The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1462-6004.htm
Entrepreneurship education in
Germany and Sweden: what role
do different school systems play?
Kathrin Fuchs
Entrepreneurship
education
365
Institute for Education and Socio-Economic Research and Consulting,
Berlin, Germany, and
Arndt Werner and Frank Wallau
Institute for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (IfM Bonn), Bonn, Germany
Abstract
Purpose – The question arises whether entrepreneurship education will be able to facilitate the
entrepreneurial attitude in the near future. Unfortunately, the decisive role of compulsory schooling
has long been neglected in this context. Until recently it was considered sufficient to provide education
in entrepreneurship in universities (especially in the area of Business Administration) or in the form of
special courses for people who consider starting their own business. Picking up the discussion at this
point, the purpose of this paper is to analyse to what extent compulsory school education in Germany
and Sweden facilitates a more entrepreneurial way of thinking among pupils.
Design/methodology/approach – First, the paper briefly summarises the relevant research literature
and specify important components of entrepreneurship education. Second, it discusses what exactly is to
be understood by entrepreneurial qualities and present a holistic approach based on a model by
Dahlgren. Third, it describes the unique data and presents some empirical results. The empirical
analysis concentrates on Germany. Yet, for reasons of comparison, it additionally analyses the situation
in Sweden. Finally, the paper summarises the results and discusses the policy implications.
Findings – The results presented clearly suggest that German schools do not succeed very well in
presenting self-employment as an attractive alternative to dependent work. Swedish pupils generally
show a higher preference for self-employment than their German counterparts. Furthermore, the
results suggest that German schools diminish rather than encourage pupils’ ambitions to become
self-employed as the pupils become older.
Originality/value – To the authors’ knowledge this is the first empirical study which compares the
effect of different school systems on entrepreneurial attitude simultaneously (i.e. with the same
questionnaire and at the same point of time).
Keywords Entrepreneurialism, Education, Government policy, Germany, Sweden, Schools
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
In recent years, three main arguments have been advanced in Germany to substantiate
the need to promote entrepreneurship: The foremost motivation to promote
entrepreneurship is the difficult employment situation (European Commission,
2004a). Many companies respond to the growing competitive pressures either by
reducing their workforce or by relocating the business to other parts of the world.
Thus, Germany needs new, innovative enterprises that are able to withstand the
competitive pressures and create new jobs. Secondly, it is estimated that every third
The IfM Bonn is associated to the University of Cologne, Germany.
Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development
Vol. 15 No. 2, 2008
pp. 365-381
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1462-6004
DOI 10.1108/14626000810871736
JSBED
15,2
366
entrepreneur will retire within the next ten years (European Commission, 2002a). At
the same time, the number of business transfers within the family is decreasing. If the
retiring entrepreneurs fail to find appropriate successors, an estimated 70,900 German
enterprises and 680,000 jobs are at risk every year (Freund, 2004). Thus, we need
young people with entrepreneurial abilities willing to take over these enterprises.
Thirdly, the transition from the industrial to the modern knowledge and information
society entails significant changes regarding the structure of the labour market: A
business environment which is increasingly marked by flat hierarchies poses new
challenges to the workforce requiring them to co-operate across department
boundaries and take independent decisions (Boston Consulting Group, 2002). Thus,
the German business sector needs employees that display a high degree of
entrepreneurial spirit in their workplace and are willing to face these new challenges.
Yet despite the efforts to promote entrepreneurship in Germany, up to date both the
propensity towards entrepreneurship (i.e. the number of people considering
self-employment as an occupational option) and the percentage of people currently
involved in a start-up process is considerably lower here than in many other Western
countries (European Commission, 2004c)[1]. Furthermore, significant demographic
changes are likely to widen the entrepreneurial gap even more in the near future:
Eurostat, for example, estimates that the age group most frequently involved in
entrepreneurial activities, i.e. people aged 24-34, will be most affected by the general
decrease in the population (Eurostat, 2004). By the year 2040 their percentage of the
total population will have decreased from 25 to less than 20 per cent. Taking these
developments into account it is obvious that serious efforts have to be made in the near
future in order to enhance entrepreneurial activity in Germany. In this context the
adoption of the “European agenda for entrepreneurship” points in the right direction
(European Commission, 2004a): The agenda identifies ten important steps (key actions)
to be taken towards a more entrepreneurial society, the first of which is headed:
“Fostering entrepreneurial mindsets through school education”[2].
Picking up the discussion at this point in this paper we will analyse to what extent
compulsory school education in Germany facilitates a more entrepreneurial way of
thinking among pupils. In particular, we will focus on the question whether teachers
manage to communicate specific contents of entrepreneurship education to their
pupils. Our empirical analysis will concentrate on Germany. Yet, for reasons of
comparison, we will additionally analyse the situation in Sweden. A comparison with
Sweden appears promising because Sweden has considerably intensified its
endeavours to foster entrepreneurship education in recent years.
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we will briefly sum up the relevant
research literature and specify important components of entrepreneurship education.
Section 3 describes the data collection and presents empirical results. Section 4 sums
up our results and discusses policy implications.
2. Brief survey of the literature
Up to today, the lack of an unambiguous, universally accepted definition of the term
“entrepreneurship” is frequently criticized (Blanchflower and Oswald, 1990). Originally
limited to the exercise of an independent business activity, over the centuries a much
wider understanding of entrepreneurship has evolved (e.g. Lackner, 2002; Malek and
Ibach, 2004). When the term “entrepreneurship” was first introduced into an economic
context in the seventeenth century, it was associated with risk-taking and own
initiative. Over the following centuries, the significance of innovation in an
entrepreneurial context has increasingly been emphasized (Schumpeter, 1968).
“Creative destruction” has come to be associated with entrepreneurial activity,
obviously restricting the concept of entrepreneurship to innovative businesses and
excluding established companies no longer striving for innovation. Innovative
business activity, however, is not necessarily exercised by the business owner alone
but is often initiated by employees (“intrapreneurship”).
Thus today, entrepreneurship has come to be perceived as a “mindset”, a
combination of specific entrepreneurial qualities (e.g. Dahlgren, 1999). This approach is
independent of the business context and suggests that everybody can think and act in
an entrepreneurial way. Accordingly, the European Commission defines
entrepreneurship as “a general attitude that can be usefully applied in all working
activities and in everyday life.” From this definition three main objectives in respect to
entrepreneurship education can be derived:
(1) Encouraging and developing personal enterprise (enterprise education);
(2) raising people’s awareness of and propensity towards self-employment as an
occupational option; and
(3) conveying knowledge about how to start and run a business (European
Commission, 2002b; European Commission, 2004b).
Unfortunately, the decisive role of compulsory schooling in entrepreneurship education
has long been neglected. Until recently it was considered sufficient to provide
education in entrepreneurship in universities (especially in the area of Business
Administration) or in the form of special courses for people who consider starting their
own business. Compulsory education was not thought of as an appropriate platform to
convey knowledge about how to start and run a new business. It was argued that most
pupils at this stage neither have the maturity nor the experience needed to understand
the complexities of business management (Johannisson and Madsen, 2000). Today, the
perspective has shifted. Involving compulsory schools into the entrepreneurship
education process is seen as an important objective for the following reasons:
(1) The innate entrepreneurial attitude of younger children must be preserved.
Younger children tend to display an entrepreneurial attitude in everything they
do – they are usually very creative, straightforward and unconcerned with the
potential risks inherent in their actions. It is therefore crucial to encourage
entrepreneurial behaviour as early as possible[3].
(2) Many “entrepreneurial” skills and qualities are today considered as key
competencies every employee should possess (Eurydice European Unit, 2002).
Against this background, general education schools are often criticized for not
responding to the changing demands of the economy quickly enough and hence
failing to prepare pupils for their professional careers.
(3) Last but not least, whilst it is neither possible nor desirable to convince all
pupils to become self-employed, self-employment should be an occupational
option for everybody, irrespective of educational background. Hence, education
Entrepreneurship
education
367
JSBED
15,2
368
in entrepreneurship must not be restricted to certain fields of study[4].
Compulsory education must strive to convey as complete a picture of the labour
market as possible. Otherwise, brilliant business ideas might remain
unexploited just because its “owner” never considered self-employment as an
occupational option (Hynes, 1998). This is the more important considering that
it is mainly persons with merely compulsory education who are forced to found
their own business for lack of occupational alternatives (GEM, 2003).
Accordingly, the European Commission points out that entrepreneurship
education in schools is important and should focus on:
.
fostering pupils’ entrepreneurial qualities;
.
creating a positive attitude towards self-employment amongst the pupils and
raising their awareness of self-employment as an occupational option; and
.
facilitating early knowledge and contact between school and business world
(European Commission, 2002b).
