This document provides details about a pre-submission seminar for a doctoral thesis titled "Institutional Financial Support to the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises in Assam- An Analytical Study". The seminar will be presented by research scholar Pranjeet Das and supervised by Dr. F. B. Singh. The objectives, hypotheses, significance and research methodology of the study are outlined. Key findings from the study include that 71.3% of sample entrepreneurs are male, 53% are aged 31-44, and 69.2% do not have a business background. 62.6% of enterprises avail finance from non-institutional sources, with micro enterprises more likely to use non-institutional sources.

1. Pre-Submission Seminar
on
“Institutional Financial Support to the
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises in Assam- An Analytical Study”
for the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Commerce
Supervised By Presented By
Dr. F. B. Singh Pranjeet Das
Professor Research Scholar
Faculty of Commerce
Banaras Hindu University
Varanasi-221005
Enrollment No.323847 Registration No. Com./Sept 2015/RET (Exempt)-16
Term: September 2015 Date : 04/03/2021

2. Introduction
The major advantage of MSME sector is its employment potential at low capital cost.
MSME sector is a vital pillar of the Indian economy as it contributes significantly to
the growth of the Indian economy
 Massive network of about 633.88 lakh units
 Generating about 1109.89 lakh jobs
 Producing more than 6,000 items
 Contribution around 45% to the Manufacturing output
 Around 40 percent of exports
 Accounts for 28.77% of the GDP
Institutional financial support
 At initial stage
 For day to day management
 For expansion and diversification
Reluctance on the part of financial institutions to grant credit facilities

3. MSMEs in Context of Assam
*MSMEs in Assam
• 61.48 per cent of MSMEs units.
• 18th rank in India.
• Employed over 6.59 lakh persons.
*Growth of MSMEs in the state is low compare to the nation’s growth rate during the
period 2008-09 to 2017-18.
*State's industrial sector’s concentration
• Tea
• Oil
• Coal
• Jute
• Forest and Mineral based Products
• Micro household industries such as handloom and handicraft.
*Yet Assam is still well behind in industrial development even after seven decades of
independence than many other states of India.

4. Determinant of Institutional Financial support
FIRM lEVEL DETERMINANTs
(Firm Location, Size, Age, Type Of
Ownership, Nature, Disclosure Of Business
Information, Education And Experience
Level of Owners', Ability To Provide
Collateral)
Institutional level Determinants
Documentation, Collateral, Quantum of Loan,
Disclosure of Business Information, Interest
rate, Accruing Cost, Business Plan, Processing
Time of Loan
Msmes’ Access to Institutional
Financial Support

5. Research Problem
The large proportion around 88.79 percent of the registered SSIs has
funded their businesses through self finance and non-institutional sources.
In Assam, 4209 units are non-traceable means they collapse in the early
years of their inception.
88.79
11.21
self finance and finance through non-institutional
sources
Finance throgh institutional sources
percentage

6. Research Gap
In Assam few research work have been done in respect of different aspects
of institutional credit to MSMEs at district and state level.
Besides, variables of conducive business element like Green business
practices, GST and Going cash less were missed in the earlier studies. This
has been outlined as a research gap.
.

7. Objectives of the Study
1. To study the key socio- economic and demographic profile of the sample
entrepreneurs selected for the study.
2. To identify the various sources of finance available to the MSMEs in the
central Assam division.
3. To study the relationship between the characteristics of micro small and
medium enterprises and access to institutional finance in the central Assam
division.
4. To find out the challenges faced by the MSMEs in central Assam division
regarding availing institutional finance.
5. To examine the effectiveness of institutional finance for MSMEs in the central
Assam division.
6. To make suggestion towards strengthening institutional financial support for
the promotion and sustenance of the micro, small and medium enterprises in
the central Assam division.

8. Hypotheses of the Study
H01: There is no significant difference in availing finance from institutional
and non-institutional sources in MSMEs in central Assam Division.
H02: There is no significant relationship between access to institutional
finance and characteristics of MSMEs.
H03: There is no significant difference in problems faced in availing
institutional finance in micro and small/medium enterprises.
H04: There is no significant difference among the respondents regarding the
reasons to choose the institutional and non-institutional sources for financing.
H05: There is no significant difference in the opinion of the respondents
towards effectiveness of the institutional finance in micro and small/medium
enterprises.
H06: The opinion level of entrepreneurs about effectiveness of the
institutional finance is high.

