See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235272826

Students' entrepreneurial intentions: An inter-regional

comparison

Article  in  Education and Training · June 2010

DOI: 10.1108/00400911011050945

CITATIONS READS
100 498

3 authors:

Mário Franco Heiko Haase

Universidade da Beira Interior Ernst-Abbe-Hochschule Jena
203 PUBLICATIONS   1,128 CITATIONS    83 PUBLICATIONS   882 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Arndt Lautenschläger
Ernst-Abbe-Hochschule Jena
34 PUBLICATIONS   362 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SMEs absorptive capacity View project

Cooperation Interorganizational View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mário Franco on 15 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0040-0912.htm

ET
52,4 Students’ entrepreneurial
intentions: an inter-regional
comparison
260
Mário Franco
Management and Economics Department, University of Beira Interior, Covilhã,
Portugal
Heiko Haase
Worms University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Management and Economics,
Worms, Germany, and
Arndt Lautenschläger
Department of Business Administration, University of Applied Sciences Jena,
Jena, Germany

Abstract
Purpose – The central research questions which the paper aims to answer are: What are the
entrepreneurial intentions of university students in different European regions? What are the factors
that most contribute to entrepreneurial intentions and the potential differences between the regions?
Design/methodology/approach – This cross-sectional study explores the prospective career paths
of 988 university students from eastern and western Germany as well as from central Portugal. In
exploring the “regional dimension” it uses a wide range of variables such as demographic profile,
social background, motives for occupational choice and participation in entrepreneurship education.
Findings – Just a small fraction of students is disposed to step into self-employment, and the vast
majority has not yet made the decision. When characterizing the potential “founders”, the findings
reveal a non or weak influence of demographic profile, social background and participation in
entrepreneurship education, but the underlying motives for occupational choice as well as the
“regional dimension” are highly relevant.
Research limitations/implications – Since only data from three universities have been analyzed,
a simple generalization should be made cautiously. For this reason, it is suggested that further
research be conducted to detect regional differences. In addition, students were asked about their
entrepreneurial intentions in some cases years before their occupational choices were made. As their
perception may alter in the future, longitudinal studies could compensate for this restriction.
Originality/value – The paper finds several motives predominantly related to the intention to enter
an entrepreneurial career, all of them of a non-economic nature. Furthermore, it uncovered the
existence of a “regional dimension”, which is the incising element for molding entrepreneurial
individuals. When universities intend to fulfill their mission in fostering entrepreneurship, the
importance of entrepreneurship education should not be overestimated.
Keywords Entrepreneurialism, Students, Germany, Portugal, Career development
Paper type Research paper

Education þ Training
Vol. 52 No. 4, 2010
pp. 260-275
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0040-0912
DOI 10.1108/00400911011050945
1. Introduction
In today’s world, the formation of new firms is crucial for the vitality of national
economies (Dahlstrand, 2007; Saarenketo et al., 2009). According to Fritsch (2008), the
main supply-side effects of entry of new businesses lie in their contribution to securing
efficiency, stimulating productivity, accelerating structural change, amplified
innovation and providing a greater variety of products and solutions to problems. Students’
Initialization and support of new business ventures are important tasks for both policy entrepreneurial
makers and academics. Hereby, higher education institutions play a fundamental role.
Besides their traditional teaching, they are challenged to endow their students actively intentions
with the appropriate motivation, knowledge and abilities for firm creation, often
articulated as relevance or the third mission of universities (Gibb, 1996; Etzkowitz et al.,
2000; Johannisson et al., 1998). Recent decades have witnessed an immense growth in 261
establishing entrepreneurship as an academic discipline and instituting
entrepreneurship courses and programs at all educational levels (Falkäng and
Alberti, 2000; Hisrich, 2003; Solomon et al., 2002).
In spite of these efforts, it seems that the proportion of university students willing to
step into self-employment is small. But it also appears that entrepreneurial intentions
are a function of a “regional dimension”, which is shaped different social and cultural
environments. Much research has been done about the factors which stimulate
entrepreneurial activity (Stephen et al., 2005; Vaillant and Lafuente, 2007). In addition,
studies about students’ entrepreneurial potential do not constitute a novelty. However,
in Europe they mostly analyze the situation in the German-speaking countries (Golla
et al., 2006; Chlosta et al., 2006; Josten et al., 2008) or in the UK (Tackey and Perryman,
1999; Greene and Saridakis, 2008). To our knowledge, there is only one recent
international comparison (Fueglistaller et al., 2006). Furthermore, the underlying
influences of the “regional dimension” of university students’ entrepreneurial
intentions are not sufficiently explored. This applies in particular to the Portuguese
academic environment, which is almost completely absent from scientific scrutiny.
Based on these premises, our central research questions are: What are the
entrepreneurial intentions of university students in different European regions? What
are the factors that most contribute to entrepreneurial intentions and the potential
differences between the regions? In order to address this subject, the present paper
investigates the prospective career paths of university students from eastern and
western Germany as well as from central Portugal. In exploring the “regional
dimension” it uses a wide range of variables such as demographic profile, social
background, motives for occupational choice and participation in entrepreneurship
education (EE). In doing so, this cross-sectional study contributes to the growing body
of literature explaining the entrepreneurial intentions of university students and the
influence of the regional context.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents theory and
Section 3 draws up our research hypotheses to be tested empirically later. Following
this, in Section 4, we elucidate the methodology, i.e. data gathering, sample
composition, measurement and statistical analyses. Afterwards, Section 5 shows the
results of our survey and discusses the findings in the light of our theoretical
reflections. The concluding Section 6 highlights theoretical and practical implications
as well as the limitations of our study.

2. Theoretical background
Intentionality is a key concept when it comes to understanding the reasons for
individuals’ careers. This is particularly true for explaining the decision to start up a
new venture, where the entrepreneurial intention has been considered a chief element
(Bird, 1988). The intention is linked with attitudes, more precisely with perceived
ET desirability and feasibility (Gatewood et al., 1995). In general, several prior studies have
52,4 found that entrepreneurial intentionality is determined by many, sometimes different
factors (Hisrich et al., 2004; Kuratko and Hodgetts, 2006; Liñán, 2008; Nabi and Holden,
2008; Harris and Gibson, 2008; Jones et al., 2008). In this vein, scientific literature has
dealt with two major lines of research:
(1) cognitive, regarding personal factors; and
262 (2) contextual or environmental factors.

They can exert a positive or negative influence on the entrepreneurial intention, and
often their specific combination and interaction moulds the individual’s decision
towards self-employment.
Within the cognitive factors, scholars have analyzed specific characteristics,
personality traits and motives that seem to be typical in entrepreneurs, distinguishing
them from the rest of the population (McClelland, 1965; Borland, 1975; Shaver and
Scott, 1991; Forlani and Mullins, 2000; Abbey, 2002; Brockhaus, 1980). In the second
line of research exploring contextual factors, the majority of previous studies have
focused on the influence of explicit demographic characteristics such as gender, marital
status, age, ethnicity, family antecedents, education, previous job and other related
aspects (e.g. Reynolds et al., 1994; Koh, 1995; Crant, 1996; Cohen, 1996; Stewart et al.,
2003; Lee et al., 2006).
In addition to the latter, several theories have been developed over time in order to
understand the environmental or contextual factors that influence the decision to begin
an entrepreneurial career. Herein, the theory of social learning (Bandura, 1977), the
entrepreneurial event theory (Shapero and Sokol, 1982) and the theory of planned
behavior (Ajzen, 1991) have emerged as the most promising approaches to gain an
understanding of the decision to create a new firm. The model by Davidsson (1995) also
appears to be fruitful, as it considers a set of economic-psychological factors that
influence entrepreneurial intentionality, such as the conviction defined by general and
domain attitudes as well as the influence of the current situational context. The central
element of all these theories is the individual’s intention to undertake and to put into
practice a specific behavior, influenced by motivational elements. Hereby, the higher
the intentionality to carry out the behavior, the higher the success rate will be (Liñán
and Santos, 2007). Based on these premises, we now formulate four research
hypotheses to be empirically tested, keeping in mind that the “regional dimension” is
the main driver of our research.

3. Research hypotheses
As shown, scientific literature has extensively investigated socio-demographic variables
as determinants of entrepreneurial intentionality. With regard to gender differences,
several studies show that men exhibit a stronger preference for self-employment than
women (Grilo and Irigoyen, 2006; Caliendo et al., 2009) and that being male augments the
probability of being self-employed (Blanchflower and Meyer, 1994; Reynolds, 1997; Lin
et al., 2000; Blanchflower et al., 2001). For Germany, Caliendo et al. (2009) revealed that
men are more than twice as active as entrepreneurs as women.
Another factor, the relation between age and rates of entry into self-employment,
has also been analyzed by several scholars. Evans and Leighton (1989) noticed a
positive correlation, though not statistically significant, at least during the first years
of formal qualification. Holtz-Eakin and Rosen (2005) and Caliendo et al. (2009) Students’
empirically confirm this observation for Germany. On the other hand, Reynolds (1997) entrepreneurial
revealed in his study that age and entry rate were negatively correlated. Nevertheless,
we think that older students have already developed a certain career “entrepreneurial intentions
mindset” and are therefore more willing to step into self-employment. The course of
study also appears to be influential. Interestingly, Tackey and Perryman (1999) found
the highest self-employment rate in creative arts and design courses. This leads us to 263
our first hypothesis, expressed here in its simplest form:
H1. Students’ gender, age and course of study are related to their entrepreneurial
intentions.
According to the theory of planned behavior, the perceived social pressure from family,
friends or significant others may influence entrepreneurial action (Ajzen, 1991). This
applies in particular to the perception whether “people of reference” approve of the
decision to become an entrepreneur or not (Ajzen, 2001). Previous studies have shown
that role models influence occupational choice; they particularly seem to encourage
entrepreneurial careers (Scherer et al., 1989a; Krueger et al., 2000).
More precisely, research into family background indicates a positive relationship
between family models and the emergence of entrepreneurs. Several scholars have
shown the influence of parents’ professional activities on children’s career decisions, as
they often prefer to work in the same field as their parents (Scherer et al., 1991;
Duchesneau and Gartner, 1990). Hence, having an entrepreneurial family background
points towards a higher likelihood of self-employment (Scherer et al., 1989b; Koh, 1995;
Tackey and Perryman, 1999; Scott and Twomey, 1988). In detail, Scherer et al. (1989a)
found that up to 65 per cent of entrepreneurs had one or more entrepreneurial parents.
More generally, receiving social support was shown to be crucial for entrepreneurial
intentions and the decision to create a business (Boy and Vozikis, 1994). In short, for
our research contexts, we hypothize the following:
H2. Having entrepreneurs in the family or among friends is positively related to
entrepreneurial intentions.
Concerning entrepreneurs, much research has been done about the reasons why people
step into self-employment. Among the motives most cited, scholars found
self-realization (Gatewood et al., 1995; Kolvereid, 1996; Carter et al., 2003), need of
autonomy and independence (Brockhaus, 1980; Carter et al., 2003; Van Auken et al.,
2006; Kuratko et al., 1997; Douglas and Shepherd, 2002), social recognition and status
(Shane et al., 1991; Birley and Westhead, 1994; Carter et al., 2003; Nelson, 1968;
Scheinberg and MacMillan, 1988), the propensity to take risks (Koh, 1995; Van Auken
et al., 2006) as well as learning, gaining experiences and need for personal development
(Birley and Westhead, 1994; Gatewood et al., 1995; Scheinberg and MacMillan, 1988).
Furthermore, quite a number of researchers highlight financial success and high
income (Evans and Leighton, 1989; Shane et al., 1991; Carter et al., 2003; Kuratko et al.,
1997; Douglas and Shepherd, 2002). Nevertheless, it seems that economic motives are
considered less important than other objectives (Baumol, 1993).
To explore the motives for self-employment in the German context, the most
comprehensive study was performed by Josten et al. (2008). These scholars surveyed
more than 15,000 students at 37 German higher education institutions, and found that
ET the most important drivers are working on one’s own initiative, making better use of
one’s own capabilities, self deciding on working hours and place, being one’s own boss
52,4 and realizing one’s business or product ideas. Lautenschläger and Haase (2010)
investigated the prospective career paths of nearly 1,600 German undergraduate
students. Their findings reveal the predominance of two major motives, namely
self-realization and high income. Consequently, we assume:
264 H3. The motives of students’ occupational choice are related to their
entrepreneurial intentions.
When exploring entrepreneurial intentions, it also seems pertinent to conduct an
analysis concerning the contribution of education to foment entrepreneurship. EE is
based on the argument that exposure to certain educational and
entrepreneurship-related pedagogies can contribute to developing motivation,
knowledge and skills which favor the decision to become self-employed. Numerous
scholars have discovered that exposure to EE significantly increases participants’
entrepreneurial intentions (Lüthje and Franke, 2003; Fayolle et al., 2006; Pittaway and
Cope, 2007; Zhao et al., 2005; Souitaris et al., 2007; Lee et al., 2005). In fact, Krueger
(2000) believes that entrepreneurial intentions can be learned.
Peterman and Kennedy (2003) examined the influence of an enterprise education
program on perceptions of both the desirability and feasibility of business creation and
found a positive effect. The results also indicate that self-efficacy theory is a useful tool
for explaining the impact of the program. However, it seems that acceptance of
entrepreneurship and the outcomes of EE in each country are different depending on
its unique cultural context (Lee and Peterson, 2000; Adcroft et al., 2005). EE has
therefore to consider the particular needs of the participants and the country as well as
the resources available (Lee et al., 2005, 2006; Haase and Lautenschläger, 2009). In the
light of this evidence, we formulate our last hypothesis:
H4. Participation in entrepreneurship education is positively related to the
entrepreneurial intentions of university students.

