Investigating the Determinants of Cooperative Growth in Maize Agribusiness in Zambia: A Case Study of Kawambwa District

This study investigated the determinants of cooperative growth in maize agribusiness in Zambia, using Kawambwa District as a case study. It examined the relationships between agricultural-input access, financial access, technology adoption and market access and cooperative growth. Guided by the Resource-Based View, the study adopted a positivist philosophy and quantitative cross-sectional design. Structured questionnaire data were obtained from 96 respondents representing 40 maize agribusiness cooperatives. Descriptive statistics, Pearson product-moment correlations and multiple linear regression were used. Cooperative governance was included as a control and contextual variable in the primary regression model; a supplementary interaction analysis considered its possible moderating role. Agricultural-input access was positively associated with growth (r = .663, p < .001) and made a significant independent contribution (β = .195, p = .021). Market access had the strongest bivariate relationship among the four focal determinants (r = .706, p < .001) and remained significant in the regression model (β = .295, p = .001). Financial access was positively but not significantly related to growth (r = .180, p = .079; β = .004, p = .948). Technology adoption was positively correlated with growth (r = .547, p < .001), but its independent contribution was not significant (β = .056, p = .495). Governance had the largest standardised coefficient (β = .414, p < .001). The model was significant, R = .827, R² = .683, adjusted R² = .666, F(5, 90) = 38.865, p < .001. The findings indicate that cooperative growth is associated with productive-resource access and the capacity to organise and deploy resources effectively. The study recommends strengthening timely input access and collective marketing while aligning finance and technology interventions with cooperative governance and market opportunities. The findings are limited to the cross-sectional Kawambwa case and should not be interpreted as definitive causal effects.