Page 1 of 54
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 10, No. 2
Publication Date: February 25, 2023
DOI:10.14738/assrj.102.12102. Mangada, E. (2023). Entrepreneurial Attitudes, Intentions and Motivations among University Students in the National Capital
Region. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 10(2). 21-74.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Entrepreneurial Attitudes, Intentions and Motivations among
University Students in the National Capital Region
Miguel E. Mangada, PhD, RN, DBA
Faculty, Graduate School, Metro Manila College,
Novaliches, Quezon City, Philippines.
Faculty, College of Nursing,
Systems Plus College Foundation, Angeles City, Philippines
ABSTRACT
Utilizing the descriptive-comparative and descriptive-correlational research
designs, the researcher employed a questionnaire as the principal tool in gathering
data from 518 college students enrolled in the business program of the different
universities in the National Capital Region (NCR) during the school year 2014-2015
through a convenience sampling.The findings of the study revealed that majority of
the university college students belonged to the 20 years old group, were females,
born in the middle sibling order, had parents who reached college, and had an
average monthly income ranging from P30,000 and above, and whose families were
self-employed, and had previous entrepreneurial family experience. The study
indicated that the respondents had a positive attitude towards entrepreneurship.
The respondents were found to have high entrepreneurial intentions. For the push
factors that motivate respondents to become entrepreneurs, the respondents were
much affected by the different push factors, while the pull factors were not very
important to them. The study also found that the exogenous factors hindering the
respondents’ intention of becoming entrepreneurs will be serious problem to the
respondents if they enter the world of entrepreneurship and these will bother them
a lot especially upon starting a business, and so do the endogenous factors.
Furthermore, the study found the following: a) that there was a significant
difference between gender and entrepreneurial attitudes as manifested by the
pvalue of 0.000 which is less than 0.05 or 5%; b) that there was a significant
relationship between the entrepreneurial attitudes and intention of the
respondents as manifested by the p-value which is -0.169 and verbally interpreted
as very low correlation and with the p-value = 0.000 which is less than 0.05 or 5%,
thus, led the researcher to reject the null hypothesis (Ho); c) that there was no
significant relationship between entrepreneurial intentions and motivational
factors as manifested by the p-value of 0.505 and 0.611 which were higher than 0.05
or 5 percent; d) that in terms of pull factors, the entrepreneurial intentions do not
affect the motivational factors or the other way around; e) that the push factors or
the motivational factors do not affect the entrepreneurial intentions of the
respondents. This means that even if how good are the entrepreneurial intentions,
there is a possibility that motivational factors will not be good and vice versa; f) in
terms of exogenous factors, the entrepreneurial intention and hindering factors do
not significantly relate with one another as manifested by the r- value of 0.075 and
also p-value of 0.870 which is greater than 0.05 or 5 percent; and g) when
Page 2 of 54
22
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 10, Issue 2, February-2023
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
endogenous factors were considered, a significant relationship exists between the
entrepreneurial intention and hindering factors.
INTRODUCTION
Davidsson, Lindmark & Olofsson (1995) and Fatoki (2010) cited in Ngek Neneh (2014)
revealed that as early as the 1970s and onward, many western countries have shared the same
experience with respect to large established organizations and businesses being unable to
create a net increase in employment which has resulted in permanent high levels of
unemployment Although the issue of youth unemployment has been recognized and
acknowledged as a universal phenomenon, the youth are beset with problems of high rate of
unemployment and underemployment, and the young Filipinos are not an exception to this
phenomenon.
A survey by the Philippine Statistics Office in 2015 indicated that the unemployment rate in the
Philippines was 6.5 percent in July 2015, down from 6.7 percent a year earlier but increased
to 6.4% as reported in April 2015. But these data excluded the Eastern Visayas region so the
nationwide jobless numbers may be even significantly higher. Among the unemployed persons,
62.6 percent were males. The age groups 15 to 24 years comprised 50.4 percent while the age
groups 25-34 (or 29.5 percent). By educational attainment, 22.2 percent of the unemployed
were college graduates, 13.5 percent college undergraduates, and 33.2 percent were high
school graduates.
Meanwhile, the number of underemployed was 8, 129 in July 2015. More than 50% worked for
less than 40 hours a week and 38.3 percent worked in the agriculture sector, while 44.2 percent
were in the service sector. Those in the industry sector accounted for 17.6 percent.
However, critics have pointed out that the statistics are significantly flawed as the actual
unemployment rate surpasses the statistical data given by the government agency. Moreover,
the National Economic and Development
Authority (NEDA) on Reducing Poverty, Vulnerability and Risks by the World Bank (2013)
observed that although Philippine economy grew at 5 percent in 2012, the overall poverty rate,
which is close to 40 percent has not declined but actually increased in some areas in the
country. While there is a high dependency and reliance on the Philippine government to absorb
and retain this growing number of unemployed people, there is not enough hiring to absorb all
youths seeking civil service employment. Consequently, the youths in the Philippines have
remained disproportionally affected and excluded from the mainstream economy.
Ibon (Manila Times, November 30, 2015) noted that the number of underemployed Filipinos
increased by 933,000 which stood at eight million in July 2015 from 7 million in the same period
in 2014. Ibon stressed that the underemployment rate that is equivalent to 20.3 % was higher
than the 18.8 percent in 2010. It said that there is at least 4.3 million unemployed based on the
real definition of unemployment under which the group continues to include individuals who
have stopped looking for jobs.
The high rate of unemployment among graduates in the Philippines has become a national
concern as the number of graduates with either degrees or diplomas from public and private
Page 3 of 54
23
Mangada, E. (2023). Entrepreneurial Attitudes, Intentions and Motivations among University Students in the National Capital Region. Advances in
Social Sciences Research Journal, 10(2). 21-74.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.102.12102
higher educational institutions that join the job market increases each year. Also, while the
increase in enrolment at the public and private higher educational institutions has put more
graduates into the labor market, there has been no increase in the employment rate of these
graduates. As observed each year when companies in the Philippines set job fairs, there is a
tremendous increase in people seeking jobs exceeding the current demand for the services of
these companies but also the skills of new graduates do not match the needs of the labor market.
From the statistical data, the youth are the people mostly affected by the high unemployment
rate in the Philippines. The high unemployment rate among university graduates has also
resulted in high underemployment as there are too many graduates with fewer jobs. Morshidi,
Bakar, Lim and Mohammed (2004) in Ngek Neneh (2014), however, notes that academic
qualifications can no longer secure immediate employment upon graduation, thus requiring
graduates to demonstrate a positive attitude towards the changing job market.
The promotion of youth employment has been one of the priority areas of the Philippine
government. For this reason, a law, Republic Act 10679, otherwise known as the Youth
Entrepreneurship Act, has been enacted in Congress that would inculcate financial literacy in
Philippine schools. The law aims to promote the sustained development of young Filipinos
whose aptitude and skill in the field of finance and entrepreneurship shall be encouraged and
honed through education and specialized training programs.
Nonetheless, in spite of all the efforts being made, unemployment and under-employment have
remained persistently high among the young people. Just like in many countries, developed or
developing, entrepreneurship has been recognized as a solution to the high rate of
unemployment by the Philippine government. As Gree & Thurnik, 2003 cited in Fatoki, Olawale
Olufunso, 2010) said, entrepreneurship is a tool that drives the economy of a nation. Ekore and
Okekeocha (2012) alluded thatcareers in entrepreneurship will provide young graduates with
the opportunity to become financially independent while at the same time contributing to job
creation, innovation, and economic growth. Henley (2007) states that entrepreneurship is an
intentional activity, suggesting that there is a link between entrepreneurship and intention
given that entrepreneurial intentions are formed at least a year prior to the new venture
creation.
