The aim of this study was to determine the impact of behavioural factors on the financial decision-making process of agricultural producers in the context of economic instability in Ukraine. The methodology was based on an interdisciplinary approach using behavioural economics concepts, which made it possible to analyse economic decision-making through the prism of cognitive biases, social context and emotional factors. Statistical data for 2022-2024 on lending, insurance, agricultural producers’ participation in grant programmes, and the level of digitalisation in the agricultural sector were analysed. In particular, during this period, more than 13,000 agricultural producers took advantage of the “Affordable Loans 5-7-9%” programme, attracting 104.5 billion UAH, and more than 1,500 farmers applied for grants totalling more than 7 billion UAH. Particular attention was paid to studying the impact of the social environment, in particular participation in cooperatives, which cover 15-20% of farmers. It was also found that in 2024, more than 79% of farmers used IT solutions, including the Global Positioning System, drones and elements of artificial intelligence. The study identified key behavioural anomalies, including the status quo effect, overconfidence, attachment and postponement of decisions. The study showed that, despite the formal availability of government programmes, the level of their implementation remains low due to mistrust of institutions, complex procedures and a lack of tailored information. The results confirmed the feasibility of integrating behavioural tools – such as nudge interventions, digital services, and personalised messages – to improve the effectiveness of financial policy in the agricultural sector. The practical significance of the study lies in the possibility of applying its results to improve the mechanisms of state financial support for the agricultural sector by introducing behavioural tools into software, communication strategies and decision-making procedures
behavioural methods; financial policy; behavioural factors; agriculture; management; behavioural barriers