ارزیابی اثربخشی تامین مالی پروژه‌های بخش کشاورزی با تاکید بر ریسک‌پذیری و عوامل روانشناختی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه حسابداری، دانشگاه حضرت معصومه (س)، قم، ایران

2 گروه مدیریت،دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد سنندج، سنندج، ایران

10.22059/ijaedr.2024.364070.669244

چکیده

تامین مالی نقش بسزائی در توسعه بخش کشاورزی داشته و از جمله دغدغه­های جدی سیاست­گذاران و فعالان این بخش محسوب می­شود. در همین راستا، پژوهش حاضر تلاش کرده است اثربخشی تامین مالی پروژه­های بخش کشاورزی را با تاکید بر ریسک فردی (میزان ریسک­پذیری وام­گیرندگان) و عوامل روانشناختی مورد مطالعه و بررسی قرار دهد. جامعه آماری پژوهش حاضر دریافت­کنندگان وام از بانک کشاورزی بوده و حجم نمونه آماری 225 نفر است. داده­های مورد نیاز از طریق پرسشنامه گردآوری شده است. تجزیه­وتحلیل داده­های پژوهش با استفاده از مدل­یابی معادلات ساختاری و از طریق نرم­افزارهای SPSS نسخه 26 و Amos نسخه 24 انجام شده است. این پژوهش شامل دو سازه اصلی و نه سازه فرعی است. این سازه­ها عبارتند از: ریسک­پذیری فردی (مالی، اجتماعی، شغلی، اخلاقی و نهادی) و اثربخشی تامین مالی پروژ­ه­های کشاورزی (سودمندی، قابلیت اطمینان، قابلیت دسترسی و قابلیت انعطاف). بنابر یافته­های این پژوهش هر یک از ریسک­های مالی، اجتماعی، شغلی، اخلاقی و نهادی بخشی از فرایند ریسک­پذیری فردی می­باشند. همچنین اثربخشی تامین مالی پروژ­ه­های کشاورزی شامل مولفه­های سودمندی، قابلیت اطمینان، قابلیت دسترسی و قابلیت انعطاف است. یافته­های پژوهش نشان می­دهد ریسک­پذیری فردی بر هر یک از مولفه­های سودمندی، قابلیت اطمینان، قابلیت دسترسی و قابلیت انعطاف اثر مثبت و معناداری دارد. به­علاوه ریسک­پذیری فردی بر اثربخشی تامین مالی پروژ­ه­های کشاورزی اثر مثبت و معناداری دارد. درنهایت، یافته­های این پژوهش می‌تواند به سیاست­گذاران و مدیران بانک­ها در درک هرچه بهتر میزان ریسک­پذیری مشتریان و شناسایی علل وقوع ریسک در کسب‌وکارهای آنان کمک کند. 

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

Extended Abstract

Objectives

Financing has played a crucial role in the growth and development of the agricultural sector and remains a major concern for policymakers and professionals in this field. Policymakers and bank managers have initiated numerous programs to enhance the effectiveness of financing projects within the agricultural sector. Achieving maximum effectiveness and efficiency in these programs requires accurate identification of needs by policymakers and a high level of adoption by the target population. Incorporating psychological factors can improve program efficiency. Therefore, considering the psychological aspects of planning in financing from both theoretical and practical perspectives can be effective in understanding future needs and ensuring stability.

This study aims to evaluate the sustainability of financing programs in the agricultural sector, with a focus on individual risk and policy effectiveness. It assumes that risk-taking serves as a valuable indicator for assessing the relationship between expected returns and risks, as well as policy support. The study seeks to explore the impact of risk-taking on financial policies related to the agricultural sector by providing a general framework.

 

Methods

This study is practical in nature and is classified as a descriptive-exploratory correlation study. The population under investigation consists of borrowers from Bank Keshavarzi Iran. Data was collected using a questionnaire. After considerable effort, 240 questionnaires were returned, of which 225 were usable. The study employed simple random sampling and was conducted during the first half of 2023.

The literature review for this study was compiled using the library research method. The study examines two main constructs: risk propensity and perceived effectiveness related to agricultural financing programs in the agricultural sector. The first construct, risk propensity, includes five sub-constructs: financial, career, social, institutional, and ethical risks. The second construct, perceived effectiveness, comprises four sub-constructs: usefulness, reliability, flexibility, and accessibility. The items for each dimension were developed by reviewing existing research literature and consulting with experts. In total, 25 items were used to measure the various dimensions of risk propensity, with each sub-construct contributing 5 items.

 

Results

In general, this study includes four hypotheses, which have been analyzed as follows: The research findings indicate that all five types of risk—financial, social, career, ethical, and institutional—are components of risk propensity. Among these, financial risk has the greatest impact, while institutional risk has the least, based on standard coefficients. Risk propensity decreases when individuals actively work to minimize financial, social, career, ethical, and institutional risks.

