Pallavi Singh (Padma-Uday)

2024 Providence, Rhode Island

Abstract: Joint stock banks, a foreign institutional import to India, were dominated by Europeans in nineteenth century. From centuries earlier, Indian business communities – caste, religion, and occupation-based networks – had developed indigenous banking. In the historical evolution of indigenous banking, Indian business communities served as an economic resource, supplying capital, information, and contract enforcement to mitigate principal-agent problems. In twentieth century, India transitioned from a colonial to an industrial economy and subsequently, a post-colonial economy. Indian entrepreneurs, influenced by ‘do good for the country’ objective of swadeshi (economic nationalism), competed with European entrepreneurs to invest in capital-intensive industries. The competition for industrial finance and control of industries spurred the demand for joint stock banks. This raises important questions about the ownership and management of joint stock banks and the wider role of community in shaping economic outcomes through the running of such key institutions. Who owned joint-stock banks in twentieth century, and did they remain a European preserve? Business historians have argued that formalisation of business in twentieth century weakened community as an economic resource. What role did informal institution of community play within formalised Indian joint stock banks? This paper presents the first comprehensive set of quantitative estimates for the presence of directors by community and nationality in Indian joint stock banks from 1920 to 1969. Extracting board level data for listed joint stock banks from Investor’s India Year Book, combined with analytic narratives, this paper shows that business communities pervaded Indian joint stock bank boards from the very beginning of the period and outnumbered foreign directors by 1950s. Contrary to prevailing assumptions about community’s role in the twentieth century, the paper also shows that community acted as an economic resource for development of joint stock banks. Over the long run, bank boards transitioned from one community dominance to multi-community presence.

2025 Atlanta, Georgia

Abstract: In the first half of twentieth century, the ethnicity of the ownership of both new and old industries in India became a source of contention to contemporary policy makers and entrepreneurs. Foreign owners had dominated Indian industry in the nineteenth century, occasionally in partnership with Indian entrepreneurs. Some Indian entrepreneurs, often with mercantile origins, used trading profits to invest in modern industry. As questions of Indian nationalism and political independence emerged, calls for exit of British economic interests encouraged Indian-led industrial investment. Post-independence in 1947, Indian government promoted efforts to ‘Indianize’ the economy. These led to a transfer of corporate control in the twentieth century. Deemed as a dramatic change in the composition of industrial entrepreneurship of India, the timing and extent of this transfer is debated. Several propositions about the development and control of Indian industry hinge on periods of transfer of corporate control, and the ethnicity of entrepreneurs. Within these debates, the role of community has been identified as potentially key to explaining these transitions. Historically, community served as a key economic institution in India in the absence of developed markets and state support to economic activity. This paper focusses on this under-studied area of research by presenting quantitative estimates for ownership of modern industry by nationalities and communities of board directors, trends in the transfer of corporate power across industries, key periods for Indianisation of joint stock firms, and key differences in community’s response to corporate ownership during the period. It also unveils industries that were dominated by community networks right from the 1920s, as against the assumption that development of Indian corporate economy was solely a product of European entrepreneurship. The paper lends to a reassessment of India’s industrialisation debates and opens questions on the role of community in enabling the development of modern Indian industry.

2026 London

Abstract: This paper re-examines the relationship between informal institutions and the corporate economy in twentieth-century India by analysing how business communities persisted and evolved within the listed joint stock firms. While scholarship in Indian business history has highlighted the significance of caste- and kinship-based networks in precolonial and colonial commerce, little systematic evidence exists on their continued relevance within modern industrial and corporate structures. Drawing on a new dataset compiled from historical business registers (1920s–1970s), this study traces the presence and evolution of business communities across industries and over time by identifying the presence of board directors by their community affiliations. The evidence complicates existing accounts and shows that community-based networks remained visible within corporate governance throughout the twentieth century. Traditional business communities sustained or expanded their positions within major industries, often reflecting long-standing patterns of specialisation. While certain communities were prominent, their evolution over time shows a divergence with the stagnation or fall of older communities, even as newer communities emerge. Rather than a transition from bazaar-based commerce to impersonal corporate capitalism, the evidence points to an overlapping institutional landscape in which community and corporate forms coexisted and interacted. The paper situates these findings within wider theoretical debates, drawing on insights from Douglass North and Avner Greif on the persistence of informal institutions in shaping economic organisation. It suggests that India’s corporate economy evolved through the adaptation—not disappearance—of such institutions. By revealing how business communities continued to shape ownership and control, the study raises broader questions about how modern economies may accommodate traditional institutional forms, offering a comparative perspective on the plural and socially embedded paths to modern capitalism.