Privatization in banking sector

Privatization in Indian Banking Sector

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We would firstly like to thank our Institution & sincere thanks to Principal Prof. A. E. Lakdawala and Vice Principal Prof. Kamala Arunachalam for providing us support and giving us an opportunity for doing B&I course and completing this project.

We would also like to extent our profound and sincere gratitude to our project guide Prof. Preeti Agarwal who has guided our project with her vast fund of knowledge advice and constant encouragement. We kindly appreciate her implicit and valuable contribution in drawing up this project.

We also take an opportunity to highlight the invaluable contribution of our B&I cocoordinator Prof. Kamal Rohra who have always supported and encouraged us.

We also thank our parents and all our colleagues without who this project would have not been completed.

Thank you all for your contribution towards the project whether big or small and will forever be indebted to each and every one of you. We also thanks to all those whom we have forgotten to mention in this space.

Privatization in Indian Banking Sector

GROUP MEMBERS

Gina Mendes (10) Anjana Pal (12) Hemali Panchal

(13)

Anjali Tripathi (27)

Amreen Nanavati (11)

3.1 project submitted to Prof. Preeti Agarwal Group No. 4

3

Privatization in Indian Banking Sector

DEFINITION OF PRIVATIZATION
Privatization is the incidence or process of transferring ownership of a business, enterprise, agency or public service from the public sector (the state or government) to the private sector (businesses that operate for a private profit) or to private non-profit organizations. In a broader sense, privatization refers to transfer of any government function to the private sector including governmental functions like revenue collection and law enforcement. The term "privatization" also has been used to describe two unrelated transactions. The first is a buyout, by the majority owner, of all shares of a public corporation or holding company's stock, privatizing a publicly traded stock, and often described as private equity. The second is a demutualization of a mutual organization or cooperative to form a joint stock company. Privatization generally improves the output and efficiency of the organizations that are privatized.

HOW PRIVATIZATION WORKS?

There are eight key ways about how privatization works: 1. Privatization works best when it is a part of a larger programme of reforms promoting efficiency. Their privatizations were accompanied by reforms to open markets, remove price and exchange rate distortions, and encourage the development of the private sector through free entry. Revenue maximization should not be the primary goal of privatization. It is far better to eliminate monopoly power and unleash potentially competitive activities than to boost the sales price by divesting into protected markets. Moreover, it is also far better to create regulations to protect consumer welfare than to maximize price by selling into an unregulated market. Regulation is critical to the successful privatization of monopolies.

2.

Privatization in Indian Banking Sector

3. Countries can benefit from privatizing management without privatizing the ownership of assets. Management contracts, leases, and concessions have been successfully used the world over, particularly in sectors where it is difficult to attract private investors. But because a change in ownership is usually needed to lock in performance gains, private management arrangements are likely to work best when they are a step toward full privatization. The sale of large enterprises requires considerable preparation. Successful privatizations of large enterprises have entailed breaking them into competitive and marketable units bringing in dynamic private sector managers, settling past liabilities, and shedding excess labour. Successful privatizing governments also avoided large new investments for plant modernization and equipment, since getting the private sector to finance and manage these investments was itself a major reason for privatization. Transparency is critical for economic and political success. The formerly socialist economies should privatize in all possible ways that encourage competition, and they should experiment with all available methods that go beyond a case-by-case approach to privatization. Since the economic and social importance of SOEs is far greater there than in the rest of the world, flexibility is in order--not because privatization is less necessary, but because it is more so. In changing the public-private mix in any type of economy, privatization will sometimes be less important than the emergence of new private business. Countries can freeze or restrain the expansion of public enterprises and encourage the growth of a dynamic private sector through free entry.

4.

5. 7.

8.

PROS AND CONS OF PRIVATIZATION

Having explained the meaning of privatization, it is imperative to also look at the pros and cons (merits and demerits) of privatization. PROS (MERITS) 1. It stops loss-making public sector enterprises from adding to government debts;

Privatization in Indian Banking Sector

2. It depoliticizes public sector enterprises remove, governmental pressures for over-manning and the sub-optimal use of resources; 3. It gives new owners a strong incentive to turn around failing public sector enterprises into successful businesses; 4. It gives new businesses access to investment capital that government cannot provide; 5. It raises more money for government through taxing former public sector enterprises; 6. Government can raise funds to pay off other debts fast because of relieve from financial burden of the public sector enterprises being privatized; 7. Profit incentive may deliver better outcomes, for example, staff down-sizing to increase efficiency, more staff motivation, and cheaper prices to be competitive. 8. If floated on the stock exchange at a good price, investors can make a lot of money through increased business revenue, efficiency and profitability. 9. It removes governments monopolistic status and inability to be responsive to citizens' needs, resulting in inefficient, one-size-fits-all services. 10. In practice, all levels of government, seeking to reduce costs, have begun turning to the private sector to provide some of the services that are ordinarily provided by government. The spread of the privatization movement is grounded in the fundamental belief that market competition in the private sector is a more efficient way to provide these services and allows for greater citizen choice. 11. With privatization solidly on ground, costs will be reduced at the long run. 12. Public sector workers are not harmed by privatization. Displaced workers can be hired by contractors or transferred to other government positions. CONS (DEMERITS) 1. Government no longer receives profits (if it was previously profitable), therefore, the revenue accruing to the government from public sector enterprises becomes shortened as a result of privatization. 2. Privatization may decrease safety due to greater profit incentives. 3. In extremely unavoidable cases, staff down-sizing could result to workers layoff, and then unemployment rises. This aptly results to more crimes and social vices because an idle hand is a devils workshop. 4. Prices may actually rise if the service was previously subsidized by the government. This is a common experience after a successful privatization process.

Privatization in Indian Banking Sector

This becomes imperative in a bid to provide qualitative service, improve efficiency and profitability. 5. Privatization alone may not lead to better quality or cost reduction in public service delivery. 6. The standard economic measures used to make privatization decisions fail to accurately assess the real costs and benefits of care. 7. A major concern to the organized labour is the impact of privatization on job security and employment. Workers layoffs, erosion of wages and benefits, and decreased levels of union membership could be parts of labors setbacks for embracing privatization. 8. There are concerns that constitutional protections of citizens may suffer a setback as a result of privatization which may threaten citizens constitutional rights. 9. One of the disadvantages is that the privatized company will no longer operate in the public interest. While a state-owned company primarily serves the citizens of the state, the primary goal of a privately operated company is to make profit. It may make these profits at the expense of its customers without serving them properly. For example, it may choose the market which is most profitable to operate in and leave less wealthy customers without a service.

PRIVATIZATION OF BANKING SECTOR IN INDIA

At the time of Independence in 1947, the banking system in India was fairly well developed with over 600 commercial banks operating in the country. However, soon after Independence, The view that the banks from the colonial heritage were biased against extending credit to Small-scale enterprises, agriculture and commoners gained prominence. To ensure better coverage of the banking needs of larger parts of the economy and the rural constituencies, the Government of India created the State Bank of India (SBI) in 1955. Despite the progress in the 1950s and 1960s, it was felt that the creation of the SBI was not far reaching enough since the banking needs of small scale industries and the agricultural sector were still not covered sufficiently. Additionally, there was a perception that banks should play a more prominent role in India's development strategy by mobilizing resources for sectors that were seen as crucial for economic expansion. As a consequence, in 1967 the policy of social control over banks was announced, which aimed to cause changes in the

Privatization in Indian Banking Sector

management and distribution of credit by commercial banks. In 1969 the 14 largest public banks were nationalized which raised the Public Sector Banks' (SOB) share of deposits from 31% to 86%. The two main objectives of the nationalizations were rapid branch expansion and the channeling of credit in line with the priorities of the five year plans. To achieve these goals, the newly nationalized banks received quantitative targets for the expansion of their branch network and for the percentage of credit they had to extend to the so-called priority sectors, which initially stood at 33.3%. Six more banks were nationalized in 1980, which raised the public sector's share of deposits to 92%. The second wave of nationalizations occurred because control over the banking system became increasingly important as a means to ensure priority sector lending, reach the poor through a widening branch network and to fund rising public deficits. In addition to the nationalization of banks, the priority sector lending targets were raised to 40%. Besides the establishment of priority sector credits and the nationalization of banks, the government took further control over banks' funds by raising the statutory liquidity ratio (SLR) and the cash reserve ratio (CRR). From a level of 2% for the CRR and 25% for the SLR in 1960, both increased steeply until 1991 to 15% and 38.5% respectively. However, the policies that was supposed to promote a more equal distribution of funds, also led to inefficiencies in the Indian banking system. To alleviate the negative effects, some reforms were enacted in the second half of the 1980s. The main policy changes were the introduction of Treasury Bills, the creation of money markets, and a partial deregulation of interest rates. Despite the reform attempts, the Indian banking sector had like the overall economy severe structural problems by the end of the 1980s. By international standards, Indian banks were even despite a rapid growth of deposits extremely unprofitable. In the second half of the 1980s, the average return on assets was about 0.15%. The capital and reserves of Indian banks stood at about 1.5% of assets, which was significantly below other Asian countries that reached about 4-6%. The 1991 report of the Narasimham Committee served as the basis for the subsequent banking sector reforms. The objective of banking sector reforms was in line with the overall goals of the 1991 economic reforms of opening the economy, giving a greater role to markets in setting prices and allocating resources, and increasing the role of the private sector. In the following years, reforms covered the areas of (1) Liberalization including interest rate deregulation, the reduction of statutory pre-emptions, and the easing of directed credit rules; (2) Stabilization of banks; (3) Partial privatization of state-owned banks; (4) Changes in the institutional framework, and

Privatization in Indian Banking Sector

(5) Entry deregulation for both domestic and foreign banks.

INTEREST RATE LIBERALIZATION

Prior to the reforms, interest rates were a tool of cross-subsidization between different sectors of the economy. As a result the interest rate structure had grown increasingly complex with both lending and deposit rates set by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The lending rate for loans in excess of Rs200,000 which account for over 90% of total advances was abolished in October 1994. Banks were at the same time required to announce a prime lending rate (PLR) which according to RBI guidelines had to take the cost of funds and transaction costs into account. For the remaining advances up to Rs200,000 interest rates can be set freely as long as they do not exceed the PLR. On the deposit side, there has been a complete liberalization for the rates of all term deposits, which account for 70% of total deposits. From October 1995, interest rates for term deposits with a maturity of two years were liberalized. The minimum maturity was subsequently lowered from two years to 15 days in 1998. The term deposit rates were fully liberalized in 1997. As of 2004, the RBI is only setting the savings and the nonresident Indian deposit rate. For all other deposits above 15 days banks are free to set their own interest rates.

STATUTORY PRE-EMPTIONS
Until 1991 the CRR had increased to its maximum legal limit of 15% from a level of around 5% in the 1960s and 1970s. From its peak in 1991, it has declined gradually to a low of 4.5% in June 2003. In October 2004 it was slightly increased to 5% to counter inflationary pressures, but the RBI remains committed to decrease the CRR to its statutory minimum of 3%. The SLR has seen a similar development. The peak rate of the SLR stood at 38.5% in February 1992, just short of the upper legal limit of 40%. Since then it has been gradually lowered to the statutory minimum of 25% in October 1997.

PRIORITY SECTOR LENDING

Besides the high level of statutory pre-emptions, the priority sector advances were identified as one of the major reasons for the below average profitability of Indian banks. The Narasimham Committee therefore recommended a reduction from 40% to 10%. However, this recommendation has not been implemented and the targets of 40% of net bank credit for domestic banks and 32% for foreign banks have remained the same. While the nominal targets have remained unchanged, the effective burden of priority sector advances has been reduced by expanding the definition of priority sector lending to include for example information technology companies.

Privatization in Indian Banking Sector STABILIZATION

Due to directed lending practices and poor risk management skills, India's banks had accrued a significant level of NPLs. Prior to any privatization; the balance sheets of SOBs had to be cleaned up through capital injections. In the fiscal years 1991/92 and 1992/93 alone, the Indian government provided almost Rs40 billion to clean up the balance sheets of SOBs. Between 1993 and 1999 another Rs120 billion were injected in the nationalized banks. In total, the recapitalization amounted to 2% of GDP.

PRIVATIZATION
Despite the suggestion of the Narasimham Committee to rationalize SOBs, the Government of India decided against liquidation, which would have involved significant losses accruing to either the government or depositors. It opted instead to maintain and improve operations to allow banks to create a starting basis before a possible privatization. In 1993 partial private shareholding of the SBI was allowed, which made it the first SOB to raise equity in the capital markets. After the 1994 amendment of the Banking Regulation Act, SOBs were allowed to offer up to 49% of their equity to the public. This led to the partial privatization of an additional eleven SOBs. Despite those partial privatizations, the government is committed to keep the public character of these banks by for exampling maintaining strong administrative controls.

