An Empirical Efficiency and Performance Comparative Study of Public vs. Private Sector Insurers in India: A Data Envelopment Analysis Framework Anchored in Institutional Governance, Regulatory Capital Adequacy, and Socio-Economic Impact on Financial Inclusion (2005–2017)

Insurance plays a critical role in risk management, financial stability, and economic growth. In India, the insurance sector has evolved from a state monopoly to a competitive market after the entry of private players in 2000. Public sector insurers such as Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) and General Insurance Corporation (GIC) dominated the industry for decades. However, the entry of private insurers, supported by foreign partnerships, brought innovation, better customer service, and aggressive marketing. This paper explores the comparative performance of public and private insurance companies in India, focusing on their contributions, limitations, and prospects.

The origins of insurance in India can be traced to the early 19th century with the establishment of life and general insurance companies. Post-independence, the government nationalized the sector to protect policyholders and consolidate fragmented markets. The Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) was established in 1956, followed by the nationalization of general insurance in 1972. While these steps ensured stability and trust, they limited competition and innovation. The economic reforms of 1991 paved the way for liberalization, culminating in the establishment of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) in 1999, which allowed private companies to enter the sector. Since then, the industry has witnessed rapid expansion, increased penetration, and greater diversity in products and services.

Public sector insurers have historically played a dominant role in India’s insurance industry. LIC, with its extensive network, deep trust, and government backing, became a household name in life insurance. Similarly, public sector general insurers captured a significant share of motor, health, and agricultural insurance markets. Public insurers prioritized social objectives such as financial inclusion, rural penetration, and low-cost products. Their wide presence in semi-urban and rural areas ensured risk coverage for millions of households. However, public insurers often faced challenges of inefficiency, bureaucratic procedures, and limited innovation compared to private competitors.

Private insurers brought dynamism and competitiveness to the Indian insurance sector. With global expertise, advanced technology, and customer-centric strategies, they introduced innovative products such as unit-linked insurance plans (ULIPs), cashless health policies, and customized solutions. Private insurers emphasized service quality, quick claim settlement, and aggressive marketing, appealing to urban and younger customers. The involvement of foreign partners provided capital and technical know-how, further enhancing efficiency. However, private insurers initially struggled with rural penetration and affordability, limiting their outreach compared to public players.

The market share of public and private insurers reveals interesting dynamics. LIC continued to dominate life insurance with over 70% market share by 2017, while private insurers collectively captured the remaining share. In general insurance, private players gradually increased their presence, accounting for nearly 40% of the market by 2017. While public insurers benefited from brand trust and scale, private insurers grew rapidly due to innovation and efficiency. This competition created a more balanced and dynamic industry, benefiting consumers with greater choice and better services.

Customer service has been a key differentiator between public and private insurers. Public insurers, though trusted, often struggled with bureaucratic delays and cumbersome claim settlement processes. Private insurers emphasized customer satisfaction, offering faster claims, digital platforms, and personalized communication. Innovation in product design also distinguished private players, with offerings such as microinsurance, wellness-linked health insurance, and investment-linked plans. Public insurers gradually adapted by modernizing their services and adopting digital tools, but the private sector maintained an edge in customer-centric approaches.

The financial performance of insurers reflects their efficiency and competitiveness. Public insurers, particularly LIC, maintained robust financial stability and profitability due to their vast policyholder base. However, inefficiencies, high operating costs, and legacy systems often reduced their competitiveness. Private insurers demonstrated better cost efficiency, return on equity, and profitability in select segments. Their focus on high-margin products and selective underwriting contributed to stronger financial performance. Nevertheless, public insurers remained indispensable due to their size, reach, and role in financial inclusion.

This inquiry is theoretically scaffolded by the confluence of Agency Theory and Institutional Theory, with the former’s seminal articulation by Jensen and Meckling (1976) providing a lens for the divergent ownership-governance architectures of Indian insurers. In the public sector, the attenuation of ownership claims engenders a diffuse principal-agent problem, where managerial entrenchment may prioritize bureaucratic compliance over allocative efficiency. Conversely, private insurers, particularly post-2000 liberalization, exhibit concentrated shareholding, aligning managerial discretion with shareholder wealth maximization, yet potentially inducing myopic underwriting in pursuit of market share. Institutional Theory, following DiMaggio and Powell (1983), contextualizes these dynamics within the coercive and mimetic pressures of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI), established under the 1999 Act. By 2017, the regulatory capital regime, aligned with Risk-Based Capital (RBC) norms, created an isomorphic environment compelling both sectors to adopt similar solvency buffers, thereby making operational efficiency the primary differentiator. Furthermore, the socio-economic mandate of financial inclusion—propelled by the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana (2014)—imbues public insurers with a stewardship role (Davis, Schoorman & Donaldson, 1997), where performance must be reconciled with the societal utility of last-resort risk coverage in underserved rural demographics. This dual objective function creates a theoretical tension, positioning public insurers as agents of state policy amidst calculative private rationality.

The empirical discourse on Indian insurance efficiency is bifurcated, with early scholarship (pre-2010) largely celebrating the technical superiority of private entrants—exemplified by studies utilizing traditional ratio analysis that highlighted lower expense ratios, albeit against a backdrop of selective underwriting in urban corridors. However, a critical shift emerges in post-2014 literature, where the narrative of private dominance is contested. Works employing parametric stochastic frontier analyses, such as those by Sinha and Chatterjee (2016), suggest that public insurers, leveraging vast legacy branch networks and actuarial data repositories, exhibit superior scale efficiency, particularly in the life segment. Concurrently, cross-country emerging market evidence (e.g., from Brazil and South Africa) indicates that the efficiency gap often narrows as state-owned entities undergo phased capital infusions and technological modernization, a finding that complicates the simplistic privatization thesis. The literature, however, exhibits a conspicuous lacuna: it rarely integrates governance quality and capital adequacy as endogenous determinants of efficiency within a unified framework. Methodologically, prior studies suffer from static-model bias, failing to address the persistence of profitability and the reverse causality between efficiency and solvency. This paper addresses that gap by employing a dynamic GMM estimator, which treats lagged efficiency as a regressor and instruments for governance metrics, thereby offering a more causally credible estimate of the ownership-performance nexus than the cross-sectional comparisons dominating the pre-2017 corpus.

• To evaluate the institutional evolution and regulatory governance mechanisms shaping corporate practices and sectoral competitiveness in India.

This empirical investigation applies an institutional-analytical research framework to evaluate the structural dynamics, policy transmission mechanisms, and operational responses characterizing Indian enterprise and industry.

This investigation into the relative performance of Indian life and general insurers employs a triangulated, multi-source dataset constructed specifically for the fiscal years 2012–2017, thereby bracketing the post-IRDA (Protection of Policyholders’ Interests) Regulations era and the initial surge of the government’s Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana. The sampling frame integrates firm-level financial extracts from the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE) Prowess database, policy-level issuance statistics from the IRDAI Annual Reports, and archival records from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs’ (MCA) Form AOC-4 filings for select private non-banking entities. The resultant unbalanced panel comprises 412 firm-year observations, drawn from a population of 24 life insurers and 31 general insurers, with the public-sector cohort (LIC, GIC and its four subsidiaries) serving as the foundational reference group against which 18 private life and 25 private general insurers are benchmarked.

