SOCIO-CULTURAL FACTORS IN ENTREPRENEURIAL EVENT
FORMATION: A STUDY OF NIGERIAN ENTREPRENEURS.
BY
OLUREMI HEZEKIAH ABIMBOLA
A THESIS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY SUBMITTED
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY OF COVENANT
UNIVERSITY
SEPTEMBER, 2007
1
DEDICATION
To the Almighty God, the Ancient of Days, the Alpha and Omega, the Source of all good
things, for making this work a reality.
To my wife, Wumi Aderonke Abimbola, for being there for me, while the work lasted.
To my children, Oluwafikunmi, Oluwafisayo and Oluwaferanmi, for showing so much
understanding
and
To the Authority of the University, for seeing what I did not see in the Staff Development
Programme.
2
CERTIFICATION
I certify that this work was carried out by Mr Oluremi Hezekiah Abimbola in the
Department of Sociology, Covenant University.
_____________________________
Professor Charles Ogbulogo
Dean, College of Human Development
Covenant University, Ota
Ogun State
_____________________________
(Supervisor)
Dr P. A. Edewor, B.Sc, M.Sc, Ph.D (Ibadan)
Department of Sociology
College of Human Development
Covenant University, Ota,
Ogun State, Nigeria.
__________________________
(Co-Supervisor)
Dr I. P. Onyeonoru
Department of Sociology
University of Ibadan, Ibadan
SEPTEMBER, 2007
3
ABSTRACT
Entrepreneurship has been found to be a factor in socio-economic and human
development. Its study has, however, been largely viewed from economic perspective in
Nigeria. This work was an attempt to approach the issue of entrepreneurial event among
Nigerian entrepreneurs from socio-cultural perspective.
This study was conducted in three selected organized associations of entrepreneurs
in Lagos, Nigeria. The study covered the interactions between some socio-cultural factors
such as, social capital, dissatisfaction/displacement experience, social status, and
perceived instrumentality of wealth, on the one hand, and predictor variables (ethnic
group, gender, age and level of education), on the other. The main objective of the study
was to understand how considerations of social capital, dissatisfaction/displacement
experience, social status and perceived instrumentality of wealth for engaging in
entrepreneurial event were functions of some socio-demographic and background factors
among Nigerian entrepreneurs. It also attempted to determine the abilities of the
independent variables in predicting the degree to which individuals are motivated by the
identified socio-cultural constructs to embark on entrepreneurial event.
Cross-sectional survey design was used with questionnaire as the major tool of
data collection. Questionnaire was administered to 717 randomly selected respondents. A
number of statistical techniques were employed. They include frequency count, mean
comparison, simple regression analysis, multiple regression analysis, independent
samples tests and path analysis.
The result shows that ethnic group of origin has the capacity in predicting
variation in how individuals consider social capital for entrepreneurial event formation. It
is clear that all the ethnic categories show significant determining explanation for
consideration of social capital for engaging in entrepreneurial event. In other words,
ethnic group of origin has predictive capacity in explaining variations in consideration of
social capital forces for engaging in entrepreneurial event. However, while North 1
(Hausa) and South 2 (Igbo) show significant determining force, North 2 (mini groups)
and South 3 (mini groups) show significant negative determinants. All the ethnic
4
variables that were regressed against social capital forces show significant determining
power. The result of multiple regression analysis also supports this position. Three of the
four ethnic variables in the analysis show strong significant coefficients. In a similar vein,
the result of path analysis for model 1 (5a) as supported by the data confirms that the
paths were valid for explaining the relationship under study.
Independent Samples t-test of gender against the dependent variable (social
capital influence), with the result showing value of t at -2.736 and the degree of freedom
at 715 and significant at p<.05, clearly indicates that there is a significant difference in
social capital influence on entrepreneurial event formation between our female
respondents and their male counterparts. The result of path analysis shows that education
has no direct causal relationship with any of the dependent variables. The result of the
analysis for model 3 as presented in the study shows a significant relationship between
age category 21-30 and the propensity to regard social status as a precursor of
entrepreneurial event formation. Looking at the path analysis result as shown in the
report, one could see a strong causal connection between age and social status as reason
for embarking on entrepreneurial event. There are gender differences in consideration of
perceived instrumentality of wealth before engaging in entrepreneurial event formation.
The female gender scored higher than their male counterpart did in this criterion variable.
Of all the predictors studied, ethnic group was found to be most significant in predictive
power. The import of this is the need to appreciate diversity while working for common
goal. It must therefore be understood that needs and aspirations answer to particularities
of situations and contexts.
The implication of these results for policy practitioners is that programmes should
be designed to conform to characteristics and uniqueness of the setting rather than a
blanket design and application. Effort should be made to emphasize a socio-cultural
approach to the curriculum of entrepreneurship education in the nation’s education
system.
5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I have come across people in my life, without whose inputs my hope of getting a
Ph.D degree would have remained at the level of a dream.
I must first thank the Almighty God, for making my dream of having a Ph.D
become a reality and for blessing me with good people, who are genuinely committed to
my progress. I thank Dr David Oyedepo, the Chancellor of Covenant University for
giving the vision of Covenant University a practical expression and for his passion for the
Staff Development Programme of the University. I wish to express my gratitude to the
University Authority for instituting the Staff Development Programme and for providing
the enabling environment for its operation.
To Professor Aize Obayan, Vice Chancellor, Covenant University, I say thank
you Ma, for initiating me into the trade. You paid for my application form and put me on
my toes not only for a timely completion of the work but also for a good job. You are
such a wonderful mentor and role model. Deacon Yemi Nathaniel, Registrar, Covenant
University, never ceased in providing positive honking that spurred the work. Thank you
sir.
How do I describe my supervisor, Dr P. A. Edewor? He is such a wonderful
mentor; he admonished if that was the best approach, he chided if that would work, he
threatened if that was the only option left. I sincerely say thank you sir for the interest and
for a thorough supervision. Your commitment toward my success as an academic is
highly appreciated. My appreciation also goes to Dr I. P. Onyeonoru for his belief that I
can do a Ph.D. Thank you for all your support.
I will not forget Engineer Adetokunbo Obayan for intellectual engagements and
for encouraging me to consider this area of study.
I am grateful to my parents – Pa David Abimbola and Mrs. Rachael Abimbola –
for teaching me early in life the virtue of hard work through example. I also wish to
appreciate my parent-in-laws, Mr. Lawrence Atanda of blessed memory and Mrs. Folake
6
Atanda. Thank you for your prayers. I wish to thank Professor S. A. Adebagbo for his
interest and support Thank you daddy.
I want to acknowledge the support and encouragement of Professor Charles
Ogbulogo, Dean, College of Human Development, towards timely completion of the
work. I am grateful to Professor Olusola Ojo, Dean, School of Postgraduate Studies for
his forthright approach and his words of encouragement. I also thank Dr Roy Ndom for
his inputs. I appreciate the contributions of members of faculty of the College. It has been
interesting being in the same College with you. My sincere thanks also go to Dr Adenrele
Adedayo and Mr Owolabi for assisting with the analysis.
I also wish to acknowledge the inputs of my colleagues in the Department of
Sociology, Covenant University – Dr Alaba Simpson, Dr Alex Asakitikpi, Mr Charles
Iruonagbe, Mr Matthew Egharevba, Mr Fred Ahmadu, Mrs Tayo George, Mr Ajibade
Jegede and Mrs Foluke Ajayi.
I am grateful to Dr Ranti Ogunrinola and Dr John Ayam for their words of advice
in the course of this work. Dr and Mrs Banwo deserve a mention; they have been so
wonderful. The following people also deserve a mention for their contributions in one
way or the other in the course of this work: Dr O. E. Agboje, Mr A. Akande, Bankole
Ogundeji, Wole Akinsola, Mr Faniyi and others too numerous to mention.
I say thank you to Kemi Onabanjo and Awele Ugbede for the computer software.
I must not forget the inputs of Soji Abimbola, Adewumi Abimbola, Soji Aromolaran,
Gbenga Olasunkanmi, Mr Williams of NACCIMA, Mr Gagan Goyal of Phoenix Steel
Mills, Mr Ajose of NASME and Engineer Ogunrayi of NASSI. Thank you all. Dr
Ausbeth Ajagu surprised me in the way he attended to me; you are really wonderful. I
also want to thank Bimpe Abodunde for assisting with candour and Nene Uzowulu for
always asking “how far with your work sir?”
I am grateful to my uncle, Paul Abimbola for his role in the larger Abimbola
family. You have done well. To Barrister O. O. Ojo and family, I say thank you, for
words of encouragement and support. I must not forget my friends: Sola, Pius, Seye,
Wale, Samanja, Festus, Moruf and Rauf, for being who they are in my life.
I wish to acknowledge the financial support of the University through the School
of Postgraduate Studies towards the fieldwork.
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ……………………………………………………………………..
ii
Certification …………………………………………………………………… iii
Abstract ………………………………………………………………………..
iv
Acknowledgement ……………………………………………………………... vi
Table of Contents ………………………………………………………….. ...
viii
List of Tables …………………………………………………………………...
x
List of Figures ………………………………………………………………....
xiii
List of Appendices ……………………………………………………..……… xiv
CHAPTER ONE
1. Background to the study
1.1 Introduction……………………………………………………..…………….
1.2 Statement of problem. ………………………………………………..……....
1.3 Research questions …………………………………………………..……….
1.4 Objectives of study ……………………………………………….………….
1.5 Justification of study. …………………………………………………….….
1.6 Scope of the research ……………………………………………….…….….
1.7 Research implications …………………………………………………….….
1
5
7
7
7
8
9
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK.
2.1 Literature Review …………………………………………………..…….… 10
2.1.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………….… 10
2.1.2 Entrepreneur/entrepreneurship …………………………………………… 10
2.1.3 Culture, ethnicity and entrepreneurship ……………………………..…… 22
2.1.4 Social capital and entrepreneurship ………………………….…………… 30
2.1.5 Social status and entrepreneurship …………………………..…………… 32
2.2 Theoretical Framework………………………………………..…..………… 35
2.2.1 Introduction………………………… ……………………….…………… 35
2.2.2 Entrepreneurial Event Formation Theory ………………….……………
35
2.2.3 Social Learning Theory ……………………………………..…………… 41
2.3 Hypotheses …………………………………………………..………………45
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY.
3.1 Research setting …………………………………………………………….….46
3.2 Methodological procedures ……………………………………………………50
CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF RESULT AND DATA ANALYSIS.
Introduction. ……………………………………………………………………… 55
4.1 Demographic, background and socio-cultural attributes of respondents………56
8
4.2 Data analysis … ………………………………………………………………… 91
4.3 Hypotheses testing ………………………………………………………………149
4.4 Discussion of findings……………………………………………………………152
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
5.1 Summary ………………………………………………………………………..155
5.2 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………….. 157
5.3 Recommendations ……………………………………………………………….158
REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………160
APPENDIX I: Questionnaire schedule ………….…………………………………. 172
APPENDIX II: Letters of request ………..…………………………………………177
9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1:
Selected macro policy programmes put in place by the Nigerian
government …………………………………………………………… 3
Table 1.2:
Unemployment rate in Nigeria ……………………………………….. 4
Table 2.2.1:
Entrepreneurial event formation ………………………………………37
Table 2.2.2:
Findings on the influence of family in entrepreneurial action ……….. 41
in a number of cultures
Table 4.1.1:
Frequency distribution by socio-demographic attributes …………… 59
Table 4.1.2:
Distribution of responses on social capital items by ethnic group …… 68
Table 4.1.3:
Distribution of responses on dissatisfaction/displacement experience
factors by ethnic group of origin ………………………………………76
Table 4.1.4:
Distribution of responses on social status factors by ethnic group …… 81
Table 4.1.5:
Distribution of responses on perceived instrumentality of wealth
factors by ethnic group …………………………………………………87
Table 4.2.1:
Mean scores on social capital factors by ethnic group of origin ……….94
Table 4.2.2:
Mean scores on dissatisfaction/displacement experience factors by ethnic
group of origin ……... ……………………………………………… . .97
Table 4.2.3:
Mean scores on social status factors by ethnic group …………………100
Table 4.2.4:
Mean scores on perceived instrumentality of wealth factors by
ethnic group ………………………………………………………….. 103
Table 4.2.5:
Mean scores on social capital factors by gender ………………………105
Table 4.2.6:
Mean scores on dissatisfaction/displacement experience
factors by gender ………………………………………………………106
Table 4.2.7:
Mean scores on social status factors by gender ………………………. 107
Table 4.2.8:
Mean scores on perceived instrumentality of
wealth factors by gender ……………………………………………
108
Mean scores on social capital by age ………………………………
111
Table 4.2.9:
10
Table 4.2.10: Mean scores on dissatisfaction/displacement experience
by age ……………………………………………………………...... 113
Table 4.2.11: Mean scores on social status by age ………………………………… 115
Table 4.2.12: Mean scores on perceived instrumentality of wealth by age …………117
Table 4.2.13: Mean scores on social capital by education ………………………….119
Table 4.2.14: Mean scores on dissatisfaction/displacement experience by
Education …………………………………………………………… 120
Table 4.2.15: Mean scores on social status by education …………………………. 121
Table 4.2.16: Mean scores on perceived instrumentality of wealth by education …123
Table 4.2.17: Simple regression of model 1, model 2, model 3 and model 4
by ethnic group ………………………………………………………126
Table 4.2.18: Simple regression of model 1, model 2, model 3 and model 4 by
level of education …………………………………………………….127
Table 4.2.19: Simple regression of model 1, model 2, model 3 and model 4 by
age………………………………………………………………….…128
Table 4.2.20: Group statistics of independent samples tests of models 1, 2, 3
and 4 by gender ………………………………………………………130
Table 4.2.21: Independent samples tests of models 1, 2, 3 and 4 by gender ……….130
Table 4.2.22:
Multiple regression of model 1, model 2, model 3 and model 4 by
ethnic group, gender, age and level of education……………………………132
Table 4.2.23: Paths and zero order correlation coefficient for the five variables
for 5a………………………………………………………………….134
Table 4.2.24: Paths and zero order correlation coefficient for the five variables
for 5b…………………………………………………………………134
Table 4.2.25: Paths and zero order correlation coefficient for the five variables
for 5c……………………………………………………………….. 135
Table 4.2.26: Paths and zero order correlation coefficient for the five variables
for 5d…………………………………………………………………135
11
Table 4.2.27: Original and reproduced correlated matrix for the five variables
for 5a………………………………………………………………… 141
Table 4.2.28: Discrepancies between the original and the reproduced correlation
values for 5a………………………………………………………….141
Table 4.2.29: Original and reproduced correlated matrix for the five variables
for 5b …………………………………………………………………141
Table 4.2.30: Discrepancies between the original and the reproduced correlation
values for 5b………………………………………………………… 142
Table 4.2.31: Original and reproduced correlated matrix for the five variables
for 5c………………………………………………………………… 142
Table 4.2.32: Discrepancies between the original and the reproduced correlation
values for 5c…………………………………………………………. 142
Table 4.2.33: Original and reproduced correlated matrix for the five variables
for 5d…………………………………………………………………143
Table 4.2.34: Discrepancies between the original and the reproduced correlation
values for 5d………………………………………………………….143
12
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1a: The Hypothesized Causal Model of the five Variable Systems showing
Path and Zero Order Correlation Coefficients 5a ……………………… 136
Figure 4.1b: The Hypothesized Causal Model of the five Variable Systems showing
Path and Zero Order Correlation Coefficients 5b ………………………137
Figure 4.1c: The Hypothesized Causal Model of the five Variable Systems showing
Path and Zero Order Correlation Coefficients 5c ……………………….138
Figure 4.1d: The Hypothesized Causal Model of the five Variable Systems showing
Path and Zero Order Correlation Coefficients 5d ……………………….139
Figure 4.2a: The Validated Causal Model of the five variable Systems showing Path
and Zero Order Correlation Coefficients 5a ……………………………145
Figure 4.2b: The Validated Causal Model of the five variable Systems showing Path
and Zero Order Correlation Coefficients 5b……………………………146
Figure 4.2c: The Validated Causal Model of the five variable Systems showing Path
and Zero Order Correlation Coefficients 5c ……………………………147
Figure 4.2d: The Validated Causal Model of the five variable Systems showing Path
and Zero Order Correlation Coefficients 5d ……………………………148
13
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix I: Questionnaire schedule ……………………………………………….172
Appendix II: Letters of request……………………………………………………..177
14
CHAPTER ONE
BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Entrepreneurship occupies an important place in the process of development. It
has become a key concept in social and human development discourse; researchers have
considered it a factor in economic and human development (Weber, 1904; Morris and
Lewis, 1991). In his famous work The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,
Weber (1904) posits that the great development experienced in the Western world was a
result of entrepreneurial features present in those societies.
The contemporary study of entrepreneurship and the importance of social
embeddedness can be traced to the works of Max Weber (1904) and Joseph Schumpeter
(1934); both have argued that the source of entrepreneurial behaviour lay in the social
structure of societies and the value structures they produce. Cultural and social norms are
emphasized as the major strength of entrepreneurial orientation and seem to be the
differentiating factor for higher levels of entrepreneurial activity (Minniti and Bygrave,
2003). Akeredolu-Ale (1974) also writes on the importance of socio-cultural imperatives
in entrepreneurial event.
Conceptual arguments for the link between culture and entrepreneurship have
existed for decades (Schumpeter, 1934; Weber, 1904; McClelland, 1961), with more
recent empirical research (Hayton, George, and Zahra, 2002; Marino, Strandholm,
Steensma and Weaver, 2002) providing mixed findings on these links. Some studies
suggest entrepreneurs share a common set of values regardless of culture (McGrath,
Macmillan, Yang and Tsai, 1992), while other studies support the notion that culture will
affect entrepreneurship (Busenitz and Lau, 1996; Shane, 1994). Studies in Africa
generally conclude that psychological variables (Frese, 2000), and race and ethnicity
(Ramachandran and Shah, 1999) are important predictors of entrepreneurial activity.
Research among countries in transition (Luthans, Stajkovic & Ibrayeva, 2000). underlines
15
the point that entrepreneurship exists in every country. This entrepreneurial spirit can be
fostered with an appropriate cultural orientation and framework.
Entrepreneurial activities have been found to be functioning differently in
different levels of socio-economic development. For example, in advanced industrialized
nations, increased entrepreneurial activity serves to reposition dying industries; provides
new jobs to compensate for employment problems created by corporate restructuring and
downsizing; and to generally enhance economic flexibility and growth (Thomas and
Mueller, 1999). It is also a catalyst for technological progress (Reynolds, 1987). Shapero
(1981) describes entrepreneurship as key to self-renewing economies.
In less developed countries, on the other hand, entrepreneurship functions in the
following areas: stimulation of economic growth (Harper, 1991); replacement of
crumbling state-owned enterprises, some of which are legacies of colonial rule; a means
of employment generation (Abumere, Arimah and Jerome, 1998); and an avenue for
empowering the disadvantaged portion of the population.
This reality has led various levels of government in Nigeria, international
agencies such as UNDP, UNIDO, and ILO amongst others and non-governmental
organizations in Nigeria and abroad to institute measures that are meant to enhance
entrepreneurial activities. Such measures are categorized into two:
1. entrepreneurship development programmes and institutions; and
2. finance and micro-credit programmes and institutions.
The first category comprises policies and programmes aimed at stimulating, developing
and enhancing the productive capacities of entrepreneurs, while the second category
consists of measures aimed at providing stress-free credit facilities for entrepreneurs as
shown in table 1.1.
16
Table 1.1: Selected Macro Policy Programmes Put in Place in Nigeria to Encourage
Entrepreneurship.
Programme
Objective
1
Agricultural
The main purpose of the ADP is to stimulate increased
Development Project
food production and enhance the income of the rural
(ADP)
population.
2
National Directorates
Responsible for vocational skills development and small
of Employment (NDE) scale enterprises programmes designed to combat
unemployment
3
National Economic
Provides long-term loans at concessionaire interest rates
Reconstruction Fund
to promote small and medium scale industrial projects.
(NERFUND)
4
Family Economic
Established to provide micro facilities for entrepreneurs.
Advancement
Programme (FEAP)
5
People’s Bank and
Designed to make banking services more accessible and
Community Bank
extend credit to the poor.
Programmes
6
Better Life
Aimed at providing micro-credit facilities for women
Programmes/Family
entrepreneurs.
Support Programme
(BLP/FSP)
7
National Poverty
Aimed at providing vocational skills development and
Eradication Programme small scale enterprises programmes designed to combat
(NAPEP)
unemployment
8
National Empowerment
and Economic
Development Strategy
(NEEDS)
To eradicate poverty and unemployment.
9
10
SMEDAN
SMIES
To promote small and medium scale enterprises.
To provide finance for small and medium enterprises.
On the whole, the aggregate goals of these policies and programmes include,
among others, stimulation of economic development, empowerment of the disadvantaged
portion of the population, employment generation and invariably, poverty reduction.
One will, however, observe that entrepreneurship has not fared well in meeting
some of the key functions it should serve in Nigeria. In the area of employment
generation, unemployment situation is worrisome. Any useful analysis of Nigeria’s
unemployment data is very difficult, if not impossible. The difficulty arises from the
17
highly unreliable data sourcing process in the country. Between 1990 and 1999,
unemployment rate averaged 2.92%, with the highest being 3.5% for 1990 and the lowest
1.8% for 1995. Fairly realistic estimates have been collected since 2000 through 2002.
The average for the period is 14.67%, with 2000 rate being 18.1% (FOS, 2003).
Table 1.2: Unemployment Rate in Nigeria
Year
Composite %
Urban %
Rural %
1990
3.5
5.9
3.0
1991
3.4
4.9
2.7
1992
3.4
4.8
3.2
1993
2.7
3.8
2.5
1994
2.0
3.2
1.7
1995
1.8
3.9
1.6
1996
2.9
4.6
2.5
1997
3.2
6.0
2.6
1998
3.2
4.8
2.8
1999
3.1
5.8
2.5
2000
18.1
14.2
19.8
2001
13.7
10.3
15.1
2002
12.2
19.5
13.3
Source: Federal Office of Statistics, Nigeria (2003).
To put the unemployment situation in the country in proper perspective, other
reliable statistical indices could serve as guides. Between 1970 and 1990, average
capacity utilization in the manufacturing sector fell from 85.2% to 40.3%. The rate
further fell to 39.6% in 2001 from 42% in 1991. Though employment rose in the
manufacturing sector from 129,032 in 1970 to 335,179 employees in 1985, by 1992, it
has declined to 20,153. Between 1994 and 1998, job vacancies declared dropped
significantly from 9,893 to 8,291 for the lower grade workers and from 3,731 to 3,670 for
workers of the professional and executive categories (Abstract of Statistics, 2001:345).
Though there was a decrease in the number of registered unemployed people from 96,121
18
in 1994 to 89,759 in 1998, the fall can be explained by the fact that sustained
unemployment discourages the unemployed from doing fresh registration. Otherwise,
such a fall is incompatible with shrinking number of job vacancies.
GDP grew by an average of 3.6% between 1999 and 2002 (CBN Annual Report,
2003:35), while the population growth was projected to be 2.83%. That growth rate can
certainly not bring about significant reduction in the unemployment level. Though the
activities of the informal sector have not been brought into focus due to data problem, the
mere fact that about 70% of the population live below the poverty line (UNDP, 2003)
indicates that the informal sector may not be growing at a rate that will allow it absorb a
significant number of the unemployed in productive ventures.
The above picture implies that the policies and programmes meant to encourage
entrepreneurship have not fared well in terms of socio-economic and human development
in Nigeria. This may not be unconnected with the neglect of the study of entrepreneurial
event from a socio-cultural perspective.
1.2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Empirical investigations into entrepreneurial event formation and its importance
to socio-economic development of a nation have primarily focused on the role of
economic factors (Noorderhaven, Thurik, Wennekers and Van Stel, 2004). Socio-cultural
variables have been given only limited attention (Hayton et al, 2002). Even where they
are given attention, they tend to gloss over local peculiarities and character. That is, they
ignore the importance of different contexts. For example, Weber (1904), Schumpeter
(1934), Cole (1946) and McClelland (1961) whose works on entrepreneurship remain
reference materials in entrepreneurship research, all present a universal approach to the
understanding of entrepreneurial event.
Weber (1904) in his work The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,
reports that the abundance of individuals with traits that precipitate and enhance
entrepreneurship accounts for the level of development of western societies. McClelland
(1961) was influenced by Weber. He posits that the presence of quite a number of
entrepreneurs is key supply condition, which precipitates economic success in societies
characterized by achievement orientation. Most works on entrepreneurship are overt or
19
subtle reflections of the underlying assumptions of the protestant work ethic, which was
based on Calvinism (Mueller & Thomas, 2000). However, this does not hold for all
contexts. This tendency goes on to inform the design and application of programmes,
policies and intervention strategies to stimulate the practice of entrepreneurship.
The universalistic trend in entrepreneurship research also reflects in the work of
Schumpeter (1934), which investigates the demand conditions that stimulate
entrepreneurship growth and the impact of entrepreneurs on a nation’s economic growth
and development. Subsequent entrepreneurship researches have tended to use the
assumptions embedded in the works by Weber, Schumpeter, and McClelland to form the
framework for their works. A subtle agreement with universal explanations is also
noticed in Akeredolu-Ale’s (1975) work, The Underdevelopment of Indigenous
Entrepreneurship.
Studies on the interaction between socio-cultural factors and entrepreneurial
events have, of late, not been given much vent in Nigeria. Recent studies on the subject
of entrepreneurship have mainly focused on government policies, the impact of these
policies, and the role of financial institutions amongst others (Salako, 2004), without
recourse to the socio-cultural milieu in which entrepreneurship takes place. The lack of
research in different contexts has been a persistent problem in the application of
entrepreneurship principle. Most researchers on entrepreneurship have focused their
attention on the Western world and some Asian countries. Socio-cultural factors are
important components in the lives of a people and given the deep-rooted and
pervasiveness of these in the Nigerian societies, they must, therefore, feature as
contextual variables in entrepreneurial research. It is, therefore, the focus of this work to
subject the topic of entrepreneurship to sociological analysis in the Nigerian context.
Particular reference will be made to the direction of interactions of ethnic grouping,
gender, age and education with such socio-cultural factors as social capital,
dissatisfaction/displacement experience, social status and instrumentality of wealth.
20
1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This study is an effort at understanding the socio-cultural factors that bear on
entrepreneurial event among entrepreneurs in the Nigerian context. In the light of the
above, the study is hinged on the following questions:
1. Are socio-cultural factors relevant to entrepreneurial event formation?
2. Do
the
identified
socio-cultural
dissatisfaction/displacement
variables,
experience,
social
that
is,
status
social
and
capital,
perceived
instrumentality of wealth depend on ethnic group, gender, age and level of
education for direction?
3. What are the abilities of the independent variables (ethnic group, gender, age
and level of education) in predicting the degree to which individuals are
motivated by the identified socio-cultural constructs to embark on
entrepreneurial event?
1.4 OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
The main objectives of this work include the following:
1. To place in socio-cultural context, the concept of entrepreneurial event.
2. To understand how social capital, dissatisfaction/displacement experience,
social status and perceived instrumentality of wealth are functions of some
socio-demographic and background factors among Nigerian entrepreneurs.
3. To examine the abilities of the independent variables in predicting the degree
to which individuals are motivated by the identified socio-cultural constructs
to embark on entrepreneurial event
4. To make recommendations for policy based on the findings.
1.5 JUSTIFICATION OF STUDY
Entrepreneurship is found to be a veritable factor in economic development
(Schumpeter, 1934; Adejumo, 2001). With the current effort at social and economic
development by Third World countries, a study like this is not out of place, as it is
capable of contributing to the present knowledge in the area of interaction between socio-
21
cultural factors and entrepreneurial event, which may be in terms of consequences for
policy issues and development programmes.
Also,
developing
a
better
understanding
of
socio-cultural
factors
in
entrepreneurial activities among Nigerian entrepreneurs can lead to more appropriate,
culturally sensitive entrepreneurial education and training, which take into account, the
peculiarities of the Nigerian context.
1.6 SCOPE OF STUDY
This work centres on an examination of the interaction of socio-cultural factors in
entrepreneurial event formation among Nigerian entrepreneurs. This study, however,
limits its scope to the study of entrepreneurs who are members of organized associations.
This is occasioned by the difficulty in generating a national list of all entrepreneurs in
Nigeria. The study specifically focuses on members of Nigerian Association of Chambers
of Commerce, Industry, Mines and Agriculture (NACCIMA), Nigerian Association of
Small and Medium Enterprises (NASME) and Nigerian Association of Small Scale
Industrialists (NASSI). These associations are selected because they conform to the
different descriptions to which entrepreneurship has been subjected. For example, most
members of NACCIMA are large scale entrepreneurs, which makes it fit the definition
given by Carland et al. They define an entrepreneur as one who establishes and manages
a business for the purpose of profit and growth while a small business owner is seen as an
individual whose principal purpose of establishing a business is to further personal goals,
which may not be in tandem with growth orientation. We, however, agree with the
description of entrepreneurship posited by Greenfield and Strickon (1981). They argue
that there is no difference between an entrepreneur and a small business owner. They
operationally define entrepreneurs as owners and operators of business enterprises. We,
therefore, believe that the three associations are capable of being representative of the
features of the different descriptions, which has the potentials of making the work robust.
22
1.7 RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS AND DIRECTIONS
This research work is a step toward developing a socio-cultural entrepreneurship
model, accounting for differences among Nigerian entrepreneurs. Nigerian entrepreneurs
compose of different groups and interests. This work, therefore, is a step toward
understanding the peculiarities of each group, and how these uniqueness inform decisions
that bother on entrepreneurial event formation.
From a practical perspective, an
understanding of the differences and characteristics of the groups will enhance informed
decisions about programmes and policies that are meant to encourage entrepreneurial
development.
In a similar vein, intervention strategies (western oriented) adopted to encourage
entrepreneurship in the Nigerian society, will give way to more context-dependent
strategies.
23
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND THEORETICAL ORIENTATION
2.1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1.1 Introduction
The contemporary study of socio-cultural dimensions of entrepreneurship and the
importance of social embeddedness can be traced to the works of Max Weber (1904) and
Joseph Schumpeter (1934). Both have argued that the source of entrepreneurial behaviour
lay in the social structure of societies and the value structures they produce. Cultural and
social factors are emphasized as the major strength of entrepreneurial orientation and
seem to be the differentiating factor for higher levels of entrepreneurial activity (Minniti
and Bygrave, 2003). This review of literature has been sectionalized along the different
variables that feature in the study – entrepreneurship, culture and ethnicity, social status,
and social capital. In the section devoted to entrepreneurship/entrepreneur, the different
descriptions of the concepts are considered so as to give focus to our study. In the first
section, the descriptions of entrepreneur and entrepreneurship are reviewed in a bid to
provide background for the study. In the section on social status, literature on social
status and its implications for entrepreneurial event are reviewed. Studies in the area of
social capital and its different nodes and entrepreneurial event are reviewed to serve as a
framework for this study.
2.1.2 Entrepreneurship/Entrepreneur
Placing the concepts of entrepreneurship and entrepreneur within a universal
definitional and descriptive framework is synonymous with contentions about the colour
of elephant viewed from different sides by different people. Each gives his own view to
the exclusion of others’ views. The quest to carving a clear, universal focus, purpose,
interest and methodology for entrepreneurship as a subject of study has been bedeviled
by different scholars trying to tackle it from a unidisciplinary approach.
24
Spring and McDade (1998) contend that “various authors…take on the
conundrum and give their own specificity to the definition of entrepreneurship. Most do
so by developing a checklist of attributes and conditions that identify the entrepreneur as
a distinctive actor in an economic system.” In other words, various scholars have tried to
attempt a definition of entrepreneurship based on their own cultures, times and
experience. Brockhaus and Horwitz (1985) conclude that the literature appears to support
the argument that there is no generic definition of the entrepreneur. Other scholars have
concurred that a common definition of the entrepreneur remains elusive (Carsrud et al,
1985; Sexton and Smilor, 1985; Wortman, 1985).
Entrepreneur is derived from the French verb “entrependre” which means to
undertake, to attempt, to try in hand, to contract for, or to adventure, to try (Girard, 1962).
Schumpeter (1934) credits Mill (1848) with bringing the term into general use among
economists, but the word was used much earlier than that. For example, Kilby (1971)
claims that Cantillon had in the 16th century described an entrepreneur as a rational
decision maker who assumes the risk and provides management for the firm.
The traditional perspective was to describe entrepreneurship in purely economic
terms. For example, Cole (1946) defines it as “the utilization by one productive factor of
the other productive factors for the creation of economic goods.” This definition puts the
entrepreneur as one of the factors in the productive process. Kirzner (1983), has listed
some of the conceptions with which economists describe entrepreneurship. They include
the following: (i) merely a kind of labour service; (ii) assumption of risk; (iii) initiation of
discontinuous change; (iv) mediation between different markets; (v) coordination,
planning and gap-filling; and (vi) pure speculation.
Various authors have attributed different explanatory variables to entrepreneurial
activity, e.g., personality, culture, marginality, ethnicity, amongst others. In each
instance, the explanation proposed by a theoretical approach does correspond well to
some entrepreneurs, but not necessarily to all.
The more contemporary approach is more encompassing of all the dimensions
that have bearing on entrepreneurship. This approach holds entrepreneurship as a process
that occurs in a context (Morris & Lewis, 1991). Here, contextual variables are
recognized in the process of entrepreneurial event.
25
McClelland (1961) posits that entrepreneurs are those who have a strong need for
achievement. He contends that development found in achieving societies is a corollary of
the preponderance of individuals with a strong drive for achievement. He characterizes
individuals with a high nAch as having a strong desire to be successful. He identifies the
following attributes as being characteristic of entrepreneurs (those who are high in nAch):
preference for personal responsibility for decisions; moderate in risk taking, which is
dependent on skills; and interest in concrete knowledge of the results of decisions.
Another attribute by which entrepreneurs are distinguished is internal locus of
control (Amit, MacCrimmon, Zietsma and Oesch, 1993; Chukwumaeze and Imanyi,
1992)). This is demonstrated in individual’s belief in his/her capabilities to control his or
her environment and events through his or her own actions. Rotter’s (1966) work in this
direction is instructive; he defines two categories of locus of control: one attributes cause
to the individual actor while the other attributes cause to entity external to the individual.
Rotter’s study suggests a correlation between need for achievement and internal
locus of control. Although Siropolis (1977) observed that any person who operates a
commercial enterprise might be referred to as an entrepreneur, there are, nevertheless,
several types of entrepreneurs. As explained by Kets de Vries (1985), "entrepreneurs are
not a homogeneous group." Although it would be a fallacy to speak in terms of discrete,
non-problematic categories, it is useful to have functional groups as a basis by which
empirical findings may be organized for future analysis.
There have been numerous attempts to create taxonomies of entrepreneurs.
Danhof (1949) was among the first, identifying four types of entrepreneurs: the drone, the
fabian, the imitative, and the innovative. Cole (1959) identified three types of firms: the
imitative, the innovative, and the repetitive. Collins, Moore, and Darab (1964) and later
Collins and Moore (1970) distinguished between administrative entrepreneurs and
independent entrepreneurs. In contrast, Smith (1967) distinguished between the craftsman
entrepreneur and the opportunistic entrepreneur. Hornaday and Bunker (1970) found that
craftsman entrepreneurs were limited in cultural background and low in social
involvement, while opportunitistic entrepreneurs were broader in education and social
involvement and more aggressive in the development and long-term expansion of their
firms.
26
More taxonomies emerged during the 1980s. These included those by Scase and
Goffee (1980), Scrollhammer (1980), and Vesper (1980). Dana’s (1995) typology that is
considered fit for this work is presented below:
The Traditional Self-Employed
Economic uncertainty is one of the distinguishing characteristics of this classic
entrepreneur. According to Cantilion (1755), an entrepreneur is any individual who is
self-employed, thereby actively taking the risk of economic uncertainty. Cantilion
included beggars and thieves in his definition of entrepreneurs, as these were not working
for an employer and therefore faced economic uncertainty.
Mill (1848), another early economist to refer to the entrepreneur, considered
entrepreneurship to be direction, supervision, control, and risk taking, with risk being the
main distinguishing feature between the manager and the owner-manager. Knight (1921)
and Oxenfeldt (1943) also recognized the centrality of risk in the entrepreneurial
undertakings of the traditional self-employed. There is no reference to Schumpeterian
innovation (Schumpeter, 1934) or technology in this school of thought.
The Cultural Entrepreneur
Weber (1904), seeing the entrepreneur as the ultimate source of formal authority
in an organization, analyzed the presumed relationship between the "Spirit of Capitalism"
and the "Protestant Work Ethic." According to his thesis, the success of the entrepreneur
could be traced to cultural values such as asceticism, deferred gratification, frugality, and
thrift, which were fundamentals of Protestant culture (but not exclusive to it). Culture
was the explanatory variable that predisposed some peoples towards being culturally
pushed to entrepreneurial activity while other peoples tended to refrain from new venture
creation. This explained why the Protestants in France, for example, were often
entrepreneurs. Thus, the Weberian approach argued that entrepreneurial behaviour is
culturally influenced by values and beliefs.
Weber (1904) elaborated on how religion, the caste system, and the family system
affected the emergence of entrepreneurship in India. He noted that the Jains (an ascetic
religious sect) became a trading sect for purely ritualistic reasons, as only in trading could
27
one practice ahimsa, the absolute prohibition of the killing of live things. Along the same
theme, Gadgil (1959) showed that Muslims, Christians, and Jews were the chief traders
of Kerala, in South India, and Jenkins (1984) showed that Protestants in Northern Ireland
manipulated ethnicity in the realm of economic transactions and thus dominated the
country.
Shapero (1984) concluded that culture was an explanatory variable for
entrepreneurial activity or the lack of it. He also noted that some cultures value
entrepreneurship more than do others. "Some cultures that value entrepreneurship are:
Ibos in Africa, Gujeratis, Jains, and Parsis in India, overseas Chinese in southeast Asia,
Antioquerios in Colombia, Jews, Lebanese, Mennonites and Mormons in the United
States."
Numerous empirical studies report some cultures as being more represented than
others in the small business sector. Among them, Lasry (1982) noted the percentage of
entrepreneurs among Sephardi immigrants in Montreal as being significantly higher (38
percent) than among immigrants in general.
Other cultures, in contrast, do not value entrepreneurial behaviour. Becker (1956)
suggested that some societies, because of their non-entrepreneurial culture, welcome
outsiders to perform entrepreneurial functions. In effect, some groups with
entrepreneurial values do become the predominant entrepreneurs of host societies. Sayigh
(1952), for instance, found Christians and Jews to be the prominent entrepreneurs of
Lebanon. Kong, Soon, and Hwa (1991) showed how Singaporean Chinese are active
entrepreneurs in Malaysia.
It can, therefore, be said that the Weberian entrepreneur is not attracted to
entrepreneurship because of its risk; instead, such a person is pulled to entrepreneurial
activity because it is compatible with the cultural values to which the individual was
previously conditioned.
The Personality-Determined Achiever
Certain individuals are pulled to entrepreneurship because of a predisposition in
their personality. In contrast to a focus on the creation of an opportunity (Schumpeterian
28
innovator) or the identification of existing opportunity (Kirznerian identifier), American
psychologist, McClelland (1961) found a positive correlation between entrepreneurial
behaviour and a psychological trait, the "need for achievement" which he termed "n-ach."
Doing research in the US, Italy, and Poland, he attributed the individual entrepreneur's
need for achievement as the variable influencing behaviour. He interpreted his results to
suggest that individuals with a high need for achievement would be influenced by that
need and consequently pursue entrepreneurial activity.
McClelland's research also influenced numerous other studies which established a
link between high need for achievement and belief in internal locus-of-control. Although
Brockhaus (1982), did not find a causal link between ownership of a business and a high
n-ach and Begley and Boyd (1987) contended that entrepreneurs generally have a more
internally oriented locus of control than do managers. Sexton and Bowman (1985),
however, did not find a significant difference in locus of control between managers and
entrepreneurs.
Other significant contributions among many dealing with the theme of
psychological traits include Gasse (1977), Kets de Vries (1977), Brockhaus and Horwitz
(1986), and Sexton and Upton (1990). In summary, this school of thought views
entrepreneurship as a function of personality-determined characteristics. Certain
psychological traits enable entrepreneurs to achieve entrepreneurial goals. However, it is
worth noting that some of the researchers in this category differ among themselves.
The Barthian Agent
The personality-determined achiever school of thought distinguished between
entrepreneurial growth-oriented achievers and less ambitious owner-managers of small
businesses. Carland, et al (1984) define an entrepreneur as an individual who establishes
and manages a business for the principal purpose of profit and growth. The entrepreneur
is characterized principally by innovative behaviour and will employ strategic
management practices in the business. On the other hand, they describe a small business
owner as an individual who establishes and manages a business for the principal purpose
of furthering personal goals. The business must be the primary source of income and will
29
consume the majority of one's time and resources. The owner perceives the business as an
extension of his or her personality, intricately bound with family needs and desires.
Loucks, Meredith, and Ray (1991) summarized: “while both are important in the
development process, small business founders tend to divide an existing economic pie
into smaller pieces, while innovative entrepreneurs expand the size of the economic pie.”
The anthropological perspective, however, does not distinguish between
entrepreneurs and owner-managers of small firms; in anthropology, entrepreneurs are
defined operationally as owners and operators of business enterprises (Greenfield &
Strickon, 1981). Barth (1963), a Norwegian anthropologist, viewed the entrepreneur as an
individual whose activity has an impact on a community, causing social changes therein.
He explained that entrepreneurship often involves the relationship of persons and
institutions in one society with those of another economically more advanced one. He
then described the entrepreneur as being an essential broker in this situation of contacts
between cultures.
The Hagenian Displacee
According to Hagen (1962), the basic cause of entrepreneurial change "is the
perception on the part of the members of some social group that their purpose and values
in life are not respected by groups in the society whom they respect and whose esteem
they value." Hagen continued to explain the importance of having intrinsic satisfaction
from one's status and occupation. "The satisfaction derived by an individual from his
activity in life depends in part on the status associated with it." He also noted that "great
traders are often aliens - Chinese, Indians, persons from the Near East, Jews, etc.” He
explained their entrepreneurial activity in terms of a subdominant group seeking to
overcome social grievance via achievement in the economic realm. In each case, Hagen
believed that the marginal group had a sense of separateness from the rest of the host
society.
Aware of oppression and/or deprivation, the entrepreneurs from marginal groups
construct their own adaptive mechanism through entrepreneurship. In Hagen’s (1962)
words, “The channel in which creative energies will flow depends in part on the degree to
which other possible channels are blocked." Hence, minorities would find compensation
30
for diminished social status in entrepreneurial achievement. Hagen's approach is thus
consistent with McClelland's notion that "n-ach" and social status can be reached through
entrepreneurship. For Hagen, marginality is the source of entrepreneurial energy.
Hagen elaborated, "It is specifically the social recognition accorded to economic
prowess that is favorable to economic progress." He noticed that the Puritan ethic was
prevalent among Antioquenos in Columbia. Seeing their propensity for entrepreneurship,
he traced this partly to their history and social status. Their ancestors were people of
Basque provinces who had been looked down upon. Entrepreneurship, in contrast, could,
and often did provide social recognition.
Furthermore, Hagen found a causal link between entrepreneurship and withdrawal
of status respect. This is supported by Geertz (1963), presenting a case study comparing
an Islamic bazaar economy of Islamic Java with a firm-type economy controlled by
displaced Hinduized aristocracy in Bali. The entrepreneurial spirit of the obsolete
aristocracy was traced to the withdrawal of their political status. In other words, simple
lack of status does not lead to entrepreneurship; otherwise women and children would be
the entrepreneurs of the world, along with native people, aboriginal groups, unemployed
people, and other marginals. Instead, it is specifically withdrawal of status respect,
resulting in a loss of prestige, which in turn triggers an entrepreneurial response.
Along the same lines, Young (1971) found that entrepreneurship occurs when a
group has a low status, and has been denied access to mainstream society but still has
more resources than other marginal groups. Shapero (1975) generalized that most
entrepreneurs are displaced persons who have been dislodged from their familiar niche.
Shapero and Sokol (1982) found that refugees are more likely to start new ventures in
their host societies than they would in their countries of origin. This suggests that in times
of transition, individuals may become entrepreneurs, although entrepreneurship was not
originally their intended goal. To Shapero (1984), the entrepreneurial event is innovative,
the result of one's decision to change one's life path, and to start a new business. Often,
this is prompted by negative forces, such as frustration or the loss of a job. Changing
country of residence may sometimes be the cause of such displacement.
Aldrich, et al (1984) stated that the will to succeed is reinforced by exclusion
from other possible outlets for talent and energy. "Discrimination by majority society
31
restricts access to political power and social status, so group members turn to the business
sphere as a means of furthering personal ambitions." However, they do not agree that
self-employment changes the marginal status of the ethnic entrepreneur. According to
them, he simply moves horizontally from marginal worker to marginal proprietor.
Brenner (1987) analyzed specific cases, noting that entrepreneurship is often a
way to fight adverse circumstances. He suggested that innovation does not rise randomly,
but because of a perception by the innovators that they have an unequal position relative
to some key reference group. Entrepreneurship is thus sometimes an adaptive-response
behaviour to marginality. It may also be a means to social integration when other paths
are closed. Ladbury (1984) provided further empirical evidence to support this approach.
He found that Turkish Cypriots became entrepreneurs as a function of marginalization.
Min (1984) also found such disadvantage to be a motivating factor of entrepreneurship, in
a study of Korean immigrants. Min (1986) elaborated on the same theme, explaining that
his Korean sample was more entrepreneurial than his Filipino sample because the
Koreans perceived disadvantages to a greater degree.
In summary, while Weber saw entrepreneurship as something desirable to which
some cultures were predisposed, Hagen saw entrepreneurship almost as a consolation for
marginal cultures in the absence of being accepted into society at large. Yet, Hagen's
model has been argued to have major flaws (Kasdan, 1965). Weaknesses of this approach
include the fact that Hagen does not explain the case where the marginals are not
entrepreneurs of a society. In Argentina, for example, the Mendocinos are the dominant
entrepreneurs. Yet they are not marginal; they are the elite. Furthermore, at times the
minority is not entrepreneurial. Jenkins (1984) pointed out that in Northern Ireland it is
the majority Protestants who dominate the entrepreneurship sector. Hagen's approach
does not explain such cases.
The Kirznerian Identifier of Existing Opportunity for Profit
In economics, traditional theory assumed that markets move toward equilibrium
and it is entrepreneurs who cause a disequilibrium when they innovate and create profit
opportunities. According to this classical school of thought, the profit opportunities
32
created by entrepreneurs are the cause of the disequilibrium, and it is this that improves
the incomes of all affected.
In contrast, to Kirzner (1973), it is not the entrepreneur who causes a
disequilibrium. To him, entrepreneurship has to do with the identification of market
opportunities. The entrepreneur is the one who correctly anticipates where the next
imperfection will be. Entrepreneurship thus corrects socio-economic "waste" or
inefficiencies. Kirzner explained that entrepreneurship is unlikely to come from the
government or planned sector, because even when there is innovation, entrepreneurship
will depend on profit motive. He thus equated profits with arbitrage. He discussed the
entrepreneur in the context of opportunities, alertness, and economic processes. He did so
using the approach of the Austrian school of economics. Unlike the Schumpeterian
entrepreneur who innovates and thus disturbs an equilibrium by introducing something
new into the marketplace, according to Kirzner, the entrepreneur profits from alertness in
existing disequilibrium, i.e., market imperfections give the entrepreneur something to do.
Rather than limiting entrepreneurship to the innovator, Kirzner sees that an imitator can
also profit from disequilibrium.
Whereas the Schumpeterian innovator creates opportunity, the Kirznerian
identifier reacts to an existing opportunity for profit. While the Hagenian displacee reacts
to displacement, self-employment of the Kirznerian identifier is a reaction to an existing
opportunity for profit.
In order to escape the controversies surrounding providing a definition of
entrepreneurship that will be generally acceptable to all, Shapero and Sokol (1982) opt
for an embracing conceptualization - entrepreneurial event - which encompasses “a large
variety of activities without being tied to particular kind of activities.” They denote
entrepreneurship by the following activities: initiative-taking; consolidation of resources;
management of the organization; relative autonomy; and risk-taking. Defined in this
mode, they believe that every entrepreneurial event is encapsulated in the characteristics
stated above.
Describing the six schools of entrepreneurship posited by Cunningham and
Lischeron (1994) will offer an insight into the major approaches into which the concepts
of entrepreneurship and entrepreneur have been delineated. These schools include the
33
following: the great person’s school of entrepreneurship; the psychological characteristics
school of entrepreneurship; the classical school of entrepreneurship;
school of entrepreneurship;
the leadership
the management school of entrepreneurship; and the
intrapreneurship school of entrepreneurship.
Each of these schools can be understood according to the indices by which it
describes
entrepreneurship/entrepreneur
-
personal
characteristics,
opportunities,
management or the need for adapting an existing venture. For example, the great person
school emphasizes the ‘inborn’ intuitive faculty of the great person to recognize an
opportunity and make the appropriate decision. This approach holds that without this
intuitive faculty, the individual would lack the entrepreneurial makeup. The great person
has an exceptional confidence in himself and his abilities. He is also endowed with high
levels of vigour, persistence, vision, single-mindedness and self-esteem (Cunningham
and Lischeron, 1994).
The psychological school of entrepreneurship undertakes the analysis of
entrepreneurship at the level of individuals. In other words, individuals are the units of
analysis. This approach believes that entrepreneurs have values, needs and attitude that
are unique to them. It is held that a combination of these stands to distinguish
entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs. Those with characteristics identifiable with
entrepreneurs will have a higher propensity to function in entrepreneurial realms
(Lachman, 1980). Three personality characteristics have featured prominently in
entrepreneurship literature: risk-taking propensity; personal values (responsibility, duty
etc.); and the need for achievement (nAch). This school contends that entrepreneurship is
a trend that develops over time in an individual through the process of socialization.
The classical school, on the other hand, is woven around the “notion of
undertaking a venture, which has an element of risk and requires some creativity or
innovativeness.” The main ingredients of entrepreneurship, according to this school, are
innovation and creativity. Thus, entrepreneurship is defined within the framework of this
approach as “the opportunity-seeking style of management that sparks innovation.”
The management school suggests that an entrepreneur is “a person who organizes
or manages a business undertaking, assuming the risk for the sake of profit” (Webster,
1966). Within this perspective, it is believed that entrepreneurship can be developed
34
through conscious learning. In most cases, failure in entrepreneurial activities is
attributed to poor management tactics. It is, therefore, averred that training in
management functions can help reduce business failure substantially.
The leadership school of entrepreneurship sees an entrepreneur as someone who
relies on those he believes can help him achieve his purposes and objectives. This school
proposes that a successful entrepreneur must be a ‘people manager’, an effective leader, a
mentor who motivates, directs and leads others to accomplish set tasks. In the words of
Kao (1989), “the entrepreneur must be a leader, able to define a vision of what is
possible, and attract people to rally around that vision and transform it into reality.” The
two major elements in this approach are: getting the task accomplished and responding to
the needs of those involved in task accomplishment.
Intrapreneurship school is a response to lack of innovativeness and
competitiveness within organizations. Intrapreneurs, though with limited power within
organizations, act as entrepreneurs and implement their ideas without necessarily
becoming owners. Longenecker, J. G, Moore, C. W and Petty, J. W (1997) describe
entrepreneurship in terms of the functions it performs: provision of jobs, introduction of
innovations and stimulation of economic development. Some researchers have defined it
using what they consider entrepreneurial traits. For example, Roscoe (1973) describes
entrepreneurship as involving traits such as strong drives for independence and success,
high levels of vigour, perseverance and energy. It is also defined as the process of value
creation through a combination of resources to exploit an opportunity (Stevenson,
Roberts & Grousbeck, 1989).
As regards the functions of an entrepreneur, it presents a long list. McClelland
(1961) believes that the entrepreneur is someone who exercises some control over the
means of production and produces more than he can consume in order to sell it for
individual income. Palmer (1971) stated that the entrepreneurial function involves
primary risk measurement and risk taking within a business organization. Furthermore,
the successful entrepreneur is that individual who can correctly interpret the risk situation
and then determine polices which will minimize the risk involved. Say (1816) opines that
the entrepreneur is the agent who unites all means of production, determines the value of
35
the wages, the interest and the rent which he pays as well as the profits belonging to
himself and also risk bearing.
Schumpeter (1911) postulates the first dynamic concept of entrepreneurial
function. He is the first major scholar to put the human agent at the centre of economic
development (Kilby, 1971). He argues that entrepreneurial function can be defined in
terms of a single constitutive function, which he calls ‘innovation’. To him innovation is
not mere improvements in technology; it encompasses the following five cases:
(1) The introduction of a new good - that is one with which consumers are
not yet familiar - or of a new quality of a good. (2) The introduction of a
new method of production, that is one not yet tested by experience in the
branch of manufacture concerned, which need by no means be founded
upon a discovery scientifically new, and can also exist in a new way of
handling a commodity commercially. (3) The opening of a new market,
that is a market into which the particular branch of manufacture of the
country in question has not previously entered, whether or not this market
has existed before. (4) The conquest of a new source of supply of raw
materials or half-manufactured goods, again irrespective of whether this
source already exists or whether it has first to be created. (5) The carrying
out of the new organization of any industry, like the creation of a
monopoly position (for example through trustification) or the breaking up
of a monopoly position (Schumpeter, 1934, pp. 66).
In differentiating an entrepreneur from a small business owner or manager,
Brockhaus and Horwitz (1985) argue that there are no significant differentiating features
between an entrepreneur and small business owners or managers, but Hartman (1959)
suggests that the distinction between manager and entrepreneur is in terms of their
relationship to formal authority in industrial organizations. Within the organization, the
entrepreneur is the source of all formal authority. The management, on the other hand, is
defined residually as not being the source of all formal authority. Litzinger (1965) also
suggests the distinction is drawn between entrepreneurs who are goal and action oriented
as contrasted to managers who carry out policies and procedures in achieving the goals.
2.1.3 Culture, ethnicity and entrepreneurship
Petersen (1980) describes ‘ethnic’ as an adjective that refers to differences
between categories of people. These differences must be strong enough to mark one
group off the other. Yinger (1985) elaborates on the import of linking ‘ethnic’ to ‘group’,
36
the implication of which is the awareness by membership of the group of a common
origin and culture, or that others think of them as having these attributes. An ethnic group
is also conceived as consisting of those who regard themselves as being alike by virtual
descent, real or fictitious, and who are so regarded by others (Horowitz, 2004). Weber
(1978) defines ethnic groups as “human groups characterized by a subjective belief in
their common descent given their real or perceived similarities in one or more
characteristics: physical types or race, customs, language, religion and in perceptible
differences in the conduct of everyday life.”
Barth (1969) explains that as long as there exists a marked difference in
behaviour, then the ethnic group persists as a significant unit. He also discussed the
traditional definition of an ethnic group which was generally understood in
anthropological literature as referring to a population which:
1.
is largely biologically self-perpetuating;
2.
shares fundamental cultural values, realized in overt unity in cultural forms;
3.
makes up a field of communication and interaction;
4.
has a membership which identifies itself, and is identified by others, as
constituting a category distinguishable from other categories of the same order.
Individual ethnicity affects attitude and behaviour (Baskerville, 2003) and culture
reflects particular ethnic, social, economic, ecological, and political complexities in
individuals (Mitchell et al., 2002). Thus, cultural environments can produce attitude
differences (Baskerville, 2003) as well as entrepreneurial behaviour differences (North,
1990; Shane, 1994).
How is culture relevant in the discussion of entrepreneurial activity? This
question is motivated by the observations of economists (e.g., Schumpeter, 1934),
sociologists (e.g., Weber, 1904), and psychologist (e.g., McClelland, 1961) that countries
differ in levels of entrepreneurial activity. Entrepreneurial activities are considered an
important source of technological innovation (Schumpeter, 1934) and economic growth
(Birley, 1987). Therefore, understanding the influence of culture on entrepreneurship is
of considerable theoretical and practical value.
Culture is defined as set of shared values, beliefs, and expected behaviours (e.g.,
Herbig, 1994). Hofstede (1989) defines culture as the collective programming of the
37
mind that distinguishes people included in one category from another. Category of people
is defined widely and may include an ethnic group. Culture, in this sense, includes
systems of values; and values are among the building blocks of culture (Adler,
1997). Culture can also be viewed as a collective mental knowledge developed by a
group of people exposed to a similar context (Geertz, 1973; Reckwitz, 2000; Schatzki
and Natter, 1996). The collective mental knowledge concerns the way societies or
communities organize knowledge and social behaviour (Kroeber and Kluckhohn, 1952).
Some researchers believe that certain perceptions and beliefs among entrepreneurs
transcend cultures while other beliefs and values may be more culture or ethnic specific
(Busenitz and Lau, 1996). McGrath, et al (1992), for example, identified a predictable set
of values among entrepreneurs from across eight countries.
The influence of culture on economic activities of different societies has been
investigated since the beginning of the 20th century. The argument in sociology that
individuals affect and are affected by the social structure have been taken to bear on the
study of entrepreneurship. Reynolds (1991), for example, defines entrepreneurship as the
creation of new organizations, which is context-dependent. This position places the
practice of entrepreneurship within values and attitude in a social context. Etuk (1985)
delineates Nigeria into four cultural categories in which the practice of entrepreneurial
event can be situated. These categories are (i) the Moslem-Sudanic culture of the northern
states, (ii) the individualistic culture of the eastern states, (iii) the kingdom culture of the
western states and (iv) the metropolitan culture of Lagos, Calabar and Portharcourt. He
contends that these cultural categorizations present difference in practice of
entrepreneurship among the people.
Weber (1904) posits that the high rate of development recorded in the Western
societies relative to other cultures was a corollary of the presence of values such as
individualism, an ascetic self-denial, which discourages extravagant lifestyles, positive
attitude towards work, savings and investment. In his comparative study of societies,
Weber (1904) reports in his famous work, ‘the protestant ethic and the spirit of
capitalism’, that the great accumulation of wealth that led to the emergence of capitalism
in Europe and North America and which accounted for the level of development
witnessed in those societies was a result of protestant ethic. The ethic encouraged
38
abstinence from life’s pleasures, an austere lifestyle and rigorous self-discipline.
Frugality, savings and investment were encouraged. Writing on the ethic, Haralambos et
al, (2000) report that:
These riches could not be spent on luxuries, fine clothes, lavish houses and
frivolous entertainment, but in the glory of God. In effect, this meant
being even more successful in terms of one’s calling, which in practice
meant reinvesting profits in the business (Haralambos et al, 2000 Pg. 449).
Contrary to Weber’s position on the value of individualism and its contribution to
entrepreneurial development in Western societies, Redding (1980) reports on Asian
entrepreneurship that thrives on collectivism, thus repudiating the universal position
advanced by Weber.
Inglehart (2000) investigated influence of the numerous factors that shape the
world value system on the sample of the 65 societies. He found evidence that economic
differences are linked with large and pervasive cultural differences, and that cultural
zones are persistent and long lasting.
The main point derived from the studies mentioned above is that culture has a
profound impact upon society’s welfare. The cultural orientation of a society reflects the
complex interaction of values, attitudes and behaviours displayed by its members (Adler,
1997). These values, in turn, affect the attitudes of individuals, which again form their
behaviour choices in any given situation. The continually changing patterns of individual
and group behaviour eventually influence the society's culture, and the cycle begins
again.
More specifically, other studies support the notion that culture has a profound
influence on the entrepreneurial capacity of a society, and that societies usually do not
have homogeneous cultural setting. Loucks (1981) suggests that entrepreneurship is
culture embedded and, therefore, researchers on entrepreneurship should be more
interested in the cultural distinctions of entrepreneurship phenomena, and differences in
how values, beliefs, attitudes, shared norms and particularity of conditions, influence
what they do.
Davidsson and Wiklund (1997) suggested that the most obvious source of the
variations in the levels of entrepreneurship, are cultural values and cultural context.
Morrison (1998) has found that there is a significant relationship between
39
entrepreneurship and cultural specificity, and if the discipline of entrepreneurship has to
flourish, researchers should search more about the differences, rather than concentrating
on similarities.
Shapero and Sokol (1982) present a model of the larger–scale precursors to
starting a business that remains the reference point for subsequent studies on the topic. In
their model, the usual inducement to forming a business is a displacement, for example,
being fired, leaving school or the armed services, getting divorced, or moving to another
country. According to Shapero and Sokol, the first question asked after a displacement
is whether it is desirable to start a business. They identify socio–cultural dimensions as
being of primary importance as inducements to answer the desirability question in the
affirmative. The next question is whether starting a business is feasible. Primary in
answering this question positively are factors in the environment such as the availability
of financial and other support and the existence of models for success. A person who can
answer both the desirability and feasibility questions positively has a high likelihood of
taking the steps necessary to start a business.
Regarding socio–cultural dimensions, several of them have been suggested,
including placing a high value on innovation, risk taking, and independence (Kolvereid &
Obloj, 1994; Shapero & Sokol, 1982), personal values (Huisman, 1985; Shapero &
Sokol, 1982), high social status for entrepreneurs (Davidsson, 1995; Ray & Turpin, 1987;
Shane et al, 1991), the importance placed on work in a society (McGrath et al, 1992) and
failure, meaning loss of face (McGrath et al, 1992).
In a cross–country comparison of entrepreneurs with nonentrepreneurs, McGrath,
McMillan, and Sheinberg (1992) found that entrepreneurs were less likely to agree that
failure is associated with a loss of respect. Ray (1994), on the other hand, argued that
fear of failure drove Singaporean entrepreneurs to strive harder to avoid insolvency. In a
study of regions within Sweden, Davidsson and Wiklund (1995) concluded that a diverse
set of entrepreneurial values differentiated in small but meaningful ways between regions
in predicting the rates of new business start–ups.
Several studies have also examined entrepreneurial characteristics such as
motives, values and beliefs across cultures (Mitchell et al, 2000; Mueller & Thomas,
2000; Scheinberg & MacMillan, 1988; Mitchell, Smith, Seawright and Morse, 1991;
40
Thomas & Mueller 2000). Scheinberg and MacMillan (1988), for example, report the
results of a survey of entrepreneurs in 11 countries. These authors found that
entrepreneurial motives factor into six dimensions: need for approval, perceived
instrumentality of wealth, communitarianism, need for personal development, need for
independence, and need for escape. They found also that entrepreneurs from each country
emphasize each dimension differently. When grouped by the motives of “money as
means” and communitarianism, three distinct clusters of countries were apparent. Scoring
high on money as means and low on the communitarian motives were respondents from
Australia, Great Britain, the United States, and Finland. Scoring high on both dimensions
were China, Italy, Puerto Rico, and Portugal.
Shane et al. (1991) also studied the reasons given for start-ups across samples of
entrepreneurs from three countries. This research identified four factors (need for
independence, recognition, learning, and roles) that were consistent with those reported
by Scheinberg and MacMillan (1988). Also, Shane et al. (1991) reported significant
national differences for the first three of these motives. In both of these studies, the
reported motives appeared to be consistent with other conceptualizations of national
cultural values. For example, the motives reported by Scheinberg and MacMillan (1988)
have conceptual overlaps with Hofstede’s dimensions of masculinity and collectivism.
Rather than examining motives for starting a business, Thomas and Mueller (2000) asked
whether traits associated with entrepreneurship differ systematically with cultural
distance from United States. The participants in this study were students of business
economics, and engineering across nine countries. The traits examined were
innovativeness, locus of control, risk propensity, and energy level. Thomas and Mueller
(2000) found that as cultural distance increased, internal locus control, risk taking and
energy levels decreased
In a second study, Mueller and Thomas (2000) explored the association between
two entrepreneurial traits (locus of control and innovativeness) and Hofstede’s
dimensions of individualism and uncertainty avoidance. They found that internal locus of
control was dominant in individualistic cultures and that innovativeness and internal
locus of control were prevalent in cultures high in individualism and low in uncertainty
41
avoidance. These findings led Mueller and Thomas (2000) to conclude that cultures high
in individualism and uncertainty avoidance are supportive of entrepreneurship.
Mitchell et al. (2000) examined whether cognitive scripts associated with venture
creation decisions vary across cultures. The cognitive scripts included knowledge
arrangements (e.g., knowledge concerning protectable ideas and access to resources),
willingness (e.g., tolerance for commitment and motivation), and ability (e.g., situational
knowledge, opportunity recognition), and were associated with venture-creation decision
both individually and in interaction with one another. Furthermore, Mitchell et al (2000)
provided preliminary evidence that these scripts were themselves associated with cultural
values of individualism and power-distance. The direction of association, however, was
not consistent across specific scripts. For example, Mitchell et al, 2000 reported that a
script describing knowledge of appropriable ideas was negatively associated with
individualism and positively associated with power-distance. In contrast, a script
describing knowledge of access to resources was positively associated with individualism
and negatively associated with power-distance. Both findings represented cognitive
scripts that were supportive of entrepreneurship.
Overall, these studies identify a number of entrepreneurial characteristics that
appear to be influenced consistently by culture. In particular, there is strong evidence that
self-reported reasons for starting a business vary systematically with variations in culture
along dimensions of individualism, power-distance, and masculinity (Scheinberg &
MacMillan, 1988; Shane et al, 1991). Some evidence exists that cultural values such as
individualism and uncertainty avoidance are significantly related to traits such as internal
locus of control, risk taking, and innovativeness, which are associated with
entrepreneurship (Mueller & Thomas, 2000; Thomas & Mueller, 2000). Finally, evidence
exists that cognitive scripts that are related to entrepreneurship are also associated with
individualism and power-distance (Mitchell et al., 2000), suggesting a complex
interaction between cognition and cultural values.
A number of surveys of entrepreneurs provide insight into the motivational
aspects of the entrepreneurial experience. Kuratko, Homsby and Naffziger (1997) and
Robichaud, McGraw and Roger (2001) surveyed North American entrepreneurs to
determine why they start their own businesses. According to these two studies, the
42
motivational reasons for entrepreneurship fall into four general groupings: (1) extrinsic
rewards; (2) independence/autonomy; (3) intrinsic rewards and (4) family security.
Results of the surveys conducted by these two studies differed slightly. Entrepreneurs in
Kuratko et al's (1997) study cited motives such as: 'To enjoy the excitement", "To
increase my income opportunities","Acquire personal wealth" and "To control my own
employment destiny". In contrast, in Robichaud et al's study, entrepreneurs mentioned:
"To be closer to my family", 'To build up equity for retirement", "To do something I
enjoy", "To acquire a comfortable living", "To maximize business growth" and “To make
my own decisions".
Although the motives were not exactly the same, a factor analysis of Robichaud et
al.'s responses supported the same four factor approach hypothesized by Kuratko et al
(1997). Pistnii, Huang, Oksoy, Zhao and Welsch, (1999) studied 56 Chinese
entrepreneurs and found the highest scoring motivations were "having fun" and
"achieving a personal sense of accomplishment" which are both examples of intrinsic
rewards.
In a study of motivation among Vietnamese entrepreneurs, Swierczek and Ha
(2003) examined 18 motivations related to achievement, challenge, necessity, and
security. Because Vietnamese culture attaches higher value to collectivism rather than
individualism, and the economy is characterized by a high level of uncertainty, the
authors hypothesized that SME owners in Vietnam would be more motivated by security
than challenge. The results, however, led to the opposite conclusion. Swierczek and Ha
(2003) concluded that challenge and achievement were significantly more important
motivators than necessity and security, perhaps indicating that an entrepreneurial
orientation and culture is emerging in Vietnam that includes greater risk-taking and
proactive behaviours.
An important methodological issue is the difficulty of determining to what extent
statements of motives are simply restatements of cultural values; that is, studies that
investigate broad motivational needs are likely to find cultural differences because these
are closely related to the underlying cultural values (Baum et al., 1993; Scheinberg &
MacMillan, 1988; Shane et al., 1991). Needs, such as communitarianism, independence,
and autonomy all reflect the dimension of individualism-collectivism. Similarly,
43
achievement, recognition, and the instrumentality of wealth reflect the dimension of
masculinity-feminity. This reflects a considerable methodological difficulty of making
empirical distinctions between culture and individual behaviour. As Davidson and
Wiklund (1997) note, from some perspectives, culture is behaviour.
Davidson (1995) examined six regions in Sweden with distinct structural
characteristics, reporting systematic variation in values and beliefs as well as
entrepreneurial intentions and new firm-formation rates. A complex interaction appears
to exist among structural characteristics, entrepreneurial values, new firm-formation
rates, entrepreneurial intentions, and beliefs concerning entrepreneurship.
The preceding discussion shows that some evidence exists that broad cultural
characteristics are associated with national levels of entrepreneurship. Specifically, high
individualism, low uncertainty avoidance and high power-distance have all been found to
be associated with rates of innovation. These relationships are not consistent over time,
however (Shane, 1993), and have not been systematically found with aggregate indicators
of entrepreneurship (Davidson & Wiklund, 1997).
It is reasonable to expect that countries can be segregated into culturally
homogenous regions. It is unclear, however, whether broad cultural characterizations
such as Hofstede’s (1980) can sufficiently capture the variance in culturally
heterogeneous regions in a single country.
Thus, culture is important because it influences the motives, values, and beliefs of
individuals. The studies reviewed in this section provide two key insights into the role of
culture. The first implication is that in the context of entrepreneurship, theories of
motivation are culture bound in that different cultures emphasize different motivational
needs. The second implication is that culture is likely to influence national or regional
rates of entrepreneurship by creating a larger supply of potential entrepreneurs.
2.1.4 Social capital and entrepreneurial event
Entrepreneurs require information, capital, skills, and labour to start business
activities. While they may hold some of these resources themselves, they often
complement their resources by accessing their contacts (Aldrich & Zimmer, 1986;
Aldrich, et al., 1991; Cooper, et al, 1995; Hansen, 1995). The contacts that lead to
44
successful outcomes are their social capital and they are a key component of
entrepreneurial networks (Burt, 1992). Gabbay & Leenders (1999) define social capital as
the set of tangible or virtual resources that accrue to actors through the social structure,
facilitating the attainment of the actors’goals (Lin, 1999; Portes, 1999). By this they
include contacts that help them getting things done. These are people the actor knows, or
who are known by others that the actor knows.
When the entrepreneurs’ contacts contribute to their entrepreneurial goals, these
social contacts are their social capital (Burt, 1992). The contacts are often informal work
and non-work connections. These relations may extend across professional net-works,
reaching friends, and colleagues from earlier jobs. Entrepreneurial networks span
relations to organizations, clusters of firms, as well as to other people that help them set
up the firm (Hansen, 1995).
Networks have several useful properties for entrepreneurs. The first is size.
Entrepreneurs can enlarge their networks to get crucial information and other resources
from knowledgeable others. The next is positioning. Entrepreneurs position themselves
within a social network to shorten the path to knowledgeable others to get what they need
(Blau, 1977; Burt, 1992; Granovetter, 1973).
Finally is relationship structure. Social contacts may be related to the entrepreneur
or to each other through several types of relations or interactions. In single stranded
relations, each person performs only one activity with the entrepreneur and is related to
that person through only one type of relation. Multiplex ties, in contrast, have several
layers of different content or types of relationships (Scott, 1991). They may play
numerous roles in the entrepreneur’s support group. Researchers pay special attention to
the contribution of multiplex ties to entrepreneurship. They especially note that social
network members can contact and organize themselves, expanding the opportunities they
make available to the entrepreneur (Burt, 1992; Hansen, 2001).
Over time, entrepreneurs accumulate social capital, which is crucial for starting a
new business (Hansen, 2001). Census data from the US find that entrepreneurs are older
and slightly more educated than employed workers. Immigrant entrepreneurs have lived a
long time in their new country before starting an enterprise (Portes and Zhou, 1996,
1999). Age and length of residence help them accumulate social capital for new firms.
45
The social network approach suggests that a person's behaviour is contingent on the
nature and structure of his social relationships, which also provides the resources and
support required for entrepreneurship. Sociologists, social psychologists, anthropologists,
and organizational theorists have used the social network approach to study the
relationship between people and organizations.
Limited research has been carried out in the field of entrepreneurship using the
social network approach to explain entrepreneurship. Aldrich and Zimmer (1985)
stressed the importance of community-wide networks in encouraging and supporting
entrepreneurship. Johannisson (1986) emphasized the role of informal ties in
entrepreneurs' personal networks in achieving entrepreneurship.
In the studies of Chinese business, network has been viewed as one of the key
factors contributing to the enormous success of Chinese business in Hong Kong and other
Asian countries. Hamilton (1991) compares Chinese family firms to their Western
counterparts. Unlike Western families, the Chinese families represented networks of
people joined together by specific sets of familial relationships. The closer the kinship,
the more binding the obligation. Redding (1990) viewed the Chinese as collectivist and
group-dominated, their need for a networked society rooted in the insecurity that emerged
in a close-to-subsistence-level society, and the lack of trust in the forces of
modernization. References to both family and external networks were important. Wong
(1992) attributed the growth and the internationalization of Hong Kong and Singapore
companies to the strength of the Chinese business networks.
Social status and entrepreneurship
Over seventy years ago, Schumpeter (1934) depicted the motives of the
entrepreneur as follows:
First of all there is the dream and the will to found a private kingdom,
usually, though not necessarily, also a dynasty.… Then there is the will to
conquer: the impulse to fight, to prove oneself superior to others, to
succeed for the sake, not of the fruits of success, but of success itself.
From this aspect, economic action becomes akin to sport…. The financial
result is a secondary consideration, or, at all events, mainly valued as an
index of success and as a symptom of victory, the displaying of which
very often is more important as a motive of large expenditure than the
wish for the consumers’ goods themselves.… Finally, there is the joy of
46
creating, of getting things done, or simply of exercising one’s energy and
ingenuity.... Our type seeks out difficulties, changes in order to change,
delights in ventures.
Romantic as it may seem at first glance, Schumpeter’s portrait of entrepreneurial
motives captures essential facets of entrepreneurship that mainstream economics still
grapples with. Schumpeter’s core contention, that entrepreneurs do not seek greater
wealth for the sake of increasing consumption seems at odds with conventional
depictions of economic agents. This seeming contradiction is all the more evident when
one considers the alleged motives of ‘the joy of creating… delights in venturing’, which,
one should bear in mind, are related to economic activity in the market, not recreation
and leisure. Recent evidence suggests, however, that Schumpeter might be right.
Hamilton (2000) finds that in the United States, median entrepreneurs earnings
after 10 years in business are 35 percent less than the predicted alternative wage on a paid
job of the same duration. Hamilton’s use of a self-selection model shows that it is not the
case that low-ability workers become entrepreneurs; if anything, the evidence shows that
higher-ability workers are more likely to enter into self-employment. Therefore, largesample evidence amassed by Hamilton strongly suggests that self-employment offers
substantial nonpecuniary benefits, such as ‘being your own boss.’
Muscovite and Vissing-Jørgensen (2002) similarly find that entrepreneurs are
willing to concentrate their investments in their own businesses despite the fact that they
present a far worse risk-return tradeoff than investing in public equity. Smith and Smith
(2004), moreover, provide evidence on the very high cost-of-capital levels that
entrepreneurs and venture capitalists are willing to bear to engage in entrepreneurial
activity. The leading explanation for these results is based on nonpecuniary benefits from
entrepreneurial activity. A further sociologically-based explanation is that high-ability
individuals are culturally encouraged to start firms where family members can be
employed and share directly in the profits. Further work is needed to test this hypothesis.
Using Swedish data, Giannetti and Simonov (2003) contend that social norms
may drive people into entrepreneurship notwithstanding lower individual profits. Amit et
al. (2001) compared Canadian entrepreneurs with senior managers who decided not to
start ventures in the high-technology sector. They found that for entrepreneurs' decision
47
to start a new venture wealth attainment was significantly less important relative to an
aggregate of ten other decision dimensions (specifically: vision, stability, power, lifestyle,
leadership, innovation, independence, ego, contribution, and challenge). Several other
studies maintain that entrepreneurs are more over-confident than regular people are and
appear to be driven by wishful thinking (Bernardo and Welch, 1998; Arabsheibani, et al,
2000; Cooper, et al, 1988). However, one would be wrong to interpret either Schumpeter
or the evidence mentioned above as suggesting that entrepreneurs are agnostic or
oblivious to financial considerations. Studies conducted in several countries show that
individuals are sensitive to capital constraints in their decision to take entrepreneurial
positions – in particular, self-employment. Several studies hold that entrepreneurs find
special importance in their independence (Blanchflower and Oswald, 1998; Blanchflower
2000; and Hundley, 2001).
Using survey data from the United Kingdom, Germany, and Switzerland, Benz
and Frey (2004) argue that the greater independence and autonomy of self-employed
persons is largely responsible for their particular job satisfaction. A series of recent
studies on OECD-member nations further shows that people most often move into selfemployment when they are dissatisfied with their life, and that the very act of creating
their own business tends to make them more satisfied than the average person in their
country (Hofstede, 1998; Noorderhaven et al., 1999; Noorderhaven et al., 2003; Hofstede
et al., 2004).
Falter (2002) holds that the greater job satisfaction exhibited by the self-employed
in Switzerland stems rather from their job characteristics than from income. Falter notes
that this may be due to individual over-optimism in addition to greater freedom. Taken
together, the above evidence suggests that entrepreneurs are relatively more willing to
forgo income and to bear costs, including increased risk levels, in order to engage in
independent ventures. Compared with non-entrepreneurs, entrepreneurs behave as if they
understand the present fairly well but have rather special views regarding the future. Yet
the image of the entrepreneur reflected in these works is still very fragmented. A richer
picture emerges when one considers insights from a psychological perspective. While the
literature on entrepreneurship and individual-level psychology is voluminous and lies
beyond the present scope, here we briefly note that entrepreneurs’ risk propensity has
48
been found to be non-distinguishable from that of non-entrepreneurs. Rather,
entrepreneurs differ in their risk (under-)assessment, consistent with their general overoptimism (Palich and Babgy, 1995; Sarasvathy, Simon and Lave, 1998).
2.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.2.1 Introduction
A theory is a statement of how and why specific facts are related. One or more
general frameworks, or theoretical paradigms guide sociologists in their quest to know
how and why of a phenomenon. According to Macionis (2001), “a theoretical paradigm
provides a basic image of society that guides thinking and research.” Two theories will
serve as the framework for this study: Entrepreneurial Event Formation Theory; and
Social Learning Theory.
2.2.2 Entrepreneurial event formation theory (EEFT)
This theory by Shapero and Sokol (1982) seeks an explanation of how group
membership and socio-cultural environment affect the choice of an entrepreneurial path.
The theory sets out with two questions concerning each entrepreneurial event:
1.
What brought about the action that led to a change in the entrepreneur’s former
life path?
2.
Why this path, the generation of an entrepreneurial event, and not one of the
myriad other actions available?
These questions are designed to provide answers to how the choice of
entrepreneurial path is a function of social context of an individual or a group. The most
demonstrable aspect of entrepreneurial event is company formation. However, this is
chosen out of many feasible alternatives. According to Shapero and Sokol (1982),
“seldom can we find a case where starting a new company was the only possible
alternative; no psychological framework suggests that there is a particular need or drive
for company formation even though company formation may be linked to more
generalized needs for achievement or expression.”
49
The perspective holds that EEF process is not reducible to a monocausal analysis.
Rather, a number of factors are needed in understanding the process. That is, “no single
variable or factor can account for the outcome of the process. A number of factors are
necessary, but no one is sufficient.”
The precipitators of EEF
The question is asked; what brings an individual, or a group, to take any action?
At one extreme are persons driven by overwhelming events like war, persecution or loss
of employment. At the other extreme are individuals with no evident reason for change
who opt to make a major shift in life path. The process of change in an individual’s life
path can be understood in terms of vectors. Vectors are described as “directed forces that
keep the individual moving in a given direction at any given time.” Most members of a
collectivity are held down in a particular path by the sum of vectors in their lives. These
vectors could be a job, family situations, the powerful force of inertia and the daily
pushes and pulls in an individual’s life.
50
TABLE 2.2.1 ENTREPRENEURIAL EVENT FORMATION
Life path changes
Negative Displacements:
Forcefully emigrated
Fired
Insulted
Angered
Bored
Perceptions of Desirability
Perceptions of
Feasibility
Reaching middle age
Culture
Financial support
Divorced or widowed
Family
Other support
Company
Between Things:
Peers
Demonstration effect
Formation
Out of army
Colleagues
Models
Out of school
Mentor
Mentors
Out of jail
Partners
Positive Pull:
From partner
From mentor
From investor
From customer
Source: Shapero and Sokol (1982)
More specifically, in a social system that places a high value on the formation of
new ventures; more individuals will choose that path in times of transition.
More
diffusely, a social system that places a high value on innovation, risk-taking, and
independence is more likely to produce entrepreneurial events than a system with
contrasting values. To examine concepts of the desirable as they influence company
formation, Shapero and Sokol use data on the families, peer groups, ethnic groups,
educational and professional contexts of entrepreneurs.
51
Family
The family, particularly the father or mother, plays the most powerful role in
establishing the desirability and credibility of entrepreneurial action for an individual.
Fifty to 58 percent of company founders in the United States had parents who were
company owners, free professionals, independent artisans or farmers, yet a census from
the same period revealed that less than 12 percent of the U. S. population was selfemployed. In a Northern Italian study conducted by Shapero in 1973, 56 percent of
entrepreneurs had parents who were self-employed.
In Carroll’s study of Filipino
manufacturing entrepreneurs, the percentage was 74: in Marris and Somerest’s study of
entrepreneurs, almost 89 percent (Marris and Somerset, 1971; Harris, 1970).
The data follow the same pattern in study after study and in culture after culture.
Of Lipman’s (1969) Bogotan entrepreneurs, 61 percent had independent fathers; of
Sayigh’s (1962) Lebanese, 74 percent; Hammeed’s (1974) Sudanese, 70 percent.
Finney’s (1973) Gorokan entrepreneurs of New Guinea show a high incidence of fathers
who are relatively independent in terms of tribal position. Borland (1974) found that the
variable most commonly associated with a business student’s declared entrepreneurial
expectations was the professional independence of the student’s father. Only one of 75
girls in Borland’s sample expected to start a company.
The credible model is not necessarily consciously followed. Susbauer (1969)
asked technical entrepreneurs whose fathers had been self-employed if their fathers had
been models or had encouraged them to start a company. Most often, their fathers had
told them never to start a company or their fathers had themselves been unsuccessful.
Peers
Though parents stand out as the major credible examples of entrepreneurship,
there are many other potential examples. The larger the number and variety of
entrepreneurs in a particular culture, the greater the probability that the individuals in that
culture will form companies. This may well explain differences in the proportionate role
of the parental example in different countries such as 50 -58 percent in the United States
and 80-89 percent in African countries.
52
Other credible examples include relatives, colleagues, and classmates. When a
corporate vice president breaks away to form a new company, this does not necessarily
affect his many subordinates. However, when a group of engineers, far down in the
organizational line, breaks away to form a company, their colleagues are much likely to
follow the example (Draheim et al., 1966).
Previous work experience
In Cooper’s study of technical company formations in the San Francisco area
(Cooper 1972), he found that new companies were more likely to originate from small
corporate divisions than from large ones. Cooper calls the small divisions “incubators”.
A small firm provides a close view of the man who formed or heads it, a man who in
many cases is very much like his employees. It becomes possible for the potential
entrepreneur to envision a comparable role for himself.
Cooper found that many of the entrepreneurs he studied had formed more than
one company, and many had experienced previous business failures. Failures apparently
do not shake the credibility of the company formation act, but may even reinforce its
credibility and serve as a learning experience.
Ethnic groups
Shapero and Sokol contend that it is no accident that entrepreneurship is highly
identified with certain ethnic groups: Jews, Lebanese, Ibos in Nigeria, Jains and Parisis in
India, Gujeratis in East Africa. Each of these ethnic groups contains a large number of
examples to establish the credibility of company formation. In the case of the Jews, 2000
years of refugee status and large numbers of credible examples make the entrepreneurial
act almost an expected role.
Approximately 40 percent of the Chinese-Americans are in business for
themselves, as are a similarly high percentage of the Japanese-Americans. Overseas
Chinese are heavily engaged in business wherever they are found; this is considered a
political problem in Indochina, Malaysia, and the Philippines. Strong feelings against
Chinese merchants have created a similar issue in some developing countries
53
Classmates, colleagues, mentors
In their study of entrepreneurs in South Africa, Italy, Brazil, and the United
States, Shapero and Sokol (1982) report that entrepreneurs have often commented about
others like themselves, “if he could do it, I knew I could too!” “I saw the boss every day.
I did everything he did but take home the profits. If he could do it ….” “I had this
classmate in high school who has a prosperous company. While he was stupid! If he
could do it ….” The same was heard with regard to work peers, relatives, and observed
strangers. It would seem that it helps to see someone lesser than oneself establish the
credibility of the act. Another powerful influence on perceptions of the nascent
entrepreneur is that of a mentor. The mentor plays the part of convincing, assuring, and
instructing. Unlike the person whom one can look down on, the mentor is respected and
looked up to.
This theory proposes that the shift from a life path to another can be accounted for
by socio-cultural factors embedded in social context. In the words of Shapero and Sokol
“the particular action taken by an individual in a major shift from one life path to another
is a product of the situation and of socially and culturally implanted predispositions.”
Two major constructs are identified as accounting for the process of entrepreneurial
event: perceptions of desirability; and perceptions of feasibility.
The above constructs are interwoven and interrelated; if an action is perceived as
unfeasible, one may conclude it is undesirable. Also, if one perceives an act as
undesirable, one may never consider its feasibility.
Perceptions of desirability
The theory holds that perceptions of desirability are embedded in such institutions
as culture, the family, peers, colleagues and mentors. Data from various researches are
used in support of this assumption. For example, in studies carried out in different
countries, the family was found to be playing the most powerful role in establishing the
desirability and credibility of entrepreneurial action for an individual.
Ethnicity is another socio-cultural factor found to influence entrepreneurial
behaviour. Some ethnic groups were found to contain a large number of examples to
establish the credibility of entrepreneurial event. According to Shapero and Sokol (1982),
54
“it is no accident that entrepreneurship is highly identified with certain ethnic groups:
Jews, Lebanese, Ibos in Nigeria, Jains and Parsis in India, Gujeratis in East Africa.” All
of these ethnic groups have credible examples to make entrepreneurial act an expected
role.
Table 2.2.2 Findings on the influence of family in entrepreneurial action in a
number of cultures.
Society
% of Entrepreneurs influenced by
family
The United States Entrepreneurs 50-58
Northern Italian
56
Filipinos
74
Kenyans
80
Nigerians
89
Bogotans
61
Quebecois
68
Lebanese
74
Sudanese
70
Adapted from Shapero and Sokol, (1982).
Perceptions of feasibility
Perceptions of feasibility are anchored on the following: financial support, other
support, demonstration effect, models, mentors and partners (Shapero and Sokol, 1982).
The availability of the above influences the propensity to engage in entrepreneurial event.
2.2.3 Social learning theory
Social learning has multiple meanings across academic disciplines. The most
common use of the term social learning is in the field of social psychology and in the
development of social theories of learning that highlight the social context within which
individuals learn (Bandura, 1977). Social learning theory focuses on how personality
represents an interaction between the individual (i.e. life history of learning and
experience) and the environment (i.e. stimuli that the person is aware of and responding
to) (Rotter, 1954). The main idea in Julian Rotter's Social Learning Theory is that
55
personality represents an interaction of the individual with his or her environment. One
cannot speak of a personality, internal to the individual that is independent of the
environment. Neither can one focus on behaviour as being an automatic response to an
objective set of environmental stimuli. Rather, to understand behaviour, one must take
both the individual (i.e., his or her life history of learning and experiences) and the
environment (those stimuli that the person is aware of and responding to) into account.
Rotter describes personality as a relatively stable set of potentials for responding to
situations in a particular way.
Rotter sees personality, and therefore behaviour, as always changeable. Change
the way the person thinks, or change the environment the person is responding to, and
behaviour will change. He does not believe there is a critical period after which
personality is set. But, the more life experience you have building up certain sets of
beliefs, the more effort and intervention required for change to occur. Rotter conceives of
people in an optimistic way. He sees them as being drawn forward by their goals, seeking
to maximize their reinforcement, rather than just avoiding punishment.
Rotter has some components to his social learning theory model predicting
behaviour. These are behaviour potential, expectancy, and reinforcement value.
Behaviour Potential
Behaviour potential is the likelihood of engaging in a particular behaviour in a
specific situation. In other words, what is the probability that the person will exhibit a
particular behaviour in a situation? In any given situation, there are multiple behaviours
one can engage in. For each possible behaviour, there is behaviour potential. The
individual will exhibit whichever behaviour has the highest potential.
Expectancy
Expectancy is the subjective probability that a given behaviour will lead to a
particular outcome, or reinforcer. How likely is it that the behaviour will lead to the
outcome? Having "high" or "strong" expectancies means the individual is confident the
behaviour will result in the outcome. Having low expectancies means the individual
believes it is unlikely that his or her behaviour will result in reinforcement. If the
56
outcomes are equally desirable, we will engage in the behaviour that has the greatest
likelihood of paying off (i.e., has the highest expectancy). Expectancies are formed based
on past experience. The more often a behaviour has led to reinforcement in the past, the
stronger the person's expectancy that the behaviour will achieve that outcome now.
It is important to note that expectancy is a subjective probability, because one
common source of pathology is irrational expectancies. There may be no relationship
whatsoever between the person's subjective assessment of how likely a reinforcement
will be and the actual, objective probability of the reinforcer occurring. People can either
over- or underestimate this likelihood, and both distortions can potentially be
problematic.
Reinforcement Value
Reinforcement is another name for the outcomes of our behaviour. Reinforcement
value refers to the desirability of these outcomes. Things we want to happen, that we are
attracted to, have a high reinforcement value. Things we do not want to happen, that we
wish to avoid, have a low reinforcement value. If the likelihood of achieving
reinforcement is the same, we will exhibit the behaviour with the greatest reinforcement
value (i.e., the one directed toward the outcome we prefer most).
As with expectancy, reinforcement value is subjective, meaning that the same
event or experience can vastly differ in desirability, depending on the individual's life
experience. Punishment from a parent would be negatively reinforcing to most children,
and something to be avoided. However, children who get little positive attention from
parents can seek out parental punishment because it has a higher reinforcement value
than neglect.
Predictive Formula.
Behaviour Potential (BP), Expectancy (E) and Reinforcement Value (RV) can be
combined into a predictive formula for behaviour:
BP = f(E & RV)
This formula can be read as follows: behaviour potential is a function of
expectancy and reinforcement value. Or, in other words, the likelihood of a person
57
exhibiting a particular behaviour is a function of the probability that that behaviour will
lead to a given outcome and the desirability of that outcome. If expectancy and
reinforcement value are both high, then behaviour potential will be high. If either
expectancy or reinforcement value is low, then behaviour potential will be lower.
Lave and Wenger (1991) propose that learning requires involvement in
communities of practice where the learner participates in community frameworks and
adopts behaviours that fit the structure of that community. They focus on the ways in
which “learning is an evolving, continuously renewed set of relations” and how social
engagements provide the proper and facilitative context for learning to take place (Lave
and Wenger, 1991).
The perspective proposes that role models are important environmental dimension
in choosing a life path. Observation, identification with and appreciation of the behaviour
of others go a long way in making certain life path more preferable to others. According
to Butler and Herring (1991:79),
through a process of vicarious learning and emulation, people form
cognitive evaluations of the overall attractiveness of specific career options.
They are either encouraged or discouraged to enter a particular vocation.
People are more likely to enter a particular career or profession if they have
seen role models successfully performing the activities associated with that
career.
Research has shown that over seventy percent of entrepreneurs are from homes
where parents or close relatives owned small enterprises or were independent
professionals like lawyers, farmers or accountants (Butler and Herring, 1991). In general,
social theories of learning embrace the notion that learning occurs both inside the human
mind and in social interaction. Bandura expands on Rotter's notion of expectancy by
arguing that our expectations about the outcome of situations are heavily influenced by
whether or not we think we will succeed at the things we attempt. Bandura introduced the
term self-efficacy for this concept, arguing that it has a high degree of influence not only
on our expectations but also on our performance itself.
Most recently, Mischel, building on the work of both Rotter and Bandura, has
framed the determinants of human behaviour in particular situations in terms of "person
variables." These include competencies (those things we know we can do); perceptions
58
(how we perceive our environment); expectations (what we expect will be the outcome of
our behaviour); subject values (our goals and ideals); and self-regulation and plans (our
standards for ourselves and plans for reaching our goals).
The two theories (entrepreneurial event formation theory (EEFT) and social
learning theory) serve as framework for this work. EEFT is used to anchor some of our
propositions on the socio-cultural factors that inform an individual considering
entrepreneurial event. These propositions revolve round social capital forces, social
status, displacement experience/dissatisfaction experience and perceived instrumentality
of wealth). On the other hand, social learning theory guides this work on the relationship
between family entrepreneurial tradition and an individual’s decision in starting
entrepreneurial activity.
HYPOTHESES
The following hypotheses were derived for the study:
1.
Ethnic group is significantly related to consideration of social capital for
entrepreneurial event formation
2.
There are significant male-female differences in considering social capital as a
reason for entrepreneurial event formation.
3.
There is a significant relationship between age and consideration of social status
as a reason for embarking on entrepreneurial event.
59
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH SETTING AND METHOD OF STUDY
Introduction
This chapter is subdivided into two sections: the description of the research
setting and the method adopted for the study.
3:1 The Research Setting
This subdivision is devoted to the description of the research setting, which
covers the three organized trade associations stated below:
i. Nigerian Association of Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Mines and Agriculture
(NACCIMA);
ii. Nigerian Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (NASME); and
iii. Nigerian Association of Small Scale Industrialists (NASSI).
3.1.1 Nigerian Association of Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Mines and
Agriculture (NACCIMA)
The Nigerian Association of Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Mines and
Agriculture popularly referred to by its Acronym, NACCIMA, with headquarters in
Lagos, Nigeria, is the umbrella organization for all City/State and Bilateral Chambers of
Commerce within the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Objectives of NACCIMA
The primary objective of the association is to create a conducive atmosphere for
the pursuit of commerce, industry and all other forms of economic activities of interest to
the private sector. Other objectives include:
i. to promote, protect and develop all matters affecting business;
ii. to encourage an orderly expansion and development of all segments of the
community;
60
iii. to contribute to the overall economic stability of the community;
iv. to encourage and promote the nations private sector;
v. to provide a network of national and international business contacts and
opportunities;
vi. carry out training programmes for members and other relevant economic agents;
vii. create business services and information and attract inflow of investments and
tourists; and finally,
viii. to advocate for better business environment and create new opportunities and
industries.
Functions of NACCIMA
(a) Collection and dissemination of vital business information.
(b) Monitoring the performance of the economy and making representation to
government and its agencies with regard to the effects of various economic, fiscal and
monetary measures.
(c) Identification of obstacles to the establishment and profitable operations of
commercial, industrial and other enterprises, especially those arising from government
policies or the administration of such policies and the exertion of pressure for the removal
of such obstacles.
(d) Organizing seminars and workshops on various aspects of the economy, business and
management.
(e) Promoting commercial, industrial and in general economic cooperation between
Nigeria and other countries.
(f) Assisting to protect Nigeria's image and business interests abroad by mediating in
commercial disputes.
61
3.1.2 The Nigerian Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (NASME)
NASME is a private sector led business organization established for the
promotion of Micro and Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) in Nigeria. The
headquarters is located in Lagos. It has the following as its objectives:
i. promoting the growth of micro, small and medium enterprises and
ii. coordinating the activities of SMEs and related agencies in Nigeria.
The objectives are pursued through these activities:
advocacy, exchange of
information, training, financial and technical advice, credit delivery, business-support
services, capacity building. The major sub-sectors of the association include food
processing, timber and furniture, wearing apparel, leather products, non-metallic mineral
products, cottage industry amongst others.
Services to Members and Public
Support services for existing enterprises:
The association serves existing enterprises in the following regards: local advice
and assistance; information on the production and marketing of products; managerial and
technological advice; training in the upgrading of managerial/technical skills; financial
advice and information on funding sources available; and forum for the exchange of
views among members.
Business start-up services:
Members and the public enjoy the following business start-up services: updated
information on available technologies; financial advice; and business plan preparation
services.
Promotion of self-help capacities:
Promotion of self-help capacities are organized around articulation of members’ needs
and promotion of business opportunities.
62
3.1.3 Nigerian Association of Small Scale Industrialists (NASSI)
Nigerian Association of Small Scale Industrialists (NASSI) was founded in 1978
under the Land Perpetual Succession Act as a non-profit making and non-governmental
organization. The present membership of NASSI is about 20,000 people. The association
has a National Secretariat, which is currently in Lagos, and four Zonal offices. There are
two broad industry groups in the association namely:
1.
Manufacturing, mining and processing.
2.
Service industries.
Aims and Objectives of NASSI
The aims and objectives of NASSI are:
1.
To establish and maintain an association for the exchange of ideas and techniques
on issues relevant to the development of small scale industries.
2.
To establish contact with government, it’s institutions and other nongovernmental organizations for the advancement and promotion of small scale
industries.
3.
To contact, consult, confer, and co-operate with foreign agencies, institution and
organization within and outside Nigeria for the purpose of enhancing the growth
and development of small scale industries in Nigeria.
4.
To develop a computer based information and documentation centre for accessing
reliable economic data for overall development of the small scale industries.
5.
To source, provide and facilitate credit delivery to small scale as well as offer
library services for SMEs.
The choice of the three associations was meant to accommodate the different
shades of argument about what constitutes entrepreneurial activity; while some scholars
believed that only big business outfit qualifies to be described as entrepreneurial event,
others contended that every self-employment activity fits the description of
entrepreneurial event. In this work, therefore, NACCIMA represents the big
entrepreneurial outfit while NASME and NASSI represent medium and small scale
business respectively.
63
3.2 Methodological Procedures
This study used cross-sectional survey design. The following factors are the
independent variables: ethnic group, gender, age and level of education while the
dependent variables include the following: social status, displacement or dissatisfaction
with previous job, social capital, and perceived instrumentality of wealth.
Population
The target population for this study comprises all registered entrepreneurs with
Nigerian Association of Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Mines and Agriculture
(NACCIMA), Nigerian Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (NASME) and
Nigerian Association of Small Scale Industrialists (NASSI). These Associations were
purposively selected because each of them captured the different descriptions
entrepreneurship has been subjected, that is, large scale, medium scale and small scale. In
this study, NACCIMA, NASME and NASSI represented large scale, medium scale and
small scale industries respectively. The difficulties in defining the sample frame and in
getting accurate database of entrepreneurs in the country also make the selection of these
associations expedient.
Sample
The study was based on a survey of 717 respondents drawn from Nigerian
entrepreneurs, who are members of the three associations named above. It was difficult
sourcing accurate list of members, as some are corporate members who did not fall under
the definition of entrepreneurs, which we wanted to study. What we did was to disregard
such members and went for members who were owners and not managers from the list
made available to the researcher. From the list of identified owners, we randomly
selected those who would participate in the study and copies of questionnaire were sent
alongside notice of meeting. In another instance, after the respondents had been sampled,
using simple random sampling, copies of the questionnaire were taken to the venue of the
meeting, where the moderator impressed the importance of the work on members. In
other cases, questionnaire was personally administered on respondents. Because of high
64
literacy level and the manner of presentation of the instrument, we had no problem
convincing them to fill the questionnaire.
We also received some copies by mail from those who got theirs alongside notice
of meeting but who were not present at the meeting.
Instrument of Data Collection
The major instrument of data collection for this study was the survey
questionnaire. Informal interactions with respondents, especially at the initial stage of the
work, when the instrument was being prepared also took place.
A 38-item questionnaire divided into 5 sections was constructed. The first section
contained questions on socio-demographic and background information of respondents.
Questions on ethnic group of origin, gender, age, level of education, marital status,
membership of association, entrepreneurial sector, number of employees, father’s
occupation and religion were included in this section.
The second section dealt with social capital and entrepreneurial event formation.
Here, questions on different social capital nodes were included in the questionnaire. Such
questions revolved round different social influences as parents, friends, spouses, ethnic
group and religion. The questions were put in 5-point Likert scale. Respondents were to
select answers based on the degree of agreement with the statements provided in the
questionnaire. The third section of the questionnaire involved items that were meant to
elicit information on dissatisfaction/displacement experience from respondents.
Questions that bothered on dissatisfaction with paid job, discrimination, unemployment,
retirement from paid job and others composed of the section. A 5-point Likert scale was
also adopted.
The fourth section of the instrument focused on questions that examined social
status and entrepreneurial event formation. Various questions on reasons for
entrepreneurial event within the fulcrum of status, respect, prestige amongst others were
included in the instrument. The last section concentrated on perceived instrumentality of
wealth and entrepreneurial event formation and questions that tried to understand what
entrepreneurs perceived as the instrumentality into which entrepreneurial event could be
deployed, especially in the area of wealth. This section was also constructed following a
65
5-point Likert scale. In identifying the socio–cultural dimensions to include in the study
as possible variables, dimensions cited in the research literature were identified. These
include the social status of entrepreneurs, displacement experience/dissatisfaction with
previous job, the influence of social capital, and the perceived instrumentality of wealth.
Data Collection
This section is subdivided into pilot testing and the survey.
Pilot testing
Before the actual survey, a pilot testing of the instrument was undertaken, this
was meant to spot any mistake that might present an obstacle to the actual survey.
Suggestions on questions that were considered sensitive were effected. Formal letters
were written to the associations to be allowed access to the bodies. Informal discussions
were also held with some staff members of the different associations on how best to
approach the survey.
The Survey
Seven hundred and seventeen copies of questionnaire out of 1050 that were given
out were considered usable after the process of editing. The distribution is as follows:
NACCIMA (225), NASME (288) and NASSI (198). Members of staff of the associations
were engaged in the survey. In some cases, copies of the questionnaire were sent out with
notice of meeting to members. The questionnaire was self-administered. We received
some copies through mail from those who did not fill them when the researcher or his
representative was around.
Variables
There were four predictor variables – ethnic group, gender, age and level of
education. Relative predictive values of these variables on our dependent variables were
examined using different analytical techniques.
There were four dependent variables: social capital, dissatisfaction/displacement
experience, social status and perceived instrumentality of wealth. The predictor variables
66
were individually and jointly tested against the dependent variables to assess the relative
predictive power of each.
Measure of variables
Instrument used in measuring our dependent variables, that is, social capital,
dissatisfaction/displacement experience, social status and perceived instrumentality of
wealth, was adapted from the works of Shapero and Sokol (1982), Scheinberg and
MacMillan (1988) and Shane et al (1991). They were found suitable because of their
successful previous use in both western and non western contexts. Questions on ethnic
group, family, friends, peers, models and mentors were used in measuring the different
dimensions of social capital with a view to ascertaining their influence on the choice of
entrepreneurial path by individuals.
Displacing factors such as dissatisfaction with paid job, job loss, retirement,
discrimination
in
paid
job
and
unemployment
were
used
in
measuring
dissatisfaction/displacement experience. Such social status indicators such as prestige,
recognition by others, and respect from others were used in measuring social status as a
reason for entrepreneurial event formation. On our last dependent variable, questions on
perception of respondent on the ability of entrepreneurial event to engender wealth and
the different areas into which the wealth is deployed were used in measuring perceived
instrumentality of wealth.
Description of Models
Four models were designed for the study. They included (i) the interactions of the
predictor variables and social capital factors on entrepreneurial event formation, (ii) the
interface between dissatisfaction/displacement experience and the predictor variables (iii)
the influence of the predictors on social status for entrepreneurial event formation and
(iv) the interactions between the predictor variables and perceived instrumentality of
wealth.
67
Analytical Techniques
A number of statistical tools were used for the analysis. The first was frequency
distribution for all variables. We then proceeded to compute means of the dependent
variables against the predictor variables. Simple regression analyses were also run to
determine the effect of each independent variable on our dependent variables. We ran
independent samples t-test for gender and the dependent variables to assess the
differences in significant level of our samples.
Multiple regression analysis was also conducted to assess the relative predictive
power of the independent variables on the dependent variables. In addition to the above,
path analysis was used to determine causal directions of the variables that were studied.
Hypotheses were tested with the results of simple regression analysis, independent
samples t-test, and multiple regression analysis. Path analysis was used in order to
specify how much effect each variable has on the different dependent variables. Results
of simple regression analysis, multiple regression analysis, independent sample t-test and
path analysis were used in testing the research hypotheses. In running the regression
analysis, our independent variables, which were categorical variables, were converted to
dummy variables in order to ensure compliance with the assumptions of regression as a
tool of analysis. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was employed in the
different analyses that were conducted.
68
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
Introduction
This chapter covers the presentation and analysis of data. The chapter is divided
into two major sections – data presentation as well as analysis of data. The first section
covers the demographic and background characteristics of respondents and the
presentation of data on the socio-cultural factors covered in this study. In the first section,
data on demographic characteristics such as ethnic group of respondent, age, education,
marital status, gender and religion are presented. Also presented in the first section are
data on membership of association, sector of entrepreneurial event, number of employees
and father’s occupation, which form the background information of respondents. The
second part of the first section of this chapter is on socio-cultural factors, which is
broadly categorized into social capital, dissatisfaction/displacement experience, social
status and perceived instrumentality of wealth.
The second section covers presentation of mean scores on the dependent variables
calculated along the four predictor variables. Also presented in the second section are the
results of simple regression analysis, multiple regression analysis, independent samples ttest and path analysis. Hypotheses testing also come under this section of the work.
69
4.1 DEMOGRAPHIC, BACKGROUND AND SOCIO-CULTURAL ATTRIBUTES
OF RESPONDENTS
4.1.1 Demographic and background characteristics of respondents
Introduction
Attributes that were within the purview of demographic and background
characteristics of respondents were discussed in this section of data presentation.
Demographic and background attributes such as ethnic group, gender, age, marital status,
education, entrepreneurial sectoral involvement, parent’s occupation, membership of
association and religious affiliation were discussed under different sub headings. Four of
these demographic and background attributes – ethnic group, gender, age and level of
education – served as our predictor variables.
Ethnic Group
Ethnic group of respondents was categorized into five.
This was meant to
enhance readability and management of data. The five categories were North 1 (Hausa),
North 2 (minority groups in the north), South 1 (Yoruba), South 2 (Igbo) and South 3
(mini groups). As shown in table 4.1.1, South 1 (Yoruba) had the largest percentage of
the sample (44.6) relative to others. This situation might not be unconnected with the fact
that the study was based in Lagos, though a metropolitan, but originally inhabited by the
Yoruba of Southwest Nigeria. Following South 1 (Yoruba) was South 2 (Igbo) with a
percentage of 33.1. Other ethnic categories had the following percentages: North 1
(Hausa) (7.9%), North 2 (mini groups) (4.9%) and South 3 (mini groups) (8.9%).
Gender
Of the total sample, the male gender had 68.3% while the female gender had
31.7%. It must, however, be emphasized that the reason for preponderance of male
respondents in the sample was not farfetched from the membership of the different
associations that had more male than female members.
70
Age
The modal age category was 31-40, which was 33.3%. This was followed by age
category 41-50, with 27.8%. Respondents who fell between ages 51 and 60 years
accounted for 19.2% while 8.6% and 11% were for age categories 21 – 30 and 61+
respectively. One would observe from the table that most of our respondents were in age
bracket 31 and 60 years. This trend might suggest that those who are at their physical best
would be found in entrepreneurial practice.
Education
Likely responses on item on the level of education of respondents were in three
categories: primary education; secondary and tertiary. About 60% of the respondents had
tertiary education while secondary level of education had 37.7%. Respondents with
primary education had 2.5%. One thing that is observable among the respondents is high
level of education. This result conformed to Akeredolu-Ale’s (1975) finding on high
literacy level of entrepreneurs compared to non-entrepreneurs.
Marital Status
About 91% of the respondents were married. The breakdown of the responses
shows that 90.9% of the respondents were married, 5.9% were single while the other
category, which encompassed the divorced, the separated and the widowed had 3.3%.
The observation shows that majority of the respondents were married. Considering the
age of our respondents, it is not surprising that most of them were married, as 91.4% of
the respondents were above 30 years of age.
Association
The Nigerian Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (NASME) had 40.5%
of the respondents. This was followed by the Nigerian Association of Chamber of
Commerce, Industry, Mines and Agriculture (NACCIMA) (32.2%) while the Nigerian
Association of Small Scale Industrialists had 27.6% of the respondents.
71
Entrepreneurial sectors
Responses for entrepreneurial sectors to which people belong were broadly
categorized into five classes: agriculture, mining, manufacturing, construction, and
services. Respondents in the manufacturing sector constituted 37.2%. This was closely
followed by agriculture with 28.9%. Services had 19.9%, while construction and mining
had 9.6% and 4.3% of the respondents respectively.
Father’s Occupation
Respondents were asked to state their father’s occupation. However, in order to
make the data readable and amenable to the statistical tools employed, different
occupations were grouped in broad categories. Thus, we had farming; crafts and artisan;
occupations such as medicine, law, pharmacy, accounting, etc. categorized under
professionals; self-employment put under business; government work classed under civil
servant; and job bothering on religion under clergy. In all, we had six categories. Of all
the categories, respondents whose fathers were civil servants constituted 38.4% of the
total sample. This was closely followed by those whose fathers were businesspersons,
with 30.1%. Farming and professionals accounted for 14.8% and 14.2% respectively
while artisan category had 1.1% of the respondents and clergy, 0.4% of the entire sample.
Religion
There were three categories in which religious affiliation was delineated:
Christianity, Islam and other.
The pattern of response was as follows: Christians
(71.8%), Islam (27.8%) and other had 0.2%. One thing to note here is that the
preponderance of Christians in the sample might be a result of the fact that the Igbo
ethnic category, which had a bulk in the sample, is predominantly Christian.
72
Table 4.1.1: Frequency distribution by socio-demographic attributes
Variable
1
2
3
4
5
Frequency
Percent
North 1(Hausa)
57
7.9
North 2 (mini groups)
35
4.9
South 1(Yoruba)
320
44.6
South 2 (Igbo)
237
33.1
South 3 (Mini groups)
64
8.9
Other
4
.6
Total
717
100.0
Male
488
68.3
Female
226
31.7
Total
714
100.0
21-30
62
8.6
31-40
239
33.3
41-50
199
27.8
51-60
138
19.2
61+
79
11
Total
717
100.0
Primary Education
18
2.5
Secondary
270
37.7
Tertiary
429
59.8
Total
717
100.0
Married
651
90.9
Single
42
5.9
Other
23
3.3
Total
716
100.0
Ethnic Group of Origin
Gender
Age
Level of Education
Marital Status
73
Table 4.1.1 Contd
Variable
6
7
8
9
Frequency
Percent
NACCIMA
231
32.2
NASME
288
40.5
NASSI
198
27.8
Total
717
100.0
Agriculture
207
28.9
Mining
31
4.3
Manufacturing
267
37.2
Construction
69
9.6
Services
143
19.9
Total
717
100.0
Farming
106
14.9
Business
216
30.4
Civil servant
275
38.7
Professionals
102
14.4
Other
11
1.5
Total
710
100.0
Christianity
515
71.9
Islam
199
27.8
Other
2
.2
Total
716
100.0
Association
Entrepreneurial Sector
Father’s Occupation
Religion
74
4.1.2: Socio-cultural variables and entrepreneurial event formation
Introduction
Socio-cultural variables discussed in this study were broadly categorized into
four: social capital factors; dissatisfaction/displacement experience factors; social status
factors; and perceived instrumentality of wealth factors. The first category had eight
factors discussed under; the factors bothered on social capital nodes such as family,
parent, friend, spouse, and religion amongst others. The second broad category
encompassed dissatisfaction and/or negative displacement experience an individual might
encounter. They included dissatisfaction with paid job, job loss, inability to get job,
discrimination, retirement and the desire to be free from the encumbrances of paid job.
Factors that comprised social status variable included prestige, higher position in
society, the need for respect, and high social status amongst others. Lastly, the likelihood
of entrepreneurship engendering wealth and the uses to which wealth is put were
considered under perceived instrumentality of wealth.
There were five response categories for each of the factors, namely: ‘to no
extent’, ‘to little extent’, ‘to some extent’, ‘to great extent’ and ‘to very great extent’. The
manner of presentation was such that frequencies of the first two response categories
were added and taken to mean that the factor in question was not important. On the other
hand, the frequencies of the other three categories were added to signify that the factor
under consideration was important. This was done to afford readability and unambiguity
in the presentation.
Social capital factors
Family tradition and entrepreneurial event
As shown in table 4.1.2, 31.6% of the respondents from North 1 (Hausa) were of
the view that consideration of family tradition was not in any way a reason for venturing
into entrepreneurship. In a not too different manner, another 54.4% believed that the
importance of family tradition as a reason for entrepreneurial event formation was only
minimal. Four respondents, however, contended that family tradition was to some extent
important and two agreed to the fact of family tradition being an important consideration
75
when they started business. The modal response among the Hausa respondents was, “to
little extent’, with 31 occurrences.
In North 2 (minority groups) category, more than half of the respondents
considered family tradition as having no effect in predicting entrepreneurial event
formation. Of the 35 respondents in this group, 54.3% believed that family tradition was
not at all important to them when they started business. Following a similar pattern of
response were 34.3% in the group, who affirmed that family tradition was of little
importance as a precursor of entrepreneurial event formation.
Four respondents,
however, agreed in varying degrees that family tradition was an important reason for
engaging in entrepreneurial event.
South 1 (Yoruba) had 83% of the respondents who accorded no or little
importance to family tradition as a reason for starting business. It is noteworthy that very
few respondents (17%) believed in the importance of family tradition as a reason for
entrepreneurial event. The breakdown shows that 9.5% agreed that it was only important
to some extent and 5.1% of the respondents contended that it was important to a large
extent while the remaining 2.5% of South 1 (Yoruba) category conceded that the reason
was very important to them as a predictor of entrepreneurial event formation.
A different trend of response was observed in South 2 (Igbo) category. Unlike in
the other categories, fewer respondents (27%) agreed in varying degrees that family
tradition was not an important consideration for engaging in entrepreneurial event.
However, 73% of the respondents attested, though in varying dimensions, to the
importance of family tradition in entrepreneurial event formation. One thing that is
glaring as shown in the table is that a larger number of respondents in South 2 (Igbo)
category asserted the importance of family tradition as a predictor of entrepreneurial
event formation.
Most respondents in South 3 (minority groups) category attributed less
importance to family tradition as a reason for entrepreneurial event formation. Out of 64
respondents in this group, 78.2% of them were of the view that family tradition had little
or no influence in predisposing them to entrepreneurial event formation. The rest 21.8%
affirmed the importance of the factor as a reason for entrepreneurial event formation.
76
Support by parents and entrepreneurial event
The data presented in table 4.1.2 shows that 29.8% of the respondents from North
1 (Hausa) confirmed that support from one or both parents was of little or no importance
as a predisposing factor for entrepreneurial event formation. However, 69.2% were of the
opinion that parental support was an important reason in varying levels. North 2
(minority groups) had 22.9% who believed that parental support was non-efficacious in
predicting entrepreneurial event formation while 77.1% were on the other side of the
divide. In other words, this category of respondents believed that parental support was at
different levels of importance in predicting entrepreneurial event formation.
Among South 1 (Yoruba) category, more than two third of the respondents
attested to the importance of parental support in being a reason for entrepreneurial event
formation while the rest claimed that the factor was not important in any way or just of
insignificant influence. Among South 2 (Igbo) respondents, 22.9% of the respondents
attributed little or no importance to parental support for entrepreneurial event
engagement. Far larger number of respondents (77.1%) in this ethnic category, however,
considered support from one or both parents as an important reason, though in varying
degrees of importance. South 3 (minority groups) had 46.9% who were of the opinion
that parental support as a reason for engaging in entrepreneurial activity was not
important at all or only to a little extent. However, a different pattern of response was
noticed among 53.1%, who affirmed the different significant degrees of importance of the
factor as a precursor of entrepreneurial event. One thing that is observable in the pattern
of responses is that most respondents attested to the importance of parental support when
they started entrepreneurial event across all the ethnic categories.
Parental influence and entrepreneurial path
About 40.5%of the respondents from North 1 (Hausa) considered parents’
influence in the choice of entrepreneurial path as having no or little influence. On the
other hand, 59.7% affirmed different levels of positive influence of the factor on their
entrepreneurial engagements. Attachment of little or no importance to parental influence
was higher in occurrence in North 2 (minority groups) category, as 55.9% contended that
the factor was not an important consideration when they started business. Forty-four
77
percent, nonetheless, were of the belief that the factor was important to them when they
started business.
In South 1 (Yoruba) 67.6% posited that their parents did not influence them in the
choice of entrepreneurial path in any way or only in a marginally insignificant manner. It
is clear as shown on table 4.1.2, that this factor was not an important reason among our
Yoruba respondents as less than one-third of the respondents believed in the efficacy of
parental influence before engaging in entrepreneurial event.
South 2 (Igbo) ethnic
category presented a different scenario from what obtained in South 1 (Yoruba), as
almost equal percent was found on the two divides. While 50.2% believed in nonefficacy of the factor as a predictor of entrepreneurial event, 49.8% believed to the
contrary.
Most respondents (60.3%) in South 3 (mini groups) category were of the view
that parents had less influence on their choice of entrepreneurial path. However, 39.7%
contended that the factor was potent in predisposing them to considering entrepreneurial
event.
Parental entrepreneurial achievement as influence for entrepreneurial event
In North 1 (Hausa) 71.9% attributed less importance to parental achievement in
entrepreneurial field as a precursor of entrepreneurial event formation. On the other hand,
28.1% respondents agreed in varying degrees that they were encouraged by parents’
achievement in entrepreneurial field. Also in North 2 (mini groups) category, almost twothirds of the respondents contended that parental achievement in entrepreneurial field was
not a strong factor considered for entrepreneurial event while the remaining 37.2% of the
respondents attested to the potency of parental achievement in entrepreneurship in
predicting entrepreneurial event.
As indicated in table 4.1.2, a larger number of the respondents in South 1
(Yoruba) did not consider parental achievement in entrepreneurship as of any
significance in their entrepreneurial engagement. In all, 60.2% believed that parental
achievement was not important in considering entrepreneurial event while 39.8% of the
respondents believed to the contrary, that is, they affirmed the importance of the factor in
predicting individual’s entrepreneurial involvement.
78
The same pattern of response as above was observed among the South 2 (Igbo)
respondents, 53.5%, which constituted the larger percent in the ethnic category contended
that the factor was not important or only marginally relevant in entrepreneurial event
formation whereas 46.5% confirmed that the factor under consideration was important to
them when they started business.
The case was not different among South 3 (mini groups) respondents where
64.1% of the respondents attributed little or no importance to parental achievement in
their entrepreneurial aspirations and 35.9% appreciated the importance of the factor as in
precursing entrepreneurial event formation.
Influence of friend in entrepreneurial event formation
Fifty-six percent of respondents from North 1 (Hausa) did not believe that friends
had any substantial influence on their aspirations as entrepreneurs. However, the case was
different for 44% of them who contended that friends had some levels of influence on
them before engaging in entrepreneurial event. Quite a number of respondents in North 2
(mini groups) category were of the view that friends influenced their entrepreneurial
venture. Twenty-one respondents (61.8%) attributed little or no importance to the factor
as a precursor of entrepreneurial event while on the other hand, 38.2% of the respondents
held that friends exerted some degrees of influence on them in their engagement as
entrepreneurs. A preponderance of respondents in South 1 (Yoruba) group did not see
any connection between the influence of friends and entrepreneurial event formation;
over two-thirds of the respondents (71.2%) in this ethnic category subscribed to this
position. The rest, however, argued that friends had varying levels of positive influence in
their entrepreneurial endeavours.
The same trend applied in South 2 (Igbo) category, where 68.5% posited that
friends had little or no influence on them when they started business. On the other hand,
74 (31.5%) of the respondents claimed varying degrees of influence of friends on their
entrepreneurial engagement. A similar pattern of response presented itself in South 3
(mini groups) category; close to three-quarters (72.3%) of the respondents were of the
view that friends had no influence on their choice of entrepreneurial path. Only few of the
respondents contended that the factor was important to them when they started business.
79
Spousal influence in entrepreneurial event formation
About fifty-four percent of our North 1 (Hausa) respondents did not believe that
their spouses influenced them in entrepreneurial event formation.
However, 45.5%
attested to the potency of this factor in predicting business formation. Of the respondents
in North 2 (mini groups) category, 20 contended that spousal influence was not a reason
at all or only an insignificant reason when they began business while the rest of the
respondents attributed varying levels of importance to spousal influence in their
entrepreneurial engagement.
Among South 1 (Yoruba) category, 76% of the respondents were of the view that
spousal influence was not a serious factor of consideration when they began business.
Twenty-four percent, however, believed to the contrary; they affirmed the varying
degrees of spousal influence when they ventured into business. South 2 (Igbo) category
had 72.8% of the respondents claiming that spousal influence was not a strong influence
in their entrepreneurial event formation bid. Other respondents in the group (27.2%)
agreed in varying dimensions to the reality of spousal influence when they began
business. The same pattern was observed in South 3 (mini groups), where close to 66%
attributed little or no importance to spousal influence. About 34%, however, attested to
the positive influence of the factor in predisposing them into entrepreneurial event.
Ethnic influence in entrepreneurial event formation
About 88% of the respondents in North 1 (Hausa) category viewed ethnic group
as having little or no bearing with entrepreneurial event formation. The very high score
suggested that the factor was very weak in predicting business formation. The rest (about
12%) were of the view that the factor was efficacious. Among respondents of North 2
(mini groups) category, almost all the respondents considered this reason as of no or at
best little influence on their entrepreneurial bid. The pattern of response showed that
ethnic group, as a predictor of entrepreneurial event, was weakest in this group. In South
1 (Yoruba) category 77.7% contended that ethnic membership did not hold any
importance to their engagement in entrepreneurial activities while 22.3% believed that
80
ethnic membership was a propelling factor for their involvement in entrepreneurial
practice.
A marked difference was observed among South 2 (Igbo) respondents; most of
the respondents were of the view that ethnic membership had influence on their
entrepreneurial aspirations. For example, while 82% of the respondents agreed that ethnic
membership had positive influence on the involvement as entrepreneurs, only 18% were
of contrary opinion. In South 3 (mini groups) category, more than two-third of the
respondents did not see any correspondence between ethnic origin and entrepreneurial
event formation while the remaining believed that ethnic group of origin was a potent
factor in their consideration of entrepreneurial event formation.
Religious affiliation and influence on entrepreneurial event formation
Religious affiliation did not show any serious influence on entrepreneurial event
formation across all the groups. The breakdown of the pattern of response shows that
about 89% of the respondents in North 1 (Hausa) category held that religion was of little
or no effect in their business venturing while about 11% were of contrary view. The
outcome in North 2 (mini group) category was not different as 94% of the respondents
contended that religion was not a serious influence on them to engage in entrepreneurial
event while six percent agreed that religion influenced them in their decision to consider
entrepreneurial event. Eighty percent of the respondents in South 1 (Yoruba) category
believed that religion was not an important reason considered before they started
business, while 20 % attributed varying degrees of influence to religion as a reason for
embarking in entrepreneurial event. The case was not different among South 2 (Igbo)
respondents; 82.5% of the respondents attached little or no importance to religion while
the remaining 17.5% were of the opinion that religion was an important reason to them in
entrepreneurial event formation. Most respondents of the South 3 (mini groups) category
held that religion was not an influence on their business undertaking as 98% of the
respondents subscribed to this position and two percent believed that religion had some
influence in entrepreneurial event formation.
81
Table 4.1.2: Distribution by social capital items according to ethnic group of origin
North 2
South 3
North 1 (Mini South 1 South 2 (Mini
(Hausa) groups) (Yoruba) (Igbo) groups)
I want to continue a
family tradition
No
% No %
to no
extent 18 31.6 19
to
little
extent 31 54.4 12
to
some
extent 4
7 3
to
great
extent 2 3.5
to
very
great
extent 2 3.5 1
Total
No
%
Total
No % No % No %
54.3 147 46.4 32 13.5 25 39.1 241 33.7
34.3 116 36.6 32 13.5 25 39.1 216 30.2
8.6
2.9
30
9.5 75 31.7 7 10.9 119 16.7
16
5.1 44 18.6 1
1.6 63
8
2.5 54 22.8 6
9.4 71 10.4
9
57 100 35 100 317 100 237 100 64 100 710 100
I was supported by
one or both parents
to no
extent
to
little
extent
to
some
extent
to
great
extent
to
very
great
extent
Total
6 10.5 8 22.9 26
8.3 21 8.9 14 21.9 75 10.6
11 19.3 5 14.3 36 11.5 33 14 16 25 101 14.2
14 24.5 6 17.1 67 21.3 67 28.5 12 18.8 166 23.4
13 22.8 5 14.3 98 31.2 40 17 10 15.6 166 23.6
13 22.8 11 31.4 87 27.7 74 31.5 12 18.8 197 28.2
57 100 35 100 314 100 235 100 64 100 705 100
82
Table 4.1.2 Contd.
North 2
South 3
North 1 (Mini South 1 South 2 (Mini
(Hausa) groups) (Yoruba) (Igbo) groups)
My parents
influenced me in the
choice of
entrepreneurial
path
No
% No %
No
to no
extent 10 17.5 12 35.3 141
to
little
extent 13 22.8 7 20.6 74
to
some
extent 19 33.3 8 23.5 55
to
great
extent 9 15.8 5 14.7 27
to
very
great
extent 6 10.5 2 5.9 21
Total
%
Total
No % No % No %
44.3 54 23 24 38.1 241 34
23.3 64 27.2 14 22.2 172 24.1
17.3 60 25.2 10 15.9 152 21.6
8.5 29 12.3 11 17.5 81 11.5
6.6 28 11.9 4
6.4 61 8.5
57 100 34 100 318 100 235 100 63 100 707 100
I was encouraged
by the achievement
of one or both
parents in
entrepreneurial
field
to no
extent 17 33.3 10
to
little
extent 22 38.6 12
to
some
extent 8 14 9
to
great
extent 6 10.5 3
28.6 112 35.1 53 22.9 19 29.7 211 29.5
34.3 80 25.1 71 30.6 22 34.4 207 30
25.7 54 16.9 44 19 10 15.6 125 17.7
8.6
46 14.4 33 14.2 10 15.6 98 13.9
83
Table 4.1.2 Contd.
North 2
South 3
North 1 (Mini South 1 South 2 (Mini
(Hausa) groups) (Yoruba) (Igbo) groups)
No
to
very
great
extent
Total
4
% No %
No
%
7
27
8.5 31 13.4 3
1
2.9
Total
No % No % No %
4.7 66 9.6
57 100 35 100 319 100 232 100 64 100 707 100
I was influenced by
a friend
to no
extent 14 24.5 14 41.2
to
little
extent 18 31.5 7 20.6
to
some
extent 7 12.3 7 20.6
to
great
extent 9 15.8 2 5.9
to
very
great
extent 9 15.8 4 11.8
Total
162 50.8 100 42.6 24 39.4 314 44.5
65 20.4 61 26 20 32.8 171 23.9
43 13.5 44 18.7 6
34 10.7 18 7.7
15
9.8 107 15
8 13.1 71 9.9
4.7 12 5.11 3
4.9 43 6.1
57 100 34 100 319 100 235 100 61 100 706 89.5
I was influenced by
my spouse
to no
extent 12 22.9 16 47.1 141 46.5 85 37.4 25 41.8 279 42.5
to
little
extent 18 32.8 4 11.8 92 30.4 81 35.6 17 28.4 212 31.8
to
some
extent 15 27.3 4 11.8 31 10.2 29 12.8 8 13.4 87 13.1
84
Table 4.1.2 Contd.
North 2
South 3
North 1 (Mini South 1 South 2 (Mini
(Hausa) groups) (Yoruba) (Igbo) groups)
No
to
great
extent
to
very
great
extent
Total
Entrepreneurship
was a common
practice among the
people of my ethnic
origin
% No %
No
No % No % No %
6 10.9 6 17.7 28
9.2 14 6.2
6
10 60
4
4.3 19 8.3
4
6.7 44 6.4
7.3
4
13
9
55 100 34 88.4 305 100 228 100 60 100 682 100
to no
extent 16 28.6 17 48.6 154
to
little
extent 34 60.9 18 51.4 90
to
some
extent 5
9
31
to
great
extent 1 1.79
22
to
very
great
extent
17
Total
I was influenced by
the teaching of my
religion.
%
Total
49.3 21
9
21 32.8 229 32.1
28.8 21
9
32 49.9 195 27.3
9.9 61 26.3 6
7
9.4 103 14.6
66 28.5 4
6.2 93 13.2
5.4 63 27.2 1
1.6 81 11.8
56 100 35 100 314 100 232 100 64 99.9 701 100
to no
extent 29 50.9 27 79.4 145 45.7 106 45.6 33 52.5 340 47.9
to
little
extent 22 38.5 6 17.6 110 34.7 87 37.4 27 42.9 251 35.3
85
Table 4.1.2 Contd.
North 2
South 3
North 1 (Mini South 1 South 2 (Mini
(Hausa) groups) (Yoruba) (Igbo) groups)
No
to
some
extent
to
great
extent
to
very
great
extent
Total
% No %
4
7
2
3.5
No
%
1 2.94 23
7.3
19
21
Total
No % No % No %
3.4
1 1.59 37 5.5
13 5.6
34 4.8
6.6 20 8.6
2 3.17 43 6.1
6
8
57 100 34 100 318 100 234 100 63 100 706 100
I was influenced by
my religious leader
to no
extent 25 43.8 25 71.5 121 38 119 50
to
little
extent 26 45.5 8 22.9 92 28.9 72 30.2
to
some
extent 2 3.5
40 12.6 17 7.14
to
great
extent 2 3.5 2 5.72 41 12.9 12 5.04
to
very
great
extent 2 3.5
25 7.8 17 7.14
Total
37 58.8 327 46
19 30.2 217 30.5
6 9.54 65 9.2
1 1.59 58 8.1
44 6.2
57 100 35 100 319 100 237 100 63 100 711 100
86
4.1.3: Dissatisfaction/displacement experience factors
Dissatisfaction with paid job and entrepreneurial event formation.
About 38% from North 1 (Hausa) argued that experience of dissatisfaction with
paid job was not relevant to their entrepreneurial aspirations. However, a larger
percentage (about 62%) was of the view that dissatisfaction with paid job had varying
degrees of influence on them before they started business. The same trend presented itself
in North 2 (mini groups) category; 42.8% of the respondents attached little or no
influence to the question of dissatisfaction with paid job. On the other hand, 57.2% of our
respondents affirmed that dissatisfaction with paid job was potent in predisposing them to
entrepreneurial event formation.
Of the respondents in South 1 (Yoruba), 35.2% believed that dissatisfaction with
paid job was not a serious predictor of entrepreneurial event. The larger percentage of the
respondents, however, believed that the factor was an important consideration for
venturing into entrepreneurial event. Forty-one percent of South 2 (Igbo) respondents
claimed that dissatisfaction with paid job was of little or no effect in causing
entrepreneurial motivation. Fifty-nine respondents, however, contended that the factor
could be implicated in their involvement in entrepreneurial event. South 3 (mini groups)
category had a total of 64 respondents out of which 34% were of the view that
dissatisfaction with paid job had little or no influence on them in their decision to embark
on entrepreneurial event. However, 66% of the respondents attributed varying levels of
positive influence of dissatisfaction on entrepreneurial event formation.
Dismissal from paid job and entrepreneurial event formation
In North 1 (Hausa) category, 82.5% posited that dismissal from paid job was
weak in predicting entrepreneurial event; however, 17.5% expressed varying degrees of
influence of dismissal from paid job on venture formation. Among North 2 (mini groups)
respondents, the same trend in response was observed as 88.6% believed that being fired
from paid job was of little or no relevance to entrepreneurial motivation.
More than half of the respondents did not consider the reason under consideration
as important before they started their entrepreneurial venture; 89.3% considered the
reason as having little or no correspondence with business formation. A little above 10%,
87
however, believed that the reason was efficacious in triggering entrepreneurial event
formation. South 2 (Igbo) category had 84.7% of the respondents believing that being
fired from paid job had no efficacy in bringing about entrepreneurial event formation
while 15.3% agreed to the contrary.
From South 3 (mini groups) category, we had 89.1% who saw no connection
between the reason of dismissal and entrepreneurial event formation and 10.9% believed
that dismissal from paid job was an important reason for entrepreneurial event.
Retirement from paid job and entrepreneurial event formation
Retirement from paid job was a very weak reason among North 1 (Hausa)
respondents, corroborating this assertion was the high percentage of respondents (82.5%)
who were of the view that the factor of retirement did not trigger venture creation among
them. The remaining 17.5%, however, claimed that the reason was strong in provoking
entrepreneurial event.
Majority of respondents in North 2 (mini groups) was of the view that retirement
from paid job was not an important consideration for entrepreneurial venture as only two
percent believed to the contrary. Among South 1 (Yoruba) category, more than two-third
of the respondents were of the view that the influence of retirement on business formation
was not important while the rest claimed that it was important to them. About 80.7% of
the respondents agreed that retirement from paid job influenced entrepreneurial venture
creation while 19.3% held that the factor was a precursor of entrepreneurial event. Most
of the respondents of South 3 (mini groups) category (87.5%) attributed less importance
to retirement from paid job as an important reason for entrepreneurial event formation.
Less than 13%, however, believed that the factor was an important consideration.
Unemployment and entrepreneurial event formation
As shown in table 4.1.3, 91% of the respondents in North 1 (Hausa), believed that
inability to get job was of no importance when they started business. In other words,
unemployment was not strong enough among members of this goup for it to trigger
entrepreneurial event. An insignificant nine percent, however, was of the view that
unemployment was potent enough and was an important reason to their entrepreneurial
88
engagement. North 2 (minority groups) had all respondents in the category holding that
unemployment was not a precursor of entrepreneurial event as far as they were
concerned.
In a similar pattern, most respondents (95%) in South 1 (Yoruba) category
contended that inability to get job was not strong to predict entrepreneurial event. Five
percent of the respondents, however, believed that the reason was a strong factor and an
influence in their entrepreneurial involvement.
The same pattern of response reflected among respondents in South 2 (Igbo), 95%
of respondents in this category de-emphasized the importance of unemployment as a
predictor of entrepreneurial event formation; they believed that the factor was of little or
no importance when they started business. However, five percent of the respondents
believed that the factor was important in predicting entrepreneurial event formation.
Among our respondents who were in South 3 (mini groups) category, the same trend was
observed. Of all respondents in this category (64), 93.8% of them claimed that
unemployment was not a good reason when they started business while 6.2% of the
respondents believed that the importance of the factor when they started business was of
some degree of importance.
Independence and entrepreneurial event formation
In North 1 (Hausa) category, 37.5% altogether regarded being bossed around as
having little or no bearing when they started business. On the other hand, 62.5% held that
getting tired of being bossed around was an important reason when they started business.
North 2 (mini groups) had 20% respondents who were of the opinion that that
independence was not an important consideration in their entrepreneurial engagement.
Eighty percent believed to the contrary.
Table 4.1.3 shows that among South 1 (Yoruba) respondents, 21.5% of the
respondents held that the factor was of less importance. Presenting a contrary view was
78.9%, which claimed that the reason was strong, though in varying degrees. The same
trend featured among South 2 (Igbo) respondents; 29.4% of them believed that getting
tired of being bossed around was not an important reason for engaging in business
formation. Thus, it is observed that a larger percentage of responses, though in different
89
degrees, attested to the potency of independence in predisposing individuals to
entrepreneurial event formation. In South 3 (mini groups), the table shows a similar
dimension in response pattern; 14.1% responses occurred, affirming that independence
was not relevant in engendering entrepreneurial event while 85.9% of the respondents
was of the view that the reason had great potency in bringing about entrepreneurial event
formation.
Table 4.1.3: Distribution by dissatisfaction/displacement experience factors
according to ethnic group of origin
North 2
South 3
North 1 (Mini
South 1 South 2 (Mini
(Hausa) groups) (Yoruba) (Igbo) groups) Total
I experienced
dissatisfaction
No % No % No % No % No % No %
with paid job
to no
extent 11 19.6 8 22.9 63 19.8 50 21.2 6 7.1 138 19.9
to little
extent 10 17.9 7 20 49 15.4 46 19.5 16 25 128 18
to
some
extent 22 39.3 10 28.6 92 28.9 66 28 21 32.8 211 29.5
to
great
extent 5 8.9 2 5.7 65 20.4 31 13.1 7 10.9 110 15.4
to very
great
extent 8 14.3 8 22.9 49 15.4 43 18.2 14 21.9 122 17.1
Total
56 100 35 100 318 100 236 100 64 100 709 100
I was fired from
paid job
to no
extent 23 41.1 26 74.3 238 74.6 145 61.4 37 57.8 469 66.2
to little
extent 23 41.1 5 14.3 47 14.7 55 23.3 20 31.3 150 21
to
some
extent 5 8.9 3 8.6 14 4.4 22 9.3 5 7.8 49 6.9
90
Table 4.1.3 Contd.
North 2
South 3
North 1 (Mini
South 1 South 2 (Mini
(Hausa) groups) (Yoruba) (Igbo) groups) Total
No % No % No % No % No % No %
to
great
extent
to very
great
extent
Total
3
5.6
2
3.6
1
2.9
12
3.8
10 4.2
8
2.5
4
2
3.1
1.7
27 3.8
15 2.1
56 100 35 100 319 100 236 100 64 100 710 100
I retired from
paid job
to no
extent
to little
extent
to
some
extent
to
great
extent
to very
great
extent
Total
I faced
discrimination
in my former
place of work
to no
extent
to little
extent
to
some
extent
to
great
extent
39 68.4 33 97.1 222 71.4 150 64.4 48 76.2 492 70.7
8
14
6 10.5 1
2.9
33 10.6 38 16.3 8
12.7 87 12.4
17
5.5
23 9.9
1
1.6
48 6.8
35
3
5.3
22
7.1
9
3.9
1
1.6
1
1.8
17
5.5
13 5.6
5
7.9
5
36 5.1
57 100 34 100 311 100 233 100 63 100 698 100
9 16.4 5 14.3 84 26.4 75
11
20
32 14 22.6 187 27
9 25.7 49 15.4 37 15.8 10 16.1 116 16.4
15 27.3 10 28.6 106 33.3 52 22.2 23 37.1 206 29.1
13 23.6 7
20
48 15.1 43 18.4 9 14.5 120 17
91
Table 4.1.3 Contd.
North 2
South 3
North 1 (Mini
South 1 South 2 (Mini
(Hausa) groups) (Yoruba) (Igbo) groups)
No
to very
great
extent
Total
%
No
%
No
%
No
% No
7 12.7 4 11.4 31
9.8
27 11.5 6
%
9.7
Total
No
%
75 10.6
55 100 35 100 318 100 234 100 62 100 704 100
I could not get
job.
to no
extent
to little
extent
to
some
extent
to
great
extent
to very
great
extent
Total
I got tired of
being bossed
around.
2
3.5
1
1
2.9
32
10
20 8.5
3
4.7
58 8.1
1.8
6
1.9
7
3
4
6.3
18 2.5
3
5.3
3
0.9
4
1.7
10 1.4
1
1.8
6
1.9
1
0.4
8
1.1
57 100 34 100 319 100 236 100 64 100 710 100
to no
extent
to little
extent
to
some
extent
to
great
extent
to very
great
extent
Total
50 87.7 33 97.1 272 85.3 204 86.4 57 89.1 616 86.8
7 12.5 4 11.4 42 13.3 35 14.9 3
4.7
91 13.4
14
25
3
8.6
26
9.4
83 11.7
14
25
7
20
61 19.3 51 21.7 13 20.3 146 20.6
8.2
34 14.5 6
9 16.1 8 22.9 105 33.2 40
12 21.4 13 37.1 82
26
17 26 40.6 188 26.5
75 31.9 16
25 198 27.9
56 100 35 100 316 100 235 100 64 100 706 100
92
4.1.4: Social status factors and entrepreneurial event
Self-employment and high social status
As shown in table 4.1.4, 8.8% of our respondents attached little or no significance
to social status as a reason for starting business in North 1(Hausa) category. However,
91.2% of the respondents believed that the reason of social status was important and a
consideration when they started business. Among North 2 (mini groups), 5.7% believed
that social status was not an important reason in venturing into entrepreneurial event.
However, a larger percentage of respondents in the category believed that social status
was an important reason when they ventured into entrepreneurial event as evidenced by
their responses.
South 1 (Yoruba) responses presented a similar pattern; 2.5% of the respondents
were of the view that social status was not an important reason when they started their
current business. Most respondents (97.5%), however, attested to the efficacy of social
status as an important reason when they started business. South 2 (Igbo) responses
presented a tendency towards the importance of social status as a reason for
entrepreneurial event as 96.2% of our respondents attested in varying degrees to social
status being an important reason when they started business. Only 3.8% believed it was
not efficacious in predisposing individuals into entrepreneurial event formation.
The case is not different among South 3 (mini groups) respondents as 3.1% felt
that social status was not an important consideration. On the other hand, 96.9% believed
that the reason was important in varying degrees.
The self-employed as models
As shown in the table, very few respondents believed that this variable was not
important to them when they started their business. Specifically, 3.2% of all respondents
in the study were of the view that the factor was not important enough as to provoke
entrepreneurial event formation. Quite a number of respondents agreed that the variable
was important to them, though in varying degrees, when they started business. Of the
total respondents, 96.8% opined that the variable was important and a good reason for
93
involvement in entrepreneurial event. The result presented on the table showed that all
the ethnic categories regarded the factor as a precursor of entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurial event formation and respect.
The table shows that a preponderance of responses tended toward a positive
importance of the variable to respondents while starting their business. While only 8.1%
of our respondents were of the view that the variable was not an important reason when
they started business, 91.9% held that they considered the variable to be an important
reason for their involvement in entrepreneurship. The table clearly indicates that respect
from society, as a reason, had higher occurrence across all the ethnic categories. This is to
suggest that the factor is efficacious in predicting entrepreneurial event formation among
the population of study.
Achieving a high position in society and entrepreneurial event formation
Just like in the panel above, most respondents believed that achieving high
position for themselves was an important reason for engaging in entrepreneurial event.
Six hundred and sixty-four (93%) respondents across the groups believed in varying
degrees that the variable under consideration was seen as important when they started
their current entrepreneurial event. The remaining 49 (7%) believed to the contrary. The
distribution among the categories showed that the variable showed significant importance
irrespective of category, that is, all categories regarded it as a potent factor in provoking
entrepreneurial event.
Prestige and entrepreneurial event formation
Fourteen percent of respondents from North 1 (Hausa) claimed that prestige was
not important to them when they started business. Also responding in the same vein were
6.9% of respondents from South 1 (Yoruba) and 13.7% of respondents from South 2
(Igbo). Nine percent of respondents across all the categories were of the view that
prestige had no predisposing power on entrepreneurial event formation. The larger
percent agreed that the influence of prestige was important and a precursor of
94
entrepreneurship. It must be stated that there was no variation on how the different ethnic
categories considered prestige as a predictor of entrepreneurial event formation.
Table 4.1.4: Distribution by social status factors according to ethnic group of origin
North 2
South 3
North 1 (Mini
South 1 South 2 (Mini
(Hausa) groups) (Yoruba) (Igbo) groups)
Running your
own firm gives
you high social
status.
No
%
No
%
No
%
No
% No %
Total
No %
to no
extent
2 3.5 1 2.9 3 0.9
6 0.8
to little
extent
3 5.3 1 2.9 5 1.6 8 3.4 2 3.1 19 2.7
to
some
extent 21 36.8 12 34.3 92 28.8 88 37.3 28 43.8 241 33.9
to great
extent 18 31.6 9 25.7 129 40.4 76 32.2 20 31.3 252 35.5
to very
great
extent 13 22.8 12 34.3 90 28.2 64 27.1 14 21.9 193 27.1
Total
People look up
to those who
own their firms
57 100 35 100 319 100 236 100 64 100 711 100
to no
extent
to little
extent
to
some
extent
to great
extent
to very
great
extent
Total
4
7.02
4
7.02 2
5.9
11
3.5
6
2.6
20
6.3
17 7.2
2
3.1 23 3.2
7 10.9 50
7
19 33.3 14 41.2 142 44.5 85 36.2 25 39.1 285 40.3
19 33.3 8
23.5 87 27.3 56 23.8 13 20.3 183 25.8
11 19.3 10 29.4 59 18.5 71 30.2 17 26.6 168 23.7
57 100 34 100 319 100 235 100 64 100 709 100
95
Table 4.1.4 Contd.
North 2
South 3
North 1 (Mini
South 1 South 2 (Mini
(Hausa) groups) (Yoruba) (Igbo) groups)
Starting business
generates a lot of
respect.
to no
extent
to little
extent
to
some
extent
to great
extent
to very
great
extent
Total
I wanted to
achieve a higher
position for
myself in society.
No
%
1
1.8
3
5.3
No
%
No
%
No
% No %
5
1.6
2
9.8
11 4.7
0.9
Total
No %
8
1.1
1
2.9
31
4 6.25 50 7.01
19 33.3 14
40
118 37.1 89 37.9 22 34.4 262 37.2
12 21.1 7
20
74 23.3 52 22.1 12 18.7 157 22.2
22 38.6 13 37.1 90 28.3 81 34.5 26 40.6 232 32.5
57 100 35 100 318 100 235 100 64 100 709 100
to no
extent
to little
extent
to
some
extent
to great
extent
to very
great
extent
Total
3
5.3
6
1.9
4
1.7
1
1.6 14
2
2
3.5
9
2.8
23 9.7
2
3.1 36
5
18 31.6 16 45.7 65 20.4 66
11 19.3 3
8.6
28
22 34.4 187 26.5
98 30.8 48 20.4 15 23.4 175 24.8
23 40.4 16 45.7 140
44
95 40.3 24 37.5 298 41.7
57 100 35 100 318 100 236 100 64 100 710 100
I wanted to earn
prestige.
to no
extent
2
3.5
8
2.5
6
2.5
16 2.2
96
Table 4.1.4 Contd.
North 2
South 3
North 1 (Mini
South 1 South 2 (Mini
(Hausa) groups) (Yoruba) (Igbo) groups)
to little
extent
to
some
extent
to great
extent
to very
great
extent
Total
No
%
6
10.5
No
20 35.1 9
%
No
%
No
% No %
14
4.4
26
11
3
Total
No %
4.7 49 6.8
25.7 98 30.6 75 31.8 17 26.6 219 30.9
13 22.8 13 37.1 98 30.6 55 23.3 21 32.8 200 28.2
16 28.1 13 37.1 102 31.9 74 31.4 23 35.9 228 31.8
57 100 35 100 320 100 236 100 64 100 712 100
4.1.5: Perceived instrumentality of wealth factors and entrepreneurial event
formation
Salary issues and entrepreneurial event formation
The breakdown of responses across groups shows that 43.9% of respondents from
North 1 (Hausa) claim that circumstance of salary in their former place of work was not
an important factor when they started their current business. A higher number, however,
believed in the positive influence of the variable; 56.1% of the respondents fell into this
category. Among North 2 (mini groups) respondents, 48.5% held that poor salary was not
a strong reason that saw them into entrepreneurial event formation while 51.5% argued
on the contrary. Thirty-four percent from South 1 (Yoruba) were of the believe that the
issue of salary in their places of work was not important to them when they started their
current business. On the other hand, 66% of them believed that poor salary in their
former places of work was an important reason to them when they ventured into their
current business.
97
Among our respondents in South 2 (Igbo) category, 37.6% opined that poor salary
in their former places of work was not important and not a potent reason for them to
venture into business. Believing to the contrary were 62.4% of the respondents in this
category. The pattern was not different among South 3 (mini groups) respondents; 40.7%
of our respondents in this group held that poor salary was not an important reason for
them when they commenced entrepreneurial event. A greater number, however, believed
that poor salary in paid job propelled them into considering entrepreneurial event
formation.
Entrepreneurship as a means to wealth and entrepreneurial event formation
Most respondents believed that the consideration of entrepreneurship as a means
to wealth was important to them before they ventured into entrepreneurial event. Above
91% of responses attested to this. Presenting the distribution along different groups, it
was observed that the variable was not important to 5.4% of respondents in North 1
(Hausa) category, while 94.6% were of the view that the factor was important, though in
varying degrees. North 2 (mini groups) had 5.9% of respondents holding that the fact of
entrepreneurship being a precursor of wealth was not a consideration when they started
business, 94.1% were of the view that they ventured into business because of their belief
that it would engender wealth. In South 1 (Yoruba) group, 14.2% respondents attached no
importance to the variable in question when they started business. On the other hand,
85.8% held that the variable was important and a potent reason for their involvement in
entrepreneurial event.
The following response pattern was recorded for South (Igbo) group as shown on
the table: 4.2% attributed no importance to the variable; and 95.8% held that the variable
was efficacious in predicting entrepreneurial event. Only 3.1% of respondents in South 3
(mini groups) group attributed little importance to the variable under consideration when
they started business. Other respondents believed that the variable was a credible reason
for their engagement in entrepreneurial event.
98
Desire for high earnings and entrepreneurial event formation
We observed from the table that only 4.6% of respondents in all ethnic categories
did not consider the desire for high earnings as a reason for their engagement in business.
The break down along ethnic categories indicate that 1.8%, 8.2%, 2.1% and 1.6% for
North 1 (Hausa), South 1 (Yoruba), South 2 (Igbo) and South 3 (Mini groups)
respectively relegated to the background, the need for high earnings. A preponderance of
respondents, however, considered the factor as having positive influence in their
entrepreneurial journey. For example, 98.2%, 100%, 91.8%, 97.9% and 98.4% from
North 1 (Hausa), North 2 (Mini groups), South 1 (Yoruba), South 2 (Igbo) and South 3
(Mini groups) respectively were of the view that the need to have high earnings prompted
their engagement in entrepreneurial event.
Economic security and entrepreneurial event formation.
The data on the table presented a situation where almost every respondent
believed that the need for economic security for both themselves and their families was
an important reason when they started business. Only 2.5% opined that economic security
for self and family was not a predictor of their entrepreneurial action. Differing from the
above is 97.5% of respondents. They were of the opinion that economic security was a
good reason to start business.
The distribution across the categories indicated that North 1 (Hausa) had 1.6% of
respondents who were of the view that economic security was insignificant in making
them consider entrepreneurial path while 98.4% believed to the contrary. The same
pattern occurred in other categories, for example, South 1 (Yoruba) had 2.8%, South 2
(Igbo) had 2.1%, and South 3 (Mini groups) had 1.6% of respondents who did not believe
that economic security was an important reason for entrepreneurial event.
Welfare of relatives and entrepreneurial event formation
The data from the table showed that 5.4%, 2.9%, 15.4%, 10.4% and 9.6% of
respondents from North 1 (Hausa), North 2 (Mini groups), South 1 (Yoruba), South 2
(Igbo) and South 3 (Mini groups) respectively contended that the quest to contribute to
the welfare of relatives was not a credible reason for their involvement in entrepreneurial
99
event. The larger percentage of respondents claimed that the need to affect their relatives
was paramount and a reason they were involved in entrepreneurial event. The distribution
along ethnic categories showed that 94.6%, 97.1%, 84.6%, 89.6% and 90.6% of
respondents from North 1 (Hausa), North 2 (Mini groups), South 1 (Yoruba), South 2
(Igbo) and South 3 (Mini groups) respectively conformed to the above statement. The
reason for this result may not be farfetched from the context (collectivism) in which the
study took place.
Societal respect and entrepreneurial event
Those who attached little or no importance to respect from members of society
when they started business were altogether 89 (12.5%). The table showed that 5.4%,
5.8%, 16.3%, 10.2% and 12.5% of respondents distributed along North 1, North 2, South
1, South 2 and South 3 respectively believed that the desire to curry respect from
members of society was not important to them when they started business. Those who
believed that the factor was important far outnumbered those who were of contrary
opinion. North 1 (Hausa) had 94.6% of respondents who agreed that the variable was
important while 94.2%, 83.7%, 89.8% and 87.5% from North 2 (Mini groups), South 1
(Yoruba), South 2 (Igbo) and South 3 (Mini groups) respectively held that the variable
was an important reason for their involvement in entrepreneurial event.
Influence and entrepreneurial event formation
Most respondents across the groups that comprised the study believed that the
desire to be influential in society was an important reason for entrepreneurial event
formation. In other words, there was no variation in the manner in which this variable
occurred for the population of this study, as all the categories showed the same trend in
the pattern of response. Only 12.4% of respondents were of the view that they did not
consider the need to have influence in society as a reason for business formation. Others
(87.6), however, differed as they contended that the need for influence was potent and a
credible reason for the engagement in entrepreneurial event. The breakdown showed that
3.6%, 2.9%, 15.1%, 12.8% and 10.9% of respondents from North 1(Hausa), North 2
(Mini groups), South 1 (Yoruba), South 2 (Igbo) and South 3 (Mini groups) were in the
100
category of respondents who regarded the need for influence as efficacious in their
entrepreneurial venture.
Societal impact and entrepreneurial event formation
The result as shown on the table presented the following observations: 5.6% of
respondents believed that the variable under consideration was important in no or only in
a little way; and 94.4% emphasized the importance of this factor as being a credible
predictor of entrepreneurial event formation. There was no difference in the way this
variable operated in the categories; the result showed the same trend for all groups.
Table 4.1.5: Distribution by perceived instrumentality of wealth factors according to
ethnic group of origin
North 2
South 3
North 1 (Mini South 1 South 2 (Mini
(Hausa) groups) (Yoruba) (Igbo) groups) Total
My salary in my
former place of
work was too
No % No % No % No % No % No %
meagre.
to no
extent 14 24.6 4 11.4 42 13.2 49 20.9 9 14.1 118 17.1
to
little
extent 11 19.3 13 37.1 66 20.8 39 16.7 17 26.6 146 20.5
to
some
extent 15 26.3 10 28.6 98 30.8 70 29.9 18 28.1 211 29.6
to
great
extent 9 15.8 3 8.6 72 22.6 45 19.2 13 20.3 142 19.9
to
very
great
extent 8 14 5 14.3 40 12.6 31 13.3 7 10.9 91 12.8
Total
57 100 35 100 318 100 234 100 64 100 708 100
101
Table 4.1.5 Contd.
North 2
South 3
North 1 (Mini South 1 South 2 (Mini
(Hausa) groups) (Yoruba) (Igbo) groups)
Emtrepreneurship is
a means to wealth.
No % No %
to no
extent 1 1.8
to
little
extent 2 3.6 2
to
some
extent 21 37.5 6
to
great
extent 20 35.7 10
to
very
great
extent 12 21.4 16
Total
5.9
No
%
13
4.1
Total
No % No % No %
1 0.43
32 10.1 9
3.8
15 2.1
2
3.1 47 6.6
17.7 124 39.1 60 25.5 24 37.5 235 33.2
29.4 94 29.7 90 38.3 22 34.4 236 33.5
47.1 54
17
75 31.9 16 25 173 24.5
56 100 34 100 317 100 235 100 64 100 706 100
I desire to have high
earnings.
to no
extent
4 1.3
to
little
extent 1 1.8
22 6.9
to
some
extent 17 29.8 13 37.1 67 21
to
great
extent 18 31.6 9 25.7 109 34.2
to
very
great
extent 21 36.8 13 37.1 117 36.7
Total
1
0.4
4
1.7
5
1
0.7
1.6 28 3.9
37 15.8 23 35.9 157 22.1
67 28.5 17 26.6 220 31.1
126 53.6 23 35.9 300 42.2
57 100 35 100 319 100 235 100 64 100 710 100
102
Table 4.1.5 Contd.
North 2
South 3
North 1 (Mini South 1 South 2 (Mini
(Hausa) groups) (Yoruba) (Igbo) groups)
I want to give myself
and family economic
security.
No % No %
No
%
to no
extent 3 1.6
3 0.9
to
little
extent
6 1.9
to
some
extent 12 6.5 6 17.1 46 14.5
to
great
extent 13 7.1 15 42.9 66 20.8
to
very
great
extent 29 15.8 14 40 196 61.8
Total
To contribute to the
welfare of my
relatives.
57
No % No % No %
2
0.8
8
1.3
8
1
1.1
1.6 10 1.4
57 24.3 13 20.3 132 18.8
56 23.8 13 20.3 163 23.2
117 49.8 37 57.8 395 55.5
31 35 100 317 99.9 240 100 64 100 708 100
to no
extent
to
little
extent 3 5.4 1
to
some
extent 18 32.1 13
to
great
extent 16 28.6 6
to
very
great
extent 19 33.9 15
Total
Total
6
2.9
1.9
5
2.2
2
3.2 13 1.8
43 13.5 19 8.2
4
6.4 70 9.9
37.1 118 37.1 66 28.3 21 33.3 236 33.3
17.1 73 22.9 70 30 16 25.4 181 25.8
42.9 78 24.5 73 31.3 20 31.8 205 29.2
56 100 35 100 318 100 233 100 63 100 705 100
103
Table 4.1.5 Contd.
North 2
South 3
North 1 (Mini South 1 South 2 (Mini
(Hausa) groups) (Yoruba) (Igbo) groups)
I wanted respect
from members of
society.
No % No %
to no
extent 2 3.6 1
to
little
extent 1 1.8 1
to
some
extent 19 33.9 12
to
great
extent 11 19.6 9
to
very
great
extent 23 41.1 12
Total
No
%
2.9
15
4.7
2.9
37 11.6 23 9.8
Total
No % No % No %
1
0.4
1
1.6 20 2.8
7 10.9 69 9.7
34.3 98 30.7 81 34.5 26 40.6 236 33.5
25.7 91 28.5 46 19.6 12 18.8 169 23.8
34.3 78 24.5 84 35.8 18 28.1 215 30.2
56 100 35 100 319 100 235 100 64 100 709 100
I wanted to have
more influence in
society.
to no
extent 1 1.8 1
to
little
extent 1 1.8
to
some
extent 21 36.8 11
to
great
extent 18 31.6 13
to
very
great
extent 16 28.1 10
Total
2.9
28
8.8
2
0.9
32 45
20
6.3 28 11.9 7 10.9 56 7.9
31.4 90 28.4 85 36 29 45.3 236 33.1
37.1 99 31.2 53 22.5 16 25 199 28.2
28.6 80 25.2 68 28.8 12 18.8 186 26.4
57 100 35 100 317 100 236 100 64 100 709 141
104
Table 4.1.5 Contd.
North 2
South 3
North 1 (Mini South 1 South 2 (Mini
(Hausa) groups) (Yoruba) (Igbo) groups)
To impact positively
on my society.
No % No %
No
%
to no
extent
4 1.3
to
little
extent 2 3.5
5 1.6
to
some
extent 16 28.1 6 17.1 39 12.3
to
great
extent 16 28.1 4 11.4 47 14.8
to
very
great
extent 23 40.4 25 71.4 223 70.1
Total
Total
No % No % No %
5
2.1
2
3.1 11 1.5
19 8.1
3
4.7 29 4.1
40 17 15 23.4 116 16.2
42 17.8 7 10.9 116 16.5
130 55.1 37 57.8 438 61.6
57 100 35 100 318 100 236 100 64 100 710 100
4.2 Mean comparison of socio-cultural variables with criterion variables
4.2.1: Mean comparison by social capital items according to ethnic group of origin
Nine items were meant to elicit information on social capital forces and
entrepreneurial event as shown in table 4.2.1. These items revolve round the different
nodes that comprise social capital forces, which include family, relatives, friend, spouse,
ethnic group and religion. Items were drawn to bring out the contributions of these nodes
to entrepreneurial aspirations of respondents.
Continuing a family tradition was a stronger reason among South 2 (Igbo)
respondents; the group had a mean of 3.28. Whereas in other ethnic categories, the mean
scores were significantly lower – North 1 (Hausa) scored 1.93, North 2 (mini groups)
scored 1.63, South 1 (Yoruba) had a mean score of 1.79 while South 3 (mini group) had a
105
score of 2.03. This result shows that where we have significant high mean scores, there is
strong familial tradition in entrepreneurial events.
Support from one or both parents was stronger for all groups in the study;
however, it was stronger in South 1 (Yoruba) group with a mean of 3.52. This was
followed by 3.45 among South 2 (Igbo) respondents, 3.28 for North 1 (Hausa), 3.17 for
North 2 (mini groups) and 2.84 for South 3 (mini groups).
One can see from the table that parental influence in the choice of entrepreneurial
path was stronger in North 1 (Hausa) and South 2 (Igbo) groups with mean scores of 2.79
and 2.61 respectively. These scores contrasted with scores that came up for North 2 (Mini
groups), 2.29; South 1 (Yoruba), 2.08; and South 3 (Mini groups), 2.29. In other words,
parent’s influence is more likely to predict entrepreneurial event among the groups who
scored highly in the factor. Where there is strong entrepreneurial tradition, there is the
likelihood of support from parents and significant others.
Achievement of one or both parents in entrepreneurial event is stronger among
respondents in South 2 (Igbo) group; the mean was 2.59. Meanwhile, other groups had
lower than average scores in this factor. In specific terms, North 1 (Hausa), North 2
(Mini groups), South 1 (Yoruba) and South 3 (Mini groups) had 2.26, 2.23, 2.35 and 2.31
respectively. This result suggests that parental achievement in entrepreneurial field was
not strong enough among these groups.
Influence from friend was only strong in North 1 group with a mean score of 2.67.
In other groups, the scores were 2.20, 1.98, 2.05 and 2.02 for North 2 (mini groups),
South 1 (Yoruba), South 2 (Igbo) and South 3 (mini groups) respectively. Influence of
spouse as a reason for business start up was not strong across all the groups. The mean
scores in the table indicate that less than average scores were recorded in all the groups.
The total mean score is 1.97. The distribution of this score shows that North 1 (Hausa)
had 2.40, North 2 (mini groups) had 2.29, South 1 (Yoruba) had 1.86, South 2 (Igbo) had
2.05 and South 3 (mini groups) had 2.02.
South 2 (Igbo) group scored higher on item that measured the preponderance of
entrepreneurial practice in particular ethnic group as a reason for entrepreneurial event.
The mean score was 3.48. However, the above reason was not a strong factor for
entrepreneurial event formation for other groups as they scored less than average in this
106
factor. For example, North 1 (Hausa) scored 1.81, North 2 (Mini groups) scored 1.51,
South 1 (Yoruba) had a mean score of 1.88 and South 3 (Mini groups) scored 1.94.
The influence of religion, as a reason for entrepreneurial event formation, was
very low among our respondents. The table shows that the different groups that comprise
our sample scored far below average. The scores range between 1.5 and 2.0. North 1
(Hausa) had 1.63, North 2 (mini groups) scored 1.2, South 1 (Yoruba) scored 1.92, South
2 (Igbo) also had 1.92 and South 3 (mini groups) scored 1.56. The same trend could also
be said of the influence of religious leaders. The table indicates 1.77, 1.40, 2.23, 1.89, and
1.75 for North 1 (Hausa), North 2 (mini groups), South 1 (Yoruba), South 2 (Igbo) and
South 3 (mini groups) respectively. Therefore, the influence of religious leader on
entrepreneurial event formation was significantly low for all the groups.
107
Table 4.2.1: Mean scores by social capital factors according to ethnic group
North1(Hausa)
Mean
N
North2 (mini South1 (Yoruba)
groups)
Mean N
Mean N
South 2
(Igbo)
Mean N
South 3 (mini Total
groups)
Mean N
Mean
N
I wanted to
continue family
tradition
I was supported by
one or both parents
My parents
influenced my
choice of
entrepreneurial
path
I was encouraged
by the achievement
of one or both
parents in
entrepreneurship
I was influenced by
a friend
I was influenced by
my spouse
Entrepreneurship
was a common
practice in my
ethnic group
1.93
57
1.63
35
1.79
320
3.24
237
2.03
64
2.31
713
3.28
57
3.17
35
3.52
320
3.45
237
2.84
64
3.41
713
2.79
57
2.29
35
2.08
320
2.61
237
2.28
64
2.34
713
2.26
57
2.23
35
2.35
320
2.59
237
2.31
64
2.43
713
2.67
57
2.20
35
1.98
320
2.05
237
2.02
64
2.06
713
2.40
57
2.29
35
1.86
320
2.05
237
1.98
64
1.99
713
1.81
57
1.51
35
1.88
320
3.48
237
1.94
64
2.40
713
I was influenced by
my religion
1.63
57
1.20
35
1.92
320
1.92
237
1.56
64
1.83
713
I was influenced by
my religious leader
1.77
57
1.40
35
2.23
320
1.89
237
1.52
64
1.97
713
108
4.2.2: Mean scores by dissatisfaction/displacement factors according to ethnic group
of origin
As shown in table 4.2.2, dissatisfaction with paid job was a strong reason for
entrepreneurial event formation for all groups. The groups had scores ranging from 2.75
to 3.11. The reason was, however, strongest in South 3 (mini groups) category (3.11),
followed by South 1 (Yoruba) with a score of 2.94, South 2 (Igbo) – 2.86, North 2 (mini
groups) with a mean score of 2.86, and North 1 (Hausa) with a score of 2.75.
Being fired from paid job was not a strong reason to predicting entrepreneurial
event among all the groups in the study. A mean score of 1.86, which was the highest,
was reported for North 1 (Hausa), 1.43 score was recorded by North 2 (mini groups).
1.44 mean score was reported for South 1 (Yoruba), 1.61 was reported for South 2 (Igbo),
and South 3 (mini groups) had a score of 1.56.
Retirement from paid job was also considered not to be a significant factor for
entrepreneurial event formation across the different groups that formed our study. Mean
scores of 1.58, 1.03, 1.60, 1.67 and 1.50 were recorded for North 1 (Hausa), North 2
(mini groups), South 1 (Yoruba), South 2 (Igbo) and South 3 (mini groups) respectively.
Discrimination in paid job was considered a factor for entrepreneurial event
formation. In all the groups in this study, the factor scored above average. The factor had
mean scores of 2.86, 2.89, 2.65, 2.58 and 2.64 for the following respective groups: North
1 (Hausa), North 2 (mini groups), South 1 (Yoruba), South 2 (Igbo) and South 3 (mini
groups).
Inability to get job was considered unimportant by all the groups as a factor in
entrepreneurial event formation. The lowest mean score was recorded in North 2 (mini
groups) group, with a mean of 1.0. Other mean scores under this factor were 1.30 for
North 1 (Hausa), 1.24 for South 1 (Yoruba), 1.21 for South 2 (Igbo) and 1.17 for South 3
(mini groups).
109
Getting tired of being bossed around was reported to be important in
consideration of entrepreneurial event formation in all the groups. North 1 (Hausa group)
had a mean score of 3.66, South 1 (Yoruba) recorded a score of 3.46, South 2 (Igbo)
reported a score of 3.34 and South 3 (mini groups) recorded the highest mean score of
3.72.
110
Table 4.2.2: Mean scores by dissatisfaction/displacement factors according to ethnic group of origin
North1(Hausa)
I experienced
dissatisfaction
with paid job
I was fired from
paid job
I retired from
paid job
I faced
discrimination in
paid job
I could not get job
I got tired of
being bossed
Mean
2.75
N
57
North2
(mini
groups)
Mean
N
2.86
35
South1
(Yoruba)
Mean
2.94
Total
N
320
South 2 (Igbo) South 3
(mini
groups)
Mean
N
Mean
N
2.86
237 3.11
64
Mean
2.90
N
713
1.86
57
1.43
35
1.44
320
1.61
237
1.56
64
1.54
713
1.58
57
1.03
35
1.60
320
1.67
237
1.50
64
1.58
713
2.86
57
2.89
35
2.65
320
2.58
237
2.64
64
2.64
713
1.30
3.04
57
57
1.0
3.66
35
35
1.24
3.46
320
320
1.21
3.34
237
237
1.17
3.72
64
64
1.21
3.40
713
713
111
4.2.3: Mean scores by social status factors according to ethnic group of origin
The factor of social status as a predictor of entrepreneurial event formation was
very strong in all groups that composed the study. The highest mean score of 3.92 was
however, recorded by South1 (Yoruba). North 2 (mini groups) had the next higher score
of 3.81, closely followed by South 2 (Igbo) with a score of 3.81. South 3 (mini groups)
and North 1 (Hausa) had 3.72 and 3.65 respectively.
People looking up to those who own their firms as a factor was strong in the
groups that formed this study. None of the groups scored below a mean score of 3.5. It
must, however, be noted that the factor was strongest in South 2 (Igbo) group, with a
mean score of 3.69. Scores for other groups are: 3.51 for North 1 (Hausa), 3.66 for North
2 (Mini groups), 3.50 for South 1 (Yoruba) and 3.56 for South 3 (Mini groups). The total
score for all the groups was 3.58.
Respect that accompanies entrepreneurial event formation was also a strong factor
considered as of great importance by groups in this study. All the groups have a total
mean score of 3.76. The distribution of the score along group lines indicates that North 1
had 3.89, North 2 scored 3.91, South 1 scored 3.65, South 2 had a mean score of 3.81 and
South 3 scored 3.94. It is thus observed that the factor was a strong predictor of
entrepreneurial event formation in all the groups, though in slightly varying dimensions.
The quest for a higher position also occurred as a strong factor in entrepreneurial
event formation in all the groups. A grand total of 3.98 score was recorded. Of this total
mean score, North 1 (Hausa) had 3.86, North 2 (mini groups) had 4.0, South 1 (Yoruba)
had the highest score of 4.1, South 2 (Igbo) had a score of 3.86 and South 3 (mini groups)
scored 3.92.
Prestige was another factor to which all the groups in our study attached strong
importance as a reason for considering entrepreneurial event formation. A total mean
score of 3.80 was recorded by the groups. In breaking down the score as recorded by each
group, one observes that this factor was strongest in North 2 (mini groups) group with a
score of 4.11. Closely following was South 3 (mini groups) group, which scored 4.0.
North 1 (Hausa), South 1 Yoruba) and South 2 (Igbo) had the following respective
scores: 3.61, 3.85 and 3.68.
112
It is observed that all items under social status and entrepreneurial event
formation were significantly strong reasons across the various groups that comprised this
study. In other words, there is no appreciable variation among the groups in the way
social status predicts entrepreneurial event formation.
113
Table 4.2.3: Mean scores by social status factors according to ethnic group of origin
North1(Hausa)
North2 (mini South1
South 2 (Igbo)
groups)
(Yoruba)
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
3.65
57
3.86
35
3.92
320
3.81
237
Running
own
business
gives high
social status
57
3.66
35
3.50
320
3.69
237
People look 3.51
up to those
who own
their firms
3.89
57
3.91
35
3.65
320
3.81
237
Starting
business
generates a
lot of
respect
3.86
57
4.0
35
4.1
320
3.86
237
I wanted a
higher
position for
myself in
society
57
4.11
35
3.85
320
3.68
237
I wanted to 3.61
earn
prestige
South 3 (mini
groups)
Mean
N
3.72
64
Total
Mean
3.84
N
713
3.56
64
3.58
713
3.94
64
3.76
713
3.92
64
3.98
713
4.0
64
3.80
713
114
4.2.4: Mean scores by perceived instrumentality of wealth factors according to
ethnic group of origin
Eight items were slated to elicit information on perceived instrumentality of
wealth and entrepreneurial event formation across the different ethnic categories in our
study. These items are as shown in table 4.2.4.
The ethnic categories in the study scored fairly high on the factor. A mean score
of 2.75 was observed for North 1 (Hausa). North 2 (mini group) scored 2.77 on this
factor, South 1 (Yoruba) scored 2.99, and South 2 (Igbo) had 2.84 while South 3 (mini
groups) had a mean score of 2.88. This result shows that too meager salary was an
important factor in these groups as demonstrated by their mean scores.
Consideration of entrepreneurship as a means to wealth was strong across all the
groups in this study. The importance attached to this factor as a reason for entrepreneurial
event formation by the different groups was in this order: North 2 (mini groups) scored
4.06, this is followed by South 2 (Igbo) with a mean of 3.94, South 3 (mini groups)
scored 3.81 and North 1(Hausa) scored 3.65 while South 1 (Yoruba) had a mean score of
3.42.
The desire to have high earnings was very strong in all the groups that were
studied. The grand mean score for all the groups was 4.08. The scores for the groups
were as follows: North 1 (Hausa), 4.04; North 2 (mini groups), 4.0; South 1 (Yoruba),
3.97; South 2 (Igbo), 4.3; and South 3 (mini groups), 3.81. South 2 (Igbo) group recorded
the highest score of 4.3. This suggests that the desire to have high earnings was strongest
in this group.
Economic security for self and family was very strong in all the groups we
studied. It was strongest in South 1 (Yoruba) group with a mean score of 4.37. High
scores were also observed for other groups: South 3 scored 4.34, North 2 had 4.23, South
2 scored 4.17 and North 1 recorded 4.14. The indication of this result is pointing to very
great importance attached to economic security for self and family by all the groups.
The quest to contribute to the welfare of relatives was also very strong across the
groups in the study. A grand mean score of 3.67 was recorded for all the groups. The
break down of the score shows that North 2 (mini groups) group had the highest mean
score of 4.0. North 1, South 1, South 2, and South 3 had the following respective mean
115
scores: 3.84, 3.53, 3.74 and 3.7. These scores clearly indicate a significant consideration
for entrepreneurial event formation based on the need to contribute to the welfare of
relatives.
The need for respect from members of society was strong in all the groups in this
study. However, it was strongest among North 1(Hausa) and North 2 (mini groups) with
mean scores of 3.86 each. South 1(Yoruba) group had a mean score of 3.55, South 2
(Igbo) group scored 3.77, and South 3 (mini groups) scored 3.61. The factor of influence
in society was important to all the groups in the study. The different groups that
comprised the study believe that the need to have more influence in society was a
significant consideration for entrepreneurial event formation. The highest mean score of
3.89 was recorded in North 2 (mini groups) while the least score of 3.52 was recorded in
South 3 (mini group). North 1 (Hausa), South 1 (Yoruba), and South 2 (Igbo) had the
following respective scores: 3.82, 3.54 and 3.65.
All groups that comprised this study believed that the need to impact positively on
society was a strong reason in considering entrepreneurial event formation. The following
total mean scores were obtained: 4.05, 4.54, 4.48 and 4.16 by these respective groups,
North 1(Hausa), North 2 (mini groups), South 1(Yoruba), South 2 (Igbo) and South 3
(mini groups).
116
Table 4.2.4: Mean scores by perceived instrumentality of wealth factors according to ethnic group of origin
North1(Hausa)
North2
South1
South 2
South 3
Total
(mini
(Yoruba)
(Igbo)
(mini
groups)
groups)
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
2.75
57
2.77
35 2.99
320 2.84
237 2.88
64 2.89
My salary in my
former place of work
was too meagre
3.65
57
4.06
35 3.42
320 3.94
237 3.81
64 3.68
Entrepreneurship is
a means to wealth
57
4.0
35 3.97
320 4.3
237 3.81
64 4.08
I desired to have high 4.04
earnings
4.14
57
4.23
35 4.37
320 4.17
237 4.34
64 4.27
I wanted economic
security for my
family
3.84
57
4.0
35 3.53
320 3.74
237 3.7
64 3.67
I wanted to
contribute to the
welfare of my
relatives
3.86
57
3.86
35 3.55
320 3.77
237 3.61
64 3.67
I wanted respect
from members of
society
3.82
57
3.89
35 3.54
320 3.65
237 3.52
64 3.62
I wanted to have
more influence in
society
4.05
57
4.54
35 4.48
320 4.14
237 4.16
64 4.31
I wanted to impact
positively on my
society
N
713
713
713
713
713
713
713
713
117
4.2.5: Mean scores by social capital factors according to gender
Continuing family tradition can be seen to hold almost the same value to both
male and female respondents because mean scores are almost the same where males have
a score of 2.31 and the females, 2.32. Support from one or both parents was stronger for
females than males. However, they are still within the same range because the mean
scores are both high. Males scored 3.37 mean while females had a mean score of 3.48.
The influence of parents on the choice of entrepreneurial path was higher for females
than males where females scored 2.50 while males scored 2.27. One can see that,
generally, parents have more influence on their female children than male children or the
tendency of the female children to want to seek out the opinion or approval of their
parents before taking any step.
Parental achievement in entrepreneurial event encouraged females more than
males. Females scored a mean of 2.58 while males scored 2.35. Influence of a friend was
stronger among female respondents than among male respondents with a mean score of
2.22 for females and 1.99 for males. Just as noticed in the above, women are found to
crave need for affiliation than men. This may be implicated as to the direction of the
finding.
Spousal influence as a reason to embark on an entrepreneurial venture was
stronger among females than males. Females scored a mean of 2.06 while males scored
1.96. The patriarchal system, which is the context of the study may necessitate females
dependence on men for support. Females scored higher than males when measuring the
influence of the preponderance of entrepreneurial practice in respondents’ ethnic groups.
Female scored 2.59, which was stronger than male mean score of 2.32.
The influence of religion as a reason for entrepreneurial event formation was
stronger among females than males, though the scores are both low. The mean scores for
females was 2.07 while for males, it was 1.72. For the influence of religious leader on
entrepreneurial event, it was about the same degree or mean for both males and females.
While the females scored 1.98, males scored 1.97.
118
Table 4.2.5: Mean scores by social capital factors according to gender
Male
Female
Total
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
2.31
488
2.32
226
2.31
714
3.37
488
3.48
226
3.40
714
2.27
488
2.50
226
2.34
714
2.35
488
2.58
226
2.42
714
I was influenced by a friend
1.99
488
2.22
226
2.07
714
I was influenced by my spouse
1.96
488
2.06
226
1.99
714
Entrepreneurship was a
2.32
488
2.59
226
2.40
714
1.72
488
2.07
226
1.83
714
1.97
488
1.98
226
1.97
714
I wanted to continue family
tradition
I was supported by one or
both parents
My parents influenced my
choice of entrepreneurial path
I was encouraged by the
achievement of one or both
parents in entrepreneurship
common practice in my ethnic
group
I was influenced by the
teaching of my religion
I was influenced by my
religious leader
4.2.6: Mean scores by dissatisfaction/displacement experience factors according to
gender
The reason of dissatisfaction with paid job for entrepreneurial event was stronger
for females than males. The mean score for males was 2.86 while it was 2.99 for the
females. More females embarked on entrepreneurial venture than males because they
were fired from paid job. Although, the scores are both low and within the same range,
female scored 1.56 while males scored 1.53. Retirement from job as a reason for
119
entrepreneurial event was stronger among females than male respondents, while females
scored 1.60, males scored 1.57. Discrimination on paid job as a reason for entrepreneurial
event formation was stronger among female respondents than male respondents. Females
scored 2.66 while males scored 2.64.
Unemployment as a reason for seeking entrepreneurship was stronger in females
than males with 1.25 mean for females and 1.19 mean for males. However, on the
average, it was not strong enough for both categories. Both females and males had almost
the same mean score when it came to being one’s own boss. The scores are both high,
which shows that both males and females who embraced entrepreneurial venture got tired
of being bossed around and wanted to be on their own; males scored 3.40 while females
scored 3.41.
Table 4.2.6: Mean scores by dissatisfaction/displacement experience factors
according to gender
Male
Female
Total
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
2.86
488
2.99
226
2.90
714
I was fired from paid job
1.53
488
1.56
226
1.54
714
I retired from paid job
1.57
488
1.60
226
1.58
714
I faced discrimination in paid
2.64
488
2.66
226
2.64
714
I could not get job
1.19
488
1.25
226
1.21
714
I got tired of being bossed
3.40
488
3.41
226
3.40
714
I experienced dissatisfaction
with paid job
job
4.2.7: Mean scores by social status factors according tos gender
Running own business gives high status, as a reason for entrepreneurial event
formation, was stronger for females who scored 3.93 than males who scored 3.80. The
question of people looking up to those who own their firms as a reason for
entrepreneurial event was almost equal for both male and female respondents. Though,
120
both mean scores were high, it was still higher for males than females. While males
scored 3.58, females scored 3.51.
Respect and prestige earned as a result of starting own business as a reason was
stronger for females than males. Females scored a mean of 3.91 and males scored 3.69.
Wanting a higher position in society as a reason for starting a business was stronger for
males than females. Males scored 3.99 while females scored 3.94. This shows that males
crave for respect and power through their economic or business status more than their
female counterparts. Wanting prestige in society as a reason for business venture was
stronger among male respondents than female respondents. Males scored 3.82 while
females scored 3.75.
.
Table 4.2.7: Mean scores by social status factors according to gender
Male
Female
Total
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
3.80
488
3.93
226
3.84
714
3.58
488
3.57
226
3.57
714
Starting business generates a lot 3.69
488
3.91
226
3.76
714
3.99
488
3.94
226
3.98
714
3.82
488
3.75
226
3.80
714
Running own business gives
high social status
People look up to those who
own their firms
of respect
I wanted a higher position for
myself in society
I wanted to earn prestige
4.2.8: Mean scores by perceived instrumentality of wealth factors according to
gender
Starting their own business because the salary was too meager in the former place
of work had the same mean score for both males and females. The mean score was 2.88.
This result shows that there is no male-female difference in the way salary influences
entrepreneurial behaviour. The belief that entrepreneurship is a means to wealth was
stronger among females than among males. Females scored 3.72 and males scored 3.66.
121
The desire to have high earnings as a reason for entrepreneurial event was far stronger
among females than males. The mean score for females was 4.28 while it was 3.99 for
males.
The desire to secure economic security for family as a reason was stronger among
males than females. While males scored 4.29, females scored 4.23. The direction of the
finding may be related to societal expectations that men take up the responsibility of
family upkeep. Wanting to contribute to the welfare of relatives, as a reason for
embarking on a business venture was stronger among females than males. While males
scored 3.60, females scored 3.81.
The belief that entrepreneurship will earn an individual respect from members of
society was stronger among females than males. More females wanted respect as a result
of entrepreneurship than male respondents. As such, females scored 3.79 while males
scored 3.61.
Wanting to have more influence in society as a reason for entrepreneurial event
was stronger and higher among female respondents. Females had a mean score of 3.83
while males scored 3.52. Wanting to impact positively on the society as a reason for
embarking on entrepreneurship was stronger among the females than males. While
females scored 4.38, males scored 4.28.
Table 4.2.8: Mean scores by perceived instrumentality of wealth factors according
to gender
Male
Female
Total
My salary in my
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
2.88
488
2.88
226
2.88
714
3.66
488
3.72
226
3.68
714
3.99
488
4.28
226
4.08
714
former place of work
was too meager
Entrepreneurship is a
means to wealth
I desired to have high
earnings
122
Table 4.2.8 Contd.
Male
I wanted economic
Female
Total
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
4.29
488
4.23
226
4.27
714
3.60
488
3.81
226
3.67
714
3.61
488
3.79
226
3.67
714
3.52
488
3.83
226
3.62
714
4.28
488
4.38
226
4.31
714
security for my family
I wanted to contribute
to the welfare of my
relatives
I wanted respect from
members of society
I wanted to have more
influence in society
I wanted to impact
positively on my
society
4.2.9: Mean scores by social capital factors according to age
Continuing family tradition as a reason for embarking in entrepreneurial event
was strongest among people of ages 21 – 30 with a mean of 2.60. Respondents ages 31 –
40 came next with 2.43, 41 – 50 age group scored 2.28, 51 – 60 age group scored 2.17
while 61+ age group scored the least. Support from one or both parents was strong for all
age groups but stronger in age group 31 – 40 with mean score of 3.53, age groups 21 – 30
and 41 – 50 scored the same mean of 3.47 while age group 51 – 60 scored 3.22. It is
obvious from this result that as age advances, reliance on parental support wanes.
Parental influence in the choice of entrepreneurial venture was stronger among
respondents of age group 21 – 30 with mean score of 2.82, followed by 31 – 40 age
group, which scored 2.78, 41 – 50 age group scored 2.11, 51 – 60 scored 2.01.
Respondents in age category 61+ had the lowest mean. We can see that as respondents
grew older, parental influence became less. Achievement of one or both parents in
entrepreneurial event was strongest among respondents of ages 21 – 30 with mean score
123
2.85. Those in 31 – 40 age group scored 2.60, 41 – 50 scored 2.29, and 51 – 60 scored
2.28.
Influence of a friend was strongest among respondents between ages 61+,
followed by respondents of age category 21 – 30 that had a mean of 2.21, 31 – 40 scored
2.10, 51 – 60 age group scored 1.91 while 41 – 50 age group scored 1.90. Spousal
influence was generally low but strongest among respondents between ages 21 – 30 with
mean score of 2.21. This is followed by respondents of ages between 31 – 40 with 2.14,
41 – 50 scored 1.95, 51 – 60 scored 1.84, while respondents of ages 61 and above had the
lowest mean.
Entrepreneurial event as a result of its preponderance in respondents ethnic
groups was strongest among respondents of age group 31 – 40 with mean score of 2.69,
followed by 21 – 30 age group, which scored 2.39, those ages 41 – 50 scored 2.21, age
group 51 – 60 scored 2.33, 61 – 70 age group scored 2.26 while age group 71 and above
scored 1.00. The influence of religion as a reason for entrepreneurial event was generally
low though stronger among respondents of age group 21 – 30 with mean score of 2.19.
This is followed by 31 – 40 age group, which scored 2.07, 41 – 50 and 51 – 60 age
groups scored 1.59. This shows that religious teaching had less influence on respondents’
entrepreneurial aspirations.
In the same vein, the influence of religious leader was stronger among age group
31 – 40 with mean score of 2.18 followed by age group 21 – 30 with score of 2.11, age
group 41 – 50 scored 1.87 while those ages 51 – 60 scored 1.75.
124
Table 4.2.9: Mean scores by social capital according to age
21 - 30
31 - 40
I wanted to continue
family tradition
I was supported by one
or both parents
My parents influenced
my choice of
entrepreneurial path
I was encouraged by
the achievement of one
or both parents in
entrepreneurship
I was influenced by a
friend
I was influenced by my
spouse
Entrepreneurship was
a common practice in
my ethnic group
I was influenced by the
teaching of my religion
I was influenced by my
religious leader
41 - 50
51 – 60
61+
Total
Mean
2.60
N
62
Mean
2.43
N
239
Mean
2.28
N
199
Mean
2.17
N
138
Mean
1.84
N
79
Mean
2.31
N
717
3.47
62
3.53
239
3.47
199
3.22
138
3.00
79
3.41
717
2.82
62
2.78
239
2.11
199
2.01
138
1.45
79
2.34
717
2.85
62
2.60
239
2.29
199
2.28
138
2.46
79
2.43
717
2.21
62
2.10
239
1.90
199
1.91
138
2.37
79
2.06
717
2.21
62
2.14
239
1.95
199
1.84
138
1.68
79
1.99
717
2.39
62
2.69
239
2.21
199
2.33
138
1.63
79
2.40
717
2.19
62
2.07
239
1.68
199
1.59
138
1.54
79
1.83
717
2.11
62
2.18
239
1.87
199
1.75
138
1.66
79
1.97
717
125
4.2.10: Mean scores by dissatisfaction/displacement experience according to age
Dissatisfaction with paid job was stronger among respondents in the 21 – 30 age
group with mean score of 3.29, followed by 31 – 40 and 41 – 50,age groups which scored
the same 2.85, 51 – 60 age groups scored 3.01, 61 – 70 age groups scored 2.74 while 71
and above scored 2.00. Being fired from paid job as a reason for entrepreneurial event
was generally low. However, 21 – 30 age group scored 1.44, 31 – 40 age groups scored
1.53 and 41 – 50 age groups scored 1.61 while those ages 51 – 60 scored 1.56.
Retirement from paid job as a reason for entrepreneurial event was strongest
among the older age groups. Age group 61+ had the highest mean of 3.60, 51 – 60 age
group scored 1.61, 41 – 50 age group scored 1.52, 21 – 30 age group scored 1.45 while
those ages 31 – 40 scored the least mean of 1.33. Discrimination in paid job as a reason
was strongest among respondents between age group 31 – 40 with mean score of 2.79.
Those ages 41 – 50 and 51 – 60 scored the same mean of 2.64 while 21 – 30 age group
scored 2.44.
Unemployment as a reason was generally low. However, 31 – 40 age group
scored 1.27, 41 – 50 age group scored 1.21, 51 – 60 age group scored 1.20 while those
ages 21 – 30 scored 1.11. This shows that respondents in the lowest age group might have
not sought paid employment before starting their current business. Being tired of being
bossed around as a reason was relatively high as respondents in age category 51 – 60 had
the strongest mean score of 3.56 followed by 21 – 30 age group with mean score of 3.45.
Those ages 41 – 50 and 31 – 40 scored 3.43 and 3.30 respectively.
126
Table 4.2.10: Mean scores by dissatisfaction/displacement experience according to age
21 – 30
31 – 40
41 – 50
51 – 60
61+
Total
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
3.29
62
2.85
239
2.85
199
3.01
138
2.37
79
2.90
717
1.44
62
1.53
239
1.61
199
1.56
138
1.23
79
1.54
717
1.45
62
1.33
239
1.52
199
1.61
138
3.60
79
1.58
717
2.44
62
2.79
239
2.64
199
2.64
138
2.21
79
2.64
717
I could not get job
1.11
62
1.27
239
1.21
199
1.20
138
1.18
79
1.21
717
I got tired of being
3.45
62
3.30
239
3.43
199
3.56
138
3.28
79
3.40
717
I experienced
dissatisfaction with
paid job
I was fired from
paid job
I retired from paid
job
I faced
discrimination in
paid job
bossed around
127
4.2.11: Mean scores by social status according to age
Running own business gives social status as a reason for entrepreneurial event
formation was generally high. Age group 21 – 30 had 4.02 mean score, 41 – 50 age group
scored 3.92, 61 – 70 age group scored 3.91, 51 – 60 age group scored 3.81 while those
ages 31 – 40 scored 3.72. This shows that people increasingly want to be independent as
they age.
Respect that entrepreneurship generates as a reason for embarking on it has 21 –
30 age group scoring the highest with mean score of 4.11, followed by age group 31-40,
with a mean score of 3.86 age group 51 – 60 scored 3.66 while age group 41 – 50 scored
3.62. Wanting a high position in society as a reason was more prominent among age
group 31 – 40 with mean score of 4.07. Forty-one to fifty age group scored 3.97. Age
group 51 – 60 scored 3.88 while age group 21 – 30 scored the least with mean of 3.82.
The need to earn prestige as a reason for entrepreneurial venture was very strong
among the respondents but strongest among respondents of age group 21-30 with mean
score of 4.13, 31 – 40 age group scored 3.80, 51 – 60 age group scored 3.77 while 41 –
50 age group scored 3.73.
128
Table 4.2.11: Mean scores by social status according to age
21 – 30
31 – 40
41 – 50
Running own
business
gives
high
social status
People look
up to those
who
own
their firms
Starting
business
generates a
lot of respect
I wanted a
higher
position for
myself
in
society
I wanted to
earn prestige
51 – 60
61+
Total
Mean
4.02
N
62
Mean
3.72
N
239
Mean
3.92
N
199
Mean
3.81
N
138
Mean
4.26
N
79
Mean
3.84
N
717
3.84
62
3.69
239
3.46
199
3.60
138
3.53
79
3.58
717
4.11
62
3.86
239
3.62
199
3.66
138
3.75
79
3.76
717
3.82
62
4.07
239
3.97
199
3.88
138
4.19
79
3.98
717
4.13
62
3.80
239
3.73
199
3.77
138
4.07
79
3.80
717
129
4.2.12: Mean scores by perceived instrumentality of wealth according to age
As Table 4.2.12 shows, meagre salary in former place of work, as a reason for
entrepreneurial event, was the same among respondents of age groups 21 – 30 and 41 –
50 with 3.03 mean score each. Age group 31 – 40 scored 2.86,age group 51 – 60 scored
2.78 while those 61+ scored 2.47. That entrepreneurship leads to wealth, as a reason, was
strongest among age group 21 – 30 with mean score 3.97. Thirty-one to forty and 51 – 60
age groups scored 3.67 each, 41 – 50 age group scored 3.65 while those 61+ had a mean
of 3.59.
The desire to have high earnings had relatively high mean scores. This means that
respondents of all age groups desired to have high earnings and improve their economic
status; 21 – 30 age group scored 4.31, 31 – 40 age group scored 4.13, 51 – 60 age group
scored 4.12, those ages 61+ scored 4.00 while those ages 41-50 scored 3.98. Wanting to
contribute to the welfare of relatives as a reason for entrepreneurial venture was strongest
among respondents of age group 21 – 30 with mean score of 3.7, Those ages 31 – 40 and
51 – 60 scored 3.69 each while those ages 41 – 50 scored 3.61.
Wanting respect from members of society, as a reason, was strongest among
respondents in the 21 – 30 age group with mean score of 3.97. This is followed by 31 –
40 age group which scored 3.85. Fifty-one to sixty and 61+ scored 3.59 and 3.45
respectively while 41-50 age group scored 3.58. Wanting to have more influence, as a
reason, was strongest among respondents ages 21 – 30 with a mean score of 3.92, those
ages 31 – 40 scored 3.67, 51 – 60 age group scored 3.65 while those ages 61+ scored
3.57. Age group 41 – 50 had the least score of 3.47.
Impacting positively on society as a reason for entrepreneurial event formation
was generally high as most respondents of the different age groups wanted to impact
positively on their society. Age groups twenty-one to thirty, 31 – 40 and 41 – 50 scored
4.29, 4.18 and 4.32 respectively. Age category 61+ scored 4.54 while 51 – 60 age group
scored 4.42.
130
Table 4.2.12: Mean scores by perceived instrumentality of wealth according to age
21 – 30
31 – 40
41 – 50
51 – 60
My salary in my
former place of work
was too meagre
Entrepreneurship is a
means to wealth
I desired to have high
earnings
I wanted economic
security for my family
I wanted to contribute
to the welfare of my
relatives
I wanted respect from
members of society
I wanted to have more
influence in society
I wanted to impact
positively on my
society
61+
Total
Mean
3.03
N
62
Mean
2.86
N
239
Mean
3.03
N
199
Mean
2.78
N
138
Mean
2.47
N
79
Mean
2.89
N
717
3.97
62
3.67
239
3.65
199
3.67
138
3.59
79
3.68
717
4.31
62
4.13
239
3.98
199
4.12
138
4.00
79
4.08
717
4.35
62
4.21
239
4.24
199
4.38
138
4.65
79
4.27
717
3.74
62
3.69
239
3.61
199
3.69
138
3.61
79
3.67
717
3.97
62
3.85
239
3.48
199
3.59
138
3.45
79
3.67
717
3.92
62
3.67
239
3.47
199
3.65
138
3.57
79
3.62
717
4.29
62
4.18
239
4.32
199
4.42
138
4.54
79
4.31
717
131
4.2.13: Mean scores by social capital items according to education
Table 4.2.13 shows that the reason of family tradition for entrepreneurial event
was strongest among respondents with tertiary education and lowest among respondents
with primary education. Support by one or both parents as a reason was lowest among
respondents with primary education having a mean score of 2.68. Those with tertiary
education scored 3.50, while those with secondary education scored 3.26.
Influence of parents on the choice entrepreneurial event was generally low among
the groups, with persons who have primary education scoring 1.85, those with secondary
education scored 2.29 while those with tertiary education scored 2.39. Achievement of
one or both parents in entrepreneurship, as a reason for embarking on entrepreneurship
venture was strongest among respondents with primary education with mean score of
2.61. Those with secondary education scored 2.27 while those with tertiary education
scored 2.52.
Friend’s influence as a reason for entrepreneurial event formation was strongest
among respondents with primary education with a mean of 2.58; following is those with
secondary education with a mean score of 2.17. Those with tertiary education scored
1.99. Spousal influence as a reason for entrepreneurial event had mean score of 1.94 in
the primary category 1.90 among respondents with secondary education while it was 2.05
among respondents with tertiary education.
Entrepreneurship being a common practice in ethnic group, as a reason, shows
that respondents with primary education had a mean of 2.79. Those with tertiary
education scored 2.40, while those with secondary education scored 2.30 in the mean
comparison.
Influence of religion on respondents with primary education was below average
with a mean of 2.07 while respondents with tertiary and those with secondary education
had mean scores of 1.95 and 1.62 respectively. In the same vein, the influence of
religious leaders was strongest with respondents who have primary education with a
mean of 2.32, followed by those with tertiary education with a mean score of 2.10.
Respondents with secondary education had the lowest mean of 1.73.
132
Table 4.2.13: Mean scores by social capital according to education
Primary
Secondary
Tertiary
I wanted to continue
family tradition
I was supported by
one or both parents
My parents
influenced my choice
of entrepreneurial
path
I was encouraged by
the achievement of
one or both parents
in entrepreneurship
I was influenced by a
friend
I was influenced by
my spouse
Entrepreneurship
was a common
practice in my ethnic
group
I was influenced by
the teaching of my
religion
I was influenced by
my religious leader
Total
Mean
2.04
N
18
Mean
2.16
N
270
Mean
2.39
N
429
Mean
2.31
N
717
2.68
18
3.26
270
3.50
429
3.41
717
1.85
18
2.29
270
2.39
429
2.34
717
2.61
18
2.27
270
2.52
429
2.43
717
2.58
18
2.17
270
1.99
429
2.06
717
1.94
18
1.90
270
2.05
429
1.99
717
2.79
18
2.30
270
2.46
429
2.40
717
2.07
18
1.62
270
1.95
429
1.83
717
2.32
18
1.73
270
2.10
429
1.97
717
4.2.14: Mean scores by dissatisfaction/displacement experience according to
education
Table 4.2.14 below shows that dissatisfaction with paid job was a strong reason
for entrepreneurial event formation among the category of respondents with primary
education with a mean score of 3.49. Respondents with tertiary education have a mean of
2.95 while those with secondary education scored 2.82. Being fired from paid job as a
133
reason for venturing into entrepreneurial event was strongest among respondents with
primary education with a mean score of 1.72. Respondents with secondary education
scored 1.59 while those with tertiary education scored 1.50.
Retirement from paid job has respondents with low education recording the
highest mean score of 1.93. Category of tertiary education scored 1.49 while those with
secondary education had a mean score of 1.70. Discrimination in paid job as a reason for
entrepreneurial event formation was strongest among respondents with secondary
education with 2.70 mean score, persons with tertiary and primary education scored 2.62
and 2.65 respectively.
Not being able to get a job, as a reason for entrepreneurial event formation has
individuals with primary education scoring the highest mean (1.77). Respondents with
tertiary and secondary education scored 1.18 and 1.23 respectively. Being tired of being
bossed around, as a reason for entrepreneurial event scores relatively high as respondents
with primary education had a mean of 3.36 while those with tertiary education scored
3.40 and those with secondary education scored 3.34.
Table 4.2.14: Mean scores by dissatisfaction/displacement experience according to
education
Primary
Secondary
Tertiary
Total
Education
I experienced
dissatisfaction
with paid job
I was fired from
paid job
I retired from
paid job
I faced
discrimination in
paid job
I could not get job
I got tired of being
bossed
Mean
3.49
N
18
Mean
2.82
N
270
Mean
2.95
N
429
Mean
2.90
N
717
1.72
18
1.59
270
1.50
429
1.54
717
1.93
18
1.70
270
1.49
429
1.58
717
2.65
18
2.70
270
2.62
429
2.64
717
1.77
3.36
18
18
1.23
3.34
270
270
1.18
3.46
429
429
1.21
3.40
717
717
134
4.2.15: Mean scores by social status according to education
Running own business gives social status, as a reason for entrepreneurial event
formation had high responses across the different categories that composed the study.
Respondents with primary education scored the highest with mean of 4.02. Persons with
secondary education had 3.72 mean while those with tertiary education had 3.91.
Respect that business generates as impetus for starting entrepreneurial event was
very strong among respondents with primary education with a mean of 3.97. Those with
secondary education scored 3.72 while respondents with tertiary education scored 3.78.
The quest for a higher position in society shows that those with primary education had
the highest mean (4.33). Respondents with secondary education and tertiary education
scored 3.75 and 4.11 respectively. The desire to earn prestige was strongest among
individuals in our study with primary education while those with tertiary and secondary
education 3.82 and 3.75 respectively.
This analysis shows that respondents with primary education wanted to earn
prestige, high position and respect among others, which may be a way of compensating
for their low education.
Table 4.2.15: Mean scores by social status according to education
Primary
Secondary
Tertiary
Running
own business
gives high
social status
People look
up to those
who own
their firms
Starting
business
generates a
lot of respect
Total
Mean
4.02
N
18
Mean
3.72
N
270
Mean
3.91
N
429
Mean
3.84
N
717
3.76
18
3.60
270
3.57
429
3.58
717
3.97
18
3.72
270
3.78
429
3.76
717
135
Table 4.2.15 Contd.
Primary
I wanted a
higher
position for
myself in
society
I wanted to
earn prestige
Secondary
Tertiary
Total
Mean
4.33
N
18
Mean
3.75
N
270
Mean
4.11
N
429
Mean
3.98
N
717
4.18
18
3.75
270
3.82
429
3.80
717
4.2.16: Mean scores by perceived instrumentality of wealth according to education
Entrepreneurial event formation as a result of meagre salary in paid job was
strongest among respondents with tertiary education who had a mean score of 2.99.
Respondents with primary education and secondary education scored 2.94 and 2.72
respectively. Entrepreneurship as a means to wealth being a reason for engaging in
entrepreneurial event was strongest among respondents with primary education with a
mean score of 3.90. Respondents with tertiary education scored 3.69 while those with
secondary education scored a mean of 3.68.
The desire to have high earnings as a reason for entrepreneurial event formation
shows that such desire was strongest among people with primary education with 4.39
mean while 4.09 and 4.04 were mean scores for tertiary education and secondary
education respectively. Wanting economic security for family as a reason had
respondents with primary education having 4.67 mean score. Respondents with tertiary
and secondary education scored 4.31 and 4.20 respectively.
The desire to contribute to the welfare of relatives, as a reason for starting a
business had respondents with tertiary education having the highest mean score of 3.68
while those with primary education and secondary education had 3.67 each. The need for
respect from members of society as a precursor of entrepreneurial event shows that those
136
with tertiary education had highest mean while closely following were those with primary
and secondary education with mean scores of 3.00 and 3.63 respectively.
With regard to the desire for more influence in society, persons with primary
education had a mean of 3.31 while those with secondary and tertiary education scored
3.50 and 3.69 respectively. The quest to impact positively on society, as a reason, was
strongest among respondents in the category of primary education, having a mean of
4.65. Those with tertiary education scored 4.37 while persons with secondary education
scored 4.21.
Table 4.2.16: Mean scores by perceived instrumentality of wealth according to
education
Primary
Secondary
Tertiary
Total
My salary in my
former place of work
was too meager
Entrepreneurship is
a means to wealth
I desired to have
high earnings
I wanted economic
security for my
family
I wanted to
contribute to the
welfare of my
relatives
I wanted respect
from members of
society
I wanted to have
more influence in
society
I wanted to impact
positively on my
society
Mean
2.94
N
18
Mean
2.72
N
270
Mean
2.99
N
429
Mean
2.89
N
717
3.90
18
3.68
270
3.69
429
3.68
717
4.39
18
4.04
270
4.09
429
4.08
717
4.67
18
4.20
270
4.31
429
4.27
717
3.67
18
3.62
270
3.68
429
3.67
717
3.00
18
3.63
270
3.68
429
3.67
717
3.31
18
3.50
270
3.69
429
3.62
717
4.65
18
4.21
270
4.37
429
4.31
717
137
4.2.17: Simple regression of model 1, model 2, model 3 and model 4 by ethnic group
The results of the simple regression analyses of ethnic group of origin against
social capital (model 1), dissatisfaction/displacement experience (model 2), social status
(model 3) and perceived instrumentality of wealth (model 4) are presented in this
segment of the report. In this case, ethnic group of origin is our predictor variable while
the criterion variables are: social capital, dissatisfaction/displacement experience, social
status and perceived instrumentality of wealth. Ethnic group of origin was used to
explain the four models albeit independently. This is necessary in order to assess the
contribution of ethnic group in the explanation of our models to the exclusion of other
predictor variables like gender, age and level of education.
As can be observed from table 4.2.17, the R square, which measures the explained
variance in model 1, is 11.4 percent. From the table, it is clear that all the ethnic
categories show significant determining explanation for social capital forces as a reason
for entrepreneurial event formation. In other words, ethnic group of origin has predictive
capacity in explaining variations in consideration of social capital forces for engaging in
entrepreneurial event. However, while North 1 (Hausa) and South 2 (Igbo) show positive
significant determining force, North 2 (Mini groups) and South 3 (Mini groups) show
significant negative determinants relative to South 1. For example, North 1 (Hausa) has
.118 coefficient and South 2 (Igbo) has .412 coefficient. What this result suggests is that
those categories with positive coefficients vary from the reference group – South 1
(Yoruba) in a positive form, in explaining variation in consideration of social capital
forces before engaging in entrepreneurial event. On the other hand, categories with
negative coefficients – North 2 (mini groups) with -.290 and South 3 (mini groups) with .755 – portend negative association with consideration of social capital before engaging
in entrepreneurial event. As the result shows, ethnic group remains an important factor in
consideration of social capital forces before starting entrepreneurial event.
As shown in table 4.2.17, model 2 (dissatisfaction/displacement experience) has
only South 3 (mini groups) showing significant determining association with the criterion
variable. The association between the two variables was positive, with a coefficient of
1.13. Other categories do not show significant coefficients; North 1 (Hausa) shows
138
positive, though not significant coefficient of .042 while North 2 (mini groups) and South
2 (Igbo) record negative coefficients of -.041 and -.064 respectively.
The import of this result is that ethnic group (predictor variable) has the ability to
predict whether individuals will consider dissatisfaction/displacement experience as a
reason for embarking in entrepreneurial event among South 3 (mini groups) respondents.
As shown in Model 3 of table 4.2.17, ethnic group of origin does not show any
determining value in explaining variations on consideration of social status before
engaging in entrepreneurial event. Going by the result of mean comparisons of the
different ethnic groups on the criterion variable (social status), one observes that all the
ethnic categories in the study have high mean scores on this factor. In other words, social
status is considered an important reason by all groups without any significant variation.
This is underscored by very low R square of .004. The coefficients of the categories are
given as -.088, .073, -.044, and .181 for North 1 (Hausa), North 2 (mini groups), South 2
(Igbo) and South 3 (mini groups) respectively.
Model 4 does not show any significant determining power in explaining
variations in the occurrence of consideration of perceived instrumentality of wealth
among the different ethnic categories that comprise the study. This is evidenced by very
low R square figures of. 0.008 percent. This situation is made manifest by little or no
difference in the mean scores in the items that set to measure the criterion variable among
the ethnic categories. The coefficients of the categories are as follows: -.070, .059, .060
and -.029 for North 1 (Hausa), North 2 (mini groups), South 2 (Igbo) and South 3 (mini
groups) respectively.
139
Table 4.2.17: Simple regression of model 1, model 2, model 3 and model 4 by ethnic
group
Variables
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Coefficient t Coefficient t
Coefficient t Coefficient t
.118**
2.2
.042
.733
-.088
-1.5
-.070
-1.2
North 1
North 2
-.290**
-5.1
-.041
-.679
.073
1.2
.059
.967
South 2
.412**
6.2
-.064
-.916
-.044
-.632
.060
.860
South 3
-.755**
-3.1
1.13**
4.45
.181
.704
-.029
-.112
South 1 ( r )
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
R Square
.114
.028
.004
.008
r
= reference group
**
=significant at p<0.05
Model 1 = Social capital
Model 2 = Dissatisfaction/displacement experience
Model 3 = Social status
Model 4 = Perceived instrumentality of wealth
4.2.18: Simple regression of model 1, model 2, model 3 and model 4 according to
level of education
The results of the simple regression analyses for social capital forces,
dissatisfaction/displacement experience, social status and perceived instrumentality of
wealth for level of education are presented in table 4.2.18.
For model 1, only primary education shows a significant determinant with the
criterion variable, with coefficient of .086. Other categories do not have any form of
significant association with the criterion variable. For example, secondary level of
education has .403 coefficient relative to the reference category (tertiary education). The
R square that explains the capacity of the predictor variable in explaining variation in
how individuals consider social capital forces before embarking on entrepreneurial event
is .020.
As shown in table 4.2.18, model 2 (dissatisfaction/displacement experience) has
no category showing any significant determining association with the criterion variable.
The coefficients of the variables are as follows: primary education (-.014) and secondary
education (-.090), both showing negative coefficients. Apart from the fact that there is no
significant relationship between the predictor and the criterion, the R square that explains
140
the capacity of level of education (predictor variable) in explaining variation in how
individuals consider social capital forces before embarking on entrepreneurial event is
.008, which is too low to be able to give any predictive force.
Like in model 2 above, models 3 and 4 do not show any significant determinant
with respective R squares of .015 and .014, which do not have any predictive force owing
to their being too low. It is observed in the result of mean comparisons that there is no
marked variation in the way the different educational categories consider social status and
perceived instrumentality of wealth as reasons for embarking on entrepreneurial event.
These results suggest that social status and perceived instrumentality of wealth do not
operate any significant difference on the different educational categories in the study.
Table 4.2.18: Simple regression of model 1, model 2, model 3 and model 4 according
to level of education
Variables
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Coefficient t
Coefficient
Primary
.086**
2.032
-.014
-.330
.047
1.125
.047
1.122
Secondary
.403
.826
-.090
-.183
-.229
-.468
.064
.130
Tertiary ( r )
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
R Square
.020
t
.008
Coefficient
.015
t
Coefficient
t
.014
r
= reference group
**
=significant at p<0.05
Model 1 = Social capital
Model 2 = Dissatisfaction/displacement experience
Model 3 = Social status
Model 4 = Perceived instrumentality of wealth
4.2.19: Simple regression of model 1, model 2, model 3 and model 4 according to age
Table 4.2.19 presents the result of simple regression analysis of the criterion
variables and age (predictor). In model 1, the result shows a positive significant
determinant occurring in age category 21-30 with a positive coefficient of .150. This
result shows that this age category significantly predicts variations in the consideration of
social capital forces by individuals. The R square for this model is .073. Other age
141
categories have varying levels of coefficient; category 41-50 has a coefficient of .044, 5160 has -.033 coefficient, and 61+ has .287 coefficient.
Model 2 (dissatisfaction/displacement experience) does not show any significant
determinant across the categories. This result suggests that no variation exists in the way
dissatisfaction/displacement experience predisposes individuals to entrepreneurial event
across the various age groups in the study. Model 3 shows that those in age category 2130 are more likely than others to give consideration to social status before engaging in
entrepreneurial event. The result shows significant positive coefficient of .108 while
other age categories have the following coefficients: 41-50, -.001; 51-60, - .026 while
61+, -.370. The R square that measures the variance is .017.
In the same manner, model 4 shows a positive significant determinant in age
category 21-30. In other words, those in age category 21-30 are more predisposed to
considering perceived instrumentality of wealth and ability of entrepreneurial event to
bring wealth before venturing into it. The result shows a positive determining coefficient
of .111 in the aforementioned age category (21-30) whereas other categories have
varying levels of insignificant positive and negative coefficients.
Table 4.2.19: Simple regression of model 1, model 2, model 3 and model 4 according
to age
Variables
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Coefficient t
Coefficient
t
21-30
.150**
3.787
-.007
-.160
.108**
2.655
.111**
2.715
41-50
.044
.086
-.045
-.840
-.001
-.011
-.055
-1.032
51-60
-.033
-.475
.005
.065
.026
.363
.061
.861
61+
.287
1.358
-.092
-.420
-.370
-1.70
-.028
-.128
31-40 (r )
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
R Square
.073
.004
Coefficient
.017
t
Coefficient
t
.011
r
= reference group
**
=significant at p<0.05
Model 1 = Social capital
Model 2 = Dissatisfaction/displacement experience
Model 3 = Social status
Model 4 = Perceived instrumentality of wealth
142
4.2.20: Independent samples tests of models 1, 2, 3 and 4 according to gender
The independent sample tests were carried out to ascertain the level of differences
between our male and female respondents in the consideration of the criterion variables
(social capital, dissatisfaction/displacement experience, social status and perceived
instrumentality of wealth) before embarking on entrepreneurial event. Under model 1 as
shown in table 4.2.20, the mean score for male is 3.0820 and female has a mean score of
3.3406 with the mean difference of -.2586. As can be observed in table 4.2.21, model 1,
the value of t is -2.736 and the degree of freedom is at 715 and significant at p<.05. In
other words, gender shows a significant difference for social capital in causing
entrepreneurial event formation among our female respondents.
In model 2, there is no significant difference in the mean of the two categories of
our sample; while the male has a mean score of 13.1865, the female has a slightly higher
score of 13.4934 with mean difference of -.3070. This figure does not show any
significant difference between the two categories in predicting consideration for
dissatisfaction/displacement experience before engaging in entrepreneurial event. With t
value of -1.129 and the degree of freedom at 715, is not significant at p<.05.
The same trend as observed in model 2 above holds for model 3. In model 3, there
is no significant difference between the two predictor variables (male and female) in
having consideration for social status as a reason for engaging in entrepreneurial event.
The male and the female have mean of 18.8852 and 19.1092 respectively with mean
difference of -.2239. The t value is too low (-.891) and therefore not significant at p<.05.
In model 4, as indicated in table 4.2.20, male category has a mean of 29.8361 and
female with mean score of 30.9389. The mean difference of -1.1028 is reported in table
4.2.21. There is significant difference between the two groups, with the t value of -3.019
and the degree of freedom at 715, the result is significant at p<.05. This result suggests
that women are more likely to consider perceived instrumentality of wealth before
starting business.
143
Table 4.2.20: Group statistics of independent samples tests of models 1, 2, 3 and 4
according to gender
Gender
N
Mean
Standard
Std. Error
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Deviation
Mean
Male
488
3.0820
1.15238
.05217
Female
229
3.3406
1.23798
.08181
Male
488
13.1865
3.40251
.15402
Female
229
13.4934
3.37382
.22295
Male
488
18.8852
3.07256
.13909
Female
229
19.1092
3.27555
.21645
Male
488
29.8361
4.62226
.20924
Female
229
30.9389
4.42637
.29250
Table 4.2.21: Independent samples tests of models 1, 2, 3 and 4 according to gender
T
df
Sig.
Mean
Standard
(2-tailed)
Difference
Error
Difference
Model 1
-2.736 *
715
.006
-.2586
.09455
Model 2
-1.129
715
.259
-.3070
.27181
Model 3
-.891
715
.373
-.2239
.25141
Model 4
-3.019 *
715
.003
-1.1028
.36531
** = significant at p<0.05
Model 1 = Social capital
Model 2 = Dissatisfaction/displacement experience
Model 3 = Social status
Model 4 = Perceived instrumentality of wealth
144
4.2.22: Multiple regression of model 1, model 2, model 3 and model 4 by ethnic
group, gender, age and level of education.
The results of multiple regression analyses show that model 1 has .198 R square
while models 2, 3 and 4 have 0.43, 0.35 and 0.44 respectively. These variations are
explained by differences in the predictor variables included in the analyses. In model 1,
ethnic variables show significant determining force more than any other predictor does.
For example, North 2 (mini groups) has a negative significant coefficient of -.270, South
2 (Igbo) has a positive determinant of .394 and South 3 (mini groups) has negative
significant determinant of -.873. Other variables that show significant determining
relationship include low education, age group 21-30, and female category, which shows a
positive determinant.
Model 2 has South 3 showing determining connection. South 3 group shows a
positive significant determinant in the analysis. In model 3, the only variable that shows
significant positive determinant is age category 21-30. Other variables in the model do
not show any significant relationship. Just like in model 3 where only age category shows
positive significant determinant, the same scenario presents itself in model 4 where only
age category 21-30 shows significant relationship.
145
Table 4.2.22: Multiple regression of model 1, model 2, model 3 and model 4 by ethnic group, gender, age and level of
education.
MODEL 1
MODEL 2
MODEL 3
MODEL 4
Variables
Coefficient
t
Coefficient
t
Coefficient
t
Coefficient
t
.102
1.904
.041
.709
-.103
-1.752 -.069
-1.187
North 1
(Hausa)
-.270**
-4.899 -.041
-.682
.081
1.341
.070
1.166
North2
(mini groups)
.394**
6.138
-.066
-.946
-.047
-.662
.041
.582
South2 (Igbo)
-3.726 1.18**
4.600
.142
.551
-.029
-.112
South3
(mini -.873**
groups)
South 1 ( r )
.080**
2.114
-.012
-.300
.045
1.085
.046
1.117
Primary
.425
.948
-.042
-.087
-.152
-.309
.132
.269
Secondary
Tertiary ( r )
.140**
3.737
-.009
-.214
.104**
2.536
.095**
2.336
21-30
.028
.583
-.066
-1.229
.003
.056
-.057
-1.074
41-50
-.041
-.635
.004
.061
.024
.341
.044
.614
51-60
.199
1.002
-.069
-.318
-.345
-1.582 -.036
-.166
61+
31-40 ( r )
.070**
2.022
.043
1.125
.017
.438
.112
2.948
Female
Male ( r )
33.880
42.864
69.115
73.055
Constant t Value
.198
.043
.035
.044
R Square
r
= reference group
**
=significant at p<0.05
Model 1 = Social capital
Model 2 = Dissatisfaction/displacement experience
Model 3 = Social status
Model 4 = Perceived instrumentality of wealth
146
CAUSAL MODELLING OF MODEL 1, MODEL 2, MODEL 3 AND MODEL 4
We attempt to identify the paths of the hypothesized causal modeling on social capital
influence in entrepreneurial event formation by exploring all the hypothesized linkages.
Set of three structural equations were formed for each model. Each equation corresponds
to each dependent variable Xі (i=3, 4 and 5).
(1) X3 = P31X1 + P32X2 + e3
X4 = P41X1 + P42X2 + P43X3 + e4
X5 =P51x1 + P52x2 + P53X3+ P54X4 + e5
Where X1- Ethnic Group.
X2 - Gender
X3- Age
X4- Level of Education
X5a – Social capital, X5b – Dissatisfaction/displacement experience, X5c –
Social status and X5d – Perceived instrumentality of wealth.
The above equations therefore made it necessary to run three regression analyses in
order to compute values of the path coefficients for each of the hypothesized models. The
significance (at the pre-specified level of 0.05) of the path coefficients considered
meaningful was the basis for trimming the paths of the hypothesized models. This study
used two types of criteria to determine whether a path is significant or not. Usually, three
types of criteria may be used in path trimming, that is, statistical significance, or
meaningfulness or both. In this study, for meaningfulness, the absolute value of a path
coefficient is taken to be at least 0.05 as recommended by Land (1969). For the
significance criterion, the choice of the investigator is at 0.05. Based on the two criteria
selected, for this study, the term “significance”, therefore, connotes statistical
significance as well as meaningfulness. The paths found not to be significant were
dropped. Those units found to be significant causal factors were retained.
147
Research Question
What are the abilities of the independent variables in predicting the degree to which
individuals are motivated by the identified socio-cultural constructs to embark on
entrepreneurial event?
Table 4.2.23: Paths and Zero Order Correlation Coefficient for the Five Variables
on Social Capital (5a)
Path
Path Coefficient
Zero Order
Decision
P3.1
0.045
0.041
NS
P4.1
0.072
0.081
S
P5.1
0.118
0.113
S
P3.2
-0.129
-0.127
S
P4.2
-0.006
0.014
NS
P5.2
0.066
0.102
S
P4.3
-0.133
-0.120
S
P5.3
-0.233
-0.236
S
P5.4
0.027
0.068
NS
Table 4.2.24: Paths and Zero Order Correlation Coefficient for the Five Variables
on Dissatisfaction/displacement Experience (5b)
Path
Path Coefficient
Zero Order
Decision
P3.1
0.045
0.041
NS
P4.1
0.072
0.081
S
P5.1
-0.013
-0.014
NS
P3.2
-0.129
-0.127
S
P4.2
-0.006
0.014
NS
P5.2
0.047
0.039
NS
P4.3
-0.133
-0.120
S
P5.3
0.058
0.055
NS
P5.4
-0.031
-0.043
NS
148
Table 4.2.25: Paths and Zero Order Correlation Coefficient for the Five Variables
on Social Status (5c)
Path
Path Coefficient
Zero Order
Decision
P3.1
0.045
0.041
NS
P4.1
0.072
0.081
NS
P5.1
0.009
0.008
NS
P3.2
-0.129
-0.127
S
P4.2
-0.006
0.014
NS
P5.2
0.022
0.033
NS
P4.3
-0.133
-0.120
S
P5.3
0.076
-0.086
S
P5.4
0.050
0.055
NS
Table 4.2.26: Paths and Zero Order Correlation Coefficient for the Five Variables
on Perceived Instrumentality of Wealth (5d)
Path
Path Coefficient
Zero Order
Decision
P3.1
0.045
0.041
NS
P4.1
0.072
0.081
NS
P5.1
0.002
0.006
NS
P3.2
-0.129
-0.127
S
P4.2
-0.006
0.014
NS
P5.2
0.105
0.111
S
P4.3
-0.133
-0.120
S
P5.3
-0.044
-0.064
NS
P5.4
0.049
0.056
NS
149
150
151
152
153
The hypothesized models are shown in figure 4.1a, 4.1b, 4.1c and 4.1d
with the path and zero order correlation coefficients written on each path way (the
correlation coefficient in parenthesis). In trimming the paths in the model, paths
were considered significant at 0.05 alpha level and considered meaningful if the
absolute value of the path coefficient is at least 0.05 as recommended by Land
(1969). Based on these criteria new path models (figure 4:2a, 4:2b, 4:2c and 4:2d)
were obtained.
For the first model, six (6) out of nine (9) hypothesized paths survived the
trimming exercise. The survived paths are presented in figure 4.2a. Three out of
four units hypothesized to be predictive of social capital influence in
entrepreneurial event formation were confirmed valid. These units are X1- ethnic
group, X2- gender and X3- age, they were established to be direct causal factors
of X5a – social capital influence in entrepreneurial event formation while X4level of education has indirect causal effect on the criterion variable.
In the second model, only three hypothesized paths survived the trimming
as shown in figure 4.2b. None of the paths had direct causal effect on the criterion
variable; only indirect causal relationships were observed among paths P4.1, P3.2
and P4.3.
In model 3, four hypothesized paths were confirmed valid. These include
P4.1, P3.2, P4.3 and P5.3. This is depicted in figure 4:2c. Of the survived paths,
only one has direct causal relationship with the criterion variable. In other words,
age is the only causal model with direct influence on the criterion variable.
In model 4, four hypothesized paths were also confirmed valid. They are
P4.1, P3.2, P5.2 and P4.3. However, only P5.2 has direct link with the dependent
variable. Other paths are nonetheless indirectly causally related to it. This is
presented in figure 4:2d.
154
Table 4.2.27: Original and Reproduced Correlated Matrix for the Five Variables on
Social Capital (5a)
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5a
V1
1
.049
.041
.081
.113
V2
.049
1
-.127
.014
.102
V3
.039
-.127
1
-.120
-.236
V4
.067
.014
-.129
1
.068
V5a
.104
-.097
.032
.057
1
Table 4.2.28: Discrepancies between the Original and the Reproduced Correlation
Values on Social Capital (5a)
Correlation (r)
Original Value
Reproduced Value Difference
R1.3
0.041
0.039
0.002
R1.4
0.081
0.067
0.014
R1.5
0.113
0.104
0.009
R2.3
-0.127
-0.127
0
R2.4
0.014
0.014
0
R2.5
0.102
-0.097
0.199
R3.4
-0.120
-0.129
0.009
R3.5
-0.236
0.032
-0.268
R4.5
0.068
0.057
0.011
Total
-0.064
-0.041
-0.024
Table 4.2.29: Original and Reproduced Correlated Matrix for the Five Variables on
Dissatisfaction/displacement Experience (5b)
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5b
V1
1
.049
.041
.081
-.014
V2
.049
1
-.127
.014
.039
V3
.045
-.011
1
-.120
.055
V4
.066
.001
-.129
1
-.043
V5b
-.010
.039
-.003
.007
1
155
Table 4.2.30: Discrepancies between the Original and the Reproduced Correlation
Values on Dissatisfaction/displacement Experience (5b)
Correlation (r)
Original Value
Reproduced Value Difference
R1.3
0.041
0.045
-0.004
R1.4
0.081
0.066
0.015
R1.5
-0.014
-0.010
0.024
R2.3
-0.127
-0.017
-0.116
R2.4
0.014
-0.013
0.015
R2.5
0.039
0.039
0
R3.4
-0.120
-0.129
0.009
R3.5
0.055
0.003
0.058
R4.5
-0.043
0.007
-0.05
Total
-0.074
-0.031
-0.049
Table 4.2.31: Original and Reproduced Correlated Matrix for the Five Variables on
Social Status (5c)
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5c
V1
1
.049
.041
.081
.008
V2
.049
1
-.127
.014
.033
V3
.039
-.127
1
-.120
-.086
V4
.067
.014
-.129
1
.055
V5c
-.010
.039
-.003
.005
1
Table 4.2.32: Discrepancies between the Original and the Reproduced Correlation
Values on Social Status (5c)
Correlation (r)
Original Value
Reproduced Value Difference
R1.3
0.041
0.039
0.002
R1.4
0.081
0.067
0.014
R1.5
0.008
-0.010
0.018
R2.3
-0.127
-0.127
0
R2.4
0.014
0.014
0
R2.5
0.033
0.039
-0.006
156
Table 4.2.32 Contd.
Correlation (r)
Original Value
Reproduced Value
Difference
R3.4
-0.120
-0.129
0.009
R3.5
-0.086
-0.003
-0.083
R4.5
0.055
-0.005
0.06
Total
-0.101
-0.117
0.146
Table 4.2.33: Original and Reproduced Correlated Matrix for the Five Variables on
Perceived Instrumentality of Wealth (5d)
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5d
V1
1
.049
.041
.081
.006
V2
.049
1
-.127
.014
.111
V3
.039
-.127
1
-.120
-.064
V4
.067
.014
-.129
1
.050
V5d
.009
.111
.006
.017
1
Table 4.2.34: Discrepancies between the Original and the Reproduced Correlation
Values on Perceived Instrumentality of Wealth (5d)
Correlation (r)
Original Value
Reproduced Value Difference
R1.3
0.041
0.039
0.002
R1.4
0.081
0.067
0.014
R1.5
0.006
0.009
-0.003
R2.3
-0.127
-0.127
0
R2.4
0.014
0.014
0
R2.5
0.111
0.111
0
R3.4
-0.120
-01.29
0.009
R3.5
-0.064
0.006
-0.07
R4.5
0.050
0.017
0.033
Total
-0.008
0.007
-0.015
157
In order to verify the efficacy of the new models (fig 4.2a, 4.2b, 4.2c and 4.2d) the
reproduced correlation coefficients (based on the new path models) were compared with
the original correlation coefficients. Tables 4.2.27, 4.2.29, 4.2.31 and 4.2.33 show the
original and reproduced correlation matrix while tables 4.2.28, 4.2.30, 4.2.32 and 4.2.34
show the discrepancies between the original and the reproduced correlations. As shown
in tables 4.2.28 and 4.2.34, the discrepancies between the original and reproduced
correlation were found to be minimal. These minimal discrepancies thus indicate that the
pattern of correlation in the observed data is consistent with the new models. The new
path models are therefore considered to be tenable in explaining the causal interaction
between the predictor variables (social and background attributes - X1-X4) and the
criterion variables (social capital in EEF and perceived instrumentality of wealth in EEF).
Figures 4.2a, 4.2c and 4.2d thus show the most meaningful causal models involving
social capital and social background attributes excepting education; social status and age;
and perceived instrumentality of wealth and gender in entrepreneurial event formation.
Model 2 as presented in table 4.2.30 does not show significant discrepancies
between the original and reproduced correlation coefficients, thus the new path models
cannot be said to be adequately able to explain causal interactions between the predictor
variables
(X1-X4)
and
the
criterion
variables,
in
this
case,
X5b
–
dissatisfaction/displacement experience.
158
159
160
161
162
HYPOTHESES TESTING
The following hypotheses were tested in this study:
1. Ethnic group is significantly related to consideration of social capital for
entrepreneurial event formation
2. There are significant male-female differences in consideration of social capital as
a reason for entrepreneurial event formation.
3. There is a significant relationship between age and consideration of social status
as a reason for embarking on entrepreneurial event.
Hypothesis 1
Ethnic group is significantly related to consideration of social capital for
entrepreneurial event formation.
For this hypothesis, results of simple regression analysis, multiple regression
analysis and path analysis of model 1 were used. The result of simple regression analysis
of ethnic variables and social capital is shown in table 4.2.17. As can be observed from
the table, the R square, which measures the explained variance in the model, is 11.4
percent. From the table, it is clear that all the ethnic categories show significant
determining explanation for consideration of social capital for engaging in
entrepreneurial event. However, while North 1 (Hausa) and South 2 (Igbo) show
significant determining force, North 2 and South 3 show significant negative
determinants. All the ethnic variables that were regressed against social capital forces
show significant determining power. Going by this result, we hold that the hypothesis is
tenable.
The result of multiple regression analysis as shown in table 4.2.22 also supports
this position. Three of the four ethnic variables in the analysis show strong significant
coefficients. In a similar vein, the result of path analysis for model 1 (5a) as observed in
tables 4.2.23 and figure 4:2a confirmed that the paths were valid for explaining the
relationship under study. We therefore accept the hypothesis. Findings of this study in the
area of interface between ethnic group and consideration of social capital for
entrepreneurial event were derived from different analyses, which include calculation of
163
mean, simple regression, multiple regression and path analysis. The result of the mean
score for this section of the study as shown in table 4.2.1a shows that South 2 (Igbo) and
North 1(Hausa) had high mean scores on items that were used to measure social capital
as a consideration for entrepreneurial event formation, relative to other groups.
The result of simple regression analysis supported the direction of the mean
result. North 1 (Hausa) and South 2 (Igbo) positive determining coefficients. It is,
however, to be noted that the reason (social capital) was strongest in South 2 (Igbo), with
a coefficient of .412. This is followed by North 1 (Hausa), which has a positive
coefficient of .118. Other groups have negative significant coefficient against the
reference group. For example, North 2 (mini groups) has a coefficient of -.290 while
South 3 (mini groups) has a coefficient of -.755. Those groups with positive determining
coefficients considered social capital for engaging in entrepreneurial event formation
compared to South 1 (Yoruba), which is the reference group, while at the same time
social capital was more significant a reason for engaging in entrepreneurial event
formation than in those groups with negative significant coefficients.
The finding is further supported by the result of multiple regression analysis. The
result shows that ethnic group of origin is a potent factor in the consideration of social
capital for entrepreneurial event formation. South 2 (Igbo) has positive significant
determinant of .394.. On the other hand, North 2 (mini groups) and South 3 (mini groups)
have negative significant determinants of -.270 and -.873 respectively. What this result
indicates is that in groups where we have positive determining coefficients, ethnic group
of origin predicts consideration of social capital for entrepreneurial event formation,
while the opposite is the case where we have negative coefficients.
The path analysis result also indicates a positive determining relationship between
the predictor and the criterion variables. Of all the variables included in the analysis,
ethnic group has the highest positive beta coefficient figure (.118). Gender has beta
coefficient of .066 while age has a negative beta coefficient of -.233. In other words,
ethnic group has a direct causal relationship with social capital as a reason for
entrepreneurial event formation. This is in line with the results of other analyses.
164
Hypothesis 2
There are significant male-female differences in consideration of social capital as a
reason for entrepreneurial event formation.
The result of independent samples test on model 1 that was presented in table
4.2.21 was complemented by the result of path analysis for model 1 in testing this
hypothesis. Under model 1 as shown in table 4.2.20, the mean score for males was
3.0820 and females had a mean score of 3.3406 with the mean difference of -.2586. As
can be observed in table 4.2.21, model 1, with the value of t at -2.736 and the degree of
freedom at 715, the result is significant at p<.05. In other words, gender shows a
significant difference for social capital in causing entrepreneurial event formation among
our female respondents. The result of path analysis as shown in figure 4.2a indicates that
gender has direct causal link with consideration for social capital before engaging in
entrepreneurial event; the path coefficient and zero order correlation are .066 and .102
respectively. Based on this, we accept the hypothesis as stated.
The result of independent sample t-test shows that there is significant difference
between male and female in terms of their views of social capital as a reason for
entrepreneurial event formation. The result as presented in table 4.2.21 clearly shows a
significant difference between male and female. The mean difference as shown in table
4.2.20 is -.2586 with the value of t at -2.736 and the degree of freedom at 715. In other
words, the result indicates that women are more likely than men consider social capital
before initiating entrepreneurial event. A positive coefficient of .070 for female gender
from multiple regression analysis also shows a significant determining value that gender
has predictive power over whether social capital is considered before engaging in
entrepreneurial event.
Path analysis result clearly shows a direct causal link between gender and the
likelihood of considering social capital for engaging in entrepreneurial event. The result
as shown in table 4.2.23 and figure 4.2a indicates that the path coefficient for the causal
link between gender and social capital is .066 with zero order coefficient of .102. These
coefficients show positive significant determinant.
165
Hypothesis 3
There is a significant relationship between age and consideration of social status as a
reason for embarking on entrepreneurial event.
Model 3 shows that those in age category 21-30 are more likely than others to
give consideration to social status before engaging in entrepreneurial event. The result
shows significant positive coefficient of .108 while other age categories have the
following coefficients: 41-50, -.001; 51-60, .026; and 61+, .081. The R square that
measures the variance is .017. The result of the analysis for model 3 as presented in table
4.2.19 shows a significant relationship for age category 21-30. Looking at the path
analysis result as shown in tables 5:1c, 5:2c and 5:3c and figures 4:1c and 4.2c, age has
significant path coeffecient of .076 and zero order coefficient of -.086. These thus suggest
a strong causal connection between the predictor and the criterion variable as a
consideration for embarking on entrepreneurial event. These results thus support the
hypothesis, based on which we accept it as stated.
Discussion of findings
The result of the study shows that ethnic group of origin has predictive capacity in
explaining variations in consideration of social capital forces for engaging in
entrepreneurial event. This is evidenced by tables 4.2.17, 4.2.23 and figures 4.1a and
4.2a. Among the five ethnic categories that composed the study, two (North 1 (Hausa)
and South 2 (Igbo) show significant positive determinant with the criterion variable
against the reference group (South 1 (Yoruba). The other two, that is, North 2 (mini
groups) and South 3 (mini groups) record negative determinant with the dependent
variable.
What this result suggests is that people of North 1 (Hausa) and South 2 (Igbo) are
more likely than others to consider social capital forces for engaging in entrepreneurial
event formation. This finding conforms with the assertion of Shapero and Sokol (1982),
which contends that the presence of factors embedded in perceptions of desirability such
as family, friends, mentor and credible examples around; and perceptions of feasibility
comprising models, demonstration effect, financial support and other forms of support
166
are capable of precursing entrepreneurial event formation. In the two ethnic categories,
the finding confirms that the components of perceptions of desirability and perceptions of
feasibility are present in greater dimension in the two ethnic categories than in others. It
is, therefore, not surprising that social capital was given consideration by respondents in
these ethnic categories before embarking on entrepreneurial event. The importance of
social capital has long been emphasized in entrepreneurial event formation (see
Johannisson, 1986; Hamilton, 1991; Redding, 1990; Hansen, 2001).
A number of studies have emphasized social capital consideration as impetus for
entrepreneurial event formation among the Asian societies (Redding, 1980; MacGrath et
al, 1992; and Hofstede, 2001). Studies on entrepreneurial activities among the Igbo of
Nigeria have also attested to the strong input of social capital factors for engaging in
entrepreneurial event formation (Shapero and Sokol, 1982). In the two categories stated
above (North 1 (Hausa) and South 2 (Igbo)), there are many credible examples and other
sources of social capital support. Shapero and Sokol write about propensity of social
capital in predisposing individuals to entrepreneurial event formation thus: “the larger
the number and variety of entrepreneurs in a particular culture, the greater the probability
that individuals in that culture will form companies.… Other credible examples include
relatives, colleagues, and classmates.”
The finding of the study suggests that there is significant difference in
consideration of social capital for entrepreneurial event formation between our female
respondents and their male counterparts. Tables 4.2.20, 4.2.21 and figures 4.1a and 4.2a
support this result. The finding shows that females are more predisposed towards social
capital before starting business. This trend may not be unconnected with the fact that
females are more often than not guided by communal concerns, which emphasize
affiliation and harmonious relationships. A number of studies have found that female
gender craves for affiliation more than the male gender (Goldman, 1969; and Schultheiss,
2001).
The fact that the context of the research (Nigeria) is a patriarchy, a system of
gendered power relations through which men exercise power over women, may also
explain why the female gender scores higher on these items. Ntseane (2004) has also
written on the interface between patriarchy and women participation in business.
167
According to Martin (1990) “dominance, confidence, strength, competition and
rationality are seen as masculine, while submission, nurturing, caring, sensitivity and
emotionality are seen as feminine. Men are expected to exhibit masculine behaviour and
women to exhibit feminine behaviour, though in practice few people fit their gender
stereotypes in all ways and circumstances.” Patriarchy demands that females depend on
males for direction, especially if the male is a husband, a brother or a father.
Significant relationship between age category 21-30 and the propensity to regard
social capital, social status and perceived instrumentality of wealth as precursors of
entrepreneurial event formation (Table 4.2.19 and figures 4.2a and 4.2c). This result
clearly shows that those in age group 21-30 are more predisposed toward social capital,
social status and perceived instrumentality of wealth. This trend may not be unconnected
with the assumption of Shapero and Sokol that those who are ‘between things’ such as
‘out of army’, ‘out of school’ and ‘out of jail’ are likely to consider entrepreneurial event
as a credible option. Respondents in this age group are more likely than others to just be
‘out of school’, which may make entrepreneurial event an option worth considering. The
availability of credible examples like family, peers, friends and mentor may also be
sources of impetus to this category of people as advanced by Shapero and Sokol. What is,
however, new in our study is the dimension of age and social status and perceived
instrumentality of wealth. As stated above, age group 21-30 are more than others prone to
consideration of social status and perceived instrumentality of wealth before they engage
in entrepreneurial event.
168
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
This study was on three selected organized associations of entrepreneurs in Lagos,
Nigeria. The study covered the interactions between some socio-cultural factors such as,
social capital, dissatisfaction/displacement experience, social status, and perceived
instrumentality of wealth on the one hand and predictor variables (ethnic group, gender,
age and level of education) on the other. The main objective of the study was to
understand how consideration of social capital, dissatisfaction/displacement experience,
social status and perceived instrumentality of wealth for engaging in entrepreneurial
event were functions of some socio-demographic and background factors among
Nigerian entrepreneurs.
Cross-sectional survey design was used with questionnaire as the major tool of
data collection. Questionnaire was administered to 717 randomly selected respondents.
It is clear that all the ethnic categories show significant determining explanation
for consideration of social capital for engaging in entrepreneurial event. This is shown in
the result of mean comparison, where two ethnic categories (South 2 (Igbo) and North 1
(Hausa)) have significantly higher mean scores than other groups that comprise the study.
The result of simple regression analysis also supports this trend; here, South 2 (Igbo) and
North 1 (Hausa) have significant positive determining coefficient whereas North 2 (mini
groups) and South 3 (mini groups) show significant negative determinants. All the ethnic
variables that were regressed against social capital forces show significant determining
coefficients.
The result of multiple regression analysis also supports this position. Three of the
four ethnic variables in the analysis show strong significant coefficients. In a similar vein,
the result of path analysis for model 1 (5a) as observed in table 4.2.23 and figure 4:2a
confirms that the paths are valid for explaining the relationship under study.
Independent Samples t-test of gender against the dependent variable (social
capital influence), which generates value of t at -2.736 and the degree of freedom at 715
is significant at p<.05. This shows a significant difference for social capital influence in
169
entrepreneurial event formation among our female respondents. No direct causal
relationship was established between education and the criterion variables. This is
evidenced by result of path analysis in tables 4.2.23, 4.2.24, 4.2.25, 4.2.26.
The result of the analysis for model 3 as presented in table 4.2.19 shows a
significant positive relationship between age category 21-30 and the propensity to
consider social status as a reason for engaging in entrepreneurial event formation.
Looking at the path analysis result as shown in tables 4.2.23, 4.2.25 and figures 4:2a and
4.2c, one would see a strong causal connection between age and social status as a reason
for embarking on entrepreneurial event. There are gender and age differences in
consideration of perceived instrumentality of wealth before engaging in entrepreneurial
event formation. The female respondents scored higher than their male counterparts did
in this criterion variable while age group 21-30 did show significant relationship with
perceived instrumentality of wealth. This is presented in tables 4.2.19, 4.2.21, 4.2.26, and
figure 4.2d.
This work has demonstrated that no universal principle can be advanced for the
practice of entrepreneurship. Local peculiarities arising from different experiences have
been found to be relevant in the explanation of entrepreneurial event formation. All the
predictors studied were found to have varying degrees of predictive power on the
criterion variables. The import of this is the need to appreciate diversity while working
for common goal. It must, therefore, be understood that needs and aspirations answer to
particularities of situations.
170
Conclusion
This study has demonstrated that no universal principle can be advanced for the
practice of entrepreneurship. Local peculiarities arising from different experiences have
been found to be relevant in the explanation of entrepreneurial event formation. This
becomes more needful in a society where there are many features that mark off groups
from one another.
Four predictor variables were studied against four criterion variables; all the
predictor variables were found to have different levels of predictive power on the
criterion variables. For example, ethnic group was found to be capable of predicting
variation in how individuals in the different ethnic categories in our study would consider
social capital influences before engaging in entrepreneurial event formation. It also has
some degree of variance in dissatisfaction/displacement experience. Gender on its own
has significant determining connection with social capital influences and perceived
instrumentality of wealth. In other words, gender is a factor in how individuals consider
social capital influences and perceived instrumentality of wealth before they engage in
entrepreneurial event.
Age also features as a significant factor in predicting considerations for social
capital influences, social status and perceived instrumentality of wealth while level of
education
is
significant
in
predicting
social
capital
influences
and
dissatisfaction/displacement experience as reasons for entrepreneurial event formation. In
other words, an individual’s level of education is a significant factor in how he considers
social capital influences and dissatisfaction/displacement experience before venturing
into entrepreneurial event.
The import of these findings is the need to appreciate diversity while working for
common goal from different directions. The need of the different groups that make up the
society may not necessarily be the same as has been confirmed by this study. It must,
therefore, be understood that needs and aspirations answer to particularities of situations.
The implications of these results for policy practitioners are: (i) needs are not the
same across groups in society, and (ii) policy should take into account the different
subgroups that make up the society for successful application of programmes.
171
Recommendations
This study has brought to the fore the imperatives of social and background
attributes in the process of entrepreneurial event formation. It has also demonstrated that
universal explanations may not be feasible in business formation process as a result of
obvious areas of diversity among members of society. This is evidenced by the result,
which show significant differences and variations in the operations of social and
background attributes on reasons for engaging in entrepreneurial event formation.
Based on the findings of this study, we hereby make recommendations that may
guide programmes, policy formulation and implementation for advancing entrepreneurial
event formation in the country.
Firstly, there is need for further studies on the interaction between age and social
status and perceived instrumentality of wealth. We have found that age dictates and
operates on the direction to which social status and perceived instrumentality of wealth
are considered by individuals before engaging in entrepreneurial event formation..
In addition, there is need to appreciate diversity in motivations and reasons for
entrepreneurial events among the different groups in the country. For example, the study
has found that there are variations in the way ethnic group of origin, gender and age
predict considerations of the different criterion variables for involvement in
entrepreneurship. Any programme designed without recourse to such diversity is bound
to fail. Therefore, design and implementation of programmes should account for these
differences in order to bring about positive outcomes for entrepreneurial event.
Also, conscious efforts must be made to carve a different area of academic
discipline for entrepreneurship, taking account of its multidisciplinary dimension.
Evidences from the past have shown that the subject is viewed more from economic and
business perspectives. Socio-cultural sub discipline needs be woven into the discipline to
make it context-relevant and outcome-oriented.
In addition, serious research efforts must be instituted to fill the void created by
absence of focus on socio-cultural dimensions of entrepreneurship in the Nigerian
context. If this is done, more knowledge that can be applied to the question of
entrepreneurial development will be generated, which will be in terms of positive
implications for entrepreneurial growth in the country.
172
Outlets for research outputs such as journals, seminars, workshops, and symposia
amongst others, which target this area of study, should be made available in local
parlance. This will enable outcomes of context-relevant research to be readily available to
the public and other relevant parties and interests.
Finally, where it becomes necessary to adopt programmes from abroad, they
should be adapted to local contexts, as contextual variables have been established to be
veritable factors in entrepreneurial event formation. Unwholesome adoption of
programmes will lead to programme failure, which ultimately is not in the interest of
individuals and nations.
173
REFERENCES
Abumere, S. I., Arimah, B. C., and Jerome, T. A. (1998). The informal sector in Nigeria’s
development process. Development Policy Centre, Research report number 1.
Adejumo, G. (2001). Indigenous entrepreneurship development in Nigeria:
characteristics, problems and prospects. Advances in Management: Journal of
Department of Business Administration, University of Ilorin, Ilorin Nigeria, 2(1):
112-122.
Adler, N. A. (1997) International Dimensions of Organisational Behaviour. Cincinnati,
Ohio: South Western College Publishing.
Aldrich, H., and Zimmer, C. (1986). Entrepreneurship through social networks. In D.
Sexton & R. Smiler (eds.), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship,: 3-23. New
York: Ballinger.
Aldrich, H. E., Jones, T. P., and McEvoy, D. (1984). Ethnic advantage and minority
business development. In R. Ward, & R. Jenkins (Eds.), Ethnic communities in
business: Strategies for economic survival. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Akeredolu-Ale, E. O. (1974). Reflections on business and society in Nigeria. Paper
presented to the University of Ife, Department of Sociology Staff Seminar.
University of Ife, November 26, 1974.
Akeredolu-Ale, E. O. (1975). The underdevelopment of indigenous entrepreneurship in
Nigeria. Ibadan, Nigeria: Ibadan University Press.
Amit, R., Glosten, L. and Muller, E. (1993). Challenges to theory development in
entrepreneurship research. Journal of Management Studies, 30(5), 815-833.
Amit, R. K., MacCrimmon, R., Zietsma, C., and Oesch, J. M. (2001). ‘Does money
matter? Wealth attainment as the motive for initiating growth-oriented ventures’.
Journal of Business Venturing 16: 119-143.
Arabsheibani, G, de Meza, Maloney, D. J., and Pearson, B. (2000). And a vision
appeared unto them of a great profit: evidence of self-deception among the selfemployed. Economics Letters, 67: 35-41.
174
.
175
Baskerville, R. F. 2003. "Hofstede never studied culture." Accounting, Organizations and
Society 28(1):1-14.
Barth, F. (1963). The Role of the Entrepreneur and Social Change in Northern Norway,
Bergen: Norwegian Universities Press.
Barth, F. (1969). Introduction. In F. Barth (Ed.), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The
Social Organization of Culture Difference, pp. 9-38. Boston: Little, Brown and
Company.
Begley, T. M., Tan, W., Larasati, A. B., Rab, A., Zamora, E. and Nanayakkara, G.
(1997). The relationship between socio–cultural dimensions and interest in starting
a business: a multi–country study. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research.
Bernardo, A., and Welch, I. (2001). ‘On the evolution of overconfidence of
entrepreneurs’. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 10: 301-330.
176
Blanchflower, D. G, and Oswald, A. J. (1998). ‘What makes a entrepreneur’. Journal of
Labour Economics, 16: 26-60.
Blanchflower, D. G., (2000). Self-employment in OECD countries. Labour Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 7(5), pages 471-505, September.
Blanchflower, D. G, Oswald, A. J., and Stutzer, A. (2001). ‘Latent Entrepreneurship
Across Nations’. European Economic Review, 45: 680-691.
Blau, P. M. (1977). A macrosociological theory of social structure. American Journal of
Sociology, 83(1): 26-54.
Brenner, R. (1987). National policy and entrepreneurship: The statesman's dilemma.
Journal of Business Venturing 2 (2), 95-101.
Brockhaus, R. (1980). Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Academy of Management
Journal 23(3): 509-520
Brockhaus, R. H. and Horwitz, P. S. (1986). The psychology of the entrepreneur. In D.L.
Sexton and R. W. Smilor (eds.), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship,
pp. 25–48. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Brockhaus, R. and Dixon, B. (1986). The level of job satisfaction that New Zealand
entrepreneurs had with their previous jobs. In Ronstadt, Hornaway, Peterson &
Vesper, (eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 1986. Wellesley MA:
Babson College
Busenitz, L.W. and Lau, C-M. (1996). A cross-cultural cognitive model of new venture
creation. Entrepreneurship,Theory and Practice. Summer: 25-39.
Butler, J. S. and Herring, C. (1991). Ethnicity and entrepreneurship in America: toward
an explanation of racial and ethnic group variations in self-employment.
Sociological Perspectives 34(1): 79-94.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Cantillon, R. (1755). Essai Sur La Nature Du Commerce En General, London and Paris:
Fetcher Gyles; Edited and translated by Henry Higgs (1931). London: MacMillan
Carland, J., Hoy, F., Boulton, W., and Carland, J. C., (1984) Differentiating
Entrepreneurs from Small Business Owners: A Conceptualization. Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 9, No. 2.
177
Carsrud, A. L., K. W. Olm, and G. G. Eddy. (1986). Entrepreneurship: research in quest
of a paradigm. In D. L. Sexton and R. W. Smilor, Eds., The Art and Science of
Entrepreneurship. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 367-3
Central Bank of Nigeria. (2003). Annual reports and statement of accounts. Lagos: CBN:
35.
Chulwumaeze, O. O. and Imanyi, G. U. (1992). The relationship between entrepreneurs’
values and entrepreneurs’ success. Centre for Management Development, Lagos,
Nigeria.
Cole, A. H. (1946). An approach to the study of entrepreneurship: a tribute to Edwin F.
Gay. The Tasks of Economic History (Supplement VI of the Journal of Economic
History) 1-15.
Collins, O., Moore, D. G., and Unwalla, D. B. (1964). Enterprising man. East Lansing:
Michigan State University.
Cooper, A. C. (1971). Spin-offs and technical entrepreneurship. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management EM 18(1): 2-6
Cooper, A. C., Folta, T. B., and Woo, C. (1995). Entrepreneurial information search.
Journal of Business Venturing, 10(2): 107-120.
Cooper, A., Woo C., and Dunkelberg, W. (1988). ‘Entrepreneurs' perceived chances for
success’. Journal of Business Venturing, 3: 97-108.
Covin, J. G., and Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm
behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1): 7–24.
Cunningham, B and Lischeron, J. (1991). Defining entrepreneurship. Journal of Small
Business Management. 29 (1): 4578.
Dana,
L. P. (1995). Entrepreneurship in a remote
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 20(1) 57-72
sub-Arctic
community.
Danhof, C. H. (1949). Observation of entrepreneurship in agriculture. In Change and the
Entrepreneur, Harvard University Research Center in Entrepreneurial, Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Davidsson, P. and Wilkund, J. (1997). Values, beliefs and regional variations in new firm
formation rates. Journal of Economic Psychology 18: 179-199.
Etuk, E. J. (1985). The Nigerian business environment. London: Macmillan Publishers.
Federal Office of Statistics. (2001). Annual Abstract of Statistics. Lagos: Federal Office
Statistics: 345.
178
Folsom, B. (2003). Urban Capitalists: Entrepreneurs and City Growth in Pennsylvania’s
Lakawanna and Lehigh Regions, 1800–1920. Scranton, Penn.: University of
Scranton Press.
Frese, M (ed.) (2000). Success and Failure of Micro Business Owners in Africa: A
Psychological Approach. Westport, CT: Quorum Books
Fukuyama, F. (1995). The Great Disruption: Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation
of Prosperity, New York: The Free Press.
Gabbay, S. M., and Leenders, R. Th.A.J. (1999). CSC: The structure of advantage and
disadvantage. In R. Th.A.J. Leenders and S. M. Gabbay, (eds.), Corporate Social
Capital and Liability: 1-14. Boston: Kluwer Academic Press.
Gadgil, D. R. (1954). Origins of the modern Indian business class. New York: Institute of
Pacific Relations.
Geertz, C. (1963). Peddlars and Princes: Social Development and Economic Change in
Two Indonesian Towns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Culture: Selected Essays. New York: Basic
Books.
Giannetti, M., and Simonov, A. (2003). ‘Does prestige matter more than profits?
evidence from entrepreneurial choice’. Working paper. Stockholm: Stockholm
School of Economics.
Girard, D. (1962). The New Casselli’s French Dictionary. New York: Funk and
Wagnalls.
Goldman, H. (1969). Differential need patterns: implications for principals. The School
Review, Vol. 77, No. 3/4. pp. 266-275
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6):
1360-1380.
Greenfield, S. M. and Strickon, A. (1981). A New Paradigm for the Study of
Entrepreneurs and Social Change. Economic Development and Cultural Change
29 (3), 467-500.
Hamilton, B. H. (2000). ‘Does entrepreneurship pay? An Empirical Analysis of the
Returns to Self-Employment’. Journal of Political Economy, 108: 604-631.
Hagen, E. E. (1962). On the Theory of Social Change: How Economic Growth Begins.
Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
179
Hansen, E. L. (1995). Entrepreneurial network and new organization growth.
Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 19(4): 7-19.
Haralambos, M. Holborn, M and Heald, R. (2000) Sociology: Themes and Perspectives,
5th Ed. London: HarperCollins Publishers Limited.
Harper, M. (1991). The role of enterprise in poor countries. Entrepreneurship, Theory
and Practice, 15 (4): 7-11.
Hartman, H. (1959). Managers and entrepreneurs: a useful distinction? Administrative
Science Quarterly, 3, 429-457.
Hayton, J. C., George, G., and Zahra, S. A. (2002). National culture and
entrepreneurship: a review of behavioural research. Entrepreneurship,Theory and
Practice, 26(4), 33-52.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences - International Differences in Work-related
Values. London: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London:
McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G (2001). Cultures Consequences, 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Hornaday, J. and Tieken, N. (1983). Capturing twenty-one heffalumps. In Hornaway,
Timmons and Vesper, Eds. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley
MA: Babson College.
Hundley, G. (2001). Why and when are the self-Employed more satisfied with their
work? Industrial Relations 40(2), 293-316.
Inglehart, R. (2000) Culture and democracy. In L. E. Harrison, and S. P. Huntington
(Eds). Culture Matters, Basic Books pp.80-97.
Jenkins, R. (1984). Ethnicity and the rise of capitalism in ulster. In R. Ward, & R. Jenkins
(Eds.), Ethnic Communities in Business: Strategies for Economic Survival.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johannisson, B. (1988). Business formation: A network approach. Scandinavian Journal
of Management, 4(3-4): 83- 99.
Kao, R. W. Y. (1989). Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development. Toronto: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston Limited.
Kasdan, L. (1965). Family structure, migration and the entrepreneur. Comparative
Studies in Society and History, 7, 345-357.
180
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1977), The entrepreneurial personality: A person at the
crossroads, The Journal of Management Studies 14 (1), 34-57.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1985). The dark side of entrepreneurship. Harvard Business
Review 63 (6), 160-167.
Kilby, P. (Ed), (1971). Entrepreneurship and Economic Development. New York: Free
Press.
Kilby, P. (1971). Hunting the heffalump. In P. Kilby, (Ed). Entrepreneurship and
Economic Development. New York: Free Press.
Kirzner, I. M. (1983). Entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial function: a commentary. In
J. Ronen, (Ed). Entrepreneurship. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, D. C. Heath.
Knight, F. [1921). Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kolvereid, L. and Obloj, K. (1994). Entrepreneurship in emerging versus mature
economies: An exploratory survey. International Small Business Journal, 12,
14–27.
Kong, W. W. W., Soon, J. F. K., and Hwa, L. C. (1991). Transnational investments in
Johor: Opportunities and strategies for Singaporean entrepreneurs. In J. C. Oliga
and T.B. Kim, Proceedings of the ENDEC World Conference on Entrepreneurship
and Innovative Change, Nanyang Technological University-Peat Marwick
Entrepreneurship Development Centre, Singapore
Kuratko, DF, JS Homsby and DW Naffziger (1997). An examination of owner's goals in
sustaining entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 35(1), 24-33.
Kroeber, A. and F. Kluckhohn. (1952). Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and
Definitions. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum.
Lachman, R. (1980). Toward measurement of entrepreneurial tendencies. Management
International Review, 20(2), 108-116.
Ladbury, S. (1984). Choice, chance or no alternative? Turkish Cypriots in business in
London. In R. Ward and R. Jenkins (Eds.), Ethnic communities in business:
Strategies for economic survival. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Land, K. C. (1969). Path Analysis, Causal Inferences, and the Measurement of Change
Sociological Methodology, Vol. 1. (1969), pp. 3-37.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00811750%281969%291%3C3%3APOPA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3
Lasry, J. C. (1982). Une diaspora francophone au Quebec: les Juifs sepharades, Questions
de culture, vol. 2, pp. 113-138. Quebec, PQ: Institut de Recherche sur la Culture.
181
, E.
.
182
P
P
183
Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1): 28-51.
Litzinger, W. D. (1965). The motel entrepreneur and the motel manager. Academy of
Management Journal, 8, 268-281.
Longenecker, J. G, Moore, C. W and Petty, J. W. (1997). Small Business Management:
An Entrepreneurial Emphasis. Cincinnati: South Western College Publishing.
Loucks, K. E. (1981) A Survey of research on small business management and
entrepreneurship in Canada. In Vesper, K. (Ed). Frontiers of Entrepreneurship
Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College, 111-129.
184
Lumpkin, G. and Dess, G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and
linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135-172.
Luthans, F, Stajkovic, A. D. and Ibrayeva, E. (2000). Environmental and psychological
challenges facing entrepreneurial development in transitional economies. Journal
of World Business, 35(1), 95-110.
Macionis, J. J. (2001) Sociology, 8th Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Marino, L, Strandholm, K. H., Steensma, H. K. and Weaver, M. K. (2002). The
moderating effect of national culture on the relationship between entrepreneurial
orientation and strategic alliance portfolio extensiveness. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, Summer, 145-160.
Martin, B. (1990). Uprooting War. London: Freedom Press
McClelland, D. (1961). The Achieving Society. New Jersey: Van Nostrand
McGrath, R.G., Macmillan, I.C., Yang, E.A., and Tsai, W. (1992). Does culture endure,
or is it malleable? Issues for entrepreneurial economic development. Journal of
Business Venturing, 7: 441-458.
Mill, J. S. (1848). Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to
Social Philosophy. London: J. W. Parker.
Miller, D. (1983). ‘The Correlates of Entrepreneurship in three types of firms’.
Management Science, 29: 770-791.
Minniti, M and WD Bygrave (2003). National Entrepreneurship Assessment United
States of America, GEM Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Babson College
Min, P. G. (1984). From white-collar occupation to small business: Korean immigrants'
occupational adjustment. Sociological Quarterly 25 (3), 333-352.
Mitchell, R. K.; Smith, B., Seawright, K. W., and Morse, E. A. (2000). Cross-cultural
cognitions and venture creation. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 974-993.
Morris, M. H. and Lewis, P. S. (1991). Entrepreneurship as a significant factor in social
quality of life. Journal of Business Research, 23(1):21-36.
Morrison, A. (1998), Entrepreneurship and culture specificity, internationalizing
entrepreneurship education and training, IntEnt 98; http://intent.ml.org
Mueller, S. L. and Thomas, A. S. (2000). A case for comparative entrepreneurship:
assessing the relevance of culture. Journal of International Business Studies. 31(2):
287.
185
Ntseane, P. (2004).Being a female entrepreneur in Botswana: cultures, values, strategies
for success. Gender and Development, Volume 12, Number 2, pp. 37-43.
Noorderhaven, N., Thurik, R., Wennekers, S., and Van Stel, A. (2004). The role of
dissatisfaction and per capital income in explaining self-employment across 15
European countries. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(1) 447-466.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Oxenfeldt, A. R. (1943). New firms and free enterprise: Pre-war and post-war Aspects.
Washington, DC: American Council on Public Affairs.
Palich, L. E., and Bagby, D. R. (1995). ‘Using cognitive theory to explain
entrepreneurial risk taking: Challenging conventional wisdom’. Journal of Business
Venturing, 10:425-438.
Palmer, M. (1971). The application of psychological testing to entrepreneurial potential.
California Management Review, 13(3), 32-39.
Pistnii, D, W, Huang, D, Oksoy, J., Zhao and Welsch, H. (1999). The characteristics and
attributes of new Chinese entrepreneurs and their emerging enterprises. Business
Forum, 24(3-4), 31-39
Portes, A. (1999). Social capital: Its origins and the application in modern sociology.
AnnualReview of Sociology, 24: 1-24.
Portes, A., and Zhou, M. (1996). Self employment and the earnings of immigrants.
American Sociological Review, 61(2): 219-30.
Portes, A., and Zhou, M. (1999). Entrepreneurship and economic progress in the 1990s:
A comparative analysis of immigrants and African Americans. In F. D. Bean and S.
Bell-Rose (eds.) Immigration and Opportunity: Race, Ethnicity, and Employment
in the United States: 143-171. New York: Russell Sage Foundation..
Ramachandran, V and Shah, M. J. (1999). Minority entrepreneurs and private sector
growth in Sub-Saharan Africa. Discussion Paper No. 086, The World Bank.
Ray, D. M. and Turpin, D. (1987). Factors influencing entrepreneurial events in Japanese
high technology venture business. In N. Churchill, J. Hornaday and B. Kirchhoff,
Ray, D. M. (1994). The role of risk taking in Singapore. Journal of Business Venturing,
9, 157–177.
Reckwitz, A. (2000). The status of mind in culturalist explanations of action. Zeitschriftfur Soziologie 29:167-185.
186
Redding, S. G. (1980). Cognition as an aspect of culture and its relation to management
processes: An exploratory view of the Chinese case. Journal of Management
Studies 17(2): 127-147.
Redding, S. G. (1990). The spirit of Chinese capitalism. New York: Walter de Gruyter
Reynolds, P.D. (1987). New firm's societal contribution versus survival potential. Journal
of Business Venturing 2: 231-246.
Robichaud, Y., McGraw, E. and Roger, A. (2001). Toward the development of a
measuring instrument for entrepreneurial motivation. Journal of Developmental
Entrepreneurship, 6(2), 189-202.
187
188
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectations for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs 80, 609.
Roscoe, J. (1973). Can entrepreneurship be taught? MBA magazine (June-July).
Sarasvathy, D. K., Simon, H. A., and Lave, L. (1998). ‘Perceiving and managing
business risks: differences between entrepreneurs and bankers’. Journal of
Economic Behavior and Organization, 33: 207-226.
Say, J. A. (1816). A Treatise on Political Economy. London: Sherwood, Neeley and
Jones.
Sayigh, Y. A. (1952). Entrepreneurs of Lebanon. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Scase, R., and Goffee, R. (1980). The Real World of the Small Business Owner. London:
Croom Helm.
Schollhammer, H. (1980). Analysis and assessment of internal corporate
entrepreneurship strategies. Los Angeles: U.C.L.A. Graduate School of
Management.
Schatzki, T. and W. Natter. (1996). Sociocultural bodies, bodies sociopolitical. In T.
Schatzki and W. Natter, Eds. The Social and Political Body. New York: Guildford,
1-25.
Scheinberg, S. and MacMillan, I. (1988). An eleven country study of the motivations to
start a business. In Kirchhoff, Long, MacMullan, Vesper and Wetzel, eds.,
Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 1988. Wellesley MA: Babson College
Schultheiss, O. C. (2001). Assessment of Implicit Motives with a Research Version of the
TAT: Picture Profiles, Gender Differences, and Relations to Other Personality
Measures. Journal of Personality Assessment 77(1): 71-86.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
189
Scott, J. (1991).Social Network Analysis: A Handbook. London: Sage Publications.
Sexton, D. L. and. Smilor, R. W. Eds. (1985). The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship.
Cambridge, MA: Ballinger
Shane, S., Kolvereid, L., and Westhead, P. (1991). An exploratory examination of the
reasons leading to new firm formation across country and gender. Journal of
Business Venturing, 6, 431–446.
Shane S. (1994). Cultural values and the championing process. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 18: 25-41.
Shapero, A. C. (1975). The displaced, uncomfortable entrepreneur. Psychology Today,
83-88.
Shapero, A. C. (1981). Self-renewing economies. Economic Development Commentary, 5
(April), 19-22.
Shapero, A. C. and Sokol, L., (1982). The Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship, in C.
Kent, D. Sexton, and K. H. Vesper (eds.) The Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 72-90.
Siropolis, N. C. (1977). Small business management. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Smith, N.R. (1967). The entrepreneur and his firm: The relationship between type of man
and type of company. Bureau of Business and Economics Research, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan.
Stevenson, H., Roberts, M. J. & Grousbeck, I. (1989). New Business Ventures and the
Entrepreneur. Homewood: III Publishing.
Swierczek, F and Ha, T. T. (2003). Motivation, entrepreneurship and the performance of
SMEs in Vietnam. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 11(1), 47-68.
Thornton, P. H. (1999). The sociology of entrepreneurship. Annual Review of Sociology,
19.
Timmons, J. A. (1978). Characteristics and role demands of entrepreneurship. American
Journal of Small Business 3 (1), 5-17.
UNDP (2003) Nigeria Country Programme (2003-2007.
Weber, M. (1904). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York:
Routledge.
190
Wong, S. L. (1992). Business networks, cultural values and the state in Hong Kong and
Singapore. Paper presented at the meeting of the Third Soka University Pacific
Basin Symposium, Singapore.
Wortman, M. S. (1985). A unified framework, research typologies, and research
prospectuses for the interface between entrepreneurship and small business. In
D.L.Sexton and R.W. Smilor, Eds. The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship.
Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Yinger, J. M. (1985). Ethnicity. Annual Review of Sociology. 11:151-80.
Young, F. W. (1971). A Macrosociological Interpretation of Entrepreneurship. In P.
Kilby (Ed.), Entrepreneurship and Economic Development, pp. 139-150. New
York: The Free Press.
191
APPENDIX I
QUESTIONNAIRE SCHEDULE
Department of Sociology
Covenant University
P. M. B. 1023, Ota
Ogun State
Entrepreneurial Event Formation Questionnaire (EEFQ)
I am from Covenant University, Ota. I am currently researching into “socio-cultural
factors in entrepreneurial event formation: a study of Nigerian entrepreneurs.”
I will be grateful if the questions in this questionnaire are answered correctly, as absolute
confidentiality is assured.
Thank you.
Oluremi Abimbola
Part 1: Respondent’s Demographic and Background Information
1. Which of the following associations do you belong to?
Nigerian Association of Chambers of Commerce, Industry, mines and Agriculture
(NACCIMA) ------------------------National Association of Small and Medium Scale Enterprises (NASME) --------------National Association of Small Scale Industrialists (NASSI) --------------Other ( ) {Please specify -------------------}
2. What is your ethnic group of origin? _______________________
192
3. What was your age on your last birthday? --------------------
4. What is your level of education?
No formal education ( )
Primary ( )
Secondary ( )
Tertiary ( )
Other ( ) {Please specify ------------------------}
5. What is your marital status?
Married ( )
Single ( )
Divorced ( )
Separated ( )
Widowed ( )
6. What is your gender?
Male ( )
Female (
)
7. Which sector of entrepreneurial event are you involved in? (You may tick as many as
apply to you).
Agriculture (
Mining (
)
)
Manufacturing (
)
Construction ( )
Services (
)
8. How many employees do you currently engage? ----------------------------------
193
9. What is your father’s occupation? ------------------------------10. What is your religion?
Christianity ( )
Islam ( )
Indigenous religion ( )
Other ( ) {Please specify -----------------}
Part 2: To what extent were the following reasons important to you when you
started your current business? Tick as appropriate.
Section 1: Social Capital and Entrepreneurial Event Formation
1
To no
2
3
To
To
To
To
some
great
very
extent little
4
5
extent extent extent great
extent
11 I wanted to continue a family tradition
12 I was supported by one or both parents
13 My parents influenced me in the choice
of entrepreneurial path
14 I was encouraged by the achievement
of one or both parents in
entrepreneurial field
15 I was influenced by a friend
16 I was influenced by my spouse
17 Entrepreneurship was a common
practice among the people of my ethnic
origin
18 I was influenced by the teaching of my
religion
194
19 I was influenced by my religious leader
Section 2: Dissatisfaction/displacement Experience and Entrepreneurial Event
Formation
1
2
3
4
To no
To
extent little
5
To
To
To
some
great
very
extent extent extent great
extent
20
11. I experienced dissatisfaction with paid
job
21 I was fired from paid job
22 I retired from paid job
23 I faced discrimination in my former
place of work
24 I could not get job
25 I got tired of being bossed around
Section 3: Social Status and Entrepreneurial Event Formation
1
2
3
4
5
To no
To little
To some
To great
To very
extent
extent
extent
extent
great
extent
12. Running your own firm
26
gives you high social
status
13. People look up to those
27
who run their own firms
195
28 Starting business
generates
a lot of respect
29 I wanted to achieve a
higher position for myself
in society
30 I wanted to earn prestige
Section 4: Perceived Instrumentality of Wealth and Entrepreneurial Event Formation
1
To no
2
3
To
To
To
To
some
great
very
extent little
4
5
extent extent extent great
extent
31 My salary in my former place of work
was too meagre
32 Entrepreneurship is a means to wealth
33
24. I desired to have high earnings
34
25. I wanted to give myself and family
economic security
35
26. To contribute to the welfare of my
relatives
36 I wanted respect from members of
society
37
27. I wanted to have more influence in
society
38
28. To impact positively on my society
196
APPENDIX II
Department of Sociology
College of Human Development
Covenant University
P.M.B.1023, Ota, Ogun State
30 May 2006.
The Director General
NACCIMA
15A Ikorodu Road
Maryland Bye-Pass
P. M. B. 12816
Lagos, Nigeria.
Dear Sir,
LETTER OF REQUEST
I wish to request for your assistance toward my study of entrepreneurs in Nigeria for my
Ph.D programme. The study is titled “socio-cultural factors in entrepreneurial event
formation: a study of Nigerian entrepreneurs.”
It is difficult defining the sample frame and getting accurate list of entrepreneurs in
Nigeria and for the work to be credible, it must not rely on haphazard selection of sample.
Sir, it is in this light that I will like you to help me with list of members for inclusion in
the sample and other forms of assistance that will see to a successful effort at placing the
study of entrepreneurship in Nigeria in socio-cultural context.
Thank you sir,
197
Yours faithfully,
Oluremi Hezekiah Abimbola
Department of Sociology
College of Human Development
Covenant University
P.M.B.1023, Ota, Ogun State
30 May 2006.
The Secretary
Nigerian Association of Small Medium Enterprises
5, Laide Tomori Street, Ikeja
Lagos, Nigeria.
Dear Sir,
LETTER OF REQUEST
I wish to request for your assistance toward my study of entrepreneurs in Nigeria for my
Ph.D programme. The study is titled “socio-cultural factors in entrepreneurial event
formation: a study of Nigerian entrepreneurs.”
It is difficult defining the sample frame and getting accurate list of entrepreneurs in
Nigeria and for the work to be credible, it must not rely on haphazard selection of sample.
Sir, it is in this light that I will like you to help me with list of members for inclusion in
the sample and other forms of assistance that will see to a successful effort at placing the
study of entrepreneurship in Nigeria in socio-cultural context.
Thank you sir,
Yours faithfully,
Oluremi Hezekiah Abimbola
198
Department of Sociology
College of Human Development
Covenant University
P.M.B.1023, Ota, Ogun State
30 May 2006.
The Secretary
Nigerian Association of Small Scale Industrialists
Lagos State Small Scale Industrial Estate
Fatai Atere Way, Matori, Mushin
Lagos, Nigeria.
Dear Sir,
LETTER OF REQUEST
I wish to request for your assistance toward my study of entrepreneurs in Nigeria for my
Ph.D programme. The study is titled “socio-cultural factors in entrepreneurial event
formation: a study of Nigerian entrepreneurs.”
It is difficult defining the sample frame and getting accurate list of entrepreneurs in
Nigeria and for the work to be credible, it must not rely on haphazard selection of sample.
Sir, it is in this light that I will like you to help me with list of members for inclusion in
the sample and other forms of assistance that will see to a successful effort at placing the
study of entrepreneurship in Nigeria in socio-cultural context.
Thank you sir,
Yours faithfully,
Oluremi Hezekiah Abimbola
199
200