Informal Banking, Trust and Mutual Reciprocity

Part of the India Studies in Business and Economics book series (ISBE)


Poor people in the underdeveloped countries cannot live without credit. Most of them are, however, outside the ambit of formal credit system. They do not possess the requited parameters that can qualify them as debtors in the formal market. In this chapter, we have tried to gauge the patterns and factors that rule the informal credit market in India. The truth underneath the informal market is that people have no way but to depend on mutual trust when taking loan. Once trust is established, the advantages of the informal market (accessibility, flexibility and less stringent requirements for collateral) aid in its flourishment. Many of these informal sources are a part and parcel of their lives. In this chapter, not only the trends in rural credit market are deciphered but also the cause and extent of informality are also unearthed. In order to check the broader trend in the country setup, two case studies from the remote rural areas of West Bengal have been incorporated.


  1. Arrow, K. J. (1974). The limits of organization. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  2. Besley, T., Coate, S., & Loury, G. (1993). The economics of rotating savings and credit associations. American Economic Review, 83, 792–810.Google Scholar
  3. Chakrabarti, S. (2010). Concept and method of ascertaining assets of rural households. The Journal of Income and Wealth, 32(1), 3–13.Google Scholar
  4. Dasgupta, P. (1988). Trust as a Commodity. In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  5. Dasgupta, P. (2004). Economics: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dasgupta, P. (2005). The economics of social capital. The Economic Record, 8(255), s2–s21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO). (2013). Key indicators of debt and investment in India. New Delhi: Government of India.Google Scholar
  8. Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. Y. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. RBI. (1954). All-India rural credit survey. Bombay: Reserve Bank of India.Google Scholar
  10. RBI. (1965). All India rural debt and investment survey 1961–62. RBI Bulletin, September, Bombay: Reserve Bank of India.Google Scholar
  11. RBI. (1977). All India debt and investment survey—cash dues outstanding against rural households as on June 31, 1971. Bombay: Reserve Bank of India.Google Scholar
  12. RBI. (1987). All India debt and investment survey 1981–82, assets and liabilities of households as on June 30, 1981. Bombay: Reserve Bank of India.Google Scholar
  13. RBI. (1999). All-India debt and investment survey, 1991–92—salient features. RBI Bulletin, May, Bombay: Reserve Bank of India.Google Scholar
  14. RBI. (2000). All-India debt and investment survey, 1991–92—incidence of indebtedness of households. RBI Bulletin. Bombay: Reserve Bank of India.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Economics DepartmentBurdwan UniversityBurdwanIndia
  2. 2.Economics DepartmentShyampur Siddheswari Mahavidyalaya, University of CalcuttaHowrahIndia

Personalised recommendations