Research Proposal Assessing the Entrepreneurial Intentions of Business Students in Pakistan Name: Shaffia Mansur(1125139)

Class: MBA-DAY 36 credit hours Semester: Fall [2011] Yours Signature Due Date: 30/12/11

Submission Date: 30/12/11

Department of Management Science SZABIST, Islamabad

List of Acronyms
EI: Entrepreneurial Intentions RP: Risk Perception RTP: Risk Taking Propensity SME: Small Medium Enterprises M: Motivation SE: Self Efficacy ES: Entrepreneurial Support I: Intentions

Contents
1. ....................................................................................................................................... Introduction 7 1.1. Background of Study ................................................................................................................... 8 1.2. Problem Statement ....................................................................................................................... 9 1.3. Objectives of Study ...................................................................................................................... 9 1.4. )Research Questions ..................................................................................................................... 9 1.5. Delimitations of the study ............................................................................................................ 9 2. Literature Review ......................................................................................................................... 10 2.1)Entrepreneurial Intentions(I) ....................................................................................................... 10 2.1)Risk-taking propensity(RTP) ...................................................................................................... 10 2.1)Risk Perception(RP) ................................................................................................................... 11 2.1)Self Efficacy(SE) ........................................................................................................................ 11 2.1)Motivation (M) ........................................................................................................................... 12 2.1)Entrepreneurial Support (ES) ...................................................................................................... 13 3. Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................................. 14 3.1) Variables and hypothesis ........................................................................................................... 14 3.1.1) Dependant variable: ................................................................................................................ 14 3.1.2) Independent variables: ............................................................................................................ 15 3.1.3) Control variables: ................................................................................................................... 17 4. Research Methodology ................................................................................................................. 19 4.1) Type of Study ............................................................................................................................ 19 4.2) Time Horizon ............................................................................................................................ 19

4.3) Unit of Analysis......................................................................................................................... 19 4.4) Population and sample Frame .................................................................................................... 19 4.5) Instrument Selection .................................................................................................................. 19 4.6) Proposed Data Collection Procedures ......................................................................................... 21 4.7) Proposed Data Analysis Techniques........................................................................................... 21 4.7.1) Descriptive statistics ............................................................................................................... 22 4.7.2) Reliability of data .................................................................................................................. 22 4.7.3) P-P Plots ................................................................................................................................ 22 4.7.4) Measures of association ......................................................................................................... 22 4.7.5) Regression analysis ................................................................................................................ 22 4.7.6) Independent sample T-test .......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.7.7) One-way ANOVA and post hoc tuckey .................................................................................. 22 5. Results and Discussion.................................................................................................................. 22 5.1) Descriptive statistics for Demographics ..................................................................................... 23 5.2) Descriptive Statistics for Independent Variable and Dependant Variable .................................... 23 5.3) Estimated Distribution Parameters; ............................................................................................ 24 5.4) Reliability Analysis ................................................................................................................... 25 5.5) Inter-Item Correlation Matrix..................................................................................................... 25 5.6) ANOVA table............................................................................................................................ 25 5.7) Regression analysis and Co-efficient table ................................................................................. 26 5.8) Regression line to Dependant variable ....................................................................................... 26 5.9) One way ANOVA and post hoc tuckey ...................................................................................... 26 5.9.1) Education ............................................................................................................................... 26 5.9.2) Household income .................................................................................................................. 27

5.9.3) Work experience ..................................................................................................................... 27 5.9.4) Father employment ................................................................................................................. 27 5.9.5) Mothers employment .............................................................................................................. 28 5.9.6) Age group ............................................................................................................................... 28 5.11) Hypothesis results .................................................................................................................... 28 6) Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 28 6.1) Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 29 6.1.1)Model for credit Provision to student: ...................................................................................... 29 Annexure A : List of Tables and Figures ........................................................................................... 35 Annexure B: Questionnaire .................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Annexure C : References ....................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.

Introduction

There has been a growing debate about how economies can prosper and the role of young minds to play in it. This study is taken to study the entrepreneurial profile of Pakistani Business students as to what stops them or encourages them from starting new venture. We want to know that are the students job inclined or self-employment inclined. It also wants to be established that have the educational institutes crafted the pre-requisites of entrepreneurial traits in the business students or not. The SMEs are a very important source of income generation in country and if the nascent entrepreneur wants to thrive in the market he starts of by establishing some sort of an SME. In the Pakistani landscape SMEs constitute nearly 90% of all the enterprises in Pakistan and employ 80% of the non-agricultural labor force; and their share in the annual GDP is 40%, approximately. The present economic situation shows unemployment even for the educated at 6% according to Pakistan Labor Force Survey 2011. (www.smeda.org.pk) Pakistan, Total early-stage Entrepreneurial Activity rate is 9.0%. The male rate (14.38%) is 4.1 times the female rate (3.43%). In terms of motivation to start-up, 5.0% of the adult population cites opportunity-driven factors, whilst 3.6% cite necessity-driven factors. The predominant motive for pursuing entrepreneurial activity in the country is to increase income (38.0%) and to a much lesser degree (2.4%) acquire independence. Of nascent entrepreneurs, 75 percent find it more difficult to start a business and 80 percent report more difficult (or about the same) to grow it, with 56 percent pointing towards fewer business opportunities, compared to a year ago. Fear of failure rate (27.7 %) prevented business start-ups. (GEM Pakistan 2010) Therefore it can be seen that nascent entrepreneurial activity in Pakistan is very marginal inspite of the growing importance associated to it.

Wilson et al (2007) argued that entrepreneurship education can also increase students interest in entrepreneurship as a career. Souitaris et al (2007) found that entrepreneurship programs significantly raised students subjective norms and intentions toward entrepreneurship by inspiring them to choose entrepreneurial careers.

1.1. Background of Study Entrepreneurship has many fruits to be reaped in terms of multiplying employment opportunities as well as revenues in the economy. The encouragement of entrepreneurship is essential to stimulate growth in a growth-conscious world, (Baumol, 1968, p. 71). They accelerate economic development through generating ideas and making them into profitable ventures so that employment opportunities and competitiveness is increased (Reynolds, 1987; Zahra, 1999). Students from emerging economies are more likely to envisage future careers as entrepreneurs and are more positive towards entrepreneurship than their industrialized European counterparts (Davey et al, 2011; Nabi and Linan, 2011). Economic and institutional frameworks tend to be unfavourable to entrepreneurial activity in the developing world (Nabi and Linan, 2011). The policy implications of Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM, 2001) indicated that people with limited education are less likely to participate in entrepreneurial initiatives. Henderson and Robertson (2000) also stated . . . the future working environment will depend on the creativity and individuality of the young.

1.2. Problem Statement Are the Pakistani business students having high entrepreneurial intentions or not

1.3. Objectives of Study y y To study the entrepreneurial profile of Pakistani business students. To know about the domains in which the academic Institutions need to improve

entrepreneurial intentions as regards the case of Pakistani business students according to their entrepreneurship profile.

1.4. )Research Questions y y y Do Pakistani business students have high entrepreneurial intentions? Are Pakistani business students motivated for venture creation? Is Risk a substantive barrier for Pakistani business students in having entrepreneurial

intentions? y y Do Pakistani business students have capability to combat risk? Are entrepreneurial support institutions and departments helpful in increasing

entrepreneurial intentions? y y Do Pakistani business students have the self autonomy required to carry out business. What role has demographics to play in entrepreneurial intentions?

1.5. Delimitations of the study The sample is taken from Islamabad only to represent entire population due to the lack of resources.

2. Literature Review 2.1)Entrepreneurial Intentions(I) Theory of Planned Behavior provides a general framework to analyse the entrepreneurial intention of a person (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Ajzen, 1987, 1991). According to Bird (1988), intentionality can be defined as a state of mind directing a persons attention, experience and action towards a specific goal or a path to achieve something. Therefore, entrepreneurial action can be also classified as an intentional behavior (Bird, 1988; Shapero, 1982) or intention is a predictor of planned entrepreneurial behavior (Krueger, 1993). Shapero (1982) indicated that the entrepreneurial intention stems from the perception of feasibility and desirability of a person and this path is affected by the cultural and social context.

2.1)Risk-taking propensity(RTP) Following the lead of Atkinson, risk-taking propensity has been defined in the entrepreneurship literature as the willingness to take moderate risks (Begley, 1995). Atkinson (1957) argued that individuals who have higher achievement motivation should prefer activities of intermediate risk because these types of activities will provide a challenge, yet appear to be attainable. On the other hand, individuals who score high on the motive to avoid failure will avoid intermediate risks. Instead, they will prefer easy and safe under- takings. Risk propensity is a key construct used in Sitkin and Pablos model (1992) to characterize the current tendency of a decision-maker to take or avoid risks. In contrast to previous definitions of this construct, risk propensity is conceptualized as an individual trait that can be changed over time, rather than as a stable and constant dispositional characteristic (Sitkin and Pablo, 1992).

10

2.1)Risk Perception(RP) Variation across people in their perceptions of risk and opportunity influence entrepreneurial decisions (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). People vary in how they view the risk of expending resources before knowing the distribution of outcomes (Palich & Bagby, 1995). Similarly, the probability of success at the entrepreneurial process is low, and those people who are willing to proceed despite these odds might be more optimistic or higher in self-efficacy than people deterred by these odds.

Opportunities are aspects of the environment that represent potentialities for profit making. We follow Shane and Venkataraman (2000, p. 220) to define entrepreneurial opportunities as situations in which new goods, services, raw materials, and organizing methods can be introduced and sold at greater than the cost of their production. Since potentialities are not yet actual, measuring them objectively and prospectively at the level of an individual entrepreneur poses daunting challenges. The impact of attitude towards self-employment might be linked to risk-taking propensity and two contextual factors perceived barriers and perceived support ( Luthje and Franke 2003).

2.1)Self Efficacy(SE) Self-efficacy is the belief in ones ability to muster and implement the necessary personal resources, skills, and competencies to attain a certain level of achievement on a given task (Bandura, 1997). In other words, self-efficacy can be seen as task-specific self-confidence. Selfefficacy for a specific task has been shown to be a robust predictor of an individuals

11

performance in that task and helps to explain why people of equal ability can perform differently. An individual with high self-efficacy for a given task will exert more effort for a greater length of time, persist through set backs, set and accept higher goals, and develop better plans and strategies for the task. A person with high self-efficacy will also take negative feedback in a more positive manner and use that feedback to improve their performance. These attributes of self-efficacy may be important to the entrepreneurial process because these situations are often ambiguous ones in which effort, persistence, and planning are important.

2.1)Motivation (M) Researchers have shown that people are willing to look for opportunities for projects depending on things such as the opportunity cost (Amit, Meuller, and Cockburn, 1995), stocks of financial capital (Evans and Leighton, 1989), social relations of the investors (Aldrich and Zimme, 1986 ), and professional experience (Carroll & Mosakowski, 1987; Cooper, Wu, and Dunkleberg, 1989).

Motivation refers to the willingness to put forth effort both the effort of thinking and the effort involved in bringing ones ideas into reality. The motivation can be extrinsic or intrinsic. The process involves opportunity identification. These opportunities can be realized through innovation and creativity. When entrepreneurs pursue opportunity, they must take action to make it real. The four aspects of motivation that determine the realization of ideas and converting them to efforts are: ambition, goals, energy and stamina, and persistence. Ambition influences the degree to which entrepreneurs seek to create something great, important, and significant when

12

they pursue opportunities. The nature of the entrepreneurial ambition may include making money or the desire to create something new, from conception to actuality. Ambition translates into setting high goals for oneself and others (see the earlier Goal setting section). It is well known that high goals lead to better performance results than moderate or low goals (Locke & Latham, 1990). To achieve high goals requires enormous energy and stamina. When goal-directed energy is sustained over time, it is called persistence or tenacity.

2.1)Entrepreneurial Support (ES)

Many universities now are working in close consortium with corporate for the development of small business development centers (Rich 2009).These centers have directors that advise students and share their research costs for setting up a new venture. The student employees act as research agents for companies giving themselves experience with gainful employment and adding to university pool of funds. This could be included in the CSR and the research could also help the companies stay in touch with recent research. Universities continue to look for private sources of funding as public funds decline. Universities have become more entrepreneurial, as shown in the research of Clark (1998) and Sporn (1999). Clark (1998) argues for a more diverse funding base as one of his five elements of innovation. Sporn (1999) suggests that institutions have more autonomy and are better able to adapt in changing environments by having a discretional funding base. Such activities are created out of necessity due to the restriction of public funding causing a funding crisis leading to an increase in entrepreneurial activities (Yokoyama, 2006).

13

Many individual entrepreneurs approach the Small Business Development Centre with an idea and their consultants analyze whether the person has a decent business plan and generally do not analyze the marketability of the venture.

3. Theoretical Framework A common theoretical framework for explaining Pakistani business students entrepreneurial intentions is identified as follows.

Motivation

Risk Perception

Entrepreneurial Support Risk Taking Propensity

Entrepreneurial Intentions

Self Efficacy

3.1) Variables and hypothesis The following dependant and independent variables are identified in light of the literature review. 3.1.1) Dependant variable: Dependant variable is seen as the end product of the factors affecting entrepreneurial set-up.

14

3.1.1.1) Entrepreneurial intentions The dependant variable identified is entrepreneurial intentions and it is affected by five other independent variables namely: risk taking propensity; risk perception; self-efficacy; motivation and entrepreneurial support. 3.1.2) Independent variables: Independent variables are identified from literature and have a direct affect on dependant variable. 3.1.2.1) Risk taking propensity Risk taking propensity was seen to be affected by the following domains: Locus of control; Peer Behavior; Goals; Initiative and Skill of idea realization. The following hypothesis were identified: y Ho1 the risk taking propensity of Pakistani business students is positively co-related to

entrepreneurial intentions y Ho2 the risk taking propensity of Pakistani business students is significant in determining

entrepreneurial intentions of Pakistani business students.

3.1.2.2) Risk perception Risk perception was defined by student view regarding opportunities and losses in market. The following hypothesis were identified: y Ho3 the risk perception of Pakistani business students is negatively co-related to

entrepreneurial intentions. y Ho4 the risk perception of Pakistani business students is significant in determining

entrepreneurial intentions.

15

3.1.2.3) Self-efficacy Self efficacy was identified by belief of competence, resourcefulness, confidence, EQ and persistence. The following hypothesis were identified: y Ho5 the self efficacy of Pakistani business students is positively co-related to

entrepreneurial intentions. y Ho6 the self efficacy of Pakistani business students is significant in determining

entrepreneurial intentions.

3.1.2.4) Motivation It was probed that are the students motivated by entrepreneurial benefits or not. The factors that were included are: career choice; money; recognition; autonomy and innovation. The following hypothesis were identified: y Ho7 the motivation of Pakistani business students is positively co-related to

entrepreneurial intentions. y Ho8 the motivation of Pakistani business students is significant in determining

entrepreneurial intentions. 3.1.2.5) Entrepreneurial support In order to check the entrepreneurial supports effectiveness the facilities offered by a business institute like business centre, entrepreneurial trainings, trade and VC fairs, provision of loans etc. was checked in case of students. y Ho9 the entrepreneurial support offered to Pakistani business students is positively co-

related to entrepreneurial intentions.

16

Ho10 the entrepreneurial support offered to Pakistani students is significant in

determining entrepreneurial intentions.

3.1.3) Control variables: The control variables in this case were the demographics of the sample. This included the following variables: 3.1.3.1) Gender The first variable checked was gender. 3.1.3.2) Work experience The previous work experience of students in jobs and internships was gauged and checked for connection with dependant variable. The following hypothesis was deduced: y Ho12 People in higher experience bracket have more entrepreneurial intentions.

3.1.3.3) Age group The age group of sample was assessed in respect to the effect on dependant variable. The following hypothesis was deduced: y Ho11 People in higher age bracket have more entrepreneurial intentions.

3.1.3.4) Education The affect of the samples education level was gauged in accordance to having affect on dependant variable. The following hypothesis was deduced: y Ho13 People in higher education bracket have more entrepreneurial intentions.

17

3.1.3.5) Fathers employment The effect of employment back ground was checked on the students entrepreneurial intentions. The fathers employment hypothesis is the following: y Ho14 People whose fathers are self employed have more entrepreneurial intentions.

3.1.3.6) Mothers employment The effect of employment back ground was also checked for mother. The following hypothesis was deduced:

Ho15 People whose mothers are self employed have more entrepreneurial intentions.

3.1.3.7) House hold income The effect of house-hold income on the students entrepreneurial efforts was checked and the following hypothesis was deduced: y Ho16 People in higher house hold income bracket have more entrepreneurial intentions.

18

4. Research Methodology 4.1) Type of Study It is a descriptive type of study in which already established hypothesis in internationally literature are checked in the case of Pakistan Business Students in accordance to their entrepreneurial profile. 4.2) Time Horizon It is a cross-sectional study for the present time period. 4.3) Unit of Analysis The unit of analysis in the study is the entrepreneurial intentions as affected by independent variables. The element of analysis is the Business student in Pakistani Universities.

4.4) Population and sample Frame All Pakistani business students are the population frame for this quantitative analysis. 4.5) sampling technique used: convenience sampling was practiced for data collection as the researchers are present in the sample. The sample of study is drawn randomly from business students enrolled in the universities of Islamabad namely: IIUI; FAST; SZABIST; NUST; Bahria and Iqra. 4.5) Instrument Selection

For the purpose of data collection we used the tool of questionnaire. Entrepreneurial Intentions, Entrepreneurial Support and Demographic Variables are adapted from:

19

Linan,F., Rodriguez-Cohard, J.C. & Rueda-Cantache, J.M.(2005)

independent variables of motivation, risk perception, risk taking propensity and self efficacy are adapted from questionnaires of:

Iakovleva, T., Kolvereid, L., Stephan, U., (2011) also used by: Barbosa, S., Kickul, J., and Liao-Troth, M. (2007); Rybowiak, V., Garts, H. and Frese, M. (1999); Linan, F., Chen, l. (2006) in their studies.

Questionnaire has two parts. First part measures dependant variable, entrepreneurial intentions (I) and independent variables, risk taking propensity(RTP) ; risk perception (RP); motivation (M); entrepreneurial support (ES) and self efficacy (SE). The next part denotes demographic traits of the students. All variables have five items. Entrepreneurial intentions part asks about how keen and ready the students are to step into the business world soon enough and whether they would prioritize it as a career or not (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Ajzen, 1987, 1991). Next, the risk taking propensity (RTP) of students is gauged. Important factors determining higher were higher age, higher education, fathers background of self employment. The items check student response rate, initiative and EQ. After that RP is rated with regards to view of student to opportunities and barriers in the external environment and how that moulds his business ventures success. The next variable SE gauges students self belief and confidence of traits and skill necessary to start and run the business. M follows to know about what motivates

20

students for business set-up. ES reveals about the students knowledge and effectiveness of help offered by government and their own academic institute. In addition, the demographic information is related to first of all to gender because growing attention is being paid to what works in the case women entrepreneurs because they too form a significant part of the population. Parents employment background, education, age and household income are also checked to know about any implications. The questionnaires were mainly hand-filled but electronic means of collection e.g. email and website links were also helpful.

4.6) Proposed Data Collection Procedures

At first literature review was established from desk research by having a thorough read of many digital libraries namely Jstor and Emerald. From the literature review, it can be seen that theoretical and empirical research in the academic literature has associated EI with the respective independent variables and control variables. Interviews and discussions were held with students and academicians regarding their views on the entrepreneurial problem of business graduates in Pakistan. On the basis of that questionnaire was obtained from associated authors and adapted according to Pakistani landscape. Its validity was checked with pilot testing. Next, the questionnaire was floated in through email and link to many people. When responses stopped increasing electronically, hand-filled questionnaires were also added to data set. 4.7) Proposed Data Analysis Techniques SPSS technique is used for all quantitative data analysis.

21

4.7.1) Descriptive statistics Descriptive statistics are used to define mean, standard deviations, range, skewness and kurtosis of demographics, independent variables and dependant variables. 4.7.2) Reliability of data Reliability of data is checked the value of cronbachs alpha in scale. 4.7.3) P-P Plots P-P Plots are obtained to check normality of data. Normal probability histogram is used to check normality of overall data to dependant variable. A regression line is obtained. P-P Plots of independent variables to dependant variable are also obtained to check nature of data.

4.7.4) Measures of association Inter item co-relations are found through Pearsons co-relation to test the hypothesis. 4.7.5) Regression analysis Through regression analysis regression equation is formulated. The beta co-efficient is obtained and its significance level is tested in the F-test. The beta co-efficient explains nature and magnitude of relationship. R square tells goodness of data. It is helpful in predicting how much change independent variable are causing in dependant variable. 4.7.6) One-way ANOVA and post hoc tuckey This is used for other variables in grouped data of demographics. The effect of different demographic groups with respect to dependant variables is checked.

5. Results and Discussion After employing the above mentioned techniques, the following results were obtained.

22

5.1) Descriptive statistics for Demographics

As can be seen in table.1. The mean gender is close to 1, which means that males dominate the sample. Mean work experience is close to 2, meaning mostly people have half year to one year experience in this sample. Mostly fathers are employed and mothers are unemployed. The 25-30 year age group dominates this sample. The household incomes are closer to the group of Rs. 60,000 than Rs. 100,000. People enrolled in Masters Program dominate the sample. Skewness and Kurtosis are well within the acceptable range.

5.2) Descriptive Statistics for Independent Variable and Dependant Variable

It can be seen in table 2 that the mean score for entrepreneurial intentions is closer to the disagree range. The risk taking propensity is also closer to the range of disagree. Meaning students dont have the required competency to face the unexpected events, opportunities and accidents associated to entrepreneurial effectiveness and efficiency. The students have a high risk perception. It means they are very much apprehensive and unsure of antecedents in the market and environment to be negatively affecting their business efforts. Perhaps some risk mitigating mechanism should be introduced by the government or academic experts to tackle this problem of uncertainty. Efforts should be made to improve creativity and innovation to repel the negative antecedents of risk and uncertainty. Students are also less motivated to the benefits accessed out of practicing entrepreneurship. Perhaps more awareness should be created by awareness campaigns, research studies, entrepreneurial exposure etc. least encouraging is

23

entrepreneurial support. It means students realize that by enhancing it entrepreneurial intentions would be directly affected.

For variable I, Statistic 2, dominates the data set with 41% presence. This means majority of people have negative intentions for entrepreneurship. Cumulative RTP at statistic 3 is 80%. This means majority of people dont have the potential to face the unexpected situations of business. For variable RP, majority of the sample is towards the extreme agreement to risks associated with starting and running business. For variable M, Majority of people are not strongly motivated. The cumulative frequency till 3 is 74%. The variable SE, has mixed responses. It is equally towards both ends. In variable ES, most people are in disagreement to the entrepreneurial supports effectiveness and presence. If it exists universities need to create better awareness of it and also improve facilities and aid offered.

5.3) Estimated Distribution Parameters;

Normality of data was checked in P-P Plots of variables. The variable I graph shows good normality having higher incidence at statistic 2. In RTP, Graph shows good normality. Higher incidence is towards lesser statistics. In RP, The graph is more right skewed. Higher incidence is towards greater statistic. In ES, graph is defined for below 3 statistics. For SE, the data is quite normal with slight right skew. For M, the data is quite normal with slight left skew.

24

5.4) Reliability Analysis Cronbachs Alpha is well within the acceptable range of to 0.60. This is calculated for the mean values of dependant and independent variables. This is telling that data is reliable. Therefore analysis could be easily conducted. 5.5) Inter-Item Correlation Matrix As can be seen in table 11, the co-relation between RTP and I is very strong. It is above 0.7 and below 1. The co-relation of RP with all variables is negative. SE and I have positive moderate to weak relationship of 0.5. M has a very strong positive relationship with I, above 0.7. ES has a very strong positive co-relation with I. RP and RTP have a very strong negative corelation. M has an extremely strong positive co-relation with RTP. SE has positive moderate relationship with RTP. ES has a strong positive co-relation with RTP. RP has a moderate negative relationship with SE and it has a strong negative relationship with M. ES and RP have a strong negative relationship. SE has a moderate relationship with M and ES. M has a strong relationship with ES. 5.6) ANOVA table As can be seen in table 13, for each model (independent variable), regression is much higher than residual. This means most of the information is on the normal curve or line than away from it.

25

5.7) Regression analysis and Co-efficient table

As can be seen in table 15, T value is above 2 and significant for all independent variables except motivation.

Standardized regression equation with standardized co-efficient and alpha is following: I = 0.395 RTP - 0.413 RP + 0.148 SE - 0.195M + 0.236 ES + 0.583

Unstandardized regression equation with unstandardized co-efficients and alpha is following: I = 0. 443RTP - 0. 536RP + 0. 307SE - 0. 204M + 0. 565ES + 0.557

RTP increases I by around 40%; RP decreases I by around 41%; SE increases I by around 15%; M decreases I by around 20%; ES decreases I by around 24% and other wise Pakistani business students have around 60% entrepreneurial intentions.

5.8) Regression line to Dependant variable As suggested in graph 13, histogram of dependant variable I, is slightly left skew. 5.9) One way ANOVA and post hoc tuckey It is used for one way control group variables. 5.9.1) Education

As shown in table 16 alpha is significant at around 0.7. Around 67% sample is of masters education and they are above the neutral to agreement side in respect to variables chosen. F value

26

is significant and above 33. The group 3-4 Years of BBA have 0.25564 more I than 1-2 Years of BBA. MBA/MSC/M.phill have 1.59937 more I than 3-4 Years of BBA and 1.85501 more I than 1-2 Years of BBA. This shows MBA/MSC/M.phill have highest I than 3-4 Years of BBA follows and 1-2 Years of BBA in the end.

5.9.2) Household income Table 20 shows 70% of the sample is Rs. 0-60,000 income group. F is significant at 30.2 and alpha is significant at 0.117. The income group having highest entrepreneurial intentions is the one above Rs. 100,000. It is 1.41 more than the second income group and 2.06 more than first income group. The middle income group is 0.64 more entrepreneurially inclined than first income group. 5.9.3) Work experience As shown in table 25 half of sample is having 0-0.5 Years work experience and 29 % people are having 0.5-1.0 Years experience. F is significant at 90. The group1.0-2.0 Years work experience are having most entrepreneurial incline of 2.84, more than the first bracket, 1.53 more than the second bracket and 0.15 more than fourth bracket. The group above 2.0 Years work experience are having 2.7 more I than first group, 1.4 more than second group. 5.9.4) Father employment F is significant at above 41. The group Father Self Employed are having 1.89 more I than second group and 2.6 more I than third group. Father Employed group is having 0.74 more I than third group. 24% sample was first group and 69% was second group.

27

5.9.5) Mothers employment As can be seen in table 31 for mothers occupation, first group has 6%, second group 11% and third group 83% composition in sample.. Mother Unemployed group is having 1.9 more I than first group and 1.8 more I than second group. Data is significant at F equal to 19. 5.9.6) Age group As can be seen in table 34, 55% of sample is in 25-30 Years age group and 27% is in the 2025 Years age group. Second group is having 0.5 more I than first group. Third group is having 2.17 more I than first group and 1.7 more I than second group. F is significant at 61. 5.11) Hypothesis results In light of the above analysis hypothesis for demographic variables from H11 to H16 are all proven. The independent variables have high co-relation with dependant variable at above 0.8 and only 0.5 in case of SE. Table 11 proves that H1, H3, H7, H9 are rightly proven. Only H5 and H6 is not proven as regression co-efficient is small. Regression equation proves all hypotheses of H2, H4, H8 and H10.

6) Conclusion Pakistani business students have somewhat neutral entrepreneurial intentions and rank high on risk perception. Students are not strongly motivated for venture creation and have moderate risk taking propensity. Their self-efficacy is not high and the effectiveness of institutions for the aid of student entrepreneurs is not satisfactory in propelling student entrepreneurial intentions. Students with higher education, experience, age and household income have higher

28

entrepreneurial intentions. The background of students parents employment also has a significant affect in case of father. 6.1) Recommendations To improve the motivations of students so that entrepreneurial intentions can be increased educational institutes need to conduct campaigns increasing awareness of the benefits of entrepreneurship in general and specific to the case of the business student. Factors that diminish the effect of risk perception or apprehensions to starting venture creation should be lessened by factors like creativity, innovation and operational efficiencies. Risk taking propensity of students should be increased by making them participate in simulation programs related to entrepreneurship and have course of class related to experiencing the risks and mitigating them. Self-efficacy can be increased through encouragement, guidance and mentorship. More entrepreneurial exposure should be created to enhance motivation, increase inspiration, develop networking and reduce risk perception. 6.1.1)Model for credit Provision to student: Institutes can improve their offerings of the business centre by getting research sponsors for market research of product launch. They can increase experience of students through more guided internships etc. Also, since dearth of funds accounts for major reason to discouragement of entrepreneurial intentions universities can create a banking institution of their own or in association with some banking institution to launch the credit provision service. 6.1.1.1) Features: Its funds will be availed from the services of students gathered in internships, research work, voluntary work at university for co-coordinating events etc. furthermore, a certain percentage of students funds will start collecting from first semester of BBA to be claimed by MBA education

29

completion. This amount will be compounded interest by the end of the tenure of education. The pool of funds of all students will provide for competent and hopeful students entrepreneurial aspirations. There is risk mitigation through this channel as the academia are personally aware of student traits that play an important role in venture creation and success. Also, they can guide in the ideas launch as they are the experts. After some time the amount taken could be returned when profitable. So that other students can use the amount. This way many students will practice entrepreneurial work and risk to student groups will be mitigated. Also, they can form networks which will be very helpful.

30

Annexure: A Reffrences
Baumol, W.J. (1968), Entrepreneurship in economic theory, The American Economic Review, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 64-71. Zahra, S.A. (1999), The challenging rules of global competitiveness in the 21st century, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 36-42. Reynolds, P.D. (1987), New firms societal contribution versus survival potential, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 2, pp. 231-46. Henderson, R. and Robertson, M. (2000), Who wants to be an entrepreneur? Young adult attitudes to entrepreneurship as a career, Career Development International, Vol. 5 No. 6, pp. 279-87. Davey, T., Plewa, C., Struwig, M., (2011) Entrepreneurship perceptions and career intentions of international students, Journal of Education and Training,Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 335-352 Nabi, G. and Linan, F. (2011) Graduate entrepreneurship in the developing world: intentions, education and development, Journal of Education and Training,Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 325-334 Wilson, F., J. Kickul, and D. Marlino. 2007. Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial career intentions: Implications of entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 31 (3): 387-406.

Souitaris, V., S. Zerbinati, and A. Al-Laham. 2007. Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources. Journal of Business Venturing 22 (4): 566-591

31

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Amit, R., Meuller, E., & Cockburn, I. (1995). Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 95106. Evans, D., & Leighton, L. (1989). Some empirical aspects of entrepreneurship. American Economic Review, 79, 519535. Aldrich, H., & Zimmer, C. (1986). Entrepreneurship through social networks. In D. Sexton, & R. Smilor (Eds.), The art and science of entrepreneurship ( pp. 323). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Carroll, G., & Mosakowski, E. (1987). The career dynamics of self-employment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 570589. Cooper, A., Woo, C., & Dunkleberg, W. (1989). Entrepreneurship and the initial size of firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 3, 97108. Shane, S., Locke, E. and Collins, C. (2003) Entrepreneurial motivation, Human Resource Management Review, Elsevier Science Inc. (available at www.sciencedirect.com) Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217226. Palich, L. E., & Bagby, D. R. (1995). Using cognitive theory to explain entrepreneurial risktaking: challenging conventional wisdom. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 425438. Lu thje, C. and Franke, N. (2003), The making of an entrepreneur: testing a model of entrepreneurial intent among engineering students at MIT, R&D Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 135-47. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of self control. New York: Freeman.

32

Sitkin, S. and Pablo, A. (1992), Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behaviour, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 9-38. Begley, T. M. (1995). Using founder status, age of firm, and company growth rate as the basis for distinguishing entrepreneurs form managers of smaller businesses. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 249263. Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motives in fantasy, action, and society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

Bird, B. (1988), Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for intention, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 442-53. Shapero, A. (1982), Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. NJ. Krueger, N.J. and Carsrud, A. (1993), Entrepreneurial intentions: applying the theory of planned behaviour, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 5, pp. 315-30. Ajzen, I. (1987), Attitudes, traits, and actions: dispositional prediction of behavior in personality and social psychology, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 20, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 1-56. Ajzen, I. (1991), The theory of planned behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211. Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Sporn, B. (1999), Adaptive University Structures: An Analysis of Adaptation to Socioeconomic Environments of US and European Universities, Jessica Kingsley, London.

33

Clark, B. (1998), Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation, International Association of Universities Press and Pergamon, Oxford. Yokoyama, K. (2006), Entrepreneurialism in Japanese and UK universities: governance, management, leadership, and funding, Higher Education, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 523-55. Rich, M. and Bartholomew, D. (2009) Undergraduate research centers: simply a source of student employment or a model for supplementing rural university finances? Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 25/3, 172176 Linan,F., Rodriguez-Cohard, J.C. & Rueda-Cantache, J.M.(2005) Factors affecting entrepreneurial intentions level, 45th Congress of the European Regional Science Association, Amsterdam, 23-27 August Iakovleva, T., Kolvereid, L., Stephan, U., (2011) Entrepreneurial intentions in developing and developed countries, Journal of Education & Training, Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 353-370

34

Annexure B : List of Tables and Figures

Graph: 1, Descriptive Statistics; Histogram of E I Graph: 2, Descriptive Statistics; Histogram of RTP Graph: 3, Descriptive Statistics; Histogram of RP Graph: 4,Descriptive Statistics; Histogram of ES Graph:5, Descriptive Statistics; Histogram of SE Graph: 6, Descriptive Statistics; Histogram of M Graph:7, Probability Plot for Intentions (I) Graph:8 ,Probability Plot for RTP Graph: 9, Probability plot for RP Graph:10, Probability plot for SE Graph:11,Probability plot for M Graph:12, Probability Plot ES Graph 13, Histogram of dependant variable I with frequency Graph:14, Normal P-P Plot of regression standardized residual Graph:15, Partial regression plot of dependant variable I with RTP Graph:16, Partial regression plot of dependant variable I with RP Graph:17,Partial regression plot of dependant variable I with SE Graph:18, Partial regression plot of dependant variable I with M Graph: 19, Partial regression plot of dependant variable I with ES Table.1 Descriptive statistics for Demographics Table.2 Descriptive Statistics for Independent Variable and Dependant Variable Table: 3 Frequency Table for Intentions ( I)
35

Table: 4 Frequency Table forRisk Taking Propensity (RTP) Table: 5 Frequency Table for Risk Perception (RP) Table: 6 Frequency Table for Motivation (M) Table: 7 Frequency Table for Self Efficacy (SE) Table: 8, Frequency Table for Entrepreneurial Support (ES) Table:10, Reliability Statistics Table :11 Inter-Item Correlation Matrix Table: 12 Inter-Item Covariance Matrix Table: 13 ANOVA table Table:14, Co-efficient table Table:15, Detail Co-efficient table Table 16one way ANOVA Education table 17: ANOVA Education Table 18: Post hoc tuckey tests Education Table 19 Homogenous subsets Education Table 20 Descriptives household income table 21: ANOVA household income Table 22: Post hoc tuckey tests household income Table 23 Homogenous subsets household income Tukey HSD Table 24 work experience descrptives Table 25 work experience anova Table 26 Post hoc tockey work experience Table 27 fathers employment descrptives

36

Table 28 fathers employment anova Table 29 fathers employment Post hoc tockey Table 30 mothers employment descriptives Table 31 mothers employment ANOVA Table 32 mothers employment post hoc tuckey Table 33 age group descriptives Table 34 age group Anova Table 35 age group post hoc tuckey Table 36 gender descriptives Table 37 gender independent sample test

37

Graphs
Histograms with normality curve of dependant and independent variable.

Graph: 1 Descriptive Statistics; Histogram of E I Graph shows good normality, with higher incidence at 2.

38

Graph: 2, RTP Graph shows good normality. Higher incidence is towards lesser statistic.

39

Graph: 3, RP The graph is more right skewed. Higher incidence is towards greater statistic.

40

Graph: 4 Entrepreneurial support (ES) Graph is defined for below 3 statistics.

41

Graph: 5 Self Efficacy (SE) The data is quite normal with slight right skew.

42

Graph: 6, Motivation The data is quite normal with slight left skew.

43

Graph:7, P-P Plot of Intentions (I)

44

Graph:8 , Probability Plot for RTP

45

Graph: 9, Probability plot for RP

46

Graph:10, Probability plot for SE

47

Graph:11, Probability plot for M

48

Graph:12, Probability Plot ES

49

Graph 13, Histogram of dependant variable I with frequency:

50

Graph:14, Normal P-P Plot of regression standardized residual

51

Graph:15, Partial regression plot of dependant variable I with RTP

52

Graph:16, Partial regression plot of dependant variable I with RP

53

Graph:17, Partial regression plot of dependant variable I with SE

54

Graph:18, Partial regression plot of dependant variable I with M

55

Graph: 19, Partial regression plot of dependant variable I with ES

56

Table:1 Descriptive statistics for Demographic

Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Gender Work Experience Fathers Employment Mothers Employment Age Group Household Income Education 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.3200 1.8200 1.8300 2.7700 2.3700 1.4800 2.5300 .46883 1.00885 .53286 .54781 .77401 .78470 .73106 .784 1.034 -.148 -2.338 -.754 1.219 -1.214 -1.415 -.084 .177 4.413 -.923 -.243 -.031 Skewness Kurtosis

Std. Error of Skewness is 0.241 and Std. Error of Kurtosis is 0. .478

Table.2 Descriptive Statistics for Independent Variable and Dependant Variable

I Mean Std. Error of Mean Median Std. Deviation Skewness Std. Error of Skewness Kurtosis Std. Error of Kurtosis Minimum Maximum 2.7200 .12719 2.0000 1.27192 .575 .241 -.762 .478 1.00 5.00 RTP 2.7000 .11326 3.0000 1.13262 .319 .241 -.350 .478 1.00 5.00 RP 4.0100 .09795 4.0000 .97954 -.612 .241 -.701 .478 2.00 5.00 SE 3.1380 .06115 3.0000 .61147 .287 .241 -.305 .478 1.80 4.60 M 2.7200 .12151 3.0000 1.21506 .212 .241 -.818 .478 1.00 5.00 ES 1.8820 .05319 1.8000 .53189 .536 .241 -.678 .478 1.20 2.80

57

Frequency Tables
Table: 3 Intentions ( I) Frequency Tables
Frequency 1.00 2.00 Valid 3.00 4.00 5.00 Total 14 41 19 11 15 100 Percent 14.0 41.0 19.0 11.0 15.0 100.0 Valid Percent 14.0 41.0 19.0 11.0 15.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 14.0 55.0 74.0 85.0 100.0

Table: 4 Risk Taking Propensity (RTP)

Frequency 1.00 2.00 Valid 3.00 4.00 5.00 Total 16 26 39 10 9 100 Percent 16.0 26.0 39.0 10.0 9.0 100.0 Valid Percent 16.0 26.0 39.0 10.0 9.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 16.0 42.0 81.0 91.0 100.0

Table: 5 Risk Perception (RP)

Frequency 2.00 3.00 Valid 4.00 5.00 Total 9 20 32 39 100 Percent 9.0 20.0 32.0 39.0 100.0 Valid Percent 9.0 20.0 32.0 39.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 9.0 29.0 61.0 100.0

58

Table: 6 Motivation (M)

Frequency 1.00 2.00 Valid 3.00 4.00 5.00 Total 19 25 30 17 9 100 Percent 19.0 25.0 30.0 17.0 9.0 100.0 Valid Percent 19.0 25.0 30.0 17.0 9.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 19.0 44.0 74.0 91.0 100.0

Table: 7 Self Efficacy (SE)

Frequency 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 Valid 3.20 3.40 3.60 3.80 4.00 4.20 4.40 4.60 Total 2 1 4 5 14 9 17 15 8 5 5 7 4 3 1 100 Percent 2.0 1.0 4.0 5.0 14.0 9.0 17.0 15.0 8.0 5.0 5.0 7.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 100.0 Valid Percent 2.0 1.0 4.0 5.0 14.0 9.0 17.0 15.0 8.0 5.0 5.0 7.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 2.0 3.0 7.0 12.0 26.0 35.0 52.0 67.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 92.0 96.0 99.0 100.0

59

Table: 8 Entrepreneurial Support (ES)

Frequency 1.20 1.60 1.80 Valid 2.00 2.20 2.60 2.80 Total 21 15 28 11 5 2 18 100 Percent 21.0 15.0 28.0 11.0 5.0 2.0 18.0 100.0 Valid Percent 21.0 15.0 28.0 11.0 5.0 2.0 18.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 21.0 36.0 64.0 75.0 80.0 82.0 100.0

Estimated Distribution Parameters; Normality of Data P-P Plot

Independent Variable and Dependant Variable Table: 9

I Location Scale 2.7200 1.27192 RTP 2.7000 1.13262 RP 4.0100 .97954 SE 3.1380 .61147 M 2.7200 1.21506 ES 1.8820 .53189

Table:10
Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha .557 Standardized .583 N of Items 6

60

Table :11 Inter-Item Correlation Matrix

Inter-Item Correlation Matrix I RTP RP SE M ES .839 -.849 .500 .805 .832 -.890 .408 .944 .846 -.410 -.923 -.862 .387 .410 .799 RTP RP SE M

Table: 12 Inter-Item Covariance Matrix

Inter-Item Covariance Matrix I I RTP RP SE M ES 1.618 1.208 -1.058 .389 1.244 .563 1.283 -.987 .282 1.299 .510 .959 -.246 -1.098 -.449 .374 .288 .133 1.476 .516 .283 RTP RP SE M ES

61

Table: 13 ANOVA table

Model Regression 1 Residual Total Regression 2 Residual Total Regression 3 Residual Total Regression 4 Residual Total Regression 5 Residual Total a. Dependent Variable: I b. Predictors: (Constant), RTP c. Predictors: (Constant), RTP, RP d. Predictors: (Constant), RTP, RP, SE e. Predictors: (Constant), RTP, RP, SE, M f. Predictors: (Constant), RTP, RP, SE, M, ES Sum of Squares 112.631 47.529 160.160 120.781 39.379 160.160 124.283 35.877 160.160 125.592 34.568 160.160 127.384 32.776 160.160 df 1 98 99 2 97 99 3 96 99 4 95 99 5 94 99 25.477 .349 73.065 .000
f

Mean Square 112.631 .485

F 232.235

Sig. .000
b

60.391 .406

148.757

.000

41.428 .374

110.854

.000

31.398 .364

86.290

.000

62

Table:15 Co-efficient table

Coefficients Model Unstandardized Coefficients B 1 (Constant) RTP (Constant) 2 RTP RP (Constant) 3 RTP RP SE (Constant) RTP 4 RP SE M (Constant) RTP 5 RP SE M ES a. Dependent Variable: I .177 .942 4.080 .449 -.641 2.921 .411 -.592 .339 3.998 .631 -.764 .325 -.344 2.200 .443 -.536 .307 -.204 .565 Std. Error .181 .062 .887 .124 .143 .931 .119 .138 .111 1.080 .165 .164 .110 .181 1.322 .181 .189 .108 .188 .249 .395 -.413 .148 -.195 .236 .562 -.589 .156 -.329 .366 -.456 .163 .399 -.494 .839 Standardized Coefficients Beta .981 15.239 4.602 3.625 -4.481 3.138 3.447 -4.287 3.061 3.702 3.822 -4.668 2.968 -1.897 1.664 2.444 -2.834 2.857 -1.084 2.266 .329 .000 .000 .000 .000 .002 .001 .000 .003 .000 .000 .000 .004 .061 .099 .016 .006 .005 .281 .026
a

Sig.

95.0% Confidence Interval for B Lower Bound Upper Bound -.181 .819 2.320 .203 -.925 1.073 .174 -.867 .119 1.854 .303 -1.089 .108 -.704 -.425 .083 -.912 .094 -.577 .070 .536 1.064 5.839 .694 -.357 4.769 .648 -.318 .559 6.141 .958 -.439 .543 .016 4.824 .804 -.160 .521 .170 1.060

63

Table 16 one way ANOVA Education Descriptives Education

I N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Minimum Maximum Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound 1-2 Years of BBA 3-4 Years of BBA MBA/MSC/M.phill Total 14 19 67 100 1.4286 1.6842 3.2836 2.7200 .51355 .47757 1.15215 1.27192 .13725 .10956 .14076 .12719 1.1321 1.4540 3.0026 2.4676 1.7251 1.9144 3.5646 2.9724 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 5.00 5.00

Table 17: ANOVA Education

I Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 65.014 95.146 160.160 df 2 97 99 Mean Square 32.507 .981 F 33.141 Sig. .000

Table 18: Post hoc tuckey tests Education

Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: I Tukey HSD (I) Education (J) Education Mean Difference (I-J) 1-2 Years of BBA 3-4 Years of BBA MBA/MSC/M.phill 1-2 Years of BBA MBA/MSC/M.phill 1-2 Years of BBA 3-4 Years of BBA -.25564 -1.85501
*

Std. Error

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound .5747 -1.1623 1.0860 -.9867 2.5477 2.2121

.34884 .29104 .34884 .25742 .29104 .25742

.745 .000 .745 .000 .000 .000

-1.0860 -2.5477 -.5747 -2.2121 1.1623 .9867

3-4 Years of BBA

.25564 -1.59937
* * *

MBA/MSC/M.phill

1.85501 1.59937

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

64

Table 19 Homogenous subsets Education

I Tukey HSD Education N 1 1-2 Years of BBA 3-4 Years of BBA MBA/MSC/M.phill Sig. Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 21.585. b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. 14 19 67 .674 1.4286 1.6842 3.2836 1.000 Subset for alpha = 0.05 2

Table 20 Descriptive household income with I

Descriptives I N Mean Std. Deviation Rs. 060,000 Rs. 60,000 to 100,000 Above Rs.100,000 Total 70 2.2714 .89962 .10753 Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Lower Bound 2.0569 Upper Bound 2.4859 1.00 4.00 Maximum

12 2.9167

1.16450

.33616

2.1768

3.6566

2.00

5.00

18 4.3333 100 2.7200

1.28338 1.27192

.30250 .12719

3.6951 2.4676

4.9715 2.9724

2.00 1.00

5.00 5.00

65

Table 21: ANOVA household income

ANOVA I Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 61.400 98.760 160.160 df 2 97 99 Mean Square 30.700 1.018 F 30.153 Sig. .000

Table 22: Post hoc tuckey tests household income

Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: I Tukey HSD (I) Household Income (J) Household Income Mean Difference (IJ) Rs. 0-60,000 Rs. 60,000 to 100,000 Above Rs.100,000 Rs. 60,000 to 100,000 Above Rs.100,000 Rs. 0-60,000 Above Rs.100,000 Rs. 0-60,000 Rs. 60,000 to 100,000 -.64524 -2.06190
*

Std. Error

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound

.31526 .26666 .31526 .37604 .26666 .37604

.107 .000 .107 .001 .000 .001

-1.3956 -2.6966 -.1052 -2.3117 1.4272 .5216

.1052 -1.4272 1.3956 -.5216 2.6966 2.3117

.64524 -1.41667
* * *

2.06190 1.41667

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

66

Table 23 Homogenous Subsets Household Income Tukey HSD with I

I Tukey HSD Household Income N Subset for alpha = 0.05 1 Rs. 0-60,000 Rs. 60,000 to 100,000 Above Rs.100,000 Sig. Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 19.585. b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. 70 12 18 .117 2.2714 2.9167 4.3333 1.000 2

Table 24 Work Experience Descrptives

Descriptives I N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound 0-0.5 Years 0.5-1.0 Years 1.0-2.0 Years Above 2.0 Years Total 50 29 10 11 100 1.7600 3.0690 4.6000 4.4545 2.7200 .51745 .65088 .51640 1.21356 1.27192 .07318 .12087 .16330 .36590 .12719 1.6129 2.8214 4.2306 3.6393 2.4676 1.9071 3.3165 4.9694 5.2698 2.9724 1.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Minimum Maximum

Table 25 Work Experience Anova

ANOVA I Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 118.051 42.109 160.160 df 3 96 99 Mean Square 39.350 .439 F 89.710 Sig. .000

67

Table 26 Post Hoc Tuckey

Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: I Tukey HSD (I) Work Experience (J) Work Experience Mean Difference (I-J) 0.5-1.0 Years 0-0.5 Years 1.0-2.0 Years Above 2.0 Years 0-0.5 Years 0.5-1.0 Years 1.0-2.0 Years Above 2.0 Years 0-0.5 Years 1.0-2.0 Years 0.5-1.0 Years Above 2.0 Years 0-0.5 Years Above 2.0 Years 0.5-1.0 Years 1.0-2.0 Years -1.30897 -2.84000 -2.69455
* * * * * * * *

Std. Error

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound -.9048 -2.2401 -2.1179 1.7132 -.8960 -.7724 3.4399 2.1661 .9021 3.2712 1.9988 .6112

.15459 .22943 .22057 .15459 .24288 .23452 .22943 .24288 .28938 .22057 .23452 .28938

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .958 .000 .000 .958

-1.7132 -3.4399 -3.2712 .9048 -2.1661 -1.9988 2.2401 .8960 -.6112 2.1179 .7724 -.9021

1.30897 -1.53103 -1.38558

2.84000 1.53103

.14545 2.69455 1.38558

* *

-.14545

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 27 Fathers Employment Descrptives

Descriptives I N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Father Self Employed Father Employed Father Unemployed Total 24 69 7 100 4.2083 2.3188 1.5714 2.7200 1.21509 .86590 .53452 1.27192 .24803 .10424 .20203 .12719 3.6952 2.1108 1.0771 2.4676 95% Confidence Interval for Minimum Maximum Mean Upper Bound 4.7214 2.5269 2.0658 2.9724 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 4.00 2.00 5.00

68

Table 28 Fathers Employment Anova

ANOVA I Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 73.502 86.658 160.160 df 2 97 99 Mean Square 36.751 .893 F 41.137 Sig. .000

Table 29 Fathers Employment Post Hoc Tuckey

Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: I Tukey HSD (I) Fathers Employment (J) Fathers Employment Mean Difference (IJ) Father Self Employed Father Employed Father Unemployed Father Self Employed Father Unemployed Father Self Employed Father Employed 1.88949 2.63690 -1.88949
* * *

Std. Error

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound

.22399 .40602 .22399 .37493 .40602 .37493

.000 .000 .000 .119 .000 .119

1.3563 1.6705 -2.4226 -.1450 -3.6033 -1.6398

2.4226 3.6033 -1.3563 1.6398 -1.6705 .1450

Father Employed

.74741 -2.63690
*

Father Unemployed

-.74741

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 30 Mothers Employment Descriptives

Descriptives I N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Mother Self Employed Mother Employed Mother Unemployed Total 6 11 83 100 1.1667 1.2727 3.0241 2.7200 .40825 .46710 1.16845 1.27192 .16667 .14084 .12825 .12719 .7382 .9589 2.7690 2.4676 95% Confidence Interval for Minimum Maximum Mean Upper Bound 1.5951 1.5865 3.2792 2.9724 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 5.00 5.00

69

Table 31 Mothers Employment

I

ANOVA ANOVA

Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 45.193 114.967 160.160

df 2 97 99

Mean Square 22.597 1.185

F 19.065

Sig. .000

Table 32 Mothers Employment

Dependent Variable: I Tukey HSD (I) Mothers Employment (J) Mothers Employment

Post Hoc Tuckey Multiple Comparisons

Mean Difference (IJ)

Std. Error

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound

Mother Self Employed

Mother Employed Mother Unemployed Mother Self Employed Mother Unemployed Mother Self Employed Mother Employed

-.10606 -1.85743
*

.55253 .46024 .55253 .34932 .46024 .34932

.980 .000 .980 .000 .000 .000

-1.4212 -2.9529 -1.2091 -2.5828 .7620 .9199

1.2091 -.7620 1.4212 -.9199 2.9529 2.5828

Mother Employed

.10606 -1.75137
* * *

Mother Unemployed

1.85743 1.75137

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 33 Age Group Descriptives

Descriptives I N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 18-20 Years 20-25 Years 25-30 Years Total 18 27 55 100 1.3889 1.8889 3.5636 2.7200 .50163 .32026 1.08463 1.27192 .11824 .06163 .14625 .12719 1.1394 1.7622 3.2704 2.4676 Upper Bound 1.6383 2.0156 3.8569 2.9724 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 5.00 5.00 Minimum Maximum

70

Table 34 Age Group Anova

ANOVA I Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total 89.688 70.472 160.160 df 2 97 99 Mean Square 44.844 .727 F 61.725 Sig. .000

Table 35 Age Group Post Hoc Tuckey

Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: I Tukey HSD (I) Age Group (J) Age Group Mean Difference (I-J) 18-20 Years 20-25 Years 25-30 Years 18-20 Years 25-30 Years 18-20 Years 20-25 Years -.50000 -2.17475
*

Std. Error

Sig.

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound .1173 -1.6238 1.1173 -1.1980 2.7257 2.1515

.25936 .23145 .25936 .20029 .23145 .20029

.136 .000 .136 .000 .000 .000

-1.1173 -2.7257 -.1173 -2.1515 1.6238 1.1980

20-25 Years

.50000 -1.67475
* * *

25-30 Years

2.17475 1.67475

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 36 Gender Descriptives

Group Statistics Gender I Male Female N 68 32 Mean 3.2647 1.5625 Std. Deviation 1.15407 .50402 Std. Error Mean .13995 .08910

71

Table 37 Gender Independent Sample Test

Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Sig. t df Sig. (2tailed) Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Equal variances I assumed Equal variances not assumed 26.688 .000 7.977 98 .000 1.70221 .21340 1.27872 Upper 2.12569 t-test for Equality of Means

Difference Difference

10.260 97.648

.000

1.70221

.16591

1.37296

2.03146

72

Annexure: C Questionnaire
Strongly Disagree: SD=1 Disagree: D=2
A. Intentions A1 Im prepared to do anything to be an entrepreneur

Agree Some What: ASW=3 Agree: A=4 Strongly Agree: SA=5

1 2 3 4 5

Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements from 1 (total disagreement) to 5 (total agreement)

A2

My professional objective is becoming an entrepreneur I will make every effort to start and manage my own firm I have very seriously thought to initiate a business

A3

A4

A5

Ive got the firm resolve to Initiate a company one day B. Risk Taking Propensity

B1

Whenever something goes wrong, I search for a solution aptly I take initiative instantly even when others dont

B2

B3

I use opportunities quickly in order to achieve my goals generally I do more than I am asked to do

B4

B5

I am mainly good at realizing ideas C. Risk Perception

C1

I view the possibility of starting a business as a potential loss due to environmental factors

C2

I dont view the possibility of starting a business as a potential opportunity due to my own creativity

C3

If I dont initiate my own business, I wont be missing a great opportunity unexplored

C4

There is great uncertainty for me when predicting how well a new venture will do

73

C5

The overall risk level of a new venture is high because lack of risk mitigating resources

D. Self Efficacy D1 I can always handle to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough If someone opposes me, I can find the means and ways to get my way I am confident that I can resolve efficiently unexpected events I am resourceful enough and know how to handle unforeseen situations Thanks to my coping abilities, I can remain calm when facing difficulties E. Motivation E1 Investing in my own small or medium-sized enterprise and its management is a desirable career choice for me I want to start my own business, because I want to be free and independent I want to start my own business, because I have good ideas and want to realize them.

D2

D3

D4

D5

E2

E3

E4

I want to start my own business to be better off financially. I want to start my own business, because I want to be successful. F. Business Support

E5

F1

The university crested access to specific trainings and forums for young entrepreneurs

F2

The university created access to loans in specially favorable terms to young entrepreneurs

F3

The university created access to facility of technical aid to start the business The university created access to Business centres tailored to needs of graduate entrepreneurs

F4

74

F5

The university created access to Exposure to Consulting services and trade fairs

G1-Gender: Male Female

G2-Work Experience: 0-0.5 Years 0.5-1.0 Years 1.0-2.0 Years Above 2.0 Years

G3&G4-Parents Employment: G3-Father Self Employed Father Employed Father Unemployed G4-Mother Self Employed Mother Employed Mother Unemployed

G5-Age Group: 18-20 Years 20-25 Years 25-30 Years

G6-Household Income: Rs. 0-60,000 Rs. 60,000 to 100,000 More than Rs. 100,000

G7-Education: 1-2 Years of BBA 3-4 Years of BBA MBA/MSC/M.phill/PHD

75

References: Entrepreneurial Intentions, Entrepreneurial Support and Demographic Variables are adapted from: Linan,F., Rodriguez-Cohard, J.C. & Rueda-Cantache, J.M.(2005) Factors affecting entrepreneurial intentions level, 45th Congress of the European Regional Science Association, Amsterdam, 23-27 August Motivation, Risk Perception, Risk Taking Propensity, Self Efficacy are adapted from questionnaire of: Iakovleva, T., Kolvereid, L., Stephan, U., (2011) Entrepreneurial intentions in developing and developed countries , Journal of Education & Training, Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 353-370 Also used in the following studies: Barbosa, S., Kickul, J., and Liao-Troth, M. (2007) Rybowiak, V., Garts, H. and Frese, M. (1999) Linan, F., Chen, l. (2006)

76