Agri-preneurial resilience and success: The correlation and demographic characteristics of smallholders in South Africa

Agholor, Isaac Azikiwe; Chowdhury, Ataharul; Shehu Folaranmi Gbolahan Yusuf Article Agri-preneurial resilience and success: The correlation and demographic characteristics of smallholders in South Africa Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Agholor, Isaac Azikiwe; Chowdhury, Ataharul; Shehu Folaranmi Gbolahan Yusuf (2024) : Agri-preneurial resilience and success: The correlation and demographic characteristics of smallholders in South Africa, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 14, Iss. 10, pp. 1-18, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14100256 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/321067 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Citation: Agholor, Isaac Azikiwe, Ataharul Chowdhury, and Shehu Folaranmi Gbolahan Yusuf. 2024. Agri-Preneurial Resilience and Success: The Correlation and Demographic Characteristics of Smallholders in South Africa. Administrative Sciences 14: 256. https://doi.org/10.3390/ admsci14100256 Received: 28 August 2024 Revised: 2 October 2024 Accepted: 7 October 2024 Published: 12 October 2024 Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). administrative sciences Article Agri-Preneurial Resilience and Success: The Correlation and Demographic Characteristics of Smallholders in South Africa Isaac Azikiwe Agholor 1,* , Ataharul Chowdhury 2and Shehu Folaranmi Gbolahan Yusuf 3 1School of Agriculture, University of Mpumalanga, Mbombela 1200, South Africa 2School of Environmental Design and Rural Development, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada; [email protected] 3Department of Agriculture, University of Fort Hare, Alice 5700, South Africa; [email protected] *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: The incentives and subsidies needed to stimulate growth, resilience, and success in agripreneurial businesses will only be realized through numerous interventions as agri-preneurship contributes significantly to sustainable agricultural development in South Africa. This study provided a novel insight into agri-preneurial resilience and success and evidenced the hypothesis that there is no significant positive correlation between agri-preneurial resilience, farm success, and selected demographic characteristics of smallholders. We surveyed a total of 200 agri-preneurs who were willing and able to participate in this study. This study used a structured questionnaire that was divided into the following sections: (i) demographic information; (ii) agri-preneurial resilience; and (iii) agri-preneurial success. Descriptive statistics and a regression analysis were employed to articulate responses. Four distinct models were employed to ascertain the goodness of fitness and the hypothesis, and assess the relationship between success, resilience, and selected demographic characteristics of agri-preneurs. To determine resilience, the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) with 10 items was used because the CD-RISC justifies the best psychometric characteristics that portrays the levels of resilience amongst agri-preneurs. In measuring success, the scale items were graduated and ranked on a 5-point scale from 1 to 5. The reliability of the scale was also tested, and α = 0.93 was obtained. This study obtained a Cronbach alpha value of 0.96, indicating optimum reliability. Additionally, we ran a factor analysis to certify the reliability of the variable, which gave one factor from the four items. Significant positive correlations were found between gender, age, education, income, household size, diversification, and agri-preneurial resilience and success. This study concluded that most of the selected demographic characteristics were predictors of agri-preneurial resilience and success. However, demographic variables may be influenced by numerous factors given the heterogeneity of agri-preneurs in the study area. Keywords: agri-preneurial resilience; success; demographic characteristics; correlation; smallholders; South Africa 1. Introduction Agriculture as a business in South Africa plays a distinct socio-economic role as a provider of raw materials, foreign exchange earnings, and employment, notably in rural areas. South Africa has moved from the primary sector of production to an economy that is driven by the tertiary sector, culminating in an overall estimate of 69% of the GDP (African Union 2012). However, employment in the agricultural sector, which accounts for about 5.4%, declined from about 2 million in the year 2000 to approximately 885,000 in 2017 (STATS 2017;A.I. Agholor et al. 2023). Engaging in numerous income-generating strategies is paramount to reducing poverty and enhancing the livelihoods of households in South Africa. This report indicates that over half of South African households are categorized as poor, notwithstanding the general decrease in poverty between 2006 and 2011. However, Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 256. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14100256 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 256 2 of 18 the poverty level increased in 2015 with a surge in food insecurity amongst households (Acs et al. 2013). According to a general household survey in 2018, farmers engaged in the cultivation of grains were 50.6% and fruits and vegetables 53.3%, while 48.7% and 36.6% were involved in livestock and poultry production, respectively. Furthermore, about 10% of households in farming received agricultural-related support, including farm credits with the highest support provided to Eastern Cape (25.1%) and Northern Cape (17.3%). In addition, 1.3% of households had training by extension personnel in livestock-related services (STATS 2018;Agholor and Kanayo 2021). Climate-related events manifesting in prolonged drought and high temperature touching almost all parts of South Africa between 2015 and 2017 exacerbated adverse effects on the agricultural sector, especially small farm businesses, led to the declaration of national state of disaster from 13 March to 13 June 2018 to surmount the crisis espoused by climate change. The declaration was intended to mobilize resources to build up intervention measures to deal with the unintended consequences of drought. This phenomenon attracted ZAR six billion allocated to the national budget for the 2018/2019 financial year (Odendaal 2018;I.A. Agholor et al. 2024). South African agriculture remains dualistic in practice, where the commercial agriculture exists with subsistence smallholder farmers who reside in rural areas (Tshuma 2015;Agostini et al. 2020). Apart from drought challenges, land reform was also initiated to help improve agricultural businesses and rural livelihoods since the introduction of democratic government in 1994. The primary objective of land reform was to curtail the injustices that emanated from the successive rule of apartheid government and to assist in reducing poverty (Prosterman and Hanstad 2003;Alstete 2008). The restitution and redistribution thrust of the land reform policy created a category of land reform beneficiaries who attempted to engage in commercial agricultural activities in their respective areas. However, state assistance in the form of machinery and implements were not adequately matched by land beneficiaries’ ability and skills in obtaining working capital to complement assistance from government. Land beneficiaries were challenged by tenure restrictions that disallow them from using their asset (land) as collateral for loans. Nevertheless, while land reform initiatives existed for almost two decades to boost rural access to land, agricultural practice remains dominated by smallholder farmers with land reform beneficiaries disgusted by the government failure to render full implementation (Akram-Lodhi 2008). The credit challenges of smallholder farmers in South Africa are worsening with inadequate potential for agri-preneurs to access credit exacerbated by insufficient credit channels and collaterals in rural areas (Akgün and Keskin 2014). According to Strauss (1996), Al Issa (2021), rural bank customers have access to saving facilities other than credit access because of the high transaction cost usually associated with credit transmission account. The areas covered by agricultural finance include financial services such as personal savings, remittances and transfers, insurance, and loans, potentially required for agricultural business and farm subsidiary activities encompassing the purchase of farm input and supply, processing, marketing, and retail. These activities often take place in rural communities, while the large agricultural processing and marketing businesses occur in urban and peri-urban centers (Awotoye and Singh 2017). In contrast to most of Sub-Saharan Africa, South Africa has a productive and functioning commercial farming sector with an expanded agricultural production that includes the cultivation of grains like maize, millet, sorghum, and barley. Additionally, oilseeds, fruits, sugar cane, citrus, numerous vegetables, and wine are commonly produced. The dominant livestock activities include the rearing of beef and dairy cattle, pigs, goats, sheep, as well as poultry products. On average, one fifth of the entire agricultural export value obtained in Sub-Saharan Africa is generated from South Africa (Babu et al. 2014). Government assistance and good use of public funds remain the foundation for both subsistence and commercial agricultural growth in Africa. The investment in rural agriculture, complemented with policies and institutional frameworks remains the driver of enhanced productivity. South African government support for rural agriculture since independence has been overwhelming and is intended to ameliorate poverty. The comprehensive agricultural support program (CASP) Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 256 3 of 18 is one of the primary provisions to address the inadequate access for support services, particularly for agri-preneurs (Bazan et al. 2020;Phetla 2017). The prime movers of agriculture in South Africa ranges from research and credits to improved institutions and capital formation. The need for the government’s increased investment in agriculture is paramount and will go far in enhancing agricultural growth (Barrett et al. 2001). According to the World Bank indicator, Sub-Saharan Africa’s economy is expected to decrease from 4.1% in 2021 to 3.3% in 2022 because of increased risk of debt, drought, and rising inflation exacerbated by the Russian–Ukraine war. This unfortunate trend is exposing food-insecure regions in Sub-Saharan Africa to adverse hardship (Zhang et al. 2022;Barton and Peat 2014). With available data from about 33 countries in SubSaharan Africa, 29 had inflation of more than 5% in July 2022, while 17 countries were in double digits with higher borrowing costs. For instance, for Ghana, amidst weakening local currency, the cedi had inflation hitting 33.9% in August 2022 and had sought help from the international monetary fund (IMF) despite a growth forecast of 3.5% for the same year. The World Bank also decreased hitherto; the percentage forecast for Nigeria and South Africa ranging from 3.8% and 2.1% to 3.3% and 1.9%, correspondingly. However, the growth position for Angola, which profited from increased oil prices, was elevated to 3.1% from 2.9 in April 2022, while Ivory Coast was predicted to be the fastest growing economy in West Africa, with 5.7% in expected growth for the year under review (Barton and Peat 2014). The financial constraints of agri-preneurs were widely acknowledged in South Africa as an impediment for sustainable agricultural growth, in a country where a large share of the population depends on agriculture. Banks and other financial institutions are reluctant and unwilling to lead to small agri-preneurial businesses, citing high failure in repayment and inadequate collateral as the reasons. Besides, access to rural credits by small farm businesses is also limited by the high cost of lending and servicing (Binuomote et al. 2021). The performance of small farm businesses in South Africa is bleak and remains daunting in the face of restricted access to credits. The search for structured credit management strategies and an impact on the national subsidy in a period of the entrepreneurial spirit of small farm business owners to commercialize, underpinned by a survey approach, has been elusive. 2. Literature Review 2.1. The Growth Path for Agriculture African government investment towards agricultural development is expected to increase following planned commitments at all levels. Notable commitments are addressed by the comprehensive Africa agriculture development programme (CAADP) and the East African community (EAC)—which focuses on ways of eliminating non-tariff trade barriers (Boyne and Meier 2009). Sub-Saharan Africa is diverse with human and natural resources that could generate inclusive growth and reduce poverty in the area. Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is the world’s largest free trade area, creating an enviable development path and utilizing the potential for its enormous resources. The area is made up of low, lower-middle, upper middle to high-income countries with 22 countries affected by conflict and 13 states characterized by low population, inadequate skill, human capital, and limited land area (Binswanger-Mkhize 2014). SSA’s economic performance was forecast to be at 4% in 2021, an increase from a contraction in performance of 2% in 2020. However, the anticipated growth of 4% in 2021 was up from economic growth of 2% in 2020. SSA economies are expected to grow at 3.9 percent and 4.2 percent in 2023 and 2024, correspondingly. This growth path has significant impact on agricultural productivity since most SSA countries are dependent on agriculture (Binswanger-Mkhize 2009). There are growing symptoms of recession, which is already putting pressures on monetary policy adjustments. Reserve banks are saddled with trade-off between allowing a weak economy that is associated with inflationary outlook and battling inflation to limit possible recession. Meanwhile, many countries in the region are either wallowing in indebtedness with liabilities and debt distress, growing from 52.6% to 60.5%. To cushion the risk of a continued increase in debts and sustenance, Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 256 4 of 18 some parts of the region have introduced austerity measures to manage and reduce debt levels. Improving farming is crucial in driving a growth-enhancing change process. Amidst increases in food prices and supply restrictions, occasioned by the Russian–Ukraine war, economic policy makers need to ensure international trade flows and avoid tariffs and taxes increases on exported and imported goods and services. In various SSA regions, commercialization and industrial development are shrinking, and farming is not creating sufficient returns to help in accelerating agricultural commercialization (Campanella et al. 2020). However, the peculiarities of SSA farming that indicate special constraints in terms of good agricultural production include climate vagaries, poor soil fertility and degradation, dominance of rain-fed agriculture, inadequate irrigation, inadequate farm mechanization, diversified farming systems, gender issues and poor market conditions (Chadha and Dutta 2020). These constraints have far-reaching implications for the commercialization of smallholder farming. Nevertheless, agricultural commercialization assists in fostering growth of the market in the agricultural sector. The establishment of farm infrastructures and improved agricultural extension services could influence decisions to commercialize small farm businesses. Studies (Ogutu and Qaim 2019;Urt and Pinho 2010), acknowledged the role of farm credit and infrastructures in encouraging commercialization. Previous growth in the agricultural sector lagged around 3%, which is grossly inadequate for a sustained growth rate of the 6% needed to fast-track agriculture expansion and target for appropriate commercialization, poverty alleviation, and food security (Cooper et al. 2013). However, suitable policy intervention and investments, including resuscitation of infrastructure, technology, an improved market, and an increased share of output will address the inadequacies in SSA’s agriculture and induce commercialization as urbanization is happening in the region. Institutional settings required for commercialization of SSA’s agriculture show remarkable success, manifesting in the improvement of the private sector, independent civil societies, communities, and sector institutions saddled with the provision of agricultural support. A well-formulated and operational institution can deal with all the elements of rural development, from primary health care and social protection to agriculture. In SSA, government regulations have also impeded food crops commercialization by inter-regional and border restrictions. Local demand for most farm produce, notably the main staples, is inelastic in comparison to price and income shifts. Therefore, an increase in production would reduce domestic prices and profit in the farming sector. Nevertheless, across-the-border exports of crops in SSA that are not in the national food bracket have remained indefinite over time and thus paved way for the commercialization of only crops that are horticultural. The regional market requires nifty and well-designed government policies to eliminate non-tariff obstacles linked to the ineffective management of phytosanitary inspections, transport constraints, and customs challenges. However, the recent government’s commitment and initiatives at regional and national scales to invest more in agriculture is gaining momentum. These important commitments encompass the comprehensive African agriculture development Programme (CAADP) and the East African community (EAC)—a regional market encumbered with, among other obligations, the removal of non-tariff trade constraints (Chisasa and Makina 2012). 2.2. Credit Access and Rural Finance in South Africa The majority of South African agri-preneurs and households live in informal settlements where poverty is rife. However, the circumstances of small farm businesses with respect to credit support services is worsening (Collier and Dercon 2009). Agriculture remains an important sector to the South African economy, providing about 3% to the GDP, while generating the highest employment potential to the citizenry. Nevertheless, the full prospects of optimum production have not been realized because of the inadequate access to credit facilities required for farm inputs. Undoubtedly, adequate access to credit plays a vital role to farm business success, particularly for poor rural households who Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 256 5 of 18 depend entirely on agriculture for sustainable living (Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries 2014;Owusu-Antwi and Antwi 2010). Presently, households face enormous challenges in accessing credit from formal credit markets mainly because of inadequate information exacerbated by inadequate credit distribution channels and unnecessary bureaucracy. The implausible reasons usually adduced by credit institutions for not lending to agri-preneurs are because of the high rate of default, uncertainty, inadequate collateral, the minimal rate of interest on agricultural loan, long-term moratorium, and the associated risk inherent in farm business (Del Giudice et al. 2017). The less resourced agri-preneurs often result in group lending as a mechanism to address credit challenges. However, group lending through cooperatives enhances social relations and friendships while enjoying the benefits of pulling resources together for the overall advantage. Nevertheless, removing restrictions in accessing credits can assist households to cushion the effects of shocks and vulnerabilities. The South African credit market, even though robust, presents limitations in the provision of credit in its present form to effectively provide credit to rural farm businesses and poor households due to distorted information. The households continue to be marginalized and pushed farther away from accessing credit. The micro-lenders in South Africa focus only on the formally employed people so that their salaries could be tapped or serve as collateral to ensure repayment of the loans. The loans are advanced at high interest rates. Some started to offer micro loans, which are not secured by property, but by a pledge of the borrower’s pension or provident fund. Most poor households do not meet these requirements and do not have collateral or valuable assets to secure credit and are also unable to afford high interest rates. 2.3. Agri-Preneurial Businesses Agri-preneurial businesses is South Africa is mainly dominated by small landholders and operated at a relatively small scale. There are many views and perceptions on whether these smallholders’ agricultural practices could be transformed into commercial farms. However, debate on the plausibility of commercialization models of agri-preneur businesses and its relative advantages and disadvantages has been stirred by some economists, detailing smallholder farm business as the engine for poverty alleviation (Ranieri and Ramos 2013;Demirgüç-Kunt et al. 2022). The higher food prices exacerbated by climate change have increased fears and doubts for the impending growth and commercialization of smallholder farm businesses in Africa (De Putter et al. 2007). Nevertheless, investment in agriculture is driven by numerous factors, including the desire to face competition for land and subsidies. The incentives and subsidies needed to stimulate growth in small-scale farm businesses will be realized through numerous interventions, from bank assistance to market development and technology (Dina 2006;Eshel et al. 2019). Moreover, Ferraris et al. (2017), asserted that there are three scenarios that can boost agri-preneurial commercialization and transformation in Africa. These scenarios include the following: development in sciences and technology, the creation of regional markets to provide subsidies, and good governance that will assist in emphasizing long-term agrarian reform. Agriculture commercialization involves changes from small scale farm business to a broader market-oriented system that includes increasing growth units of output, value addition, and preparation for both domestic and foreign markets. The commercialization of farm business is motivated by economic growth and relative success in agricultural production (Fisher et al. 2016;Foxall and Yani-de-Soriano 2005). Agri-preneurs are deposed to commercialization only when there are known potential benefits associated with commercialization and behavioral adoption decision (Guiomar et al. 2018). Furthermore, the enormous transaction cost, together with fluctuation in prices in agricultural markets, affects subsidies and incentives for agri-preneurs (Gabriele et al. 2020). The strategies that can assist in alleviating numerous unfavorable transitional effects include support and investment in farm infrastructure, crop breeding, research, extension services, secured land rights and capital market liberalization (Gama and Isaac 2022). Additionally, investment in water resources, particularly irrigation schemes, is Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 256 6 of 18 considered as a paramount and key determinant for an increase in food security and improved livelihoods for rural development (Sharma 2006;Hayward 2013). Adequate agricultural finances enhance commercialization, which means more than the sales of farm output but encompasses product choice and farm input use and the decisions based on the ideology of profit intensification. Agricultural markets play a distinctive role in the commercialization of farm businesses and assist in reducing the cost of exchanging agricultural products. An appropriate agricultural marketing system not only reduces the cost of transactions but assures the stability of food supply in ways that benefit agripreneurs, agricultural marketers, and consumers (Hebard and Lamberson 2017;Internal Labour Organization 2017). However, the major constraints inherent in agricultural markets in African agriculture comprise inadequate infrastructure, insufficient support services, the increasing cost of transaction, price volatility, and weak institutional subsidy. According to a study conducted in Tanzania, the vegetable supply chain had a higher margin between the price paid to agri-preneurs with small land holdings than the one paid to consumers. Agripreneurs with small land holdings are inundated with inadequate physical infrastructures such as storage facilities, transport, market information, and access cascading the increased cost of operations (Wale and Chipfupa 2021;Johri et al. 2024). In contemporary Africa, market failure reminiscence in the high cost of transactions are widespread, culminating in trapping the rural farming households in abject poverty. The government policy position demonstrates that market failure can be addressed by ensuring adequate input subsidy, but the cost of subsidy may limit the availability of funds for public investment in transport, markets, and research that will stimulate sustained growth in farm business. 2.4. Agri-Preneurial Resilience Relative to agriculture, entrepreneurship is simply denoted as agri-preneurship consistent with the application of conformist entrepreneurship principles and practices in agriculture (Juma 2011). Agri-preneurship has various connotations, and for this study, it is defined as an agricultural business that employs the factors of production for effective utilization. Nevertheless, actors in agri-preneurship are agri-preneurs who operate in a plausible and dynamic environment, while still floundering with threatened and numerous subjective challenges (Tejada and Punzalan 2012). In this circumstance, farmers generally decide to adapt and embrace strategies while agri-preneurs result to modification of behavior to address these challenges (Kazukauskas et al. 2014;Kaufmann and Shams 2015). In our contemporary societies, numerous farms and businesses face a catalog of challenges, and discontinuities occasioned by instability within the ambit of operations (Khalilov and Yi 2021), thus facing an erratic future that is branded by uncertainties. Antecedently, it is proposed that resilient organizations can manage uncertainties by tolerating and adjusting to environmental vagaries (Sabatino 2016). In theory, the term ‘resilience’ has been considered as the capability of an organization, (in this scenario agri-preneurs) to resist adverse conditions (Lengnick-Hall et al. 2011). Resilience connotes an ability that allows agri-preneurs to take the appropriate action in response to unforeseen and unanticipated occurrences that may potentially endanger their continued survival (Kimhi et al. 2020). Resilient agri-preneurs embrace rather than rebuff changes and take risks to achieve predetermined goals. At a personal level, resilience indicates how an individual adapts to a change in a role or project; it illustrates how an individual recovers from a mistake or a failure; or how a person pursues a personal goal notwithstanding the obstacles. The attributes of resilient agri-preneurs literally give them the strength and agility for success. Consistent with other definitions, define resilience as the enduring ability of agri-preneurs to recover quickly from shocks and adverse events and continues to remain relevant in farm business. 2.5. Agri-Preneurial Success According to (I.A. Agholor et al. 2024), agri-preneurship is considered an activity encompassing the coordination of all farm operations, within the value chain. Agri- Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 256 7 of 18 preneurship undertaken has shown remarkable relevance in today’s pecuniary literature, primarily due to the contemporary economic woes experienced by most countries in recent times. It is the desire of an agri-preneur to find and imbibe good business ideas and redesign a proactive business model that will improve their farming business for success (Zhai et al. 2019;Chadha and Dutta 2020). This innate desire to obtain and meet targets illustrates, in part, the meaning of success for some agri-preneurs. The term success is subjective and may not carry a universally accepted definition (McMichael 2009). Nevertheless, it is through ascribing values and using measurement metrics that success can be analyzed, but consequently, one level of quantitative techniques applied in measuring success will be flawed. However, the prerequisite for this study is to obtain operational measures of farm success. Agri-preneurs apply farm financial performance as a unilateral metric for success, but numerous studies (Lusch et al. 2016;Morris et al. 2005; and Mulaudzi et al. 2023) have linked farm success to other variables, such as the level of goal attainment achieved by an agri-preneur and second, the amount of money earned from investment (Nunnally 1978;Ofunoye 2017). In this context, an agri-preneur who has attained a predetermined goal may be seen as successful, while others who have received sufficient money from farm investment could also be said to be successful. Others use farm-level metrics like growth rate (size), survival rate (existing), and remaining in farm business to provide a satisfactory measure of success. A unique problem for applying survival rate alone is that not all agri-preneurs who remain in business can be regarded as successful. A new surviving farm may decide to reduce in size over time by selling assets in anticipation of failure, while older agri-preneurs may decide to reduce in size by disposing assets not because of failure but in anticipation of retirement. Conversely, a reduction in farm size for younger agri-preneurs may imply that the owner failed to earn enough profit to meet overhead and loan repayment and had to dispose of assets to remain in business. On the other hand, an increase in farm size may denote that the owner realized sufficient farm income and, therefore, is assured of profit (Kazukauskas et al. 2014). Thus, for numerous surviving farms, the rate of growth provides a useful index about success. However, the weakness of focusing on growth only is that a growth rate analysis or interpretation is limited to a known population. While a growth rate analysis may identify the factors that hinder growth, it cannot convincingly identify the determinants of agri-preneurial survival, which is necessary for success. Additionally, several studies (Ofunoye 2017;Ogujiuba et al. 2022) used a simple dichotomous variable model for the illustration of farm success, neglecting to recognize that success can be seen partially and could be measured on a continuum. Lastly, most of these studies did not examine household collective action around farm success or how household behavior affects resilience and farm success. Against this backdrop, this study attempts to close these gaps and provide novel insights into farm success and resilience. This study, therefore, hypothesized as follows: (i) There is no significant positive correlation between agri-preneurial resilience and selected demographic characteristics. (ii) There is no significant positive correlation between farm success and selected demographic characteristics. 3. Materials and Methods 3.1. Study Area This survey was conducted in the Ehlanzeni district, Mbombela Local Municipality, South Africa. Ehlanzeni include four main local municipalities: Nkomazi Local Municipality, Mbombela Local Municipality, Thaba Chewu Local Municipality and Bushbuckridge Local Municipality. Amongst the communities, six were selected for the survey, which include Kayamazane, Mpakeni, Kabokweni, Jerusalema, Malekutu, and Mahushu. Mbombela has intermediate biome zones of grassland and savannah. The area is associated with mild winters and summer rainfalls with subtropical climate, which favors farm business. The zone records an average rainfall of 300–500 mm annually with a total surface area of 5394 km 2 and is geographically positioned in 25 ◦ 25 ′ 30 ′′ , 30 ◦ 55 ′ 0 ′′ . With a population of approximately 588,794, which is dominated by 89.4% black South Africans, the minority Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 256 8 of 18 racial groups include Afrikaans (0.9%), whites (8.7%), and Indians (0.7%). The languages spoken in the area include Swati (78.7%), Afrikaans (6.8%), English (4.6%), Tsonga (4.1%), and the other languages were 5.8% (Mulaudzi et al. 2023). This area was considered for this study because it is dominated by agri-preneurs. 3.2. The Approach The hypothesis includes the following: (i) Are there significant positive correlations between selected demographic characteristics and agri-preneurial resilience? (ii) Are there significant positive correlations between selected agri-preneurial resilience traits and farm success? Therefore, the direction for this study is to obtain an accurate and operational measure of (i) agri-preneurial success and the correlation with selected demographic characteristics of agri-preneurs and (ii) the selected demographic characteristics and correlation with agri-preneurial resilience. This study adopted a quantitative research procedure. The sample size considered for this study was calculated using Slovin’s formula, which allowed us to estimate the number of respondents required to guarantee realistic accuracy of the results with appropriate precision (Tejad 2012). According to (Alstete 2008) for reasons of factor analysis, a minimum of 100 respondents may be allowed in any survey. The sample size initially considered for this study was 285 respondents, but this number could not be reached because of the scattered settlement pattern of agri-preneurs. We therefore surveyed a total of 200 farmers who were willing and able to participate in this study. In preparation for the data collection, 5 trained enumerators were assigned to 20 farmers for a pretest survey of the questionnaire item to ensure content validity. All respondents who participated in this study were either practicing agri-preneurs at a large or small scale. This study used the structured questionnaire divided into sections: (i) demographic information; (ii) agri-preneurial resilience; and (iii) agri-preneurial success. In the data analysis, descriptive statistics and a regression analysis were employed to articulate responses. The version 28 of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software was used for data analysis. In compliance with ethical issues, all participants in this study were pre-informed about the objectives of this study, confidentiality assurance, anonymity, and voluntary participation. However, the variables employed in this study were measured and congruent with the objective of agri-preneurial resilience. Studies showed that different scales are employed to determine the levels of resilience of individuals (Wall et al. 2004;Parida et al. 2016;Fatoki 2018). In this study, the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) with 10 items, was used because the CD-RISC justifies the best psychometric characteristics that portray the levels of agri-preneur resilience. The scale items were graduated and ranked on a 5-point scale from 1 to 5. Where 1 = “does not describe me at all” to “describe me very well”. A similar study (Patel et al. 2019;Pingali et al. 2019) also employed the same scale, and subsequently, this study obtained a Cronbach alpha value of 0.96, indicating optimum reliability. Additionally, we ran the factor analysis to certify the reliability of the variable, which gave one factor from the four items. The four items were the following: I vigorously explore ways to restore the losses I encounter in life; I trust that I can develop in positive ways by dealing with complicated situations; I hunt for innovative ways to change difficult situations; and irrespective of what happens to me, I trust I can control my response to it. Thereafter, a composite measure of agri-preneurial resilience was calculated by finding the average of each score. In the analysis, the four items were used as dependent variables, while the agri-preneurial success variables were used as independent variables. In measuring agri-preneurial success, a five-point Likert scale that ranged from 1—strongly agreed to 5—strongly disagree was used. The items are the following: (i) “I consider myself successful if I am personally satisfied with my life and farm business”; (ii) “I surpass my farm business goals that I set out to achieve”; (iii) “my farm business grows constantly”, and (iv) “my farm business grows in the returns on investment”. These four items were averaged to give the mean score for agri-preneurial success (Shaul et al. 2024;Pettit et al. 2019). The reliability of the scale was also tested, and α = 0.93 was obtained. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 256 15 of 18 References Acs, Zoltan, David Audretsch, and Lehmann Erik. 2013. The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics 41: 757–74. [CrossRef] African Union. 2012. Agricultural Finance in Africa. Available online: https://www.mfw4a.org/sites/default/files/resources/PBAgFin%20Final.pdf (accessed on 14 July 2024). Agholor, Azikiwe Isaac, and Ogujiuba Kanayo. 2021. Land Reform, Farmers’ Intention to Commercialize and Factors Influencing Entrepreneurial Behaviour Amongst Farmers in Badplaas, South Africa. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education 12: 6468–75. Agholor, Azikiwe Isaac, Kanayo Kingsley Ogujiuba, and Nokuzola Ingrid Shongwe. 2023. Determinants of small farmers access to agricultural markets in South Africa. Agricultural Science and Technology 15: 80–87. [CrossRef] Agholor, Isaac Azikiwe, Ataharul Chowdhury, and Ebenezer Olamide. 2024. Evaluating Inspiring Factors and Obstacles in the Start-Up of Owned Agri-Preneurial Businesses: Underlying Evidence from South Africa. Administrative Sciences 14: 47. [CrossRef] Agostini, M., K. Altenmüller, S. Appel, V. Atroshchenko, Z. Bagdasarian, D. Basilico, G. Bellini, J. Benziger, D. Bonfini, and G. Bravo. 2020. Comprehensive geoneutrino analysis with Borexino. Physical Review D 101: 012009. [CrossRef] Akgün, Ali E., and Halit Keskin. 2014. Organisational resilience capacity and firm product innovativeness and performance. International Journal of Production Research 52: 6918–37. [CrossRef] Akram-Lodhi, Haroon. 2008. Re-imagining agrarian relations. The world development report 2008: Agriculture for development. Development and Change 39: 1145–61. [CrossRef] Al Issa, Hussein-Elhakim. 2021. Advancing entrepreneurial career success: The role of passion, persistence, and risk-taking propensity. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review 9: 135–50. [CrossRef] Alstete, Jeffrey W. 2008. Aspects of entrepreneurial success. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 15: 584–94. [CrossRef] Awotoye, Yemisi, and Robert P. Singh. 2017. Entrepreneurial resilience, high impact challenges, and firm performance. Journal of Management Policy and Practice 18: 207. Babu, B. Kalyana, P. K. Agrawal, D. Pandey, S. Sood, C. Chandrashekara, and A. Kumar. 2014. Molecular analysis of world collection of finger millet accessions for blast disease resistance using functional markers. Journal of Breeding and Genetics 46: 202–16. Barrett, Christopher B., Thomas Reardon, and Patrick Webb. 2001. Nonfarm income diversification and household livelihood strategies in rural Africa: Concepts, dynamics, and policy implications. Food Policy 26: 315–31. [CrossRef] Barton, Belinda, and Jennifer Peat. 2014. Medical Statistics: A Guide to SPSS, Data Analysis and Critical Appraisal. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Bazan, Carlos, Hannah Gaultois, Arifusalam Shaikh, Katie Gillespie, Sean Frederick, Ali Amjad, Simon Yap, Chantel Finn, James Rayner, and Nafisa Belal. 2020. Effect of the university on the social entrepreneurial intention of students. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship 23: 3–24. [CrossRef] Binswanger-Mkhize, Hans. 2009. Challenges and opportunities for African agriculture and food security. Paper presented at FAO Expert Meeting on How to Feed the World in 2050, Rome, Italy, August 15. Available online: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/ document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=342ee9f0bb28bb93e0e6afb7dce3287d47512688 (accessed on 12 July 2024). Binswanger-Mkhize, Hans. 2014. From failure to success in South African land reform. African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 9: 253–69. Binuomote, R. T., V. Ayantoye, D. O. Fasesan, and P. M. Ojedokun. 2021. Nutrient Digestibility Coefficient of West African Dwarf Goat Fed Elephant Grass (Pennisetum Purpureum) Ensiled with Varying Levels of Cassava Peel and Brewers Dried Grain. American Journal of Agriculture 3: 67–82. [CrossRef] Boyne, George A., and Kenneth J. Meier. 2009. Environmental turbulence, organizational stability, and public service performance. Administration & Society 40: 799–824. Campanella, Francesco, Manlio Del Giudice, Alkis Thrassou, and Demetris Vrontis. 2020. Ambidextrous organizations in the banking sector: An empirical verification of banks’ performance and conceptual development. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 31: 272–302. [CrossRef] Chadha, Saurabh, and Nirankush Dutta. 2020. Linking entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth: Evidence from GEM countries. International Journal of Techno Entrepreneurship 4: 22–31. [CrossRef] Chisasa, Joseph, and Daniel Makina. 2012. Trends in credit to smallholder farmers in South Africa. The International Business & Economics Research Journal 11: 771. Collier, Paul, and Stefan Dercon. 2009. African Agriculture in 50 Years. Rome: FAO. Cooper, Cary L., Jill Flint-Taylor, and Michael Pearn. 2013. Building Resilience for Success: Resource for Managers and Organizations. Luxemburg: Springer. De Putter, H., M. J. Van Koesveld, and C. L. M. De Visser. 2007. Overview of the Vegetable Sector in Tanzania. Wageningen UR (AfriVeg Report 1). Available online: https://edepot.wur.nl/30946 (accessed on 30 May 2024). Del Giudice, Manlio, Elias G. Carayannis, and Vincenzo Maggioni. 2017. Global knowledge intensive enterprises and international technology transfer: Emerging perspectives from a quadruple helix environment. The Journal of Technology Transfer 42: 229–35. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 256 16 of 18 Demirgüç-Kunt, Asli, Leora Klapper, Dorothe Singer, and Saniya Ansar. 2022. The Global Findex Database 2021: Financial inclusion, Digital Payments, and Resilience in the Age of COVID-19. World Bank Publications. Available online: https://books.google.com. ng/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ZtiVEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT14&dq=world+bank+2022+financial+inclusion&ots (accessed on 12 July 2024). Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF). 2014. Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme Annual Report. Available online: https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201410/daffannualreport2013-2014.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2024). Dina, Umali-Deininger. 2006. Linking Small Farmers to the Market. Agriculture Economist for the South Asia Region. Washington, DC: World Bank. Eshel, Yohanan, Shaul Kimhi, and Hadas Marciano. 2019. Proximal and distal determinants of community resilience under threats of terror. Journal of Community Psychology 47: 1952–60. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Fatoki, Olawale. 2018. The impact of entrepreneurial resilience on the success of small and medium enterprises in South Africa. Sustainability 10: 2527. [CrossRef] Ferraris, Alberto, Gabriele Santoro, and Luca Dezi. 2017. How MNC’s subsidiaries may improve their innovative performance? The role of external sources and knowledge management capabilities. Journal of Knowledge Management 21: 540–52. [CrossRef] Fisher, Gwenith G., Russell A. Matthews, and Alyssa Mitchell Gibbons. 2016. Developing and investigating the use of single-item measures in organizational research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 21: 3. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Foxall, Gordon R., and M. Mirella Yani-de-Soriano. 2005. Situational influences on consumers’ attitudes and behaviour. Journal of Business Research 58: 518–25. [CrossRef] Gabriele, Santoro, Bernardo Bertoldi, Chiara Giachino, and Elena Candelo. 2020. Exploring the relationship between entrepreneurial resilience and success: The moderating role of stakeholders’ engagement. Journal of Business Research 119: 142–50. Gama, Bongiwe Thankfulness, and Agholor Azikiwe Isaac. 2022. Agricultural Water Demand and Supply, Governance, Conservation, and Implication for Extension Services in South Africa: A review. Journal of Positive School Psychology 6: 670–81. Guiomar, Nuno, Sérgio Godinho, Teresa Pinto-Correia, Mara Almeida, Fabio Bartolini, Peter Bezak, and Marianna Biro. 2018. Typology and distribution of small farms in Europe: Towards a better picture. Land Use Policy 75: 784–98. [CrossRef] Hayward, Bronwyn Mary. 2013. Rethinking resilience: Reflections on the earthquakes in Christchurch, New Zealand, 2013. Ecology and Society 18: 2013. [CrossRef] Hebard, Stephen, and Katie Lamberson. 2017. Enhancing the Sport Counselling Specialty: A Call for A Unified Identity. Professional Counsellor 7: 375–84. [CrossRef] Internal Labour Organization. 2017. Statistics. Available online: https://ilostat.ilo.org/ (accessed on 30 July 2024). Johri, Amar, Mohammad Asif, Preeti Tarkar, Waseem Khan, and Mohammad Wasiq. 2024. Digital financial inclusion in micro enterprises: Understanding the determinants and impact on ease of doing business from World Bank survey. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 11: 1–10. [CrossRef] Juma, Calestous. 2011. Africa’s new engine. Finance & Development 48: 6–11. Kaufmann, Hans Ruediger, and Riad Shams. 2015. Entrepreneurial Co-Creation: A Call for Fresh Ideas and Innovative Perspectives. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. Available online: https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/archived/products/journals/call_ for_papers.htm?id=6334 (accessed on 30 July 2024). Kazukauskas, Andrius, Carol Newman, and Johannes Sauer. 2014. The impact of decoupled subsidies on productivity in agriculture: A cross-country analysis using microdata. Agricultural Economics 45: 327–36. [CrossRef] Khalilov, Latif, and Chae-Deug Yi. 2021. Institutions and entrepreneurship: Empirical evidence for OECD countries. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review 9: 119–34. [CrossRef] Kimhi, Shaul, Hadas Marciano, Yohanan Eshel, and Bruria Adini. 2020. Resilience and demographic characteristics predicting distress during the COVID-19 crisis. Social Science & Medicine 265: 113389. Lengnick-Hall, Cynthia A., Tammy E. Beck, and Mark L. Lengnick-Hall. 2011. Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management. Human Resource Management Review 21: 243–55. [CrossRef] Lusch, Robert F., Stephen L. Vargo, and Anders Gustafsson. 2016. Fostering a trans-disciplinary perspectives of service ecosystems. Journal of Business Research 69: 2957–63. [CrossRef] McMichael, Philip. 2009. Banking on agriculture: A review of the World Development Report 2008. Journal of Agrarian Change 9: 235–46. [CrossRef] Morris, Michael, Minet Schindehutte, and Jeffrey Allen. 2005. The entrepreneur’s business model: Toward a unified perspective. Journal of Business Research 58: 726–35. [CrossRef] Mulaudzi, Dovhani Johannes, Joseph Francis, Jethro Zuwarimwe, and James Chakwizira. 2023. Major criteria of credible integrated development planning in local government: City of Mbombela, Ehlanzeni District, South Africa. International Journal of Public Leadership 19: 316–38. [CrossRef] Nunnally, Jum. 1978. An overview of psychological measurement. In Clinical Diagnosis of Mental Disorders: A Handbook. Edited by Benjamin B. Wolman. Boston: Springer, pp. 97–146. Odendaal, Catherine. 2018. Simulating Future Rangeland Production in Central South Africa. Master’s dissertation, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa, January. Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 256 17 of 18 Ofunoye, C. M. 2017. Innovation and resilience of small-medium entrepreneurs in Port Harcourt. Scholarly Journal of Science Research and Essay 6: 61–66. Ogujiuba, Kanayo, Ebenezer Olamide, Azikiwe Isaac Agholor, Estelle Boshoff, and Phetole Semosa. 2022. Impact of government support, business style, and entrepreneurial sustainability on business location of SMEs in South Africa’s Mpumalanga Province. Administrative Sciences 12: 117. [CrossRef] Ogutu, Sylvester Ochieng, and Matin Qaim. 2019. Commercialization of the small farm sector and multidimensional poverty. World Development 114: 281–93. [CrossRef] Owusu-Antwi, George, and James Antwi. 2010. The analysis of the rural credit market in Ghana. International Business & Economics Research Journal 9: 8. Parida, Vinit, Tom Lahti, and Joakim Wincent. 2016. Exploration and exploitation and firm performance variability: A study of ambidexterity in entrepreneurial firms. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 12: 1147–64. [CrossRef] Parke, Ross D., and Jeffrey T. Cookston. 2019. Fathers and families. In Handbook of Parenting. London: Routledge, pp. 64–136. Patel, Anoop P., James L. Fisher, Emma Nichols, Foad Abd-Allah, Jemal Abdela, Ahmed Abdelalim, and Haftom Niguse Abraha. 2019. Global, regional, and national burden of brain and other CNS cancer, 1990–2016: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. The Lancet Neurology 18: 376–93. [CrossRef] Pettit, Timothy, Keely Croxton, and Joseph Fiksel. 2019. The Evolution of Resilience in Supply Chain Management: A Retrospective on Ensuring Supply Chain Resilience. Journal of Business Logistics 40: 12202. [CrossRef] Phetla, Kedibone. 2017. Monitoring and Evaluation in the National Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Master’s thesis, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa. Pingali, Prabhu, Anaka Aiyar, Mathew Abraham, and Andaleeb Rahman. 2019. Transforming Food Systems for a Rising India. Berlin: Springer Nature. Prosterman, Roy L., and Timothy M. Hanstad. 2003. Land Reform in the 21st Century: New Challenges, New Responses. Seattle: Rural Development Institute. Ranieri, Rafael, and Raquel Almeida Ramos. 2013. Inclusive Growth: Building Up a Concept. No. 104. Working Paper. Washington, DC: World Bank. Sabatino, Michele. 2016. Economic crisis and resilience: Resilient capacity and competitiveness of the enterprises. Journal of Business Research 69: 1924–27. [CrossRef] Sharma, V. P. 2006. Cyber Extension: Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Application for Effective Agricultural Extension Services—Challenges, Opportunities, Issues and Strategies. In Enhancement of Extension Systems in Agriculture. Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organization. Shaul, Shelley, Orly Lipka, Dana Tal-Cohen, Adi Bufman, and Shahar Dotan. 2024. The impact of school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic on reading fluency among second grade students: Socioeconomic and gender perspectives. Frontiers in Psychology 15: 1289145. [CrossRef] STATS. 2017. South Africa 2017. Available online: https://www.statssa.gov.za/?m=2017 (accessed on 12 June 2024). STATS. 2018. South Africa 2018. Available online: https://www.statssa.gov.za/?m=2018 (accessed on 9 August 2024). Strauss, Peter L. 1996. Presidential Rulemaking. Chicago-Kent Law Review 72: 965. Tejad, Jeffry J. 2012. Determination of Sample Sizes. Quezon City: Punzalan University of the Philippines Dilima. Tejada, Jeffry J., and Joyce Raymond B. Punzalan. 2012. On the misuse of Slovin’s formula. The Philippine Statistician 61: 129–36. Tinsley, Howard E., and Diane J. Tinsley. 1987. Uses of factor analysis in counselling psychology research. Journal of Counselling Psychology 34: 414. [CrossRef] Tshuma, M. C. 2015. Exploring the need and suitability of the green revolution in South Africa. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development 7: 178–84. [CrossRef] Urt, João Nackle, and Alexandre Felipe Pinho. 2010. Securitização e dessecuritização da Amazônia contemporânea. Meridiano 47-Journal of Global Studies 11: 34–35. Vatcheva, Kristina P., MinJae Lee, Joseph B. McCormick, and Mohammad H. Rahbar. 2016. Multicollinearity in regression analyses conducted in epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology 6: 227. [CrossRef] Wale, Edilegnaw, and Unity Chipfupa. 2021. Entrepreneurship Concepts/Theories and Smallholder Agriculture: Insights from the Literature with Empirical Evidence from KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa 76: 67–79. [CrossRef] Wall, Toby D., Jonathan Michie, Malcolm Patterson, Stephen J. Wood, Maura Sheehan, Chris W. Clegg, and Michael West. 2004. On the validity of subjective measures of company performance. Personnel Psychology 57: 95–118. [CrossRef] Winters, Paul, Timothy Essam, Alberto Zezza, Benjamin Davis, and Calogero Carletto. 2010. Patterns of rural development: A cross-country comparison using microeconomic data. Journal of Agricultural Economics 61: 628–51. [CrossRef] Wuepper, David, Johannes Sauer, and Linda Kleemann. 2018. Sustainable intensification amongst Ghana’s pineapple farmers: The complexity of an innovation determines the effectiveness of its training. Environment and Development Economics 23: 98–119. [CrossRef] Young, Diane S., and Erin A. Casey. 2019. An examination of the sufficiency of small qualitative samples. Social Work Research 43: 53–58. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 256 18 of 18 Zhai, Xiaohua, Joan Puigcerver, Alexander Kolesnikov, Pierre Ruyssen, Carlos Riquelme, Mario Lucic, and Josip Djolonga. 2019. A large-scale study of representation learning with the visual task adaptation benchmark. arXiv arXiv:1910.04867. Zhang, Liyunpeng, Xiao Li, Yuhang Zhuang, and Ningning Li. 2022. World Bank aid and local multidimensional poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa. Economic Modelling 117: 106065. [CrossRef] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.