NCERT Solutions for Class 9th Social Science Chapter 9 Limitations of Government Intervention — LET'S RECALL

Book page 208 Updated on2026-09-08

Q1.

According to you, how should a democratic government decide when and how much it should intervene in markets to protect people's welfare?

Answer

By testing each case rather than applying a single rule — because this chapter shows the same tool producing opposite results in different markets. A useful way to answer is to set out the tests a government could apply, drawing on the two sides the chapter itself lays out.

Test	The question to ask	Where the chapter shows it
Is the market failing?	Is an essential good beyond people's reach, is a public good going unprovided, or does a monopoly control supply?	The three reasons the chapter gives for intervention
Who is being harmed?	Are “vulnerable and low-income groups” being priced out, or are workers being paid too little?	Fairness and equity in allocation, page 206
Is the remedy proportionate?	Would a lighter measure work — better information, a complaint body, more competition — before fixing a price?	Regulators such as CCPA and TRAI ensure transparency without setting prices
What does it cost the other side?	Will producers stop supplying, will small firms drown in compliance, will innovation stop?	The three limitations on page 208
Is it reviewed?	Is the measure re-examined once the emergency passes, using evidence of what it actually did?	The sanitiser cap was an emergency measure, and the box asks whether such controls should last forever

And ‘how much’ follows from ‘when’. The chapter's own examples suggest a ladder: first make the market work honestly (regulate unfair practices, ensure transparency); then, if that is not enough, act on quantity and access (provide the good publicly, encourage new sellers to enter); and only where people would be harmed in the meantime, act directly on price with a ceiling or a floor. The heaviest tool is used last and reviewed first.

Why this belongs with democracy: as the ‘Democracy’ chapter established, a democratic government is accountable to the people and is expected to act in their interest. Accountability is what makes the ladder workable — the decision has to be explained, its results can be questioned in the legislature and the press, and a measure that is hurting more than it helps can be changed. In an unaccountable system a bad control simply stays.

Q2.

Whose voices should a democratic government consider while making such decisions—consumers, producers, workers, or others? Why?

Answer

All of them, because each group sees only one part of the picture and the chapter shows that acting on one group's view alone produces the very failures it warns about.

Voice	What only they can tell the government	What happens if they are ignored
Consumers	Whether an essential good is actually affordable and available where they live; whether they are being overcharged or sold poor quality	Prices drift beyond the reach of low-income households; monopoly practices go unnoticed
Producers	What it truly costs to make and supply the good, and at what price they would stop supplying	A price is fixed below cost — the wheat at ₹20 against a market price of ₹30 — production falls and shortages follow
Workers	Whether wages are enough to live on, and whether conditions are safe	The price floor that a minimum wage is meant to be gets set too low to protect anyone
Small businesses and new entrants	How heavy the licences, permits and compliance procedures really are	The small restaurant with four separate clearances gives up; ease of doing business falls and fewer sellers enter
Others — the poorest, remote areas, future generations	Whether the benefit is reaching those with the least purchasing power, and what the decision does to resources that must last	Groundwater, fisheries and forests are used up because nobody in the room spoke for the future

Why hearing all of them is not just fair but necessary. A market has two sides by definition. A decision informed only by consumers protects the price but destroys the supply; a decision informed only by producers protects the supply but abandons the people who cannot pay. The chapter's warning about excessive intervention and its argument for intervention are both true — and only by listening to both sides can a government tell which case it is looking at.

How a democracy actually gathers these voices: through elected representatives who must return to the people, through debate in legislatures, through consultations before a rule is notified, through regulators like the Central Consumer Protection Authority that take complaints directly, and through a free press that reports shortages and overcharging. The point is not that everyone gets what they want, but that a decision has to be defended publicly to people who are affected by it — which is what accountability means.

Was this helpful? Report an error