Table 1.
Top fast-food chains in South Africa
| No. | Fast food chain (owner) | No. of stores |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | KFC (Yum! Brands) | 1,057 |
| 2 | Debonairs (Famous Brands) | 710 |
| 3 | Steers (Famous Brands) | 652 |
| 4 | Wimpy (Famous Brands) | 458 |
| 5 | McDonald’s (McDonald’s Corp.) | 377 |
| 6 | Nando’s (Nando’s Group) | 302 |
| 7 | Chicken Licken (Golden Fried Chicken Pty Ltd) | 286 |
| 8 | Roman’s Pizza (Roman’s Catering Enterprises) | 250 |
| 9 | Fishaways (Famous Brands) | 242 |
| 10 | Hungry Lion (Hungry Lion Fast Food Pty Ltd) | 204 |
| 11 | Kauai (Real Foods) | 200 |
| 12 | Burger King (Restaurant Brands International) | 130 |
[i] Source: BusinessTech, 2024.
Table 2.
Descriptive statistics for explanatory variables
| Variable | Outcome | Frequency (N) | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Age | Less than 18 | 0 | 0 |
| 18–35 | 62 | 17.2 | |
| 35–60 | 180 | 50.0 | |
| Above 60 | 118 | 32.8 | |
| Gender | Male | 168 | 46.7 |
| Female | 192 | 53.3 | |
| Marital status | Single | 171 | 43.0 |
| Married | 124 | 38.9 | |
| Divorced | 37 | 10.3 | |
| Widowed | 28 | 7.8 | |
| Level of education | No formal education | 97 | 26.9 |
| Primary education | 99 | 27.5 | |
| Secondary education | 106 | 29.4 | |
| Tertiary education | 58 | 16.1 | |
| Employment status | Unemployed | 215 | 59.7 |
| Full-time employed | 119 | 33.1 | |
| Part-time employed | 26 | 7.2 | |
| Source of income | Business | 22 | 6.1 |
| Grant | 131 | 36.4 | |
| Salary | 94 | 26.1 | |
| Pension | 35 | 9.7 | |
| Farm income | 11 | 3.1 | |
| Other income sources | 67 | 18.6 | |
| Household income level | < ZAR 5000 | 196 | 54.4 |
| ZAR 5000–8000 | 84 | 23.3 | |
| ZAR 8000–10 000 | 47 | 13.1 | |
| > ZAR 10 000 | 33 | 9.2 | |
| Household structure | Single parent | 120 | 33.3 |
| Extended family | 27 | 7.5 | |
| Grandparent family | 110 | 30.6 | |
| Both parents’ family | 103 | 28.6 | |
| Changes in household income | Decreased | 24 | 7.5 |
| Increased | 66 | 19.2 | |
| Constant | 270 | 73.3 | |
| Social grants | Yes | 113 | 31.4 |
| No | 247 | 68.6 | |
| Type of sector | Formal | 60 | 41.4 |
| Informal | 85 | 58.6 | |
| Employment sector | Agriculture | 25 | 17.2 |
| Government | 40 | 27.6 | |
| Education | 30 | 20.7 | |
| Health | 20 | 13.8 | |
| Retail | 15 | 10.3 | |
| Finance | 08 | 5.5 | |
| Others | 07 | 4.8 |
| Variable | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | St. deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Household size | 1 | 14 | 6 | 3.25 |
| Number of employed people in the household | 0 | 8 | 1 | 2.00 |
| Households’ members receiving social grant | 0 | 6 | 1 | 1.53 |
| Households’ members receiving SRD grant | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1.50 |
Table 3.
Participation and expenditure results
| Variable | Outcome | Frequency (N) | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did you purchase FAFH during COVID-19 lockdown restrictions? | Yes | 107 | 29.7 |
| No | 253 | 70.3 | |
| Did you purchase FAFH post-COVID-19 lockdown restrictions? | Yes | 186 | 58.1 |
| No | 174 | 41.9 |
| Variable | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | St. deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amount spent on FAFH during lockdown restrictions | 0 | 250 | 136,07 | 53.95 |
| Amount spent on FAFH post lockdown restrictions | 0 | 300 | 149,25 | 59,625 |
Table 4.
Double-hurdle model results
| Variables | Decision to purchase FAFH (Probit model results) | Expenditure on FAFH (OLS results) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | t-statistics | marginal effects | β | t-statistic | |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| Age | –0.764 (0.235) | –3.251 0.001*** | –0.01 | –0.020 (0.018) | –1.111 0.249 |
| Gender | –0.667 (0.304) | –2.194 0.028** | –0.60 | –0.030 (0.012) | –2.500 0.087* |
| Marital status | 0.346 (0.169) | 2.047 0.053* | 0.15 | 0.025 (0.014) | 1.786 0.949 |
| Level of education | –0.055 (0.139) | –0.396 0.692 | –0.02 | –0.727 (0.162) | –4.488 0.000*** |
| Employment status | 0.212 (0.098) | 2.163 0.050** | 0.40 | 0.049 (0.018) | 2.722 0.040** |
| Household size | –0.108 (0.054) | –2.000 0.044** | –0.05 | –0.932 (0.278) | –3.353 0.001*** |
| Source of income | –0.137 (0.095) | –1.442 0.147 | 0.35 | 0.013 (0.012) | 1.083 (0.279) |
| Household income | 0.198 (0.069) | 2.869 0.068* | 0.25 | 0.095 (0.040) | 2.375 0.020** |
| Households’ members employed | 0.201 (0.075) | 2.680 0.089* | 0.20 | –0.020 (0.018) | 4.880 0.001*** |
| Households’ members receiving social grant | 0.459 (0.200) | 2.295 0.022** | 0.075 | 0.371 (0.184) | 2.473 0.044** |
| Social grant received | 0.218 (0.085) | 2.565 0.011** | 0.08 | –0.025 (0.019) | –1.315 0.184 |
| Type of sector | –0.101 (0.085) | –0.532 0.594 | 0.45 | 0.008 (0.016) | 0.500 0.593 |
| Employment sector | 0.116 (0.115) | 1.009 0.312 | –0.10 | –0.011 (0.024) | –0.458 0.639 |
| SRD grant | 0.182 (0.078) | 1.051 0.143 | 0.18 | 0.093 (0.034) | 2.735 0.090* |
| Household structure | 0.096 (0.119) | 0.807 0.422 | –0.03 | 0.048 (0.022) | 2.181 0.030** |
| Changes in household’s income | –0.080 (0.146) | –0.548 0.582 | 0.12 | –0.004 (0.018) | –0.207 0.836 |
| Predicted probability | 0.65 | ||||
| Probit model summary | OLS model summary | ||||
| (–2) Log-likelihood | 54.665 | R-Square | 0.759 | ||
| Pseudo R-square | 0.78 | Adjusted R-Square | 0.744 | ||
| Prob > chi2 | 0.0000 | F-Statistic | 0.0000 | ||
[i] Note 1. Values in parentheses represent standard errors. *, **, and *** denote p < 0.1, p < 0.05, and p < 0.01, respectively.
[ii] Note 2. For non-dichotomous variables, one category is used as the base category, with the other categories treated as non-base categories in comparison. The coefficients for these non-base categories indicate the difference in the probability of FAFH participation for each category relative to the base category.