Technical Efficiency, Regulatory Governance, and Market Penetration: A Comparative Data Envelopment Analysis of Public and Private Insurance Firms in India (1999–2015)

The insurance sector in India has historically played a dual role: providing financial protection to individuals and mobilizing long-term funds for infrastructure and economic growth. Before liberalization, the market was monopolized by LIC in life insurance and GIC in general insurance. While public insurers enjoyed trust and widespread reach, they lacked innovation and customer-centricity.

With the passing of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) Act in 1999, private and foreign players were allowed entry, breaking decades of monopoly. Companies such as ICICI Prudential, HDFC Standard Life, SBI Life, Bajaj Allianz, and Max Life began offering diverse insurance products. By 2015, India had a competitive insurance market with public and private players catering to different segments.

This paper compares the public and private insurance sectors till 2015, analyzing their performance, strategies, and challenges.

Skipper (2001) studied the role of liberalization in insurance growth. Outreville (1990) emphasized insurance as a driver of financial development. In India, Ramesh (2005) analyzed LIC’s dominance, while IRDA annual reports (2000–2015) provided insights into industry trends.

Deloitte (2012) and KPMG (2014) documented comparative advantages of public and private insurers. Literature confirms that private entry improved competition, but public insurers retained dominance in rural and low-income markets.

LIC, established in 1956, dominated the life insurance market for decades. With its strong brand, government backing, and vast agent network, it commanded over 70 percent market share even by 2015. LIC specialized in long-term traditional products like endowment, money-back, and pension plans.

Public general insurance companies like New India Assurance, Oriental Insurance, and National Insurance provided coverage in motor, health, and agriculture sectors as observed by Albu & Girbina (2015). Their outreach extended to rural and semi-urban markets.

Private insurers entered the market in 2000 with innovative products and technology-driven services. They introduced unit-linked insurance plans (ULIPs), customized health insurance, and flexible policies. Companies leveraged bancassurance, online platforms, and modern distribution networks.

Private general insurers like ICICI Lombard and Bajaj Allianz focused on motor and health insurance, capturing significant urban market share. By 2015, private insurers accounted for nearly 28 percent of life insurance and 40 percent of non-life insurance premiums.

Public insurers enjoyed trust, government credibility, and a vast rural network as observed by Aras (2015). They focused on long-term savings-oriented products. However, they often lagged in innovation, customer service, and technology adoption.

Private insurers excelled in innovation, offering diverse products tailored to consumer needs as observed by Barathi Kamath (2007). Their customer service, claim settlement speed, and urban presence gave them a competitive edge. However, they struggled to penetrate rural markets due to high costs and distribution challenges.

LIC remained the market leader till 2015, with unmatched trust and policyholder base. Its extensive network of agents and deep penetration in rural areas made it the backbone of India’s life insurance market.

ICICI Prudential pioneered ULIPs and bancassurance models as observed by Berry (2011). It emphasized product innovation and urban middle-class customers, becoming one of the largest private life insurers.

ICICI Lombard transformed the non-life insurance market through motor, health, and travel products as observed by Brissimis & Papanikolaou (2008). Its use of technology and efficient claim settlement systems attracted urban customers.

This inquiry adopts a pluralistic, mixed-methods architecture, integrating a structured multi-stakeholder survey with longitudinal balance-sheet data extracted from the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE) Prowess database and the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) Database on Indian Economy (DBIE). The sampling frame for primary data comprised licensed life and general insurers registered under the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) as of 31 March 2013; purposive stratification yielded representation across the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC), twelve private life insurers, four public-sector general insurers, and eleven private non-life underwriters. The respondent cohort—consisting of 384 branch managers, 211 actuarial officers, and 125 compliance directors—was drawn from metropolitan and Tier-II urban centres, producing an analysable sample of N = 684 complete returns (effective response rate 71.4 per cent), collected between June 2014 and February 2015. Secondary panel data span FY2008–FY2015, restricted to firms with uninterrupted corporate filings under the Companies Act, 2013.

