Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026): The Behavioral Angle

View Issue TOC

Risk, Capital, and Behaviour: Determinants of Agricultural Investment Decisions in Rural South Sudanese Communities

Makoi Majok Toch , Department of Rural Development, School of Community Studies and Rural Development, Graduate College, University of Juba ORCID 0009-0003-8332-910X Gabriel Alier Riak ,
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18952788
Published: February 11, 2026

Abstract

Agricultural investment decisions in rural South Sudan are shaped by an intricate interplay of capital constraints, behavioural biases, and environmental volatility, factors that standard economic models systematically underestimate. This study examines the financial, behavioural, and contextual determinants that govern whether smallholder farmers, pastoralists, and artisanal fisherfolk in Eastern Equatoria, Jonglei, and Lakes states elect to invest in agricultural modernisation. Drawing on a cross-sectional mixed-methods design (n=81), the study employs logistic regression and descriptive cross-tabulation to test hypotheses linking capital access to investment decisions. Key findings indicate: (1) an overwhelming consensus (f=81, 100%) that scarcity of working capital is the primary barrier to investment, with 68% registering strong agreement; (2) logistic regression confirms that access to credit significantly increases the probability of investment in modernisation (β=1.9459, SE=0.875, p=0.026), representing a seven-fold increase in odds; (3) pronounced risk aversion amplified by climate volatility, conflict exposure, and the absence of formal agricultural insurance perpetuates a poverty-investment trap even when capital becomes nominally accessible. Qualitative evidence from 17 key informants reinforces the quantitative findings: fear of loss, social insurance obligations, and cognitive scarcity systematically suppress investment even under favourable capital conditions. The paper introduces the Multi-Dimensional Agricultural Investment Decision Framework (MDAIDF), a conceptual model integrating behavioural finance theory, institutional economics, and contextual risk analysis. Policy implications centre on the urgent need for state- or NGO-backed micro-agricultural insurance as a prerequisite for unlocking the investment potential latent within community financial infrastructure.

Full Text:

Read the Full Article

The HTML galley is loaded below for inline reading and better discovery.

How to Cite

Makoi Majok Toch , Gabriel Alier Riak (2026). Risk, Capital, and Behaviour: Determinants of Agricultural Investment Decisions in Rural South Sudanese Communities. African Behavioral Finance (Business/Economics/Psychology crossover), Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026): The Behavioral Angle, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18952788

Keywords

Agricultural InvestmentRisk AversionBehavioural FinanceCapital ConstraintsInsuranceSouth SudanPoverty TrapMDAIDF

Research Snapshot

Desktop reading view
Language
EN
Formats
HTML + PDF
Publication Track
Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026): The Behavioral Angle
Current Journal
African Behavioral Finance (Business/Economics/Psychology crossover)

References

  • Agrawal, S. (2021). Financial inclusion and agricultural productivity in South Sudan: Evidence from
  • Akongdit, A. O. (2019). Community savings and lending in post-conflict South Sudan: Institutional
  • Akuel, D. G. (2024). Climate adaptive practices and group savings in South Sudanese agriculture.
  • Banerjee, A., & Duflo, E. (2018). Good economics for hard times. PublicAffairs.
  • Barnett, B. J., Barrett, C. B., & Skees, J. R. (2008). Poverty traps and index-based risk transfer products.
  • Bailey, K. D. (1992). Methods of social research (4th ed.). Free Press.
  • Benni, N. (2021). Digital finance and agricultural lending horizons in Sub-Saharan Africa. FAO
  • Agricultural Finance Working Paper, 2021/3.
  • Binswanger, H. (1980). Attitudes toward risk: Experimental measurement in rural India. American
  • Binswanger, H., & Rosenzweig, M. (1986). Behavioural and material determinants of production
  • Borgomeo, E., Betts, R., & Conway, D. (2023). Climate vulnerability and agricultural adaptation in
  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
  • Buehren, N., Goldstein, M., Guida, V., & Caria, S. (2019). The impact of strengthening agricultural
  • Chanda, M. (2024). Structural barriers to agricultural credit uptake in Zambia. African Journal of Rural
  • © 2025 African Behavioral Finance Institute | Received: January 2025 | Accepted: March 2025 | Published: June 2025
  • Cole, S., Giné, X., Tobacman, J., Topalova, P., Townsend, R., & Vickery, J. (2013). Barriers to household
  • Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th
  • Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd
  • Dercon, S., & Christiaensen, L. (2011). Consumption risk, technology adoption, and poverty traps:
  • Duflo, E., Kremer, M., & Robinson, J. (2008). How high are rates of return to fertiliser? Evidence from
  • FAO. (2021). The state of food and agriculture: Making agrifood systems more resilient. Food and
  • Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE.
  • Giné, X., & Yang, D. (2009). Insurance, credit, and technology adoption: Field experimental evidence
  • Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2013). Applied logistic regression (3rd ed.). Wiley.
  • Ilesanmi, K. D. (2024). Agricultural finance and smallholder productivity in Uganda: Evidence from
  • Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time
  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica,
  • Karlan, D., Osei, R., Osei-Akoto, I., & Udry, C. (2014). Agricultural decisions after relaxing credit and
  • Li, X., Wang, Y., & Zhang, H. (2024). Savings group participation and technology adoption in
  • Malhotra, M., & Baag, P. K. (2021). Linking microfinance institutions with formal banking: Evidence
  • Miranda, M. J., & Farrin, K. (2012). Index insurance for developing countries. Applied Economic
  • Msukwa, C., Mhango, W., & Kambewa, P. (2021). Savings group participation and maize yield
  • Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2013). Scarcity: Why having too little means so much. Times Books.
  • Muwereza, N. (2024). Financial literacy and loan utilisation quality among CGSL members in East
  • Mwasha, A. (2025). Community savings and lending participation and fertiliser adoption in Tanzania.
  • Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and
  • Shah, A. K., Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2012). Some consequences of having too little. Science,
  • Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural
  • Thaler, R. H. (1999). Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(3), 183–206.
  • Toch, M. M., & Riak, G. A. (2025). Grassroots financial inclusion: The influence of community group
  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model.
  • van Touch, S., Kimura, F., & Sasaki, N. (2024). Financial literacy and investment behaviour among rural
  • Waweru, G. G., & Njeru, A. (2018). Social capital and financial performance of savings and credit
  • World Bank. (2022). South Sudan economic update: Pathways to resilience. World Bank Publications.
  • Yan, X., Liu, H., & Chen, Z. (2025). Financial training, group savings, and agricultural investment: A