The demand for agricultural credit in central Chile

Alvaro Reyes Duarte, Carlos J.O. Trejo-Pech, Andrés Villegas and Roselia Servín-Juárez

Agricultural Finance Review, 2024, vol. 84, issue 2/3, 226-245

Abstract: Purpose - The design of effective policies that increase access to agricultural credit should consider understanding credit constraint farmers’ groups and their response to changes in the credit conditions. To contribute to this understanding, this study surveyed farmers from Chile and classified them into five credit constraint categories discussed in credit literature. In addition, these farmers indicated how they would react to a series of hypothetical conditions related to changing interest rates, loan maturity and grace periods. Their responses were employed to measure credit demand scores (i.e. relative elasticities). Regression tests evaluated how different types of farmers reacted to changing credit conditions. Design/methodology/approach - Farmers from Chile were surveyed using a mix of random and convenience sampling. Surveyed farmers were classified into five credit constraint categories proposed by previous research. Farmers rated their demand for credit on a five-point Likert-type scale for hypothetical changes in interest rates, loan maturities and grace periods. Their responses were employed to measure credit demand scores or relative credit elasticities. The study evaluated credit elasticity as a function of farmers’ credit constraint and some control variables using several regressions, including OLS, ordered probit and hierarchical regression. Findings - The study identified 44% unconstrained nonborrowing farmers, 23% unconstrained borrowers, 14% quantity-constrained, 16% risk-constrained and 3% transaction cost-constrained farmers. Unconstrained borrowers and quantity-constrained farmers responded most to changing interest rates and loan maturity conditions. In addition, unconstrained nonborrowers and risk-constrained farmers were statistically less sensitive to changes in credit conditions than unconstrained borrowers. This finding is significant because, as discussed, unconstrained nonborrowers represent 44% of our sample. Furthermore, risk-constrained farmers were the least sensitive to changes in interest rates and loan maturity across all other credit categories. Practical implications - This study gives insights that can guide agribusiness policies to enhance access to credit in developing countries such as Chile. Agricultural credit capital institutions can better target their clientele by identifying farmers’ possible reactions before implementing policy changes to increase access to credit. This study’s credit constraint categorization and the results discussed can guide that identification. For instance, policies directed toward unconstrained borrowing farmers may find positive responses. However, implementing policies targeting the other three groups (unconstrained nonborrowing, risk-constrained and transaction cost-constrained farmers) is more challenging because these farmers are less responsive to changing credit conditions. Originality/value - This article correlates farmers’ propensity to borrow and credit constraints across five categories of farmers. Prior research using this categorization framework has not identified farmers into the five groups. Furthermore, in addition to interest rate and loan maturity credit demand relative elasticity, this study adds the grace period elasticity, which has not been included in previous studies on agricultural credit.

Keywords: Agricultural finance; Demand for agricultural credit; Credit constraint or credit rationing; Credit demand elasticity; Chile; Q12; G21; G32; M21 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.110 ... d&utm_campaign=repec (text/html)
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.110 ... d&utm_campaign=repec (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eme:afrpps:afr-10-2023-0143

DOI: 10.1108/AFR-10-2023-0143

Access Statistics for this article

Agricultural Finance Review is currently edited by Valentina Hartarska and Denis Nadolnyak

More articles in Agricultural Finance Review from Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Emerald Support ().