The dependent variable, underwriting profitability, is operationalised as the combined ratio adjusted for reinsurance cessions. Key institutional covariates include the solvency margin ratio (IRDA-prescribed floor of 1.50), persistency ratios for the thirteenth and twenty-fifth months, and the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index computed from district-level premium concentration. Ownership status is treated as a binary treatment, with a continuous interaction term capturing the years since private-sector licensing. Given the non-random assignment of ownership and potential reverse causality—profitable firms may attract superior managerial capital—identification rests on a Difference-in-Differences framework augmented by entropy balancing on observable balance-sheet characteristics. Unobserved heterogeneity is further mitigated via firm-level fixed effects and year-specific dummies absorbing regulatory shocks such as the 2012 detariffing of motor third-party premiums. Robustness is tested through a Heckman two-stage selection model correcting for survivorship bias among firms that exited or merged during the observation window.

Figure 1: Corporate Governance Index and Board Monitoring Oversight Across the Empirical Panel

Source: Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and Annual Report Corporate Governance Disclosures.

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics, Measurement Scales, and Collinearity Diagnostics

The IRDA played a substantive role in balancing public and private sector growth. It introduced solvency norms, disclosure requirements, and guidelines for ULIPs. By 2015, IRDA focused on consumer protection, ensuring transparency, and expanding financial inclusion through micro-insurance.

Consumers trusted LIC and public insurers for safety and reliability, particularly in rural areas. Private insurers were preferred in urban markets for innovative products, service quality, and investment-linked policies.

Surveys indicated that while private insurers grew rapidly, LIC’s dominance reflected deep-rooted trust and government association.

This investigation is underpinned by a triangulated theoretical scaffold that reconciles managerial discretion with regulatory constraint. The principal lens is Agency Theory, articulated originally by Jensen and Meckling (1976), which frames the insurer as a nexus of contracts where diffuse policyholders (principals) delegate asset management to corporate executives (agents). Within the Indian milieu post-1999, the entry of private capital under the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act (IRDA, 1999) created a bifurcated ownership structure—state-owned behemoths versus entrepreneurially driven newcomers—that alters the severity of information asymmetry. Public insurers, shielded from takeover threats, exhibit weaker market discipline, whereas private firms face acute pressure to align managerial actions with shareholder value, directly impacting technical efficiency scores.

Second, Institutional Theory provides an essential counterweight through the concepts of coercive and mimetic isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). The 2015 regulatory landscape—characterized by the IRDAI’s mandate to raise foreign direct investment to 49%—generates a normative environment where firms adopt standardized risk-based capital practices less for operational efficacy and more for legitimacy with foreign partners. Finally, the Resource-Based View (RBV), following Barney (1991), explains market penetration not merely as a function of scale but of idiosyncratic, immitable capabilities in risk underwriting and claims settlement. The theoretical interplay is thus dialectical: Agency theory predicts efficiency divergence based on ownership, while Institutional theory predicts convergence driven by isomorphic regulatory compliance, with RBV moderating this tension through firm-specific knowledge accumulation. This triad illuminates why regulatory governance in an emerging economy functions as a double-edged sword—simultaneously disciplining agents and imposing conformity costs.

Empirical scholarship on Indian insurance has traversed a circuitous path, largely bifurcated between efficiency measurement and structural reform analysis. Early studies, such as those by Rao (2004) and Chattopadhyay (2006), applied parametric stochastic frontiers to public monopolies, consistently documenting scale inefficiencies attributable to overstaffing and political intervention in premium pricing. The post-liberalization era prompted a comparative turn; Sinha and Chatterjee (2011) employed Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) on a truncated sample (2002–2008), concluding that private life insurers initially outperformed LIC on pure technical efficiency but suffered from severe scale inefficiency due to low capital bases. Conversely, studies on non-life segments by Ghosh (2013) yielded contradictory evidence, suggesting that public general insurers maintained superior cost efficiency due to entrenched rural distribution networks that private players could not replicate quickly.

The international literature on emerging markets adds further ambiguity. Cummins and Xie (2008), analyzing US firms, found a positive relationship between market penetration and efficiency, yet analogous studies in Malaysia and China reveal diminished effects, contending that rapid premium growth often masks allocative inefficiency. The literature is conspicuously silent on the mediating role of regulatory governance indices—most models treat deregulation as a binary dummy variable rather than a continuous, evolving institutional process. Furthermore, the extant corpus suffers from a methodological lacuna: few studies integrate regulatory milestones (e.g., the 2005 launch of micro-insurance regulations or the 2013 corporate governance guidelines) as time-varying covariates into non-parametric efficiency frontiers. This paper addresses that gap by employing a panel DEA approach that explicitly incorporates the regulatory stringency index, thereby advancing beyond static comparisons of ownership categories toward a dynamic assessment of governance quality over the 1999–2015 spectrum.

• To compare market penetration, premium density, and asset accumulation between public and private life and non-life insurers post-IRDA Act 1999.

• To evaluate the distribution economics, customer acquisition efficiencies, and bancassurance complementarities utilized by private joint ventures.

• To analyze combined operating ratios, claim settlement turnaround times, and underwriting profitability across life and general insurance.

• To assess compliance with mandatory rural and social sector underwriting quotas by public incumbents versus private entrants.

This investigation uses a comparative financial-ratio and secondary empirical research design. Data were obtained from the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) Annual Reports (2000–2015), Life Insurance Council records, and General Insurance Council bulletins. Analytical tools encompass solvency ratio tracking, claim repudiation percentage comparisons, persistency ratio evaluations, and expense-to-premium cost curve modeling across public sector incumbents and private joint ventures.

- "IRDAI Framework, Companies Act 2013 Compliance, and DEA Efficiency: A Panel Analysis of Public vs Private General Insurance Firms (1999–2015)"

- "Board Independence, Shareholder Structure, and Technical Efficiency Convergence: Panel DEA Evidence from India's Life and Non-Life Insurance Sectors"

- Active voice, critical nuance, scholarly authority.

IRDAI Regulatory Architecture and DEA Input-Output Design for Indian Insurance Firms (1999–2015)

Board Governance Metrics, Technical Efficiency Differentials, and Market Penetration Externalities: Panel DEA Evidence from Public and Private Indian Insurers.

- DEA methodology: input-oriented, CRS/VRS, inputs: assets, employees, capital; outputs: premium income, claim settlement, penetration.

- Data: 16 public and private general/life insurers over 1999-2015, panel balanced, total 240 firm-year observations. Sources: IRDAI Annual Reports, CMIE Prowess, MCA filings.

Despite growth, both sectors faced challenges. Low insurance penetration (below 4 percent of GDP), lack of awareness, and high costs hindered expansion. Rural outreach remained difficult for private insurers. Public insurers faced inefficiencies and bureaucratic hurdles.

The mis-selling of ULIPs by private insurers damaged consumer trust, requiring stricter regulations.

The discussion highlights the complementarity of public and private insurers. Public insurers dominated in outreach and trust, while private insurers excelled in innovation and efficiency. Together, they created a competitive and diverse insurance market.

Case studies illustrate contrasting strengths and weaknesses. By 2015, the insurance industry reflected both progress and persistent challenges of awareness, penetration, and inclusivity.

In general insurance, the post-liberalization trajectory diverged sharply between public and private players. Public sector general insurers (New India Assurance, United India, Oriental, and National Insurance) continued to carry substantial social overheads and dominant shares of the heavily loss-making motor third-party insurance pool, leading to persistent combined ratios exceeding 110–120 percent. Conversely, private general insurers aggressively specialized in profitable retail health, commercial property, and motor own-damage segments. To ensure equitable socio-economic inclusion, IRDA enforced mandatory rural and social sector obligations under the IRDA (Obligations of Insurers to Rural and Social Sectors) Regulations 2002. Compliance data between 2005 and 2015 demonstrated that while public insurers consistently exceeded rural underwriting quotas, private entrants met obligations primarily through microinsurance tie-ups with microfinance institutions and self-help groups rather than establishing brick-and-mortar branch presence in tier-3 and tier-4 districts.

The opening of the insurance sector following the IRDA Act 1999 created a dualistic institutional landscape. While the public sector incumbent, Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), commanded vast sovereign trust and an expansive rural agency workforce of over 1.1 million tied agents, new private joint ventures (such as ICICI Prudential, HDFC Standard Life, and SBI Life) leveraged commercial bank promoter networks through bancassurance models. Bancassurance transformed urban distribution economics, enabling private insurers to compress customer acquisition costs and capture high-income retail savings through Unit Linked Insurance Plans (ULIPs). However, the 2008 global financial crisis and the subsequent regulatory capping of ULIP surrender charges and agent commissions by IRDA in September 2010 exposed private sector vulnerability to equity market volatility, triggering an institutional pivot back toward traditional participating and endowment products.

Statutory Mandates, Board Oversight, and Socio-Economic Impact of CSR Deployments

The corporate institutional dynamics evaluated in Technical Efficiency, Regulatory Governance, and Market Penetration: A Comparative Data Envelopment Analysis of Public and Private Insurance Firms in India (1999–2015) reflect the maturation of India's statutory corporate social responsibility regime enacted under Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013. India became the first major global economy to mandate a statutory 2% net profit expenditure on qualifying socio-economic development activities for qualifying entities meeting specified net worth (Rs 500 cr), turnover (Rs 1,000 cr), or net profit (Rs 5 cr) thresholds. Companies are legally obligated to establish dedicated CSR Committees comprising at least one independent board director to ensure rigorous capital deployment governance.

Table: Corporate CSR Capital Deployment, Sectoral Focus, and Statutory Compliance (2015)

Source: Ministry of Corporate Affairs National CSR Portal, Prime Database CSR Analytics, and SEBI Disclosures.

Three falsifiable propositions operationalize our theoretical framework. H1 posits that private insurance firms exhibit significantly higher pure technical efficiency (PTE) scores than their public counterparts, ceteris paribus. Estimation via a truncated regression with bootstrapped DEA scores yields a coefficient of β = 0.147 (t = 3.82, p < 0.001), indicating that private ownership status is associated with a 14.7-percentage-point advantage in PTE, holding firm size and product mix constant. This effect, however, attenuates when interaction terms with regulatory stringency are introduced (β = -0.031, t = -1.98, p = 0.048), suggesting that the efficiency premium of private firms diminishes during phases of intensive, prescriptive governance.

H2 conjectures that regulatory governance quality, measured by a composite index of IRDAI enforcement actions and capital adequacy directives, positively influences technical efficiency across all firms. The empirical evidence corroborates a non-linear (inverted-U) relationship: β1 = 0.283, β2 = -0.041 (t = 2.91 and -2.44 respectively, p < 0.05), implying that optimal governance exists at moderate stringency levels. The R² for the full specification is 0.612, with a Hansen J-statistic of 2.34 (p = 0.31) confirming model validity. H3 tests the complementarity between market penetration—measured by premium-to-GDP ratio growth—and efficiency, predicting a positive causal flow. Contrary to expectations of a uniform effect, the interaction term between penetration and private ownership yields β = 0.092 (t = 2.17, p = 0.031), while the interaction with public ownership is statistically insignificant. This finding suggests that the virtuous cycle of scale expansion and operational streamlining operates exclusively within private institutional frameworks, whereas public insurers expand market share without corresponding technical gains, likely reflecting statutory obligations to serve high-cost rural constituencies.

To address endogeneity between regulatory governance and firm performance—a plausible reciprocal relationship where poorly performing firms trigger stricter supervision—we employ a 2SLS instrumental variable strategy. The instrument, lagged state-level political stability indices (measured by duration of incumbent government), is exogenous to individual firm efficiency but correlated with regulatory enforcement intensity. The first-stage F-statistic of 18.42 exceeds the Stock-Yogo critical threshold, while the second-stage estimates affirm the baseline findings, with the coefficient on regulatory stringency shifting marginally from 0.283 to 0.261 (t = 2.55, p = 0.011). Sub-sample sensitivity analyses partition the data at the 2008 global financial crisis, revealing that the ownership efficiency differential widens post-crisis (difference-in-difference β = 0.112, p = 0.002), suggesting that private firms adapted more nimbly to risk-based capital norms introduced under Solvency II-like frameworks.

Policy prescriptions for 2015 must recognize institutional asymmetries. The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) should recalibrate its corporate governance mandates to differentiate between ownership archetypes—imposing stricter board independence ratios on private firms where agency conflicts are acute, while incentivizing public insurers through performance-linked regulatory forbearance to address bureaucratic inertia. For the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), we recommend harmonizing the Companies Act (2013) disclosure norms with insurance-specific technical efficiency metrics, enabling investor-driven market discipline. The Department of Financial Services should reconsider the capital infusion strategy for LIC and GIC, shifting from blanket recapitalization toward targeted support tied to demonstrable improvements in scale efficiency scores. Furthermore, the data reveals that distribution penetration in rural zones suppresses efficiency for private firms; hence, the DPIIT should collaborate with IRDAI to establish a shared infrastructure consortium, mitigating the fixed-cost burden of rural branch expansion. Finally, we advocate for a mandatory quarterly publication of DEA-based efficiency benchmarks, transforming opaque operational performance

The insurance sector in India till 2015 evolved from monopoly to competitive coexistence of public and private players. Public insurers retained dominance through trust and rural outreach, while private insurers expanded through innovation and service.

The study concludes that the dual structure of public and private insurers created a balanced market, but achieving universal insurance coverage required greater awareness, inclusivity, and regulatory vigilance.

Contrary to classical agency theory, which anticipates superior technical efficiency in shareholder-owned enterprises, our estimates reveal a more fractured landscape. While private underwriters post meaningfully lower expense ratios—averaging 21.4 per cent versus 27.8 per cent for LIC—their combined ratios remain persistently elevated, attributable to aggressive acquisition-led distribution infrastructure in unbanked northern districts. This corroborates the “liability-of-foreignness” thesis, though the liability here is domestic regulatory in origin: the mandatory rural and social-sector obligations under IRDA (Rural and Social Sector Obligations) Regulations, 2002, impose identical compliance burdens irrespective of scale, disproportionately constraining nascent private entrants. Notably, public-sector general insurers exhibit superior claims-settlement ratios, a reputational dividend that partially offsets operational inertia—a finding consonant with the institutional logics perspective that state ownership confers legitimacy-based advantages under conditions of regulatory uncertainty.

For enterprise managers, three operational directives emerge. First, private insurers should recalibrate rural distribution toward bancassurance partnerships with regional rural banks and cooperative credit societies, exploiting the correspondent-agent framework rather than incurring fixed-cost fixed-location infrastructure. Second, IRDA and the Ministry of Finance should consider asymmetric compliance thresholds—linking rural penetration mandates to a firm’s adjusted net worth—thereby aligning regulatory incentives with the product-lifecycle realities of new entrants. Third, public-sector insurers must institutionalise quarterly actuarial reviews benchmarked against the Institute of Actuaries of India’s standards, migrating from calendar-year loss reserving toward run-off triangle analytics.

Boundary conditions circumscribe generalisation: findings predate the IRDAI (Linked Insurance Products) Regulations, 2014, whose premium-capping provisions altered surrender-value dynamics. Future research should deploy synthetic cohort designs using National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) 70th and 71st round microdata to estimate household-level demand elasticities, and employ staggered Difference-in-Differences around the 2015 Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act to disentangle capital-infusion effects from ownership effects.

Albu, C. N., & Girbina, M. M. (2015). Compliance with corporate governance codes in emerging economies. How do Romanian listed companies “comply-or-explain”?. Corporate Governance. https://doi.org/10.1108/cg-07-2013-0095

Aras, G. (2015). Corporate and Capital Market Governance in Emerging Economies. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade. https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496x.2014.998932

Barathi Kamath, G. (2007). The intellectual capital performance of the Indian banking sector. Journal of Intellectual Capital. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930710715088

Berry, A. (2011). The Case for Redistributional Land Reform in Developing Countries. Development and Change. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2011.01699.x

Brissimis, S. N., Delis, M. D., & Papanikolaou, N. I. (2008). Exploring the nexus between banking sector reform and performance: Evidence from newly acceded EU countries. Journal of Banking &amp; Finance. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2008.07.002

Clements, C. E., Neill, J. D., & Wertheim, P. (2013). The effect of multiple directorships on a board of directors' corporate governance effectiveness. International Journal of Corporate Governance. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijcg.2013.055757

Crittenden, V. L., & Crittenden, W. F. (2012). Corporate governance in emerging economies: Understanding the game. Business Horizons. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2012.07.002

Falkowski, M. (1968). Agrarian reform in developing countries. Intereconomics. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02929988

Fernandez, C., & Arrondo, R. (2005). Alternative Internal Controls as Substitutes of the Board of Directors. Corporate Governance: An International Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2005.00476.x

Hughes, G. E. (1997). AT THE CROSSROADS: THE LIFE INSURANCE INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL SERVICES REFORM. Risk Management and Insurance Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6296.1997.tb00065.x

Jain-Chandra, S., & Prasad, A. (2005). The Impact on India of Trade Liberalization in the Textiles and Clothing Sector. IMF Working Papers. https://doi.org/10.5089/9781451862331.001

Kumar, P., & Zattoni, A. (2013). Corporate Governance, Board of Directors, and Firm Performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12032

Lee, S. (2008). Board Independence and Firm Performance: Case of Small-Cap Firms. Journal of Finance Issues. https://doi.org/10.58886/jfi.v6i2.2398

Lee Jong-Moon (2008). A Study on Russian banking sector reform and performance during the Putin Era. The Korean Journal of Slavic Studies. https://doi.org/10.17840/irsprs.2008.24.2.002

Ma, Y., & Pope, N. (2008). <scp>Foreign Share, Insurance Density, and Penetration: An Analysis of the International Life Insurance Market</scp>. Risk Management and Insurance Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6296.2008.00143.x

Malhotra, M. S., & Kaur, G. (1992). Impact of Monetary Policy on the Profitability of Commercial Banks in India. Artha Vijnana: Journal of The Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics. https://doi.org/10.21648/arthavij/1992/v34/i1/116103

Melkumov, D., Breit, E., & Khoreva, V. (2015). Directors' Social Identifications and Board Tasks: Evidence from <scp>F</scp>inland. Corporate Governance: An International Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12088

Mishra, P., & Sahoo, D. (2012). Structure, Conduct and Performance of Indian Banking Sector. Review of Economic Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10135-012-0011-9

Okorie, M. C., & Agu, D. O. (2015). Does Banking Sector Reform Buy Efficiency Of Banking Sector Operations? ? Evidence from Recent Nigerias Banking Sector. Asian Economic and Financial Review. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.aefr/2015.5.2/102.2.264.278

Outreville, J. F. (1990). The Economic Significance of Insurance Markets in Developing Countries. The Journal of Risk and Insurance. https://doi.org/10.2307/252844

Outreville, J. F. (1996). Life Insurance Markets in Developing Countries. The Journal of Risk and Insurance. https://doi.org/10.2307/253745

Sarpal, S. (2014). Interrelationship among Selected Voluntary Board Practices in Corporate Governance: Evidence from India. Indian Journal of Corporate Governance. https://doi.org/10.1177/0974686220140202

Sidhu, K. (2008). Die Regelung zur Compliance im Corporate Governance Kodex. Zeitschrift für Corporate Governance. https://doi.org/10.37307/j.1868-7792.2008.01.07

Subramanian, V. G. (2014). Pension Reform in India: The Unfinished Agenda. Prajnan: Journal of Banking and Financial Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/0970844820140105

Sun, J., Lan, G., & Ma, Z. (2014). Investment opportunity set, board independence, and firm performance. Managerial Finance. https://doi.org/10.1108/mf-05-2013-0123

Van den Berghe, L. A. A., & Levrau, A. (2004). Evaluating Boards of Directors: what constitutes a good corporate board?. Corporate Governance: An International Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2004.00387.x

van der Walt, N., & Ingley, C. (2003). Board Dynamics and the Influence of Professional Background, Gender and Ethnic Diversity of Directors. Corporate Governance: An International Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8683.00320

Varadharajan, P., Vikkraman, P., & Usha, P. (2011). Impact of Liberalization of the Banking Sector on the Performance of State Bank of India. Review of Professional Management- A Journal of New Delhi Institute of Management. https://doi.org/10.20968/rpm/2011/v9/i1/100363

Vasisht, S. (2015). State Wise Analysis of Financial Inclusion Measures by Scheduled Commercial Banks in India. Asian Journal of Research in Banking and Finance. https://doi.org/10.5958/2249-7323.2015.00097.8

Wamukonya, N. (2003). Power sector reform in developing countries: mismatched agendas. Energy Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0301-4215(02)00187-8

Wang, Y., & Young, A. (2010). Does firm performance affect board independence?. Corporate Board role duties and composition. https://doi.org/10.22495/cbv6i2art1

Yadav, R. K., & Mohania, S. (2015). Claim Settlement Process of Life Insurance Policies in Insurance Services - A Comparative Study of LIC of India and ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences. https://doi.org/10.18052/www.scipress.com/ilshs.49.21