examining the concepts of ‘state building’ and ‘nation building,’ it becomes evident that political science is better equipped to analyze and address the former rather than the latter. State building refers to the development and strengthening of state institutions, while nation building involves fostering a sense of shared identity and unity among diverse populations. Several factors contribute to the assertion that political science is more adept at handling state building than nation building.

Firstly, political science has a strong foundation in understanding the structures and mechanisms of states. It delves into the intricacies of governance, the rule of law, and the establishment of effective institutions. State building primarily revolves around creating and maintaining stable governmental structures, formulating and implementing sound policies, and ensuring the rule of law. Political scientists can draw on theoretical frameworks and empirical analyses to identify the key components necessary for building robust state institutions. This includes examining issues such as bureaucratic efficiency, the separation of powers, and the establishment of a functional legal system.

In contrast, nation building involves addressing cultural, social, and historical factors that contribute to a cohesive national identity. This task often extends beyond the scope of political science, requiring insights from disciplines like anthropology, sociology, and cultural studies. Understanding and influencing shared values, cultural symbols, and historical narratives are complex processes that go beyond the traditional focus of political science. While political scientists may analyze the impact of identity on political behavior, fostering a shared national identity requires a broader interdisciplinary approach.

Secondly, state building is inherently linked to the establishment of effective governance structures and the provision of public goods and services. Political science can offer insights into the design and functioning of political institutions, the formulation of policies, and the management of public resources. The discipline’s emphasis on the practical aspects of governance positions it as a valuable tool for addressing challenges related to state building, such as corruption, administrative inefficiency, and the establishment of a functional legal system.

Nation building, on the other hand, involves shaping collective identity, fostering social cohesion, and addressing historical grievances. These tasks often require interventions in education, media, and cultural practices, areas where political science alone may struggle to provide comprehensive solutions. Understanding the intricate dynamics of cultural integration, social harmony, and historical reconciliation demands perspectives from fields beyond political science.

Thirdly, political science has a long history of analyzing state-building processes in various contexts, providing a wealth of knowledge and experience to draw upon. The study of state formation, institution-building, and governance has been central to the discipline. This accumulated knowledge allows political scientists to offer practical insights and policy recommendations for effective state building based on historical and comparative analyses.

In contrast, nation building involves a highly context-specific and subjective process that varies significantly across different societies. The diversity of cultural, historical, and social factors influencing national identity makes it challenging to develop universal theories or frameworks applicable to all cases. This complexity makes nation building inherently more challenging for political science to address comprehensively.

In conclusion, while political science is well-suited to analyze and contribute to state-building processes, it faces limitations when it comes to nation building. The latter involves a multidimensional and interdisciplinary approach that extends beyond the traditional boundaries of political science. Recognizing this distinction allows for a more nuanced understanding of the strengths and limitations of political science in addressing the complex challenges of state and nation building.

The study of nationalism, a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, has been approached from various perspectives within the realms of social sciences and humanities. Scholars have developed several key approaches to understand the origins, manifestations, and impacts of nationalism. Here, we briefly explore some of the main approaches to the study of nationalism.

Primordialist Approach: The primordialist approach posits that nationalism is rooted in deep-seated, primordial attachments such as ethnicity, language, or religion. It emphasizes the innate and enduring nature of these identity markers, considering them as the foundations of nationalist sentiments. According to this perspective, nationalism emerges from a shared sense of belonging and common heritage. However, critics argue that this approach oversimplifies the complex and dynamic nature of national identities by neglecting historical and socio-political factors.

Modernist Approach: In contrast to primordialism, the modernist approach contends that nationalism is a modern and socially constructed phenomenon. It asserts that nations and national identities are products of specific historical contexts, often emerging with the rise of modern states, bureaucracies, and industrialization. Key figures in this approach, such as Benedict Anderson, highlight the role of print capitalism and imagined communities in shaping nationalist sentiments. Modernists argue that nations are not natural or ancient entities but are actively constructed through various social, political, and cultural processes.

