Strengthening financial literacy of smallholder farmers through agricultural fintech peer-to-peer lending: evidence and practical implications

Figures & data

Table 1. Distribution of respondents by background and locations.

Respondent	Cianjur	West Bandung	Bogor	Sukabumi
Fintech lending providers	3	0	1	2
Smallholder Farmers
Horticulture	5	3	10	4
Aquaculture	2	0	0	2
Agriculture and Horticulture Agencies	4	3	3	1

Table 2. Research dimensions and variables.

Dimensions	Variables
Financial Knowledge	Farmers’ knowledge of financial institutions and their products (savings, financing, and investment) Farmers’ literacy about basic financial principles Farmers’ literacy regarding financial protection
Financial Behavior	Prudent financial management Responsibility for fulfilling financial obligations on time Capability to design investment plans based on valid data/information
Financial Attitude	Farmers’ perception related to fintech as alternative financial support Farmers’ paradigm and perception of managing finance for future life (obsession) Famer’s assumption and reason of appropriateness is obtaining money from business The farmers sense who always feel they have an insufficient amount of money Attitude related to frugal practice in using money (Retention) Attitude or view that money is safer to be kept at home (security)

Source: Authors’ Design.

Table 3. Key informant profiles.

No	Indicators	Description
1.	Age	Most farmers belong to the Y-generation, born between 1980 and 1995
2.	Education	Most horticulture farmers completed senior high school or higher, while aquaculture farmers finished junior high school or lower.
3.	Group and commodity	Most farmers are farming group members, excluding aquaculture farmers Agricultural commodities include chilies, peppers, potatoes, lettuce, cabbage, and peanuts. Aquaculture commodities include tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), common carp (Cyprinus carpio), and catfish (Ictalurus punctatus).
4.	Smartphone ownership	Most farmers own smartphones.
5.	Land ownership	Horticulture land typically ranges from 0.6 Ha to 1.5 Ha, with 80% rented. Farmers own the remaining 20%, but most lack formal ownership certificates. Aquaculture farmers have 40 − 50 ponds, rented or owned.
6.	Income	On average, horticulture farmers earn IDR12.5 million monthly, varying with land size and production, while aquaculture farmers earn over IDR2 million monthly.
7.	Assets	Most farmers own houses, lands, and motorcycles.
8.	Technology adaptation	Horticulture farmers adopt simple technologies, like greenhouse and hydroponics. Aquaculture farmers use traditional methods like floating net cages in lakes and ponds.
9.	Capital	The capital comes from farmers’ pockets and financial institutions, including conventional fintech providers.

Sources: Our Qualitative Survey, 2023.

Table 4. Agricultural Fintech’s impact on farmers’ financial literacy: knowledge, behavior, and attitude.

Financial Literacy dimensions	Fintech-1	Fintech-2	Fintech-3
Majority of farmers’ literacy level (combination of knowledge, behavior, and attitude in finance)
a. Well-literate	–	√	√
b. Sufficient literate	–	–	–
c. Less literate	√	–
d. Not literate	–	–	–
Majority of farmers’ financial knowledge
a. Increasing knowledge of bank accounts	√	√	√
b. Improving financial reporting and business plan	√	√	√
c. Improving knowledge of financial protection (insurance)	√	√	√
Majority of farmer’s financial behavior
a. Managing agricultural income	√	√	√
b. Planning budget	–	√	√
c. Managing and controlling expense	–	√	√
d. Managing debt well	–	√	√
e. Joining a fintech provider will possibly change the more positive farmers’ behavior toward financial behavior.	√	√	√
Majority of farmers’ financial attitude
a. Farmers have a perspective view that fintech is an easy access to financial support without a collateral guarantee	√	√	√
b. Perception of the easiness of getting a loan for working capital	√	√	√
c. Preference for upscaling agricultural business: buying/renting more lands, tractors, and capital savings	√	–	√
d. Motivation to save more money (retention)	–	–	√
e. Enthusiastically depositing money in the bank	–	–	–
f. Joining a fintech provider will possibly result in a more positive attitude of the farmers toward the financial institutions.	√	√	√

Sources: Our Qualitative Survey, 2023.

Table

Role	Author’s Name
Conceptualization	Muhammad Soekarni, Latif Adam, Yeni Saptia, Tuti Ermawati, Sujianto Sujianto.
Methodology	Muhammad Soekarni, Latif Adam, Mahmud Thoha, Sujianto Sujianto.
Material Preparation	Muhammad Soekarni, Latif Adam, Jiwa Sarana, Yeni Saptia, Tuti Ermawati, Sujianto Sujianto.
Data Collection	Muhammad Soekarni, Jiwa Sarana, Yeni Saptia, Tuti Ermawati, Septian Adityawati, Sujianto Sujianto, Mukti Wibowo.
Data Analysis	Muhammad Soekarni, Latif Adam, Jiwa Sarana, Yeni Saptia, Tuti Ermawati, Septian Adityawati, Sujianto Sujianto, Mukti Wibowo.
Data Interpretation	Muhammad Soekarni, Latif Adam, Mahmud Thoha, Jiwa Sarana, Tuti Ermawati.
Writing - original draft preparation	Muhammad Soekarni, Latif Adam, Mahmud Thoha, Jiwa Sarana, Yeni Saptia, Tuti Ermawati, Septian Adityawati, Sujianto Sujianto, Mukti Wibowo.
Writing - review and editing	Muhammad Soekarni, Latif Adam, Sujianto Sujianto
Funding acquisition	Jiwa Sarana, Mahmud Thoha
Supervision	Muhammad Soekarni, Latif Adam

Data availability statement

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.