Document [original]

Towards Successful Entrepreneurial Outcomes Amidst Extreme

Fragility:

A Human Capital Perspective

vorgelegt von

M. Sc.

Lubna Rashid

ORCID: 0000-0003-3673-1019

von der Fakultät VII – Wirtschaft und Management

der Technischen Universität Berlin

und der

Technisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Universität Norwegens (NTNU) in

Trondheim, Norwegen

(im Rahmen des Doppel-Promotionsabkommens)

zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades

Doktorin der Wirtschaftswissenschaften

– Dr. rer. oec. –

genehmigte Dissertation

Promotionsausschuss:

Vorsitzender: Prof. Dr. Dodo zu Knyphausen-Aufseß (TU Berlin)

Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Jan Kratzer (TU Berlin)

Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Øystein Widding (NTNU)

Tag der wissenschaftlichen Aussprache: 27. Mai 2020

an der Technischen Universität Berlin

Berlin 2020

Towards Successful

Entrepreneurial

Outcomes Amidst

Extreme Fragility

A Human Capital Perspective

Doctoral Thesis

Lubna Rashid

Technical University of Berlin (TUB)

Faculty of Economics and Management

Chair of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management

In collaboration with the School of Entrepreneurship at the Norwegian

University of Science and Technology (NTNU)

First Supervisor and Reviewer: Prof. Dr. Jan Kratzer (TUB)

Second Supervisor and Reviewer: Prof. Dr. Øystein Widding (NTNU)

Chair of Doctoral Committee: Prof. Dr. Dodo zu Knyphausen-Aufseß

Berlin, 2020

To Lamyaa Alazzawi and Mustafa Rashid.

Thanks for the infinite love, endless disagreements and little victories. You

nurture me.

To Greg Gibson, Zaidoun Alzoubi and Jan Kratzer.

Thanks for taking a chance on me. You humble me.

To Clemens Möckel.

Thanks for being a beacon of joy, hope and acceptance. You inspire me.

Executive Summary

Purpose

With an alarmingly high percentage of the human population living in countries impacted by

violent conflict and social, environmental and economic fragility exacerbated by major global

challenges, entrepreneurship is considered key to sustainable development and human

prosperity. Entrepreneurs operating in fragile contexts contribute to peace building, poverty

reduction and the advancement of institutional structures. However, little is known about

who those entrepreneurs are and what makes them thrive amidst and despite fragility. This

thesis aims to understand the human capital assets of fragile-country entrepreneurs that

enable their success at various stages of the entrepreneurial process as well as the status quo

of human capital investment efforts pertaining to entrepreneurship and their contribution to

sustainable outcomes in fragile contexts.

Literature Analysis

Entrepreneurship research has been criticized for lacking focus on diversity and the shortage

of scholarly works combining theoretical rigor with social relevance. Research on

entrepreneurship outside of stable economies is quite limited with existing literature lacking

empirical and theoretical robustness. As a result, much remains unknown about the

characteristics and success enablers of fragile-country entrepreneurs. For instance, studies on

the drivers behind individuals’ decision to found new companies largely classify fragile-

country entrepreneurship motivation into a necessity/opportunity dichotomy, thereby

ignoring the complex interplay of personal and environmental factors that feed into this

decision. As for studies during early business start-up and growth stages, they primarily view

entrepreneurial success in terms of economic gain rather than human capital assets and

outcomes. Accordingly, little is known about the entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors

of fragile-country entrepreneurs or personality predictors of their success. At later stages

along the entrepreneurial path, the constructs of entrepreneurial orientation and global

mindset, although frequently assessed in studies of entrepreneurial internationalization, have

been little analyzed with respect to the globalization of fragile-county startups. In response to

those gaps in entrepreneurship literature, the first three papers in this thesis specifically

address human capital assets pertaining to the motivation, personality, behavior, orientation

and mindset needed for entrepreneurial success in the pre-startup, initiation and early growth

and internationalization stages respectively. This is complimented by an analysis of

entrepreneurship education and training’s contribution to sustainable development in fragile

contexts, in recognition of education’s role as prime investment in human capital.

Research Design

Human capital assets, specifically drivers behind entrepreneurship motivation in the pre-

startup stage (paper 1), personality characteristics and entrepreneurial and managerial

behaviors in the initiation and early growth stage (paper 2) and entrepreneurship orientation

and global mindset in the startup internationalization stage (paper 3), are analyzed

quantitatively through the use of questionnaires. Quantitative approaches have been chosen

to complement existing qualitative findings and are preferred due to their use of

standardized, validated scales and large sample sizes that allow for the generalization and

replication of findings. The first paper concerns Syrian entrepreneurs and employs an

exploratory factor analysis to identify key motivational factors behind their decision to pursue

entrepreneurship, then proceeds to comparatively assess differences in entrepreneurship

motivation between Syrian entrepreneurs in Damascus and Berlin using MANCOVA and

non-parametric methods. The second paper employs linear regression to analyze the

personality-behavior relationship in a sample of sub Saharan African entrepreneurs across 22

countries while moderating for country fragility, while a student t-test was used to confirm

behavioral differences between highly successful and less successful entrepreneurs. The third

paper compares various facets of entrepreneurial orientation and global mindset between

Pakistani and German entrepreneurs using MANOVA and non-parametric methods. Finally,

a systematic literature review guided the analysis of entrepreneurship education and training

programs’ contribution to sustainable development, zooming in on the role they play and

challenges they face in fragile contexts.

Results

The first study identified self-realization and the perceptions of institutional support, cultural

influence and the economic milieu as key aspects of Syrians’ entrepreneurship motivation

with no notable differences between local entrepreneurs in Damascus and newcomers in

Berlin. As for the second study, positive relationships have been confirmed between

managerial and entrepreneurial behaviors and entrepreneurial success. Additionally,

agreeableness and conscientiousness have been identified as the strongest personality

predictors of entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors among sub Saharan African

entrepreneurs, partially moderated by country fragility. The third study reveals that Pakistani

entrepreneurs have lower risk-taking tendencies, international cognition and international

knowledge compared with German ones yet higher levels of international behavior. The final

study uncovers shortcomings of current entrepreneurship education and training initiatives

in their contribution to positive social and environmental outcomes.

Implications

This thesis extends multiple theories to fragile contexts (e.g. the eclectic theory of

entrepreneurship, the trait activation theory and the mindset theory) while combining

primary, micro-level data with country-level comparisons. The first study reveals motivations

beyond necessity and opportunity, combining individual and environmental perspectives.

The second study challenges existing literature by uncovering agreeableness, rather that

extraversion, as key predictor of desired behaviors alongside conscientiousness, providing

evidence for the conditional expression of personality depending on context. The third study

contributes to the growing literature stream of comparative entrepreneurial

internationalization and affirms differences in internationalization tendencies between

entrepreneurs in stable and fragile economies. Combined with the identification of several

gaps in the entrepreneurship education and training literature with respect to fragile context

development, those findings set the stage for future explanatory analyses. On a practical level,

this research provides tools to assess the success of investments in entrepreneurship from a

human capital perspective while supporting the customization of educational and financial

support programs based on context-relevant knowledge. For instance, it may be wise to

financially invest in entrepreneurs with higher levels of intrinsic motivation, agreeableness,

conscientiousness as well as entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors while supporting

entrepreneurs who lack those assets to develop them through education and training.

Practitioners are also encouraged to invest in socially underrepresented groups, outside of

university settings and using experiential and technology-powered educational approaches.

Preface

Being born in a country marred by conflict and raised in a neighbouring one where violence,

protests and death tolls are the daily norm on national television newscasts, I was initially

relieved to get out of it all and find refuge in a western world power. I managed to freeze my

anger and exasperation with the unfairness in the world for a few years while pursuing higher

education and building a corporate career for myself. Those were good years; ignorance is

bliss indeed.

Ultimately, the ice melted. And it melted waterfalls. I abandoned my fancy comfortable life in

an attempt to contribute to reducing the suffering of those who were not as privileged as I

was. Rather than feeling worthy of a pat on the shoulder, however, I mostly felt frustrated

and helpless. There was (and still is) too much to change. Coming face to face again with so

much unfairness was simply too overwhelming. What shattered me the most was the degree

of inefficiency and corruption I observed in humanitarian aid systems, which made my naïve

dreams of changing the world seem even more farfetched. I would dare say that most of these

systems are even designed to keep the poor poor and drive struggling regions into eternal

dependencies on those systems. There are exceptions, of course. There had to be longer term

solutions. I just needed to find them.

At the time I met Jan Kratzer in Berlin for the first time, emotionally and physically exhausted

after having just finished a volunteer journey along the Balkan route in support of refugees

during the cold fall of 2015, I was oblivious to the fact that this meeting would forever change

the trajectory of my life. It opened my eyes to the possibility of being a true contributor to

making the world a bit less gloomy for future generations. Instead of mourning the dearth of

sustainable solutions to world betterment, I would get the chance to research and uncover

some of those solutions myself. I would be a catalyst to the generation of needed knowledge

with direct applications to the reduction of suffering. I couldn’t have asked for more.

One year later, I embarked on this inspiring journey to research entrepreneurship’s role in

advancing regions like the one I came from. I am still far away from calling myself an idealist

or optimist. I can, however, safely call myself a scientist; and if science has no potential to save

the world, I don’t know what does…

 
 
Table of Contents 
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ 6 
Preface ................................................................................................................................................. 10 
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................. 12 
I.  Overviews ................................................................................................................................... 16 
I.I.  Figures ................................................................................................................................. 16 
I.II.  Tables .................................................................................................................................. 17 
II.  Key Concepts and Definitions............................................................................................ 20 
PART ONE: BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................ 26 
1.  Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 28 
1.1.  Entrepreneurship in Fragile Contexts: The What and the Why ............................... 28 
1.2.  The Goal: Research Questions ........................................................................................ 30 
1.3.  A Few Steps Back: A Background Framed within the Human Capital Theory .... 34 
1.3.1. Before Starting up: Motivation as an Asset .......................................... 39 
1.3.2. During Initiation and Early Growth: Personality and Behavior as Assets ... 43 
1.3.3. During Expansion: Orientation and Mindset as Assets ........................... 45 
1.3.4. Through it all: Education and Training as an Investment ........................ 47 
1.4.  The How: Research Process and Methods .................................................................... 49 
1.5.  References ........................................................................................................................... 54 
PART TWO: A HUMAN CAPITAL ASSET ANALYSIS  IN THE  PRE-STARTUP    
STAGE................................................................................................................................................. 76 
2.  An Eclectic Analysis of Entrepreneurship Motivation in Conflict and Refuge: The 
Syrian Context ................................................................................................................................... 78 
2.1.  Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 79 
2.2.  Entrepreneurship, Development and Humanitarian Crises ..................................... 79 
2.3.  Motivation Behind Entrepreneurship ........................................................................... 83 
2.4.  Theoretical Framework .................................................................................................... 85 
2.5.  Methods and Findings ..................................................................................................... 87 
2.5.1. Systematic Literature Review ............................................................ 89 
2.5.2. Questionnaire Design ...................................................................... 90 
2.5.3. Data Collection .............................................................................. 91 

 
 
5.4. Descriptive Statistics ....................................................................... 92 
5.5. Questionnaire Validation ................................................................. 92 
5.6. Factor Extraction ............................................................................. 94 
5.7. Comparative Analysis ..................................................................... 98 
6.  Discussion and Conclusions ......................................................................................... 101 
7.  Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 105 
8.  References ......................................................................................................................... 107 
PART THREE: A HUMAN CAPITAL ASSET ANALYSIS DURING STARUP 
INITIATION AND EARLY GROWTH ...................................................................................... 115 
 Founder Personalities, Behaviors and New Venture Success in Sub Saharan        
Africa ................................................................................................................................................. 117 
1.  Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 119 
2.  Theory and Hypotheses ................................................................................................. 120 
2.1. Entrepreneurial Success from a Behavioral Lens .................................. 120 
2.2. Personality and Behavior in Entrepreneurship .................................... 122 
2.3. Context and Trait Activation ............................................................ 125 
3.  Data and Methods ........................................................................................................... 127 
3.1. Variables ..................................................................................... 127 
3.2. Data Collection ............................................................................. 129 
3.3. Validity and Reliability Tests .......................................................... 129 
3.4. Hypothesis Testing ........................................................................ 130 
4.  Findings ............................................................................................................................ 130 
4.1. Descriptive Statistics ...................................................................... 130 
4.2. Hypothesis Testing ........................................................................ 134 
5.  Discussion and Implications ........................................................................................ 138 
6.  Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 141 
7.  Supplementary Information ......................................................................................... 143 
8.  References ......................................................................................................................... 144 
PART FOUR: A HUMAN CAPITAL ASSET ANALYSIS DURING STARTUP 
INTERNATIONALIZATION ....................................................................................................... 154 
 Cross-Country Differences in Entrepreneurial Internationalization Tendencies: 
Evidence from Germany and Pakistan ....................................................................................... 156 

 
 
1.  Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 158 
2.  Literature Overview ........................................................................................................ 160 
2.1. Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) ...................................................... 160 
2.2. Global Mindset (GM) ..................................................................... 161 
3.  Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development ......................................... 162 
3.1. Institutional Environment and EO .................................................... 162 
3.2. How a Growth Mindset Translates into a GM ..................................... 163 
3.3. Factors of Variation in EIT ............................................................... 164 
4.  Methods ............................................................................................................................ 166 
4.1. Data ............................................................................................ 166 
4.2. Measures ..................................................................................... 166 
4.3. Analysis ....................................................................................... 167 
4.4. Results ........................................................................................ 168 
5.  Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 171 
6.  Conclusions and Implication ........................................................................................ 173 
7.  Limitation and Future Research ................................................................................... 175 
8.  Supplementary Information ......................................................................................... 176 
9.  References ......................................................................................................................... 180 
PART FIVE: A SPOTLIGHT ON HUMAN CAPITAL INVESTMENT FOR 
SUSTAINABLE ENTREPRENEURSHIP ................................................................................... 189 
 Entrepreneurship Education and Sustainable Development Goals: A literature 
Review and a Closer Look at Fragile States and Technology-Enabled Approaches .......... 191 
1.  Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 193 
2.  Theoretical Background ................................................................................................. 195 
3.  Systematic Review of EET Literature .......................................................................... 198 
4.  Findings and Discussion ............................................................................................... 201 
4.1. Bibliometrics ................................................................................ 202 
4.2.  Country Context ........................................................................... 203 
4.3. Recipients .................................................................................... 205 
4.4. Outcomes, Methods and Tools ......................................................... 207 
4.5. EET Challenges ............................................................................. 209 
5.  A Closer Look: EET Challenges amid Fragility ......................................................... 210 

 
 
6.  Tackling the Challenges: The Promise of Technology ............................................ 212 
7.  Conclusions and Limitations ........................................................................................ 217 
8.  Supplementary Information ......................................................................................... 221 
9.  References ......................................................................................................................... 222 
PART SIX: CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................... 234 
 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 236 
1.  Empirical Findings: Human Capital Assets of Fragile-Country          
Entrepreneurs ................................................................................................................................... 236 
2.  Review Findings: Human Capital Investment in Fragile-Country     
Entrepreneurs ................................................................................................................................... 240 
3.  Implications and Limitations ........................................................................................ 241 
3.1. What This Means for Research ......................................................... 241 
3.2. What This Means for Practice ........................................................... 245 
4.  References ......................................................................................................................... 251 
PART SEVEN: SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS ................................................................... 255 
 Further Reading: Leaving Fragility Behind? A Spotlight on Newcomer 
Entrepreneurship ............................................................................................................................ 257 
1.  Newcomer Entrepreneurship: Potentials and Motivations ..................................... 259 
2.  A Review of the Research: Barriers to Newcomer Entrepreneurship ................... 262 
3.  Identifying Newcomer Entrepreneurship Challenges............................................. 263 
3.1. Market Opportunities ..................................................................... 264 
3.2. Access to Entrepreneurship ............................................................. 266 
3.3. Human Capital .............................................................................. 273 
3.4. Social Networks ............................................................................ 276 
3.5. Societal Environment ..................................................................... 277 
4.  Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 280 
5.  References ......................................................................................................................... 283 
 Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 287 
1.  Questionnaire: Entrepreneurship Motivation (English Version) .......................... 287 
2.  Questionnaire: Entrepreneurship Motivation (Arabic Version) ............................ 290 
3.  Questionnaire: Personality, Behavior and New Venture Success ......................... 293 
 Curriculum Vitae .................................................................................................................... 297 

 
 
 
I. Overviews 
I.I.   Figures 
Figure 1-1: Thesis theoretical framework. Dashed borders indicate presumed 
relationships (paper 4) whereas solid borders indicate relationships empirically 
tested in the thesis (papers 1-3, left to right). ....................................................................... 39 
Figure 2-1: Theoretical framework rooted in the eclectic theory of entrepreneurship 
(Verheul et al. 2001) and inspired by Wagner and Sternberg’s (2004) model of 
entrepreneurial decision making. .......................................................................................... 86 
Figure 2-2: A demonstration of the key environmental and person-related factors 
associated with CAI entrepreneurship motivation. ......................................................... 103 
Figure 3-1 Conceptual framework delineating the expected personality-behavior-success 
relationship. ............................................................................................................................. 126 
Figure 5-1: Conceptual framework on the EET-SDG relationship. ....................................... 198 
Figure 5-2: Summary of the systematic literature review process. ........................................ 199 
Figure 5-3: Publication number by year. ..................................................................................... 202 
Figure 5-4: Publication type by year. ........................................................................................... 203 
Figure 5-5: Distribution of relevant empirical studies by World Bank economic region. 204 
Figure 5-6: Distribution of relevant empirical studies by FSI fragility classification. ...... 205 
Figure 7-1: Summary of Challenges of and Recommended Solutions for Newcomer 
Entrepreneurship. ................................................................................................................... 281 
   

 
 
I.II. Tables 
Table 1-1: A summary of average scores (out of 10) on various country fragility indicators 
of the key countries included in the thesis empirical analyses based on latest FSI data 
(Fund for Peace, 2019a). The higher the score, the higher the fragility level. ................ 51 
Table 1-2: A summary of research design and methods employed across the thesis. ......... 53 
Table 2-1: Cronbach’s Alpha values measuring questionnaire reliability. ........................... 93 
Table 2-2: Pattern matrix showing the top 4 extracted factors using PAF with Promx 
rotation. The numbers indicate factor loadings. ................................................................. 97 
Table 2-3: MANCOVA and Mann-Whitney U test results showing that the effect of all 4 
factors is the same across both cities in the analysis. ....................................................... 101 
Table 3-1: Summary of analysis results pertaining to questionnaire validation. ............... 130 
Table 3-2: Descriptive statistics regarding the dependent variables. ................................... 132 
Table 3-3: Descriptive statistics regarding the independent variables. ................................ 132 
Table 3-4: Pearson correlations between the dependent and independent variables. ...... 133 
Table 3-5: Results from independent sample t-tests evaluating mean score differences 
between groups of founders based on subjectively and economically evaluated firm 
success. ...................................................................................................................................... 134 
Table 3-6: Linear regression models predicting entrepreneurial behaviors ........................ 136 
Table 3-7: Linear regression models predicting managerial behaviors. ............................... 137 
Table 4-1: Correlations and descriptive statistics of measurement variables...................... 169 
Table 4-2: Means, Standard Deviations, and Fisher’s exact test............................................. 170 
Table 4-3: Results of MANOVA, ANOVA, and Mann-Whitney-U test. .............................. 171 
Table 4-4: Questionnaire variables: items, factor loadings, Cronbach’s Alpha, and 
references. ................................................................................................................................. 179 
Table 5-1: Summary of EET recipients by age group/educational settings and 
demographic diversity. .......................................................................................................... 206 
Table 5-2: Summary of EET programs by key objectives/outcomes, methods and tools 
relevant to advance sustainable development. .................................................................. 209 
Table 5-3: EET challenges in warning and alert countries. ..................................................... 210 
Table 6-1: Summary of thesis empirical findings from an HCT perspective. ..................... 239 
 

Abbreviations

Artificial Intelligence

ANOVA

Analysis of Variance

BOS

Behavioral Observation Scale

CAI

Conflict-Affected Entrepreneur(s)

CAST

Conflict Assessment System Tool

EFA

Exploratory Factor Analysis

EIT

Entrepreneurial Internationalization Tendencies

Entrepreneurial Orientation

FCE

Fragile-Country Entrepreneur

FFM

Five Factor Model

FFP

Fund for Peace

FSI

Fragile States Index

GEM

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor

Global Mindset

HCA

Human Capital Asset

HCT

Human Capital Theory

IDP

Internally Displaced Person

International Entrepreneurship

IEO

International Entrepreneurship Orientation

ITS

Intelligent Tutoring Systems

KMO

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin

KSAOs

Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, and other Characteristics

Maximum Likelihood

MANCOVA

Multivariate Analysis of Covariance

MANOVA

Multivariate Analysis of Variance

MLR

Multiple Linear Regression

MOOCs

Massive Open Online Courses

OECD

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

PAF

Principal Axis Factoring

R&D

Research and Development

SDG

Sustainable Development Goal

SDT

Self-Determination Theory

SLR

Systematic Literature Review

TEA

Total Early-Stage Entrepreneurial Activity

TIPI

Ten Item Personality Measure

United Nations

UNHCR

United Nations Higher Commissioner for Refugees

UNRWA

United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees

in the Near East

WoS

Web of Science

II. Key Concepts and Definitions

II.I. Fragility

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), fragility

is “the combination of exposure to risk and insufficient coping capacity of the state, system

and/or communities to manage, absorb or mitigate those risks. Fragility can lead to negative

outcomes including violence, the breakdown of institutions, displacement, humanitarian

crises or other emergencies” (OECD, 2016b, p. 2). Fragile states are also “failing to provide

basic services to poor people because they are unwilling or unable to do so” (OECD, 2006, p.

142[2]). Similarly, the World Bank deems a state fragile based on its Country Policy and

Institutional Assessment score and the need for having regional/UN peace-keeping missions

in the country (World Bank, 2018a); indicators for conflict and violence susceptibility.

Fragility is hence essentially the opposite of stability, and a fragile country is one that suffers

from frail systems at the political, economic, security, social and/or environmental level (Fund

for Peace, 2019b; OECD, 2016b, 2018), making it (highly) prone to violent conflict and

humanitarian disasters. The classification of a country as fragile is performed according to a

variety of indicators. For instance, the Country Indicators for Foreign Policy fragility index

takes state authority, state legitimacy, state capacity, governance, economics, security and

crime, human development, demographics, gender and environment into consideration with

data last published in 2012 (CIFP, 2019). Meanwhile, the Index of State Weakness in the

Developing World by the Brookings Institute considers 20 indicators in the security, political,

social and economic domains with data last published in 2008 (Rice & Patrick, 2008).

More recent measures of fragility include the Fragile State Index (FSI) and the OECD

classification. The FSI takes 12 different indicators into consideration (Fund for Peace, 2019b,

2019a); cohesion indicators include security apparatus (security threats to state), factionalized

elites (social fragmentation of institutions) and group grievance (division between social

groups in society). Economic indicators include economic decline, economic inequality and

human flight and brain drain. Political indicators include state legitimacy (representativeness

of government and its relationship with citizens), public services and human rights. Social

indicators include demographic pressures (unmet population demands from the state) and

refugees (pressure of refugee presence on state), while the last indicator, external intervention

(influence of external actors), cuts across multiple categories. The OECD (2016b, 2018) takes a

risk approach to fragility assessment and considers the state’s capacity to cope with and

mitigate risks at the economic, environmental, political, security and social levels on a total of

42 indicators. Throughout this thesis, countries labeled as fragile rank as such on both FSI and

OECD measures.

II.II. Entrepreneurship

What exactly is entrepreneurship? Well, it depends on whom you ask. William Baumol

describes an entrepreneur as a leader and innovator whose job is to “locate new ideas and to

put them into effect” (Baumol, 1968, p. 65), while others regard entrepreneurship as the

process in which an opportunity, or market need, is identified, evaluated and exploited

(Bhave, 1994; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). Similarly, entrepreneurship has also been

defined as “an economic function that is carried out by individuals, entrepreneurs, acting

independently or within organizations, to perceive and create new opportunities and to

introduce their ideas into the market, under uncertainty, by making decisions about location,

product design, resource use, institutions, and reward systems”(Carlsson et al., 2013, p. 914).

An entrepreneur is also viewed as the facilitator of new knowledge spillover, therefore

translating knowledge-creating investments into commercializable innovative output (Z. J.

Acs et al., 2009; Agarwal et al., 2010).

Those definitions share the common concept of innovativeness, presuming that an

entrepreneur discovers or recognizes something novel or previously unknown to the market

– an idea and/or an opportunity – and commercializes it under potentially ambiguous

circumstances. Meanwhile, Low and MacMillan (1988) view entrepreneurship simply as the

creation of new enterprise and Hart (2003, p. 5) defines it as “the process of starting and

continuing to expand new businesses”. A similar expanded definition is provided by the

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), where “any attempt at new business or new venture

creation, such as self-employment, a new business organization, or the expansion of an

existing business, by an individual, a team of individuals, or an established business” (Global

Entrepreneurship Research Association, 2019), is considered entrepreneurship.

Accordingly, someone who has recently opened another clothing store in the mall and a tech

innovator may both be considered entrepreneurs. The newness pertains to the business itself,

not necessarily to the idea or opportunity behind it. Indeed, many scholars have attempted to

further distinguish types of entrepreneurs based on the type of newness they exhibit. The

innovative/replicative divide defines an innovative entrepreneur as one who introduces a new

product or process to the market, while a replicative one starts a new business regardless of

whether similar ones already exist (Baumol, 2010; Griffiths et al., 2012). Along similar lines,

Minniti & Levesque (2010) classify entrepreneurs as research-based versus imitative,

regarding investment in research and development per unit of output as a main

distinguishing factor between the two types of entrepreneurs.

Evidence shows that all those different types of entrepreneurs have the potential to positively

contribute to economic growth (Minniti & Levesque, 2010; Naudé, 2011), albeit they play

different roles: replicative/imitative entrepreneurs help in fighting poverty, fostering

efficiency and increasing competition and the supply of products and services (Griffiths et al.,

2012; Minniti & Levesque, 2010). This might certainly be crucial in fragile contexts, where

poverty levels are high and unemployed youth might join combat or terrorist groups in

pursuit of income (Aubrey et al., 2016). In those environments, such entrepreneurs could even

contribute to peace-building through opening new possibilities for economic collaboration

across conflicting groups beyond political and social disagreements (Tobias et al., 2013). On

the other hand, innovative or research-based entrepreneurs are ones who diversify markets,

create learning environments, stimulate change in market structures, find novel solutions to

fundamental social problems and potentially contribute to reforming institutions and

disrupting the status quo of fragility and insecurity (Griffiths et al., 2012; Koveos & Yimin,

2012; Naudé, 2007, 2011).

Interestingly, one might also classify the inventor of a new addictive drug or the creator of a

new terrorist organization as an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship is therefore not inherently

positive and it is crucial to distinguish between entrepreneurship that is actually productive

from other unproductive or even destructive forms (Baumol, 1990). This distinction becomes

increasingly important in fragile and conflict-prone settings, where “unproductive and

destructive entrepreneurship may inhibit the resurgence of the private sector and might even

cause a relapse into conflict” (Naude, 2007, p. 1).

In this thesis, I therefore include all those who have recently started new businesses in fragile

countries, regardless of innovativeness level, in my definition of entrepreneurship as long as

they steer away from unproductive or destructive business activities. In other words, any new

business creator from a fragile country who has the potential of contributing positively to

social wellbeing and economic development may be included in this research.

II.III. Sustainability

Broadly defined, sustainability is the ability to sustain existence. It generally refers to the long-

term harmonious co-existence of human societies and their natural environment. As such, the

term sustainable development was first used by the United Nations in 1972 and later

popularized in 1987 , referring to “development that meets the needs of the present generation

without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED,

1987, p. 43). At the core of sustainability and sustainable development “is the notion that all

natural systems have limits, and that human wellbeing requires living within those limits, […]

[affirming the necessity] to place social and environmental objectives on equal footing with

economic objectives” (J. J. Hall et al., 2010, p. 440).

Several studies confirm entrepreneurship’s potential contribution to sustainable development

(J. J. Hall et al., 2010; Horne et al., 2020; Muñoz & Dimov, 2015; York & Venkataraman, 2010).

For entrepreneurship to be foster sustainability, however, it should focus “on the preservation

of nature, life support, and community in the pursuit of perceived opportunities to bring into

existence future products, processes, and services for gain, where gain is broadly construed

to include economic and non–economic gains to individuals, the economy, and

society”(Shepherd & Patzelt, 2011, p. 137). Considering numerous potential economic and

non-economic gains offered by productive entrepreneurship in fragile contexts (see section

II.II above), entrepreneurial activity under extreme fragility could therefore foster (some

aspects of) sustainable development.

II.IV. Micro and Macro Levels of Analysis

I follow Aldrich & Wiedenmayer (1993) in distinguishing between two levels of analysis.

Accordingly, a micro-level analysis focuses on the individual characteristics of founders,

which they also refer to as a “traits” approach, while a macro level of analysis, or a “rates”

approach, focuses on (social, political and economic) environmental conditions. This is in

alignment with Davidsson and Wiklund (2001), who classify levels of entrepreneurship

research primarily as micro and aggregate, where analysis at the micro level occurs at the

entrepreneur, team or company level while aggregate-level analyses occur at the region or

country level. An example of research studies combining both levels of analysis are those

where data collected at the entrepreneur/team/firm level from multiple locations is used to

conduct comparative analyses at the country/region level. The terms macro and aggregate are

used interchangeably throughout this thesis when referring to analysis levels.

II.V. Venture, Enterprise, Business, Firm, Company and Other Related Terms

All these terms are used interchangeably throughout this thesis.

II.VI. Male and Female

Gender distinctions are based on self-reported preferences and encompass all individuals

who identify with a particular gender. In all performed empirical studies, individuals were

given the option to not disclose their gender or provide “other” as a response.

II.VII. Refugee and Newcomer

For the majority of this thesis, the term newcomer is used as a substitute for refugee in

acknowledgement of the negative social stigma associated with the term refugee and its

potential implicit indication of neediness, weakness and helplessness.

PART ONE: BACKGROUND

1. Introduction

“The last few decades have been the most peaceful era in human history. Whereas in

early agricultural societies human violence caused up to 15% of all human deaths […]

today it is responsible for only 1%. Yet since the global financial crisis of 2008, the

international situation is rapidly deteriorating, warmongering is back in vogue, and

military expenditure is ballooning.”

- Yuval Noah Harari (2018, p. 171).

Much evidence supports that violence levels have dramatically decreased around the globe

over the past centuries, including homicide rates, capital punishment, wars between great

powers and autocracies (Harari, 2018; Pinker, 2011a, 2011b, 2015). However, humans

managed to reverse this positive trend between 2010-2014, with over a 600% increase in

political violence largely due to conflicts in Syria, Nigeria, Afghanistan and Iraq (Mack, 2016;

Themnér & Melander, 2016). Although the trend might have slightly started to revert back

over the few years that followed (Pettersson & Eck, 2018), a myriad of challenges, many of

which being quite unique to our century (Harari, 2018), may draw a somewhat bleak image

for humanity’s (near) future.

Indeed, challenges from environmental destruction (e.g. climate change and mass

deforestation) to potent technologies (e.g. artificial intelligence (AI) and bioengineering)

might already be reshaping the world at a speed significantly higher than the pace at which

action is being taken to prepare for these changes. Such challenges are likely to take a harder

toll on countries already suffering from high institutional fragility, where state legitimacy is

jeopardized and collapsing governments reign. Consequently, social inequality is expected to

rise, potentially exacerbating issues such as societal disintegration, violent conflict and forced

displacement.

1.1. Entrepreneurship in Fragile Contexts: The What and the Why

It is perhaps not surprising that by 2050, the number of individuals living in fragile countries

could reach 3.3 billion (OECD, 2018). Meanwhile, global humanitarian aid and international

development efforts have been criticized as being designed to keep poor countries poor with

little or no impact on economic growth (Collier, 2007; Doucouliagos & Paldam, 2011; Moyo,

2009; Rajan & Subramanian, 2007), largely due to their top-down nature which places

(corrupt) governments as key recipients of aid money and overlooks the importance of

gradual and evolutionary rather than revolutionary approaches to institutional and social

change (Collier, 2007; Easterly, 2008; Jeffrey S. McMullen, 2011; Schramm & Ulin, 2010).

Indeed, the world, perhaps now more than ever, is in dire need for effective, bottom-up,

market-based development strategies (Ansted & Dent, 2015; Collier, 2007; Easterly, 2008;

Jeffrey S. McMullen, 2011; Moyo, 2009; Schramm, 2010; Schramm & Ulin, 2010), where

development projects are viewed as “experiments that are initiated by entrepreneurs and

retained only when positive feedback is received from the poor” in the specific case of poverty

alleviation (Jeffrey S. McMullen, 2011, p. 186), or when positive feedback is received from

individuals suffering the consequences of fragility in the more general context of this thesis.

Entrepreneurs therefore have the potential to tackle complex challenges in the face of failing

systems and limited resources, contributing to social change, economic development in

addition to actively changing and reforming institutions (Ansted & Dent, 2015; J. Hall et al.,

2012; Jeffrey S. McMullen, 2011; Minniti & Levesque, 2010; Naudé, 2011). In fact,

entrepreneurs could support sustainable development even in situations of (post) violent

conflict and deteriorating security conditions that are common in fragile states. It has been

shown that under those circumstances, entrepreneurs provide important (new) products and

services, serve population segments that are difficult to reach through the public sector,

provide opportunities for collaboration between (previously) conflicting social groups,

diversify markets, reduce socioeconomic inequality, provide much-needed jobs, take over

roles that are typically filled by governments and larger institutions, support the creation of

learning environments, stimulate competition, effectively channel scant resources into new

purposes and potentially (innovatively) disrupt the status quo of fragility and conflict (Bozzoli

et al., 2011; Cheung & Kwong, 2017; Desai, 2011; Gunther, 2013; Killick et al., 2005; Naudé,

2007, 2009; Tobias & Boudreaux, 2011; Tobias et al., 2013).

However, to understand how fragility-affected entrepreneurs could thrive regardless of

dysfunctional institutions and limited resources, it is important to know who those

entrepreneurs are at a deeper level. This is particularly important given that the institutional

environment largely creates and shapes an entrepreneur’s personal characteristics, behaviors,

cognitions and decision-making processes which ultimately determine subsequent

entrepreneurship quality (F. Chowdhury et al., 2019; Douhan & Henrekson, 2010; Sobel, 2008).

Personal attributes of entrepreneurs are vital for their success in turbulent environments

(Ahmad et al., 2010; Kirzner, 1984; Welter & Smallbone, 2011; Yasir et al., 2017), yet analyses

on how they influence and correlate with desired entrepreneurial outcomes, such as starting

up, maintaining, growing and internationalizing a business, remain quite limited in fragile

contexts (Brück et al., 2013). Even when performed, such research largely emphasizes wealth

creation as desired outcome of entrepreneurship rather than other aspects of sustainable

development that are crucial in fragile conditions (see for example Welter, Baker, Audretsch,

& Gartner, 2017). Additionally, most entrepreneurship studies conducted in highly instable

countries lack solid theoretical grounding and are mostly descriptive in nature, while relying

mainly on secondary data sources or qualitative approaches with small sample sizes,

potentially jeopardizing the reliability, relevance and/or generalizability of findings. This

clearly indicates that research gaps persist in literature combining both social relevance with

theoretical rigor in the face of major global challenges (Wiklund et al., 2019).

1.2. The Goal: Research Questions

This doctoral thesis addresses these gaps through conducting quantitative studies using

primary data collected from entrepreneurs operating in fragile contexts complimented by

extensive systematic literature reviews. Drawing on theories rooted in economics, psychology

and sociology, various aspects of an entrepreneur’s personal characteristics, such as

motivation, personality, behavior and mindset, are analyzed with respect to key desired

outcomes in various stages of the start-up process. Those findings are complimented by

literature analyses of some of the external support systems available to fragile-country

entrepreneurs (FCEs), particularly entrepreneurship education and training (EET),

uncovering further recommendations for future research and paving the way for the

development of rigorous practical solutions.

Clearly, an all-encompassing analysis of the success-enabling personal characteristics of FCEs

would require addressing a variety of questions, only a few of which could be chosen for this

doctoral thesis. To inform the choice of research questions, some of the key person-related

factors associated with achieving optimal entrepreneurial outcomes in fragile contexts at

various stages in the entrepreneurial process, namely pre-startup, starting up and early

growth and business expansion, have been considered.

With regards to the pre-startup stage, the desired outcome would generally be the successful

establishment of a new firm. In fragile contexts, however, small businesses of a survivalist

nature with low growth potential predominate (see Z. Acs, 2006; Z. J. Acs et al., 2008; Gelb et

al., 2009; Gomez, 2008; Naude, 2007). Although the establishment of such businesses may

support poverty reduction and individual empowerment, those small businesses may have

limited potential to contribute to sustainable development. An increase in the quality of

fragile-country entrepreneurship, rather than mere quantity, is therefore key to achieving

development outcomes (Wennekers et al., 2005).

Entrepreneurship literature has attributed much of the tendency to establish low-growth

businesses (in developing countries, though not explicitly in fragile states) to the prevalence

of extrinsic motivation to pursue entrepreneurship. In other words, the lack of a supportive

institutional environment and economic opportunities form an extrinsic pressure on

individuals to start their own (micro)businesses given the lack of better alternatives (Z. Acs,

2006; Brewer & Gibson, 2014; Margolis, 2014; Naude, 2007; Nikolaev et al., 2018). Behaviors

and decisions that are motivated by intrinsic factors, on the other hand, are largely associated

with improved business performance and positive workplace outcomes (Deci et al., 2017;

Ncube & Zondo, 2018; Rani & Desiana, 2019). In entrepreneurship literature, this has been

associated with opportunity recognition and high-growth, innovative startups.

The inherent assumption that entrepreneurs fall into one of two categories of motivation,

thereby producing either desirable or undesirable entrepreneurial outcomes, is highly flawed.

First of all, human motivation is composed of a complex interplay of both intrinsic and

extrinsic drivers and reducing it to a binary distinction is a deceptive oversimplification

(Naffziger et al., 1994; Stephan et al., 2015; Wagner & Sternberg, 2004; Welter et al., 2017).

Additionally, extrinsic drivers may be internalized and integrated into an individual’s

motivational structure, hence resulting in similar outcomes as entirely intrinsic motivation

(Deci & Ryan, 2015, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000). In other words, even entrepreneurs driven by

necessity may integrate those extrinsic motivational drivers into their value systems and

achieve desirable entrepreneurial outcomes. Finally, entrepreneurship literature seldom

sheds light on the fact that, even in the most challenging of circumstances, opportunity-

seeking, innovative and autonomously driven entrepreneurs do indeed exist (Betts et al., 2015;

Langevang et al., 2012; Wierenga, 2020). For those reasons, the combination of intrinsic and

extrinsic motivational factors influencing FCE startup decisions and their variation with the

surrounding environment are chosen as centerpiece of the pre-startup phase FCE analyses.

After the decision has been made to engage in entrepreneurship, the role of an FCE’s behavior

becomes crucial for achieving entrepreneurial success. In fact, an entrepreneur’s behavior has

generally been described as “the proximal individual-centric cause of venture outcomes (e.g.,

existence, sales, products, survival, and growth)” (Bird et al., 2012, p. 890). Accordingly,

several studies sought to identify and validate the key behaviors needed for an entrepreneur’s

success (e.g. Bird & Schjoedt, 2009; Brown & Hanlon, 2004, 2016; Chandler & Jansen, 1992;

Katre & Salipante, 2012; Man & Chan, 2002).

The importance of apt behavior exhibition becomes more pronounced in fragile contexts given

its potential to mitigate the impacts of institutional fragility on entrepreneurial outcomes

(Ahmad et al., 2010; Carsrud & Krueger, 1995). However, behavioral analyses of

entrepreneurs remain highly lacking in fragile contexts. Given the environment’s role in

shaping behavior (Romero & Martinez-Roman, 2012; Welter & Smallbone, 2011; Yasir et al.,

2017) and the variation of biological and psychological determinants of behavior across

geographies (Belsky et al., 2019; Bendesky & Bargmann, 2011; McCrae & Terracciano, 2005;

Walmsley & Lewis, 1993), such analyses are vital to identify desirable behaviors and their

consequences in fragile contexts.

Additionally, an understanding of the antecedents of those behaviors is lacking in

entrepreneurship research. Personality, which is known to predispose individuals to specific

actions and predict long-term patterns of behavior (Cervone & Pervin, 2012; McCrae & Costa,

2003), is largely missing from analyses of the determinants of behavior in entrepreneurship.

Given that personality characteristics depend in their expression on specific environmental

cues (Judge & Zapata, 2014; Tett & Guterman, 2000), thereby resulting in varying behaviors

with differing workplace settings, an understanding of personality’s relationship to behavior

in fragile contexts further contributes to a deeper understanding of entrepreneurial success in

the early startup (growth) stages. The interplay of personality, behavior and country fragility

therefore forms the core of the analyses conducted at the initiation and early growth stages of

the entrepreneurial process.

With respect to expanding a business, much research has indeed been conducted on the

entrepreneurs’ personal attributes which relate to internationalizing their businesses (Acedo

& Florin, 2006; Acedo & Jones, 2007; Freeman & Cavusgil, 2007; Jones et al., 2011).

Entrepreneurial orientation (Jantunen et al., 2005; Javalgi & Todd, 2011; McDougall & Oviatt,

2000) and a global mindset (e.g. Felício et al., 2016; Kyvik, 2018) have been found to largely

correlate with international entrepreneurship. However, with the lack of application and

validation of those constructs in fragile contexts, particularly given the impact of the

institutional and cultural environment on developing and expressing the desired orientation

and mindset (Child et al., 2017; Felício et al., 2016; Oparaocha, 2015), this thesis was motivated

to focus on a comparison of those constructs between a fragile and a stable environment.

Finally, this thesis extends beyond the identification and validation of FCE characteristics

needed for the achievement of desired entrepreneurial outcomes to an assessment of the key

catalyst for the development of (most of) those characteristics; namely education and training

(Martin et al., 2013; Marvel et al., 2016, more in section 1.3). Despite the growth of EET

literature and the increasing prevalence of EET programs globally, an understanding of the

contribution of EET research and practices to achieving sustainable entrepreneurial outcomes,

particularly in fragile institutional environments, remains missing. Realizing that fragility

dictates the need for distinctive characteristics, types and impacts of entrepreneurs and

entrepreneurial activity, this analysis has been deemed necessary to come full circle with

respect to informing much-needed recommendations for research and practice.

Accordingly, the core of this thesis consists of four academic papers, each of which

corresponds to one or more research questions as follows:

Before starting up (paper #1):

Q1 What extrinsic and intrinsic factors constitute the motivation of FCEs to found new

businesses? How do these factors differ between entrepreneurs who remained in and

those who have left their fragility-affected home country?

While starting up / early growth (paper #2):

Q2 How do entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors correlate to start-up success in a fragile

context? How does personality predict success-related entrepreneurial and managerial

behaviors of FCEs? And How does country fragility impact the personality-behavior

relationship?

While expanding business (paper #3):

Q3 How do FCEs differ from their peers in stable environments in their Entrepreneurial

Internationalization Tendencies (i.e. Entrepreneurship Orientation and Global Mindset)?

At all stages (paper #4):

Q4 How do current EET initiatives support sustainable development in fragile contexts?

1.3. A Few Steps Back: A Background Framed within the Human Capital Theory

This thesis constitutes a direct response to two recent calls for shifts in the trajectory of modern

entrepreneurship scholarship. The first is Wiklund et al.’s (2019) appeal to establish a balance

between rigor and relevance in entrepreneurship research. According to the authors,

entrepreneurship research, unlike other areas in management and economics, had largely

been phenomenon-driven and flexible in terms of the theories and definitions employed.

However, recent shifts towards theoretical rigor have been correlated with reduced focus on

relevance. The authors call for research that addresses entrepreneurship’s potential in tackling

grand socioeconomic challenges, particularly with respect to disadvantaged populations,

without compromising theoretical robustness and methodological quality. Specifically,

research that is theoretically grounded, socially impactful, interesting to the public,

communicable to non-scientific audiences and involves engagement with actual

entrepreneurs. This thesis is positioned to tick all these boxes.

Additionally, this research addresses Welter et al.’s (2017) call for entrepreneurship research

that embraces diversity and considers multiple facets of entrepreneurship rather than

“theoretically privileging any one narrow special case of entrepreneurship as the distinctive

domain of entrepreneurship scholarship” (Welter et al. 2017, p. 317). Particularly, the authors

argue that entrepreneurship research is largely based on dichotomous distinctions -

opportunity vs. necessity, formal vs. informal and men-led vs. women-led being a few - which

excludes the majority of entrepreneurial activity by implying its lack of interest or importance.

This thesis strives to eschew from binary labels and follows the authors in placing key

accepted entrepreneurial outcomes (i.e. wealth and job creation) “within a broader context of

reasons, purposes and values for why and how entrepreneurship emerges” (Welter et al.,

2017, p. 311).

Those perspectives have been carefully considered throughout the design and

implementation of studies on the enablers of entrepreneurial success in various stages of the

startup process. Those enablers are viewed primarily through the lens of the human capital

theory (HCT), building upon the over-three-century-old concept of human capital. Making its

first known written appearance in the works of early classical economist Sir William Petty as

he recognized “the value of the people“ for national wealth (Petty, 1664), the concept was later

further formalized by the philosopher and economist Adam Smith as he acknowledged the

costs of acquisition of talent by laborers, through education and training, which ultimately

contributes to the laborer’s own fortune as well as society’s (Smith, 1776). Early sociologists

such as Karl Marx, terming it ‘labor power’, defined human capital as the collection of mental

and physical capabilities present in a human being, which they utilize whenever they produce

a usable value (Marx, 1867).

The concept of human capital has been formally incorporated in modern economics in the

mid-20th century (Becker, 1964; Mincer, 1958; Schultz, 1961). In the words of Nobel prize

winner Gary Becker: “To most of you, capital means a bank account, one hundred shares of

IBM, assembly lines, […]. These are all forms of capital in the sense that they yield income and

other useful outputs over long periods of time. But I am going to talk about a different kind

of capital. Schooling, a computer training course, […] and lectures on the virtues of

punctuality and honesty are capital too in the sense that they improve health, raise earnings,

or add to a person's appreciation of literature over much of his or her lifetime. Consequently,

it is fully in keeping with the capital concept as traditionally denned to say that expenditures

on education, training, […] etc., are investments in capital. However, these produce human,

not physical or financial, capital because you cannot separate a person from his or her

knowledge, skills, health, or values the way it is possible to move financial and physical assets

while the owner stays put” (Becker, 1994, pp. 15–16).

Essentially, human capital comprises a variety of personal characteristics that contribute to an

individual’s capacity to produce economic and social value. Though research on human

capital in the 1960s and 1970s primarily focused on the monetary returns to human capital

due to the difficulty in identifying and quantifying social benefits (see reviews and analyses

by Blaug, 1972, 1976; Teixeira, 2014), more recent human capital scholarly works sought to

identify and analyze relevant social outcomes. Accordingly, human capital has been linked to

lifestyle habits, healthcare, child welfare, workplace satisfaction, philanthropic behavior,

spending and saving choices, access to technology and innovation, social cohesion and

equality, crime reduction and institutional stability (e.g. Bart et al., 2009; Haveman & Wolfe,

1984; Nafukho et al., 2004; Vila, 2000).

In other words, human capital is an individual’s stock of unique attributes that are relevant

for achieving desired socioeconomic outcomes. What those attributes encompass has evolved

over time, with modern scholars including “knowledge, skills, abilities, and other

characteristics (KSAOs); [or more specifically] beliefs; feelings; psychological states and traits;

and physical characteristics” that reside inside the individual (Ployhart et al., 2013, p. 394; and

Acemoglu et al., 2014; Becker, 2002; Guion, 2011; Murphy, 2012). Within entrepreneurship

literature, human capital has been analyzed in terms of human capital investments, assets and

outcomes (Hitt et al., 2017; Lepak & Snell, 1999; Martin et al., 2013). This thesis follows Martin

et al’s (2013, p. 212) views, where “human capital investments […] are inputs, such as the time

and money spent taking a course in entrepreneurship; human capital assets […] represent the

capability that may be garnered from the investments, such as knowledge and skills; and

entrepreneurship outcomes [are eventual consequences] such as starting or growing a new

business.”

Several assets, or KSAOs, have been identified in entrepreneurship literature. In a recent meta-

analysis of 109 scholarly articles in highly ranked peer-reviewed journals on the topic of

human capital and entrepreneurship (Marvel et al., 2016), individual-level decisions/actions

and psychological attributes have been recognized as important dependent variables in

empirical analyses. The meta-analysis also identified five categories of human capital assets

(HCAs) relevant to entrepreneurship; work experience, entrepreneurship experience,

education, demographic attributes and cognition/psychological attributes. The latter category,

however, appeared to be the least studied category within the analyzed literature, with only

4.9% of the reviewed papers giving explicit attention to cognitive or psychological capabilities

(and possibly subsequent entrepreneur behaviors).

Within the framework of this thesis, papers 1-3 analyze various HCAs of FCEs in relation to

desired entrepreneurial outcomes at various startup stages. The shortage of research on

psychological human capital further motivated this thesis to focus on the traits, decision-

making processes and behaviors of entrepreneurs before starting up (section 1.3.1, chapter 2),

during startup establishment and early growth (section 1.3.2, chapter 3) and throughout

global company expansion (section 1.3.3, chapter 4). Combined with the needs to diversify

entrepreneurship research and effectively blend theoretical and socially relevant perspectives

(Welter et al., 2017; Wiklund et al., 2019), those analyses integrate several additional theories,

refrain from dichotomous and simplified classifications and focus on the empirical analysis of

various facets of psychological human capital using primary data. Additionally, realizing the

vital role played by the institutional environment in complimenting human capital’s

contribution to positive entrepreneurial outcomes (see for example Boudreaux & Nikolaev,

2019; Eesley, 2016), country fragility is regarded as the centerpiece of those analyses.

Meanwhile, paper 4 (section 1.3.4, chapter 5) assesses the educational investment relevant to

the development of those assets and corresponding outcomes. Education has long been

regarded the key catalyst of HCA development (Baumol et al., 2011; Becker, 1994; Goldin,

2019; Griliches, 1996; Lutz & Samir, 2011). With regards to EET, several studies have proven

EET’s contribution to the enhancement of entrepreneurial outcomes through the development

of the KSAOs that are most relevant for entrepreneurial success, including psychological

HCAs such as motivations (Daniel, 2016; Romero & Martinez-Roman, 2012), behaviors

(Brown & Hanlon, 2016; Rauch & Hulsink, 2015) and mindsets (Robinson et al., 2016; Secundo

et al., 2016; Zupan et al., 2018). With respect to fragile contexts, however, research on the

availability and effectiveness of EET remains inadequate.

The HCT has been chosen for this thesis for several more reasons. This theoretical approach

places the entrepreneur under the limelight, which is vital given their tremendous role in

shaping a company’s structure, culture, outputs and growth dynamics (see Frese, 2009;

Sarasvathy, 2004). This is particularly important as the world is faced with unprecedented

complex challenges of unclear consequences (e.g. Ferraro et al., 2015; Harari, 2016, 2018;

Wiklund et al., 2019), necessitating deeper understanding of the human potential needed to

tackle those obstacles. With the majority of management studies assessing a firm’s

relationship to grand societal challenges from the institutional theory perspective (Ferraro et

al., 2015), a human-centered approach is all the more needed (see Colquitt & George, 2011).

Additionally, understanding the personal assets that help entrepreneurs thrive in turbulent

environments aids the design and implementation of educational and financial investment

strategies by development organizations and grassroots initiatives. With the majority of

theoretical constructs in entrepreneurship having been primarily tested in stable

environments, extending the assessment of HCAs to fragile settings is important to enhance

the understanding and formation of desired entrepreneurial outcomes in largely ambiguous

environments, and subsequently the design of appropriate interventions (see Bango et al.,

2018; Berner et al., 2012). A focus on psychological HCAs has particularly important yet often

overlooked and under-researched implications for actionable interventions to enhance

entrepreneurship in alleviation of fragile conditions (e.g. Frese et al., 2016; Luthans et al., 2000;

Wu et al., 2019).

Figure 1-1 illustrates the theoretical framework for this doctoral thesis. Sections 1.3.1, 1.3.2 and

1.3.3 review existing literature regarding some of the HCAs that enable FCEs to achieve

successful outcomes throughout the pre-startup, initiation/early growth and

internationalization stages respectively, while section 1.3.4 provides a literature background

on EET as a key human capital investment in entrepreneurship.

1.3.1. Before Starting up: Motivation as an Asset

Research on the antecedents of entrepreneurship falls primarily in the areas of entrepreneurial

intention and entrepreneurship motivation. Entrepreneurial intention is a state of mind

pertaining to the degree to which an individual considers starting a business as a career choice

(Fayolle & Liñán, 2014; Giacomin et al., 2011; Liñán & Chen, 2009; Potishuk & Kratzer, 2017),

a concept that rapidly prevailed in entrepreneurship studies since its introduction in the

1980’s (Fayolle & Liñán, 2014; Shapero, 1984; Shapero & Sokol, 1982). Although intention is

considered a predictor of action and behavior, having high levels of entrepreneurial intention

does not automatically transform into entrepreneurial activity, particularly where

institutional hurdles and environmental constraints are rampant (see Dana & Ratten, 2017).

Therefore, analyzing entrepreneurial intention does not necessarily involve analyzing (future)

entrepreneurs, and certainly does not provide sufficient insights on the conditions under

Figure 1-1: Thesis theoretical framework. Dashed borders indicate presumed

relationships (paper 4) whereas solid borders indicate relationships empirically tested in

the thesis (papers 1-3, left to right).

which intention translates into action (Bagozzi, 1992; Bird & Schjoedt, 2009; Brännback et al.,

2007; Carsrud & Brännback, 2011).

Entrepreneurship motivation research, on the other hand, focuses on identifying the reasons

and drivers to pursue the goal of starting a firm (Carsrud & Brännback, 2011; Edelman et al.,

2010; Fayolle et al., 2014), therefore enabling insights on the intention-behavior or intention-

action links. Despite the potential of entrepreneurship motivation research to uncover

significant determinants of the startup decision-making process and improve understanding

of how and why new firms are formed, entrepreneurial intentions studies remain to dominate

and little attention is paid to the important area of entrepreneurship motivation (see Carsrud

& Brännback, 2011; Fayolle et al., 2014).

This trend is also evident in studies conducted outside of western and stable countries, where

most research on potential entrepreneurs has also been mainly concerned with

entrepreneurial intention (e.g. Ashourizadeh et al., 2014; Nga & Shamuganathan, 2010; Zhang

et al., 2014). Though significantly less common, such research has also been performed in

contexts of fragility and violence (e.g. Bullough et al., 2014; Mouselli & Khalifa, 2017). On the

other hand, research specifically evaluating drivers behind an individual’s decision to pursue

entrepreneurship is much less prevalent in the FCE context. Such research deserves more

attention in countries with fragile institutional environments given the impact of the

environmental context on shaping entrepreneurship motivation (Carsrud et al., 2009;

Edelman et al., 2010; Nuttin, 1984) and its ability to explain entrepreneurial phenomena under

such circumstances.

Conducting this research in fragile contexts could be made difficult by the fact that it involves

engagement with and assessment of those who have already decided or even (recently)

started to engage in entrepreneurial activity, rather than those who might or might not

someday pursue entrepreneurship. This translates into smaller target population sizes and

more limited access to potential study participants, especially given the lack of documentation

and prevalence of informal entrepreneurship in those contexts. This could explain why many

studies attempt to explain entry into entrepreneurship from a macro level, thereby evaluating

environmental factors that correlate with country-wide rates of entrepreneurial activity (e.g.

Lecuna et al., 2017; Naudé et al., 2008) rather than analyzing entrepreneurial motivation and

decision-making at the individual level.

Though no entrepreneurship motivation studies at the individual level explicitly considering

contexts of violent conflict or extreme institutional fragility have been found, a handful of

studies do however exist in some developing and fragile settings. The majority of those

studies follow the classical dichotomous classification of entrepreneurship motivation into

pull/opportunity and push/necessity (e.g. Hilson et al., 2018; Mehtap et al., 2019). In this sense,

an entrepreneur is seen as either being attracted to entrepreneurship to realize an opportunity

that they had identified in the market or pursues entrepreneurship out of necessity when

faced with little or no other options to achieve financial stability (Z. Acs, 2006; Mota et al.,

2019; Stoner & Fry, 1982).

Following this binary model largely limits the perception and understanding of

entrepreneurship motivation. The necessity/opportunity dichotomy inherently presumes that

entrepreneurs starting up due to so-called “push” factors are unlikely to grow and succeed.

Evidence shows, however, that some entrepreneurs who were initially motivated by necessity

have growth aspirations (Langevang et al., 2012), though the mechanisms in which they grow

and innovate are still largely understudied (Welter et al., 2017). Additionally, this divide is

not clear-cut in many cases. Entrepreneurship motivation may change over time, and

opportunity may indeed lie amidst necessity (see Monllor & Altay, 2016). This classification

also ignores the complexity of human decision-making processes and the multitude of factors

that impact the decision to pursue a particular career path. Particularly in challenged

environments where such processes might be of higher intricacy and are less understood, a

more holistic, multifaceted, multi-level analysis of motivation is worthwhile.

Indeed, several scholars have attempted to create and validate more complex and robust

models of entrepreneurship motivation. Greenberger and Sexton (1988) focus on the various

personal characteristics of individuals which lead them to initiate entrepreneurial activity,

while Naffziger et al.’s (1994) model of entrepreneurship motivation considers personal

characteristics, the personal environment, personal goals, the business environment and the

business idea. Stephan et al. (2015), on the other hand, identify a combination of personal

desires, push factors and community and social drivers as aspects of entrepreneurship

motivation. Wagner and Sternberg (2002, 2004) view the decision behind starting a new

business to be the result of personal attributes and environmental characteristics as perceived

by the individual. To my knowledge, however, none of those models has been implemented

or validated in fragile contexts.

Of all those complex constructs that are yet to be tested in fragile settings, the eclectic theory

of entrepreneurship has been chosen for this thesis (Verheul et al., 2001). The theory postulates

that an individual becomes and remains self-employed based on the interplay between

opportunities (i.e. environmental conditions) as perceived by the individual and personal

characteristics such as personality, resources, capabilities and preferences. The theory also

builds on and incorporates many of the aspects identified by other (aforementioned)

entrepreneurship motivation models (such as Greenberger & Sexton, 1988; Naffziger et al.,

1994; Stephan et al., 2015; Wagner & Sternberg, 2002, 2004).

According to the theory, the interaction between personal abilities, traits, preferences and

resources with population characteristics such as demographic features and culture in

addition to market opportunities, as determined by factors such as policy intervention,

education, economic development and technology adoption, collectively drive the

entrepreneur to compare the potential risks and rewards of engaging in entrepreneurial

activity. The individual therefore engages in entrepreneurial activity when they ascertain the

presence of net rewards associated with this occupational choice. The robustness, flexibility

and complexity of this model, in addition to its interdisciplinary nature which encompasses

psychological, sociological and economic perspectives, made it an ideal candidate for this

research.

To understand the contribution of HCAs to the success and sustainability of fragile-country

entrepreneurship, an enhanced understanding of motivation is crucial. From a psychological

standpoint, the type of motivation behind a certain behavior largely influences subsequent

behavioral outcomes and task performance (see for example Deci & Ryan, 2015, 1985; Ryan &

Deci, 2000). For instance, motivation consisting largely of intrinsic drivers has been found to

correlate with better outcomes, proven superiority in performance, satisfaction and wellbeing

in various work settings (Deci et al., 2017; Kuvaas & Dysvic, 2009; Rani & Desiana, 2019).

Prosocial motivation has also been found to enhance creativity (Bai et al., 2016; Grant & Berry,

2011), an important aspect of innovative entrepreneurship. Additionally, understanding the

various factors that motivate an individual to engage in entrepreneurship aids practitioners

and policy makers to identify specific areas of improvement and support for FCEs-to-be,

facilitating the transition of entrepreneurial intention to action.

1.3.2. During Initiation and Early Growth: Personality and Behavior as Assets

Entrepreneurship literature largely focuses on firm behavior and performance as key

indicators of startup success (e.g. Kakati, 2003; Karakaya & Kobu, 1994; Kolstad & Wiig, 2015;

L. Z. Song et al., 2010; M. Song et al., 2008; C. L. Wang et al., 2015; Zhu & Allee, 2008). In the

words of Saras Sarasvathy (2004, p. 520), “almost all prevalent economic theories of

entrepreneurship are theories of the firm. Either they try to explain entrepreneurship as the

existence and survival of firms, or as firm performance in one way or another.”

Sarasvathy (2004) continues to explain that the heterogeneity in the goals of entrepreneurs

and the fact that a company’s failure might enhance an entrepreneur’s chances of success on

the long haul could render firm-level measures of an entrepreneur’s success imprecise.

Additionally, evaluating an entrepreneur’s success through measuring startup performance

is unrealistic at early stages of firm development (see for instance Devece et al., 2016).