4. Methodology
To empirically test these hypotheses, we carried out a cross-sectional study, aimed at
surveying a population of bachelor and master students at the University of Applied
Sciences Jena (Germany), Worms University of Applied Sciences (Germany) and
University of Beira Interior in Covilhã (Portugal). Jena is located in eastern Germany.
Since the reunification of Germany the region has been affected by radical structural
changes. While traditional industries and large companies have collapsed, many
innovative small and medium-sized firms in optical, biotechnological and software
industries have been established over the last 20 years. Covilhã was traditionally a
centre of Portuguese wool and textile industries and has experienced huge structural
changes over the last decades towards the development of services and tourism
industries. Both locations are marked by the great importance of their higher education
institutions for the regional economy. In contrast, Worms, situated in western
Germany, is surrounded by prosperous chemical and synthetic as well as
manufacturing industries, with the growing importance of services and trade. Thus,
selection of these universities is due to the fact that they are to be found in areas
representing completely different cultural or economic realities.
 Our research was based on a prospective basis, i.e. we asked students at the three Students’
higher education institutions before their occupational decisions would be carried out. entrepreneurial
The questionnaire we applied encompassed various groups of questions related to the
respondent’s profile, demographic characteristics, entrepreneurial intentions, motives intentions
for occupational choice and participation in entrepreneurship-related courses. From
November 2008 to February 2009, students were directly approached by the
interviewers in a selected range of lectures and courses throughout the university 265
locations, in order to ensure a weighted inclusion of students from all courses and years
of study. The overall sample is composed of 988 students. This corresponds to almost 8
per cent of the overall university population of the three higher education institutions
surveyed. Besides business administration and economics, the participants’ fields of
study were other social sciences, arts and humanities, design, engineering and
mathematics. For a more detailed sample characterization, see Table I.
For our analysis, entrepreneurial intentions were gathered and classified based on
the alternatives we offered the respondents in the questionnaires:
.
“Non-founders” refers to those students who stated that they “don’t want to be
self-employed”;
. “Potential founders” we use for those who “don’t exclude the possibility of being
self-employed”;
.
“Founders” we term those students who “intend to be self-employed”, “have
already started first activities to become self-employed” or those who are
“already self-employed”.

Furthermore, the following set of variables was used:

. Dependent variables. In our model, we exclusively considered “founders” as the
subject of investigation for the influencing factors. This decision was made

Germany Portugal
Jena Worms Covilhã
Characteristics n % n % n %

Gender
Female 123 49.2 232 59.6 187 54.5
Male 127 50.8 157 40.4 156 45.5
Total 250 100.0 389 100.0 343 100.0
Age
Under 21 19 7.7 12 3.2 94 27.2
21-23 118 47.8 140 37.0 151 43.8
24-26 69 27.9 154 40.7 64 18.6
Above 26 41 16.6 72 19.1 36 10.4
Total 247 100.0 378 100.0 345 100.0
Course of study
Business administration/economics 87 34.3 329 86.1 143 41.6
Other areas 167 65.7 53 13.9 201 58.4
Total 254 100.0 382 100.0 344 100.0 Table I.
Overall student population 4.900 2.700 4.900 Sample characteristics
ET because our objective was to explore individuals with explicit and unambiguous
52,4 entrepreneurial intentionalities, i.e. those who have a real intention or who have
already taken the decision to step into self-employment.
.
Independent variables. We considered the regions (Worms, Jena or Covilhã),
whose characterization is our key interest. Furthermore, the demographic profile
was measured through gender, age and course of study. Social background was
266 assessed with the existence of entrepreneurs in the family or with having
entrepreneurs as friends. Motives for occupational choice were extracted from
our literature review. Lastly, attendance in EE was conceptualized through
participation in several types of entrepreneurship-related subjects offered at the
universities surveyed. Table II outlines the variables we used for our analysis.
. For data analysis, we applied descriptive statistics and logistic regression
analysis (logit model). Based on this type of multivariate data analysis, we
analyzed the relative weights of each independent variable and their level of
significance. To do so, we constructed a six-level model of analysis. As the
inter-regional comparison is our main objective, Model I explores firstly the
influence of the university location of the entrepreneurial intention. Then, Models
II, III, IV and V represent the testing of our H1 to H4, taking permanently into
consideration the regional dimension. Finally, Model VI investigates the overall
influence concerning the conjuncture of all independent variables.

5. Findings and discussion

Table III indicates students’ entrepreneurial intentions. As shown, the share of
students willing to be self-employed is lowest in the Eastern German university (8.3 per
cent), followed by the Western German institution (14.3 per cent), whereas in Portugal
the respective share is considerably higher (23.1 per cent). For Germany, this is in line
with Chlosta’s et al. (2006) and Josten’s et al. (2008) studies, although the
entrepreneurial intentions in Worms University are situated slightly over the
German average.

Variable Type Scale

Dependent
Founder Dichotomous No ¼ 0; Yes ¼ 1
Independent
Region
Worms Dichotomous No ¼ 0; Yes ¼ 1
Jena Dichotomous No ¼ 0; Yes ¼ 1
Covilhã Dichotomous No ¼ 0; Yes ¼ 1
Demographic profile
Gender Dichotomous Female ¼ 0; Male ¼ 1
Course of study Dichotomous Other courses ¼ 0; Business Administration ¼ 1
Age Ordinal Under 21 ¼ 1; 21-23 ¼ 2; 24-26 ¼ 3; Above 26 ¼ 4
Social background Dichotomous No ¼ 0; Yes ¼ 1
Table II. Motives Likert Strongly disagree ¼ 1 . . . Strongly agree ¼ 5
Variables Participation in EE Dichotomous No ¼ 0; Yes ¼ 1
When testing the models and hypotheses, Table IV shows the outcomes of the logistic Students’
regression for the dependent variable “founder”. Model I, which assumes Worms as the entrepreneurial
reference region, explores the influence of the university location, without considering
any other independent variable. As a result, the entrepreneurial intention is higher in intentions
Covilhã, but lower in Jena. This underpins the finding from Table III, conferring
statistical robustness to the regional differences.
Model II considers the impact of demographic factors on entrepreneurial intention. 267
We only found that business administration students prefer significantly more to be
self-employed than their counterparts in other disciplines. Furthermore, as opposed to
the mainstream literature, we could not detect any influence of gender and age.
Therefore, for our sample we could not confirm the general wisdom that men exhibit a
stronger preference for self-employment than women (Grilo and Irigoyen, 2006;
Caliendo et al., 2009). Interestingly, in this model, the regional variations in the
entrepreneurial intention between Worms and Jena, shown in Table III and Model I,
have disappeared. Therefore, the higher share of “founders” in Worms seems to be a
consequence of the more frequent occurrence of students from business administration
in this sub-sample (see Table I), this group having greater entrepreneurial intention. On
the other hand, the regional effect of Covilhã persists and cannot be explained by
demographic factors we studied. Altogether, there is only partial support for our H1.
Model III, along with the regional dimension, analyses the influence of the students’
social background, i.e. having self-employed family members or friends, on their
entrepreneurial intention. In short, we could not detect any impact of this independent
variable. Hence, despite an amount of existing research demonstrating a connection
between social, in particular family, background and entrepreneurship (Scherer et al.,
1989a; Krueger et al., 2000) (Scherer et al., 1989b; Koh, 1995; Tackey and Perryman,
1999; Scott and Twomey, 1988), H2 must be rejected for our sample. Moreover, as the
regional differences detected in Model I were not affected, social background does not
explain regional variations in entrepreneurial intentions.
Model IV scrutinizes the effect of a number of motives for occupational choice on the
students’ entrepreneurial intention. Here, “Working on my own initiative”, “Being my
own boss”, “Realizing my business or product ideas” and “Continuing of family
tradition” exert a positive impact. The first two motives correspond to independence
and autonomy, frequently cited key motives for entrepreneurial individuals
(Brockhaus, 1980; Carter et al., 2003; Van Auken et al., 2006; Kuratko et al., 1997;
Douglas and Shepherd, 2002). Also self-realization (Gatewood et al., 1995; Kolvereid,
1996; Carter et al., 2003) appears to be fundamental for the “founders” in our sample.
According to the theory of planned behavior, the perceived social pressure from the
family may influence entrepreneurial action (Ajzen, 1991). Concerning motives for

Germany Portugal
Jena Worms Covilhã
Entrepreneurial intentions n % n % n %

Non-founder 63 24.8 82 21.0 24 6.9

Potential founder 170 66.9 253 64.7 243 70.0 Table III.
Founder 21 8.3 56 14.3 80 23.1 Entrepreneurial
Total 254 391 347 intentions
ET Model
52,4 Variables I II III IV V VI

Region
Jena 20.618 * 2 0.396 20.579 * 2 0.456 20.446 2 0.189
Covilhã 0.584 * * 0.822 * * 0.540 * * 0.852 * * 0.432 * 0.896 * *
268 Demographic profile
Gender 0.280 0.140
Age 0.139 0.204
Course of study 0.451 * 0.216
Social background
Self-employed parents 0.343 0.199
Self-employed within family 0.226 2 0.048
Self-employed friends 0.136 2 0.047
Motives
Working on my own initiative 0.434 * * 0.490 * *
Self-deciding about working
hours and place 0.096 0.075
Making better use of my own
capabilities 2 0.394 * 2 0.370 *
Being my own boss 0.554 * * 0.503 * *
Realizing my business/product
ideas 0.547 * * 0.532 * *
The chance of higher income 0.145 0.152
The current situation on the
labor market 2 0.322 * * 2 0.290 *
Fun when dealing with
opportunities and risks 0.111 0.080
Prestige and social status 2 0.033 0.017
Continuing of family tradition 0.262 * * 0.235 * *
Participation in EE
Field reports from
entrepreneurs 0.192 0.061
Case studies from newly
established firms 0.159 0.017
Training of creativity and
problem solving 0.036 0.127
Business plan development 0.419 0.382
Training of social
competencies 20.399 2 0.360
Start-up business simulations 0.387 0.206
Lectures on entrepreneurship 0.038 0.068
Pseudo R 2 0.0297 0.0384 0.0381 0.1759 0.0457 0.1883
Table IV.
Results of testing the Notes: * p , 0.05; * * p , 0.01; Logistic regression (logit model) was used to test influence;
models Dependent variable ¼ “founder”; Regional reference group ¼ “Worms”

occupational choice, we can confirm the influence of an entrepreneurial family on the

wish for self-employment, so that we do see a significant “family effect”, as opposed to
the findings concerning our H2. An explanation for this might be that the motive of
continuing the family tradition is usually inherent in students who plan to take over a
family business, representing, however, only a small fraction in our sample.
 Contrariwise, motives such as “Making better use of my own capabilities” as well as Students’
“The current situation on the labor market” demonstrate a rather negative influence on entrepreneurial
the intention to pursue entrepreneurial paths. Maybe the students’ expectations to
attain an adequate dependent employment could be an explanation for this. Overall, intentions
our findings do not support the common perception that pecuniary remuneration is an
important incentive for ongoing entrepreneurs (Evans and Leighton, 1989; Shane et al.,
1991; Carter et al., 2003). In addition, prestige and social status (Shane et al., 1991; 269
Birley and Westhead, 1994; Carter et al., 2003) and risk-taking propensity (Van Auken
et al., 2006; Koh, 1995), frequently cited for individuals who seek an entrepreneurial
career, were relatively unimportant for the respondents in our survey.
Summarizing, H3 cannot be rejected, as the majority of motives appear to determine
entrepreneurial intentions. Again in this model, the regional differences in
entrepreneurial intentions between Worms and Jena vanish, which means that they
might not only be a result of the course of study, but also a consequence of different
motives. Nevertheless, they are not an explanation for the regional effect in Covilhã.
Model V addresses the relationship between participation in EE and entrepreneurial
intention. As shown in Table IV, there is no statistical significance, so that H4 must be
rejected. However, also in this model the differences between Worms and Jena, as
already shown in Table III and Model I, disappear. Thus, there must be a certain,
though weak effect of EE. In fact, when testing for the 10 per cent level, we found
significance concerning “Business plan development”. This topic, which is actually a
core subject in several courses of studies in Worms, could be the driver for more
entrepreneurial intentions among the students from this university. Again, the
particularities in Covilhã cannot be elucidated by Model V.
Finally, Model VI verifies the influence of all independent variables mentioned
before. In accordance with the previous findings and hypotheses testing, what mainly
drives entrepreneurial intentions are the underlying motives for occupational choice.
These motives are also a reason for variations between the German regions, but
regardless of all variables we explored, they cannot provide an explanation for the
regional effect in Covilhã. Consequently, there must be other causes for the high level of
entrepreneurial intentions in this Portuguese region, perhaps of another economic,
cultural or idiosyncratic nature.

6. Conclusion and implications

The study reported on in this paper sought to explore and differentiate the
entrepreneurial intentions of university students in different European regions, i.e.
from Eastern and Western Germany as well as from Central Portugal. Our central
focus was on detecting influential factors that might explain the “regional dimension”
of intentionality. The research findings have several implications for practice, teaching
and research and contribute to the development of theory about the main drivers for
university students entering into entrepreneurial career paths.
We found that the vast majority of students have not yet made the decision about
stepping into self-employment, though not necessarily discarding this option.
Accordingly, we classified them as “potential founders”. Our attention, however, lay in
students who declare a genuine intention or have already taken the decision to become
self-employed in the future. For this reason, we label them “founders”. According to the
findings of other researchers, we corroborate that this fraction of students is relatively
ET small. When checking for its particular characteristics, we revealed a non or weak
52,4 influence of demographic profile, social background and participation in EE. In
contrast, being a “founder” seems to depend greatly on the underlying motives for
occupational choice and on the region where the survey was conducted.
Concerning motives, we found several of them predominantly related to the
intention to enter an entrepreneurial career. This holds true in particular for
270 independence, autonomy, self-realization and family tradition, all of them of a
non-economic nature. Although there was no direct “family effect” on entrepreneurial
intentions, we cannot discard a certain influence of the family on the propensity for
self-employment, which again is in line with the mainstream literature on the family’s
impact on entrepreneurial intentionality. These motives mainly contribute to
explaining regional differences in entrepreneurial intentions between students of the
western and eastern German higher education institutions.
Nevertheless, we also uncovered the existence of a “regional dimension”, which
cannot be elucidated by the set of independent variables we analyzed in our model. The
entrepreneurial intention among the respondents from the Central Portuguese university
is consistently higher than in the other two regions. It is perhaps a signal of diverging
socio-economic realities, formed by different beliefs, values and attitudes regarding
entrepreneurship. In fact, a look into the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor brings out
that overall entrepreneurial activity in Portugal is one of the highest among high-income
countries and across Europe. In 2007, more than 15 per cent of the population was
engaged in owner-managed businesses (Bosma et al., 2008). Consequently, besides the
underlying motives, we conclude that the “regional dimension” is a critical factor for
nurturing entrepreneurial individuals. However, more research is necessary to explain
which particular components matter, where full understanding would allow redirecting
efforts to “produce” more entrepreneurially inclined people.
When speaking of enhancing entrepreneurial intentions, we cannot ignore
consideration of the role of EE. For our sample, the results indicate that the “founders”
have not taken part significantly more in entrepreneurship-related courses, which does
not really speak for the significance of EE. Hence, we advert that the importance of EE
should not be overestimated. Although their benefits are recited like a mantra, the
conviction of the positive outcomes often seems more ideologically than empirically
grounded, as Peterman and Kennedy (2003) rightly alert. The danger lies in wasting a
huge amount of public money in trying to encourage start-up via higher education. In this
sense, the long-term effectiveness of EE needs further empirical research.
In our view, EE, at best, can exert a supporting function. As we could demonstrate
the relevance of especially non-economic motives for individuals with self-employment
intentions, EE should primarily act on motivations rather than imparting knowledge.
Furthermore, because we revealed the relevance of a “regional dimension”, it is quite
likely that the participants’ social and cultural backgrounds have a strong impact on
the pedagogic effect of EE. Therefore, a customized adaptation of EE on the local
conditions seems to be mandatory. Entrepreneurship educators should keep this
“regional embeddedness” in mind when developing and implementing EE programs.

