Household Finance in India Approaches and Challenges

DVARA RESEARCH
Household Finance in India: Approaches

and Challenges
Vishwanath C, Monami Dasgupta, Misha Sharma1
Dvara Research Working Paper Series No. WP-2020-02

May 2020
Version 1.0
Authors work with Dvara Research, India. Corresponding author's email ID: [email protected]
1
ii
Contents
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 Role of Finance for Households. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
1.2 Facets of low-income households in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.1 Low proportion of financial assets in household portfolio . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.2 Coping mechanisms devised by households faced with
risks and uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.3 Human capital as the principal asset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.4 Difficulty in separating household and enterprise cash flows . . . . . . . . 5
1.2.5 Prevalence of persistent debt cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.6 Persistence of informal lending relationship in the
presence of formal providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.7 Access to high-return microenterprise opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. Themes of Household Finance Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1 The ‘what’ and the ‘who’ of household finance research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
2.1.1 A discussion on research methodologies and datasets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2 The ‘why’ of household finance research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.1 A discussion on research methodologies and datasets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3. State of Household Finance in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2 Participation and Allocation in Financial Products and Services . . . . . . . . 15
3.3 Factors Affecting Household Decision Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3.1 Demographic Profile of Households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3.2 Behavioural Preferences and Biases of Households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.3.3 Uneven penetration of formal financial services
across Indian states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.3.4 Market Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.3.5 Regulatory gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4. Priorities for Innovation in Financial Services for Low-Income
Households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
iii
4.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.2 Product Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.2.1 Unique and Novel Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.2.2 Bundling of Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.2.3 Product Design based on Customer Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.2.4 Flexibility in Product Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.3 Process Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.3.1 Technological Innovation in Delivering Financial Services . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.3.2 Innovation across Agent Network for Last Mile Service Delivery. . . .34
4.4 Regulatory Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.4.1 Moving away from product specific prescriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.4.2 Easing Priority Sector Lending Norms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.4.3 Advocating for ‘Suitability’ in delivery of financial services . . . . . . . . 38
5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Household Finance in India: Approaches and Challenges 1
Executive Summary
“The possibility that household finance may be able to improve welfare is an inspiring
one” - Campbell (2006)
Household Finance is the study of how institutions provide goods and services to satisfy
the financial functions of the household, how consumers make financial decisions and how
government action affects the provision of financial services (Tufano, 2009). This paper
attempts to comprehensively review existing literature, flag key research questions and
priorities for innovation that financial service providers, regulators and policymakers and
researchers should focus on in order to move the needle on universal access to finance.
This paper is divided into two parts. The first part summarises the key research themes
and methodologies used in the field of household finance, while the second part synthesizes
evidence on the current state of household finance in India and priorities for innovation
in financial services of low- income households.
These topics are reviewed through the lens of low-income households, given their volatile
cash flows, composition of household portfolios, susceptibility to shocks and over-reliance
on human capital. The paper categorizes the literature in the field of household finance
into two large research themes. The first theme talks about the ‘what’ and the ‘who’ to
understand what kinds of financial decisions are being undertaken by low-income house-
holds and who are the decision-makers/participants/ beneficiaries/ network of various
financial interventions. The second theme talks about the ‘why’ to understand the vari-
ous factors that influence the financial decisions of low-income households, as households
cannot be isolated from the contexts that they operate in.
This paper highlights significant gaps in access to financial services among low-income
households. These arise from a high concentration in physical and illiquid assets, low
exposure to financial assets, continued reliance on high-cost, non-institutional debt, and
little to no access to risk mitigating products such as insurance and pensions. The paper
recognizes that there are multiple factors affecting household decision-making. On the
demand side, factors such as cognitive and behavioural biases, issues of trust in the
financial system, heterogeneous needs based on education, wealth levels, and geographies
they are located in have a bearing on households’ decision making, while institutional
context, existing market limitations and regulatory gaps contribute to the supply-side
barriers.
We highlight three types of innovations needed to address the identified gaps - product
innovations, process innovations and regulatory innovations, and hope that this serves as
a useful reference to entrepreneurs working in the field as well as for policymakers.
To the best of our knowledge, this paper is the first attempt in the field of household
finance in India that presents the case for household finance research along with com-
prehensively describing its’ current state, challenges, and scope for innovation towards
achieving universal financial inclusion. This paper attempts to provide a theoretical back-
ground to researchers looking to conduct research in the field of household finance, as
it not only surveys the existing literature relevant to the field but also highlights areas
for further research. Some of the key research gaps that the paper identifies are: (i) a
need to better understand the financial portfolio of Indian households and the underlying
reasons for the financial decisions and strategies employed by them and (ii) a need to
better understand the interactions between financial systems and the socio-economic and
cultural dimensions of Indian households, thereby understanding the impact of finance on
households. We hope that this paper will advance the field of household finance research
in India and bring this pertinent field into focus.
1. Introduction
1.1 Role of Finance for Households
A household’s financial life can be viewed as a combination of exposure to time and
contingent states. The role of financial services in the lives of households is to help
them manage and increase their consumption smoothly, and to fully utilize their human
capital, financial capital, and other resources to improve its well-being. Two core functions
that finance must fulfil for every household is (i) management of risk by movement
of resources across contingent states and spaces (ii) inter-temporal consumption
smoothing by movement of resources across time (Ananth & Shah, 2013).
In the context of Household Finance Research, the discipline makes an inquiry to find out
“how households use various financial instruments to attain their objectives” (Campbell,
2006). Household Finance is an emerging academic discipline at the intersection of eco-
nomics, finance, development and behavioural studies. One of the definitions that com-
prehensively describes Household Finance Research was coined by Tufano (2009) as “the
study of how institutions provide goods and services to satisfy the financial functions of
the household, how consumers make financial decisions and how government action affects
the provision of financial services”. A foundational tenet of household finance research
is that it attempts to understand financial decisions of households meaningfully with-
out isolating them from the context they operate in, and their interactions with various
institutions ranging from formal and informal advisors, providers and regulators.2
The motivation to conduct household finance research in India arises from multiple fac-
tors:
• Large gaps exist in households’ access to and use of formal financial services- Ac-
cording to the Global Findex Survey 20173, 80 percentage of adults reported having
an account at a financial institution, but 39 percentage of them did not use their
account. Without a deeper understanding of the issues constraining usage, recent
gains in financial access may not have the desired impacts.
• Households persist with portfolios that widely differ from normative theories. This
“money left on the table” represents significant foregone wealth.
• Inadequate access to non-credit financial services is creating an over-reliance on
short-term credit to manage all risks, including health risks. This is an “expensive”
strategy for low-income households which needs to be addressed through better
product mix at the household level.
• Households at lower-income quintiles face volatile and uncertain cash flows which
challenge their participation in traditional financial products due to its standardized
structure
2
Dvara Research, Household Finance Strategy Note - https://www.dvara.com/research/wp-content/
uploads/2019/02/DR_HHF_strategynote_2018.pdf
3
The Global Findex 2017 - https://globalfindex.worldbank.org/
• Even among low-income households, there is wide heterogeneity based on household

characteristics like location, caste, education, behavioural biases, etc. Differential
supply-side strategies maybe needed to address this rather than the current “one-
size-fits-all” approach being followed.
1.2 Facets of low-income households in India

It is essential to observe, identify and rigorously study the interactions between house-
holds and financial systems theoretically and empirically. As per literature, the financial
decisions and portfolios of low and middle-income households in India are skewed and
suboptimal. Some of the characteristics of these households are detailed below.4
1.2.1 Low proportion of financial assets in household portfolio

Most low-income households (LIHs) have a portfolio of high value illiquid physical assets
(in rural areas uncultivable land could be a major physical asset) and low-value financial
assets, but multiple informal and formal financial liabilities. On average, Indian house-
holds hold 84% of their wealth in real estate, 11% in gold, and the residual 5% in financial
assets.5 Even over their lifetime, evidence shows that households do not increase their
allocation to financial assets and continue investing in real estate and gold. Evidence on
asset portfolios of rural households shows similar trends, wherein the portfolio is skewed
towards highly illiquid, non-tradeable, and localized assets (such as land and housing),
and varying degrees of ownership of gold (Prasad et al., 2014). This study uses customer
data from a financial services institution that operates in remote rural districts of India
and constructed stylised typologies of household asset portfolios based on primary and
secondary sources of income. Despite a demonstrated demand for various financial ser-
vices, the study finds that the asset portfolio of the average rural household in India is
composed almost entirely of two physical assets—housing and jewellery. A comparison
with a hypothetical portfolio of financial assets reveals that rural households could earn
significantly higher levels of real returns, the increase ranging from 2.02% to 4.97%, at
the extant levels of risk.6 Another unique characteristic of low-income households is the
correlation between human capital and their ownership of physical assets. Households
in rural areas tend to make investments in their local economy (such as the purchase of
land within their village) which is highly correlated with their human capital. If they
were, for instance, buying land outside their village, it would be superior to buying land
in the same village where they supply their labour, as it would diversify their investment
portfolio (Ananth & Shah, 2013). There is, therefore, a need to provide rural households
with access to financial instruments that allow them to construct a more diversified,
tradable, and liquid portfolio offering higher yields, that shelters them from local market
fluctuations.
4
This section borrows heavily from the book titled “Financial Engineering for Low- Income House-
holds” authored by Bindu Ananth and Amit Shah, SAGE Publications 2013
5
RBI Committee on Indian Household Finance-https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/PublicationReport/
Pdfs/HFCRA28D0415E2144A009112DD314ECF5C07.PDF
6
Dvara blog on asset portfolio of rural households- https://www.dvara.com/blog/2014/09/30/how-
much-can-asset-portfolios-of-rural-households-benefit-from-formal-financial-services/
1.2.2 Coping mechanisms devised by households faced with risks and uncer-
tainties
Depending on the context, low-income households face different types of risk and shocks
over their lifetime. These shocks include income volatility, livelihood risks, weather re-
lated shocks, occupational vulnerabilities, health shocks and other socio-economic events.
Empirical evidence suggests that coping with many of these shocks, i.e. idiosyncratic or
covariant shocks7, can be very costly and often suboptimal for low-income households
(Dercon, 2002). Finance can be used to mitigate risk by moving resources across space,
time and states of the world. However, very often, households undertake expensive cop-
ing mechanisms which have long-run adverse impacts on households. Coping mechanisms
could include liquidating tangible assets, borrowing high cost credit, or disinvestment in
human capital by cutting down on food consumption, pulling out children from school
and being irregular with medical treatment.
1.2.3 Human capital as the principal asset

The largest asset that any household, particularly low-income households have is human
capital, especially when they are young. Human capital is the net present value of net
lifetime earnings, and it builds over different phases of life. Broadly speaking, Ibbotson
et al. (2007) categorize a person’s life into three financial stages - the first stage is getting
educated and learning skills (i.e. building human capital), the second stage is using the
human capital to earn, accumulate and protect one’s financial wealth, and the third is
to retire and reap benefits from the returns of the accumulated wealth as well as stay
protected. On average, the human capital depletes over time, and the financial capital
(wealth) is expected to increase with time. In the context of low-income households, there
is a heightened need to look into all issues around protecting human capital and enabling
households to build resilience in the face of illness/accident/death and other types of
risks.
Human capital of low-income households is also highly correlated with returns from other
forms of assets such as local businesses, local real estate and cattle (Ananth & Shah, 2013).
Lastly, even within households, the human capital of a landless labourer is different from a
schoolteacher in terms of economic values and risk profiles. From the context of financial
services for the poor, it is important to recognize the value and risk characteristics of
human capital in households and financial strategies to protect it sufficiently and suitably.
1.2.4 Difficulty in separating household and enterprise cash flows

Small enterprises managed by low-income households commingle their business cash flows
with household cash flows. For example, households that run a grocery store may use
goods from their shop for self-consumption. This usage does not get accounted for in
household expenses or business stock outflows. Similarly, the labour for running such
7
Idiosyncratic shocks affect individual or households like illness, injury, death, job loss, crop failures,
loss of transfers. Covariant shocks affect groups of households, communities, regions or even entire
countries like armed conflict, financial crisis, changes in food prices, drought, flood, social unrest
(UNDP 2011)
a grocery store is provided by the household. These reasons make it particularly difficult
to separate business expenses from household expenses as there is no tracking or
documentation of these cash flows. These businesses typically do not maintain any finan-
cial statements, which make it di icult for formal financial institutions to lend to these
enterprises.
1.2.5 Prevalence of persistent debt cycle

It is widely observed that in spite of the high cost of debt, many low-income house-
holds find themselves in perpetual debt cycles. Indian households continue to accumu-
late debt, and most of the debt is unsecured, reflecting an unusually high reliance on
non-institutional sources such as moneylenders. The share of non-institutional debt in
the liability portfolio varies widely among different states but is consistently higher for
poorer households (RBI Household Finance Committee, 2017). Microentrepreneurs of-
ten substitute or complement short term and high frequency informal working capital
with microfinance loans which is puzzling, as the cost of loans varies widely among the
two providers (Bindu et al., 2007). The prevalence of persistent debt cycles among low-
income households can lead to over-indebtedness and can lead to unsuitable consequences
like distress sale of assets and low standard of living.
1.2.6 Persistence of informal lending relationship in the presence of formal

providers
Despite the usurious cost of informal loans from moneylenders, low-income households
continuously borrow from these sources even when cheaper institutional credit is avail-
able with better terms of the contract. Research shows that this could be due to multiple
plausible reasons such as households borrowing to maintain a relationship with moneylen-
ders necessary in times of emergency, households lacking access to cheap or safe savings
devices, or households with imperfect intrahousehold bargaining arrangements resulting
in sub-optimal household allocations (Bindu et al., 2007). However, these are suggestive
rationales for the persistence of relationships with informal lenders and may not be “the”
reason driving non-institutional credit.
1.2.7 Access to high-return microenterprise opportunities

Micro and small enterprises often find it challenging to scale their businesses because they
face two production function technologies: one with low capital requirements and high
returns that taper off fast, and a second that requires a minimum level of investment
before any returns can be generated and then grows faster. Banerjee and Duflo (2008)
explain that the poor are unable to grow their businesses because they can’t borrow to
cross the hump of a non-convex production function and saving up for it will take too
long. However, an alternate theory also suggests that innovation can possibly create more
production functions, i.e. micro enterprises can innovate by creating incremental steps
by selling more of the same product or adding another leg of the business to diversify
their business profile.
2. Themes of Household Finance Research

John Campbell’s vision for the discipline of household finance was to explore households’
financial behaviour along the lines of corporate finance, i.e. understanding how households
use financial instruments to achieve their objectives. He theorized that households have
certain characteristics that influence financial decision making such as a) having to plan
over long but finite horizons b) having non-tradable assets (human capital), c) holding
illiquid assets (housing), d) facing constraints on their ability to borrow, e) being subject
to complex taxation. Though these are reasonable assumptions for most households in
‘advanced economies’, these may not carry similar weight in the financial decision making
of households in a developing economy, particularly for low-income households. In fact,
the deviation from a theoretical model of financial decision-making is stark in low-income
households in emerging economies, that we discuss in the following section.
Within the field of Household Finance Research, there are two approaches to understand-
ing or modelling the financial behaviour of households – the normative approach and the
positive approach. The normative approach to household finance theorizes the principles,
develops models, and establishes a benchmark that households should aspire to reach
when managing their household’s finances. It is like a prescriptive model of ideal financial
behaviour for a household. The positive approach explores the actual financial strategies
exhibited by households given their resources, environment and constraints. Campbell
(2006) points out that for low-income households, the deviation between normative and
positive is stark, but does not elaborate on why those deviations exist.
In 2016, a decade later, one of the well-recognized papers in the field of household finance
research was published by Badarinza, Campbell and Ramadorai (2016b), with the main
motivation to compare the household balance sheets of 13 advanced economies8 to record
the similarities and deviations in household financial decision making. For instance, in 12
out of the 13 countries studied, households report holding financial assets in the form of
bank deposits, transactional accounts and retirement assets (held in defined contribution
pension plans). However, they found significant variation across countries in terms of
the participation rate for directly held stocks and mutual funds. In 2019, a similar
exercise was carried out to survey the household finance landscape from 6 emerging
economies9, and to compare it with the results from advanced economies (Badarinza
et al., 2019). The latter piece of research, conducted by using micro-datasets of
emerging economies (including India), found significant deviations between the
rational or ideal financial behaviour expected out of households and the actual financial
strategies adopted by the households (discussed later in section 3).
An additional finding of Household Finance Research is that low-income households can-
not be all placed in a single monolithic category, with similar financial habits and strate-
gies observed across all low-income households. low-income households have access to
a range of markets, people, providers and products, and even if they do not have ac-
cess to these services, they frequently use a wide range of informal financial services to
8
The 13 advanced countries studied in this paper are – Australia, Canada, Germany, Greece, Finland,
France, Italy, Netherland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain, UK, USA
9
The 6 emerging economies studied in this paper are - China, India, Bangladesh, the Philippines,
Thailand, and South Africa
fulfil their requirements. Despite having access to financial instruments, it is difficult

to find commonalities across the financial decisions undertaken by all households be-
cause there are differences among low income households within the same country, across
emerging economies and even among low-income households in advanced versus emerging
economies.
To quote Taylor and Lynch (2014) – “Anthropologists like to say that the one thing that
all humans have in common is our diversity. In fact, diversity is the first item on our
list of commonalities across consumer finance”. When dealing with household finance
research, we should attempt to find answers to questions like:
a) How do we segment the market?
b) When we want to understand how households use financial products, do we just
focus on one kind of product or try to gain a sense of how people incorporate all
kinds of financial products into their lives?
c) How does access to and use of financial products and services improve the welfare
of households?
d) When designing data collection efforts to examine the state of household finance,
how do we choose which questions to include?
To answer these questions, we would need to combine disciplines (microeconomics, be-
havioural finance and consumer finance) and research methodologies [quantitative, qual-
itative (eg: ethnography), mixed methods and experimental methods (eg: RCTs)] in
answering what the behaviour of households are with respect to financial s ystems, who
are the participants in such a system, and why such behaviours have manifested given
the circumstances.
Household Finance Research in India is in its nascency and is not as well recognized as
a discipline among students, academicians and researchers. Nevertheless, in the last few
years, there have been significant contributions towards this field, both through academic
research and public policy reports published by regulatory bodies. Two sources of rigorous
research10 in this discipline are a) Report of The Household Finance Committee by the
RBI (RBI Household Finance Committee, 2017) b) the Financial Well-Being Evidence
Gap Map by Dvara Research11.
The abundance and depth of detailed household finance research available i n advanced
economies is perhaps unsurprising, given the levels of formalisation existent in these
countries. Formalisation in this instance implies that the financial systems o f advanced
economies are well-developed, widely utilised, and therefore well-documented and anal-
ysed. For households in developing economies, research also involves recording infor-
mation and behaviours, which may have already existed in a more formalised financial
system. Although we know some of the financial strategies o f l ow-income households,
household finance research has a long way to go before it can holistically capture the par-
ticipants, the financial decisions, and the reasoning behind t hose decisions. Two broad th-
10This paper borrows heavily from both the sources, in addition to other academic papers and
reports
11
Financial Well-being Evidence Gap Map, Dvara Research - https://www.dvara.com/
research/evidencegapmap/
emes of household finance research that would potentially capture the whole body of
current and future literature for households in India are a) the ‘what’ and ‘who’ of
household finance research; b) the ‘why’ of household finance research
a) The ‘what’ and ‘who’ theme discusses what kind of financial decisions are under-
taken by low-income households and who are the decision makers/agents/partici-
pants/beneficiaries of the various interventions
b) The ‘why’ theme discusses the factors that influence the financial decisions of low-
income households
Both the themes also discuss the various kinds of datasets and methodologies currently
available and desired for comprehending low-income households financial decision-making
process.
2.1 The ‘what’ and the ‘who’ of household f nance research

The ‘what’ of household finance research concerns itself with understanding what it is
that households do with respect to finance, and their interactions with financial systems.
This activity of households will always depend on their contexts, and knowledge of how
activities are influenced by context is essential both in understanding why economic
theory governing households does not hold up, and indeed what it is that households
actually do that does not fit the narrow theory12. With this push to know the facts of
the household first, research will always be dictated by the availability and depth of data
available (Badarinza et al., 2019; Campbell, 2006; Guiso & Sodini, 2013).
Households in advanced economies are typically seen to have high levels of investment
in financial assets as compared to those in emerging economies. It is useful to delve
deeper into the categories of financial assets itself, as the financial assets that households
of emerging economies invest in tend to be savings in bank accounts 13. Instead of
financial assets such as equity, these households prefer to invest in physical assets – durable
goods and real estate (Sane, 2019)14. Given that in terms of physical asset investments,
there is a skew towards real estate, it might be expected that households participate
in the mortgage market. However, unlike in advanced economies, this is not observed
in emerging economies15. Instead, emerging market households are seen to have largely
unsecured or non-property secured debt (Badarinza et al., 2019). Outside of the formal
financial system, there is also significant informal borrowing, from family and friends as
well as moneylenders, more so among low-income households. There is also a difference
in asset holdings and borrowing by age between advanced and emerging countries, with
12
It is perhaps worth noting here that there is very little in the way of theoretical frameworks that
explain households’ behaviours, and the reference here is to any economic theory that concerns itself
with aspects of household finance (portfolio allocations is one such area, with the underlying theory on
‘optimality’ being largely unchanged since Merton’s work on the same in 1973) (Ananth & Shah, 2013;
Merton, 1973).
13
14
It is worth mentioning that this trend is noticed among most emerging economies. Notably, China
displays household portfolio characteristics akin to advanced economies.
15
There is also a supply side issue where mortgage markets do not make sense for providers due to the
non-existence of long-term savings along the same timelines as mortgages.
households in emerging countries depending less on liquid assets and more on borrowing
and intra-family income flows (RBI Household Finance Committee, 2017).
After setting up the foundations of the ‘what’, it is important to contextualise these
recorded events. Households do not act in a vacuum; they are a part of an intricate
network of supply and demand factors that likely play into decision-making. low-income
households are of particular interest, due to their low levels of usage of formal financial
systems16. They tend to leverage social networks to a greater extent for the purposes of
financial support and growth. These social networks also mean that low-income house-
holds often have their financial activities more closely interlinked with their day-to-day
activities than households who wholly interact with the formal financial systems of an
economy (Gudrun, 2014). The 2017 Global Findex survey shows that there are high
levels of access to financial services among low-income households but highlights the low
usage of these services17. Badarinza et al. (2019) recommend that household finance
researchers move away from the extensive margins and focus more on the intensive mar-
gins18. The extensive margin remains of great importance as a first step into formal
finance for most low-income households, but the intensive allows us to better understand
the interactions that low-income households have with financial institutions.
While research finds that there is a gap in trust between households and financial insti-
tutions (Guiso et al., 2008, 2009), financial institutions are also hard-pressed to ensure last
mile connectivity in emerging economies, where rural regions are often completely
untouched by formal finance (Demirguc-Kunt et al., 2017). In tackling the issues of present
bias, where outcomes that are closer to the present are weighted more strongly by
households, and mistrust that exist among low-income households, the use of more human-
centric interactions, nudges, and goal-based financial planning19 has not been studied in
enough depth to provide a feedback mechanism for such behaviour related interventions.
There is additionally the question of what the ideal origination and delivery channels are in
order to build a bridge of efficiency and trust between households and the financial system,
as well as to what extent private and governmental implementations are effective in this
regard.
Researchers in advanced economies focus on risky asset holdings as a metric by which to
assess households’ participation in financial markets. These assets are highly technical in
nature, which can mean that first-time participants, and those that lack an understanding
in them, will be negatively affected by participating in such asset markets (Alan, 2006;
Campbell et al., 2018). Further, research shows that the remedy to this knowledge issue
– some form of financial literacy – may not lead to the intended outcomes for households
engaging with it (Hastings et al., 2013). It may, therefore, make the most sense to
study ways of bringing these complex products to low-income households, either through
16
An instance of this is the “Virundhu” system seen in Tamil Nadu, as a form of informal finance from
friends and family (Karuppaiyan, 1997).
17
18
Extensive margins refer to the factors influence access and usage, as well as impact of financial
services. Intensive margins refer to the amounts and extents of the financial services used by households.
19
While the argument could be made that low income households that display present bias would not
be able to envision financial goals for the future, there is no research that we have come across to support
such a claim.
radically different means of education or through intermediaries whose mandate it is to

offer advice and management assistance to newer entrants to risky asset markets.
An extension of looking at the design of markets is also looking at the design for products,
especially with regards to retirement and insurance, two areas where low-income
households are woefully underserved. Design for products has been shown to stagnate, with
products not being updated frequently enough to allow customers to gain su iciently from
them (Sane & Thomas, 2014). Past evidence has shown that provisions that would allow
for customers to be rewarded for perseverance led to higher take-up rates (Gaurav et al.,
2011). Recommendations for these products have also not been to re-invent the wheel, but
rather use existing frameworks to ensure that the customer is best incentivised to take up
products that work to build resilience and grow capital, human or otherwise. There
remains much work to be done with regards to these essential risk-management tools, both
in terms of design and implementation.
2.1.1 A discussion on research methodologies and datasets

