The impact of behavioral attributes on rural youth’s propensity to participate in non-primary agribusinesses: Evidence from KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Figures & data

Figure 1. Integrated behavioural and sustainable livelihoods framework.

Source: Adapted from Fogg (2009) and Zaca et al. (2021).

Table 1. Variables included in the FLR model.

Dependent variables
Model 1: Proportion of time the youth are willing to spend
Model 2: Proportion of money the youth are willing to invest
Independent Variables
Variable name	Measure	Expected sign
Risk-taking	PCA Index	-/+
Innovation	PCA Index	-/+
Embrace_Change	PCA Index	-/+
Agricultural training	PCA Index	-/+
Limited business skills	PCA Index	-/+
Poor time management	PCA Index	-/+
Youth Age	Years	+
Youth Gender	Sex of youth (1 = Male 0 = Otherwise)
Dependency ratio	Ratio of the sum of dependents (i.e. 0–14, above 65 years, permanently sick and/or disabled members of the household) to the working-age group (15–64)	–/+
Household_Agric	Household members engaged in agricultural activities (1 = Yes, 0 = otherwise)	+
Access to credit	Accessed credit in the last 24 months (1 = Yes, 0 = Otherwise)	+
Social Media	Has a social media account (1 = Yes, 0 = Otherwise)	–/+
LogICT	Natural log of the total monetary value (in Rands) of the ICT assets	-/+
Land Access	Youth’s access to land (Yes = 1; No = 0)	+
LogWealth	Natural log of the total monetary value (in Rands) of the total non-ICT assets	-/+
Positive Psychological	The sum of the Likert scale scores of 5 positive statements that measure psychological capital	+
Perceptions	The sum of the Likert scale scores of 4 positive statements designating perceptions about agriculture	+

Table 2. Entrepreneurial spirit constructs.

Construct Scenarios	Possible responses	Score
Risk-taking
Suppose you are presented with an investment opportunity with two options. To what extent are you likely to:	choose an investment option with a 50% chance of losing everything and a 50% chance of doubling the investment
	choose an investment option with 100% guaranteed money back with a 15% return on your investment
	choose none of the investment options and save your money in a normal Savings account
Seizing the opportunity
Suppose you identified a business opportunity within your community that will generate the same remuneration as your current employment. To what extent are you likely to:	quit the job and pursue the business opportunity
	continue with your employment and ignore the opportunity
	for any other, please specify
Creativity and Embracing Change
Suppose you own a consulting company and on a normal day, you service 10 farmers. On a particular day, you receive requests from 15 farmers. To what extent do you:	work longer hours than usual including weekends to meet the requests
	cancel the additional 5 farmers and work with the normal load of 10 farmers per day
	contact a neighbor similar service provider to assist with the additional load.
Proactive and Problem-solving
As a youth who has been affected by unemployment, what have you done in an attempt to resolve the problem?	Waiting for opportunities to come
	Making job applications
	Decided to pursue my studies/advance my skills
	Initiated a business/income-generating activity

Likert scale score 1 = very unlikely, 2 = unlikely, 3 = neutral, 4 = likely, 5 = very likely.

Not all statements are included in the table.

Table 3. Entrepreneurial traits of the youth (%).

Dimensions	Yes	Neutral	No
Risk-taking	23.2	4.9	71.9
Embrace change	71.0	3.1	25.9
Seize opportunity	49.5	4.0	46.4
Proactive	83.5	0.9	15.1
Problem-solving	67.4	4.9	27.0
Innovation and creativity	77.7	3.1	19.2

Source: Survey data.

Table 4. Entrepreneurial spirit indices: PCA results.

Variable	Principal Components
	PC1 Embrace change	PC2 Innovation	PC3 Risk-taking
Risk-taking	0.388	−0.142	0.765
Embrace change	0.607	0.031	0.196
Seize opportunity	0.594	0.027	−0.330
Proactive	0.519	−0.272	−0.576
Problem-solving	0.325	0.619	−0.055
Innovation and creativity	0.241	0.732	0.067
Eigenvalue	1.595	1.175	1.097
% of variance	22.8	16.8	15.7
Cumulative % of variance	22.8	39.6	55.2
Keiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)	0.554

Only component loadings greater than |0.45| were included in the results.

Source: Survey data.

Table 5. Managerial skills endowment of the youth (in percentages).

Managerial skills	Yes	Neutral	No
I am able to allocate tasks (delegation)	54.5	14.3	31.2
I prefer planning things before I execute them	92.4	3.6	4.0
I often manage to finish tasks at the time I set to complete the tasks	30.2	9.4	60.4
I prefer to be in leadership positions whenever I am in a group	68.5	8.9	22.6

Source: Survey data.

Table 6. Training and formal education endowment of the rural youth (in percentage).

Type of Training/Education	Yes/Attended
Obtained qualification above high school (Grade 12)	25.3
Financial management	8.3
Business planning	8.3
Agricultural training	54.2

Source: Survey data.

Table 7. Managerial skills indices.

Variable	Principal Components
	PC1 Limited business skills	PC2 Confidence	PC3 Agricultural Training	PC4 Poor time management
Formal education	−0.088	0.399	0.475	0.305
Agricultural training	−0.113	−0.077	0.769	−0.157
Financial record-keeping training	−0.703	0.081	−0.207	−0.317
Business plan training	−0.694	0.139	−0.340	0.169
Leadership training	0.311	0.697	−0.085	−0.040
Self-confidence	−0.165	0.802	−0.105	−0.011
Time management	0.063	−0.097	−0.121	-0.893
Planning skills	0.056	0.452	0.291	−0.115
Ability to delegate	0.683	−0.116	0.335	0.208
Eigen value	1.797	1.524	1.085	1.038
% of variance	19.9	16.9	12.1	11.5
Cumulative % of variance	19.9	36.9	48.9	60.9
Keiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)	0.544

Only component loadings greater than |0.45| were included in the results.

Source: Survey data.

Table 8. Summary of the dependent variables.

Variable name	Mean of absolute value	SE	Mean of proportion	SE
Time (hours)	6.20	0.199	0.668	0.023
Money (Rand)	9 066.36	525.90	0.554	0.643

Source: Survey data.

Table 9. Fractional logit results.

	Dependent variable
Fractional Logit Model	The proportion of time (Model 1)		The proportion of money (Model 2)
Variables	Β	dy/dx	Β	dy/dx
Risk-taking	0.109	0.039	0.036	0.013
Innovation	−0.120**	−0.077	−0.172**	−0.066
Embrace_Change	−0.043	−0.016	−0.007	−0.003
Agricultural training	0.069*	0.017	0.064	0.029
Limited business skills	−0.136*	−0.039	−0.143**	−0.052
Poor time management	−0.181**	−0.050	−0.038	−0.023
Youth Age	0.039**	0.011	0.029**	0.008
Youth Gender	0.107	0.024	0.268*	0.101
Dependency ratio	−0.058	−0.023	−0.024	0.054
Household_Agric	−0.069	−0.030	0.0615	0.057
Access to credit	−0.170	−0.068	−0.054	−0.062
Social Media	0.138	0.047	0.0250	0.029
LogICT	0.045	0.033	0.042	0.001
Land access	0.086	0.034	0.004	0.005
LogWealth	−0.009	−0.004	−0.075**	−0.022
Positive Psychological	0.050***	0.011	0.041***	0.014
Perceptions	0.106***	0.037	0.110***	0.040
Constant	−4.960		−0.914
Pseudo R^2	0.110		0.084
Wald X^2	55.47		53.75
Prob > chi^2	0.000***		0.000**
Log pseudo-likelihood	−93.693		−95.482
VIF (mean)	1.23		1.23
Breusch-Pagan (p-value)	0.7166		0.865
Shapiro-Wilk (p-value)	0.000***		0.000***
Number of Observations	152

*,**, & *** denote the level of significance at 10, 5, and 1%, respectively.

Source: Survey data.

Fogg, B. J. (2009). A behavior model for persuasive design. Proceedings of the 4th international Conference on Persuasive Technology.

 Google Scholar

Zaca, F. N., Wale, E., & Chipfupa, U. (2021). A Behavioural Explanation of Smallholder Entrepreneurship with Empirical Evidence from KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Retrieved June 13, 2023, from https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-191977/v1

 Google Scholar