9. Significance of the Study
In India, there has been ample research in this field, but research specific to
Assam state is few.
Demonstrate the real picture of institutional financing aspects of enterprises
in the context of central Assam division.
Valuable to all concerns particularly FIs and policy makers to identify
pitfalls and drawbacks and thereby to frame financing strategies.
Helps to understand the factors that affects MSME’s ability to avail funds
from institutional sources.
Enhance compliance with the institutional norms and sustainable
development.

10. Research Design
Scope of the Study
The research has been conducted out at the central Assam division. In the
conduction of research adequate steps have been taken to include the
Registered MSMEs from all the districts of the division so as to make the
result holistic.
In consideration to the time and resource constraints, this research was
carried out on 334 registered MSMEs located in the central Assam division.
Therefore only the chosen area is limited to all of the interpretation and
results of this study.

11. Period of Study
The period of the study extends from the 2008-09 to 2017-18.
Sample Size
The sample size was determined by using the Taro Yamane
sample size determination formula
n =
𝑵
𝟏+𝑵(𝑳)𝟐 ………………………………………..
Where, n is the sample size, N is the population size and L is the
acceptable sampling error (0.05 or 95% level of confidence level.)
n=
2008
1+2008 (0.05)2
which results to n = 334. Therefore 334 sample size has been
decided for the study.

12. Instrument Design
Types of Instrument:
The structured close ended questionnaire is used.
Scaling Techniques:
Nominal, Ordinal scaling and 5- point Likert scale.
Reliability:
A Cronbach's alpha coefficient reliability of 0.70 or higher indicates that the
instrument used is reliable (Cronbach & Richard, 2004).
Cronbach’s Alpha No. of Items
82.7 68
Reliability Statistics

13. Collection of Data
The Primary data collection
The Secondary data collection
Analysis of Data
Percentage, Mean, Standard Deviation, t-test, Chi-square test,
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), Binary Logistic Regression,
Correlation Coefficient.
Graphical representation of data is made using statistical
methods like Graphs and Diagrams.

14. Plan of the Study
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Objective, Scope and Research Methodology
Chapter 3 Review of Literature
Chapter 4 Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises in Assam: An Overview
Chapter 5 National Financial Institutions and MSMEs in Assam
Chapter 6 Regional Financial Institutions and MSMEs in Assam
Chapter 7 State Financial Institutions and MSMEs in Assam
Chapter 8 Institutional Finance to the MSMEs in Central Assam Division
Chapter 9 Summary of Findings, Suggestions and Conclusion

15. Limitations of the Study
All findings are based on the information provided by the entrepreneurs-
• Subject to the potential bias of people
• Prejudice of the people involved.
The analysis suffers from non-sampling error.
Geographical constraint
• This study is based on 334 MSMEs located in the central Assam
division only.
• Findings of the study may not be generalized for the whole country.
Primarily focus of the study is on demand side analysis only.
The study is confined to the registered MSMEs only.

16. Findings
Key Socio- Economic and Demographic Profile of the Sample Entrepreneurs
Variables Classification Number Percentage
Gender
Male 238 71.3
Female 96 28.7
Age
≤30 81 24.2
31-44 177 53.0
45 & above 76 22.8
Marital Status
Married 260 77.8
Unmarried 70 21.0
Widow/ Widower 04 1.2
Qualification
Illiterate 02 0.6
Primary 09 2.7
Middle 53 15.9
High school 123 36.7
Intermediate 72 21.6
U.G. 54 16.2
P.G 21 6.3
Native Place
Rural 222 66.5
Urban/ Semi-urban 112 33.5
Family type
Nuclear 228 68.3
Joint 106 31.7
Religion
Hindu 244 73.1
Muslim 82 24.5
Others 08 2.4
Business Background
Yes 103 30.8
No 231 69.2
Income
≤10,000 160 47.9
10,001-20,000 79 23.7
20,001-30,000 43 12.8
30,001-40,000 36 10.8
40,000 and Above 16 4.8

17. Respondents Response Regarding Availing Finance for their Respective Enterprises
Sources in Case of Availing Institutional Finance
Sources of
Finance
Type of Enterprise
Micro Small Medium Total
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Institutional 88 30.0 33 89.2 4 100.0 125 37.4
Non-Institutional 205 70.0 4 10.8 0 0.0 209 62.6
Total 293 100.0 37 100.0 4 100.0 334 100.0
Source of Formal Finance Yes No Total
No. % No. % No. %
Micro Financial institutions 44 35.2 81 64.8 125 100.0
Regional Rural Banks 57 45.6 68 54.4 125 100.0
Private Banks 16 12.8 109 87.2 125 100.0
Public Banks 63 50.4 62 51.6 125 100.0
Loan & advances from FIs other than
Banks
33 26.4 92 73.6 125 100.0

18. Source of Finance Type of Enterprise
Micro (88) Small (33) Medium(4) Total df = 1
No. % No. % No. % No. % X² P
MFIs 43 48.9 1 3.0 0 0.0 44 35.2 24.33 <0.001
RRBs 41 46.6 16 48.5 0 0.0 57 45.6 3.67 >0.05
Private Banks 7 8.0 8 24.2 1 25.0 16 12.8 6.25 <0.05
Public Banks 33 37.5 26 78.8 4 100.0 63 50.4 15.13 <0.001
FIs other than Banks 10 11.4 19 57.6 4 100.0 33 26.4 20.74 <0.001
Source of Financing According to the Type of Enterprise

19. Source of Finance Nature of the Entrepreneurial Activity
Service Manufacturing Total df = 1
No. % No. % No. % X² P
MFIs 16 45.7 28 31.1 44 35.2 2.36 >0.05
RRBs 15 42.9 42 46.7 57 45.6 0.15 >0.05
Private Banks 3 8.6 13 14.4 16 12.8 0.78 >0.05
Public Banks 15 42.8 48 53.3 63 50.4 1.14 >0.05
FIs other than Banks 6 17.1 27 30.0 33 26.4 2.58 >0.05
Source of Financing According to the Nature of Activities
Source of Financing on the Basis of the Location of the Enterprise
Source of Finance Location of the Enterprise
Urban/ Semi-urban Rural Total df = 1
No. % No. % No. % X² P
MFIs 19 27.1 25 45.5 44 35.2 4.18 <0.05
RRBs 33 47.1 24 43.6 57 45.6 1.42 >0.05
Private Banks 13 18.6 3 5.5 16 12.8 5.36 <0.05
Public Banks 41 58.6 22 40.0 63 50.4 6.31 <0.05
FIs other than Banks 25 35.7 8 14.5 33 26.4 8.64 <0.01

20. Source of Finance in Case of not Availing Institutional Finance
Sources of Non-Institutional Finance No Percentage
Personal Saving + Selling of Property 38 18.2
Personal Saving+ Family+ Friends+ Relatives 72 34.4
Personal Saving + Money Lenders 45 21.5
Personal Saving + Community Rotating Saving 30 14.4
All the above 24 11.5
Total 209 100.0
Test Value df P Value Decision
Chi-square test Statistic 55.67 1 < 0.001 Reject
Result of Test Statistics

21. Cross Tabulation: Institutional Financing by Characteristics of MSMEs.
Characteristics
Classification
Availing Institutional Finance
Size
Yes No Total
No. % No. % No. %
Micro 88 30.0 205 70.0 293 100.0
Small 33 89.2 4 10.8 37 100.0
Medium 4 100.0 0 0.0 4 100.0
Location
Urban/Semi-urban 70 39.1 107 60.9 179 100.0
Rural 55 35.5 100 64.5 155 100.0
Family Business Background
Yes 47 45.6 56 54.4 103 100.0
No 78 33.8 153 66.2 231 100.0
Nature
Service 35 28.9 86 71.1 121 100.0
Manufacturing 90 42.3 123 57.7 213 100.0
Age
≤ 2 Years 31 33.7 61 66.3 92 100.0
2 – 4 Years 28 32.2 59 76.8 87 100.0
4 – 6 Years 29 36.7 50 63.3 79 100.0
6 - 8 Years 40 36.8 24 63.2 38 100.0
8 Years & Above 23 60.5 15 39.5 38 100.0
Type of Ownership
Sole Proprietorship 77 31.9 164 68.1 241 100.0
Partnership 12 29.3 29 70.8 41 100.0
Private Ltd. 16 88.9 2 11.1 18 100.0
Co-operative Society 11 78.6 3 21.4 14 100.0
Self-help Group 9 45.0 11 55.0 20 100.0
Educational qualification level
Low 19 29.7 45 70.3 64 100.0
Medium 72 36.9 123 63.1 195 100.0
High 34 45.3 41 54.7 75 100.0
Experience level of owner
≤ 2 Years 37 34.9 69 65.1 106 100.0
2 – 4 Years 33 34.7 62 65.3 95 100.0
4 – 6 Years 33 37.5 55 62.5 88 100.0
6 - 8 Years 15 44.1 19 55.9 34 100.0
8 Years & Above 7 63.6 4 36.4 11 100.0
Maintenance of Financial
Records
Yes 97 64.7 53 35.3 150 100.0
No 28 15.2 156 84.8 184 100.0

22. Result of Chi-square Test Statistics
Characteristics Value df P Value Decision Phi P Result
Size 55.67 1 <0.001 Reject .508 <0.001 Strong
Location 0.21 1 >0.05 Accept .025 >0.05 Mild
Family Business Background 4.28 1 < 0.05 Reject .113 <0.05 Moderate
Nature of Entrepreneurial Activity 5.86 1 <0.05 Reject .132 <0.05 Moderate
Age of Enterprise Establishment 10.25 5 <0.05 Reject .175 <0.05 Moderate
Type of Ownership 18.80 4 <0.001 Reject .237 <0.001 Strong
Education Level of Owner 3.66 2 > 0.05 Accept .105 >0.05 Mild
Experience Level of Owner 4.46 4 > 0.05 Accept .116 >0.05 Mild
Maintenance of Financial Records 86.28 1 <0.001 Reject .508 <0.001 Strong

23. Respondent’s View Regarding the Problem Faced at the Time of Availing
Institutional Finance
Table – 15: ANOVA
Problems Faced
Yes No Total
No. % No. % No. %
Difficulties in Providing Collateral 94 75.2 31 24.8 125 100.0
Difficulties in Providing Documents 88 70.4 37 29.6 125 100.0
Difficulties in Providing Business
Plan
78 62.4 47 37.6 125 100.0
Experiencing Difficulties to Bare
Acquiring Cost
82 65.6 43 34.4 125 100.0
Interest rate is high 34 27.2 91 72.8 125 100.0
Delay in the Processing of Loan 106 84.8 19 15.2 125 100.0
Inadequate Quantum of Loan 89 71.2 36 28.8 125 100.0

24. Enterprise wise Respondent’s View Regarding the Problem
Faced at the Time of Availing Institutional Finance
Problem Faced
Type of Enterprise
Micro (88) Small & Medium (37) Total
No. % No. % No. %
Difficulties in providing collateral 79 89.8 15 40.5 94 75.2
Difficulties in providing documents 74 84.1 14 37.8 88 70.4
Difficulties in providing business plan 72 81.8 6 16.2 78 62.4
Experiencing difficulties to bare
acquiring cost
73 83.0 9 24.3 82 65.6
Interest rate is high 23 26.1 11 29.7 34 27.2
Delay in the processing of loan 78 88.6 28 75.7 106 84.8
Inadequate quantum of loan 62 70.5 27 73.0 89 71.2

25. Result of Chi-square test Statistics
Problem Faced Value df P Value Decision
Difficulties in providing collateral 33.85 1 <0.001 Reject
Difficulties in providing documents 26.74 1 <0.001 Reject
Difficulties in providing business plan 47.78 1 <0.001 Reject
Experiencing difficulties to bare acquiring cost 39.68 1 <0.001 Reject
Interest rate is high 0.30 1 >0.05 Accept
Delay in the processing of loan 3.39 1 >0.05 Accept
Inadequate quantum of loan 1.51 1 >0.05 Accept

26. Result of Z-Position test Statistics
Reason Institutional (125) Non-Institutional (171) Z P Decision
Trouble-free accessibility 29 23.2 151 88.3 12.90 <0.001 Reject
Easy lending procedures 19 15.2 162 94.7 18.34 <0.001 Reject
Flexible Lending norms 6 4.8 157 91.8 23.74 <0.001 Reject
Less Collateral requirements 16 12.8 156 91.2 18.01 <0.001 Reject
Low Transaction cost 40 32.0 159 93.0 11.81 <0.001 Reject
Flexible Repayment terms 4 3.2 145 84.8 21.09 <0.001 Reject
Regular availability of
loanable funds
29 23.2 141 82.5 11.30 <0.001 Reject
Low Interest rate 112 89.6 16 9.4 22.26 <0.001 Reject
Subsidized credit 103 82.4 0 0.0 24.19 <0.001 Reject
Transparency in Lending 70 56.0 67 39.18 2.80 <0.01 Reject

27. Effectiveness of Institutional Financing According to the Enterprise’s Type
Factors Type of Enterprise
Blow Average Average Above Average
No. % No. % No. % X
̅ S.D.
Accessibility
Micro 54 18.4 199 67.9 40 13.7 25.33 5.44
Small 0 0.00 13 35.1 24 64.9 32.59 3.32
Medium 0 0.00 2 50.0 2 50.0 34.50 3.70
Assistance
Micro 38 13.0 209 71.3 46 15.7 19.92 3.58
Small 3 8.1 18 48.6 16 43.3 23.70 3.30
Medium 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 100.0 26.00 0.82
Appropriateness
Micro 45 15.4 214 73.0 34 11.6 16.58 3.42
Small 1 2.7 20 54.1 16 43.2 20.51 2.66
Medium 0 0.0 1 25.0 3 75.0 22.75 1.50
Attitude
Micro 55 18.8 184 62.8 54 18.4 22.65 4.69
Small 1 2.7 12 32.4 24 64.9 28.43 3.27
Medium 0 0.0 1 25.0 3 75.0 30.25 2.06
Adoptability
Micro 39 13.3 229 78.2 25 8.5 17.21 3.68
Small 1 2.7 25 67.6 11 29.7 21.16 2.50
Medium 0 0.0 4 100.0 0 0.0 20.00 1.41
Adequacy
Micro 68 23.2 183 62.5 42 14.3 28.13 5.64
Small 2 5.4 22 59.5 13 35.1 33.81 3.51
Medium 0 0.0 3 75.0 1 25.0 34.25 1.71
Reliability
Micro 55 18.8 192 65.5 46 15.7 22.49 4.60
Small 1 2.7 20 54.1 16 43.2 27.41 3.34
Medium 0 0.0 2 50.0 2 50.0 27.00 2.31

28. Result of F-test Statistics
Factors
Micro Small Medium
F-test P Value Decision Post hoc Test
X
̅ S.D. X
̅ S.D. X
̅ S.D.
Accessibility 25.33 5.44 32.59 3.32 34.50 3.70 36.67 <0.001 Reject (1 Vs 2,3)
Assistance 19.92 3.58 23.70 3.30 26.00 0.82 23.86 <0.001 Reject (1 Vs 2,3)
Appropriateness 16.58 3.42 20.51 2.66 22.75 1.50 28.68 <0.001 Reject (1 Vs 2,3)
Attitude 22.65 4.69 28.43 3.27 30.25 2.06 31.39 <0.001 Reject (1 Vs 2,3)
Adoptability 17.21 3.68 21.16 2.50 20.00 1.41 21.15 <0.001 Reject (1 Vs 2)
Adequacy 28.13 5.64 33.81 3.51 34.25 1.71 20.02 <0.001 Reject (1 Vs 2,3)
Reliability 22.49 4.60 27.41 3.34 27.00 2.31 21.48 <0.001 Reject (1 Vs 2)

29. Descriptive Statistics of Effectiveness of Institutional Financing
Descriptive statistics
Factors Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Accessibility 16 43 26.24 5.77
Assistance 12 32 20.42 3.77
Appropriateness 11 26 17.09 3.60
Attitude 14 34 23.38 4.90
Adoptability 11 24 17.68 3.77
Adequacy 17 39 28.83 5.73
Reliability 14 34 23.09 4.73
Norm Table for Effectiveness of Institutional Financing
µ = 156.72,  =29.86
 - class Class Level of Effectiveness Frequency Percent
µ-3, µ-1 Less than 127 Below average 54 16.2
µ-1, µ+1 127-187 Average 211 63.1
µ+1, µ+3 More than 187 Above Average 69 20.7
Total 334 100.0
Calculated chi-square value = 120.33

30. Correlation Matrix among Different Dimensions of Institutional Finance,
Green Business Practices, GSTIN Enrollment and Going Cashless
Variables
Accessibility
Assistance
Appropriate
ness
Attitude
Adoptability
Adequacy
Reliability
Green
Business
Practices
Enrolled
in
GSTIN
Going
Cashless
Accessibility 1
Assistance .798** 1
Appropriateness .832** .847** 1
Attitude .801** .779** .807** 1
Adoptability .798** .775** .790** .843** 1
Adequacy .806** .842** .834* .857** .887** 1
Reliability .791** .840** .814** .859** .869** .917** 1
Green Business Practices .215** .155** .195** .221** .240** .242** .225** 1
Enrolled in GSTIN .442** .407** .414** .438** .383** .420** .419** .320** 1
Going Cashless .454** .386** .415** .453** .427** .427** .433* .352** .487** 1
*= < 0.05 **=<0.01

31. Binary Logistic Regression Analysis
Variable Characteristics Odds Ratio
95%
Confidence
Interval
P
Value
Size
Micro (REF) 1.00 -
Small/ Medium 21.55 7.46-62.28 <0.001
Location
Urban/ Semi- Urban 1.11 0.71-1.73 >0.05
Rural (REF) 1.00 - -
Nature
Service (REF) 1.00 1.12-2.90 <0.05
Manufacturing 1.80 - -
Business Background
Yes 1.65 1.03-2.65 <0.05
No (REF) 1.00 - -
Maintenance of Books
Yes 10.20 6.04-17.21 <0.001
No (REF) 1.00 - -
Ownership Type
Sole Proprietorship (REF) 1.00 - -
Partnership 0.88 0.44-1.79 >0.05
Others 3.25 1.60-6.60 <.001
Age of Enterprise
< 2 years (REF) 1.00 - -
2-4 years 0.94 0.50-1.74 >0.05
4-6 years 1.14 0.61-2.15 >0.05
6-8 years 1.15 0.52-2.53 >0.05
8 years & Above 3.02 1.38-6.60 <0.01

32. Binary Logistic Regression Equation for Influencing of Enterprises Characteristics on
Access to Institutional Finance
Owner Experience
< 2 years (REF) 1.00 - -
2-4 years 0.99 0.56-1.78 >0.05
4-6 years 1.12 0.62-2.02 >0.05
6-8 years 1.47 0.67-3.23 >0.05
8 years & Above 3.27 0.90-11.88 >0.05
Educational status
Low (REF) 1.00 - -
Medium 1.39 0.75-2.55 >0.05
High 1.96 0.97-3.97 >0.05
Age of owner
≤30 years (REF) 1.00 - -
31-44 years 1.84 1.04-3.27 <0.05
45 & above 1.85 0.95-3.61 >0.05
Marital status
Married 1.40 0.80-2.45 >0.05
Unmarried (REF) 1.00 - -
Gender
Male 1.46 0.88-2.42 >0.05
Female (REF) 1.00 - -
GSTIN
Yes 4.60 2.77-7.65 <0.001
No (REF) 1.00 - -
Net Banking
Yes 5.44 2.84-10.42 <0.001
No (REF) 1.00 - -
Mobile App
Yes 1.56 0.67-2.67 >0.05
No (REF) 1.00 - -
Debit Card
Yes 2.26 0.62-8.26 >0.05
No (REF) 1.00 - -

33. *
 It is found that only 28.7 % of MSMEs in the study area are run by women. So it can be
inferred that execution of National Policy for Empowerment of Women, 2001 at
different stages has been legging of. Therefore it is suggested that impact on ground to
be closely assessed/ monitored.
 Study found that average entry age of entrepreneurs is more than 30 years almost in
majority of cases. The idea of choosing entrepreneurship as a career option should be
encourage in the schooling age so that maximum entrepreneurs can be developed and
problem of unemployment and disguised unemployment can be minimized.
 Study reveals that around 58.4 percent of MSMEs in central Assam division are run by
the people having high school and intermediate level qualifications. Therefore, it is
suggested that government should incorporate practical entrepreneurship development
courses in to the general academic curriculum. So that awareness of institutional support
available and compliance with institutional norms can be enhance in MSMEs.
 Majority, 69.2 %, of entrepreneurs are not having any business background. Therefore it
is suggested that MSME development agencies should establish its branches at block
level for evaluation and take corrective measure on the feasibility and viability of the
business plan to ensure greater accessibility to institutional finance.

34. *
 Study found majority (66.7%) of the respondents are continuing their family
business. So, entrepreneurs are required to conduct a detailed survey of the existing
situations prevailing in the MSME sector and must focus on driving innovative
business ideas as per global goal 2030, such as plastic and paper alternatives,
recycled material etc. or attaching the existing business on the green business model
can attract easy finance from the financial institutions.
 Study found that 47.9 percent of the majority have a family income below 10,000
per month. So emerging entrepreneurs should be given status and concessions so
that they can avail training easily and consider they are on right track to economic
self-sufficiency.
 Study reveals that the majority, 55.1%, of the enterprises, are not maintaining proper
books of records. Entrepreneurs should maintain proper books of records such as
P&L statement, Balance sheet, and file Income tax return as these are the statement
used by the financial institution to evaluate one's credibility and thus, will facilitate
easy access to institutional finance.

35.  A primary determinant of MSMEs access to the institutional sources is the quality of
information they can provide. Therefore, government and MSME development
institutions should focus on developing free auditing software for MSMEs quality
financial reporting. Otherwise MSMEs can be constrained by over-regulation, and
limited capacity.
 It has been found that access to institutional finance for rural MSMEs is low compare to
urban or semi-urban located MSMEs. Therefore it is suggested that the Indian
Government has to take measure to distribute an equal number of branches in both urban
and rural areas.
 Despite sole proprietorship concern constitute 72.2% of the MSMEs, only 34.5% of sole
proprietorship concerns were able to avail institutional finance, and therefore it is
suggested that government should focus on developing efficient credit reporting
mechanism for sharing individuals’ credit information to minimize the information
asymmetries. This will definitely enhance the access to institutional finance.

36.  In case of various problems faced by MSMEs in availing institutional finance, the study
found that the majority, 84.8%, were confronted with delay in the processing of a loan.
As the need of the MSMEs featured with small, frequent and quick therefore it is
recommended that financial institutions should adopt process automation using
technologies such as API, ADR/OCR, and Artificial Intelligence etc. Integrating these
innovations into the method of loan origination can significantly reduce stressful human
labour, minimize average processing time and can easily accommodate huge volumes of
transactions.
 Majorities, 75.2% of the MSMEs, are still facing a problem of collateral, and therefore it
is suggested that the Government of India and RBI should take necessary steps for
effective implementation of a collateral-free loan scheme at the ground level.
 Study reveals that the opinion of the micro-entrepreneurs is low regarding the
effectiveness of institutional finance. Therefore it is suggested that financial institutions
should take necessary steps to encourage and develop MFIs to cater to the need of the
micro-enterprises.

37. As majority 62.6% are not availing institutional finance therefore government should
focus on developing additional sources of institutional finance for the MSME sector
through a structure that would include in its ambit the existing non-institutional last mile
financiers.
It really would be better to get rid of complicated procedures criteria for obtaining
financial assistance and replacing them with simplified protocols such as an "Aadhar
Verification" process that contains the owner or business's essential information that all
financial institutions can accept.
Though the requirement of finance is prevalent in MSMEs, compliance with the
institutional financial norms is low. So it is suggested that along with providing training to
MSMEs, Development institution should focus on developing MSMEs as compliance
trainer and provider of technical and vocational educator. So that maximum MSMEs can
be benefitted and institutional compliance can be enhanced.

38. Majority (91.4%) of the respondent opined poor and very poor regarding use of solar
energy for production/ service. Therefore it is suggested that state government should
launch concessional solar scheme to encourage the use of solar energy in MSME sector as
well as focus on developing MSMEs in renewable energy sector because this sector has
ample future scope.
Proper training for loan processing officers of financial institutions and other institutions
should be arranged regarding green business practices so that while reviewing the loan
proposals they can inculcate green business practices on the proposed business model.
Fiscal incentive such as tax rebate of 2% can be provided for encouraging cashless
transactions in MSME sector so that problem of information asymmetries can be
minimized.
To promote more lending to the MSME sector, each institution should have a motivation,
award or incentive package for Credit Sanctioning Officers.

39. Scope for Future Research
A secondary data based study can be carried out on government scheme for
MSMEs to identify the reach to the targeted MSMEs.
Further one can study the comparison between registered and unregistered
enterprises in terms of their access to institutional sources.
In depth study on entrepreneurship development programme and access to
institutional finance of the trained entrepreneurs.
In particular, comparative study on degree of relationship between the
performance of MSMEs with respect to institutional and non-institutional
financing can be carried out.
A thorough study of the attitude of financial institutions towards MSMEs can be
carried out.
In depth study on green business practices and cashless particulars in MSME
sector.

40. Thanking You…