







































 Humanities and Social Science Research; Vol. 5, No. 3; 2022 

ISSN 2576-3024   E-ISSN 2576-3032 

https://doi.org/10.30560/hssr.v5n3p13 

 13 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

Intergenerational Income and Religiosity: A Longitudinal Study of 

Agricultural Household in Indonesia  

Eko Priyotomo1, Subejo2 & Evita Hanie Pangaribowo3 

1 Doctoral Program of Islamic Economy and Halal Industry, Graduate School of Universitas Gadjah Mada, 

Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia 

2 Extension and Development Communication, Graduate School of Universitas Gadjah Mada, Universitas Gadjah 

Mada, Indonesia 

3 Faculty of Geography, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia 

Correspondence: Eko Priyotomo, Graduate School of Universitas Gadjah Mada, Universitas Gadjah Mada, 

Indonesia. E-mail: ekopry mail.ugm.ac.id 

 

Received: August 25, 2022; Accepted: September 27, 2022; Published: October 4, 2022 

 

Abstract  

This study aimed to analyze the influence of religiosity and socio-economic determinant factors to income 

relationship between inter-generations of farmers and their children. Data related to farmers (parents) were 

collected from (Indonesia Family Live Survey) IFLS-93, while data related to farmers' children was obtained by 

tracing in IFLS-2014. The 21-year interval is supposed to be sufficient time to grasp developments between 

generations. The results revealed that farmer children's households have better economic potential than that of 

their parents. Comparing to the poor farming households, the percentage of the poor generation is higher than non-

poor farmer households. The income of parents (farmers) and the education of farmers' children are factors that 

play an important role in increasing the income of farmers' children, having strong (robust) and significant positive 

effect. Another variable that has positive significant effect is agricultural land ownership, while age, household 

burden, working in agriculture, and religiosity-religion have negative significant effects. Implementation of 

religiosity activities should be encouraging productivity and prosperity of life in accordance with the guidelines 

and rules in Islam. 

Keywords: farmer income, intergenerational, religiosity, Indonesia 

1. Introduction 

National development goal of Indonesia is to improve the welfare of all people, in which at every stage improving 

community welfare and equity (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2014). During the period 2010-2018, Indonesia's 

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased with an average growth rate of 3.98% per year, this figure exceeded the 

average growth rate of the world economy in 2018 is 3.1%. 

The role of the agricultural sector in national development historically has given an important and strategic role. 

The agricultural sector plays role in providing food and also source of livelihood for most of Indonesia's population. 

In addition, the agricultural sector is also source of export income (foreign exchange) for the country as well as 

push and pull (backward and forward linkage) for the growth of other economic sectors (Mellor, 1995). The 

agricultural sector is one sector that can be driver of economic development (Tanjung et al., 2021). This is 

reinforced again that humans cannot live without agricultural products and the danger that humans fear the most 

is the danger of hunger, armed with knowledge and technological advances, humans have tried to create synthetic 

food products but so far have not succeeded, so that human dependence on agriculture is serious dependence 

Immortal (Widodo, 2018). 

Based on the structure of the formation of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the agricultural sector has fairly large 

role, this is illustrated by its contribution to total GDP, in 2020 the gross domestic product of the agricultural sector 

contributed 13.70% of Indonesia's overall GDP is the sector that provides the second highest contribution after the 

industrial sector which contributes 19.88% . During the 2010-2020 period, the average contribution of the 

agricultural sector to total GDP was 13.35%. Observing in terms of performance, the value of the GDP of the 

agricultural sector from year to year continues to grow, in 2020 the value of the GDP of the Indonesian agricultural 

sector reaches IDR 1,378,131 Billion. Furthermore, based on BPS data, During the 2010-2020 period, there was 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 5, No. 3; 2022 

 14 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

trend of continuous increase in the GDP of the agricultural sector, this indicates that the agricultural sector is quite 

conducive so that it is able to continue to grow. 

In terms of employment, the agricultural sector also plays significant role in driving the Indonesian economy, 

including through its role in providing food sources, industrial raw materials, and providing employment, 

especially in rural areas (Ministry of Agriculture, 2020). In relation to employment, the agricultural sector has 

quite strategic role because it appears that the working age population is still the most dominant, whose main 

occupation is in the agricultural sector, although over time there has been decline. Based on Central Bureau of 

Statistics (BPS) data, in 2020 the working age population whose main occupation is in the agricultural sector is 

recorded at 29.5%, in addition, if we look at its development during the period 2008–2020 the working age 

population whose main job is in the agricultural sector ranges from 30-40%.  

The performance in the agricultural sector, which was quite good, turned out to be less than the level of welfare of 

the majority of people who work in agriculture, it can be seen from the large number of poverties in the agricultural 

sector. Based on BPS data, the number of poor households mostly comes from the agricultural sector, in 2019 it 

was recorded that the number of poor households in the agricultural sector was 49.41% (Figure 1). 

 

 

Figure 1. Distribution of Poor Houshold on Agricultural sectors 

 

 

Figure 2. Number of Poor Household on Agriculture Sector 

 

46.91

30.32

15.46

7.32

49.41

30.06

14.02

6.51

46.04

32.51

14.89

6.57

49.36

30.31

13.87

6.46

0 10 20 30 40 50

Agriculture

Others

Unemployment

Industry

%

2021

2020

2019

2018

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Year



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 5, No. 3; 2022 

 15 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

If you look at its development, from year to year poor households are always dominated by households from the 

agricultural sector and during this period there is relatively almost no significant change. Based on BPS data, 

during the period 2012-2019, the number of poor households from the agricultural sector was relatively constant, 

at around 50% (Figure 2). The high and non-shifting level of poverty in the agricultural sector indicates that the 

development growth achieved by the agricultural sector cannot be enjoyed equally by the actors in the agricultural 

sector itself, which means that there is still high inequality, while income inequality and development are believed 

to be one of the causes of inequality. factors causing the slow pace of economic recovery (Chetty et al., 2014; Lee 

& Solon, 2009). 

The low welfare of households in the agricultural sector is indicated by the continued dominance of poor 

households from the agricultural sector, and this condition does not appear to have changed significantly from year 

to year. According to the 2013 SUSENAS data, it was found that 99.98% of businesses in the agricultural sector 

were household agricultural businesses carried out by farmers. Based on this, it is quite interesting to conduct 

research on how the economy changes between generations of farmers (between farmers and their children). 

Religion has an important role in the development economy. Healthy economy requires everyone respect the 

divinity and dignity each other. In association with economics, religion encourages free competition, protection of 

property rights, and encourages people to share and behave well with one another (Davies, 2004). Religion is 

recognized as having strong role in influencing the lives of individuals (Diener et al., 2011; Vieten et al., 2013). 

In addition, the dynamics of economic activity are related to the values contained in religion. Religion has the 

potential to play central role in supporting those experiencing poverty, through spiritual assistance and guidance, 

as well as providing resilience mechanisms at both the individual and community levels. Adhering to the nature 

of the values of his faith, religion is important to encourage efforts to alleviate poverty, namely through 

strengthening motivation in increasing productivity (Tomalin, 2018). 

In addition to the above, values and spirit in religion (religiosity) seem to have relationship with economic activity, 

productivity and income of the community (including the farming community). Studies on this issue are still 

relatively limited, thus there is an urgency to examine economic changes between generations of farmers in the 

context of their relationship with religiosity. The novelty of this research is to analyze how the economic changes 

between generations of farmers and relate it to the role of religiosity in it. 

As previously stated, based on the performance and development of GDP, the development that has been carried 

out has provided significant progress and added value. Agriculture is sector that plays an important role in this 

development and most of the business actors in the agricultural sector are farmers. On the other hand, income 

inequality in the agricultural sector continues to occur, which is suspected from the still dominant poverty 

originating from the agricultural sector, where this situation occurs continuously over long period of time until it 

exceeds between generations. In essence, the values of religiosity are believed to be motivational booster to drive 

productivity, most of the Indonesian population is Muslim, and Islam provides guidance for its people to live 

balanced life, care for well-being by working hard, earnestly. Based on this, it is quite interesting to examine what 

characteristics and variables actually play role in the formation of the income of farmers' children, also by including 

the religiosity factor in it. The purpose of this study is to reveal how closely inter-generational farmers' incomes 

are related (i.e. between farmers and their children) and what variables play role in the incomes of farmers' children. 

2. Method  

Indonesian Family Live Surveys (IFLS)  data were used in this study. The IFLS survey was carried out by RAND 

corporation, RAND is nonpartisan organization that operates independently and free from political and commercial 

pressures, while RAND is also research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help 

make societies around the world safer and safer, healthier and more prosperous. 

The main data used in this study is data from farmer households and farmers' children. Data from Islamic farming 

households (generation-1) are used as basic data, obtained from data from IFLS-1 respondents (1993) who have 

their main job as farmers and are Muslim. Generation-2 data (farmers' children) are taken from IFLS-5 data (2014), 

with the consideration that the 21-year difference between IFLS-1 and IFLS-5 is sufficient time to see changes 

between generations. Furthermore, generation-2 data (farmer's children) were obtained by tracing and searching 

the IFLS-4 data (2014), with the criteria that the parents in IFLS-1 (1993) were Islamic farmers (the first-generation 

respondents). 

In this study, data analysis was performed using multiple linear regression using the following basic model 

(Gujarati, 2012): 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 5, No. 3; 2022 

 16 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

𝑌 = 𝛼 + ∑ 𝛽𝑖 𝑋𝑖 +  𝜀

𝑛

𝑖=1

 

where Y represent income, 𝛼  is constant, 𝛽  is the regression coefficient of the variable, and 𝜀  is an error. 

Furthermore, the model built in this study is the income of farmers' children as the dependent variable, and as the 

independent variable which includes: education, age, parents' income, agricultural land ownership, agricultural 

work, and religiosity (Table 1), with the following notation and description: 

Income = +1Income-parent +2Educ +3Ages +4HH-dependent +5d_farm job +6d_farm land  

 +7d_road quality +8d_kube +9d_industry +10Praying +11Reciation + 

 

Table 1. Variable Description 

Variable Information Symbol 

Income 

(farmer's son) 

Per capita income of farmer's children's household as a proxy for household 

per capita expenditure 

Y 

Income-parent 

(farmer/parent) 

Parent's household per capita income as a proxy for farmer household's per 

capita expenditure 

X1 

Educ  

(farmer's son) 

Formal education that has been taken by the children of farmers 

 

X2 

Age  

(farmer's son) 

Farmer's son age 

 

X3 

HH-dependent 

(farmer's son) 

The number of dependents in the household of the farmer's child, is the number 

of household members who do not work 

X4 

d_farm job 

(farmer's son) 

Dummy field of work from a farmer's son 

1= work in the agricultural sector 

0= other 

X5 

d_farm land 

(farmer's son) 

Dummy ownership of farmland from farmer's son 

1 = owns agricultural land 

0= other 

X6 

d_road quality 

(farmer's son) 

Dummy of road quality in his village area. 