INSTITUTION BUILDING
The report of the Narasimham Committee was the basis for the strengthening of prudential norms and the supervisory framework. Starting with the guidelines on income recognition, asset classification, provisioning and capital adequacy the RBI issued in 1992/93, there have been continuous efforts to enhance the transparency and accountability of the banking sector. The improvements of the prudential and supervisory framework were accompanied by a paradigm shift from microregulation of the banking sector to a strategy of macromanagement. The Basle Accord capital standards were adopted in April 1992. The 8% capital adequacy ratio had to be met by foreign banks operating in India by the end of March 1993; Indian banks with a foreign presence had to reach the 8% by the end of March 1994 while purely domestically operating banks had until the end of March 1996 to implement the requirement. Significant changes were also made concerning NPLs since banks can no longer treat the putative 'income' from them as income. Additionally, the rules guiding their recognition were tightened. Even though these changes mark a significant improvement, the accounting norms for

10

Privatization in Indian Banking Sector

recognizing NPLs are less stringent than in developed countries where a loan is considered Nonperforming after one quarter of outstanding interest payments compared to two quarters in India.

STRUCTURAL CHANGES
Before the start of the 1991 reforms, there was little effective competition in the Indian banking system due to strict entry restrictions for new banks, which effectively shielded the incumbents from competition. Over 30 new banks both domestic and foreign have entered the market since 1994. By March 2005, the new private sector banks and the foreign banks had a combined share of almost 20% of total assets.

IMPACT OF PRIVATIZATION ON INDIAN BANKING

SBI enjoys a monopoly of the government business. SBI was formed under the SBI Act in 1955. The government holds around 93% of the equity, leaving7% to private ownership. By this act the equity of RBI cannot be diluted below 55%.This act was outdated and needs to be re-addressed. However, efforts were initiated by SBI to privatize its non banking subsidiaries like SBI Caps, SBI Funds Management etc, where SBIs holding is about 85%of the equity. Later Indian government announced its decision to reduce its stakes in public sector banks to 33%. Are the banks really sick? The answer is No. Public sector banks are making profits. Even the loss-making banks like UCO bank have turned the corner in recent years. Then why this out cry of privatization. Why Need of Privatization??? In early 80s, the Banking Sector in India was dominated by the public sector banks which were characterized by High Intermediation Costs Over-staffing and Over-branching Huge portfolio of Nonperforming Loans

11

Privatization in Indian Banking Sector

Poor Customer Services Undercapitalized Poorly Managed / Narrow Product Range Undue Interference in Lending, Loan Recovery & Personnel The bad loans are those which could not be repaid due to the vagaries of business cycle or due to natural calamities etc. There is no point in pursuing the recovery of such loans, as such borrowers do not repay. Such debts are written off record books and recorded as general expenditure and banks need not publish these. This clause has been exploited to the hilt by the Indian industrial and business class to conceal their loot of bank funds many politicians and industrialists looted the banks. These loans are not to be monitored by the branch managers. What happens to this loan, who repays them, and ultimately who waives these payments? Hindustan Photo Films Rs. 395 crore Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers - Rs. 165 crore JK Synthetics Rs. 87 crore Harshad Mehta Rs.812 crore Hyderabad Allwyn Rs. 85 crore HMT Rs. 77 crore Mission Statement of Privatization Privatization is envisaged to foster competition, ensuring greater capital investment, competitiveness and modernisation, resulting in enhancement of employment and provision of improved quality of products and services to the consumers and reduction in the fiscal burden. Rationale for Privatization Reduction in fiscal deficit Fiscal deficit reached a high of 8.5 percent of GDP in 1987-88. Loss making public sector enterprises were a burden.

12

Privatization in Indian Banking Sector

Increase in the efficiency levels Efficiency levels of public sector enterprises were low. Production costs of public enterprises were high as a result of political interference. To foster Competition State owned units when sold to different parties would result in healthy competition in different sectors of the economy. Broad basing of equity capital Privatization would result in strengthening and deepening of capital market when some percentage of shares of public enterprises are sold to the public through stock exchange. Releasing resources for physical and social infrastructure more funds available for development projects. Privatization of loss making enterprises would give govt. more fiscal space So the need was felt to put some control over the activities of the Nationalize banks. Privatization of banks was one such action. Although all political parties are committed to privatization, somehow there is no exhibition of pace. It is time to be taken in by a revolution called "Privatization of Ownership". Private Sector Banks ICICI Bank is India's largest private sector bank. The bank has a network of 1,308 branches and 3,950 ATMs as well as robust Internet banking. The Bank is present in 19 countries, including India. ICICI Bank offers a wide range of banking products and financial services to corporate and retail customers through a variety of delivery channels and through its specialized subsidiaries and affiliates in the areas of investment banking, life and non-life insurance, venture capital and asset management.

13

Privatization in Indian Banking Sector

DATA COLLECTION

Narasimham Committee Report I 1991

The Narsimham Committee was set up in order to study the problems of the Indian financial system and to suggest some recommendations for improvement in the efficiency and productivity of the financial institution. The committee has given the following major recommendations:1. Reduction in the SLR and CRR: The committee recommended the reduction of the higher proportion of the Statutory Liquidity Ratio 'SLR' and the Cash Reserve Ratio 'CRR'. Both of these ratios were very high at that time. The SLR then was 38.5% and CRR was 15%. This high amount of SLR and CRR meant locking the bank resources for government uses. It was hindrance in the productivity of the bank thus the committee recommended their gradual reduction. SLR was recommended to reduce from 38.5% to 25% and CRR from 15% to 3 to 5%. 2. Phasing out Directed Credit Programmes: In India, since nationalization, directed credit programmes were adopted by the government. The committee recommended phasing out of this programmes. This programmes compelled banks to earmark then financial resources for the needy and poor sectors at

14

Privatization in Indian Banking Sector

confessional rates of interest. It was reducing the profitability of banks and thus the committee recommended the stopping of this programmes. 3. Interest Rate Determination: The committee felt that the interest rates in India are regulated and controlled by the authorities. The determination of the interest rate should be on the grounds of market forces such as the demand for and the supply of fund. Hence the committee recommended eliminating government controls on interest rate and phasing out the concessional interest rates for the priority sector. 4. Structural Reorganizations of the Banking sector: The committee recommended that the actual numbers of public sector banks need to be reduced. Three to four big banks including SBI should be developed as international banks. Eight to Ten Banks having nationwide presence should concentrate on the national and universal banking services. Local banks should concentrate on region specific banking. Regarding the RRBs (Regional Rural Banks), it recommended that they should focus on agriculture and rural financing. They recommended that the government should assure that henceforth there won't be any nationalization and private and foreign banks should be allowed liberal entry in India. 5. Establishment of the ARF Tribunal: The proportion of bad debts and Non-performing asset (NPA) of the public sector Banks and Development Financial Institute was very alarming in those days. The committee recommended the establishment of an Asset Reconstruction Fund (ARF). This fund will take over the proportion of the bad and doubtful debts from the banks and financial institutes. It would help banks to get rid of bad debts. 6. Removal of Dual control: Those days banks were under the dual control of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the Banking Division of the Ministry of Finance (Government of India). The committee recommended the stepping of this system. It considered and recommended that the RBI should be the only main agency to regulate banking in India. 7. Banking Autonomy: The committee recommended that the public sector banks should be free and autonomous. In order to pursue competitiveness and efficiency, banks must enjoy autonomy so that they can reform the work culture and banking technology up gradation will thus be easy. Some of these recommendations were later accepted by the Government of India and became banking reforms.

15

Privatization in Indian Banking Sector

Narasimham Committee Report II - 1998

In 1998 the government appointed yet another committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Narsimham. It is better known as the Banking Sector Committee. It was told to review the banking reform progress and design a programme for further strengthening the financial system of India. The committee focused on various areas such as capital adequacy, bank mergers, bank legislation, etc. It submitted its report to the Government in April 1998 with the following recommendations. 1. Strengthening Banks in India: The committee considered the stronger banking system in the context of the Current Account Convertibility 'CAC'. It thought that Indian banks must be capable of handling problems regarding domestic liquidity and exchange rate management in the light of CAC. Thus, it recommended the merger of strong banks which will have 'multiplier effect' on the industry. 2. Narrow Banking: Those days many public sector banks were facing a problem of the Non-performing assets (NPAs). Some of them had NPAs were as high as 20 percent of their assets. Thus for successful rehabilitation of these banks it recommended 'Narrow Banking Concept' where weak banks will be allowed to place their funds only in short term and risk free assets. 3. Capital Adequacy Ratio: In order to improve the inherent strength of the Indian banking system the committee recommended that the Government should raise the prescribed capital adequacy norms. This will further improve their absorption capacity also. Currently the capital adequacy ration for Indian banks is at 9 percent. 4. Bank ownership: As it had earlier mentioned the freedom for banks in its working and bank autonomy, it felt that the government control over the banks in the form of management and ownership and bank autonomy does not go hand in hand and thus it recommended a review of functions of boards and enabled them to adopt professional corporate strategy. 5. Review of banking laws: The committee considered that there was an urgent need for reviewing and amending main laws governing Indian Banking Industry like RBI Act, Banking Regulation Act, State Bank of India Act, Bank Nationalization Act, etc. This up gradation will bring them in line with the present needs of the banking sector in India.

16

Privatization in Indian Banking Sector

Apart from these major recommendations, the committee has also recommended faster computerization, technology up gradation, training of staff, depoliticizing of banks, professionalism in banking, reviewing bank recruitment, etc.

Evaluation of Narsimham Committee Reports

The Committee was first set up in 1991 under the chairmanship of Mr. M. Narasimham who was 13th governor of RBI. Only a few of its recommendations became banking reforms of India and others were not at all considered. Because of this a second committee was again set up in 1998. As far as recommendations regarding bank restructuring, management freedom, strengthening the regulation are concerned, the RBI has to play a major role. If the major recommendations of this committee are accepted, it will prove to be fruitful in making Indian banks more profitable and efficient

Problems Identified By The Narasimham Committee

1. Directed Investment Programme: The committee objected to the system of maintaining high liquid assets by commercial banks in the form of cash, gold and unencumbered government securities. It is also known as the statutory liquidity Ratio (SLR). In those days, in India, the SLR was as high as 38.5 percent. According to the M. Narasimham's Committee it was one of the reasons for the poor profitability of banks. Similarly, the Cash Reserve Ratio- (CRR) was as high as 15 percent. Taken together, banks needed to maintain 53.5 percent of their resources idle with the RBI. 2. Directed Credit Programme: Since nationalization the government has encouraged the lending to agriculture and small-scale industries at a confessional rate of interest. It is known as the directed credit programme. The committee opined that these sectors have matured and thus do not need such financial support. This directed credit programme was successful from the government's point of view but it affected commercial banks in a bad manner. Basically it deteriorated the quality of loan, resulted in a shift from the security oriented loan to purpose oriented. Banks were given a huge target of priority sector lending, etc. ultimately leading to profit erosion of banks. 3. Interest Rate Structure: The committee found that the interest rate structure and rate of interest in India are highly regulated and controlled by the government. They also found that government used bank funds at a cheap rate under the SLR. At the same time the government advocated the philosophy of subsidized lending to certain sectors. The committee felt that there was no need

17

Privatization in Indian Banking Sector

for interest subsidy. It made banks handicapped in terms of building main strength and expanding credit supply. 4. Additional Suggestions: Committee also suggested that the determination of interest rate should be on grounds of market forces. It further suggested minimizing the slabs of interest. Along with these major problem areas M. Narasimham's Committee also found various inconsistencies regarding the banking system in India. In order to remove them and make it more vibrant and efficient, it has given the following recommendations.

Conclusion
The conclusion is straightforward: privatization, when done right, works well. Privatization is not a blanket solution for the problems of poorly performing public sector enterprises. It cannot in and of itself make up totally for lack of competition, for weak capital markets, or for the absence of an appropriate regulatory framework. But where the market is basically competitive, or when a modicum of regulatory capacity is present, private ownership yields substantial benefits. The success of any privatization arrangement, whichever technique is adopted, will be dependent on the sincerity of government to pursue it with unblemished policy implementation, support, co-operation and understanding of the citizenry. There is nothing bad with the public sector banks; the difference is in the policies. Because of loopholes in the policies people uses banks for their personal cause. Private sector banks boost the Indian economy as their efficiency is much more than the Public sector banks. But there is still a long road for privatization. Private Banks are still have to cover rural sector which contribute large in the growth of India. At the onset, privatization bites very hard, but at the long run, the benefits are multifarious and immeasurable.

Bibliography
18

Privatization in Indian Banking Sector

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_iFIztPmvqg8/TJJHdtaNL0I/AAAAAAAADbM/y2m9 WSxBQDY/Narasimham-Committee-Report-1991-1998-RecommendationsProblems-Identified-Evaluation.jpg http://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=privatisation+in+banking +sector&Search.x=0&Search.y=0&wc=on http://www.cpiml.org/liberation/year_2001/january/bank.htm http://www.scribd.com/opensearch?language=1&limit=10&num_pages=&p age=8&query=privatisation+in+banking+sector http://kalyan-city.blogspot.com/2010/09/narasimham-committee-report1991-1998.html http://theprosandconsofprivatization.blogspot.com/

19