Alternatively, a founder’s HCAs more realistically and aptly predict long-term

entrepreneurial outcomes at early startup stages. As an entrepreneur transforms their

entrepreneurial motivation to action, the significance of those actions for the success of the

new venture and the fulfillment of the entrepreneur’s goals is not to be underestimated. Those

actions primarily encompass the entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors needed to execute

key tasks pertaining to the initiation and management of a new venture, including

opportunity identification, strategy development, problem solving, people and resource

management, marketing and customer management, among many others (Bird et al., 2012;

Brown & Hanlon, 2004, 2016; Chandler & Hanks, 1994; Chandler & Jansen, 1992; Rathna &

Vijaya, 2009; Sadler-Smith et al., 2003).

The exhibition and effective execution of such behaviors has not only been strongly linked to

the new firm’s economic performance (Bird & Schjoedt, 2009; Bird et al., 2012; Brown &

Hanlon, 2004, 2016; Chandler & Jansen, 1992; Man & Chan, 2002), but also to social and

environmental sustainability (Dean & McMullen, 2007; Koe et al., 2014; Pacheco et al., 2010)

and innovation and creativity (Block et al., 2017; Dyer et al., 2008; Guan et al., 2019). Therefore,

an entrepreneur’s behavior while birthing and nurturing a new company is a key indicator of

long-term startup performance and impact and a more relevant and reliable one in

comparison with firm-level indicators.

The significance of an entrepreneur’s behavior becomes more pronounced in fragile contexts.

Firstly, appropriate founder behaviors possibly mitigate the negative impacts of the

surrounding environment on company development (Ahmad et al., 2010; Yasir et al., 2017)

and enable value creation from scarcely available resources (Kirzner, 1984). Additionally, the

entrepreneur’s behavior contributes to the development and advancement of institutions in

turbulent environments (see Welter & Smallbone, 2011). Furthermore, the level of

entrepreneurship productivity and positive socioeconomic impact in highly fragile

environments where rent-seeking and socially destructive market opportunities, such as arms

trade, terrorist organizations and child labor, are prevalent (Baumol, 1990; Naudé, 2007, 2009)

could be highly contingent on the entrepreneur’s behaviors. Understanding founder

behaviors in fragile contexts could therefore enable fostering productive entrepreneurship

and sustainable (institutional) development in such regions. Alas, empirical studies

evaluating an entrepreneurs’ behavior in fragile contexts remain limited.

Human behavior is generally determined by a variety of intrinsic and extrinsic factors, of

which personality is an especially significant predictor of long-term behavior (Cervone &

Pervin, 2012; McCrae & Costa, 2003). Although the personality-behavior relationship has been

examined and validated across a wide variety of workplace behaviors and settings (Bourdage

et al., 2018; Church & Waclawski, 1998; Kong & Li, 2018; Marcus & Roy, 2019; Penner et al.,

1997; Penney, David, et al., 2011; Penney, Hunter, et al., 2011), it has surprisingly received

very little attention from entrepreneurship scholars to date (with the exception of Rauch &

Frese, 2000, 2007) and certainly no examination in fragile entrepreneurial contexts. In addition

to predicting behavior, an entrepreneur’s personality also directly influences the perception

of entrepreneurs by investors and development organizations, hence impacting the choice of

support recipients.

The lack of studies on personality (in relation to behavior) in FCE contexts is particularly

problematic given that the prevalence and expression of specific personality characteristics

largely varies with national culture and environmental influences (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004;

McCrae, 2002; McCrae & Terracciano, 2005). This is perhaps best explained by the trait

activation theory (Judge & Zapata, 2014; Tett & Burnett, 2003; Tett & Guterman, 2000) which

postulates that the expression of particular personality traits is conditional upon

environmental stimuli. In other words, a specific workplace behavior would only result from

a personality trait if the latter has been activated by strong-enough stimuli in the workplace

environment. This implies that personality-behavior relationships validated in western/stable

countries might not be applicable in other country settings.

Therefore, not only do we know little about founders’ entrepreneurial and managerial

behaviors in fragile settings, we almost have no knowledge of the personality characteristics

that predict the (effective) expression of those needed behaviors. This thesis therefore

contributes to advancing scholarly knowledge on success enablers of FCEs during the

initiation and early growth startup stages by confirming the correlation of specific

entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors to long-term firm performance and subjectively

evaluated success from the founder’s perspective, in addition to enlightening the relationship

between personality characteristics and those behaviors. In other words, personality and

behavior are viewed as predictive assets of positive entrepreneurial outcomes at early startup

stages. Specific entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors identified and validated by Brown

and Hanlon (2004, 2016) have been favored as they closely relate to the entrepreneurial and

managerial capabilities regarded by Israel Kirzner (1984) as vital in low-resource

environments. Personality characteristics are viewed from the Five Factor Model (FFM)

perspective, which is considered the most valid, consistent and reliable of all taxonomies and

measures of personality (Cervone & Pervin, 2012; Goldberg, 1993).

1.3.3. During Expansion: Orientation and Mindset as Assets

After achieving an advanced understanding of some of the key HCAs before and during FCE

early startup stages (i.e. the founder’s motivation to start up and personality

characteristics/behaviors during venture launch and early growth, respectively), this doctoral

thesis moves on to evaluate drivers of cross-country growth and expansion of fragile-country

startups. With internationalization being a key business success indicator in an increasingly

globalized world (Cavusgil & Knight, 2015; Joensuu-Salo et al., 2018), this research focuses on

evaluating facets of the entrepreneur’s HCAs that correlate with their decision to

internationalize their business, collectively referred to as Entrepreneurial Internationalization

Tendencies (EIT).

Two assets were found to be particularly predictive of international entrepreneurship (IE).

The first is Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO), a combination of innovativeness, proactiveness

and risk-taking tendencies and behaviors (Joardar & Wu, 2011; Ripollés-Meliá et al., 2007).

Entrepreneurial Orientation is expected to vary according to institutional conditions (Covin

& Miller, 2014; Ervits & Zmuda, 2018), as specific environmental factors could promote or

hinder the expression of the various EO facets. This is best explained by the institutional

theory, which is chiefly “concerned with regulatory, social and cultural influences that

promote survival and legitimacy of an organization (Bruton et al., 2010, p. 422)”.

The second is a cognitive capability characterized by the interest in and understanding of

activities involved in global entrepreneurial opportunity identification; in other words, a

Global Mindset (GM) (Felício et al., 2013; Kyvik, 2018). This appears to be in concord with the

mindset theory (Dweck, 2007), which postulates that an individual with a growth mindset

possesses goal-orientation and the determination to develop regardless of existing

capabilities. In this sense, a GM could be deemed an aspect or extension of an entrepreneur’s

growth mindset.

Thus far, IE research largely focuses on advanced economies, overlooking even the largest of

emerging and developing countries (Kiss et al., 2012; Yamakawa et al., 2008). The share of IE

research attention received by fragile countries is naturally even less, even though regions like

the Middle East and Africa (Bosma & Kelley, 2018), which contain many fragile countries,

exhibit some of the world’s highest IE activity levels. Consequently, IE constructs and theories

developed and validated in stable countries are yet to be tested in fragile ones, and the extent

to which the EIT of FCEs compare to those of stable-country ones is yet to be investigated.

Addressing those research gaps is vital, given that benefits of entrepreneurial

internationalization of fragile-country startups extend even beyond the opportunities for

additional profit often presented by international trade. The higher the rate of international

business operations, the higher the likelihood that global perceptions of a fragile country

change from “violent” or “poor” to thriving economic player, potentially attracting foreign

investment, tourism and talent. Additionally, and in realization that extreme fragility and

conflict result in significant losses of human capital (Chamarbagwala & Morán, 2011;

Weldeegzie, 2017), IE could provide new learning opportunities for FCEs through

international and cross-cultural exchanges.

The extension of entrepreneurial activity across various social groups also provides

cooperation opportunities that unite groups based on common (socio)economic goals despite

inter-group rivalries and conflicting political standpoints (see the Rwandan example: Tobias

& Boudreaux, 2011; Tobias et al., 2013). In the case of extremely fragile countries, many are

currently or have been recently engaged in conflicts with bordering countries (e.g. Yemen and

Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey, Sudan and South Sudan, Iraq and Iran, Pakistan and India).

This means that IE opportunities traversing borders of (previously) conflicting regions could

even facilitate peace-building and social cohesion.

Given those benefits and the vital role played by individual-level characteristics in

overcoming institutional hurdles (as discussed in section 1.3.2, e.g. Ahmad et al., 2010; Yasir

et al., 2017), investigating mindset and behavioral enablers of fragile-country entrepreneurial

internationalization is worthwhile, bearing in mind that FCEs face additional systematic

challenges in business internationalization (e.g. due to visa barriers and political restrictions)

in comparison with their counterparts in stable countries.

1.3.4. Through it all: Education and Training as an Investment

Although some HCAs (e.g. personality traits) cannot be easily fostered through external

investment and support, several may and do indeed flourish through education and training.

Certainly, EET has been shown to positively correlate to the development of a variety of

KSAOs including business, strategy and financial management skills (Clydesdale, 2017;

Eskola et al., 2017; Mayer et al., 2014; McCarver & Jessup, 2010), entrepreneurial and

managerial behaviors (Brown & Hanlon, 2016; Rauch & Hulsink, 2015), critical thinking and

problem-solving skills (Arpiainen & Tynjala, 2017; Janssen & Bacq, 2010; Morris et al., 2013),

resource management and effectuation (Hoppe, 2016; Morris et al., 2013; Redford et al., 2014),

opportunity recognition capabilities (Asvoll & Jacobsen, 2012; Hayes & Richmond, 2017;

Lefebvre & Collot, 2012), innovative and entrepreneurial mindsets (Ghina et al., 2017;

Robinson et al., 2016; Secundo et al., 2016; Zupan et al., 2018) and entrepreneurship motivation

(Daniel, 2016; Romero & Martinez-Roman, 2012).

Higher human capital levels have been generally shown to enhance entrepreneurs’

contribution to economic wealth and development (Wennekers et al., 2005). Large-scale

studies and meta-analyses have confirmed such outcomes of EET in both developed (Martin

et al., 2013; Walter & Block, 2016) and developing countries (Lecuna et al., 2017; Valerio et al.,

2014). However, none of those analyses explicitly account for the specific entrepreneurial

outcomes needed to achieve non-economic aspects of sustainable development. Therefore,

although several studies confirm the human capital investment-asset relationship with

respect to EET, assets and outcomes pertaining to social and environmental development

remain largely unknown.

Socioenvironmental development is crucial for enhancing the stability of fragile states,

necessitating the promotion of related entrepreneurial assets and outcomes. The higher the

fragility of a country, the higher the rates of gender-based violence and inequality (Gould &

Agnich, 2016; Hudson et al., 2009), social disintegration (Fund for Peace, 2019b; OECD, 2016b,

2018) and poverty (Ault & Spicer, 2014; McKay & Thorbecke, 2019; Penh, 2009). Fragile

countries also generally suffer from high rates of environmental damage which further

contributes to state fragility and failure (Diamond, 2005; Jiao, 2019; OECD, 2016b, 2018).

This suggests the need for EET that targets the development of HCAs that contribute to social

equality and cohesion, poverty reduction and ecological restoration. Additionally, means of

EET delivery largely contribute to their outcomes. For instance, the employment of

experiential learning methods (Leon, 2017; McGuigan, 2016; Piperopoulos & Dimov, 2015)

and educational technology (Nye, 2015; Woolf et al., 2013) is generally found to enhance

learning outcomes. A comprehensive analysis of the desired outcomes, target assets and

methodologies employed by EET programs with respect to fragility and sustainable

development is still lacking, and the core of this thesis concludes by addressing these research

gaps.

1.4. The How: Research Process and Methods

This research is designed following primarily a positivistic philosophy. Positivism is an

epistemology that dates back to Auguste Comte (1853), who argued that society operates

according to general laws and that all true knowledge could be measured and validated

scientifically; in other words, only scientific knowledge is positive. Positivism is a prevalent

research mode in entrepreneurship research (McDonald et al., 2015; van Burg & Romme,

2014), using theory as a starting point in an attempt to evaluate entrepreneurial phenomena

in an objective manner through the formulation and statistical testing of hypotheses (see

Coviello & Jones, 2004; Davidsson, 2008; Hoskisson et al., 2011; van Burg & Romme, 2014).

This research design also incorporates micro and macro levels of analysis. The micro level

directly concerns the measurement of HCAs at the entrepreneur level using questionnaires.

Findings from those micro-level analyses are aggregated to enable comparisons and insights

at the institutional/country level. Therefore, this thesis agrees with Davidsson and Wiklund

(2001, p. 245) as they follow Low and Macmillan (1988) in recommending that “researchers

must acknowledge that entrepreneurship studies could and should be carried out at multiple

levels of analysis and that these analyses complement each other […] [as] entrepreneurship

takes place and has effects on different societal levels simultaneously”.

Research questions handling HCAs (Q1-3) are addressed through quantitative questionnaires

using validated scales. Quantitative methods have been preferred as the application of

validated measurement tools and the involvement of large sample sizes (in comparison to

qualitative methods) potentially enables higher generalizability and objectivity of research

findings. Additionally, given that research on entrepreneurship amidst fragility is dominated

by qualitative studies, quantitative research designs are vital for the advancement and

diversification of this research field in terms of theory, methods and implications.

Analysis at the pre-startup stage address Q1 through evaluating entrepreneurship motivation

using a self-constructed and validated questionnaire primarily based on the eclectic theory of

entrepreneurship (Verheul et al., 2001) and Wagner and Sternberg’s (2002, 2004) views of

entrepreneurship motivation as a blend of person-related attributes influenced by the

individual’s perception of the environment. Analyses at the initiation/early growth and

international expansion stages are alternatively carried out using pre-existing, validated

quantitative constructs. During initiation/early growth (Q2), personality characteristics and

entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors have been measured using questionnaire items

adopted from Gosling et al. (2003)’s Ten Item Personality Measure (TIPI) and Brown and

Hanlon’s (2004, 2016) Behavioral Observation Scales (BOS) respectively, accounting for

perspectives from the trait activation theory (Judge & Zapata, 2014; Tett & Burnett, 2003; Tett

& Guterman, 2000). As for Q3, analyses of assets pertaining to EIT were measured using EO

and GM constructs developed and validated by Goktan and Gupta (2015) and Felicio et al.

(2016) respectively, employing the lenses of the institutional theory (Bruton et al., 2010; Lim

et al., 2010) and the mindset theory (Dweck, 2007; Gollwitzer, 1990).

Target populations include Syrian (Q1), sub-Saharan African (Q2) and Pakistani (Q3)

entrepreneurs. These specific countries/regions were chosen as they are ranked as fragile

according to both OECD and FSI criteria (see Table 1-1), therefore ranking similarly on various

country fragility indicators (Fund for Peace, 2019a; OECD, 2018). The main countries of

analysis also rank poorly on entrepreneurial framework conditions such as physical and

services infrastructure and government support and policies according to latest GEM data

(GEM, 2019b). Additionally, Syria, Pakistan and Nigeria (the main sub Saharan African

country of analysis) rank in the top five countries globally in the impact of terrorism according

to the Global Terrorism Index (Institute for Economics & Peace, 2019).

Data was mainly collected through establishing connections with incubator/accelerator

managers in the respective countries, who in turn distributed the questionnaires in paper and

online forms to startups in their networks. Syrian entrepreneurs were analyzed in the cities of

Damascus and Berlin, aggregating individual-level responses to compare entrepreneurship

motivation of FCEs who operate in their home countries compared to those who sought refuge

in an environment with high institutional stability. Sub Saharan African entrepreneurs were

analyzed across 22 African countries, with state fragility incorporated in the analysis as a

moderating variable at the country level. Data on Pakistani entrepreneurs was obtained from

the cities of Karachi and Lahore, and equivalent data was also gathered from German

entrepreneurs in Berlin to enable a cross-country comparative analysis that accounts for

differences in the institutional environment.

Country

Security Apparatus

Factionalized Elites

Group Grievance

Economic Decline

Economic Inequality

Human Flight and Brain Drain

State Legitimacy

Public Services

Human Rights

Demographic Pressures

Refugees and IDPs

External Intervention

Syria

9.8

9.9

8.8

7.5

8.4

9.9

9.4

7.9

Nigeria

9.0

9.9

9.4

7.8

8.1

6.9

8.0

8.9

8.3

9.2

7.2

5.9

Pakistan

8.5

9.3

9.4

6.3

5.9

6.8

7.9

8.0

7.4

7.8

8.1

8.8

Table 1-1: A summary of average scores (out of 10) on various country fragility indicators

of the key countries included in the thesis empirical analyses based on latest FSI data

(Fund for Peace, 2019a). The higher the score, the higher the fragility level.

The entrepreneurship motivation study (chapter 2) employs exploratory factor analyses (EFA)

to identify key motivational drivers behind the decision to start a business for a sample of 139

Syrian entrepreneurs. The identified drivers informed the formulation of hypotheses to

compare those motivations between the two cities (Damascus and Berlin) using Multivariate

Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) and non-parametric methods (the Mann-Whitney U

test). Meanwhile, the personality and behavior study (chapter 3) assesses a sample of 232

entrepreneurs in 22 countries primarily in Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and Ghana. The

study tests a hypothesis on the difference in the expression of entrepreneurial and managerial

behaviors in startups of varying success using an independent sample t-test then proceeds to

multiple linear regression (MLR) to test the relationships between personality characteristics

and desired behaviors while moderating for country fragility. As for the analysis of EIT

(chapter 4), Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), Multiple Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) and

the Mann-Whitney U test were used to compare Pakistani (n=53) and German (n=59)

entrepreneurs.

Finally, Q4 was addressed through an EET analysis (chapter 5) based on an extensive

systematic literature review (SLR) of recent scholarly works using Web of Science (WoS) and

EBSCO Business Complete databases. The resulting set of 146 peer-reviewed journal articles

was analyzed following the PRISMA guidelines (Moher et al., 2009) to delineate if and how

recent EET initiatives target Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related

to poverty reduction, employment generation, innovation, sustainable production and

consumption and social equality. A conceptual framework was therefore constructed based

on expected EET-SDG relationships. A deeper analysis was performed on case studies

targeting fragile contexts to highlight particular challenges and potential technologically

empowered mitigations.

The thesis research designs and methods are summarized in Table 1-2. The following chapters

(2-5) feature the full text of the aforementioned papers which constitute the core of this

doctoral thesis.

Paper #1

Paper #2

Paper #3

Paper #4

Analysis

Type

Quantitative

Review

Methods

EFA, MANCOVA,

Mann-Whitney U Test

Student's T-Test, MLR

ANOVA, MANOVA,

Mann-Whitney U Test

SLR (PRISMA

Guidelines)

Study

Sample(s)

Syrian Entrepreneurs

in Home and Host

Countries

Sub Saharan African

Entrepreneurs in Home

Countries

Pakistani and German

Entrepreneurs in Home

Countries

EET Articles in Highly

Ranked

Entrepreneurship

Journals

Sample Size

Syria n=74, Germany

n=65

n=232

Pakistan n=53,

Germany n=59

146 Journal Articles

Study

Locations

Syria (Damascus) and

Germany (Berlin)

Sub Saharan Africa (22

Countries)

Pakistan (Lahore,

Karachi) and Germany

(Berlin)

Micro

Analysis

Level

Individual

Entrepreneurs

Individual

Entrepreneurs

Individual

Entrepreneurs

Individual Papers

Type of

Macro

Analysis

Cross-Country

Comparison

Moderating for State

Fragility

Cross-Country

Comparison

Synthesis of Literature

Findings

Startup Stage

Pre-Startup

Initiation and Early

Growth

International

Expansion

General

Theoretical

Constructs

Eclectic Theory of

Entrepreneurship,

Wagner and

Sternberg's Model of

Entrepreneurial

Decision-Making (2004)

Trait Activation

Theory, the Five Factor

Model of Personality,

Entrepreneurial and

Managerial Behaviors

Institutional Theory,

Mindset Theory,

Entrepreneurship

Orientation, Global

Mindset

Sustainable

Development Goals

Measurement

Tools

Self-Constructed

Questionnaire

Brown and Hanlon's

Questionnaire on

Entrepreneurial and

Managerial Behaviors

(2004; 2016), Gosling et

al.'s (2003) TIPI Scale

Goktan and Gupta's

(2015) Questionnaire

on Entrepreneurship

Orientation, Felicio et

al.'s (2016)

Questionnaire on

Global Mindset

Table 1-2: A summary of research design and methods employed across the thesis.

1.5. References

Acedo, F. J., & Florin, J. (2006). An Entrepreneurial Cognition Perspective on the

Internationalization of SMEs. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 4(1), 49–67.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-006-0482-9

Acedo, F. J., & Jones, M. V. (2007). Speed of Internationalization and Entrepreneurial

Cognition. Journal of World Business, 42(3), 236–252.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2007.04.012

Acemoglu, D., Gallego, F. A., & Robinson, J. A. (2014). Institutions, Human Capital and

Development. Annual Reviews of Economics, 6, 875–912. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-

economics-080213-041119

Acs, Z. (2006). How Is Entrepreneurship Good for Economic Growth? Innovations:

Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1(1), 97–107.

Acs, Z. J., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2009). The Knowledge Spillover

Theory of Entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32(1), 15–30.

Acs, Z. J., Desai, S., & Hessels, J. (2008). Entrepreneurship, Economic Development and

Institutions. Small Business Economics, 31, 219–234.

Agarwal, R., Audretsch, D., & Sarkar, M. B. (2010). Knowledge Spillovers and Strategic

Entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4, 271–283.

Ahmad, N. H., Ramayah, T., Wilson, C., & Kummerow, L. (2010). Is Entrepreneurial

Competency and Business Success Relationship Contingent upon Business Environment? A

Study of Malaysian SMEs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research,

16(3), 182–203. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552551011042780

Aldrich, H. E., & Wiedenmayer, G. (1993). From Traits to Rates: An Ecological Perspective

on Organizational Foundings. JAI Press.

Anosike, P. (2018). Entrepreneurship Education as Human Capital: Implications for Youth

Self-Employment and Conflict Mitigation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Industry and Higher

Education, 33(1), 42–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422218812631

Ansted, R., & Dent, E. B. (2015). Profit and Social Value: An Analysis of Strategies and

Sustainability at the Base of the Pyramid. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, 12280–

12280. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2015.12280abstract

Arpiainen, R.-L., & Tynjala, P. (2017). Introducing Team Learning in a Developing Economy:

Students’ Experiences of Experiential Entrepreneurship Education in Namibia. Journal of

Enterprising Culture, 25(2), 179–210.

Ashourizadeh, S., Nasiri, N., & Schøtt, T. (2014). Entrepreneurial Intention Benefiting from

Education, Training and Competence: Egypt and Iran. International Journal of

Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 23(1/2), 94.

Asvoll, H., & Jacobsen, P. J. (2012). A Case Study: Action Based Entrepreneurship Education,

How Experience Problems Can Be Overcome and Collaboration Problems Mitigated. Journal

of Entrepreneurship Education, 15, 75–97.

Aubrey, M., Aubrey, R., Brodrick, F., & Brooks, C. (2016). Why Young Syrians Choose to

Fight: Vulnerability and Resilience to Recruitment by Violent Extremist Groups in Syria.

International Alert.

Ault, J. K., & Spicer, A. (2014). The Institutional Context of Poverty: State Fragility as a

Predictor of Cross‐National Variation in Commercial Microfinance Lending. Strategic

Management Journal, 35(12), 1818–1838. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2185

Bagozzi, R. (1992). The Self-Regulation of Attitudes, Intentions, and Behavior. Social

Psychology Quarterly, 55(2), 178–204. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786945

Bai, X., Li, Y., & Lin, L. (2016). Caring for Others Matters: Flexibility and Persistence as the

Dual Pathways Whereby Intrinsic and Prosocial Motivations Enhance Creativity.

International Journal of Psychology, 51(SI), 745.

Bango, S. P., Ndiweni, E., Galloway, L., & Verhoeven, H. (2018). Survivalism, Collectivism

and Proud Heritage: A Study of Informal Arts and Crafts Entrepreneurship in Rural

Zimbabwe. South African Journal of Business Management, 49(1), UNSP a233.

https://doi.org/10.4102/sajbm.v49i1.233

Bart, C., Baetz, M. C., & Pancer, S. M. (2009). Leveraging Human Capital Through an

Employee Volunteer Program: The Case of Ford Motor Company of Canada. Journal of

Intellectual Capital, 10(1), 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930910922941

Baumol, W. J. (1968). Entrepreneurship in Economic Theory. The American Economic

Review, 58(2), 64–71.

Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive. Journal

of Political Economy, 98(5), 893–921.

Baumol, W. J. (2010). The Microtheory of Innovative Entrepreneurship. Princeton University

Press.

Baumol, W. J., Litan, R. E., Schramm, C. J., & Strom, R. J. (2011). Innovative

Entrepreneurship and Policy: Toward Initiation and Preservation of Growth. Physica-Verlag

Heidelberg.

Becker, G. S. (1964). Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special

Reference to Education. Columbia University Press.

Becker, G. S. (1994). Human Capital Revisited. In G. S. Becker, Human Capital: A Theoretical

and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education (3rd Edition) (pp. 15–28). The

University of Chicago Press.

Becker, G. S. (2002). The Age of Human Capital. In E. P. Lazear (Ed.), Education in the

Twenty-First Century (pp. 3–8). Hoover Institution Press.

Belsky, D. W., Caspi, A., Arseneault, L., Corcoran, D. L., Domingue, B. W., Mullan Harris,

K., Houts, R. M., Mill, J. S., Moffitt, T. E., Prinz, J., Sugden, K., Werz, J., Williams, B., &

Odgers, C. L. (2019). Genetics & the Geography of Health, Behavior, and Attainment. Nature

Human Behavior, 3(6), 576–586. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0562-1

Bendesky, A., & Bargmann, C. I. (2011). Genetic Contributions to Behavioural Diversity at

the Gene-Environment Interface. Nature Reviews Genetics, 12(12), 809–820.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3065

Berner, E., Gomez, G. M., & Knorringa, P. (2012). “Helping a Large Number of People

Become a Little Less Poor”: The Logic of Survival Entrepreneurs. European Journal of

Development Research, 24(3), 382–396. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2011.61

Betts, A., Bloom, L., & Weaver, N. (2015). Refugee Innovation: Humanitarian Innovation

That Starts with Communities. Humanitarian Innovation Project, University of Oxford.

Bhave, M. P. (1994). A Process Model of Entrepreneurial Venture Creation. Journal of

Business Venturing, 9, 223–242.

Bird, B., & Schjoedt, L. (2009). Entrepreneurial Behavior: Its Nature, Scope, Recent Research,

and Agenda for Future Research. In A. Carsrud & M. Brännback (Eds.), Understanding the

Entrepreneurial Mind: Opening the Black Box (pp. 327–358). Springer.

Bird, B., Schjoedt, L., & Baum, J. R. (2012). Editor’s Introduction. Entrepreneurs’ Behavior:

Elucidation and Measurement. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(5), 889–913.

Blaug, M. (1972). An Introduction to the Economics of Education. Penguin Books.

Blaug, M. (1976). The Empirical Status of Human Capital Theory: A Slightly Jaundiced

Survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 14(3), 827–855.

Block, J. H., Fisch, C. O., & van Praag, M. (2017). The Schumpeterian Entrepreneur: A

Review of the Empirical Evidence on the Antecedents, Behaviour and Consequences of

Innovative Entrepreneurship. Industry and Innovation, 24(1), 61–95.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2016.1216397

Bosma, N., & Kelley, D. (2018). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2018/2019 Global Report.

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor.

Boudreaux, C. J., & Nikolaev, B. (2019). Capital is Not Enough: Opportunity

Entrepreneurship and Formal Institutions. Small Business Economics, 53(3), 709–738.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0068-7

Bourdage, J. S., Goupal, A., Neilson, T., Lukacik, E.-R., & Lee, N. (2018). Personality, Equity

Sensitivity, and Discretionary Workplace Behavior. Personality and Individual Differences,

120, 144–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.08.018

Bozzoli, C., Brück, T., & Wald, N. (2011). Self-Employment and Conflict in Colombia.

Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.

Brännback, M., Carsrud, A., Kickul, J., Krueger, N. F., & Elfving, J. (2007). Trying to Be an

Entrepreneur? A Goal‐Specific Challenge to the Intentions Model. Babson College

Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Madrid.

Brewer, J., & Gibson, S. (Eds.). (2014). Necessity Entrepreneurs: Microenterprise Education

and Economic Development. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Brown, T. C., & Hanlon, D. (2004). Developing Behavioural Observation Scales to Foster

Effective Entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 17(2), 103–116.

Brown, T. C., & Hanlon, D. (2016). Behavioral Criteria for Grounding Entrepreneurship

Education and Training Programs: A Validation Study. Journal of Small Business

Management, 54(2), 399–419.

Brück, T., Naudé, W., & Verwimp, P. (2013). Business under Fire: Entrepreneurship and

Violent Conflict in Developing Countries. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 57(1), 3–19.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002712464846

Bruton, G. D., Ahlstrom, D., & Li, H.-L. (2010). Institutional Theory and Entrepreneurship:

Where Are We Now and Where Do We Need to Move in the Future? Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice, 34(3), 421–440. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00390.x

Bullough, A., Renko, M., & Myatt, T. (2014). Danger Zone Entrepreneurs: The Importance of

Resilience and Self-Efficacy for Entrepreneurial Intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory &

Practice, 1042–2587.

Carlsson, B., Braunerhjelm, P., McKelvey, M., Olofsson, C., Persson, L., & Ylinenpaa, H.

(2013). The Evolving Domain of Entrepreneurship Research. Small Business Economics, 41,

913–930. https://doi.org/DOI 10.1007/s11187-013-9503-y

Carsrud, A., & Brännback, M. (2011). Entrepreneurial Motivations: What Do We Still Need

to Know? Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 9–26.

Carsrud, A., Brännback, M., Elfving, J., & Brandt, K. L. (2009). Motivations: The

Entrepreneurial Mind and Behavior. In A. Carsrud & M. Brännback (Eds.), Understanding

the Entrepreneurial Mind: Opening the Black Box (pp. 141–166). Springer.

Carsrud, A., & Krueger, N. F. (1995). Entrepreneurship and Social Psychology: Behavioral

Technology for the New Venture Initiation Process. In J. A. Katz & R. H. Brockhaus (Eds.),

Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth (Vol. 2, pp. 73–96). JAI Press.

Cavusgil, S. T., & Knight, G. (2015). The Born Global Firm: An Entrepreneurial and

Capabilities Perspective on Early and Rapid Internationalization. Journal of International

Business Studies, 46, 3–16.

Cervone, D., & Pervin, L. A. (2012). Personality: Theory and Research (12th ed.). Wiley.

Chamarbagwala, R., & Morán, H. E. (2011). The Human Capital Consequences of Civil War:

Evidence from Guatemala. Journal of Developmental Economics, 94(1), 41–61.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2010.01.005

Chandler, G. N., & Hanks, S. H. (1994). Founder Competence, the Environment, and Venture

Performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(3), 77–89.

Chandler, G. N., & Jansen, E. (1992). The Founder’s Self-Assessed Competence and Venture

Performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(3), 223–236.

Cheung, C. W. M., & Kwong, C. (2017). Path- and Place-Dependence of Entrepreneurial

Ventures at Times of War and Conflict. International Small Business Journal: Researching

Entrepreneurship, 35(8), 903–927.

Child, J., Hsieh, L., Elbanna, S., Karmowska, J., Marinova, S., Puthusserry, P., Tsai, T.,

Narooz, R., & Zhang, Y. (2017). SME International Business Models. Journal of World

Business, 52(5), 664–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2017.05.004

Chowdhury, F., Audretsch, D., & Belitski, M. (2019). Institutions and Entrepreneurship

Quality. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(1), 51–81.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258718780431

Church, A., & Waclawski, J. (1998). The Relationship Between Individual Personality

Orientation and Executive Leadership Behaviour. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 71(2), 99–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1998.tb00666.x

CIFP. (2019). Country Ranking Table 2012 (preliminary data). Country Indicators for Foreign

Policy (CIFP). https://carleton.ca/cifp/failed-fragile-states/country-ranking-table/

Clydesdale, G. (2017). Chinese Merchant Manuals and Entrepreneurship Education.

Proceedings of the European Conference on Innovation & Entrepreneurship, 150–157.

Collier, P. (2007). The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can

be Done about it. Oxford University Press.

Colquitt, J. A., & George, G. (2011). Publishing in AMJ—Part 1: Topic Choice. Academy of

Management Journal, 54, 432–435.

Comte, A. (1853). Positive Philosophy (H. Martineau, Trans.). HardPress.

Coviello, N., & Jones, M. V. (2004). Methodological Issues in International Entrepreneurship

Research. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(4), 485–508.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.06.001

Covin, J. G., & Miller, D. (2014). International Entrepreneurial Orientation: Conceptual

Considerations, Research Themes, Measurement Issues, and Future Research Directions.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1), 11–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12027

Dana, L.-P., & Ratten, V. (2017). International Entrepreneurship in Resource-Rich

Landlocked African Countries. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 15(4), 416–435.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-017-0211-6

Daniel, A. D. (2016). Fostering an Entrepreneurial Mindset by Using a Design Thinking

Approach in Entrepreneurship Education. Industry and Higher Education, 30(3), 215–223.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422216653195

Davidsson, P. (2008). The Entrepreneurship Research Challenge. Edward Elgar.

Davidsson, P., & Wiklund, J. (2001). Levels of Analysis in Entrepreneurship Research:

Current Research Practice and Suggestions for the Future. Entrepreneurship Theory &

Practice, 25(4), 81–100.

Dean, T. J., & McMullen, J. S. (2007). Toward a Theory of Sustainable Entrepreneurship:

Reducing Environmental Degradation through Entrepreneurial Action. Journal of Business

Venturing, 22(1), 50–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.09.003

Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-Determination Theory in Work

Organizations: The State of a Science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and

Organizational Behavior, 4, 19–43.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. (2015). Self-Determination Theory. Elsevier.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human

Behavior. Plenum Publishing Co.

Desai, S. (2011). A Tale of Entrepreneurship in Two Iraqi Cities. Journal of Small Business &

Entrepreneurship, 24(2), 283–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2011.10593539

Devece, C., Peris-Ortiz, M., & Rueda-Armengot, C. (2016). Entrepreneurship During

Economic crisis: Success factors and Paths to Failure. Journal of Business Research, 96(11),

5366–5370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.139

Diamond, J. (2005). Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed: Revised Edition.

Penguin Books.

Doucouliagos, H., & Paldam, M. (2011). The Ineffectiveness of Development Aid on Growth:

An Update. European Journal of Political Economy, 27, 399–404.

Douhan, R., & Henrekson, M. (2010). Entrepreneurship and Second-Best Institutions: Going

Beyond Baumol’s Typology. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 20(4), 629–643.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-010-0174-4

Dweck, C. (2007). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success (Ballantine books trade

paperback ed.). Ballantine Books.

Dyer, J. H., Gregersen, H. B., & Christensen, C. (2008). Entrepreneurial Behaviors,

Opportunity Recognition, and the Origins of Innovative Ventures. Strategic

Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(4), 317–338. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.59

Easterly, W. (2008). Institutions: Top Down or Bottom Up? American Economic Review:

Papers & Proceedings, 98(2), 95–99.

Edelman, L. F., Brush, C. G., Manolova, T. S., & Greene, P. G. (2010). Start‐up Motivations

and Growth Intentions of Minority Nascent Entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business

Management, 48(2), 174–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2010.00291.x

Eesley, C. (2016). Institutional Barriers to Growth: Entrepreneurship, Human Capital and

Institutional Change. Organization Science, 27(5), 1290–1306.

https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2016.1077

Ervits, I., & Zmuda, M. (2018). A Cross-Country Comparison of the Effects of Institutions on

Internationally Oriented Innovation. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 16(4), 486–

503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-018-0225-8

Eskola, L., Simunaniemi, A. M., Arhio, K., Jokela, H., & Muhos, M. (2017). Influences of a

Participatory Strategy Process on Entrepreneurship Education Practices. Proceedings of the

European Conference on Innovation & Entrepreneurship, 209–216.

Fayolle, A., & Liñán, F. (2014). The Future of Research on Entrepreneurial Intentions. Journal

of Business Research, 67(5), 663–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.11.024

Fayolle, A., Liñán, F., & Moriano, J. A. (2014). Beyond Entrepreneurial Intentions: Values

and Motivations in Entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management

Journal, 10, 679–689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-014-0306-7

Felício, J. A., Caldeirinha, V. R., Rodrigues, R., & Kyvik, O. (2013). Cross-Cultural Analysis

of the Global Mindset and the Internationalization Behavior of Small Firms. International

Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9(4), 641–654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-

013-0268-1

Felício, J. A., Meidutė, I., & Kyvik, Ø. (2016). Global Mindset, Cultural Context, and the

Internationalization of SMEs. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 4924–4932.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.054

Ferraro, F., Etzion, D., & Gehman, J. (2015). Tackling Grand Challenges Pragmatically:

Robust Action Revisited. Organization Studies, 36(3), 363–390.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840614563742

Freeman, S., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2007). Toward a Typology of Commitment States among

Managers of Born-Global Firms: A Study of Accelerated Internationalization. Journal of

International Marketing, 15(4), 1–40.

Frese, M. (2009). Toward a Psychology of Entrepreneurship—An Action Theory Perspective.

Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 5(6), 437–496.

Frese, M., Gielnik, M. M., & Mensmann, M. (2016). Psychological Training for Entrepreneurs

to Take Action: Contributing to Poverty Reduction in Developing Countries. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 25(3), 196–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416636957

Fund for Peace. (2019a). Global Data | Fragile States Index.

https://fragilestatesindex.org/data/

Fund for Peace. (2019b). The Fragile States Index Annual Report 2019. Fund for Peace.

Gelb, A., Mengistae, T. A., Ramachandran, V., & Shah, M. K. (2009). To Formalize or Not to

Formalize? Comparisons of Microenterprise Data from Southern and East Africa [Working

Paper Number 175]. Center for Global Development. 10.2139/ssrn.1473273

GEM. (2019, December 28). Entrepreneurial Framework Conditions. Global

Entrepreneurship Monitor. https://www.gemconsortium.org/data

Ghina, A., Simatupang, T., & Gustomo, A. (2017). The Relevancy of Graduates’

Competencies to the Effectiveness of Entrepreneurship Education: A Case Study at SBM ITB

- Indonesia. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 20(1), 1–24.

Giacomin, O., Janssen, F., Pruett, M., Shinnar, R. S., Llopis, F., & Toney, B. (2011).

Entrepreneurial Intentions, Motivations and Barriers: Differences among American, Asian

and European Students. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(2), 219–

238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-010-0155-y

Global Entrepreneurship Research Association. (2019). How GEM Defines Entrepreneurship.

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. https://www.gemconsortium.org/wiki/1149

Goktan, B., & Gupta, V. K. (2015). Sex, Gender, and Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation:

Evidence from Four Countries. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,

11(1), 95–112.

Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The Structure of Phenotypic Personality Traits. American

Psychologist, 48(1), 26–34.

Goldin, C. (2019). Human Capital. In C. Diebolt & M. Haupert (Eds.), Handbook of

Cliometrics (pp. 1–27). Springer.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action Phases and Mind-Sets. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino

(Eds.), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition.Foundations of Social Behavior (2nd ed., pp.

53–92). Guilford Press.

Gomez, G. M. (2008). Do Micro-Enterprises Promote Equity or Growth? Institute of Social

Studies.

Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. Jr. (2003). A Very Brief Measure of the Big-

Five Personality Domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528.

Gould, L. A., & Agnich, L. E. (2016). Exploring the Relationship Between Gender Violence

and State Failure: A Cross-National Comparison. Violence Against Women, 22(11), 1343–

1370. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215624790

Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. (2011). The Necessity of Others is the Mother of Invention:

Intrinsic and Prosocial Motivations, Perspective Taking and Creativity. Academy of

Management Journal, 54(1), 73–96. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.59215085

Greenberger, D. B., & Sexton, D. L. (1988). An Interactive Model of New Venture Initiation.

Journal of Small Business Management, 26(3).

Griffiths, M. D., Kickul, J., Bacq, S., & Terjesen, S. (2012). A Dialogue With William J.

Baumol: Insights on Entrepreneurship Theory and Education. Entrepreneurship: Theory &

Practice, 36(4), 611–625.

Guan, H., Zhang, Z., Zhao, A., Jia, J., & Guan, S. (2019). Research on Innovation Behavior

and Performance of New Generation Entrepreneur Based on Grounded Theory.

Sustainability, 11(10), 2883. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102883

Guion, R. M. (2011). Assessment, Measurement, and Prediction for Personnel Decisions.

Routledge.

Gunther, F. (2013). Entrepreneurship in MENA Conflict and Post-Conflict States. Economics

Department, Lehigh University.

Hall, J. J., Daneke, G. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2010). Sustainable Development and

Entrepreneurship: Past Contributions and Future Directions. Journal of Business Venturing,

25(5), 439–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.01.002

Hall, J., Matos, S., Sheehan, L., & Silvestre, B. (2012). Entrepreneurship and Innovation at the

Base of the Pyramid: A Recipe for Inclusive Growth or Social Exclusion. Journal of

Management Studies, 49(4), 785–812.

Harari, Y. N. (2018). 21 Lessons for the 21st Century. Jonathan Cape.

Hart, D. M. (2003). Entrepreneurship Policy: What it is and Where it Came From. In The

Emergence of Entrepreneurship Policy: Governance, Start-Ups and Growth in the US

Knowledge Economy. Cambridge University Press.

Haveman, R. H., & Wolfe, B. L. (1984). Schooling and Economic Well-Being: The Role of

Nonmarket Effects. The Journal of Human Resources, 19(3), 377–407.

Hayes, D., & Richmond, W. (2017). Using an Online Assessment to Examine

Entrepreneurship Student Traits and to Measure and Improve the Impact of

Entrepreneurship Education. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 20(1), 88–107.

Hilson, G., Hilson, A., & Maconachie, R. (2018). Opportunity or Necessity? Conceptualizing

Entrepreneurship at African Small-Scale Mines. Technological Forecasting and Social

Change, 131, 286–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.12.008

Hitt, M. A., Bierman, L., Shimizu, K., & Kochhar, R. (2017). Direct and Moderating Effects of

Human Capital on Strategy and Performance in Professional Service Firms: A Resource-

Based Perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 13–28.

https://doi.org/10.5465/3069334

Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Personality and Culture Revisited: Linking Traits and

Dimensions of Culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 38(1), 52–88.

Hoppe, M. (2016). Policy and entrepreneurship education. Small Business Economics, 46(1),

13–29.

Horne, J., Recker, M., Michelfelder, I., Jay, J., & Kratzer, J. (2020). Exploring

Entrepreneurship Related to the Sustainable Development Goals—Mapping New Venture

Activities with Semi-Automated Content Analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 242,

118052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118052

Hoskisson, R. E., Covin, J. G., Volberda, H. W., & Johnson, R. A. (2011). Revitalizing

Entrepreneurship: The Search for New Research Opportunities. Journal of Management

Studies, 48(6), 1141–1168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00997.x

Hudson, V. M., Caprioli, M., Ballif-Spanvill, B., McDermott, R., & Emmett, C. F. (2009). The

Heart of the Matter: The Security of Women and the Security of States. International

Security, 33, 7–45.

Institute for Economics & Peace. (2019). Global Terrorism Index 2019: Measuring the Impact

of Terrorism.

Janssen, F., & Bacq, S. (2010). Cultural and Outcomes-Related Issues in Implementing an

Interdisciplinary Cross-Campus Entrepreneurship Education Program. Journal of Small

Business & Entrepreneurship, 23(sup:1), 733–746.

Jantunen, A., Puumalainen, K., Saarenketo, S., & Kyläheiko, K. (2005). Entrepreneurial

Orientation, Dynamic Capabilities and International Performance. Journal of International

Entrepreneurship, 3(3), 223–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-005-1133-2

Javalgi, R. G., & Todd, P. R. (2011). Entrepreneurial Orientation, Management Commitment,

and Human Capital. Journal of Business Research, 64(9), 1004–1010.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.11.024

Jiao, B. (2019). Research of Environmental Assessment Model Based on Fragile State Index.

IOP Conference Series-Materials Science and Engineering, 493, UNSP 012038.

https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/493/1/012038

Joardar, A., & Wu, S. (2011). Examining the Dual Forces of Individual Entrepreneurial

Orientation and Liability of Foreignness on International Entrepreneurs. Canadian Journal

of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne Des Sciences de l’Administration, 28(3), 328–

340. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.203

Joensuu-Salo, S., Sorama, K., Viljamaa, A., & Varamäki, E. (2018). Firm Performance among

Internationalized SMEs: The Interplay of Market Orientation, Marketing Capability and

Digitalization. Administrative Sciences, 8(3), 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci8030031

Jones, M. V., Coviello, N., & Tang, Y. K. (2011). International Entrepreneurship research

(1989–2009). Journal of Business Venturing, 26(6), 632–659.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.04.001

Judge, T. A., & Zapata, C. P. (2014). The Person–Situation Debate Revisited: Effect of

Situation Strength and Trait Activation on the Validity of the Big Five Personality Traits in

Predicting Job Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1149–1179.

Kakati, M. (2003). Success Criteria in High-Tech New Ventures. Technovation, 23(5), 447–

457. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(02)00014-7

Karakaya, F., & Kobu, B. (1994). New Product Development Process: An Investigation of

Success and Failure in High-Technology and Non-High-Technology Firms. Journal of

Business Venturing, 9(1), 49–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(94)90026-4

Katre, A., & Salipante, P. (2012). Start–Up Social Ventures: Blending Fine–Grained Behaviors

from Two Institutions for Entrepreneurial Success. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,

36(5), 967–994. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00536.x

Killick, N., Srikantha, V. S., & Gündüz, C. (2005). The Role of Local Business in

Peacebuilding. Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management.

Kiss, A. N., Danis, W. M., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2012). International Entrepreneurship Research

in Emerging Economies. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(2), 266–290.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.09.004

Koe, W.-L., Omar, R., & Abdul Majid, I. (2014). Factors Associated with Propensity for

Sustainable Entrepreneurship. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 130, 65–74.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.009

Kolade, O. (2018). Venturing under Fire: Entrepreneurship Education, Venture Creation, and

Poverty Reduction in Conflict-Ridden Maiduguri, Nigeria. Education and Training, 60(7–8),

749–766. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-08-2017-0124

Kolstad, I., & Wiig, A. (2015). Education and Entrepreneurial Success. Small Business

Economics, 44(4), 783–796. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-014-9621-1

Kong, Y., & Li, M. (2018). Proactive Personality and Innovative Behavior: The Mediating

Roles of Job-Related Affect and Work Engagement. Social Behavior and Personality, 46(3),

431–446. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6618

Koveos, P., & Yimin, Z. (2012). Regional Inequality and Poverty in Pre- and Postreform

China: Can Entrepreneurship Make a Difference? Thunderbird International Business

Review, 54(1), 59–72.

Kunday, Ö., & Çakır, C. (2017). Young People’s Emotional Intelligence Promoting

Entrepreneurial Orientation: Enhanced by Education. International Journal of

Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 30(3), 341.

Kuvaas, B., & Dysvic, A. (2009). Perceived Investment in Employee Development, Intrinsic

Motivation and Work Performance. Human Resource Management Review, 19(3), 217–236.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2009.00103.x

Kyvik, O. (2018). The Global Mindset: A Must for International Innovation and

Entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14(2), 309–27.

Langevang, T., Namatovu, R., & Dawa, S. (2012). Beyond Necessity and Opportunity

Entrepreneurship: Motivations and Aspirations of Young Entrepreneurs in Uganda.

International Development Planning Review, 34(4).

Lecuna, A., Cohen, B., & Chavez, R. (2017). Characteristics of High-Growth Entrepreneurs in

Latin America. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13(1), 141–159.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-016-0402-y

Lefebvre, M. R., & Collot, R. R. (2012). Achieving Legitimacy in Entrepreneurship Education:

A Case Study. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 20(4), 481–500.

Leon, R.-D. (2017). Developing Entrepreneurial Skills. An Educatonal and Intercultural

Perspectve. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovaton, 13(4), 97–121.

https://doi.org/10.7341/20171346

Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of

human capital allocation and development. Academy of Management Review, 24, 31–48.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.1580439

Lim, D. S. K., Morse, E. A., Mitchell, R. K., & Seawright, K. K. (2010). Institutional

Environment and Entrepreneurial Cognitions: A Comparative Business Systems Perspective.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(3), 491–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-

6520.2010.00384.x

Liñán, F., & Chen, Y.-W. (2009). Development and Cross-Cultural Application of a Specific

Instrument to Measure Entrepreneurial Intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,

33(3), 593–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00318.x

Low, M. B., & MacMillan, I. C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past Research and Future

Challenges. Journal of Management, 14(2), 139–161.

Luthans, F., Stajkovic, A. D., & Ibrayeva, E. (2000). Environmental and Psychological

Challenges Facing Entrepreneurial Development in Transitional Economies. Journal of

World Business, 35(1), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-9516(99)00035-8

Mack, A. (2016, January 21). The Truth About Islam. The Slate. https://slate.com/news-and-

politics/2016/01/islam-isnt-inherently-violent-or-peaceful.html

Man, T. W. Y., & Chan, T. L. K. F. (2002). The Competitiveness of Small and Medium

Enterprises: A Conceptualization with Focus on Entrepreneurial Competencies. Journal of

Business Venturing, 17(2), 123–142.

Marcus, J., & Roy, J. (2019). In Search of Sustainable Behaviour: The Role of Core Values and

Personality Traits. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-

017-3682-4

Margolis, D. N. (2014). By Choice and by Necessity: Entrepreneurship and Self‐Employment

in the Developing World. The European Journal of Development Research, 26(4), 419–436.

https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2014.25

Martin, B. C., McNally, J. J., & Kay, M. J. (2013). Examining the Formation of Human Capital

in Entrepreneurship: A Meta-Analysis of Entrepreneurship Education Outcomes. Journal of

Business Venturing, 28(2), 211–224.

Marvel, M. R., Davis, J. L., & Sproul, C. R. (2016). Human Capital and Entrepreneurship

Research: A Critical Review and Future Directions. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice,

40(3), 599–626. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12136

Marx, K. (1867). Das Kapital (Vol. 1). Verlag von Otto Meisner.

Mayer, I., Kortmann, R., Wenzler, I., Wetters, A., & Spaans, J. (2014). Game-Based

Entrepreneurship Education: Identifying Enterprising Personality, Motivation and

Intentions Amongst Engineering Students. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 17(2),

217–244.

McCarver, D., & Jessup, L. (2010). Khmer Krafts. A Case Study of Integrating Social

Entrepreneurship in Cambodia with Entrepreneurship Education in America. Journal of

Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 23(2), 225–236.

McCrae, R. R. (2002). NEO-PI-R Data from 36 Cultures: Further Intercultural Comparisons.

Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. J. (2003). Personality in Adulthood: A Five-Factor Theory

Perspective (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.

McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. (2005). Universal Features of Personality Traits From the

Observer’s Perspective: Data from 50 Cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

88(3), 547–561.

McDonald, S., Gan, B. C., Fraser, S. S., Oke, A., & Anderson, A. R. (2015). A Review of

Research Methods in Entrepreneurship 1985-2013. International Journal of Entrepreneurial

Behavior & Research, 21(3), 291–315. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-02-2014-0021

McDougall, P. P., & Oviatt, B. M. (2000). International Entrepreneurship: The Intersection of

Two Research Paths. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 902–906.

McGuigan, P. J. (2016). Practicing What We Preach: Entrepreneurship in Entrepreneurship

Education. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 19(1), 38–50.

McKay, A., & Thorbecke, E. (2019). The Anatomy of Fragile States in Sub-Saharan Africa:

Understanding the Interrelationship between Fragility and Indicators of Wellbeing. Review

of Development Economics, 23(3), 1073–1100. https://doi.org/10.1111/rode.12578

McMullen, J. S. (2011). Delineating the Domain of Development Entrepreneurship: A

Market-Based Approach to Facilitating Inclusive Economic Growth. Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice, 35(1), 185–215.

Mehtap, S., Ozmenekse, L., & Caputo, A. (2019). “I’m a Stay at Home Businesswoman”: An

Insight into Informal Entrepreneurship in Jordan. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging

Economies, 11(1), 44–65. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-10-2017-0080

Mincer, J. (1958). Investment in Human Capital and Personal Income Distribution. Journal of

Political Economy, 66, 281–302.

Minniti, M., & Levesque, M. (2010). Entrepreneurial Types and Economic Growth. Journal of

Business Venturing, 25(3), 305–314.

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Group, P. R. I. S. M. A. (2009). Preferred

Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS

Med, 6(7), e1000097.

Monllor, J., & Altay, N. (2016). Discovering Opportunities in Necessity: The Inverse Creative

Destruction Effect. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 23(1), 274–291.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-10-2014-0172

Morris, M. H., Webb, J. W., Fu, J., & Singhal, S. (2013). A Competency-Based Perspective on

Entrepreneurship Education. Conceptual and Empirical Insights. Journal of Small Business

Management, 51(3), 352–369.

Mota, A., Braga, V., & Ratten, V. (2019). Entrepreneurship Motivation: Opportunity and

Necessity. In V. Ratten, P. Jones, V. Braga, & C. S. Marques (Eds.), Sustainable

Entrepreneurship: The Role of Collaboration in the Global Economy (pp. 139–165). Springer

Nature Switzerland.

Mouselli, S., & Khalifa, B. (2017). Entrepreneurship in Crisis: The Determinants of Syrian

Students’ Entrepreneurial Intentions. Business, Management and Education, 15(2), 159–173.

Moyo, D. (2009). Dead Aid: Why Aid Makes Things Worse and How There is Another Way

for Africa. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Muñoz, P., & Dimov, D. (2015). The Call of the Whole in Understanding the Development of

Sustainable Ventures. 30(4), 632–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2014.07.012

Murphy, K. R. (2012). Individual differences. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of

Personnel Assessment and Selection (pp. 31–47). Oxford University Press.

Naffziger, D. W., Hornsby, J. S., & Kuratko, D. F. (1994). A Proposed Research Model of

Entrepreneurial Motivation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(3), 29–42.

Nafukho, F. M., Hairston, N., & Brooks, K. (2004). Human Capital Theory: Implications for

Human Resource Development. Human Resource Development International, 7(4), 545–551.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1367886042000299843

Naudé, W. (2007). Peace, Prosperity, and Pro-Growth Entrepreneurship. UNU-WIDER

Discussion Paper No. 2007/02.

Naudé, W. (2009). Entrepreneurship, Post-Conflict. Palgrave Macmillan.

Naudé, W. (2011). Entrepreneurship is Not a Binding Constraint on Growth and

Development in the Poorest Countries. World Development, 39(1), 33–44.

Naudé, W., Gries, T., Wood, E., & Meintjies, A. (2008). Regional Determinants of

Entrepreneurial Start-ups in a Developing Country. Entrepreneurship & Regional

Development, 20(2), 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985620701631498

Ncube, T. R., & Zondo, R. W. D. (2018). Influence of Self-Motivation and Intrinsic

Motivational Factors for Small and Medium Business Growth: A South African Case Study.

South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 21(1), a1994.

https://doi.org/10.4102/sajems.v21i1.1994

Nga, J. K. H., & Shamuganathan, G. (2010). The Influence of Personality Traits and

Demographic Factors on Social Entrepreneurship Start Up Intentions. Journal of Business

Ethics, 95(2), 259–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0358-8

Nikolaev, B., Boudreaux, C. J., & Palich, L. E. (2018). Cross‐Country Determinants of Early‐

Stage Necessity and Opportunity‐Motivated Entrepreneurship: Accounting for Model

Uncertainty. Journal of Small Business Management, 56(S1), 243–280.

https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12400

Nuttin, J. (1984). Motivation, Planning, and Action. Leuven University Press and Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Nye, B. D. (2015). Intelligent Tutoring Systems by and for the Developing World: A Review

of Trends and Approaches for Educational Technology in a Global Context. International

Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 25(2), 177–203.

OECD. (2006). Applying Strategic Environmental Assessment: Good Practice Guidance for

Development Co-operation (DAC Guidelines and Reference Series). OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2016). States of Fragility 2016: Understanding Violence. OECD.

https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264267213-en

OECD. (2018). States of Fragility 2018: Highlights. Organisation for Economic Cooperation

and Development.

Oparaocha, G. O. (2015). SMEs and International Entrepreneurship: An Institutional

Network Perspective. International Business Review, 24(5), 861–873.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2015.03.007

Pacheco, A. links open overlay panelDesirée F., Dean, T. J., & Payne, D. S. (2010). Escaping

the Green Prison: Entrepreneurship and the Creation of Opportunities for Sustainable

Development. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 464–480.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.07.006

Penh, B. (2009). New Convergences in Poverty Reduction, Conflict, and State Fragility: What

Business Should Know. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(4), 515–528.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0404-6

Penner, L. A., Midili, A. R., & Kegelmeyer, J. (1997). Beyond Job Attitudes: A Personality and

Social Psychology Perspective on the Causes of Organizational Citizenship Behavior.

Human Performance, 10(2), 111–131. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1002_4

Penney, L. M., David, E., & Witt, L. A. (2011). A Review of Personality and Performance:

Identifying Boundaries, Contingencies, and Future Research Directions. Human Resource

Management Review, 297–310.

Penney, L. M., Hunter, E. M., & Perry, S. J. (2011). Personality and Counterproductive Work

Behaviour: Using Conservation of Resources Theory to Narrow the Profile of Deviant

Employees. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(1), 58–77.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.2010.02007.x

Pettersson, T., & Eck, K. (2018). Organized Violence, 1989–2017. Journal of Peace Research,

55(4), 535–547.

Petty, W. (1664). Verbum Sapienti.

Pinker, S. (2011a). The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. Viking.

Pinker, S. (2011b). Taming the Devil within Us. Nature, 478, 309–311.

Pinker, S. (2015). Response to the Book Review Symposium: Steven Pinker, The Better

Angels of Our Nature. Sociology, 49(4), NP3–NP8.

Piperopoulos, P., & Dimov, D. (2015). Burst Bubbles or Build Steam? Entrepreneurship

Education, Entrepreneurial Self‐Efficacy, and Entrepreneurial Intentions. Journal of Small

Business Management, 53(4), 970–985.

Ployhart, R. E., Nyberg, A. J., Reilly, G., & Maltarich, M. A. (2013). Human Capital Is Dead;

Long Live Human Capital Resources! Journal of Management, 40(2), 371–398.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313512152

Potishuk, V., & Kratzer, J. (2017). Factors Affecting Entrepreneurial Intentions and

Entrepreneurial Attitudes in Higher Education. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education,

20(1), 25–44.

Rajan, R. G., & Subramanian, A. (2007). Aid and Growth: What Does the Cross-Country

Evidence Really Show? (Working Paper No. 11513; NBER Working Paper Series). National

Bureau of Economic Research.

Rani, R., & Desiana, P. M. (2019). The Impact of Owners’ Intrinsic Motivation and Work-Life

Balance on SMEs’ Performance: The Mediating Effect of Affective Commitment.

International Journal of Business, 24(4), 393–411.

Rathna, K. G., & Vijaya, T. G. (2009). Competencies of Entrepreneurs and Intrapreneurs: A

Comparative Study. South Asian Journal of Management, 16(2), 28–46.

Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2000). Psychological Approaches to Entrepreneurial Success: A

General Model and an Overview of Findings. Wiley.

Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007). Let’s Put the Person Back into Entrepreneurship Research: A

Meta-Analysis on the Relationship Between Business Owners’ Personality Traits, Business

Creation, and Success. European Journal of Work and Organizational, 16(4), 353–385.

Rauch, A., & Hulsink, W. (2015). Putting Entrepreneurship Education Where the Intention to

Act Lies: An Investigation Into the Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on

Entrepreneurial Behavior. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 14(2), 187–

204. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.0293

Redford, D. T., Marques, M., Vaz, L., & Brites, R. (2014). Impact Assessment of

Entrepreneurship Education in African Secondary Schools: An Evidence-Based Case of

Success in Angola. Proceedings from ICSB 2014 World Conference, Dublin.

Rice, S. E., & Patrick, S. (2008). Index of State Weakness in the Developing World. The

Brookings Institute.

Ripollés-Meliá, M., Menguzzato-Boulard, M., & Sánchez-Peinado, L. (2007). Entrepreneurial

Orientation and International Commitment. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 5(3–

4), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-007-0016-0

Robinson, S., Neergaard, H., Tanggaard, L., & Krueger, N. F. (2016). New Horizons in

Entrepreneurship: From Teacher-Led to Student-Centered Learning. Education and

Training, 58(7–8), 661–683. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-03-2016-0048

Romero, I., & Martinez-Roman, J. A. (2012). Self-Employment and Innovation. Exploring the

Determinants of Innovative Behavior in Small Businesses. Research Policy, 41(1), 178–189.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.07.005

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic

Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

Sadler-Smith, E., Hampson, Y., Chaston, I., & Badger, B. (2003). Managerial Behavior,

Entrepreneurial Style, and Small Firm Performance. Journal of Small Business Management,

41(1), 47–67.

Sarasvathy, S. (2004). Making It Happen: Beyond Theories of the Firm to Theories of Firm

Design. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(6).

Schramm, C. J. (2010). Expeditionary Economics: Spurring Growth After Conflicts and

Disasters. Foreign Affairs, 89(3), 89–99.

Schramm, C. J., & Ulin, R. (2010). Expeditionary Economics: Charting a Course for Economic

Recovery and Development in Post-Conflict Countries. Proceedings from the Summit on

Entrepreneurship and Expeditionary Economics, 5–7.

Schultz, T. W. (1961). Investment in Human Capital. The American Economic Review, 51(1),

1–17.