1= asphalt/cement/paved road 

0= land/ other 

X7 

d_kube 

(farmer's son) 

Dummy for the existence of the joint business group (KUBE) program in his 

village area 

1= ever had a KUB program 

0= other 

X8 

d_industry 

(farmer's son) 

Dummy the presence of factories/industries in the village area 

1= there is a factory/industry 

0= other 

X9 

Praying ceremony 

(farmer's son) 

Frequency / how many times to pray in a day 

 

X10 

Recitation  

(farmer's son) 

Frequency / how many times to attend the recitation in a period of 1 week X11 

 

3. Result and Discussion 

The number of farmer households that were sampled was 819 (Table 2), which was obtained from search on IFLS-

1. The average age of farmers at the time the survey was carried out was 46 years, this age is in the productive age 

category. Based on data, their average education has not yet fully completed elementary level education (SD) with 

an average of 5.5 years of education. When compared with the government's population program which prioritizes 

2 children enough, the size of the farmer's household is considered exceeding, with an average household size of 

5.4. Based on the ownership of agricultural land, only small percentage of farmer households own agricultural 

land, which is only 29%. 

 

 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 5, No. 3; 2022 

 17 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

Table 2. Characteristics of Farmers and Farmers' Children 

Description Farmer's Household Farmer's Children 

Household 

Average difference test 

Age (year) 46.4 34.40 t = -44.5839*** 

Education level (year) 3.47 8.83 t = 36.6565*** 

Household size (person) 5.43 3.46 t = -32.4264*** 

Work in agriculture (%) 100 37.3 - 

Farming land ownership (%) 29 18 - 

Note : *** p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1 

 

Farmer children's households, which were obtained from searches in IFLS-5, were found to be 1162 (Table 3). On 

average, these households had household head in the productive age of 34 years, although they were the same in 

the productive age, the average age of the farmer children was younger. The education of the children of farmers 

has increased significantly when compared to the education of their parents, the average education that has been 

taken by the children of farmers is 8.8 years. Based on these figures indicate that on average of them have 

completed elementary school education but have not fully completed junior high school level. The number of 

household members (household size) of children of farmers is significantly smaller than the size of the household 

of their parents. In general, large household size will contain large household burden and vice versa, so that this 

indicates that the household burden of farmers' children is smaller than their parents. In terms of the main livelihood, 

most of the children of farmers have main job outside of agriculture, there are only small number of children who 

have main job as farmer, which is around 37.3%. 

The average household income of farmers is IDR 34,379. Of the respondent farmer households, by referring to the 

poverty line set by the government at that time (1993) which was IDR 32,000/cap/month, there were small 

proportion of farmer households included in the poor category (37%) and the rest, namely 63% fall into the 

category of not poor. Judging from the characteristics, the age of the head of the household between poor and non-

poor households is not significantly different (Table 3). Based on the level of education and household size, 

between poor and non-poor farmer households there is significant difference, namely the education level of the 

head of household from poor farmer households is lower, while the household size of poor farmer households is 

larger. 

 

Table 3. Characteristics of Farmers and Children of Poor and Non-Poor Farmers 

Description Average Average Difference Test 

Farmer's Household Poor Not Poor  

− Age (year) 46.55 36.41 t = -0.1949ns 

− Education level (year) 2.89 3.79 t = 5.9017*** 

− Household size (person) 5.92 5.18 t = -6.7973*** 

− Farming land ownership (%) 26 30 - 

    

Farmer's Children's Household    

− Age (year) 36 34 t = -1.9957** 

− Education level (year) 6.4 9 t = 4.2881*** 

− Household size (person) 4.47 3.4 t = -4.7913*** 

− Work in agriculture (%) 54 36 - 

Note : *** p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1 

 

Furthermore, in terms of income, based on the calculation of the amount of the poverty line figure that has been 

set by the government in that year (2014) which is IDR  327,587, then there are 5% still in the category of poor 

households, in general the situation is much better than the conditions in the generation of their parents where 37% 

are in the category of poor households. If we look at the differences in the prominent characteristics that are 

reflected between the households of farmer children who are in the poor and non-poor categories, these are: in 

terms of education, the average poor farmer only completes elementary school level education (SD) while the 

average non-poor farmer has completed education at the level of junior secondary education (SMP); in terms of 

household size, poor households have more household members, generally larger household size indicates larger 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 5, No. 3; 2022 

 18 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

household burden as well; in the household group, most of the children in the poor category have their main job 

in agriculture, while in the non-poor group most of them have main job outside of agriculture. 

 

 Figure 3. Flow of Generation of Farmer's Children 

 

The total sample farmer households are 819, most of the farmer households are included in the non-poor category, 

namely 63%, and the remaining 37% are farmer households in the poor category. If we explore further by income 

category, the flow of generation from farmer to farmer's children (Figure 3) showed that both poor and non-poor 

farming households produce new generation that is categorized as poor and not poor as well. Based on the 

calculation results, poor farmer households will form household generation of children of farmers, 9% of which 

are categorized as poor and 91% are not poor, while in the flow of non-poor farmer households will form household 

generation of farmer children with 3% including households poor and 97% not poor. 

3.1 Factors Influencing Farmer's Children's Income 

The relationship between parents' income and children's income is an important issue in development planning 

(Solon, 2004), it is also very necessary in order to formulate programs and policies so that programs and policies 

that are prepared and implemented have stronger and more comprehensive basis (Purbowati, 2018). In this study, 

it was found that in all the models built, parental income is one of the variables that has significant positive (robust) 

effect on the income of farmers' children (Table 4). This shows that there is significant and robust relationship 

(robust) between the income of the farmer's children and the income of their parents (Figure 4). The relationship 

shown is positive, which indicates that partially farmers with high incomes (rich) will have the potential to produce 

children with high incomes, and conversely farmers with low incomes (poor) will tend to produce children with 

low incomes as well. Similar research also revealed that parental income has positive effect on children's income 

(Bevis & Barrett, 2015; Dang, 2020). Parent’s income is also strong predictor of children's success in the labor 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 5, No. 3; 2022 

 19 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

market (Gregg et al., 2019), this happens because in general rich parents invest more in their children, so that in 

the future their children's income will be higher (Bevis & Barrett, 2015). This situation also strengthens the 

indication of fairly strong transfer of wealth between parents and their children. 

 

Table 4. Regression Results in Various Estimation Models 

(Model) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 

VARIABLES Income Income Income Income Income Income 

       

Income_parent 0.194*** 0.226*** 0.226*** 0.209*** 0.208*** 0.204*** 

 (0.0336) (0.0322) (0.0322) (0.0320) (0.0320) (0.0320) 

Education 0.0326*** 0.0208*** 0.0207*** 0.0172*** 0.0172*** 0.0185*** 

 (0.00456) (0.00444) (0.00444) (0.00440) (0.00439) (0.00440) 

age  -0.00822*** -0.00827*** -0.00709*** -0.00679*** -0.00587** 

  (0.00241) (0.00242) (0.00239) (0.00249) (0.00251) 

HH_dependent  -0.181*** -0.181*** -0.177*** -0.176*** -0.177*** 

  (0.0164) (0.0164) (0.0160) (0.0161) (0.0160) 

d_farm_job    -0.230*** -0.238*** -0.232*** 

    (0.0377) (0.0380) (0.0379) 

d_farm_land   0.0170 0.0974** 0.103** 0.0954** 

   (0.0449) (0.0457) (0.0458) (0.0461) 

d_road_quality     -0.0230 -0.0223 

     (0.0239) (0.0242) 

d_kube     0.0197 0.0192 

     (0.0151) (0.0151) 

d_industry     0.0621 0.0603 

     (0.0456) (0.0458) 

Praying       -0.0146 

      (0.0343) 

Reciation       -0.0375*** 

      (0.0141) 

Constant 11.39*** 11.78*** 11.77*** 12.01*** 11.99*** 12.11*** 

 (0.337) (0.327) (0.328) (0.328) (0.334) (0.338) 

       

Observations 1.069 1.069 1.069 1.069 1.069 1.069 

R-squared 0.098 0.226 0.226 0.249 0.252 0.258 

Note : Robust standard errors in parentheses ; *** p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 5, No. 3; 2022 

 20 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

 

Figure 4. Regression Diagnostic Plots 

 

The education of children of farmers shows very important role in the income of children of farmers. Based on the 

results of the calculation of the education variable of the farmer's child which is calculated based on the formal 

education taken, it has positive influence with very high and strong significance on the income he earns, it can be 

seen from the significant influence of the education variable on all models used. This illustrates that the higher the 

level of education obtained during childhood, the more potential to obtain high incomes, and vice versa, low 

education will lead to low incomes in adulthood. Several studies also reveal the same thing as follows: in the case 

of fisherman households, poor households due to their low level of education (Tain, 2013). Education is the main 

factor influencing chronic poverty (Jalan & Ravallion, 1998). Improvements in the level of education will be 

followed by an increase in income (Wong, 2019). Education is one of the factors that play an important role in 

increasing income in rural area (Liao, 2019), upgrading skill in workplace (Simard-Duplain & St-Denis, 2020), 

and economic mobility (Belfield et al., 2017; Chuard & Grassi, 2020; Corak & Heisz, 1999; Gong et al., 2012; 

Khalid, 2018; Pohan 2013), so that parental investment in children's education and work itself has an important 

role in triggering an increase in intergenerational income (Jin et al., 2019). Thus, the role of education in efforts to 

increase income and alleviate poverty in the scope of the children of farmers is important, increasing education in 

childhood is believed to lead to an increase in income in later adulthood. 

Age is also variable that has significant negative effect on the income of farmers' children, which means that the 

older the age, the lower the potential income, the meaning that can be obtained is that the productivity of labor 

related to the older income will decrease from and up to certain limits. This situation is in accordance with the 

normal cycle of labor, basically the potential for labor productivity will increase along with the age of work 

experience to the limit of productive age, then after exceeding the productive age, the productivity of the workforce 

-2
-1

0
1

2

e
( 

In
c
o

m
e
 |

 X
 )

-2 -1 0 1 2
e( I_parent | X )

coef = .20358313, (robust) se = .03196844, t = 6.37

-2
-1

0
1

2

e
( 

In
c
o

m
e
 |

 X
 )

-10 0 10 20
e( Education | X )

coef = .01849031, (robust) se = .00439621, t = 4.21

-2
-1

0
1

2

e
( 

In
c
o

m
e
 |

 X
 )

-20 -10 0 10 20 30
e( age | X )

coef = -.00587074, (robust) se = .00251347, t = -2.34

-2
-1

0
1

2

e
( 

In
c
o

m
e
 |

 X
 )

-4 -2 0 2 4
e( HH_dependent | X )

coef = -.17730042, (robust) se = .01598147, t = -11.09

-2
-1

0
1

2

e
( 

In
c
o

m
e
 |

 X
 )

-1 -.5 0 .5 1
e( d_farm_job | X )

coef = -.23246897, (robust) se = .03791392, t = -6.13

-2
-1

0
1

2

e
( 

In
c
o

m
e
 |

 X
 )

-.5 0 .5 1
e( d_farm_land | X )

coef = .09540165, (robust) se = .04610177, t = 2.07

-2
-1

0
1

2

e
( 

In
c
o

m
e
 |

 X
 )

-2 -1 0 1 2
e( d_road_quality | X )

coef = -.02233446, (robust) se = .02420797, t = -.92

-2
-1

0
1

2

e
( 

In
c
o

m
e
 |

 X
 )

-2 -1 0 1 2 3
e( d_kube | X )

coef = .0191553, (robust) se = .0151128, t = 1.27

-2
-1

0
1

2

e
( 

In
c
o

m
e
 |

 X
 )

-1 -.5 0 .5 1
e( d_industri | X )

coef = .06029077, (robust) se = .0457591, t = 1.32

-2
-1

0
1

2

e
( 

In
c
o

m
e
 |

 X
 )

-2 -1 0 1
e( shalat | X )

coef = -.01456122, (robust) se = .03427529, t = -.42

-2
-1

0
1

2

e
( 

In
c
o

m
e
 |

 X
 )

-2 0 2 4
e( pengajian | X )

coef = -.03747395, (robust) se = .01408491, t = -2.66



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 5, No. 3; 2022 

 21 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

will continue to decrease. In this study, the average age of the farmer's children at the time of the survey was 34.4 

years, that age was in the productive age group. 

Household burden is the number of household members who are dependents or burdens in the household because 

the household members in question do not have income. This fact reveals that the increase in productivity and 

household income will not be triggered by increasing household burdens, on the contrary what happens is that the 

greater the household burden, the greater the economic burden that must be borne by the household income, which 

will mean getting poorer. Based on the calculations that have been carried out, the average household burden that 

occurs is 1.8, which means that in each household, there is an economic burden of 1.8 people. In this regard, the 

efforts that have been made by the government are family planning (KB) programs. 

Results found that working in the agricultural sector is significant factor that negatively affects the income he earns, 

this indicates that working outside the agricultural sector will be more likely to increase income, only a small 

proportion of households own agricultural land (18%) while the rest, namely most households (82%) do not own 

agricultural land. Similar studies reveal that leaving the agricultural sector is not solution to improve the welfare 

of farmers (Moeis et al., 2020), Reflecting on this, switching from the agricultural sector is not the right effort to 

increase income, of course, for households who have agricultural land, besides that from more comprehensive 

perspective, the agricultural sector is the only sector that produces basic food staples. for the survival of human 

life, whose availability will also greatly affect other sectors and conditions. 

In the agricultural sector, especially farming, one of the main production factors is agricultural land in addition to 

labor, technology and capital, so that the area of agricultural land will affect the amount of production and income 

that farmers will generate. 

Owning agricultural land is one of the parameters that has significant positive effect on the level of household 

income of children of farmers. Partially, households that have agricultural land will have better income than 

households that do not have agricultural land. This indicates that agricultural land is one of the resource assets that 

has economic potential, with proper management and exploitation it will be able to generate better income. 

The existence of good and adequate transportation infrastructure, one of which is intended to facilitate and expedite 

the flow of people, goods and services from or to the region, so that in the next stage it is believed to have the 

opportunity to provide the potential for increasing economic activity in the region which leads to an increase in 

the income of the people around the region. the. Most of the road infrastructure in the village area is paved or 

paved (59%), and the rest is dirt roads (41%). In this study, the existence of infrastructure in the form of asphalt 

or paved village roads does not appear to have significant effect on increasing income. Based on these results, 

The Joint Business Group (KUBE) is one of the programs formed and implemented by the Indonesian government 

under the management of the Ministry of Social Affairs in an effort to alleviate poverty through community 

economic empowerment. In fact, in this study, the results showed that the existence of KUBE in the region had 

not been able to significantly have positive impact on household income. Several related things that are suspected 

to hinder the successful performance of KUBE in general are because the management of program implementation 

starting from planning, organizing, directing and controlling is still weak (Sitepu, 2016). This situation has resulted 

in the existence of KUBE in the field not lasting long and the business being built not developing, which is more 

specifically caused by: (a) the establishment of KUBE is impromptu; (b) minimal socialization prior to the 

implementation of activities; (c) tends to be top down; (d) miss targeting; (e) the type of business is not compatible 

with local resources; (f) the type of business is not in accordance with the habits (culture) of the community; (g) 

business management (trade) is not appropriate; (h) the division of labor is not deemed unfair; (i) seeds (livestock) 

are too small; (j) less reliable companion; (k) supervision is not optimal, where these factors are interrelated with 

each other (Sitepu, 2016). 

In line with the rapid development of technology, the growth of non-agricultural sectors such as industry, trade, 

services, etc. is growing rapidly, which of course requires supply of labor. Opportunities and opportunities to work 

in these sectors are also growing quite rapidly along with its development. So theoretically, the existence of 

factory/processing industry in the village area is expected to be able to move the wheels of the economy in the 

region through the absorption of resources, labor and lead to the growth of activities/activities supporting the 

industry. Most of the respondents live in rural areas where there are no factories/processing industries, there are 

about 35% of the respondents in their village areas where there are factories/processing industries. Based on the 

results of the analysis, the existence of factory/processing industry does not significantly increase the household 

income of the respondents. Lack of access, ability, or capacity of human resources around the factory/processing 

industry area to fill labor needs or capture opportunities for economic activity may be one of the causes. 

 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 5, No. 3; 2022 

 22 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

3.2 Religiosity 

The dynamics of economic activity are related to the values contained in religion. Religion has the potential to 

play central role in supporting those in poverty, through spiritual assistance and guidance, as well as providing 

resilience mechanisms at both the individual and community levels. Adhering to the nature of the values of his 

faith, religion is important to encourage efforts to alleviate poverty, namely through strengthening motivation in 

increasing productivity (Tomalin, 2018). 

Basically, religion has an important role in the development and maintenance of vital and just economy, this is 

because healthy economy requires everyone to view each other with dignity, not as objects of exploitation, this is 

because religion urges people/followers to respect divinity in their life. every human being regardless of class or 

cultural background, its relationship in the economic field of religion encourages free competition, protection of 

property rights, and encourages people to share and behave well towards one another  (Davies A., 2004;Vieten et 

al., 2013). 

Religiosity is person's parameter in believing and practicing the religion he adheres to, religiosity is defined as 

person's belief in God and commitment to act in accordance with the principles of his religion (Bakar et al., 2013; 

Ilter et al., 2017). Furthermore, religiosity will also describe the extent to which followers of one religion accept 

and carry out the teachings and commands mandated by the religion they profess (Ilter et al., 2017; Mayer & 

Lopoo, 2004; Yousaf & Malik, 2013; Delener, 1990). According to Glock (1962), religiosity includes an 

ideological dimension (religious beliefs), ritualistic dimension (religious practice), an experiential dimension 

(feelings of religiosity), an intellectual dimension (religious knowledge), and consequence dimension (religious 

effects). 

Most of Indonesia's population is Muslim, which in 2020 covers 87.2% (Global Religious Futures, 2020). 

Regarding the main points of Islamic teachings, Islam has taught and provided guidance to its people so that 

humans try to live balanced life, paying attention to the welfare of life in the world and the safety of life in the 

hereafter. Working hard to achieve an adequate life is an act that is highly recommended in Islam. Islam does not 

want to see its people lazy and do not want to try. Achievement on prosperous life in the world, Islam has taught 

how economic resources can be utilized optimally and correctly within the framework of Islam. Working hard is 

guide of Muslim as mentioned in Surah At-Taubah (9:105): "Work you, surely Allah and His Messenger and the 

believers will see your work, and you will be returned to Allah, then he will give you what you used to do.” Muslim 

must work seriously and should not sit idly by in his life as has been guided by the Holy Qur'an in Surah Asy 

Syarh (94:7) which means: "So when you are in you are busy), then work earnestly until you are tired, or establish 

(new problems) so that they become real. Next, as a Muslim, in order to achieve better situation, you must try to 

change yourself seriously, because Allah does not change the condition of people so that they change the situation 

that is in themselves, as has been guided by the Qur'an, one of which is in Surah Ar-Ra'. d: 11, which means: "For 

humans there are angels who always follow him in turn, in front and behind him, they guard him by Allah's 

command. Verily Allah does not change the condition of people until they change the situation that is in themselves. 

And If Allah wills evil for people, then no one can resist it and there is absolutely no protector for them but Him." 

Prayer and recitation are practice parameters (ritualistic dimensions) of religiosity that are included in the model. 

In fact, the results of the analysis show that prayer does not have significant effect on increasing income, this is 

possible because prayer is one of the dimensions of the relationship between man and his god so that it does not 

significantly affect activities related to economic activities. What is quite interesting here is the recitation, which 

based on the results of the processing shows significant negative effect on household income. This is in line with 

the findings which reveal that religiosity is negatively related to GDP (Solt et al., 2011; Storm, 2017). There is 

strong negative relationship between religiosity and productivity (Herzer & Strulik, 2017), but there are also 

studies that reveal that religiosity will reduce the negative impact of inequality (Joshanloo & Weijers, 2016), also 

has positive effect on welfare (Awaworyi Churchill et al., 2019). Religion is recognized as having strong role in 

influencing the lives of individuals (Diener et al., 2011; Vieten et al., 2013). Apart from that, it is absolutely 

believed that the comprehensive teachings of Islam will essentially encourage the development and development 

of self and society as whole. in the sense that religiosity (religious) activities will not have negative effect on efforts 

to achieve economic (income) but on the contrary these activities become driving force and encouragement for 

activities because Islam has taught mankind not to be lazy, work hard and earnestly in activities within the 

framework of worshiping Allah SWT. The presence of the finding that recitation activities have negative effect on 

income, brings awareness that these activities should be carried out using enriched courses that comprehensively 

raise and encourage productivity balanced manner in accordance with the guidelines and rules in Islam. 

 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 5, No. 3; 2022 

 23 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

4. Conclusion 

In general, farmer children's households have better economic potential than their parents because they have 

younger and productive age, higher education levels and smaller household burdens. There are poor farmer 

households that tend to produce higher percentage of the poor generation, because in poor households 9% of their 

children are poor, while in non-poor farmers only 3% of their children are poor. 

The income of parents (farmers) is one of the determining factors and plays an important role in the formation of 

children's income, because it is statistically strong (robust) and significantly positive. The education of farmers' 

children is one of the factors that is statistically robust and significantly positive, these results convince us that the 

higher the level of education, the higher the level of income obtained. 

In terms of children of farmers, other variables that have significant effect on the income of children of farmers 

are: age, household burden, working in agriculture, owning agricultural land, and religiosity-religion. In more 

detail, the effects of these variables are: age has negative effect, household burden has negative effect, working in 

agriculture has negative effect, owning agricultural land has positive effect, and religiosity-religion has negative 

effect. 

References  

Awaworyi Churchill, S., Appau, S., & Farrell, L. (2019). Religiosity, income and wellbeing in developing countries. 

Empirical Economics, 56(3), 959-985. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-017-1380-9 

Bakar, A., Lee, R., & Hazarina Hashim, N. (2013). Parsing religiosity, guilt and materialism on consumer ethics. 

Journal of Islamic Marketing, 4(3), 232-244. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIMA-04-2012-0018 

Belfield, C., Crawford, C., Greaves, E., Gregg, P., & Macmillan, L. (2017). Intergenerational Income Persistence 

within Families. Centre for the Economics of Education, W17/11. https://doi.org/10.1920/wp.ifs.2017.W1711 

Bevis, L. E. M., & Barrett, C. B. (2015). Decomposing Intergenerational Income Elasticity: The Gender-

differentiated Contribution of Capital Transmission in Rural Philippines. World Development, 74, 233-252. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.04.010 

Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Kline, P., & Saez, E. (2014). Where is the land of opportunity? The geography of 

intergenerational mobility in the United States. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(4), 1553-1623. 

https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju022 

Chuard, P., & Grassi, V. (2020). Switzer-Land of Opportunity: Intergenerational Income Mobility in the Land of 

Vocational Education. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3662560 

Corak, M., & Heisz, A. (1999). Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System The Intergenerational 

Earnings and Income Mobility of Canadian Men: Evidence from Longitudinal Income Tax Data The 

Intergenerational Earnings and Income Mobility of Canadian Men Evidence from Longitud. Source: The 

Journal of Human Resources, 34(3), 504-533. https://doi.org/10.2307/146378 

Dang, T. (2020). Intergenerational Earnings and Income Mobility in Vietnam. Labour, 34(1), 113-136. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/labr.12164 

Davies, A. (2004). The Role Of Religion In The Economy. International Journal on World Peace, 21(2), 37-42. 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/20753439 

Diener, E., Tay, L., & Myers, D. G. (2011). The religion paradox: If religion makes people happy, why are so many 

dropping out? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(6), 1278-1290. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024402 

Glock, C. Y. (1962). Religious Education : The Official Commitment On The Study Of Religious Commitment 1. 

Journal of the Religious Education Association, 57(4), 98-110. https://doi.org/10.1080/003440862057S407 

Gong, H., Leigh, A., & Meng, X. (2012). Intergenerational income mobility in urban China. Review of Income and 

Wealth, 58(3), 481-503. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4991.2012.00495.x 

Gregg, P., Macmillan, L., & Vittori, C. (2019). Intergenerational income mobility: access to top jobs, the low-pay 

no-pay cycle and the role of education in a common framework. Journal of Population Economics, 32(2), 

501-528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-018-0722-z 

Gujarati, D. (2012). Econometrics by Example. Palgrave Macmillan. 

Herzer, D., & Strulik, H. (2017). Religiosity and income: a panel cointegration and causality analysis. Applied 

Economics, 49(30), 2922-2938. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2016.1251562 

https://doi.org/10.1920/wp.ifs.2017.W1711
https://doi.org/10.2307/146378
https://doi.org/10.1080/003440862057S407


hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 5, No. 3; 2022 

 24 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

Ilter, B., Bayraktaroglu, G., & Ipek, I. (2017). Impact of Islamic religiosity on materialistic values in Turkey. 

Journal of Islamic Marketing, 8(4), 533-557. https://doi.org/10.1108/jima-12-2015-0092 

Jalan, J., & Ravallion, M. (1998). Determinants of Transient and Chronic Poverty: Evidence from Rural China. 

Policy Research Working Paper, June 1998. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-1936 

Jin, M., Bai, X., Li, K. X., & Shi, W. (2019). Are we born equal: A study of intergenerational income mobility in 

China. Journal of Demographic Economics, 85(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1017/dem.2018.19 

Joshanloo, M., & Weijers, D. (2016). Religiosity Moderates the Relationship between Income Inequality and Life 

Satisfaction across the Globe. Social Indicators Research, 128(2), 731-750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-

015-1054-y 

Khalid, M. A. (2018). Climbing the Ladder: Socioeconomic Mobility in Malaysia. Asian Economic Papers, 17(3), 

1-23. https://doi.org/10.1162/asep_a_00624 

Lee, C. I., & Solon, G. (2009). Trends in intergenerational income mobility. Review of Economics and Statistics, 

91(4), 766-772. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.91.4.766 

Liao, Y. (2019). Does Education Improve Intergenerational Income Mobility? Open Journal of Social Sciences, 

07(05), 86-98. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2019.75006 

Mayer, S. E., & Lopoo, L. M. (2004). What do trends in the intergenerational economic mobility of sons and 

daughters in the United States mean? In Generational Income Mobility in North America and Europe. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511492549.006 

Mellor, J. W. (1995). Agriculture on the Road to Industrialization. Published for the International Food Policy 

Research Institute, Johns Hopkins University Press. 

Ministry of Agriculture. (2020). Statistik Ketenagakerjaan Sektor Pertanian 2020. In Ministry of Agriculture 

Republic Indonesia. Agricultural Data Center & Information System, Secretariat General Ministry of 

Agriculture Republic Indonesia. 

Moeis, F. R., Dartanto, T., Moeis, J. P., & Ikhsan, M. (2020). A longitudinal study of agriculture households in 

Indonesia: The effect of land and labor mobility on welfare and poverty dynamics. World Development 

Perspectives, 20(September). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2020.100261 

Purbowati, A. (2018). Pengaruh Transfer Modal Manusia Antargenerasi Terhadap Mobilitas Pendapatan 

Antargenerasi Di Indonesia. Sosiohumaniora, 20(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.24198/sosiohumaniora.v20i1.10667 

Simard-Duplain, G., & St-Denis, X. (2020). Exploration of the Role of Education in Intergenerational Income 

Mobility in Canada: Evidence from the Longitudinal and International Study of Adults. Canadian Public 

Policy, 46(3), 369-396. https://doi.org/10.3138/CPP.2019-072 

Sitepu, A. (2016). Analisis Efektifitas Kelompok Usaha Bersama (Kube) Sebagai Instrumen Program Penanganan 

Fakir Miskin. Sosio Informa, 53-68. https://doi.org/10.33007/inf.v2i1.212 

Solon, G. (2004). A model of intergenerational mobility variation over time and place. In Generational Income 

Mobility in North America and Europe (Issue 2004, pp. 38-47). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511492549.003 

Solt, F., Habel, P., & Grant, J. T. (2011). Economic Inequality, Relative Power, and Religiosity. Social Science 

Quarterly, 92(2), 447-465. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2011.00777.x 

Storm, I. (2017). Does Economic Insecurity Predict Religiosity? Evidence from the European Social Survey 2002-

2014. Sociology of Religion: A Quarterly Review, 78(2), 146-172. https://doi.org/10.1093/socrel/srw055 

Tain, A. (2013). Faktor Dominan Penyebab Kemiskinan Rumah Tangga Nelayan Motor Tempel Di Wilayah 

Tangkap Lebih Jawa Timur. Sosiohumaniora, 15(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.24198/sosiohumaniora.v15i1.5237 

Tanjung, G. S., Suryantini, A., & Utami, A. W. (2021). The priorities of leading sub-sector in the sector of 

agriculture, forestry, and fisheries in economic development in bangka belitung province. Agraris, 7(2), 160-

175. https://doi.org/10.18196/agraris.V7I2.11615 

Tomalin, E. (2018). Religions, poverty reduction and global development institutions. Palgrave Communications, 

4(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0167-8 

Vieten, C., Scammell, S., Pilato, R., Ammondson, I., Pargament, K. I., & Lukoff, D. (2013). Spiritual and religious 

competencies for psychologists. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 5(3), 129-144. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032699 

https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-1936


hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 5, No. 3; 2022 

 25 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

Widodo, S. (2018). Pembangunan dan Politik Pertanian di Indonesia. In Caraka Tani: Journal of Sustainable 

Agriculture (Vol. 22, Issue 1, p. 26). https://doi.org/10.20961/carakatani.v22i1.20534 

Wong, M. (2019). Intergenerational mobility in slums: Evidence from a field survey in Jakarta. Asian Development 

Review, 36(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1162/adev_a_00121 

Yousaf, S., & Malik, M. S. (2013). Evaluating the influences of religiosity and product involvement level on the 

consumers. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 4(2), 163-186. https://doi.org/10.1108/17590831311329296 

 

Copyrights 

Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal. 

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 

license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 