Instrumentalist Approach: The instrumentalist approach views nationalism as a tool employed by political elites to achieve specific goals. According to this perspective, elites manipulate national sentiments to foster unity, garner support, or legitimize their rule. Instrumentalists often focus on how political leaders use symbols, rituals, and education to shape national identity for strategic purposes. Critics argue that this approach might overlook the genuine and deeply felt aspects of nationalism, reducing it to a mere tool for manipulation.

Ethnosymbolism: Ethnosymbolism combines elements of both primordialism and modernism. It acknowledges the importance of cultural symbols and historical narratives in shaping national identity but rejects the notion of fixed, ancient identities. Anthony D. Smith, a prominent ethnosymbolist scholar, emphasizes the role of myths, memories, and symbols in constructing a shared national identity. This approach recognizes the dynamic nature of national identities while highlighting the enduring power of cultural symbols in fostering a sense of belonging.

Perennialist Approach: The perennialist approach proposes that nationalism is a constant and enduring aspect of human societies. It suggests that the impulse for people to identify with a distinct group and assert their collective identity is a perennial feature of human nature. While acknowledging the role of historical and contextual factors, perennialists argue for the universality and continuity of nationalist sentiments across time and cultures.

Postcolonial and Subaltern Perspectives: Postcolonial and subaltern scholars provide critical perspectives on nationalism, particularly in the context of formerly colonized regions. They examine how nationalist movements intersect with issues of colonialism, imperialism, and the struggles of marginalized or subaltern groups. These scholars highlight the complexities of nationalism in diverse societies, considering the ways in which it can be both liberating and exclusionary.

In conclusion, the study of nationalism involves a rich tapestry of approaches that offer diverse insights into this complex phenomenon. Each approach provides a unique lens through which scholars analyze the origins, dynamics, and consequences of nationalism, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of this enduring aspect of human identity and collective belonging.

Globalization, the interconnectedness and interdependence of economies, cultures, and societies across borders, has had profound implications for the concept of state sovereignty. Traditionally, state sovereignty referred to the supreme authority of a state within its borders, encompassing control over its territory, people, and governance. However, the forces of globalization have significantly challenged and transformed the nature of state sovereignty in several ways.

Economic Interdependence: Globalization has led to increased economic interdependence among states. The flow of goods, services, capital, and information across borders has made national economies more interconnected. States now find their economic policies influenced by global market forces and international financial institutions. The ability of states to exercise complete control over their economic policies, including tariffs and trade regulations, has diminished, as economic decisions are often shaped by global market dynamics.

Transnational Corporations and Non-State Actors: The rise of transnational corporations (TNCs) and non-state actors has altered the traditional balance of power. Multinational corporations often operate across multiple jurisdictions, exerting significant influence on national economies. Their economic power can sometimes surpass that of individual states, limiting the state’s control over economic activities within its borders. Additionally, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and international advocacy groups play crucial roles in shaping global norms, influencing policy decisions, and holding states accountable, challenging the exclusive authority of states.

Global Governance and International Organizations: The establishment and strengthening of international organizations, such as the United Nations, World Trade Organization, and International Monetary Fund, have created avenues for global governance. States voluntarily participate in international agreements, treaties, and conventions, ceding some aspects of their sovereignty in exchange for collective solutions to global challenges. The decisions and policies of these international bodies can constrain the autonomy of individual states, particularly in matters related to human rights, trade, and environmental regulations.

Technological Advances and Information Flows: Technological advancements, particularly in communication and information technologies, have facilitated rapid information flows across borders. The internet and social media enable the dissemination of ideas, information, and news globally. While this connectivity enhances communication, it also challenges state control over information within its territory. States face difficulties in regulating online content and controlling the spread of information, eroding their traditional monopoly on shaping public discourse.

Migration and Transnational Communities: Globalization has spurred increased migration and the formation of transnational communities. People move across borders for work, education, or other reasons, creating diasporic populations with ties to multiple countries. This movement challenges the notion of clear-cut territorial identities, as individuals identify with multiple places. States must navigate the complexities of governing populations with transnational affiliations, leading to challenges to traditional notions of national identity and sovereignty.

Global Challenges and Shared Responsibilities: Globalization has intensified the interconnectedness of global challenges, such as climate change, terrorism, and pandemics. Addressing these issues requires coordinated international efforts and shared responsibilities. States, even the most powerful ones, find it increasingly difficult to tackle these challenges in isolation. The need for collaborative solutions diminishes the absolute sovereignty of individual states in the face of problems that transcend national borders.

In conclusion, globalization has reshaped the landscape of state sovereignty in profound ways. While states continue to be key actors in the international system, their sovereignty is now subject to various influences beyond their borders. Economic interdependence, the rise of non-state actors, global governance structures, technological advances, migration patterns, and shared global challenges collectively challenge the traditional understanding of state sovereignty. As the world becomes more interconnected, the concept of sovereignty evolves, requiring states to adapt to a complex and interdependent global reality.

Self-determination is a principle rooted in the idea that individuals or communities have the right to freely determine their political status, pursue their economic, social, and cultural development, and exercise full control over their resources and decisions. The concept is often associated with the right of peoples to choose their own form of government and to determine their own destiny without external interference. While self-determination is widely accepted as a fundamental human right, the debate surrounding its application and implications is complex and multifaceted.

Understanding Self-Determination:

The concept of self-determination emerged prominently in the aftermath of World War I and the collapse of empires. It found expression in the formation of new nation-states and the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. Article 1 of the UN Charter recognizes the right of all peoples to self-determination, and this principle has since become a cornerstone of international law.

Self-determination can be expressed at various levels, from individual autonomy to collective decision-making by communities, ethnic groups, or nations. It encompasses the right to choose one’s political, economic, social, and cultural systems, as well as the right to manage and control natural resources within a defined territory.

Debates on Self-Determination:

Territorial Integrity vs. Independence: One ongoing debate revolves around the tension between the right to self-determination and the principle of territorial integrity. While the principle of territorial integrity upholds the inviolability of state borders, proponents of self-determination argue that groups within a state should have the right to seek independence if they feel their political, cultural, or economic interests are not adequately represented.

Secession and International Recognition: The issue of secession is central to the self-determination debate. The international community often grapples with whether to recognize newly declared states seeking independence. Questions about the legitimacy of secessionist movements, the conditions under which independence is justified, and the potential consequences for regional stability are at the forefront of this debate.

Cultural and Ethnic Rights: Self-determination is closely linked to the protection of cultural and ethnic rights. Many conflicts arise from the perceived marginalization of ethnic or cultural groups within a state. The debate centers on finding a balance between safeguarding the rights of minority groups and maintaining the stability of existing states.

Human Rights and Democracy: The concept of self-determination aligns with broader human rights principles and democratic ideals. However, the application of self-determination is complex, as the pursuit of independence may not always lead to the establishment of democratic systems. Some argue that certain secessionist movements might be driven by non-democratic or authoritarian motives.

External Intervention and Sovereignty: Another dimension of the debate concerns external intervention in the name of self-determination. Critics argue that external actors may exploit self-determination claims for geopolitical purposes, leading to interventions that exacerbate conflicts rather than resolving them. Striking a balance between respecting self-determination and upholding the sovereignty of states is a persistent challenge.

Post-Colonial Legacy: The legacy of colonialism has left a lasting impact on the self-determination debate. Many existing borders and nation-states were created through colonial processes, leading to complex ethnic and cultural dynamics. The question of whether self-determination should apply to redrawing these borders or recognizing historical injustices adds further complexity to the discussion.

In conclusion, the debate on self-determination is characterized by the tension between the principles of territorial integrity and the right of individuals or communities to determine their own political and cultural destinies. Striking a balance between these competing principles remains a challenge, and the resolution often depends on the specific historical, cultural, and geopolitical context. As the international community grapples with conflicts and demands for self-determination, finding just and sustainable solutions requires careful consideration of the diverse factors at play.

Section II in Page 2 (Click on Page 2 below)

Scroll to Top