The research also shows that all four components—perceived usefulness, reliability, accessibility, and flexibility—are crucial in evaluating the effectiveness of agricultural financing. Of these, perceived reliability has the most significant impact, and perceived flexibility has the least, according to standard coefficients. Consequently, people find bank loans beneficial when they possess qualities such as usefulness, reliability, accessibility, and flexibility.

Furthermore, the findings reveal that risk propensity affects all four components in the evaluation of agricultural financing effectiveness. The standard coefficients indicate that risk propensity has the greatest impact on flexibility and the least on accessibility.

According to the research findings, risk propensity influences the evaluation of agricultural financing effectiveness. With a coefficient of determination (R²) of 0.46, it can be concluded that risk propensity accounts for 46% of the variance in agricultural financing effectiveness.

 

Conclusion

The aim of this study was to identify and explain how different dimensions of risk propensity affect the effectiveness of bank loans in the agricultural sector. Specifically, the study sought to examine the role of factors such as individual behavior, financing schemes, and targeted areas, and to explore how these factors mediate effectiveness. Understanding the causes of varied perceptions and judgments is crucial, as it can help improve rural livelihoods. Therefore, the research findings can assist academics and policymakers in better understanding the complexities involved in evaluating the effectiveness of agricultural financing.

مراجع

Abuosi A.A, Atinga R.A. (2012). Service quality in healthcare institutions: establishing the gaps for policy action. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 26(5), 481–492.
Alexander A., Walker H., Naim, M. (2014). Decision theory in sustainable supply chain management: a literature review. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 19(5/6), 504–522.
Ali Mirzei, A., Hoseini, S.M., Hejazi, Y.,   Movahed Mohammadi, S.H. (2017). Indicators for evaluating the private enterprises providing agricultural extension and advisory services. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Research, 48(3), 491-5050. (In Persian).
Al Khattab, A., Al-Shalabi, H., Al-Rawad, M., Al-Khattab, K., Hamad, F. (2015). The effect of trust and risk perception on citizen’s intention to adopt and use E-Government services in Jordan. Journal of Service Science and Management, 8(9), 279–290.
Bolton, R.N., Lemon, K.N. (1999). A dynamic model of customers’ usage of services: usage as an antecedent and consequence of satisfaction successful. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2),171–186.
Chau, P. (1997). Re-examining a model of evaluation information centre success using a structural equation modeling approach. Decision Sciences Journal, 28(11), 309–334.
Conning, J., & Udry, C. (2007). Rural financial markets in developing countries. Handbook of agricultural economics, 3, 2857-2908.
Cope, A.M., Rock, A.M., Schmeiser, M.D. (2013). Risk perception, risk tolerance and consumer adoption of mobile banking services. Journal of Marketing Research, 13(12), 342–354.
De Brauw, A., & Eozenou, P. (2014). Measuring risk attitudes among Mozambican farmers. Journal of Development Economics, 111, 61-74.
Demir, S. (2022). Comparison of normality tests in terms of sample sizes under different skewness and kurtosis coefficients. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 9(2), 397-409.
Diaz-Serrano, L., & O'Neill, D. (2004). The relationship between unemployment and risk-aversion. Available at SSRN 571044.
Durkheim, E. (2002). Suicide. London and New York, Routledge classics. Discourse analysis, and grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research, 17(2), 1372–1380.
Field, E., Pande, R., Papp, J., Park, Y.J. (2012). Repayment flexibility can reduce financial stress: a randomized control trial with microfinance clients in India. PLOS ONE, 7(9), 645–679.
Ghelich, V. (2019). A modeling of Wakala Sukuk for agriculture sector financing. Journal of Agricultural Economics Research, 11(1), 149-174. (In Persian).  
Ghprbani, M., Avazpour, L., Shariati Niasar, Gh. (2021). An exploration of the impact of empowerment through micro-credit funding upon starting rural sustainable businesses. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Research, 52(2), 355-370. (In Persian).
Gronroos, C. (1990). Service management and marketing. Lexington Books, Lexington.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis, 6th edn. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River
Hall, D.T. (2002). Careers in and out of organizations, foundations for organizational science. Sage Publications Series, London.
Hanna, S., & Chen, P. (1998). Subjective and objective risk tolerance: implications for optimal portfolios. SSRN Electronic Journal, 8(2), 17–25.
Hardaker, J. B., Lien, G., Anderson, J. R., & Huirne, R. B. (2015). Coping with risk in agriculture: Applied decision analysis. Cabi.
Hayes T (2000) Stigmatizing indebtedness: implications for labeling theory. Symbolic Interaction, 23(4), 29–46.
Hajimirrahimi, S.D., Mokhber Dezfooli, A., Gholami, H., Akbari, M., Noroozi, A. (2015). Investigating the approaches for development of student’s entrepreneurial capabilities in agricultural scientific-applied courses (Case study: Imam Khomeini Higher Education Center (ihec)). Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Research, 46(2), 217-231. (In Persian).
Hirschman, E.C., Holbrook, M.B. (1982). Hedonics consumption: emerging concepts. Journal of Marketing, 46(17), 92–101.
Hung, K.T., Tangpong, C. (2010). General risk propensity in multifaceted business decisions: scale development. Journal of Managerial Issues, 22(1), 88–106.
Jackson, C.A., Henderson, M., Frank, J.W., Haw, S.J. (2012). An overview of prevention of multiple risk behaviour in adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Public Health, 34(1), 31–40.
Kazemi, S.H., Palouj, M. (2012). Evaluation of agricultural sector strategies in five year development plans in Iran. Journal of Agricultural Economics Research, 3(4), 39-65. (In Persian).  
Kohansal, M.R., Ghorbani, M., Mansoori, H. (2008). Effect of credit accessibility of farmers on agricultural investment and investigation of policy options in Khorasan-Razavi Province. Journal of Applied Sciences, 8(23), 4455–4459.
Krysiak, F.C. (2009). Risk management as a tool for sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(12), 483–492.
Legesse, B., Drake, L. (2005). Determinants of smallholder farmers’ perceptions of risk in the Eastern Highlands of Ethiopia. Journal of Risk Research, 8(5), 383–416.
Markman, G., Baron, R. (2003). Person-entrepreneurship fit: why some people are more successful as entrepreneurs than others. Human Resource Management Review, 13(2), 281–301.
Meyer, R.L. (2002). The demand for flexible microfinance products: lessons from Bangladesh. Journal of International Development, 14(3), 351–368.
Mondak, J.J. (2010). Personality and the foundations of political behavior. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Moses, T. (2017). A review of developments and applications in item analysis. Advancing Human Assessment: The Methodological, Psychological and Policy Contributions of ETS, 19-46.
Murphy, K.R., Davidshofer, C.O. (2005). Psychological testing principles and applications, 6th edn. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River.
Parrey, S. H., & Bhat, S. A. (2019). Individual risk propensity and agri-entrepreneurial financing effectiveness: strategy for sustainable agri-financing. Decision, 46, 75-90.
Payne, A., Storbacka, K., Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(8), 83–96.
Pennings, J.M.E., Scott, H.I., Good, D.L. (2002). Surveying farmers: a case study. Review of Agricultural Economics, 24(1), 266–277.
Pidgeon, N. (1998). Safety culture: key theoretical issues. Work & stress, 12(3), 202-216.
Power, M., Ashby, S., & Palermo, T. (2013). Risk culture in financial organisations: A research report. CARR-Analysis of Risk and Regulation.
Shapero, A., & Sokol, L. (2002). Some social dimensions of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Critical perspectives on business and management, 4, 83-111.
Shete, M., Garcia, R.J. (2011). Agricultural credit market participation in Finoteselam town, Ethiopia. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies, 1(1):55–74.
Stahlke, S. (2018). Expanding on notions of ethical risks to qualitative researchers. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1609406918787309.
Thomas, R., Elliotta, P., Roberts, R. (2013). The relationship between personal unsecured debt and mental and physical health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 22(8), 1148–1162.
Turvey, C.G., He, G., Kong, R., Ma, J., Meagher, P. (2011). The 7 Cs of rural credit in China. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging, 1(2), 100–133.
Viglione, J. (2019). The risk-need-responsivity model: How do probation officers implement the principles of effective intervention?. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(5), 655-673.
Wang, M. C., Lin, F. L., Su, H. H., & Kuo, P. L. (2020). Revisiting the relationship between suicide and unemployment in Mexico: Evidence from linear and non-linear co-integration. Frontiers in public health, 8, 60.
Weber, E.U., Blais, A.R., Betz, N.E. (2002). A domain-specific risk attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15(7), 263–290.
Willock, J., Deary, I.J., Edward-Jones, G., Gibson, G.J., McGregor, M.J., Sutherland, A., Dent, J.B., Morgan, O., Grieve, R. (1999). The role of attitudes and objectives in farmer decision making: business and environmentally oriented behaviour in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 50(2), 286–303.
Winsen, F.V., de Mey, Y.L., Lauwers, S., Passel, V., Vancauteren, M., Wauters, E. (2014). Determinants of risk behaviour: effects of perceived risks and risk attitude on farmer’s adoption of risk management strategies. Journal of Risk Research, 17(8), 1–23.
Wiseman, R.M., Gomez-Mejia, L.R. (1998). A behavioral agency model of managerial risk taking. Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 133–153.
تحقیقات اقتصاد و توسعه کشاورزی ایران
دوره 55، شماره 4
دی 1403
صفحه 591-610

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار