Advertisement

Evaluating the Double Bottom-Line of Social Banking in an Emerging Country: How Efficient are Public Banks in Supporting Priority and Non-priority Sectors in India?

  • Almudena Martínez-Campillo
  • Mahinda Wijesiri
  • Peter Wanke
Original Paper
  • 80 Downloads

Abstract

India is the emerging country with the world’s greatest social banking program, so Indian banks are required to finance the weaker sectors of society that are excluded from the traditional financial system (priority sectors), while also providing mainstream banking services to non-priority sectors. For social banks to promote the ethical–social management of their dual mission and to be successful in today’s business environment, they must be as efficient as possible in both dimensions of their banking activity. Whereas the efficiency of Indian banks in the financial dimension is well understood, to date there has been no research evaluating their double bottom-line of achieving social and financial goals. Our study applies an innovative Network Slack-Based DEA model to evaluate how efficient Indian public banks are when providing credit to priority and non-priority sectors. We also explore the main factors influencing bank efficiency. Results suggest that Indian public banks have performed relatively well in both activities, although social efficiency has been slightly greater than financial efficiency. Moreover, their commitment to priority sector lending has not come into conflict with the profit-seeking objectives of mainstream banking services. As regards determinants of social and financial efficiency, there are countervailing forces played by regional wealth, bank size, branch networks, and rural location. Our findings are therefore useful for stakeholders of Indian public banks as they indicate if these entities have adequately managed their double bottom-line, and hence if they are critical for poverty alleviation and development in India.

Keywords

Double bottom-line Efficiency Indian social banks Priority and non-priority sectors Ethical–social management Network slack-based DEA model 

Notes

Acknowledgements

A part of the research for this paper was completed while Mahinda Wijesiri was a visiting scholar at the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research (IGIDR), India. He gratefully acknowledges the funding and support from the International Development Research Center (IDRC), Canada. The authors would like to thank the Section Editor and the anonymous referees for their useful comments. Any remaining errors are solely the responsibility of the authors.

Funding

This research was funded by the International Development Research Center (IDRC) of Canada (Grant No.: IDRC 107125; Recipient: Mahinda Wijesiri).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Almudena Martínez-Campillo declares that she has no conflict of interest. Mahinda Wijesiri has received a research grant from the “International Development Research Center (IDRC),” Canada. Peter Wanke declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Research Involving Human Participants or Animals

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Bagnoli, L., & Megali, C. (2009). Measuring performance in social enterprises. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 20(10), 1–17.Google Scholar
  2. Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30(9), 1078–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berger, A. N., & Humphrey, D. B. (1997). Efficiency of financial institutions: International survey and directions for future research. European Journal of Operational Research, 98(2), 175–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhattacharyya, A., Lovell, C. K., & Sahay, P. (1997). The impact of liberalization on the productive efficiency of Indian commercial banks. European Journal of Operational Research, 98(2), 332–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhattacharyya, A., & Pal, S. (2013). Financial reforms and technical efficiency in Indian commercial banking: A generalized stochastic frontier analysis. Review of Financial Economics, 22(3), 109–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burgess, R., & Pande, R. (2005). Do rural banks matter? Evidence from the Indian social banking experiment. The American Economic Review, 95(3), 780–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooper, W. W., Seiford, L. M., & Tone, K. (2007). Data envelopment analysis. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Cornée, S., & Szafarz, A. (2014). Vive la différence: Social banks and reciprocity in the credit marked. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(3), 361–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crowther, D., & Lauesen, L. M. (2016). Accountability and social responsibility: International perspectives. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Das, A., & Ghosh, S. (2006). Financial deregulation and efficiency: An empirical analysis of Indian banks during the post reform period. Review of Financial Economics, 15(3), 193–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Das, A., & Kumbhakar, S. C. (2012). Productivity and efficiency dynamics in Indian banking: An input distance function approach incorporating quality of inputs and outputs. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 27(2), 205–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Datanet India (2017). Indiastat: Socio-Economic Statistical Information about India (Banks and Financial Institutions/Public Sector Banks). New Delhi: Datanet India. Retrieved from: https://www.indiastat.com/banksandfinancialinstitutions/3/publicsectorbanks/234/stats.aspx.
  14. Ebrahim, A., Battilana, J., & Mair, J. (2014). The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Färe, R., & Grosskopf, S. (1996). Intertemporal production frontiers: With dynamic DEA. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Färe, R., & Grosskopf, S. (2000). Network DEA. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 34(1), 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Farrell, M. J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 120(3), 253–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferrari, S. L., & Cribari-Neto, F. (2004). Beta regression for modeling rates and proportions. Journal of Applied Statistics, 31(7), 799–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
  20. Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fujii, H., Managi, S., & Matousek, R. (2014). Indian bank efficiency and productivity changes with undesirable outputs: A disaggregated approach. Journal of Banking & Finance, 38(1), 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fukuyama, H., & Matousek, R. (2017). Innovative applications of O.R. Modelling bank performance: A network DEA approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 259(1), 721–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fukuyama, H., & Weber, W. L. (2010). A slacks-based inefficiency measure for a two-stage system with bad outputs. Omega, 38(5), 239–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holod, D., & Lewis, H. F. (2011). Resolving the deposit dilemma: A new DEA bank efficiency model. Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(11), 2801–2810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huang, J., Chen, J., & Yin, Z. (2014). A network DEA model with super efficiency and undesirable outputs: An application to bank efficiency in China. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 9, 1–14.Google Scholar
  26. Krause, K., & Battenfeld, D. (2017). Coming out of the niche? Social banking in Germany. Journal of Business Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3491-9.Google Scholar
  27. Lozano, S. (2016). Slacks-based inefficiency approach for general networks with bad outputs: An application to the banking sector. Omega, 60, 73–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Martínez-Campillo, A., Fernández-Santos, Y. & Sierra-Fernández, M. P. (2016). How well have Social Economy financial institutions performed during the crisis period? Exploring financial and social efficiency in Spanish credit unions. Journal of Business Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3192-9.Google Scholar
  29. Mia, A., & Chandran, V. G. R. (2016). Measuring financial and social outreach productivity of microfinance institutions in Bangladesh. Social Indicators Research, 127(2), 505–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mohan, R., & Ray, P. (2017): Indian financial sector: Structure, trends and turns. IMF Working Paper, WP/17/7, International Monetary Fund.Google Scholar
  31. Ramus, T., & Vaccaro, A. (2017). Stakeholders matter: How social enterprises address mission drift. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(2), 307–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. RBI (2012–2015). Annual Report of the RBI from 2011 to 12 to 2014–2015. Mumbai: Reserve Bank of India (RBI). Retrieved from: https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/AnnualReportPublications.aspx.
  33. Sahoo, B., & Tone, K. (2009). Decomposing capacity utilization in Data envelopment analysis: An application to banks in India. European Journal of Operational Research, 195(2), 575–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Smith, J. (2018). Efficiency and ethically responsible management. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(3), 603–618.Google Scholar
  35. Srinivasan, A., & Thampy, T. (2017). The effect of relationships with government-owned banks on cash flow constraints: Evidence from India. Journal of Corporate Finance, 46, 361–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thorat, A., Vanneman, R., Desai, S., & Dubey, A. (2017). Escaping and falling into poverty in India today. World Development, 93, 413–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tone, K., & Tsutsui, M. (2009). Network DEA: A slacks-based measure approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 197(1), 243–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tzeremes, N. G. (2015). Efficiency dynamics in Indian banking: A conditional directional distance approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 240(3), 807–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wijesiri, M., Viganò, L. &  Meoli, M. (2015). Efficiency of microfinance institutions in Sri Lanka: A two-stage double bootstrap DEA approach. Economic Modelling, 47, 74–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zha, Y., Liang, N., Wu, M., & Bian, Y. (2016). Efficiency evaluation of banks in China: A dynamic two-stage slacks-based measure approach. Omega, 60, 60–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhang, P., & Qiu, Z. (2014). Regression analysis of proportional data using simplex distribution. Science China Mathematics, 44(1), 89–104.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Almudena Martínez-Campillo
    • 1
  • Mahinda Wijesiri
    • 2
  • Peter Wanke
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationUniversity of LeónLeónSpain
  2. 2.School of Business AdministrationUniversité du Québec – TÉLUQMontréalCanada
  3. 3.COPPEAD Graduate Business SchoolFederal University of Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations