Date of submission: February 18, 2021; date of acceptance: May 1, 2021. * Contact information: hduzakin@cu.edu.tr, Çukurova University, Faculty of Eco- nomics and Administrative Sciences, Adana, Turkey, phone: +90 3223386084; ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8840-1815. ** Contact information (corresponding author): sureyyayilmaz@cag.edu.tr, Çağ University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Mersin, Turkey, phone: +90 3246514800; ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4150-4101. Copernican Journal of Finance & Accounting e-ISSN 2300-3065 p-ISSN 2300-12402021, volume 10, issue 1 Düzakın, H., & Yılmaz, S. (2021). The Determinants of The Level of Financial Literacy in Tur- key. Copernican Journal of Finance & Accounting, 10(1), 9–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/ CJFA.2021.001 Hatice Düzakin* Çukurova University süreyya yilmaz** Çağ University tHe Determinants of tHe level of financial literacy in turkey Keywords: financial literacy, financial behaviour, financial knowledge, financial atti- tudes. J E L Classification: G53. Abstract: The main objective of this study was to explain individuals’ financial litera- cy levels through socioeconomic and demographic variables. A random sample of 1000 participants was recruited from Turkey. As an indicator of the financial literacy level, a measure with three constructs was adopted: financial attitude, financial behaviour and financial knowledge. Logit model was estimated from these explanatory variables: gender, age, marital status, number of family members, education, income, number of persons with income, household income and working conditions. In the logit model re- sults, the effect of gender, age and education was statistically significant and positive. The results emphasized that there is a relationship between financial literacy level and Hatice Düzakın, Süreyya Yılmaz10 gender, age and education. Additionally, the results of this study indicated that the level of financial literacy is 52.9% in Turkey.  Introduction Capital markets are seen as one of the crucial financing options in the econom- ic growth of countries. For this purpose, development of supply and demand in capital markets has become one of the top priority issues in terms of countries. Development of supply and demand in the market depends on increasing sav- ings and using the options of the individuals who make savings effectively. In addition to financing individuals’ incomes correctly, being able to direct them to the right investments and savings is defined as “financial literacy”. Finan- cial literacy is expressed in its most general form as, “The skill, motivation and confidence of having knowledge and an understanding on financial concepts and risks, making effective decisions with these knowledges and understand- ing in different financial contexts, developing the financial well being of the so- ciety and using it to facilitate participation in economic life.” (OECD, 2013). As a result of the increasing significance of financial literacy, studies have started to determine the level of financial literacy in developing and developed coun- tries. As a result of studies, it has been determined that levels of financial lit- eracy are low around the world (Chen & Volpe, 1998; Furtuna, 2007; Çam & Ba- rut, 2015), the potential cost of low financial literacy levels have been revealed worldwide with financial crises, and this had led countries to develop financial education strategies. For the purpose of increasing the level of financial pros- perity, institutions and organisations continue their work including the “Inter- national Gateway for Financial Education”, financial education programmes and Jumpstart by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Develop- ment (OECD), financial literacy programmes organised by the World Bank and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), financial literacy programmes by the Financial Literacy Association (FODER) in Turkey and ini- tiatives by the National Endowment for Financial Education (NEFE) in the Unit- ed States. The main reason for this is that individuals’ management of their fi- nancial lives is as important as managing the national economy. The motivation of this study was to determine the relationship between financial literacy and savings that contribute to countries’ economies in the long term and how they are evaluated by individuals. In this study, therefore, it was aimed to determine the level of financial literacy in Turkey. Along with this, avoiding unnecessary the determinAnts of the level of finAnciAl literAcy in turkey 11 expenses and transitioning from a consumer society to a knowledge, economy and technology society will increase the financial literacy levels of countries. As a matter of fact, in developed countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, it is observed that they create savings funds, have retirement plans, and it is easy to access and use knowledge in their financial markets (Danes & Hira, 1987; Volpe, Chen & Pavlicko, 1996). Literature Review Financial Literacy The concept of financial literacy has the same content, but it is expressed in dif- ferent terms in some countries. For example, “Financial Literacy” is used in the USA, Australia and New Zealand, while Canada and the United Kingdom use it as “Financial Capability” (Orton, 2007). Along with these, the terms “Financial Education and Financial Awareness” are those that are the closest to financial literacy (Gökmen, 2012). The definition of the concept of financial literacy is ex- pressed in different definitions in the financial literature. The definitions of fi- nancial literacy from 1996 to today are as follows. According to Schagen and Lines (1996), financial literacy is the ability to make efficient and right decisions with financial management (use of money), whereas, according to Chen and Volpe (1998), financial literacy is the most ef- fective concept in making financial decisions in an uncertain environment. The concept of financial literacy in the 2000s was defined as being aware of the financial concept of an individual, obtaining information needed in de- cision-making, and understanding and assessment of the information (Mason & Wilson, 2000). The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2005) described financial literacy as not only financial knowledge but also to include financial attitudes, behaviour and talent. While Taşçı (2011) defined financial literacy as being aware of financial risks and opportunities, making informed financial decisions and making choices, Karabacak (2013) stated that financial literacy in its simplest form is the state of using financial resources effectively with this kind of information by having knowledge on simple economic and financial issues. Hatice Düzakın, Süreyya Yılmaz12 Furthermore, according to Financial Literacy Association of Turkey (FODER), which was established to determine the financial literacy level in Tur- key and achieve development on this issue, financial literacy is the capability of the individual to make an informed assessment regarding the use and man- agement of money and to make effective decisions, or in other words, it is the state of individuals of having gained the capability and skills of utilizing their income, savings and investments wisely and forming budgets correctly. Considering all definitions, the general statement that arises expresses the following: financial literacy refers to individuals’ effective use and utilization of money management. It should not be thought that individuals have to be an expert or a professional in the field of finance to be considered financially liter- ate. Financially literate individuals are those who have financial knowledge on a level sufficient for themselves and their families and financial habits such as saving. It is sufficient for financially literate individuals to know the difference between shares and bills of exchange, but they are not expected to know how to use both. Different components are used while assessing the financial literacy levels of individuals. In a study conducted by Atkinson and Messy (2012) with the support of OECD, a broader definition was made for financial literacy, and financial liter- acy was measured as a composition constituted by the consciousness, knowl- edge, talent, attitudes and behaviours necessary for being able to make finan- cial decisions and ultimately reach financial prosperity. It was proposed that the components of financial literacy are financial knowledge, financial atti- tudes and financial behaviours. In this study, the financial knowledge, behav- iour and attitude components were used to determine the level of financial lit- eracy. Previous Studies on Financial Literacy Financial literacy is considered as one of the fields of literacy required by the digital age. In today’s world where rapid transformations, innovations and a large data f low are experienced, while financial literacy has become a glob- ally significant phenomenon, it is also one of the most important topics in the finance literature which has been most research and discussed and on which various studies have been conducted. In this part of the study, information on some studies on the topic of financial literacy may be seen in table 1. the determinAnts of the level of finAnciAl literAcy in turkey 13 Table 1. Financial Literacy Literature Author(s) Year Method Results Chen and Volpe 1998 University/ Survey Financial literacy levels of women, people with less education and those under 30 years of age are people‘s financial literacy level is low. Cude, Lawrence, Lyons, Metzger, LeJeune, Marks and Machtmeset 2006 University/online survey Individuals’ financial decisions are affected by family. Kieschnick 2006 High school / survey Self-confidence and financial literacy level have a positive relationship. Worthington 2006 Austrian Households/ telephone survey Financial literacy levels of people at ages of 50- 60, workers, farmers and those graduated from university are high. Furtuna 2007 University / survey Financial literacy level of the unemployed and women are low. OECD 2009 18-countries/ university The level of financial literacy is different for each country. Lusardi, Mitchell and Curto 2010 University / survey The family situation (rich or poor) affects level of financial literacy. Ansong and Gyensare 2012 University / survey Family’s education level affects students posi- tively. Atkinson and Messy 2012 14 countries /survey Most people have financial knowledge but their knowledge and interest level is different for each country. Ergün, Şahin and Ergin 2014 Public university / survey There is mainly a relationship between financial literacy and demographic characteristics. Er, Temizel, Özdemir and Sönmez 2014 5 public universities / survey 32% have high, 30% have medium, 16% have low financial literacy levels. Bayram 2014 Public University /survey Financial literacy levels of students taking finance and accounting course are higher than students of other departments. Potrich et al. 2015 Households /survey 67.1 % were classified as having a low financial literacy level. Çam and Barut 2015 Public University /survey Financial literacy level is so low. Alkaya and Yağlı 2015 Public university/ survey There is a significant relationship between financial behaviour and financial attitudes. Çelikkol and Çelikkol 2015 Public university/ survey Financial literacy level of girls is higher compa- red to boys. Dilek, Küçük and Eleren 2016 Public university / survey In department comparisons, economics stu- dents have higher financial literacy levels than others. Hatice Düzakın, Süreyya Yılmaz14 Author(s) Year Method Results Danışman, Sezer and Gümüş 2016 Turkish students (390) / survey Financial literacy level is basic. FODER 2017 Survey /Households Financial literacy level is 70%. Çam, Ayaydın, Çam and Akdeniz 2018 TR90 Households/survey Income and education levels have a positive relationship with financial literacy levels. Boz 2019 Student’s Family member/ survey Students’ family members have high levels of financial literacy. Bağcı and Arabacı 2019 Public University /survey Students have a low financial literacy level due to lack of calculating abilities. S o u r c e : compiled by the author. Considering the studies that have been conducted, the topic of financial lit- eracy is a topic that has newly become popular in Turkey. Studies in Turkey have usually focused on determining the financial literacy levels of university students and academic personnel and whether or not they have a relationship with demographic characteristics. Looking at the international literature, it is seen that studies may be traced back to older dates, while this concept has been studies since the 20th century. While similar studies are seen in the literature in Turkish, it was determined that, in the international literature, studies have also been conducted on topics such as determining the financial literacy levels of high school students and retired individuals. In this part of the study, a broad literature review was carried out, and what kind of improvement can be made on the topic was focused on. Research Methodology and Research Process Data In this study, which was carried out to determine the financial literacy levels in Turkey, a questionnaire was applied on randomly selected households living in 12 provinces located in the LEVEL 1 region determined by the Turkish Statisti- cal Institute (TÜİK). Table 1. Financial… the determinAnts of the level of finAnciAl literAcy in turkey 15 The questionnaire application included 1000 individuals, and the questions were directed to the participants via telephone and face-to-face interviews. The questionnaire implementation process started in March 2018 and end- ed in July 2018. The questions in the questionnaire that was used in the study were compiled from those used in the studies by van Rooij, Lusardi and Ales- sie (2011) and Potrich, Vieira and Kirch (2015). The questionnaire consisted of four parts. Questions on determining financial knowledge (8 questions), fi- nancial behaviour (27 statements) and financial attitude (10 statements) and current financial knowledge (8 questions) were asked of the participants. The questions on financial knowledge and current financial knowledge were mul- tiple-choice questions with three options each, while the statements on finan- cial behaviour and attitude were 5-point Likert-type (absolutely disagree, disa- gree, undecided, agree, absolutely agree) statements. The eight questions that were asked to determine the financial knowledge of the individuals respond- ing to the questionnaire were questions on topics such as simple mathemati- cal operation, time value of money, inf lation, interest calculation and risk and diversification. The questions on current financial knowledge were those that measured topics such as blockchain and exchange rates. At the next stage of the study, the relationship between financial literacy and sociodemographic char- acteristics was aimed to be determined. Methodology Econometric Model In this study that aimed to determine the financial literacy levels in Turkey, Logit regression analysis was carried out to reveal the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. In this study, the Stata MP 14 (64 bit) was used for analysis. Nonparametric scale and ordinal variables were de- scribed with frequency analysis, whereas scale parameters were described with means and standard deviations. Crosstabulation and Chi-Square analy- sis were used for contingency tables. Spearman’s rho correlation was used for correlation matrix for study parameters. Logit model with margin effects were used for analysis for research question. The main equation was given as in the follows: Hatice Düzakın, Süreyya Yılmaz16 Financial Literacy = β0 + β1 Gender + β2 Age + β3 Marital status + β4 Number of family members + β5 Education + β6 Income + β7 Number of income person + β8 House income + β9 Worker Research Hypotheses When financial literacy was considered within a theoretical framework and in the light of the literature review that was carried out, the following hypotheses were formed. ■ H1: Gender has a statistically significant predictive effect on level of fi- nancial literacy. ■ H2: Age has a statistically significant predictive effect on level of finan- cial literacy. ■ H3: Marital status has a statistically significant predictive effect on level of financial literacy. ■ H4: Number of family members has a statistically significant predictive effect on level of financial literacy. ■ H5: Education has a statistically significant predictive effect on level of financial literacy. ■ H6: Income has a statistically significant predictive effect on level of fi- nancial literacy. ■ H7: Number persons with income has a statistically significant predicti- ve effect on level of financial literacy. ■ H8: Household income has a statistically significant predictive effect on level of financial literacy. ■ H9: Working condition has a statistically significant predictive effect on level of financial literacy. Empirical Results and Discussion The demographic characteristics of the participants are presented in the ta- ble 2. the determinAnts of the level of finAnciAl literAcy in turkey 17 Table 2. Demographic characteristics Frequency (n) Percent (%) Gender Female 306 30.6 Male 694 69.4 Age 18-24 33 3.3 25-34 243 24.3 35-44 335 33.5 45-54 247 24.7 55-64 101 10.1 65+ 41 4.1 Marital status Married 752 75.2 Single 205 20.5 Divorced 43 4.3 Educational level Literacy 4 0.4 Primary school (5 years) 57 5.7 Primary school (8 years) 46 4.6 High School 212 21.2 Vocational School 96 9.6 Bachelor’s Degree 463 46.3 Post Degree (master and Ph.D) 122 12.2 Number of family members 1 83 8.3 2 183 18.3 3 275 27.5 4 319 31.9 More than 4 140 14.0 Hatice Düzakın, Süreyya Yılmaz18 Frequency (n) Percent (%) Number of revenue generating family members 1 437 43.7 2 495 49.5 3 50 5.0 4 15 1.5 More than 4 3 0.3 Income No 160 16.0 Less than1.603 TL 52 5.2 1.604 TL-2.600 TL 139 13.9 2.601 TL- 3.600 TL 150 15.0 3.601 TL- 4.600 TL 129 12.9 4601 TL- 5.600 TL 108 10.8 More than 5.601 TL 262 26.2 Household’s Income Less than 1.603 TL 24 2.4 1604 TL-2600 TL 73 7.3 2601 TL- 3600 TL 112 11.2 3601 TL- 4600 TL 121 12.1 4601 TL- 5600 TL 118 11.8 5601 TL and over 552 55.2 Who is the decision maker about financial action? You 383 38.3 You and your wife 456 45.6 Wife 46 4.6 You and other family members 115 11.5 Table 2. Demographic… the determinAnts of the level of finAnciAl literAcy in turkey 19 Frequency (n) Percent (%) Working status Non-worker 251 25.1 Worker 749 74.9 S o u r c e : compiled by the author. 30.6% of the participants in the study are women and 69.4% are men. 3.3% of participants between 18-24, 24.3% between 25-34, 33.5% between 35-44, 24.7% between 45-54, 10.1% between 55-64, 4.1% has 65 and over age. 75.2% of the participants are married, 20.5% are single and 4.3% are divorced. While 0.4% of the participants are literate; 5.7% have 5-year primary school, 4.6% 8-year primary school, 21.2% high school, 9.6% associate degree, 46.3% un- dergraduate and 12.2% graduate education. 8.3% of the participants have one other than their own, 18.3% two, 27.5% three, 31.9% four, 14.0% over 4 fam- ily members. 5.2% of the participants are below 1603 TL, 13.9% between 1604- 2600 TL, 15.0% between 2601-3600 TL, 12.9% between 3601-4600 TL, 10.8% between 4601-5600 TL 26.2% of them have 5601 TL and above income. 2.4% of the participants are below 1603 TL, 7.3% between 1604-2600 TL, 11.2% between 2601-3600 TL, 12.2% between 3601-4600 TL, 11.8% between 4601-5600 TL 55.2% of them have family income of TL 5601 and above. While 38.3% of the participants made financial decisions themselves, 45.6% of them stated that they made them with their spouses, 4.6% of them made their spous- es and 11.5% of them agreed with the family. 74.9% of the participants stated that while working 25.1% stated that they were not working. Correlation matrix of study variables is given in the table 3. Table 2. Demographic… Hatice Düzakın, Süreyya Yılmaz20 Table 3. Correlation matrix of study variables (Spearman’s rho Test) Age Marital status Education N. of family members N. of income person Income House income Marital status -0.150** Education -0.097** 0.006 N. of family members 0.001 -0.402** -0.199** N. of income person -0.029 -0.057 0.152** 0.229** Income 0.043 -0.047 0.274** -0.043 0.028 House income -0.050 -0.122** 0.347** 0.086** 0.303** 0.436** Working -0.393** -0.008 0.233** 0.041 0.153** 0.402** 0.288** * * p < 0 . 0 1 S o u r c e : compiled by the author. There is a statistically significant and negative relationship between the par- ticipants’ ages and marital status, education and employment status (p <0.01). There is a negative relationship between marital status and number of family members and household income (p <0.01). There is a positive relationship be- tween the number of individuals in the family and the income generating family and household income (p <0.01). There is a positive relationship between the number of income earners and household income and working status (p <0.01). There is a positive relationship between income and household income and working status (p <0.01). There is a positive relationship between household income and working status (p <0.01). Contingency results explaining financial literacy and explanatory variables are given in the table 4. Table 4. Contingency tables – financial literacy x explanatory variables Low (n=471; %47.1) High (n=529; %52.9) X2 p f % f % Gender Female 177 57.8 129 42.2 20.424 0.000 Male 294 42.4 400 57.6 the determinAnts of the level of finAnciAl literAcy in turkey 21 Low (n=471; %47.1) High (n=529; %52.9) X2 p f % f % Age 18-24 26 78.8 7 21.2 25-34 131 53.9 112 46.1 35-44 153 45.7 182 54.3 26.900 0.000 45-54 110 44.5 137 55.5 55-64 39 38.6 62 61.4 65+ 12 29.3 29 70.7 Marital status Married 334 44.4 418 55.6 Single 115 56.1 90 43.9 9.122 0.010 Divorced 22 51.2 21 48.8 Educational level Literacy 3 75.0 1 25.0 Primary school (5 years) 38 66.7 19 33.3 Primary school (8 years) 28 60.9 18 39.1 26.312 0.000 High School 116 54.7 96 45.3 Vocational School 44 45.8 52 54.2 Bachelor’s Degree 193 41.7 270 58.3 Post Degree (master and Ph.D) 49 40.2 73 59.8 Number of family members 1 42 50.6 41 49.4 2 89 48.6 94 51.4 2.678 0.613 3 131 47.6 144 52.4 4 139 43.6 180 56.4 More than 4 70 50.0 70 50.0 Number of revenue generating family members 1 211 48.3 226 51.7 Table 4. Contingency… Hatice Düzakın, Süreyya Yılmaz22 Low (n=471; %47.1) High (n=529; %52.9) X2 p f % f % 2 233 47.1 262 52.9 3.181 0.528 3 18 36.0 32 64.0 4 7 46.7 8 53.3 More than 4 2 66.7 1 33.3 Income No 87 54.4 73 45.6 Less than1603 TL 28 53.8 24 46.2 1604 TL-2600 TL 75 54.0 64 46.0 11.146 0.084 2601 TL- 3600 TL 65 43.3 85 56.7 3601 TL- 4600 TL 57 44.2 72 55.8 4601 TL- 5600 TL 49 45.4 59 54.6 More than 5601 TL 110 42.0 152 58.0 Household’s Income Less than 1603 TL 9 37.5 15 62.5 1604 TL-2600 TL 39 53.4 34 46.6 2601 TL- 3600 TL 59 52.7 53 47.3 4.253 0.514 3601 TL- 4600 TL 57 47.1 64 52.9 4601 TL- 5600 TL 57 48.3 61 51.7 5601 TL and over 250 45.3 302 54.7 Who is the decision maker about financial action? You 176 46.0 207 54.0 You and your wife 202 44.3 254 55.7 9.010 0.029 Wife 27 58.7 19 41.3 You and other family members 66 57.4 49 42.6 Working status Non-worker 114 45.4 137 54.6 0.380 0.537 Worker 357 47.7 392 52.3 S o u r c e : compiled by the author. Table 4. Contingency… the determinAnts of the level of finAnciAl literAcy in turkey 23 57.8% of women and 42.4% of men have low financial literacy knowledge, this difference is statistically significant (p <0.05). 78.8% of those aged 18-24, 53.9% of those aged 25-34, 45.7% of those aged 35-44, 44.5% of those aged 45-54, 55- 38.6% of those aged between 64 and 29.3% of those aged over 65 have financial literacy knowledge, this difference is statistically significant (p <0.05). 44.4% of married participants, 56.1% of single participants, 51.2% of divorced participants have low financial literacy knowledge and these dif- ferences are statistically significant (p <0.05). 75.0% of literate people, 66.7% of 5-year primary school graduates, 60.9% of 8-year primary school graduates, 54.7% of high school graduates, 45.8% of associate degree graduates, 41.7% of graduate graduates, graduate graduates 40.2 of them have financial litera- cy knowledge and this difference is statistically significant (p <0.05). 50.6% of those who have a person outside their family, 48.6% of those who are two, 47.6% of those who are three, 43.6% of those who are four, 50.0% of those who are more than four individuals have lower financial literacy knowledge, how- ever, these differences are not statistically significant (p> 0.05). 48.3% of those who have income from their own family, 47.1% of those who are two, 36.0% of those who are three, 46.7% of those who are four, 66.7% of those who are more than four individuals have lower financial literacy knowledge, but these differ- ences are not statistically significant (p> 0.05). 53.8% of those with a monthly income of 1603 TL and below, 54.0% of those between 1604-2600 TL, 43.3% of those with 2601-3600 TL, 44.2% of those between 3601-4600 TL, those be- tween 4601-5600 TL 45.4%, 42.0% of those with TL 5601 and above have low financial literacy knowledge and this difference is not statistically significant (p> 0.05). 37.5% of households with household income of 1603 TL and below, 53.4% of those between 1604-2600 TL, 52.7% of those with 2601-3600 TL, 47.1% of those between 3601-4600 TL, 4601-5600 TL 48.3% of the ones, 45.3% of those with TL 5601 and above have low financial literacy knowledge and this difference is not statistically significant (p> 0.05). 46.0% of those who make the decisions themselves in the family, 44.3% of themselves and their spouses, 58.7% of the spouses and 57.4% of family members have low financial litera- cy level and this difference is statistically significant (p <0.05). 45.4% of those who do not work and 47.7% of employees have low financial literacy level and these differences are not statistically significant (p> 0.05). Logit nonlinear results for research parameters and financial literacy are given in the table 5. Hatice Düzakın, Süreyya Yılmaz24 Table 5. Logit nonlinear result for research parameters and financial literacy Logit Model Marginal effects Coefficient p Coefficient p Gender 0.646 0.000* 0.149 0.000* Age 0.241 0.000* 0.055 0.000* Marital status -0.150 0.270 -0.034 0.269 Living family mem. 0.067 0.313 0.015 0.312 Education 0.297 0.000* 0.068 0.000* Income 0.044 0.256 0.010 0.255 N. of income person 0.028 0.798 0.006 0.798 House income -0.060 0.153 -0.014 0.152 Working -0.335 0.094 -0.077 0.092 Constant -2.989 0.000* X2 78.38 X2 p 0.000 R2 0.057 Log likelihood -652.274 Observation 1000 S o u r c e : compiled by the author. In the logit model, the contribution of gender, age and education on the level of financial literacy is statistically significant (p <0.05). The marginal effect re- sults are also compatible with the results obtained in the logit model. In the logit model, the effect of gender, age and education was positive. Since the rank- ing for gender is coded as female-male, the level of financial literacy increases when gender passes from female to male. This situation is also seen in Table 4. Since age and education parameters are coded increasingly, financial literacy level increases with age and education. The explanatory power of the model is 0.057, and the model is significant in predicting the relationship between finan- cial literacy and demographic characteristics (X2: 78.38; p <0.01). Moreover, in the determinAnts of the level of finAnciAl literAcy in turkey 25 the model, the hypotheses H1, H2 and H5 were accepted, whereas the hypoth- eses H3, H4, H6, H7, H8 and H9 were rejected. Considering the results on the hy- potheses in detail, in their studies, Chen and Volpe (1998), Lusardi and Mitch- ell (2007), Agarwal, Driscoll, Gabaix and Laibson (2009), Lusardi and Mitchell (2011), Atkinson and Messy (2012), OECD (2013), Brown and Graf (2013), Mah- dzan and Victorian (2013) and Potrich et al. (2015) accepted the hypothesis “H1: Gender has a statistically significant predictive effect on level of financial liter- acy.” They explained the effect of gender on financial literacy as that women are financially less literate than men. This situation supported the results on the hypothesis in this study. Additionally, Agarwal et al. (2009), Lusardi and Mitch- ell (2011), Atkinson and Messy (2012), OECD (2013) and Scheresberg (2013) accepted the hypothesis “H2: Age has a statistically significant predictive effect on level of financial literacy.” This situation showed that younger individuals are less financially literate than older individuals, and as age increases, peo- ple are more likely to become more financially literate. In addition to this, the increased experiences of individuals who are older makes a positive contribu- tion to the increase in their financial literacy levels. This study also supported this hypothesis, but Potrich et al. (2015) rejected it. Research (2003), Calamato (2010) and Brown and Graf (2013) obtained results supportive of the hypoth- esis “H3: Marital status has a statistically significant predictive effect on level of financial literacy.” This was stated in their studies as single individuals are less financially literate than married individuals. The results obtained by this study and the study by Potrich et al. (2015) were similar, and they rejected the hy- pothesis H3. Servon and Kaestner (2008) and Mottola (2013) obtained results supportive of the hypothesis “H4: Number of family members has a statistically significant predictive effect on level of financial literacy.” They argued that, as the number of individuals living in a household increases, the financial literacy level is lower. However, in this study, they hypothesis H4 was rejected. Further- more, Chen and Volpe (1998), Hogarth (2002), Lusardi and Mitchell (2011) and Mahdzan and Victorian (2013) obtained results that supported the hypothesis “H5: Education has a statistically significant predictive effect on level of financial literacy.” It was determined that individuals who have undergraduate and post- graduate degrees are more financially literate than those with high school or primary school degrees. This finding was similar to those in this study. Mon- ticone (2010), Hastings and Mitchell (2011) and Atkinson and Messy (2012) found results that supported the hypotheses “H6: Income has a statistically sig- nificant predictive effect on level of financial literacy” and “H7: Number of persons Hatice Düzakın, Süreyya Yılmaz26 with income has a statistically significant predictive effect on level of financial lit- eracy.” It was observed that individuals with lower income have lower finan- cial literacy levels. On the other hand, this study and the study by Potrich et al. (2015) did not obtain results that supported the aforementioned hypotheses and the hypothesis “H8: Household income has a statistically significant predic- tive effect on level of financial literacy.” Chen and Volpe (1998), Research (2003), Kim and Garman (2004) and Calamato (2010) obtained results supportive of the hypothesis “H9: Working condition has a statistically significant predictive ef- fect on level of financial literacy,” but neither this study nor the study by Potrich et al. (2015) could find a statistically significant relationship.  Conclusions and Recommendation The purpose of this study was to explain the significance and components of financial literacy for the purpose of increasing the financial literacy levels of financial consumers. In the scope of the study, the relationship between the fi- nancial literacy levels and sociodemographic characteristics of individuals liv- ing in the LEVEL 1 region of Turkey was investigated. As a result, a significant and positive relationship was determined between financial literacy and the variables of gender, age and educational status. Accordingly, men were found to have higher financial literacy levels then women. It was additionally deter- mined that the financial literacy levels of individuals with postgraduate de- grees were higher, while the financial literacy levels of individuals at the ages of 18-24 were lower. In this study, among the participants of the questionnaire, the financial literacy levels of 52.9% were high, while those of 47.1% were low. This situation reveals the necessity of conducting work to increase the financial knowledge and financial literacy levels in Turkey. This way, in societies whose financial literacy levels increase, responsible saving tendencies will increase. It is considered that, as a result of this, increased investments will create a sig- nificant effect on growth. Realizing this situation is a long-term process. What needs to be done in this process may be to establish and infrastructure. For ex- ample, such an infrastructure may include offering courses containing basic finance knowledge at educational institutions on the level of high schools, in- cluding compulsory financial literacy courses in the first year curricula of all departments regardless of field and constantly keeping this issue in the agenda on the print and visual media. In the case that such efforts are made, not only the determinAnts of the level of finAnciAl literAcy in turkey 27 will the financial literacy levels in Turkey start to rise in the medium run, but a healthier responsibility of saving will also start to develop. In a longer term, several positive effects of this on Turkey’s economy will be observe. Acknowledgements This study which is SBA-2018-10112 number was supported by Scientific Re- search Projects -Cukurova University.  References Agarwal, S., Driscoll, J., Gabaix, X., & Laibson, D. (2009). The Age of Reason: Financial Decisions over the Lifecycle with Implications for Regulation. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2, 51-117. Alkaya, A., & Yağlı, İ. (2015). Finansal Okuryazarlık-Finansal Bilgi, Davranış ve Tutum: Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi İİBF Öğrencileri Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Jour- nal of International Social Research, 8(40), 585-585. http://dx.doi.org/10.17719/ jisr.20154013941. Ansong, A., & Gyensare, M.A. (2012). Determinants of University Working-students’ Fi- nancial Literacy at the University of Cape Coast, Ghana. International Journal of Busi- ness and Management, 7(9), 126-133. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v7n9p126. Atkinson, A., & Messy, F. (2012). Measuring Financial Literacy: Results of the OECD / In- ternational Network on Financial Education (INFE) Pilot Study. OECD Working Pa- per, 15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k9csfs90fr4-en. Bağcı, H., & Arabacı, S.M. (2019). Finansal Okuryazarlık Düzeyinin ve Finansal Okuryazarlığı Etkileyen Faktörlerin Belirlenmesi. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 7(3), 68-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v7i3.1232. Bayram, S.S. (2014). Finansal Okuryazarlık ve Para Yönetimi Davranışları: Anadolu Üniversitesi Öğrencileri Üzerine Uygulama. Business & Management Studies: An In- ternational Journal, 2(2), 105-135. http://dx.doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v2i2.68. Boz, D. (2019). Kütahya İlinde Bulunan Özel Eğitim Kurumlarında Öğrenim Gören Öğrenci Velilerinin Finansal Okuryazarlık Düzeylerinin Belirlenmesi. Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, 82, 147-160. Brown, M., & Graf, R. (2013). Financial literacy and retirement planning in Switzerland. Numeracy, 6(2), 1-21. Calamato, M.P. (2010). Learning Financial Literacy in the Family. Unpublished master’s thesis. The Faculty of the Department of Sociology, San José State University. Çam, A.V., & Barut, A. (2015). Finansal Okuryazarlık Düzeyi ve Davranışları: Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Önlisans Öğrencileri Üzerinde Bir Araştırma. Global Journal of Econom- ics and Business Studies, 4(7), 63-72. Hatice Düzakın, Süreyya Yılmaz28 Çam, H., Ayaydın, H., Çam, A.V., & Akdeniz, F. (2018). Bireylerin Finansal Bilgi Düzeyi ile Finansal Katılım Düzeyi Arasındaki İlişki: TR 90 Bölgesinde Bir Araştırma. Ekono- mi Bilimleri Dergisi, 10(1), 1-13. Çelikkol, M.M., & Çelikkol, H. (2015). The evaluation of the students in Dumlupinar Uni- versity Vocational School of Social sciences about levels of financial literacy. Co- pernican Journal of Finance & Accounting, 4(2), 43-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/ CJFA.2015.015. Chen, H., & Volpe, R.P. (1998). An Analysis of Personal Financial Literacy among College Students. Financial services review, 7(2), 107-128. Cude, B., Lawrence, F., Lyons, A., Metzger, K., LeJeune, E., Marks, L., & Machtmes, K. (2006). College Students and Financial Literacy: What They Know and What We Need to Learn. Proceedings of the Eastern Family Economics and Resource Manage- ment Association, 102(9), 106-109. Danes, S.M., & Hira, T.K. (1987). Money Management Knowledge of College Stu- dents. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 17(1), 4-16. Danışman, E., Sezer, D., & Gümüş, U.T. (2016). Finansal Okuryazarlık Düzeyinin Be- lirlenmesi: Üniversite Öğrencileri Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Kara Harp Okulu Bilim Dergisi, 26(2), 1-37. Dilek, S., Küçük, O., & Eleren, A. (2016). Kastamonu Üniversitesi Öğrencilerinin Ekono- mi Okuryazarlığı. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(7), 1865-1878. http://dx.doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.259311. Er, F., Temizel, F., Özdemir, A., & Sönmez, H. (2014). Lisans Eğitim Programlarının Fi- nansal Okuryazarlık Düzeyine Etkisinin Araştırılması: Türkiye Örneği. Anadolu Üni- versitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14(4), 113-125. Ergün, B., Şahin, A., & Ergin, E. (2014). Finansal Okuryazarlık: İşletme Bölümü Öğrencileri Üzerine Bir Çalışma. Journal of International Social Research, 7(34), 847- 864. FODER (2020). FODER Hakkında, https://www.fo-der.org/foder-hakkinda (accessed: 15.04.2019). FODER (2020). FODER ve Visa, Türkiye’nin Finansal Okuryazarlık Haritasını Çıkardı, https://www.fo-der.org/foder-ve-visa-turkiyenin-finansal-okuryazarlik-haritasi- ni-cikardi (accessed: 7.05.2019). Furtuna, F. (2007). College Students’ Personal Financial Literacy: Economic Impact and Public Policy Implications. Undergraduate Economic Review, 4(1), 1-32. Gökmen, H. (2012). Finansal Okuryazarlık. Baskı İstanbul: Hiperlink Yayınları. Hastings, J., & Mitchell, O.S. (2011). Financial Literacy: Implications for Retirement Secu- rity and the Financial Marketplace. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Hogarth, J.M. (2002). Financial Literacy and Family and Consumer Sciences. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 94(1), 15-28. Karabacak, S. (2013). Yönetim Kurumları ve Finansal Okuryazarlık. Anadolu Üniversite- si Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 15(3), 1-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.25871. Kieschnick, D.A.H. (2006). Financial knowledge levels and savings behaviors of Bermu- dian high school seniors at CedarBridge Academy. Retrospective Theses and Disser- tations, 864. http://dx.doi.org/10.31274/rtd-180813-9896. the determinAnts of the level of finAnciAl literAcy in turkey 29 Kim, J., & Garman, E.T. (2004). Financial Stress, Pay Satisfaction and Work- place Performance. Compensation Benefits Review, 36(1), 69-76. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/0886368703261215. Lusardi, A., & Mitchell, O.S. (2007). Financial Literacy and Planning: Implications for Retirement Wellbeing. Wharton Pension Research Council Working Papers, 211. Lusardi, A., & Mitchell, O.S. (2011). Financial Literacy and Retirement Planning in the United States. Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, 10(4), 509-525. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1017/S147474721100045X. Lusardi, A., Mitchell, O.S., & Curto, V. (2010). Financial Literacy among the Young. Journal of consumer affairs, 44(2), 358-380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2010.01173.x. Mahdzan, N.S., & Victorian, S.M.P. (2013). The Determinants of Life Insurance Demand: A Focus on Saving Motives and Financial Literacy. Asian social science, 9(5), 274. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n5p274. Mason, C.L.J., & Wilson, R.M.S. (2000). Conceptualising fi-financial literacy. Occasional paper, 7. Monticone, C. (2010). How Much Does Wealth Matter in the Acquisition of Financial Lit- eracy? The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 44(2), 403-422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1745-6606.2010.01175.x. Mottola, G.R. (2013). In Our Best Interest: Women, Financial Literacy, and Credit Card Behavior. Numeracy, 6(2), 1-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1936-4660.6.2.4. OECD (2005). Improving Financial Literacy Analysis of Issues and Policies Organiza- tion, https://www.oecd.org/finance/financial education/improvingfınanciallitera cvanalvsisofissuesandpolicies.html (accessed: 12.10.2019). OECD (2013). Financial Literacy and Inclusion: Results of OECD/INFE Survey across Coun- tries and by Gender. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Orton, L. (2007). Financial Literacy: Lessons from International Experience. Canadian Policy Research Networks, Incorporated. Potrich, A.C.G., Vieira, K.M., & Kirch, G. (2015). Determinants of Financial Literacy: Anal- ysis of the Inf luence of Socioeconomic and Demographic Variables. Revista Contabili- dade & Finanças, 26(69), 362-377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1808-057x201501040. Research, R.M. (2003). Survey of Adult Financial Literacy in Australia. ANZ Banking Group. https://www.anz.com/australia/support/library/MediaRelease/MR20030502a.pdf. Schagen, S., & Lines, A. (1996). Financial Literacy in Adult Life: A Report to the Natwest Group Charitable Trust. NFER, 36-45. Scheresberg, C.B. (2013). Financial Literacy and Financial Behavior among Young Adults: Evidence and Implications. Numeracy, 6(2), 1-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1936- 4660.6.2.5. Servon, L.J., & Kaestner, R. (2008). Consumer Financial Literacy and the Impact of Online Banking on the Financial Behavior of Lower-income Bank Customers. Journal of Con- sumer Affairs, 42(2), 271-305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2008.00108.x. Taşçı, M. (2011). Okullarda Temel Finans Eğitimi Verilmesinin Önemi, Dünya Uygu- lamaları, Öneriler. Sermaye Piyasası Dergisi, 5, 87-103. Hatice Düzakın, Süreyya Yılmaz30 Van Rooij, M., Lusardi, A., & Alessie, R. (2011). Financial Literacy and Stock Mar- ket Participation. Journal of Financial Economics, 101(2), 449-472. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2011.03.006. Volpe, R.P., Chen, H., & Pavlicko, J.J. (1996). Personal Investment Literacy among College Students: A survey. Financial Practice and Education, 6(2), 86-94. Worthington, A.C. (2006). Predicting Financial Literacy in Australia. Financial Services Review, 15(1), 59-79.