Chapter One Introduction Background Entrepreneurship according to Research paper for students

Chapter One Introduction Background Entrepreneurship according to

Chapter One
Introduction
Background
Entrepreneurship according to (Ashraf and Rasoul, 2013) could be defined as “knowing how to discover, evaluate and exploit opportunities that lead to the creation of new goods and services.” Entrepreneurship is also defined as “the process of doing something new and different with the aim of creating prosperity for individuals and adding value to the society” (Mulyadi, Riadi, Rochaida, & Paminto, 2016).

In 1942, on his seminal work on economic growth, Joseph Schumpeter wrote about the “creative destruction” inherent in a capitalist economy – mentioning that innovation is a constant, disruptive force, and a necessary one for economic growth. Schumpeter also emphasized on the pivotal role that entrepreneurs play in channeling this change:
“… the function of entrepreneurs is to reform or revolutionize the pattern of production by exploiting an invention or, more generally, an untried technological possibility for producing a new commodity or producing an old one in a new way, by opening up a new source of supply of materials or a new outlet for products, by reorganizing an industry and so on. (Schumpeter, 1942, P. 132)”
Economies rely on constant improvement and fierce competition – they do not grow without innovation, especially transformative or disruptive innovation. And these types of innovations depend heavily on the contributions of entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs play a disproportionate role in commercialization of new products, and essentially all of the most transformative innovations have been brought to the fore by entrepreneurs (Zoltan and David, 1988).
“… entrepreneurs throughout modern economic history, in this country and others, have been disproportionately responsible for truly radical innovations – the airplane, the railroad, the automobile, electric service, the telegraph and telephone, the computer, air conditioning, and so on – that not only fundamentally transformed consumers’ lives, but also became platforms for many other industries that, in combination, have fundamentally changed entire economies.” (Karl and Robert, 2012)
Emphasizing on their positive role and on the need to promote entrepreneurship, the former US president said:
“Small businesses are the backbone of our nation’s economy and we must protect this great resource. It is time to end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants.” (Obama, 2008)
“America’s small businesses have created 65 percent of all new jobs… and more than half of all Americans working in the private sector are either employed by a small business or own one – more than half. These companies are the engine of job growth in America. They fuel our prosperity…” (Obama, 2009)
This view on entrepreneurship is also shared in many other countries. For example, a UK government minister, recently have claimed that firms fewer than five employees are responsible for 95% of all radical innovations (Nightingale & Coad, 2013). And, hence, entrepreneurs can be regarded as assets to a community that should be cultivated, motivated and rewarded to the best possible extent. Even though, this is not the only view, the literature widely acknowledges the importance entrepreneurship, among many others, in terms of improving productivity, spurring innovation and creating jobs.
Other researchers, on the other hand, argue believing naively that all entrepreneurship is good and developing policies to increase the number of average or typical entrepreneurs is a dangerous myth. policy makers need to recognize that only a select few entrepreneurs will create the businesses that will take people out of poverty, encourage innovation, create jobs, reduce unemployment, make markets more competitive, and enhance economic growth (Shane, 2009; Praag & Stel, 2012, Nightngale & Coad, 2013).
According to Shane (2009) encouraging more and more people to start businesses won’t enhance economic growth or create a lot of jobs because start-ups, in general, aren’t the source of our economic vitality or job creation and, hence, is a bad public policy. Davidsson (2007) argues the median small business and the median startup have only a marginal impact on spurring innovation, wealth and new job creation, the majority of impact, however, comes from a small proportion of high-performing firms.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Problem statement
The current government of Ethiopia has been implementing wide-ranging reforms and new legislations in the realms of education system at every level. These reforms have aimed for the framing of the services given by higher education institutions in such a way that they should be further aligned with culture of researching and implementing good practices to solve many of the problems the country is facing, which, currently happens to be a culture that is lacking. Due to the ambition towards fulfilling this gap and the derive to produce well qualified graduates, has led the government to establish lots of new universities and at the same time open the gates of both old and new higher education institutions to as many incoming students as possible.

“… and thousands of them graduate every year from our universities, now we have about 40 universities now functioning. The government decided to respond to their needs for example by allocating a special budget for the youth unemployment.”
Jerusalem (2016) points out that that though the number of higher education institutions has increased considerably in Ethiopia in recent years, leading to several folds increase in the number of university and technical school graduates, employment opportunities, especially in the formal private sector, have not kept pace with increasing number of graduates. The problem is compounded by a lower quality of education and skill mismatches. A recent study conducted by the Ministry of Youth and Sports indicates that a staggering 480,000 university and Technical, Vocational Education and Training recent graduates are still looking for jobs.

Even though it is highly debatable if it is a good policy or not, and merits a separate research of its own, the response of the Ethiopian government main aim of strategy to this problem is the promotion of entrepreneurship with the hope of creating employment, wealth and innovation. Alike the previous five years plans, in the Second Growth and Transformation Plan 2016-2020 (GTP II), the Ethiopian government has made it clear more attention to entrepreneurship will be given, especially in the development of the micro and small enterprises to create employment opportunities (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia FDRE, 2015). The plan seeks to expend more effort to give timely and quality information and support to enhance the capacity of developmental entrepreneurs for wealth and job creation.

In line with the entrepreneurial promotion policy of the government, currently in Ethiopian higher education institutions, entrepreneurship and small business management course has been integrated in the curriculum of every field of study with the aim of equipping students with the entrepreneurial spirit and skill. This is intended to break the most widely held belief among the community and the students that university graduates should seek employment and encourage them to start their own businesses. However, despite this fact, the literature shows that designed curricula in most institutions do not provide graduates with adequate entrepreneurial education or skills (Ogah, Oko & Oshi, 2013); meaning, education is oriented towards formal employment in the public sector.
Nations with high entrepreneurial initiative indexes tend to show a decrease in unemployment levels (Liñán et al., 2005). However, a study conducted in 2012 by GEM in Ethiopia indicated that only 24% of Ethiopians compared to 53% in Sub-Saharan Africa are likely to be “intentional entrepreneurs”; that is, the likelihood to pursue a business opportunity in the next three years (Herrington & Kelley, 2012). The findings reflect low propensity of Ethiopians to be entrepreneurs compared to other individuals in Sub-Saharan African countries. Nonetheless, on the positive side, the GEM study indicated that roughly 92% of Ethiopians believe entrepreneurs have higher status in Ethiopia (Herrington & Kelley, 2012). This could be attributed to the fact Ethiopia has an extremely low wage in the World.
The federal and regional micro and small enterprises development agencies in partnership with both local and international organizations organize different entrepreneurship training workshops and also extend loans for start-ups for women, unemployed and university graduates with the aim of promoting micro and small-scale enterprises. University students are also offered with similar training workshops just before graduation to encourage them be entrepreneurs.
Environmental factors such as social and economic conditions can influence the intention to establish self-owned businesses (Tim et al, 1999) cited by Golo (2013). There are individual factors, family and friend’s support as well as access to credit, political and economic condition of a nation affects an individual’s intentions to become an entrepreneur. Common knowledge also suggests that startup capital is also an obstacle for business startups, especially for young people, as youth have less assets and savings available (Anne, 2014). These factors can affect entrepreneurial intention of persons.
Research questions:
What kind of personal valuation do students hold towards becoming an entrepreneur?
To what extent universities and entrepreneurship courses influence and shape the entrepreneurial ability and intention of students?
How do people in close contact with students like friends, colleges and families influence the entrepreneurial intention of students?
How do students valuate their personal competencies and the convenience of the environment into becoming entrepreneur?
Theory and hypotheses
Zhengxia et al. (2012) argue that currently the measurement to individual’s entrepreneurial intentions includes single variable method or multivariable method. Single variable method is to measure individual’s entrepreneurial intentions by single variables such as individual’s expectation, preference, plan, behavioral anticipation. It can also be divided into researcher judgement method and individual self-report method. Even though the single variable method is simple and clear, its validity and reliability are not so ideal because of over simplicity. Multivariable method is a method used by researchers to improve the validity and reliability of measurement. They judge individual’s entrepreneurial intentions by multivariable or from various dimensions to reduce errors (Chen, Greene, & Crick, 1998; Van Gelderen, et al, 2008).

According to Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), entrepreneurial intention indicates the effort that the person will make to carry out that entrepreneurial behavior. And so, it captures the three motivational factors, or antecedents, influencing behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Liñán, 2004). Ajzen (1991) argues that for one to become an entrepreneur their decision may be considered as voluntary and conscious. The intention to become an entrepreneur might be affected by several factors such as needs, values, habits, wants and beliefs. The cognitive variables influencing intention are called motivational antecedents.

Human behavior is guided by three kinds of considerations: beliefs about the likely consequences of the behavior (behavioral beliefs), beliefs about the normative expectations of others (normative beliefs), and beliefs about the presence of factors that may facilitate or impede performance of the behavior (control beliefs). In their respective aggregates, behavioral beliefs produce a favorable or unfavorable attitude towards the behavior; normative beliefs result in perceived social pressure or subjective norm; and control beliefs give rise to perceived behavioral control. In combination, attitude toward the behavior, subjective norm, and control beliefs gives rise to perceived behavioral control. In combination, attitude toward the behavior, subjective norm, and perception of behavioral control lead to the formulation of behavioral intention. As a general rule, the more favorable the attitude and subjective norm, and the greater the perceived control the stronger should be the person’s intention to perform the behavior in question. Finally, given a sufficient degree of actual control over the behavior, people are expected to carry out their intentions when the opportunity rises. Intention is thus assumed to be the immediate antecedent of behavior (Ajzen, 1991). The following figure is a schematic representation of the theory.
Fig. 1.1. Schematic Representation of Theory of Planned Behavior.
3246120491490
Source: Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.

Other prominent scholars, however, have proposed that entrepreneurship education should be included in entrepreneurial intention model. This is because entrepreneurship educational and training programs lead to the changes of individuals in their attitude towards entrepreneurship, their self-efficacy level which increase they control beliefs that they are capable in managing entrepreneurial career, and change their perceptions towards entrepreneurship, thus, effect their entrepreneurial intention (Peterman, & kennedy, 2003; Kolvereid & isaksen, 2006; Dell, 2008; Tam, 2009).

Fig. 1.2. Proposed Theoretical Model
564466231091Attitude Toward the Behavior
0Attitude Toward the Behavior

54183665676005568465881100202164592808891540299720
564906245110Subjective Norm
0Subjective Norm

39169739525Entrepreneurial Intention
Entrepreneurial Intention
202105811879419794413122241988820335671906780332740
583809306461Perceived Behavioral Control
0Perceived Behavioral Control

588499280865Entrepreneurship Education
0Entrepreneurship Education
9144004699000
Source: Own model
Definitions:
Attitude toward start-up (personal attitude, PA) refers to the degree to which the individual holds a positive or negative personal valuation about being an entrepreneur (Ajzen, 2001; Autio et al., 1997; Kolvereid, 1996b). It includes not only affective (I like it, it is attractive), but also evaluate considerations (it has advantages).

Subjective norm (SN) measures the perceived social pressure to carry out – or not to carry out – entrepreneurial behaviors. In particular, it would refer to the perception that “reference people” would approve of the decision to become an entrepreneur or not (Ajzen, 2001).

Perceived behavioral control (PBC) is defined as the perception of the ease or difficulty of becoming an entrepreneur. It is, therefore, a concept quite similar to self-efficacy (SE) (Bandura, 1997) and to perceived feasibility (Shapero & Sokol, 1982). All three concepts refer to the sense of capacity regarding the fulfillment of firm-creation behaviors. Nevertheless, recent work has emphasized the difference between PBC and SE (Ajzen, 2002) PBC would indicate not only the feeling of being able, but also the perception about controllability of behavior.
Entrepreneurship education refers to the scope of curricular lectures or courses that provides students with entrepreneurial competencies, skills and knowledge in pursuing entrepreneurial career (Clouse, 1990; Ekpoh & Edet, 2011; Ooi, Selvarajah & Meyer, 2011)
Hypotheses:
Personal attitude positively influences entrepreneurial intention.
Perceived behavioral control positively influences entrepreneurial intention.
Subjective norm positively influences entrepreneurial intention.

Subjective norm positively influences personal attitude.

Subjective norm positively influences perceived behavioral control.

Entrepreneurship education positively influences personal attitude.
Entrepreneurship education positively influences entrepreneurial intention.

The combination of personal attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control and entrepreneurship education positively influences entrepreneurial intention.

Research objectives
The general objective of this research is to measure the entrepreneurial intention of prospective graduates of college of Business and Economics of Dire Dawa University by mainly using Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior. In doing so, the research demonstrates the effects of the behavioral antecedents i.e. attitude towards behavior, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control and entrepreneurship education on the intention of students in becoming entrepreneurs.
The research has the following specific objectives:
To measure the personal valuation of students to become entrepreneurs.

To measure the perception of students towards their entrepreneurial competencies.
To show the influence of family, colleges and friends in determining the entrepreneurial intention of students.
To show the perceived support of university entrepreneurship courses in equipping students with essential entrepreneurial knowledge, skill and shaping their entrepreneurial intention.
Research methods, materials and procedures
Research design
In the research, quantitative research design is used to quantify and generalize results from the sample to the population. Sample statistic on behavioral antecedents i.e. attitude toward behavior, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control and entrepreneurship education have been drawn and their respective and combined effects on entrepreneurial intention has been determined. The result that has been obtained from the sample has also been used to estimate population parameters.
Sampling
The participants included in the study are 2017/18 prospective graduates of the College of Business and Economics of Dire Dawa university. A total of 486 students are expected to graduate in 2018 from the 7 departments of which 158 are from Accounting and Finance, 37 from Banking and Finance, 91 from Economics, 32 from Logistics and Supply Chain Management, 101 from Management, 28 from Marketing Management, and 39 from Public Administration and Development Management.

Proportionally 22% of the students from each department were included in the sample by using simple random sampling. Hence, the sample contained a total of 106 participants of which 33 are from Accounting and Finance, 8 from Banking and Finance, 18 from Economics, 8 from Logistics and Supply Chain Management, 22 from Management, 7 from Marketing Management, and 10 from Public Administration and Development Management.
Data collection techniques
Printed questionnaires were distributed to the randomly selected students just before classes started in the lecture hall. The students were told to take the questionnaires home with them, fill them out and hand them over to their professors on the next lecture day.
Data description and analysis
SPSS version 21 was used for data description and analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate average, percentage and frequency distributions of sex, age, department, parent’s occupation and previous entrepreneurial experience of the respondents.

Reliability of the collected data was determined using Cronbach’s alpha which indicated how well the items in a set are positively related to one another.
T-test was used to examine whether gender, previous business experience and parents’ profession have significance influence on students’ entrepreneurial intention.
Pearson Correlation Analysis was used to measure the co-variation and association between entrepreneurial intention and behavioral antecedents i.e. attitude toward the behavior, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, entrepreneurship education.

Finally, Multiple Linear Regression Analysis was used to predict whether there is any significant relationship between the independent variables (attitude toward the behavior, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control and entrepreneurship education) and entrepreneurial intention.

Significance of the study
It is widely recognized that entrepreneurship could serve as a catalyst for rapid growth, encourage wealth creation and provide for employment opportunities. According to Ashraf and Rasoul (2013) most developed and some developing countries recovered from economic crisis by developing their entrepreneurial spirit; that is, they paid more attention to entrepreneurial education, entrepreneurs, and they brought innovativeness in the business sector. However, scholars like (Shane, 2009) argue that government interventions with the absence of appropriate entrepreneurial ideology and policy could be detrimental to a country’s economic development. Hence, understanding university students’ entrepreneurial intentions is critical in creating an environment that fosters entrepreneurship.

Scholars empirically have also evidenced that entrepreneurial intention is a valid predictor for entrepreneurial behavior as entrepreneurial actions always fall into the category of intentional behavior. Studying on entrepreneurial intention provides valuable insights for researcher to understand entrepreneurial process and predict entrepreneurial activities in better way through identifying antecedents of entrepreneurial intention (Davidsson 1995; Bird, 1998; Krueger et al., 2000; Peterman & Kennedy, 2003; Liñán, 2004; Kolvereid & Isaksen, 2006; Krueger, 2007; Dell, 2008; Mohammad Ismail et al., 2009).
Organization of the study
The thesis paper is composed of four chapters. The first chapter is introduction in which discussion is made on background of the study, problem statement, objectives, the research methods adopted and significance of the study. The second chapter presents a review of related literature pertinent to entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intention. Chapter three presents the data collected and discusses on the basis of various statistical testes. Chapter four provides conclusion and recommendations based on the analysis made in the preceding chapter.

Chapter Two
2. Literature Review
Entrepreneurship: Meaning and Definition
Even though, it is widely acknowledged that entrepreneurship is vital in driving the economies of countries forward, however, there is no much consensus as to what it exactly means. Different scholars have given a wide range of definitions, which when operationalized, have generated a number of different measures (Audretsch, 2003). The failure of a single definition of entrepreneurship to emerge undoubtedly reflects the fact that it is a multidimensional concept.
Herbert and Link (1989) have identified three distinct intellectual traditions in the development of the entrepreneurship literature. These three traditions can be characterized as the German Tradition, based on Von Thuenen and Schumpeter, the Chicago Tradition, based on Knight and Schultz, and the Austrian Tradition, based on Von Mises, Krizner and Shackle (Audretsch, 2003).

The contemporary literature on entrepreneurship received a lot of impact from the Schumpeterian tradition. The unique feature of the Schumpeterian tradition is that it viewed entrepreneurship as a disequilibrium phenomenon rather than an equilibrating force. In his 1911 classic treatise, Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung (Theory of Economic Development), Schumpeter proposed a theory of creative destruction, where new firms with the entrepreneurial spirit displace less innovative incumbents, ultimately leading to higher degree of economic growth (Audretsch, 2003). In his Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy book, Schumpeter also argued that entrenched large corporations tend to resist change, forcing entrepreneurs to start new firms in order to pursue innovative activity:
“the function of entrepreneurs is to reform or revolutionize the pattern of production by exploiting an invention, or more generally, an untried technological possibility for producing new commodity or producing an old one in a new way… To undertake such new things is difficult and constitutes a distinct economic function, first because they lie outside of the routine tasks which everybody understands, and secondly because the environment resists in many ways (Schumpeter, 1942, P. 132).”
Ahmad and Seymour (2008) argue, although Schumpeter’s definition embodies a characteristic of entrepreneurship that is widely recognized today, namely, innovation, it still retains some ambiguity that has meant the debate regarding a definition of entrepreneurship continues; although, to some extent, this reflects the definition of innovation, in particular whether it relates to incremental or quantum changes. Moreover, unlike the Knight perspective, for example, the Schumpeterian entrepreneur need not be a risk taker or business owner, for example. Indeed some (Drucker, 1985) have argued that entrepreneurship reflects merely the creation of a new organization and that individual who starts a new business venture is an entrepreneur; even those that fail to make a profit.
The most prevalent and compelling views of entrepreneurship focus on perception of new economic opportunities and the subsequent introduction of new ideas in the market. As Audretsch (1995) argues, entrepreneurship is about change, just as entrepreneurs are agents of change; entrepreneurship is thus about the process of change. This corresponds to the definition of entrepreneurship proposed by the OECD,
“Entrepreneurs are agents of change and growth in a market economy and they can act to accelerate the generation, dissemination and application of innovative ideas… Entrepreneurs not only seek out and identify potentially profitable economic opportunities but are also willing to take risks to see if their hunches are right” (OECD, 1998, P. 11).
Entrepreneurial intention: Meaning and Measurement
Individual’s entrepreneurial intentions are the important variables to predict their entrepreneurial behaviors. However, there is no consensus as to what the definition of individual’s entrepreneurial intentions should be. On the one hand, referring to individual’s entrepreneurial intentions, the current literatures adopt some similar conceptions, like career orientation (Francis & Banning, 2001), nascent entrepreneurs (Korunka et al, 2003) and so forth. On the other hand, researchers often give operational definitions when they define individual’s entrepreneurial intentions, resulting in discrepancy (Zhengxia et al., 2012).

According to Ajzen (1991), intention is the immediate antecedent of behavior. He claimed that behavior is not performed mindlessly but follows reasonably and consistently from the behavior relevant information and behavior reinforced by rewarding events and weakened by pushing events. Individuals would like to be self-employed as they perceive that entrepreneurship is a suitable career path for them (Davidsson, 1995) and is a way for them to accomplish their personal goals, pursue own ideas and realize financial rewards (Barringer & Ireland, 2010).
Birds (1988) proposed that entrepreneurial intention refers to individuals’ states of mind that aimed at creating new venture, developing new business concept or creating new value within existing firms. It is an important factor in facilitating towards new venture establishment and has significant impact on the firms’ venture success, survival and growth. He suggested that intentional process often begins based on an entrepreneur’s personal needs, values, wants, habits and beliefs.
Entrepreneurial intention defined as willingness of individuals to perform entrepreneurial behavior, to engage in entrepreneurial action, to be self-employed, or to establish new business (Dell, 2008; Dhose & Walter, 2010). It usually involves inner guts, ambition and the feeling to stand on one’s feet (Zain, Akram & Ghani, 2010). An individual may have potential to be entrepreneur but not make any transition into entrepreneurship unless they have such intentions (Mohammad Ismail et al., 2009).
Zhengxia et al. (2012) defined entrepreneurial as a mental orientation such as desire, wish and hope influencing their choice of entrepreneurship. Other researchers (Wu, Wu, 2008; Nabi, et. Al., 2006; Guerrero, et. Al., 2008) also define entrepreneurial intention as a state of mind that people wish to create a new firm or new value driver inside existing organizations.

Scholars empirically evidenced that entrepreneurial intention is a valid predictor for entrepreneurial behavior as entrepreneurial actions always fall into the category of intentional behavior. Studying on entrepreneurial intention provides valuable insights for researcher to understand entrepreneurial process and predict entrepreneurial activities in better way through identifying antecedents of entrepreneurial intention (Davidsson 1995; Bird, 1998; Krueger et al., 2000; Peterman & Kennedy, 2003; Liñán, 2004; Kolvereid & Isaksen, 2006; Krueger, 2007; Dell, 2008; Mohammad Ismail et al., 2009). Findings of Kolvereid and Isaksen (2006) on 297 business founders by using longitudinal data revealed that intentions to be self-employed did actually determine later entry into self-employment.
Usually, individuals do not start a business as a reflex, they do it intentionally rather than engage it accidentally (Krueger et al., 2000; Krueger 2007). According to Krueger (2007) intention serves as mediating factor between entrepreneurial action and potential exogenous influence (traits, demographics, skills, social, cultural and financial support). They suggested that entrepreneurial intention helps in explaining the reasons on why certain individuals tend to start own business before opportunity scan or deciding type of business to involve in. they stated that entrepreneurs themselves should benefit from a better understanding of their own motives, intention affords them to chance to understand what factors drive them to make their decisions to pursue entrepreneurial career and how the venture becomes reality.
Entrepreneurship Education and Entrepreneurial Intention
The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (2010) defines entrepreneurship education as the building of knowledge and skills either “about” or “for the purpose of” entrepreneurship generally, as part of recognized education programs at primary, secondary or tertiary levels. It also refers to the scope of curricular lectures or courses that provides students with entrepreneurial competencies, skills and knowledge in pursuing entrepreneurial career (Clouse, 1990; Ekpoh & Edet, 2011; Ooi, Selvarajah & Meyer, 2011).
Some scholars proposed that entrepreneurship education should be included in entrepreneurial intention model. This is because entrepreneurship educational and training programs lead to the changes of individuals in their attitude towards entrepreneurship, their self-efficacy level which increase they control beliefs that they are capable in managing entrepreneurial career, and change their perceptions towards entrepreneurship, thus, effect their entrepreneurial intention (Peterman, & kennedy, 2003; Kolvereid & isaksen, 2006; Dell, 2008; Tam, 2009). Inadequate business know-how tends to create a risk averse behavior which in turn reduces the propensity to become an entrepreneur (Wang & Wong, 2004; Zhou, Tao, Zhong & Wang, 2012). If adequate business know-how, knowledge and skills are learnt from entrepreneurial education, the propensity of students to have an entrepreneurial career would rise (Gelard & Saleh, 2010). This is because, entrepreneurial education prepares potential entrepreneurs in dealing complex decision makings (Izquierdo & Buelens, 2008) and also reduces the perceptions of barriers and risk of entrepreneurship (human capital, financial capital, discovering of opportunity, material acquisition and technology adaptation), help them to start enterprise better as they know the entrepreneurial process and have foundation regarding business management knowledge (Clouse, 1990; Ahmed et al., 2010; Zhou et al., 2012).