Secundo, G., Ndou, V., & Del Vecchio, P. (2016). Challenges for Instilling Entrepreneurial

Mindset in Scientists and Engineers: What Works in European Universities? International

Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 13(5), UNSP 1640012.

https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877016400125

Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of

Research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.

Shapero, A. (1984). The Entrepreneurial Event. In C. A. Kent (Ed.), The Environment for

Entrepreneurship (pp. 21–40). Lexington Books.

Shapero, A., & Sokol, L. (1982). Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship. In C. A. Kent, D. L.

Sexton, & K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of entrepreneurship (pp. 72–90). Prentice-Hall.

Shepherd, D., & Patzelt, H. (2011). The New Field of Sustainable Entrepreneurship: Studying

Entrepreneurial Action Linking “What is to be Sustained” with “What is to be Developed.”

Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 35(1), 137–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-

6520.2010.00426.x

Smith, A. (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.

Sobel, R. S. (2008). Testing Baumol: Institutional Quality and the Productivity of

Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(6), 641–655.

Song, L. Z., Song, M., & Parry, M. E. (2010). Perspective: Economic Conditions,

Entrepreneurship, First-Product Development, and New Venture Success. Journal of

Product Innovation Management, 27(1), 130–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-

5885.2009.00704.x

Song, M., Podoynitsyna, K., van der Bij, H., & Halman, J. I. M. (2008). Success factors in New

Ventures: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(1), 7–27.

Stephan, U., Hart, M., & Drews, C.-C. (2015). Understanding Motivations for

Entrepreneurship A Review of Recent Research Evidence. Enterprise Research Centre and

Aston Business School.

Stoner, C. R., & Fry, F. L. (1982). The Entrepreneurial Decision: Dissatisfaction or

Opportunity. Journal of Small Business Management, 39–44.

Teixeira, P. N. (2014). Gary Becker’s Early Work on Human Capital – Collaborations and

Distinctiveness. IZA Journal of Labor Economics, 3, 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40172-014-

0012-2

Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A Personality Trait-Based Interactionist Model of Job

Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 500–517.

Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation Trait Relevance, Trait Expression, and Cross-

Situational Consistency: Testing a Principle of Trait Activation. Journal of Research in

Personality, 34, 397–423.

Themnér, L., & Melander, E. (2016). Patterns of Armed Conflict 2006-15. In SIPRI Yearbook

2016 (pp. 201–219). Oxford University Press.

Tobias, J. M., & Boudreaux, K. C. (2011). Entrepreneurship and Conflict Reduction in the

Post-Genocide Rwandan Coffee Industry. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship,

24(2), 217–242.

Tobias, J. M., Mair, J., & Barbosa-Leiker, C. (2013). Toward a Theory of Transformative

Entrepreneuring: Poverty Reduction and Conflict Resolution in Rwanda’s Entrepreneurial

Coffee Sector. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(6), 728–742.

Valerio, A., Parton, B., & Robb, A. (2014). Entrepreneurship Education and Training

Programs Around the World: Dimensions for Success. The World Bank.

van Burg, E., & Romme, G. (2014). Creating the Future Together: Toward a Framework for

Research Synthesis in Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 38(2), 369–

397. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12092

Vila, L. (2000). The Non-monetary Benefits of Education. European Journal of Education,

35(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-3435.00003

Wagner, J., & Sternberg, R. (2002). Personal and Regional Determinants of Entrepreneurial

Activities: Empirical Evidence from the REM Germany. IZA Discussion Paper No. 624.

Wagner, J., & Sternberg, R. (2004). Start-Up Activities, Individual Characteristics, and the

Regional Milieu: Lessons for Entrepreneurship Support Policies from German Micro Data.

The Annals of Regional Science, 38(2), 219–240.

Walmsley, D. J., & Lewis, G. J. (1993). People and Environment: Behavioural Approaches in

Human Geography (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Walter, S. G., & Block, J. H. (2016). Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education: An

Institutional Perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(2), 216–233.

Wang, C. L., Senaratne, C., & Rafiq, M. (2015). Success Traps, Dynamic Capabilities and Firm

Performance. British Journal of Management, 26(1), 26–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-

8551.12066

WCED. (1987). Our Common Future, Oxford University Press. The World Commission on

Environment and Development.

Weldeegzie, S. G. (2017). Growing-up unfortunate: War and human Capital in Ethiopia.

World Development, 96, 474–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.03.030

Welter, F., & Smallbone, D. (2011). Institutional Perspectives on Entrepreneurial Behavior in

Challenging Environments. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 107–125.

Wennekers, S., van Stel, A., Thurik, R., & Reynolds, P. (2005). Nascent Entrepreneurship and

the Level of Economic Development. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 293–309.

Wierenga, M. (2020). Uncovering the Scaling of Innovations Developed by Grassroots

Entrepreneurs in Low-Income Settings. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 32(1–2),

63–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2019.1640478

Woolf, B. P., Lane, H. C., Chaudhri, V. K., & Kolodner, J. L. (2013). AI Grand Challenges for

Education. AI Magazine, 34(4), 66–84.

World Bank. (2018). Information Note: The World Bank Group’s Harmonized List of Fragile

Situations. http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/586581437416356109/FCS-List-FY16-

Information-Note.pdf

Wu, W., Wang, H., Lee, H.-Y., Lin, Y.-T., & Guo, F. (2019). How Machiavellianism,

Psychopathy, and Narcissism Affect Sustainable Entrepreneurial Orientation: The

Moderating Effect of Psychological Resilience. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 779.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00779

Yamakawa, Y., Peng, M. W., & Deeds, D. L. (2008). What Drives New Ventures to

Internationalize from Emerging to Developed Economies? Entrepreneurship Theory and

Practice, 32(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00216.x

Yasir, M., Majid, A., & Yasir, M. (2017). Entrepreneurial Knowledge and Start-up Behavior in

a Turbulent Environment. Journal of Management Development, 36(9), 1149–1159.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-10-2016-0193

York, J. K., & Venkataraman, S. (2010). The Entrepreneur–Environment Nexus: Uncertainty,

Innovation, and Allocation. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 449–463.

https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.07.007

Zhang, Y., Duysters, G., & Cloodt, M. (2014). The Role of Entrepreneurship Education as a

Predictor of University Students’ Entrepreneurial Intention. International Entrepreneurship

and Management Journal, 10(3), 623–641. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1007/s11365-012-0246-z

Zhu, Y., & Allee, M. Z. (2008). New Technology Ventures: What Factors Lead to Success?

Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(2). https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2008.32739767

Zupan, B., Cankar, F., & Cankar, S. S. (2018). The Development of an Entrepreneurial

Mindset in Primary Education. European Journal of Education, 53(3), 427–439.

https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12293

PART TWO: A HUMAN CAPITAL

ASSET ANALYSIS IN THE PRE-

STARTUP STAGE

2. An Eclectic Analysis of Entrepreneurship Motivation in Conflict and

Refuge: The Syrian Context

Author(s): Lubna Rashid.

Accepted for publication by the International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small

Business on January 19th, 2020.

Inderscience retains the copyright of this article. The article version included in this

dissertation is the author’s original (preprint).

This article applies the eclectic theory of entrepreneurship to the study of entrepreneurship

motivation under the extreme contexts of violent conflict and subsequent displacement,

where the decision to pursue entrepreneurship is modelled as an interplay of the

opportunities and external resources in the entrepreneur's environment as well as individual

characteristics. The study also adapts Wagner and Sternberg's view of entrepreneurial

decision-making in additional to the self-determination theory to discuss the study

implications. Findings suggest that conflict-affected entrepreneurs are intrinsically motivated

to start new businesses as well as being driven by opportunities and resources in their

institutional, economic, cultural, and social environment with no notable difference in

motivational drivers between conflict-affected founders in an active conflict versus refuge

context. This emphasizes the positive potential outcomes of entrepreneurship in conflict and

refuge and the need to comprehensively analyze entrepreneurship motivation outside of

dichotomies and simple categorizations to allow for actionable recommendations.

Keywords

Entrepreneurship Motivation, Eclectic Theory of Entrepreneurship, Refugee

Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship in Conflict, Self-Determination Theory, Syria, Germany

Rashid, L. (in press). An Eclectic Analysis of Entrepreneurship

Motivation in Conflict and Refuge: The Syrian Context.

International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business.

2.1. Introduction

Entrepreneurship is a vital facilitator for socioeconomic development, peace building, and

refugee integration (Betts, Bloom, et al., 2017; Desai, 2011; Jeffrey S. McMullen, 2011; Naudé,

2007; Tobias et al., 2013). However, research on entrepreneurship in contexts of political

instability, organized violence and displacement is still in its infancy. Antecedents of

entrepreneurship motivation amidst fragility are highly understudied, resulting not only in

research gaps but also missed opportunities to implement effective entrepreneurship

promotion measures and sustainable development strategies.

This paper focuses on understanding why conflict-affected individuals (CAIs) start new

businesses, stemming from the importance of motivation as a determinant factor of business

success and behavior (Carsrud & Brännback, 2011; Deci et al., 2017; Shane et al., 2003) and the

necessity to understand supply and demand enablers of CAI entrepreneurial entry to best

foster productive entrepreneurship in extreme contexts. With a spotlight on Syrians in

Damascus and Berlin, the eclectic theory of entrepreneurship (Verheul et al., 2001) is applied

to analyze entrepreneurship motivation among conflict- and asylum-country dwellers. This

paper therefore proposes a novel theoretical approach to analyzing CAI entrepreneurship

motivation, combining macro and microsocial environmental factors (entrepreneurial

opportunities and external resources) as well as internal entrepreneurial characteristics that

shape the decision to engage in entrepreneurial activity (Naffziger et al., 1994; Wagner &

Sternberg, 2004).

This serves as a response to Welter et al.’s call (2017) to diversify entrepreneurship research

beyond simplified, dichotomous categorizations and idealized silicon-valley-like

entrepreneurial models and Trehan, Higgins, and Jones’ (2018, p. 364) call to utilize

“innovative research approaches which address social science questions that make a

difference to practitioner communities” and “marry the divergent world of academics, policy

makers and small firms”.

2.2. Entrepreneurship, Development and Humanitarian Crises

While entrepreneurs’ role as catalysts of creative destruction (Schumpeter, 1942) and

translators of innovation and new knowledge investments into commercialized outputs (Z. J.

Acs et al., 2009; Agarwal et al., 2010) largely contributes to economic growth, productivity,

and social change in developed economies (Baumol & Strom, 2007), this role diminishes in

less-developed or stable settings in comparison to its potential contribution to enhancing

institutional structures (Naudé, 2011). Entrepreneurship is therefore a key facilitator for

bottom-up development (Easterly, 2008; Schramm, 2010), where institutions gradually evolve

and endogenously reform, achieving more sustainable outcomes through social, institutional

and business entrepreneurial efforts (Jeffrey S. McMullen, 2011).

Those diverse roles of entrepreneurship are fulfilled by different types of entrepreneurs.

Innovative entrepreneurs generate and commercialize new ideas, while replicative

entrepreneurs launch new businesses regardless of whether similar ones exist in the market

(Baumol, 2010). A similar typology is made by Minniti and Lévesque (2010, p. 308),

differentiating “research-based entrepreneurs who are involved in commercializing original

technological discoveries” from “imitative entrepreneurs who mobilize resources to expand

existing markets”. Although entrepreneurship studies tend to hail the entrepreneur’s image

as innovator, the role of the replicator is not to be underestimated. For instance, in cases where

“returns to R&D expenditure are low, such as in many emerging economies, the presence of

a high number of imitative entrepreneurs who increase competition and product supply is

sufficient to generate economic growth” (Minniti & Levesque, 2010, p. 305). Accordingly, any

individual who is in the process of establishing or has recently established a new business,

regardless of the degree of innovativeness, is considered an entrepreneur throughout this

paper.

With regards to the specific context of violent conflict, perhaps unexpectedly, business activity

does not stop or even necessarily slow down. In fact, it appears that entrepreneurs in a conflict

environment are capable of continuing their pre-conflict entrepreneurial journeys and even

renew and create new entrepreneurial pathways through entering new (previously known or

unknown) market sectors (Cheung & Kwong, 2017). While reduction in security,

unwillingness of customers and suppliers to travel, inability to obtain licenses and market

information, reduced levels of trust, increased difficulty to obtain bank loans, and risk of

clashing with the government can hinder entrepreneurial activity (Gunther, 2013), conflict can

present new business opportunities due to, among other reasons, reduction in regulatory

supervision, establishing new transport routes, need for private sector involvement in security

maintenance, and that business sectors initially dominated by a certain group become open

to others. The ability of entrepreneurs to recognize business opportunities and their desire

and ability to bear the risk of seizing them facilitates the resilience of the private sector under

such circumstances (Desai, 2011).

Though literature in the area is very limited, a few case studies provide additional insights.

Research in Iraq illustrates that the post-conflict environment, marked by tremendous change,

provides various business opportunities arising from large-scale reconstruction and access to

new markets, emphasizing the importance of entrepreneurs’ ability to innovate under

unfavorable conditions and limited resource availability (Desai, 2011). Another study in

Colombia shows an increase in entrepreneurial activity during conflict in regions hosting

higher numbers of internally displaced persons (IDPs) due to the increase in demand for

certain goods and services, while the proportion of self-employed decreases in areas with

higher homicide and displacement rates (Bozzoli et al., 2011). Two studies from Bangladesh

shows that regions where levels of terrorism are high yet are on the decline exhibit higher

returns to business activities (Branzei & Abdelnour, 2010) while the share of business owners

is lower in the more conflict-ridden region compared to the rest of the country (M. J. A.

Chowdhury, 2011).

Conflict entrepreneurship indeed presents several benefits, including the reduction of

socioeconomic inequality between social groups and providing new cooperation

opportunities in pursuit of common economic benefit, enabling individuals to “redefine

identities based on economics, not politics” (Tobias et al., 2013, p. 737), thus facilitating

reconciliation, mutual dependency, as well as creating much-needed jobs (Killick et al., 2005).

Some of the most prominent research in the field has been done by Wim Naudé (2007; 2009),

who also mentions supplying (public) goods and services, facilitating the creation of a

learning environment for future entrepreneurs, stimulating competition, diversifying

economies, and enabling status-quo-disrupting endogenous change as key potential benefits

of entrepreneurship in conflict and fragile states. However, Naudé follows Baumol (1990) in

emphasizing the ubiquity of entrepreneurship in such circumstances, and that it can also be

unproductive (e.g. rent-seeking) or even destructive and conflict-enhancing (e.g. organized

crime) rather than peace-enabling. Accordingly, Naudé calls for efforts to shift

entrepreneurship to productive forms through institutional reforms, improving market access

and logistical networks, investing in financial and human capital, and fortifying government

support for the private sector, rather than simply working to increase general

entrepreneurship rates in the conflict context.

As for CAIs attempting to start over elsewhere, entrepreneurship has received a modest share

of scholarly attention compared to other migrants or ethnic minorities. Though migrants

general appear to exhibit a higher probability of self-employment compared to locals (Rath &

Swagerman, 2016; Xavier et al., 2013), the tendency to start a new business varies greatly in

refugee case, perhaps contingent on the individual’s ability to harness whatever (limited)

resources the host environment provides after having been forced to leave abruptly, losing

previously available resources and being unaware of available opportunities (see for example

Kwong et al.’s (2018) work on Bricolage) . For instance, a study in the Ugandan capital shows

that 94.8% of Congolese, 78.2% of Rwandan and 25.9% of Somali refugee study participants

are self-employed (Betts et al., 2015) while another in Austria, the United Kingdom and the

Netherlands shows that only 1.5% of Syrian refugees start their own businesses though 32%

of the studied sample had experience with entrepreneurship back home (Betts, Sterck, et al.,

2017).

Indeed, several challenges face aspiring refugee entrepreneurs. Recent research on Syrians in

Jordan concludes that even refugees with entrepreneurial skills struggle to achieve

recognition for their capabilities due to legal and financial constraints as well as a lack of social

cohesion within the refugee community itself (Refai et al., 2018). Research in Belgium

identified key barriers to refugee entrepreneurship to be market opportunities, access to

entrepreneurship, human capital, social networks and the societal environments (Wauters &

Lambrecht, 2008). Further research expands those barriers to include poor choice of market,

lack of innovation, bureaucratic complexity, lack of accreditation of foreign credentials,

difficulty in evaluating entrepreneurship policies, legal status restrictions, poor access to

finance through formal and informal channels, lack of skills and knowledge, inadequacy of

support initiatives, weak social connections and discrimination in the society and labor

market (Rashid, 2018).

Nevertheless, in situations where those challenges are mitigated enough for new businesses

to be founded by refugees, several benefits are reported. Those include boosting refugees’

psychological and emotional well-being and sense of belonging in their host community,

enhancing independence from social welfare and foreign aid, empowering refugees through

allowing them to make own decisions and take charge of shaping own lives, enabling refugees

to provide employment opportunities to other refugees, finding and implementing innovative

solutions to challenges stemming from refuge, enabling refugees to pursue political activism

and engagement through their new businesses, and stimulating entrepreneurship in the host

country itself (Betts et al., 2015; Brandt, 2010; de la Chaux & Haugh, 2017; S. K. Lee, 2018;

Wauters & Lambrecht, 2008).

2.3. Motivation Behind Entrepreneurship

Several scholars attempted to investigate entrepreneurship motivation. A literature review

identified achievement, challenge and learning, independence and autonomy, income

security and financial success, recognition and status, family and roles, dissatisfaction, and

community and social drivers as key motivations behind entrepreneurship (Stephan et al.,

2015). Other studies view factors influencing the business start-up process from a macro lens,

focusing on country-level determinants (such as culture, education, policy, institutions,

and/or economic factors) of entrepreneurial activity rates (Arin et al., 2015; García, 2014; Thai

& Turkina, 2014; Velilla & Ortega, 2017).

Nevertheless, a large number of studies classify entrepreneurship motivation as a dichotomy

of opportunity versus necessity or pull versus push. Stoner and Fry (1982) were among the

first to make such a distinction, explaining that individuals are either driven to found

businesses to challenge themselves and seize opportunities or do so out of dissatisfaction with

their current employment situation. The GEM similarly distinguishes "“necessity

entrepreneurship”, which is having to become an entrepreneur because you have no better

option, from “opportunity entrepreneurship,” which is an active choice to start a new

enterprise based on the perception that an unexploited or underexploited business

opportunity exists” (Z. Acs, 2006, p. 97). Given that several large-scale studies on

entrepreneurship are based on GEM data, the opportunity/necessity classification is quite

prevalent, examples including Wong, Ho, and Autio (2005), McMullen, Bagby, and Palich

(2008), Valliere and Peterson (2009) and Cheragi (2017).

This binary classification, however, is an arguably dangerous over-simplification of the

complex processes behind entrepreneurship motivation which also dismisses that it could be

a result of both necessity and opportunity drivers that vary over time (Stephan et al., 2015). In

addition, the classification can be ambiguous and difficult to interpret by participants in

entrepreneurship research studies, which could make its accurate measurement challenging

(Dawson & Henley, 2012). Welter et al. (2017, p. 314) further criticize this binary classification

approach, saying that “indeed, while easing the theoretical and empirical challenges of

studying entrepreneurship, these distinctions do so at the cost of excluding most of the

phenomenon by implicitly labelling it as uninteresting for scholarly study and theory

building”.

This could be particularly alarming in challenged or low-resource contexts, where

entrepreneurship is primarily labelled as necessity-driven with a key implication being that

“the relationship between necessity entrepreneurship and economic development is most

likely negative in low-income countries” (Z. J. Acs et al., 2008, p. 222), overlooking that those

who might have initially sought entrepreneurship due to lack of other options can have

growth aspirations (Langevang et al., 2012). This has led to a widespread trivialization of

necessity entrepreneurs in literature, and in the words of Welter et al. (2017, p. 315), “we spend

too little time worrying about what has caused the apparent lack of “opportunities” they face,

and even less time wondering about what they may have done earlier or may do later in their

work lives. We also typically fail to understand pathways through which ventures started

from necessity might sometimes even innovate and grow.”

Entrepreneurship motivation studies in the CAI context appear to be limited. Examples

include studies on Somali entrepreneurs in South Africa using ethnographic research methods

(Thompson, 2016) and a single-case analysis of one Syrian refugee business owner in Lebanon

(Bizri, 2017). On the other hand, studies employing larger datasets and statistical analyses

commonly rely on secondary data sources, such as studies in Bangladesh (Chowdhury, 2011)

and Colombia (Bozzoli et al., 2011). This could be an affirmation of the general lack of interest

or perceived value to perform in-depth analyses of entrepreneurship (motivation) in the

conflict or refugee context, as well as an indication of challenges in the feasibility and capacity

to perform such studies.

2.4. Theoretical Framework

To provide a more holistic, realistic, and interpretable analysis of entrepreneurship

motivation, it is important to utilize micro and macro lenses, consider personal characteristics

and environmental features, combine multidisciplinary perspectives, and measure motivation

using more complex constructs (Naffziger et al., 1994; Wagner & Sternberg, 2004; Welter,

2017). The eclectic theory of entrepreneurship is therefore employed as key foundation for this

study. Developed by Verheul et al. (2001), this contemporary theory analyzes determinants of

entrepreneurial activity from an economic angle while drawing on insights from sociology

and psychology. Accordingly, the individual’s decision to pursue entrepreneurship as an

occupational choice is a function of entrepreneurial demand and supply. At the demand side

lie entrepreneurial opportunities influenced by macroenvironmental factors such as

government regulation and market need. On the contrary, the supply side consists of

entrepreneurs who are able to seize the available opportunities. Supply therefore depends on

the environment, namely external resources such as financial capital, educational programs

and social networks that support entrepreneurs in developing the skills and capacities to seize

entrepreneurial opportunities, as well as internal characteristics pertaining to the individual

such as personality, ability and preference for entrepreneurship.

According to this eclectic theory, entrepreneurship motivation is an outcome of the

individual’s process of weighing the pros and cons, or rewards and risks, of engaging in

entrepreneurial activity as opposed to paid employment or unemployment, taking into

consideration opportunities, external resources, and internal characteristics (Verheul et al.,

2001). This appears in alignment with Wagner and Sternberg’s (2004) modelling of the

decision to engage in entrepreneurship, viewed as an outcome of the individual’s perception

of their macro and microsocial environment as shaped by person-related factors. The

macroenvironment provides entrepreneurial opportunities (e.g. through policies and

economic trends) and external resources that influence entrepreneurial supply (e.g. through

education and provision of financial capital), while the microsocial environment (e.g. support

and influence from family and community) provides the individual with complimentary

external resources. Person-related factors as defined by Wagner and Sternberg (2004)

correspond to Verheul et al.’s (2001) definition of internal characteristics, namely the

individual attitude, trait, and capability portion of entrepreneurial supply. This paper

accordingly evaluates entrepreneurship motivation as a function of the individual perception

of the opportunities in the macroenvironment and the external resources in the macro and

microsocial environment as well as internal characteristics/person-related factors.

Entrepreneurship motivation therefore develops when the individual perceives higher

rewards than risks when evaluating various entrepreneurial demand (opportunities) and

supply (external resources and internal characteristics) factors.

This theoretical framing (Figure 2-1) provides a multi-angle approach to understanding CAI

entrepreneurship motivation beyond simplified dichotomies. This provides a steppingstone

for diversifying future studies and enriching literature in the CAI entrepreneurship field.

Additionally, this approach avoids labelling CAI entrepreneurs as merely “necessity-driven”

with low potential for success. For instance, one can argue that the process of weighing

entrepreneurial opportunities and external resources against internal characteristics is an

Figure 2-1: Theoretical framework rooted in the eclectic theory of entrepreneurship

(Verheul et al. 2001) and inspired by Wagner and Sternberg’s (2004) model of

entrepreneurial decision making.

interplay between extrinsic and intrinsic motivational factors. Taking the lens of the self-

determination theory (SDT) into perspective (Deci, 1971; Deci & Ryan, 2015, 1985; Ryan &

Deci, 2000), motivation lies on a spectrum of autonomy and control, whereas an individual is

autonomously motivated to perform an action when driven by their own will, which typically

happens when they have the conviction, interest, and choice to do so. On the other hand,

individuals can be driven by controlled motivation as a result of pressure, obligation, social

expectations and lack of options. Autonomous motivation is a result of intrinsic factors or

extrinsic ones that have been internalized and integrated, whereas controlled motivation is a

result of purely external factors “forcing” the individual to behave in a certain manner. If our

analysis reveals that CAIs are highly motivated by internal characteristics such as personality

traits or entrepreneurial attitudes, one can argue that autonomy constitutes a large portion of

the CAI entrepreneurship motivation, which is associated with improved success, quality,

experience, psychological health, engagement with the world, and generally positive business

outcomes (Deci et al., 2017; Foss et al., 2009; Preenen et al., 2016; Richer et al., 2006). Finally,

understanding environmental factors that encourage CAIs to pursue entrepreneurial activity

would also enable decision makers to identify where opportunities and resources need to be

provided to stimulate productive CAI entrepreneurship.

2.5. Methods and Findings

This paper presents a unique analysis of the entrepreneurship motivation in the context of the

Syrian crisis. Syria’s ongoing war began as a civil revolution in 2011, escalating to ultimately

forcing over half of the population to be displaced and over half of the remaining individuals

to be unemployed (UN OCHA, 2018). Meanwhile, the 2009 GEM report on Syria shows that

(pre-conflict) Syrians demonstrate higher levels of perceived entrepreneurial capabilities and

opportunities and lower fear of failure rates than the global average in addition to having an

entrepreneurial intentions rate of 54% (compared to the global average of 18%) (Haddad et

al., 2010). Recognizing this existing entrepreneurialism within the Syrian population

combined with tremendous change in their environment within recent years, it was deemed

important to analyze their entrepreneurship motivation taking both internal characteristics

and environmental factors into account. The study subjects are Syrians living in Damascus

and Berlin who have decided to found new businesses after 2011, hence exemplifying conflict-

affected entrepreneurs in two different environments, active conflict and refuge.

The study follows abductive reasoning, where a phenomenon is observed and the attempt is

made to find the simplest probable explanations for it (Haig, 2005; Josephson & Josephson,

1994), which in this case is the realization that CAIs initiate entrepreneurial activity despite

(or potentially because of) having been exposed to violent conflict. The abductive approach is

not merely a mix of inductive and deductive approaches and is suitable where the researcher’s

goal is to discover new variables and relationships while refining and advancing existing

theories (Dubois & Gadde, 2002). Essentially, “in studies relying on abduction, the original

framework is successively modified, partly as a result of unanticipated empirical findings, but

also of theoretical insights gained during the process. This approach creates fruitful cross-

fertilization where new combinations are developed through a mixture of established

theoretical models and new concepts derived from the confrontation with reality” (Dubois &

Gadde, 2002, p. 559).

Accordingly, this paper seeks to explore why this phenomenon occurs by extending and

refining the application of the eclectic theory of entrepreneurship to the CAI context,

employing a combination of Systematic Literature Review (SLR) and Exploratory Factor

Analysis (EFA) based on primary data collection. The SLR attempted to identify specific

variables at the environmental and individual level that shape entrepreneurship motivation

and integrating those variables into the theoretical framework. Those environmental (external

supply and opportunities) and personal (internal characteristics) dimensions then formed the

foundation for designing and applying a questionnaire to identify the specific motivational

factors relevant to the study sample, as analyzed and extracted through EFA. The key

motivational factors were then tested using Multivariate Analysis of Covariance

(MANCOVA) and non-parametric methods to identify potential differences in the impact of

those factors in the active conflict versus refuge sub-contexts.

To my knowledge, this is the first study in the field of entrepreneurship motivation,

particularly in the CAI context, employing the eclectic theory of entrepreneurship,

quantitative methods, primary data collection, as well as a comparative analysis of refugee

entrepreneurs with entrepreneurs in a conflict country. This paper is therefore positioned to

highly contribute to both scholarship and practice through addressing the following research

questions:

Q1: What factors shape the entrepreneurship motivation of CAIs?

Q2: Do factors behind entrepreneurship motivation have different impacts in active conflict versus

refuge contexts?

2.5.1. Systematic Literature Review

A literature review was conducted to identify specific dimensions of entrepreneurship

motivation. For this purpose, the SLR methodology was adopted (Tranfield et al., 2003), in

which scholarly contributions were reviewed and analyzed in a structured, traceable and

repeatable manner. This was based on a keyword search by title in Web of Science (WoS) and

EBSCO Business Source Complete, two databases known for their comprehensive coverage

of scholarly publications in the social sciences and business. Search phrases used were migrant

entrepreneurship, refugee entrepreneurship, conflict entrepreneurship, migrant business,

refugee business, conflict business, migrant self-employment, refugee self-employment,

conflict self-employment, entrepreneurship motivation, entrepreneurship determinants,

entrepreneurship factors, and entrepreneurship drivers.

The search criteria were limited to contributions in the English language and only peer-

reviewed articles published in scientific journals were included in the review to maximize the

validity and reliability of reviewed knowledge sources (Podsakoff et al., 2005). The review

included resources published until June 2017, resulting in 280 articles that were uploaded into

Citavi reference management software for organization and analysis. All article abstracts were

scanned to determine relevance to the research topic at hand and a subset of 82 articles was

accordingly thoroughly read and examined to identify general trends and characteristics of

the research field and dimensions of entrepreneurship motivation.

A majority of those 82 articles are focused on European countries, with little research targeting

countries in the Middle East or Africa where the majority of fragile states are present (OECD,

2018). With a whopping 3.3 billion individuals expected to live amidst fragility by 2050

(OECD, 2018), entrepreneurship research is currently failing to focus on several countries

where understanding and supporting economic self-sufficiency is of utmost importance.

These countries additionally generate as well as host the largest portion of the over 68.5

million forcibly displaced individuals globally (OECD, 2018; UNHCR, 2018b). Interestingly,

only 5 of the reviewed articles explicitly target refugee entrepreneurship, none of which is

based in a fragile country setting.

The articles were then analyzed to uncover specific dimensions of entrepreneurship

motivation for the purpose of developing a measuring tool to evaluate why CAIs are

motivated to pursue productive entrepreneurship. Accordingly, specific motivational factors

pertaining to the CAIs and their perception of environment were identified. With regards to

the entrepreneur’s environment, 63 reviewed articles appear to discuss political, economic,

educational or cultural dimensions of the macro environment and their relationship with the

rate of or motivation to start entrepreneurial activity. Those include economic stability,

bureaucratic procedures, entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial culture, and financial

incentives to start a business. Another 30 articles focused specifically on the individual’s social

circle, such as having a role model, ability to secure funds from family or friends, and being

part of an entrepreneurial community. As for person-related factors, a total of 59 articles

appeared to focus on five dimensions, namely attitude, ambition, dissatisfaction, values and

human capital. Specific examples include risk-taking, desire for social recognition and

financial gain, inability to find suitable employment, personal value system and academic and

professional experience.

2.5.2. Questionnaire Design

The SLR identified ten dimensions of entrepreneurship motivation, four pertaining to the

macro environment (resources and opportunities) one pertaining to the microsocial

environment (resources) and five pertaining to internal characteristics. Themes that seemed

recurrent across various reviewed articles supported the formulation of specific questionnaire

items within each dimension. In addition to questions on the nature of the company and

founder’s demographic characteristics, the end result was a 44-item questionnaire measuring

why the individual is starting or has recently (in the past five years) started a new business,

each on a 7-point Likert scale (Preston & Colman, 2000). The questionnaire items were

formulated in a way that would be applicable in both an active conflict and a refuge context

and were revised for specificity, inclusiveness and wording in consultation with four

sociology and entrepreneurship scholars in addition to two Syrian non-profit leaders. The

questionnaire was then translated to Arabic by the author, a native Arabic speaker, in

collaboration with a professional translator and a Syrian doctoral researcher to ensure

language accuracy.

2.5.3. Data Collection

In order to access a suitable study sample, multiple collaborations were established with

entrepreneurship support organizations in Damascus and Berlin. Damascus was chosen as

the representative city for entrepreneurs in a conflict country, as it has relatively higher

stability than the rest of the country despite its active state of conflict, which is assumed to

correspond to higher levels of and potential for entrepreneurial activity (see Bozzoli et al.,

2011; M. J. A. Chowdhury, 2011). Berlin was chosen as a representative city for Syrian refugee

entrepreneurs being both Europe’s start-up capital (Monteiro, 2018) and the capital of the

European Union’s largest refugee recipient (McCarthy, 2018). Berlin is also a city where about

50% of new companies were founded by migrants in 2014 (see T. Baron & Harima, 2019). The

author also possesses relevant language skills and field work experience in both countries.

Collaborations in Damascus were established with two main organizations and initial

meetings with their key leaders were held in Beirut, Lebanon. One organization is the Syrian

Enterprise and Business Centre (SEBC), a business development support non-profit with

entrepreneurship incubator services, and the other organization is a research center whose

manager and employees wished to remain anonymous for security reasons. As for Berlin, the

key collaborator was LOK.a.Motion GmbH, a non-profit consulting services and training

center for potential refugee entrepreneurs. Data was collected between July and December

2017 from entrepreneurs affiliated with those organizations through both online and paper

questionnaires.

A total of 157 completed questionnaires were collected. Questionnaires filled by non-Syrian

refugees, those running their companies out of locations other than Berlin or Damascus, or

those with companies older than five years were discarded. Hand-filled questionnaires that

were not clearly legible or largely incomplete were removed as well. The responses from the

remaining 139 questionnaires, 65 in Berlin and 74 in Damascus, were translated into English

and organized into Microsoft Excel in preparation for data analysis.

2.5.4. Descriptive Statistics

The overall sample consists of Syrians who are 35 years old on average of which 21% are

female entrepreneurs (10% in Berlin and 26% in Damascus). About 50% of the participants in

each location have university degrees and they generally operate across a wide variety of

industries. The sample consists of both innovative and replicative entrepreneurs, none of

whom is engaged in destructive activities or operates a business informally (Baumol, 1990).

Although sample characteristics do not appear significantly different between the 2 locations,

a few notes come to mind. First of all, though low in both locations, the number of female

entrepreneurs in Syria is higher than that in Germany. This might not come as a surprise,

however, as only 32.4% of first-time asylum applications from Syrians in Germany between

2012 and 2016 came from women (Worbs & Baraulina, 2017). Additionally, this difference can

be attributed to the fact that more men than women generally enlist as fighters or lose their

lives during wartime, hence women fill in their shoes in societies were men are traditionally

the bread winners. Indeed, only 12% of Syrian civilians killed due to conflict are female (Syrian

Network for Human Rights, 2019).

As for industry choice, entrepreneurs in both cities largely operate in similar sectors with

differences in the education and community development, gastronomy and hardline Retail.

The first category is comprised mostly of social empowerment and community building

initiatives, which are arguably more important in a country undergoing social destruction

than a stable one like Germany, hence the higher market need and entrepreneurial

opportunities (therefore industry choice) in Syria. On the other hand, more Syrians in

Germany choose to open Arabic restaurants or grocery stores, potentially seeing an

opportunity to bring new ethnic products and services to the German market. Hard-line retail

businesses, including trading products such as electronics, appliances and energy solutions,

appear more common in Syria potentially due to higher need for such devices and services to

reconstruct and rebuilt destroyed homes and areas. However, further research is needed to

investigate and understand the differences in industry choice between the two locations.

2.5.5. Questionnaire Validation

To verify whether the questionnaire reliably measures what it was intended to measure, the

Cronbach’s Alpha (α) test was performed on the data. The test essentially calculates the

correlations between the different components of a dimension, basically “splitting data in two

in every possible way and computing the correlation coefficient for each split. The average of

these values is equivalent to Cronbach’s alpha” (Andy Field, 2007, p. 674). The resulting α

values are reported in Table 2-1.

Conceptual Model

Dimensions

Macro Environment

Political Factors

0.73

Educational Factors

0.78

Cultural Factors

0.70

Economic Factors

0.77

Microsocial Environment

Social Influence

0.72

Person-Related Factors

Attitude

0.79

Ambition

0.74

Dissatisfaction

0.71

Social Values

0.51

Human Capital

0.74

Table 2-1: Cronbach’s Alpha values measuring questionnaire reliability.

Generally speaking, scholars agree that an α value between 0.7 and 0.8 is acceptable (Andy

Field, 2007). In this study, all dimensions have successfully ‘passed’ this test, indicating that

they were reliably measured in the questionnaire, except for Social Values, which has a

corresponding α of 0.51. This could be due to the fact that this particular dimension was

measured only by two questionnaire items (Cortina, 1993), which is not enough to achieve

high reliability. Therefore, items corresponding to the Social Values dimension have been

eliminated from subsequent data analysis steps to ensure that only reliable questionnaire

items feed into the final results. This dimension could be expanded to include additional items

to enhance its reliability before the questionnaire can be re-used for future studies.

2.5.6. Factor Extraction

Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software was used to analyze the data. In

response to the first research question, what factors shape the entrepreneurship motivation of

CAIs, the remaining 42 questionnaire items - corresponding to 9 dimensions - were modelled

through EFA using Principal Axis Factoring (PAF). Along with Maximum Likelihood (ML),

PAF is considered to give best results for factor extraction (Costello & Osborne, 2005).

However, ML presumes that data is normally distributed and is more likely to produce

improper solutions than PAF (Fabrigar et al., 1999), hence PAF was preferred. A decision was

also made to rotate the data, a technique used to simplify and clarify the data structure

(Costello & Osborne, 2005). Oblique rotation was preferred as it yields more highly

reproducible and accurate results (Costello & Osborne, 2005). Promax rotation with default

SPSS settings was thus conducted.

To select and refine the final factors, all questionnaire items that have absolute factor loadings

of <0.4 were suppressed (Stevens, 1992). In other words, questionnaire items with weaker

correlation to their respective factors were excluded from the analysis, where 0.4 is considered

the minimum acceptable absolute value of the Pearson’s correlation coefficient between the

questionnaire item and respective factor. Additionally, both Kaiser’s criteria and the scree plot

method were used to decide which factors to maintain, as each method individually suffers

from a few shortfalls (Costello & Osborne, 2005). Using Kaiser’s criteria, ten factors were

retained as each has an extracted eigenvalue > 1. However, the scree plot displays a breaking

point between the 4th and 5th factor, indicating that the top four factors are more suitable for

retention. Accordingly, only the top four extracted factors were retained as the final result.

The strength of the data was evaluated as a final test of result reliability. The first step was to

calculate the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO) which indicates

whether the sample size was enough to provide a stable factor solution (Andy Field, 2007).

The test yielded a KMO value of 0.79, affirming high reliability and distinctiveness of the

resulting factors. Additionally, the extracted communality values were examined - essentially

measures of the amount of variance in each questionnaire item that can be explained by the

extracted factors. Communality values in the range of 0.4-0.7 are typically accepted for social

studies (Costello & Osborne, 2005). In the above analysis, questionnaire items associated with

the four extracted factors had communalities in the range of 0.41-0.78, except for one item,

namely “I want to start a business to provide a product or service needed specifically by my

community”, which was therefore removed from its associated factor. All factors are

composed of several questionnaire items and no item cross-loadings were identified, which

also indicates data strength. The final extracted factors are delineated in Table 2-2.

The first factor, explaining 22.7% of the variance in factor model, consists solely of person-

related factors in a combination of innate individual characteristics, attitudes and desires,

hence named Self-Realization. Components of this factor can be summarized as

innovativeness, self-confidence, passion, talent, achievement, self-development and

endurance and highly relate to personality and preferences (internal characteristics pertaining

to entrepreneurial demand).

In second place, explaining 8.7% of the total model variance, is a factor comprised of aspects

of the regulatory and educational environment, which emphasizes the importance of

Supportive Institutions in shaping entrepreneurship motivation in conflict-affected scenarios.

This factor demonstrates that a combination of quality academic and particularly

entrepreneurship education (external resources) with regulatory incentives (opportunities)

appears to support Syrians’ decisions to start own businesses.

To a lesser extent comes the contribution of Economic Milieu and Community Influence to

CAI entrepreneurship motivation. The former includes access to financial capital and market

opportunities (external demand and opportunities pertaining to financial capital), while the

latter includes entrepreneurial culture and influence of the microsocial network. Together,

these two factors explain 9.6% of the model variance.

Questionnaire Items

Extracted Factors

I would like to start a business…

Self-

Realization

Supportive

Institutions

Economic

Milieu

Community

Influence

... because I am innovative and enjoy

working with original concepts

0.868

... because I am confident in my

success as an entrepreneur

0.779

… because I am passionate about my

business idea and/or field of work

0.752

… to make the best use of my natural

talent in this field

0.593

… to feel that I have accomplished

something

0.577

… because failure does not scare me

and I can handle difficult situations

well

0.544

… to improve my personal skills and

knowledge

0.504

… because I was motivated by the

availability of entrepreneurship

training opportunities provided

specifically to my community

0.938

…because I was motivated by the

availability of general

entrepreneurship training

opportunities in my city/country of

residence

0.717

… because I was encouraged by

benefits such as tax cuts and easy

bureaucratic procedures

0.701

… because I personally received

entrepreneurship training and/or

education that motivated me to do so

0.597

... because I was encouraged by the

legal and ethical work laws and

structures (or lack of them)

0.547

... because I was motivated by the

general education level in my place of

residence

0.461

… because there is a growing

demand for companies that provide

my service/product in the

country/city where I live

0.696

… because I can secure funds from

my friends, family, or acquaintances

0.484

… because it is easy to expand my

company abroad and work

internationally

0.438

… because it is easy to access funds in

my country of residence (for e.g.

through banks)

0.402

… because of the economic stability

(or lack of it) where I live

0.597

… because it is common in my circle

of friends, family members, or

acquaintances to do so

0.941

… because entrepreneurship is so

common in my culture and heritage

0.580

… because I have friends, family

members, or acquaintances who can

help advise and support me to start

or run the business

0.552

… because of certain values and

social obligations within my

community

0.406

Table 2-2: Pattern matrix showing the top 4 extracted factors using PAF with Promx

rotation. The numbers indicate factor loadings.

2.5.7. Comparative Analysis

Based on the EFA results, four factors were identified which support explaining the

entrepreneurship motivation of Syrians both in their home country and in a refuge country.

However, how Syrian locals differ from refugees in their entrepreneurship motivation has not

yet been investigated. Realizing the vast environmental differences between Syria and

Germany (Syria ranks as the world’s 4th most fragile country while Germany is the world’s

12th most stable country (Fund for Peace, 2018) based on economic, social, political and

cohesion indicators), a hypothesis was formulated corresponding to each of the key factors to

test whether they differ in their contribution to entrepreneurship motivation between

Damascus and Berlin.

The factor Self-Realization appears in alignment with the SDT’s definition of intrinsic

motivation, namely “the inherent tendency to seek out novelty and challenges, to extend and

exercise one's capacities, to explore, and to learn” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 70). I therefore

assume that it does not necessarily differ between the two locations as it appears to be

composed entirely of aspects that are not necessarily impacted by environmental differences.

Accordingly, hypothesis one is as follows:

H10: Self-Realization differently impacts entrepreneurship motivation of Syrian locals in Damascus

compared to Syrian refugees in Berlin.

H11: Self-Realization has a similar impact on entrepreneurship motivation of Syrians whether in

Damascus or Berlin.

On the other hand, the factors Supportive Institutions and Economic Milieu depend on the

individual’s perception of their environment and are highly extrinsic in nature. Since the

macro environment largely differs between Syria and Germany with respect to governance,

regulatory structures, educational systems, development levels, and market needs, hence the

presence of different entrepreneurial demand and supply factors, one can assume that those

factors could differently impact entrepreneurs in the two countries. However, research also

shows that refugees generally have limited access to education, finance, and markets

compared to locals due to issues pertaining to language, credit history, and work permits,

inter alia (Rashid, 2018). Moreover, refugees are often confronted with inadequacy of available

entrepreneurship support initiatives, lack of targeted policy, and complicated bureaucratic

procedures (Rashid, 2018). Accordingly, one can assume that entrepreneurial opportunities in

the German macroenvironment cannot be necessarily seized by Syrian refugees. Additionally,

reduced regulatory supervision could support market entry in Syria (Gunther, 2013) while

post-conflict reconstruction and availability of new markets could potentially provide new

economic opportunities (Desai, 2011). Therefore, even if assumed that Germany has superior

quality in several aspects of its macroenvironment, there is no evidence of whether this

particularly influences entrepreneurship motivation for refugees it hosts. Accordingly:

H20: Supportive Institutions differently impact entrepreneurship motivation of Syrian locals in

Damascus compared to Syrian refugees in Berlin.

H21: Supportive Institutions have a similar impact on entrepreneurship motivation of Syrians whether

in Damascus or Berlin.

H30: Economic Milieu differently impact entrepreneurship motivation of Syrian locals in Damascus

compared to Syrian refugees in Berlin.

H31: Economic Milieu have a similar impact on entrepreneurship motivation of Syrians whether in

Damascus or Berlin.

With respect to the final factor, Community Influence, the impact on motivation is also

expected to be equal in both cities. Although Syria is the entrepreneur’s home country and is

expected to be where their community and social circle are concentrated, living amidst conflict

is expected to limit physical access to social networks (due to road blockages, security

concerns, or displacement of community members). Additionally, use of communication

technology could be restricted due to fear of being tracked, attacked and/or prosecuted.

Moreover, “the increasing intensification and ethnicization of the conflict, in which power is

more and more mobilized along ethnic and religious lines, is perceived as a major challenge

for achieving sustainable peace in Syria” (Ragab et al., 2017, p. 38), realizing that civil conflict

has caused significant fragmentations within the Syrian society. On the other hand, Germany

has become the largest European recipient of Syrians since 2011 (Ragab et al., 2017), which can

be presumed to have resulted in the formation of Syrian communities in Berlin within which

(potential) entrepreneurs can be embedded and supported.

100

H40: Community Influence differently impacts entrepreneurship motivation of Syrian locals in

Damascus compared to Syrian refugees in Berlin.

H41: Community Influence has a similar impact on entrepreneurship motivation of Syrians whether in

Damascus or Berlin.

The factor scores associated with the four factors were calculated using the regression method

for each individual questionnaire respondent (Andy Field, 2007) then tested for normality and

homogeneity of variance. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk test, used to measure

the normal distribution of data within the groups being compared, yielded significant results

for some groups but not others. This indicates that some data groups are normally distributed

while others are not. Additionally, the Levene’s was used to confirm whether group variances

are equal. The test yielded insignificant results at significance level (p) = 0.05 for three factors

and significant results for one, asserting that group variance is homogenous for all factors

except Economic Milieu.

The decision was then made to use MANCOVA to test for the presence of significant

differences between the two group means (Berlin vs. Damascus) on the four dependent

variables. Given that group sizes are fairly equal, it is expected that MANCOVA performs

robustly against violations of normality and variance homogeneity assumptions (Andy Field,

2007; Pallant, 2013). Additionally, MANCOVA allows for controlling for the effect of

additional variables, or covariates, which could otherwise potentially interfere with the

dependent variable. Since the percentage of female entrepreneurs largely differs between

Berlin (10%) and Damascus (26%), gender was considered a covariate in the analysis. Pillai’s

Trace was chosen as the MANCOVA statistic to be reported due to being the most robust to

violation of test assumptions (Andy Field, 2007). Pillai’s Trace returned a value of 0.035 at

0.502 significance, which indicates that there is no difference between the levels of

independent variables between the two countries.

Additionally, a non-parametric test, one which does not rely on normality and variance

homogeneity assumptions, was used to confirm the MANCOVA findings. The Mann–

Whitney U test used therefore applied. With all resulting significance levels higher than 0.05,

the results indicate that indeed, all tested factors appear to have a similar degree of effect on

Syrian entrepreneurs regardless of their current location. Therefore, we conclude that

101

hypotheses H11 – H41 are all supported, rejecting the null hypotheses. Results of MANCOVA

and the Mann–Whitney U test are summarized in Table 2-3.

Significance

Factor

MANCOVA

- Pillai's

Trace

MANCOVA -

Tests of

Between-

Subject Effects

Mann-

Whitney

U Test

Interpretation

Self-

Realization

0.502

0.538

0.062

The distribution of Self-Realization Score

is the same across country groups

Supportive

Institutions

0.402

0.248

The distribution of Supportive

Institutions Score is the same across

country groups

Economic

Opportunities

0.891

0.843

The distribution of Economic

Opportunities Score is the same across

country groups

Community

Influence

0.082

0.211

The distribution of Cultural Influence

Score is the same across country groups

Table 2-3: MANCOVA and Mann-Whitney U test results showing that the effect of all 4

factors is the same across both cities in the analysis.

2.6. Discussion and Conclusions

Entrepreneurship studies have given little focus to contexts of conflict and refuge, and even

less to the motivation of CAIs to pursue entrepreneurship. This paper presents a novel

approach to researching and classifying entrepreneurship motivation in extreme

circumstances through a thorough quantitative analysis of Syrians in Damascus and Berlin,

accounting macro and micro motivational factors pertaining to the individuals themselves

and their perception of environment. The paper applies the eclectic theory of

entrepreneurship’s perspective (Verheul et al., 2001) combined with Wagner and Sternberg’s

(2004) conceptual model of entrepreneurial decision making, thus viewing entrepreneurship

motivation as a result of a weighed individual analysis of opportunities, external resources,

102

personality characteristics, individual capabilities and preferences rather than the traditional

opportunity/necessity divide. Therefore, the paper represents a response to Welter et al.’s

(2017) call to embrace diversity in entrepreneurship research and investigate and foster

entrepreneurship beyond Silicon Valley models and dichotomous definitions while

incorporating a research and practice view in interpreting the results (Trehan et al., 2018).

Through a combination of SLR, EFA and mean comparisons, four key motivational factors for

Syrian entrepreneurs were uncovered, namely Self-Realization, Supportive Institutions,

Economic Milieu and Community Influence, all with similar impacts on Syrians in both

Damascus and Berlin. Self-Realization is a mix of questionnaire items on innovativeness,

confidence, passion, talent, accomplishment, endurance and self-improvement and explains

22.7% of variance in the factor model. Supportive Institutions combines questionnaire items

on entrepreneurship education and training, regulatory incentives and legal systems,

Economic Milieu combines items on access to finance, company growth and market need,

while Community Influence combines items on community support, entrepreneurial culture

and social obligations. Those environmental factors collectively account for 18.4% of variance

in the factor model. Those key findings are illustrated in Figure 2-2.

103

At the macroenvironmental level, results show the importance of entrepreneurship education,

regulatory facilitations, market opportunities and access to finance in motivating Syrians to

pursue entrepreneurship. This emphasizes the importance of easing regulatory barriers to

entry to growing market sectors for CAIs as well as providing them the proper education and

training needed to initiate and maintain successful businesses (Rashid, 2018), indicating that

entrepreneurship education alone cannot support entry into entrepreneurship without

provision of adequate opportunities through regulatory and institutional support (Mayombe,

2018). This might be an easier task in stable countries as compared to active conflict zones

where government and institutional structures suffer from fragility and corruption. Therefore,

in the violent conflict sub-context, I suggest directly supporting civil society organizations and

local citizens rather than government entities to achieve longer-term development and peace

building and shifting focus towards bottom-up rather than merely top-down approaches to

development (Easterly, 2008; Schramm, 2010). This does not necessarily call for increased

funding to development programs, rather a reallocation of a larger portion of the billions of

Figure 2-2: A demonstration of the key environmental and person-related

factors associated with CAI entrepreneurship motivation.

104

aid dollars towards efforts with sustainable positive outcomes rather than temporary relief

(OECD, 2018).

Despite the significant difference in institutional stability between Germany and Syria, I find

no apparent difference of the impact degree of Supportive Institutions and Economic Milieu

on entrepreneurship motivation of CAIs between the two countries, which could be attributed

to several reasons. Firstly, although the availability of quality education, entrepreneurial

funding, market opportunities, and supportive regulatory structures are expected to be higher

in Berlin compared to Damascus, their access to refugees is potentially too limited (Rashid,

2018). In other words, external resources and opportunities available to the general German

population do not apply to refugees. Language barriers could prevent refugees from

attending professional courses and lack of credit history restricts access to bank loans (Rashid,

2018). This would substantiate the need for enhanced access to entrepreneurial support

structures for refugees in stable host countries in addition to strengthening refugee integration

programs - in other words, enhancing displaced CAI access to entrepreneurial opportunities

and resources already existing in the general market.

At a largely microsocial level, Community Influence appears to provide entrepreneurial

resources that motivate CAIs to pursue entrepreneurship. Social relationships are proven to

support entrepreneurship as they provide individuals with necessary market information,

support, and resources needed throughout their start-up process (Abou-Moghli & Al-

Kasasbeh, 2012). Additionally, being surrounded by an entrepreneurial family and social

circle provides the individual with the vision and skills to pursue entrepreneurship (Altinay,

2008). The similar degree of effect of Community Influence on Syrians’ entrepreneurship

motivation in Damascus and Berlin could stem from the societal disintegration in Syria and

strong ethnic community networks in Berlin, which somewhat equalizes the amount of

support and influence received from the community by the entrepreneurs in both cities.

At the micro level, I follow the DST’s definition of intrinsic motivation as “the inherent

tendency to seek out novelty and challenges, to extend and exercise one's capacities, to

explore, and to learn” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 70), thus conclude that the factor Self-Realization

is comprised solely of intrinsic and therefore autonomous motivation. The factors Supportive

Institutions, Economic Milieu and Community Influence, however, all pertain to how the

105

entrepreneur perceives and is influenced by the environment, and are therefore considered

extrinsic motivational factors, in other words rewards and punishments/risks, that may or

may not be internalized to some degree. Therefore, the majority of CAI entrepreneurship

motivation appears to be autonomous (given that 22.7% of motivation is explained by Self-

Realization and the remaining three factors explain 18.4% of the motivation).

This key finding has important implications. Realizing that entrepreneurship motivation of

Syrians appears more autonomous than controlled shatters the notion that entrepreneurs in

conflict and refuge have low growth ambitions and chances of success or are inherently

disempowered individuals with no true power of choice behind their business decisions.

Autonomous motivation is associated with positive business outcomes such as higher

knowledge sharing (Foss et al., 2009), higher employee satisfaction and lower burnout (Richer

et al., 2006), higher profitability in small firms (Preenen et al., 2016) and generally enhanced

work performance and commitment (Deci et al., 2017). This stresses the value of investment

in researching and supporting entrepreneurship in conflict and refuge contexts. Additionally,

this calls for explicitly integrating SDT motivational measures in future studies to clearly

identify autonomous versus controlled motivational factors and uncover additional

previously neglected facets of entrepreneurial decision-making in the CAI, a theory rarely

explored in entrepreneurship studies apart from a few exceptions (see Al-Jubari et al., 2017 as

an example).

2.7. Limitations

The quantitative study design enabled initial exploration and identification of key factors

associated with pursuing entrepreneurship in conflict and refuge but does allow for concrete

interpretation of findings. Moreover, only key motivational factors were extrapolated and

considered for future investigation, which collectively explain about 50% of the

entrepreneurship motivation. Hence, the study findings cannot be considered all-

encompassing, rather a steppingstone on which further research can be built. Additionally,

this research was precisely conducted on Syrians in Damascus and Berlin, hence findings

should be only generalized to other contexts with care. It is suggested to replicate the study

beyond the Syrian crisis as well as considering additional conflict-affected scenarios, such as

106

IDPs and refugees in neighboring and fragile countries, employing mixed-methods and

robust analyses.

Furthermore, I realize that the results of hypothesis testing were all insignificant, indicating

no difference between entrepreneurship motivation in the two studied sub-contexts, which

could be argued is due to the small size of subsamples (i.e. hypothesis testing could have

yielded significant differences had the sample size been increased). However, obtaining data

access was a challenge. Security concerns led several Syrian organizations to decline

collaboration with a foreign university and to low questionnaire response rates. Collecting

data in Berlin was also hindered as German refugee entrepreneurship support organizations

are mostly start-ups themselves and seemed overwhelmed with establishing their practical

operations rather than prioritize academic research. This led to months of networking and

meetings with potential study collaborators to find suitable partners and establish the trust

and confidence needed for collaboration. Additionally, entrepreneurs were given the option

to fill the questionnaire anonymously on paper then hand it in directly to the trusted

organization with which they are affiliated rather than the researcher, which increased the

participation rate. Nevertheless, a key goal of the study is to provide new variables and

concepts for future testing, and researchers are encouraged to test the resulting four

entrepreneurship motivation factors for CAIs on larger sample sizes and different contexts.

107

2.8. References

Abou-Moghli, A. A., & Al-Kasasbeh, M. M. (2012). Social Network and the Success of

Business Start-Up. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(9), 134–140.

Acs, Z. (2006). How Is Entrepreneurship Good for Economic Growth? Innovations:

Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1(1), 97–107.

Acs, Z. J., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D. B., & Carlsson, B. (2009). The Knowledge Spillover

Theory of Entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32(1), 15–30.

Acs, Z. J., Desai, S., & Hessels, J. (2008). Entrepreneurship, Economic Development and

Institutions. Small Business Economics, 31, 219–234.

Agarwal, R., Audretsch, D., & Sarkar, M. B. (2010). Knowledge Spillovers and Strategic

Entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4, 271–283.

Al-Jubari, I., Hassan, A., & Hashim, J. (2017). The Role of Autonomy as a Predictor of

Entrepreneurial Intention Among University Students in Yemen. International Journal of

Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 30(3), 325–340.

Altinay, L. (2008). The Relationship Between an Entrepreneur’s Culture and the

Entrepreneurial Behaviour of the Firm. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise

Development, 15(1), 111–129.

Arin, K. P., Huang, V. Z., Minniti, M., Nandialath, A. M., & Reich, O. F. M. (2015). Revisiting

the Determinants of Entrepreneurship: A Bayesian Approach. Journal of Management, 41(2),

607–631.

Baron, T., & Harima, A. (2019). The Role of Diaspora Entrepreneurs in Start-up Ecosystem

Development – a Berlin Case Study. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small

Business, 36(1/2), 74–102. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESB.2019.096968

Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive. Journal

of Political Economy, 98(5), 893–921.

Baumol, W. J. (2010). The Microtheory of Innovative Entrepreneurship. Princeton and

Oxford: Princeton University Press.

Baumol, W. J., & Strom, R. J. (2007). Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth. Strategic

Entrepreneurship Journal, 1, 233–237.

Betts, A., Bloom, L., Kaplan, J., & Omata, N. (2017). Refugee Economies: Forced

Displacement and Development. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.

Betts, A., Bloom, L., & Weaver, N. (2015). Refugee Innovation: Humanitarian Innovation

That Starts with Communities. Oxford, UK: Humanitarian Innovation Project, University of

Oxford.

108

Betts, A., Sterck, O., Geervliet, R., & MacPherson, C. (2017). Talent Displaced: The Economic

Lives of Syrian Refugees in Europe. Oxford: Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford

and Deloitte Northwest Europe.

Bizri, R. M. (2017). Refugee-Entrepreneurship: A Social Capital Perspective.

Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 29(9–10), 847–868.

Bozzoli, C., Brück, T., & Wald, N. (2011). Self-Employment and Conflict in Colombia. Berlin:

Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.

Brandt, K. L. (2010). Making Immigrant Integration Work: A Case Study of Refugee

Resettlement in Philadelphia, PA. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

Department of Urban Studies and Planning.

Branzei, O., & Abdelnour, S. (2010). Another Day, Another Dollar: Enterprise Resilience

under Terrorism in Developing Countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(5),

804–825.

Carsrud, A., & Brännback, M. (2011). Entrepreneurial Motivations: What Do We Still Need

to Know? Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 9–26.

Cheraghi, M. (2017). Young Entrepreneurs Pushed by Necessity and Pulled by Opportunity:

Institutional Embeddedness in Economy and Culture. International Journal of

Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 30(3), 395–409.

Cheung, C. W. M., & Kwong, C. (2017). Path- and Place-Dependence of Entrepreneurial

Ventures at Times of War and Conflict. International Small Business Journal: Researching

Entrepreneurship, 35(8), 903–927.

Chowdhury, M. J. A. (2011). The Determinants of Entrepreneurship in a Conflict Region:

Evidence from the Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh. Journal of Small Business &

Entrepreneurship, 24(2), 265–281.

Cortina, J. M. (1993). What Is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory and

Applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104.

Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best Practices in Exploratory Factor Analysis: Four

Recommendations for Getting the Most from Your Analysis. Practical Assessment, Research

& Evaluation, 10(7).

Dawson, C., & Henley, A. (2012). „Push“ Versus „Pull“ Entrepreneurship: An Ambiguous

Distinction? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 18(6), 697–719.

de la Chaux, M., & Haugh, H. (2017). Entrepreneurship and Innovation: How Institutional

Voids Shape Economic Opportunities in Refugee Camps. Academy of Management

Proceedings, (1).

109

Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of Externally Mediated Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105–115.

Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-Determination Theory in Work

Organizations: The State of a Science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and

Organizational Behavior, 4, 19–43.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. (2015). Self-Determination Theory. Elsevier.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human

Behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Publishing Co.

Desai, S. (2011). A Tale of Entrepreneurship in Two Iraqi Cities. Journal of Small Business &

Entrepreneurship, 24(2), 283–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2011.10593539

Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2002). Systematic Combining: An Abductive Approach to Case

Research. Journal of Business Research, 55, 553–560.

Easterly, W. (2008). Institutions: Top Down or Bottom Up? American Economic Review:

Papers & Proceedings, 98(2), 95–99.

Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the Use

of Exploratory Factor Analysis in Psychological Research. Psychological Methods, 4(2), 272–

299.

Field, A. (2007). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (3. Aufl.). Thousand Oaks, California:

SAGE Publications.