The pre-cursor to such research happening is the generation and analysis of data on low
income households, that would allow for research to build strong profiles of households,
and further study the effects of their access and usage of financial services. The Financial
Diary is one such mixed method whose usage has increased over the past decade (Collins
et al., 2009). They are designed to, in some ways, serve as an account of a household’s
behaviour, and inflows and outflows over a period, taken regularly (Czura, 2015). The
ideal financial diary contains data collected at the shortest frequency possible. However,
due to the large number of constraints surrounding panel data collection, diaries tend
to be at the month level at the very least (Taylor & Lynch, 2016). They also rely on
self-reporting, which can be a curse in that any research arising from it is limited by the
possible existence of any Hawthorne effects20, or can be a boon in terms of capturing the
seasonality of cash flows that cannot be measured by other means (Prathap & Khaitan,
2016; Taylor & Lynch, 2016). There also exists a host of nationally conducted surveys
that offer a rich set of metrics, that are often underused to a large extent. Surveys such
as the National Sample Survey (NSS) series21 have been widely used in establishing the
‘what’ and sometimes the ‘who’ of household finance, but others such as the India Human
Development Survey (IHDS) series22, as well as private datasets such as those released
by the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE)23 are largely unexplored. These
datasets are often collected from a subset of households and are often collected at a
greater frequency than government originated surveys. This allows for a more frequent
and often in-depth analysis of household behaviours than is currently being conducted.
Given the frequent allegations of inaccurate data being put out by the government, these
private datasets also offer a source of impartial data. In order to improve the picture
researchers are able to paint of the Indian household, it is imperative that these nationally
conducted surveys are conducted more frequently, and more dynamically, allowing for
20
The Hawthorne effect refers to the tendency of participants to change their behaviour purely due to
the attention they receive from researchers, as a result of their participating in an experiment.
21
Data available from the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation - http://www.mospi.
gov.in
22
India Human Development Study - https://www.ihds.umd.edu
23
Datasets available from CMIE - https://www.cmie.com
changes in usage trends. The Household Finance Committee suggests the implementation
of a biennial “State of Household Finance” survey as a part of the NSS, which would aim
to achieve these goals (RBI Household Finance Committee, 2017).
In examining the financial system and the interactions households have with it, those
datasets recording these interactions also have valuable data. Such data would be avail-
able through the administrative data of financial institutions, and the data reported to
credit bureaus. This data is heavily used by practitioners in order to assess customers
but is not as widely used for the purposes of household finance research. Administrative
data is often seen to be used in selecting cohorts for field surveys and experiments, but
beyond that, their usage in household finance research is limited. These administrative
datasets often contain detailed household demographic information, so as to reduce cus-
tomer information asymmetry to as great an extent as possible. Paired with data from
credit bureaus, which contain customer borrowing histories across all institutions, they
can provide a rounded picture of the Indian household, covering the ‘what’ as assessed
by the ‘who’.
2.2 The ‘why’ of household finance research

At a broad level, the process of financial decision making, or money management, is the
same for low-income households. As Mas points out, the financial attitudes and practices
of LIHs, without reference to geography, culture, gender or socio-economic background,
follow similar patterns. For instance, across the world, low-income households work
for more hours to absorb short time shocks (referred to as income shaping), cultivate
social ties to create a source for emergency funds (liquidity farming), engage in daily
spending routines, animate money into loose categories reflecting the necessity (instead
of budgeting) and constantly reimagine goals due to unpredictability of cashflows (Mas,
2015).
Another set of factors that influence financial decisions for low-income households are
behavioural factors such as cognitive limitations, time-preference, self-control, incentive
structures, psychological bias, the role of prospect theory, hedonic framing, behavioural
life cycle theory, cognitive errors and multiple other behavioural factors. Empirical re-
search finds that even among households in advanced economies, behavioural factors in-
fluence financial decisions that are inconsistent with standard classical economic models
(Beshears et al., 2018). We discuss the behavioural factors affecting low-income house-
holds’ financial decisions in detail in section 3.
Other factors that can help in answering the ‘whys’ of household finance of LIH are
social, cultural, economic and geographical. Social factors refer to the gender, health,
age composition, education, caste profile of the households. For instance, Guerin et al.
(2015) find that gender, caste and class relationships influence microcredit outcomes in
Tamil Nadu and women from lower caste are excluded from self-help group schemes.
In another paper, Badarinza et al. (2016a) found that cross-household variation has a
significant correlation with household demographic characteristics. For example, using
nationally representative data, the paper reports that household allocation to physical
assets decrease significantly with the level of education but increase with wealth. However,
borrowing from non-institutional sources also fall with a rise in education. The underlying
understanding is that higher level of education improves the household’s financial decision
making over their lifetime.
In an emerging economy context, cultural factors that could affect households’ financial
decisions would include the nature of the social network, value systems, social beliefs,
ideologies, gender roles and agency24, intra and interhousehold transfers and inheritance
norms. For instance, Johny et al. (2017) find that income diversification undertaken by
rural farm households in Kerala is enabled by intra-village social networks, that is heavily
influenced by central households. Within Household Finance Research, the influence of
cultural factors on financial decision-making is relatively less researched till date.
Some of the other factors that can affect financial decision making are economic aspects
like the role of macroeconomic market prices, business cycles, wage levels, employment
opportunities, as well as other factors like the role of frequency of payment on debt
repayment and consumption expenses. For instance, Prathap & Khaitan (2016) find that
among group loan borrowers from microfinance institutions, a segment of borrowers faced
significant distress during loans tenure due to high level of informal debt and lack of
resources to repay the debt as per schedule. It is di icult to ascertain under what
circumstances would certain households churn new loans to repay the older loans and
increase their financial burden, but the fault of selling unsuitable loans squarely falls on the
lenders.
As pointed out previously, household finance research is in its nascency. There is a
growing body of studies that records the financial decision the decisions of low-income
households, but the research on ‘why’ they do it is still being explored. Some of the gaps
in evidence that need further research have been identified in the Financial Well-being
Evidence Gap Map. For instance, there is little rigorous and in-depth research on the
lack of take-up of the voluntary pension scheme for old-age liquidity or the role of gender
in the adoption of insurance products.
An important step towards completing the journey from recording to understanding the
Indian low-income households’ financial decision-making is to accept their strategies can-
not be measured against the benchmark of classical economic models. They have their
unique set of constraints, uncertainties, limited access to suitable markets, behavioural
biases that influence their decision-making. Using a positive approach instead of a nor-
mative approach to understand their financial motivations will enable us to find better
insights and aid better product design and process innovation. These points will be
elaborated further in section 3 of this paper.
2.2.1 A discussion on research methodologies and datasets

To truly understand the ‘why’, there needs to be a much richer understanding of house-
holds, and to that end, there needs to be a better set of tools to contribute to such
an understanding. While financial diaries and public and private surveys are helpful in
24
Gender is mentioned as an aspect of both social and cultural factors. Cultural aspect of gender
concerns with how we make meaning of the term in a context, i.e., for instance what are the cultural
norms regarding work choices, money management, decision-making, etc. broadly acceptable for men
and women in India
establishing the context and interactions of the household, they cannot establish the moti-
vations of and reasons for the decisions they make. This is largely due to the high degree
of heterogeneity existent among LIHs. Randomised Control Trials (RCTs) attempt to
deal with this heterogeneity through randomisation of the study population (Rural Fi-
nancial Institutions Program 2015). Field-based experiments may use other experimental
methods for comparison other than randomization, applying a variety of statistical tech-
niques to control for differences, but these often involve making assumptions that are
more difficult to test than if randomization is used in advance (Duflo, Banerjee, Glenner-
ster & Kinnan, 2013). RCTs, however, are limited by the size of the trial, and it is often
logistically difficult to conduct identical RCTs across several geographical and cultural
contexts to ascertain whether the hypotheses hold. There is ongoing work in developing
augmentations to traditional RCTs, in order to eliminate what are widely perceived to
be the issues of the methodology, as well as recreating RCTs widely in order to cover
a diverse set of geographical and cultural contexts that would eliminate the inability to
extrapolate results. Ethnography is another such tool that is increasingly being used to
study financial behaviour including household finance management, payday loans, mort-
gages, microfinance, mobile money, Islamic banking and remittances (Taylor & Lynch,
2016). Ethnography is a method of studying people in the places where they live or
where the action is taking place (Guérin, 2014; Guérin, et al., 2015). The method can be
typically combined with both qualitative and quantitative techniques and can be used in
virtually any setting. It involves recording data using a variety of tools, one of which is
‘participant observation’, which involves learning about research participants’ experiences
by doing activities with them (Vargha, 2011). Like RCTs, ethnography also falls short
due to its coverage, being logistically unable to explain behaviour across a diverse set of
contexts.
These tools of data collection and analysis are paving the way for an understanding of
the motivations behind households’ decisions, which in turn can help in providing more
specialised financial services and products, as well as allowing for a possibly realistic
modelling exercise for low-income households.
3. State of Household Finance in India25

3.1 Overview
This chapter reviews the current state of household finance in India b y synthesizing
evidence on market participation and portfolio allocation of Indian households across
different types of assets and liabilities and uncovering evidence (even though limited), on
factors that influence household decision making. Understanding the rationale behind
households’ financial decisions is important from a policy perspective as they provide
evidence on the current state of their finance. This information facilitates the design and
implementation of products and policies suitable for the financial well-being of Indian
households.
As discussed in the previous section, there are significant differences between the observed
patterns of behaviour for Indian households and those predicted by the theoretical models
(RBI Household Finance Committee, 2017). This is because the theoretical models do not
adequately capture the Indian institutional context, the diversity of preferences and
the various constraints that households face in accessing formal financial markets. T
here is, therefore, a need to arrive at a holistic understanding of the factors that affect
household decision making. We broadly categorise these factors as (i) demand-side
factors such as demographic profiles of households and households’ behavioural
preferences and biases (ii) supply-side factors such as uneven penetration of formal
financial services a cross Indian states, market limitations across financial products and
services, and regulatory gaps. The following section discusses the current trends as
well as elaborates on the factors described above, with a special focus on implications
for low-income households.
3.2 Participation and Allocation in Financial Products and Ser-

vices26
The Household Finance Committee Report released by RBI in 2017 provides the most
comprehensive overview of the state of household finance in India. According to the
report, 65 percentage of households hold any financial assets27and 78 percentage of
households hold physical assets28, among the youngest cohort. Among more mature
households, 77 percentage of households hold any financial assets and 95 percentage of
households hold physical assets. On the liabilities side, less than 10 percentage of house-
holds hold mortgage loans29 and other forms of secured loans30, while approximately 20
25
This section borrows heavily from the Household Finance Committee Report that was released in
July 2017. This report provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of household finance in
India and the underlying rationale for the same.
26
Participation is the uptake of a product/service and allocation is the share of finances allocated
towards the product/service.
27
Financial assets include bank deposits, publicly traded shares, government securities, mutual funds,
managed accounts, and loans receivable by the household
28
Physical assets include land and housing
29
Mortgage loans include loans using land or real estate as collateral
30
Other secured loans include loans secured by a third party, and loans using crops, shares of companies,
government securities, or insurance policies as collateral
percentage of households have loans outstanding from unsecured sources of debt31.

In terms of portfolio allocations across households’ balance sheets, the average Indian
household allocates 84 percentage of its wealth to real estate and other physical goods,
11 percentage to gold and the residual 5 percentage to financial assets. On the liabilities
side, unsecured debt from non-institutional sources accounts for 56 percentage of total
household debt, mortgage loans for 23 percentage, gold loans for 8 percentage and the
remainder 13 percentage as secured debt from other sources. These statistics highlight a
lack of formalisation of financial services among Indian households.
Given the diversity of Indian households, the report further points to significant variations
in allocations along with households’ life cycles and wealth distribution. The report finds
that the largest share of assets of young households in India is in the form of durable goods
and gold. However, this shifts to land and housing as households approach retirement.
Additionally, financial assets and pensions account for only a mere 3.7 percentage of
the total balance sheet among the rich, reflecting poor take up of these services even
among the wealthiest households. On the liabilities side, the report finds that households
have high mortgage debt even as they approach retirement age, potentially leading to
inter-generational transfer of liabilities. Lastly, high cost- unsecured debt accounts for
two-thirds of total liabilities for the very poor and one-third for the rich.
In terms of managing risks such as loss of crop or livestock, medical emergency, and
damage to properties, farm equipment or other business capital due to natural disaster,
Indian households are largely dependent on high cost loans from non-institutional sources.
These loans are commonly borrowed from family, friends or moneylenders. Additionally,
research using the AIDIS 2012 data indicates a strong negative correlation between take-
up of insurance products and incidence of non-institutional debt, in that, participation in
the insurance market is associated with a 20-percentage point decrease in the likelihood
of taking up a loan from a non-institutional source (RBI Household Finance Committee,
2017).
Overall, these results indicate heavy reliance by Indian households on informal mecha-
nisms to build assets, manage risks, and plan for their life-cycle goals.
3.3 Factors Affecting Household Decision Making

3.3.1 Demographic Profile of Households
The HFC Report finds significant correlations between the share and type of assets and
liabilities held by a household and their profile in terms of their education and wealth
levels. On the assets side, the share of real estate increases and the share of gold decreases
as the households’ level of wealth increases, reflecting a potential trade-off between real
estate and gold among wealthier households. Interestingly, the share of financial assets
and pensions wealth remains constant for different levels of wealth. Additionally, edu-
cation is positively correlated with the share of financial assets. Higher the education,
higher the holdings of financial assets. On the liabilities side, unsecured debt and non-
institutional debt is negatively correlated with households’ wealth and education levels.
31
Unsecured loans include loans from money lenders, family and friends, credit cards, and overdraft
facilities
Asset: Participation and Allocation by Age and Wealth Quintle
Liabilities: Participation and Allocation by Age and Wealth Quintiles
Source: All India Debt and Investment Survey (AIDIS), NSSO (2012)
Similarly, there exist differences in the ownership of a financial account by gender (RBI
Household Finance Committee, 2017). According to the Global Findex Survey 2017,
women are six-percentage points less likely to own a financial account (Demirg’́eç-Kunt et
al., 2017). Overall, these trends highlight the role that demographic factors play in
influencing households’ financial decision as they take into account the socio-economic,
cultural and geographical context households operate in.
3.3.2 Behavioural Preferences and Biases of Households

