Opinion Big bank theory

I once addressed a TiE (an entrepreneur’s network) event in Mumbai,attended by young,well-educated women entrepreneurs.They were in all kinds of businesses: a chain of creches,special software for people with disabilities,a logistics and supply chain business,a computer graphics and animation BPO,garment exports. I was a bit surprised that they wanted a special women’s sub group within TiE. I understood the need for a “village well” where the strategies of managing social and family constraints,and of dealing with the gender biases of customers and suppliers,could be shared. But the need for separate women-only sessions on finance,marketing and HR? Weren’t those subjects gender neutral? One of them explained that women,especially those from more conservative families,generally had less social and family exposure to business discussions. Also,their questions stemmed from a specific set of goals and constraints. They were hesitant to ask them in a male majority group. Even if such questions were asked,they were not adequately discussed.

Then followed a study with women micro entrepreneurs at the grassroot level. We found that women from lower income groups were far more driven than those from middle and upper income groups. To the former,a successful business,be it selling vegetables,tailoring or small item manufacture,meant that her children could be provided with the means for a better life. Women from lower income groups were hungry for knowledge,they were eager to learn how to go up the value chain. But they were afraid of taking loans and not being able to pay them back. They did not want their husbands to know too much about their finances but they were happy to have them play a role in the business. In some cases,such women were the managers and drivers of their husbands’ businesses. Another interesting segment was the middle class,“stay at home” woman,who chose not to or was not permitted to work outside,but who wanted to run a business from her home. One lady was told by her husband that she could not have a business that involved meeting men from her peer group and she could not leave the house. So she started a customised semi-precious jewellery business. Many of these women did not know how to deal with the financial services system but had good business instincts.

Women’s inclusion demands the same things as financial inclusion and micro finance — a financial services provider who is not intimidating,a mentor to help set goals as well as to create and monitor doable financial plans. Women are often held back by their families. They just need enough knowledge,confidence and the assurance of entitlement to be able to go and demand of the system what is rightfully theirs.

Instead of trying to determine how a women-only bank can be made profitable,let us rephrase the problem. The challenge is to fashion the new entity into an innovative development agency that can influence,incentivise,evangelise and energise the entire banking system,which could be made to work better for women,especially women of modest means. All 80,000-plus bank branches should aim to play this role. The bank must mount a big-bang,action-oriented awareness programme,on the lines of solid,sensible government communication projects,which enables women to assert themselves and to demand services from banks. A majority of Indian women will respond to such an endeavour. Let us begin with the 60 per cent of women who can run with the idea rather than reject the plan because it might not work for the remaining 40 per cent. The demonstration effect is bound to influence the rest. Can’t the new “WISE Co” (Women Included and Served Effectively Company) have a business design based on alliances with existing banks? It could ask for counter space in existing branches,while deploying its own women staff. Such an arrangement would help it grow more rapidly than it would as a standalone bank.

Let us change some of the dominant logic used to approach this issue. Banks are not gender biased per se. They have women at all levels of their workforce. They just do not have a focus on women. Many do not know how many women borrowers they have,just as they may not know how many OBC borrowers they have. Most biases run along the rich-poor faultlines. Many of the government schemes for lending to women are utilised by men using their wives as a front. But a poor man using his wife as a front will still be treated differently from a rich man using his wife as a front,so it boils down to a bias along the rich-poor divide.

Supporters of the idea of a women’s bank say that despite all efforts,women have not been included by the existing banking system,so the only solution is a women’s bank. Taking this logic further,why are we not advocating such a measure to address financial inclusion as well,given the weak performance of the banking sector on that count? Women’s inclusion is mostly a subset of financial inclusion.

It is time we thought more deeply when designing solutions,and stopped being patronising towards women. Telling women they could have their very own bank is like saying they could have their very own parliament,since the current Parliament has not been able to accommodate them.

The writer is a market strategy consultant

express@expressindia.com