Foss, N. J., Minbaeva, D. B., Pedersen, T., & Reinholt, M. (2009). Encouraging knowledge

sharing among employees: How job design matters. Human Resource Journal, 48, 871–893.

García, A. B. (2014). Analyzing the Determinants of Entrepreneurship in European Cities.

Small Business Economics, 42(1), 77–98.

Gunther, F. (2013). Entrepreneurship in MENA Conflict and Post-Conflict States. Bethlehem,

Pennsylvania: Economics Department, Lehigh University.

Haddad, M., Ismail, R., & Habash, L. A. (2010). GEM Syria Report 2009. Damascus: Global

Entrepreneurship Monitor.

Haig, B. D. (2005). An Abductive Theory of Scientific Method. Psychological Methods, 10(4),

371–388.

Josephson, J. R., & Josephson, S. G. (1994). Abductive Inference: Computation, Philosophy,

Technology. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Killick, N., Srikantha, V. S., & Gündüz, C. (2005). The Role of Local Business in

Peacebuilding. Berlin: Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management.

110

Kwong, C. C. Y., Cheung, C. W. M., Manzoor, H., & Rashid, M. U. (2018). Entrepreneurship

Through Bricolage: A Study of Displaced Entrepreneurs at Times of War and Conflict.

Entrepreneurship & Regional Development.

Langevang, T., Namatovu, R., & Dawa, S. (2012). Beyond Necessity and Opportunity

Entrepreneurship: Motivations and Aspirations of Young Entrepreneurs in Uganda.

International Development Planning Review, 34(4).

Lee, S. K. (2018). From Political Activists to Social Entrepreneurs: Burmese Refugees in South

Korea. Journal of Refugee Studies, 31(3), 371–389.

Mayombe, C. (2018). Linking Adult Education and Training to Small and Micro-Enterprise

Promotion Policies and Institutions for Self-Employment in South Africa. International

Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 34(1), 20–34.

McCarthy, N. (2018, Juni). Germany is Home to the Most Refugees. Abgerufen von

https://www.statista.com/chart/14494/germany-is-home-to-the-most-refugees/

McMullen, Jeffery S., Bagby, D. R., & Palich, L. E. (2008). Economic Freedom and the

Motivation to Engage in Entrepreneurial Action. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,

32(5), 875–895.

McMullen, Jeffrey S. (2011). Delineating the Domain of Development Entrepreneurship: A

Market-Based Approach to Facilitating Inclusive Economic Growth. Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice, 35(1), 185–215.

Minniti, M., & Levesque, M. (2010). Entrepreneurial Types and Economic Growth. Journal of

Business Venturing, 25(3), 305–314.

Monteiro, N. (2018, August). The Case for Berlin’s Claim as Europe’s Startup Capital.

Abgerufen von https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/317953

Naffziger, D. W., Hornsby, J. S., & Kuratko, D. F. (1994). A Proposed Research Model of

Entrepreneurial Motivation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(3), 29–42.

Naudé, W. (2007). Peace, Prosperity, and Pro-Growth Entrepreneurship. Helsinki: UNU-

WIDER Discussion Paper No. 2007/02.

Naudé, W. (2009). Entrepreneurship, Post-Conflict. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Naudé, W. (2011). Entrepreneurship is Not a Binding Constraint on Growth and

Development in the Poorest Countries. World Development, 39(1), 33–44.

OECD. (2018). States of Fragility 2018: Highlights. Paris: Organisation for Economic

Cooperation and Development.

Pallant, J. (2013). The SPSS Survival Guide (5th Aufl.). New York, NY: Open University

Press.

111

Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Bachrach, D. G., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2005). The Influence

of Management Journals in the 1980s and 1990s. Strategic Management Journal, 26(5), 473–

488.

Preenen, P. T. Y., Oeij, P., Dhondt, S., Kraan, K., & Jansen, E. (2016). Why Job Autonomy

Matters for Young Companies’ Performance: Company Maturity as a Moderator Between

Job Autonomy and Company Performance. World Review of Entrepreneurship

Management and Sustainable Development, 12(1), 74–100.

Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal Number of Response Categories in Rating

Scales: Reliability, Validity, Discriminating Power, and Respondent Preferences. Acta

Psychologica, 104, 1–15.

Ragab, N. J., Rahmeier, L., & Siegel, M. (2017). Mapping the Syrian diaspora in Germany:

Contributions to Peace, Reconstruction and Potentials for Collaboration with German

Development Cooperation. Maastricht: Maastricht Graduate School of Governance.

Rashid, L. (2018). “Call Me a Business Owner, Not a Refugee!” Challenges of and

Perspectives on Newcomer Entrepreneurship. Waterloo: Center for International

Governance Innovation, World Refugee Council, Working Paper No.7.

Rath, J., & Swagerman, A. (2016). Promoting Ethnic Entrepreneurship in European Cities:

Sometimes Ambitious, Mostly Absent, Rarely Addressing Structural Features. International

Migration, 54(1), 152–166.

Refai, D., Haloub, R., & Lever, J. (2018). Contextualizing Entrepreneurial Identity Among

Syrian Refugees in Jordan: The Emergence of a Destabilized Habitus? International Journal

of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 19(4), 250–260.

Richer, S. F., Blanchard, C., & Vallerand, R. J. (2006). A Motivational Model of Work

Turnover. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(10), 2089–2113.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic

Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

Schramm, C. J. (2010). Expeditionary Economics: Spurring Growth After Conflicts and

Disasters. Foreign Affairs, 89(3), 89–99.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York, NY: Harper and

Brothers.

Shane, S., Locke, E. A., & Collins, C. J. (2003). Entrepreneurial Motivation. Human Resource

Management Review, 13(2), 257–279.

Stephan, U., Hart, M., & Drews, C.-C. (2015). Understanding Motivations for

Entrepreneurship A Review of Recent Research Evidence. Birmingham: Enterprise Research

Centre and Aston Business School.

112

Stevens, J. (1992). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Stoner, C. R., & Fry, F. L. (1982). The Entrepreneurial Decision: Dissatisfaction or

Opportunity. Journal of Small Business Management, 39–44.

Syrian Network for Human Rights. (2019, Januar). Female Death Toll. Abgerufen von

http://sn4hr.org/blog/2018/12/31/females-death-toll-2018/

Thai, M. T. T., & Turkina, E. (2014). Macro-Level Determinants of Formal Entrepreneurship

Versus Informal Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(4), 490–510.

Thompson, D. K. (2016). Risky Business and Geographies of Refugee Capitalism in the

Somali Migrant Economy of Gauteng, South Africa. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies,

42(1), 120–135.

Tobias, J. M., Mair, J., & Barbosa-Leiker, C. (2013). Toward a Theory of Transformative

Entrepreneuring: Poverty Reduction and Conflict Resolution in Rwanda’s Entrepreneurial

Coffee Sector. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(6), 728–742.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a Methodology for Developing

Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British

Journal of Management, 14, 207–222.

Trehan, K., Higgins, D., & Jones, O. (2018). Engaged Scholarship: Questioning Relevance and

Impact in Contemporary Entrepreneurship/Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise Research.

International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 36(4), 363–367.

UN OCHA. (2018). Humanitarian Response Plan (January-December 2018): Syrian Arab

Republic. New York & Geneva: United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian

Affairs.

UNHCR. (2018). Global Trends: Forced Displacement in 2017. Geneva: United Nations

Higher Commissioner for Refugees.

Valliere, D., & Peterson, R. (2009). Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth: Evidence from

Emerging and Developed Countries. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 21(5–6),

459–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985620802332723

Velilla, J., & Ortega, R. (2017). Determinants of Entrepreneurship Using Fuzzy Set Methods:

Europe vs. Non-Europe. Applied Economics Letters, 24(18), 1–7.

Verheul, I., Wennekers, S., Audretsch, D., & Thurik, R. (2001). An Eclectic Theory of

Entrepreneurship: Policies, Institutions and Culture. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper

01-030/3.

113

Wagner, J., & Sternberg, R. (2004). Start-Up Activities, Individual Characteristics, and the

Regional Milieu: Lessons for Entrepreneurship Support Policies from German Micro Data.

The Annals of Regional Science, 38(2), 219–240.

Wauters, B., & Lambrecht, J. (2008). Barriers to Refugee Entrepreneurship in Belgium:

Towards an Explanatory Model. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34(6), 895–915.

Welter, F. (2017). Contextualizing Entrepreneurship—Conceptual Challenges and Ways

Forward. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 165–184.

Welter, F., Baker, T., Audretsch, D. B., & Gartner, W. B. (2017). Everyday

Entrepreneurship—A Call for Entrepreneurship Research to Embrace Entrepreneurial

Diversity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(3), 311–321.

Wong, P. X., Ho, Y. P., & Autio, E. (2005). Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic

Growth: Evidence from GEM Data. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 335–350.

Worbs, S., & Baraulina, T. (2017). Female Refugees in Germany: Language, Education and

Employment. Nürnberg: Migration, Integration and Asylum Research Centre.

Xavier, S. R., Kelley, D., Kew, J., Herrington, M., & Vorderwülbecke, A. (2013). Global

Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2012 Global Report. London: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor.

PART THREE: A HUMAN

CAPITAL ASSET ANALYSIS

DURING STARUP INITIATION

AND EARLY GROWTH

117

3. Founder Personalities, Behaviors and New Venture Success in

Sub Saharan Africa

Author(s): Lubna Rashid, Dr. Khaled Alzafari and Prof. Dr. Jan Kratzer.

Published by Technological Forecasting and Social Change on December 2nd, 2019.

Elsevier retains the copyright of this article. The article version included in this

dissertation is the accepted manuscript (post-review).

4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Facing heightened levels of political instability and institutional fragility, several sub-Saharan

African countries have been responding with innovation policies and entrepreneurship

support structures. With little scholarly knowledge on who those entrepreneurs are at an

individual level, however, the ability to effectively support innovative new ventures in some

of the world’s most compromised regions would remain limited. Based on a sample of 232

entrepreneurs, this study attempts to enlighten the relationship between personality

characteristics of entrepreneurs and their behaviors and subsequent success. This study

thereby extends the entrepreneurship literature applying the Five-Factor Model of Personality

to a new context while enriching knowledge on the personality-behavior relationship in

entrepreneurship. Several findings and theoretical concepts are synthesized while evaluating

new venture success from a behavioral lens among largely innovative, social-driven

entrepreneurs in sub-Saharan countries, providing important implications for research,

policy, and practice.

Keywords: African Entrepreneurs, Big Five, Entrepreneurial and Managerial Behaviors, Start-

up Success, Fragile States

Rashid, L., Alzafari, K., & Kratzer, J. (2020). Founder

Personalities, Behaviors and New Venture Success in Sub-

Saharan Africa. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,

151, 119766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119766.

118

Highlights:

•This article focuses on understanding how personality characteristics relate to

entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors among sub Saharan African entrepreneurs.

•The article employs linear regression modeling to assess the big five predictability of founder

behavior and an independent sample t-test to assess behavior’s predictability of

entrepreneurial success.

•Conscientiousness and agreeableness appear to be the strongest personality predictors of

entrepreneurial success.

•Country fragility plays a role in moderating the personality-entrepreneurial behavior

relationship.

•Customized, context-appropriate entrepreneurial support approaches are needed.

119

3.1. Introduction

According to estimates by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

(OECD), 24% of the world population currently dwells in fragile states, the majority of whom

are located in the African continent, with the number expected to increase to 3.3 billion

individuals by 2050 (OECD, 2018). While this evidently calls for sustainable, bottom-up

institutional development approaches beyond temporary relief (Easterly, 2008; Schramm,

2010), the lack of political stability influences business activity in Africa, with international

investors directing their focus towards safer countries (Ratten & Jones, 2018). Some African

countries employ a system of micro-credits (e.g. Kato & Kratzer, 2013), though this also

requires moderate political stability and the satisfaction of basic physiological human needs.

Regardless of the challenges, “most of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa champion the

development of small-and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) as a conduit to the alleviation of

poverty, the generation of employment, and the promotion of national economic

development” (Robson et al., 2009, p. 331). However, and despite an increased research focus

on entrepreneurship and innovation in Africa over the past years (e.g. Asongu, Nwachukwu,

& Orim, 2018; Dana, Ratten, & Honyenuga, 2018; Fu, Mohnen, & Zanello, 2018; Grimm,

Knorringa, & Lay, 2012; Naudé, 2017), scholarly knowledge of the personal characteristics of

founders in Africa, and in fragile states in general, remains quite limited. Realizing the

context-specificity of personal characteristics and the impact of cultural and environmental

variations on their manifestation and expression (McCrae, 2002; McCrae & Terracciano, 2005;

Tett & Guterman, 2000), conclusions on entrepreneurial personality and behavior from

western or stable contexts cannot be simply extended to African or fragile contexts.

Meanwhile over the last two decades, personality in business research has been largely

investigated through the Five Factor Model (FFM) which posits five basic dimensions of

human personality commonly known as the big five, namely Openness, Conscientiousness,

Extraversion, Agreeableness and Emotional Stability (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Costa & McCrae,

1992; Gosling et al., 2003; McCrae & Costa, 2003). With relation to entrepreneurial success,

however, scholars have thus far primarily focused on the founder personality’s relationship

to measures of firm performance (Ciavarella et al., 2004; Hachana et al., 2018; Matyka et al.,

2012; H. Zhao et al., 2010; L. Zhao & Jung, 2018; M. Zhou et al., 2017) rather than indicators of

120

entrepreneurial success at the individual level. Given that long-term success of new ventures

is largely the result of founder behaviors (Bird & Schjoedt, 2009; Kodithuwakkua & Rosa,

2002) and the variation of success definitions among different entrepreneurs (Ettl & Welter,

2012; Reijonen, 2008; Sarasvathy, 2004), a behavioral approach to entrepreneurial assessment

is certainly needed.

This research represents one of the first studies on the personality-behavior relationship in

entrepreneurship and the first study addressing this topic in this particular region, employing

data gathered across several sub-Saharan countries. The study builds on a synthesis of

different theories, develops eight hypotheses and tests them based on a sample of 232

entrepreneurs primarily using multiple regression modelling. The results show that

entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors do indeed correlate with firm performance and that

conscientiousness, extraversion and agreeableness positively relate to entrepreneurial

behavior moderated by country fragility. Emotional stability appears to also predict

entrepreneurial behavior, though the effect vanishes when accounting for contextual

moderator variables. Managerial behaviors, on the other hand, are positively predicted by

conscientiousness and agreeableness, whereas openness appears to have a statistically

significant U-shaped relationship to managerial behaviors.

3.2. Theory and Hypotheses

3.2.1. Entrepreneurial Success from a Behavioral Lens

Entrepreneurial success is often measured through firm performance indicators such as

wealth attainment and firm growth (Fried & Tauer, 2009; Jeffrey S. McMullen & Shepherd,

2006; Unger et al., 2011). However, using firm performance as proxy for entrepreneurial

success could be misleading given that firm failure could enhance an entrepreneur’s chance

of success on the long-term (Sarasvathy, 2004). Research also shows that different

entrepreneurs have heterogeneous goals and definitions of success (Ettl & Welter, 2012;

Hayter, 2011; Reijonen, 2008; Sarasvathy, 2004), which could explain why some financially

underperforming companies persist for a very long time (Sarasvathy, 2004). Additionally, it

may be inappropriate to evaluate entrepreneurial success based on firm-level outcomes in

cases where it is too early for such outcomes to have manifested, or in cases, as in some fragile

121

countries, where bookkeeping and firm performance documentation practices are underrated

or underused (e.g. Maseko & Manyani, 2011).

Therefore, it appears worthwhile to evaluate entrepreneurial success from a behavioral

perspective, recognizing that “human behavior involved in finding and exploiting

entrepreneurial opportunity through creating and developing new venture organizations”

ultimately results in enhancing innovation, stimulating competition and creating new jobs

and revenue streams (Bird & Schjoedt, 2009, p. 380). Indeed, the behavior of entrepreneurs is

seen as “the proximal individual-centric cause of venture outcomes (e.g., existence, sales,

products, survival, and growth)” (Bird et al., 2012, p. 890) and several scholars attempted to

validate behavior’s correlation with firm success. For example, Chandler and Jansen (1992)

find that behaviors such as seizing opportunities in familiar domains, adapting to business

demands, and obtaining the necessary education and expertise positively correlate with

venture growth and profitability. Other behaviors such as those related to gathering and

utilizing resources and long-term planning have also been found to predict long-term firm

performance (Man & Chan, 2002) and those pertaining to seeking feedback, researching

potential clients and relationship development appear more prevalent in successful ventures

in comparison with struggling ones (Katre & Salipante, 2012).

The significance of an entrepreneur’s behavior becomes more pronounced in challenged

environments in accordance with Carsrud and Krueger (1995), who claim that entrepreneurs’

behaviors (e.g. opportunity recognition and risk-taking) increase in importance with

socioeconomic environmental instability. Ahmad et al. (2010) extend this argument and

suggest that the exhibition of appropriate behavior by startup founders has the potential to

reduce the negative impacts of environmental fragility and hostility on their business success.

Kirzner (1984) argues that success in a limited-resource environment is determined by

entrepreneurial capabilities, such as those pertaining to opportunity perception and resource

mobilization, as well as managerial capabilities that optimize value creation from those scarce

resources. Those capabilities are highly related with entrepreneurial and managerial

behaviors respectively.

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Founder behaviors differ between highly successful and less successful African

entrepreneurs.

122

3.2.2. Personality and Behavior in Entrepreneurship

Personality comprises psychological qualities that influence and partially explain consistent

and differentiating patterns of feeling, thinking and behaving (Cervone & Pervin, 2012),

therefore predisposing individuals to exhibit particular actions and, given their persistence

over long periods of time, have astonishing capabilities to predict long-term behavior (McCrae

& Costa, 2003). Of all taxonomies and measures of personality traits, the FFM is considered

the most valid, consistent and reliable (Cervone & Pervin, 2012; Goldberg, 1993). Fathered by

Tupes and Christal (1961) and heavily advanced by McCrae and Costa (1985, 1987), five key

personality factors, each encompassing a larger number of specific traits, have been

constructed.

Costa and McCrae’s (1992) manual describes the FFM components in detail. A person high in

openness is one who is creative, imaginative, untraditional, intellectually curious, has broad

interests and tends to seek new experiences. A conscientious individual is reliable, diligent,

organized, self-disciplined, perseverant, hard-working and has high achievement motivation.

Extraversion refers to being sociable, talkative, affectionate, active, person-oriented and

optimistic, while agreeableness embodies trustfulness, soft-heartedness, helpfulness,

gullibility, compassion and forgivingness. Finally, an emotionally stable person is one who is

calm, satisfied, secure, relaxed, and resilient.

Studies on the big five in entrepreneurship have been mainly concerned with personality and

entrepreneurial intentions (Antoncic et al., 2015; H. Zhao et al., 2010), entrepreneurial

opportunity identification (Ardichvili et al., 2003), venture performance (Hachana et al., 2018;

H. Zhao et al., 2010; L. Zhao & Jung, 2018) and venture life cycle (Ciavarella et al., 2004),

paying little explicit attention to entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors. Notable

exceptions include the works of Rauch and Frese (2000, 2007), who model specific personality

traits (e.g. need for achievement and locus of control) as predictors of entrepreneur’s goals,

strategies and actions that ultimately result in business success, though they claim that general

FFM components are too unspecific to produce reliable results as predictors of entrepreneurial

behavior. However, with a myriad of studies confirming the predictive abilities of FFM

components to workplace behaviors in a variety of settings (see Penney, David, et al., 2011),

there is no reason to believe that entrepreneurship is an exception.

123

The Openness dimension, for instance, positively correlates with creative behaviors as

measured by tests of divergent thinking (McCrae, 1987). Openness additionally leads to

higher diversity in network communication and information flows, which plays a further role

in enhancing creative behaviors as studies among lead users have shown (Kratzer & Lettl,

2009; Kratzer et al., 2016). Openness has also been shown to strongly correlate with

networking behaviors including creating, maintaining and using new contacts (Wolff & Kim,

2012) as well opportunity recognition behaviors (J. Zhou & George, 2001). Additionally, the

management of a successful new company requires constant adaptation to its dynamic

environment, which requires adaptive behaviors that are expected to be influenced by

openness. In a fragile country, where the need for adaptation to constant contextual challenges

and creativity in problem-solving might be even higher than in stable environments, openness

could play a particularly important role. Accordingly, we expect a positive link between

openness and entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Openness is positively related to entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors.

The start-up process in particular requires flexibility in combination with well-coordinated

project and time management, the latter being related to conscientiousness. Many scholars

indeed regard conscientiousness to be the most important personality dimension for job

performance and a primary work motivation variable (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Gellatly, 1996).

A meta-analysis by Hurtz and Donovan (2000) additionally revealed that with respect to task

performance, job dedication and interpersonal facilitation, measured by (behavioral)

indicators such as use of equipment, commitment to objectives and being a team-player

respectively, conscientiousness appears to be a consistently valid indicator. This dimension

has also been found to positively correlate with proactive behaviors (Bateman & Crant, 1993).

The need for organization, discipline and diligence might be especially elevated in

environments with vague institutional requirements and systemic hurdles, as would be

expected in more fragile contexts. In short, this characteristic appears necessary to enhance

entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors and subsequent successful entrepreneurial

outcomes.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Conscientiousness is positively related to entrepreneurial and managerial

behaviors.

124

In turn, people with high extraversion scores are receptive to ideas and emotions (Costa &

McCrae, 1992). Markman and Baron (2003) mention the importance of building networks with

suppliers and customers in an industry as a crucial part of the start-up process, which we

expect to correlate with extraversion in agreement with Wolff and Kim (2012) and Zhao et al.

(2010). These networking behaviors could also involve negotiation with stakeholders,

interacting with own employees and team members and receiving advice from others. The

ability to build strong networks and relationships could be more pronounced in fragile

environments, where dependence on social networks and community support could be

instrumental in overcoming environmental challenges and achieving entrepreneurial success

(e.g. Abou-Moghli & Al-Kasasbeh, 2012; Dana et al., 2019) and is even linked to enhanced

resource mobilization and opportunity recognition behaviors and capabilities (see

Bhagavatula et al., 2010). Extraversion has also been found to predict proactive behavior

(Bateman & Crant, 1993) as well as transformational leadership behaviors (Judge & Bono,

2000). A meta-analytic study by Judge et al. (2002) shows extraversion to be the strongest

personality predictor of management success, which could be an indicator of proper

managerial behaviors. Because of these findings, we expect a positive correlation with the

entrepreneur’s entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors.

Hypothesis 4 (H4): Extraversion is positively related to entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors.

Agreeableness is also a dimension which describes interpersonal behavior, more specifically

referring to the tendency to be pleasant in social situations. Individuals high on agreeableness

are characterized as altruistic, empathetic, considerate, supportive and friendly (Graziano &

Eisenberg, 1997), all of which are characteristics that might especially be helpful where social

interactions and solid networks are needed to compensate for challenges in the surrounding

environment. Agreeableness has been shown to correlate positively to transformational

leadership (Judge & Bono, 2000) and the attraction of venture capital (Cable & Shane, 1997).

Agreeableness is also shown to positively predict internal networking behaviors within a

company (Wolff & Kim, 2012). We therefore expect a positive relationship between

agreeableness and behaviors needed for entrepreneurial success.

Hypothesis 5 (H5): Agreeableness is positively related to entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors.

125

Emotional stability refers to the ability to have balanced feelings about common experiences

and to act in a rational, reflected manner. Individuals who are less emotionally stable are more

reactive to stress and have less endurance, making emotional stability particularly valuable in

a highly stressful environment. Being capable to withstand emotional stress at the workplace

is vital when starting a new business anywhere, and regions where institutional support is

lacking might induce even higher levels of workplace stress. Meta-analytical findings indicate

a positive relationship between emotional stability and job performance (Barrick et al., 2001).

Additionally, running a business successfully requires a continuous learning process (Judge

et al., 2002) and we expect more emotionally stable entrepreneurs to be more effective learners.

With respect to behaviors pertaining to equipment use, being a team-player and dedication to

work, emotional stability has also been found as an important predictor (Hurtz & Donovan,

2000). For this reason, we expect emotional stability to be a positive indicator of

entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors.

Hypothesis 6 (H6): Emotional Stability is positively related to entrepreneurial and managerial

behaviors.

3.2.3. Context and Trait Activation

Differences in personality characteristics (McCrae, 2002; McCrae & Terracciano, 2005) and

workplace behaviors (e.g. Middermann & Rashid, 2019) have been noted between countries

and regions, substantiating the importance of analyzing them in the African context rather

than merely drawing inferences based on studies in western countries. One prominent

explanation is the trait activation theory (Judge & Zapata, 2014; Tett & Burnett, 2003; Tett &

Guterman, 2000), where the expression of specific personality traits is deemed contingent

upon stimuli and cues in the surrounding work environment. According to this theory, a

workplace behavior would only result from a personality trait if strong and relevant task-,

social- and organization-related stimuli are present.

Clearly, the nature of job responsibilities, social expectations and organizational climates

could vary significantly between countries with differing levels of institutional stability. For

instance, one might expect that certain aspects of a fragile-country entrepreneurial

environment, such as poorer access to basic technical services (e.g. internet connection or

electricity supply), higher threats of physical violence and asset theft, lack of regulatory

126

transparency and increased corruption as well as increased social inequality and

discrimination, could trigger different expression pathways of personality characteristics

compared to entrepreneurs operating in a highly stable environment. In other words, country

fragility might have an impact on the personality-behavior relationship.

Hypothesis 7 (H7): Country fragility impacts the relationships between personality dimensions and

entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors.

Differences in workplace environmental cues are also expected to differ with varying types of

companies. For instance, the nature of work-related tasks and social interactions could be

influenced by the age of the company as well as the nature of developed products or services

(e.g. social orientation or technology-based products). Therefore, company type is also

expected to impact the personality-behavior relationship.

Hypothesis 8 (H8): Company type impacts the relationships between personality dimensions and

entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors.

All the aforementioned hypotheses and conceptual framework of this study are summarized

in Figure 3-1.

Figure 3-1 Conceptual framework delineating the expected personality-behavior-success

relationship.

127

3.3. Data and Methods

3.3.1. Variables

3.3.1.1. Dependent Variables

A questionnaire was designed to test the aforementioned hypotheses. To measure

entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors, we adopted the behavioral measures of

performance created and validated by Brown and Hanlon (2004, 2016). These so-called

Behavioral Observation Scales (BOS) are proven to account for task complexity, clarify

subsequent necessary action and allow for proper coaching and support while generally

exhibiting high levels of inter-rater consistency and correlation with non-behavioral

performance measures (Brown & Hanlon, 2016; G. P. Latham et al., 2005; G. Latham & Wexley,

1994; Wiersma et al., 1995).

Brown and Hanlon’s BOS has been chosen as it specifically assesses entrepreneurial and

managerial behaviors which closely relate to entrepreneurial and managerial capabilities

needed for new venture success in a challenged environment as identified by Israel Kirzner

(1984). Brown and Hanlon (2016) classify founder behaviors into entrepreneurial ones which

are primarily needed while starting up a company and managerial ones that are important for

early company growth. Entrepreneurial behaviors are accordingly considered those related to

the founder’s acquisition of proper skills and educational background, opportunity

identification, dedication to business, resource mobilization, risk-taking and negotiation,

comprising a total of 23 questionnaire items. Managerial behaviors, on the other hand, are

comprised of those pertaining to strategic growth, financial management, employee/team

management and marketing/customer management, making up a total of 24 questionnaire

items. Each questionnaire item was evaluated on a 7-point Likert scale.

Data was also collected on the annual turnover of the venture as an estimator for economic

performance. Respondents were also asked to subjectively evaluate their success by

answering the question “compared to other enterprises in your branch, how successful are

you?” on a 7-point Likert scale. Highly successful companies could therefore be identified in

two different ways: Those for which the annual turnover equals or exceeds USD 10,000 and

128

those for which the founder subjectively identifies him/herself as moderately or strongly more

successful than peers.

3.3.1.2. Independent Variables

With regards to personality measurement, decades of research and methodological

development have led to the creation of the widely used 10-item Personality Inventory

Measure (TIPI) as an instrument for FFM quantification (Gosling et al., 2003), which was

applied in our study. So far, dozens of studies in many disciplines have successfully applied

this scale (Bias et al., 2010; Ferris et al., 2009; Grant & Ashford, 2008; Ivcevic & Mayer, 2009; Li

& Chignell, 2010; Motowidlo & Peterson, 2008; Poropat & Jones, 2009). The use of the brief

TIPI scale was favored against more detailed, elaborate Big Five measures (e.g. Fruyt et al.,

2009; McCrae & Costa, 2004) to avoid potentially burdening study participants with a lengthy

questionnaire and enhance response rates. Each personality dimension was measured using

2 questions, one of which is reverse scored. Each TIPI questionnaire item is evaluated on a 7-

point Likert scale.

3.3.1.3. Control and Moderating Variables

The questionnaire also contained items measuring demographic variables such as gender and

age as well as measures of the founder’s surrounding environment. Company type was

measured by three variables the first of which is startup stage, where we define an early-stage

venture as one that is in the process of being set up over the last 12 months or less and a late-

stage one as being over 1 year old and already paying wages, inspired by the Global

Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM, 2019a). Type of company was also identified by questions

on whether the founder considers the company a social or a technology company.

Data on country of operation and location within the country was also collected and countries

were classified as fragile or non-fragile based on the latest OECD country fragility

classification (OECD, 2018). The OECD classifies a country as fragile based on dimensions of

economic, environmental, political, security and societal risk (OECD, 2016b), considering the

state’s current exposure to negative events across those dimensions in addition to the its

capacity to deal with related and resulting risks in the future.

129

3.3.2. Data Collection

The questionnaire was distributed online to start-up founders across sub-Saharan Africa

through established connections with managers of incubator, accelerator and networking

programs focused on new venture support in the region. The major collaborator was the Tony

Elumelu Foundation, a non-profit organization that trains and invests in potentially high-

growth African start-ups across the continent. Additional data was collected through

organizations including (but not limited to) the Heartland Incubation Hub in Nigeria and

Pangea Accelerator in Kenya. The data was collected between September 2018 and January

2019 through SurveyMonkey software. All questionnaire items were marked as mandatory to

ensure completeness of collected data. The final dataset consists of 232 individual responses

(response rate = 18.4%) from an estimated population of 1261 entrepreneurs.

3.3.3. Validity and Reliability Tests

The questionnaire reliability was examined through Cronbach’s α measurement to assert that

the items measuring entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors do so adequately. A

Cronbach’s α value of 0.85 was obtained for each dependent variable. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

(KMO) test results also indicate sampling adequacy for each dependent variable. Those results

are summarized in Table 3-1.

There is no anticipation of non-response bias given that all questionnaire items required

mandatory responses. As for common method variance (CMV), we follow Fuller et al. (2016,

p. 3192) in presuming that a “relatively high level of CMV must be present to bias true

relationships among substantive variables at typically reported reliability levels” and that “at

levels of CMV typical of multiple item measures with typical reliabilities reporting typical

effect sizes, CMV does not represent a grave threat to the validity of research findings”. We

also refrained from conducting a confirmatory factor analysis (Harman’s one-factor test) to

detect CMV in accordance with Fuller et al. (2016) and Podsakoff et al. (2003), who postulate

that this test is not sensitive enough to detect CMV and that there is a lack of empirical

evidence that proves its efficacy.

130

Dependent

Variables

Constituent Elements

Cronbach's α

KMO

Entrepreneurial

Behaviors

Relevant Background for Chosen Business

0.85

0.86

Opportunity Identification

Dedication to Business

Mobilizing Support and Resources from Others

Negotiation and Risk-Taking

Managerial

Behaviors

Strategic Business Development and Growth

0.85

0.78

Financial Management Skills

Employee Management

Marketing/ Customer Relations Management

Table 3-1: Summary of analysis results pertaining to questionnaire validation.

3.3.4. Hypothesis Testing

Data analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). After

computing descriptive statistics on variable means, standard deviations, frequencies and

Pearson correlation coefficients, an independent sample t-test was administered to compare

mean scores on entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors between highly successful and less

successful ventures to test hypothesis 1. Linear regression modeling was then performed to

test the remaining hypotheses. The independent variables were also quadratically

transformed and centered to test for possible non-linear effects. Regression models were

established separately for each dependent variable while controlling for gender and age.

Contextual variables (i.e. those pertaining to company type and country fragility) were tested

for possible moderation effects (hypotheses 7 and 8).

3.4. Findings

3.4.1. Descriptive Statistics

The 232 respondents come from a total of 22 countries across sub Saharan Africa primarily

from Nigeria (49.1%), Kenya (15.9%), Uganda (10.3%), Ghana (4.7%) and Tanzania (3.9%). The

vast majority of respondents live in the same country in which they were born (92.3%) and in

urban areas (73.0%). Female-identifying entrepreneurs constitute a quarter of the sample

131

(24.1%) and the majority of respondents (72.8%) are between 25 and 39 years of age. Over 80%

of study participants have at least a bachelor’s degree.

Analyzed founders operate across a variety of industries with almost all companies being for-

profit (97.4%). Most of the founders operate social (74.1%), technology-based (78.0%) startups

that are less than 12-months old (62.9%). When asked to subjectively evaluate their business

success, 77.6% of respondents indicated being at least a little more successful than other

enterprises in their branch while 47.0% consider themselves moderately or strongly more

successful. With respect to financial metrics, 53.9% of founders indicated no or less than 5%

sales growth compared to last year and 40.5% have obtained at least 1 round of investment

from venture investors. The majority of businesses operate only locally (86.2%).

Respondents appear to have similar scores on entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors, with

mean scores of 5.92 and 5.98 (out of 7) respectively. As for independent variables, respondents

scored highest on conscientiousness (mean=6.31) and lowest on extraversion (mean=4.48).

Additional detail on variable means, standard deviations (SD) and correlation coefficients are

found in Table 3-2, Table 3-3 and Table 3-4.

132

Dependent Variables

Mean

Constituent Elements

Mean

Entrepreneurial

Behaviors

5.92

.77

Relevant Background for Chosen Business

5.77

1.09

Opportunity Identification

6.14

.96

Dedication to Business

6.36

.67

Mobilizing Support and Resources from

Others

5.86

.83

Negotiation and Risk-Taking

5.47

1.20

Managerial Behaviors

5.98

.78

Strategic Business Development and Growth

6.16

.76

Financial Management Skills

5.65

.98

Employee Management

6.17

1.07

Marketing/ Customer Relations Management

5.95

.91

Table 3-2: Descriptive statistics regarding the dependent variables.

Independent Variables

Mean

Extraversion

4.48

1.41

Agreeableness

5.55

1.13

Conscientiousness

6.31

.94

Emotional Stability

5.79

1.20

Openness

6.42

.82

Table 3-3: Descriptive statistics regarding the independent variables.

Entrepreneurial

Behaviors

Managerial

Behaviors

Extraversion

Agreeableness

Conscientiousness

Emotional

Stability

Openness

Entrepreneurial

Behaviors

Pearson Correlation

.891**

.220**

.190**

.404**

.313**

.316**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.001

.004

.000

232

224

Managerial Behaviors

Pearson Correlation

.891**

.174**

.172**

.388**

.317**

.246**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.009

.010

.000

232

224

Extraversion

Pearson Correlation

.220**

.174**

-.129

.103

.088

.256**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.001

.009

.053

.126

.189

.000

224

Agreeableness

Pearson Correlation

.190**

.172**

-.129

.195**

.298**

.119

Sig. (2-tailed)

.004

.010

.053

.003

.000

.076

224

Conscientiousness

Pearson Correlation

.404**

.388**

.103

.195**

.430**

.402**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.126

.003

.000

224

Emotional Stability

Pearson Correlation

.313**

.317**

.088

.298**

.430**

.313**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.189

.000

224

Openness

Pearson Correlation

.316**

.246**

.256**

.119

.402**

.313**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.076

.000

224

Table 3-4: Pearson correlations between the dependent and independent variables.

134

3.4.2. Hypothesis Testing

An independent sample t-test was administered to compare the mean scores on

entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors by grouping the overall sample based on the two

aforementioned measures of entrepreneurial success. Results indicate a significant mean

difference (supporting hypothesis 1), as seen in Table 3-5.

Grouping Variable

Test (Dependent)

Variables

T-Test for Equality of Means

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

Self-Rated as

Highly Successful

Entrepreneurial Behaviors

-4.32

230.00

0.00

-0.42

0.10

Managerial Behaviors

-4.75

230.00

0.00

-0.47

0.10

Annual Turnover

≥$10K

Entrepreneurial Behaviors

-3.10

229.96

0.00

-0.30

0.10

Managerial Behaviors

-4.43

222.48

0.00

-0.41

0.09

Table 3-5: Results from independent sample t-tests evaluating mean score differences

between groups of founders based on subjectively and economically evaluated firm

success.

Linear regression modeling results are summarized in Table 3-6 and Table 3-7. All models

have significant regression equations with no multicollinearity detected (all VIF values < 10).

The results show partial confirmation of hypotheses 2-8. Conscientiousness appears to be the

independent variable with the strongest significant (p <0.01) positive correlation with both

entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors. Agreeableness also appears to significantly (p

<0.05) predict entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors, albeit to a smaller degree.

As for the remaining personality variables, emotional stability does not appear to have a

significant correlation with managerial behaviors and its significant correlation with

entrepreneurial behaviors diminishes when accounting for moderator variables. Extraversion

appears to significantly (p<0.01) predict entrepreneurial but not managerial behaviors with a

small effect (B=0.09), while openness appears to significantly predict managerial (p<0.05)

rather than entrepreneurial behaviors with evidence of a U-shaped relationship.

135

With regards to the control and moderating variables, gender appears to have a significant

influence on entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors, with male gender positively and

strongly predicting both. Country fragility also has a strong, significant positive correlation

with entrepreneurial behaviors, albeit not with managerial behaviors, and appears to

moderate the effect of emotional stability. Variables pertaining to founder age, start-up stage

and company type (social or tech) appear insignificant in all models tested.

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Variable

SE B

Control Variables

Gender (DV: Male)

0.38**

0.12

0.35**

0.10

0.35**

0.10

0.31**

0.11

Age (DV: Less than 30)

-0.12

0.16

0.05

0.14

0.04

0.14

0.01

0.15

Age (DV: Between 30-39)

-0.22

0.16

-0.06

0.14

-0.06

0.14

-0.12

0.14

Independent Variables (Linear)

Extraversion

0.08*

0.03

0.08*

0.03

0.09**

0.03

Agreeableness

0.09*

0.04

0.12*

0.05

0.12*

0.05

Conscientiousness

0.24**

0.06

0.30**

0.10

0.29**

0.10

Emotional Stability

0.08

0.04

0.12*

0.06

0.11

0.06

Openness

0.10

0.06

0.14

0.10

0.12

0.10

Independent Variables (Quadratic)

Quadratic Extraversion

0.00

0.02

0.00

0.02

Quadratic Agreeableness

0.05

0.03

0.04

0.03

Quadratic conscientiousness

0.07

0.06

0.08

0.06

Quadratic Emotional Stability

0.02

0.03

0.02

0.03

Quadratic Openness

0.04

0.05

0.03

0.05

Moderating Variables

Start-up Phase (DV: Early Stage)

-0.08

0.10

Company Type (DV: Tech Start-up)

0.11

0.12

Company Type (DV: Social Start-up)

0.08

0.11

Country Fragility (DV: Fragile State)

0.31*

0.15

0.055

0.296

0.324

0.344

DV: Dummy Variable

*p <= .05, **p <= .01

Table 3-6: Linear regression models predicting entrepreneurial behaviors

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Variable

SE B

Control Variables

Gender (DV: Male)

0.30*

0.12

0.27*

0.11

0.27*

0.11

0.25**

0.11

Age (DV: Less than 30)

-0.18

0.16

0.01

0.15

0.01

0.15

0.05

0.15

Age (DV: Between 30-39)

-0.21

0.16

-0.04

0.15

-0.03

0.15

-0.03

0.15

Independent Variables (Linear)

Extraversion

0.06

0.04

0.07*

0.04

0.07

0.04

Agreeableness

0.08

0.05

0.10*

0.05

0.11*

0.05

Conscientiousness

0.25**

0.06

0.31**

0.10

0.31**

0.10

Emotional Stability

0.10*

0.05

0.10

0.06

0.09

0.06

Openness

0.04

0.07

0.21*

0.10

0.20

0.10

Independent Variables (Quadratic)

Quadratic Extraversion

0.00

0.02

0.00

0.02

Quadratic Agreeableness

0.05

0.03

0.05

0.03

Quadratic conscientiousness

0.07

0.06

0.07

0.06

Quadratic Emotional Stability

-0.02

0.03

-0.02

0.03

Quadratic Openness

0.13*

0.05

0.12*

0.05

Moderating Variables

Start-up Phase (DV: Early Stage)

-0.18

0.10

Company Type (DV: Tech Start-up)

-0.01

0.12

Company Type (DV: Social Start-up)

0.07

0.11

Country Fragility (DV: Fragile State)

0.20

0.16

0.035

0.246

0.289

0.306

DV: Dummy Variable

*p <= .05, **p <= .01

Table 3-7: Linear regression models predicting managerial behaviors.

138

3.5. Discussion and Implications

First of all, the findings confirm that entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors significantly

correlate with entrepreneurial success. This supports overcoming the limitations and

challenges of concrete economic measures such as turnover, size, market share and profit,

which though potentially more objectively measured, fail when comparing entrepreneurial

endeavors across different industries, company stages and country contexts.

The results with respect to entrepreneurial behaviors show statistically significant and

positive effects of the independent variables extraversion, conscientiousness and

agreeableness. The variable emotional stability is moderated by country fragility as suggested

earlier in the paper. Therefore, it appears that the more fragile a country is, the more emotional

stability is needed to be successful as an entrepreneur.

Those overall results demonstrate that individuals exhibiting high levels of entrepreneurial

behavior are generally reliable, well-organized, trustful and helpful and to a lower extent

talkative and optimistic together with some ego-centered orientation. Thus, entrepreneurs

actively exercising entrepreneurial behaviors are champions to only some extent while

carrying additional characteristics (Gemuenden, 1985; Howell et al., 2005; Kratzer et al., 2010;

Rost et al., 2007).

The findings concerning managerial behaviors also demonstrate the positive and statistically

significant predictive capabilities of agreeableness and conscientiousness. Translated into

reality, this indicates that the reliable, diligent, well-organized, trustful and helpful

entrepreneurs, rather than the ego-centered champions, are most successful. Indeed, although

entrepreneurs are often described as champions and extroverts, the reality appears to be

different, at least in the sub Saharan context.

Perhaps unexpectedly, the variable openness has a U-shaped statistically significant

relationship with managerial behaviors. A possible explanation is that some successful

African enterprises might have a strictly local focus hence very low degrees of openness, while

others reach out to larger regions or even internationally where openness is a pre-condition

for successful. This could also signal the mixed innovative versus replicative nature of studied

139

entrepreneurs (Baumol, 2010). This finding warrants further investigation into the role of

openness in African and fragile-country entrepreneurial success.

Theoretically, the paper reaffirms the importance of personality traits for start-up

performance. However, this paper extents the empirical body of research with unique data

from Africa. The results strongly indicate that exhibiting needed behaviors and achieving

success as an entrepreneur requires a blend of various personality characteristics which

cannot be generalized from one country context to another. The paper extends the application

of the trait activation theory to the sub Saharan African context and confirms the influence of

country fragility on personality expression and subsequent entrepreneurial behavior, a

unique contribution to entrepreneurship literature combining theoretical rigor with social

relevance (see Wiklund et al., 2019).

Primarily agreeableness and conscientiousness appear to determine the behavior of

entrepreneurs. Recognizing behavior’s connection to entrepreneurial success, results support

earlier findings that consider agreeableness the most important predictive personality

dimension with respect to attracting financial means and conscientiousness as the most

important one for intrinsic motivation and job performance (Barrick et al., 2001; Cable &

Shane, 1997). The results cannot confirm earlier findings on the value of extraversion (e.g.

Shane, 2003) while negating previous findings on the negative correlation of agreeableness

with new venture success, presumably due to agreeableness’s negative relationship with

autonomy and acting independently of social expectations which had generally been

associated with successful entrepreneurship (Brandstätter, 2011).

These results could be attributed to the general collectivistic nature of most sub-Saharan

African cultures, where collectivism is associated with lower levels of extraversion (Hofstede

& McCrae, 2004). Additionally, the expression of empathy and compassion, which highly

relates to agreeableness (Chopik et al., 2017), is generally found to positively correlate with

low income and poverty (Kraus et al., 2012; Stellar et al., 2012) – common issues in highly

fragile countries. Additionally, helpfulness, trustworthiness and altruism might prove vital to

successfully act in social networks and work as a community to develop endogenously amidst

fragile conditions. Moreover, being well-organized while embedded in administrative and

140

business conditions that are deficient in organization might be particularly vital in fragile

countries.

From a practical point of view, understanding the relationship between personality

dimensions, entrepreneurs’ behavior and subsequent new business success in Africa is

positioned to nurture entrepreneurs and start-up teams without relying on potentially

irrelevant knowledge gathered in western, institutionally stable countries. The results might

assist in selecting the more-fitting entrepreneurs for acceleration/incubation support and/or

customizing support and coaching programs to best fit regional needs.

Entrepreneurship activities in sub-Saharan Africa might therefore require the fostering of

alternative sets of soft skills, thus different training and education approaches, compared with

stable, western countries (see Rashid, 2019). Entrepreneurial team composition might also

need be differently done to maximize success. This emphasizes that supporters, non-profit

organizations and public and private institutions ought not simply transfer educational efforts

and support strategies but have to adapt all initiatives to local conditions (Ojala & Heikkilä,

2011).

Results also help in selecting receivers of financial means from public sources and venture

capitalists. Particularly, many believe that the most successful entrepreneurs are ego-centered

individualists while the results indicate something else. This also includes foreign investment

efforts, where investors needs to realize that the loudest entrepreneurs are not necessarily the

most promising. In other words, a typical Silicon-Valley mentality probably fails to achieve

entrepreneurial success and secure local financial investments in the African context.

The results might even warrant the need for different coaching and financing strategies for

African and fragile-country migrant or refugee entrepreneurs attempting to start businesses

in western and stable countries (Rashid, 2018), recognizing differences in their personal

characteristics. Additionally, realizing that male gender is significantly correlated to

entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors calls for more specialized efforts to understand and

foster female entrepreneurship in the region.

141

3.6. Conclusions

With the sub-Saharan region being home to most of the world’s low income, highly fragile

countries (Fund for Peace, 2019a; World Bank, 2018a), it is necessary to focus on empowering

bottom-up developmental approaches emphasizing high-growth business development. This

study attempts to reveal some of the individual-level determinants of the recent economic

revival in the region resulting from entrepreneurial activity (Naudé, 2017). Personality has

long been considered of major importance in predicting business outcomes and

entrepreneurial intention and success, but its relationship to the entrepreneur’s behavior has

been largely understudied. In addition, although manifestations of personality traits in

entrepreneurship are expected to differ significantly with country context, studies thus far

have primarily focused on western and stable environments.

This study offers new insights on those matters based on quantitative analysis of a dataset of

232 African entrepreneurs. The FFM has been employed to assess personality dimensions,

while entrepreneurial success has been viewed from a behavioral lens with a focus on

individual entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors. Results indicate that indeed,

entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors correlate with new venture success and that

conscientiousness and agreeableness, moderated by country fragility, are the strongest

personality predictors of those behaviors.

The study responds to recent calls to diversify entrepreneurship research (Welter et al., 2017)

and conduct research that is both high in theoretical rigor and social relevance (Wiklund et

al., 2019). This research particularly addresses entrepreneurship literature gaps regarding the

personality-behavior relationship and personality research outside of stable, western

countries. Findings additionally support education, team building and financing efforts for

African entrepreneurs and call for specialized and context-appropriate development

initiatives.

As with all studies, some limitations are identified. One limitation is in the data itself;

gathering data around start-up support organizations (Tony Elumelu Foundation, Heartland

Incubation Hub and Pangea Accelerator among others) certainly biases the resulting sample.

Only entrepreneurs who are part of these entities were reached, therefore limiting the sample

to formal entrepreneurship endeavors as well as those with regular internet access due to the

142

use of a digital questionnaire. The magnitude and impact of informal entrepreneurs

particularly in African countries is however not to be underestimated. Although it could be

quite challenging to collect reliable data about informal entrepreneurship activities in fragile

countries, it is important to do so particularly given the positive role that the informal sector

plays in entrepreneurial development (e.g. Naudé, 2010).

Additionally, collecting data using self-reported questionnaires occasionally results in some

degree of response subjectivity. For instance, social desirability bias is not uncommon, where

“respondents may systematically alter questionnaire responses in the direction they perceive

to be desired by the investigator” (Choi & Pak, 2005, p. 8). This might explain the relatively

high mean scores obtained on both entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors. However,

measures have been taken to reduce such biases such as allowing all respondents to submit

their questionnaires with full anonymity in addition to asking them to rate themselves from

the perspective of a trusted advisor rather than their personal perspective; the latter being a

technique specifically proven to reduce social desirability bias (Brown & Hanlon, 2016;

Schoorman & Mayer, 2007).

Finally, Africa is a large continent within which exist many societal, economic, political and

cultural differences. Though we attempted to partially offset this intra-variability by including

country fragility measures, future research should concentrate on individual countries and

explore the nature of personal traits and resulting entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors

in-depth within specific contexts. Future research should moreover include additional

variables concerning the institutional conditions and support systems on the country level.

This could also be done across several countries using hierarchical modelling or in comparison

to highly stable countries.

Additional possible moderating and also mediating variables could be explored in future

research in order to further refine the results and practical recommendations. Personality

characteristics of founders could be supplemented by and compared with other independent

variables such as social networks, cultural capital or family background. All in all, research

that links personal traits, entrepreneurial activities and success should pay more attention to

changing global dynamics and major sustainability and social challenges, determinants of

143

entrepreneurship beyond pure profit orientations, modifications in and extensions of

institutional support mechanisms and changing labor markets due to effects of digitalization.

3.7. Supplementary Information

Acknowledgements: We would like to express our gratitude to the individuals and

organizations that supported our research operations. Special thanks to Mr. Uwem

Uwemapkan (Tony Elumelu Foundation), Mr. Kolapo Ogungbile (Oluaka Academy and the

Heartland Incubation Hub) and Ms. Anne Lawi (Pangea Accelerator) for supporting the

majority of our data collection efforts. We would also like to acknowledge Ms. Omepeju

Afanu (WomenX 12), Ms. Jovanna Alvarez (Ongoza), Mr. Oluwakemi Olaoye

(MindtheGap), Mr. John Kieti (Nairobi Innovation Week), Ms. Toyin Dania (MBC Africa),

Mr. Joshua Adedeji (ASPEN Institute) and Mr. Kevin Thiong'o (SPRING Accelerator). Jan

Kratzer’s contribution to the article is based on the study funded by the Basic Research

Program of the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) and by the

Russian Academic Excellence Project '5-100'.

license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

144

3.8. References

Abou-Moghli, A. A., & Al-Kasasbeh, M. M. (2012). Social Network and the Success of

Business Start-Up. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(9), 134–140.

Ahmad, N. H., Ramayah, T., Wilson, C., & Kummerow, L. (2010). Is Entrepreneurial

Competency and Business Success Relationship Contingent upon Business Environment? A

Study of Malaysian SMEs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research,

16(3), 182–203. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552551011042780

Antoncic, B., Bratkovic, T. K., Singh, G., & DeNoble, A. F. (2015). The Big Five Personality–

Entrepreneurship Relationship: Evidence from Slovenia. Journal of Small Business

Management, 53(3), 819–841.

Ardichvili, A. A., Cardozo, R. N., & Ray, S. (2003). A Theory of Entrepreneurial Opportunity

Identification and Development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 105–123.

Asongu, S. A., Nwachukwu, J. C., & Orim, S.-M. I. (2018). Mobile phones, institutional

quality and entrepreneurship in Sub-Saharan Africa. Technological Forecasting and Social

Change, 181, 183–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.08.007

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job

performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and Performance at the

Beginning of the New Millennium: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go Next?

International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1–2), 9–30.

Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The Proactive Component of Organizational Behavior:

A Measure and Correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103–118.

Baumol, W. J. (2010). The Microtheory of Innovative Entrepreneurship. Princeton and

Oxford: Princeton University Press.

Bhagavatula, S., Elfring, T., van Tilburg, A., & van de Bunt, G. G. (2010). How Social and

Human Capital Influence Opportunity Recognition and Resource Mobilization in India’s

Handloom Industry. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(3), 245–260.

https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.10.006

Bias, R. G., Larson, K., Huang, S.-C., Ryan, P. R., & Montesclaros, C. (2010). An Exploratory

Study of Visual and Psychological Correlates of Preference for Onscreen Subpixel-Rendered

Text. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(4), 745–

757.

Bird, B., & Schjoedt, L. (2017). Entrepreneurial Behavior: Its Nature, Scope, Recent Research,

and Agenda for Future Research. Cham: Springer.

145

Bird, B., Schjoedt, L., & Baum, J. R. (2012). Editor’s Introduction. Entrepreneurs’ Behavior:

Elucidation and Measurement. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(5), 889–913.

Brandstätter, H. (2011). Personality Aspects of Entrepreneurship: A Look at Five Meta-

Analyses. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 222–230.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.007

Brown, T. C., & Hanlon, D. (2004). Developing Behavioural Observation Scales to Foster

Effective Entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 17(2), 103–116.

Brown, T. C., & Hanlon, D. (2016). Behavioral Criteria for Grounding Entrepreneurship

Education and Training Programs: A Validation Study. Journal of Small Business

Management, 54(2), 399–419.

Cable, D. M., & Shane, S. (1997). A Prisoner’s Dilemma Approach to Entrepreneur-Venture

Capitalist Relationships. Academy of Management Review, 22, 142–176.

Carsrud, A., & Krueger, N. F. (1995). Entrepreneurship and Social Psychology: Behavioral

Technology for the New Venture Initiation Process. In J. A. Katz & R. H. Brockhaus (Hrsg.),

Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth (Bd. 2, S. 73–96). Greenwich,

CT: JAI Press.

Cervone, D., & Pervin, L. A. (2012). Personality: Theory and Research (12. Aufl.). Hoboken:

Wiley.

Chandler, G. N., & Jansen, E. (1992). The Founder’s Self-Assessed Competence and Venture

Performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(3), 223–236.

Choi, B. C. K., & Pak, A. W. P. (2005). A Catalog of Biases in Questionnaires. Preventing

Chronic Disease, 2(1).

Chopik, W. J., O’Brien, E., & Konrath, S. H. (2017). Differences in Empathic Concern and

Perspective Taking Across 63 Countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(1), 23–38.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022116673910

Ciavarella, M. A., Buchholtz, A. K., Riordan, C. M., Gatewood, R. D., & Stoke, G. S. (2004).

The Big Five and Venture Survival: Is There a Linkage? Journal of Business Venturing, 19,

465–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.03.001

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and

NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual. Odessa: PAR.

Costello, K., & Hodson, G. (2009). Exploring the Roots of Dehumanization: The Role of

Animal-Human Similarity in Promoting Immigrant Humanization. Group Processes &

Intergroup Relations, 13(1), 3–22.

146

Dana, L.-P., Gurău, C., Hoy, F., Ramadani, V., & Alexander, T. (2019). Success Factors and

Challenges of Grassroots Innovations: Learning from Failure. Technological Forecasting and

Social Change, 119600. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.03.009

Dana, L.-P., Ratten, V., & Honyenuga, B. Q. (2018). African Entrepreneurship: Challenges

and Opportunities for Doing Business. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.

Easterly, W. (2008). Institutions: Top Down or Bottom Up? American Economic Review:

Papers & Proceedings, 98(2), 95–99.

Ettl, K., & Welter, F. (2012). Women Entrepreneurs and Success. In Women’s

Entrepreneurship and Economics (S. 73–88). New York, NY: Springer.

Ferris, G. R., Lyons, L., Blass, F. R., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2009). Interaction of Job-Limiting

Pain and Political Skill on Job Satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal

of Managerial Psychology, 24(7/8), 584–608.

Fried, H. O., & Tauer, L. W. (2009). Understanding the Entrepreneur: An Index of

Entrepreneurial Success. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 29(5), Article 7.

Fruyt, F. D., Bolle, M. D., McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., & Costa, P. T. (2009). Assessing the

Universal Structure of Personality in Early Adolescence: The NEO-PI-R and NEO-PI-3 in 24

Cultures. Assessment, 16(3), 301–311.

Fu, X., Mohnen, P., & Zanello, G. (2018). Innovation and productivity in formal and informal

firms in Ghana. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 131, 315–325.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.08.009

Fuller, C. M., Simmering, M. J., Atinc, G., Atinc, Y., & Babin, B. J. (2016). Common Methods

Variance Detection in Business Research. Journal of Business Research, 69, 3192–3198.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008

Fund for Peace. (2019). Global Data | Fragile States Index. Abgerufen von

https://fragilestatesindex.org/data/

Furnham, A., Eracleous, A., & Chamorro‐Premuzic, T. (2009). Personality, Motivation and

Job Satisfaction: Hertzberg Meets the Big Five. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(7/8),

765–779.

Gellatly, I. R. (1996). Conscientiousness and Job Performance: Test of a Cognitive Process

Model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 474–482.

Gemuenden, H. G. (1985). Promotors—Key Persons for the Development and Marketing of

Innovative Industrial Products. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York/Tokyo: Springer.

Geuens, M., Weijters, B., & Wulf, K. D. (2009). A New Measure of Brand Personality.

International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(2), 97–107.

147

Global Entrepreneurship Research Association. (2019). How GEM Defines Entrepreneurship.

Abgerufen von Global Entrepreneurship Monitor website:

https://www.gemconsortium.org/wiki/1149

Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The Structure of Phenotypic Personality Traits. American

Psychologist, 48(1), 26–34.

Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. Jr. (2003). A Very Brief Measure of the Big-

Five Personality Domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528.

Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The Dynamics of Proactivity at Work. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34.

Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness; A Dimension of Personality. San

Diego: Academic Press.

Grimm, M., Knorringa, P., & Lay, J. (2012). Constrained Gazelles: High Potentials in West

Africa’s Informal Economy. World Development, 40(7), 1352–1368.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.03.009

Hachana, R., Berraies, S., & Ftiti, Z. (2018). Identifying Personality Traits Associated with

Entrepreneurial Success: Does Gender Matter? Journal of Innovation Economics &

Management, 3(27), 169–193. https://doi.org/10.3917/jie.027.0169

Hayter, C. S. (2011). In Search of the Profit-Maximizing Actor: Motivations and Definitions

of Success from Nascent Academic Entrepreneurs. The Journal of Technology Transfer,

36(3), 340–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9196-1

Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Personality and Culture Revisited: Linking Traits and

Dimensions of Culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 38(1), 52–88.

Howell, J. M., Shea, C. M., & Higgins, C. A. (2005). Champions of Product Innovations:

Defining, Developing and Validating a Measure of Champion Behavior. Journal of Business

Venturing, 20, 641–661.

Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and Job Performance: The Big Five

Revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 869–879.

Ivcevic, Z., & Mayer, J. D. (2009). Mapping Dimensions of Creativity in the Life-Space.

Creativity Research Journal, 21(2/3), 152–165.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-Factor Model of Personality and Transformational

Leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 751–765.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and Leadership: A

Qualitative and Quantitative Review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765–780.

148

Judge, T. A., & Zapata, C. P. (2014). The Person–Situation Debate Revisited: Effect of

Situation Strength and Trait Activation on the Validity of the Big Five Personality Traits in

Predicting Job Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1149–1179.

Kato, M. P., & Kratzer, J. (2013). Empowering Women through Microfinance: Evidence from

Tanzania. ACRN Journal of Entrepreneurship Perspectives, 2(1), 31–59.

Katre, A., & Salipante, P. (2012). Start–Up Social Ventures: Blending Fine–Grained Behaviors

from Two Institutions for Entrepreneurial Success. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,

36(5), 967–994. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00536.x

Kirzner, I. M. (1984). The Entrepreneurial Process. New York: Lexington Books.

Kodithuwakkua, S. S., & Rosa, P. (2002). The Entrepreneurial Process and Economic Success

in a Constrained Environment. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(5), 431–465.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(01)00074-X

Kratzer, J., Gemuenden, H. G., & Hoelzle, K. (2010). How the Network Position of R&D

Team Managers and Members Impact their Evaluations of Creative Performance. Creativity

and Innovation Management, 19, 107–118.

Kratzer, J., & Lettl, C. (2009). The Distinctive Role of Lead Users and Opinion Leaders in the

Social Networks of School Children. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 646–659.

Kratzer, J., Lettl, C., Franke, N., & Gloor, P. A. (2016). The Social Network Position of Lead

Users. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33, 201–216.

Kraus, M. W., Côté, S., & Keltner, D. (2012). Social Class, Contextualism, and Empathic

Accuracy. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1716–1723.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610387613

Latham, G. P., Almost, J., Mann, S., & Moore, C. (2005). New Developments in Performance

Management. Organizational Dynamics, 34(1), 77–87.

Latham, G., & Wexley, K. (1994). Increasing Productivity through Performance Appraisal (2.

Aufl.). Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Li, J., & Chignell, M. (2010). Birds of a Feather: How Personality Influences Blog Writing and

Reading. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(9), 589–602.

