i nc lu s i ve f i nanc e i nd i a re port 2014
12
eratives. It will be seen that the number of accounts far
exceeds the adult population of the country. This is on
account of the fact that the banking system has multiple
accounts for the same customer within the same bank as
also across banks.
T
ABLE
1.6
Deposits and Loan Accounts with Banks and
Other Agencies
In million
No. of adults (in million)
840
No. of deposit accounts with banks (March 2012)
903
No. of BSBDA accounts with banks (March 2014)
243
No. of deposit accounts with post office
115.8
(March 2012)
No. of accounts with primary cooperatives
139.4
(March 2013)
No. of borrowers with primary cooperatives
43.08
(March 2013)
No. of loan accounts with Banks (March 2012)
130.88
No. of loan accounts with MFIs (March 2014)
27.53
No. of saving SHG members (March 2014)
96.6
No. of borrowing SHG members (March 2014)
54.6
Source
: Government of India, Census 2011 for population; RBI
(2013),
Basic Statistical Returns 2012
for banking data;
India Post
Annual Report 2013
for post office data; National Federation of
State Cooperative Banks (NAFSCOB) for data on cooperatives;
MIX Market for MFI data; and NABARD (2014) for SHG data.
If we consider only the basic savings bank deposits
accounts (BSBDAs) as contributing to financial inclusion,
we still have a total of 594.8 million savings accounts
and 256.09 million loan accounts. Set against an adult
population of 840 million according to the 2011 Census,
this would appear to be a reasonable coverage. It may be
noted that BSBD accounts under the financial inclusion
plans have gone up more than three-fold in three years
from 74.4 million as of March 2011 to 243 million as
of March 2014. Other types of deposit accounts have
registered a more nominal increase in the range of 10–20
per cent during a similar period. On the other hand,
there has been a decline in the number of loan accounts
during this period—through a decline in the borrowing
members of primary cooperatives, MFIs and SHGs.
The Mor Committee had estimated that the average
urban account holder held four bank accounts, and the
rural account holder 1.5 bank accounts.
1.5.1 Microfinance Penetration Index (MPI)
The Crisil Inclusix index provided estimates of state-wise
degree of inclusion in respect of data related to scheduled
commercial banks and RRBs. The microfinance pen-
etration index (MPI) provides estimates of the relative
share of the states in microfinance clients
28
as compared
to their share in the population. Similarly, the value of
the Microfinance Poverty Penetration Index (MPPI)
is derived by dividing the share of the state in microfi-
nance clients by the share of the state in the population
of the poor. Hence, a value more than 1 indicates that
the state’s share in microfinance clients was more than
proportional to its population, indicating better than
par performance. A score of less than 1, which is the
par value, indicates a comparatively poor performance
by the state. Similar estimates have been conducted in
earlier
Microfinance State of the Sector Reports
, with the
last exercise being carried out in 2012. State-level poverty
data for the present exercise has been taken from the
Report of Rangarajan Committee on Poverty
(Government
of India, 2014) and population data from the Census
2011. The ranking of the best and worst performing
states is given in Table 1.7. The state-level scores and
details for all the states are given in Appendix 1.2.
T
ABLE
1.7
Ranking of Select States based on MPI and MPPI
(31 March 2014)
Top 6 states
MPI
MPPI
Andhra Pradesh
3.38 Puducherry
10.75
Puducherry
2.87 Andhra Pradesh
7.32
Karnataka
2.27 Andaman and
3.23
Nicobar Islands
Tamil Nadu
1.91 Karnataka
3.07
West Bengal
1.54 Kerala
2.68
Odisha
1.54 Tamil Nadu
2.52
Bottom six states
MPI
MPPI
Jammu and Kashmir 0.01 Jammu and Kashmir
0.02
Mizoram
0.02 Mizoram
0.02
Lakshadweep
0.04 Lakshadweep
0.05
Arunachal Pradesh
0.06 Arunachal Pradesh
0.05
Chandigarh
0.09 Chandigarh
0.12
Nagaland
0.16 Manipur
0.19