Behavioural factors such as time preference, self-control and psychological bias are said to
be some of the main factors explaining consumer choice ine iciencies (Agarwal et al.,
2017). In the Indian context, while there is a paucity of data and research on the role of
behavioural factors in determining household choices, the Household Finance Committee
Report, comprehensively lays down some of the observed determinants of households’
behaviour (RBI Household Finance Committee, 2017).
Indian households’ skewed allocation in physical assets and use of informal mechanisms for
debt and risk management can largely be explained by their risk preferences, lack of trust
and general perception of formal financial institutions. According to the survey conducted
by the Financial Planning Standards Board (FPSB) India32, risk tolerance features as a
key consideration while making market investments. The survey finds that close to
20 percentage of respondents cite ‘safety’ of returns in investments and 15 percentage
of respondents cite ‘risk averseness’ as factors contributing to their investment decisions.
Additionally, households invest in ‘perceived’ safe assets such as real estate and gold
compared to financial assets such as mutual funds which they perceive to be too risky
with uncertain returns.
Similarly, take up for insurance products remain extremely low.33 While this can be
attributed to factors such as unaffordability of formal insurance and ease of access to
informal sources of debt, behavioural factors such as lack of trust towards insurance
products and lack of awareness and understanding of the product, its features and its
benefits (Cole et al., 2013) also have an impact on the take-up of the product. The HFC
Report (2017) also attributes time-inconsistency in the payoffs associated with holding
insurance as a reason for low-uptake of the product. The report states that the welfare
gains for a healthy household to adopt health insurance might not be easily understood.
This, coupled with mistrust, leads to an aversion from investing in these products. Some of
these behavioural patterns were also reported by the NABARD All India Rural Financial
Inclusion Survey (NAFIS) (2017)34 that finds over 30 percentage of households to agree
with the statements “I tend to live for today and let tomorrow take care of itself ”,
“Money is there to be spent” and “‘I find it more satisfying to spend money than to save
for the long-term” reflecting a polarization towards spending money and having short
term orientation towards financial planning. Personal attributes such as cognitive ability,
psychological barriers and the level of self-confidence also play a role in participation
across financial markets (Mowl & Boudot, 2014).
Overall, Indian households’ financial demands are complex and involve multiple aspects
including their cognitive and behavioural biases, issues of trust in the financial system,
heterogeneous needs based on education and wealth levels, geographical location and their
volatile income patterns.
32
Financial Planning Standards Board-https://india.fpsb.org/
33
Insurance penetration in India continues to be one of the lowest at 3.69 percentage as on March
2018.
34
NAFIS, 2016-17- https://www.nabard.org/auth/writereaddata/tender/1608180417NABARD-
Repo-16_Web_P.pdf
3.3.3 Uneven penetration of formal financial services across Indian

states
Substantial regional variation exists across Indian households’ balance sheet. On the
assets side, some of the northern states such as Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh,
Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Haryana have more than 80 percentage of allocation in real
estate. Interestingly, some of the southern states such as Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh
and Union Territories such as Goa, Daman & Diu, Pondicherry and Andaman & Nicobar
have more than 20 percentage of allocation in gold. Allocation in financial assets is
the lowest for all states; however, some of the southern and north-eastern states have
comparatively higher allocation (approximately 10 percentage). On the liabilities side,
gold loans constitute more than 40 percentage of allocation for states such as Tamil Nadu
and Goa, given the high proportion of asset allocation in gold. Unsecured debt is highest
for states such as Bihar, Rajasthan, Tripura, West Bengal and Assam and lowest for most
of the North-Eastern States and Union Territories. Similarly, loans from non-institutional
sources display the same trend, with the highest allocation for most of the northern states
and lowest for North-Eastern states and Union Territories.
These results can be closely tied to the regional variation in the availability of formal
financial services across a suite of products such as savings, credit and insurance. The
CRISIL Inclusix 2018 Survey uses four key parameters, namely, branch penetration,
credit penetration, deposit penetration and insurance penetration to measure the level of
financial inclusion across Indian states. The survey results reveal southern states to be
leading across each of these parameters by huge margins, followed by western, northern,
eastern and north-eastern states. The uneven spread of formal financial services across
regions can, therefore, lead to differential levels of uptake and use of formal financial
services reflected in households’ balance sheet across regions.
Similarly, in terms of financial depth, commonly measured as ‘credit to GDP ratio’, wide
variation is observed across sectors and regions. While the overall credit to GDP ratio
at the country level stands at 58.6 percentage, for sectors such as agriculture and service
MSMEs it is even lower at 36 and 25 percentage respectively (Kumar & Baby, 2016).
Across regions, north-eastern states such as Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland have an
overall credit to GDP ratio of less than 15 percentage, while cities such as Chandigarh
and the National Capital Region have an overall credit of more than 150 percentage35,
highlighting uneven penetration of formal credit, causing market imperfections.
3.3.4 Market Limitations

Gaps between access and use of financial services
Over the last decade, India has made tremendous progress in accelerating access to formal
financial services. The Global Findex Survey 2017 reports that 80 percentage of adults in
India have an account at a financial institution compared to 35 percentage in 2011, thereby
tackling the first-order problem of ‘access’ to formal financial services (Demirg’́uç-Kunt et
al., 2017). However, despite the innovative efforts in creating newer channels,
products and services, disintermediation of finance and tech-enabled public infrastructure,
35
BIS credit to GDP gap statistics- https://www.bis.org/statistics/c_gaps.htm
the usage of financial services remains extremely low. This is a huge challenge from the
perspective of building an optimal financial portfolio as well as achieving financial well-
being for Indian households. Studies have pointed towards the problem of zero balance,
inoperative and dormant accounts highlighting the problem of lack of usage of savings
accounts (Inclusive Finance India Report, 2018).36
High transaction costs remain one of the key factors contributing to the low usage of
financial services. The cost of accessing and using banking services in a low access en-
vironment is large, primarily due to lack of proximity to transaction points.37 The
total cost of opening a bank account amounts to nearly one full day of earnings by poor
households (Mowl & Boudot, 2014). These costs disproportionately affect the poorest
in society because income generation time is more valuable to low-income households.
Non-monetary costs in the form of inadequate understanding of the terms and conditions
of formal financial products and services and cumbersome procedures (paperwork, KYC
process, etc.) can also act as a major deterrent for Indian households from using formal
financial services.
Overindebtedness
The overall picture on access to credit among low-income households remains suboptimal
due to the uneven spread of credit products across regions of India, leading to twin
problems of over-indebtedness in some regions and poor access to credit in others.
Overindebtedness creates significant distress among households. Households with excess
debt are observed juggling various sources of funds to maintain their creditworthiness
and experience significant asset erosion or extreme dependence on their social networks
(Grammling, 2009; Guérin, et al., 2013). Over-indebtedness can have severe implications
for low-income households as it forces them to choose undesirable coping strategies to
manage debt such as cutting down on essential expenses or pulling children out of school
to meet repayments (Schicks, 2012).
In the Indian context, the rapid expansion of joint liability group lending since 2012, has
led to a marked growth in the microfinance industry, with the average loan outstanding
per client and branch nearly doubling between 2012 and 2015 compared to a stagnant
growth in the average number of clients per branch. This points to a potential risk
of borrower over-indebtedness and is counted among the biggest threats to customer
protection in microfinance (Prathap & Khaitan, 2016).
Inadequate Risk Protection
The RBI Committee on Comprehensive Financial Services for Small Businesses and Low
Income Households (henceforth referred to as RBI CCFS)38 envisioned that each low-
income household and small-business would have ‘convenient’ access to providers that
have the ability to offer them ‘suitable’ insurance and risk management products, which at
36
Inclusive Finance India Report 2018 - https://www.inclusivefinanceindia.org/uploads-
inclusivefinance/publications/1065-1001-FILE.pdf
37
Better financial inclusion: create an enabling environment for the underserved to save, borrow
and invest-https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/economy/policy/better-financial-inclusion-create-an-
enabling-environment-for-the-underserved-to-save-borrow-and-invest-4119611.html
38
RBI Committee on Comprehensive Financial Services for Small Businesses and Low
Income Households-https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/PublicationReport/Pdfs/CFS070114RFL.pdf
a minimum allow them to manage risks related to commodity price movements, longevity,
disability and death of human beings, death of livestock, rainfall and damage to property
and pay ‘reasonable’ charges for their services (RBI CCFS, 2013). The current status of
insurance penetration and coverage remains far from this vision.
Apart from issues pertaining to the level of access and outreach described previously,
households also suffer from inadequate coverage across various risk mitigating products
such as insurance, pension and other retirement accounts. According to Dvara Research’s
analysis39 of government data on insurance, at least 988 million Indians are not covered
by any form of life insurance and those who are, are assured of only 8 percentage of what
may be required to protect a family from risk. A similar analysis of the Atal Pension
Yojana (APY) reveals penetration for only 3 percentage of the population employed in the
unorganised sector and is estimated to cover only 51 percentage of monthly expenditure
(in real terms), suggesting a gross deficiency in the coverage of the pension amount.40
Additionally, the persistency rate, measured as policies with regular premium contri-
butions, reflect a downward trend.41 Similarly, in the case of insurance products, low
persistency levels remain a constant challenge. A study on micro-insurance penetration
and entrenchment found that only 65 percentage of the study sample renewed their in-
surance policy at least once after their first policy expired (Sane & Thomas, 2015).
In the case of rainfall insurance, studies have found challenges pertaining to inadequate
protection from rainfall and weather-related risks that limit the demand for these prod-
ucts. A study on formal rainfall insurance for an informally insured group of farmers
found that basis risks42 significantly affected people’s demand for formal rainfall insur-
ance (Mobarak & Rosenzweig, 2014). Distance to the rainfall station negatively affected
take-up. For every kilometre increase in the distance of the rainfall station for a farmer
without informal insurance, demand for formal insurance decreased by 6.4 percentage.
These findings suggest that basis risk, or the risk that insurance payouts will not occur
when the household needs coverage, is a significant impediment to taking up index-
based rainfall insurance. An extensive study on understanding barriers to household risk
management estimated expected payouts for rainfall insurance policies in India based
on historical rainfall data and found consistently lower payouts (as a fraction of actual
losses) compared to countries such as the US, acting as a significant impediment for the
take up of these products (Cole et al., 2013).
These findings highlight the limitations of various types of risk mitigating products avail-
able to low-income households in India and its inadequacy in protecting customers from
risks they face during their lifetime.
39
State of insurance in India-https://www.indiaspend.com/988-mn-indians-do-not-have-life-
insurance-those-who-do-are-insured-for-7-8-of-whats-needed-to-cover-financial-shock/
40
Dvara Research blog on Atal Pension Yojana-https://www.dvara.com/blog/2015/03/09/an-initial-
analysis-of-the-atal-pension-yojana/
41
For instance, the average persistency for APY as reported by banks is approximately 66 percentage
for the second year of the APY accounts, suggesting the possibility of a further decline in the
persistency levels for subsequent years.
42
Basis risk is the risk that insurance policy’s standard payout may not fully cover a household’s losses
because the amount of rainfall measured at weather station and the farm could differ.
Lack of Customised Savings and Investment Products
Savings and Investment products fulfil the wealth creation goals of households. While
traditional products such as basic savings account and fixed deposit offered by banks have
found to provide a negative real rate of returns (RBI CCFS, 2013), the savings product is
an important tool for individuals and households to manage their money in case of surplus
or deficit, make and receive payments and use their savings account as a safe place to store
their wealth. Households also need access to formal investment products that enable
them to save systematically over a substantial period of time, protect them against
inflation risk and earn su icient returns through exposure to debt and equity capital
markets, in order to plan for their long-term goal such as retirement or education of
children (George et al., 2020).
Customisation of financial products and services based on households’ balance sheets,
goals, and risk preferences is a useful way of developing and offering financial propositions
to low-income households (Ananth & Shah, 2013). However, features of savings and
investment products currently available in the financial market are not well suited to
the needs and savings capacities of low-income households.
On the savings front, there is a lack of customized savings product with non-equal instal-
ment contribution that is better suited for low-income households. Products such as fixed
deposits require the customer to invest a one-time lumpsum amount for a fixed, typically
long-term period. While these savings products are ideal for a salaried individual earning
a fixed amount of income on a monthly basis, these products do not meet the financial re-
quirements of low-income households who generally deal with volatile cash flows (Collins
et al., 2009). Additionally, these products offer a negative real rate of return and have
very low liquidity as the amount gets locked in for a fixed tenure. This hinders low-income
households from accessing their savings whenever needed, further disincentivizing them
from saving in formal sources of finance. These factors contribute to the low rate of
savings at formal financial institutions leading to issues such as dormancy and inactive
bank accounts, as described previously. Low-income households instead prefer to rely on
informal savings mechanisms such as savings through chit funds and Self-Help Groups43
that have high risk, high cost, and limited functionality (Karlan et al., 2014).
Similarly, the use of investment products among low-income households remains ex-
tremely low. Research in this field points to ine icient household outcomes due to lack of
availability of customised products. A study on the enrolment rates of National Pension
Scheme shows that while the rate of enrolment has been growing consistently, there is a
drop in the persistence of contributions under the scheme, resulting from liquidity
constraints and income uncertainty. This highlights the need for more customised prod-
ucts that account for the timing of contributions, income uncertainty and suitability of
contribution frequency for households engaged in the informal sector (Sane & Thomas,
2015).
Given the recent slowdown in the economy and its related repercussions in the form
of falling interest rates on small savings and bank deposits and depressed returns from
43
Chit funds and SHGs operate via both formal and informal channels, although they largely started as
an informal mechanism to save for low-income household
asset classes such as real estate and gold, there has been an increased interest in the
capital markets among India households. According to the Inclusive Finance India Report
2018, the Asset Under Management (AUM) – an indicator of aggregate level of funds
under various mutual fund schemes, both equity and debt - grew by 85 percentage in the
last three years. However, the impact of this growth on economically weaker sections,
measured by the participation in investments disaggregated by geography and size of
individual holdings remains negligible.
While the potential of an investment product for low-income households is huge, given
the gains of investing in financial assets, there are several challenges that need addressing
such as (i) availability of suitable investment products for low-income households through
channels that are easily accessible to them in rural and remote areas (ii) the challenges of
making people aware of various types of investment products along with the associated
risks of the products and providing suitable investment advice (iii) awareness of frontline
staff in dealing with clients on the complexities of capital market in relation to customer’s
financial goals (iv) misalignment of consumer’s and agent’s incentives, wherein the incen-
tive to sell one product significantly outweighs the others and the distributors are more
likely to push products that are lucrative to them, than products that may be suitable
for the consumers.
Inadequate financial advice
In retail finance, there are persistent imbalances of information, expertise, power and
agency between the buyer and the seller of financial products. This phenomenon gets ex-
acerbated for low-income households resulting in families undertaking suboptimal resource
allocation and risk mitigation strategies. In India, the imbalance of information, expertise
and agency is much more pronounced between low-income households as consumers and
sellers of financial products. Indian households largely rely on informal networks such
as friends, family, neighbours and themselves for financial advice rather than on formal
sources- NAFIS, 2016-17 finds 51 percentage of households to rely on financial advice
from friends and family.
However, financial advice from formal sources becomes necessary for two key reasons44.
Firstly, for low-income households, there’s a heightened need to look into all issues around
protecting human capital and enable them to build resilience in the face of illness/ ac-
cident/death. Currently, most advice tends to focus on investments, and very little
attention has been paid to insurance as a risk mitigation strategy (Ibbotson, Milevsky,
Chen, & Zhu, 2007). Low-income households and the contexts they operate in are not
homogeneous and therefore require tailored financial advice regarding investment and
insurance depending on the family profile, current financial portfolio, cashflows pattern
and frequency, inheritance, capital gains, occupational profile, risk-appetite and most im-
portantly life goals. Understanding that low-income households have limited resources,
it is also important that they can access advice on which member should participate and
what kind of product they should use to meet their life-cycle goals.
Secondly, the balance sheet of a low-income household has a combination of the physical
and financial asset and multiple borrowing from formal and informal sources. Different
44The Nature of Financial Advice for Low-Income Households - https://www.dvara.com/
blog/2017/09/19/the-nature-of-financial-advice-for-low-income-households/
loans have different repayment schedules, maturities and other terms of contract, while on
the assets side, the households may not know the current valuation or depreciation of their
physical assets. In this context, financial advisor can help in answering pertinent questions
regarding choice of formal loan to refinance other informal loans, liquidation process of
assets to reduce debt burden, the right choice of loan tenure and structure to ameliorate
stress and to create a comprehensive balance sheet view of their households.
However, financial advice in its current form and structure is inadequate and does not
meet the requirements of Indian households. Firstly, households are often required to go
to multiple distributors in order to obtain a suite of financial products that holistically
address their lifecycle goals. This prevents them from getting an integrated view on
their financial advice needs. Secondly, advice when available tends to be aligned to
manufacturer sales objectives rather than HH financial well-being due to the lack of
separation between distribution and advice. Current regulatory interventions around
preventing mis-selling have focused on separating sale and advice into distinct offerings
for the customer through separate licensing/registration requirements with advisors being
allowed to receive volume-based incentives thereby reducing the effectiveness of such
a separation. Additionally, the approach of separating advice from sale adds to the
cost-burden of low-income households on account of seeking financial advice, which
households are not willing to pay (George et al., 2020).
Overall, there is a lack of unbiased advice and sale practices that keep low-income house-
holds’ best interest in mind. From a regulatory perspective, there is an impending need
to collapse the distinction between sale and advice and embark on a regime that regulates
the nature of the interaction between financial service providers and retail customers. In
addition, the obligation to not make an unsuitable sale or advice must lie directly with
financial service providers irrespective of whether they are legally licensed.
3.3.5 Regulatory gaps