References
Abbey, A. (2002), “Cross-cultural comparison of the motivation for entrepreneurship”, Journal of
Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 69-82.
Adcroft, A., Dhaliwal, S. and Willis, R. (2005), “Insatiable demand or academic supply: the Students’
intellectual context of entrepreneurship education”, European Business Review, Vol. 17
No. 6, pp. 518-31. entrepreneurial
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision intentions
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Ajzen, I. (2001), “Nature and operation of attitudes”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 1,
pp. 27-58. 271
Bandura, A. (1977), Social Learning Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Baumol, W.J. (1993), “Toward operational models of entrepreneurship”, in Ronen, J. (Ed.),
Entrepreneurship, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, pp. 29-48.
Bird, B. (1988), “Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for intention”, The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 442-53.
Birley, S. and Westhead, P. (1994), “A taxonomy of business start-up reasons and their impact on
firm growth and size”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 7-31.
Blanchflower, D.G. and Meyer, B.D. (1994), “A longitudinal analysis of the young self-employed
in Australia and the United States”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Blanchflower, D.G., Oswald, A. and Stutzer, A. (2001), “Latent entrepreneurship across nations”,
European Economic Review, Vol. 45 Nos 4-6, pp. 680-91.
Borland, C.M. (1975), Locus of Control, Need for Achievement and Entrepreneurship, The
University of Texas, Austin, TX.
Bosma, N., Jones, K., Autio, E. and Levie, J. (2008), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2007.
Executive Report, Babson College, Wellesley, MA, and London Business School, London.
Boy, N.G. and Vozikis, G.S. (1994), “The influence of self-efficacy on the development of
entrepreneurial intentions and actions”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 18
No. 4, pp. 63-77.
Brockhaus, R.H. (1980), “Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs”, The Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 509-20.
Caliendo, M., Fossen, F.M. and Kritikos, A.S. (2009), “Risk attitudes of nascent entrepreneurs:
new evidence from an experimentally-validated survey”, Small Business Economics,
Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 153-67.
Carter, N.M., Gartner, W.B., Shaver, K.G. and Gatewood, E.J. (2003), “The career reasons of
nascent entrepreneurs”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 13-39.
Chlosta, S., Klandt, H. and Johann, T. (2006), German Survey on Collegiate Entrepreneurship
(Gründungsneigung deutscher Studierender), European Business School (EBS),
Oestrich-Winkel.
Cohen, L. (1996), “Managing the transition: employment to self-employment”, Journal of Small
Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 13-22.
Crant, J.M. (1996), “The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions”,
Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 42-9.
Dahlstrand, A.L. (2007), “Technology-based entrepreneurship and regional development: the
case of Sweden”, European Business Review, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 373-86.
Davidsson, P. (1995), “Culture, structure and regional levels of entrepreneurship”,
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 41-62.
Douglas, E.J. and Shepherd, D.A. (2002), “Self-employment as a career choice: attitudes,
entrepreneurial intentions, and utility maximization”, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 81-90.
ET Duchesneau, D.A. and Gartner, W.B. (1990), “A profile of new venture success and failure in an
emerging industry”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 297-312.
52,4
Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C. and Terra, B.R.C. (2000), “The future of the university
and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm”,
Research Policy, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 313-30.
Evans, D.S. and Leighton, L.S. (1989), “Some empirical aspects of entrepreneurship”, The
272 American Economic Review, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 519-35.
Falkäng, J. and Alberti, F. (2000), “The assessment of entrepreneurship education”, Industry and
Higher Education, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 101-8.
Fayolle, A., Gailly, B. and Lassas-Clerc, N. (2006), “Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship
education programmes: a new methodology”, Journal of European Industrial Training,
Vol. 30 No. 9, pp. 701-20.
Forlani, D. and Mullins, J.W. (2000), “Perceived risks and choices in entrepreneurs’ new venture
decisions”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 305-22.
Fritsch, M. (2008), “How does new business formation affect regional development?”, Small
Business Economics, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Fueglistaller, U., Klandt, H. and Halter, F. (2006), International Survey on Collegiate
Entrepreneurship 2006, University of St. Gallen (HSG)/European Business School
(EBS), St Gallen/Oestrich-Winkel.
Gatewood, E.J., Shaver, K.G. and Gartner, W.B. (1995), “A longitudinal study of cognitive factors
influencing start-up behaviors and success at venture creation”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 371-91.
Gibb, A.A. (1996), “Entrepreneurship and small business management: can we afford to neglect
them in the twenty-first century business school?”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 7
No. 4, pp. 309-21.
Golla, S., Halter, F., Fueglistaller, U. and Klandt, H. (2006), “Gründungsneigung Studierender -
Eine empirische Analyse in Deutschland und der Schweiz”, in Achleitner, A.-K., Klandt,
H., Koch, L.T. and Voigt, K.-I. (Eds), Jahrbuch Entrepreneurship 2005/06.
Gründungsforschung und Gründungsmanagement, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg,
pp. 209-37.
Greene, F.J. and Saridakis, G. (2008), “The role of higher education skills and support in graduate
self-employment”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 653-72.
Grilo, I. and Irigoyen, J. (2006), “Entrepreneurship in the EU: to wish and not to be”, Small
Business Economics, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 305-18.
Haase, H. and Lautenschläger, A. (2009), “Impact of a simulation-based pedagogy in
entrepreneurship education: comparative insights from Germany, Spain, Thailand and
China”, International Review of Entrepreneurship, Vol. 7 No. 4.
Harris, M.L. and Gibson, S.G. (2008), “Examining the entrepreneurial attitudes of US business
students”, Education þ Training, Vol. 50 No. 7, pp. 568-81.
Hisrich, R.D. (2003), “A model for effective entrepreneurship education and research”, in
Walterscheid, K. (Ed.), Entrepreneurship in Forschung und Lehre: Festschrift für Klaus
Anderseck, Peter Lang, Frankfurt/Main, pp. 241-53.
Hisrich, R.D., Peters, M.P. and Shepherd, D.A. (2004), Entrepreneurship, 6th ed.,
Irwin/McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Holtz-Eakin, D. and Rosen, H.S. (2005), “Cash constraints and business start-ups: deutschmarks
versus dollars”, Contributions to Economic Analysis and Policy, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Johannisson, B., Handström, H. and Rosenberg, J. (1998), “University training for Students’
entrepreneurship: an action frame of reference”, European Journal of Engineering
Education, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 477-96. entrepreneurial
Jones, P., Jones, A., Packham, G. and Miller, C. (2008), “Student attitudes towards enterprise intentions
education in Poland: a positive impact”, Education þ Training, Vol. 50 No. 7, pp. 597-614.
Josten, M., van Elkan, M., Laux, J. and Thomm, M. (2008), Gründungspotenziale bei Studierenden.
Zentrale Ergebnisse der Studierendenbefragung an 37 deutschen Hochschulen, 273
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (Hrsg.), Bonn/Berlin.
Koh, H.C. (1995), “Factors associated with entrepreneurial inclination: an empirical study of
business undergraduates in Hong Kong”, Journal of Small Business Entrepreneurship,
Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 29-41.
Kolvereid, L. (1996), “Organizational employment versus self-employment: reasons for career
choice intentions”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 23-31.
Krueger, N.F. (2000), “The cognitive infrastructure of opportunity emergence”, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 5-24.
Krueger, N.F. Jr, Reilly, M.D. and Carsrud, A.L. (2000), “Competing models of entrepreneurial
intentions”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15 Nos 5-6, pp. 411-32.
Kuratko, D.F. and Hodgetts, R.M. (2006), Entrepreneurship, 7th ed., South-Western College
Publishing, Florence, KY.
Kuratko, D.F., Hornsby, J.S. and Naffziger, D.W. (1997), “An examination of owner’s goals in
sustaining entrepreneurship”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 35 No. 1,
pp. 24-33.
Lautenschläger, A. and Haase, H. (2010), “Universities: a hotbed of human resources for new
firms?”, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, forthcoming.
Lee, S.M. and Peterson, S.J. (2000), “Culture, entrepreneurial orientation, and global
competitiveness”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 401-16.
Lee, S.M., Chang, D. and Lim, S. (2005), “Impact of entrepreneurship education: a comparative
study of the U.S. and Korea”, The International Entrepreneurship and Management
Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 27-43.
Lee, S.M., Lim, S., Pathak, R., Chang, D. and Li, W. (2006), “Influences on students attitudes
toward entrepreneurship: a multi-country study”, The International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 351-66.
Lin, Z., Picot, G. and Compton, J. (2000), “The entry and exit dynamics of self-employment in
Canada”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 105-25.
Liñán, F. (2008), “Skill and value perceptions: how do they affect entrepreneurial intentions?”,
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 257-72.
Liñán, F. and Santos, F. (2007), “Does social capital affect entrepreneurial intentions?”,
International Advances in Economic Research, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 443-53.
Lüthje, 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.
McClelland, D.C. (1965), “Achievement and entrepreneurship: a longitudinal study”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 389-92.
Nabi, G. and Holden, R. (2008), “Graduate entrepreneurship: intentions, education and training”,
Education þ Training, Vol. 50 No. 7, pp. 545-51.
ET Nelson, J.I. (1968), “Participation and integration: the case of the small businessman”, American
Sociological Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 427-38.
52,4 Peterman, N.E. and Kennedy, J. (2003), “Enterprise education: influencing students’ perceptions
of entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 129-44.
Pittaway, L. and Cope, J. (2007), “Entrepreneurship education: a systematic review of the
evidence”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 479-510.
274 Reynolds, P., Storey, D.J. and Westhead, P. (1994), “Cross-national comparisons of the variation
in new firm formation rates”, Regional Studies, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 443-56.
Reynolds, P.D. (1997), “Who starts new firms? Preliminary explorations of firms-in-gestation”,
Small Business Economics, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 449-62.
Saarenketo, S., Puumalainen, K., Kuivalainen, O. and Kylaheiko, K. (2009), “A knowledge-based
view of growth in new ventures”, European Business Review, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 531-46.
Scheinberg, S. and MacMillan, I.C. (1988), “An 11-country study of motivations to start a
business”, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, pp. 669-87.
Scherer, R.F., Adams, J.S. and Wiebe, F.A. (1989a), “Developing entrepreneurial behaviours: a
social learning theory perspective”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 2
No. 3, pp. 16-27.
Scherer, R.F., Brodzinski, J.D. and Wiebe, F.A. (1991), “Examining the relationship between
personality and entrepreneurial career preference”, Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 195-206.
Scherer, R.F., Adams, J.S., Carley, S.S. and Wiebe, F.A. (1989b), “Role model performance effects
on the development of entrepreneurial career preference”, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 53-71.
Scott, M.G. and Twomey, D.F. (1988), “The long-term supply of entrepreneurs: students’ career
aspirations in relation to entrepreneurship”, Journal of Small Business Management,
Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 5-13.
Shane, S., Kolvereid, L. and Westhead, P. (1991), “An exploratory examination of the reasons
leading to new firm formation across country and gender”, Journal of Business Venturing,
Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 431-46.
Shapero, A. and Sokol, L. (1982), “The Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship”, in Kent, C.,
Sexton, D. and Vesper, K.H. (Eds), The Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 72-90.
Shaver, K.G. and Scott, L.R. (1991), “Person, process, choice: the psychology of new venture
creation”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 23-45.
Solomon, G.T., Duffy, S. and Tarabishy, A. (2002), “The state of entrepreneurship education in
the United States: a national survey and analysis”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 65-86.
Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S. and Al-Laham, A. (2007), “Do entrepreneurship programmes raise
entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning,
inspiration and resources”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 566-91.
Stephen, F.H., Urbano, D. and Hemmen, S.V. (2005), “The impact of institutions on
entrepreneurial activity”, Managerial and Decision Economics, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 413-9.
Stewart, W. Jr, Carland, J., Carland, J., Watson, W. and Sweo, R. (2003), “Entrepreneurial
dispositions and goal orientations: a comparative exploration of United States and Russian
entrepreneurs”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 27-46.
Tackey, N.D. and Perryman, S. (1999), Graduates Mean Business: A Study of Graduate
Self-employment and Business Start-ups, Grantham Book Services Ltd, Grantham.
Vaillant, Y. and Lafuente, E. (2007), “Do different institutional frameworks condition the Students’
influence of local fear of failure and entrepreneurial examples over entrepreneurial
activity?”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 313-37. entrepreneurial
Van Auken, H., Stephens, P., Fry, F. and Silva, J. (2006), “Role model influences on intentions
entrepreneurial intentions: a comparison between USA and Mexico”, International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 325-36.
Zhao, H., Seibert, S.E. and Hills, G.E. (2005), “The mediating role of self-efficacy in the 275
development of entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 6,
pp. 1265-72.

About the authors

Mário Franco is an Assistant Professor of Entrepreneurship and SME Administration at the
Department of Management and Economics, Beira Interior University, Portugal. He received his
PhD in Management from Beira Interior University in 2002. In 1997, he was a doctoral candidate
and participated in the European Doctoral Programme in Entrepreneurship and Small Business
Management in Spain and Sweden. His research focuses on strategic alliances, business
networks innovation and business creation. He is also a member of a Research Unit (NECE) and
currently involved in several research projects on SME. Mário Franco is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: mfranco@ubi.pt
Heiko Haase is a Full Professor of Innovation Management and Intellectual Property at the
Faculty of Management and Economics, Worms University of Applied Sciences, Germany. He
studied Industrial Engineering and received his PhD in Economic Sciences from Ilmenau
University of Technology in 2003. His research fields comprise entrepreneurship, small and
medium-sized enterprises, innovation management and intellectual property. He has gained
experience in several national and international academic cooperation projects in
entrepreneurship and small business.
Arndt Lautenschläger is an Assistant Professor of Entrepreneurship at the Department of
Business Administration, University of Applied Sciences Jena, Germany. He studied Economics
at Friedrich-Schiller-University in Jena. Currently he is involved in several projects on
knowledge-based start-ups from the academic sector. He is also a member of the Center of
Entrepreneurship at University of Applied Sciences Jena and the StartUp Centre Jena. His
research interests are university-based start-ups, entrepreneurship education, success-related
factors of business start-ups and international entrepreneurship.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats