|All Exams Free Study Material and PDFs Join Our Telegram Channel
||Click Here Join Now|
Directions (1-10):Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/ phrases are given in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.
Today emerging markets account for more than half of world GDP on the basis of purchasing power according to the international Monetary Fund (IMF). In the 1990s, it was about a third and in the late 1990s 30% of countries in the developing world managed to increase their output per person faster than America did, thus achieving what is called ‘Catch-up growth’. That catching up was somewhat lackadaisical. The gap closed at just 1.5% a year.
Some of this was due to slower growth in America, most was not. The most impressive growth was in four of the biggest emerging economies Brazil, Russia, India and China BRICs. These economies have grown in different way and for different reasons. The remarkable growth of emerging markets in general and the BRICs in particular transformed the global economy in many ways. Some wrenching commodity prices soared and the cost of manufactures and labour sank.
A growing and vastly more accessible pool of labour in emerging economies played a part in both wage stagnation and rising income inequality in each ones. Global poverty rates tumbled. Gaping economic imbalances fuelled an era of financial vulnerability and laid the ground work for global crisis. The shift towards the emerging economies will continue. But its most tumultuous phase seems to have more or less reached its end. Growth rates have dropped, the nature of their growth is in the process of changing too and its new mode will have lesser direct effects on the rest of the world. The likelihood of growth in other emerging economies having an effect in the near future comparable to that of the BRICS in the recent past is low. The emerging giants will grow larger and their ranks will swell, but their tread will no longer shake the Earth as it once did.
After the 1990s, there followed ‘convergence with a vengeance’. China’s pivot towards liberalization and global markets came at a propitious time in terms of politics, business and technology. Rich economies were feeling relatively relaxed about globalization and current account deficits. America’s booming and confidence was little troubled by the growth of Chinese industry or by offshoring jobs to India. And the technology, etc., necessary to assemble and maintain complex supply chains were coming into their own, allowing firms to spread their operations between countries and across oceans. The tumbling costs of shipping and communication sparked ‘globalization’s second unbounding’ (the first was the simple ability to provide consumers in one place with goods from another). As longer supply chains infiltrated and connected places with large and fast growing working age populations, enormous quantities of cheap new labour became accessible.
In 2007, China’s economy expanded by an eye popping 14.2%. India managed 10.1% growth, Russia 8.5 % and Brazil 6.1%. The IMF now reckons there will be a slow down in growth. China will grow by just 7.6% in 2013 India by 5.6% and Russia and Brazil by 2.5%. Other countries have impressive growth potential. ‘Next 11’ (N 11) which includes Bangladesh, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria and Turkey. But there are various reasons to think that this N11 cannot have an impact on the same scale as that of the BRICs. The first is that these economies smaller. The N11 has population of just over 1.3 billion, less than half that of the BRICs. The second is that the N11 is richer now than the BRICs were back in the day.
The third reason that the performance of the BRICS cannot be repeated is the very success of that performance. The world economy is much larger than it used to be twice as in real terms as it was in 1992 according to IMF figures. But whether or not the world can build remarkable era of growth will depend in large part on whether new giants tread a path towards greater global co-operation or stumble in times of tumult and in the worst case, fight.
1. According to the passage which of the following is a reason for the author’s prediction regarding N11 countries?
(a) N11 countries are poorer, have less resources than BRICs countries and do not have much scope to grow
(b) The size of these countries is too great to fuel a high rate of growth as expected by BRICs countries
(c) The world economy is so large that the magnitude of growth from these countries will have to be huge to equal the growth of BRICs
(d) These economies are agricultural and have not opened up their economies yet so their scope of growth of BRICS
(e) Other than those given as options
2. What is the author’s view of globalisation’s second unbounding?
(a) It proved beneficial since it created a large number of jobs and tremendous growth in cross-border trade
(b) It disturbed the fragile balance of power among BRICS nations and caused internal strife.
(c) It cased untold damage to America’s economy since it restricted the spread of American firms off-shore
(d) It proved most beneficial for the agricultural sector creating huge employment opportunities
(e) Citizens in advanced countries became much better off than those in emerging economies.
3. What effect did rise in economies of BRICs have on the global economy?
(a) It helped stabilize the global economy and insulate it from the fall out of the global financial crisis
(b) Labour became more highly skilled and wages rose alarmingly reducing the off-shoring of jobs to developing countries
(c) Though worldwide poverty rates tumbled, the gap between the rich and the poor in rich economies increased
(d) The cost of living and level of inflation in these countries were maintained at low levels.
(e) All the given options are effects of the rise in BRICS economies.
4. What does the phrase ‘their ranks will swell but their tread will no longer shake the Earth as it once did’ convey in the context of the passage?
(a) While many countries will try and achieve the same rate of growth as BRICs they will not succeed
(b) The growth of BRICs countries had change the world’s economy in ways that any further growth will not have such a disruptive effect on the world economy
(c) Developing countries have strengthened their fiscal systems in such a way that they will not be shaken to such an extent again
(d) Poverty may increase as the gap between the rich the poor increase but it will never reach the same levels as prior to the crisis.
(e) Citizens in advanced countries become much better off than those in emerging economies
5. Which of the following can be said about ‘convergence with a vengeance?
A. After the 1990s advanced economies like America were open to the idea of free trade and globalization.
B. There were huge technological advances which were conducive to allowing business to spread their area of operations.
C. Rich economies felt threatened by the competition from china.
(a) Only A
(b) Only B
(c) Only C
(d) A and B
(e) B and C
6. What is the author’s main objective in writing this passage?
A. To urge emerging economies to deal with growth which can be disruptive maturely and without confilict.
B. To point out that while the period of growth of BRICs was disruptive this disruption has almost come to a close.
C. To criticize advanced economies for their handling of growth and promoting competition and conflict in certain regions.
(a) A and B
(b) Only A
(c) Only C
(d) B and C
(e) all of these
7. Which of the following is most nearly the SAME in meaning as the word ‘Tumbling’ as used in the
8. Which of the following is most nearly the SAME in meaning as the word ‘Propitious’ as used in the
9. Which of the following is most OPPOSITE in meaning to the word ‘expanded’ as used in the passage?
10. Which of the following is most OPPOSITE in meaning to the word ‘tumult’ as used in the passage?
Directions (11-20): Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words/ phrases have been given in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.
Management education gained new academic stature within US Universities and greater respect from outside during the 1960’s and 1970’s. Some observers attribute the competitive superiority of US corporations to the quality of business education. In 1978, a management professor, Herbert A. Simon of Carnegie Mellon University, won the Nobel Prize in economics for his work in decision theory. And the popularity of business education continued to grow, since 1960, the number of master’s degrees awarded annually has grown from under 5000 to over 50,000 in the mid 1980’s as the MBA has become known as ‘the passport to the good life’.
By the 1980’s, however, US business schools faced critics who charged that learning had little relevance to real business problems. Some went so far as to blame business schools for the decline in US competitiveness. Amidst the criticisms, four distinct arguments may be discerned. The first is that business schools must be either unnecessary or deleterious because Japan does so well without them. Underlying this argument is the idea that management ability cannot be taught, one is either born with it or must acquire it over years of practical experience. A second argument is that business schools are overly academic and theoretical. They teach quantitative models that have little application to real world problems. Third, they give inadequate attention to shop floor issues, to production processes and to management resources. Finally, it is argued that they encourage undesirable attitudes in students, such as placing value on the short term and ‘bottom line’ targets, while neglecting longer term development criteria. In summary, some business executives complain that MBA’s are incapable of handling day to day operational decisions, unable to communicate and to motivate people, and unwilling to accept responsibility for following through on implementation plans. We shall analyze these criticisms after having reviewed experiences in other countries.
In contrast to the expansion and development of business education in the United States and more recently in Europe, Japanese business schools graduate no more than two hundred MBA’s each year. The Keio Business School (KBS) was the only graduate school of management in the entire country until the mid 1970’s and it still boasts the only two year masters programme. The absence of business schools in Japan would appear in contradiction with the high priority placed upon learning by its Confucian culture. Confucian colleges taught administrative skills as early as 1630 and Japan wholeheartedly accepted Western learning following the Meiji restoration of 1868 when hundreds of students were dispatched to universities in US, Germany, England and France to learn the secrets of Western technology and modernization. Moreover, the Japanese educational system is highly developed and intensely competitive and can be credited for raising the literary and mathematical abilities of the Japanese to the highest level in the world.
Until recently, Japan corporations have not been interested in using either local or foreign business schools for the development of their future executives. Their in-company training programs have sought the socialization of newcomers, the younger the better. The training is highly specific and those who receive it have neither the capacity nor the incentive to quit. The prevailing belief, says Imai, ‘is management should be born out of experience and many years of effort and not learnt from educational institutions.’ A 1960 survey of Japanese senior executives confirmed that a majority (54%) believed that managerial capabilities can be attained only on the job and not in universities. However, this view seems to be changing: the same survey revealed that even as early as 1960, 37% of senior executives felt that the universities should teach integrated professional management. In the 1980’s a combination of increased competitive pressures and greater multi-nationalization of Japanese business are making it difficult for many companies to rely solely upon internally trained managers. This has led to a rapid growth of local business programmes and a greater use of American MBA programmes. In 1982-83, the Japanese comprised the largest single group of foreign students at Wharton, where they not only learnt the latest techniques of financial analysis, but also developed worldwide contacts through their classmates and became Americanized, something highly useful in future negotiations. The Japanese, then do not ‘do without’ business schools, as is sometimes contended. But the process of selecting and orienting new graduates, even MBA’s, into corporations is radically different than in the US. Rather than being placed in highly paying staff positions, new Japanese recruits are assigned responsibility for operational and even menial tasks. Success is based upon Japan’s system of highly competitive recruitment and intensive in-company management development, which in turn are grounded in its tradition of universal and rigorous academic education, life-long employment and strong group identification.
The harmony among these traditional elements has made Japanese industry highly productive and given corporate leadership a long term view. It is true that this has been achieved without much attention to university business education, but extraordinary attention has been devoted to the development of managerial skills, both within the company and through participation in programmes sponsored by the Productivity Center and other similar organizations.
11. Which of the following is absolutely true, about Japenese education system, according to the passage?
(a) It is better than the American system.
(b) It is highly productive and gives corporate leadership a long term view as a result of its strong traditions.
(c) It is slowly becoming Americanized.
(d) It succeeds without business schools, where as the US system fails because of it.
(e) None of these.
12. The following reasons were responsible for the growth of popularity of business schools among students except
(a) Herbert A. Simon, a management professor winning the Nobel Prize in economics.
(b) The gain in academic stature.
(c) The large number of MBA degree awarded.
(d) A perception that it was a ‘passport to good life’.
(e) None of these.
13. According to the passage
(a) Learning, which was useful in the 1960’s and 1970’s became irrelevant in the 1980’s.
(b) Management education faced criticisms in the 1980’s.
(c) Business schools are insensitive to the needs of industry.
(d) By the 1980’s business schools contributed to the decline in US competitiveness.
(e) None of these.
14. A criticism that management education did not face was that
(a) It imparted poor quantitative skills to MBA’s.
(b) It was unnecessary and deleterious.
(c) It was irrevocably irrelevant.
(d) 4It inculcated undesirable attitudes in students.
(e) None of these.
15. The absence of business schools in Japan
(a) Is due to the prevalent belief that management ability can only be acquired over years of practical experience.
(b) Was due to the high priority placed on learning as opposed to doing in Confucian culture.
(c) is hard to explain for the proponents of business education.
(d) Contributed a great deal to their success in international trade and business.
(e) None of these.
16. The Japanese modified their views on management education because of
(a) Greater exposure to US MBA programs.
(b) The need to develop worldwide contacts and became Americanized.
(c) The outstanding success of business schools in the US during the 1960s and 1970s.
(d) A combination of increased competitive pressures and greater mutinationalisation of Japanese business.
(e) None of these.
Directions (17-18): Choose the word which is most similar in meaning to the word printed in bold as used in the passage.
Directions (19-20) : Choose the word which is most opposite in meaning to the word printed in bold as used in the passage.