This paper discusses the attempt to achieve balanced economic growth in India. The process is viewed as a transition of society from a traditional stage to one characterized by industrialization and economic growth, and which involves major economic, social and political changes. It specifically deals with the Indian banking system and its structural development since independence as a means to hasten economic growth. These changes in the banking system, through social control, and eventually nationalization of the major commercial banks in India,, illustrate the increasing role of the State in gearing the banking sector towards meeting the goals of national economic planning. The above events are related to the struggle between the moderates and those who advocate a more socialist approach to solving the economic and social problems in India.

The problem with which this paper is concerned is that of examining the role that the Egyptian Banking System had to assume during the transition period, 1952 - 1964. This paper is divided in four parts; the first part is an introduction and it is composed of Chapter I. Part two is a brief survey of the economic and monetary developments in Egypt during this transition period and it is composed of Chapters II and III. Part three examines the reconstruction of the banking system and it is composed of Chapters IV and V. Part four presents a conclusion and some implications for other developing countries. The Egyptian experience's lack of success was due to non-realistic and uncoordinated planning.

The thesis is an investigation into the writings of Karl Marx and Max Weber, and the interpretations of their relationship in social thought. The interpretations of the relationship of these ideas have become polarized between Weberian and Marxist camps, characterized by Parsons and Weber. The paper begins with an examination of the writings of Max Weber, specifically with respect to his concepts of institutions, developmental theory, and theory of domination. The work of Marx is next examined with regard to these three topics. The interpretations offered by Parsons and Zeitlin are reviewed. The paper concludes that neither argument offered by Parsons or Zeitlin is altogether correct nor incorrect.