Finally, regulatory gaps in the financial services industry can have adverse effects on the
financial well-being of households. Some of the key gaps in the context of financial services
for low-income households are: (i) lack of uniformed regulation for different types of
financial service providers (cooperatives, SHG promoting organisations, banks, fintech,
etc.) serving low income households (ii) lack of uniformity in the regulation of financial
advice due to different classification of financial advisors falling under the purview of
different regulatory authorities (iii) increasing modularisation and disintermediation with
technology enabling separation of origin, distribution and service function leading to
regulatory challenges as a single financial service provider could fall within the purview of
more than one regulator and finally (iv) lack of adequate customer protection leading to
mis-sale of products that are ‘unsuitable’ thereby leading to investment mistakes by
consumers and ine icient grievance redressal process due to multiple touch-points that
reduces the ability of the customer to identify a point to seek redressal.
Regulators also provide prescriptive product specific regulations. For example, IRDA
provides prescriptions on amount coverage for micro-insurance products; similarly,
RBI provides prescriptions on lending limits for microcredit products. While such
regulations are aimed at protecting the customer’s interest, over-regulation can stifle
competition and take away the obligations on providers to ensure they are acting in
the customer’s interest.45
45Let'sstop kicking the can down the road: Highlighting important and unaddressed gaps in
microcredit regulations-https://www.dvara.com/blog/2019/10/24/lets-stop-kicking-the-can-down-
the-road-highlighting-important-and-unaddressed-gaps-in-microcredit-regulations/
4. Priorities for Innovation in Financial Services for

Low-Income Households
4.1 Overview
The Indian financial sector, in its current form, is unable to adequately meet the financial
requirements of low-income households. Firstly, the sector for this segment is character-
ized by low penetration of savings, investment, retirement and insurance product. While
credit products for low-income households have taken off in the last decade primarily
through the success of the microfinance model, the availability of credit is skewed across
regions, leading to issues of over-indebtedness. Secondly, ‘access’ to bank accounts, con-
sidered as the gateway to a suite of financial products and services, has not necessarily
translated into ‘usage’, reflecting market ine iciencies that turn the benefits of partici-
pating in financial markets into costs (Campbell, 2006). Thirdly, substantial issues exist
with the design and distribution channel of financial products and services that fail to
service the last mile customer and meet the unique requirements of low-income house-
holds, further excluding them from the formal financial system. Finally, gaps exist in the
regulation of the financial sector, stifling competition and innovation on one hand and
consumer harm on the other, leading to inefficient household outcomes.
The Household Finance Committee argues that solutions in Indian household finance face
the rare challenge of needing to be both customized and scalable, to maximize the chances
that households efficiently use these products to achieve their objectives and identifies five
principles (Relevance, Intuitiveness, Customisation, Scalability and Fair Pricing) to guide
the framework of such innovation (RBI Household Finance Committee, 2017)
This chapter reviews the various priorities for innovation that financial service providers
and regulators should adopt in order to expand and deepen access to formal financial
services among low-income households. We identify three key areas of innovation for the
financial services industry- product innovation, process innovation and regulatory inno-
vation. Product innovation refers to improvements in the design/features of a financial
product that matches the complex financial requirements and dynamic lifecycle issues of
low-income households. Process innovation refers to innovation in the process of provision
of financial services, i.e., innovation in distribution channels or mechanisms through which
financial service is provided. Regulatory innovation, on the other hand, refers to innova-
tion across regulatory guidelines and provision of infrastructure to build a more enabling
and conducive environment for the expansion of financial services industry, especially
for low-income households. Innovation across this spectrum can help address the classic
challenges of financial inclusion in terms of (i) gaining access to new market segment (ii)
creating new offerings for existing customers (iii) deepening customer engagement and
product usage (iv) enabling better data collection, use and management.46
Overall, for a well-functioning ‘complete’ financial market47(Arrow & Debreu, 1954),
financial service providers will have to offer customized solutions to meet the unique
46
The ‘Strange Bedfellows’ Myth: How Fintechs and Financial Institutions Can Partner for Mutual
Benefit – And Greater Financial Inclusion-https://nextbillion.net/the-strange-bedfellows-myth-how-
fintechs-and-financial-institutions-can-partner-for-mutual-benefit-and-greater-financial-inclusion/
47
Complete market is a market with two conditions: negligible transaction cost with perfect
informa-tion; price for every asset in every possible state of the world
needs of individual households through a high quality distribution channel that is char-
acterised by service that is convenient, flexible, reliable and continuous (Ananth & Shah,
2013).
Priorities for Innovation
4.2 Product Innovation

Low-income households require products that are customized to suit their financial situ-
ation, risk capacity and behavioural preferences. In this context, the design of financial
products has a huge role to play in influencing consumer choice (Agarwal et al., 2017).
Unfortunately, the financial services industry is characterized by a lack of strategic focus
on serving low-income households resulting in products designed for the affluent mass
customers getting sold to low-income households (George et al., 2020). Low-income
households thus find financial products to be unresponsive to the flexibility their lives
demand.48
However, with the emergence of new players, including Small Finance Banks and fin-
techs, there is a growing interest in better-designed products for this segment. The HFC
Report recommends ‘customisation’ to be one of the key guiding principles in innovation
for household finance policy by designing products that help achieve household specific
objectives.
48
Designing for Low-Income Consumers, Dalberg 2019 - https://dalberg.com/our-ideas/7-design-
principles-create-financial-products-low-income-consumers/
4.2.1 Unique and Novel Products

For a long time, financial services for low-income households have largely remained fo-
cused on credit products. While this has undoubtedly helped low-income households
build resilience and seize investment opportunities, it has left substantial gaps in pro-
viding a comprehensive financial solution to this segment. Recognizing this opportunity
and tapping into the huge market of emerging customers, financial service providers are
innovating by designing and offering newer types of products for low-income customers.
Firstly, a new wave of Fintechs using tech-based solutions is making customized, unique
and novel product offerings to low-income households. For example, Kaleidofin, using a
savings led approach is helping its customers meet their life-cycle goals through the pro-
vision of tailored investment advice and products. Kaleidofin uses artificial intelligence
to generate financial plans for its customers which form the basis of financial advice using
which customer make investments across a range of products. Kaleidofin also offers insur-
ance products by bundling life, accident and disability insurance with investment products
and charging a transparent fee to cover the cost of insurance. Similarly, Toffee Insurance,
an Insuretech, provides insurance to cover risks associated with aspects of everyday lives.
They provide novel insurance products for dengue, international travel, cycle, backpack
and daily cash. Some of their products, such as the salary protection plan specifically
target the low-income migrant population segment, thereby reaching out to some of the
specific needs of this untapped segment. Other NBFCs such as Dvara KGFS are offering
comprehensive financial packages in the form of insurance, savings and investment plan to
encourage a savings culture among low-income households. These packages incorporate
customers’ financial profile, needs and goals to offer customized solutions.
These examples are however far and few. There are a range of products that are simply
‘missing’ from the market for low-income households, presenting a huge opportunity for
financial service providers (FSPs). Products such as emergency loans, small ticket-size
loans (less than Rs. 5000), affordable health insurance with adequate coverage, flexible
saving and investment products are not available for low-income households at scale. FSPs
could think of ways in which they could fill this gap. For example, providers could develop
insurance products specifically targeted towards women from low-income house-holds.
Research shows that women view insurance as a way to protect themselves and their
family from shocks compared to men who might perceive insurance as a saving/in-
vestment mechanism. Additionally, one-third of the world’s entrepreneurs are women who
want to grow their business and take reasonable risks. Insurance targeted towards women
can, therefore, be centred around women’s specific needs and attitudes49 Other insurance
products such as cattle insurance, rainfall insurance is not adequately developed to cater to
the needs of low-income households while also posing substantial moral hazard chal-lenges,
thereby making the product expensive and ine icient. Similarly, it is well known that
women save in gold. Formal financial products that tap into this habit could become
successful business models. Several banks, NFBCs and financial institutions have already
started offering digital gold savings product/gold Systematic Investment Plans (SIP)50,
but the model is yet to take off in popularity among the low-income segment.
49
She for Shield- http://documents.shihang.org/curated/zh/228381492593824450/pdf/114402-WP-
SheforShield-Final-Web2015-PUBLIC.pdf
50
Examples of these are Digi Gold Savings Plans offered by banks, Gold based mutual fund product-
s/Gold based SIPs. Dvara Smart Gold is also offering Gold based savings product.
There is also an urgent need to develop savings products that are flexible enough to
meet the financial capacities and constraints of low-income households. Regular savings
account and basic savings bank deposit accounts (BSBDAs) offered by Small Finance
Banks such as Ujjivan are a step in the right direction. These savings products do
not charge maintenance fees and do not have monthly balance criteria. Private players
could also innovate across various type of investment products for low-income households.
For example, low-income households could invest small amounts in safe money market
products such as debt funds that provide a high and positive real rate of return in the
long run.
Overall, there is a huge opportunity for financial service providers to meet the financial
needs of households at the bottom of the pyramid and doing so would create a win-win
situation for both FSPs and last mile consumers.
4.2.2 Bundling of Products

Bundling of products is another method of product design that allows the financial ser-
vice provider to use its expertise to sell an ideal combination of products (compared to a
disaggregated product delivery approach) such that it provides households with a compre-
hensive financial solution at low costs, thereby improving household outcomes (Ananth
& Shah, 2013). However, whether bundling of product protects consumer’s interest or
that of the financial service provider is an important question to investigate.
For instance, one common way in which low-income households access insurance is
through the bundling of credit and life insurance cover sold to them by lenders such
as NBFC-MFI and other NBFCs. Here the insurance product can be relatively easily
bundled with credit, and the premiums can be collected with loan repayments, thereby
reducing the transaction costs. However, the structure of such a product requires the
customer to pay the premium, even though the insurance coverage amount goes to the
lender and not the nominee in the event of death of the borrower, thereby protecting the
seller’s interest compared to that of the consumer (George et al., 2020). A study on the
impact of bundling health insurance with microfinance credit found that the requirement
to purchase health insurance substantially reduced microcredit clients’ loan renewal rates,
meaning that people were willing to give up credit to avoid buying insurance (Banerjee,
Duflo & Hornbeck, 2014).
Therefore, while newer kinds of bundling models are emerging, these do not always serve
the customer’s interest. There are instances where even though the second product in the
bundle is not demanded by the customer, the customer still ends up incurring the cost for
the product (George et al., 2020). There is, therefore, a need to innovate across bundling
of products such that low-income households (who are already financially constrained)
do not end up incurring additional costs for products that they don’t demand or need.
Parallelly, there are other kinds of bundles that provide an ideal combination of products,
thereby improving consumer welfare. However, it might be difficult for households to
understand the underlying logic behind such a product design that bundles two or more
products, therefore preventing them from entering appropriate financial contracts. “This
remains to be an important design issue for the financial sector as the effectiveness of
access to a range of products would depend significantly on how the products are used
by the households, which in turn depends on how the products are designed” (Ananth &
Shah, 2013). Financial service providers can, therefore, use their expertise in helping the
consumer understand the implications of a set of products in the specific context of the
household and offer an integrated financial proposition to the client as a piece of advice.
Innovation in the design of the product that bridges the information and expertise gap
will enable more optimal decisions by households.
4.2.3 Product Design based on Customer Profile

The design of the product should ideally be customized to suit the consumer’s socio-
economic profile, behavioural biases and preferences as they have a significant impact
on households’ decision-making process. FSPs should “design products and processes
that respond to the behavioural biases in a manner that induces individuals to select
the right products that suit their behavioural profile” (Ananth & Shah, 2013).
Currently, there is a dearth of financial service providers that incorporate consumers’
behavioural factors into their product sales strategy. Traditional financial institutions
such as banks adopt a standardised, one-size-fits-all approach and hardly offer any
customised solutions for low-income households. A few cases where behavioural
factors such as self-control bias are taken into account are saving, and investment
products with default options for regular contribution, but these products are neither
relevant nor used by low-income households. On the other hand, a growing number
of Fintechs are innovating across products based on the behavioural profile of
customers. For example, Credit Vidya51 provides a comprehensive credit score of
customers using a machine learning algorithm which is based on customer’s behavioural,
social and biometric data to quantify the risk of first-time borrowers. Another set of
emerging Fintechs are providing lending market-place solutions and solutions for better
customer engagement. For example, AnyTimeLoan provides short term unsecured
loans to needy people for amounts ranging from Rs. 1000 to 60000, thereby
accommodating the credit need of low-income households.52 However, product innovation
based on consumer profile may not always be geared to improve consumer welfare.53
Products also need to be designed based on the financial constraints and capacities of low-
income households, while at the same time keeping their interests and rights at the heart of
any product development. For example, products such as pensions and insurance for low-
income households, largely made available by the Government, suffer from low persistency
rate, high lapsation rate and inadequate coverage. Potential product improvements in
this context could include nudges and reminders for regular contribution towards these
schemes so as to avoid lapsation of policies and flexibility in the time and amount of
instalment contribution based on customer’s cash-flows. Research also points to product
design interventions such as nudges and reminders in the context of increasing savings
among low-income households (Karlan et al., 2010).
51
CreditVidya's official website-https://creditvidya.com/
52
Technology for Financial Inclusion- Repository of Technology Service Providers-http://
ifmrlead.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Technology%20for%20Financial%20Inclusion. pdf
53Case Study: Fintech and the Financial Exploitation of Customer Data-https://
privacyinternational.org/case-studies/757/case-study-fintech-and-financial-exploitation-customer-data
To summarise, there is an urgent need to innovate across financial products that meet
the unique requirements and preferences of low-income households, while at the same
time protecting consumer’s interest. The Dalberg study on Designing for Low-Income
Consumers54, recommends market segmentation of low-income customers based on de-
mographic profile, behavioural preferences and psychometric factors. Using this method-
ology, they identify six segments of low-income customers, namely, providers, survivors,
followers, independents, seekers and influencers. This segmentation can then be used to
design segment-specific products that match the specific financial situation, preferences,
and behavioural characteristics of the customer. They recommend seven design princi-
ples to create financial products for low-income consumers that take into account their
aspirations, social networks, capabilities, lifestyle, biases and perception about formal
financial services.55 Ultimately, consumer choices across financial products are largely
driven by cognitive limitations, time preferences, self-control and incentives, psychologi-
cal bias and social networks (Agarwal et al., 2017). Therefore, financial service providers
must consider these factors while designing a product, especially for low-income house-
holds, who might be even more susceptible to making choices that don’t always maximise
their welfare.
4.2.4 Flexibility in Product Design

Currently, financial service providers largely offer products across savings, investments,
insurance and credit that have standardized product features offering little to no flexibil-
ity. We advocate for innovation that introduces flexibility in product design. Flexibility
in products consider the volatility in the value and timing of cash flows in the household
due to seasonal activities, business cycle stages, health shocks and other factors, thereby
providing products that are more responsive to the lives of low-income households.
For example, there is a growing body of research that finds flexibility in microfinance loan
contracts to improve households’ outcomes. Introducing flexibility in repayment of debt
can have positive implications on the suitability of the product itself.56 Research on
flexibility in repayment frequency has found significant positive effects on the financial
well-being of the borrowers and has been found to reduce stress. Flexibility in microfi-
nance loan contracts can be introduced in the form of flexible timing, flexible instalments,
one-time moratorium, prepayment of loan and line of credit (Field & Pande 2008; Czura,
2015; Barboni & Agarwal, 2017). Fixed repayment schedule, on the other hand, can affect
investment choices and aggravate the liquidity position of the household. There is,
therefore, a growing need for providers to design e icient and effective loan contracts that
are more suitable to clients’ needs, preferences, behaviour and well-being.
Similarly, research on savings for poor finds that soft commitment savings devices that
are flexible enough to accommodate the unsteady and varied preferences of the poor are
54Aspiring Indians 1- Understanding their financial needs, attitudes and behaviour- https://
dalberg. com/system/files/2019-04/AI%201%202_LR_combined%20cover.pdf
557 design principles to create financial products for low-income consumers-https://dalberg.com/our-
ideas/7-design-principles-create-financial-products-low-income-consumers
56Flexibility
in microfinance loan contracts- https://www.dvara.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/
12/Research-Brief-Flexibility-in-Microfinance-Loan-Contracts.pdf
better suited for this segment57, thereby deepening customer engagement and product
use.
4.3 Process Innovation

Process innovation, i.e., innovation across distribution or delivery channel of financial ser-
vices, should focus on providing services in a convenient, flexible, reliable and continuous
manner. Distribution channel comprises of technology and people, both of which must be
secure and e icient, in order to induce “state-of-mind effects” that allows one to feel truly
included in the financial system (Ananth & Shah, 2013). Below we present recent
innovation along technology and people and gaps across these two channels that need to be
bridged.
4.3.1 Technological Innovation in Delivering Financial Services

India has been at the forefront of innovation in using technology driven solutions to
accelerate access to and use of formal financial services. Use of technology in the provision
of financial services has the potential to overcome the challenges of high transaction
costs, geographic inaccessibility and product mismatch thereby deepening access to formal
financial services among financially excluded and underserved households. Technologies
such as artificial intelligence, machine learning and Internet of Things have a diverse
range of potential use cases within financial services. India has always been an
early adopter of technology, especially in the financial services industry. However, in
the last one decade, the impact of technology on the industry has changed from an
enabler to a positive disrupter.58
Given the changing landscape, the last five years has seen unprecedented growth in the
Fintech industry. The industry is also increasingly witnessing a shift from competi-
tion among traditional financial institutions and Fintechs to rising collaborations among
the two. These collaborations are driven by the strengths of each type of institution,
thereby creating a win-win situation for both the service providers and the service con-
sumers. Traditional financial service providers are characterised by ‘high touch-low tech’
model. While human insights cannot be replaced, especially in the context of serving
low-income households, technology service providers can offer technological solutions to
provide customised products and use delivery mechanisms that lead to scale, thereby
lowering the costs. Increasingly, financial service providers are adopting innovative
technological solutions to address some of the prominent challenges in serving the low-
income segment.
However, there are significant issues with India’s Fintech industry that need to be high-
lighted.59 Firstly, most Fintechs remain restricted to serving the affluent, tech-literate
57Helping the poor to save- https://www.ideasforindia.in/topics/money-finance/helping-the-poor-to-

save.html
58Next in tech: How technology is redefining financial services in 2018 and beyond-
https://www.pwc.in/consulting/financial-services/fintech/next-in-tech.html
59
Microsave Report on Fintech Study to Model a Financial Inclusion lab- http://www.microsave.net/
wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Fintech_Study_to_Model_a_Financial_Inclusion_Lab.pdf
Table 1: Examples of the use of innovative technology in the delivery of

financial services
• MFIs and SFBs such as Annapurna and Ujjivan have partnered with Ar-
too to undertake doorstep digitisation of customer data, creating efficiency in
backend operations, better management information system and data secu-
rity solutions. These efficiencies in the backend are also improving customer
experience by quicker processing of loan applications and in some instances,
on-the-spot underwriting.
• Fintechs such as Aye Finance use data analytics tools such as algorithms and
psychometric scoring tools to highlight patterns that enable quality lending,
thereby providing risk profiling and credit scoring solutions for customers with
little to no credit history.
• Fintechs such as Rupie have partnered with RBL bank and Digambar Mi-
crofinance to offer micro-credit products through mobile phone without any
paperwork, making lending decisions based on machine learning, thereby pro-
viding new products and services to low-income customers.
• FinoPayTech is providing low cost payment solutions via biometric enabled
Kiosk Banking and handheld device-based banking using biometric transactions
to deepen customer engagement and product usage.
customers in tier-1 cities, leaving around 80 percentage of the low- and middle-income
(LMI) segment outside the purview of the industry. Secondly, majority of Fintechs are
focused on providing credit and payments solution, leaving a significant gap in the market
for products like savings, insurance and investments, that are equally, if not more impor-
tant in the financial lives of low-income households. Thirdly and most importantly, the
widespread use of personal information by financial service providers raises the potential
for users’ personal data to be misused and their privacy to be compromised. Concerns
also arise about relevance and extent of data collected about consumers for the provi-
sion of financial services60 Therefore, the Fintech industry will have to address these
challenges to be truly inclusive to the low-income segment.
At the same time, it is important to keep in mind the current context in which digital
financial services are being offered. A typical Indian household can be characterised as
a low-income household residing in rural area, earning below Rs. 10,000 a month, with
low ownership of smartphones and low levels of digital literacy.61 Therefore, increasing
the use of technology in the provision of financial services must be placed in the current
context of consumer’s capabilities, access to technology, demographic profile, and other
infrastructural and institutional factors. Severe infrastructural challenges also exist in
rural areas such as network downtime, power shortages and internet shutdown.62 These
60Primeron Designing Optimal Regulation-https://www.dvara.com/research/conference2019/wp-

content/uploads/2019/04/Primer-on-Designing-Optimal-Regulation.pdf
61Why more smartphones and bank accounts haven’t brought financial digital inclusion in India-
https://theprint.in/opinion/why-more-smartphones-and-bank-accounts-havent-brought-financial-
digital-inclusion-in-india/327919/
62
ibid
factors present significant barriers to adoption of digital financial services by the masses,
especially the low-income segment. Given these challenges, ‘phygital’ distribution channel
that allows for human touch at the front-end to assist in conducting transactions and
establishing trust and building technology for the backend to allow for e icient delivery of
services at scale, will continue to remain a priority. While distribution channels will evolve
as customers evolve, the trust will remain a key issue, and the customer will use those
services that they trust the most. FSPs will thus have to think of ways in which they can
build trust among customers.
4.3.2 Innovation across Agent Network for Last Mile Service Delivery
Last mile service delivery using agent network has proved to be pivotal in expanding
access to finance in rural and remote areas. In India, the Business Correspondent (BC)
model plays a dominant role in facilitating financial transactions (most commonly de-
posit, withdrawal and fund transfer) and is a key distribution channel for the delivery of
financial products and services envisaged by the RBI for banks and NBFCs. Innovation
across this channel can be broadly categorized as technological innovation and systemic
innovation. In terms of technological innovation, the key focus has been on using bio-
metric device (along with e-PoS machine and smartphone devices) for the verification
and authentication of the last mile customer in order to process financial transactions or
deliver direct benefit transfers under various social welfare schemes. Additionally, there
has been an extensive focus on the digitization of records such as beneficiary list (in case
of welfare delivery) in order to increase transparency in the system. In terms of sys-
temic innovation, newer types of entities have been allowed to act as BCs such as
SHGs and Common Service Centres (CSCs) in addition to NBFCs, and other
individuals.63 Most recently, Payment Banks, apart from offering savings and payment
function, have been licensed by the RBI to offer simple term life insurance and
retirement product such as APY through their agent networks, thereby facilitating a
broader range of financial services to last mile consumers at convenient locations.
However, significant challenges exist in the BC model in the form of infrastructural,
operational, financial and regulatory concerns that require policy attention and innovation
to close these gaps.64 In order to strengthen the agent network, measures need to be
taken around making the BC model financially viable, increasing the accessibility to
agents among rural customers by expanding access points as well as including more BCs
in the network and finally identifying and managing risks posed by rural agents without
stopping innovation. In addition to this, priority must also be given to training last mile
agents in order to increase the skills and capabilities of front-end providers, as they have
a significant influence on consumer’s decision of taking up and using a given financial
product (Ananth & Shah, 2013). Research on the marketing of payment bank account
highlights that lack of knowledge about the product and its features among agents selling
these accounts led to a drastic drop of interest and take-up of this product among last
mile consumers (Sharma & Chatterjee, 2017).
63Individuals
include retired bank employees, retired teachers, retired government employees and
ex-servicemen and individual owners of kirana/medical/Fair Price shops, among others.
64Reachingthe Last Mile: Delivery of Social Protection in India - https://www.dvara.com/
blog/2020/01/21/reaching-the-last-mile-delivery-of-social-protection-in-india/
Another significant challenge in the delivery of financial products and services through
agent network is the misalignment of consumer’s and agent’s incentives, wherein the
incentive to sell one product significantly outweighs the others and the distributors are
more likely to push products that are lucrative to them, than products that may be
suitable for the consumers. This challenge has been witnessed across almost all products
sold through an agent. For example, the incentive structure for insurance products is such
that agents receive the highest pay-out for the first year (15% to 35% of premium), but
the incentive falls by 50 percentage for all subsequent years (7.5% of premium), leading to
a low persistency ratio and high lapsation rates (George et al., 2020). There is, therefore,
a need to innovate across incentive guidelines set by financial service providers such that
both customer’s and agent’s interest are taken care of.
Overall, there is an urgent need to innovate around developing an agent focused strategy
focusing on the following questions:
• What are the services that agents should provide? Should it be restricted to cash-in-
cash-out services as compared to the current set of services they offer?
• How can agent’s incentive structure be managed such that they work in consumer’s
best interest while at the same time earn substantial revenue from their services?
• What should the agent’s role be in providing financial advice to a low-income house-
hold? In a low- access environment, where financial products and services are not
available at one common point, could a centralized avenue for financial advice by
agents be valuable?
• How can agents be trained in order to improve their skills and capabilities to ensure
reliable and accurate delivery of services?
4.4 Regulatory Innovation

Household finance is the focus of regulatory attention as individuals have to make com-
plex financial decisions with bigger consequences, consumer capabilities and literacy is
often low in developing countries, technology is increasingly playing a key role in the de-
velopment of sophisticated products and households might have behavioural preferences
and biases that lead them to making sub-optimal decisions (Campbell, 2016).
A conducive regulatory environment is therefore important for protecting consumer’s in-
terest and promoting competition and innovation, at the same time. Regulators can play
a vital role in developing the financial sector by innovating across both hard and soft
infrastructure.65 Hard infrastructure includes the development of digital infrastructure,
systems and utilities such as payments and settlement systems and most recently regu-
latory sandbox. Such infrastructure reduces the transaction costs and levels the playing
field for new entrants in the market. For example, Unified Payment Interface (UPI)
has proved to be an extremely popular channel for making digital payments and has
enabled a whole range of players to enter the market, thereby fostering competition and
enhancing consumers’ choice and experience.
65CentralBanking and Innovation: Partners in the Quest for Financial Inclusion - https://
www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/PublicationsView.aspx?id=18949
The regulatory sandbox is another example of hard infrastructure that was recommended
first by the RBI Working Group in February 2018. A regulatory sandbox66 (RS) refers to
“live testing of new products or services in a controlled/test regulatory environment for
which regulators may (or may not) permit certain regulatory relaxations for the limited
purpose of the testing. The RS allows the regulator, the innovators, the financial service
providers (as potential deployers of the technology) and the customers (as final users) to
conduct field tests to collect evidence on the benefits and risks of new financial
innovations, while carefully monitoring and containing their risks. It can provide a
structured avenue for the regulator to engage with the ecosystem and to develop
innovation-enabling or innovation-responsive regulations that facilitate the delivery
of relevant, low-cost financial products”.
Soft infrastructure on the other hand, includes regulations, standards or programmes
that guide the provision of financial services and mitigate potential risks posed due to
mis-sale of products or risks from use of technological innovation in financial services-
such as risks arising from the collection and use of consumer data, fraud and money
laundering.67 Below we list potential areas of innovation across the soft infrastructure.
Supporting innovation across there parameters can help regulators meet their twin ob-
jective of promoting competition and protecting consumers interest.
4.4.1 Moving away from product specific prescriptions

The prescriptive approach to regulation requires financial service providers to ‘stick to the
script’ leaving little room for creativity and innovation. Often, we observe that regulations
pertaining to financial service providers catering to low-income households are prescribed
a very strict set of rules and regulations. Regulatory guidelines issued to the microfinance
sector is a classic example. Most recently, RBI increased the indebtedness limits of NBFC-
MFI borrowers (with an annual income of Rs. 1.25 lakhs) to 1.25 lakhs or less.68 This
has raised questions around the risk of over-indebtedness with serious implications for
customer protection. The prescriptive nature of these limits also raises serious concerns
around ‘lending to limit’ behaviour, which suggests that as long as lenders adhere to these
limits, there is no liability on lenders to protect borrowers from over-indebtedness.
Similarly, the prescriptions on margin caps69 for the microfinance sector are said to
be reducing the competitive edge of microfinance institutions in comparison to Small
Finance Banks and other Commercial Banks who are able to raise funds at a lower cost,
because of their ability to garner deposit from their customers. While interest rate caps
on microfinance sector are placed to protect consumer’s interest, regulatory authorities
need to be weary of the implications it could have on market competition, especially in the
current environment with newer types of players and financial intermediaries emerging in
the market.
66DraftEnabling Framework for Regulatory Sandbox - https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/

PublicationReportDetails.aspx?UrlPage=&ID=920
67ibid
68RBI increases lending limit of MFIs to Rs 1.25 lakh from Rs 1 lakh - https://www.business-
standard.com/article/pti-stories/rbi-increases-lending-limit-of-mfis-to-rs-1-25-
lakh-119100400585_1.html
69Microlenderswant 2010 crisis-era rate caps eased- https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/
microlenders-want-2010-crisis-era-rate-caps-eased
Example on product specific regulation can also be found in the case of

microinsurance with prescriptions on coverage amount-insurance policies of up to
Rs.100,000 sum assured for personal accident insurance, asset insurance and individual
health insurance contracts, and up to Rs.250,000 for family/group health insurance
contracts. These products cannot have access to long term capital gains as they can take
the form of an endowment product and not a ULIP product. “These prescriptive product-
specific regulations inadvertently restricts freedoms of insurers and distributors to
innovate in deciding how they want to serve the under-served or low-income
customers, even if these regulations were meant to limit exposure of customers to
a specific product type in order to ‘protect’ them” (George et al., 2020).
Given these examples, the regulator can reconsider/ease the prescriptive approach by
leaving room for flexibility in guidelines across products. While the protection of low-
income households should undoubtedly be at the heart of their mandate, the key question
that begs answering is, how can the two objectives of customer protection and innovation
work best. Can technology play a role in ensuring reliable data collection and monitoring
for better assessment of customers’ needs and requirements? This is something that the
regulators could explore and test.
4.4.2 Easing Priority Sector Lending Norms

RBI mandates commercial banks including foreign banks, to lend 40 percentage of their
adjusted net bank credit to the priority sector including specific sectoral targets under dif-
ferent categories. Priority sector includes categories such as agriculture, micro small and
medium enterprise, export credit, education, housing and advances to weaker sections.70
While the intention behind this regulation is to spur inclusive growth and advance credit
to underserved populations and sectors, sector experts and bankers have highlighted chal-
lenges pertaining to rigid specifications across sub-sectors, thereby, distorting allocative
efficiencies.71 RBI’s Trend and Progress of Banking in India reveals that banks have
been continuously under-performing on their priority sector lending (PSL) target. Latest
data from RBI highlights that while public sector banks met the agricultural sector tar-
get of 18 percentage, private and foreign banks failed to do so. Bankers have highlighted
lack of adequate knowledge and understanding of customers’ needs and profile in rural
and remote areas, reluctancy to lend to the agriculture sector due to weather related
uncertainties and frequent loan waivers announced by the Government, prevalence of
un-organised operations and lack of formal accounting in the MSME sector, as some of
the challenges pertaining to priority sector lending. Rigid regulatory specifications
such as PSL norms often turn these targets into a matter of compliance for the banks with
little to no focus on the bank’s competitive advantage. In this context, RBI can consider
making priority sector norms more flexible such that public, private and foreign banks
can lend to sectors that they know and understand best and consider easing restrictions
around sub-sectoral targets. The regulator could also design incentive structures for
banks that meet the desired targets rather than mandate blanket norms across the
banking sector.
70Priority Sector Lending - Targets and Classification- https://m.rbi.org.in/Scripts/FAQView.aspx?

Id=87
71Time
to do away with priority lending norms- https://www.livemint.com/Opinion/
QwGGfDgozR6COUYFyW3PTP/Time-to-do-away-with-priority-lending-norms.html
4.4.3 Advocating for ‘Suitability’ in delivery of financial services

Suitability guidelines issued by various regulators ensure that the onus of selling suitable
products that match consumers’ needs, financial capacity, risk capacity and appetite,
lies squarely on the financial service provider. Regulators such as PFRDA, IRDA and
SEBI have integrated suitability guidelines across sales of financial products and services.
PFRDA in its draft regulations in 2016, incorporated the principle of suitability for
retirement advisors. Similarly, IRDA in its circular dated September 2019, has specified
new rules on suitability for life insurers that is applicable to all intermediaries and for
all products other than pure risk and pure health products.72 Despite these strides,
the sector is yet to see a real change in the culture/manner in which financial service
providers operate, leading to substantial instances of mis-selling, as customers are still
expected to be aware of the risks and costs associated with the product.
Given these challenges, innovations around implementing suitability principles into the
day to day functioning of financial service providers becomes imperative. It is recom-
mended that “universal conduct obligations applied uniformly across all regulated
entities should be adopted. As part of their obligations, all providers must ensure that
customers have access to good quality, non-obfuscatory disclosures of product features.
Financial service providers must jointly agree upon a set of suitability principles that
govern the relevant financial functions such as ‘investment’, ‘risk protection’ and
‘retirement income’ that the products under question must abide by and that regulators
have to mandate the need for completing suitability assessments for all products and
services sold. Finally, in order to prevent low-income households from entering into
contracts of globally unsuitable products, the regulator could specify a set of globally
unsuitable products that cannot be offered to households or businesses below a certain
income threshold or net worth or individuals above a certain age”(George et al., 2020).
72IRDA moves to make sale of life covers transparent - htttps://www.livemint.com/insurance/news/

