1.png)
Income Perception, Interest Rate Perception, and Digital Microfinance Adoption: Micro-Enterprise Credit Decision-Making in Indonesia's KUR Program
Abstract
Purpose. This study examines the influence of income perception and interest rate perception on Kredit Usaha Rakyat (KUR) uptake decisions among micro-entrepreneurs in Kecamatan Palaran, Samarinda, East Kalimantan, Indonesia, within the broader context of the ongoing digitalization of government-subsidized microfinance services.
Design/Methodology/Approach. A quantitative cross-sectional survey was conducted with 50 micro-enterprise owners selected through purposive sampling. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire comprising 12 Likert-scale items measuring income perception, interest rate perception, and KUR uptake decisions. A dual analytical approach was employed: SmartPLS 3.0 for measurement model validation (convergent validity and reliability) and SPSS 25.0 for hypothesis testing via multiple linear regression analysis, including F-tests, t-tests, and coefficient of determination (R²).
Findings. Income perception does not exert a statistically significant partial effect on KUR uptake decisions (B = 0.214, p = 0.072), while interest rate perception has a significant positive effect (B = 0.201, p = 0.046). Jointly, both variables significantly predict KUR uptake decisions (F = 22.621, p = 0.000), explaining 49.9% of the variance. The remaining 50.1% suggests the presence of additional determinants, potentially including digital financial literacy, platform usability, and digital trust.
Research Implications. The findings challenge the assumption that income perception is a universal predictor of microcredit behavior and suggest that digital financial platforms may diminish the salience of income-based credit barriers while amplifying the role of interest rate transparency through digital information mechanisms.
Practical Implications. Banks and fintech companies distributing KUR should prioritize transparent interest rate display, interactive loan simulators, and AI-powered chatbot advisory services on digital platforms. Policymakers should integrate digital financial literacy into national inclusion strategies.
Originality/Value. This study bridges classical microfinance theory with the emerging discourse on digital financial inclusion and AI-driven credit assessment, offering empirical evidence from an underrepresented Indonesian geographic context and proposing an AI-Enhanced KUR Distribution Framework for future policy design.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Alexy, R. (2002). A theory of constitutional rights. Oxford University Press.
Balkin, J. M. (2018). Free speech is a triangle. Columbia Law Review, 118(7), 2011–2056.
Bambauer, D. E., & Massaro, T. M. (2023). Outrageous and irrational: Why emotional targeting should be understood as a form of speech. Minnesota Law Review, 107(4), 1543–1602.
Barak, A. (2012). Proportionality: Constitutional rights and their limitations. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139035293
Binns, R. (2018). Algorithmic accountability and public reason. Philosophy & Technology, 31(4), 543–556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-017-0263-5
Bradford, A. (2023). Digital empires: The global battle to regulate technology. Oxford University Press.
Celeste, E. (2019). Digital constitutionalism: A new systematic theorisation. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 33(1), 76–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2019.1562604
Cohen, J. E. (2019). Between truth and power: The legal constructions of informational capitalism. Oxford University Press.
De Gregorio, G. (2022). Digital constitutionalism in Europe: Reframing rights and powers in the algorithmic society. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009071215
Douek, E. (2022). Content moderation as systems thinking. Harvard Law Review, 136(2), 526–607.
Farrell, H., & Newman, A. L. (2023). Underground empire: How America weaponized the world economy. Henry Holt and Company.
Felix, A., Bernanda, D. Y., Rembulan, G. D., Giovanno, N., & Muti, R. N. (2024). Micro influencers enhancing brand visibility and audience engagement on TikTok digital platform. In 2024 3rd International Conference on Creative Communication and Innovative Technology (ICCCIT). IEEE.
Felix, A., Briyanti, D. O., Young, F. M., Livaro, I., & Wijaya, W. (2023). Strategi identitas digital: Analisis personal branding di platform TikTok. JDMR: Jurnal Digital Media & Relationship, 5(2), 92–100.
Felix, A., Sutrisno, J., Bernanda, D. Y., Makarawung, R. J. N., Kembau, A. S., & Hong, K. (2025). Literasi digital dan kewirausahaan: Mempersiapkan generasi muda menghadapi tantangan bisnis digital. Jurnal Pengabdian dan Kewirausahaan, 9(1).
Flew, T. (2021). Regulating platforms. Polity Press.
Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.
Helberger, N. (2020). The political power of platforms: How current attempts to regulate misinformation amplify opinion power. Digital Journalism, 8(6), 842–854. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1773888
Hutchinson, T., & Duncan, N. (2022). Defining and describing what we do: Doctrinal legal research. Deakin Law Review, 27(1), 83–119. https://doi.org/10.21153/dlr2022vol27no1art1583
Just, N., & Latzer, M. (2017). Governance by algorithms: Reality construction by algorithmic selection on the internet. Media, Culture & Society, 39(2), 238–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443716643484
Khan, L. M. (2018). Sources of tech platform power. Georgetown Law Technology Review, 2(2), 325–334.
Klonick, K. (2018). The new governors: The people, rules, and processes governing online speech. Harvard Law Review, 131(6), 1598–1670.
Kuner, C., Cate, F. H., Millard, C., & Svantesson, D. J. B. (2023). The challenge of big data for data protection. International Data Privacy Law, 13(2), 115–142. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipad006
Lessig, L. (2006). Code: Version 2.0. Basic Books.
OECD. (2019). OECD principles on artificial intelligence. OECD Legal Instruments. https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0449
Padovani, C., & Santaniello, M. (2018). Digital constitutionalism: Fundamental rights and power limitation in the internet eco-system. International Communication Gazette, 80(4), 295–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048518757139
Pohle, J., & Thiel, T. (2022). Digital sovereignty. Internet Policy Review, 11(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.14763/2022.1.1625
Pratomo, Y., & Sholeh, M. (2023). Implementation challenges of Indonesia’s Personal Data Protection Law: A regulatory perspective. Indonesian Journal of Law and Society, 4(2), 156–178. https://doi.org/10.19184/ijls.v4i2.32856
Rahman, K. S. (2018). The new utilities: Private power, social infrastructure, and the revival of the public utility concept. Cardozo Law Review, 39(5), 1621–1689.
Sander, B. (2020). Democratic disruption in the age of social media: Between freedom of expression and the regulation of disinformation. European Human Rights Law Review, 2020(6), 627–645.
Siems, M. (2022). Comparative law (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009044721
Solove, D. J., & Hartzog, W. (2022). The FTC and the new common law of privacy. Columbia Law Review, 122(3), 583–676.
Stone Sweet, A., & Mathews, J. (2019). Proportionality balancing and constitutional governance: A comparative and global approach. Oxford University Press.
Suzor, N. P. (2019). Lawless: The secret rules that govern our digital lives. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108666428
Suzor, N. P., West, S. M., Quodling, A., & York, J. (2023). What do we mean when we talk about transparency? Toward meaningful transparency in commercial content moderation. International Journal of Communication, 17, 1526–1543.
Wiratraman, H. P. (2022). Digital constitutionalism and freedom of expression in Indonesia: Between state control and human rights protection. Constitutional Review, 8(1), 45–72. https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev811
Wu, T. (2024). The First Amendment problem with banning TikTok. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. https://knightcolumbia.org/content/the-first-amendment-problem-with-banning-tiktok
Yeung, K. (2018). Algorithmic regulation: A critical interrogation. Regulation & Governance, 12(4), 505–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12158
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17509/ijdb.v5i4.97221
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2026 Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Indonesian Journal of Digital Business is published by Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI)
and managed by Department of Digital Business
Jl. Dr. Setiabudi No.229, Kota Bandung, Indonesia - 40154
View My Stats