CONTACT US

084594-00000

About Us  :  Online Enquiry

Download

Bank Nationalisation in India and present status

ContextNationalisation of banks in 1969 was a watershed moment in the history of Indian banking. From July 19 that year, 14 private banks were nationalised; another six private banks were nationalised in 1980.

Why Nationalisation of banks was necessary?

Large share of non- institutional sources: At the time of Independence, India’s rural financial system was marked by the domination of landlords, traders and moneylenders.

Unmet needs: From the 1950s, there were sporadic efforts to expand the reach of the institutional sector, particularly in the rural areas. Despite these measures, the predominantly private banking system failed to meet the credit needs of the rural areas.

India’s banking policy after 1969:

  1. It followed a multi-agency approach towards expanding the geographical spread and functional reach of the formal banking system. As a part of a new branch licensing policy, banks were told that for every branch they opened in a metropolitan or port area, four new branches had to be opened in unbanked rural areas. As a result, the number of rural bank branches increased from 1,833 (in 1969) to 35,206 (in 1991).
  2. The concept of priority-sector lending was introduced. All banks had to compulsorily set aside 40% of their net bank credit for agriculture, micro and small enterprises, housing, education and “weaker” sections.
  3. A differential interest rate scheme was introduced in 1974. Here, loans were provided at a low interest rate to the weakest among the weakest sections of the society.
  4. The Lead Bank scheme was introduced in 1969. Each district was assigned to one bank, where they acted as “pace-setters” in providing integrated banking facilities.
  5. The Regional Rural Banks (RRB) were established in 1975 to enlarge the supply of institutional credit to the rural areas.
  6. The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) was constituted in 1982 to regulate and supervise the functions of cooperative banks and RRBs.

Outcomes:

  1. The outcomes of such a multi-agency approach were admirable. The share of institutional sources in the outstanding debt of rural households increased from just 16.9% in 1962 to 64% in 1992.
  2. India’s nationalisation led to an impressive growth of financial intermediation. The share of bank deposits to GDP rose from 13% in 1969 to 38% in 1991. The gross savings rate rose from 12.8% in 1969 to 21.7% in 1990. The share of advances to GDP rose from 10% in 1969 to 25% in 1991. The gross investment rate rose from 13.9% in 1969 to 24.1% in 1990.
  3. Nationalisation also demonstrated the utility of monetary policy in furthering redistributionist goals.
  4. It also showed that monetary policy, banks and interest rates can be effectively used to take banks to rural areas, backward regions and under-served sectors, furthering redistributionist goals in an economy.

Changes post 1991:

Narasimham Committee of 1991 recommended that monetary policy should be divorced from redistributionist goals. Instead, banks should be free to practise commercial modes of operation, with profitability as the primary goal.

  1. Taking the cue, the Reserve Bank of India allowed banks to open and close branches as they desired.
  2. Priority sector guidelines were diluted; banks were allowed to lend to activities that were remotely connected with agriculture or to big corporates in agri-business, yet classify them as agricultural loans.
  3. Interest rate regulations on priority sector advances were removed.

Impacts:

The outcomes were immediately visible.

  1. More than 900 rural bank branches closed down across the country.
  2. The rate of growth of agricultural credit fell sharply from around 7% per annum in the 1980s to about 2% per annum in the 1990s.
  3. This retreat of public banks wreaked havoc on the rural financial market.
  4. Between 1991 and 2002, the share of institutional sources in the total outstanding debt of rural households fell from 64% to 57.1%.
  5. The space vacated by institutional sources was promptly occupied by moneylenders and other non-institutional sources.

Changes post 2004:

  1. In 2004, a policy to double the flow of agricultural credit within three years was announced. Only public banks could make this happen.
  2. So, in 2005, the RBI quietly brought in a new branch authorisation policy. Permission for new branches began to be given only if the RBI was satisfied that the banks concerned had a plan to adequately serve underbanked areas and ensure actual credit flow to agriculture.
  3. By 2011, the RBI further tightened this procedure. It was mandated that at least 25% of new branches were to be compulsorily located in unbanked centres.

Also Read Basel Norms

Outcomes:

  1. As a result, the number of rural bank branches rose from 30,646 in 2005, to 33,967 in 2011 and 48,536 in 2015.
  2. The annual growth rate of real agricultural credit rose from about 2% in the 1990s to about 18% between 2001 and 2015.
  3. After 2005, public banks also played a central role in furthering the financial inclusion agendas of successive governments.
  4. Between 2010 and 2016, the key responsibility of opening no-frills accounts for the unbanked poor fell upon public banks.

Issues and challenges:

  1. Despite such a stellar track record, the macroeconomic policy framework of successive governments has hardly been supportive of a banking structure dominated by public banks. In times of slow growth, the excess liquidity in banks was seen as a substitute for counter-cyclical fiscal policy.
  2. Successive governments, scared of higher fiscal deficits, encouraged public banks to lend more for retail and personal loans, high-risk infrastructural sectors and vehicle loans.
  3. Here, banks funded by short-term deposit liabilities were taking on exposures that involved long-term risks, often not backed by due diligence.
  4. Unsurprisingly, many loans turned sour. Consequently, banks are in crisis with rising non-performing assets.
  5. The same fear of fiscal deficits is also scaring the government away from recapitalising banks.

Current Affairs 2020

Send this to a friend