Rotating vs. Accumulating Savings Models: Comparative Impact on Agricultural Investment Decisions in Pastoralist and Agro-Pastoralist Communities of Lakes State

Rotating and accumulating savings arrangements are often treated as simple variations of the same informal finance tradition, yet they produce different credit timing, loan-size and investment effects for rural households. This article compares rotating savings models, especially ROSCAs, with accumulating savings models, especially ASCAs, VSLAs and related Community Group Saving and Lending (CGSL) mechanisms, in pastoralist and agro-pastoralist communities of Lakes State, South Sudan. The paper is developed from a mixed-methods doctoral thesis dataset on CGSL mechanisms and rural agricultural development across Eastern Equatoria, Jonglei and Lakes States. It narrows the discussion to Lakes State because the thesis identifies it as a cattle-based agro-pastoralist setting with subsistence farming, food insecurity, weak infrastructure and limited formal financial services. The article uses descriptive statistics, constructed model-suitability indices, thematic interpretation and the thesis inferential results to analyse how each savings model influences agricultural investment decisions. The wider thesis reported 81 valid survey responses and 17 interviews, while the Lakes State field component recorded 24 valid responses from 25 targeted respondents. The findings suggest that rotating savings models are useful for quick liquidity, social commitment and short-cycle household needs, but their fixed payout structure is less suited to repeated seasonal agricultural investment. Accumulating models are better aligned with agricultural investment because pooled funds, repayment cycles, interest accumulation and member-managed records allow repeated borrowing, larger loanable pools and more flexible timing. Thesis-level statistical tests support the broader claim that CGSL participation is significantly associated with productivity indicators (chi-square = 15.92, p = 0.0001), and that access to CGSL credit significantly increases the likelihood of investing in modern agricultural technologies (beta = 1.9459, p = 0.026). The article concludes that policy should not replace rotating models but should deliberately strengthen accumulating community funds, especially in Lakes State where livestock, seasonal cultivation and social risk require flexible, trusted and locally governed finance.