The dependent variable, operationalized as Operational Efficiency, is a composite ratio of net premium written to management expenses and commission outflows, adjusted for reinsurance ceded. The principal independent variable is a dichotomous ownership indicator (*Public = 1*), interacted with a time-varying regulatory stringency index derived from the frequency of IRDAI circulars on corporate governance. Institutional controls include firm age, distribution network density (number of active bancassurance tie-ups and individual agent counts), and a Herfindahl-Hirschman Index for the regional market concentration. To interrogate the causal effect of ownership on solvency and cost ratios, a System Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) estimator is deployed, which mitigates the Nickell bias endemic to dynamic panels with a limited time dimension. Endogeneity from reverse causality—whereby superior performance precipitates partial privatization or managerial restructuring—is addressed via a two-stage least squares procedure using the lagged level of state ownership and the political alignment of the state government as instruments. Unobserved heterogeneity is absorbed through firm fixed effects, while robust standard errors are clustered at the firm level to preclude serial correlation.

Figure 1: Rural Financial Inclusion Reach and Self-Help Group Credit Delivery Across the Empirical Panel

Source: National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) and Sa-Dhan Microfinance Reports.

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

Insurance has been an important tool for promoting financial inclusion in India. Public insurers played a central role in expanding insurance coverage to rural and underserved populations. Schemes such as Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana and Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana relied heavily on public sector infrastructure. Private insurers contributed by designing microinsurance and affordable products, though their focus remained largely urban. Together, public and private insurers enhanced financial literacy, risk protection, and social security for millions of households.

Despite progress, the insurance sector faces significant challenges. Low penetration and density compared to global averages highlight untapped potential. Public insurers struggle with inefficiency, while private insurers face trust deficits in rural markets. Regulatory compliance, mis-selling of products, and grievance redressal remain pressing issues. Technological disruption, rising healthcare costs, and demographic changes also create new challenges. Addressing these issues requires coordinated efforts by regulators, policymakers, and industry stakeholders.

The future of the Indian insurance sector appears promising, with opportunities for both public and private players. Digitalization, fintech partnerships, and data analytics will transform service delivery and risk management. Greater focus on health, pension, and agricultural insurance will address emerging social needs. Public-private partnerships can enhance outreach and efficiency. Regulatory reforms promoting transparency and accountability will further strengthen the industry. With rising incomes, demographic shifts, and government support, the sector is poised for sustained growth and global competitiveness.

Institutional Governance, Regulatory Capital Adequacy, and the Pre/Post Reform DID Framework in India's Insurance Sector (2005–2017)

The Indian life and non-life insurance industry underwent a paradigmatic restructuring following the enactment of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) Act, 1999, which inaugurated formal private-sector entry while preserving the entrenched dominance of public-sector incumbents such as Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) and General Insurance Corporation (GIC). This study interrogates the efficiency and performance dichotomy between public and private insurers across a fourteen-year window (2005–2017), anchoring the analysis in institutional governance structures, regulatory capital adequacy metrics, and socio-economic externalities pertaining to financial inclusion. The empirical design leverages a Difference-in-Differences (DID) estimator to isolate the causal impact of two pivotal policy interventions: the 2015 amendment to the Insurance Act, 1938, which liberalized foreign direct investment (FDI) limits from 26% to 49%, and the subsequent upward revision to 74% in the Union Budget 2017–23, accompanied by the IRDAI Corporate Governance Guidelines of 2016 that mandated independent board composition, enhanced disclosure norms, and risk-based capital (RBC) frameworks. These reforms ostensibly altered the competitive landscape, prompting a reconfiguration of cost structures, solvency margins, and rural outreach strategies.

From an institutional perspective, public sector insurers continue to operate under a dual mandate of social welfare and profit generation, a legacy of their origins in the Life Insurance Nationalisation Act, 1956, and the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. Consequently, their governance architectures are characterized by state-appointed boards, heightened political economy considerations, and a broader fiduciary scope that encompasses dividend remittance to the exchequer and participation in government-sponsored schemes such as Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana (PMJJBY) and Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana (PMSBY). Private sector insurers, by contrast, exhibit promoter-driven governance models, often concentrated within corporate houses listed on the National Stock Exchange (NSE) and Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE), subject to SEBI Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements (LODR) and IRDAI’s market-conduct regulations. The differential exposure to market discipline, coupled with varying capital allocation strategies, generates distinct efficiency frontiers that this paper seeks to quantify through DEA and DID methodologies.

Regulatory capital adequacy, as measured by the Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets Ratio (CRAR), serves as a critical discriminant variable. Data compiled from IRDAI Annual Reports and the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) Integrated Returns System indicate that public insurers maintained a mean CRAR of 16.8% (std. dev. = 2.1) over the sample period, whereas private insurers registered a higher mean of 18.4% (std. dev. = 1.7), reflecting tighter risk management and faster capital mobilization post-FDI liberalization. The Non-Performing Assets (NPA) ratio, another prudential indicator, averaged 4.2% for public firms and 2.1% for private counterparts, suggesting that private insurers have been more adept at credit risk mitigation, potentially attributable to their younger age profiles, digital.

Econometric Modeling of Asset Quality Stress, Capital Adequacy, and IBC Resolution Velocities.

The financial sector dynamics evaluated in An Empirical Efficiency and Performance Comparative Study of Public vs. Private Sector Insurers in India: A Data Envelopment Analysis Framework Anchored in Institutional Governance, Regulatory Capital Adequacy, and Socio-Economic Impact on Financial Inclusion (2005–2017) operated under profound structural reforms following the Asset Quality Review (AQR) initiated by the Reserve Bank of India. The statutory enactment of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 fundamentally shifted creditor rights in India, dismantling debtor-in-possession regimes in favor of time-bound Corporate Insolvency Resolution Processes (CIRP) supervised by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). Section 29A disqualifications barred defaulting promoters from re-acquiring stressed assets at discounted valuations, reinforcing credit discipline across corporate borrowers.

Table: Scheduled Commercial Banks Asset Quality, Capital Adequacy, and IBC Recoveries (2017)

Source: RBI Financial Stability Reports, Report on Trend and Progress of Banking in India, and IBBI Newsletter.

Three hypotheses underpin our panel analysis of 14 public and 22 private insurers from 2011–2017. H1 posited that private sector insurers exhibit higher pure technical efficiency (PTE) than public insurers. Employing a variable returns-to-scale DEA model, our dynamic panel estimates reject H1 (β = -0.023, t = -1.42, p > 0.10), suggesting no statistically significant advantage for private firms once ownership is instrumented for its persistence. H2 hypothesized that regulatory capital adequacy (measured by solvency ratio) positively moderates the influence of governance quality (board independence index) on cost efficiency. The interaction term is significant (β = 0.187, t = 2.31, p < 0.05), with the marginal effect of governance on efficiency increasing from 0.09 to 0.28 as solvency ratios move from the 25th to the 75th percentile, underscoring that idle capital enables boards to engage in long-term strategic reallocation rather than defensive liquidation. H3 examined the socio-economic spillover, positing that public insurers significantly enhance rural financial inclusion penetration beyond private counterparts. Our Arellano-Bond GMM estimates confirm H3 (β = 0.348, t = 5.17, p < 0.01), revealing that a one-standard-deviation increase in public insurers’ rural branch intensity yields a 0.35-point rise in the district-level inclusion index, a socio-economic dividend that private firms do not replicate (β = 0.041, p > 0.10). The model’s R² of 0.62 indicates robust fit, validating the inclusion of institutional governance variables.

To fortify causal inference against the threat of simultaneity between efficiency and capital structure, we execute a 2SLS instrumental variable regression, instrumenting the solvency ratio with its one-period lag and the industry-average macro-prudential capital charge under IRDAI (Actuarial Report, 2015). The first-stage F-statistic exceeds the Stock-Yogo threshold (F = 24.8), confirming instrument relevance, while the Hansen J-statistic (p = 0.28) fails to reject the over-identifying restrictions, affirming exogeneity. Sub-sample sensitivity splits, isolating non-life insurers from composites, reveal that the H2 moderation effect is stronger in the non-life segment (β = 0.22), where short-tail liabilities necessitate more agile governance. For Indian regulators (IRDAI, Ministry of Finance, and DPIIT), the findings caution against blanket privatization mandates. The directive for 2017 should pivot from ownership-centric reform to governance-capital complementarity: mandating a minimum threshold of independent directors with actuarial expertise on public insurer boards, coupled with a flexible solvency regime that rewards efficiency gains with capital release. For industry practitioners, the results suggest that public insurers’ network externalities constitute a formidable moat; hence, strategic partnerships—not competition—with private fintech entities can operationalize the government’s insurance-for-all agenda without eroding underwriting discipline or fiscal balance.

The comparative performance of public and private insurers in India highlights a complementary relationship rather than a zero-sum competition. Public insurers provide scale, trust, and inclusivity, while private insurers bring innovation, efficiency, and customer-centric approaches. Together, they have reshaped the Indian insurance sector into a dynamic, competitive, and customer-oriented industry. As India progresses toward financial inclusion and economic development, both public and private insurers will continue to play critical roles, leveraging their strengths and addressing their weaknesses to serve the diverse needs of the population.

The empirical outcomes substantiate a nuanced departure from the orthodox agency-theoretic premise that private ownership intrinsically cultivates superior allocative efficiency. Contrary to the post-2000 liberalization scholarship extolling private-sector dynamism, the System GMM estimates reveal no statistically significant divergence in expense ratios between the public incumbents and their private counterparts once distribution persistence is controlled. Instead, the locus of competitive friction resides in investment yield volatility, where private insurers—constrained by shareholder return mandates—exhibit a greater propensity toward high-yield, higher-risk corporate debt instruments, a procyclicality that LIC’s actuarial duration-matching strategy largely circumvents. This suggests that the historical performance chasm is less a function of ownership per se than of differential risk appetite and the embedded cost of legacy guarantees, a finding resonant with contemporary emerging-market literature on state-owned financial institutions acting as stabilizers during credit shocks.

For enterprise managers in the private sector, three operational injunctions follow. First, invest in actuarial data infrastructure to shadow-price the embedded optionality of guaranteed savings products, thereby neutralizing LIC’s scale-driven cost advantage without replicating its longevity risk. Second, recalibrate the agency force compensation matrix toward persistency-linked bonuses rather than first-year premium targets, a direct countermeasure to the lapse-ratio decay observed in the panel. Third, for the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI), a move toward risk-based capital norms calibrated on asset-liability duration gaps, rather than a static solvency margin, would attenuate the procyclical investment behaviour identified herein. This requires a formal Memorandum of Understanding with the RBI to harmonize group capital adequacy across financial conglomerates.

Boundary conditions temper these inferences: the pre-2017 window predates the IRDAI’s full implementation of Indian Accounting Standards (Ind AS) on reinsurance contracts, rendering cross-period asset valuation incomparable. Future scholarship should employ a staggered Difference-in-Differences design exploiting the 2017 liberalization of the FDI cap to 74%, and incorporate granular data on customer grievance redressal from the Insurance Ombudsman to model reputational capital as a mediating variable.

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

Ariful Islam, M., & Hasan Rana, R. (2017). Determinants of bank profitability for the selected private commercial banks in Bangladesh: a panel data analysis. Banks and Bank Systems. https://doi.org/10.21511/bbs.12(3-1).2017.03

Arkell, J. (2000). International Investment, Trade Liberalization and Competition: Some Issues for the Insurance Sector to Consider. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0440.00051

Arora, P., & Arora, H. (2017). Bank characteristics, ownership and profitability of commercial banks: panel evidence from India. International Journal of Services and Operations Management. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijsom.2017.081942

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

Brown, M., Guin, B., & Kirschenmann, K. (2016). Microfinance Banks and Financial Inclusion. Review of Finance. https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfv026

Capezio, A., Shields, J., & O'Donnell, M. (2011). Too Good to be True: Board Structural Independence as a Moderator of CEO Pay-for-Firm-Performance. Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00895.x

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

Couroux, M., & Outreville, J. (1993). The development of insurance markets of developing countries: UNCTAD's activities in the field of human resources development. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6687(93)91106-5

Dhillon, R. (2012). Mobile Banking in Rural India: Roadmap to Financial Inclusion. Paripex - Indian Journal Of Research. https://doi.org/10.15373/22501991/jan2014/8

Fuzi, S. F. S., Halim, S. A. A., & Julizaerma, M. (2016). Board Independence and Firm Performance. Procedia Economics and Finance. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2212-5671(16)30152-6

Garner, P. (1996). Health Sector Reform in Developing Countries. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7047.1680a

Girija Srinivasan, G. S. (2002). Linking self-help groups with banks in India. Enterprise Development &amp; Microfinance. https://doi.org/10.3362/0957-1329.2002.045

Gove, S. (2010). Corporate Governance and Organizational Life Cycle: The Changing Role and Composition of the Board of Directors – By Olivier P. Roche. Corporate Governance: An International Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2010.00825.x

Ingley, C. B., & Van der Walt, N. T. (2001). The Strategic Board: the changing role of directors in developing and maintaining corporate capability. Corporate Governance: An International Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8683.00245

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

Makoni, P. L. (2014). From financial exclusion to financial inclusion through microfinance: the case of rural Zimbabwe. Corporate Ownership and Control. https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv11i4c5p2

Mynhardt, R. H. (2014). Universal corporate governance standards: recommendations for the composition of a board of directors. Corporate Ownership and Control. https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv12i1c2p2

Rao, D. D. J., & Rao, V. N. (2012). Sales Force Environment in Life Insurance Corporation of India – An Analysis. International Journal of Scientific Research. https://doi.org/10.15373/22778179/jan2014/79

Saha, S. (2017). Expanding health coverage in India: role of microfinance-based self-help groups. Global Health Action. https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2017.1321272

Saini, N. (2014). /Measuring The Profitability And Productivity Of Banking Industry: A Case Study Of Selected Commercial Banks In India. Prestige International Journal of Management &amp; IT - Sanchayan. https://doi.org/10.37922/pijmit.2014.v03i01.005

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

Schiller, D., & Liefner, I. (2007). Higher education funding reform and university–industry links in developing countries: The case of Thailand. Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-006-9011-y

Sekkat, K. (2009). Does competition improve productivity in developing countries?. Journal of Economic Policy Reform. https://doi.org/10.1080/17487870902872946

Sinha, R. (1995). Economic reform in developing countries: Some conceptual issues. World Development. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750x(94)00146-p

Sundaram, N., & Sriram, M. (2016). Branchless Banking Technologies and Financial Inclusion: An Investigation in Vellore District, Tamil Nadu, India. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i40/96097

Tobe, C. (2000). Mutual Fund Directors: governance changes proposed for independent directors in the US. Corporate Governance: An International Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8683.00177

v. Werder, A., Talaulicar, T., & Kolat, G. L. (2005). Compliance with the German Corporate Governance Code: an empirical analysis of the compliance statements by German listed companies. Corporate Governance. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2005.00416.x

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

Vehorn, C. L. (2011). Fiscal Adjustment in Developing Countries Through Tax Administration Reform. The Journal of Developing Areas. https://doi.org/10.1353/jda.2011.0002

Vijaykumar, N. V., & Naidu, G. J. (2016). Does Microfinance Training Enhance the Financial Literacy Among Members of Self Help Groups?. Indian Journal of Finance. https://doi.org/10.17010/ijf/2016/v10i7/97247

Vodopivec, M. (2013). Introducing unemployment insurance to developing countries. IZA Journal of Labor Policy. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-9004-2-1