ATTITUDES OF UNDERGRADUATES OF SOCIAL STUDIES UNIT TOWARDS ENTREPRENEURSHIP
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
SOME ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS IN NIGERIA: A BRIEF HISTORY
In human history, all the nations of the world have had their early struggles for economic survival. The struggle is irrespective of whether the countries are classified as developed or developing nations. In this regard, Nigeria had her early entrepreneurs and businesspeople who struggled to develop entrepreneurship activities. They did not, however, develop enterprise as much as one would expect. Studies have argued that the reason for the inadequate early large-scale ventures development in Nigeria is connected with the British colonial rule over Nigeria (Anyanwu, 1999). The reason is that the British rule gave more priority to developing workers who were essentially civil servants, clerks, and storekeepers, doing administrative duties for the smooth running of the government.
The civil servants were comparatively well-paid. Their earnings provided them value for money because the economy was better-managed and non-inflationary. Therefore, the civil servants were living relatively affluently. In contrast, Anyanwu (1999) noted that the businesspeople were struggling for survival during the period. The environment encouraged little self-employment and the developing of the younger generation in business enterprise development. The impact of the colonial rule in shaping the individual’s inclinations toward developing business enterprises is a subject that researchers have not studied adequately. By 1960, when Nigeria gained her independence from the Great Britain, there was a noticeable gap between the number of people in paid-employment and those in self-employment (Anyanwu, 1999). The Nigerian government realised that she could no longer cope with the huge wage bills of the public and civil servants. However, the government failed to think of adequate and innovative ways of encouraging her citizens to go into entrepreneurship such as: developing the capacity for enterprise and vocational education, science and technology training and development, incentives, and favourable policy environment. Rather, the civilian governments of the early 1960s decided to establish government corporations (otherwise called public corporations) and ministries. The criticism is that these corporations were used as channels by politicians to employ and settle their political cronies or “loyalists” and personal family relatives. These public organisations were poorly managed, lacked adequate controls and carried huge wage bills. By the early 1970s, it was clear that the corporations were financially distressed added to the corporations’ inability to render commensurate services. The federal government began to implement some economic policies in an attempt to redirect the economy toward domestic productivity. The primary target of the policies was to discourage excessive importation and encourage local production of such hitherto imported goods and services. Because public corporations showed signs of failure in late 1977, the government promulgated and implemented the Indigenisation Decree of 1977 to expand the entrepreneurial class in Nigeria. The decree classified all enterprises in Nigeria into the following: 1. Enterprise exclusively reserved for Nigerians 2. Enterprises in which Nigerians must have an interest of 60 per cent and above 3. Enterprises in which Nigerians are to have a minimum of 40 percent interest Following the decree, most enterprises owned and managed exclusively by foreigners had their ownership interest and management base diluted in favour of Nigerian ownerships. Anyanwu (1999), reports that the indigenisation decree marked a major milestone in the growth of entrepreneurship in modern Nigeria. It could be taken as a part of the decolonisation strategy.
As a result of the failure of the public organisations that started from late 1977, the government was no longer willing to bear the huge losses of these corporations. The government began to retrench the workers in those corporations. By 1978, the then Head of State General Olusegun Obasanjo introduced some austerity measures. Following the handing over of his government to a democratically-elected president in 1979, a civilian president, Alhaji Shehu Shagari introduced the Economic and Stabilisation Act of 1982. The economy did not recover; it continued in the doldrums. In 1985, the military took over power and Major General Mohammadu Buhari promulgated the Financial (Miscellaneous Taxation Provision) Decree (Anyanwu, 1999). The military came into power with the promises of revamping the economy, but Major General Mohammadu Buhari’s government lasted for only 18 months; there was a coup by General Ibrahim Babangida in 1985. In 1986, the government of General Ibrahim Babangida, military Head of State (1985-1993), implemented the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) based on the International Monetary Fund’s economic prescriptions. The adoption of the IMF’s SAP was a reversal of the decolonisation strategy of the indigenisation scheme implemented in 1977 and the introduction of a new form of colonisation. The aim of the government’s proposed policy was mainly to restructure the economic and productive base of Nigeria and diversify the economic fortune of the country away from the mono-product nature and over-dependence on crude oil exports. However, the SAP policy was not well implemented, so it was abandoned in early 1990. Nevertheless, the SAP policy is alleged to have accorded many Nigerians the opportunity to try their hands at different economic ventures as most of the hitherto imported goods were banned (Anyanwu, 1999). The government claimed to have provided the needed motivations for entrepreneurial development during the SAP period. Anyanwu notes that the motivations were provided under the aegis of the National Directorate of Employment (NDE), which is still functioning as a directorate in the Presidency till date. The programmes provided by NDE included: 1. Youth Employment Vocational Skills Development Programme (YEVSDP) 2. National Open Apprenticeship Scheme (NOAS) 3. Waste to Wealth Scheme (WWS) 4. Disabled Scheme (DS) 5. Small Scale Industries and Graduate Employment Programme 6. Graduate Job Creation Loan Scheme
The kind and pattern of entrepreneurship activities in Nigeria
Entrepreneurshipactivities have developed through a series of three distinct eras: small-scale agriculture, commerce, road transport and those by immigrant groups during the period 1900- 1945. After that, it moved into small-scale manufacturing, importation/exportation of agricultural produce, properties, agro-allied, banking/finance and insurance during the period 1945-1970. Then from 1970 to date, entrepreneurs expanded into oil and gas, airlines transports, large-scale farming, fishing, manufacturing, ICT, and mobile telecommunication subsectors. Others established private educational institutions (secondary and tertiary education), and some overseas investments (Ekanem, 2010; Emmanuel, 2008; Forrest, 2005; Nwachukwu, 1990). The following subsections discuss these selected eras further: 1) The era of subsistence farming and trading (1900-1945) During the period 1900-1945, people were more into subsistence farming and petty trading, being artisans with limited formal education, as well as undertaking apprenticeship and bicycle parts trading. The Ibos in the South-east Nigeria and the Calabar people in the South-south specialised in the palm produce trade. Moving from a pure agrarian base directly to an industrial base, or from trade to large-scale agriculture, was much more limited. Also during this period, Nigeria’s enterprises were more in furniture making, saw milling, baking, printing, building material sale, motor transport, and garment making.
Historically also, there were some traders with large commercial enterprises employing many thousands of people. For example, Jaja of Opobo and Nana Olomu of Itsekiriland (both in Southsouth region of Nigeria) were early middlemen who attained wealth and influence. They specialised in trade and exports businesses, considered the preserve of the European firms. In fact, Jaja successfully arranged the shipping of his palm oil to a Birmingham firm. There were some Nigerian merchants who owned steamships and used them in the Niger trade. Among them were J. P. L. Davies, Samuel and Josiah Crowther and J. S. Leigh. Therefore, Nigerians were not lacking in entrepreneurship and business pursuits right from the early days as a people although the scale was sole-proprietorship with fewer plans for continuity (Ekanem, 2010). Also among the important traders during this period were J. N. Cole, J. H. Doherty, Mohammed Shitta-Bey, J. J. Thomas, Z. A. Williams, and R. B. Blaize, reputed to have been the merchant prince of them all. His estimated financial resources were about £150,000. A good indication of the importance of Nigerian traders was the critical role they played in the Lagos Chamber of Commerce founded in 1888, for example (Forrest, 2005). By 1906, four African merchants, S. A. Coker, J. H. Doherty, D. A. Taylor, and C. A. Oni opened branches at Abeokuta (Ogun State in the Western Region) and Ibadan (Oyo State, Western Region) in 1914. Moreover, J. H. Doherty had ten branches in Zaria, Kano (Northern Nigeria) and Duala in the Cameroons. A merchant such as Samuel Peace (1866-1953) is reported to have launched businesses with partners from Sierra Leone and also became an agent for the Africa and Gold Coast Trading Corporation (Forrest, 2005). In 1897, he went to Calabar (in the South-south) dealing in all imported goods and exporting palm produce, rubber, especially ivory. He moved to Lagos in 1902 with his newly acquired wealth, traded in palm produce and developed extensive property interests. He bought shares in the Gold Coast Mining Companies and in 1907 he opened the first hotel in Lagos. Thomas, a general merchant, began his career in Calabar before moving to Lagos and diversified into corn milling, tanning and a model farm. In 1920, he had 25 branches inland; he had eight Europeans in his employ in the early 1920s (Macmillan, 1968). There were other entrepreneurs and small-scale enterprises during the period before Nigeria’s independence in 1960; some decided to move away from trading, transports, agents to some foreign businesses and tried banking services also. For example, in 1933 Dr Akinola Maja, J. A. Doherty and H. A. Subair established the National Bank of Nigeria Ltd (NBN). There were others, who earlier attempted establishing banks, but the banks failed because of poor management; yet, the NBN Ltd survived. The NBN Bank provided short-term finances for African importers, exporters, produce buyers and traders. Also, the entrepreneurs exploited new opportunities in small-scale industries like confectionery and printing.
The era of small-and-medium-scale manufacturing and more personal/corporate financial services participation (1945-1970) During this period, Nigeria’s advancements into the industrial sector and large-scale manufacturing were patchy and in some areas it was vulnerable to volatile economic conditions, yet entrepreneurs still attempted some small-scale manufacturing (Emmanuel, 2008). Then, business people started making important advances in the scale of operation and basic technology usage. This advancement happened in the food and beverages, garment making, textiles, furniture, printing, vegetable oil production and rubber processing subsectors. Also, people opened new businesses in the carpets, ceramics, cotton ginning, starch, detergents, distilling, industrial gas, pharmaceuticals (including injectable), motor parts, and motor body panels subsector. Others expanded into the steel rolling and fabrication, condensers, windscreens, electric cables, plastics, paper conversion and recycling, packaging, oil and other technical services subsector (including computers and telecommunications). Large indigenous firms existed in many industrial sectors though they did not have a dominant position compared to the foreign stakeholders. For example, in the agro-allied industry, Lebanese and Indian investors had an important stake. In the textiles industry, Indians and Chinese had a stronger presence than Nigerians. Only in Kano state did there appear to be sizable indigenous investments in this sector (Emmanuel, 2008). During the 1950s, Nigerian private enterprise was still characterised by small-scale, fragmented and regional. The areas where it was present on a significant scale included commerce (e.g. importing, wholesaling, retailing, and the produce trade), real estate, transport, construction, and palm oil. Other areas included rubber processing, saw milling and furniture, tyre retreading, bakeries, printing, and shoe making. There was a very limited presence in banking and insurance (Forrest, 2005). In what follows, an attempt is made in examining the kinds and nature of entrepreneurship in the post-independence period in Nigeria. The focus in entrepreneurship shifted to areas such as the oil industry, airlines, shipping, large-scale farming, fishing, banking/finance and insurance and overseas investments.
Institutional factors and entrepreneurship development
There is a growing recognition of the influences of institutional factors (formal and informal) such as the “rule of law”, “property rights”, “political conditions”, “economic reward systems”, “culture, values and norms” and “level of economic development” on the economy and entrepreneurship development (Ăcs et al., 2014; Baumol, 1990; North, 1990). Research argues that institutions foster, homogenise, and reinforce individual actions: the nation’s institutions create and disseminate different ideas and knowledge, and direct them to resourceful uses (Ăcs, Szerb and Autio, 2013). It is this knowledge that entrepreneurs often “run with” to innovate, create services, or make goods. The present study defines institutions as forms of constraints that people in an entity formulate to control social interaction (Ăcs et al., 2014). Research links countries’ individual institutions and incentive structures with the nature of their entrepreneurship activities (Boettke and Coyne, 2009; Hwang and Powell, 2005). Institutions create the various incentive structures that then determine the entrepreneurship options people make and the entrepreneurship type they choose (Baumol, 1990). In this choice, some entrepreneurship pursuits are productive (e.g. those that support growth) and others can be unproductive (e.g. enterprising use of rent-seeking through using the legal system such as some unwholesome litigations on patent’s “infringement” and takeovers). Others also can be destructive as Baumol (1990)3 suggests happened in ancient Rome, medieval China, middle ages, and in the 14th century. Thus, the rates and forms of entrepreneurship a country attains are influenced by her contexts such as institutional structures, stage of development, culture, and policy initiatives (Ăcs et al., 2014). North’s (1990) and Baumol’s (1990) seminal works showed the theory that links institutional environment and economic and entrepreneurship development. Consequently, entrepreneurs start firms, and the firms tailor their activities and strategies in line with the opportunities and limitations imposed by the formal and informal national institutional frameworks. According to North (1990), the formal institutions comprise of the explicit rules and laws (constitutional laws) that guide the economic incentives in which people and organisations derive benefits. The informal institutions comprise of the invisible social means and norms (i.e. values, acceptable behaviours, and codes of conducts) that impact the ways the formal institutions would function practically. The inference from North’s argument applies to entrepreneurial organisations, which adapt their plans to exploit the opportunities, given the limitations in which the national institutional context provides. Therefore, a more consistently functional business environment would offer more favourable incentives—“rules of the game” as Baumol (1990, p.899) calls it—for her entrepreneurs. Conversely, a weak economic environment would create disincentives for her entrepreneurs. The incentive structures in an economy can “push” different people into either embarking on productive, unproductive or destructive entrepreneurship (Baumol, 1990). Productive entrepreneurship can add to growth in many aspects: it can allow prosperity and wealth by ushering in of innovation and exploitation of opportunities. Non-productive entrepreneurship entails where people use entrepreneurial talents for rent-seeking using government agencies in, for example, created monopolies, preferential tax systems and regulatory exemptions. Destructive entrepreneurship entails acts such as illicit drug businesses and prostitution. Ideally, policymakers make formal rules to enable exchange that can lower transaction costs, which do impact people or groups differently (Ăcs et al., 2014). Both the formal and informal rules are complements. Often, the informal rules change indirectly and by “accidents, learning, natural selection and most essentially as time passes” (North, 1990, p.88). Moreover, North (1990) emphasises that these two institutions can conflict, given the examples both in history and in the transition economies. Organisations usually adapt their activities and strategies to the opportunities (and limitations) of the formal and informal institutions. Thus, the development of institutions could be influenced intentionally by organisational players, such as entrepreneurs (Ăcs et al., 2014).
Institutions, incentives and entrepreneurship development Entrepreneurship-supporting incentives can encourage economic growth and entrepreneurship development. In reverse, none or inadequate incentives can lead to choices where some entrepreneurs engage in some unproductive entrepreneurial activities. The range of choices depends on the existing socioeconomic factors and the incentive structures in the economy (Aidis and Estrin, 2014). Some institutions that support market-based economic activities tend to strengthen more productive entrepreneurship, and ultimately promote economic growth and development. However, sometimes market-based decisions can lead to widespread distortions, inequalities and misallocations. It is then vital to know not only the individual characteristics of the entrepreneur but also the operational contexts that can help promote productive entrepreneurship and reduce market distortions. These contexts include institutions, incentives, and the level of economic development. The mutually reinforcing connection between incentives and institutions also influences other characteristics such as the quality of governance, access to capital, transparency and what entrepreneurs perceive as the rules of the game (Aidis and Estrin, 2014). Institutions play critical roles in influencing economic behaviour in particular and economic transactions, in general. Thus, institutions could engender both direct and indirect effects on the supply and demand for entrepreneurs. In sum, when incentives support productive entrepreneurship (i.e. bring an increase in economic growth rate), then such form of entrepreneurship will predominate. Contrariwise, when entrepreneurs see that the benefits of operating an illegal entrepreneurial activity outweigh the costs, some would more likely undertake destructive entrepreneurship, sabotaging economic development (Ăcs et al., 2014; Baumol, 1990). Entrepreneurs evaluate the incentives available in their environment, in each of the different cases, and consider the regulations (i.e. formal rules), and the existing culture, values or norms (or the informal rules). Thus, considering the different incentive structures, entrepreneurs may choose to engage in whether productive, unproductive, or destructive entrepreneurship; though the same entrepreneur does not necessarily engage in all three.
The Importance of Entrepreneurship Education
Entrepreneurship is one of the main factors to improve the economic in a country as it able to create wealth for the entrepreneurs. The ability to create job, reduce the unemployment and create economic boom are among the main reasons why many countries are fostering and realizing the importance of entrepreneurship education (Importance of Entrepreneurship Education, 2004). The creations of new business ventures by entrepreneurs generate jobs opportunities and help stimulate the economy and drive new industry of the country. McMullan (1988) emphasize the importance of entrepreneurship education to economic development and view it as one of the important element of the community support infrastructure (cited by Lekoko, 2012 from McMullan, 1988). The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) found that most of the entrepreneurs began their career because they were left out and unemployed during the global recession (Bosma & Levie, 2010). Furthermore, many starting entrepreneurs felt that there are many opportunities to start their business in the recession. But the reality is, many of these entrepreneurs fail in their business are due to the lack of entrepreneurship knowledge, skills and attitudes that are required to prosper in business during economic crisis. Many entrepreneurs face challenges not because of the lack of opportunities and resources but because they don’t have the required skills and business sense. Entrepreneurship education is therefore, is to prepare graduates to be successful in their career when they set up a new business venture or in small medium enterprise (SME). Innovation is one of the most important element to acquire when students learn about entrepreneurship education. Innovation will support them to stand out from other competitors with unique ideas and set up an SME successfully. In many industrial countries, some studies show that the SMEs play an important role in contribution to the economic and social life, as well as its ability to increase GDP and creates of jobs in the countries.
The Global Presence of Entrepreneurship Education
The global presence of entrepreneurship education must be discussed in order to fully understand the importance of entrepreneurship educations in institutions of higher learning. Entrepreneurship is widely recognized in United States as approximately 5.6 million Americans under age 34 are attempting to start their own business ventures (cited by Kuratko, 2005 from Tulgan, 1999). Interestingly, it is found that one third of new entrepreneurs is younger than 30 years old, more than 60% of 18-29 years old youngster say they want to have their own business ventures and almost 80% of entrepreneurs in the United States are between the ages 18 years old and 34 years old (Kuratko, 2005 from Tulgan, 1999).The increasing demand of entrepreneurship had driven the massive growth of entrepreneurship education in United States. The first entrepreneurship course was introduced and offered at Harvard University in 1947. Since then, more universities start to offer the entrepreneurship course and numerous courses relate with entrepreneurial activities has been introduced in United States. According to Garavan and O’Cinneide (1994), the major challenges of entrepreneurship education is the appropriate curricula and training programs for teaching entrepreneurship knowledge and skills (Garavan & O’Cinneide, 1994). This gives the rise to the question “can the entrepreneurship be taught?” Experts in entrepreneurship education believe that it can be taught and entrepreneurs are made, not born. Klein (2006) states that some of entrepreneurship skills and knowledge can be taught and some cannot be. He mentions that the increasing of recognition of entrepreneurship specialist and economist toward each other will lead to more consistent approaches to the teaching of entrepreneurship (Klein, 2006).
Peter Drucker, one of the world leading management thinker and leader of management education state that, the entrepreneurial is not a magic or mysterious and it has nothing to do with genes. Entrepreneurship is a discipline, and like any other discipline, it can be learned (Kuratko, 2004). The entrepreneurship education in United States helps in motivating other countries around the world to start the entrepreneurship education. United Kingdom focuses greatly on the building of entrepreneurship in their society. Kirby found that most of the British universities have listed business and entrepreneurial development as one of the four major strategies goals in their universities (Adcroft et al., 2005). This shows that entrepreneurship education do have the important impact on the economy and society to the country.The same phenomenon is happening in Malaysia. During 1990, Malaysia started to invested effort to transform their economy from agriculture based economy to knowledge based economy. The rise of knowledge based economy is the main factor that increases the development of entrepreneurs in Malaysia (Cheng, Chan, & Mahmood, 2009). The implementation of knowledge based economy has driven education institution like colleges and universities to implement steps to contribute to the development of entrepreneurial talent among young graduates. Thus the entrepreneurship education starts to be introduced in many universities in Malaysia.
The influence of “right” university-based entrepreneurship education in producing more entrepreneurs
The aim of this subsection is to shed some light on some key barriers to appropriate entrepreneurship education. Then, it uses the results of the analysis as a springboard to proffer a way forward for a vibrant EE for Nigerian universities and policymakers. The nature of EE taught in universities could influence the desired entrepreneurship objectives or outcomes, namely: new venture creation, increased total entrepreneurial activity (TEA)4 , and growth ventures5 (Westhead, Wright and Mcelwee, 2011). This study adopts the definition of entrepreneurship education as, “that education which assists students to develop positive attitudes, innovation and skills for selfreliance rather than depending on the government for employment” (Olorundare and Kayode, 2014, p.160). It should engender a change of the students’ orientation and attitude and equip them with the skills and knowledge to help them start and manage a business. It is “a dynamic and social process where individuals, alone or in collaboration, identify opportunities for innovation and act upon these by transferring ideas into practical and targeted activities, whether social, cultural, or economic context” (Onu, 2013, p.41). It attempts to offer students the useful knowledge, skills, and motivation to encourage entrepreneurship success in various settings. Its immediate goal is to develop personal qualities, attitude and formal knowledge and competencies through contents and training (William, 2011). In a recent meta-analysis study by Rideout and Gray (2013, p.348), they examined 12 empirical studies and evaluated the research methodologies used in those studies. As a part of theirconclusions, they redirected future researchers to focus more on answering the “real question.” They put the central question as: “what type of entrepreneurship education, delivered by who, within which type of university, is most effective for this type of student, with this kind of goal, and under these sets of circumstances?.” Although this question is complex, and there is no readily available single research work aimed at addressing all these issues holistically. However, this subsection attempts to find pieces of research works that addressed bits of this question. In doing this, it, therefore, hopes to offer a guide to resolving the question and proffer solutions to some of the barriers to appropriate entrepreneurship education. On the education modalities, the traditional practice of entrepreneurship education pedagogy has been principally driven by “business plans and general educational principles about what approaches should work for entrepreneurship education” (Rideout and Gray, 2013, p.332). However, at the universities’ level, two overall pedagogical approaches seem to be in use: a small business management model and an entrepreneurial venture education approach. The two approaches differ. The former model attempts to imbibe students with the “know-how” in management. This management know-how includes goal/objective setting skills, leadership skills, planning, organising, and controlling skills, which are tailored to small businesses (Winslow, Solomon and Tarabishy, 1999). The latter model, however, is based more on action-oriented mindset but is also geared toward developing a business plan. Globally and historically, universities use different types of curriculum and teaching and learning methods in the various types of entrepreneurship education (EE) courses they offer. Research advocates that in developing ideal pedagogical components for EE programmes, institutions should include the following: a focus on attributes, skills and tasks, an aspect of concrete experience gained from participating in live projects, directing contents to particular stage of venture development, and promoting functional integration (Solomon, Duffy and Tarabishy, 2002). Also, in EE, courses such as small business management, small business consulting, and new venture creation have become prominent too. However, the trend started shifting toward more integration of practical applications, namely: internships, special projects, simulations, live cases, capstone courses6 , and consulting (Solomon, Duffy and Tarabishy, 2002).
Some scholars, however, believe that the trend also moved toward the applied aspects, as opposed to the “ivory tower” notion: some studies still indicated that lectures and case studies are also prominent (Rideout and Gray, 2013). As in the past, entrepreneurship education curriculum still typically includes opportunity identification, finance, business planning, marketing, managing growth (Neck and Greene, 2011). Also, some authors distinguished high-growth and high-tech entrepreneurship ventures from the ordinary small businesses. Therefore, some scholars advocate distinct course contents for teaching technology entrepreneurship (Ohland et al., 2004; Kingon et al., 2002). They propose some special curricular aspects such as “technology idea generation, new business model identification, intellectual property, team-building, prototyping, networking and strategic partnerships, and venture/angel capitalisation (Rideout and Gray, 2013, p.332).
Realising that technology entrepreneurship is peculiar; some universities’ entrepreneurship education programmes try to offer new entrepreneurs with socio-political strategies. These strategies include facilitating network access and team-building competencies including leadership, elevator pitch skills and public speaking, and prototyping. All these efforts are geared toward catering to the peculiar needs of technology-entrepreneurial activities. Therefore, the global entrepreneurship education pedagogy is diverse and diverse. Although some programmes use the relatively traditional small business management style, others use a more recent high-growth venture creation approach. Still, others embrace the traditional lecture and case study approaches. There is also an emerging view to encouraging technology entrepreneurship. Again, some universities pursue different contents and focus of pedagogy7 . In addition, andragogy8 and experiential learning via games, simulation, prototyping, fundraising, mentoring, intellectual property/patents, or even real venture creation, may foster learning outcomes (Neck and Greene, 2011). Thus, there is a need for HEIs to view entrepreneurship as a critical goal in the educational system and add this objective to the instruction strategy if they must do things differently to achieve better results. The next subsection attempts to examine and answer Rideout and Gray’s (2013) elements of the central question of entrepreneurship education.
The type of entrepreneurship education (EE) useful for increasing a person’s ability to perform entrepreneurship activities would be one that imparts essential knowledge, skills and attitudes related to entrepreneurship competencies (Hoffmann and Vestergaard, 2012). Here, competency is defined as “underlying characteristics of an individual that result in effective or superior performance or both in a job” (Bird, 2002, p.203). Hoffmann and Vestergaard (2012) propose that this knowledge should include the following: ability to discover available opportunities for personal, professional or business activities or both, ability to know the contexts in which people live and work, for example, a wider knowledge of the workings of the economy including the opportunities and challenges that an employer or organisation faces. Also, there must be knowledge of ethical obligations in which an organisation should operate and how they can contribute to the “larger good”, for example through fair trade or social enterprise. The essential skills include project management, effective representation and negotiation, team spirit as well as working as an individual effectively, ability to judge and identify one’s strengths and weaknesses. Thus, one must be able to use others to leverage one’s weak areas. Also, one must have the ability to assess and take risks appropriately. In particular, project management skills would include the ability to plan effectively, organise, manage, lead and delegate, analyse, communicate with clarity, debrief, evaluate, record and follow up promptly (Hoffmann and Vestergaard, 2012). Conversely, entrepreneurial attitudes are characterised by initiative, pro-activity, independence and innovativeness in personal, social, and work lives. It includes the drive and determination to meet set objectives, whether in personal goals or goals agreed with others as well as at work. All these are essential ingredients to contribute to the quality of students undertaking entrepreneurship education. Because entrepreneurship as a course or academic discipline is relatively newer, scholars are yet to agree on a unanimous “programme offerings” or pedagogy (Solomon, 2008, p.100). Therefore, the course content is evolving but is pitched in what research shows are needed, and that which universities can teach for successful venture development (Block and Stumpf, 1992). Earlier in the introductory section of this chapter, it was mentioned that the “old way” of programme content in entrepreneurship was essentially on “business plan.” Ronstadt (1990), however, adds that it also involved the exposure to experienced visitors who inspired students through stories and personal advice. The focus here was that the entrepreneurial process was dependent most essentially on 43 the “right human traits” and characteristics of the “entrepreneurial personality.” Now, attention is shifting and even though still action-oriented, it “builds and relies on some level of personal, technical or industry experience” (Solomon, 2008, p.100). The “new school” incorporates and requires critical thinking (dispassionate evaluation and judgement) and ethical assessment. It believes that to be successful in any entrepreneurship activities; it is not only the human factor an entrepreneur must concentrate on but also venture and environmental conditions. Furthermore, it focuses on entrepreneurship “as a career process composed of multiple new ventures and the essential skills of networking or entrepreneurial know-who” (Solomon, 2008, p.100). Other researchers (e.g. McMullan, Long and Wilson, 1985) had earlier called for courses to be structured around a series of strategic development challenges, which include: identification of opportunities and analysis of feasibilities, new venture planning, financing and operating, new market development and expansion strategies, and institutionalising innovation. Vesper and McMullen (1988, p.10) state that “real-time entrepreneurial activities include projecting new technological developments, strategic planning, assisting and attracting necessary resources, and arranging for joint ventures.” According to Solomon (2008), ideally students should create multiple business plans, practise identification of opportunities, and get extensive exposure to entrepreneurship role models. The prescribed ways in which this interaction with role models can occur comprises having entrepreneurs serve as coaches and mentors (Mitchell and Chesteen, 1995), classroom speakers (Hills, 1988), and interview subjects (Truell, Webster and Davidson, 1988). Thus to allow for an effective entrepreneurial education, students need a sizeable hands-on experience; they need to work with local firms so they can learn to add value to real ventures. This opportunity can help them with some experience to draw upon for their enterprise when they eventually start one (McMullen and Long, 1987). Also on content, one of the major challenges is for entrepreneurship educators to be able to deliver course contents that can better assist the undergraduates to generate multiple business ideas from their courses of study (Abereijo, 2015). Through this means, undergraduates could increase their chances of identifying multiple opportunities and analyse venture feasibilities as suggested by Solomon (2008). Abereijo (2013, 2015) proposes how HEIs can better tailor the course contents in teaching and learning in any discipline toward generating multiple venture ideas. His guideline is by no means exhaustive of the other routes HEIs can take to generate multiple entrepreneurial ideas, but it can serve as a guideline to build on by individual academics. One of the advantages of this tutor’s guideline is that the framework was developed from the Nigerian context rather than picking a learning framework from the USA or advanced Europe. The approach was developed in the context of a premier university in Nigeria (Obafemi Awolowo 44 University, Ile-Ife).
Cultural and social barriers to entrepreneurship intentions
What influences do cultural values and social environment have on entrepreneurship and specifically on start-up intentions? This subsection briefly analyses the relevance of these factors and in doing so, it attempts to broaden understanding of how these can inhibit enterprise in some instances. The understanding would help the researcher later in the analysis and discussion chapters to tie in the participants’ perceptions of their attitudes and beliefs toward entrepreneurship with the wider literature on effects of cultural and social conditions on entrepreneurship. The scholarly literature posits that culture can influence peoples’ attitudes to work, consumption, organisation of economic activities, shaping and effectiveness of institutions, social networks, and confidence building within social groups (Bergmann, 2015; Fukuyama, 2001). Although many scholars define culture differently, yet, the essence of culture is the “values, norms, interpretations and modes of behaviour that characterise societies or other social groups” (Fukuyama, 2001, p.31). It portrays people’s collective values and beliefs, shared at least in part, with others in the same social environment or those belonging to the same group. It is this collectively-shared reality which people learn consciously or unconsciously that Hofstede (1994, p.5) bring to the fore when he said that culture is “collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another.” This group can be national (which some call it “national culture”); it can also be regional, ethnic, religious, and gender levels (Hofstede, 1994; Shapero, 1984).
In this analysis, the interest is not to examine strictly the “national culture” which Hofstede (1994) categorises into five. The categories are: “power distance”, which is the “extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organisations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally” (p.98); “uncertainty avoidance”, which is the “extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations” (p.161); and “individualism/collectivism”, which is a society that reflects the extent to which it is the interest of the individual or the interest of the group that prevails. The others are: “masculinity/femininity”, which is a “society in which social gender roles are clearly distinct; men focus on material success, women are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life” (p.297); and lastly, “long-term orientation”, which defines a country in terms of its trade-off between short-term and long-term gratification of needs, in particular, it emphasises virtues such as “perseverance and thrift” (p.359). The interest of this analysis, however, is to focus on what kind of influences cultural values may have on business start-up intentions. The emphasis here is apparently on “regional” cultural values rather than the “national” culture emphasised by Hofstede’s study. Hofstede’s analysis of culture, however, did not investigate culture along entrepreneurship lines. Also, the influences of culture play out in various ways. A major way is in influencing attitudes toward entrepreneurship or business-founding. Cultural features can influence attitudes toward entrepreneurship and these attitudes, in turn, influence entrepreneurial activities (Bergmann, 2015). It was Milner (2012a, p.65) who highlighted cultural features as: “risk attitude and fear of failure, perceptions about entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship (i.e. the desire for business ownership), and attitudes toward starting a business and ambitions. Attitudes (to risk) focus on whether people in a community would prefer self-employment, their determination to follow that goal through and their ambition level. Here, perception is about whether people thought confidently about their skills and knowledge to be business owners. At the individual, regional, and group levels, the relationship between culture, attitudes and startup activities may be dominant (Davidsson and Wiklund, 1997). There exists a direct relationship on the individual level when, on account of cultural features, many individuals show a favourable attitude toward business, and because of such attitude, decide to be entrepreneurs. When that happens, there is a direct relationship between culture and entrepreneurship since it is more likely that only individuals who have positive mindsets can take to self-employment. Bergmann (2015) asserts that it is this line of argument that Kirzner (1985), McClelland (1961) and Schumpeter 58 (1934) portrayed when they noted that there was a direct link between attitudes and entrepreneurship. At the level of society, however, a relationship between culture and entrepreneurial pursuits may also exist. The scholarly literature argues that the prevalent values, beliefs and norms in a social environment that a person lives could influence her likelihood of starting an enterprise (Etzioni, 1987). It then follows that any cultures averse to venture formation may suppress entrepreneurial activities. For instance, that would be true when entrepreneurs (and businesses) connote a poor image within a society or region and the people do not consider this option of livelihood even though they do not harbour any reservations toward entrepreneurs. In such situations, there is a relationship between culture and entrepreneurship not only on the individual level but also on the societal, regional or groups’ levels. However, it seems unclear how people’s culture can be measured about entrepreneurship but some researchers (e.g. Milner, 2012b) have attempted to measure the dimensions of entrepreneurship culture. Milner (2012b) acknowledges that culture is difficult to measure but attempted to develop measures for entrepreneurship culture using the OECD framework. Milner (2012b) derived six indicators for measuring the culture of entrepreneurship as attitudes toward risk, role models, perceptions, attitudes, media and the formal sector. As indicated in Table 3.1 below, the OECD study developed indicators to measure each of the dimensions of culture based on an earlier qualitative study conducted. To further assess the specific indicators (i.e. questions) and the OECD methodology used for measuring each of the six cultural factors, one can refer to Milner (2012b, p.112). It measured media as the most important top-down indicator to indicate the culture of entrepreneurship. It used the Google Trends (as a proxy for media-entrepreneurship culture) to measure the number of times the news media and web searches mention the word entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship. For the size of the formal sector, it reflects the culture of businesses in the country and shows whether new businesses created are likely to be formal or informal.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Robinson’s et al. (1991) “entrepreneurial attitude orientation model”
Robinson and his associates summarise the different criticisms levelled against the two longstanding, traditional approaches to studying entrepreneurship (i.e. personality characteristics and demographic variables). They then adopted a tripartite model of attitude to explain entrepreneurial intentions. The model holds that there are three kinds of response to everything: affective, cognitive and conative responses. The cognitive component includes the beliefs and thoughts that a person has about an attitude object, in this case, entrepreneurship. The affective component includes the positive or negative feelings that a person has toward entrepreneurship.
But the conative component involves the behavioural intents as well as the tendencies to respond in a prescribed manner toward entrepreneurship (Robinson et al., 1991). Drawing from the ideas of Hornaday and Nunnally (1987) and Hornaday (1987), Robinson and his friends note that the problem with the psychological/traits approaches in predicting entrepreneurship propensities are many. Firstly, that the research methodologies usually applied to this approach were not originally developed for evaluating entrepreneurial intentions. But the approach was developed in psychology and researchers only apply it to entrepreneurship, sometimes inappropriately and often ineffectively. In all cases, it is commented “they carried with them the theoretical and meta-theoretical assumptions of the theory from which they came” (Robinson et al., 1991, p.14). Secondly, there is the problem of convergent validity. The meaning is that various instruments being used by different authors to measure the same concept do not correlate adequately (e.g. Paulhus, 1983; Yamauchi and Doi, 1977). Thirdly, the traditional personality models are said to be rigid compared to the most interactive models in human behaviour that emphasise that theoretical models should both impact as well as be impacted by interaction with the environment. In contrast, the traditional personality model suggests that people form traits in their earliest years. That it remains essentially stable after that which might sometimes be incorrect (Faulconer and Williams, 1985; Gergen, 1985; Manicas and Secord, 1983). The proposition of the “interactionists” is that in the overall, entrepreneurship includes people working in a socially-connected setting (Robinson et al., 1991). Robinson et al. (1991) also criticise the traditional demographic approach of using personal demographics to determine profiles of the entrepreneur’s personality. There is an objection to the position that family characteristics, marital status, sex, race, birth order, age, socioeconomic status, role models, prior work experience, and work practices can singularly predict entrepreneurship. Firstly, following the criticisms by Rychlak, (1981), Robinson et al. (1991) argue that linking behaviour to demographic characteristics such as race, sex, or birth order puts too much emphasis on experiences that one has other than the actual conclusions one draws from one’s experiences. Robinson and friends state that it is people’s actual reactions to particular situations that influence entrepreneurial behaviours other than just some sets of demographics. Secondly, it is deemed as inappropriate to “use demographic characteristics as surrogates for personality characteristics, imputing personality traits based on demographics” (Robinson et al., 1991, p.16). Furthermore, they criticise “it is not the demographic characteristics themselves that affect entrepreneurship so much as it is stable personality characteristics or traits developed by 74 someone having those demographic characteristics” (p.16). Thirdly, the method is incapable of predicting people who are likely to become or not become entrepreneurs. This might be the case where research that used those background characteristics yield conflicting results in predicting entrepreneurship (e.g. Okhomina, 2010; Athayde, 2009; Krasniqi, 2009; Siyanbola et al., 2009; Taormina and Lao, 2007; Gurol and Atsan, 2006; Louw, et al., 2003). The reason is that demographics is deemed to be static in nature and so are weak in explaining the dynamics in a multifaceted phenomenon such as entrepreneurship. Therefore, demographic information can only depend on the prevalence of other basic characteristics such as attitudes that directly impact entrepreneurship (Iakovlena, Kolvereid and Stephan, 2011; Ajzen, 1991). Having criticised the traditional approaches to predicting entrepreneurship, Robinson and his colleagues proposed the entrepreneurial attitude orientation (EAO) model. The concepts of their model use four-attitude sub-scales that consist of three components: affect, cognition, and conation. The four-attitude subscales comprise of business achievement, which refers to the tangible and measurable results from a new business and another growth record of business. Another is business innovation, which relates to recognising and performing business functions in the novel and distinctive manner. The others include “perceived personal control of business outcomes”, which concerns the person’s foresight for controlling and influencing business decisions. The last one is “perceived self-esteem in business”, which pertains to the “selfconfidence and perceived competency of an individual” in connection with the business activities (Robinson et al., 1991, p.19). Using students, entrepreneurs, and non-entrepreneurs they developed and validated an entrepreneurial attitude orientation model in line with the four attitude subscales. They concluded that three out of the four subscales significantly impacted the discriminant function (i.e. innovation, personal control and self-esteem). The major criticism of the EAO model is that it failed to show clearly the holistic interactions of the dynamism involved in the entrepreneurial formation process. Also, researchers who conduct empirical studies on student intentions to business startups rarely use or apply the EAO framework. Therefore, it may offer a limited application for studying the direct and indirect influences that affect students’ business-founding intentions.