task. however, it is reassuring that, in the face of these inherent handicaps, the group seems to have made significant achievements, which go beyond the immediate compulsions of crisis management and address some of the key structural issues. the underpinning for this progress, as i have alluded to earlier in the presentation, is the recognition by all parties involved that the process of globalization has potential benefits for everybody as long as it is controlled in some way. the basis of control is, as the g20 demonstrates, common principles, on which are based common, or at least compatible standards for both conduct and enforcement. but, control does not mean homogenization. as long as common standards can be reconciled with differences in practices and institutions, which allow individual countries to effectively address their domestic priorities, the arrangement is eminently workable. just as each country needs to maintain a balance between acceptance and adherence to global standards, the group needs to accommodate a possibly thin and blurred line between conformity and autonomy. its effectiveness on all the issues that it seeks to address, but particularly on the structural ones, will depend heavily on this accommodation. every member of the group must feel that there are some tangible benefits from continuing to associate and in turn, that perception depends on the space that the is available to pursue legitimate domestic priorities, which do not impinge on the interests of the other members of the group. by this benchmark, the group has done quite well. in the midst of significant differences, some of which i have pointed out, meaningful consensus on, for example, safety nets, financial regulation and reform of the international monetary fund suggest that it has found a way to accommodate the balance on a number of significant issues. the nature of this consensus has been widely reported on and debated in the wake of the recent finance ministers and central bank governors ’ meeting in gyeongju, korea, so i do not want to go into the details here. the point i want to emphasize, though, is that the common feature of both the process of arriving at consensus and the agreements themselves was precisely the acceptance of common principles and standards, which do not come in the way of allowing each country to organize its internal systems in ways that it thinks is best. this is not to say that there are no disagreements or unresolved issues within the group. it would be naive to expect that there wouldn ’ t be. however, as in the case of all collective activity, the presence of disagreements, even

##ment capacity. banks will have to evolve policies to address this issue while providing vulnerable groups opportunities to engage in activities that supplement the household income at times of natural calamities. development of appropriately priced insurance products is obviously a challenge especially id such insurance has to be affordable and sustainable. price risk in agriculture is inherent, having regard to the nature of agricultural operations where supply cannot respond to prices immediately. hence, price support policies have been followed over the years. a more recent development is the futures markets, which can provide opportunity to hedge risks. however, the players in these markets are mostly traders and speculators. there is a need to find ways in which commodity markets can be used to provide price support to farmers. o micro finance a separate strategy for micro finance may have to be evolved, as this involves providing low income families with access to banking. invariably banks have found it advantageous to partner with community based organisations and ngos working in the area for microfinance. promoting shgs, nurturing them and transforming them from micro - finance to micro enterprise is something many banks are already engaged in. banks could explore the possibilities of working with the state governments by offering them efficient technology solutions, such as smart cards for distribution of budgeted allocations for nregp, pension payments and various other social sector expenditures. as some of you may be aware, a pilot project is under way in andhra pradesh ( ap ), where the ap government will tie up with banks, who will offer smart cards to bpl families / pension recipients / nregp workers for disbursements of wages, pensions and other benefits. these smart cards can be operated at village level through vos – federated shgs registered as cooperatives – that are eligible to be used as business correspondents by banks. it is expected that as the shg members get used to the smart cards, there will be return flow of funds as they use their bank accounts for savings. the cards could also be used as normal debit cards at merchant establishments. o regional rural banks ( rrbs ) as partners one in every three rural / semi urban branch in the country is an rrb branch. moreover, the staff members of rrbs belong to the region and have knowledge of local language and customs. these are significant strengths and need to be leveraged by sponsor banks, who should view rrbs as their partners in rural banking. the initial costs for up scaling technology and skills in the rrbs will be amply rewarded