Theories of Entrepreneurship

Evolution and Theories of Entrepreneurship: A Critical Review on the
Kenyan Perspective
Hannah Orwa Bula (ABD)
School of Business-Department of Commerce Kimathi University College of Technology
P.O. Box 657-10100 NYERI, KENYA
Cell phone +254722642199
Email:bula.oh@yahoo.com or bula.hannah@kuct.ac.ke

Entrepreneurship Theories
1.1 Cantillon's theory (1755)
This theory does not view the entrepreneur as a production factor as such, but an agent that takes on risk and thereby equilibrates supply and demand in the economy. In a neo-classical framework, this function resembles that of the optimizing residual claimant, e.g., the business owner who rents labor and capital from workers and land owners in a world of uncertain demand or production.

1.2 Marshall’s approach to entrepreneurship (Marshall, 1949)
Marshall is an equilibrium creating entrepreneur. To Schumpeter, the crucial fact about the modern corporation is that its managers cannot fill the strong social role played by the entrepreneur. (Schumpeter, 1942, p. 134).The Neo-classical theory and thereby the „Marshallian‟ analysis tries to explain equilibrium conditions in the markets under the assumptions of perfect knowledge and information, perfect competition (existence of many firms), existence of homogenous goods, and free entry and exit.

Marshall's main concerns and at the same time goal is to show that markets clear under the perfect competition assumptions and there are no excess profit opportunities and hence there is no exploitation of labor in production process since everyone earns his marginal contribution to production and national income. Marshall uses small changes (innovations) in the market process by many small competitors and confusingly indicates that large scale production is essential for economic progress and economic innovation (Schumpeter, 1942). Marshall tried to create equilibrium by having many players in the market, hence perfect competition and not monopolist market. His theories consider many „great men‟ who establish equilibrium in the supply and demand in the market for goods and services. Marshallian analysis gives small contributions from a very large number of modest entrepreneurs‟ lead economic progress.

1.3 The Social Enterprise School
Entrepreneurship is viewed as “social enterprise” initiative. This refers to any organization, in any sector, that uses earned income strategies to pursue a double bottom line or a triple bottom line, either alone or as part of a mixed revenue stream (as a social sector business) that includes charitable contributions and public sector subsidies.” Social Enterprise School centers on earned-income activity by nonprofits, but also includes market based solutions to social problems as well as businesses that generate profit that is donated to a social venture or purpose.

1.4 Schultz Approach (Schultz, 1975)
Argues that entrepreneurship is closely connected to situations of disequilibria and that entrepreneurship is the ability to deal with these situations. In disequilibrium, agents are acting sub-optimally and can reallocate their resources to achieve a higher level of satisfaction. Entrepreneurship is the ability to coordinate this reallocation efficiently, and it follows that agents have different degrees of entrepreneurial ability. Schultz argues that, in disequilibrium, individuals know that opportunities to increase satisfaction exist but the reallocating process requires time. A better allocation of resources can be achieved either by experimenting (trial and error) or by investing in human capital. Schultz (1975) argues that entrepreneurship exists in all aspects of life. Thus, housewives and students are entrepreneurs when reallocating their time for housework or student activities. Furthermore, since entrepreneurship is an ability that can be augmented by investment, Schultz argues that a market for entrepreneurship exists and that it is possible to analyze entrepreneurship within the conventional supply and demand framework (Hebert and Link, 1988).

1.5 Kirzner's "alert" entrepreneur (Kirzner, 1997)
While in Neoclassical analysis (Marshall) the main focus is the conditions necessary to sustain an equilibrium, and Schumpeter's focus was to explain the progress in capitalistic system by using innovator entrepreneur's destructive creation, Kirzner- representing the Neo-Austrian approach to entrepreneurship focused on answering the question of whether a market economy works and, if it does so, what is the process that leads the economy towards an equilibrium? Kirzner claims that initially the economy is in disequilibrium and the competition among 'alert' entrepreneurs leads to equilibrium. Unlike Neo-classical economists, Kirzner realizes that markets are not always clear, there is no perfectly informed
representative agent and for change to occur the entrepreneurs need incentives and this incentives comes from the difference among agents in terms of information and knowledge.

1.6 Schumpeter (1999): the discovery and opportunity theory of entrepreneurship (equilibrium destruction theory) Schumpeter looks at entrepreneurship as innovation and not imitation. Schumpeter's innovator as an economic and social leader does not care much about economic profits and only joy he gets from being an innovator and being a server to his society. Schumpeter‟s entrepreneur is an innovator in the entrepreneurship arena. In the Schumpeterian theory, the entrepreneur moves the economy out of the static equilibrium.

Marz (1991), states that "Schumpeter hardly denied that the process of accumulation is the ladder to social power and social prestige; but he thought the very mainspring of the exercise of the entrepreneurial function is the powerful will to assert economic leadership. The joy of carrying through innovations is the primary motive, the acquisition of social power a subsidiary to it. The entrepreneur is not (necessarily) the one who invents new combinations but the one who identifies how these new combinations can be applied in production. This line of reasoning implies that a business owner is considered an entrepreneur only if he is carrying out new combinations." The entrepreneur moves the economic system out of the static equilibrium by creating new products or production methods thereby rendering others obsolete. This is the process of "creative destruction"(creating uncertainty) which Schumpeter saw as the driving force behind economic development (Schumpeter, 1949).

1.7 Knight’s Approach (Knight, 1971)
According to Knight, the main function of the entrepreneur is to assume the uncertainty related to these events, thereby shielding all other stakeholders against the entrepreneur. It could be argued that the innovating role of  he entrepreneur was already identified or at least mentioned by Marshall. Knight views an entrepreneur in terms of Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. Knight recognized the distinction between risk and uncertainty. The latter is uninsurable since it relates to unique events, e.g., a shift in consumer taste. According to Knight, the main function of the entrepreneur is to assume the uncertainty related to these
events, thereby shielding all other stakeholders against it. i.e., the entrepreneur exercises judgment over these unique situations, the uncertainty in the economy, and functions as an insurance agent. Knight elaborated his theory in the paper; “Profits and Entrepreneurial Functions” from 1942 (Knight, 1942, 1971).


Full Download

History of Entrepreneurship

A Chronological List of the Definition of 'Entrepreneur'

• 1734: Richard Cantillon: Entrepreneurs are non-fixed income earners who pay known costs of production but earn uncertain incomes,^[17]
• 1803: Jean-Baptiste Say: An entrepreneur is an economic agent who unites all means of production- land of one, the labour of another and the capital of yet another and thus produces a product. By selling the product in the market he pays rent of land, wages to labour, interest on capital and what remains is his profit. He shifts economic resources out of an area of lower and into an area of higher productivity and greater yield.^{[citation needed]}
• 1934: Schumpeter: Entrepreneurs are innovators who use a process of shattering the status quo of the existing products and services, to set up new products, new services.^{[citation needed]}
• 1961: David McClelland: An entrepreneur is a person with a high need for achievement [N-Ach]. He is energetic and a moderate risk taker.^{[citation needed]}
• 1964: Peter Drucker: An entrepreneur searches for change, responds to it and exploits opportunities. Innovation is a specific tool of an entrepreneur hence an effective entrepreneur converts a source into a resource.^{[citation needed]}
• 1971: Kilby: Emphasizes the role of an imitator entrepreneur who does not innovate but imitates technologies innovated by others. Are very important in developing economies.^{[citation needed]}
• 1975: Howard H. Stevenson of Harvard Business School: entrepreneurship is the pursuit of opportunity without regard to resources currently controlled.^[18]
• 1975: Albert Shapero: Entrepreneurs take initiative, accept risk of failure and have an internal locus of control.^{[citation needed]}
• 2013: Ronald May: An Entrepreneur is someone who commercializes his or her innovation.

The appellation today implies a bootstrap operation and some degree of both innovation and financial risk.

References :
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/186603/encyclopaedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia

Process of Entrepreneurship Development

Process of Entrepreneurship Development by Oxford University Press

Full Download

Full Download Report of Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013

The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor(GEM Model)

Since its inception, GEM has sought to explore the widely accepted link between entrepreneurship and economic development. To understand this central aim, GEM defined a conceptual model that sets out key elements of the relationship between entrepreneurship and economic growth, and the way in which the elements interact. It took as its starting point the recognition that while other scholars had defined the general national framework conditions for established enterprise to thrive, a different set of “entrepreneurial framework conditions” (EFCs) in addition to both entrepreneurial capacity and entrepreneurial opportunities, were needed to enable new business activity.

Full Download Global Entrepreneurship Monitor  2013

The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor(GEM Model)

Since its inception, GEM has sought to explore the widely accepted link between entrepreneurship and economic development. To understand this central aim, GEM defined a conceptual model that sets out key elements of the relationship between entrepreneurship and economic growth, and the way in which the elements interact. It took as its starting point the recognition that while other scholars had defined the general national framework conditions for established enterprise to thrive, a different set of “entrepreneurial framework conditions” (EFCs) in addition to both entrepreneurial capacity and entrepreneurial opportunities, were needed to enable new business activity.
                                                       THE ORIGINAL GEM MODEL

After ten years of collecting empirical evidence, and continuous improvements in the measures adopted, GEM researchers revised the GEM model to reflect the complexity of the causal relationship between entrepreneurship and economic development globally. The revised GEM model is founded on the concept that the contribution of entrepreneurs to an economy varies according to its phase of economic development, and on the realization that the Global Competitiveness Index, on which the original GEM model drew for its General National Framework Conditions, had evolved considerably since the late 1990s. 

                                                       THE REVISED GEM MODEL

The revised model introduced a more nuanced distinction between phases of economic development, in line with Porter’s typology of “factor-driven economies”, “efficiency-driven economies” and “innovation-driven economies” (Porter et al., 2002), and recognized GEM’s unique contribution: to describe and measure, in detail, the conditions under which entrepreneurship and innovation can thrive.

The revised GEM model also has a new dynamic element in that it incorporates an understanding of how economies change as they develop, and the changing nature and contribution of entrepreneurship in this development: 

In factor-driven economies, economic development is primarily driven by basic requirements: development of institutions, infrastructure, macroeconomic stability and health and primary education.

In efficiency-driven economies, government focus is (or should be) on ensuring smooth mechanisms such as a proper functioning of the market; higher education systems, goods and labor markets and technological readiness. Even though these conditions are not directly related to entrepreneurship in the Schumpeterian sense of “creative destruction”, they are indirectly related since the development of markets will also attract and enable more entrepreneurship.

In innovation-driven economies, entrepreneurial framework conditions become more important as levers of economic development than basic requirements or efficiency enhancers. The outcome of the model is national economic growth through, for example, job creation and technical innovation. 

The enormous GEM data collection effort allows for an exploration of the role of entrepreneurship in national economic development. GEM’s ability to map this territory increases with each annual cycle as combined sample sizes grow and as trends over time become apparent. 

Full Report and Papers of Creating the Environment for Entrepreneurial Success

Full Report and Papers of Creating the Environment for Entrepreneurial Success
By Center for International Private Enterprise
 
The Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) strengthens democracy
around the globe through private enterprise and market-oriented reform. CIPE
is one of the four core institutes of the National Endowment for Democracy and
an affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Since 1983, CIPE has worked
with business leaders, policymakers, and journalists to build the civic institutions
vital to a democratic society. CIPE’s key program areas include anticorruption,
advocacy, business associations, corporate governance, democratic governance,
access to information, the informal sector and property rights, and women and
youth.

Center for International Private Enterprise
1155 15th Street, NW | Suite 700 | Washington, DC 20005
ph: (202) 721-9200 | fax: (202) 721-9250 | www.cipe.org

Full Download Free

Key Models of Effective Entrepreneurship Education

November 15, 2013

Author(s): 

Dr. Lynda Y. de la Viña

Since the 1970s, U.S. productivity and employment growth has become reliant on the development of new ventures, particularly in emerging technology industries. New businesses are equally crucial for the sustained economic development of the world's emerging regions. In developing economies, the Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs (ANDE) estimates that 86 percent of new jobs are created by small/ growing businesses. In both developed and emerging economies, a culture that encourages risk taking and creativity and a supportive educational and policy structure are essential to entrepreneurial growth and prosperity.

Reflecting this economic transformation, U.S. universities, in turn, have initiated the development of various approaches to entrepreneurship education as a new academic discipline. The emergence of entrepreneurship as a university discipline is significant since colleges and universities are where young people from throughout the world converge to learn and shape their destinies. Judith Cone from the Kauffman Foundation states that the campus is, “where all fields can intersect and cross-pollinate- … and where all sectors of the real-world economy are represented. Private firms and investors, government agencies, and nonprofits all come to campus to sponsor research, to breed and recruit talent, to search for new ideas”. These academic ideas and models for entrepreneurship study and support can ultimately impact the models and policy approaches towards entrepreneurship throughout the emerging world.  

Although entrepreneurship is considered a relatively new discipline in U.S. higher education, it is now an accepted paradigm that designing and creating a new enterprise is significantly different than managing an established concern. Peter Drucker stated in his 1985 book Innovation and Entrepreneurship, "Entrepreneurship is 'risky' mainly because so few of the so-called entrepreneurs know what they are doing. They lack the methodology.” Higher education has embraced the idea of entrepreneurship education and of teaching the skills necessary for conceiving and starting an enterprise as compared to managing an on-going business concern.

Today, according to the Kauffman Foundation, approximately 1300 colleges and universities in the United States now offer a course in entrepreneurship. Many of these universities have developed innovative and collaborative models for entrepreneurship education that include: non-degree programs and certificates; degree programs; centers; student living environments that create an organic and full entrepreneurship ecosystem and international partners and outreach. Each of these models has subsets of exploration such as technology, social, and global entrepreneurship. Below, we describe examples of some of the above models.

Model Entrepreneurship Programs

Center Based Model : Technology entrepreneurship programs focus on the collaboration among business, engineering, and science schools within a university. They include certificate programs in entrepreneurship for graduate science students in addition to undergraduate and graduate degree programs in entrepreneurship typically offered through the business school. A university usually designates an entrepreneurship center to manage this collaboration. For example, at the University of Texas at San Antonio, the Center for Innovation and Technology Entrepreneurship (CITE) brings together the College of Business and the College of Engineering in order to foster the growth of new technology-based ventures. CITE offers a combination of education, experiences, resources and support, which materialize in the form of courses and seminars, hands-on activities, projects, internships and the $100k Student Technology Venture Competition. This biannual competition provides hands-on experience in business development for teams of senior students from the Colleges of Business and Engineering. The engineering students develop the technology and construct a prototype while the business students evaluate the commercial potential and create a business plan. All teams are assisted by faculty and community mentors. Uniquely among undergraduate competitions, the program requires a complete working prototype and is therefore more than a business plan competition. Since the creation of CITE in 2006, 580 students comprising 91 teams have participated in the competition, culminating in 78 final team presentations.

The Entrepreneurship Eco-System Model: An innovative model created by Baylor University offers an individualized entrepreneurship curriculum supported by the Entrepreneurship Living-Learning Program (ENT-LLC). Baylor created a housing option specifically for students with a common interest in innovation and entrepreneurship in order to help them “to more fully develop their entrepreneurial capabilities by offering mentoring between upperclassmen and freshmen, accessibility of faculty, discussion groups, lab support and opportunities to work with practicing entrepreneurs.” The Baylor Angel Network (BAN), a student-run investor network, provides early-stage capital to entrepreneurs with developed business plans.

The Externally Based Model:  The Rice Alliance for Technology and Entrepreneurship is devoted to the support of technology commercialization, entrepreneurship education, and the launch of technology companies. In this model, business plan competitions form the center of gravity where entrepreneurship education and external funding intersect. The model was formed in 2001 as a strategic alliance of three schools — the George R. Brown School of Engineering, the Wiess School of Natural Sciences and the Jesse H. Jones Graduate School of Business— along with the participation of executive and roundtable advisory boards; sponsors representing national venture capital funds and venture angel networks; and technology, legal, and banking consulting groups. The Alliance programs culminate in a business plan competition which brings together collegiate entrepreneurs to compete in front of 250 judges for over $1.3 million in enterprise funding. Of the 354 past competitors, 199 teams went on to launch their companies after competing at the Rice Business Plan Competition. Of these companies, 128 have been successful and are in business today (or had successful exits). RBPC alumni companies have raised more than $460 million in early-stage funding.

The Comprehensive Model: The most widely recognized entrepreneurship model is found at Babson College. All aspects of Babson’s ecosystem are focused on entrepreneurship education from degree programs to dedicated centers to experiential learning. The Arthur M. Blank Center for Entrepreneurship “focuses on expanding the practice of Entrepreneurship of All Kinds™ through innovative curricular programs and global collaborative research initiatives that inspire and inform Entrepreneurial Thought and Action^®”. The Center includes the John E. and Alice L. Butler Venture Accelerator, an institution composed of over a dozen student-run entrepreneurship organizations and forums. These “support and advance student entrepreneurial businesses in each phase of their startup venture, from opportunity exploration and pursuit with an action plan to the ultimate launch.”^”

Global Models: Some universities have expanded their domestic entrepreneurship programs to include a global component. Some have developed partnerships with overseas universities while others have developed in-country programs. Babson, for example, has developed the Babson- Rwanda Entrepreneurship Program to strengthen the country’s entrepreneurial environment. Also, the Babson Entrepreneurial Leadership Academies educate entrepreneurial leaders by bringing volunteer teams of students, staff, faculty, alumni, parents, and friends to various countries. These one-week programs train about 100 high school students in each country.

Another global example is University of Texas at San Antonio’s (UTSA) Center for Global Entrepreneurship, which seeks to meet the educational and career needs of emerging market entrepreneurs and those who support them via program collaborations, student exchanges, short programs, and research. The Center focuses on improving the prospects for growth-oriented, globally competitive entrepreneurship in emerging and transitional markets through practice-oriented graduate management education and research. The Institute for Economic Development at UTSA created the Small Business Development Center (SBDC) Expansion Initiative with a USAID Mexico TIES project between UTSA and the Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara. Today UTSA has conducted 11 SBDC Counselor & Director Certificate Training Programs that have trained over 1,300 professionals from all over Mexico. As a result of this project, 108 Mexican SBDCs were formed and the Mexican Association of SBDCs (AMCDPE) was organized. Since its inception, the expansion has included El Salvador, Central America, Caribbean nations, and next the South American nations of Colombia and Peru. In April of 2012, President Obama announced the creation of The Small Business Network of the Americas initiative, which builds upon UTSA’s work to extend the SBDC Network across the Western Hemisphere. The goal of the Expansion Initiative is to create a network of sustainable and successful small business assistance networks based on the US Small Business Development Center model. UTSA provides expert guidance for each country on small to medium-sized enterprises (SME) policy development, trains future SBDC professionals, hosts observational visits to San Antonio, develops accreditation standards, creates associations of SBDCs and conducts operational improvement visits.

In summary, U.S. academic institutions have developed various models for delivering entrepreneurship education. Although some of these models overlap and educational innovations constantly emerge, each has a distinctive focus that contributes to the continued growth and maturation of entrepreneurship as a major discipline in American higher education and whose impact contributes directly to economic productivity and employment. The future impact of these educational enterprises both domestically and internationally requires: knowledge sharing and networking; development of early career aspirations; metrics and evaluation; research and aggregated analysis of impacts; domestic and emerging economy entrepreneurial experiences; advocacy to key domestic and international constituencies — investors, governments, multi/bilateral organizations, and the media; and funding.
Lynda de la Viña is the Peter Flawn Professor of Economics & Entrepreneurship and Director of the Center for Global Entrepreneurship at the University of Texas at San Antonio.

Francisco Liñán : Intention-based models of entrepreneurship education

Intention-based models of entrepreneurship education Francisco Liñán 

a University of Seville, Spain 

Summary 

Despite the widespread development of entrepreneur ship education initiatives in the last decades, a consensus definition about it has not b een reached. As a consequence, ther e is also a lack of consistent classifications of educational activities. In this paper, our main objective is to develop a view of entrepreneurship education based on entrepreneurial intention models. Given the wide variety of this kind of training programmes being implemented, and their di fferent effects on participants, it is also important for the proposed definition to allow the establishing of a useful classification. Finally, a preliminary test has been carried out, both on the validity of intention models and on the subsequent derived classification. Empirical results tend to validate the theoretical approach adopted. 

Keywords : entrepreneurship education, intention models, entrepreneurial intention, conceptualization, classification  

Conclusions
Intention models seem to be a solid starting point for the analysis of entrepreneurship. In particular, this work has integrated Ajzen’s (1991) and Shapero &Sokol’s (1982) theories into an entrepreneurial intention model. This, in turn, has been used as the basis to define entrepreneurship education and to classify it. Thedifferentiating element of these educational activities would be trying to increase the intention of performing entrepreneurial behaviours, or any of the variables determining that intention.

This allows for a clear distinction from conventional management training, which is mainly concerned with technical knowledge for business administration. It also enablesus to clarify the role of educators, who should concentrate on strengthening participants’ intention of developing those entrepreneurial behaviours. Depending on the specific objective pursued,four categories of entrepreneurship education could be thought of. In particular, education for entrepreneurial dynamism could be considered as the most relevant category. It not only tries to promote the intention of being an entrepreneur, but also of developing dynamic entrepreneurial behaviours after the start-up phase.

A partial empirical test has been carried out about the validity of the entrepreneurial intention model. However, as this work is part of a wider research project, the questionnaire was not designed to allow for a full validation of that model. Undoubtedly, this makes up a serious limitation. Therefore, even though the results obtained are clearly encouraging, they should be considered with caution. 

In the first part of the empirical analysis carried out, the entrepreneurial intention model has offered much better predictions of intention than external or demographic variables alone. What is more, when these latter variables are added to the former, the joint model -despite being substantially more complicated- does not offer much better results. Therefore, a tentative conclusion would be that the entrepreneurial intention model is a valid explanation of intention.

Full Download : https://congreso.us.es/gpyde/DOWNLOAD/a9.pdf

INDONESIA YOUNG SOCIOPRENEURS (INYES) PROGRAM: ENTREPRENEURIAL CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT BASED ON LOCAL ECONOMICS WISDOM

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE - PAPER ID C3/P/29
CISAK 2013 KAIST - Daejeon South Korea, ISSN 9-772338-169001

INDONESIA YOUNG SOCIOPRENEURS (INYES) PROGRAM: ENTREPRENEURIAL CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT BASED ON LOCAL ECONOMICS WISDOM

Ade Suyitno¹ and Erna Yulianti²

¹Student of Economic Education Department, Indonesia University of Education

Jl. Dr.Setiabudhi, No. 229 Bandung Indonesia

²Student of English Education Department, Indonesia University of Education

Jl. Dr.Setiabudhi, No 229 Bandung Indonesia

¹adesuyitno@gmail.com

²erna.yulianti@student.upi.edu

Abstract. There are many social problems with different reasons in Indonesia. Most of the social problemsare caused by economic and geography factors. A crucial problem in Indonesia is the problem of unemployment and poverty. Slow handling of these issues will affect negative impact in crimes, homelessness and unproductive culture. Those social problems should be solved fast by the government and all of the stakeholders who are responsibility of it. The social problems should be given in the near future settlement especially Indonesia goes into the era of the single market with the introduction of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC). One of the solutions to overcome this problem is through the development of social entrepreneurship because entrepreneurship will create the nation's independence and new jobs through optimization of the potential that exists in the community to be a resource-based business social entreprise. Where the purpose of this paper is to describe the development of young entrepreneurs with a triple helix approach. This development program will be optimized to work with the synergy between the parties of triple helix that is academic, business, and government. In this research paper, writer tries to formulate an entrepreneurial development program through the Indonesian Young Sociopreneur (INYES) program in stimulating entrepreneurship and print-based character education and social problem with the actualization of the economic values ​​of local wisdom to lift the local potential and productivity of the society.

Keywords: Sociopreneur, INYES Program

Intensi Kewirausahaan Mahasiswa: Studi Perbandingan Antara Indonesia, Jepang dan Norwegia

Intensi Kewirausahaan Mahasiswa: Studi Perbandingan Antara Indonesia, Jepang dan Norwegia  

Nurul Indarti dan Rokhima Rostiani 

Jurusan Manajemen, Fakultas Ekonomi, Universitas Gadjah Mada 

(manuscript) 

The best paper award CFP JEBI 2008 

Diterbitkan pada: Jurnal Ekonomika dan Bisnis Indonesia, Vol. 23, No. 4, Oktober 2008  

Abstract Survey towards 332 students from three different universities in three different countries (Indonesia, Japan and Norway) shows that entrepreneurial intentions among the students and the influencing factors differs across countries. The main objective is to compare the impact of different economic and cultural contexts. Results reveals that self-efficacy influence entrepreneurial intention among Indonesian and Norwegian students. Instrumental readiness and working experience become key factors that influence entrepreneurial intention among Norwegian students. Educational background becomes a key factor that influence entrepreneurial intention among Indonesian students, in the opposite direction. Need for achievement, age and gender have no statistically significant impact. However, they only explain 28.2%, 14.2% and 24.8% (R2) of the total variance of the entrepreneurial intention for Indonesia, Japan and Norway respectively. This study is expected to be inputs for universities, government institutions and policy makers so that can stimulate and encourage entrepreneurship spirit.   Keywords: entrepreneur intention, needs for achievement, self efficacy, instrumental readiness

Full Download Journal

Training of Trainers for Women Entrepreneurs SMEs and Islamic Financial Literacy

 

Indonesian data shows, the amount of labor absorbed by SMEs amounted 107.6 million or 97.6% of total employment in Indonesia with 56.5 million units. Percentage of women business owners from 56.5 million is about 22% with 30,000 women entrepreneurs. But the percentage of women running their own business tend to decline. The crucial problem is in lack of low education, business knowledge and capital access.
 
One solution that can be developed is the provision of financial management simple effort on women entrepreneurs and helping access to capital. This is done as a first step to improve the managerial business. One of the efforts made ​​by author and the Students of Islamic Economics FoSSEI in west java Indonesia with the cooperation of the various stake holders.

Everywhere in developing economic countries more women to become a housewife when her husband's income under welfare. The number of women in Indonesia reached 118, 1 million is the potential of women entrepreneurs also empower other women. Women entrepreneurs dont like employe.

women entrepreneurs are not like an employee, She can work at home with free time, to perform its role as a housewife and have income.