See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/362217048

Antecedents of Savings Behaviour Among Rural Households: A Holistic

Approach

Article in FIIB Business Review · July 2022

DOI: 10.1177/23197145221110281

CITATIONS READS
3 317

3 authors, including:

Mohd Abass Bhat Shagufta Tariq Khan

University of Technology and Apllied Sciences Oman German University of Technology in Oman
35 PUBLICATIONS 119 CITATIONS 29 PUBLICATIONS 102 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Shagufta Tariq Khan on 29 August 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Research

Antecedents of Savings Behaviour FIIB Business Review

1–16
2022 Fortune Institute of
Among Rural Households: International Business
Reprints and permissions:

A Holistic Approach in.sagepub.com/journals-permissions-india

DOI: 10.1177/23197145221110281
journals.sagepub.com/home/fib

Mohd Abass Bhat1, Geleta Demera Gomero2 and

Shagufta Tariq Khan3

Abstract
The main purpose of this research is to empirically examine the antecedents of household savings behaviour in the Metekele,
Beneshangu Guzu state of Ethiopia. In this study, three broader factors (household characteristics, socio-economic variables and
institutional variables) influencing savings decisions of households have been identified and examined. This study followed mixed
method research design with questionnaire and in-depth interviews as the main instruments. Binary logistic regression has been mainly
utilized to analyse the quantitative data. The findings revealed age, educational level, family size, number of livestock unit, income,
irrigation utilization, production season, participation in non-farm activities, use of credit, training and education significantly impact
savings behaviour. However, sex, religion, marital status, land ownership and expenditure were found insignificant contributors to the
model. The government and concerned parties should support more for the decision to save by facilitating and undertaking training
on saving options, conducting regular review and monitoring to develop a clear policy on the importance of savings specifically for
households on habit of regular savings.

Keywords Nduku (2017), act as a roadblock to economic growth

Household savings, savings antecedents, savings decisions, binary
logistic regression, poverty, microfinance
Introduction
As one of the factors affecting growth, savings have been
well thought out to lead developing countries on the path
of development. It is a vital factor of households’ welfare
in developing countries (Wieliczko et al., 2020). Saving
is one of the important tools for successful well-being,
compensating for times of shocks, and providing
precautions to help people cope with disasters (Ansah
et al., 2021). National savings are frequently viewed as
a source of economic growth (Larissa et al., 2020; Lea,
2021). The higher a country’s savings rate, the more
opportunities for high investments which lead to
employment, industrial growth and economic development
(Ribaj & Mexhuani, 2021; Zwane et al., 2016). Low-
household savings have been a defining feature of the
South African economy since the 1990s (Nduku, 2017;
Precious & Asrat, 2014). Low savings, according to
and development, putting strain on the country’s current
account. The Old Mutual Investment Group’s 2017 report
is based on a survey of 1,000 working South Africans in
metropolitan areas about their attitude toward savings and
investments. According to the findings of the survey, 15%
of the income is saved, which has remained consistent
since 2015. As a result, the low-savings rate combined
with low-investment returns is deemed insufficient for
retirement (Engelbrecht et al., 2018). Domestic savings,
particularly household savings, are therefore critical to
economic development. Despite the fact that South Africa’s
GDP has increased over the last two decades, the country
still trails emerging markets in terms of savings. It does,
however, show that South Africa’s standard of living is
improving, though not at the same rate as other emerging
economies such as Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria, Turkey,
Brazil and China (Kempen, 2016).
Savings provide a basis for a country’s capital formation,
investment and growth (Topcu et al., 2020). On the other
hand, households have few other tools to smooth out
unexpected variations in their income without savings

1Department of Business Studies, University of Technology and Applied Science, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman.
2Department of Accounting and Finance, Assosa University, Assosa, Ethiopia.
3Department of Accounting, Faculty of Business Administration, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia.

Corresponding author:
Mohd Abass Bhat, Department of Business Studies, University of Technology and Applied Science, Al-Khuwair, Muscat 133, PO Box 74, Sultanate of
Oman.
E-mail: abass.ashoor.bhat788@gmail.com
2
(Abebe, 2017). It establishes the base for capital accumulation
and promotes development of any nation. In order to move
forward towards development, developing countries must
improve their savings habit among people. The individual
household savings play a decisive role for the national
savings and economic development as the private savings
eventually increase the growth of national economy. The
main basis for the rise or failure of economic development in
any economy is the household-savings rate.
Developing countries’ savings philosophy is also
influenced by many different factors, such as insufficient
financial service, inaccessibility of financial institutions,
low interest rates and no or little incentive to save and
insufficient income to save (Obayelu, 2012). The majority
of the population has no knowledge of existing savings as
they still keep most of their savings in cattle, store in grains
and goods, jewellery and the highest portion of African
households’ asset is stored in non-financial type of
which 80% of their assets are in non-financial form. Many
developing countries face a critical challenge in obtaining
finance, and as a result, a number of community-based
financial intermediation models, like village savings
and lending associations, have been implemented to
improve access to finance (Khan et al., 2020; Maliti &
Mwewa, 2015). Poor households access finance mainly
through informal systems in Africa, mainly in Ethiopia,
such as local money lenders, traders, friends or relatives,
Edirs and Ekubs (informal, group-based savings and loan
associations). There is almost no access to formal financial
institutions for poor households (Omar & Inaba, 2020), but
nowadays government is working on extension of savings
and credit cooperatives and other semi-formal micro
enterprises that work to increase the public involvement
into savings for transformation (Karki & Risal, 2021;
Tariq et al., 2020). However, the purpose of savings for
transformation is to strengthen the human, social and
financial assets of the most vulnerable communities.
A savings group improves the economic safety and cash-
flow management of members, thereby improving
flexibility to economic shocks (World Vision International,
2018). It promotes the capability for savings, cash-flow
management and income smooth out. Savings group
make a local pool of capital to enable households to survive
during emergencies and develop income-generating
activities, which contribute towards economic growth in
other direction. Savings are important for preparing
households for unexpected events. Accessing formal credit,
safe shelter and asset generation would be impossible
without savings. Undersaving has a number of important
welfare consequences, according to Karlan et al. (2014),
including variable consumption, low-shock resilience and
foregone-profitable investments. Cronjé and Roux (2010)
emphasize the importance of a country’s gross national
savings in reducing its reliance on and exposure to the
volatile global capital market. Cronjé and Roux (2010)
FIIB Business Review
report that South Africa’s savings levels are very low
compared to other similar developing economies like
China and India, forcing the country to rely on foreign
investment to fund its future growth. Personal savings,
according to the same authors, are necessary for maintaining
and improving quality of life while also relieving the state
of the burden of providing. Individuals with the ability to
save can develop an entrepreneurial spirit.
Several factors that have been identified as important
antecedents of savings behaviour in previous studies are
highlighted in the discussion above. However, exogenous
factors that are contextual do not always cut across the
board in the same way. There is a scarcity of information
on how to save in order to improve household livelihoods
through increased income and asset accumulation.
This study looks at the issue of savings in an attempt to
address that gap. For policymakers as well as other major
stakeholders and institutions, a thorough investigation
of the various aspects of factors influencing household-
savings behaviour is critical. It indicates that the important
variables should be given due policy considerations in
order to improve household savings in the area of study.
The present study focuses on the antecedents of savings
behaviour in Benishangul Gumuz of Ethopia. According
to research, household savings play a significant role in
promoting sustainable growth in both developed and
developing countries due to their direct influence on the
economic model. The study identifies group of factors that
may have an impact on the savings patterns of low-income
households in the country.
Review of Literature and
Hypotheses Development
The majority of the population in developing countries,
particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, continues to live in
poverty and is excluded from the development process
(Kates & Dasgupta, 2007; Modi, 2019; Thurlow et al.,
2019). In African households, saving is a tradition (albeit a
modest one given the level of wealth) and is often done
through informal channels. They frequently use informal
financial mechanisms like the ‘tontine’ (pooling of funds in
a sum which is redistributed alternately to the members of
the group). In terms of number of applicants, Sub-Saharan
Africa is still the second largest regional market. Savings
mechanisms are evolving in English-speaking Africa
toward more formalized village banking models with
formal structures, which will improve governance and
management of these groups. This has paved the way for
more formal financial institutions to participate in savings
collection. According to Lafourcade et al. (2005), contrary
to global trends, more than 70% of reporting African
Micro-finance Institutions (MFIs) offer savings as a basic
financial service to clients and use it as an important source
of funds for loans (Bhat & Tariq, 2020). According to
Goldstein et al. (1999), contrary to popular belief, the
Bhat et al.
microfinance sector in West Africa has a high level of
dynamism in terms of mobilizing savings that are used not
only for family or social purposes, but also to meet
economic needs (Tariq & Sangmi, 2018). Anang et al.
(2015) targeted the clients of the Bonzali Rural Bank in the
Tolon-Kumbungu district of Northern Ghana. They
identified the respondent’s age, gender and marital status
as factors influencing their decision to save. Income level
and educational status were not found to be significant
factors in determining savings behaviour in their study. In
the Ho Municipality of Ghana’s Volta Region, Mensahkla
et al. (2017) investigated the determinants of savings
behaviour among employees and management, customers,
market, men and women of some selected financial
intermediaries. They discovered that majority of the people
in the Ho municipality save with a financial institution, and
that the determinants of saving behaviour differ from
person to person because people save and consume money
for different reasons. Interest rates influence many people’s
decisions about which financial institution to use. Zwane
et al. (2016) use panel data estimation models to investigate
the determinants of household savings in South Africa
between 2008 and 2012. The findings show that household
savings are heavily influenced by factors such as income,
age structure, educational attainment and employment
status. Household size has a negative impact, which means
that larger families have a lower chance of executing
savings behaviour. Economic development and business
savings are inextricably linked. As a result, the economic
importance of savings cannot be overstated. Savings, for
example, can allow farmers to invest in their farms and
increase production, resulting in higher-profit margins.
Savings ensure the survival of a business by providing new
funds to expand it and acting as a safety net in the event
of an emergency (Frank et al., 2015). Savings also improve
farmers’ eligibility for credit from credit providers like
banks and microfinance providers. Zwane et al. (2016),
D’Orazio and Giulioni (2017), Baranov and Kohler (2018)
show that maintaining household savings increases the
likelihood of potential investment at both the macro and
micro levels of the economy. Furthermore, household
savings have been described as a path to economic
development that extends from the household to the
country as a whole. Because of its role in the circular
flow of income in the economy, this assertion has been
empirically established in both developing and developed
countries (Blanchard & Giavazzi, 2016; Chamon et al.,
2013; Lin & Peter, 2018). Odoemenem et al. (2013) found
that a farmer’s sex and income had a significant impact on
savings based on their findings in Nigeria. Other authors,
like Frączek (2011), argue that the amount of money saved
is determined by a variety of factors, including income,
interest rates, fiscal factors, demographics, psychological,
cultural and social factors. Kibet et al. (2009) found that
household income and education have a significant impact
on savings behaviour among rural farmers, entrepreneurs
3
and teachers in Kenya. According to Sebatta et al. (2014),
once a smallholder farmer decides to borrow from the
agricultural finance market, the level of education of
the household head, household size and the farmer’s
voluntary savings, all play a significant role in determining
the intensity of participation as measured by the size of the
loan taken. Furthermore, the findings show that a farmer’s
personal savings have a significant and positive impact on
the amount of credit he or she can obtain once a loan
decision has been made. Income, age bracket, educational
attainment and employment status have all been linked to
household savings in South Africa.
Impact of Demographic Factors on
Savings Decisions
There are several demographic/household characteristics,
such as age, sex, marital status, religion, education and
family size, that act as antecedents to savings behaviour of
individuals as evident from the results in existing studies.
Researchers mainly in Ethiopian context though have
recognized several demographic factors such as type of
occupation, household income, age, gender of the head of
household, level of education, dependency ratio, service
charges, transport costs, child support and wealth which
strongly determine savings (Addis et al., 2019; Mirach &
Hailu, 2014; Teshome et al., 2013). However, some have
claimed age of head of household as one of the effective
determinants of savings. For instance, Zeleke and Endris
(2019) claim that households’ head’s age has a significant
impact on household savings status and the odds for
non-saving households’ head’s aged 26–35 and 46 and
above were 6.22 and 2.78 times higher than those aged
18–25, respectively. On the other hand, in case of female-
headed households, Saliya (2018) found total-household
income and savings experience has a positive and
significant impact on household savings. The age of the
head of household, the additional household earner and
the household dependency ratio also has an impact on
household savings. Moreover, with reference to rural areas
of Ethiopia, level of education, the size of landholdings
and the involvement in small-business activities, education,
gender (being female) and accessibility of financial
institutions like banks and microfinance institutions were
found positively and significantly impacting household
savings. While, early age, household heads’ location
(households residing in rural areas) and household
size have a negative effect on household savings (Talent
et al., 2016). Among the demographic variables, religion
was also found as a positive determinant of savings
decisions, for instance, by using survey data generated
from 384 religious sample households, Yayeh (2014)
investigated the impact of religion on household-savings
behaviour in western Amhara national regional state. The
findings of this study revealed that 240 (62.5%) of the
entire sample, of which 162 (67.5%) were orthodox
4
Christian, 74 (30.8%) Muslim and 4 (1.7%) Protestant
households had saved. Time during the survey and thus
religious affiliation impacts savings behaviour on the
choice to save money or not. The findings further show that
Christians are more likely to save and save more than
non-Christian believers by comparing religiosity in the
form of Christians to non-Christian believers. On the
contrary, negative effect of some demographic variables on
saving decisions have also been reported. According to the
study conducted by Ayenew (2014), on the determinants of
saving behaviour of women’s in Ethiopia, in which
variables of interest related to women include education
level of respondent, employment status, income from
various sources, credit accessibility, age of the respondent,
family size and agriculture. The results revealed, education
and age have a negative influence on savings whereas,
ownership of agriculture and income level have a positive
effect on savings behaviour. While, women’s access to
credit and family size has a significant negative influence
on savings. Markos (2015) gathered data from 150
respondents who were drawn by field survey in 2012/2013
and the study results show that household head, sex,
household landholding, marital status, livestock size,
education of households decrease household savings
levels.
H01: Demographic factors have no significant effect
on savings decisions.
Impact of Socio-economic Factors
on Savings Decisions
Research claims the socio-economic variables, such as
size of land ownership, number of livestock, total value
of crops produced, participation in non-farm activities,
income, expenditure and use of irrigation, also determine
savings behaviour to a large extent (Aseyehegn et al., 2012;
Patel, 2015; Talent et al., 2016). In east Hararghe zone,
Oromia regional state, Teshome et al. (2013) discovered
using the survey data on study variables such as the level of
household heads’ education, livestock holdings, access to
credit service, income, investment, participation in training,
contact with extension, forms of savings and saving
motives. The results of the study indicate that rural
households save money regardless of their low income,
mainly in informal saving institutions with a high demand
for formal saving accessibility potential. However, Saqib
et al. (2016) in the context of Pakistan found mixed results
that income and employment in both urban and rural areas
has a significant and positive association with household
savings. Whereas, education has an important but a
negative association with household savings. Van
Rijckeghem and Üçer (2009) considered disposable
income as the main factor in individual savings that could
not be saved by people with a low income. Individual
utilities are generally assumed to be a consumption
FIIB Business Review
function, and savings are often handled by residual
resources that remain after consumption. By modelling the
savings behaviour of households in Ethiopia with the
two-part model, Asare et al.’s (2018) study contributes to
the understanding of household-savings behaviour in
Africa. The study findings show that the number of contacts
for extension and access to market information has a
significant and positive impact on the probability of savings
of a household. In addition, land holdings and production
season have a substantially positive impact on household’s
expected amount of money to save. However, Hone and
Marisennayya (2019) found that consumption expenditure
incurred by households has a negative impact on savings.
Abebe (2017) argued that human capital variables like
health and training for non-farm activities have a positive
impact on the decision-making of male-farm household
members to participate off-farm for savings. Also,
Zahonogo (2011) claimed, irrespective of the area
considered, the contribution of non-farm activities to
household income and savings in the rural area was
important and households combined several strategies to
diversify household-income sources.
H02: Socio-economic factors have no significant effect
on savings decisions.
Impact of Institutional Factors on
Savings Decisions
Some of the prominent institutional variables that include
credit service and training and education have been found
as important antecedents of savings behaviour. For
instance, Mirach and Hailu (2014) explained that credit
can increase the access of consumers to essential resources
and fuel economic growth. It also allows risk, costs and
financial reserves to be allocated efficiently. Furthermore,
farmers can acquire inputs and equipment that make
them more productive and improve overall agricultural
productivity, such as fertilizers, tractors, farming
equipment and livestock. It is also widely recognized that
access to credit is critical for cultivators especially in
money scarce seasons at rural level that compel the
farmers to borrow money from merchants for their raw
materials with a lower price or in auction to face the
challenge at a time. Menza and Tsegaw Kebede (2016)
conducted a study on the impact of microfinance on
household savings and the study output showed
that financial and non-financial savings were practiced by
70% of sampled households, while the remaining 30%
did not practice any form of savings. Surprisingly, 73.27%
were from the treatment group, while only 26.73%
were from the control group, which shows that
savings and credit associations have a positive impact on
household savings in the study area. Credit plays a crucial
role in bridging the gap between individual consumption,
low income and poor savings mobilization. Previous
Bhat et al.
research (NyatichiMauti et al., 2017; Peprah & Ayayi,
2016; Ravi, 2014) has shown that access to credit improves
one’s savings mobilization. These researchers believe that
once credit is obtained and used effectively, revenue
generated from usage will rise, affecting people’s
willingness to save. According to Asante-Addo et al.
(2017), the most important factors influencing farm
households’ decisions to participate in credit programs are
the process of obtaining credit and increased savings for
farming. It also revealed that important variables such as
the gender of the household head, formal education level
and farm size have an impact on farmers’ willingness to
participate in credit programs.
H03: Institutional factors have no significant effect on
savings decisions.
Analytical Framework
The framework is adapted from previous studies and
serves as the foundation of this study. The framework
(Figure 1) is formulated to explain the relationship of the
dependent variable (savings decisions) with several
predictors (household, socio-economic and institutional
factors). As discussed below, the two categories of variables
include explanatory and descriptive variables. The
participation of household in savings as well as change in
evaluation should be considered. The need and interest
towards savings also vary depending on economic
conditions, beliefs, marital status, educational levels,
expenditures, accessibility to financial institutions and
infrastructures, their personal background and so on.
Figure 1. Analytical Framework of the Study
Source: The authors.
5
Research Methodology
For this study, mixed method research design has been
utilized that efficiently assesses antecedents of savings
behaviour at Metekele zone, Benishangul Gumuz regional
state (Saunders et al., 2012). The researchers utilize both
quantitative and qualitative research approaches to achieve
the objectives effectively. The study is conducted in
Metekele zone by focusing on the rural parts of Woredas in
which the savings groups are organized and functional.
The Metekele zone, Benishangul Gumuz regional state is
targeted as the decline in poverty slowed down between
2010–2011 and 2015–2016 in this region. In contrast to
monetary poverty, the percentage of people living below
the food-poverty line continued a steep decline from 55%
in 1999–2000 to 24% in 2015–2016, about the same as the
national average of 25%. Around 25% of rural people in
Benishangul-Gumuz are poor compared to only 18% of
urban people. However, due to the difficulty of covering all
the total Woredas, and due to population’s similar
characteristics who were organized, use of simple random
sampling is more suitable (Kothari, 2004).
In addition to quantitative approach, qualitative
approach has also been employed in the present study with
the purpose to get more clear insights and understanding
regarding savings determinants. Several qualitative
research tools such as focus group discussions, in-depth
interviews, field notes, observation and case stories have
been well-utilized in good number of studies (Ganle et al.,
2015; Kato & Kratzer, 2013; Khan et al., 2020; Kim et al.,
2007). However, for the present study in-depth interviews
were found apt and conducted with the 50 respondents
individually.
6 FIIB Business Review

Table 1. List of Target Population of the Study
Name of Focused Number of Total
Sl. No. Kebeles Savings Groups Population
1 Dangur 3 72
2 Pawi 3 76
3 Wombera 3 81
4 Bulin 2 71
Total 15 300
Source: World Vision International (2018).
The researchers are obliged to minimize study area by
focusing on four randomly selected Woredas (Table 1).
Accordingly, a total sample of 300 members has been
selected for the determination of the expected sample size
to be used as a representative of other Woredas in the zone,
which have greater effect to influence the household-
savings behaviour and the Woredas overall social and
economic issues. Hence, the Woredas selected consist of
Wombera, Bulin, Pawi and Dangur for the present study.
In order to determine the sample of the study, the following
formula given by Yamane (1967) is followed. This procedure
is appropriate when there is finite and homogenous population.
The socio-economic activities, institutional factors and
demographic factors that determine the savings decisions are
similar along with the characteristics of the population and the
majority of population of the Woredas are engaged in similar
socio-economic activities. The following formula is applied
for sample-size determination.
N 300
n= = = 171
1 + N (e) 2 1 + 300 (0.05) 2
where
n = sample size required,
N = number of people in the population and
e = estimated variance in population, as a decimal 0.5.
Questionnaires were distributed to 171 households by
simple random sampling method (Table 2). The format of
the questionnaire has been adopted from the prior authors
and prepared in accordance with rationale and objectives
of the study. The instrument used for data collection is
based on the research questions and objectives under
investigation, the research design and the information to be
gathered focusing the questionnaire prepared about the
variables under consideration. Since, in any survey where
the questionnaires can be completed by the respondents,
the appearance and layout of the questionnaire is of greater
importance (John et al., 2012). The questionnaire layout
was kept very simple and prepared in two different versions
(English and Amharic) that helped to improve the
understanding of respondents’ meaningful participation. The
questionnaire had three sections, that is, demographic
information of respondents, socio-economic status of the
respondents and institutional factors that determine savings
behaviour. Using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences
(SPSS Version 20), data is coded and entered into the
computer. Data is analysed for each of the independent and
dependent variables in terms of mean, standard deviation
and frequency distribution. Savings decisions variable is
regressed using the binary logistic regression model against
the 17 independent variables.
Determinants of Outcome
Variable (savings decisions)
The factors determining savings decisions have been
categorized into three groups:
1. Household characteristics: Age of household
members, sex of household members, religion, mar-
ital status, education level/literacy and family size.
2. Socio economic variables: Size of land ownership,
number of livestock, total value of crops produced,
participation in non-farm activities, income,
expenditure, use of irrigation.
3. Institutional factors: Credit service, training and
education.
Model Specification for the Study
One of the statistical tools used to calculate the probability
of two possible results is binary logistic regression
(Bagley et al., 2001). Logistic regression requires a large
sample size, but if a small sample is used for the study, as
suggested by researchers, bootstraping methods should
be used (Fitrianto & Cing, 2014). Logistic regression can
also deal with non-linear relationships between dependent
and independent variables, as a non-linear transformation
of the linear regression log is applied. In this research, the
two possible outcomes are either household decide to
save or not to save. Thus, the dependent variable (Y) is

Table 2. Sample Size for the Study

Name of Focused Number of Savings

Sl. No. Woredas Group Total Population Proportional Sample
1 Dangur 3 72 0.57 41
2 Pawi 3 76 0.57 43
3 Wombera 3 81 0.57 46
4 Bulin 2 71 0.57 41
Total 15 300 171
Source: The authors.
Bhat et al. 7

Table 3. Perceived Conceptual Framework Showing Relationships Between Variables

Variables Definition of Variables Expected Signs

Age of household members Age of household members, which is continuous variable (+/−)
Sex of household members 1 if male and 0 if female (+)
Religion Religion denomination (+/−)
Marital status 1 if married and 0 if not +
Education level/literacy 1 if literate, 0 if illiterate +
Livestock unit Total birr collected from livestock sales in the year (+)
Family size Number of labour force who participated in farming (adult/men equivalent) (+/−)
Land ownership 1 if hold certificate and 0 if did not (+/−)
Production season 1 if cultivation twice a year, 0 for otherwise +/−
Participation in non-farm activities 1 if participated, 0 if not participated (+/−)
Income Returns earned in the year +
Expenditure Expenses incurred during the year −
Use of credit 1 if took credit and 0 if did not take credit (+/−)
Irrigation utilization Returns gained from irrigation use (+)
Training and education 1 if received and 0 for otherwise (+)
Source: The authors.

coded as 1(decision to save) and 0 (decision not to save). Tr&Edu = training and education (discrete variable)
The equation for binary logistic regression is formulated ProSea = production season (dummy variable)
as follows. Gujarati and Porter (2003) gave the general Irr = irrigation use
expression for logistic model as, Pronon = participation in non-farm activities
r ( x)
L i = Ln = b0 + biXi + ui, i = 1, 2, …, 17 The dependent variable is the degree of savings decisions
1 - r ( x) by households at Metekele zone, Benishangul Gumuz
From this general logit model, the following are derived regional state which is undertaken to identify the factors
and applied for this specific study. that determine it. Logistic regression is helpful when one
intends to predict categorical variables from a set of
Li = b0+ b1Age + b2sex + b3Edulevel + b4Marstu predictor variables (Pallant, 2005; Tariq & Sangmi, 2019).
+b5Reli + b6Etnic + b7Fsiz + b8Lvstock + b9Inc + Thus, logistic regression is conducted to examine whether
b10Exp + b11Irr + b12Prosea + b13UsCr + the three broad categories of variables (Table 3), that is,
b14Tr&Edu + b15Pronon + b16LON + ei household variables (age, sex, ethnic group, religion,
where Li = log of the odd ratio of savings decisions. education level, marital status and family size); socio-
economic variables (numbers of livestock units, income,
r (x) expenditure, production season, participation in non-farm
Y = Ln < F
1 = decision to save,
let assume ……. P (Y = 1) = (X) activities, land ownership, distance from microfinance
1 - r (x) 0 = decision not to save……… institution and irrigation utilization); institutional variables
……… P (Y = 0) = 1−(X) (use of credit and training and education) significantly
Li = logs of odds ratio/logit predict savings behaviour of households in an Ethiopian
Ln = natural logarithm context.
bi = coefficient for each independent variable
b0 = intercept of the regression or constant Data Analysis and Interpretation
b1, b2, …, b16 are slope coefficients of explanatory The questionnaires were distributed to 171 randomly
Xi = each independent variable and ui = error term selected respondents out of which 165 were completed and
Inc = income (continuous variable) returned, resulting in a response rate of 96%. The collection
UsCr = use credit (dummy variable) procedures involved personal administration, follow up
Edulevel = educational qualification after distribution of questionnaires through mobile phone
Age = age of household member (continuous variable) calls for validation of data, when they would be equipped
Lvstoc = livestock unit (dummy variable) for collection and personal collection whenever possible.
Sex = sex of the household member The response rate was found to be sufficiently satisfactory
Marstu = marital status for analysis of the data. The six unreturned questionnaires
Etnic = ethnic group of households (4%) could be credited to delay on the part of the
LON = land ownership (dummy variable) respondents and hence being unable to return back.
Fsize = family size (continuous variable) Therefore, data collected from 165 (96%) respondents is
Exp = expenditure (discrete variable) considered for the present analysis.
8 FIIB Business Review

Table 4. Reliability Analysis Table 7. Classification Table

Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Alpha based on Predicted

Alpha the Standardized Items No. of Items
0.655 0.765 17
Source: SPSS output
Validity and Reliability Analysis
Validity refers to the extent to which reliable and adequate
evidence can be shown by the researchers for the statement
(Grix, 2004). Since questions are tested for their clarity and
comprehensibility and important conclusions are drawn
using these questions, the validity of the collected data is
ensured (Table 4). The reliability analysis is then necessary
to measure the consistency of the questionnaire to reflect
the overall reliability of the constructs it is measuring. The
most common measure of scale reliability is Cronbach’s
Alpha (α) to perform the reliability analysis, and a value
greater than 0.700 is very acceptable (Cohen & Sayag,
2010; Field, 2009) and a reliability value (α) greater than
0.600 is also acceptable according to Cronbach (1951).
Chi-square test, (Hosmer & Lemeshow, 2000), Omnibus
tests (χ2 = 34.715) are also used in this study to discover the
significant determinants and the relationship of several
predictors with the outcome variable.
Binary Logistic Regression Analysis
In the present analysis, it is important to carry out a
statistical analysis, which would incorporate more than one
predictor variable at a time. The regression analysis method
adopted in this study is binary logistic regression, which
would allow the identification of the effect of each of the
selected predictor variables on savings behaviour (decision
to save or not to save) (Table 5).
Table 5. Case Processing Summary
Unweighted Casesa N Percentage
Selected cases Included in analysis 165
Missing cases 0 0.0
Total 165
Unselected cases 0 0.0
Total 165
Source: SPSS output
Note: aIf weight is in effect, see classification table for the total number
of cases.
Table 6. Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients
Savings Decision
Decision
Not to Decision Percentage
Observed Save to Save Correct
Step 16 Savings Decision 5 46 9.8
decision not to save
Decision to 2 112 98.2
save
Overall percentage 70.9
Source: SPSS output
Note: Cut value is 0.500.
Table 6 above shows that when all the three category
of predictor variables are considered together, they
significantly predict the savings decisions variable at
χ2 = 34.715, df = 17, N = 165, p < 0.05. The table labelled
variables not in the equation implies that the residual
chi-square statistic is 34.715 which is significant at
p = 0.000 (<0.05). In other words, its predictive power will
be significantly affected by the addition of one or more
variables to the model (Table 7). If the residual chi-square
probability was greater than 0.05, it would indicate that it
would not have made a significant contribution to its
predictive power to force all the variables excluded from
the model.
Evaluation of Prediction Power of
Models with all the Predictors
Further analysis of the prediction power of models with all
the predictors and percentage-dependent variable explained
by independent variables is explained in this section.
Table 8, therefore, provides an indication of the amount
of variation in the dependent variable with Cox & Snell’s
R2 and Nagelkerke’s R2. However, the R2 modification of
the Nagelkerke that varies from 0 to 1 is more reliable
measure of the relationship with a better model that shows
a value closer to 1 and provides an indication of the fitting
100.0
information of the model. Therefore, at 61%, there is a
100.0 good connection between the predictors and the response
variable. And also with all the predictors, 70.9% is accurate
100.0 in determining the dependent variable, as per Table 8.
Goodness of Fit of the Model
Table 9 shows the Hosmer–Lemeshow test, which divides
subjects into 10 ordered subject groups and then compares

Chi-square df Sig. Table 8. Model Summary

Step 1 Step 34.715 1 0.002 Step Cox and Snell’s R2 Nagelkerke’s R2
Block 34.715 1 0.002
Model 34.715 1 0.002 1 0.420 0.61
Source: SPSS output Source: SPSS output
Bhat et al. 9

Table 9. Hosmer–Lemeshow Test
Step Chi-square df Sig.
1 6.899 8 0.548
Source: SPSS output
the actual number (observed) in each group with the
predicted probability of occurrence in the model population
subgroups. On the basis of the actual observed outcome
variable (decision to save and decision not to save), each of
these categories is further divided into two groups. Under
the linear model, a probability (p) value is calculated
(comparing the frequencies observed with those expected)
from the chi-square distribution with eight (number of
groups 2) degrees of freedom to test the logistic model’s
fit. Small values indicate a good fit for the data (with a
large p-value closer to 1), that is, an insignificant chi-square
indicates a good fit for the data and therefore a good overall
model fit. As the p-value is 0.548, which is negligible,
our fitted logistic regression model is therefore a good
fit (see Table 9). On this basis, the Hosmer–Lemeshow
test indicates that the model fits well with the statistics
χ2 = 6.899 & p value of 0.548, which is (>0.05), which
means that the data fits the model properly (Hosmer &
Lemeshow, 2000).
A lower difference in the observed and predicted
classification indicates the better model fit. The Hosmer–
Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test actually tests the
assumptions.
Results of Binary Logistic
Regression Model
The logistic coefficients that can be used to create a
predictive equation (similar to the beta values in linear
regression) are the β values based as can be seen in Table
10. The researchers formulated the following expected
complete model by applying all coefficients to the logistic
regression model:
r (x)
Logit (r (x) = d n= b0 + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3 +
1 - r (x)
b4X4 + b5X5 + b6X6+ b7X7+ b8X8 + b9X9
+ b10X10 + b11X11 + b12X12 + b13X13 +
b14X14 + b15X15 +e
= b0 + b1Age + b2sex + b3Edulevel +
b4Marstu +b5Reli +b6Fsiz + b7Lvstock +
b8Inc + b9Exp + b10Irr + b11Prosea +
b12UsCr + b13Tr&Edu + b14Pronon +
b15Land + e
= 910-.775Age + 0.502Sex + 0.820Edule +
0.106Marstu + 0.389Reli - 0.433Fsiz +
0.619Lvstock + 0.869Inc - 0.245Exp +
0.379Irrg + 0.211Prosea + 0.682UsCr +
0.275Tr&Edu + 0.164Prnon + 0.481
Landown + e
The chi-square distribution of the Wald statistics provides
an index of the effect of the predictors on the dependent
variable in the equation that is used to test whether all
coefficients of predictors differ from zero to demonstrate
and to understand that at least one predictor has an impact
on results (Bewick et al., 2005). In addition, the p-value is
the simplest way of evaluating each predictor’s significance.
In this case, if the p-value of the predictors is less than 0.05
(p < 0.05), then each predictor has a significant effect on
the dependent variable. In addition, EXP(β) is referred to
as the odds ratio, that is, the exponential of the logistic
coefficients reveal the type of relationship between the
predictors and the results and also presents the extent

Table 10. Bootstrap for Variables in the Equation

Variables β SE Wald df Sig. Exp(β)

Age −0.775 0.461 2.819 1 0.043* 0.461
Sex 0.502 0.496 1.026 1 0.311 1.653
Education level 0.820 0.428 3.671 1 0.038* 1.803
Marital status 0.106 0.365 0.084 1 0.772 1.111
Religion 0.389 0.349 1.247 1 0.064 1.476
Family size −0.433 0.297 2.117 1 0.046* 0.649
Numbers of livestock unit 0.619 0.268 1.429 1 0.044* 1.019
Income 0.869 0.319 7.412 1 0.003* 2.384
Expenditure −0.245 0.304 0.650 1 0.420 1.278
Irrigation utilization 0.379 0.406 0.869 1 0.035* 1.460
Production season 0.211 0.477 0.195 1 0.038* 1.235
Use of credit 0.682 0.410 2.767 1 0.006* 1.979
Training education 0.275 0.614 0.201 1 0.049* 1.317
Participation in non-farm activities 0.164 0.430 0.146 1 0.040* 1.178
Land ownership 0.481 0.806 0.357 1 0.048* 1.618
Constant 0.910 3.430 0.070 1 0.791 0.402
Source: SPSS output.
Note: *p < 0.05, 95% level of confidence, N = 165.
10
or influence level to which the odds ratio is influenced
by raising the corresponding measure by one unit.
Consequently, if the EXP(β) value is just below 1 indicating
that the event is less likely to occur compared to the base
group, indicating that there is no effect of that variable on
the outcome at which the Wald statistical outcome is close
and becomes null and the p-value outcome is not significant.
If the EXP(β) value is just above 1 to infinity, compared to
the base group, it indicates that the event is more likely to
happen (Park, 2013). The EXP(β) value associated with
income, for example, is 2.384. Holding another factor
constant, the odds ratio is 2.384 times as large when income
is increased by one unit, and therefore, savings decisions
are 2.384 times likely and significant.
Moreover, in this study as revealed in Table 10 all
explanatory variable coefficients of Wald statistics are
different from zero (2.819, 1.026, 3.671, 0.084, 1.247,
0.889, 2.117, 1.429, 7.412, 0.650, 0.869, 0.195, 2.767,
0.201, 0.146 and 0.357) that confirm that explanatory
variables effect outcome variable. The p values of
predictors are less than 0.05 (i.e., 0.043, 0.038, 0.046,
0.044, 0.003, 0.035, 0.038, 0.006 and 0.048) which confirm
that the above ten explanatory variables (age, education
level, family size, number of livestock unit, income of
households, irrigation utilization, use of credit, training
and education, participation in non-farm activities, land
ownership) are significant in influencing the outcome.
However, the odds ratio of each predictor as stated in
Table 10—age, ethnic group and family size—for which
odds ratio are less than one, revealing that there is a positive
relationship between predictors and the outcome variable
(savings decisions).
Statistical Test of Hypotheses
The logistic regression statistics computed in Table
10 were considered and demonstrated by the Wald test,
the significance level (p-value) and the odds ratio achieved
by each of the independent variables, in order to achieve
the objectives of the study and test the related hypotheses.
The hypotheses sought to test for a significant influence of
household characteristics (age, sex, education level, mari-
tal status, religion, family size), socio-economic variables
(land ownership, numbers of livestock unit, income of
households, expenditure, irrigation utilization, production
season, participation in non-farm activities) and institu-
tional factors (use of credit, training and education) on
savings behaviour.
Household Characteristics and
Savings Decisions
The results of logistic regression are shown in Table 10.
The individual test figures of age of households (Wald
test = 2.819, p = 0.043, Exp(β) = 0.461) indicate age of
household determines savings decision as revealed by
FIIB Business Review
Wald test of 2.819 and the p-value is also less than
significance level 0.05. The results clearly show that the
age of households has a significant effect in determining
the outcome. The individual test figures of sex of the
households (Wald test = 1.026, p = 0.311, Exp(β) = 1.653)
suggest, sex of the household member has an insignificant
effect on the savings decision. In this research study, the
education level of households is also expected to determine
savings. This hypothesis is supported by the logistic
regression outcome at 5% (p < 0.05) level of significance
and indicated by Wald test = 3.671, p = 0.038, Exp(β) =
1.803. Therefore, the education levels of households
determine well-savings decisions in the Woredas. Moreover,
holding other factors constant, when the education level of
household members increases by one unit, saving decision
in the Metekele zone is expected to present by 1.803 and the
relationship is statistically significant at 5% level.
As shown in logistic output above, family size in
household contributes towards savings decisions but it
negatively determines savings as supported by coefficient
(β = −0.433). Thus, it can be concluded, as the family
size by household increases the decision to save does
not happen. The results (Wald test = 0.084, p = 0.772,
Exp(β) = 1.111) show that it has no effect on the savings
decisions as shown by the Wald test of 0.084 near to zero
or less than 1, and the p value is also greater than the
significance level of 0.05 with regard to the marital
status of households. On the other hand, the individual
household religion test figures indicated by Wald test =
1.247, p = 0.064, Exp(β) = 1.476 show that household
religion has no effect on savings decisions as the p value
is greater than the significance level 0.05. But, as shown by
the Wald test of 1.247 and an odds ratio greater than one,
that contributes positively to outcome variable. Current
findings have been linked with Zwane et al. (2016) and
Markos (2015) who also found age and education positively
impact savings decision, however family size negatively
determines savings decision.
Socio-economic Characteristics of
Households and Savings Decisions
Among the socio-economic variables, the result of logistic
regression is shown in Table 10, reflecting household
income, which determines the savings as shown by
the Wald test of 7,412 and the odds ratio of 2,384. In
determining the outcome variable, household income is,
therefore, important as the p-value (0.003) is lower than
the significance level of 0.05. Another feature of household
land is also expected to determine savings decision in this
study. The logistic regression results (Wald test = 0.357,
p = 0.048, Exp(β) = 1.618) support that land possessed
by households contribute towards savings decision in the
zone. Moreover, holding other factors constant, when the
land belonging to household increase by one unit, savings
decision in the Metekele zone is expected to present by
Bhat et al. 11

1.618 and the relationship is statistically significant at 5% Table 11. Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents
level, as shown by the Wald test of 1.429 and the odds ratio
Demographic Variable Score Percentage
of 1.019, respectively. Another variable viz. number of
livestock units belonging to household determine savings. Gender
In addition, the household livestock unit is important in Males 33 66
Females 17 34
determining the outcome as the p-value (0.044) is lower than
50
the 0.05 significance level. This has clearly shown that the Marital status
livestock unit significantly determines the savings decision. Married 19 38
The individual test figures of crop production season of Unmarried 31 62
households indicated by Wald test = 0.195, p = 0.038, Exp(β) 50 100
= 1.235 suggests that the production season of household Age
affects savings decisions as the p-value is also less than 21–30 11 22
significance level of 0.05. But, as revealed by Wald test of 31–40 16 32
0.195 near to 0 and odds ratio greater than 1 which positively 41–51 12 24
51–60 7 14
contribute towards savings decisions. However, expenditure
61 above 4 8
incurred by household does not contribute towards savings 50
decisions as the p-value (p = 0.420) greater than significance Educational qualification
level with negative coefficient (β = −0.245) indicating Complete illiterate 8 16
negative effect on savings decisions. It is revealed that as the Primary school 5 10
consumption or expenditure by household increases, the Lower secondary school 7 14
decision to save declines. Higher secondary school 9 18
The utilization of irrigation by households is also Diploma level 10 20
Graduate level 7 14
supposed to determine savings decisions of the respondents.
Above graduate level 4 8
The logistic regression results (Wald test = 0.869, p = 0.035, 50 100
Exp(β) = 1.460) support significant effect of utilization of
Source: The authors.
irrigation on savings decisions. Therefore, the utilization of
irrigation by individual households has contribution towards
savings decision in Woredas. The individual test figures of In-depth Interviews: Results
participation in non-farm activities of households indicated
Analysing qualitative data in NVIVO gathered through
by Wald test = 0.146, p = 0.040, Exp(β) = 1.178 indicate that
in-depth interviews of 50 respondents, the findings of the
the participation in non-farm activities by household impacts
study were further enriched and confirmed. For demographic
savings as the p value is also less than significance level of
data, respondents were given brief questionnaire at the end
0.05. Brown and Taylor (2014) and Mosca and McCrory
of the interviews. In these interviews, majority (33) of the
(2016) have also found socio-economic variables understudy
participants were males and only 17 were females. Majority
strongly influence an individual’s propensity to save which
(31) of the respondents were unmarried and 19 were
impacts savings behaviour.
married. Most of the respondents were of middle-age group
(21–40). However, the respondents greatly vary in terms of
Institutional Factors and Savings Decisions educational qualifications as shown in Table 11.
In addition, institutional factors are supposed to determine Each of the interviews lasted for around 30 minutes and
household-savings decisions, and the use of household was audio recorded with the approval of the respondents.
credit significantly determines savings decisions, as shown Subsequently, recorded interviews were transcribed into
by the Wald test of 2,767 and the odds ratio of 1,979, quoted statements of the respondents. Using theoretical
respectively. Thus, use of credit by household is significant analytical procedures, transcripts were coded with an aim
in determining the outcome variable as the p-value (0.006) to identify thematic categories (Warren & Karner, 2005).
is less than significance level 0.05. The results show that The two major themes viz. socio-economic characteristics
the training and education taken by household members and institutional factors were identified on which in-depth
determines savings decisions as revealed by the odds ratio discussion was conducted with each of the respondents. In
of 1.317 which is greater than one. Training and education relation to socio-economic characteristics, respondents
is also important in determining the outcome variable as talked about their income, expenses, participation in non-
indicated by the p-value (0.049) that is lower than the level farm activities, use of irrigation facility, size of their land
of significance. Menza and Tsegaw Kebede (2016), ownership, number of livestock possessed by them, total
Fernandes et al. (2014) and Linardi and Tanaka (2013) also value of crops produced during crop season and how
found credit access and financial education and training these contributed to their saving decisions. On the other,
significantly determine savings decision of households. regarding institutional factors, respondents were persuaded
12
to talk about the role of credit service they avail and training
and educational programs in their saving decisions.
It is clear from the narrations of the respondents,
majority of the factors viz. household characteristics,
socio-economic factors as well as institutional factors
contribute towards households’ decision to save and
transform their lives. In households, where heads of the
family are of higher age, well educated, are more likely to
save. The sex is not determining savings decisions, as
both men and women are likely to make savings decisions
in this study. Respondents who were whether married or
unmarried reported about saving decisions likewise. These
findings related to household characteristics can be
corroborated with Zwane et al. (2016) and Markos (2015).
With reference to socio-economic factors, only sufficient
income certainly determines households’ savings decisions
positively. As one of the respondents reports, ‘the decision
to save dependents on my income level, the more I earn the
more I can think about savings. At times when income is
low, just expenses are covered from it and at that time
I don’t think of savings’. Those households who participate
in non-farm activities and possess more number of
livestock units are much more likely to save. As the
respondent reports, ‘since we are engaged in non-farm
income generating activities, we earn more compared to
earlier and thus can think of savings now’. Moreover, crop
season as well as using irrigation facility further determines
households’ decision to save. However, those household
members who reported of huge daily expenditures are not
able to make any saving decisions, for lack of money
in their hands. As the respondent narrates, ‘all the income
that I earn goes to my daily household expenditures such
as food, clothing, school fees and other expenses of my
children, so I hardly think of savings, as generally I go
short of cash’. These results are in line with Brown and
Taylor (2014), and Mosca and McCrory (2016) who
found socio-economic variables influence an individual’s
propensity to save which influence savings behaviour.
Of the institutional factors, it is revealed that households,
which mostly rely on credit facility by Microfinance
institutions along with the proper training and education
about this facility are able to take better saving decisions.
As one of instance of respondents’ narration is,
my participation in microfinance schemes has changed my life.
It has developed not only my savings habit but granted credit
amount in my favour that helped me much to meet the needs
and ultimately enabled me to think about savings. Another
participant reports, due to attending several training programs
of MFIs and other government institutions, awareness about
the importance as well as ways of savings has been increased
to some extent. Though the number of trainings offered has
been limited in our area.
These findings are akin to the findings of Menza and
Tsegaw Kebede (2016) Fernandes et al. (2014) and Linardi
FIIB Business Review
and Tanaka (2013). Moreover, the findings from in-depth
interviews with regard to all the predictors under study of
savings decisions are mostly found consistent with the
results obtained from quantitative analysis leading to
reliability of the objectives achieved.
Conclusion and Discussion
The most important value of this research is that the
questionnaires followed by in-depth interviews can be
useful to understand household-savings decisions in
Metekele zone. In addition, it was operable to determine
socio-economic and institutional factors of saving
decisions relevant for each household to enhance savings
for transformation process. In conclusion, the inferential
analysis shows that savings are carried out by 69.09%
of sample households and low income and family size,
social affairs and expenditure are the common reasons for
households not to save. In addition, demographic economic
analysis shows that income, age, gender, marital status,
forms of saving institutions and the frequency of receiving
money are important determinants of the study area’s
household savings. Based on the findings, the following
conclusions can be drawn. The targeted households are
appropriate to this research due to their know-how
regarding savings and institutions as they have received
training and education. The analysis of logistic regression
reveal a very strong contribution of these variables to the
savings behaviour. Therefore, overall effect of age, level of
education, family size, number of livestock units, income,
use of irrigation, production season, participation in
non-farm activities, use of credit, training and education
contribute significantly and positively to savings decisions.
Brown and Taylor (2014) and Mosca and McCrory (2016)
also claimed that socio-economic variables influence an
individual’s propensity to save, which further influence
their savings behaviour. According to Lusardi (2008), high
illiteracy rates jeopardize people’s ability to make well-
informed financial decisions. Members’ human capital
is thus enhanced through trainings that improve their
knowledge and skills in financial management and overall
financial control. Most of the demographic determinants
have effect on savings decisions of households as shown in
logistic regression output, as age and education level of
households advanced the decision to save. These findings
are in line with Zwane et al. (2016) and Markos (2015).
A surge in the number of financial institutions like
banks and microfinance institutions, on the other hand,
provide households with credit opportunities that boost
savings decisions (Tariq & Sangmi, 2020). Therefore,
households’ use of credit provides an opportunity to save.
Menza and Tsegaw Kebede (2016) also found access to
credit from Microfinance institutions influence individuals’
decision to save positively. Most of the households are
engaged in agriculture, non-farm activities, and have their
Bhat et al.
own land that, during any emergency, forms an asset for
them that leads to savings decisions. The socio-economic
status of the households (income, participation in non-farm
activities and producing crops twice a year) contributes
towards savings of households. Van Rijckeghem and Üçer
(2009) also found disposable income as the main factor in
individual savings that does not lead to saving decisions by
people with a low income. Whereas, Asare et al. found
(2018) production season of last year had a substantially
positive impact on a household’s expected amount of
money to save. The studies conducted by Abebe (2017)
and Zahonogo (2011) also indicate that participation in
non-farm activities has a positive impact on the savings
decisions of the male-household members.
Practical Implications
Based on the findings, the following are specific areas
that need due emphasis to improve the savings for
transformation of households. There should be coordination
with the concerned stakeholders and some organs so that
more factors that determine the savings of households
would be traced, for instance, extension of employees in
rural areas of the Metekele zone. Thus, the government
and concerned parties should support more for the
decision to save by facilitating and undertaking training on
saving options, conducting regular review and monitoring
to develop a clear policy on the importance of savings
specifically for households on habit of regular savings.
Further, in order to improve the importance of savings,
government should impart training and education to the
poor households regarding financial matters by organizing
financial literacy campaigns.
Moreover, to encourage savings among village savings
and loan association (VSLA) members, VSLA leaders and
stakeholders should enact prudent financial management
programmes with the married women with the desire to
take loans for home assets and donations at various cultural
and religious programmes as prime targets. This approach
will assist in reducing the probability of depleting savings
of these targeted women and that of the association.
Additionally, programmes by the Government and other
NGOs to promote the participation of VSLA should
consider targeting the matured women who are mostly
married and located in rural areas. This is because they are
likely to be receptive to such a course.
Research Implications
The study uniquely contributes through the analysis of
credit access factor determining savings decision in the
financial market. Moreover, examining training and
education as an institutional factor influencing savings is
another important contribution. Previous studies have
not considered these factors for studying the causal
relationship between them, which the present study does.
13
Though ample care was taken to minimize the limitations
of the study, yet certain loopholes remained there. First,
sample size was not sufficient; hence, future studies can
take large sample to draw more accurate inferences.
Second, the study is focused on rural areas only so lacks
comparison. It is suggested to conduct comparative studies
while focusing both the rural as well as urban areas. Third,
limited institutional variables have been considered and
examined in this study. The future researchers can consider
other factors. In addition, inclusion of cultural factors
to address the Barnard et al.’s query (2017) is another
opportunity to consider. Agyapong (2021) claims
digitalization can also affect savings. Hence, all these factors
should be considered and examined.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research,
authorship and/or publication of this article.
References
Abebe, A. (2017). Factors affecting rural household saving
(In Case of Wolayita Zone Ofa Woreda). Methodology, 36,
40–45.
Addis, F., Belete, B., & Bogale, M. (2019). Rural farm household
saving habit in Ethiopia: Evidence from south west Amhara
growth corridor. Academic Journal of Economic Studies,
5(3), 112–119.
Agyapong, D. (2021). Implications of digital economy for
financial institutions in Ghana: An exploratory inquiry.
Transnational Corporations Review, 13(1), 51–61.
Anang, B. T., Dawuda, I., & Imoro, L. (2015). Determinants
of savings habit among clients of Bonzali Rural Bank in
the Tolon-Kumbungu District of Ghana. UDS International
Journal of Development [UDSIJD], 2(2), 88–97.
Ansah, I. G. K., Gardebroek, C., & Ihle, R. (2021). Shock
interactions, coping strategy choices and household food
security. Climate and Development, 13(5), 414–426.
Asante-Addo, C., Mockshell, J., Zeller, M., Siddig, K., & Egyir,
I. S. (2017). Agricultural credit provision: What really
determines farmers’ participation and credit rationing?
Agricultural Finance Review, 77(2), 239–256.
Asare, E., Segarra, E., Gertrude, N., & Asiseh, F. (2018).
Explaining the saving behavior of households’ in Ethiopia,
Africa. Applied Economics and Finance, 5(2), 143–151.
Aseyehegn, K., Yirga, C., & Rajan, S. (2012). Effect of small-
scale irrigation on the income of rural farm households the
case of Laelay Maichew District, Central Tigray, Ethiopia.
The Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 7(1), 43–57.
Ayenew, W. (2014). The determinant of saving behavior of
women’s in urban Ethiopia in case of Arba Minch Town.
Developing Country Studies, 4(21), 130–139.
Bagley, S. C., White, H., & Golomb, B. A. (2001). Logistic
regression in the medical literature: Standards for use and
14
reporting, with particular attention to one medical domain.
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 54(10), 979–985.
Baranov, V., & Kohler, H. P. (2018). The impact of AIDS
treatment on savings and human capital investment in
Malawi. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics,
10(1), 266–306.
Barnard, H., Cuervo-Cazurra, A., & Manning, S. (2017). Africa
business research as a laboratory for theory-building: Extreme
conditions, new phenomena, and alternative paradigms of
social relationships. Management and Organization Review,
13(3), 467–495.
Bewick, V., Cheek, L., & Ball, J. (2005). Statistics review 14:
Logistic regression. Critical Care, 9(1), 1–7.
Bhat, M. A., & Tariq, S. (2020). Determinants of loan settlement
performance for microfinance institutions of Oromia regional
state of Ethiopia. International Journal of Advanced Science
and Technology, 29(9), 2609–2622.
Blanchard, O., & Giavazzi, F. (2016). Rebalancing growth in
China: A three-handed approach. In Y. Zhou (Ed.), Seeking
changes: The economic development in contemporary China
(pp. 49–84). World Scientific.
Brown, S., & Taylor, K. (2014). Household finances and the ‘Big
Five’ personality traits. Journal of Economic Psychology, 45,
197–212.
Chamon, M., Liu, K., & Prasad, E. (2013). Income uncertainty
and household savings in China. Journal of Development
Economics, 105, 164–177.
Cohen, A., & Sayag, G. (2010). The effectiveness of internal
auditing: An empirical examination of its determinants in
Israeli organisations. Australian Accounting Review, 20(3),
296–307.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure
of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.
Cronjé, M., & Roux, A. (2010). Savings culture for the black
middle class in South Africa. Macroeconomics, 4(2), 22–27.
D’Orazio, P., & Giulioni, G. (2017). From micro behaviors to
macro dynamics: An agent-based economic model with
consumer credit. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social
Simulation, 20(1). https://www.jasss.org/20/1/9.html
Engelbrecht, L., Yasseen, Y., & Omarjee, I. (2018). The role
of the internal audit function in integrated reporting: A
developing economy perspective. Meditari Accountancy
Research, 26(4), 657–674.
Fernandes, D., Lynch Jr., J. G., & Netemeyer, R. G. (2014).
Financial literacy, financial education, and downstream
financial behaviors. Management Science, 60(8), 1861–1883.
Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS for Windows:
Advanced techniques for the beginner. SAGE Publications.
Fitrianto, A., & Cing, N. M. (2014). Empirical distributions
of parameter estimates in binary logistic regression using
bootstrap. International Journal of Mathematical Analysis,
8, 721–726.
Frączek, B. (2011, September). The factors affecting the level
of household savings and their influence on economy
development. In Proceedings of the 8th International Scientific
Conference Financial Management of Firms and Financial
Institutions (pp. 6–7). Ostrava VŠB-TU Ostrava, Faculty of
Economics, Finance Department, Ostrava, Czech Republic.
Frank, L. B., Murphy, S. T., Chatterjee, J. S., Moran, M. B., &
Baezconde-Garbanati, L. (2015). Telling stories, saving lives:
FIIB Business Review
Creating narrative health messages. Health Communication,
30(2), 154–163.
Ganle, J. K., Afriyie, K., & Segbefia, A. Y. (2015). Microcredit:
Empowerment and disempowerment of rural women in
Ghana. World Development, 66, 335–345.
Goldstein, G., Barro, I., & Gentil, D. (1999). Etude sur le role et l ^
’impact des services et produitsd’epargne du secteurinformel
et des institutions de microfinance en Afrique de l’Ouest.
PNUD-FENU, Unite Speciale pour la Microfinance (SUM),
MicroSaveAfrica, mimeo.
Grix, J. (2004). The foundations of research. Palgrave Macmillan.
Gujarati, D. N., & Porter, D. C. (2003). Basic econometrics.
McGraw Hill Book.
Hone, Z., & Marisennayya, S. (2019). Determinants of household
consumption expenditure in Debremarkos Town, Amhara
Region, Ethiopia. American Scientific Research Journal for
Engineering, Technology, and Sciences, 62(1), 124–144.
Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied logistic
regression. Wiley.
John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the
prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives
for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524–532.
Karki, D., & Risal, H. G. (2021). Rural entrepreneurship in
wintergreen oil. FIIB Business Review, 11(1), 23–29.
Karlan, D., Ratan, A. L., & Zinman, J. (2014). Savings by and for
the poor: A research review and agenda. Review of Income
and Wealth, 60(1), 36–78.
Kates, R. W., & Dasgupta, P. (2007). African poverty: A grand
challenge for sustainability science. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 104(43), 16747–16750.
Kempen, A. (2016). The tourism safety initiative—Creating
safety support and awareness for businesses and tourists.
Servamus Community-based Safety and Security Magazine,
109(2), 14–17.
Khan, S. T., Bhat, M. A., & Sangmi, M. U. D. (2020). Impact of
microfinance on economic, social, political and psychological
empowerment: Evidence from women’s self-help groups
in Kashmir Valley, India. FIIB Business Review. https://
journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2319714520972905
Kibet, L. K., Mutai, B. K., Ouma, D. E., Ouma, S. A., & Owuor,
G. (2009). Determinants of household saving: Case study
of smallholder farmers, entrepreneurs and teachers in rural
areas of Kenya. Journal of Development and Agricultural
Economics, 1(7), 137–143.
Kim, J. C., Watts, C. H., Hargreaves, J. R., Ndhlovu, L. X., Phetla,
G., Morison, L. A., Busza, J., Porter, J. D. H., & Pronyk, P.
(2007). Understanding the impact of a microfinance-based
intervention on women’s empowerment and the reduction of
intimate partner violence in South Africa. American Journal
of Public Health, 97(10), 1794–1802.
Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology: Methods and
techniques. New Age International.
Kratzer, J., & Kato, M. P. (2013). Empowering women through
microfinance: Evidence from Tanzania. ACRN Journal of
Entrepreneurship Perspectives, 2(1), 31–59.
Lafourcade, A. L., Isern, J., Mwangi, P., & Brown, M. (2005).
Overview of the outreach and financial performance of
microfinance institutions in Africa. Microfinance Information
eXchange. http://www.mixmarket.org
Larissa, B., Maran, R. M., Ioan, B., Anca, N., Mircea-Iosif, R.,
Horia, T., Gheorghe, F., Speranta, M. E., & Dan, M. I. (2020).
Bhat et al.
Adjusted net savings of CEE and Baltic nations in the context
of sustainable economic growth: A panel data analysis.
Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 13(10), 234.
Lea, R. (2021). Household savings rose in 2021Q1: Ready to boost
the economy. Arbuthnot Banking Group, 5. https://www.
arbuthnotlatham.co.uk/insights/household-savings-rose-
2021q1-ready-boost-economy
Lin, J. Y., & Peter, J. (2018). Factors affecting the outlook for
medium-to long-term growth in the People’s Republic of
China. In J. Y. Lin, P. J. Morgan, & G. Wan (Eds.), Slowdown
in the People’s Republic of China: Structural factors and the
implications for Asia (pp. 220–249). Brookings.
Linardi, S., & Tanaka, T. (2013). Competition as a savings
incentive: A field experiment at a homeless shelter. Journal
of Economic Behavior & Organization, 95, 240–251.
Lusardi, A. (2008). Financial literacy: An essential tool for
informed consumer choice? (No. w14084). National Bureau
of Economic Research.
Maliti, B., & Mwewa, B. C. (2015). Determining the challenges for
small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in accessing financial
resources in a rural district of Zambia using multivariate
analysis. CLEAR International Journal of Research in
Commerce & Management, 6(12), 1–19.
Markos, W. O. G. E. N. E. (2015). Determinants and behaviour
of rural household saving: A case of Dale Woreda, Sidama
Zone. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Advanced
Research Trends, 2(3), 1–9.
Mensahkla, E., Kornu, D. D., & Dom, B. (2017). An empirical
analysis of the determinants of saving behaviour by
households in Ho, Ghana: A case study of Ho municipality,
an individual level analysis. Journal of Economics and
Sustainable Development, 8(6), 7–17.
Menza, S. K., & Tsegaw Kebede, T. (2016). The impact of
microfinance on household saving: The case of Amhara credit
and saving institution Feres Bet Sub-Branch, Degadamot
Woreda. An International Peer-reviewed Journal, 27, 64–82.
Mirach, T. H., & Hailu, Y. M. (2014). Determinants of household
saving in Ethiopia: A case of North Gondar zone Amhara
regional state. International Journal of Development and
Economic Sustainability, 2(4), 37–49.
Modi, R. (2019). The role of agriculture for food security and
poverty reduction in Sub-Saharan Africa. In T. M. Shaw,
L. C. Mahrenbach, R. Modi, & X. Yi-Chong (Eds.), The
Palgrave handbook of contemporary international political
economy (pp. 391–410). Palgrave Macmillan.
Mosca, I., & McCrory, C. (2016). Personality and wealth
accumulation among older couples: Do dispositional
characteristics pay dividends? Journal of Economic
Psychology, 56, 1–19.
Nduku, P. M. (2017). Population age structure and savings
behaviour in South Africa: The relevance of the life-cycle
hypothesis. University of Johannesburg.
NyatichiMauti, J., Gichunge, E., & Orero, R. (2017). The
influence of credit handling on savings mobilization in
co-operatives in Nyamira County. International Academic
Journal of Economics and Finance, 2(3), 237–254.
Obayelu, O. A. (2012). Saving behavior of rural households
in Kwara State, Nigeria. https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/253236323_Saving_Behavior_of_Rural_
Households_in_Kwara_State_Nigeria
15
Odoemenem, I. U., Ezihe, J. A. C., & Akerele, S. O. (2013).
Saving and investment pattern of small-scale farmers of
Benue State, Nigeria. Global Journal of Human Social
Science Sociology and Culture, 13(1), 7–12.
Omar, M. A., & Inaba, K. (2020). Does financial inclusion reduce
poverty and income inequality in developing countries? A
panel data analysis. Journal of Economic Structures, 9(1),
1–25.
Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to
data analysis using SPSS for Windows (Version 12). Allen
and Unwin.
Park, H. A. (2013). An introduction to logistic regression: From
basic concepts to interpretation with particular attention to
nursing domain. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing,
43(2), 154–164.
Patel, A. (2015). Empowering women in agriculture: Unleashing
rural women’s voice to end hunger and poverty. FIIB Business
Review, 4(3), 11–17.
Peprah, J. A., & Ayayi, A. G. (2016). Return to micro-credit
on small-scale businesses: A case study of Ghanaian MFI.
Journal of International Development, 28(4), 606–622.
Precious, C., & Asrat, T. (2014). Determinants of household
savings in South Africa: An econometric approach (1990-
2011). Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(15),
183–183.
Ravi, S. (2014). Repay as you earn: Loan repayment frequency,
cash flows, and savings of households. Journal of
International Development, 26(4), 438–453.
Ribaj, A., & Mexhuani, F. (2021). The impact of savings on
economic growth in a developing country (the case of Kosovo).
Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 10(1), 1–13.
Saliya, A. Y. (2018). Determinants of urban household saving
behavior in Ethiopia: A survey study in Mekelle City.
ÜniversiteparkBülten, 7(2), 82.
Saqib, S., Panazi, S., Ullah, H., Ullah, U., & Usman, H. (2016).
Determinants of household savings in rural and urban areas:
The case of Chitral District, Pakistan. International Journal
of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 6(3),
2222–6990.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research
methods for business students. Pearson Education.
Sebatta, C., Wamulume, M., & Mwansakilwa, C. (2014).
Determinants of smallholder farmers’ access to agricultural
finance in Zambia. Journal of Agricultural Science, 6(11), 63.
Talent, Z., Lorraine, G., & Mokadi, M. (2016). The determinants
of household savings in South Africa. International Business
& Economics Research Journal, 15(4), 209.
Tariq, S., & Sangmi, M. U. D. (2018). Microfinance and women
empowerment: A brief review of literature. Pacific Business
Review International, 11(3), 77–83.
Tariq, S., & Sangmi, M. (2019). Impact of microfinance on
women entrepreneurship. Arabian Journal of Business and
Management Review (Oman Chapter), 8(1), 7–16.
Tariq, S., & Sangmi, M. (2020). Microfinance and women’s
economic empowerment: An experimental evidence.
Abhigyan, 38(3), 10–20.
Tariq, S., Bhat, M. A., & Sangmi, M. D. (2020). Microfinance
and women entrepreneurship: An extant literature review.
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Management, 9(3), 18.
Teshome, G., Kassa, B., Emana, B., & Haji, J. (2013). Determinants
of rural household savings in Ethiopia: The case of east
 16 FIIB Business Review

Hararghe Zone, Oromia regional state. Journal of Economics
and Sustainable Development, 4(3), 66–75.
Thurlow, J., Dorosh, P., & Davis, B. (2019). Demographic
change, agriculture, and rural poverty. In C. Campanhola
& S. Pandey (Eds.), Sustainable food and agriculture
(pp. 31–53). Academic Press.
Topcu, E., Altinoz, B., & Aslan, A. (2020). Global evidence from
the link between economic growth, natural resources, energy
consumption, and gross capital formation. Resources Policy,
66, 101622.
Van Rijckeghem, C., & Üçer, M. (2009). The evolution and
determinants of the Turkish private saving rate: What lessons
for policy? Koç University-TÜSİAD Economic Research
Forum.
Warren, C., & Karner, T. (2005). The interview. In C. A. B. Warren
& T. X. Karner (Eds.), Discovering qualitative methods:
Field research, interviews and analysis (Vol. 35, p. 115).
Roxbury.
Wieliczko, B., Kurdyś-Kujawska, A., & Sompolska-Rzechuła, A.
(2020). Savings of small farms: Their magnitude, determinants
and role in sustainable development: Example of Poland.
Agriculture, 10(11), 525.
World Vision International. (2018). Key features of world
vision’s savings for transformation, Working Bulletin. https://
ebrary.ifpri.org/digital/collection/p15738coll16/id/946/
Yamane, T. (1967). Problems to accompany ‘Statistics, an
introductory analysis’. Harper & Row.
Yayeh, F. A. (2014). The impact of religion on household saving
behavior. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_
id=2518129
Zahonogo, P. (2011). Determinants of non-farm activities
participation decisions of farm households in Burkina Faso.
Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics, 3(3),
174–182.
Zeleke, A. T., & Endris, A. K. (2019). Household saving behavior
and determinants of savings in financial institutions: The case
of Derra District, Oromia Region, Ethiopia. Research Journal
of Finance and Accounting, 10(23), 2222–2847.
Zwane, T., Greyling, L., & Maleka, M. (2016). The determinants
of household savings in South Africa: A panel data approach.
International Business & Economics Research Journal
(Iber), 15(4), 209–218.

About the Authors

Mohd Abass Bhat is working as an assistant professor in the Department of Business Studies,
University of Technology and Applied Science, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman. He has a doctorate
degree in commerce pursued from Department of Commerce, University of Kashmir (India) and he
has more than 8 years of teaching experience at higher education level. He has published more than
a dozen of research papers in reputed international journals including Scopus indexed. He has pre-
sented research papers in national and international conferences and served as a reviewer for sev-
eral academic journals. His main research interest lies in several key areas: labour market condi-
tions, effectiveness of internal audit, non-performing loans, credit management, push and pull effect on employee’s
performance, job burnout, occupational stress, commitment, budgetary practice effectiveness, perceived external opportu-
nities, work performance and savings behavior. He has sufficient experience in higher order research methodology and
analysis, for instance, Structural Equation Modelling, Mediation, Moderation and Conditional Process analysis. He can be
reached at abass.ashoor.bhat788@gmail.com

Geleta Demera Gomero is a lecturer at Assosa University, Ethiopia (Africa) in the Department of
Accounting and Finance. He has a Bachelors in Accounting and Finance from Mekelle University
and an Masters in Accounting and Finance from Addis Ababa University. He has 4 years of
industrial experience working for various government agencies and 8 years of teaching experience
in higher education. He has several research publications published in reputed journals including
Scopus indexed. He has also delivered presentations at national and international conferences. His
primary research interest includes budget control and effectiveness, new accounting changes,
taxpayer attitudes, tax potential of revenue sectors, and factors of public sector construction performance. He has extensive
knowledge with accounting software such as Peachtree, Sun Accounting, Quick Books and Agrso Financial. The author
can be contacted at: golofinance2008@gmail.com

Shagufta Tariq Khan works as an assistant professor at the Department of Accounting in Jazan
University (Saudi Arabia). She has more than three years of teaching experience at higher education
level. She has published more than 10 research papers in reputed international journals including
Scopus indexed and UGC-CARE list. She has attained her Ph.D from the Department of Commerce,
University of Kashmir (India) in the area of Accounting and Finance. She is active in research in
the fields of behavioural finance, microfinance, women empowerment, social capital, banking and
finance, women entrepreneurship and informal entrepreneurship. She has presented research papers
at various national and international conferences and acted as a reviewer for a variety of scholarly publications. She can be
reached at sitariq@jazanu.edu.sa

View publication stats