Dell (2008) and Tam (2009) showed entrepreneurship education and change in entrepreneurial attitude has significant relationship. They argued that participation in entrepreneurship education has positively influenced students attitude towards entrepreneurship. This is because, entrepreneurship education enriches students with real world skills and knowledge that subsequently makes them feel legitimate in pursuing entrepreneurial career. On the contrary, those students who did not participate in entrepreneurship education, have a negative attitude towards entrepreneurial career, and hence lessens their interest in becoming entrepreneurs. This creates a discrepancy of entrepreneurial intention of those students who have received entrepreneurial education and those who have not. (Hamidi, Wennberg & Berglund, 2008; Miller, Bell, Palmer & Gonzalez, 2009; Zain et al., 2010).

Rita et al., (2013) have summarized other different factors that can influence the intention to start business as identified by other researchers. They are presented in table 1 below:
Table 2.1: The Factors Influencing Entrepreneurial Intention
Author, year Factor Description
Pruett, et. Al., 2009 Culture/country Individualism/collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, femininity/masculinity
Personal role models Family members, person’s set of close friends are self-employed; family support
Entrepreneurial disposition Self-efficacy
Perception of motives Individual belief, confidence in the belief, intention to act
Perception of barriers Entry or start-up barriers, including lack of knowledge, start-up capital or operating risks
Lee, et. Al., 2005 Entrepreneurship education Entrepreneurship-related knowledge and skills, teamwork experience
Giacomin, et. Al., 2011 Motives Opportunity to implement ideas creating something of one’s own. Personal independence, ambition to become a manager of an organization, financial independence, improvement of life quality, creation of work places, managing the staff, having more leisure time, opportunity to earn more money than doing a hired work, acquiring of a higher social status, difficulties finding the most suitable job, cherishing of family traditions.
Barriers Too risky activities, lack of capital, lack of entrepreneurial abilities, unfavorable economic situation, fear of bankruptcy, regular income, lack of knowledge, lack of management and accountancy skills and other barriers.
Falck, et. Al., 2012 Peers Identity
Shook, Brarianu, 2010; Guerrero, et. Al., 2008; Liñán, et. Al., 2011 Feasibility Self-efficacy (ability to execute some target, for example, obstacles, personal capacities and support, ability to execute a purpose)
Desirability Social norms (environment impact) and attitude (intrinsic rewards or personal interest)
Falck, Woessmann, 2011 Country-level control variables GDP per capita, educational expenditure per student, external exit exams, communist background
Individual and family background variables Parents entrepreneurs
Dohse, Walter, 2012 Individual-level entrepreneurial intention Access to know-how, access to know-who, access to material support, need for achievement, need for independence, risk-taking propensity, work experience, opportunity perception, knowledge
Regional-level controls Unemployment among highly qualified, share of large firms, population density
Turker, Selcuk, 2009 Educational support Type of education
Structural support Structural system, including private, public and non-governmental organizations,
Relational support Loans from banks, state laws, family background, friends’ support
Sanchez, 2011 Personality traits Self-efficacy, proactiveness, risk taking
Diaz-Casero, et. Al., 2012 Institutional environment Perception of feasibility, the factors that influence and make entrepreneurship more difficult, entrepreneur’s image
De Jorge-Moreno, et. Al., 2012 Education programs Business administration and economics
Perceived desirability Idea of creating a company, planning to have one’s own business, dedication of time and effort
Personal feasibility of a starting a business Passion to be recognized in work or studies, passion to be the best among students, pleasure to take risk or to plan activities ahead of time and etc.
Source: Rita, Grazina & Davia (2013). Explaining Entrepreneurial intention of University Students: The Role of Entrepreneurial Education. Zadar, Croatia.
The systematized results of scientific research show that the authors analyses entrepreneurial intention considering different aspects, i.e. some of them take a deeper look at the individual-level factors of entrepreneurship (personal motivation, attitude, marital status, social relations and so forth), while others include both individual-level and country/regional level factors (economic, institutional and other factors). Part of the authors (Lee, et. al., 2005; Turker, Selcuk, 2009; De Jorge-Moreno, et. al., 2012), founding entrepreneurial intention, stress the importance of entrepreneurial education. The research carried out by Lee, et al. (2005) proposes that education is one of the vital factors distinguishing entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs. According to Arenius and Minniti (2005), individuals with higher formal education are more likely to pursue entrepreneurial opportunities. This statement is supported by Turke, Sulcek (2009): “…getting an adequate education may foster entrepreneurial intention of a person (p. 143)”. Pruett, et. al. (2009) established that one of the main barriers for entrepreneurial intention among students is the knowledge factor, including the lack of management, business, accountancy and administration knowledge, and this lack can be filled in due to education.

Summarizing the factors influencing entrepreneurial intention, it can be concluded that all the factors presented in Table 1 have an integral impact on the researched phenomenon. Many researchers aim at the establishment of the main factors influencing entrepreneurial intention (Rita et al., 2013). For instance, the results of the study carried out by Linãn et. al. (2011) revealed that the main factors of entrepreneurial intention are personal attitude and perceived behavioral control. The research carried out by Sánchez (2011) proposes the similar results: the main factors of entrepreneurial intention are personality traits, measured by risk-tolerance and self-efficacy.

It can be concluded that entrepreneurial intention is mostly influenced by personal factors or personality traits that can be developed acquiring entrepreneurial education. However, the positive impact of these traits on entrepreneurial intention can be even more reinforced due to entrepreneurial education (Rita et al., 2013).

The Contribution of Entrepreneurs to the Economy
The role of entrepreneurship in the economy has changed drastically over the last half century. During the post – World War II era, the importance of entrepreneurship and small business seemed to fade. While some noted that small business needed to be preserved and protected for social and political reasons, few made the case on the grounds of economic efficiency. This thinking has changed in recent years. Entrepreneurship has come to be perceived as the engine of economic growth and social development throughout the world (Audretsch, Keilbach & Lehmann, 2006). Considering this, many countries across the globe has made entrepreneurship and small business development the key strategy to create wealth and job and foster innovation. However, on the other hand, prominent researchers like (Shane, 2009; Van Praag & Van Stel, 2012; Nightingale & Coad, 2013) argue that the role and capacity of small enterprises in creating employment and wealth and enhancing innovation is overrated. Shane (2009) suggests policy makers should stop subsidizing the formation of typical start-ups and focus on the subset of businesses with high growth potential. Getting economic growth and jobs creation from entrepreneurs is not a numbers game but it is about encouraging high quality, high growth companies to be founded.
Employment Creation
Jobs are the most important issues for policy makers, and hence, small businesses remain the central focus for many policymakers as a tool for employment creation.
Over the past few decades, national and subnational governments worldwide have increasingly focused on engaging more people in market activities with an assumption that markets play a critical role in attaining sustained increases in living standards (Van Stel & Storey, 2002). A growing degree of uncertainty in the world economy – evidenced by rising unemployment levels, stalled rate of job creation, and muted economic recovery – has renewed the focus on entrepreneurial activity as a means to generate economic growth. Consequently, policy makers are paying considerable attention to the specific role of start-ups and high investment in research and development as possible job creation strategies (Acs & Armington, 2006; Fritsch, 2004; Van Stel & Storey 2002).
Shane (2009) is skeptic about the job creation potential of small enterprises. He observed that it takes a lot of entrepreneurs to create lasting jobs. According to his reckons to get one business employing at least one person in 10 years, we need 43 entrepreneurs to begin the process of starting a company. He also argues jobs in start-ups are not the same as jobs in existing companies. Jobs in new start-ups pay less, they have worse fringe benefits, and also provide less job security than jobs in the existing firms.
Productivity and Productivity Growth
It used to be thought that competition caused lower productivity firms to be displaced by higher productivity firms. As new businesses enter the market to challenge established firms, products and methods of production and distribution; they bring something new or improved and, in the process of doing so, their emergence promotes more competitive environment. However, recent studies have indicated it takes an extensive time for new entrants to compete on par with incumbents. It takes approximately 5 years for firms to learn about technology, but many decades to reach higher productivity levels in relation to both the quality and quality of their staff. Hence, the impressive productivity of new entrants is usually due to the entry from established chains, rather than entry by “new” firms (Nightingale & Coad, 2013).
Innovation
In 1942, on his seminal work on economic growth, Joseph Schumpeter wrote about the “creative destruction” inherent in a capitalist economy – mentioning that innovation is a constant, disruptive force, and a necessary one for economic growth. Schumpeter also emphasized on the pivotal role that entrepreneurs play in channeling this change:
“… the function of entrepreneurs is to reform or revolutionize the pattern of production by exploiting an invention or, more generally, an untried technological possibility for producing a new commodity or producing an old one in a new way, by opening up a new source of supply of materials or a new outlet for products, by reorganizing an industry and so on. (Schumpeter, 1942, P. 132)”
von Thünen, cited in Nightingale & Coad (2013), suggested that “Necessity is the mother of invention… so the entrepreneurs through his troubles will become an inventor and explorer in his field”.
However, today few entrepreneurship scholars believe necessity entrepreneurship is the mother of invention. So few start-ups are innovative that any innovative start-ups are atypical as it is evident that most small new firms lack the capital and resources available to large firms; cannot diversity the risks as well as large firms; find it harder to access external funding; cannot capture the benefits of high-variance, highly skewed returns from investing in innovation; lack market power; and lack diversified out of larger firms, which makes it more difficult for them to apply outcomes of research as effectively (Nightingale & Coad, 2013)
Utility
Nightingale & Coad (2013) argue that self-employed individuals are happier than their employed counterparts, even taking into account their lower expected earnings. This has been explained by the possibility that they can be their own boss and the autonomy they enjoy.
Macroeconomic Growth
Naudé (2010b & 2013) by using three important databases: The International Labour Organization database which measures self-employment, the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor database which measures start-ups rates of new firms, and the World Bank database which measures the registration of new firms, to study entrepreneurial activity of countries, uncovered two important results. First, there is lack of clear empirical evidence of whether entrepreneurship drives economic growth, productivity or employment. Studies find a mixed bag of results. Second, there seems to be a U-shaped relationship between entrepreneurship and a country’s level of economic development, as measured be GDP per capita.

The U-shaped relationship between entrepreneurship and country’s level of economic development is because there is a higher rate of entrepreneurial activity in low income countries compared to middle income countries. This suggests that entrepreneurs in developing countries are less innovative and tend to be proportionally more necessity motivated. Therefore, higher level of GDP can be linked more with innovative forms of entrepreneurship. Another implication is that rather than causality running from entrepreneurship to development, the causality may also run from development to entrepreneurship (Naudé, 2013).
Universities and the Labor Market in Ethiopia
Ethiopia possesses a 1,700-year tradition of elite education linked to the Orthodox Church. But secular higher education was initiated only in 1950 with the founding of the University College of Addis Ababa. During the following two decades, half a dozen specialized technical colleges were established. These institutions hosted an educational culture that was heavily influenced by its long informal association with the Orthodox Church (Wagaw, 1990).

Even though, the higher education system of Ethiopia has a relatively short history of some 60 years only, it has undergone both major quantitative and qualitative changes during the past few years. The Ethiopian education system in the 1980s was theory oriented without due emphasis to vocational and technical trainings and thus it did not help students improve their cognitive skills and motivate them for success (MOE, 2002).

In 1994 a new education policy that dramatically changed the education system was introduced and adopted taking into consideration the limitations of the previous educational system. Accordingly, the number of public universities in the country hiked from just about 8 to around 40 in just few years. University graduates in Ethiopia did not exceed a couple of thousand per year but now at least 100,000 students graduate every year from the universities across the country.
Chart 2.1. Trend of Undergarduate and Postgraduate Studetns in both Public and Private Universities
Source: Ministry of Education (2016). Education Statistics 2014/15. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.
As can be seen from chart 2.1. above, the number of students, both in undergraduate and post graduate programs, enrolled in 2003-2004 was around 58,632. However, in just a period of 11 years the number of enrolled students rose to 769,315. A remarkable increase has also been observed in the number of graduating students from the universities within the country. In 2004-05 academic year 11,894 students graduated and the number of graduates in 2014-15 rose 10 times more than it has been and reached 115,055 graduates (MoE, 2016).
Though the number of technical and vocational schools has increased considerably in Ethiopia in recent years, leading to several folds increase in the number of university and technical school graduates, employment opportunities, especially in the formal private sector, have not kept pace with increasing number of graduates. The problem is compounded by a lower quality of education and skill mismatches (Jerusalem, 2016). A recent study conducted by the Ministry of Youth and Sports indicates that a staggering 480,000 university and Technical, Vocational Education and Training graduates in Ethiopia are still looking for jobs.

Although the Ethiopian government considers the augmentation in the matriculation and graduation of students as a victory, the labor market on the other hand has proved to be incapable of engrossing the increasing number of school leavers. Even though it is debatable, the Minister of Communication and Information Technology, Dr. Negeri Lencho, recently, on an interview with the BBC said the anti-government protests that swept through parts of Ethiopia in late 2015 through the better part of 2016 were as a result of youth unemployment.

Chapter Three
Data Description and Analysis
Descriptive Analysis
A total of 107 questionnaires were distributed to randomly selected respondents. 106 questionnaires were filled in and returned. Out of the 106 filled-out and returned questionnaires, 100 of them were included in the study and 6 of them were left out because significant number of questions were not responded. The results obtained from the questionnaire are presented as follows.
Sex composition of the sample respondents
Table 3.1. Sex of the respondent
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Male 56 56 56 56
Female 44 44 44 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0 Source: Own survey.
The above table 3.1 shows the composition of the sample respondents by sex. Out of the 100 respondents that were included in the study, 56 (56%) were male respondents and the remaining 44 (44%) were female respondents.
Age composition of the respondents

Table 3.2. Age of the respondent
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 20 11 11.0 11.0 11.0
21 29 29.0 29.0 40.0
22 25 25.0 25.0 65.0
23 16 16.0 16.0 81.0
24 9 9.0 9.0 90.0
25 6 6.0 6.0 96.0
27 2 2.0 2.0 98.0
33 1 1.0 1.0 99.0
35 1 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0 Source: Own survey.
Table 3.2 shows the age composition of the sampled respondents. 96% of the respondents are within the group 20-25 years of age. 21 years of age is the most observed of all ages. Two respondents are in their 30s.
Department of Respondents
Table 3.3. Department of the respondent
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Accounting and Finance 33 33.0 33.0 33.0
Banking and Finance 8 8.0 8.0 41.0
Economics 14 14.0 14.0 55.0
Logistics and Supply Chain Management 8 8.0 8.0 63.0
Management 21 21.0 21.0 84.0
Marketing Management 6 6.0 6.0 90.0
Public Administration and Development Management 10 10.0 10.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0 Source: Own survey.
Table 3.3 shows from which department (field of study) the sampled students came from. The sample is composed of 33% from Accounting and Finance, 8% from Banking and Finance, 14% Economics, 8% Logistics and Supply Chain Management, 21% from management, 6% from Marketing management and 10% from Public Administration and Development Management.
Profession of parents
Table 3.4. Profession of parents
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Entrepreneurs 37 37.0 37.0 37.0
Employees 27 27.0 27.0 64.0
Farmers 34 34.0 34.0 98.0
Other 2 2.0 2.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0 Source: Own survey.
Table 3.4. shows the profession of the parents of the sampled respondents. The highest proportion of the respondents, accounting 37%, are from parents who are entrepreneurs. 34% responded that they are from a farmer family and the remaining 27% come from parents who are employees.

Entrepreneurial experience
Table 3.5. Entrepreneurial experience
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 20 20.0 20.0 20.0
No 80 80.0 80.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0 Source: Own survey.
Table 3.5 above shows if the respondents have previously acquired entrepreneurial experience. 20% of the respondents reported to have previous entrepreneurial experience whereas the remaining 80% are without experience.
Measures of Central Tendency
Measures of central tendency measures the tendency for the value of a random variable to cluster around the center of the distribution.
Attitude Towards Behavior
Table 3.6. Central Tendency of Attitude Toward Behavior
No. Statement Total disagreement Somehow disagree Neutral Somehow agree Total Agreement Mean
1 Being an entrepreneur implies more advantages than disadvantages to me. 12% 19% 16% 19% 34% 3.44
2 A career as entrepreneur is attractive for me. 15% 13% 18% 19% 35% 3.46
3 If I had the opportunity and resources, I’d like to start a firm. 21% 15% 25% 13% 26% 3.08
4 Being an entrepreneur would entail great satisfaction for me. 9% 20% 15% 19% 37% 3.55
5 Among various options, I would rather be an entrepreneur 13% 16% 29% 22% 20% 3.2
Source: Own survey.
Table 3.6. above shows the central tendency of the responses for attitude towards behavior. Statement 4 has the highest mean of 3.55 with a total of 56% agreement of which 37% agreed strongly to it. On the other hand, statement 3 has the lowest mean of 3.08 with a total of 39% agreement of which 26% strongly agreed to it.
Subjective norm
Table 3.7. Central Tendency of Subjective Norm
No. Statement Total disagreement Somehow disagree Neutral Somehow agree Total Agreement Mean Rank
1 If you decide to create a firm, your close family would approve that decision. 17% 14% 16% 22% 31% 3.36 1
2 If you decide to create a firm, your friends would approve that decision. 21% 8% 23% 17% 31% 3.29 2
3 If you decide to create a firm, your colleagues would approve that decision. 19% 16% 19% 20% 26% 3.18 3
Source: Own Survey.
Table 3.7. above shows the central tendency of the responses for subjective norm. Statement 1 has the highest mean of 3.36 with a total of 53% agreement of which 31% agreed strongly to it. On the other hand, statement 3 has the lowest mean of 3.18 with a total of 46% agreement of which 26% strongly agreed to it.
Perceived support of university courses
Table 3.8. Central Tendency of Perceived Support of University Courses
No. Statement Total disagreement Somehow disagree Neutral Somehow agree Total Agreement Mean
1 I gain enough knowledge on how to do business through the courses that I took. 11% 14% 21% 23% 31% 3.49
2 I found that the courses inputs are applicable in real life. 6% 10% 33% 20% 31% 3.6
3 I am more motivated to do business after taking my undergraduate degree courses compared to before I took them. 11% 9% 24% 21% 35% 3.6
4 Through the courses I learned, my teachers enabled me to identify potential types of industries/business areas that I will be engaged. 9% 9% 28%
25% 29% 3.56
5 The creative university atmosphere inspires me to develop ideas for new business. 17% 14% 26% 19% 24% 3.19
Source: Own survey.
Table 3.8. above shows the central tendency of the responses for perceived support of university courses. Statements 2 and 3 have the highest mean of 3.6. 51% and 56% of the respondents generally agreed to the statement 2 and 3, respectively. 35% of the respondents strongly agreed to statement 3 and 31% to statement 2. Statement 5 has the lowest mean of 3.19 with a general agreement of 43%.
Perceived behavioral control
Table 3.9. Central Tendency of Perceived Behavioral Control
No. Statement Total disagreement Somehow disagree Neutral Somehow agree Total Agreement Mean
1 To start a firm and keep it working would be easy for me. 22% 24% 23% 16% 15% 2.78
2 I am prepared to start a viable firm. 16% 19% 30% 19% 16% 3.00
3 I can control the creation process of a new firm. 13% 13% 35% 23% 16% 3.16
4 I know the necessary practical details to start a firm. 14% 14% 28% 27% 17% 3.19
5 I know how to develop an entrepreneurial project. 8% 17% 30% 25% 20% 3.32
6 If I tried to start a firm, I would have a high probability of succeeding. 11% 11% 27% 25% 26% 3.44
Source: Own survey.
Table 3.9. above shows the central tendency of the responses for perceived behavioral control. Statement 6 has the highest mean of 3.44 with a total of 51% agreement of which 26% agreed strongly to it. On the other hand, statement 1 has the lowest mean of 2.78 with a total of 46% disagreement of which 22% totally disagreed to it. Statement 1 is the only statement with more disagreement responses than agreement.
Entrepreneurial intention
Table 3.10. Central Tendency of Entrepreneurial Intention
No. Statement Total disagreement Somehow disagree Neutral Somehow agree Total Agreement Mean
1 My professional goal is to become an entrepreneur. 13% 11% 22% 29% 25% 3.42
2 I have the firm intention to start a firm someday. 13% 16% 26% 23% 22% 3.25
3 I’ve identified a business idea. 14% 20% 20% 19% 27% 3.25
4 I’ve looked for partner. 11% 22% 24% 27% 16% 3.15
5 I’ve secured financing. 13% 28% 23% 14% 22% 3.04
6 I’ve identified the site of the business 17% 15% 23% 21% 24% 3.2
7 I’ve contact with potential suppliers. 14% 17% 22% 23% 24% 3.26
9 I’ve contact with potential customers. 14% 16% 15% 26% 29% 3.4
Source: Own survey.
Table 3.10. above shows the central tendency of the responses for entrepreneurial intention. Statement 1 has the highest mean of 3.42 with a total of 54% agreement of which 25% agreed strongly to it. On the other hand, statement 5 has the lowest mean of 3.04 with a total of 41% disagreement of which 13% totally disagreed to it. Statement 5 is the only statement with more disagreement responses than agreement from all the statements under the entrepreneurial intention factor.
Reliability and Validity Test
Reliability and validity are the basics of scientific research as they are used to enhance the accuracy of the research work.
Reliability refers to the consistency, stability and reliability of the results. The result of a research is considered reliable, if consistent results have been obtained in identical situations but different circumstances. In other words, if any research is conducted in future should induce the same results under the same conditions. As a result, this will provide push to the findings to ensure wider acceptance of hypothesis among the research community (Twycross & Shields, 2004).
Table 3.11. Reliability Statistics
N of Items Cronbach’s Alpha
Attitude Toward Behavior (PA) 5 .792
Subjective Norm (SN) 3 .695
Perceived Support of University Courses (PSUC) 5 .781
Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) 6 .817
Entrepreneurial Intention (EI) 8 .866
Cronbach’s alpha is a measure used to assess the reliability, or internal consistency, of a set of scale or test items. In other words, the reliability of any given measurement refers to the extent to which it is a consistent measure of a concept, and Cronbach’s alpha is one way of measuring the strength of that consistency. Although the standards for what makes a “good” ? coefficient are entirely arbitrary and depend on your theoretical knowledge of the scale in question, many methodologists recommend a minimum ? coefficient between 0.65 and 0.8 (or higher in many cases); ? coefficients that are less than 0.5 are usually unacceptable, especially for scales purporting to be unidimensional.

Table 3.11. above shows the summary of the reliability statistics. All the proposed scales have an alpha value that is greater than 6.5 and hence the theoretical scales are reliable.
Simply put, validity means that a test or instrument is accurately measuring what it is supposed to measure. 3.12. KMO and Bartlett’s Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .843
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 1362.869
Df 351
Sig. .000

KMO measures the proportion of variance in the variables that might be explained by underlying factors. The proportion closer to 1 is the better. Here we have KMO value of 0.843, which means 84.3% of the variability in the variables can be explained by the factors. The Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity is significant with P value of 0.000, which means that the data is suitable for factor analysis.
Normality test
Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig.

Entrepreneurial Intention .976 100 .065
Sig greater than 0.05, normally distributed data. Entrepreneurial intention and perceived behavioral control are normally distributed where as personal attitude, subjective norm and perceived support of university courses are not normally distributed.
A lot of statistical tests (e.g. t-test) require that our data are normally distributed and therefore we should always check if this assumption is violated.

T test
Group Statistics
Sex of the respondent N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Entrepreneurial Intention Male 56 3.3460 .86537 .11564
Female 44 3.1193 1.09636 .16528
Independent Samples Test by Sex
Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig (s-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% confidence interval of the difference
Lower Upper
Entrepreneurial Intention Equal variances assumed 3.524 .063 1.156 98 .251 .22666 .19612 -.16252 .61585
Equal variances not assumed 1.124 80.349 .265 .22666 .20172 -.17474 .62807
On the Levene’s Test for Equality is not significant so we will use the result for equal variances assumed. It is considered significant if p is less than or equal to 0.05. on the t test p> 0.05 in my case 0.251 the we will assume there is no differences in entrepreneurial intention by sex.
Independent Samples Test by Experience
Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig (s-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% confidence interval of the difference
Lower Upper
Entrepreneurial Intention Equal variances assumed .001 .974 -.013 98 .990 -.00313 .24503 -.48937 .48312
Equal variances not assumed -.012 28.401 .990 -.00313 .25117 -.51729 .51104
Correlations
Entrepreneurial Intention
Personal Attitude Pearson Correlation .363**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Covariance .370
N 100
Subjective Norm Pearson Correlation .323**
Sig. (2-tailed) .001
Covariance .368
N 100
Perceived Support of University Courses Pearson Correlation .500**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Covariance .466
N 100
Perceived Behavioral Control Pearson Correlation .477**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Covariance .429
N 100
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

There is a significant correlation between entrepreneurial intention and the behavioral antecedents.
Regression
Model Summaryb
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .539a .291 .261 .83847
a. Predictors: (Constant), Perceived Behavioral Control, Personal Attitude, Subjective Norm, Perceived Support of University Courses
b. Dependent Variable: Entrepreneurial Intention
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 27.352 4 6.838 9.726 .000b
Residual 66.787 95 .703 Total 94.139 99 a. Dependent Variable: Entrepreneurial Intention
b. Predictors: (Constant), Perceived Behavioral Control, Personal Attitude, Subjective Norm, Perceived Support of University Courses
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 1.134 .357 3.179 .002
Personal Attitude .095 .108 .102 .882 .380
Subjective Norm .014 .089 .016 .153 .879
Perceived Support of University Courses .249 .154 .244 1.616 .109
Perceived Behavioral Control .280 .129 .265 2.182 .032
a. Dependent Variable: Entrepreneurial Intention
Residuals Statisticsa
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N
Predicted Value 1.9964 4.3219 3.2463 .52562 100
Residual -3.23690 1.32873 .00000 .82135 100
Std. Predicted Value -2.378 2.046 .000 1.000 100
Std. Residual -3.861 1.585 .000 .980 100
a. Dependent Variable: Entrepreneurial Intention

Collinearity summary
Collinearity Statistics
Tolerance VIF
Personal Attitude .564 1.774
Subjective Norm .660 1.515
Perceived Support of University Courses .328 3.047
Perceived Behavioral Control .505 1.979
Entrepreneurial Intention by Sex of the respondents
Sex of the respondent Total
Male Female My professional goal is to become an entrepreneur. Total disagreement 7 (11.47%) 6 (13.63%) 13 (12.38%)
Somehow disagree 7 (11.47%) 4 (9.09%) 11 (10.47%)
Neutral 13 (21.31%) 11 (25%) 24 (22.85%)
Somehow agree 19 (31.14%) 12 (27.27%) 31 (29.52%)
Total Agreement 15 (24.59%) 11 (25%) 26 (24.76%)
Total 61 (100%) 44 (100%) 105 (100%)
I have the firm intention to start a firm someday
Total disagreement 5 (8.19%) 8 (18.18%) 13 (12.38)
Somehow disagree 9 (14.75%) 7 (15.9%) 16 (15.23)
Neutral 17 (27.86%) 12 (27.27%) 29 (27.62%)
Somehow agree 16 (26.22%) 9 (20.45%) 25 (23.8%)
Total Agreement 14 (22.95%) 8 (18.18%) 22 (20.95%)
Total 61 (100%) 44 (100%) 105 (100%)
I am ready to do anything to be an entrepreneur. No 5 (8.19%) 0 (0%) 5 (4.76%)
Yes 56 (91.8%) 44 (100%) 100 (95.24%)
Total 61 (100%) 44 (100%) 105 (100%)

References
Ahmad, N. and R. Seymour (2008), “Defining Entrepreneurial Activity: Definitions Supporting Frameworks for Data Collection”, OECD Statistics Working Papers, No. 2008/01, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/243164686763.
Ajzen, I. (1987): “Attitudes, traits and actions: dispositional prediction of behavior in personality and social psychology”; in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.): Advances in Experimental and Social Psychology, Academic Press, San Diego, 1–63.
Ajzen, I. (1991): “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
Ajzen, I. (2001): “Nature and operation of attitudes”, Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27-58.
Ajzen, I. (2002): “Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1-20.
Ali, A., Topping K.J., and Tariq, R.H. (2010). Entrepreneurial Attributes among Postgraduate Students of A Pakistani University. US-China Education Review, 7(5), 66-77.

Anne S (2014). How perceived access to finance affects entrepreneurial intentions (Master’s thesis), University of Stavanger.
Asamani L., and Mensah, A.O. (2013). Entrepreneurial Inclination among Ghanaian University Students: The Case of University of Cape Coast, Ghana. European Journal of Business and Management, 5(19), 113-125.

Ashraf, S, and Rasoul I. (2013). Factors Affecting Entrepreneurial Attitudes of MA Students in Islamic Azad University (Naragh Branch). International Journal of Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Science, 1(5), 485-491.

Audretsch, D. B., 1995, Innovation and Industry Evolution, Cambridge: MIT Press.

Autio, E., Keeley, R.H., Klofsten, M. and Ulfstedt, T. (1997): “Entrepreneurial intent among students: Testing an intent model in Asia, Scandinavia and USA”, Frontiers for Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Babson College.
Bandura, A. (1997): Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Freeman, New York.

Carl J. Schramm and? Robert E. Litan, (2012). Better Capitalism: Renewing the Entrepreneurial Strength of the American Economy.
Chen, C.C., Greene, P.G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy Distinguish Entrepreneurs from Managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), 295–316.

Dell, M. S. (2008). An investigation of undergraduate student self-employment intention and the impact of entrepreneurship education and previous entrepreneurial experience. Doctor of Philosophy, School of Business University The Australia.

Dohse, D., & Walter, S. G. (2010). The Role of Entrepreneurship Education and Regional Context In Forming Entrepreneurial Intentions. Working Paper Presented at Document de treball de l’IEB 2010/18.

Drucker, P F. 1985. Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles. New York, USA: HarperBusiness.
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (2002). Education Sector Development Program (Action Plan) II (ESDP II). Addis Ababa: MoE.

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. (2015). The Second Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP II) (2015/16-2019/20). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: National Planning Commission.

Francis, D.H. & Banning, K. (2001). Who Wants to be an Entrepreneur? Journal of Academy of Business Education, 1(2), 5–11.

Guerrero, M., Rialp, J., Urbano, D. (2008). The impact of desirability and feasibility on entrepreneurial intentions: A structural equation model. International Entrepreneurship & Management Journal, 4, 35-50.

Herrington, M., and Kelley, D. (2012). African Entrepreneurship: Sub-Saharan African Regional Report. Canada: Entrepreneurship Monitor Report, GEM, IDRC.

Jerusalem Yibeltal Yizengaw, 2016, Higher education and labor market in Ethiopia: A tracer study of graduate employment in engineering from Addis Ababa and Bahir Dar universities.
Keat, O.Y., Selvarajah, C., and Meyer, D. (2011). Inclination towards entrepreneurship among university students: An empirical study of Malaysian university students. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(4), 206-220.

Kolvereid. L., & Isaksen. E. (2006). New Business Start-Up and Subsequent Entry into Self-Employment. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(6), 866-885.

Korunka, C., Frank, H., Lueger, M., & Mugler, J. (2003). The Entrepreneurial Personality in the Context of Resources, Environment, and the Startup Process—A Configurational Approach. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(1), 23–42.

Krueger, N. F. Jr. (2007). What Lies Beneath? The Experiential Essence of Entrepreneurial Thinking. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(1), 123-138.

Krueger, N. F. Jr., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing Model of Entrepreneurial Intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5-6), 411-432.

Lee Wei Ni, Lim Bao Ping, Lim Li Ying, Ng Huei Sern, & Wong Jia Lih (2012). Entrepreneurial Intention: A Study Among Students of Higher Learning Institution. Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia.
Liñán, F. (2004). Intention-Based Models of Entrepreneurship Education. Piccolla Impresa/Small Business, 3, 11–35.

Liñán, F., Rodríguez-Cohard, J.C., and Rueda-Cantuche, J.M. (2005). Factors Affecting Entrepreneurial Intention Levels. 45th Congress of the European Regional Science Association, Amsterdam, 23-27 August 2005.

Ministry of Education (2016). Education Statistics 2014/15. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.

Mohammad Ismail, Shaiful Annuar Khalid, Mohmod Othman, Hj. Kamaruzaman Jusoff, Norshimah Abdul Rahman, Kamsol Mohamed Kassim, & Rozihana Shekh Zain. (2009). Entrepreneurial Intention among Malaysian Undergraduates. International Journal of Business and Management, 4(10), 54-60.

Mulyadi., Riadi, S.S., Rochaida, E., and Paminto, A. (2016). The Influence of Entrepreneurship on Ability and Success of Small Business of Woven Sarong in Samarinda – Indonesia. European Journal of Business and Management, 8(12), 90-95.

Nabi, G., Holden, R., Walmsley, A. (2006). Graduate career-making and business start-up: a literature review. Education & Training, 48(5), 373-385.

Ogah, J.I., Oko, S.U., and Oshi, J.E. (2013). An Assessment of Entrepreneurship Involvement among Undergraduate Students of Cross River State University of Technology, Ogoja Campus, Cross Rive State. European Journal of Business and Management, 5(12), 75-81.

Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), 1998, Fostering Entrepreneurship, Paris: OECD.
Peterman. N. E., & Kennedy. J. (2003). Enterprise Education: Influencing Students’ Perceptions of Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 28(2), 129-144.

Rita, Grazina & Davia (2013). Explaining Entrepreneurial intention of University Students: The Role of Entrepreneurial Education. Zadar, Croatia.

Schumpeter, Joseph A., 1942, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
Shane, S.A. (2009). Why Encouraging More People to Become Entrepreneurs Is a Bad Public Policy? Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 141-149.

Shapero, A. and Sokol, L. (1982): “Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship”, in Kent, C.A., Sexton, D.L. and Vesper, K.H. (eds.): Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (NJ).
Suartha, N., and Suprapti, N.W.S. (2016). Entrepreneurship for Students: The Relationship between Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation and Entrepreneurial Intention. European Journal of Business and Management, 8(11), 45-52.

Tam, H. W. (2009). How and to What Extent Does Entrepreneurship Education Make Students More Entrepreneurial? A California Case of the Technology Management Program. Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.

Tim M, Thierry V, Noelle D, Htwe T (1999). Factors influencing small business start-ups: A comparison with previous research. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 5(2):48-63.

Turker, D., Selcuk, S. S. (2009). Which factors affect entrepreneurial intention of university students? Journal of European Industrial Training, 33(2), 142-159.

UNDP. (2015). UNDP-Microsoft Partnership Helps Ethiopian Entrepreneurs to Build their Business. UNDP in Ethiopia. Accessed February 2018 from http://www.et.undp.org/content/ethiopia/en/home/presscenter/articles/2015/06/09/undp-microsoftpartnership-helps-ethiopian-entrepreneurs-to-build-their-business-.htmlVan Gelderen, M., Brand, M., Van Praag, M., Bodewes, W., Poutsma, E., & Van Gils, A. (2008). Explaining Entrepreneurial Intentions by Means of the Theory of Planned Behavior. Career Development International, 13(6), 538-559.

Wagaw, T. G., 1990, The Development of Higher Education and Social Change: The Ethiopian Experience, East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.

Wu, S., Wu, L. (2008). The impact of higher education on entrepreneurial intentions of university students in China. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(14), 752-774.

Zain, Z. M., Akram, A. M., & Ghani, E. K. (2010). Entrepreneurship Intentions Among Malaysian Business Students. Canadian Social Science, 6(3), 34-44.

Zhengxia Peng, Genshu Lu, & Hui Kang. (2012). Entrepreneurial Intentions and Its Influencing Factors: A Survey of the University Students in Xi’an China. Scientific Research. Vol 3. 95-100.
Zoltan J. Acs and David B. Audretsch, (1988). innovation in large and small firms: An empirical analysis. The American Economic Review. Vol 78. No. 4. 678-690.

Naudé, W.A. (2010b). ‘Entrepreneurship is not a binding constraint on growth and development in the poorest countries’, World Development 39(1): 33-44.

Naudé, W.A. (2013). ‘Entrepreneurship and economic development: theory, evidence and policy’, University of Maastricht.

Audretsch, D.B., Keilbach M.C., Lehmann E.E., (2006). Entrepreneurship and economic growth. Oxford University Press.

Van Stel, A., & Storey, D. (2002). The relationship between firm births and job creation. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper. Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Universiteit van Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Acs, Z.J., & Armington, C. (2006). Entrepreneurship, geography, and American economic growth. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fritsch, M. (2004). Entrepreneurship, entry and performance of new business compared in two growth regimes: East and West Germany. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14, 525-542.
Twycross, A. & Shields, L. (2004). Validity and Reliability – What’s it all about? Part 2 Reliability in quantitative studies. Pediatric Nursing, 16 (10):36.

Chapter One Introduction Background Entrepreneurship according to