Man, T. W. Y., & Chan, T. L. K. F. (2002). The Competitiveness of Small and Medium

Enterprises: A Conceptualization with Focus on Entrepreneurial Competencies. Journal of

Business Venturing, 17(2), 123–142.

Markman, G. D., & Baron, R. A. (2003). Person-Entrepreneurship Fit: Why Some People are

More Successful as Entrepreneurs Than Others. Human Resource Management Review, 13,

281–301.

149

Maseko, N., & Manyani, O. (2011). Accounting Practices of SMEs in Zimbabwe: An

Investigative Study of Record Keeping for Performance Measurement (A Case Study of

Bindura). Journal of Accounting and Taxation, 3(8), 171–181.

https://doi.org/10.5897/JAT11.031

Matyka, D., Jung, St., & Kratzer, J. (2012). Company Success Among German Internet Start-

ups. Hamburg: Disserta Verlag.

McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, Divergent Thinking, and Openness Represented in Natural

Language? European Journal of Personality, 4, 119–129.

McCrae, R. R. (2002). NEO-PI-R Data from 36 Cultures: Further Intercultural Comparisons.

New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. (1985). Updating Norman’s „adequate taxonomy“: Intelligence

and personality dimensions in natural language and in questionnaires. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 710–721.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. (1987). Validation of the Five-Factor Model of Personality Across

Instruments and Observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2004). A Contemplated Revision of the NEO Five-Factor

Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(3), 587–596.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. J. (2003). Personality in Adulthood: A Five-Factor Theory

Perspective (2. Aufl.). New York: The Guilford Press.

McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. (2005). Universal Features of Personality Traits From the

Observer’s Perspective: Data from 50 Cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

88(3), 547–561.

McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial Action and the Role of

Uncertainty in the Theory of the Entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31(1),

132–152.

Motowidlo, S. J., & Peterson, N. G. (2008). Effects of Organizational Perspective on Implicit

Trait Policies About Correctional Officers’ Job Performance. Human Performance, 21(4),

396–413.

Naudé, W. (2010). Entrepreneurship, Developing Countries, and Development Economics:

New Approaches and Insights. Small Business Economics, 34, 1–12.

Naudé, W. (2017). Entrepreneurship, Education and the Fourth Industrial Revolution in

Africa. Bonn: IZA – Institute of Labor Economics, IZA Discussion Papers, No. 10855.

OECD. (2016). States of Fragility 2016: Understanding Violence.

https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264267213-en

150

OECD. (2018). States of Fragility 2018: Highlights. Paris: Organisation for Economic

Cooperation and Development.

Penney, L. M., David, E., & Witt, L. A. (2011). A Review of Personality and Performance:

Identifying Boundaries, Contingencies, and Future Research Directions. Human Resource

Management Review, 297–310.

Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common Method

Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended

Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-

9010.88.5.879

Poropat, A. E., & Jones, L. (2009). Development and Validation of a Unifactorial Measure of

Citizenship Performance. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(4),

851–869.

Rashid, L. (2018). “Call Me a Business Owner, Not a Refugee!” Challenges of and

Perspectives on Newcomer Entrepreneurship. Waterloo: Center for International

Governance Innovation, World Refugee Council, Working Paper No.7.

Rashid, L. (2019). Entrepreneurship Education and Sustainable Development Goals: A

literature Review and a Closer Look at Fragile States and Technology-Enabled Approaches.

Sustainability, 11(19), 5343. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195343

Rathna, K. G., & Vijaya, T. G. (2009). Competencies of Entrepreneurs and Intrapreneurs: A

Comparative Study. South Asian Journal of Management, 16(2), 28–46.

Ratten, V., & Jones, P. (2018). Bringing Africa into Entrepreneurship Research. Basingstoke:

Springer; Palgrave Macmillan.

Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2000). Psychological Approaches to Entrepreneurial Success: A

General Model and an Overview of Findings. Chichester: Wiley.

Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007). Let’s Put the Person Back into Entrepreneurship Research: A

Meta-Analysis on the Relationship Between Business Owners’ Personality Traits, Business

Creation, and Success. European Journal of Work and Organizational, 16(4), 353–385.

Reijonen, H. (2008). Understanding the Small Business Owner: What They Really Aim at and

How This Relates to Firm Performance: A Case Study in North Karelia, Eastern Finland.

Management Research News, 31(8), 616–629. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409170810892172

Robson, P. J. A., Haugh, H. M., & Obeng, B. A. (2009). Entrepreneurship and Innovation in

Ghana: Enterprising Africa. Small Business Economics, 32, 331–350.

Rost, K., Hölzle, K., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2007). Promotors or Champians? Pros and Cons

of Role Specialisation for Economic Progress. Schmalenbachs Business Review, 59, 340–363.

151

Sarasvathy, S. (2004). Making It Happen: Beyond Theories of the Firm to Theories of Firm

Design. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(6).

Schoorman, F. D., & Mayer, R. C. (2007). The Value of Common Perspectives in SelfReported

Appraisals: You Get What You Ask For. Organizational Research Methods, 11(1), 148–159.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107307168

Schramm, C. J. (2010). Expeditionary Economics: Spurring Growth After Conflicts and

Disasters. Foreign Affairs, 89(3), 89–99.

Shane, S. (2003). A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual-Opportunity Nexus.

Cheltenham, UK and Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Stellar, J. E., Manzo, V. M., Kraus, M. W., & Keltner, D. (2012). Class and Compassion:

Socioeconomic Factors Predict Responses to Suffering. Emotion, 12(3), 449–459.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026508

Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A Personality Trait-Based Interactionist Model of Job

Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 500–517.

Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation Trait Relevance, Trait Expression, and Cross-

Situational Consistency: Testing a Principle of Trait Activation. Journal of Research in

Personality, 34, 397–423.

Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent Personality Factors Based on Trait Ratings,

USAF ASD Tech. Rep. No. 61-97. Lackland Air Force Base: TX: US Air Force.

Unger, J. M., Rauch, A., Frese, M., & Rosenbusch, N. (2011). Human Capital and

Entrepreneurial Success: A Meta-Analytical Review. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(3),

341–358.

Welter, F., Baker, T., Audretsch, D. B., & Gartner, W. B. (2017). Everyday

Entrepreneurship—A Call for Entrepreneurship Research to Embrace Entrepreneurial

Diversity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(3), 311–321.

Wiersma, U. J., van den Berg, P. T., & Latham, G. P. (1995). Dutch Reactions to Behavioral

Observation, Behavioral Expectation, and Trait Scales. Group and Organization

Management, 20, 297–309.

Wiklund, J., Wright, M., & Zahra, S. A. (2019). Conquering Relevance: Entrepreneurship

Research’s Grand Challenge. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(3), 419–436.

Wolff, H., & Kim, S. (2012). The Relationship Between Networking Behaviors and the Big

Five Personality Dimensions. Career Development International, 17(1), 43–66.

152

World Bank. (2018). Information Note: The World Bank Group’s Harmonized List of Fragile

Situations. Abgerufen 9. März 2019, von

http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/586581437416356109/FCS-List-FY16-Information-Note.pdf

Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2010). The Relationship of Personality to

Entrepreneurial Intentions and Performance: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of

Management, 36(2), 381–404. https://doi.org/1177/0149206309335187

Zhao, L., & Jung, H.-B. (2018). The Winning Personality: Impact of Founders’ Personality

Traits and Firms’ Network Relationships on Chinese Apparel New Venture Performance.

International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 24(2), 553–573.

https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJEBR-09-2016-0281

Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When Openness to Experience and Conscientiousness are

Related to Creative Behavior: An Interactional Approach. Journal of Applied Psychology,

86(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.513

Zhou, M., Zhou, Y., Zhang, J., Obschonka, M., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2017). Person–City

Personality Fit and Entrepreneurial Success: An Explorative Study in China. International

Journal of Psychology, 54(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12451

PART FOUR: A HUMAN

CAPITAL ASSET ANALYSIS

DURING STARTUP

INTERNATIONALIZATION

156

4. Cross-Country Differences in Entrepreneurial

Internationalization Tendencies: Evidence from Germany and Pakistan

Author(s): Laura Middermann and Lubna Rashid.

Published by Administrative Sciences on July 30th, 2019.

The article has been published with open access by MDPI hence the authors retain

Abstract: Previous research has emphasized the importance of entrepreneurial

characteristics for international entrepreneurship, hence the application of concepts such as

entrepreneurial orientation and global mindset to the study of entrepreneurial

internationalization tendencies (EIT). However, literature does not adequately address how

EIT differ between countries or manifest in fragile country settings. We address this gap

through a quantitative study to investigate EIT in two national settings that largely differ in

terms of development, institutional stability, and culture. Through the lens of the

institutional theory and the mindset theory, we therefore piloted the study on 112 high-

growth startups in Germany and Pakistan. Our findings show, that while entrepreneurs in

Germany and Pakistan show comparable levels of innovativeness and proactiveness, they

significantly differ in other EIT measures. German entrepreneurs appear to have higher

levels of risk-taking, which when explained through the institutional theory lens can be

attributed to the higher institutional stability and support as well as social security in

Germany. This potentially makes engagement in risky activities, such as business

internationalization, more appealing than in Pakistan. However, despite having lower

international cognition and international knowledge compared to Germany, Pakistani

entrepreneurs appear to exhibit higher degrees of international behavior.

Middermann, L. H., & Rashid, L. (2019). Cross-Country

Differences in Entrepreneurial Internationalization Tendencies:

Evidence from Germany and Pakistan. Administrative

Sciences, 9(3), 54. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9030054.

157

Keywords: international entrepreneurship; emerging markets; cross-country;

entrepreneurial orientation; global mindset; institutional theory; mindset theory;

entrepreneurial cognition

158

4.1. Introduction

International entrepreneurship (IE), defined as “the discovery, enactment, evaluation, and

exploitation of opportunities—across national borders—to create future goods and services”

(Oviatt & McDougall, 2005, p. 7), has been found to be important for entrepreneurial success,

growth, and national economic development particularly in an increasingly globalized and

digitalized world (Cavusgil & Knight, 2015; Joensuu-Salo et al., 2018), with potentially higher

outcomes the earlier an entrepreneurial firm engages in and commits to international activity.

Many studies have shown that personal characteristics of the entrepreneur are crucial drivers

of firm internationalization (Acedo & Florin, 2006; Acedo & Jones, 2007; Freeman & Cavusgil,

2007; Jones et al., 2011), particularly as the founder or founding team is the key maker of

strategic decisions (R. A. Baron, 2007; Miller, 1983) such as internationalization (Cavusgil &

Knight, 2015; Manolova et al., 2002). Thus, IE studies have uncovered several attitudinal

elements that play an important role in shaping IE behavior (Freeman & Cavusgil, 2007; Jie &

Harms, 2017; Nummela et al., 2004; Sommer, 2010). For example, a considerable number of

studies have been published on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation (EO),

namely the combination of key behaviors (innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking) that

drive entrepreneurial activity, and IE indicating that high levels of EO lead to international

activity (Jantunen et al., 2005; Joardar & Wu, 2011; Ripollés-Meliá et al., 2007). Additionally,

in recent years, several authors have focused on the concept of a global mindset (GM), seen as

a cognitive capability represented by the curiosity for and understanding of actions that

support the identification of entrepreneurial opportunities in a global setting, to explain

international entrepreneurial behavior (Felício et al., 2013; Kyvik et al., 2013). This paper

investigates the combination of these two concepts as an indicator for EIT in different contexts.

Thus, this paper understands EIT as the combination of EO with a GM that favors IE behavior.

Previous research attempted to address how EO and GM concepts differ across different

cultures (Covin & Miller, 2014; Felício et al., 2016). However, little is known to date about how

these concepts differ within the contradictory entrepreneurial environments of fragile and

stable markets (Kiss et al., 2012). Specifically, institutions have been found as a crucial driver

of (Oparaocha, 2015) or burden on IE activity (Clercq et al., 2010), but have mainly been

investigated in a single, mainly developed country setting (Bruton et al., 2010).

159

We expect that entrepreneurs based in contrary entrepreneurial environments also differ in

their EIT. Thus, our research questions are:

1. Are EIT affected by the national context?

2. In which EIT dimensions do entrepreneurs based in contradictory contexts differ?

As institutional conditions are found to be the main argument why emerging and developed

markets differ (Tiwari & Korneliussen, 2018), we address these questions by focusing on an

advanced, stable market, namely Germany, and an emerging, fragile market, namely

Pakistan—two locations differing significantly in terms of economic development, stability,

and institutional environment (BMZ, 2019; Fund for Peace, 2018, 2019a). Furthermore,

entrepreneurial behavior is influenced by the predominant institutional environment (Tiwari

& Korneliussen, 2018). To shed light on the cross-country differences in EIT, a quantitative

study of 59 entrepreneurs from Germany and 53 from Pakistan is employed.

The study is based on quantitative research involving an online questionnaire based on EO

and GM as two key EIT measures. EO refers to the behavioral elements of global orientation

and captures the founder’s propensity for risk-taking, innovativeness, and proactiveness,

while GM evaluates how an entrepreneur views the world and the internationalization of

markets and companies.

Our findings contribute to the IE literature stream of comparative entrepreneurial

internationalization (CEI) (Jones et al., 2011), which “enables comparison and replication and

reduces the risk of nation-specific results that are not generalizable to other countries” (Terjesen et al.,

2016, p. 300). However, the CEI stream is still at early stages with only few studies

investigating IE behavior in a cross-national setting (Jones et al., 2011). Furthermore, Terjesen

et al. (2016) criticize that CIE is mostly conducted by aggregated data on the country-macro

level rather than on the individual level, which does not allow explanations of individual

entrepreneurial behavior. Additionally, we realize that most IE literature generally covers

advanced and stable markets with little attention paid to emerging and fragile settings (Kiss

et al., 2012). Herewith, we contribute to recent calls for more comparative studies on the

individual level to investigate national differences in international entrepreneurial behavior

(Terjesen et al., 2016) with particular attention to emerging contexts (Kiss et al., 2012).

160

Our findings also have important implications for practice. In Germany, policy makers are

encouraged to incentivize entrepreneurs to engage in international activity, particularly as

they appear to cognitively have much of what it takes to do so. On the other hand, Pakistani

decision-makers are encouraged to invest in developing the international cognition and

international knowledge of local entrepreneurs to ultimately support their international

behavior, while amending institutional structures to provide entrepreneurs with the safety

needed to engage in risk-bearing business activities

4.2. Literature Overview

4.2.1. Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO)

Since Miller (1983) proposed that innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking are driving

forces of entrepreneurial activity (C. L. Wang, 2008), the concept of EO has been widely used

to explain entrepreneurship drivers (Covin & Miller, 2014). Although Lumpkin & Dess (1996)

have additionally proposed autonomy and competitive aggressiveness as factors of EO, the

three-factor-conceptualization of Miller/Covin & Slevin (1989) is by far the most widely used

scale in literature (Anderson et al., 2015; Covin & Wales, 2012; Rauch et al., 2009). The three

elements of EO were originally developed to explain entrepreneurial behavior on a firm level

(Covin & Miller, 2014; Covin & Wales, 2012), shaped by the managements’ attitude towards

risk, innovativeness, and proactiveness (Anderson et al., 2015; Joardar & Wu, 2011). Risk-

taking propensity refers to the willingness to take actions with uncertain outcomes such as

entering new markets (Lumpkin & Dess, 2001). Innovativeness reflects the support of creative

thinking, which leads to new processes in the development of products and services

(Lumpkin & Dess, 1996) and has been shown to enhance both the speed and mode of entry to

international markets (Ripolles Meliá et al., 2010). Proactiveness determines the search for

market opportunities and the willingness to respond and take advantage of them (Lumpkin

& Dess, 2001). High levels of EO dimensions are associated with firm performance and new

market entry (Boso et al., 2013; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996; C. L. Wang, 2008; Wiklund & Shepherd,

2005), which is why the relevance of these dimensions for the IE field has been appreciated

since its earliest years (Covin & Miller, 2014).

Notably, the EO dimensions are implicit in the well-cited definition of IE by McDougall &

Oviatt (2000) who state that “International entrepreneurship is a combination of innovative,

161

proactive, and risk-seeking behavior that crosses national borders and is intended to create value in

organizations” (McDougall & Oviatt, 2000, p. 903). Previous studies have used the EO

dimensions to investigate the performance of entrepreneurial firms in the international

context (Jantunen et al., 2005; Javalgi & Todd, 2011; Kuivalainen et al., 2007; Swoboda &

Olejnik, 2016). For example Javalgi & Todd (2011) and Ripollés-Meliá et al. (2007) applied the

unaltered EO dimensions to examine IE activity. Covin & Miller (2014) concluded from their

literature review that EO research is mainly conducted by employing the items of the

Miller/Covin & Slevin (1989) EO scale in an international setting. On contrary, other previous

studies explicitly call EO on the international level “international entrepreneurial orientation”

(IEO) and adapt existing EO scales to the international level (Kuivalainen et al., 2007; Swoboda

& Olejnik, 2016).

Taking into account that the founding entrepreneur or founding team is a key reason why an

entrepreneurial firm acts internationally (Joardar & Wu, 2011; G. A. Knight & Liesch, 2016),

much IEO research is drawn up on the individual level of the entrepreneur (Covin & Miller,

2014). Joardar & Wu (2011) argue that the firm is merely the entity encompassing the EO

shaped by the reflection of the founding entrepreneurs’ attitudinal composition. As such, EO

is treated as an individual-level construct in this study.

4.2.2. Global Mindset (GM)

Numerous scholars have harnessed the importance of a GM as a determinant of IE (Felício et

al., 2015, 2012, 2016; Kyvik, 2018; Kyvik et al., 2013; Nummela et al., 2004). Several attempts

have been made to distinguish a corporate GM and an individual GM (Felício et al., 2015,

2016) which could be seen as contradictory to literature stating GM as a state of mind related

to an individual (Felício et al., 2013; Jie & Harms, 2017; Kyvik, 2011; Kyvik et al., 2013). Kyvik

(2011) for example describes a GM as “one key superior managerial orientation in the

internationalisation process and as conceptually closely related to international entrepreneurship”

(Kyvik, 2011, p. 315). An individual GM is furthermore described as a behavioral or cognitive

structure characterized by openness to and understanding of different cultures (Kyvik, 2018)

and enabling the entrepreneur to be aware of and identify international opportunities (Felício

et al., 2016).

162

Various definitions of a GM exist. As our working definition we choose the definition offered

by Levy, Beechler, Tylor & Boyacigiller (2007) who define GM as “a highly complex cognitive

structure characterized by an openness to and articulation of multiple cultural and strategic realities

on both global and local levels, and the cognitive ability to mediate and integrate across this

multiplicity” (Levy et al., 2007, p. 244). It has been suggested that the individual GM can be

furthermore described as a resource or capability that influences entrepreneurial behavior and

decisions related to international activity (Kyvik, 2018). An individual GM can be

characterized by three factors, namely international cognition, knowledge, and behavior

(Felício et al., 2016). International cognition refers to an information processing capability that

allows one to pay attention to diverse cultural settings and to interpret them for strategic

decisions (Levy et al., 2007). International knowledge is derived from international experience

like work or travel abroad, which shapes an awareness of challenges and opportunities of

foreign market activities (Stucki, 2016). Lastly, an international behavior refers to the strong

interest in participating in international activity and the willingness to respond to

international opportunities (Felício et al., 2012).

4.3. Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development

4.3.1. Institutional Environment and EO

The relevance of environmental conditions for understanding entrepreneurial processes has

been frequently studied from the lens of the institutional theory, which is primarily “concerned

with regulatory, social, and cultural influences that promote survival and legitimacy of an

organization” (Bruton et al., 2010, p. 422). The institutional context of the home and host

country influences entrepreneurial decisions like the participation in IE activity (Lim et al.,

2010). Thus, institutional theory has played a key role in explaining institutional factors

behind entrepreneurial success particularly with respect to international topics (Bruton et al.,

2010; Jones et al., 2011; Lim et al., 2010). Indeed, the relationship between institutional

conditions and entrepreneurial internationalization has been studied extensively (Child et al.,

2017; Ervits & Zmuda, 2018; Oparaocha, 2015; Torkkeli et al., 2019). Favorable institutional

conditions are related to international performance of entrepreneurial firms (Torkkeli et al.,

2019) and account to global innovation (Ervits & Zmuda, 2018). Institutions such as

163

government agencies, business incubators, research institutes or agencies for international

development help to overcome resource barriers and support IE activity (Oparaocha, 2015).

Covin & Miller (2014) argue that cross-national differences in EO can be best investigated by

the use of institutional theory. It can be suggested that the extent to which institutions offer

support to entrepreneurial firms is a major reason for differences in EO between developed

and emerging markets (Abdesselam et al., 2018; Tiwari & Korneliussen, 2018). Entrepreneurial

firms located in emerging or fragile markets often suffer from institutional burdens due to

underdeveloped or non-existent external support (Clercq et al., 2010). A lack of and fragility

of institutions constrains innovativeness in emerging companies (Ervits & Zmuda, 2018;

Pinho, 2017). Child et al. (2017) also found that the international business models of emerging

countries are less focused on innovation compared to their developed market peers and that

the level of development of the national economy affects the international business model of

entrepreneurial firms. Furthermore, Schneider, Fehrenbacher & Weber (2017) found that the

willingness to take financial risks differs across countries due to the level of institutional

support. Covin & Miller (2014) concluded from their review that EO can be influenced by

national economic development. They characterize entrepreneurs from emerging countries as

proactive but less willing to take risks compared to their peers from developed markets who

are described by a greater proclivity for innovative activity and the acceptance of related risks.

4.3.2. How a Growth Mindset Translates into a GM

A GM is characterized by behavioral and cognitive factors that relate to global openness and

foreign opportunity identification (Kyvik, 2018) and can be explained by the mindset theory

(Felício et al., 2015). Thus, a global orientation towards IE activity is determined by “mind-

set”—that is, a phase-typical cognitive orientation that promotes task completion” (Gollwitzer, 1990,

p. 63). According to the theory, an “actional mind-set” is characterized by a strong will to reach

a certain goal—like in our context IE—regardless of the existing capabilities to achieve the

goal (Gollwitzer, 1990). This cognitive programming may also be described by the term

“growth mindset” proposed by Dweck (2016).

Business leaders or founders with an actional or a growth mindset hence believe that basic

attributes can be cultivated through own efforts and strategies (Dweck, 2007). They therefore

trust in human potential, the ability to develop and using the company as “an engine of

164

growth—for themselves, the employees, and the company as a whole” (Dweck, 2007, p. 125), which

ultimately correlates with business growth and success. We adopt the view that the GM is a

facet of a growth mindset.

Differences in the institutional and cultural environment are assumed to impact the GM of

entrepreneurs in alignment with many scholars who have confirmed the relationship between

mindset and contextual factors. Claro, Paunesku & Dweck (2016) for example found that the

growth mindset of students is negatively influenced by economic disadvantage. Wicks (2001)

found that institutional and economic pressures influence mindset regarding the perception

of risks. Additionally, previous studies focusing on IE activity provide evidence that the GMs

differ between countries (Felício et al., 2013, 2016). Felício et al. (2016) for example found

differences of GM within Norwegian, Lithuanian, and Portuguese managers. They found that

Norwegian managers are mainly driven by planned and strategic behaviors compared to their

fellows, who are more driven by social relationships and international contacts.

4.3.3. Factors of Variation in EIT

It could be assumed that entrepreneurial environments differ between countries. Previous

research has shown that differences on the national level exist due to economic (Child et al.,

2017), cultural (Kreiser et al., 2010; Mitchell et al., 2002; Tajeddini & Mueller, 2009), political

(Noor Muhammad et al., 2016), regulatory (Kreiser et al., 2010; Lim et al., 2016), and social

factors (Stephan & Uhlaner, 2010). Consequently, EIT, as impacted by the national

entrepreneurial context, are assumed to differ between countries. We chose to therefore

conduct the study between two countries, namely Pakistan and Germany, that significantly

differ both in culture and the institutional environment to investigate EIT differences.

Pakistan is situated in South Asia and is characterized by having lower levels of economic

development (GDP = 1.580 US-$ in 2017), while Germany, as a member of the European Union

and the Eurozone, is characterized by high levels of economic development (GDP = 43.490

US-$ in 2017) (BMZ, 2019). Moreover, Pakistan is regarded a highly fragile state on measures

of the political, economic, cohesion, and social environment, which indicates low institutional

stability in areas such as security, state legitimacy, public services, and human rights (Fund

for Peace, 2018; Noor Muhammad et al., 2016; Williams & Shahid, 2016), as opposed to

Germany, which is characterized by low institutional fragility and ranks as the world’s 11th

165

most stable country (Fund for Peace, 2018). As for measuring culture specifically, several

cross-country entrepreneurship studies have employed Hofstede’s cross-cultural dimensions

(Hayton et al., 2002). In our case, Hofstede’s dimensions present Germany as having less

power distance, being more individualistic, more masculine, less uncertainty avoidant and

more long-term oriented than Pakistan (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004).

Combining the above-mentioned arguments, we suggest that the national environment

influences the internationalization tendencies of entrepreneurial decision-makers. Thus:

Hypothesis 1: EIT are affected by country.

Additionally, it could be hypothesized that the two countries differ in their dimensions of EO

due to the vast differences between their institutional environments. We therefore propose:

Hypothesis 2: Entrepreneurs in Germany differ from entrepreneurs in Pakistan regarding their level

of risk-taking.

Hypothesis 3: Entrepreneurs in Germany differ from entrepreneurs in Pakistan regarding their level

of innovativeness.

Hypothesis 4: Entrepreneurs in Germany differ from entrepreneurs in Pakistan regarding their level

of proactiveness.

Finally, and as rooted in the mindset theory, cultural differences between the two countries

could lead to differences in the GM measures. Therefore:

Hypothesis 5: Entrepreneurs in Germany differ from entrepreneurs in Pakistan regarding their level

of international cognition.

Hypothesis 6: Entrepreneurs in Germany differ from entrepreneurs in Pakistan regarding their level

of international knowledge.

Hypothesis 7: Entrepreneurs in Germany differ from entrepreneurs in Pakistan regarding their level

of international behavior.

166

4.4. Methods

4.4.1. Data

The study is based on quantitative research involving an online survey, which was shared

with founders in Germany and Pakistan through incubators and entrepreneurial networks

from September to December 2018. Therefore, relationships have been established with the

Centre for Entrepreneurship at the Technical University of Berlin, the AMAN Center for

Entrepreneurial Development at the Institute of Business Administration in Karachi and the

Arfa Software Technology Park in Lahore through the Pakistan MIT Enterprise Forum. The

questionnaire was sent to a total of 76 entrepreneurs in Karachi, 40 entrepreneurs in Lahore,

and 177 entrepreneurs in Berlin.

The data consists of self-responses of the founding entrepreneurs involved in Total Early-Stage

Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA), which according to the definition of the Global

Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) consists of nascent entrepreneurs who are actively setting

up a business and those who own a newly established business that is less than 3.5 years old

(GEM, 2019a). Following the argumentation of Felício et al. (2016, p. 4931) that “older companies

probably have a more stable organizational culture, while younger companies probably have a higher

dependence on the individual’s culture”, we assume that in the early stages of conception and

firm birth the cognitive characteristics are an especially important resource leading to IE

(Cavusgil & Knight, 2015). Therefore, we focus on TEA entrepreneurs only. After excluding

19 entrepreneurs, which were already in the persistence stage, we base our analysis on a global

sample of 112 responses consisting of 59 entrepreneurs from Germany and 53 from Pakistan.

4.4.2. Measures

Since we measure EO at the individual rather than the company level, we adopted scales

proposed by Goktan & Gupta (2015) rather than the frequently used EO scale from

Miller/Covin and Slevin (1989). Risk-taking covers the participants’ attitude towards risk-

taking behaviors and was measured by fours items (α = 0.72). Innovativeness assesses the

individual’s tendency for innovativeness and was measured by four items (α = 0.86).

Proactiveness comprises the individual’s willingness to act and was measured with four items

(α = 0.70). For individual GM, we applied the measurements proposed by Felício et al. (2016).

167

International cognition covers the individual’s cognitive capability to identify international

opportunities and was measured by four items (α = 0.69). International knowledge refers to an

individual’s international experience and was measured using three items (α = 0.40).

Although the Cronbach’s Alpha of the knowledge measure is relatively low, we follow the

recommendation of Schmitt (1996) who argues that a measure with a low reliability should be

used if it covers essential content of the study

. International behavior covers the individual’s

propensity to act internationally and was measured by five items (α = 0.76), which were

adapted from the firm level to the individual level. Respondents indicated their level of

agreement on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from totally disagree (=1) to totally agree (=7).

As demographics and human capital have the potential to affect international entrepreneurial

decisions (Stucki, 2016), we additionally collected information on gender, age, education,

language skills, and international study background of the entrepreneur for better

interpretation of our results.

All measures are shown in Appendix A (Table 4-4).

4.4.3. Analysis

Descriptive statistics and Fisher’s exact tests

were conducted to get an overview of the sample

and to determine whether entrepreneurs from both countries differed on any demographic

variables. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was applied to determine whether

EIT measures differ amongst German and Pakistani entrepreneurs. MANOVA results are

followed by analysis of variance (ANOVA), a univariate test statistic to obtain evidence on

the nature of the effect (Andy Field, 2013). As MANOVA allows one to determine if

entrepreneurs from both countries differ due to their EIT, separate ANOVAs on the

dimensions on EIT help to detect the nature of the outcome (Andy Field, 2013). The results

were followed up by the non-parametric Mann-Whitney-U test to enhance confidence in the

A Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.7 is recommended for our purpose (A. Field, 2009; Kline, 1999). However,

Schmitt (1996) states that even lower scales e.g., below 0.5 are acceptable and do not strongly violate

scale validity. Cronbach’s Alpha furthermore depends on the number of items forming the factor

(Cortina, 1993; A. Field, 2009), which may explain the low Cronbach’s Alpha in our study.

Due to the small sample size and that 20% of the cells have expected frequencies lower than five,

the Fisher’s exact test is considered a superior test compared to other similar approximation

methods like the chi-square test (A. Field, 2009).

168

statistical results of (M)ANOVA as the assumption of interval level is slightly violated by

using a Likert scale (Finch, 2016). All other assumptions of conducting a (M)ANOVA are met.

4.4.4. Results

Means, standard deviations, and correlations are provided in Table 4-1. Pearson correlations

show that all dimensions correlate below the point of 0.5; thus, there should not be a problem

with multicollinearity (A. Field, 2009).

Descriptive statistics and Fisher’s exact test show that entrepreneurs from Germany are

significantly older (Mean = 31.31, SD = 5.18, p < 0.001) than their counterparts from Pakistan

(Mean = 28.06, SD = 6.04, p < 0.001) and possess significantly higher levels of education (Mean

= 3, SD = 0.62, p < 0.001 vs. Mean = 2.25, SD = 0.62, p < 0.001), international study background

(Mean = 0.68, SD = 0.47, p < 0.001 vs. Mean = 0.21, SD = 0.41, p < 0.001), and language skills

(Mean = 6.27, SD = 0.83, p < 0.001 vs. Mean = 5.04, SD = 1.48, p < 0.001). Only gender is equally

distributed between both groups and does not show significant differences between both

countries (Table 4-2).

Results from MANOVA, ANOVA, and the Mann-Whitney-U test are displayed in Table 4-3.

MANOVA results show that EO (F(3, 108) = 5.36, Wilks’ Lambda= 0.871, p < 0.01) and GM

(F(3, 108) = 12.35, Wilks’ Lambda= 0.745, p < 0.001) significantly differ across both countries

concluding that EIT is affected by the country. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is confirmed.

Separate ANOVAs on the dimensions show significant country effects on risk-taking (F(1,

110) = 12.70, p < 0.001), international cognition (F(1, 110) = 6.95, p < 0.01), international

knowledge (F(1, 110) = 12.14, p < 0.001), and international behavior (F(1, 110) = 3.95, p < 0.05).

However, ANOVA results do not show significant values for the dimensions of

innovativeness and proactiveness.

We use a two-tailed test because no specific assumptions have been made about which country has

higher scores on the dimensions.

Notes: Germany n = 59/Pakistan n = 53; ***: p < 0.001, **: p < 0.01, *: p < 0.05, p > 0.05 ‘n.s.’ (two-tailed test).

Variables

Mean

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(1) Risk-taking

5.40

0.95

1.000

(2) Innovativeness

5.49

1.07

0.193 *

1.000

(3) Proactiveness

5.69

0.82

0.405 ***

0.390 ***

1.000

(4) Int. Cognition

5.86

0.71

0.307 ***

0.182

0.482 ***

1.000

(5) Int. Knowledge

5.37

1.02

0.176

0.090

0.261 **

0.376 ***

1.000

(6) Int. Behavior

5.31

0.93

0.129

0.247 **

0.346 ***

0.406 ***

0.331 ***

1.000

(7) Age

29.77

5.81

0.237 *

−0.112

−0.055

0.160

0.283 **

0.033

1.000

(8) Gender (female = 1)

0.14

0.34

−0.046

−0.134

−0.018

−0.004

−0.029

0.116

0.043

1.000

(9) Education

3.63

0.75

0.130

−0.119

−0.078

0.222 *

0.242 *

−0.010

0.430 ***

0.090

1.000

(10) Int. studies (yes = 1)

0.46

0.50

0.226 *

−0.177

0.074

0.165

0.339 ***

0.047

0.346 ***

0.066

0.329 ***

1.000

(11) Language skills

5.69

1.33

0.264 **

−0.027

0.196 *

0.394 ***

0.447 ***

0.139

0.140

−0.023

0.346 ***

0.365 ***

1.000

(12) Country (Pakistan = 1)

0.47

0.50

−0.322 ***

0.096

−0.073

−0.244 **

−0.315 ***

0.186 *

−0.280 **

0.044

−0.519 ***

−0.472 ***

−0.465 ***

1.000

Table 4-1: Correlations and descriptive statistics of measurement variables.

170

Germany

Pakistan

Variables

Mean

Fisher’s Exact Test

Age

31.31

5.18

28.06

6.04

***

Gender

0.12

0.33

0.15

0.36

n.s.

Education

3.00

0.62

2.25

0.62

***

Int. Studies

0.68

0.47

0.21

0.41

***

Language skills

6.27

0.83

5.04

1.48

***

Table 4-2: Means, Standard Deviations, and Fisher’s exact test.

Notes: Germany n = 59/Pakistan n = 53; ***: p < 0.001, **: p < 0.01, *: p < 0.05, p > 0.05 ‘n.s.’ (two-

tailed test).

The statistical results of the Mann-Whitney-U test and the effect size

estimate r, show that

German entrepreneurs possess significantly higher levels of risk-taking (Mdn = 5.50; r = 0.29,

p < 0.01), international cognition (Mdn = 6.00; r = 0.24, p < 0.01), and international knowledge

(Mdn = 5.67; r = 0.33, p < 0.001) than their fellows from Pakistan (Mdn = 5.25/5.75/5.00).

Interestingly, we found that levels of international behavior are significantly higher in

Pakistan (Mdn = 5.60; r = 0.18, p < 0.01) than in Germany (Mdn = 5.00). This indicates that

Pakistani entrepreneurs act more internationally than German entrepreneurs. Furthermore,

the results do not show significant values for the dimensions of innovativeness and

proactiveness. According to this result, entrepreneurs from both countries have comparable

levels of innovativeness (Mdn = 5.50 Germany/5.75 Pakistan) and proactiveness (Mdn = 5.75

both).

The Mann-Whitney-U results show complete agreement with the ANOVA results.

Consequently, we accept Hypotheses 2, 5, 6, and 7 and reject Hypotheses 3 and 4.

Based on the fact that the statistical results do not provide information about the nature or size of

the effect, we estimated the effect size r by converting the z-score (Andy Field, 2013; Rosenthal, 1991).

171

MANOVA

ANOVA

Construct

Variables

Wilks’ Lambda

Risk-taking

0.871 **

12.70 ***

Innovativeness

1.02

Proactiveness

0.58

International Cognition

0.750 ***

6.95 **

International Knowledge

12.14 ***

International Behavior

3.96 *

df/Error df

3/108

1/110

Table 4-3: Results of MANOVA, ANOVA, and Mann-Whitney-U test.

Notes: Germany n = 59/Pakistan n = 53; ***: p < 0.001, **: p < 0.01, *: p < 0.05, p > 0.05 ‘n.s.’

(two-tailed test).

4.5. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine how entrepreneurs from Germany and Pakistan

differ in their EIT based on assessment of EO and GM at the individual level. Our findings

show that the distribution of EIT is affected by the country, and; therefore, presumably by

institutional environment and national culture, indicating support for using the institutional

theory and mindset theory in the study context.

In case of risk-taking we found that entrepreneurs based in Germany show higher levels than

their fellows in Pakistan. This may be related to the stable institutional environment that

Germany offers for entrepreneurial ventures (T. Baron & Harima, 2019; Sternberg et al., 2018).

The higher levels of institutional support and social security German entrepreneurs enjoy

could mean that they can afford to take more risks. Pakistan on the contrary is characterized

by political instability and business burdens, which impact the trust in formal institutions and

restrict aspects of entrepreneurial behavior (Nishat & Nadeem, 2016; Williams & Shahid,

2016). Existence of uncertainty is found to cause high level of risk avoidance (Stewart et al.,

172

2008). Thus, it is evident that the uncertain and volatile environment of Pakistan amplifies

perceived risks due to, for example, turnover fluctuations, inflation and resource scarcity, and

challenging entrepreneurial firm growth (Noor Muhammad et al., 2016). It may be expected

that even a venturesome entrepreneur may act more risk-averse in an unstable environment

with low institutional and social support due to fear of failure and existential loss (Noor

Muhammad et al., 2016).

Against our expectation, we found that entrepreneurs in advanced markets and entrepreneurs

in developed markets show comparable levels of innovativeness and proactiveness for which

we give two possible explanations. First, entrepreneurial individuals like our respondents—

who are based in incubators and innovation spaces—are innovative and proactive by nature.

This would indicate that innovativeness and proactiveness are essential cognitive factors of

every individual engaged in high-growth entrepreneurship and; therefore, related to a

universal entrepreneurial mindset (Mitchell et al., 2002; Stewart et al., 2008). Second, our

finding is consistent with GEM data, which shows almost equal and above-average

innovation rates in both countries (GEM, 2018b). Pakistani entrepreneurs therefore appear

able to catch up with the innovation levels of an innovation-driven economy like Germany.

Additionally, conflict-affected environments such as Pakistan’s provide business

opportunities arising from reconstruction and constant change (Desai, 2011), which

innovative individuals proactively exploit to fill market gaps (Noor Muhammad et al., 2016).

We argue that founders of high-growth entrepreneurial firms in Pakistan have thus managed

to successfully exploit business ideas and innovate in an unfavorable institutional

environment, which could not have taken place without high levels of proactiveness and

innovativeness.

Our analysis reveals cross-national differences in international cognition, consistent with

prior findings (Felício et al., 2013, 2016). Felício et al. (2016) assume that entrepreneurs from

Norway with a highly individualistic culture exploit stronger rational behaviors to meet their

firms’ growth objectives compared to more collectivistic countries like Lithuania and

Portugal, which mainly focus on social relationships, cross-disciplinary collaboration, and

teamwork to achieve entrepreneurial growth. Contrary to their findings; however, we show

that Germany, where individualistic culture highly prevails, has higher levels of international

173

cognitive factors in areas such as cross-disciplinary collaboration and teamwork compared to

Pakistan.

Despite having lower international knowledge through travel and contact with people

abroad, Pakistani entrepreneurs exhibit higher levels of international behavior. While

Germans enjoy being part of the eurozone and the privileges of visa-free travel and frequent

contact to neighboring countries, Berlin’s entrepreneurial ecosystem is additionally shaped by

an international environment due to a high number of migrants (T. Baron & Harima, 2019).

However, German entrepreneurs mainly focus on the national market and perform poorly in

the cross-country comparison of their internationalization tendencies (Sternberg et al., 2018).

Our study is consistent with this finding and found Pakistani entrepreneurs to have higher

levels of international behavior. We explain this finding by assuming that German

entrepreneurs being involved in TEA potentially do not feel the need to focus on foreign

markets as the national entrepreneurial ecosystem provides favorable conditions in terms of

the market opportunities, customers, and networks that entrepreneurial firms need to grow.

We assume that German entrepreneurs within their TEA stage first tend to grow locally and

might venture abroad in later stages after having had exploited local opportunities. However,

the fact that Pakistan is a developing and politically fragile state impacts entrepreneurial

growth opportunities within the country (Nabeel Muhammad et al., 2017; Nishat & Nadeem,

2016), pushing Pakistani entrepreneurs to seek knowledge and markets abroad due to the

limited opportunities and resources their own country provides (Noor Muhammad et al.,

2016). Along with Gaffney, Cooper, Kedia & Clampit (2014) we conclude, that Pakistani

entrepreneurs have a higher need for a GM, in particular international behavior, to be

competitive.

4.6. Conclusions and Implication

Our study contributes to IE literature by applying the concepts of EO and GM through the

lens of the institutional theory and mindset theory comparatively between a fragile and a

stable context. Thus, we developed a framework to investigate how entrepreneurs based in

Germany and Pakistan differ in their internationalization tendencies. Results from the study

raise three important implications for IE theory and practice.

174

First, we contribute to theory as we have expanded the use of the institutional theory to a new

context and respond to the literature gap mentioned by Bruton et al. (2010) that

entrepreneurship studies mainly use the institutional theory in a single-country setting.

Furthermore, our study is one of very few studies that applies the mindset theory to capture

EIT and investigate GM in a cross-national setting. Thus, we provide empirical evidence on

the impact of macrolevel factors, such as institutions and economic development, on

microlevel cognitive and behavioral entrepreneurial characteristics, advancing previous

research that has been mainly conducted on the macro-country level (Kiss et al., 2012; Terjesen

et al., 2016) . Thus, our study represents a response to calls for research into how entrepreneurs

based in developed and emerging markets differ in cognitive factors associated with

entrepreneurial growth (Kiss et al., 2012). Our findings show that EIT are affected by the

national context as well as significant cross-country differences in four of six EIT aspects.

Second, our study compares internationalization tendencies across two countries, which

combines the fields of entrepreneurial internationalization and international comparisons of

entrepreneurship (Jones et al., 2011). Therefore, we contribute to the development of IE

literature by addressing the young stream of CEI (Jones et al., 2011) and respond to recent

calls or more comparative studies to explore cross-country similarities and differences in

entrepreneurial internationalization (Kiss et al., 2012; Terjesen et al., 2016). This provides

evidence of similarities and variations in EIT and reduces the risk stemming from the

generalization of nation-specific results (Stewart et al., 2008; Terjesen et al., 2016). Our findings

could support future scholars in theory development with respect to CEI.

Finally, our study has practical relevance in two ways. First, the findings could aid public

policy makers from both countries to identify institutional support and programs that best

foster entrepreneurial growth and internationalization. For instance, enhancing international

knowledge of Pakistani entrepreneurs through higher exposure to international markets via

cultural exchanges, events and pedagogical approaches, such as those involving direct

interaction with counterparts in other geographic locations (Musteen et al., 2018), could prove

beneficial. Additionally, strengthening institutional structures and providing regulatory

support to Pakistani entrepreneurs, such as funding, tax cuts and innovation incentives, could

encourage them to take higher risk and venture into new markets. The German government

could also incentivize local entrepreneurs to engage with international markets, particularly

175

given their international cognition and international knowledge, while raising awareness

within the startup ecosystem on the importance of internationalization for sustained growth

and competitiveness.

4.7. Limitation and Future Research

This study has taken a step in the direction of proving significant variations in modes and

patterns of national EIT. However, our research may have its limitations.

First, our data is self-reported, and results show a tendency for positive responses as the Mdn

of the EIT dimension is above five for both countries (Table 3). This indicates that our

respondents might have over-estimated their cognitive characteristics related to EIT.

However, we are assured that our results are not biased as the bias is rather related to the

collection of sensitive data (Carr & Sequeira, 2007).

Second, we draw our analysis by focusing on Germany and Pakistan—two contrary countries.

Furthermore, we collected data from two cities in Pakistan—Karachi and Lahore—and from

one city in Germany—Berlin. It might be that there are also variations on the regional level

within a country (Kriz et al., 2016). Furthermore, Berlin is known for its developed startup

scene and thus might differ from other cities in Germany as well. Therefore, care needs to be

taken when generalizing results to the country-level or the region-level.

Also, the measurement of EO was previously administered and validated largely in western

countries and may therefore produce biased results when applied in other national and

cultural contexts (Runyan et al., 2012). In addition, other constructs explaining EIT, such as

international entrepreneurial intention or international attitude (Jie & Harms, 2017; Sommer,

2010) could be used in future studies.

Despite these limitations, we are confident that our results are novel and suggest the need for

further studies to validate our results by focusing on a greater number of countries and a

larger sample size. Our study can also be complimented with a qualitative analysis to explain

the results.

176

4.8. Supplementary Information

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, L.H.M. and L.R.; data curation, L.H.M. and L.R.;

Methodology, L.H.M. and L.R.; formal analysis, L.H.M.; writing—original draft preparation,

L.H.M.; writing—review and editing, L.H.M. and L.R.; visualization, L.H.M.

Funding: We acknowledge support by the German Research Foundation and the Open Access

Publication Fund of TU Berlin.

Acknowledgments: We would like to thank our supervisor Jan Kratzer for his overall support

on our research project. Furthermore, we thank M Shahid Qureshi and Mohammad Talha of

the IBA Aman Center for Entrepreneurial Development, Omar Javaid of the Institute of

Business Management (IoBM), and Areej Mehdi of the MIT Enterprise Forum for their support

of the research operations in Pakistan. We would also like to thank all Pakistani startups, and

German startups affiliated with the Technical University of Berlin’s Centre for

Entrepreneurship for participating in the study.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

177

Appendix A

Variables, Items, and Cronbach’s Alpha

Factor

loadings

Reference

Risk-taking (4 items, α = 0.72)

(Goktan and

Gupta 2015)

Scale: Totally disagree (=1)/Totally agree (=7)

How well do the following statements on risk-taking describe

you?

1. I am willing to get involved in situations where the

outcomes are not certain.

0.752

2. I would rather take my chances and try something new,

than regret later about it.

0.555

3. I enjoy doing things where there is some risk involved.

0.534

4. My career choices can certainly involve professions that

may involve financial uncertainty for me.

0.813

Innovativeness (4 items, α = 0.86)

(Goktan and

Gupta 2015)

Scale: Totally disagree (=1)/Totally agree (=7)

How well do the following statements on innovativeness

describe you?

1. I like to experiment with new technologies.

0.734

2. Among my peers, I am usually the first one to try out new

technologies.

0.857

3. I am never hesitant to try out new technologies.

0.855

4. If I heard about something new, I would look for ways to

try it out.

0.819

Proactiveness (4 items, α = 0.70)

178

Scale: Totally disagree (=1)/Totally agree (=7)

(Goktan and

Gupta 2015)

How well do the following statements on proactiveness

describe you?

1. If I see somethingI don’t like I fix it.

0.365

2. No matter what the odds, if I believe in something, I will

make it happen …

0.832

3. I love being a champion for my ideas even against others’

opposition.

0.723

4. I am always looking for better ways to do things.

0.391

International Cognition (4 items, α = 0.69)

(Felício et al.

2016)

Scale: Totally disagree (=1)/Totally agree (=7)

How well do the following statements on cognition describe

you?

1. I encourage cross-disciplinary collaboration.

0.520

2. I am able to listen to others and change my opinion.

0.654

3. I believe that I can influence what happens around me.

0.768

4. I am an active member when working in a team.

0.609

International Knowledge (3 items, α = 0.40)

(Felício et al.

2016)

Scale: Totally disagree (=1)/Totally agree (=7)

How well do the following statements on knowledge describe

you?

1. In my job, I am in contact on a daily basis with international

clients, suppliers, and employees.

0.545

2. I have gained experience from international travel.

0.742

179

3. I have other relevant experience.

0.506

International Behavior (5 items, α = 0.76)

Adapted from

(Felício et al.

2016)

Scale: Totally disagree (=1)/Totally agree (=7)

How well do the following statements on behavior describe

you?

1. I think that internationalization is the only way to achieve

the growth objectives.

0.619

2. I am willing to lead the enterprise into the international

market.

0.610

3. I spend considerable amounts of time planning

international operations.

0.699

4. I see the world as a single, vast market.

0.825

5. I see the world not only as a playground (i.e., a new market

to explore) but also as a school (i.e., a source of new ideas

and knowledge).

0.701

Demographics

In which country are you currently based? (Open)

What is your age in years? (Open)

Which gender do you identify with? (Female = 1)

Please specify the highest level of education you attained.

(High School = 1; Technical Training/College = 2; Bachelor’s

Degree = 3; Master’s Degree = 4; Doctorate = 5)

Have you studied abroad? (Yes = 1)

Please specify your foreign language skills level of your first

foreign language. (Not existent (=1)/Excellent (=7))

Table 4-4: Questionnaire variables: items, factor loadings, Cronbach’s Alpha, and

references.

180

4.9. References

Abdesselam, R., Bonnet, J., Renou-Maissant, P., & Aubry, M. (2018). Entrepreneurship,

Economic Development, and Institutional Environment. Journal of International

Entrepreneurship, 16(4), 504–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-017-0214-3

Acedo, F. J., & Florin, J. (2006). An Entrepreneurial Cognition Perspective on the

Internationalization of SMEs. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 4(1), 49–67.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-006-0482-9

Acedo, F. J., & Jones, M. V. (2007). Speed of Internationalization and Entrepreneurial

Cognition. Journal of World Business, 42(3), 236–252.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2007.04.012

Anderson, B. S., Kreiser, P. M., Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Eshima, Y. (2015).

Reconceptualizing Entrepreneurial Orientation. Strategic Management Journal, 36(10), 1579–

1596. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2298

Baron, R. A. (2007). Behavioral and Cognitive Factors in Entrepreneurship. Strategic

Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.12

Baron, T., & Harima, A. (2019). The Role of Diaspora Entrepreneurs in Start-up Ecosystem

Development – a Berlin Case Study. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small

Business, 36(1/2), 74–102. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESB.2019.096968

BMZ. (2019). Entwicklungspolitische Zahlen und Fakten [Letter to Bundesministerium für

wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung]. Retrieved from

http://www.bmz.de/de/laender_regionen/asien/pakistan/index.jsp#section-30582698

Boso, N., Story, V. M., & Cadogan, J. W. (2013). Entrepreneurial Orientation, Market

Orientation, Network Ties, and Performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(6), 708–727.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.04.001

Bruton, G. D., Ahlstrom, D., & Li, H.-L. (2010). Institutional Theory and Entrepreneurship:

Where Are We Now and Where Do We Need to Move in the Future? Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice, 34(3), 421–440. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00390.x

Carr, J. C., & Sequeira, J. M. (2007). Prior Family Business Exposure as Intergenerational

Influence and Entrepreneurial Intent: A Theory of Planned Behavior approach. Journal of

Business Research, 60(10), 1090–1098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.12.016

Cavusgil, S. T., & Knight, G. (2015). The Born Global Firm: An Entrepreneurial and

Capabilities Perspective on Early and Rapid Internationalization. Journal of International

Business Studies, 46, 3–16.

181

Child, J., Hsieh, L., Elbanna, S., Karmowska, J., Marinova, S., Puthusserry, P., … Zhang, Y.

(2017). SME International Business Models. Journal of World Business, 52(5), 664–679.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2017.05.004

Claro, S., Paunesku, D., & Dweck, C. S. (2016). Growth Mindset Tempers the Effects of

Poverty on Academic Achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the

United States of America, 113(31), 8664–8668. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1608207113

Clercq, D., Danis, W. M., & Dakhli, M. (2010). The Moderating Effect of Institutional Context

on the Relationship Between Associational Activity and New Business Activity in Emerging

Economies. International Business Review, 19(1), 85–101.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2009.09.002

Cortina, J. M. (1993). What Is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory and

Applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104.

Covin, J. G., & Miller, D. (2014). International Entrepreneurial Orientation: Conceptual

Considerations, Research Themes, Measurement Issues, and Future Research Directions.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(1), 11–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12027

Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and

benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75–87.

https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250100107

Covin, J. G., & Wales, W. J. (2012). The Measurement of Entrepreneurial Orientation.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(4), 677–702. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-

6520.2010.00432.x

Desai, S. (2011). A Tale of Entrepreneurship in Two Iraqi Cities. Journal of Small Business &

Entrepreneurship, 24(2), 283–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2011.10593539

Dweck, C. (2007). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success (Ballantine books trade

paperback ed.). New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

Dweck, C. (2016). What Having a “Growth Mindset” Actually Means. Harvard Business

School Corporation.

Ervits, I., & Zmuda, M. (2018). A Cross-Country Comparison of the Effects of Institutions on

Internationally Oriented Innovation. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 16(4), 486–

503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-018-0225-8

Felício, J. A., Caldeirinha, V. R., & Ribeiro-Navarrete, B. (2015). Corporate and Individual

Global Mind-Set and Internationalization of European SMEs. Journal of Business Research,

68(4), 797–802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.031

182

Felício, J. A., Caldeirinha, V. R., & Rodrigues, R. (2012). Global Mindset and the

Internationalization of Small Firms. International Entrepreneurship and Management

Journal, 8(4), 467–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-012-0232-5

Felício, J. A., Caldeirinha, V. R., Rodrigues, R., & Kyvik, O. (2013). Cross-Cultural Analysis

of the Global Mindset and the Internationalization Behavior of Small Firms. International

Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9(4), 641–654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-

013-0268-1

Felício, J. A., Meidutė, I., & Kyvik, Ø. (2016). Global Mindset, Cultural Context, and the

Internationalization of SMEs. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 4924–4932.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.054

Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (3rd ed.). Sage publications.

Field, A. (2013). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th ed.). Sage publications.

Finch, W. H. (2016). Comparison of Multivariate Means across Groups with Ordinal

Dependent Variables: A Monte Carlo Simulation Study. Frontiers in Applied Mathematics

and Statistics, 2, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fams.2016.00002

Freeman, S., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2007). Toward a Typology of Commitment States among

Managers of Born-Global Firms: A Study of Accelerated Internationalization. Journal of

International Marketing, 15(4), 1–40.

FSI. (2018). Fragile States Index 2018. Retrieved from http://fundforpeace.org/fsi/data/

FSI. (2019). Global Data | Fragile States Index. Retrieved from

https://fragilestatesindex.org/data/

Gaffney, N., Cooper, D., Kedia, B., & Clampit, J. (2014). Institutional Transitions, Global

Mindset, and EMNE Internationalization. European Management Journal, 32(3), 383–391.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.08.001

GEM. (2018). Economy Profiles. Retrieved from https://www.gemconsortium.org/country-

profile/64

GEM. (2019). How GEM Defines Entrepreneurship. Retrieved from

https://www.gemconsortium.org/wiki/1149

Goktan, B., & Gupta, V. K. (2015). Sex, Gender, and Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation:

Evidence from Four Countries. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,

11(1), 95–112.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action Phases and Mind-Sets. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino

(Eds.), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition.Foundations of Social Behavior (2nd ed., pp.

53–92). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

183

Hayton, J. C., George, G., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). National Culture and Entrepreneurship: A

Review of Behavioral Research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(4), 33–52.

https://doi.org/10.1177/104225870202600403

Hofstede Insights. (2019). Country Comparison Tool. Retrieved from https://www.hofstede-

insights.com/models/national-culture/

Jantunen, A., Puumalainen, K., Saarenketo, S., & Kyläheiko, K. (2005). Entrepreneurial

Orientation, Dynamic Capabilities and International Performance. Journal of International

Entrepreneurship, 3(3), 223–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-005-1133-2

Javalgi, R. G., & Todd, P. R. (2011). Entrepreneurial Orientation, Management Commitment,

and Human Capital. Journal of Business Research, 64(9), 1004–1010.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.11.024

Jie, S., & Harms, R. (2017). Cross-Cultural Competences and International Entrepreneurial

Intention. Education Research International, 2017(1), 1–12.

https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9042132

Joardar, A., & Wu, S. (2011). Examining the Dual Forces of Individual Entrepreneurial

Orientation and Liability of Foreignness on International Entrepreneurs. Canadian Journal

of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne Des Sciences de l’Administration, 28(3), 328–

340. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.203

Joensuu-Salo, S., Sorama, K., Viljamaa, A., & Varamäki, E. (2018). Firm Performance among

Internationalized SMEs: The Interplay of Market Orientation, Marketing Capability and

Digitalization. Administrative Sciences, 8(3), 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci8030031

Jones, M. V., Coviello, N., & Tang, Y. K. (2011). International Entrepreneurship research

(1989–2009). Journal of Business Venturing, 26(6), 632–659.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.04.001

Kiss, A. N., Danis, W. M., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2012). International Entrepreneurship Research

in Emerging Economies. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(2), 266–290.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.09.004

Kline, P. (1999). The Handbook of Psychological Testing (2. ed.). London: Routledge.

Knight, G. A., & Liesch, P. W. (2016). Internationalization: From Incremental to Born Global.

Journal of World Business, 51(1), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2015.08.011

Kreiser, P. M., Marino, L. D., Dickson, P., & Weaver, K. M. (2010). Cultural Influences on

Entrepreneurial Orientation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(5), 959–983.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00396.x

184

Kriz, A., Molloy, C., Kriz, A., & Sonntag, S. (2016). All Australian Regions are Not Born

Equal: Understanding the Regional Innovation Management Sandpit. Technology

Innovation Management Review, 6(6), 11–23.

Kuivalainen, O., Sundqvist, S., & Servais, P. (2007). Firms’ Degree of Born-Globalness,

International Entrepreneurial Orientation and Export Performance. Journal of World

Business, 42(3), 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2007.04.010

Kyvik, O. (2011). Internationalisation of Small Firms. International Journal of Technology

Transfer and Commercialisation, 10(3/4), 314–331. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTTC.2011.040893

Kyvik, O. (2018). The Global Mindset: A Must for International Innovation and

Entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14(2), 309–27.

Kyvik, O., Saris, W., Bonet, E., & Felício, J. A. (2013). The Internationalization of Small Firms.

Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 11(2), 172–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-013-

0105-1

Levy, O., Beechler, S., Tylor, S., & Boyacigiller, N. A. (2007). What We Talk about When We

Talk about “Global Mindset”: Managerial Cognition in Multinational Corporations. Journal

of International Business Studies, 38(2), 231–258.

Lim, D. S. K., Morse, E. A., Mitchell, R. K., & Seawright, K. K. (2010). Institutional

Environment and Entrepreneurial Cognitions: A Comparative Business Systems Perspective.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(3), 491–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-

6520.2010.00384.x

Lim, D. S. K., Oh, C. H., & Clercq, D. (2016). Engagement in Entrepreneurship in Emerging

Economies. International Business Review, 25(4), 933–945.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2015.12.001

Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. D. (1996). Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct

and Linking It to Performance. The Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172.

Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. D. (2001). Linking Two Dimensions of Entrepreneurial

Orientation to Firm Performance: The Moderating Role of Environment and Industry Life

Cycle. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(16), 429–451.

Manolova, T. S., Brush, C. G., Edelman, L. F., & Greene, P. G. (2002). Internationalization of

Small Firms. International Small Business Journal, 20(1), 9–31.

McDougall, P. P., & Oviatt, B. M. (2000). International Entrepreneurship: The Intersection of

Two Research Paths. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 902–906.

Miller, D. (1983). The Correlates of Entrepreneurship in Three Types of Firms. Management

Science, 29(7), 770–791. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.7.770

185

Mitchell, R. K., Smith, J. B., Morse, E. A., Seawright, K. W., Peredo, A. M., & McKenzie, B.

(2002). Are Entrepreneurial Cognitions Universal? Assessing Entrepreneurial Cognitions

across Cultures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(4), 9–32.

Muhammad, Nabeel, McElwee, G., & Dana, L.-P. (2017). Barriers to the Development and

Progress of Entrepreneurship in Rural Pakistan. International Journal of Entrepreneurial

Behavior & Research, 23(2), 279–295. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-08-2016-0246

Muhammad, Noor, Ullah, F., & Warren, L. (2016). An Institutional Perspective on

Entrepreneurship in a Conflict Environment. International Journal of Entrepreneurial

Behavior & Research, 22(5), 698–717. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-04-2016-0112

Musteen, M., Curran, R., Arroteia, N., Ripollés, M., & Blesa, A. (2018). A Community of

Practice Approach to Teaching International Entrepreneurship. Administrative Sciences,

8(4), 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci8040056

Nishat, M., & Nadeem, T. (2016). Factors Explaining the Risk Attitude towards

Entrepreneurship in Pakistan: An Exploratory Analysis. The Pakistan Development Review,

55(4), 715–723.

Nummela, N., Saarenketo, S., & Puumalainen, K. (2004). A Global Mindset—A Prerequisite

for Successful Internationalization? Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue

Canadienne Des Sciences de l’Administration, 21(1), 51–64.

OECD. (2016). States of Fragility 2016: Understanding Violence.

Oparaocha, G. O. (2015). SMEs and International Entrepreneurship: An Institutional

Network Perspective. International Business Review, 24(5), 861–873.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2015.03.007

Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (2005). The Internationalization of Entrepreneurship.

Journal of International Business Studies, 36(1), 2–8.

