ABSTRACT
The concept of universal banking used to be a contentious one. Some economists, banking theorists, and financial historians, hotly defended it as far more efficient and conducive to economic growth than simple commercial banking. Others have condemned it with equal vigor, as an anathema, as being fundamentally unsound, and crisis prone because of its inherent instability. The historical issues concerned have attracted wide attention in academic circles and far beyond, but the question about the merits or otherwise of universal banking remains largely unresolved.1