irdai-moves-to-make-sale-of-life-covers-transparent-11570356186050.html
5. Conclusion
Household finance research is an emerging economic field. The phrase ‘Household Fi-
nance’ was brought to prominence by John Campbell in 2006, and the field he envisioned
has been growing ever since. India offers a unique perspective to the field, offering a vastly
different set of issues and circumstances than those seen in the advanced countries that
formed the foundation of research in household finance. These households from advanced
countries interacted with and were a part of highly formalised economies, allowing for
them to be studied in greater detail, as well as to be much more similar in terms of the
contexts they faced. Developing countries are heterogeneous with their contexts vary-
ing widely based on location, political situations, cultural factors, and depth of financial
coverage. India ticks many of these boxes as a developing country, with a large number
of low-income households. These low-income households prefer to invest in real estate
and gold, regard human capital as their biggest strength, and employ social networks and
informal sources of finance to a great extent. They also over-rely on credit to an extent
where it comes to be treated almost like an additional income source.
These households, therefore, need to be studied from the perspective of the contexts they
operate in. To study these households, it is imperative to understand the households,
their behaviour and decisions taken towards financial systems, the characteristics of the
financial systems, and what aspects of their circumstances drive household behaviour
the most. This understanding will only come with more granular and frequent data of
households. There are steps being taken towards ensuring that it is possible to paint
a much clearer picture of the Indian LIH today than what was possible ten years ago.
Given the current understanding of Indian households, financial providers and regulators
are taking steps towards improving the financial plight of low-income households. At the
highest level, regulators and policymakers are working towards ensuring the infrastructure
is in place for a dynamic financial system to exist. Financial providers are using this
infrastructure to innovate both in terms of the products they offer, as well as the way in
which they are being offered. The move towards digitizing finance has pushed innovation
on both fronts, with finance being more accessible than ever before, and the menu of
products catering to customers with a greater level of customisation. However, there
is still a sizeable gap in understanding the motivations of households – why they take
certain financial decisions, and how they rationalise them, over what may or may not be
theorised to be better for them. This will lead to another jump in the way finance is
theorised and operationalised for nations with greater heterogeneity and will ultimately
lead to greater financial suitability for low-income households in India.
References
1. Agarwal, S., Chomsisengphet, S., & Lim, C. (2017). What Shapes Consumer Choice
and Financial Products? - A Review. Georgetown McDonough School of Business
Research Paper No. 2875886.
2. Alan, S. (2006). Entry Costs and Stock Market Participation over the Life Cycle.
Review of Economic Dynamics, 588-611.
3. Ananth, B., Karlan, D., & Mullainathan, S. (2007). Microentrepreneurs and their
money: Three anomalies. Working paper.
4. Ananth, B., & Shah, A. (2013). Financial Engineering for Low-Income Households.
SAGE Publications.
5. Arrow, K. J., & Debreu, G. (1954). Existence of an Equilibrium for a Competitive
Economy. Econometrica, 22(3), 265-290.
6. Badarinza, C., Balasubramaniam, V., & Ramadorai, T. (2016). The Indian House-
hold Finance Landscape. SSRN.
7. Badarinza, C., Balasubramaniam, V., & Ramadorai, T. (2019). The Household
Finance Landscape in Emerging Economies. SSRN.
8. Badarinza, C., Campbell, J. Y., & Ramadorai, T. (2016). International Compara-
tive Household Finance. NBER Working Paper 22066.
9. Banerjee, A., Duflo, E., & Hornbeck, R. (2014). Bundling Health Insurance and
Microfinance in India: There Cannot Be Adverse Selection If There Is No Demand.
American Economic Review, 291-97.
10. Barboni, G., & Agarwal, P. (2017). Knowing what’s good for you:Can a repayment
flexibility option in microfinance contracts improve repayment rates and business
outcomes?
11. Beshears, J., Choi, J. J., Laibson, D., & Madrian, B. C. (2018). Behavioral House-
hold Finance. NBER Working Paper 24854.
12. Campbell, J. Y. (2006). Household Finance, Presidential Address to the American
Finance Association . Journal of Finance, 1553-1604.
13. Campbell, J. Y. (2016). Restoring Rational Choice: The Challenge of Consumer
Financial Regulation. American Economic Review, 106(5):1-30, 106(5), 1-30.
14. Campbell, J. Y., Ranish, B., & Ramadorai, T. (2018). Do the Rich Get Richer in
the Stock Market? Evidence from India. American Economic Review: Insights.
15. Cole, S., Giné, X., Tobacman, J., Topalova, P., Townsend, R., & Vickery, J. (2013).
Barriers to Household Risk Management: Evidence from India. American Economic
Journal: Applied Economics, 104-135.
16. Collins, D., Morduch, J., Rutherford, S., & Ruthven, O. (2009). Portfolios of the
Poor: How the World’s Poor Live on $2 a Day. Permanent Black.
17. Czura, K. (2015). Pay, peek, punish? Repayment, information acquisition and
punishment in a microcredit lab-in-the-field experiment. Journal of Development
Economics, 119-133.
18. Demirg’́uç-Kunt, A., Klapper, L., Singer, D., Ansar, S., & Hess, J. (2017). The
Global Findex Database: Measuring Financial Inclusion and the Fintech Revolution.
World Bank Group.
19. Duflo, E., Banerjee, A., Glennerster, R., & Kinnan, C. G. (2013). The Miracle
of Microfinance? Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation. American Economic
Journal: Applied Economics, 22-53.
20. Field, E., & Pande, R. (2008). Repayment Frequency and Default in Microfinance:
Evidence from India. Journal of the European Economic Association, 501-509.
21. Gaurav, S., Cole, S., & Tobacman, J. (2011). Marketing Complex Financial Prod-
ucts in Emerging Markets: Evidence from Rainfall Insurance in India. Journal of
Marketing Research, 48, S150-S162.
22. George, D. (2019). Universal Conduct Obligations for Financial Services Provider
Serving Retail Customers. Notes on the Indian Financial System.
23. George, D., Prasad, S. G., Bhattacharya, D., Srinivas, M., & Neelam, A. (2020). A
Strategy for Comprehensive Financial Inclusion. Dvara Research.
24. Grammling, M. (2009). Cross-Borrowing and Over-Indebtedness in Ghana: Em-
pirical Evidence from Microfinance Clientele and Small Enterprises. Frankfurt:
Procredit Holding.
25. Guerin, I. (2014). Juggling with Debt, Social Ties, and Values: The Everyday Use
of Microcredit in Rural South India. Current Anthropology, S40-S50.
26. Guerin, I., D’Espallier, B., & G., V. (2015). The Social Regulation of Marketsl:
Why Microcredit Fails to Promote Jobs in Rural South India. Development and
Change, 46(6).
27. Guerin, I., Kumar, S., & Agier, I. (2010). Microfinance and Women’s Empower-
ment: Do Relationships Between Women Matter? Lessons from rural Southern
India. Working Papers Centre Emile Bernheim.
28. Guerin, I., Morvant-Roux, S., & Villarreal, M. (2013). Microfinance, Debt and
Over-Indebtedness. Routledge.
29. Guiso, L., & Sodini, P. (2013). Household Finance: An Emerging Field. In Hand-
book of the Economics of Finance (pp. 1397-1532). Elsevier.
30. Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2008). Trusting the Stock Market. Journal
of Finance, 63, 2557-2600.
31. Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2009). Cultural Biases in Economic Ex-
change? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124, 1095-1131.
32. Hastings, J. S., Madrian, B. C., & Skimmyhorn, W. L. (2013). Financial Literacy,
Financial Education, and Economic Outcomes. Annual Review of Economics, 5,
347-373.
33. Ibbotson, R. G., Milevsky, M. A., Chen, P., & Zhu, K. (2007). Lifetime financial
advice: human capital, asset allocation, and insurance.
34. Johny, J., Wichmann, B., & Swallow, B. M. (2017). Characterizing social networks
and their effects on income diversification in rural Kerala, India. World Develop-
ment, 94, 375-392.
35. Karlan, D., McConnell, M., Mullainathan, S., & Zinman, J. (2010). Getting to the
Top of Mind: How Reminders Increase Saving. NBER Working Paper No. 16205.
36. Karlan, D., Ratan, A. L., & Zinman, J. (2014). Savings by and for the Poor: A
Research Review and Agenda. The Review of Income and Wealth, 60(1), 36-78.
37. Karuppaiyan, V. (1997). Moi Virundhu: Communal Feast and Money Gifts. Indian
Anthropologist, 77-79.
38. Kumar, N., & Baby, I. (2016). Determining Optimal Credit Allocation at a District
Level. Dvara Research Working Paper Series No. WP-2016-01.
39. Mas, I. (2015). Money Resolutions, a Sketchbook. SSRN.
40. Merton, R. C. (1971). Optimum consumption and portfolio rules in a continuous-
time model. Journal of Economic Theory, 373-413.
41. Mobarak, A. M., & Rosenzweig, M. (2014). Risk, Insurance and Wages in General
Equilibrium. NBER Working Paper No. 19811.
42. Mowl, A. J., & Boudot, C. (2014). Barriers to Basic Banking: Results from an
Audit Study in South India. NSE Working Paper Series No. WP-2014-1.
43. Prathap, V., & Khaitan, R. (2016). When Is Microcredit Unsuitable? Guidelines
Using Primary Evidence from Low-Income Households in India. CGAP Working
Paper.
44. RBI CCFS. (2013). Committee on Comprehensive Financial Services for Small
Businesses and Low Income Households Report. Reserve Bank of India.
45. RBI Household Finance Committee. (2017). Indian Household Finance. Reserve
Bank of India.
46. Rural Finance Institutions Programme. (2015). Impact Assessment of the Mann
Deshi Mahila Bank Project. GIZ.
47. Sane, R. (2019). Stock market trading in the aftermath of an accounting scandal.
Emerging Markets Review, 40.
48. Sane, R., & Thomas, S. (2014). The way forward for India’s National Pension
System. IGIDR WP-2014-022.
49. Sane, R., & Thomas, S. (2015). In Search of Inclusion: Informal Sector Partic-
ipation in a Voluntary, Defined Contribution Pension System. The Journal of
Development Studies, 1409-1424.
50. Schicks, J. (2012). Over-Indebtedness in Microfinance - An Empirical Analysis of
Related Factors on the Borrower Level. Working Paper Centre Emile Bernheim.
51. Schumpeter, J. A. (1911). The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard Eco-
nomic Studies.
52. Sharma, M., & Chatterjee, S. (2017). Agents of Change: How the Human Touch
Is Bringing Digital Financial Services to New Customers in India. Center for
Financial Inclusion Accion.
53. Taylor, E. B., & Lynch, G. (2014). Global Consumer Finance: Sharing Knowledge
for Better Research . IMTFI.
54. Taylor, E. B., & Lynch, G. (2016). Consumer Finance Research Methods Toolkit.
Institute for Money, Technology&Financial Inclusion .
55. Tufano, P. (2009). Consumer Finance. Annual Review of Financial Economics,
227-247.
56. Vargha, Z. (2011). From long-term savings to instant mortgages: Financial demon-
stration and the role of interaction in markets. Organization, 215-235.

Household Finance in India Approaches and Challenges

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Household Finance in India Approaches and Challenges

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Household Finance in India Approaches and Challenges

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DVARA RESEARCH

Household Finance in India: Approaches

Vishwanath C, Monami Dasgupta, Misha Sharma1

Dvara Research Working Paper Series No. WP-2020-02

• Even among low-income households, there is wide heterogeneity based on household

1.2 Facets of low-income households in India

1.2.1 Low proportion of financial assets in household portfolio

1.2.3 Human capital as the principal asset

1.2.4 Difficulty in separating household and enterprise cash flows

1.2.5 Prevalence of persistent debt cycle

1.2.6 Persistence of informal lending relationship in the presence of formal

1.2.7 Access to high-return microenterprise opportunities

2. Themes of Household Finance Research

fulfil their requirements. Despite having access to financial instruments, it is diﬀicult

2.1 The ‘what’ and the ‘who’ of household f nance research

radically different means of education or through intermediaries whose mandate it is to

2.1.1 A discussion on research methodologies and datasets

2.2 The ‘why’ of household finance research

2.2.1 A discussion on research methodologies and datasets

3. State of Household Finance in India25

3.2 Participation and Allocation in Financial Products and Ser-

percentage of households have loans outstanding from unsecured sources of debt31.

3.3 Factors Affecting Household Decision Making

Asset: Participation and Allocation by Age and Wealth Quintle

Liabilities: Participation and Allocation by Age and Wealth Quintiles

3.3.2 Behavioural Preferences and Biases of Households

3.3.3 Uneven penetration of formal financial services across Indian

3.3.4 Market Limitations

Lack of Customised Savings and Investment Products

3.3.5 Regulatory gaps

4. Priorities for Innovation in Financial Services for

4.2 Product Innovation

4.2.1 Unique and Novel Products

4.2.2 Bundling of Products

4.2.3 Product Design based on Customer Profile

4.2.4 Flexibility in Product Design

4.3 Process Innovation

4.3.1 Technological Innovation in Delivering Financial Services

57Helping the poor to save- https://www.ideasforindia.in/topics/money-finance/helping-the-poor-to-

Table 1: Examples of the use of innovative technology in the delivery of

60Primeron Designing Optimal Regulation-https://www.dvara.com/research/conference2019/wp-

4.4 Regulatory Innovation

4.4.1 Moving away from product specific prescriptions

66DraftEnabling Framework for Regulatory Sandbox - https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/

Example on product specific regulation can also be found in the case of

4.4.2 Easing Priority Sector Lending Norms

70Priority Sector Lending - Targets and Classification- https://m.rbi.org.in/Scripts/FAQView.aspx?

4.4.3 Advocating for ‘Suitability’ in delivery of financial services

72IRDA moves to make sale of life covers transparent - htttps://www.livemint.com/insurance/news/

You might also like