Now, before empirically examining the performance of German and Swedish schools
with regard to these different objectives, it still must be discussed what exactly is to be
understood by entrepreneurial qualities (see Figure 1)[5]. In literature opinions on this
matter diverge. It has even been argued that entrepreneurial attitude and behaviour are
innate and cannot be fostered through school education. Yet, the prevailing opinion
today is that, whilst this might be true for some exceptional individuals, an adequate
educational environment can and should encourage an entrepreneurial attitude in
young people (Johannisson and Madsen, 2000).
According to Dahlgren (1999) the “lowest common denominator” is that
entrepreneurs have a clear “vision” of what they want to achieve in life, that they
are willing to implement this vision at any cost (“volition”) and that they have the
Figure 1.
Entrepreneurial qualities
necessary knowledge and skills (“tools”) to do so (see Figure 1). In order to increase the
learner’s self-confidence, internal locus of control and sense of responsibility he should
be given the opportunity to actively participate in the decision-making process
whenever possible.
Also, the teaching and learning processes should be adapted to each learner’s
individual needs, strengths and weaknesses. The learner should be encouraged to
make independent decisions and be given a lot of freedom in his actions. Beside the
obvious benefits of counteracting each learner’s individual weaknesses, an individual
approach will also conduce to the learner’s self-awareness and own initiative.
Furthermore, entrepreneurship education is only effective in an environment that
challenges the learner to exploit his full potential, regards mistakes as learning
opportunities instead of failure, and encourages critical thinking by means of
constructive criticism[6]. Not only will this increase the learner’s readiness to take
risks, it will also raise his awareness of his personal strengths and weaknesses and call
upon his creativity. Given the importance of personalizing information in an
entrepreneurial context, enterprise education must be practiced in an environment that
encourages active forms of learning. Instead of simply ruminating what he has been
told, the learner should strive to actively search for new information and understand
that learning is, in fact, a lifelong process.
It is also strongly recommended to take a holistic approach to enterprise education
(e.g. Grant, 1994; Carrier, 2000). In order to foster his creative thinking and flexibility
the learner should be encouraged to transfer acquired knowledge and skills to new
contexts and to understand how different matters are linked with one another.
Networking and communication skills have been identified as important features of
entrepreneurial people (Lackner, 2002). Consequently, the educational context should
place greater emphasis on interaction with others.
3. Empirical results
In the following empirical section, the practical implementation of entrepreneurship
education in German and Swedish schools will be compared. We will examine whether
the working atmosphere as well as the working methods applied in class are in line
with the prerequisites for effective enterprise education. Our empirical work is based
on a large and unique random sample of 500 German and 500 Swedish pupils in grades
seven, eight and nine[7]. The data were collected in an e-mail survey conducted in
Swedish and German schools between October and December 2004. In either country,
approximately 300 headmasters were contacted and asked to distribute the
questionnaires to their pupils. In order to ensure comparability, the survey was
restricted to general public schools[8]. In the next section we will start our analysis by
comparing the extent to which the German and Swedish school systems respectively
boost the decision making process and individualization.
3.1 Decision-making process and individualization
In accordance with the theoretical considerations presented above, pupils’ involvement
in the decision-making processes and the individualization of tuition have been
identified as important preconditions for the fostering of an entrepreneurial attitude.
The first question of the survey aimed at finding out whether the pupils experienced
Entrepreneurship
education
369
JSBED
15,2
370
Figure 2.
Decision-making process
and individualization
the working atmosphere in class as stimulating and hence conducive to the
development of their personal enterprise. On a five step scale ranging from 1 (“very
often”) to 5 (“never”), they were asked to indicate how often they felt they could
influence the work pace, the content and methods of teaching, realize their own ideas,
work independently and speak out without having to worry about the consequences
(see Figure 2).
The results show that altogether Swedish pupils experience more opportunities to
actively participate in the decision making process. The discrepancy between the two
countries is particularly wide concerning the influence on the work pace in the
classroom. In Sweden, 55.5 per cent of the pupils feel that they can work at their own
pace often or very often, as opposed to only 24.3 per cent in Germany. At the same time,
35.7 per cent of German pupils state to have little or no influence on the work pace in
class whilst in Sweden only 10.6 per cent are of this opinion. Swedish pupils are also
more satisfied with their involvement in the decision-making processes in general.
More than every fourth respondent from Sweden states to often or very often having a
say concerning the content of tuition, whilst only 11.4 per cent of German pupils feel
the same. Of Swedes, 68 per cent say that they at least sometimes can decide upon the
contents of tuition, whereas more than every second German pupil feels that his
opinion is seldom or never taken into account. Concerning the learning methods
applied, the gap between the countries is even wider: Three in four Swedish
respondents very often, often or sometimes participate in the choice of learning
method, whilst less than 50 per cent of Germans state to have this possibility. On the
other hand, German pupils are somewhat more satisfied with the possibilities to
implement their own ideas in class. But the difference here is very small. Beside the
possibility to work at their own pace and the general involvement in the
decision-making processes, it is also important that pupils are free to express their
own opinion in class without risking to be criticised or laughed at or to experience
other negative consequences. According to our results more Swedish than German
pupils feel that they can speak out in class without having to worry about the
consequences. Obviously, schools in both countries are quite successful in respect to
the ability to work on one’s own: With mean values of 2.02 (Germany) and 2.03
(Sweden), and about 75 per cent stating that this form of work is very often or often
applied, the results are satisfactory. In fact, less than one percent of the pupils claim
never to have the possibility to work on their own.
All things considered, the results presented suggest that participation is better
implemented in Sweden than in Germany. One of the reasons for this may be the
different underlying school system concepts. The German education system is mainly
based on “input control”. The underlying principle of this concept is that by regulating
the “inputs” of education, outputs will automatically go into the right direction.
Accordingly, the German curricula contain detailed regulations as to what should be
taught at school, how it should be taught and when it should be taught. In most federal
states the curriculum dictates the topics to be covered in a particular subject as well as
the number of lessons to be allotted to each topic and to a certain extent also the
teaching materials (Döbert et al., 2004).
The compulsory education system in Sweden, on the other hand, is
“output-oriented”: The basic decisions are taken at national level and summarized in
a national curriculum. These decisions, however, are of very general nature and are
concretized at community or school level[9]. According to the national curriculum, the
decisions at local level are to be taken in close co-operation with the pupils. Under the
heading of “pupils’ rights and responsibilities”, the curriculum states that the pupils
shall have great influence on the contents of education (Ministry of Education and
Science, 1994).
Obviously, the output oriented approach to education applied in Sweden leaves
much more decision-making power with the individual teachers. This facilitates both
the individualization of tuition and the involvement of the pupils in the
decision-making processes. In Germany, on the other hand, although
individualization and pupils’ involvement are promoted in most state curricula, the
scope for individual decisions for both teachers and pupils is confined by the detailed
regulations set at state level.
3.2 Interaction with others
As stated before, effective enterprise education requires both an active and a holistic
approach to learning and is highly dependent on interaction with others.
Interdisciplinary activities, project and team work are typical examples of active
and holistic approaches to education. In order to get an idea of whether the working
methods applied in the classroom support the development of entrepreneurial qualities,
pupils were asked to indicate whether certain working methods were:
.
often or very often;
.
sometimes; or
.
seldom or never applied in their class (see Figure 3).
Entrepreneurship
education
371
JSBED
15,2
372
Figure 3.
Interaction with others
The survey results show that “entrepreneurial” working methods are common in the
school systems of both countries. The survey does not reveal a clear advantage for
Sweden. On the contrary, assessments from Germany are better on the whole. The
difference is particularly striking concerning team work: 46.7 per cent of German
pupils state that they often work in teams, the corresponding figure for Sweden being
22.1 per cent. The fact that project and team work obviously are more common in
German schools also partly explains why German pupils more frequently state that
they often or sometimes have to present the results of their work to the class. Only 8.5
per cent of German pupils state that this never happens, the corresponding figure for
Sweden being 15.3 per cent. As a matter of fact, project and team work provide most
opportunities for such presentations. In fact, interdisciplinary work has considerably
gained in importance in Germany in recent years. Most curricula today include
recommendations for interdisciplinary activities and in some federal states project
work is even compulsory[10]. Moreover, the ongoing reforms of the education system
very often include the establishment of interdisciplinary syllabi for a number of
subjects.
3.3 Pupil’s assessments
Results so far revealed that whilst the overall educational environment in Sweden is
more conducive to the fostering of entrepreneurial qualities, “entrepreneurial” working
methods are somewhat more frequent in Germany. Against this background, it is
particularly interesting to find out how pupils themselves assess school’s contribution
to the development of their personal enterprise. As can be derived from Figure 4,
Swedish pupils are more satisfied with school’s efforts to develop most of the
entrepreneurial qualities. Differences are particularly striking concerning pupils’
curiosity and willingness to learn. In fact, 55.6 per cent of Swedish pupils feel that
Entrepreneurship
education
373
Figure 4.
Pupil’s assessments
school succeeds well or very well in this respect, as opposed to only 27.7 per cent of
German pupils. One of the main reasons for this is certainly the greater part Swedish
pupils play in the decision-making processes. Likewise, a considerably higher
percentage of Swedish pupils feel that school education contributes to the development
of their discernment (67.3 per cent say that school succeeds well or very well here,
against 42 per cent in Germany), to their ability to think critically (57.3 against 40 per
cent), as well as to their self-confidence (49.8 against 36.4 per cent). These findings
reinforce the impression that the learning atmosphere in Swedish schools is, in fact,
more encouraging. When it comes to creativity, the capacity for teamwork and the
ability to work on one’s own, there are no major differences between pupils’
assessments in the two countries.
If the different attributes are sequenced by mean value (see Figure 5), it is obvious
that pupils from both countries basically agree which qualities are best and least
developed at school. Measurement took place on a five-step scale ranging from 1 (“very
good”) to 5 (“very bad”). Obviously, school succeeds best in developing pupils’ capacity
for teamwork and ability to work on their own, whereas self-confidence and curiosity
are the qualities school contributes least to.
3.4 Early knowledge and contact with the world of business
Beside the fostering of entrepreneurial qualities, the facilitation of “early knowledge
and contact with the world of business” has been identified as the second objective of
entrepreneurship education. Only if young people develop a basic understanding of the
business society at an early stage will they be prepared to take an active role in this
society themselves and hence apply their personal enterprise in a business context. To
begin with, it must be emphasized that business education at lower secondary level can
and should not replace university studies in economics or in a similar subject.
JSBED
15,2
374
Figure 5.
Pupil’s assessments (mean
values)
Hence, the objective of business education at this stage cannot be the impartation of
detailed knowledge and the understanding of complex economic facts. Instead, it
should aim at developing a basic understanding of the business world. It is particularly
important for the pupils to understand how business issues are related to their personal
life, which is why their personal experiences should always be taken into account.
Furthermore, pupils should be given the opportunity to gain as much practical
experience in the business world as possible. For obvious reasons, a purely theoretical
approach is not appropriate at this educational stage as it is likely to exceed the
imagination of the pupils. Whilst a certain degree of theoretical knowledge is
indispensable, such real-life experiences usually have a much more lasting effect on the
pupils. The most effective way to achieve this is probably through periods of practical
training or project work in co-operation with an enterprise. A less time-intensive
(though probably also less effective) opportunity for contacts with the business world
are company visits.
In order to analyse the practical implementation of business education in everyday
school life, pupils were asked once again how frequently corresponding activities were
carried out at their respective schools. As Figure 6 indicates the impartation of
theoretical knowledge about business and work-related matters seems to be more
common in Germany than in Sweden. 64.6 per cent of the German pupils state that
business matters are at least sometimes discussed in class, the corresponding figure for
Sweden being 48.6 per cent. On the other hand, the survey reveals that practical
elements play a more decisive role in Swedish than in German schools. This is
particularly obvious when it comes to periods of practical training (internships). Whilst
64.6 per cent of Swedish pupils state that practical training is offered very often, often
or sometimes at their school, the corresponding figure for Germany is only 44.4 per
Entrepreneurship
education
375
Figure 6.
Early knowledge and
contact with the world of
business
cent. Project work in co-operation with an enterprise appears to be slightly more
common in Sweden as well. Yet, this form of co-operation does not seem to be very
prevalent in either country: In both countries more than half of the pupils state that this
never happens at their school. Last but not least, the frequency of company visits does
not differ very much between the two countries.
3.5 Self-Employment as an occupational option among pupils
As mentioned before, the long-term objective of entrepreneurship education is, of
course, to increase the number of active entrepreneurs, thereby enhancing international
competitiveness, job creation and welfare. Nowadays, schools throughout Europe are
frequently criticized for preparing pupils solely for dependent employment and not
informing them sufficiently – or even at all – about the possibility of becoming
self-employed. Obviously, if more people are to start their own business in the future,
this has to change considerably. Therefore, the third objective of entrepreneurship
education amongst the target group of this work is to raise young people’s awareness
of self-employment as an occupational option.
Beside providing theoretical information and discussions about self-employment
during lessons or in connection with career guidance, schools should also strive to
facilitate contacts between pupils and active entrepreneurs. During “ordinary” periods
of practical training the possibilities for such contacts are usually limited, especially in
larger companies where pupils are mostly instructed by employees and rarely meet the
business owners let alone the founders themselves. Therefore, schools should strive to
arrange meetings between pupils and entrepreneurs, e.g. by inviting entrepreneurs to
talk about their work in class. This will allow pupils to discuss self-employment with
experts and probably help to increase their personal interest in self-employment.
JSBED
15,2
376
Moreover, at some schools pupils have the opportunity to start and run mini
companies, i.e. small companies where pupils sell certain products or services and
organize the company as in real life.
In the following, it will be examined whether self-employment is actually discussed
in class and whether school succeeds in encouraging pupils to become self-employed.
To begin with, pupils were asked about their vocational preferences (see Figure 7).
First of all, Swedish pupils generally show a higher preference for self-employment
than their German counterparts. Of Swedish respondents 30.7 per cent state they
would prefer self-employment, as opposed to 20.7 per cent in Germany. In fact,
self-employment is the most popular alternative amongst Swedish pupils whilst in
Germany a higher percentage of respondents (24 per cent) claim to prefer a paid
employment in a large company. There is, however, a striking difference between the
development of pupils’ intentions over the years (see Figure 8): In year seven the
percentage of pupils preferring self-employment is the same in both countries, 24 per
cent. In Sweden, this percentage increases to 32 per cent in year nine, whereas in
Germany it decreases slightly to 22 per cent. This result suggests that German schools
diminish rather than encourage pupils’ ambitions to become self-employed.
4. Conclusion and policy implications
The results presented clearly suggest that schools do not succeed very well in
presenting self-employment as an attractive alternative to dependent work. In its
Agenda for Entrepreneurship the European Commission calls upon the member states
to take a holistic approach towards entrepreneurship education, e.g. by explicitly
integrating enterprise education into their school curricula. Unfortunately, the German
Federal Council (Bundesrat) rejected this request saying that educational matters fall
into the responsibility of the federal states[11].
Figure 7.
Occupational preferences
among pupils (per cent)
Entrepreneurship
education
377
Figure 8.
Preference for
self-employment (by class
level, per cent)
Yet, in the wake of the increasing attention given to entrepreneurship education in
recent years, several promising programmes aiming at encouraging an entrepreneurial
attitude amongst the pupils have been set up both at national level and in the federal
states[12]. In Sweden, the government recently passed a National Programme for
Entrepreneurship which is to complement and support the numerous regional and local
initiatives in the country[13]. A serious problem in both countries is that interaction
between and information about the different initiatives is often insufficient. Even if
different organizations have now begun to bundle the information and make it
available on their websites, the initiators of the different programmes should increase
their efforts to spread information about their work.
Furthermore, interchange and co-operation across national borders should be
intensified. In order to increase teachers’ readiness to co-operate with the business
world and foster entrepreneurship in general, the government should consider offering
incentives to those who actually do so. This might include either financial incentives or
extra time for preparation and additional training. Considering that the overwhelming
majority of initiatives and support programmes are geared towards the schools
themselves whilst hardly any organization offers support to enterprises willing to
intensify their contacts with the education system, extra support to enterprises might
also have positive effects on co-operation.
Yet, the results presented also raise a number of questions for future research on
entrepreneurship education. It is not clear, for example, which of the educational
methods discussed actually affects the propensity of pupils to become self-employed.
Thus, future research should concentrate on the question whether and how school
education influences pupils’ attitudes toward self-employment in a more direct manner.
To investigate this question longitudinal research is needed.
JSBED
15,2
378
Notes
1. See also Table AI in the Appendix.
2. In recent years, the decisive role of entrepreneurship education and training within the
school education system has been emphasized in research for example by Johannisson and
Madsen (2000), Gibb (1998) as well as Amos and Maas (1998).
3. Janbrink and Johannisson (1997, p. 9) state in this context: “The innate personal enterprise is
the natural starting point for every effort to create a more entrepreneurial society”.
4. In fact, in its Joint Report on Social Inclusion the Council of the European Union states that, if
the opportunity of starting one’s own business is offered to everybody, “regardless of
background or location”, this can be conducive to personal development and social cohesion
(European Commission, 2005).
5. Sources: Amos and Maas (1998); Carrier (2000); Dahlgren (1999); Gibb (1998); Golla et al.
(2003); Grant (1994); Johannisson and Madsen (2000); Lackner (2002); Miettinnen (2001);
Pikhala and Miettinnen (2003); Theile and Ohógartaigh (2002).
6. Or as Bergström et al. (2002, p. 21) state: “The school system has to transfer the feeling that it
is allowed to get things wrong, that it is great to take risks.”
7. In detail: 51 German and Swedish pupils in grade seven, 123 German and Swedish pupils in
grade eight and 326 German and Swedish pupils in grade nine.
8. Excluding private institutions, special education schools and schools applying special
pedagogical concepts (e.g. Waldorf or Montessori pedagogic).
9. Every community is obliged to pass its own school plan which in turn is to be concretized at
school level in a local working plan (Ministry of Education and Science, 1994).
10. An outstanding example for this is Baden-Wurttemberg where all pupils are obliged to
participate in four interdisciplinary projects during their school career.
11. The German education system is characterized by “cultural sovereignty” (Döbert et al., 2004),
which implicates that educational matters are decided upon at federal state level.
12. The SWA programme in Germany was established by the Federal Ministry of Education
and Research (BMBF) in 1999 and is co-financed by the European Social Fund. Its main
objective is to improve the job opportunities of the pupils. Specifically, the SWA programme
supports such initiatives aiming at fostering pupils’ personal enterprise, e.g. through the
promotion of interdisciplinary approaches and increased influence of the pupils on the
content and organization of everyday tuition. Promising initiatives established at federal
state level include Go! To School in North-Rhine Westphalia or ifex in Baden-Wurttemberg.
13. In December 2004, the Swedish government passed the so-called “National Programme for
Entrepreneurship”. In the first instance, the programme will run for three years, with a total
annual budget of 45 million Swedish Crowns (approximately 4.9 million euros) to be spent in
four key areas, the first being “Entrepreneurship at School Level”. The main part of the
budget, 20 million Swedish Crowns (2.2 million euros) per year, will be spent within this
segment.
References
Amos, T.L. and Maas, G. (1998), “Developing entrepreneurial students: a proposal of the what
and how”, in Nieuwenhuizen, C. and Klandt, H. (Eds), FGF Entrepreneurship
Monographien, Vol. 30, Josef Eul Verlag, Lohmar, pp. 29-47.
Bergström, K.-J., Heldén Filipsson, L. and Linder, S. (2002), “Morgondagens yrkesutbildning –
och småföretagens kompetensbehov” (“Tomorrow’s occupational training – and the needs
of the small companies)”, Företagarnas Riksorganisation, Get AB, Stockholm.
Blanchflower, D. and Oswald, A. (1990), “What makes an entrepreneur?”, Paper 373, London
School of Economics, London.
Boston Consulting Group (2002), “Die Zukunft bilden – Eine gemeinsame Aufgabe für Schule
und Wirtschaft” (“Create the future – a common task for schools and the business world”),
Boston Consulting Group, Munich.
Carrier, C. (2000), “Is it possible to teach creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship?”, Cahier de
recherche CR 00-6, Institut de Recherche sur les PME, University of Quebec in Trois
Rivieres, Trois Rivieres.
Dahlgren, H. (1999), “Entreprenörskap – Hur, vad och varför?” (“Entrepreneurship – how, what
and why?”), Rapport från Institutet för Individanpassad Skola Report of the Institut for
Individualized Schooling, Stockholm.
Döbert, H., Klieme, E. and Sroka, W. (Eds) (2004), Conditions of School Performance in Seven
Countries – A Quest for Understanding the International Variations of PISA Results,
Waxmann, Münster.
European Commission (2002a), “Final report of the expert group on the transfer of small and
medium-sized companies”, European Commission, Brussels.
European Commission (2002b), “Final report of the export group “Best Procedure Project” on
education and training for entrepreneurship”, European Commission, Brussels.
European Commission (2004a), “Action plan: the European agenda for entrepreneurship”,
European Commissionm, Brussels.
European Commission (2004b), “Final report of the expert group ”Education for
Entrepreneurship” – making progress in promoting entrepreneurial attitudes and skills
through Primary and Secondary Education”, European Commission, Brussels.
European Commission (2004c), “Flash Eurobarometer 160: Entrepreneurship”, prepared by EOS
Gallup Europe on the request of the European Commission, European Commission,
Brussels.
European Commission (2005), “Joint report on social protection and social inclusion”, European
Commission, Brussels.
Eurostat (2004), Eurostat Jahrbuch 2004 – Der statistische Wegweiser durch Europa (Eurostat
statistical yearbook 2004 – the statistical guide to Europe), Eurostat, Luxembourg.
Eurydice European Unit (2002), “Survey 5: Key Competencies – A Developing Concept in General
Compulsory Education”, Eurydice European Network on Education, Brussels.
Freund, W. (2004), “Unternehmensnachfolgen in Deutschland (business transfers in Germany)”,
Jahrbuch zur Mittelstandsforschung, 1/2004, Institut für Mittelstandsforschung, Bonn,
pp. 57-89.
GEM: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (2003), GEM 2003 Executive Report, GEM: Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor, London.
Gibb, A. (1998), “Educating tomorrow’s entrepreneurs”, Economic Reform Today, No. 4, pp. 32-8.
Golla, S., Holi, M.T. and Klandt, H. (2003), “Entrepreneurial spirit of German students – an
explorative study among the European Business School”, in Klandt, H. (Ed.), IntEnt2002 –
Internationalizing Entrepreneurship Education and Training, Josef Eul Verlag, Lohmar,
pp. 185-99.
Grant, A. (1994), “Entrepreneurship – the major academic discipline for the business education
curriculum for the 21st century”, in Scott, M.G., Rosa, P. and Klandt, H. (Eds), Educating
Entrepreneurs for Wealth Creation, Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 28-37.
Entrepreneurship
education
379
JSBED
15,2
380
Hynes, B. (1998), “Encouraging entrepreneurial behavior in non business students – the issues in
program design”, in Scott, M.G. (Ed.), Educating Entrepreneurs for Wealth Creation,
Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 85-99.
Janbrink, S. and Johannisson, B. (1997), “Så skolas en entreprenör: Kunskap, erfarenheter och
idéer för entreprenörsksap redan i skolan” (“How to educate an entrepreneur: Knowledge,
experiences and ideas for entrepreneurship at school level”), Svenska
arbetsgivareföreningen, Stockholm.
Johannisson, B. and Madsen, T. (2000), “Aha! Företagsamt lärande” (“Aha! Entrepreneurial
learning”), Utbildningsradion, Örebro.
Lackner, S. (2002), Voraussetzungen und Erfolgsfaktoren unternehmerischen Denkens und
Handelns: Eine empirische Analyse mittelständischer Unternehmen (Preconditions and
Success Factors of Entrepreneurial Thinking and Acting: An Empirical Analysis of
Medium-sized Enterprises), Verlag Dr. Kovač, Hamburg.
Malek, M. and Ibach, P.K. (2004), Entrepreneurship – Prinzipien, Ideen und Geschäftsmodelle zur
Unternehmensgründung im Informationszeitalter (Entrepreneurship – Principles, Ideas
and Business Concepts for Founding a Business in the Information Age), Dpunkt Verlag,
Heidelberg.
Miettinnen, A. (2001), “Entrepreneurship as an ability game: observations from children’s and
adolescent’s microstoria”, in Klandt, H. (Ed.), IntEnt2002 – Internationalizing
Entrepreneurship Education and Training, Josef Eul-Verlag, Lohmar, pp. 3-20.
Ministry of Education and Science (1994), Lpo 94: Latest Version of the Swedish National
Curriculum for General Compulsory Schooling, Stockholm, available at: www.skolverket.se
Pikhala, J. and Miettinnen, A. (2003), “Entrepreneurship education: does it promote
entrepreneurial potential? A field study in Finnish Polytechnics”, in Klandt, H. (Ed.),
IntEnt2002 – Internationalizing Entrepreneurship Education and Training, Josef
Eul-Verlag, Lohmar/Cologne, pp. 139-59.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1968), The Theory of Economic Development, 8th ed., Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA (originally published 1912).
Theile, K. and Ohógartaigh, C. (2002), International New Enterprise Developments, Shaker
Verlag, Aachen.
Further reading
Audretsch, D.B. (2002), “Entrepreneurship: a survey of literature”, prepared for the European
Commission, Enterprise Directorate General, London.
Eurostat (2005), Euro-indicators News Release 16/2005, Luxembourg.
Jacobsen, L.K. (2003), Bestimmungsfaktoren für Erfolg in Entrepreneurship: Entwicklung eines
umfassenden theoretischen Modells (Determinants of Successful Entrepreneurship –
Development of a Theoretical Rodel), Hochschulschrift, Berlin.
Entrepreneurship
education
Appendix
If I were free to choose I would prefer to be
self-employed
It never really came to my mind to start my own
business
I have started a business within the last three years
or am currently taking steps to do so
EU 15
(%)
USA
(%)
Germany
(%)
Sweden
(%)
45
61
39
35
59
44
47
64
5
12
5
5
Source: European Commission (2004c)
Corresponding author
Arndt Werner can be contacted at: werner@ifm-bonn.org
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
381
Table AI.
International
self-employment activity