In the Philippines, there is a dearth of literature focusing on entrepreneurship specifically on
the intentions of graduating students, their attitude towards entrepreneurship, motivations
and perceived barriers to the formation of new businesses in order to remove or lower entry
barriers and improve business formation - a gap in the literature that needs to be addressed as
it will provide recommendations that will enhance university graduate entrepreneurship, thus
helping to reduce the high graduate unemployment in the Philippines.
Statement of the Problem
The aim of this paper was to assess the entrepreneurial intentions of university students in the
identified universities in the national capital region (NCR) of the Philippines. Specifically, this
study sought answers to the following questions:
1. How may the profile of the university students enrolled at the chosen universities be
described in terms of?
1.1 age
Page 4 of 54
24
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 10, Issue 2, February-2023
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
1.2 gender
1.3 marital status
1.4 highest educational attainment of either parent
1.5 average monthly family income
1.6 sibling order
1.7 previous entrepreneurial experience
1.8 entrepreneurial family background?
2. What is the extent of attitude of the respondents toward entrepreneurship?
3. To what extent is the entrepreneurial intention of respondents?
4. How do the respondents characterize the identified motivating factors on their decision
to start-up a business?
4.1 push factors
4.2 4.2 pull factors
5. How do the respondents perceive the seriousness of the identified hindering factors in
their decision to start up a business?
5.1 exogenous factors
5.2 endogenous factors
6. Do attitudes of respondents significantly differ when grouped according to their profile?
7. Do entrepreneurial intentions of respondents differ when grouped according to their
profile?
8. Do attitudes significantly relate to entrepreneurial intention level of the respondent?
9. Do motivating factors significantly relate to entrepreneurial intentions of the
respondents?
10. Do hindering factors significantly relate to entrepreneurial intentions of the
respondents?
Hypotheses
From the aforementioned questions, the following hypotheses have been formulated and will
be tested at 0.05 level of significance.
1. Attitudes of university students toward entrepreneurship do not significantly differ
when grouped according to profile.
2. Level of entrepreneurial intention of university students does not differ significantly
when grouped according to profile.
3. Attitudes of university students toward entrepreneurship do not
a. significantly relate to their level of entrepreneurial intentions. .
4. Motivations of university students toward entrepreneurship do
b. not significantly relate to their entrepreneurial intentions.
5. Obstacles faced by university students in entrepreneurship do not significantly
relate to their entrepreneurial intentions.
Scope and Limitations of The Study
This study mainly focused on the entrepreneurial intentions of university students, their
attitudes, motivating as well as hindering factors to their decision of starting up a business and
it also looked into the relationship of these factors to their intention of putting up a business as
identified in the problem statement.
Page 5 of 54
25
Mangada, E. (2023). Entrepreneurial Attitudes, Intentions and Motivations among University Students in the National Capital Region. Advances in
Social Sciences Research Journal, 10(2). 21-74.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.102.12102
The eligibility criteria for this study were that students had to be bonafide enrollees of any
private university located within the national capital region (NCR) of the Philippines and who
were in their final year in the undergraduate business – related degree programs, which
included any of the following degree programs prescribed by the Commission on Higher
Education ( CHED): Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, Bachelor of Science in
Business Administration in any of the following majors: Marketing, Finance or
Entrepreneurship, Bachelor of Science in Entrepreneurship, and Bachelor of Science in
Accountancy provided that entrepreneurship course is incorporated in any of the above
curricula, regardless of their age, gender, marital status, birth order, average monthly family
income, highest educational attainment of either parent, previous entrepreneurial experience
and entrepreneurial family background. Private universities that offer any of the identified
business-related programs but with no entrepreneurship courses integrated in their business
or business –related degree programs are ineligible to participate in the study. Less than four- year collegiate programs in business offered by these universities were also excluded.
This study was conducted for the whole academic year 2014-2015.
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Entrepreneurship
Literature sources have failed to come up with one specific definition which totally describes
entrepreneurship. In an attempt to elaborate on the concept of entrepreneurship, Sathiabama
(2010) nevertheless posited that entrepreneurship is an active, ongoing process of creating
wealth by individuals or groups of individuals. Further, Herrington, Kew, & Kew (2009) pointed
out that an entrepreneur is one who shifts economic resources out of an area of low
productivity into an area of higher productivity and greater yield, and who organizes, manages
and assumes the risk of a business enterprise.
Hisrich & Peters’ (2008) definition of entrepreneurship, however, emphasizes four domains of
being an entrepreneur. Foremost, entrepreneurship involves the creation of something new
with value to the entrepreneur and to the interested parties. The interested parties can be any
individual who is concerned with the new product or service. Secondly, entrepreneurship
requires the devotion of the necessary time and effort. Making a novice idea functional and
operational and bringing it to market is a process with which most entrepreneurs find it
difficult and challenging. Thirdly, entrepreneurship is the taking the necessary risks. The risks
involved in an entrepreneurial process may be of financial, psychological or social nature.
Lastly, the entrepreneur reaps monetary rewards which are frequently recognized as the
determining factor for his success. Nonetheless, most entrepreneurs regard autonomy and
personal gain/satisfaction as the most vital personal rewards.
The European Commission (2008), as cited from World Economic Forum (2009) broadly
defined entrepreneurship to mean an individual’s ability to turn ideas into action. This
encompasses creativity, innovation, and taking calculated risks, as well as the ability to plan
and manage projects in order to achieve goals. This supports everyone in day-to-day life at
home and in society; makes employees become more aware of their work and better able to
seize opportunities and challenges and provides a foundation for entrepreneurs establishing a
social or commercial activity.
Page 6 of 54
26
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 10, Issue 2, February-2023
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
The above definition suggests a wider range of focus, individual involvement and forms of
entrepreneurial organizations. Entrepreneurship in this context does not only refer to profit
making institutions but also includes institutions of a social nature that support people’s lives
and that of the society as a whole. As a result, entrepreneurship does not only cover an
individual who aims to start a business but also employees who have the capacity to seek and
exploit opportunities to improve their work and their working conditions. The role of society
and different entities is an important driver in entrepreneurship.
Stevenson & Jarrilo (2009) as cited in Barringer & Ireland (2010) argued that entrepreneurship
is the process by which individuals pursue opportunities regardless of the resources they
presently control; hence, they are said to be selfemployed individuals. Regrettably, there is no
fix definition for entrepreneurs since people from different fields of study perceived and
defined it differently.
From the perspective of an economist, an entrepreneur is one who makes the combination of
resources to make them valuable. A psychologist, on the other hand, describes an entrepreneur
as one typically driven by certain forces such as the need to acquire or attain something, to
experiment and to accomplish targeted goals. To a businessman, an entrepreneur may be a
threat, an aggressive competitor but may also be an ally, a source of supply, a customer, or
someone who creates wealth for others as well as finds better ways to utilize resources, reduce
waste, and provide jobs to others. For becoming entrepreneurs, they are their own bosses and
they make decision by themselves which offers the prestige of being the person in-charge and
provides a greater possibility of achieving significant financial rewards and achieving personal
and professional goals.
Knight, Drucker, Hart, Stevenson and Dial (2008) as cited in Uddin and Bose (2012) defined
entrepreneurship as a risk-taking behavior which has been carried out for future benefit and
gaining independence and self-control.
Likewise, Uddin & Bose (2012) asserted that being a successful entrepreneur may not be that
easy as it requires long-term planning and business expertise such as developing business
model, combining together a new venture team, generating and managing finance, establishing
partnerships, managing finances, leading and motivating employees. Individuals should be very
cautious at looking at themselves as this helps them to make the right decision in choosing the
right path for getting involved to be self-employed. Therefore, determining the entrepreneurial
intention of a person, his attitudes and motivations before becoming entrepreneur is important
as this may give a person a clear goal about what he wants to be and what to do in
accomplishing his goals, which lead to his success.
Meanwhile, Pihie (2009) stated that entrepreneurship can be measured in two ways: Actual
entrepreneurship, meaning, people have actually started a business; and entrepreneurial
intention, suggesting that people are intending to start a business). He further established in
his study that there is a strong correlation between entrepreneurial intention and actual
behavior.
Page 8 of 54
28
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 10, Issue 2, February-2023
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
espoused by these organizations. Entrepreneurship education becomes an important aspect in
its bid for economic growth and development of nations.
In the Philippines, entrepreneurship education was pioneered by De La Salle University when
it offered a Bachelor’s degree in entrepreneurship in 1983 and the Master of Science in
Entrepreneurship in 2003. In 1999, Asian Institute of Management (AIM) offered the Master’s
degree program in entrepreneurship (Master in Entrepreneurship) which ran for nine years (
1999-2008). The program was eventually spun-off from the Asian Management Institute in
2007 and is now under ACE Center for Entrepreneurship and Management Education, Inc., in
partnership with the Ateneo Graduate School of Business. In 2005, the Commission on Higher
Education ( CHED) issued CHED Memo Order ( CMO) No. 17 series of 2005, formally creating
the Bachelor of Science in Entrepreneurship . This memorandum from (CHED) mandated all
undergraduate programs offering entrepreneurship training and/or specialization to be called
Bachelor of Science in Entrepreneurship.
As cited by Garavan & O'Cinneide (1994) in the work of Ooi, Selvarajah & Meyer (2012), the
most commonly cited objectives of entrepreneurship education and training programs are:
• to acquire knowledge germane to entrepreneurship,
• to acquire skills in the use of techniques, in the analysis of business situations, and in the
synthesis of action plans,
• to identify and stimulate entrepreneurial drive, talent and skills,
• to undo the risk-adverse bias of many analytical techniques,
• to develop empathy and support for all unique aspects of entrepreneurship,
• to devise attitudes towards change; and
• to encourage new start-ups and other entrepreneurial ventures.
Moreover, according to Nabi and Holdeni (2011), entrepreneurship education aims to produce
graduate entrepreneurship that explains the interaction between the graduate as a product of
a higher education institution and their preparedness to pursue their career as an
entrepreneur. They said that a lot of graduates look for employment in government and private
institutions after they have gone through a course in entrepreneurship. However, to some, self- employment is not an issue in spite of the fact that the government considered the private
sector as the engine of growth.
Ediagbonya (2013) pointed out that entrepreneurship education is the kind of education given
to people with a view to developing entrepreneurship qualities properly followed up with
support services for smooth take off and successful running of business. Entrepreneurship
education seeks to provide student (especially those in tertiary schools) with the knowledge,
skills and motivation to encourage entrepreneurial studies in a variety of setting. Schools for
entrepreneurship are an important link between theoretical knowledge and practical
involvement in the market.
As cited by Ismail, Khalid, Othman, Abdul Rahman, Mohammed & Shekh (2009) in the works of
Zahariah Mohd Zain, Amalina Mohd Akram & Erlane Ghani (2011), entrepreneurial education
at tertiary level has also become as a vital component of many curricula in higher learning
institutions (HEIs). As potential businessmen can be seen among those who are presently
Page 14 of 54
34
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 10, Issue 2, February-2023
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
desire to do something because of external rewards such as money and awards. Ashley Cotleur,
Kings and Solomon (2009) observed that the intrinsic motivators for entrepreneurs entail
being their own boss, being more in control of their own destiny and having ultimate
responsibility for the success of the business, while the extrinsic motivators are expected
monetary rewards reflected in salary and benefits.
With regard to pull and push factors, Eijdenberg & Masurel (2013) view pull factors as factors
that attract people to become self-employed (positive motivations), while push factors are
factors that force people to engage in various forms of entrepreneurship (negative
motivations).
As posited by Shamim (2011), pull factors are internally driven motives (such as need for being
their own boss; a need for autonomy; a need for achievement; a need for power; independence
and flexibility; wealth creation, opportunities in the market, to take advantage of, to provide job
security; my creative talent; be my own boss; to realize my dream; I enjoy taking risk; earn a
reasonable living enjoying a quality life). On the other hand, Kirkwood, 2010 and Still & Soutar,
2010) stated that push factors are externally driven motives (e.g. unemployment, poverty,
certainty of a client war, niche market, interest in a subject).
The factors contributory to the development of entrepreneurship, small entrepreneurship in
particular, can be broadly divided into ‘pull’ and ‘push’ elements (Turner, 2007; Epstein 2008
as cited in Ngek Neneh (2014). Pull factors include all those reasons that emphasize
entrepreneurship as positive and desirable alternative that pull the entrepreneurs to their
choice. The pull or ambitious factors motivate the entrepreneurs to initiate the ventures.
Needless to say that ambitions differ among individuals on the basis of their personal
characteristics. Therefore, ambitions which nourish the achievement motivation bring about
economic growth and development. The ambition factors do not always influence an individual
to undertake an activity. Sometimes other factors compel or push one to take initiative to start
a business. The factors which force people to start business enterprises are termed as push or
compelling factors. It is very difficult to draw a dividing line between entrepreneurs’ ambitions
and compulsions.
Islam (2012) conducted a study which endeavored to identify the reasons why the
entrepreneurs become motivated and are compelled to establish business enterprises. Among
400 small entrepreneurs from six districts of Dhaka and Rajshahi divisions who were
interviewed personally and over telephone using an interview schedule, their reasons for
becoming motivated were as follows: making money for family, self-employment, gaining
higher social status, use of personal knowledge and previous experience, family business
tradition, and less complexity but more profitability nature of business as the pull factors while
lack of higher formal education, curse of unemployment, dissatisfaction with previous
occupation, and family hardship or pressure as the push factors.
Asuamah, Eernest and Amuah (2013) assessed the entrepreneurial intentions among Sunyani
Polytechnic students, the factors that motivate and hinder their intention to become
entrepreneurs. One-hundred thirty-six students comprising of 94 males and 42 females
constituted the sample size of the study. Results indicated that there is high entrepreneurial
intention among the respondents. It was also revealed that there are important motivators for
Page 15 of 54
35
Mangada, E. (2023). Entrepreneurial Attitudes, Intentions and Motivations among University Students in the National Capital Region. Advances in
Social Sciences Research Journal, 10(2). 21-74.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.102.12102
intention as well as obstacles to setting up one’s firm. The finding again indicated that gender,
age & religion affect responses given by respondents.
Fatoki (2010) studied South African graduates, and found five motivators of entrepreneurial
intentions: employment, autonomy, creativity, economic and capital. While these motives are
important, spirituality select appears in the literature.
Research suggests that many entrepreneurs may not be motivated primarily by wealth, and
they are eager to become entrepreneurs in order to make a difference or create change for
social progress (Rindova, Barry & Ketchen, 2009, cited by Kauanui, 2010). Yalcin & Kapu (2008)
classified four entrepreneurial motives: financial gain, recognition, freedom, and family
tradition. Financial gain refers to increases in personal wealth afforded by entrepreneurial
activities. Recognition is an internal motive characterized by the need for achievement and self- actualization. The freedom motive refers to the independence and flexibility that
entrepreneurship allows. Finally, family tradition is the motivation to continue a family
business. They also reviewed problems faced by entrepreneurs in transitional economies, such
as high supplier prices, difficulty in securing business loans, and red tape.
Drost (2010) stated entrepreneurial self-efficacy mediates the relationship between
entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention because entrepreneurship course
may enhance student self-confidence level about their ability to become entrepreneurs, highly
believe themselves are capable of managing their own firms properly and to succeed, thereby
increase they entrepreneurial intention. Conversely, some findings highlighted
entrepreneurship education as a deterrent factor in demonstrating entrepreneurial intentions
of university students and their self-assessed entrepreneurial skills (Graevenitz, Harhoff &
Weber, 2010; Hill, 2011). These surprising results are due to the fact that students have
obtained more realistic perspectives of being entrepreneurs or somehow after taking
entrepreneurship course, the perception of students towards entrepreneurship might change,
hence, reducing their interest on entrepreneurship (Oosterbeek et al., 2008).
Sociodemographic Characteristics and Entrepreneurial Intentions
Ismail et al. (2011) noted that in addition to personality traits, several additional individual
difference variables have been found to predict entrepreneurship. Demographic factors
affecting entrepreneurship are age, sex, education, work experience and role models. In
addition, individual difference variables such as age, gender, and education can impact on
entrepreneurial behaviors.
Basu & Virick (2010) explored and evaluated entrepreneurial intentions and their antecedents
among 123 students at San Jose State University in US by building on Fishbein and Ajzen’s
(1975) model and revealed that prior exposure to entrepreneurship education has a positive
effect on students’ attitudes toward a career in entrepreneurship and on perceived behavioral
control or entrepreneurial self-efficacy. At the same time, individuals’ prior exposure to
entrepreneurship in practice, both direct and indirect through their family background in
business, is significantly linked to their attitudes, norms, and perceived behavioral control
regarding entrepreneurship. Having a selfemployed father is significantly related to the
student’s positive attitudes, stronger norms, and greater self-efficacy with respect to
entrepreneurship.
Page 20 of 54
40
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 10, Issue 2, February-2023
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
lack of business skill, lack of planning and long-sighted and excessive risk, high operating
expenses, lack of working capital/ investment, fund and lack of good suppliers).
Likewise, Rae & Woodier (2010) elucidated that the factors hindering graduate career choices
and entrepreneurship at the University of Derby were the lack of awareness, financial
uncertainty, lack of relevant working experience, limited entrepreneurship guidance and
know-how in setting up of a business, and the lack of confidence, creativity and innovative
ideas.
In a similar vein, Venesaar, Kolbre and Piliste (2011) established that factors such as the lack
of business ideas, insufficient knowledge and skills and fear of business failure are inhibitors to
starting a business at the Tallinn University of Technology in Estonia. Wang and Wong’s (2010)
study on the entrepreneurial intention among undergraduate students in Singapore identified
the obstacles of entrepreneurial intentions to be inadequate business knowledge and perceived
risk.
On the other hand, Fatoki, (2010) found that the obstacles to entrepreneurial intention among
graduate students in South Africa were inadequate capital, inadequate support from the
government, economy, and crime. Furthermore, Fatoki and Chindoga (2011) added that
exogenous factors such as the fear of failure, lack of business skills and lack of willingness to
take risk were obstacles to youth entrepreneurship in South Africa. Moreover, Akpomi (2010)
examined the entrepreneurship among graduates-to-be ofbusiness/management faculties and
economic development in Nigeria and found that factors, such the inadequate preparation to
face the demands of running a business, lack of take-off funds/sponsorship and the poor
attitude of Nigerians towards purchasing made-in Nigeria goods to hinder entrepreneurial
intentions. In addition, Yeboah, Kumi and Awuah (2013) pointed out that the biggest obstacle
to entrepreneurial intention among Sunyani Polytechnic marketing student in Ghana is lack of
collateral security.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This study is anchored on the theory of planned behavior (TPB) developed by Ajzen (1991)
and the theory explicitly espoused by Hannan, Hazlett, and Leitch (2004 as cited in Segumpan
and Abu Zahari (2012). Azjen’s theory helps one to understand how he/she can change the
behavior of people. The central factor in Ajzen’s (1991) TPB is the individuals’ intentions to
perform a specific behavior. Intentions are assumed to be the motivation to certain behavior.
Thus, the stronger the intention to perform certain behavior, the more likely it will be
performed.
Ajzen (1991) elaborated three factors in his theory, which are crucial in changing the intention
and the actual behavior. First of all, the belief and attitude somebody has toward the behavior.
He explains that attitude towards a behavior is a reflection of the individual’s appraisal of the
behavior, and the appraisal may be placed along a continuum running from favorable to
unfavorable. He indicates that the more favorable the appraisal the greater the intention. A
student could, for instance, have a positive attitude toward entrepreneurship because one of
the parents is an entrepreneur.