Do institutional transplants succeed? Regulating raiffeisen cooperatives in south India, 1930-1960

5Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The government in British-ruled India established cooperative banks to compete with private moneylenders in the rural credit market. State officials expected greater competition to increase the supply of low-cost credit, thereby expanding investment potential for the rural poor. Cooperatives did increase credit supply but captured a small share of the credit market and reported net losses throughout the late colonial and early postcolonial period. The article asks why this experiment did not succeed and offers two explanations. First, low savings restricted the role of social capital and mutual supervision as methods of financial regulation in the cooperative sector. Second, a political-economic ideology that privileged equity over efficiency made for weak administrative regulation.

References Powered by Scopus

Peer monitoring and credit markets

690Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Group lending, repayment incentives and social collateral

609Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The economics of lending with joint liability: Theory and practice

455Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Aggregation models and small farm commercialization – A scoping review of the global literature

13Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The establishment of banking supervision in Italy: an assessment (1926–1936)

7Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Balancing efficiency and equity. Consumer cooperatives in Barcelona (Spain), 1898–1936: An economic and financial-ratio analysis

2Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Nath, M. (2021, March 1). Do institutional transplants succeed? Regulating raiffeisen cooperatives in south India, 1930-1960. Business History Review. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007680520000884

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 3

60%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

20%

Researcher 1

20%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Social Sciences 3

43%

Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2

29%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1

14%

Engineering 1

14%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free