Cross-sectional survey reveals skewed landholding distributions among rural farmers, highlighting the need for farm size–differentiated agricultural credit products.
Agricultural finance is central to farm production, investment, risk management and rural livelihoods. This paper examines the role that banks can play in supporting agricultural finance in Sikar District, Rajasthan, and presents a descriptive analysis of the landholding composition of 300 farmer respondents. The supplied dataset records 30 marginal farmers (10.00%), 60 small farmers (20.00%), 120 medium farmers (40.00%) and 90 large farmers (30.00%). Thus, medium and large farmers account for 70.00% of the sample, while marginal and small farmers constitute 30.00%. The study adopts a descriptive, cross-sectional framework and treats landholding category as a key segmentation variable for understanding differences in credit needs, collateral capacity, loan size, repayment cycles and access to formal banking channels. Because only the landholding distribution was provided, the empirical findings are intentionally restricted to frequency and percentage analysis; statements about awareness, loan adequacy, satisfaction or repayment are framed as propositions for further testing rather than reported results. The paper argues that banks in Sikar should combine universal access measures—transparent documentation, timely processing, Kisan Credit Card outreach and financial literacy—with differentiated products for distinct farm-size groups. Marginal and small farmers require low-friction working-capital finance, group-based mechanisms and protection from transaction costs, whereas medium and large farmers may require investment credit for irrigation, mechanisation, storage, value addition and diversified agricultural enterprises. The paper concludes with an analytical framework, testable hypotheses and operational recommendations for banks and policymakers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Manju et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: