<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel rdf:about="https://space.mu.ac.zm/xmlui/handle/123456789/12">
    <title>DSpace Community:</title>
    <link>https://space.mu.ac.zm/xmlui/handle/123456789/12</link>
    <description />
    <items>
      <rdf:Seq>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://space.mu.ac.zm/xmlui/handle/123456789/234" />
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="https://space.mu.ac.zm/xmlui/handle/123456789/209" />
      </rdf:Seq>
    </items>
    <dc:date>2026-05-07T02:41:29Z</dc:date>
  </channel>
  <item rdf:about="https://space.mu.ac.zm/xmlui/handle/123456789/234">
    <title>Effect of Financial Literacy and Risk  Perception on Investment Choice</title>
    <link>https://space.mu.ac.zm/xmlui/handle/123456789/234</link>
    <description>Title: Effect of Financial Literacy and Risk  Perception on Investment Choice
Authors: Musawa, Nsama
Abstract: The  objective  of  this  study  wa&#xD;
s  to  assess  the  effect  of  financial  literacy,  and  risk  perception  on &#xD;
investment  choice.&#xD;
A  quantitative  design  with  a  survey  as  a  strategy  was  adopted,  with  a  sample  of &#xD;
172  respondents.  Data  was  analysed &#xD;
using  one&#xD;
-&#xD;
way analysis  of  Variance  (ANOVA)  and  Multi  logistic &#xD;
regression.&#xD;
The  resul&#xD;
ts  from  the  ANOVA  tests  shows &#xD;
that  although  the &#xD;
differences  in  means  were &#xD;
observed&#xD;
among  investment  choses&#xD;
,  they  were  not  statistically  significant  at  0.05%  as  the  observed   &#xD;
P&#xD;
-&#xD;
values  were  more  than  0.05 &#xD;
(&#xD;
0.847,  0.889  and  0.263&#xD;
)&#xD;
, &#xD;
indicating  that &#xD;
that  Risk  perception  and &#xD;
financial literacy do not signif&#xD;
icantly affect investment choice.&#xD;
Further the findings show that 56%&#xD;
of &#xD;
the  respondents &#xD;
chose  real  estate  compared  to  44%&#xD;
who  chose  financial  assets  an  indication  that &#xD;
individual investors in Zambia prefer real estate to financial assets. &#xD;
Unlike other stu&#xD;
dies, this study is &#xD;
unique in that it included real estate as part of the investment options and found that real assets are &#xD;
more preferred to financial assets in Zambia&#xD;
.</description>
    <dc:date>2024-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </item>
  <item rdf:about="https://space.mu.ac.zm/xmlui/handle/123456789/209">
    <title>Evaluation of rural services delivery in Mpongwe district</title>
    <link>https://space.mu.ac.zm/xmlui/handle/123456789/209</link>
    <description>Title: Evaluation of rural services delivery in Mpongwe district
Authors: Bonger, Tenkir; Yordanos, Gebremeskel; Mwewa, Micheal
Abstract: The ultimate target of a Peoples Budget is to improve the level of living of the poor and the very poor through raised incomes, a healthy life and educated society and culture. Towards this end, the Survey assessed indirect expenditure in  the  form  of  Fertilizer  Supply  Programme  [FISP]  and  the  Minimum  Price  of  maize  set  by  Government  and administered by Food Reserve Agency [FRA] and evaluation by the farmers themselves regarding the free provision of services in health, agricultural extension and basic education. Field work took place in May -September 2010.   &#xD;
Compared with countries at similar levels of income in the world and others in the SADC region, Zambia’s public expenditure  as  a  percent  of  national  income  is one  of  the  lowest.  Within  this  parameter,  expenditure  in health  and education as a percent of the total budget are also one of the lowest. To improve the welfare of the poor within the limited expenditure bracket, effectiveness and efficiency of service delivery is very vital. The more so, although there are many pro poor policies such as the provision of subsidy and free health and education services,  a bulk of them do not appear to reach the poor but appropriated as ’positional rent’ by service providers. The quality of service provision as perceived by the recipients is poor. There appears to be a mismatch in the interface of the polices and the institutions &#xD;
and instruments in place to implement them.     The poor start from a low income base and poor social networks to access opportunities. The low income base places them in pre-harvest indebtedness at high rates of interest. In the path towards clearing their accumulated debt entered for consumption, school fees, inputs and holidays, delayed and/or unpredictable payment by FRA puts a high premium for cash to pay debt and buy inputs for the following season on time. They are pressurized to sell at lower prices to traders and others. More often than not, the low sale value of harvest and other household demands deprives them of the ability to pay down payment for modern inputs. This results in reduced acreage under tillage, low  yields  &amp; low incomes reproducing the vicious circle of poverty.  &#xD;
To pluck out the poor from this vicious circle of poverty and direct the ‘positional rent’ appropriated by the service providers  towards  a  Peoples  Budget,  the  granting  of  cash  purchasing  power  directly  is  recommended. In  such  a &#xD;
process, directly paying for the services, the current poor and the very poor will be served with courtesy and respect rather than expectations of rent, patronization and implanting docility in them. The poor and the very poor can benefit from the market working for them. Delayed payment by FRA is indeed a serious problem which in practice redirects the price support element of subsidy to the better off. Government can ensure the maximum period say two weeks within which payments have to be made. Short  of  that,  a  breach  of  contract  indemnity  may  be  paid  to  its  client  farmers  by  the  Government  parastatal. The leasing out of part of the parastatal’s functions may improve the situation of poorer farmers. With respect to access to secondary  education,  instead  of  a  blanket  free  education  beyond  basic  school,  targeted  access  to  free  post  basic education for the poor and the very poor prioritizing girls may be considered.</description>
    <dc:date>2010-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </item>
</rdf:RDF>