Pinho, J. C. (2017). Institutional Theory and Global Entrepreneurship. Journal of

International Entrepreneurship, 15(1), 56–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-016-0193-9

Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial Orientation and

Business Performance: An Assessment of Past Research and Suggestions for the Future.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 761–787. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-

6520.2009.00308.x

Ripolles Meliá, M., Blesa Pérez, A., & Roig Dobón, S. (2010). The Influence of Innovation

Orientation on the Internationalisation of SMEs in the Service Sector. The Service Industries

Journal, 30(5), 777–791. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642060802342679

186

Ripollés-Meliá, M., Menguzzato-Boulard, M., & Sánchez-Peinado, L. (2007). Entrepreneurial

Orientation and International Commitment. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 5(3–

4), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10843-007-0016-0

Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research (2nd ed.). Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.

Runyan, R. C., Ge, B., Dong, B., & Swinney, J. L. (2012). Entrepreneurial Orientation in

Cross-Cultural Research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(4), 819–836.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00436.x

Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and Abuses of Coefficient Alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8(4),

350–353.

Schneider, C. R., Fehrenbacher, D. D., & Weber, E. U. (2017). Catch Me if I Fall. International

Business Review, 26(6), 1023–1033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2017.03.008

Sommer, L. (2010). Internationalization Processes of Small- and Medium-sized Enterprises:

A Matter of Attitude? Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 8(3), 288–317.

Stephan, U., & Uhlaner, L. M. (2010). Performance-Based vs Socially Supportive Culture.

Journal of International Business Studies, 41(8), 1347–1364.

https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2010.14

Sternberg, R., Wallisch, M., Gorynia-Pfeffer, N., Bloh, J., & Baharian, A. (2018). Global

Entrepreneurship Monitor Unternehmensgründungen im weltweiten Vergleich [Letter to

Global Entrepreneurship Research Association]. Retrieved from https://www.rkw-

kompetenzzentrum.de/gruendung/studie/global-entrepreneurship-monitor-20172018/

Stewart, W. H., May, R. C., & Kalia, A. (2008). Environmental Perceptions and Scanning in

the United States and India: Convergence in Entrepreneurial Information Seeking?

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(1), 83–106.

Stucki, T. (2016). How the Founders’ General and Specific Human Capital Drives Export

Activities of Start-Ups. Research Policy, 45(5), 1014–1030.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.02.010

Swoboda, B., & Olejnik, E. (2016). Linking Processes and Dynamic Capabilities of

International SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(1), 139–161.

https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12135

Tajeddini, K., & Mueller, S. L. (2009). Entrepreneurial Characteristics in Switzerland and the

UK. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 7(1), 1–25. doi.org/10.1007/s10843-008-0028-4

Terjesen, S., Hessels, J., & Li, D. (2016). Comparative International Entrepreneurship: A

Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Management, 42(1), 299–344.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313486259

187

Tiwari, S. K., & Korneliussen, T. (2018). Exporting by Experiential Knowledge. International

Marketing Review, 35(5), 833–849. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-01-2016-0002

Torkkeli, L., Kuivalainen, O., Saarenketo, S., & Puumalainen, K. (2019). Institutional

Environment and Network Competence in Successful SME Internationalisation.

International Marketing Review, 36(1), 31–55. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-03-2017-0057

Wang, C. L. (2008). Entrepreneurial Orientation, Learning Orientation, and Firm

Performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(4), 635–657.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00246.x

Wicks, D. (2001). Institutionalized Mindsets of Invulnerability: Differentiated Institutional

Fields and the Antecedents of Organizational Crisis. Organization Studies, 22(4), 659–692.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840601224005

Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial Orientation and Small Business

Performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1), 71–91.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.01.001

Williams, C. C., & Shahid, M. S. (2016). Informal Entrepreneurship and Institutional Theory.

Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(1–2), 1–25.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2014.963889

PART FIVE: A SPOTLIGHT ON

HUMAN CAPITAL

INVESTMENT FOR

SUSTAINABLE

ENTREPRENEURSHIP

191

5. Entrepreneurship Education and Sustainable Development

Goals: A literature Review and a Closer Look at Fragile States and

Technology-Enabled Approaches

Author(s): Lubna Rashid.

Published by Sustainability on September 27th, 2019.

The article has been published with open access by MDPI hence the author retains

Abstract: Entrepreneurship has the potential to reduce poverty, stimulate economic growth

and boost innovation, in addition to enhancing social and environmental sustainability. In

accordance with the human capital theory and previous empirical studies, it is assumed that

entrepreneurship education and training (EET) directly correlates with positive

entrepreneurial outcomes and therefore sustainable development. Although several scholars

have attempted to review and analyze EET literature over the past decade, none of these

reviews directly links EET with sustainable development or focuses on the role and status of

EET (research) in less-stable areas of the world. This systematic review thus attempts to

analyze recent literature to identify the extent to which EET research addresses Sustainable

Development Goals (SDGs). The review identifies several gaps in research and practice that

potentially hinder EET from adequately advancing sustainable development, including a

dearth of research on fragile states and demographic diversity, limited EET access to non-

university students and a general lack of focus on educational technology, progressive

education approaches, and innovation in fragile countries compared to stable ones. The

review also identifies challenges pertaining to EET resource constraints in fragile contexts.

The paper concludes by offering insights on how educational technology could mitigate EET

Rashid, L. (2019). Entrepreneurship Education and Sustainable

Development Goals: A literature Review and a Closer Look at

Fragile States and Technology-Enabled Approaches.

Sustainability, 11(19), 5343. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195343.

192

challenges in fragile environments to ultimately ease some barriers towards SDG

advancement and provides recommendations for future research directions.

Keywords: Sustainable Development Goals; Entrepreneurship Education and Training;

Fragile States; Educational Technology

193

5.1. Introduction

Two billion people currently live in countries impacted by fragility, conflict and violence, with

the percentage of individuals living in extreme poverty in conflict-affected areas expected to

rise to more than 60% by 2030 (World Bank, 2018b). High (youth) unemployment levels in

fragile contexts not only hinder economic development, but also contribute to violence and

conflict (OECD, 2016b). For instance, evidence from the Sahel region shows that the social

stigma accompanying poverty and unemployment drives youth to join armed groups in

pursuit of social recognition (International Alert, 2018), while the lack of economic

opportunity and the promise of a regular income have driven many Syrians to join extremist

groups (Aubrey et al., 2016). Without youth engagement in the labor market, the vicious cycle

of poverty and violence cannot be broken.

Realizing the importance of economic empowerment to achieve Sustainable Development

Goals (SGD), the United Nations (UN) has been increasingly focusing on entrepreneurial

interventions to support ambitious youth to start their own businesses and generate

employment opportunities for themselves and others (United Nations, 2017).

Entrepreneurship has also been shown to contribute to advancing social and environmentally

sustainable development areas with positive impacts in the areas of financial inclusion,

empowerment of women, sustainable farming, and minority integration, among many others

(Apostolopoulos et al., 2018). Entrepreneurship therefore has direct positive impacts

specifically towards poverty alleviation (SDG 1), economic development and unemployment

reduction (SDG 8), enhancement of infrastructure and innovation (SDG 9), social equality and

inclusion (SDGs 5 and 10) and sustainable production and consumption (SDG 12).

Empowering individuals with sufficient academic education creates the necessary human

capital to enhance product and process innovation (Baumol et al., 2011), while specialized

entrepreneurship education and training (EET) enhances entrepreneurship-related human

capital, skills and behaviors (Martin et al., 2013; Walter & Block, 2016). Particularly in contexts

of fragility and poverty, where unskilled entrepreneurs predominate and small business

activities are mostly of a low-growth, survivalist nature (Z. Acs, 2006; Karnani, 2009; Naude,

2007), EET is vital in allowing entrepreneurship to reach its full potential. Suboptimal access,

quality, and regulation of formal education systems in several less-developed countries

194

(Kremer et al., 2017), however, call for innovative means of delivering entrepreneurial

capacity-building interventions beyond—in addition to within—the walls of traditional

formal education institutions.

Adaptive learning technologies could provide significant value in less-developed countries

by supporting and supplementing their educational needs (Nye, 2015), while enabling

personalization of learning, establishing connections between learners, increasing student

engagement, and providing access to various learning materials (Woolf et al., 2013). With even

the world’s least-developed countries currently exhibiting rapid growth in technology

adoption (ITC, 2017), there is little reason digitalization cannot become a friend of, rather than

a threat to, the advancement of global sustainable development.

Despite recent advancements in the EET research field and the publication of several literature

reviews and meta-analyses in the area (Fayolle, 2013; Martin et al., 2013; Valerio et al., 2014;

Walter & Block, 2016), little research connects the EET literature with sustainable development

and, to my knowledge, none has been found that directly analyzes EET’s relationship to SDGs.

Realizing EET’s vital role in enhancing entrepreneurship in advancement of (at least) six

SDGs, it is important to understand the target beneficiaries, approaches, outcomes and tools

employed by current EET initiatives and their representation in highly reputable

entrepreneurship journals.

This paper therefore features a systematic literature review inspired by Eichler and Schwartz

(2019), where recent entrepreneurship publications in the EET area are analyzed with respect

to their contribution to SDGs 1, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 12. Though the review revealed adequate

emphasis on outcomes pertaining to SDG 8, several gaps in research and practice are

identified that potentially hinder EET from advancing other SDGs, including a dearth of

research on fragile states and demographic diversity, limited EET access to non-university

students and a general lack of focus on educational technology, progressive education

approaches and innovation in fragile countries compared to stable ones

An analysis of key obstacles hindering EET from achieving its sustainable potential in fragile

contexts follows. The prevalence of traditional education, lack of qualified teachers, lack of

funding and limited access to EET appear to challenge several less-stable countries.

Educational technology, particularly ITS, is proposed as mitigation to those challenges

195

grounded by examples of successful implementations in various fields of education across

several developing-country contexts.

5.2. Theoretical Background

Indeed, both replicative and innovative entrepreneurs (Baumol, 2010) have been shown to be

instrumental for sustainable development. Replicative ones who start new businesses

regardless of whether similar firms are already present in the market are important in fighting

poverty (Griffiths et al., 2012), enhancing competition and increasing product supply (Minniti

& Levesque, 2010). Therefore, replicative entrepreneurs could be expected to contribute to

reducing poverty and tackling unemployment, directly advancing SGDs 1 and 8. However, it

is the innovative entrepreneurs who provide new services and goods needed by the public,

create a learning environment for future entrepreneurs, commercialize knowledge and new

ideas, generate (longer-term) profitability and instigate endogenous change which has the

potential to disrupt the status quo (Audretsch, 2007; Baumol & Strom, 2007; Fogel et al., 2009;

Koveos & Yimin, 2012; Naudé, 2007). They therefore have the additional advantage of

contributing to SDG 9 through fortifying local infrastructure, stimulating homegrown

technology development and enhancing sustainable industrialization. Certainly, numerous

innovations stemming from low-resource environments and poverty-stricken entrepreneurs

have proven their contribution to sustainable development, as seen through examples in the

green energy and healthcare technology sectors in Kenya and India (R. Khan, 2016; Pansera

& Sarkar, 2016).

Entrepreneurship has the potential to advance social and environmental sustainability in

additional to economic sustainability. For instance, supporting female entrepreneurship

contributes to women empowerment, improving quality of life, as well as economic growth

and entrepreneurial diversity (Huis et al., 2019; Kato & Kratzer, 2013; Yunis et al., 2019), hence

directly contributing to the advancement of SDG 5. Migrant and refugee entrepreneurship

also enhance social integration, empowerment and psychological wellbeing, reduces

dependency on welfare and foreign aid, creates employment opportunities for other

newcomers and stimulates domestic entrepreneurship (Betts et al., 2015; Brandt, 2010;

Munkejord, 2015; Rashid, 2018; Wauters & Lambrecht, 2008), providing evidence of

entrepreneurship’s capability to reduce inequality and enhance social cohesion (support for

196

SDG 10). Additionally, recent green entrepreneurial innovations in agriculture, packaging,

energy and manufacturing have the potential to directly enhance sustainable production and

consumption (support for SDG 12) (Walz et al., 2017; Wikström et al., 2019).

In accordance with the human capital theory, possession of higher levels of knowledge, skills

and relevant competencies is positively correlated with labor market productivity,

underscoring the importance of investment in human capital to enhance economic

development (Becker, 1964). In relation to entrepreneurship in particular, it is argued that

proper education at secondary and post-secondary levels enhances the formation of a creative

and inventive population with the necessary business start-up skills (Baumol et al., 2011).

This is further validated by large-scale studies on EET. Based on a meta-analysis of 42

independent samples consisting of 16,657 cases, EET is found to enhance entrepreneurship-

related human capital, knowledge and skills, positive perception of entrepreneurship,

intention to seek entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship outcomes and startup performance

(Martin et al., 2013). Another study on 11,230 individuals in 32 countries shows that

entrepreneurship education at the school level has a positive correlation with subsequent

entrepreneurial activity, particularly in institutional environments with lower corruption

control and financial capital availability (Walter & Block, 2016).

Realizing that EET impacts could differ depending on the context and audience, it is important

that EET be provided to youth at various stages and in different settings. A World Bank study

summarizing findings from 230 EET program evaluations in developing countries concludes

that entrepreneurship education at the secondary level encourages entrepreneurial behavior

and the development of relevant socio-emotional skills, while at the post-secondary level

enhances the development of entrepreneurial capabilities and mindsets (Valerio et al., 2014).

The study also shows that entrepreneurship training for potential entrepreneurs positively

impacts their business practices and helps them in launching new businesses, while it can

support practicing entrepreneurship in accessing financial capital. This clearly shows the

importance of providing EET at various levels outside of advance, stable economies.

With the notion that EET positively correlates with entrepreneurial activity, I therefore

assume that EET initiatives have the potential to advance several SDGs. Accordingly, EET

initiatives focusing on outcomes such as business creation, innovation and technology and/or

197

environmentally conscious product and service development have the potential to advance

SDGs 8, 9 and 12, respectively. Meanwhile, EET initiatives targeting the low-income, women

and girls and/or minority groups have the potential to advance SDGs 1, 5 and 10, respectively.

Naturally, provision of education and training alone cannot be expected to achieve its goals

without considering how they are delivered. John Dewey classifies education as “traditional”

versus “progressive”, where traditional education involves standardized knowledge

transmission from a teacher to students who are largely passive recipients of knowledge

(Dewey, 1938). On the other hand, progressive education considers each learner’s capacities

and interests and focuses on individual learning-by-doing, shifting the teacher’s role to a

knowledge facilitator rather than provider. Traditional educational approaches therefore

contradict the desire for empowerment, change and inventiveness that entrepreneurship

education seeks to achieve and have even been associated with lower entrepreneurial

intentions (Piperopoulos & Dimov, 2015), calling for progressive approaches in which

learning and experience are merged to mirror future workspaces and emphasize critical

thinking, reflection and collaboration (Dewey, 1938; McGuigan, 2016).

Additionally, the general relevance of traditional education is now less than ever given that

learners can access a myriad of knowledge sources through digital means even in several less

developed and fragile settings (Nye, 2015). There is therefore a higher need for specialists to

support learners in organizing and prioritizing knowledge rather than its mere provision,

while utilizing digital means and educational technology given their extraordinary potential

to enhance the quality, outcomes and accessibility of education and learning (Kostoska &

Kocarev, 2019; Velázquez & Méndez, 2018), with EET being no exception.

198

The conceptualization of EET’s contribution to SDG advancement is portrayed in Figure 5-1.

5.3. Systematic Review of EET Literature

A systematic literature review was conducted following Tranfield et al.’s methodology and

the PRISMA guidelines (Moher et al., 2009; Tranfield et al., 2003), to examine entrepreneurship

literature’s contribution to sustainable development in accordance with the theoretical

framework. Therefore, EET literature in mainstream, high-impact entrepreneurship journals

was reviewed to identify the main geographies and settings, target audiences, desired

outcomes and common methodologies and tools employed by recent EET initiatives. The

process and results of the systematic review are summarized in Figure 5-2.

Figure 5-1: Conceptual framework on the EET-SDG relationship.

199

This was initiated by searching for scholarly works that contain the keywords/terms

“entrepreneurship” and “education”, “entrepreneurial” and “education”,

“entrepreneurship” and “training”, “entrepreneurial” and “training” or “sustainable

development” and “entrepreneurship” in their titles in the Web of Science (WoS) and EBSCO

Business Source Complete databases using Citavi Reference Management Software, resulting

in 2486 WoS and 483 EBSCO entries. WoS was used due to its comprehensive coverage of

literature in social sciences, the humanities and technology (Falagas et al., 2008) and was

preferred to other similar databases such as SCOPUS due to its coverage of journals with

generally higher impact compared to SCOPUS (Chadegani et al., 2013). Meanwhile, EBSCO

was used, as it is considered one of the most complete business studies databases (Zott et al.,

2011).

The resulting database was extracted to Microsoft Excel, and resources published before 2009

were removed, as more recent literature has higher relevance in terms of informing current

research, policy and practice recommendations. Books and book chapters were also removed

from the database.

Figure 5-2: Summary of the systematic literature review process.

200

The resulting 2250 entries were then filtered by selecting peer-reviewed journal articles

published in the 37 most highly ranked entrepreneurship journals according to the German

Academic Association for Business Research (VBH) (VHB, 2019). Peer-reviewed journal

articles were mainly chosen, as they are considered highly validated and impactful

knowledge sources (Podsakoff et al., 2005). The reason for focusing explicitly on highly ranked

entrepreneurship journals embodies a response to two recent calls for action from

entrepreneurship scholars. The first of these was Wiklund et al.’s (2019) criticism of business

research as being too little focused on solving real problems, with entrepreneurship research

in particular being one field where social relevance can and should be combined with

theoretical rigor, including focusing on many aspects of sustainable development. The second

was Welter et al.’s (2017) call to diversify entrepreneurship research beyond silicon-valley-

like contexts and without disregarding specific social groups from entrepreneurship research

due to their perceived lack of economic contribution, hence implicitly labeling them as

“unimportant”. This analysis therefore sheds light on whether and how established

entrepreneurship journals are indeed shifting focus to sustainable development as desired

target and outcome of entrepreneurship and on the demographic diversity and social

inclusion of various groups as research subjects, particularly within the ever-growing research

subfield of EET.

The resulting 196 resources were then analyzed for duplicates, leading to the removal of an

additional 50 (repeat) entries. The analysis then began for the remaining set of 146 journal

articles. After reading all the abstracts, the articles were classified based on their type

(empirical, theoretical/review, book review) to give an overview of the literature

characteristics. Articles for which no access was given, those featuring no empirical analysis

or case studies of EET programs or featuring an empirical analysis or case studies on non-EET

initiatives (e.g., general education or technology transfer) were marked as excluded from

further analysis with regards to EET impact on SDGs.

The 79 remaining articles were then thoroughly analyzed by scanning their full texts and

summarizing key findings relevant to their contribution to SDG advancement. The articles

were categorized based on several criteria. Firstly, target geography was considered in two

different ways: classification by “region” was performed according to the seven

administrative world regions defined by the World Bank (World Bank, 2019) and classification

201

by “fragility” was done according to the Fragile State Index (FSI) developed by The Fund for

Peace (FFP) (Fund for Peace, 2019a). The FFP created the FSI based on a Conflict Assessment

System Tool (CAST) that assesses the vulnerability of a state to collapse in pre-, active- and

post-conflict situations based on 12 cohesion, economic, political and social indicators. The

FSI considers 178 states and classifies them in 4 categories – alert, warning, stable, and

sustainable—based on their FSI scores, with the highest-scoring states classified as “alert”,

and the lowest-scoring as “sustainable”.

Resources were also categorized according to the nature of EET, focusing on

education/training setting as well as the demographic diversity of target EET recipients (with

focus on SDGs 1, 5 and 10). Additionally, key desired EET outcomes relevant to advancing

SDGs 8, 9 and 12, whether education is provided in a traditional or progressive manner and

the use of educational technology were documented. Finally, EET challenges were identified

based on the reviewed literature with a specific focus on initiatives in less-stable countries

(warning/alert FSI classification).

5.4. Findings and Discussion

The majority of analyzed studies appear to be of an empirical nature, with a focus on EET

programs within higher education institutions. Of these, several papers feature descriptive

case studies of EET, where the design, expected outcomes and challenges of specific EET

programs are outlined while highlighting unique features such as teaching philosophies,

pedagogical approaches and innovative curricula (e.g. Asvoll & Jacobsen, 2012; Buller &

Finkle, 2013; Janssen & Bacq, 2010; Lefebvre & Collot, 2012). On the other hand, most of the

quantitative studies in the review appear to use self-reported questionnaires administered to

EET program participants to evaluate EET outcomes such as entrepreneurial intention and

motivation (e.g. Ahmed et al., 2017; Elmuti et al., 2012; Mayer et al., 2014), opportunity

recognition (e.g. Ghina et al., 2017; Morris et al., 2013) and self-efficacy (e.g. Fayolle & Gailly,

2015; Morris et al., 2013). Very few studies appear to have employed longitudinal approaches

(e.g. Arpiainen & Tynjala, 2017; Dutta et al., 2011; Gielnik et al., 2017) or non-self-reported

questionnaires (e.g. Drummond, 2012; Turnbull & Eickhoff, 2011). Additionally, with a few

exceptions (e.g. Benson et al., 2012; Hoppe, 2016), most of the reviewed empirical studies do

not appear deeply rooted in theory.

202

A smaller proportion of the reviewed papers are of conceptual or review nature. A few of

those studies introduce conceptual models and theoretical frameworks for the assessment and

evaluation of EET programs (e.g. Ghina et al., 2015; Thrane et al., 2016), while others involve

systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses of the methods and impacts of published EET

literature (e.g. Lorz et al., 2013; Rideout & Gray, 2013). However, none of those literature

review or conceptual papers appear to analyze EET explicitly in the sustainable development

context.

The following subsections feature a deeper dive into the nature, context and impact of the

analyzed literature with respect to SDGs.

5.4.1. Bibliometrics

As seen in Figure 5-3 and Figure 5-4, there appears to be an increase in academic interest in

EET over the past 10 years, with the majority of the articles being of empirical nature. The year

2019 is not included in the figures, given that only the first half of the year is represented thus

far.

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Publication Number by Year

Total Number of Articles Relevant for SDG Analysis

Figure 5-3: Publication number by year.

203

5.4.2. Country Context

The analyzed articles were classified according to their respective target regions and country

fragility levels as seen in Figure 5-5 and Figure 5-6. The vast majority of the reviewed EET

initiatives target the Europe and Central Asia region (51%) and about 16% focus on North

America. Only 10% of the articles handle EET programs in the Sub-Saharan African region,

10% of the articles focus on the East Asia and Pacific region, 6 articles handle the Middle East

and North Africa region covering Egypt (3 articles), Iran (2 articles), Israel (1 article) and

Turkey (1 article), 2 articles are in South Asia (1 in Pakistan and 1 in India) and 1 article is-

based in Latin America and the Caribbean (Brazil). Three of the reviewed articles cover

several/all global regions.

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Publication Type by Year

Empirical/Case Study Theoretical/Review Book Review

Figure 5-4: Publication type by year.

204

Figure 5-5: Distribution of relevant empirical studies by World Bank economic region.

Clearly, scientific interest in EET is largely focused on advanced economies. Indeed, with

respect to country fragility, only 29 articles handle countries ranking among the 50% less-

stable in the world (Fund for Peace, 2019a), though many handle countries such as China,

Indonesia, Ghana and Ukraine, which are officially not considered fragile contexts by OECD

standards (OECD, 2018). In fact, only 8% of the reviewed articles handle country contexts

classified as alert and are therefore of high fragility.

This could indicate that EET in the world’s more underprivileged areas, which are in the most

pressing need for sustainable development, does not receive much attention from

entrepreneurship scholars. Either little research is done in those parts of the world, or the

research is of quality that did not match the review criteria. This could also signal difficulty in

conducting research in fragile states, the preference of researchers to conduct studies based

10 10

Number of Articles

Distribution of Relevant Empirical Literature by Region

Europe and Central Asia

North America

Sub-Saharan Africa

East Asia and Pacific

Middle East and North Africa

South Asia

Latin America and Caribbean

205

on ease regardless of social importance and/or a general lack of EET initiatives in those

locations.

Conducting research in fragile countries, particularly those affected by extreme inequality and

violent conflict, can indeed be challenging (Wood, 2006), hindered by issues of informed

consent, safety of researchers and research subjects, cultural misunderstandings, emotional

well-being of field researchers and lack of researcher training. This could explain why no

research was found on countries such as Syria, Afghanistan and South Sudan, which rank

among the world’s most fragile countries and from which over 55% of global refugees

originated in 2017 (UNHCR, 2018a), despite a crucial need for understanding and

implementing sustainable development efforts in those countries. Those research issues are

ones that intelligent technologies can support the mitigation of, as will be seen later in this

paper (Section 5.6).

5.4.3. Recipients

As seen in Table 5-1, a striking 78% of the reviewed literature handles EET courses and

programs for university students, with a few case studies discussing EET at the school level

(13%) and vocational training institutions (3%). Only a handful of studies focus on recipients

outside of academic institutions such as the unemployed and those already running their own

business.

This identifies a clear gap in scientific research on school-age entrepreneurship education and

a potential global shortage of EET initiatives targeting youth outside of universities. This

30 32

Sustainable Stable Warning Alert

Number of Articles

Distribution of Relevant Empirical Literature by

Country Fragility

Figure 5-6: Distribution of relevant empirical studies by FSI

fragility classification.

206

aligns with Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) findings that lack of EET at the school

age is a key factor restraining entrepreneurship across all global geographies (GEM, 2018a).

Particularly in fragile conditions, where attendance of universities may be considered a luxury

by a majority of the population, EET (research) should shift focus to other audiences to

maximize its sustainable developmental potential.

In addition, very few reviewed articles focus on alleviating poverty (SDG 1) or enhancing

socioeconomic equality (SDGs 5 and 10) through targeting the relevant demographic

segments. For instance, only 6 articles explicitly focus on low-income individuals, 4 articles

handle programs primarily targeting women and girls and 2 articles handle minority groups

(e.g., army veterans and youth with special needs). None of the reviewed articles explicitly

targets victims of conflict, forcibly displaced individuals or migrants.

EET Recipients

All

Sustainable/ Stable

Countries

Warning/ Alert

Countries

By Age Group/Educational Setting

University Students

School Students

Small Business Owners

Unemployed Adults

Students in Vocational Training Institutes

General Public

Academic Staff

By Demographic Diversity

Low-Income Individuals

Women/Girls

Minority Groups

Table 5-1: Summary of EET recipients by age group/educational settings and

demographic diversity.

Although it is highly unlikely that those demographic groups are explicitly excluded from

partaking in general EET programs, it is important to recognize the challenges that hinder

them from participating in or benefiting from unspecialized initiatives. For example, women

have been shown to exhibit some gender-specific entrepreneurial learning patterns (Ettl &

Welter, 2010), suggesting the need for personalized EET approaches for women and girls.

Additionally, the psychological trauma and emotional burden facing refugees, conflict

survivors, the poor and the differently abled could largely inhibit them from benefiting from

207

generic EET approaches (see, for example, Winder, 2015). Depression alone is reported to be

up to twice as common among low-income populations (WHO, 2007). Therefore, researchers

and practitioners are urged to focus on research on and implementation of EET specifically

targeting diverse demographic groups to best position entrepreneurship as a vehicle to

advance SDGs 1, 5 and 10 in advanced and fragile economies alike.

5.4.4. Outcomes, Methods and Tools

Key education/training objectives, methods and tools discussed in the reviewed EET literature

are summarized in Table 5-2. Most reviewed studies focus on the establishment and success

of small businesses and new ventures as key desired or expected outcomes of EET, which

positions EET as a vehicle to advance SDG 8. Many of those studies focus on the enhancement

of entrepreneurial intention through EET, exemplified by cases in sustainable/stable

economies (e.g. Spain, Entrialgo & Iglesias, 2016; the USA, Kassean et al., 2015; and the

Netherlands, Mayer et al., 2014), as well as warning/alert economies (e.g., Turkey (Kunday &

Çakır, 2017), Egypt, Iran (Ashourizadeh et al., 2014), and Pakistan (Ahmed et al., 2017)).

Others focus directly on enhancing entrepreneurial behavior such as increasing startup rate

and small business success (e.g. Asvoll & Jacobsen, 2012; Ojala & Heikkilä, 2011), while a few

link EET to economic growth at a macro level (e.g. O’Connor, 2013). Although a few studies

reveal a negative impact of EET on entrepreneurial intentions, particularly due to decreased

EET participant optimism after learning exactly what it takes to start a new business

(Oosterbeek et al., 2010), or that entrepreneurial intentions are not necessarily correlated with

subsequent new venture creation (Souitaris et al., 2007), the vast majority of reviewed studies

generally indicate the positive effect that EET has on enhancing entrepreneurial intention,

new business formation and business success. Particularly in more fragile contexts, most

reviewed studies indicate a positive correlation between EET and entrepreneurial intentions.

A notable exception is a study in Pakistan (Ahmed et al., 2017), where the lack of progressive

and experiential learning methods is blamed for a reduced entrepreneurial intention in

students who attend a university EET course. This supports studies which reveal EET’s

particularly important positive role in countries with higher corruption and lower

institutional stability levels (Walter & Block, 2016). Additionally, it is possible that EET

participants in more fragile settings generally lack the enthusiasm and optimism that peers in

stable economies might possess, hence do not enter the EET programs with potentially

208

unrealistic expectations of launching the next revolutionary company compared to those in

silicon-valley-like environments.

As for studies focusing on innovation, industrialization and technological advancement as

key EET objectives (SDG 9), a clear difference is observed between sustainable/stable and

warning/alert countries. The majority of studies focusing on the development of innovative

mindsets and problem-solving skills are-based in highly stable countries (e.g. Lefebvre &

Collot, 2012; Ojastu et al., 2011; Turnbull & Eickhoff, 2011), and none have been found in an

alert country. This is understandable, given the higher prevalence of technology and

innovation in advanced economies. However, the growth rate in mobile broadband

subscriptions in least-developed countries between 2012 and 2017 was almost 55%, in addition

to a 37% growth in fixed broadband subscriptions (ITC, 2017). Furthermore, 15% of

households in least-developed countries have access to the Internet as of 2017, while many

internet users there can access the Internet from publicly available shared connections (ITC,

2017). This trend could be promising for the enhancement of various aspects of innovative

entrepreneurship in fragile contexts (including the use of educational technology in EET as

discussed in Section 5.6).

Only 1 of the reviewed articles aims to explicitly advance environmental sustainability (in

particular SDG 12). This unfortunately highlights a lack of scientific interest within EET

research and/or practical focus of current EET efforts on stimulating eco-entrepreneurship.

No surprise, therefore, that in a recent study on entrepreneurship in developing countries and

SDGs, total entrepreneurship activity was found to negatively correlate with environmental

sustainability measures (Dhahri & Omri, 2018). With the global emergence of numerous

innovations targeting environmentally sustainable production and consumption (Eichler &

Schwartz, 2019; C. J. Moon, 2017), EET’s role in advancing those innovations could be worth

investigating. Particularly in less stable parts of the world, EET could support the much-

needed change of mindset that is necessary to advance eco entrepreneurship (C. Moon, 2018).

209

Nature of Reviewed EET Programs

All

Sustainable/ Stable

Countries

Warning/ Alert

Countries

Key Objectives

New Business Creation and/or Growth

Innovation, Industrialization and

Technology

Environmentally Sustainable

Products/Services

Key Methods and Tools

Experiential Learning Approaches

Educational Technology Tools

Table 5-2: Summary of EET programs by key objectives/outcomes, methods and tools

relevant to advance sustainable development.

5.4.5. EET Challenges

Several practical EET challenges were discussed in the reviewed literature pertaining to

program design, delivery and evaluation. Design-related challenges include designing

programs that could achieve official academic accreditation (Johannisson, 2016; Lefebvre &

Collot, 2012), programs particularly aiming to enhance creativity and opportunity recognition

(Karimi et al., 2016) and programs that enhance business growth rather than merely new

business creation (Paco et al., 2016). Delivery-related challenges result from lack of interest in

or cultural resistance to entrepreneurship (Hoppe, 2016; Janssen & Bacq, 2010) and

collaboration issues between key implementation stakeholders (Asvoll & Jacobsen, 2012).

Evaluation-related challenges arise from bias in self-assessment evaluations (Hayes &

Richmond, 2017), lack of measurable short-term program impacts (Rauch & Hulsink, 2015)

and pre-selection of students with high success potential (Martin et al., 2013).

Additional challenges related to resource availability, including lack of funding, qualified

educators, learning materials and infrastructure, predominate in less-stable countries.

Realizing that EET challenges differ with geographic location and country context suggests

the need for higher customization of EET programs and policies. Challenges relevant to fragile

contexts are further discussed in the next section.

210

5.5. A Closer Look: EET Challenges amid Fragility

This section zooms in on EET challenges found in countries classified in the warning or alert

FSI categories per the reviewed literature. Challenges that were encountered across more than

one article are highlighted and summarized in Table 5-3. Interestingly, all of those challenges

pertain largely to resource constraints.

Challenge

Country Examples

Select References

Limited Access to EET

Facilities/Programs

Egypt, Brazil,

Mozambique,

Indonesia, South

Africa

(Benedict & Venter, 2010; Ghina et

al., 2017; Kirby & Ibrahim, 2011;

Libombo et al., 2015; Lima et al.,

2015)

Lack of Qualified

Educators

Egypt, Mozambique,

Brazil, South Africa,

India

(Benedict & Venter, 2010; Kirby &

Ibrahim, 2011; Libombo et al., 2015;

Lima et al., 2015; Mukesh et al.,

2018)

Lack of Funding for

EET

Egypt, Mozambique

(Kirby & Ibrahim, 2011; Libombo et

al., 2015)

Prevalence of

Traditional Education

Ukraine, Egypt,

Mozambique, Ghana,

Namibia, South Africa

(Arpiainen & Tynjala, 2017;

Benedict & Venter, 2010; Dzisi &

Odoom, 2017; Kirby & Ibrahim,

2011; Libombo et al., 2015;

Westhead & Solesvik, 2016)

Table 5-3: EET challenges in warning and alert countries.

The first challenge identified was lack of access to EET facilities. This was observed across

several locations, even though reasons for lack of access may differ. In the case of Egypt, EET

is mostly available in some private university settings and seems to be made accessible mostly

to the “elite class” of the society (Abbas et al., 2014; Kirby & Ibrahim, 2011). Though not

specifically mentioned as a challenge in the corresponding article, a similar situation may

apply to Indonesia, in which the EET program management administer psychological tests in

the student selection process (Ghina et al., 2017). With mental health issues being closely

related to poverty (WHO, 2007), employing psychological tests in the student recruitment

process could imply the exclusion of the most underprivileged from such programs. In Brazil,

EET seems limited to a handful of higher education institutes and concentrated mostly in two

211

more developed regions of the country (Lima et al., 2015). Educational resources and support

infrastructures, such as labs, libraries, and incubators appear to be quite limited in availability

in Mozambique (Libombo et al., 2015), restricting EET access.

Those Brazilian, Mozambican and Egyptian cases, in addition to studies in South Africa and

India, also mention the lack of qualified teachers as a challenge to EET. According to the

corresponding papers, the lack of trained educators in Brazil seems to be one of the biggest

challenges to EET in the country, the number of teachers in Mozambique with specific training

or experience in entrepreneurship is quite small, while Egypt needs to train educators on ways

to enhance creativity and innovativeness in students, rather than simply transferring and

assessing knowledge. The Indian case cites a lack of experienced educators and systemic focus

on EET as obstacles to entrepreneurial development in the country, while teachers in South

Africa appear to discourage students from disadvantaged backgrounds from taking courses

focused on critical thinking (e.g., math and sciences), as they might be “too difficult” for them,

hindering their development into active and effective labor market participants. Both articles

on Mozambique and Egypt also mention the lack of financial resources as a main EET

challenge, where lack of funding is a key reason leading to the limited availability of

educational resources and support structures in Mozambique and the lack of EET in public

Egyptian universities.

Egypt, Mozambique, Ukraine, Ghana, South Africa and Namibia also seem to have a

prevalent culture of traditional education in which innovative curricula and teaching

materials are lacking. Egypt has a traditional public education system where habitual

memorization of standard learning materials largely prevails over fostering practical

knowledge and creative thinking. Ukrainian teachers use Russian and Ukrainian textbooks,

which do not incorporate recent global advances and current methods in EET as main

knowledge sources. Students in Ghana report very little focus on developing practical

knowledge and skills through the EET they receive, and teachers indicate the use of untailored

foreign curricula as a challenge to students. Namibian students have such little exposure to

progressive education that they may feel insecure when entering an innovative learning

environment. Finally, the South African education system has been criticized for its poor

preparation of young learners for future entrepreneurial careers and business skills due to

focus on traditional learning methods.

212

Interestingly, several of those challenges may also apply to general academic education. For

instance, a study in Nigeria indicated that the lack of infrastructure and learning facilities,

public financing, inadequacy of academic staff and defective curricula are challenges facing

higher education (Aluede et al., 2012). In Haiti, 80% of primary schools are private, and hence

cannot be afforded by the poorer families, in addition to a shortage of trained academic staff

and schooling infrastructure (World Bank, 2017). Poverty constricts access to schooling in

Mexico, Malawi, Kenya and Colombia, while distance to school lessens enrollment of

Afghanis, particularly girls, in school (Kremer et al., 2017). Teachers were often found absent

in schools in Bangladesh, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Peru and Uganda, while textbooks seem

to be tailored only to the best performing students in Kenya (Kremer et al., 2017). Although

the nature of general academic education and EET may differ, one may imply that some

solutions to general academic education challenges in less-stable countries may also apply to

EET.

5.6. Tackling the Challenges: The Promise of Technology

Adaptive and intelligent technologies, though not entirely new (Bloom, 1984; Carbonell, 1970;

Nkambou et al., 2010), have only recently become an (increasingly) important part of debates

concerning enhancing education in challenged environments (see for example Calhoun &

Calhoun, 2014). Currently, though, such educational technologies range from simple

innovations such as Cybersmart Africa’s use of PVC pipes, nylon sheets and Nintendo Wii

remote controls to create interactive whiteboards in Senegalese schools (Trucano, 2011), to

complex ones combining various modern technologies to produce advanced educational

software (see for example cases from Morocco (Fahim et al., 2019) and Taiwan (Chien, 2019)).

A prominent example of currently widespread educational technologies is Massive Open

Online Courses (MOOCs), essentially online courses that allow anyone anywhere to register

and access educational content (usually) without paying fees. Though generally seen as a

potential solution to lack of educational materials, instructors and academic institutes in

developing and fragile countries (Liyanagunawardena, 2015; Thapa & Sein, 2014), MOOCs do

not necessarily foster the collaboration, adaptation and experiential needs of effective

entrepreneurial learning. On the other hand, several experiential and collaborative learning

technologies such as augmented reality (Birt et al., 2018; Lytridis et al., 2018) and wearable

213

technologies (Kutafina et al., 2016) might be difficult to implement in low-resources

environments due to high cost and hardware maintenance needs.

Nevertheless, there exist several software-based solutions that have the ability to enhance

creative thinking, collaboration and problem-solving while mitigating specific fragility-

related challenges facing entrepreneurship education. Important examples are intelligent-

tutoring systems (ITS), mobile applications and simulation games built on foundations of

machine learning, artificial intelligence, gaming and mobile app development, among other

technologies. Such technologies could have the capability to enhance personalization,

collaboration, engagement in and access to learning (Woolf et al., 2013), while addressing

educational challenges such as shortage of qualified teachers and lack of innovative

educational materials, especially with their current availability in developing countries, both

home-grown (developed by local researchers) and designed elsewhere (Nye, 2015). Below are

some specific examples of successful educational technology implementations in alert and

warning countries, identified through reviews of educational technology literature, that could

inspire adaptive learning system development and adoption for EET in the fragile context. It

is worth mentioning that searching through multiple databases, both mainstream and

scientific, has yielded no results for case studies explicitly featuring implementation of

adaptive educational technology in EET.

• Example 1 — Ghana and Zambia (Mills-Tettey et al., 2009).

The use of an automated reading tutor, LISTEN, was piloted in Ghana and Zambia, through

which children who struggle in learning the English language learn through a personalized

tutor. The tutor listens to the child as they read stories displayed on the computer screen,

analyzes the reading, and provides graphical and spoken feedback. Learning progress is

monitored, and stories are displayed at a level appropriate to the child’s. In Ghana, this was

piloted in an internet café near a school, where only one computer was needed, which the

children took turns to use. The system could potentially include learning content adapted to

the local culture and dialect.

The tutor was also tested on Ghanaian children from a public school in a low-income

community as well as others enrolled in an informal educational program for disadvantaged

children and results provide evidence that students who used the tutor gain considerably

214

more knowledge than others. It might also be worth mentioning that students received only

minimal training in computer use before using the software, and the system was often used

by multiple children at a time, who would help each other in their learning process. The

system was then also tested in a Zambian school that contained a computer lab and showed

promising results.

• Example 2 — Brazil (Gomede et al., 2018).

Realizing the plentitude of online-available educational resources and materials combined

with a need for virtual teachers and independent student learning, Edukas was developed as

“a learning environment, a management system and an analytics framework” (Gomede et al.,

2018, p. 12). The system uses data mining techniques to analyze each student’s level and

behavior and therefore suggest/predict learning materials that fit them the most. Therefore,

the students receive personalized learning content from a large database. Teachers are also

able to use the system to assess the students’ performance and define action strategies and

roadmaps that enhance their decision-making capabilities.

• Example 3 — India (Banerjee et al., 2007).

The use of computer games aiming at enhancing mathematics skills was implemented in

schools across Gujarat, where games were adjusted to each student’s level so each can learn

at their own pace. This approach had a significant impact on increasing test scores,

presumably as each student is self-stimulated independently from their own achievement

level, particularly in communities where students face negative social attitudes and

prejudices. Such programs also appear to be inexpensive and easy to scale.

• Example 4 — Mexico (Cabada et al., 2011).

EDUCA, an e-learning content development software, was developed to allow trainers and

educators to create a variety of courses, such as Introduction to Computer Science and Maya

Language. This tool allows a main instructor to create a virtual tutor using a variety of

multimedia methods such as video and images and define learning styles, tags, pre-requisites

and quizzes. At a later stage, learners themselves are able to add additional resources to the

system. The software is then exported to a mobile format, enabling students to access content

from mobile devices. Specific prerequisites and learning styles generate a personalized

215

learning pathway for each student. The result is an intelligent tutor that enables learning

without the need for an external teacher and can be accessed remotely using a mobile device.

• Example 5 — Thailand and Pakistan (Kazi et al., 2009).

A tutoring system was developed to assign medical solutions to patient problems to aid

medical students in their learning process. The system allows students to find flexible and

creative acceptable solutions to several medical scenarios and helps them find solutions to

complex problems that might not have a single correct answer. The system has the potential

to evaluate the plausibility of the solutions created by the students and has received positive

feedback when tested in two medical schools in Thailand and Pakistan.

• Example 6 — China (Graesser et al., 2005; Nye, 2015).

AutoTutor, an Intelligent Tutoring System ITS that has been implemented across multiple

learning domains, including computer literacy, physics, and critical thinking, simulates a

human tutor by holding a conversation with the learner in natural language. The dialogue is

amplified through an animated conversational agent and three-dimensional interactive

simulations to enhance learning engagement and depth. AutoTutor has been shown to

significantly increase learning gains and appeared indistinguishable from a human tutor

during system testing. With China’s poor, rural and migrant residents being challenged by

lack of access to quality education, especially with qualified teachers migrating to urban areas,

the use of such ITS fits into the Chinese government strategies of developing and adopting

online and digital educational technology to enhance educational outcomes across the country

(OECD, 2016a).

216

• Example 7 — Pakistan (S. Khan et al., 2019).

Baghecha-e-Ism (BISM), an android mobile application, was developed as an educational

game to support 4th graders in learning Urdu grammar. The app contains audiovisual content

that was designed to better capture learners’ attention while an automated content generator

produces learning materials suitable for the learner’s level following specific content

authoring rules. The app also computes and stores analyses of each learner’s progress to

support evaluating and monitoring the learning process. The use of the game in Pakistani

schools has been shown to yield significant improvements in knowledge acquisition and

produce additional inadvertent positive results, such as enhanced collaboration between

students and increased engagement and joy.

As seen in the above cases, educational technology could enhance learning even in low-

resource environments among populations with low literacy levels and in school ages, such

as the examples of Ghana/Zambia, Pakistan and India. In addition, the Mexico and Pakistan

examples demonstrate the ability to develop and use educational technology on mobile

devices, which is encouraging given the rise in mobile device adoption in least developed

countries even where personal computers might not be widely available. The cases of

Thailand/Pakistan and China could inspire the development of a software that aids learners

in assigning viable, creative solutions to various business problems, where no one right

answer might exist, in a dynamic and interactive environment. The Brazilian example also

shows how adaptive learning content and effective monitoring and evaluation can be

combined in one system. What those examples demonstrate is how technology can address

the lack of qualified educators and educational resources such as books or libraries, while

often allowing access to education from home or a mobile device at low or no cost to the

student, particularly where funding for education is lacking, with the added value of

personalization of learning and increased student engagement and collaboration.

In addition, technology-enabled learning environments can be aware of the learners’ prior

knowledge, skills and abilities and record and track different learning patterns among student

groups (e.g., males versus females) as well as successful versus unsuccessful means of

collaboration among students (Woolf et al., 2013). This could thus assist in assessing

individual learning, for instance through evaluating input to quizzes and interactive exercises,

217

as well as comparing, monitoring and evaluating different learning strategies (Woolf et al.,

2013). Data collected and analyzed through software applications could also include

administrative data (e.g., school district, teacher) and demographic data (e.g., student age,

gender, school grades), which may allow for researching, analyzing and advancing learning

tools (Woolf et al., 2013).

5.7. Conclusions and Limitations

In the face of global fragility, social inequality and (youth) unemployment, entrepreneurship

could be key for sustainable socioeconomic empowerment. However, this is difficult to

achieve without education that employs the proper methods, tools and objectives and equally

targets all society segments. Therefore, this paper sought to deepen our understanding of EET

in the sustainable development context, shed light on associated challenges and better

comprehend technology’s role as a potential mitigation.

The study has several contributions and implications. From a theoretical standpoint, it

represents one of the first analyses of entrepreneurship education in the sustainable

development context and provides a unique framework to analyze the relationship of EET

with respect to the advancement of specific SDGs. Additionally, it targets little-addressed

research gaps on fragile-country entrepreneurship, particularly in the EET context, and

provides a unique analysis of EET challenges amid fragility. Moreover, this paper blends

insights from the EET, sustainable development and educational technology literature

streams – ones that have rarely been combined in previous studies. This research therefore

sets the stage for future empirical analyses on EET’s contribution to SDGs, EET challenges in

fragile contexts and technology’s contribution to resolving those challenges.

The study reveals a shortage of EET research outside of stable western countries and

university walls, with little focus on environmental sustainability and innovative

entrepreneurship particularly in less-stable countries. Additionally, the reviewed articles

seldom mentioned low-income groups, women or minorities, with no research found on EET

targeting conflict-affected individuals or migrants. This could be due to the fact that

researchers are often incentivized to merely publish their work rather than focus on the social

or environmental implications of their research (Beynaghi et al., 2016; Wiklund et al., 2019),

218

which calls for institutional reforms that encourage scholars to pursue meaning and relevance

in their research endeavors.

Accordingly, several specific recommendations may be made for future research. Firstly,

although entrepreneurship education research has been growing in major entrepreneurship

journals, there is a clear need for a shift in direction if entrepreneurship education research is

to reach its full potential with respect to supporting sustainable development. This includes

an increase in the quantity of research featuring EET programs that are non-university-based,

located outside of institutionally stable countries and/or targeting demographic groups that

are not adequately represented in entrepreneurship scholarship (see also Welter et al.’s (2017)

call to diversify entrepreneurship research). For instance, a myriad of EET initiatives have

been recently established in fragile countries to enhance employability and entrepreneurial

knowledge for unemployed adults and school-aged youth. Such initiatives remain under-

studied by entrepreneurship scholars or at least highly underrepresented in highly ranked

entrepreneurship journals. A few examples include YES Network Pakistan, IFAD’s

PROSPERER in Madagascar and Botswana’s Kickstart in addition to global initiatives such as

the ILO’s Know About Business and the UNCTAD’s Empretec (UNCTAD, 2015). Similar

initiatives should be key sampling and case study targets for EET research if it were to enhance

focus on advancing sustainability.

A shift in the quality of EET research is also needed. it is recommended to focus on research

pertaining to the desired outcomes of EET with relation to sustainable development. For

example, Moon et al. (2018) point out the importance of building a socially and ecologically

aware mindset for learners and teachers alike to maximize the sustainable impact of EET in

higher education institutes. Although a large number of studies focus on mindset

development as key EET outcome (for example Dutta et al., 2011; Middermann & Rashid,

2019; Ndou et al., 2018; Turnbull & Eickhoff, 2011), very few focus on EET’s relationship to

developing the mindset needed to achieve sustainability through entrepreneurship.

Additionally, I follow Schaltegger et al. (2018) in recommending additional research on the

role of collaboration in achieving sustainable development through entrepreneurship, with a

specific focus on EET’s impact on fostering collaborative mechanisms among and within

entrepreneurial ventures and teams to enhance sustainability. Finally, the success of EET

programs remains largely evaluated from an economic perspective (e.g., number of startups

219

established, financial performance of resulting firms, etc.) rather than a social or

environmental perspective (Sarasvathy, 2004). These evaluation approaches are rather

insufficient to evaluate EET’s contribution to sustainable development. It is, therefore,

recommended to perform research evaluating EET based on impact on critical thinking skills

(Straková & Cimermanová, 2018) and competencies (Eizaguirre et al., 2019) needed to achieve

sustainable development, as well as using evaluation tools particularly tailored towards

measuring sustainable impact (Horne, 2019).

Additionally, further research is recommended on macrolevel factors that influence EET’s

contribution to SDGs. For instance, studies show that additional workload on instructors

(Drummond, 2012) and cultural resistance (Abbas et al., 2014; Benson et al., 2012) are among

the reasons that hinder entrepreneurship educators from using experiential learning methods,

but few studies focus on how resource constraints, national culture or religion contribute to

these issues. Additionally, the impact of entrepreneurship policies, funding allocations and

donor strategies on EET program design and outcomes with respect to sustainability are

worth investigating.

In addition to pinpointing areas of improvement for current EET research to better target SDG

advancement, the findings have several implications for EET practitioners. Firstly, the study

identifies several areas where EET initiatives ought to shift focus. For instance, more programs

that are particularly inclusive to women, ethnic minorities, differently abled individuals and

the low-income need to be established. This could be supported through the involvement of

those target beneficiary groups in the design and management of EET programs. The

inclusion of EET in public school curricula worldwide also needs to be considered. Moreover,

EET programs need not simply focus on starting a business as an end result, rather on building

the mindsets and skills to create ecologically and socially responsible future products and

services.

Additionally, the paper sheds light on the unique challenges that education and research face

in fragile countries—namely, the shortage of funding and qualified teachers, prevalence of

traditional education methods and poor access to EET—calling for alternative mechanisms

through which EET implementation and research can be optimized. Alternative financing

mechanisms and teacher training approaches, particularly to build an experiential learning

220

culture and sustainability mindset within educators, might be particularly worth considering

in fragile settings.

Technology-based EET is proposed as a possible mitigation to the challenges in fragile

contexts, as several educational technologies do not only allow for the personalized,

collaborative learning needed for entrepreneurial skill and mindset development, but could

potentially tackle specific education challenges such as lack of access to learning centers,

qualified educators and innovative teaching materials in the absence of sufficient financial

resources. In addition, such technologies provide alternative research avenues by easing some

of the barriers associated with conducting research in alert and warning countries. Future

research evaluating how various technological tools and approaches could be best

implemented in EET is needed in addition to research focusing on using educational

technology as means to research and evaluate EET initiatives. Moreover, practitioners are

invited to experiment with implementing such technologies in EET, drawing on learnings

from other educational contexts.

Undoubtedly, findings from this study are not conclusive, and are dependent on the literature

search criteria used in this systematic review. For example, literature from development

economics, pedagogical sciences and computer science has not been explicitly included in the

main review conducted in this paper. In addition, alert and warning countries are not all the

same and each has unique characteristics and challenges that need to be carefully evaluated

and considered when formulating solutions. This article simply aims to emphasize some of

these challenges to open the door for contemplation and future investigation.

Finally, technology alone cannot be considered a magic problem solver. The success of using

technology to tackle education challenges highly depends on technology customization to

local culture and traditions, whether proper analysis of local needs was performed,

availability of adequate technical maintenance and the provision of local guidance on

technology use (Shah, 2011). In addition, issues such as poor infrastructure (e.g., electricity,

internet or hardware availability) and the enforcement of local political regulations on

learning content need to be considered (Nye, 2015). This calls for proper communication and

alignment between technology developers, sponsors, end-users and host governments (Nye,

2015), as well as thorough analysis and understanding of local environments. Leveraging on-

221

the-ground resources, such as civil society organizations, activists and community leaders

could prove valuable in those circumstances.

5.8. Supplementary Information

Funding: I acknowledge support by the German Research Foundation and the Open Access

Publication Fund of TU Berlin.

Acknowledgments: I would like to thank my PhD supervisor, Jan Kratzer, for his continuous

support. Special thanks also go to Clemens Möckel for the inspiring conversations and

scientific discussions.

Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

222

5.9. References

Abbas, A., Kyrö, P., & Kurczewska, A. (2014). Transformative Capacity of Entrepreneurship

Education in Two Different Cultural Settings—Morphogenetic Analysis of Egypt and

Finland. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 22(4), 401–435.

https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218495814500174

Acs, Z. (2006). How Is Entrepreneurship Good for Economic Growth? Innovations:

Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1(1), 97–107.

Ahmed, T., Chandran, V. G. R., & Klobas, J. (2017). Specialized Entrepreneurship Education.

Does it Really Matter? Fresh Evidence from Pakistan. International Journal of

Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 23(1), 4–19.

Aluede, O., Idogho, P. O., & Imonikhe, J. S. (2012). Increasing Access to University

Education in Nigeria: Present Challenges and Suggestions for the Future. The African

Symposium, 12(1).

Apostolopoulos, N., Al-Dajani, H., Holt, D., Jones, P., & Newbery, R. J. (2018).

Entrepreneurship and the Sustainable Development Goals. Bingley: Emerald Publishing

Limited.

Arpiainen, R.-L., & Tynjala, P. (2017). Introducing Team Learning in a Developing Economy:

Students’ Experiences of Experiential Entrepreneurship Education in Namibia. Journal of

Enterprising Culture, 25(2), 179–210.

Ashourizadeh, S., Nasiri, N., & Schøtt, T. (2014). Entrepreneurial Intention Benefiting from

Education, Training and Competence: Egypt and Iran. International Journal of

Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 23(1/2), 94.

Asvoll, H., & Jacobsen, P. J. (2012). A Case Study: Action Based Entrepreneurship Education,

How Experience Problems Can Be Overcome and Collaboration Problems Mitigated. Journal

of Entrepreneurship Education, 15, 75–97.

Aubrey, M., Aubrey, R., Brodrick, F., & Brooks, C. (2016). Why Young Syrians Choose to

Fight: Vulnerability and Resilience to Recruitment by Violent Extremist Groups in Syria.

London: International Alert.

Audretsch, D. (2007). Entrepreneurship Capital and Economic Growth. Oxford Review of

Economic Policy, 23(1), 63–78.

Banerjee, A. V., Cole, S., Duflo, E., & Linden, L. (2007). Remedying Education: Evidence from

Two Randomized Experiments in India. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1235–1264.

Baumol, W. J. (2010). The Microtheory of Innovative Entrepreneurship. Princeton and

Oxford: Princeton University Press.

223

Baumol, W. J., Litan, R. E., Schramm, C. J., & Strom, R. J. (2011). Innovative

Entrepreneurship and Policy: Toward Initiation and Preservation of Growth. Heidelberg:

Physica-Verlag Heidelberg.

Baumol, W. J., & Strom, R. J. (2007). Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth. Strategic

Entrepreneurship Journal, 1, 233–237.

Becker, G. S. (1964). Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special

Reference to Education. New York: Columbia University Press.

Benedict, E. A., & Venter, P. F. (2010). Education, Entrepreneurial Mindset and Innovation:

Necessary Ingredients for Increasing Entrepreneurial Activity in South Africa. International

Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 11(2), 239.

Benson, C. C., Palin, G. R., Cooney, T. M., & Farrell, K. (2012). Agents of Change. Using

Transformative Learning Theory to Enhance Social Entrepreneurship Education. Gehalten

auf der Wellington. ICSB World Conference Proceedings.

Betts, A., Bloom, L., & Weaver, N. (2015). Refugee Innovation: Humanitarian Innovation

That Starts with Communities. Oxford, UK: Humanitarian Innovation Project, University of

Oxford.

Beynaghi, A., Trencherd, G., Moztarzadeha, F., Mozafari, M., Maknoon, R., & Filho, W. L.

(2016). Future Sustainability Scenarios for Universities: Moving Beyond the United Nations

Decade of Education for Sustainable Development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112,

3464–3478.

Birt, J., Stromberg, Z., Cowling, M., & Moro, C. (2018). Mobile Mixed Reality for Experiential

Learning and Simulation in Medical and Health Sciences Education. Information, 9(2), 31.

Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as

Effective as One-to-One Tutoring. Educational Leadership, 13, 4–16.

Buller, P. F., & Finkle, T. A. (2013). The Hogan Entrepreneurial Leadership Program: An

Innovative Model of Entrepreneurship Education. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education,

16, 113–132.

Cabada, R. Z., Estrada, M. L. B., & Reyes-Garcia, C. A. (2011). EDUCA: A web 2.0 authoring

tool for developing adaptive and intelligent tutoring systems using a Kohonen network.

Expert Systems with Applications, 38(8), 9522–9529.

Calhoun, E., & Calhoun, N. (2014). Using Technology to Shift Education Paradigms in Low-

Resource Environments. Stability: International Journal of Security and Development, 3(1),

Art. 21.

224

Carbonell, J. R. (1970). AI in CAI: An Artificial-Intelligence Approach to Computer-Assisted

Instruction. IEEE Transactions on Man-Machine Systems, 11(4), 190–202.

https://doi.org/10.1109/TMMS.1970.299942

Chadegani, A. A., Salehi, H., Yunus, M. M., Farhadi, H., Fooladi, M., Farhadi, M., &

Ebrahim, N. A. (2013). A Comparison between Two Main Academic Literature Collections:

Web of Science and Scopus Databases. Asian Social Scienc, 9(5), 18–26.

Chien, Y.-H. (2019). Technology-Enhanced Learning: An Optimal CPS Learning Application.

Sustainability, 11(16), 4415.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York, NY: Kappa Delta Pi.

Dhahri, S., & Omri, A. (2018). Entrepreneurship Contribution to the Three Pillars of

Sustainable Development: What Does the Evidence Really Say? World Development, 106,

64–77.

Drummond, C. K. (2012). Team-Based Learning to Enhance Critical Thinking Skills in

Entrepreneurship Education. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 15, 57–63.

Dutta, D. K., Li, J., & Merenda, M. (2011). Fostering Entrepreneurship: Impact of

Specialization and Diversity in Education. International Entrepreneurship and Management

Journal, 7(2), 163–179.

Dzisi, S., & Odoom, F. (2017). Formalizing the Role of Roadside Artisans for National

Development: The Entrepreneurial Training Approach. Gehalten auf der Paris. Proceedings

of the 12th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship.

Eichler, G. M., & Schwartz, E. J. (2019). What Sustainable Development Goals Do Social

Innovations Address? A Systematic Review and Content Analysis of Social Innovation

Literature. Sustainability, 11(2), 522.

Eizaguirre, A., García-Feijoo, M., & Laka, J. P. (2019). Defining Sustainability Core

Competencies in Business and Management Studies Based on Multinational Stakeholders’

Perceptions. Sustainability, 11(8), 2303.

Elmuti, D., Khoury, G., & Omran, O. (2012). Does Entrepreneurship Education Have a Role

in Developing Entrepreneurial Skills and Venture Effectiveness? Journal of

Entrepreneurship Education, 15, 83–98.

Entrialgo, M., & Iglesias, V. (2016). The Moderating Role of Entrepreneurship Education on

the Antecedents of Entrepreneurial Intention. International Entrepreneurship and

Management Journal, 12(4), 1209–1232.

Ettl, K., & Welter, F. (2010). Gender, Context and Entrepreneurial Learning. International

Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 108–129.

225

Fahim, M., Ouchao, B., Jakimi, A., & Bermi, L. E. (2019). Application of a Non-Immersive

VR, IoT Based Approach to Help Moroccan Students Carry Out Practical Activities in a

Personal Learning Style. Future Intenet, 11(1), 11.

Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G., & Pappas, G. A. (2008). Comparison of PubMed,

Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and Weaknesses. The FASEB Journal,

22, 338–342.

Fayolle, A. (2013). Personal Views on the Future of Entrepreneurship Education.

Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 25(7–8), 692–701.

Fayolle, A., & Gailly, B. (2015). The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on

Entrepreneurial Attitudes and Intention: Hysteresis and Persistence. Journal of Small

Business Management, 53(1), 75–93.

Fogel, K., Morck, R., & Yeung, B. (2009). Institutional Obstacles to Entrepreneurship. In A.

Basu, M. Casson, N. Wadeson, & B. Yeung (Hrsg.), The Oxford Handbook of

Entrepreneurship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fund for Peace. (2019). Global Data | Fragile States Index. Abgerufen von

https://fragilestatesindex.org/data/

GEM. (2018). 2017/18 Global Report. London: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor.

Ghina, A., Simatupang, T., & Gustomo, A. (2017). The Relevancy of Graduates’

Competencies to the Effectiveness of Entrepreneurship Education: A Case Study at SBM ITB

- Indonesia. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 20(1), 1–24.

Ghina, A., Simatupang, T. M., & Gustomo, A. (2015). Building a Systematic Framework for

Entrepreneurship Education. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 18(2), 73–98.

Gielnik, M. M., Uy, M. A., Funken, R., & Bischoff, K. M. (2017). Boosting and Sustaining

Passion: A Long-Term Perspective on the Effects of Entrepreneurship Training. Journal of

Business Venturing, 32(3), 334–353.

Gomede, E., Gaffo, F. H., Briganó, G. U., Barros, R. M. D., & Mendes, L. D. S. (2018).

Application of Computational Intelligence to Improve Education in Smart Cities. Sensors,

18(1), 267.

Graesser, A. C., Chipman, P., Haynes, B. C., & Olney, A. (2005). AutoTutor: An Intelligent

Tutoring System with Mixed-Initiative Dialogue. IEEE Transactions on Education, 48–4,

612–618.

Griffiths, M. D., Kickul, J., Bacq, S., & Terjesen, S. (2012). A Dialogue with William J. Baumol:

Insights on Entrepreneurship Theory and Education. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice,

36(4), 611–625.

226

Hayes, D., & Richmond, W. (2017). Using an Online Assessment to Examine

Entrepreneurship Student Traits and to Measure and Improve the Impact of

Entrepreneurship Education. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 20(1), 88–107.

Hoppe, M. (2016). Policy and entrepreneurship education. Small Business Economics, 46(1),

13–29.

Horne, J. (2019). The Sustainability Impact of New Ventures: Measuring and Managing

Entrepreneurial Contributions to Sustainable Development. Berlin: Technische Universität

Berlin.

Huis, M., Lensink, R., Nhung, V., & Hansen, N. (2019). Impacts of the Gender and

Entrepreneurship Together Ahead (GET Ahead) Training on Empowerment of Female

Microfinance Borrowers in Northern Vietnam. World Development, 120, 46–61.

International Alert. (2018). If Victims Become Perpetrators: Factors Contributing to

Vulnerability and Resilience to Violent Extremism in the Central Sahel. London:

International Alert.

ITC. (2017). ICT Facts and Figures 2017. Geneva: International Telecommunication Union.

Janssen, F., & Bacq, S. (2010). Cultural and Outcomes-Related Issues in Implementing an

Interdisciplinary Cross-Campus Entrepreneurship Education Program. Journal of Small

Business & Entrepreneurship, 23(sup:1), 733–746.

Johannisson, B. (2016). Limits to and Prospects of Entrepreneurship Education in the

Academic Context. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(5/6), 403–423.

Karimi, S., Biemans, H. J. A., Lans, T., Chizari, M., & Mulder, M. (2016). The Impact of

Entrepreneurship Education. A Study of Iranian Students’ Entrepreneurial Intentions and

Opportunity Identification. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(1), 187–209.

Karnani, A. (2009). The Bottom of the Pyramid Strategy for Reducing Poverty: A Failed

Promise. New York: United Nations, DESA Working Paper No. 80.

Kassean, H., Vanevenhoven, J., Liguori, E., & Winkel, D. E. (2015). Entrepreneurship

Education: A Need for Reflection, Real-World Experience and Action. International Journal

of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 21(5), 690–708.

Kato, M. P., & Kratzer, J. (2013). Empowering Women through Microfinance: Evidence from

Tanzania. ACRN Journal of Entrepreneurship Perspectives, 2(1), 31–59.

Kazi, H., Haddawy, P., & Suebnukarn, S. (2009). Expanding the Space of Plausible Solutions

in a Medical Tutoring System for Problem-Based Learning. International Journal of Artificial

Intelligence in Education, 19, 309–334.

227

Khan, R. (2016). How Frugal Innovation Promotes Social Sustainability. Sustainability, 8(10),

1034.

Khan, S., Hwang, G.-J., Abbas, M. A., & Rehman, A. (2019). Mitigating the Urban–Rural

Educational Gap in Developing Countries through Mobile Technology-Supported Learning.

British Journal of Educational Technology, 5(2), 735–749.

Kirby, D. A., & Ibrahim, N. (2011). Entrepreneurship education and the creation of an

enterprise culture. Provisional results from an experiment in Egypt. International

Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(2), 181–193.

Kostoska, O., & Kocarev, L. (2019). A Novel ICT Framework for Sustainable Development

Goals. Sustainability, 11(7), 1961.

Koveos, P., & Yimin, Z. (2012). Regional Inequality and Poverty in Pre- and Postreform

China: Can Entrepreneurship Make a Difference? Thunderbird International Business

review, 54(1), 59–72.

Kremer, M., Brannen, C., & Glennerster, R. (2017). The Challenge of Education and Learning

in the Developing World. Science, 340(6130), 297–300.

Kunday, Ö., & Çakır, C. (2017). Young People’s Emotional Intelligence Promoting

Entrepreneurial Orientation: Enhanced by Education. International Journal of

Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 30(3), 341.

Kutafina, E., Laukamp, D., Bettermann, R., Schroeder, U., & Jonas, S. M. (2016). Wearable

Sensors for eLearning of Manual Tasks: Using Forearm EMG in Hand Hygiene Training.

Sensors, 16(8), 1221.

Lefebvre, M. R., & Collot, R. R. (2012). Achieving Legitimacy in Entrepreneurship Education:

A Case Study. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 20(4), 481–500.

Libombo, Dambusse, B., & Dinis, A. (2015). Entrepreneurship Education in the Context of

Developing Countries: Study of the Status and the Main Barriers in Mozambican Higher

Education Institutions. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 20(3), 1–26.

Lima, E., Lopes, R. M. A., Nassif, V. M. J., & Silva, D. (2015). Opportunities to Improve

Entrepreneurship Education: Contributions Considering Brazilian Challenges. Journal of

Small Business Management, 53(4), 1033–1051.

Liyanagunawardena, T. R. (2015). Massive Open Online Courses. Humanities, 4(1), 35–41.

Lorz, M., Mueller, S., & Volery, T. (2013). Entrepreneurship Education: A Systematic Review

of the Methods in Impact Studies. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 21(2), 123–151.

Lytridis, C., Tsinakos, A., & Kazanidis, I. (2018). ARTutor—An Augmented Reality Platform

for Interactive Distance Learning. Educational Sciences, 8(1), 6.

228

Martin, B. C., McNally, J. J., & Kay, M. J. (2013). Examining the Formation of Human Capital

in Entrepreneurship: A Meta-Analysis of Entrepreneurship Education Outcomes. Journal of

Business Venturing, 28(2), 211–224.

Mayer, I., Kortmann, R., Wenzler, I., Wetters, A., & Spaans, J. (2014). Game-Based

Entrepreneurship Education: Identifying Enterprising Personality, Motivation and

Intentions Amongst Engineering Students. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 17(2),

217–244.

McGuigan, P. J. (2016). Practicing What We Preach: Entrepreneurship in Entrepreneurship

Education. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 19(1), 38–50.

Middermann, L. H., & Rashid, L. (2019). Cross-Country Differences in Entrepreneurial

Internationalization Tendencies: Evidence from Germany and Pakistan. Administrative

Sciences, 9(3), 54. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9030054

Mills-Tettey, G. A., Mostow, J., Dias, M. B., Sweet, T. M., Belousov, S. M., Dias, M. F., &

Gong, H. (2009). Improving Child Literacy in Africa: Experiments with an Automated

Reading Tutor. Pittsburg, PA: Robotics Institute, School of Computer Science, Carnegie

Melon University.

Minniti, M., & Levesque, M. (2010). Entrepreneurial Types and Economic Growth. Journal of

Business Venturing, 25(3), 305–314.

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Group, P. R. I. S. M. A. (2009). Preferred

Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS

Med, 6(7), e1000097.

Moon, C. (2018). Contributions to the SDGs through Social and Eco entrepreneurship: New

Mindsets for Sustainable Solutions. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.

Moon, C. J. (2017). 100 Global Innovative Sustainability Projects: Evaluation and

Implications for Entrepreneurship Education. Proceedings of the European Conference on

Innovation & Entrepreneurship, 805–816.

Moon, C., Walmsley, A., & Apostolopoulos, N. (2018). Governance Implications of the UN

Higher Education Sustainability Initiative. Corporate Governance, 18(4), 624–634.

Morris, M. H., Webb, J. W., Fu, J., & Singhal, S. (2013). A Competency-Based Perspective on

Entrepreneurship Education. Conceptual and Empirical Insights. Journal of Small Business

Management, 51(3), 352–369.

Mukesh, H. V., Rao, A. S., & Rajasekharan Pillai, K. (2018). Entrepreneurial Potential and

Higher Education System in India. Journal of Entrepreneurship, 27(2), 258–276.

229

Munkejord, M. C. (2015). Modes of Entry to Male Immigrant Entrepreneurship in a Rural

Context: Start-up Stories from Northern Norway. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics

Review, 3(3), 143–160.

Naudé, W. (2007). Peace, Prosperity, and Pro-Growth Entrepreneurship. Helsinki: UNU-

WIDER Discussion Paper No. 2007/02.

Ndou, V., Secundo, G., Schiuma, G., & Passiante, G. (2018). Insights for Shaping

Entrepreneurship Education: Evidence from the European Entrepreneurship Centers.

Sustainability, 10(11), 4323.

Nkambou, R., Mizoguchi, R., & Bourdeau, J. (2010). Advances in Intelligent Tutoring

Systems. Berlin: Heidelberg: Springer.

Nye, B. D. (2015). Intelligent Tutoring Systems by and for the Developing World: A Review

of Trends and Approaches for Educational Technology in a Global Context. International

Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 25(2), 177–203.

O’Connor, A. (2013). A Conceptual Framework for Entrepreneurship Education Policy:

Meeting Government and Economic Purposes. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(4), 546–

563.

OECD. (2016a). Education in China: A Snapshot. Paris: Organisation for Economic

Cooperation and Development.

OECD. (2016b). States of Fragility 2016: Understanding Violence.

https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264267213-en

OECD. (2018). States of Fragility 2018: Highlights. Paris: Organisation for Economic

Cooperation and Development.

Ojala, A., & Heikkilä, J. (2011). Entrepreneurship Training for New Ventures. International

Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(3), 297–310.

Ojastu, D., Chiu, R., & Olsen, P. I. (2011). Cognitive Model of Entrepreneurship and its

Reflection in Education. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 19(4), 397–434.

Oosterbeek, H., Praag, M. V., & Ijsselstein, A. (2010). The impact of Entrepreneurship

Education on Entrepreneurship Skills and Motivation. European Economic Review, 54(3),

442–454.

Paco, A., Ferreira, J., & Raposo, M. (2016). Development of Entrepreneurship Education

Programmes for HEI Students: The Lean Startup Approach. Journal of Entrepreneurship

Education, 19(2), 39–52.

Pansera, M., & Sarkar, S. (2016). Crafting Sustainable Development Solutions: Frugal

Innovations of Grassroots Entrepreneurs. Sustainability, 8(1), 51.

230

Piperopoulos, P., & Dimov, D. (2015). Burst Bubbles or Build Steam? Entrepreneurship

Education, Entrepreneurial Self‐Efficacy, and Entrepreneurial Intentions. Journal of Small

Business Management, 53(4), 970–985.

Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Bachrach, D. G., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2005). The Influence

of Management Journals in the 1980s and 1990s. Strategic Management Journal, 26(5), 473–

488.

Rashid, L. (2018). “Call Me a Business Owner, Not a Refugee!” Challenges of and

Perspectives on Newcomer Entrepreneurship. Waterloo: Center for International

Governance Innovation, World Refugee Council, Working Paper No.7.

Rauch, A., & Hulsink, W. (2015). Putting Entrepreneurship Education Where the Intention to

Act Lies: An Investigation Into the Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on

Entrepreneurial Behavior. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 14(2), 187–

204. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.0293

Rideout, E. C., & Gray, D. O. (2013). Does Entrepreneurship Education Really Work? A

Review and Methodological Critique of the Empirical Literature on the Effects of University-

Based Entrepreneurship Education. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), 329–351.

Sarasvathy, S. (2004). Making It Happen: Beyond Theories of the Firm to Theories of Firm

Design. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(6).

Schaltegger, S., Beckmann, M., & Hockerts, K. (2018). Collaborative Entrepreneurship for

Sustainability: Creating Solutions in Light of the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 10(2), 131–208.

Shah, N. (2011). A blurry vision: Reconsidering the failure of the one laptop per child

initiative. WR: Journal of the CAS Writing Program, Boston University, 150(3). Abgerufen

von http://www.bu.edu/writingprogram/journal/past-issues/issue-3/

Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S., & Al-Laham, A. (2007). Do Entrepreneurship Programmes Raise

Entrepreneurial Intention of Science and Engineering Students? The Effect of Learning,

Inspiration and Resources. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 566–591.

Straková, Z., & Cimermanová, I. (2018). Critical Thinking Development—A Necessary Step

in Higher Education Transformation towards Sustainability. Sustainability, 10(10), 3366.

Thapa, D., & Sein, M. (2014). Building Educational Capabilities through Information

Technology in Developing Countries: It Takes a Village. Gehalten auf der Godkänd. ACM

Conference on Computers and People Research.

Thrane, C., Blenker, P., Korsgaard, S., & Neergaard, H. (2016). The Promise of

Entrepreneurship Education: Reconceptualizing the Individual–Opportunity Nexus as a

231

Conceptual Framework for Entrepreneurship Education. International Small Business

Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 34(7), 905–924.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a Methodology for Developing

Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British

Journal of Management, 14, 207–222.

Trucano, M. (2011). Using ICTs in Schools with no Electricity. Abgerufen von

http://blogs.worldbank.org/edutech/off-the-grid

Turnbull, A., & Eickhoff, M. (2011). Business Creativity: Innovating European

Entrepreneurship Education. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 24(1), 139–149.

UNCTAD. (2015). Policy Guide on Youth Entrepreneurship. New York and Geneva: United

Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

UNHCR. (2018). Global Trends: Forced Displacement in 2017. Geneva: United Nations

Higher Commissioner for Refugees.

United Nations. (2017). World Youth Report: Youth and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development. New York: United Nations.

Valerio, A., Parton, B., & Robb, A. (2014). Entrepreneurship Education and Training

Programs Around the World: Dimensions for Success. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Velázquez, F. D. C., & Méndez, G. M. (2018). Augmented Reality and Mobile Devices: A

Binominal Methodological Resource for Inclusive Education (SDG 4). An Example in

Secondary Education. Sustainability, 10(10), 3446.

Walter, S. G., & Block, J. H. (2016). Outcomes of Entrepreneurship Education: An

Institutional Perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(2), 216–233.

Walz, R., Pfaff, M., Marscheider-Weidemann, F., & Glöser-Chahoud, S. (2017). Innovations

for Reaching the Green Sustainable Development Goals –Where Will They Come From?

International Economics and Economic Policy, 14(3), 449–480.

Wauters, B., & Lambrecht, J. (2008). Barriers to Refugee Entrepreneurship in Belgium:

Towards an Explanatory Model. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34(6), 895–915.

Welter, F., Baker, T., Audretsch, D. B., & Gartner, W. B. (2017). Everyday

Entrepreneurship—A Call for Entrepreneurship Research to Embrace Entrepreneurial

Diversity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(3), 311–321.

Westhead, P., & Solesvik, M. Z. (2016). Entrepreneurship Education and Entrepreneurial

Intention: Do Female Students Benefit? International Small Business Journal, 34(8), 979–1003.

WHO. (2007). Breaking the Vicious Cycle Between Mental Ill-Health and Poverty. Geneva:

World Health Organization.

232

Wiklund, J., Wright, M., & Zahra, S. A. (2019). Conquering Relevance: Entrepreneurship

Research’s Grand Challenge. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(3), 419–436.

Wikström, F., Williams, H., Trischler, J., & Rowe, Z. (2019). The Importance of Packaging

Functions for Food Waste of Different Products in Households. Sustainability, 11(9), 2641.

Winder, F. (2015). Childhood Trauma and Special Education: Why the „IDEA“ is Failing

Today ’s Impacted Youth. Hofstra Law Review, 44(2), 18.

Wood, E. J. (2006). The Ethical Challenges of Field Research in Conflict Zones. Qualitative

Sociology, 29(3), 373–386.

Woolf, B. P., Lane, H. C., Chaudhri, V. K., & Kolodner, J. L. (2013). AI Grand Challenges for

Education. AI Magazine, 34(4), 66–84.

World Bank. (2017, April). Improving Access to Education for the Poor in Haiti. Abgerufen

von World Bank website: http://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2017/04/11/improving-

access-to-education-for-the-poor-in-haiti (accessed on 15 March 2018

World Bank. (2018, März). World Bank: Fragility, Conflict and Violence. Abgerufen von

World Bank website: http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/fragilityconflictviolence/overview

World Bank. (2019, Juni). The World by Income and Region. Abgerufen von

http://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators/the-world-by-income-and-

region.html

Yunis, M. S., Hashim, H., & Anderson, A. R. (2019). Enablers and Constraints of Female

Entrepreneurship in Khyber Pukhtunkhawa, Pakistan: Institutional and Feminist

Perspectives. Sustainability, 11(1), 27.

Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The Business Model: Recent Developments and Future

Research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1019–1042.

PART SIX: CONCLUSIONS

236

6. Conclusions

This thesis focuses on the assessment of HCAs (papers 1-3) and relevant investments (paper

4) that enable sustainable entrepreneurial outcomes in fragile contexts. Accordingly, results

will be summarized and discussed in two sections; namely (human capital) assets and

investment. The assets section will cover quantitative research findings from papers 1-3 while

the investment section will cover literature review findings from paper 4. All findings are

presented as direct responses to the research questions (section 1.2) and summarized in Table

6-1. This is followed by an overview of the theoretical implications, limitations and potential

for future research (section 6.3.1) as well as implications for practitioners (section 6.3.2).

6.1. Empirical Findings: Human Capital Assets of Fragile-Country

Entrepreneurs

Q1 What extrinsic and intrinsic factors constitute the motivation of FCEs to found new businesses?

How do these factors differ between entrepreneurs who remained in and those who have left their

fragility-affected home country?

Results from EFA suggest the presence of four key motivational factors behind FCE decisions

to found new companies. The key factor, self-realization, is composed entirely of intrinsic

elements which is generally associated with superior performance and outcomes (Deci et al.,

2017; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Three additional motivational factors have been identified, which

collectively account for a slightly smaller portion of the FCE entrepreneurship motivation in

comparison with self-realization. Those factors all pertain to the founder’s perception of the

surrounding environment and could be summarized (in order of magnitude) as the

perception of supportive institutions, cultural influence and economic milieu. This indicates

the importance of educational, financial, cultural and regulatory drivers in shaping FCE

entrepreneurship motivation.

The impact of those motivational constructs was compared between Syrian entrepreneurs in

Berlin and Damascus. Interestingly, no significant differences in entrepreneurship motivation

were noted among the two subsamples as indicated by MANCOVA and confirmed by non-

parametric methods. This might appear counterintuitive, as the significant differences in

institutional fragility between Germany and Syria may be expected to influence

237

entrepreneurship motivation differently. However, this could be an (unfortunate) indicator of

the FCE’s lack of capacity to access the environmental support factors and ecosystem players

available to local entrepreneurs in the stable environment. In other words, even in the most

stable of environments, FCEs are unable to enjoy this stability due to the fragility of their own

situation as newcomers. A zoom-in on this particular issue is provided in Chapter 7.

Q2 How do entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors correlate to start-up success in a fragile context?

How does personality predict success-related entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors of FCEs? How

does country fragility impact the personality-behavior relationship?

While comparing the expression of entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors among highly

successful and less successful entrepreneurs, based on economic and subjectively self-defined

success, a significant difference was found. In other words, the expression of desired

entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors correlates with startup success both from an

economic perspective and the founder’s perspective based on the independent sample t-test

results. This provides support for employing behavioral measures as proxy measures of

entrepreneurial success, particularly in fragile environments where typical (financial,

macroeconomic) success measures are less relevant and more difficult to assess.

The impact of personality characteristics on both types of behaviors, as assessed through

MLR, was confirmed with respect to agreeableness and conscientiousness. Additional

personality characteristics appeared to have a confirmed positive impact on one category of

behaviors but not the other. For instance, extraversion was found to (slightly) predict

managerial but not entrepreneurial behaviors, while openness was found to correlate with

entrepreneurial but not managerial behaviors, albeit in a non-linear manner. This primarily

indicates the importance of being an amiable, trusting, friendly, hardworking entrepreneur to

succeed in fragile contexts rather than the typical western image of entrepreneurs as

individualistic, autonomous, groundbreakingly innovative extraverts (e.g. Brandstätter, 2011;

Rauch & Frese, 2007; H. Zhao & Seibert, 2006).

Country fragility was found to be a significant moderator of the personality-behavior

relationship, particularly with respect to entrepreneurial behaviors. In fact, the positive

correlation between emotional stability and entrepreneurial behavior became insignificant

after accounting for fragility, suggesting the need for higher emotional stability levels with

238

increasing institutional fragility. This finding provides additional evidence for trait activation

in fragile contexts and stresses the importance of analyzing the psychological HCAs of

entrepreneurs operating in varying environments rather than generalizing conclusions drawn

from empirical analyses performed in immensely different settings.

Q3 How do FCEs differ from their peers in stable environments in their Entrepreneurial

Internationalization Tendencies (i.e. Entrepreneurship Orientation and Global Mindset)?

Results from ANOVA and non-parametric methods indicate that German entrepreneurs

exhibit higher levels of risk-taking, international knowledge and international cognition in

comparison with Pakistani entrepreneurs. This provides support for the role that advanced,

stable institutions play in fostering individual risk-taking behaviors, consistent with Stewart

et al.’s (2008) findings that volatile environments correlate with risk-aversion. In other words,

for an individual to take risk, a safety blanket is needed which cannot be easily provided in

fragile, violent environments. Findings pertaining to international knowledge and cognition

could appertain to the highly international environment of the Berlin startup ecosystem (T.

Baron & Harima, 2019) and Germany’s advanced educational system.

Pakistani entrepreneurs, however, exhibit comparable levels of innovativeness and

proactiveness and higher levels of international behavior in relationship with their

counterparts in Berlin. This could be explained by the FCEs’ need to seek international

prospects due to the limited availability of growth opportunities in their home countries

(Nabeel Muhammad et al., 2017; Nishat & Nadeem, 2016).

Startup Stage

Desired Human Capital Outcomes

Confirmed Human Capital Assets*

Additional Findings

Paper 1

Pre-Startup

Starting a New Company

Motivational Drivers:

Self-Realization

(Perceived) Supportive Institutions

(Perceived) Cultural Influence

(Perceived) Economic Milieu

• There is no observed difference

between the motivational drivers

of Syrian entrepreneurs in

Damascus and Syrian (newcomer)

entrepreneurs in Berlin.

Paper 2

Initiation/Early Growth

Company Growth

Personality Characteristics:

Conscientiousness

Agreeableness

Openness/Extraversion

Behaviors:

Entrepreneurial and Managerial

Behaviors

• State fragility is a significant

moderator of the personality-

entrepreneurial behavior

relationship.

• The impact of emotional stability

becomes insignificant when

accounting for fragility.

• Openness exhibits a quadratic

relationship with managerial

behaviors.

Paper 3

International Expansion

Company Internationalization

Entrepreneurial

Internationalization Tendencies:

Innovativeness

Proactiveness

International Behavior

• Pakistani entrepreneurs exhibit

lower levels of risk-taking,

international knowledge and

international cognition compared

to German entrepreneurs.

*Listed in descending order of importance/significance.

Table 6-1: Summary of thesis empirical findings from an HCT perspective.

240

6.2. Review Findings: Human Capital Investment in Fragile-Country

Entrepreneurs

Q4 How do current EET initiatives support sustainable development in fragile contexts?

The simple answer is: they barely do. The SLR revealed little focus of EET literature on fragile

countries, with the majority of empirically analyzed EET initiatives focusing on western,

stable countries. The few studies delineating and assessing EET programs in less stable

countries appear focused on university students and generally starting a new business as key

desired EET outcome. This reveals a focus on developing EET assets for populations who are

likely to possess higher levels of human capital to begin with, largely disregarding the

unemployed, the poor or younger adults.

This also indicates a key focus on economic aspects of sustainable development rather than

social or environmental ones, exacerbated by the fact that very few programs explicitly target

women, the differently abled or demographic minority groups. Additionally, EET focusing

on developing HCAs needed for the development of ecologically friendly products or services

appears almost non-existent.

In addition to the shortage of EET in countries of lower institutional stability, the delivery of

EET is marred with many challenges including limited access to EET facilities, lack of funding,

shortage in qualified educators and the prevalence of traditional educational methods that are

ineffective in fostering HCAs pertaining to sustainable entrepreneurship. The dearth of

experiential learning culture and the absence of educational technology from fragile-country

EET initiatives potentially further contributes to those challenges and reduces the ability of

EET to foster innovative entrepreneurship, even leading to negative outcomes such as

reduced entrepreneurial intention (e.g. Ahmed et al., 2017).

241

6.3. Implications and Limitations

6.3.1. What This Means for Research

Thus far, entrepreneurship research has largely neglected entrepreneurs outside of the

western world and those with non-silicon-valley-like business models, or at least regarded

them as survivalists with low potential of having significant positive (economic) impact

(Welter et al., 2017). Additionally, the research field, though increasingly advancing in

theoretical complexity, has been largely unable to adequately combine theoretical rigor with

social relevance in response to major global challenges (Wiklund et al., 2019).

In acknowledgment of entrepreneurship’s significant role in the sustainable development of

fragile contexts, this research attempts to enhance the understanding of FCEs and their success

enablers from an HCT perspective without implicit insinuation that some productive

entrepreneurs are of low value or importance. Rather, this thesis assumes that various facets

of entrepreneurship, as long as they are not rent-seeking or destructive, could have a

significant positive contribution, albeit of different nature.

This thesis also combines theoretical and empirical robustness with social relevance. In

addition to the HCT, the thesis draws on several other theories rooted in economics, sociology

and psychology and extends their use to new contexts and settings. The study of FCE

entrepreneurship motivation (Chapter 2) employs the eclectic theory of entrepreneurship and

the SDT in the Syrian context; two robust theories that have not only been rarely used in fragile

contexts, but in studies of entrepreneurship motivation overall. Analyzing FCE personality

and behavior (Chapter 3) drew on perspectives from the trait activation theory, another theory

from organizational psychology that has been little tested in entrepreneurship studies, and

certainly not in fragile contexts. On analyzing FCE international entrepreneurship (Chapter

4), EIT were assessed from the institutional theory and mindset theory perspectives, the

former of which, although frequently employed in entrepreneurship studies, has been seldom

tested in fragile contexts. Additionally, this research utilizes primary data sources and

quantitative approaches, both of which are infrequently employed in fragile-country settings

potentially due to issues with data access or safety of researchers (see Wood, 2006).

The research also combines multiple levels of analysis. Research at the micro level is

conducted by collecting data from entrepreneurs directly on their HCAs such as motivations,

242

behaviors, personality characteristics and mindsets. This data is also aggregated to enable

comparative analyses at the regional/country level. The paper on entrepreneurship

motivation (Chapter 2) compares Syrians in Damascus with Syrians in Berlin, the one on

behavior and personality with respect to successful firm maintenance (Chapter 3) is carried

across various sub-Saharan African countries while controlling for country fragility, whereas

the one on EIT (Chapter 4) compares FCEs (in Pakistan) with entrepreneurs in a stable country

(in Germany). This provides a response to Low and MacMillan’s (1988) call to combine micro

and aggregate levels of analysis in entrepreneurship research, which apparently had not been

adequately addressed over the years that followed (Davidsson & Wiklund, 2001).

Each paper presents additional unique theoretical contributions to entrepreneurship research.

The entrepreneurship motivation study provides a new, robust and validated tool for

assessing entrepreneurship motivation that is appropriate in FCE settings (see sections 8.1 and

8.2 for full questionnaires) and offers deeper insights into FCE entrepreneurship motivation

beyond necessity and opportunity. This could support future researchers in robustly

exploring and classifying entrepreneurship motivation in various settings using a brief ready-

to-use instrument. The paper also provides evidence for the dominance of intrinsic motivation

among the studied Syrian entrepreneurs, encouraging future research to further explore

multiple facets of intrinsic motivation in FCE settings and their relationship to desired

entrepreneurial outcomes.

The second paper also provides several theoretical contributions. Firstly, it extends the

personality and entrepreneurship literature by providing a unique assessment of the

personality-behavior relationship; a little-understood relationship in entrepreneurship. It also

affirms the predictive abilities of entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors to successful

entrepreneurial outcomes, opening the door for future research that evaluates entrepreneurial

success in fragile settings from the more relevant behavioral perspective rather than

standardized economic metrics. Finally, this research has shed light on personality and

behavioral HCAs in sub Saharan African contexts while accounting for country fragility.

Given that the expression of personality characteristics into desired behaviors highly depends

on environmental cues (Judge & Zapata, 2014; Tett & Guterman, 2000) and that populational

personality characteristics highly vary across different cultures (McCrae & Terracciano, 2005),

this knowledge is important to avoid inaccurate generalizations of findings from

243

western/stable contexts to African/stable ones. Future research could focus on FCE personality

and behavioral dynamics and interactions in entrepreneurial teams, considering different

types of entrepreneurs (e.g. informal entrepreneurs, rural entrepreneurs, those operating

social or environmental companies) and single-country comparisons (e.g. using hierarchical

modeling).

Findings from the EIT study not only enrich entrepreneurship in fragile countries literature,

but also research on international comparisons of entrepreneurship, the latter being a

response to recent calls to more comparative analyses of EIT on an international level (e.g.

Jones et al., 2011; Terjesen et al., 2016). It also tests the applicability of the EO and GM

constructs in a fragile country. Future studies could extend such comparisons to several

countries with varying stability levels rather than highly stable and highly fragile countries

only, as well as examine the impact of specific institutional aspects (e.g. policies, regulations

and social security) on individual EO and GM components.

The study on human capital investment (Chapter 5), the EET study, unveiled several

shortcomings of EET literature with regards to sustainable development, particularly in

fragile settings. Besides a general lack of EET research in fragile contexts, EET research

appears particularly scarce in non-university settings and with respect to female

entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs from demographic minorities, developing HCAs related to

social and environmental outcomes and the use of educational technology. Scholars are urged

to further investigate EET in the aforementioned areas in addition to evaluating potential

solutions to challenges facing EET in fragile countries and systemic/institutional influences on

and enablers of adequate EET delivery. The efficacy and applicability of technological tools

and experiential learning methods in fragile-country EET are also worth investigating.

This thesis also opens doors for future research in other ways. First of all, it provides

exploratory quantitative and literature review insights that enable explanatory qualitative

analyses. Indeed, this thesis focuses on the identification of HCAs in FCE settings but does

not provide concrete, empirically tested explanations for why FCEs possess those HCAs, how

they acquire and develop those HCAs, or why those HCAs differ between FCEs and other

entrepreneurs. Additional research could also focus on data triangulation and assess enablers

of FCE success from other perspectives besides those of the FCEs themselves (e.g. experts,

244

policy makers). Moreover, longitudinal research and experimental methods are

recommended to analyze and validate causal (investment-asset-outcome) relationships, test

the efficacy of interventions (e.g. an entrepreneurship education program, a change in policy

or regulation) and monitor changes over time; ultimately informing and justifying relevant

large-scale investments.

Additionally, several challenges and delays were faced in data collection due to difficulties in

reaching entrepreneurs in fragile countries and the lack of trust of FCEs in foreign institutions;

several have expressed concerns regarding collaborating with a German university due to

perceptions of “being used” and “giving without taking”. Though these issues were mitigated

through establishing collaborations with local entrepreneurship support organizations,

regularly sharing findings with study participants and collaborators as well as offering

mentorship and support for the entrepreneurs, such issues are likely to repeatedly arise when

conducting research in fragile countries. Accordingly, it is recommended to establish research

partnerships with local researchers and empower them with the knowledge and tools to

conduct high-quality research in their home countries. Difficulty in obtaining sufficient

sample sizes could also be mitigated through using alternative research methodologies and

tools such as data mining and machine learning which could harness the myriad of publicly

available data (e.g. public Facebook statuses, twitter feeds) on FCEs.

Moreover, future research could assess additional variables pertaining to fragility and

entrepreneurial HCAs. This includes individual facets of fragility rather than country fragility

as a single construct. The OECD (2016b, 2018) identifies five dimensions of fragility; political,

societal, economic, environmental and security. The FSI (2019a) similarly identifies fragility

indicators as cohesion, social, economic and political ones. The interactions/impacts of each of

those indicators with/on entrepreneurial HCAs is worth investigating. Additionally, other

KSAOs and psychological HCAs could also be included in future analyses. Finally, it is

important to note that not all fragile states are the same and significant inter- and intra-country

differences indeed exist. This research merely uncovers the tip of the iceberg on fragility-

human capital relationships in entrepreneurship.

Researchers are also urged to compliment those findings with analyses of FCE success

enablers from additional theoretical lenses. The focus of this thesis was on an HCT

245

perspective, but fragile-country entrepreneurship could also be analyzed from social, cultural

or environmental standpoints. This is important given that not only do entrepreneurs have

the capacity to shape and reform institutions, institutional development and stability also

influence entrepreneurship quality and success (Z. Acs et al., 2008; F. Chowdhury et al., 2019;

Sobel, 2008; Welter & Smallbone, 2011). Pierre Bourdieu’s concepts of social and cultural

capital may thus compliment HCT perspectives and allow for more robust assessments of

entrepreneurship outcomes and enablers (Bourdieu, 1986). Other examples include

McMullen’s (2011) theory of development entrepreneurship and Johnson and Schaltegger’s

(2019) multilevel causal mechanism framework for sustainable entrepreneurship; theoretical

approaches that would enable much-needed analyses on FCE-institution interactions and

socioenvironmental outcomes of fragile-country entrepreneurship.

6.3.2. What This Means for Practice

“Guiding policy or activism by conspicuous events, without reference to data, should come to

be seen as risible as guiding them by omens, dreams, or whether Jupiter is rising in Sagittarius.”

-Steven Pinker in an interview with The Harvard Gazette (2019).

Understanding what makes entrepreneurs successful enables research-based policy

interventions to advance productive entrepreneurship in countries where today’s dwellers

might be the future’s refugees. Particularly with the common narrative portraying fragile-

country individuals as “helpless” or “unfortunate” with no/low chances of contributing

positively to global development, hard evidence indicating and confirming the tendencies and

inherent capabilities of some of those individuals to succeed as business owners or innovators

could encourage humanitarian organizations and policy makers to invest in supporting

entrepreneurship amidst and despite fragility.

In the pre-startup stage, understanding the degree of autonomy and intrinsic drive of an

individual’s decision to seek entrepreneurship enables an assessment of whether the

individual inherently has more of what it takes to succeed as an entrepreneur. This could

support the prioritization of individuals with higher degrees of intrinsic motivation to receive

financial and training support (where resources are limited) and the personalization of EET

programs. The Syrian case demonstrates that self-realization, a clearly intrinsic motivational

factor, is the leading driver behind Syrians’ decision to found a new business in the studied

246

sample, breaking stereotypical images of FCEs as necessity-driven or survivalists with low

success potential (Z. Acs, 2006; Naudé, 2007). Such individuals, given the association between

autonomous motivation and higher performance and successful outcomes (Deci et al., 2017;

Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000), could be paid higher attention by practitioners, investors and

trainers aiming to advance human prosperity in conflict(-prone) situations.

Meanwhile, identifying the environmental factors which FCEs perceive as driving forces for

their entrepreneurship motivation enhances our understanding of specific ecosystem and

institutional enablers of entrepreneurship in conflict-prone areas. This could have important

implications for policy-making and international development initiatives. For instance, the

study in Syria demonstrates the importance of education, regulatory support, market

opportunities and access to finance in shaping entrepreneurship motivation. This shows the

importance of simplifying bureaucratic hurdles and reducing financial and human capital

barriers to entry to growing market sectors for FCEs. The study also highlights the importance

of community support in providing the resources and motivation needed to start a new

business. Therefore, such studies provide empirical evidence to guide humanitarian

initiatives and policy makers in identifying specific strategic and operational focus areas to

optimize their efforts in fragile contexts.

While initiating and growing a new business, understanding the personality and behavior

HCAs of FCEs might provide further support for practitioners when selecting entrepreneurs

for acceleration/incubation under limited resources. This also aids the creation of

entrepreneurial teams with complimentary member HCAs and distributing tasks more

effectively among team members to optimize team performance. Additionally, realizing

which behavioral aspects are “lacking” in FCEs provides guidance for EET designers and

educators to particularly focus on developing “missing” behaviors. For instance, the lower

mean scores on negotiation behaviors (an aspect of entrepreneurial behaviors) and financial

management behaviors (an aspect of managerial behaviors) observed in the findings from sub

Saharan Africa (see section 3.4.1) indicate the need for EET initiatives in the region to focus on

the development of negotiation and financial management behaviors and competencies.

Study results also aid in the customization of support, coaching and financing/investment

programs based on personality characteristics. For instance, the findings from the sub-

247

Saharan African study show the importance of agreeableness and conscientiousness as

predictors of the managerial and entrepreneurial behaviors needed for new venture success,

overriding beliefs common in silicon-valley-like environments that successful entrepreneurs

are extraverted, ego-centric individualists. This demonstrates the importance of context and

cultural setting in shaping entrepreneurs’ personalities and behaviors (Hofstede & McCrae,

2004), particularly as traits treasured in certain parts of the world might be less valuable or

even frowned upon in others. Accordingly, international investors and development workers

should be aware of not “copy-pasting” common entrepreneurship support approaches

employed in stable (and western) countries to fragile ones. For instance, favoring investment

in entrepreneurs based on their self-marketing, image-selling pitching skills might prove less

valuable than investing and supporting the more collaborative, friendly and diligent ones in

the sub Saharan context.

The study results also indicate a strong correlation between male gender and exhibiting the

desired entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors, which brings about several considerations.

First of all, the inability of sub Saharan female-identifying entrepreneurs to be as successful

as their male counterparts could be due to the persistent gender gap in education enrollment

and attainment in the region (Tuwor & Sossou, 2008), largely due to cultural and religious

influences (Cooray & Potrafke, 2011) combined with (resulting) labor market discrimination

(Morrisson & Jütting, 2005). These gender biases likely hinder women from effectively

developing the behaviors and competencies needed to succeed as venture founders. It is

therefore important for practitioners and policy makers to focus specifically on empowering

female founders with the necessary skills and tools to succeed in the labor market, bearing in

mind the gender-based differences in entrepreneurial learning patterns and strategies (Ettl &

Welter, 2010). Another consideration is that women generally define their success as

entrepreneurs differently in comparison to their male counterparts (Ettl, 2010), urging

practitioners to include diverse demographic perspectives when evaluating entrepreneurial

success and economic performance indicators.

As for business expansion, the identification of cognitive and behavioral enablers of

entrepreneurial internationalization in fragile contexts supports the establishment of

pertinent support systems, such as innovation policies or internationally relevant training

approaches. This also supports the provision of training and coaching that targets the

248

development of deficient skills and capabilities that hinder FCEs from taking their businesses

to the global level.

In the specific case of Pakistan, empirical analyses show that Pakistanis are as innovative and

proactive as those in a more stable environment (i.e. Germany), but are lagging behind in their

risk-taking abilities, international cognition and international knowledge. The hindered

ability to take risk could be a direct result of the lack of an institutional safety net: the

government does not provide entrepreneurs with a safe place on which to fall if their risks do

not pay off; no social security income or job placement services are provided by the state if the

startup fails. This needs to change if new businesses are to be adequately supported to grow

and internationalize.

Additionally, the lack of international knowledge and cognition compared to Germans

indicates the need for cross-cultural exchanges, (networking) events and pedagogical

approaches, potentially involving live interactions with counterparts in other parts of the

globe (Musteen et al., 2018), to enhance the international activities of FCEs. However, it is

important to consider that the higher international behavior levels exhibited by Pakistani

entrepreneurs is potentially a double-edged sword: on the one hand, it may enable Pakistani

entrepreneurs to better position themselves in global business markets. On the other hand, it

could be an indicator of the lack of growth opportunities those FCEs perceive in their local

environments and their desire to take their businesses, and ultimately their personal lives,

elsewhere, exacerbating issues such as brain drain faced by fragile countries.

This thesis also provides new tools and affirms/encourages the use of existing ones to support

monitoring and evaluation efforts of EET initiatives in fragile environments. For example,

programs aiming to incubate and coach potential entrepreneurs at the (pre-)startup stage

could evaluate their success through ex-ante/ex-post analyses of entrepreneurship motivation

of program participants. In this sense, an increase in intrinsic motivation and

entrepreneurship motivation due to the recipience of education and training could signify a

successful program. Similarly, evaluations of incubation/acceleration programs could focus

on the development of entrepreneurial and managerial behaviors and/or EITs as desired

program outcomes. Such approaches therefore focus on evaluations of long-term success

249

indicators rather than short-term financial metrics, which are likely far more important for

sustainable development.

Moreover, this enhanced knowledge of personal attributes relating to desirable

entrepreneurship outcomes is important for the entrepreneurs themselves (see Bird et al.,

2012). Entrepreneurs who have access to knowledge about the behaviors and mindsets that

they need to reach their goals would subsequently have more clarity on the personal

characteristics they need to develop or modify to reach desired outcomes at various stages of

their entrepreneurial journey.

This thesis compliments this individual-level empirical data with a global literature-based

view on the contribution of EET in such environments. Given the widespread use of

educational approaches to support entrepreneurship worldwide, an evaluation of how they

contribute to sustainable development and resolution of issues particularly relevant in fragile

contexts is necessary. The literature review on EET’s contribution to SDGs therefore identifies

several focal areas for practitioners to enhance entrepreneurship’s role as a developmental

catalyst.

Firstly, EET programs appear to generally lack focus on the low-income, ethnic minorities,

women and differently abled individuals. If entrepreneurship is to effectively nurture social

development, then its support initiatives cannot afford to be socially exclusive. Additionally,

the apparent significant focus of EET initiatives on university students could lead to the

inadvertent exclusion of other youth and working-age adults from access to EET support. In

contexts where the prevalence of unemployment, mental illness and violent behaviors is high

among youth, employability programs should particularly look beyond the walls of higher

education institutions to maximize positive impact.

Moreover, EET programs appear to seldom focus on the creation of environmentally friendly

products and services. This might indeed have catastrophic consequences in an era of

ecological and climate emergencies. If individuals are merely encouraged to commercialize

products and services to maximize revenues regardless of ecological impact, we might see

even more companies generating plastic waste, producing toxic chemicals and contributing

to desertification and land misuse in the name of entrepreneurship. The development of

sustainability-aware mindsets and behaviors is not only needed for entrepreneurs, but also

250

educators, policy makers and humanitarian workers. Regulatory and financial incentives are

also recommended to support fragile-country entrepreneurship in pursuing social and

environmental goals.

Realizing the specific challenges facing EET initiatives in fragile environments, I call

practitioners to employ innovative approaches to EET design and delivery. Particularly with

the rising efficacy and availability of adaptive educational technologies worldwide, including

developing and fragile countries (Nye, 2015), their adoption into EET could play a major role

in addressing issues such as lack of funding and qualified educators, poor access to

educational facilities and the prevalence of traditional education. Combined with enhanced

learner collaboration and critical thinking and the provision of new avenues for monitoring

and evaluating learning progress, employing such technologies in EET is worth considering.

In conclusion, I hope this thesis instigates a change in our definition of and expectations from

entrepreneurship, particularly through exchanging capitalist lenses with ones that look

beyond cash flow and deeper into socioenvironmental values. Finally, I wish for academics

and decision makers to recognize that at a human (capital) level, we are all incredibly similar.

In other words, no homo sapiens has earned the right to superiority. Only when we realize

the unsustainability of the common us-versus-them approaches may humanity thrive.

Afterall, none of us is truly safe from fragility.

251

6.4. References

Acs, Z. (2006). How Is Entrepreneurship Good for Economic Growth? Innovations:

Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1(1), 97–107.

Ahmed, T., Chandran, V. G. R., & Klobas, J. (2017). Specialized Entrepreneurship Education.

Does it Really Matter? Fresh Evidence from Pakistan. International Journal of

Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 23(1), 4–19.

Baron, T., & Harima, A. (2019). The Role of Diaspora Entrepreneurs in Start-up Ecosystem

Development – a Berlin Case Study. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small

Business, 36(1/2), 74–102. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESB.2019.096968

Brandstätter, H. (2011). Personality Aspects of Entrepreneurship: A Look at Five Meta-

Analyses. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 222–230.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.007

Cooray, A., & Potrafke, N. (2011). Gender Inequality in Education: Political Institutions or

Culture and Religion? European Journal of Political Economy, 27(2), 268–280.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2010.08.004

Davidsson, P., & Wiklund, J. (2001). Levels of Analysis in Entrepreneurship Research:

Current Research Practice and Suggestions for the Future. Entrepreneurship Theory &

Practice, 25(4), 81–100.

Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-Determination Theory in Work

Organizations: The State of a Science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and

Organizational Behavior, 4, 19–43.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human

Behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Publishing Co.

Ettl, K. (2010). Unternehmerinnen und Erfolg aus individueller und kontextueller

Perspektive (Bd. 4). Frankfurt: Peter Lang GmbH.

Ettl, K., & Welter, F. (2010). Gender, Context and Entrepreneurial Learning. International

Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 108–129.

Fund for Peace. (2019). Global Data | Fragile States Index. Abgerufen von

https://fragilestatesindex.org/data/

Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Personality and Culture Revisited: Linking Traits and

Dimensions of Culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 38(1), 52–88.

Johnson, M. P., & Schaltegger, S. (2019). Entrepreneurship for Sustainable Development: A

Review and Multilevel Causal Mechanism Framework. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258719885368

252

Jones, M. V., Coviello, N., & Tang, Y. K. (2011). International Entrepreneurship research

(1989–2009). Journal of Business Venturing, 26(6), 632–659.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.04.001

Judge, T. A., & Zapata, C. P. (2014). The Person–Situation Debate Revisited: Effect of

Situation Strength and Trait Activation on the Validity of the Big Five Personality Traits in

Predicting Job Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1149–1179.

Low, M. B., & MacMillan, I. C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past Research and Future

Challenges. Journal of Management, 14(2), 139–161.

McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. (2005). Universal Features of Personality Traits From the

Observer’s Perspective: Data from 50 Cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

88(3), 547–561.

McMullen, J. S. (2011). Delineating the Domain of Development Entrepreneurship: A

Market-Based Approach to Facilitating Inclusive Economic Growth. Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice, 35(1), 185–215.

Morrisson, C., & Jütting, J. P. (2005). Women’s Discrimination in Developing Countries: A

New Data Set for Better Policies. World Development, 33(7), 1065–1081.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.04.002

Muhammad, N., McElwee, G., & Dana, L.-P. (2017). Barriers to the Development and

Progress of Entrepreneurship in Rural Pakistan. International Journal of Entrepreneurial

Behavior & Research, 23(2), 279–295. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-08-2016-0246

Musteen, M., Curran, R., Arroteia, N., Ripollés, M., & Blesa, A. (2018). A Community of

Practice Approach to Teaching International Entrepreneurship. Administrative Sciences,

8(4), 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci8040056

Naudé, W. (2007). Peace, Prosperity, and Pro-Growth Entrepreneurship. Helsinki: UNU-

WIDER Discussion Paper No. 2007/02.

Nishat, M., & Nadeem, T. (2016). Factors Explaining the Risk Attitude towards

Entrepreneurship in Pakistan: An Exploratory Analysis. The Pakistan Development Review,

55(4), 715–723.

Nye, B. D. (2015). Intelligent Tutoring Systems by and for the Developing World: A Review

of Trends and Approaches for Educational Technology in a Global Context. International

Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 25(2), 177–203.

OECD. (2016). States of Fragility 2016: Understanding Violence.

https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264267213-en

OECD. (2018). States of Fragility 2018: Highlights. Paris: Organisation for Economic

Cooperation and Development.

253

Pinker, S. (2019, Juni 21). One Thing to Change: Anecdotes aren’t Data. The Harvard

Gazette. Abgerufen von https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/06/focal-point-

harvard-professor-steven-pinker-says-the-truth-lies-in-the-data/

Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007). Let’s Put the Person Back into Entrepreneurship Research: A

Meta-Analysis on the Relationship Between Business Owners’ Personality Traits, Business

Creation, and Success. European Journal of Work and Organizational, 16(4), 353–385.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic

Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

Stewart, W. H., May, R. C., & Kalia, A. (2008). Environmental Perceptions and Scanning in

the United States and India: Convergence in Entrepreneurial Information Seeking?

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(1), 83–106.

Terjesen, S., Hessels, J., & Li, D. (2016). Comparative International Entrepreneurship: A

Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Management, 42(1), 299–344.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313486259

Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation Trait Relevance, Trait Expression, and Cross-

Situational Consistency: Testing a Principle of Trait Activation. Journal of Research in

Personality, 34, 397–423.

Tuwor, T., & Sossou, M.-A. (2008). Gender Discrimination and Education in West Africa:

Strategies for Maintaining Girls in School. International Journal of Inclusive Education,

12(4), 363–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110601183115

UNHCR. (2019a). Global Trends: Forced Displacement in 2018. Geneva: United Nations

Higher Commissioner for Refugees.

UNHCR. (2019b, Juni). Figures at a Glance. Abgerufen von UNHCR the UN Refugee

Agency website: https://www.unhcr.org/figures-at-a-glance.html

Welter, F., Baker, T., Audretsch, D. B., & Gartner, W. B. (2017). Everyday

Entrepreneurship—A Call for Entrepreneurship Research to Embrace Entrepreneurial

Diversity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(3), 311–321.

Wiklund, J., Wright, M., & Zahra, S. A. (2019). Conquering Relevance: Entrepreneurship

Research’s Grand Challenge. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(3), 419–436.

Wood, E. J. (2006). The Ethical Challenges of Field Research in Conflict Zones. Qualitative

Sociology, 29(3), 373–386.

Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. (2006). The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Entrepreneurial

Status: A Meta-Analytical Review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 259–271.

PART SEVEN: SUPPLEMENTARY

MATERIALS

257

7. Further Reading: Leaving Fragility Behind? A Spotlight on

Newcomer Entrepreneurship

Extreme fragility has resulted in the forced displacement of currently over 70 million

individuals worldwide (UNHCR, 2019b). With less than 3% of the forcibly displaced returning

to their home countries (UNHCR, 2019a), many ultimately integrate in their host country’s

labor market, even establishing themselves as entrepreneurs. Though extreme fragility might

no longer pause direct threats, displaced FCEs indeed face a fair share of challenges when

attempting to establish their entrepreneurial careers in a host country. In other words, leaving

a fragile country often does not equate to living a stable life. This section, comprised of the 5th

paper that I had written during my doctoral studies, sheds light on some of those challenges

and proposes potential practical mitigations.

258

Paper #5: “Call Me a Business Owner, Not a Refugee!” Challenges of and

Perspectives on Newcomer Entrepreneurship

Author(s): Lubna Rashid.

Published as an open-access working paper by the Centre for International Governance

Innovation, World Refugee Council Research Paper Series, on December 19th, 2018.

Labor market participation is vital to newcomers’ successful integration in the host country.

Although wage earning remains the most common means of participating in the labor market,

some newcomers alternatively start their own businesses. Newcomer entrepreneurship has

substantial benefits for the business owner and the host community alike and can be facilitated

through the establishment of supportive policies and initiatives. However, aspiring

newcomer entrepreneurs face several obstacles when they attempt to start a business.

Through a systematic literature review and a selection of global case studies, this paper

identifies some of the challenges with respect to market opportunities, access to

entrepreneurship, human capital, social networks, and the social environment in the

newcomer entrepreneurship context. Unveiling those pain points paves the way for

developing suitable solutions. Regulatory incentives and innovation could enhance market

opportunities. Taking measures to reduce hurdles pertaining to bureaucratic complexity,

foreign credential assessment, policy evaluation, legal status restrictions and securing

financial capital could increase access to entrepreneurship. Tailored progressive education,

training, consulting and mentoring opportunities may resolve issues in the area of human

capital, while technology access and professional networks contribute to strengthening

newcomers’ social networks. Finally, pressures in the societal environment, mainly resulting

from discrimination, could be mitigated through community education and newcomer civic

engagement. While the lack of research on newcomer entrepreneurship and the vast

Rashid, L. (2018). “Call Me a Business Owner, Not a

Refugee!” Challenges of and Perspectives on Newcomer

Entrepreneurship. Center for International Governance

Innovation, World Refugee Council, Working Paper No.7.

https://www.cigionline.org/publications/call-me-business-

owner-not-refugee-challenges-and-perspectives-newcomer.

259

differences among newcomer scenarios hinder the development of standard solutions, this

paper aims to provide a foundation on which further investigation, strategic planning and

solution implementation efforts could be based. Active, informed and engaged leadership is

needed to champion the transition of the newcomer image from a passive and vulnerable

recipient to an empowered contributor.

7.1. Newcomer Entrepreneurship: Potentials and Motivations

An estimated 68.5 million individuals are currently forcibly displaced worldwide, including

19.9 million refugees under the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) mandate and 5.4 million

Palestinians registered by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) (UNHCR,

2018b). With no end in sight to conflict and violence in the world’s main refugee home

countries, integration into host communities is instrumental in allowing newcomers to rebuild

their lives in peace and dignity.

Labor market participation is key to integration, with clear positive outcomes for both

integrated individuals and their new host countries. In Germany, for instance, positive

impacts on the economy are expected within at most five to 10 years of receiving newcomers

and is expected to be even faster if integration efforts occur more efficiently (Fratzscher &

Junker, 2015). Economic integration is also expected to further enhance economic

development in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey, which have been experiencing GDP growth due

to the presence of Syrian newcomers (Beilfuss, 2015).

Although paid employment generally remains the key means of migrant labor market

participation (Rath & Schutjens, 2016), entrepreneurship, namely the act of starting a new

business, is another path toward economic integration, with significant potential benefits to

both the entrepreneur and the host country. A Global Entrepreneurship Monitor study across

69 economies and an analysis by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and

Development (OECD) show that migrants generally have a higher likelihood to pursue

entrepreneurship than locals (Rath & Swagerman, 2016; Xavier et al., 2013). However, the

In this paper, migrants are defined as any foreign-born individuals living in a host country in which

they are planning to remain for the long term, while newcomers are a subset of migrants who have

specifically left their place of origin due to threat of violence, conflict, persecution or inhumane

treatment.

260

prevalence and success of newcomer entrepreneurship varies significantly (Betts et al., 2015).

For instance, a study on economically active newcomers in Kampala, Uganda, shows that 94.8

percent of Congolese, 78.2 percent of Rwandans and 25.9 percent of Somalis are self-employed

(Betts et al., 2015). Meanwhile, a recent study on Syrians in the Netherlands, the United

Kingdom and Austria shows that only 1.5 percent of surveyed newcomers have started a

business in the host country, despite 32 percent of them having had entrepreneurial

experience back home (Betts, Sterck, et al., 2017).

Motivations for newcomers to start businesses also highly vary. For example, some migrants

choose self-employment due to push or necessity,

where culture or language barriers,

discrimination, lack of accredited relevant qualifications or regulations hinder them from

otherwise getting employed, while others are pulled toward an entrepreneurial career (Xavier

et al., 2013). A study in Belgium shows that newcomer entrepreneurs are mostly active within

the “trade and industry” and “handicrafts” sectors and are highly driven by a desire to

integrate into the host community and to achieve self-realization and autonomy (Wauters &

Lambrecht, 2008), while a study in Norway highlighted the desire to develop the local region

as a main entrepreneurial motivation (Munkejord, 2015). Another study across Kenya, Jordan,

Uganda, the United States and South Africa shows that knowledge of and the desire to

address market needs and problems facing their own community motivate newcomers to

become entrepreneurs (Betts et al., 2015). The same study highlights that Syrian entrepreneurs

in Jordan have particularly high past entrepreneurial experience and capital management

skills, making entrepreneurship more of a natural choice (Betts et al., 2015). Research in

Germany reveals that newcomers are motivated by the desire for autonomy and flexibility,

the availability of education and training opportunities, regulatory incentive, and an

accommodating culture, where community members provide advice and support.

Those

Entrepreneurs can be classified into push, or necessity-driven, and pull, or opportunity-driven, based

on their motivation to start a business. Push entrepreneurs are “those whose dissatisfaction with their

current position, for various reasons unrelated to their entrepreneurial characteristics, pushes them to

start a venture”(Amit & Muller, 1995, p. 65), while pull entrepreneurs are those “who are lured by their

new venture idea and initiate venture activity because of the attractiveness of the business idea and its

personal implications” (Amit & Muller, 1995, p. 65).

The findings are based on an exploratory, quantitative, comparative analysis of Syrian entrepreneurs

in Berlin and Damascus conducted by the author, and the full study is currently being finalized and

prepared for future publication. Please contact the author directly for additional information on this

research project.

261

varieties in entrepreneurial characteristics and motivations across different scenarios make

generalizable support frameworks and standard recommendations for enhancing newcomer

entrepreneurship difficult to plan and implement.

Nevertheless, the significance of newcomer entrepreneurship is undeniable.

Entrepreneurship has substantial benefits for both the newcomer entrepreneur and the host

country. Starting a business could enhance newcomers’ psychological well-being and sense

of belonging in the new community; reduce foreign aid and welfare dependency; empower

newcomers to make their own decisions and take charge of building their own lives; allow

newcomer business owners to socio-economically support other newcomers; create novel

solutions to challenges resulting from forced migration; and stimulate domestic

entrepreneurship in the host country (Betts et al., 2015; Brandt, 2010; de la Chaux & Haugh,

2017; Munkejord, 2017; Wauters & Lambrecht, 2008). Additional evidence demonstrates that

migrant entrepreneurs, in general, contribute to increasing innovation levels in the host

country; are more likely to engage in transnational business activities; enhance the vitality of

certain neighborhoods and sectors of the economy; and contribute to the discovery and

development of new markets(N. Lee, 2015; Nathan, 2015; Rath & Schutjens, 2016; Rath &

Swagerman, 2016). Realizing the importance of newcomer entrepreneurship necessitates the

establishment of support structures for potential newcomer business owners.

Accordingly, this paper seeks to identify common challenges facing entrepreneurial

newcomers across different scenarios, bearing in mind the vast differences between their

characteristics and drivers. The challenges faced by and the support needed for a newcomer

shop owner in a refugee camp in a neighboring country could differ greatly from those by

and for a newcomer tech innovator in a European city. Identifying broader patterns pertaining

to the challenges newcomers face and the support they may need is the focus of this study.

The following sections describe, first, the research design, then highlight key general

challenges for newcomer entrepreneurship, make recommendations on how to address each

challenge and showcase global case studies on successful newcomer entrepreneurship

support initiatives.

262

7.2. A Review of the Research: Barriers to Newcomer Entrepreneurship

To briefly compare the state of research on entrepreneurship in general with newcomer

entrepreneurship in particular, a quick search of the keyword “entrepreneurship” by title was

conducted in the Web of Science (WoS) and EBSCO Business Complete databases.

Without

using any filters or refining the search criteria, the search resulted in 9,300 resources in WoS

and 8,057 in EBSCO.

In contrast, only seven resources in WoS and one resource in EBSCO were found when

“refugee entrepreneurship” instead of “entrepreneurship” was used as the search phrase.

Indeed, restricting search criteria to a subset of entrepreneurship literature would lead to

fewer entries, but the state of research on newcomer entrepreneurship appears, perhaps not

surprisingly, very limited. However, through performing a systematic review of literature,

some studies were found that enabled a better understanding of the nature and status of

research in the area, as well as identifying some entrepreneurship challenges in the newcomer

context.

The review identified some clear gaps in the literature. However, the majority of the reviewed

literature appeared to focus on newcomer host countries in North America and Northern

Europe, even though 85 percent of global refugees are hosted by developing countries and

one-third are hosted by least-developed countries alone (UNHCR, 2018b). Furthermore,

available UNHCR data shows that about 53 percent of the global population of concern is

under the age of 18 (UNHCR, 2018b). Enhancing innovative thinking and entrepreneurial

skills among newcomer youth could therefore be a worthwhile long-term investment, but

WoS is considered one of the most comprehensive social sciences databases (Falagas et al., 2008), while

EBSCO is considered one of the most complete scientific databases in economic and business studies

(Zott et al., 2011). Given the socioeconomic nature of the topic, these two databases were chosen for this

analysis.

In addition to searching the key phrase “refugee entrepreneurship” by title in WoS and EBSCO, the

phrases “migrant entrepreneurship,” “immigrant entrepreneurship,” “ethnic entrepreneurship,”

“refugee innovation,” “migrant innovation,” “immigrant innovation” and “ethnic innovation” were

searched as well. The resulting scientific literature was then filtered to retain only resources in the

English language; those published in or after 2008, to ensure relevance of publications to current policy

and economic implications; and peer reviewed articles, as they are considered highly validated

knowledge sources (Podsakoff et al., 2005). The resulting 142 articles were then analyzed, 27 of which

were found particularly relevant in identifying potential challenges pertaining to newcomer

entrepreneurship.

263

there appears to be very limited research on this subject. Also, only four of the reviewed

studies involved an analysis or discussion of female entrepreneurship with respect to

migrants, and none of these specifically addressed newcomers. With about half of the global

newcomer population being female (UNHCR, 2018b) and women, generally, having a higher

tendency of being successful entrepreneurs compared to men (Fetsch et al., 2015), newcomer

female entrepreneurship is worth investigating.

Recommendation 1: Expand research efforts on newcomer entrepreneurship to increase

knowledge in the field, enabling improved decision making and strategy development,

particularly in countries outside of Northern Europe and North America and on female and

youth entrepreneurs.

7.3. Identifying Newcomer Entrepreneurship Challenges

Of the 142 studies analyzed, 27 were particularly relevant in identifying potential challenges

pertaining to newcomer entrepreneurship.

Those challenges were classified under the five categories outlined by Bram Wauters and

Johan Lambrecht (2008), as part of a model they developed to explain the lack of refugee

entrepreneurship in Belgium, namely:

• market opportunities;

• access to entrepreneurship;

• human capital;

• social networks; and

• the societal environment.

Their model was developed as an adaptation of the three-dimensional ethnic

entrepreneurship framework developed by Howard E. Aldrich and Roger Waldinger (1990)

and the concept of mixed embeddedness, as defined by Robert Kloosterman, Joanne Van der

Female entrepreneurship support initiatives such as Womenpreneur (http://womenpreneur-

initiative.com/about-us/) could be potentially involved in investigating female newcomer

entrepreneurship and discussing the establishment of relevant support structures.

264

Leun and Jan Rath (1999).

Although Walter and Lambrecht’s model was developed based

on field research in one country, representing a small, specific sample of refugees, newcomer

entrepreneurship barriers identified across the global studies reviewed for this paper

appeared to fit in this model, hence it was adopted for this paper. A detailed discussion on

each category is provided in the following sections.

7.3.1. Market Opportunities

Newcomers, more than locals, seem to struggle to establish businesses in growing market

sectors or to engage in innovative business activities. This section outlines those challenges in

more detail.

7.3.1.1. Poor Choice of Market

The market conditions and prospects available to newcomer entrepreneurs could restrict their

entrepreneurial choices and hinder their subsequent success. Several studies, such as the

Belgian case (Wauters & Lambrecht, 2008), show that many newcomers operate in market

sectors that require lower financial investment and are easier to enter but with potentially low

profits. This phenomenon is also seen in the experience of Ghanaians in the Netherlands,

including those who are highly educated (R. C. Kloosterman et al., 2016). In case of migrants

from one developing country to another, namely Cameroonians in South Africa, some

migrants appear to be forced to compete with locals for labor market opportunities, which

could contribute to exacerbating poverty in the host community (Tengeh & Nkem, 2017).

These cases demonstrate that some newcomers do not operate in sectors where there is market

need or opportunity but instead operate in those more easily accessible, despite the lower

chances of business success and profitability. In the worst cases, those newcomers fuel

Aldrich and Waldinger’s model (1990) considers three dimensions in explaining ethnic

entrepreneurship. The first is opportunity structures, which include market conditions that may favour

certain products or services tailored for the ethnic community, as well as situations serving the larger

market. The second is group characteristics, which include culture, aspirations and selective migration,

as well as government policies, social networks and enablers of resource mobilization. The third is

ethnic strategies arising from the interaction between the two aforementioned dimensions. Mixed

embeddedness positions immigrant entrepreneurship “at the intersection of changes in socio-cultural

frameworks on the one side and transformation processes in (urban) economies on the other,” where

“the interplay between these two different sets of changes takes place within a larger, dynamic

framework of institutions on neighborhood, city, national or economic sector level”(R. Kloosterman et

al., 1999, p. 257).

265

competition with existing business owners, which could potentially prompt less welcoming

attitudes toward them. Therefore, it is important to stimulate newcomer entrepreneurship in

sectors of the economy where growth prospects are higher and business success more likely.

An example is post-genocide Rwanda’s stimulation of the coffee sector, where liberalization

and deregulation of the industry boosted entrepreneurship and employment, thereby

enhancing peace building, social cohesion and sustainable economic development (Tobias &

Boudreaux, 2011). Canada has also launched the Start-up Visa program, which aims to

provide migrants with permanent residencies if they establish businesses with high-growth

potential in the country.

Recommendation 2: Provide newcomers with regulatory incentives to establish businesses in

sectors with sustainable growth opportunities, reducing the barriers of entry to those markets.

7.3.1.2. Lack of Innovation

Another observation emerging from the literature is the tendency of newcomer entrepreneurs

to pursue replicative, rather than innovative, entrepreneurship.

Although replicative

entrepreneurs could enhance competition, increase product supply and contribute to poverty

reduction, it is the innovative entrepreneurs who have the potential to disrupt current

conditions and create sustainable change and socio-economic growth (Griffiths et al., 2012;

Minniti & Levesque, 2010). This further shows the importance of focusing not merely on

enhancing the quantity of newcomer businesses, but their quality. Therefore, support

structures need to be put in place to enhance innovative thinking and start-up behavior among

newcomers. This includes enhancing creative thinking among newcomer children, for

instance, through arts and crafts workshops, which could significantly correlate with their

future adult innovative and entrepreneurial behavior (LaMore et al., 2013).

Recommendation 3: Develop support structures aiming to enhance newcomer innovation

and creativity, including among newcomer youth and children.

www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/start-visa.html.

In this context, replicative entrepreneurship refers to starting a new business to which many similar

others might exist, while innovative entrepreneurship refers to that which introduces a new product or

service to the market (Baumol, 2010).

266

7.3.2. Access to Entrepreneurship

Identifying a market opportunity is one thing; being able to seize it is another. Regulatory

hurdles and lack of access to financial capital are key hindrances facing newcomers

attempting to initiate or sustain entrepreneurial activity.

7.3.2.1. Regulatory Hurdles

Bureaucratic hurdles can play a significant role in restricting entrepreneurship access for

newcomers around the world. Complicated laws and regulations, lack of acknowledgement

of foreign credentials, labor market restrictions due to legal status and the absence of

entrepreneurship-friendly policies are examples of the hurdles that negatively impact

newcomer entrepreneurs, whether they are in South Africa (Tengeh & Nkem, 2017), the

Netherlands (R. C. Kloosterman et al., 2016), the United Kingdom (Ojo et al., 2013) or the

United States (Z. K. Moon et al., 2014).

7.3.2.1.1. Bureaucratic Complexity

Navigating the thicket of business and entrepreneurship regulations can be further

complicated when they are vague or lack clarity, particularly in terms of their applicability to

newcomers or even migrants in general (Stromblad, 2016; Yeasmin, 2016). Moreover, newness

in a host country is often accompanied by a lack of knowledge of the local laws and

regulations (Z. K. Moon et al., 2014), especially when a language barrier is present (Ram &

Jones, 2015; Wauters & Lambrecht, 2008; Yeasmin, 2016). Efforts to reduce bureaucratic

complexity are necessary to enhance newcomer entrepreneurship.

Recommendation 4: Enable newcomers to complete legal forms and documents related to the

business establishment process in their mother language or provide access to interpreters

when necessary.

Recommendation 5: Establish accessible legal consulting services for newcomers to assist

them in maneuvering bureaucratic processes.

Recommendation 6: Employ secure web-based platforms to speed up and streamline

bureaucratic procedures by reducing paperwork.

7.3.2.1.2. No Accreditation of Foreign Credentials

267

In addition, it seems that the credentials of migrants, particularly in developed countries, are

not easily accredited (R. C. Kloosterman et al., 2016; Pecoud, 2017; Stromblad, 2016; Wauters

& Lambrecht, 2008). Therefore, deeming newcomers “unqualified” to do the job or to operate

in a particular sector, even when they possess a wealth of relevant education or experience

from their homelands, could hinder them starting a business or push them to operate in a

sector requiring lower entry barriers and human capital levels. Changing the way foreign

credentials are evaluated could be critical in mitigating this issue. For example, newcomer

qualifications in Norway are evaluated through NOKUT (the Norwegian Agency for Quality

Assurance in Education), a centralized agency for foreign credential assessment, where a

combination of personal interviews and oral and written methods are employed to assess

newcomers’ credentials.

Recommendation 7: Evaluate foreign credentials-based interviews, skill tests and practical

assessments rather than rely solely on newcomers’ foreign documents.

7.3.2.1.3. Difficulty in Policy Evaluation

Even though migrant entrepreneurs originating from stable countries seem to face the

aforementioned bureaucratic difficulties as well, as seen in Spain (Dinu et al., 2015) and Israel

(Heilbrunn & Kushnirovich, 2008), it is noteworthy that newcomers face those difficulties to

a larger extent than other migrants (Wauters & Lambrecht, 2008). Leaving their homelands

due to a sudden crisis or emergency can force individuals to leave without their personal

belongings, including educational certificates, and without knowing their exact final

destination, which leaves less time and capacity to prepare for life in the final host country

(Wauters & Lambrecht, 2008). Furthermore, the psychological trauma of fleeing from war or

prosecution places newcomers in a more challenging position than other migrants when

attempting to achieve self-reliance and economic independence (Wauters & Lambrecht, 2008).

Establishing group-specific policies has been recommended as a possible mitigation strategy

to overcome these difficulties (Billore et al., 2010; Grosu, 2015; Tengeh & Nkem, 2017; Y. Wang

& Warn, 2018; Yeasmin, 2016). However, this idea raises a different challenge — how should

“groups” be defined? Separation into migrants and newcomers is potentially not enough,

Please visit www.nokut.no/en/ for more information.

268

given the different categories that can fall under the umbrella of ”newcomer”. This complexity

makes it not only difficult to design such policies, but also to measure their effectiveness and

impact, hence hampering the process of policy design (Stromblad, 2016). Therefore, when and

if group-specific policies get designed and implemented, effective engagement of and

communication between governments, civil society organizations, employers, newcomers

and other key stakeholders affected by these policies are necessary to monitor and enhance

their efficacy and impact.

Recommendation 8: Engage newcomers and civil society actors in the policy-making process

(as, for example, Canada’s Newcomer Youth Civic Engagement Project

is doing).

Recommendation 9: Implement policy monitoring and evaluation efforts that include all

stakeholders engaged in policy making and execution. Such efforts would include holding

regular stakeholder meetings to discuss and exchange updates, issues and lessons learned, as

well as conducting longitudinal analyses of policy impact over time through in-depth

stakeholder interviews.

7.3.2.1.4. Legal Status Restrictions

Regulatory hurdles also arise because people can and do shift between and across legal

categories, both in their countries of origin and as they travel through space and time (Crawley

& Skleparis, 2018, p. 59). For example, the European Union has constructed a “Safe Countries

of Origin” list in which certain countries are considered to have safe-enough conditions to

justify denying individuals from these countries protection under international refugee law

(European Commission, 2018). This list of “safe” countries includes Nigeria, Ethiopia and

Kenya, which are ranked among the 25 percent least stable countries in the world (Fund for

Peace, 2018). In another example, the European Union signed an agreement with Afghanistan

in 2016 allowing the deportation of Afghan asylum seekers from Europe and forcing the

Afghan government to receive them at the risk of reducing EU aid to the government, hence

rejecting their asylum requests (Crawley & Skleparis, 2018; European External Action Service,

2018). As well, Lebanon has taken measures to alter the legal status of Syrians without

differentiating between those who have been living and working in the country for decades

Please visit http://ccrweb.ca/en/youth/nyce-project for more information.

269

and ones who recently came as a result of the current Syrian crisis, resulting in ambiguous

legal categories that do not clearly reflect the individuals’ backgrounds or migration

experiences (Harb et al., 2018).

Besides not receiving certain protection rights when they get classified as migrants,

newcomers with high entrepreneurial skills and potential could also be excluded by their legal

classification from receiving needed support, if this support is not directed to their specific

category. Further, this kind of classification might generate resentment between different

newcomer groups. Therefore, provisions of support based on category alone need to be

reconsidered.

Recommendation 10: Consider individual cases rather than generalized categories (such as

country of origin or legal status) when providing solutions to economic integration issues of

newcomers. In other words, all migrants who have left their place of origin due to threat of

violence, conflict, persecution or inhumane treatment should be treated similarly.

The Case of Uganda’s Refugee Act: A progressive Role Model for Refugee Host Countries

Worldwide

Although Uganda globally ranks in the bottom quartile in terms of fragility (Fund for Peace, 2018),

that has not stopped the country from designing and implementing effective refugee integration policies,

making Uganda’s refugee law one of the most progressive in the world (World Bank, 2016). Uganda

has an open-door policy, welcoming asylum seekers irrespective of their nationality, and not only offers

the right of movement and employment for refugees but also provides each refugee family with a piece

of land for their own exclusive agricultural use (World Bank, 2016).

As a result of the 2006 Uganda Refugee Act and its subsequent implementation in 2010, 78

percent of refugees in rural areas of Uganda are engaged in agricultural activities, thus

contributing to enhancing their own livelihoods as well as developing Uganda’s rural region,

and 31 percent of refugees are business owners in a variety of industries (World Bank, 2016).

With refugees coming from countries where conflict has no end in sight, including South

Sudan (UNHCR, 2018a), Uganda realizes that viewing refugees as economic engines and

270

social contributors rather than merely as aid recipients is crucial for their socio-economic

integration.

271

7.3.2.2. Lack of Access to Financial Capital

Lack of financial capital is a challenge not restricted to newcomer entrepreneurs. Based on

research in 54 different economies, where at least 36 experts in each were interviewed, lack of

entrepreneurial finance was found as a barrier to entrepreneurship for aspiring business

owners around the world (GEM, 2018a).

7.3.2.2.1. Poor Access to Informal Channels

The fact that many newcomers had to flee their home countries without the ability to carry

valuables and are unable to return due to fear of prosecution means it is difficult for them to

acquire funds from their home countries (Wauters & Lambrecht, 2008). Some newcomers also

report not receiving money from family and friends in their home country due to their

perceived fear of being tracked and located by terrorist groups or violent entities.

The

difficulties faced by newcomers in accessing funds through informal channels, such as family

and friends, illustrate the need for alternative sources of funding to support their

entrepreneurial initiatives.

Recommendation 11: Establish and sustain informal microlending groups that support

entrepreneurial projects, for example, rotating savings and credit associations and community

social welfare schemes (Tengeh & Nkem, 2017).

Recommendation 12: Utilize digital platforms to raise awareness and funds for newcomer

entrepreneurs (such as crowdfunding campaigns).

7.3.2.2.2. Poor Access to Formal Channels

Formal channels of funding similarly present hurdles because newcomers could be perceived

as a high-risk group by banks and funding providers in the host country due to a lack of credit

history.

Interestingly, it is proven that banking on “unbankable” populations brings

significant returns for financial institutions. It can enhance economic activity in lower-income,

otherwise stagnant market sectors and reduce the newcomer’s dependency on government

This is based on preliminary findings from 34 in-depth interviews with Syrian, Iraqi and Afghan

refugees in Germany conducted by Swati Mehta, who is a fellow at the German Chancellor’s office,

Division of Economic and Social Affairs. The research is funded by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für

Internationale Zusammenarbeit.

Based on interviews conducted by Swati Mehta (see note 12).

272

financial assistance (Richardson, 2009). In a case study on Grameen Bank,

the bank appeared

to have a higher return on equity and a higher return on assets than leading American banks

(Haque & Harbin, 2009), with a profit of about US$16.5 million in 2016 alone (Grameen Bank,

2017). Therefore, supporting newcomer entrepreneurship has potential benefits, not only for

newcomers and the host country, but also for creditors of and investors in newcomer

businesses.

Recommendation 13: Incentivize banks to provide loans on favorable terms to newcomers

with higher leniency with respect to credit history.

Recommendation 14: Establish investment agencies, including angel groups and venture

capital firms, that support newcomer-owned businesses (such as R Ventures Foundation in

the Netherlands

Recommendation 15: Engage the private sector in financially sponsoring newcomer

entrepreneurs (by, for example, incorporating newcomer support in corporate social

responsibility programs).

Recommendation 16: Educate and raise awareness among investors and financial institutions

about the benefits of investing in newcomer businesses.

Recommendation 17: Provide financial subsidies for physical business space rental to

newcomer entrepreneurs (for example, the Migration Hub Network

provides free office

space for newcomer entrepreneurs in Berlin and Heidelberg).

Grameen Bank is a microcredit institute founded by Nobel-prize winner and Bangladeshi social

entrepreneur Muhammad Yunus. It caters to low-income borrowers, mostly women, looking to start

or sustain small businesses.

Canada’s Royal Bank, for example, already provides newcomers with loans to buy a home or a car

without the need for credit history (see www.rbc.com/newcomers/refugee/index.html). Such programs

could be extended to business start-up loans.

Please visit http://rventuresfoundation.org/ for more information.

See www.migrationhub.network/.

273

The Case of the Tent Foundation: A Presidential Call to Action Mobilizes Corporate America

In June 2016, Barack Obama’s White House announced a call to action for the American private sector,

urging US companies to join the government’s efforts in mitigating the global refugee crisis by

supporting newcomers in first-receiver as well as resettlement countries around the world (The White

House, 2016a). In response, the Tent Foundation was formed as a coalition of 51 US companies that

made a commitment of US$650 million for newcomer support, including enhancing economic

integration and financial inclusion of over 4 million newcomers worldwide (The White House,

2016b).

Today, “Impact Investment” is a key pillar of the Tent Foundation, through which

corporations invest directly into newcomer-owned small and medium enterprises to enhance

newcomer entrepreneurship.

For example, the Alight Fund, one of the companies supported

by Tent, is a founding partner of the World Refugee Fund, the world’s first global

microfinance fund dedicated to newcomer entrepreneurs, which has so far supported more

than 6,000 newcomer entrepreneurs with over US$5 million in loans.

7.3.3. Human Capital

Starting life in a new place could pose difficulties even to the best-prepared voluntary

migrants. However, being forcibly displaced leaves individuals even less time and capacity

to prepare, particularly when they do not know where they will end up or how long they will

remain displaced.

7.3.3.1. Lack of Knowledge and Skills

Lack of knowledge, whether it is of culture and social norms, laws and regulations, rights and

responsibilities, market structure and need, often exacerbated by a language barrier, is a

challenge for newcomers, not least the entrepreneurial ones. This is seen across multiple

contexts — from refugees in the Finnish Arctic (Yeasmin, 2016) to Latinos in busy American

See www.tent.org/our-work/impact-investment/.

See www.alightfund.com/about.

274

cities (Z. K. Moon et al., 2014). What is more, aspiring newcomer entrepreneurs may also lack

the technical know-how of the business start-up process, or their management skills may not

be applicable in the new market (Ghadamosi, 2015; Z. K. Moon et al., 2014; Wauters &

Lambrecht, 2008). Training and counselling programs could be key in addressing this

challenge.

Recommendation 18: Provide capacity building and information to entrepreneurial

newcomers by establishing training programs and centers offering expert training,

counselling and mentorship on entrepreneurship.

7.3.3.2. Lack of Success of Support Initiatives

The limited success of the few support initiatives that do exist is another factor contributing

to newcomers’ lack of human capital and information they need to successfully start a

business. Lack of proper communication appears to be a reason why many newcomers seem

to be unaware of available support, leaving support groups struggling to find newcomers that

could benefit from their services (Rath & Swagerman, 2016). This miscommunication could

be due to ineffective marketing and outreach, done, perhaps, in a language the newcomer

could not understand or through using ineffective marketing channels that do not reach

newcomers. It is also possible that several programs are designed in ways that impose specific

agendas, strategies and frameworks on the beneficiaries, with little regard to what they

actually want and need (Easterly, 2002). Therefore, it is important to design support programs

that align with the needs of newcomers and deliver them via accessible channels.

In addition, several education and training programs follow traditional, theoretical

approaches that do not concentrate on the practical knowledge needed for starting a business;

hence, the method of information delivery is important to consider.

In particular, when

seeking to encourage newcomers to start innovative businesses, traditional training

approaches may not align with the desired change and creativity that the training aims to

John Dewey (1938) classifies education as “traditional” versus “progressive,” where traditional

education involves knowledge transmission from a teacher to students in a standardized manner. In

this sense, traditional education positions students to be passive recipients of knowledge that is

influenced by cultural heritage, while progressive education considers each learner’s capacities and

interests and focuses on individual learning-by-doing.

275

achieve. More progressive approaches that focus on experiential learning, critical thinking

and reflection are needed (Dewey, 1938; McGuigan, 2016).

Recommendation 19: Conduct careful assessments of newcomer needs before and

throughout the design and implementation of support programs via the engagement of

newcomers from various age groups, skill levels, nationalities and legal statuses in program

design and pilot stages.

Recommendation 20: Provide information to newcomers relevant to labor market

participation (general laws and regulations and support organizations’ contact information)

upon their entering or obtaining work permits in the host country.

Recommendation 21: Market and implement the programs in languages spoken by target

newcomers.

Recommendation 22: Establish innovative entrepreneurship education initiatives that allow

newcomer entrepreneurs to develop skills and knowledge experientially with the guidance of

experts, such as paid internships, fellowships or apprenticeships in entrepreneurial firms, and

business idea or case competitions.

The Case of Five One Labs: Bringing Arab and Kurdish Youth Together through

Entrepreneurship Education and Training

The autonomous region of Kurdistan in the north of Iraq has become a “safe haven” for more than two

million refugees and internally displaced persons from Iraq and Syria, including many from minority

groups fleeing the Islamic State militant group (ISIS), making their percentage about 28 percent of the

total population (Mustafa & Hagglund, 2017). Realizing the importance of innovative

entrepreneurship for all groups involved, Five One Labs was founded to enhance start-up creation in

the area.

The organization trains aspiring entrepreneurs, both locals and newcomers, in six-month-long

programs concentrated on design thinking and lean start-up methodology, and also offers

shorter-term evening programs, programs for women, online trainings and networking

276

events with services in Arabic, Kurdish and English.

Aspiring entrepreneurs are trained in

business skills and leadership and receive personalized mentorship throughout their business

plan writing and company initiation processes.

In less than one year, the program reached more than 1,000 aspiring entrepreneurs, and 100

percent of training recipients said, when surveyed, that the incubator helped them take the

steps necessary to launch their business, according to organization co-founder Patricia Letayf.

Among the newly launched companies are Tech Teens, a coding school for children founded

by Fatima Mohammad from Basra, and Software You Need, a company providing software

solutions designed to increase business operational efficiency in Iraq, founded by Ali Alrawi,

who fled Ramadi due to ISIS occupation.

7.3.4. Social Networks

7.3.4.1. Lack of Connections

Building social relationships is critical for entrepreneurial success, as they enable individuals

to obtain information on market opportunities and to access support and resources needed by

entrepreneurs during the start-up process (Abou-Moghli & Al-Kasasbeh, 2012). These

connections can be particularly important for aspiring migrant entrepreneurs because they

often lack knowledge about their new environment and have a higher need for start-up

support. For instance, a study on Chinese entrepreneurs in Australia showed that skilled

migrants relocating on the grounds of personal opportunity and unskilled migrants relocating

on humanitarian grounds both tend to leverage the immigrant Chinese community to support

their business start-up process (Y. Wang & Warn, 2018).

For newcomers, settling in a host country without a history of migration from their particular

community, as well as having to travel without prior planning due to an emergency situation,

could mean they have greater difficulty than other migrants in establishing these critical

connections and social networks in the new country (Wauters & Lambrecht, 2008). Business

associations and networks formed by migrants and newcomers, such as the Syrian

International Business Association and Honduras Global, as well as by host community

members, such as The Entrepreneurial Refugee Network (TERN) in the United Kingdom and

See https://fiveonelabs.org/.

277

Start-Up Your Future in Germany, can help mitigate this issue through connecting newcomer

entrepreneurs with each other and local entrepreneurs, hence facilitating network formation.

In addition, newcomers often rely on social media and digital tools to establish, maintain and

expand their social networks (Alencar, 2018; UNHCR, 2016). Initiatives such as Refugee

Phones have been started, collecting smartphones and chargers for refugees in Europe as a

response,

as well as the World Food Programme’s effort to provide Wi-Fi in the Domiz

Syrian refugee camp in Northern Iraq (WFP, 2016).

Recommendation 23: Establish professional networks connecting newcomer business owners

with each other and local business owners from similar industries.

Recommendation 24: Support the provision of smartphones and internet connectivity to

newcomers in urban, rural and camp areas.

7.3.5. Societal Environment

7.3.5.1. Discrimination

Upon coming into office, US President Donald Trump proposed a permanent ban on Syrian

refugees, except for Christian minorities, and a temporary suspension of the US refugee

program (The White House, 2017). In Lebanon, 45 towns imposed a curfew that makes it

punishable by law for a Syrian or Palestinian to step in the streets in the evening (HRW, 2014).

Meanwhile, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) far-right political party proposed complete

bans on family reunification for refugees with “subsidiary protection”(B. Knight, 2018). These

are only a few examples of the discrimination newcomers face due to ethnicity, origin, religion

or status. Fleeing violence and conflict only to be faced with racism and discrimination during

the refugee/displacement journey hardly makes it easier for newcomers to integrate into a

new country and rebuild their lives in peace, and the entrepreneurial ones are no exception.

Not only is discrimination a factor that potentially deters newcomer entrepreneurs from

establishing their customer base and expanding business operations, but it could also possibly

further hinder a newcomer’s access to finance. In Sweden, for instance, it appears that

favorable financial conditions for newcomer entrepreneurs seem to be prevalent where a

To learn more about these initiatives, please visit www.siba.world/, http://hondurasglobal.org,

www.wearetern.org/, www.startupyourfuture.de/en/about-us/, and www.refugeephones.co.uk/.

278

higher ethnic representation of their own minority is present in the banking sector in a specific

area (Eliasson, 2014). Discrimination could furthermore be a reason why some newcomers

remain in their own community circles and do not engage with the host community

(Ghadamosi, 2015). In addition, it could be a key factor explaining why even some of the more

educated and experienced newcomer entrepreneurs are hindered from engaging in cognitive-

cultural activities and resort to entrepreneurship that does not match their human capital level

(R. C. Kloosterman et al., 2016), pushing them to operate in markets where earnings tend to

be low and work hours long and difficult (Rath & Swagerman, 2016). Moreover,

discrimination could reduce the newcomer’s trust in the host community and system, pushing

the newcomer to be reluctant in asking for support when needed (Eraydin et al., 2010; Wauters

& Lambrecht, 2008).

Unfortunately, change in racist or discriminatory mindsets does not happen overnight.

However, implementation of institutionalized measures to overcome discrimination at the

individual, group and country levels is one step toward this change.

Recommendation 25: Incentivize employers to hire qualified newcomers.

Recommendation 26: Incentivize employers to train and provide internships for less qualified

newcomers or for those with no accredited qualifications to enhance their chances of entering

the labor market (such as Germany’s Deutsche Bank’s Introductory Program for Refugees).

Recommendation 27: Provide cross-cultural training and orientation for employers to

enhance their understanding and acceptance of newcomers/newcomer employees.

Recommendation 28: Mobilize local community leaders and educational institutes to educate

and raise awareness among locals about newcomers, their stories and the benefits of

integration.

Recommendation 29: Engage newcomers in community organizations and educational

institutes to take part in processes and activities that aim to provide newcomer support.

Please visit www.db.com/careers/en/grad/role-search/banking-introductory-programme-for-

refugees.html for more information.

279

Recommendation 30: Engage integrated newcomers to support more recently arrived

newcomers throughout their integration process, to enhance their trust in the new system and

to empower them to ask for support.

Recommendation 31: Incentivize civil society organizations to organize social and

professional events in which newcomers and locals exchange ideas, stories, knowledge and

skills.

The Case of Nawaya Network’s Generation of Innovation Leaders: Social Cohesion through

Social Innovation

At least 13 Lebanese municipalities and the Lebanese army have, together, forcibly evicted a minimum

of 11,000 Syrians from their homes, it is suspected due to their nationality or religion, with another

57,000 refugees at risk of eviction (HRW, 2018). As well, Palestinian refugees in Lebanon are deprived

of many of their basic human rights, including the right to work in up to 20 different professions, as are

Lebanon-born individuals from Palestinian parents; further, these individuals are refused the right to

own immovable property or given access to basic services such as education and health care.

Realizing those challenges facing the country with the world’s largest refugee-per-capita

number, the Nawaya Network, a Lebanese non-profit, initiated the Nawaya Impact Lab.

This

initiative trains Syrian and Palestinian, as well as Lebanese, youth from low-income

backgrounds in business development and innovative thinking, while providing them with

seed funding to start profitable companies that creatively tackle social problems. The program

not only supports aspiring entrepreneurs with funds and knowledge to start businesses, but

also enhances social cohesion by fostering collaboration and conversation between locals and

newcomers through cooperative problem solving.

Such companies include Zakhrafiyat,, which upcycles waste materials, such as tires and wood,

into calligraphic artwork; Karrousa, a theatre production company with a cast of newcomers

and locals aiming to raise awareness on social issues through drama; Tanmya, an educational

See (Chaaban et al., 2010); see also www.unrwa.org/where-we-work/lebanon.

See www.nawaya.org/impact-lab.

280

camp for children in refugee camps, with the goal of increasing their school retention rates;

and Wasel, a web platform that connects restaurants with refugee delivery drivers on

demand. As of 2017, the program trained 2,566 youth and incubated 353 small social

enterprises, of which 65 percent successfully launched, while US$20,000 in revenues have

been generated from the supported businesses (The Nawaya Network, 2017).

7.4. Conclusion

With rising rates of forced displacement globally and millions of displaced people remaining

in receiving countries for several years with no expectation of return, labor market

participation is vital in mitigating the resulting challenges to both displaced populations and

their hosts. Beyond being a source of wage earning, the establishment of new businesses by

newcomers is a key means of facilitating economic integration.

However, starting a business as a newcomer is not easy. Challenges pertaining to market

opportunities, access to entrepreneurship, human capital, social networks and the social

environment face newcomer entrepreneurs globally. Solutions to ease the obstacles facing

aspiring newcomer entrepreneurs need to be effectively designed and implemented. Figure

9-1 summarizes the challenges and the 31 recommendations presented in this paper.

Figure 7-1: Summary of Challenges of and Recommended Solutions for Newcomer Entrepreneurship.

282

Nevertheless, implementing effective solutions is not possible without further research in the

field, especially research that focuses on different scenarios and contexts of newcomer

entrepreneurship. Newcomer entrepreneurs come from a variety of countries, cultures and

educational backgrounds and speak many different languages. They can be any age or gender,

come from a developing or developed countries, and fall under many legal status categories.

Therefore, no universal solutions exist; solutions need to be customized carefully, based on

further research and analysis. Further analyses on newcomer entrepreneurship outside of

North America and Northern Europe; on newcomer entrepreneurship by gender; on

innovative versus replicative newcomer entrepreneurship; and on newcomer business

success and sustainability are needed.

Finally, those challenges cannot be mitigated without engaged and aware leaders who are

able and willing to set examples for local communities. Championing support and

empowerment programs and initiatives will enable transitioning away from framing

newcomers as helpless refugees to integrated, contributing members of their communities.

This shift in perspective is key in making positive change happen, and this paper hopes to

bring leaders one more step closer toward this goal.

283

7.5. References

Acs, Z. (2006). How Is Entrepreneurship Good for Economic Growth? Innovations:

Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1(1), 97–107.

Acs, Z., Desai, S., & Klapper, L. F. (2008). What Does ‘“Entrepreneurship”’ Data Really Show?

Small Business Economics, 31, 265–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-008-9137-7

Ahmed, T., Chandran, V. G. R., & Klobas, J. (2017). Specialized Entrepreneurship Education.

Does it Really Matter? Fresh Evidence from Pakistan. International Journal of Entrepreneurial

Behaviour & Research, 23(1), 4–19.

Baron, T., & Harima, A. (2019). The Role of Diaspora Entrepreneurs in Start-up Ecosystem

Development – a Berlin Case Study. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small

Business, 36(1/2), 74–102. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESB.2019.096968

Bird, B., Schjoedt, L., & Baum, J. R. (2012). Editor’s Introduction. Entrepreneurs’ Behavior:

Elucidation and Measurement. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(5), 889–913.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and

Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–258).

Brandstätter, H. (2011). Personality Aspects of Entrepreneurship: A Look at Five Meta-

Analyses. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 222–230.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.007

Chowdhury, F., Audretsch, D., & Belitski, M. (2019). Institutions and Entrepreneurship

Quality. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(1), 51–81.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258718780431

Cooray, A., & Potrafke, N. (2011). Gender Inequality in Education: Political Institutions or

Culture and Religion? European Journal of Political Economy, 27(2), 268–280.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2010.08.004

Davidsson, P., & Wiklund, J. (2001). Levels of Analysis in Entrepreneurship Research: Current

Research Practice and Suggestions for the Future. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 25(4),

81–100.

Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-Determination Theory in Work

Organizations: The State of a Science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and

Organizational Behavior, 4, 19–43.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human

Behavior. Plenum Publishing Co.

Ettl, K. (2010). Unternehmerinnen und Erfolg aus individueller und kontextueller Perspektive

(Vol. 4). Peter Lang GmbH.

284

Ettl, K., & Welter, F. (2010). Gender, Context and Entrepreneurial Learning. International

Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 108–129.

Fund for Peace. (2019). Global Data | Fragile States Index. https://fragilestatesindex.org/data/

Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Personality and Culture Revisited: Linking Traits and

Dimensions of Culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 38(1), 52–88.

Johnson, M. P., & Schaltegger, S. (2019). Entrepreneurship for Sustainable Development: A

Review and Multilevel Causal Mechanism Framework. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258719885368

Jones, M. V., Coviello, N., & Tang, Y. K. (2011). International Entrepreneurship research (1989–

2009). Journal of Business Venturing, 26(6), 632–659.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.04.001

Judge, T. A., & Zapata, C. P. (2014). The Person–Situation Debate Revisited: Effect of Situation

Strength and Trait Activation on the Validity of the Big Five Personality Traits in Predicting

Job Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1149–1179.

Low, M. B., & MacMillan, I. C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past Research and Future Challenges.

Journal of Management, 14(2), 139–161.

McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. (2005). Universal Features of Personality Traits From the

Observer’s Perspective: Data from 50 Cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

88(3), 547–561.

McMullen, J. S. (2011). Delineating the Domain of Development Entrepreneurship: A Market-

Based Approach to Facilitating Inclusive Economic Growth. Entrepreneurship Theory and

Practice, 35(1), 185–215.

Morrisson, C., & Jütting, J. P. (2005). Women’s Discrimination in Developing Countries: A

New Data Set for Better Policies. World Development, 33(7), 1065–1081.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.04.002

Muhammad, N., McElwee, G., & Dana, L.-P. (2017). Barriers to the Development and Progress

of Entrepreneurship in Rural Pakistan. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior &

Research, 23(2), 279–295. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-08-2016-0246

Musteen, M., Curran, R., Arroteia, N., Ripollés, M., & Blesa, A. (2018). A Community of

Practice Approach to Teaching International Entrepreneurship. Administrative Sciences, 8(4),

56. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci8040056

Naudé, W. (2007). Peace, Prosperity, and Pro-Growth Entrepreneurship. UNU-WIDER

Discussion Paper No. 2007/02.

285

Nishat, M., & Nadeem, T. (2016). Factors Explaining the Risk Attitude towards

Entrepreneurship in Pakistan: An Exploratory Analysis. The Pakistan Development Review,

55(4), 715–723.

Nye, B. D. (2015). Intelligent Tutoring Systems by and for the Developing World: A Review

of Trends and Approaches for Educational Technology in a Global Context. International

Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 25(2), 177–203.

OECD. (2016). States of Fragility 2016: Understanding Violence. OECD.

https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264267213-en

OECD. (2018). States of Fragility 2018: Highlights. Organisation for Economic Cooperation

and Development.

Pinker, S. (2019, June 21). One Thing to Change: Anecdotes aren’t Data. The Harvard Gazette.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/06/focal-point-harvard-professor-steven-

pinker-says-the-truth-lies-in-the-data/

Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007). Let’s Put the Person Back into Entrepreneurship Research: A

Meta-Analysis on the Relationship Between Business Owners’ Personality Traits, Business

Creation, and Success. European Journal of Work and Organizational, 16(4), 353–385.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic

Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

Sobel, R. S. (2008). Testing Baumol: Institutional Quality and the Productivity of

Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(6), 641–655.

Stewart, W. H., May, R. C., & Kalia, A. (2008). Environmental Perceptions and Scanning in the

United States and India: Convergence in Entrepreneurial Information Seeking?

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(1), 83–106.

Terjesen, S., Hessels, J., & Li, D. (2016). Comparative International Entrepreneurship: A

Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Management, 42(1), 299–344.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313486259

Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation Trait Relevance, Trait Expression, and Cross-

Situational Consistency: Testing a Principle of Trait Activation. Journal of Research in

Personality, 34, 397–423.

Tuwor, T., & Sossou, M.-A. (2008). Gender Discrimination and Education in West Africa:

Strategies for Maintaining Girls in School. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 12(4),

363–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110601183115

UNHCR. (2019a). Global Trends: Forced Displacement in 2018. United Nations Higher

Commissioner for Refugees.

286

UNHCR. (2019b, June). Figures at a Glance. UNHCR the UN Refugee Agency.

https://www.unhcr.org/figures-at-a-glance.html

Welter, F., Baker, T., Audretsch, D. B., & Gartner, W. B. (2017). Everyday Entrepreneurship—

A Call for Entrepreneurship Research to Embrace Entrepreneurial Diversity.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(3), 311–321.

Welter, F., & Smallbone, D. (2011). Institutional Perspectives on Entrepreneurial Behavior in

Challenging Environments. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 107–125.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2010.00317.x

Wiklund, J., Wright, M., & Zahra, S. A. (2019). Conquering Relevance: Entrepreneurship

Research’s Grand Challenge. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(3), 419–436.

Wood, E. J. (2006). The Ethical Challenges of Field Research in Conflict Zones. Qualitative

Sociology, 29(3), 373–386.

Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. (2006). The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Entrepreneurial

Status: A Meta-Analytical Review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 259–271.

287

8. Appendices

8.1. Questionnaire: Entrepreneurship Motivation (English Version)

So, you’re starting a new company! Great stuff – how about you tell us more about you?

What is the highest level of education you enrolled for?

High School

Technical

College/

Training

Bachelor’s

Degree

Master’s

Degree

Doctorate

Degree

Other (Please

Specify)

What is the highest educational degree you obtained?

High School

Technical

College/

Training

Bachelor’s

Degree

Master’s

Degree

Doctorate

Degree

Other (Please

Specify)

When did you first start working on your start-up idea?

> 5 years

ago

>4 - ≤5 years

ago

>3 - ≤4 years

ago

>2 - ≤3 years

ago

>1 - ≤2 years

ago

>6 - ≤12

months ago

≤6 months

ago

Please briefly describe the service or product your company provides

Please rate your agreement with the following statement:

My company offers a service or product that contributes positively to a social and/or

environmental cause

Disagree

strongly (1)

Disagree

moderately

(2)

Disagree a

little (3)

Neither

agree nor

disagree (4)

Agree a

little (5)

Agree

moderately

(6)

Agree

strongly (7)

Awesome! Now tell us why you’re doing what you’re doing in the first place!

Please rate your agreement with the following statements (from 1-7, as explained above):

I wanted to start a company...

… to improve my personal skills and knowledge

… because I am confident in my success as an entrepreneur

… to feel that I have accomplished something

… because I am passionate about my start-up idea and/or field of work

… to make the best use of my natural talent in this field

… because I am innovative and enjoy working with original concepts

… because I want to make a positive contribution to the lives of people that I care about

… to be my own boss and make money independently

… to have more control over my circumstances, decisions, and results of my work

… to have a flexible schedule and better manage my time

… because I naturally like to take risks and try new things

… because failure does not scare me and I can handle difficult situations well

… because I felt that my previous job became too easy and comfortable

288

… because I was encouraged by benefits such as tax cuts and easy bureaucratic procedures

… because I was encouraged by the legal and ethical work laws and structures (or lack of them)

… because I was motivated by the general education level in my place of residence

… because I was motivated by the availability of general entrepreneurship training opportunities

in my city/country of residence

… because I was motivated by the availability of entrepreneurship training opportunities provided

specifically to my community (for e.g. from refugee support organizations)

… because I personally received entrepreneurship training and/or education that motivated me to

do so

… because by my formal education motivated me to do so

… because my past formal employment experience motivated me to do so

… because I have experience with starting companies

… because of the safety situation (or lack of it) in my current location

… because I feel discriminated against, or unaccepted in the society and/or job market

… because entrepreneurship is so common in my culture and heritage

… because I am currently in a country/city where entrepreneurship seems common and trendy

… because I can access extended social and professional contacts who can help advise and support

me to start or run the business

… because it is common in my circle of friends, family members, or acquaintances to do so

… because I have friends, family members, or acquaintances who can help advise and support me

to start or run the business

… because of certain values and social obligations within my community

… because I was driven by my morals and/or (spiritual, religious, humanitarian) values

… to feel accepted in my social circle and gain respect and higher status

… to continue my family tradition

… as I was influenced by someone important to me, who succeeded as an entrepreneur

… because of the economic stability (or lack of it) where I live

… because it is easy to access funds in my country of residence (for e.g. through banks)

… because it is easy to expand my company abroad and work internationally

… because there is a growing demand for companies that provide my service/product in the

country/city where I live

… to provide a product or service needed specifically by my community

… because I can secure funds from my friends, family, or acquaintances

… because I wanted to make use of my personal savings and financial resources

… because I see a good opportunity of financial gain with my new company

… because I was not able to get a job position that I’m happy with

… to provide support that my family needs

… because I experienced financial difficulties in the past

And finally…

289

Anything else you want to say about what drives you to start a company?

Ok, now “finally” for real!

Do we have your permission to contact you in the future for follow up?

Yes

If you answered yes to the question above, please provide the following information:

First name/last name

Email address

What is your gender?

Female

Male

Other

Prefer not to Answer

When is your birthday

What is your nationality?

What city do you currently live in?

When did you start living in your current country of residence?

>10 years

ago, and

I’m born in

the country

>10 years

ago, but I’m

not born in

the country

>5 - ≤10

years ago

>3 - ≤5 years

ago

>1 - ≤3 years

ago

>6 - ≤12

months ago

≤6 months

ago

How did you come across this questionnaire? (please list all sources)

Anything else you want to tell us?

Thanks so much for participating! You are wonderful!

290

8.2. Questionnaire: Entrepreneurship Motivation (Arabic Version)

بغرت تنأف اذإنأب ؟كسفن نع ًلايلق انربخت نأب كيأر ام !عئار !لامعأ دئار حبصت

ام يه ؟اهب قاحتللإاب تمق ةيميلعت ةلحرم ىلعأ

ىجري( ىرخأ

)ديدحتلا

هاروتكد ةداهش

شه ةدا

ريتسجام

ةداهش

سويرولاكب

ةداهش

ةينقت/ةينهم

ةيوناث ةداهش

ام يه ؟اهيلع تلصح ةيميلعت ةجرد ىلعأ

ىجري( ىرخأ

)ديدحتلا

هاروتكد ةداهش

ةداهش

ريتسجام

ةداهش

سويرولاكب

ةداهش

ةينقت/ةينهم

ةيوناث ةداهش

ةركف ىلع لمعلاب تأدب ىتم ءاشنإ كتكرش ةيلاحلا ؟

ذنم نم رثكأ

٥ نينس

ذنم نم رثكأ

٤ و نينس٥

وأ نينس

لقأ

ذنم نم رثكأ

٣ و نينس٤

لقأوأ نينس

ذنم نم رثكأ

و نيتنس٣

وأ نينس

لقأ

ذنم رثكأ نم

و ةنس نيتنس

لقأ وأ

ذنم رثكأ نم٦

روهش ةنسو

لقأ وأ

ذنم٦ رهشأ

لقأ وأ

همدقت يذلا ةمدخلا وأ جتنملا حرش ىجري/راصتخإب كتكرش اهمدقت يتلا

:ةيلاتلا ةلمجلا عم كتقفاوم ىدم ريدقت ىجري

و/وأ يعامتجلاا ىوتسملا ىلع يباجيا ريثأت اهل/هل ةمدخ وأ جتنم مدقت يتكرش

يئيبلا

قفاومةدشب

(7)

قفاوم

لادتعإب (6)

قفاوم

اليلق

(5)

وأ ضراعأ لا

أقفاو (4)

قفاوم ريغ

اليلق (3)

قفاوم ريغ

لادتعإب (2)

قفاوم ريغ

ةدشب (1)

يتلا بابسلاا نع انثدحت لا مل !ميظع؟هلعفت امب مايقلاب كعفدت

ةيلاتلا بابسلأا ىلع ةقفاوملا ىدم ريدقت ىجري (7-1 نم هلاعأ سايقملا بسح):

ةكرش ءاشنإ ديرأ...

...لةيصخشلا يتراهمو يتامولعم ريوطت

...لأ لامعأ دئارك حاجنلا ىلع يتردق نم قثاو ينن

...لننا رعشأ يك ءيش تققح يام

… رعشا يننلأ يتكرش فادهاو يلمع لاجم هاجت سامحلاب

… يكلأف دينم لاجملا اذه يف ةيعيبطلا يتبهوم

…ةديدج راكفلأا عم لمعلا بحأو قلخ صخش يننلأ

…ايباجيإ رثؤأ يكل يل ةبسنلاب نيمهم صاخشأ ةايح يف

…ةيللقتساب شيعلا بسكاو يتاذ ريدم حبصأ يكل

…نوكت يكل طيس يدل ىلع ربكأ ةر يلمع جئاتنو يتارارق ،يفورظ

…ل

ااميظنت لضفأ و ةنورم رثكأ يتقو نوكي يك

… ةديدجلا ءايشلأا ةبرجتو ةرطاخملا بحأ يتعيبطب يننلأ

…ديج لكشب تابوعصلا عم لماعتلل يتردقب مستأو لشفلا نم فاخأ لا يننلأ

…ةحارلا و ةلوهسلا ةياغ يف حبصأ قباسلا يلمع نلأ

… دوجول( كلذ ىلع ينتعجش تلايهست:لثم )ةيطارقوريبلاو ةيتلاماعملا تلايهستلاو ةيبيرضلا ايازملا

291

…كلذ ىلع ينتعجش لمعلا صخت يتلا تايقلخلأاو ةمظنلااو نيناوقلا نلأ

…كلذ ىلع ينعجش ينكس دلب/ةنيدم يف يميلعتلا ىوتسملا نلأ

…يرب ةصصختملا ةماعلا ةيبيردتلا صرفلارفوتلمعلأا ةداينكس دلب/ةنيدم يف لا

… نع ،الثم( صاخ لكشب يعمتجم فدهتست يتلا لامعلأا ةدايرب ةصاخلا ةيبيردتلا صرفلارفوتل

)نيئجللا معد تايعمج قيرط

… لامعلأا ةداير يف بيردت ىلع اايصخش تلصح ينلأ

…كلذ ىلع ينعجش يمسرلا يميلعت نلأ

… ينتعجش ةقباسلا ةيفيظولا يتربخ نلأ ىلعكلذ

… تاكرشلا ءاشنإ يف ةربخ يدل نلأ

…يلاحلا ينكس دلب/ةنيدم يف )هدوجو مدع وأ( ينملأا رارقتسلاا ببسب

…لمعلا قوس و/وأ عمتجملا يف يلبقت مدعوأ يدض زييمتلاب رعشأ يننلأ

…يثارتو يتفاقث يف اادج ةرشتنم لامعلأا ةداير نلأ

…هيف ودبت ةنيدم/دلب يف نلآا نكسأ يننلأكف اةعئاش و ةرشتنم لامعلأا ةداير ةر

… معدلاو تاروشملا ميدقت اهنكمي ،ةدتمم ةيفارتحاو ةيعامتجا تاكبش عم لصاوتلل ةقيرط يدل نلأ

ءاشنلإ ينمزلي يذلا ةرادإو يتكرش

…يفراعم وأ يئاقدصا ،يتلئاع نيب ةعئاش لامعلأا ةداير نلأ

…فراعم وأ ءاقدصا ،ةلئاع يدل هنلأ مهنكميدقت مي ينمزلي يذلا معدلاو تاروشملا

ءاشنلإ ةرادإو يتكرش

… ببسبةيعامتجلاا تامازتللااو ميقلا يعمتجم نمض

…)ةيناسنإ وأ ةيناحور وأ ةينيد ،الثم( ةيصخشلا يئدابمو يميق ببسب

… ةقومرم ةيعامتجا ةناكم لينو يعامتجلإا لبقتلاو مارتحلإاب رعشأ يكل

…يتلئاع ديلقتب رارمتسلإل

…لامعأ دئارك ينمهي صخش حاجنب ترثأت يننلأ

…يلاحلا ينكس دلب/ةنيدم يف )هدوجو مدع وأ( يداصتقلإا رارقتسلإا ببسب

… ليومتلا الثم( ليومتلا ىلع لوصحلا ةلوهسل)يكنبلا ينكس دلب /ةنيدم يف يلاحلا

… لمعلاو اايملاع يتكرش عيسوت ةلوهسليلود لكشب

… ديازتملا بلطلا ببسبأ جتنملا مدقت تاكرشل يتلا ةمدخلا و اهمدقأينكس ةنيدم/دلب يف يلاحلا

…صاخ لكشب يعمتجم اهجاتحي/ هجاتحي ةمدخ وأ جتنم ميدقتل

… نيمأت يننكمي يننلأ يفراعم وأ يتاقدصأ ،يتلئاع نم ليومتلا

…ةيصخشلا ةيداملا يرداصمو يتارخدم نم ةدافتسلإل

… حبرلل ةديج ةصرف ىرأ يننلأةديدجلا يتكرش عم يداملا

… يندعست ةفيظو ىلع لوصحلا نم نكمتا مل يننلا

…يترسأ هجاتحت يذلا يداملا معدلا ريفوتل

…لا تابوعصلا عم ةفباسلا يتبرجت ببسب يضاملا يف ةيدام

ًاريخأو..

؟ةكرش ءاشنلإ كعفاود صوصخب رخأ ءيش يأ انرابخإب بغرت له

292

لعفلاب ًاريخأ ،نلآاو!

؟لبقتسملا يف كعم لصاوتن نأب ةبغرلا كيدل له

لا

معن

ةيلاتلا تامولعملا ريفوت ىجري ،هلاعأ "معن" كباوج ناك اذإ:

ينورتكللأا ديربلا

مسلإاةلئاعلا مسإ/لولأا

؟كسنج ام

ةباجلإا مدع لضفأ

ىرخأ

ركذ

ىثنأ

؟كرمع مك

؟كتيسنج يه ام

ت ةنيدم يأ يف؟ًايلاح نكس

شيعلاب تأدب ىتم ؟يلاحلا كنكس دلب يف

نم رثكأ ذنم

١٠ انأ و ،نينس

اذه يف دولوم

دلبلا

نم رثكأ ذنم

١٠ ،نينس

مل يننكلو نكأ

اذه يف ًادولوم

دلبلا

نم رثكأ ذنم٥

و نينس١٠

لقأ وأ نينس

ذنم نم رثكأ

٣ و نينس٥

لقأوأ نينس

ذنم رثكأ نم

ةنس و ٣

وأ نينس

قأل

ذنم رثكأ نم٦

روهش ةنسو

لقأ وأ

ذنم٦ رهشأ

لقأ وأ

نايبتسلإا اذه ىلع تلصح ةهج يأ نم؟ )رداصملا عيمج ركذ ىجري(

بغرت له ؟رخآ ءيش يأب انرابخإب

ةكراشملا ىلع ًلايزج ًاركش!

293

8.3. Questionnaire: Personality, Behavior and New Venture Success

Before we begin, please name the main entity (co-working space, incubator, accelerator,

non-profit, venture capital firm, etc.) that you are affiliated with - the one through which

you got this questionnaire:

Hello and welcome! Let's start by learning more about your business

What's the name of your company?

Please briefly describe your product or service

Do you consider your company a social business?

Yes

Is your business a not-for-profit organization?

Yes

Do you consider your start-up a technology-based company?

Yes

Which of those statements best describes you?

I started actively

working on setting up

my own business

within the last 12

months, though I

haven't yet paid any

salaries or wages

I started actively

working on setting up

my own business

within the last 12

months, and I have

started paying salaries

or wages less than 3

months ago

I am currently

managing/co-

managing my own

business and I have

been paying salaries or

wages for 3 - 42

months (3 months - 3.5

years)

I am currently

managing/co-

managing my own

business and I have

already been paying

salaries or wages for

more than 42 months

(3.5 years)

Compared to other enterprises in your branch how successful you are?

1 = Strongly

successful

2 =

Moderately

successful

3 = A little

successful

4 = Not

successful

5= A little

less

successful

6 =

Moderately

less

successful

7 = Strongly

less

successful

What is roughly your turnover? (in US$)

What has been your total sales growth over the past four years?

Under 5%

5% to 9%

10% to 19%

20%-34%

35% to 50%

More than

50%

Not

Applicable

How many employees in FTE (Full Time Equivalent) do you have?

How many rounds of investment by venture investors have you received?

294

What is your local market share? (%)

What is your global market share? (%)

In how many countries is your business active?

Do you have any comments about this section?

Great! Now let's learn a bit more about how you run your business!

Starting and running a business requires a number of activities, but these activities are not

necessarily equally important. Using a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 = Almost Never and 7 =

Almost Always, please indicate how frequently you engage in each of the following

activities. Please rate yourself from the perspective of a trusted advisor who is providing

you with constructive feedback:

Develops and maintains an effective marketing plan

Regularly keeps track of the business’s financial position

Perseveres in spite of business setbacks

Demonstrates the financial management skills needed to effectively run the business

Covers off his/her weaknesses by acquiring people with complementary skill sets

Expands the business by identifying new markets for products/services

Maintains low levels of overhead

Maintains decision-making control of the business

Delivers exemplary service by exceeding customer expectations

Takes calculated risks when appropriate business opportunity arises

Acquires the necessary equipment to produce a quality product/service

Does not spend excessive amounts of company resources on luxury and personal items

Readily adapts to changing environment

Negotiates deal closures

Has necessary industry knowledge prior to starting business

Is physically present and assumes responsibility for day-to-day management of the business

Possesses general business knowledge

Is honest in dealing with key stakeholders

Remains focused on core business

Meets customer’s expectations

Maintains a debt level that the business can manage

Communicates regularly with employee base

Has relevant education for chosen business

Starts small and gradually grows the business

Keeps focused on key business priorities

295

Demonstrates a conviction that the business will succeed

Develops products/services to match market needs

Has a clear vision of where the business is going

Proactively and aggressively sells products/services

Advertises and promotes products/services

Seeks advice from experts

Sets goals for the business

Acquires sufficient capital prior to business start-up

Builds effective relationships with customers

Identifies a suitable market niche that can sustain the business

Treats employees fairly

Conducts adequate market research prior to business start-up

Builds relationships to facilitate business venture

Takes advice from others

Does whatever it takes to get the job done

Avoids over-reliance on one or two customers

Ensures a high-quality product/service

Devotes long hours to the business

Adapts services/products to changing market needs

Establishes credibility at the upstart of the business

Acquires people with the competencies needed for the business

Motivates oneself

Anything else you want to tell us regarding this section?

After learning more about your business and how you run it, let's gain a bit of knowledge about

your personality

Here are a number of personality traits that may or may not apply to you. Please choose a

number corresponding to each statement to indicate the extent to which you agree or

disagree with that statement (from 1-7, where 1 = Almost Never and 7 = Almost Always).

You should rate the extent to which the pair of traits applies to you, even if one

characteristic applies more strongly than the other.

I see myself as:

_____ Extraverted, enthusiastic.

_____ Critical, quarrelsome.

_____ Dependable, self-disciplined.

_____ Anxious, easily upset.

_____ Open to new experiences, complex.

_____ Reserved, quiet.

_____ Sympathetic, warm.

296

_____ Disorganized, careless.

_____ Calm, emotionally stable.

_____ Conventional, uncreative.

Now to the last part: Let's get to know YOU at a more general level

What is the highest educational degree you obtained?

High School

Technical

College/

Training

Bachelor’s

Degree

Master’s

Degree

Doctorate

Degree

Other (Please

Specify)

What is your gender?

Female

Male

I prefer not to answer

How old are you?

<25

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-54

55-59

60-64

>64

What is your nationality?

Which country do you currently live in?

Are you located in an urban or a rural area?

Urban

Rural

Other (Please Specify)

Are you born in the country where you currently live?

Yes

Have you been living in your current country of residence for more than 5 years?

Yes

Anything else you want to tell us?

Would you like to provide us your name and contact information for future follow-up

(such as knowing the results of the study)?

Name:

Email Address:

That is it! Thank you so much for your time and effort!

297

9. Curriculum Vitae

Lubna Rashid

lubna.rashid@campus.tu-berlin.de ● lubna@silkborders.org

Doctoral Degree in Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management

M.Sc. in Health Systems

Certificate in Management of Technology

B.Sc. in Biotechnology und Genetic Engineering

Education

Technische Universität Berlin

Doctoral candidate at the Chair of Entrepreneurship and

Innovation Management, Faculty of Economics and Management

(In collaboration with the School of Entrepreneurship at the

Norwegian University of Science and Technology)

Thesis title: Towards Successful Entrepreneurial Outcomes Amidst

Extreme Fragility – A Human Capital Perspective.

Dec. 2016 – May. 2020

Berlin, Germany

Georgia Institute of Technology

M.Sc. in Health Systems, School of Industrial Engineering,

GPA = 3.7/4.0 (American), 1.5 (German)

Program focus: The development and application of optimization

strategies and managerial methods for health system enhancement.

Aug. 2011 – Dec. 2012

Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Georgia Institute of Technology

Certificate in Management of Technology

Program focus: The implementation and integration of

technological innovation in workplaces.

Aug. 2011 – Dec. 2012

Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Jordan University for Science and Technology

B.Sc. in Biotechnology und Genetic Engineering, School of Biology,

GPA = 3.9/4.0 (American), 1.1 (German)

Program focus: Foundations of molecular biology and genetics.

Sep. 2006 – Apr. 2010

Irbid, Jordan

Practical Experience

Soulincubator Project Manager at soulbottles

• Management of end-to-end project activities of the startup

incubator focusing on supporting entrepreneurs to develop

environmentally sustainable products and services.

Jan. 2020 – Jun. 2020

Berlin, Germany

Startup Mentor at the Venture Campus Program of TU Berlin

• Support of startup teams in the development of business ideas

and plans with focus on sustainability.

Apr. 2018 – Present

Berlin, Germany

Strategy Consultant at MIDMAR

• Development of education, civil society development and

economic integration programs for youth in various Syrian cities.

Aug. 2017 – Dec. 2017

Berlin, Germany

Beirut, Lebanon

298

Customer Success Manager at Band Industries

• Management of customer support and relations activities at the

tactical and strategic level

Jun. 2016-May. 2017

Beirut, Lebanon

SE Factory Program Coordinator at The Nawaya Network

• Management and organization of various aspects of the coding

bootcamp.

Jun. 2016 – Dec. 2016

Beirut, Lebanon

Communications Officer at the UOSSM

• Strategy design and development in the area of public and donor

relations and internal work process optimization.

Dec. 2015 – Apr. 2016

Gaziantep, Turkey

Operations and Change Management Consultant at Accenture

• Process mapping and optimization, change management and

technology integration project management for clients in the high-

tech, healthcare, pharmaceutical and manufacturing industries.

May. 2013 – Aug. 2015

Seattle, Washington, USA

Research Assistant at The Georgia Institute of Technology

• Research on ambulatory hospital process optimization and

genetic-environmental interactions.

May. 2010 – Dec. 2012

Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Additional Volunteer Experience

Freelance Consultant for Social and Volunteer Initiatives

Dec. 2015 – Dec. 2016

Various

Founder of Initiative Silk Borders

Aug. 2015 – Dec. 2016

Croatia, Slovenia, Germany

Startup Mentor at Accenture Development Partnerships

Jul. 2014 – Jan. 2015

Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Hotline Advocate at Dekalb Rape Crisis Center

Sep. 2010 – Jul. 2011

Decatur, Georgia, USA

Appearances as Keynote Speaker

• Hello Diversity Conference (Berlin, June 2019).

• EMEN Financing Solutions for Migrant Entrepreneurs Conference (The Hague, June 2019).

• LOK.A.Motion Refugee Entrepreneurship Forum (Berlin, October 2018).

• World Cities 2 Conference (Toronto, September 2018).

• World Refugee Council Berlin Meeting (Berlin, November 2017).

• TEDx@TUBerlin (Berlin, June 2017).

Academic Research

An Eclectic Analysis of Syrian Entrepreneurship Motivation in Conflict and Refuge.

Solo Author, accepted by the “International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business”, January 2020.

Founder Personalities, Behaviors and New Venture Success in Sub-Saharan Africa.

First Author, published in “Technological Forecasting and Social Change“, December 2019.

299

Entrepreneurship Education and Sustainable Development Goals: A literature Review and a

Closer Look at Fragile States and Technology-Enabled Approaches.

Solo Author, published in “Sustainability”, September 2019.

Cross-Country Differences in Entrepreneurial Internationalization Tendencies: Evidence from

Germany and Pakistan.

Second Author, published in “Administrative Sciences”, July 2019.

“Call Me a Business Owner, Not a Refugee!”: Challenges of and Perspectives on Newcomer

Entrepreneurship.

Solo Author, published as Working Paper by the World Refugee Council, December 2018.

Systems Genomics of Metabolic Phenotypes in Wild-Type Drosophila melanogaster.

Second Author, published in “Genetics“, April 2014.

Other

Languages: Arabic (C2), English (C2), German (C1), Spanish (B1).

Birth Date: 03. December. 1988.

Nationalities: USA, Iraq.

Interests: Science, Sustainability, Technology, Dance, Psychology, Politics, Music, Philosophy.