Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6, 1944-1970 2024 Publisher: Learning Gate DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2364 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate * Correspondence: cristino_gusmao@unpaz.tl Unlocking pathways to public welfare: Bridging Sen’s capability and theory of planned behavior approaches through entrepreneurial behavior in Timor- Leste Cristino Gusmao1*, Mulyanto Nugroho2, Slamet Riyadi3 1University da Paz, Timor-Leste; cristino_gusmao@unpaz.tl (C.G.) 2,3Faulty of Economic and Business, University of 17 Agustus 1945 Surabaya, Indonesia; nugroho@untag-sby.ac.id (M.N.) slametriyadi10@untag-sby.ac.id (S.R.). Abstract: This study aims to investigate the mediating effects of behavioral and entrepreneurial intentions on the relationship between the capabilities approach encompassing education, economic, and socio-cultural factors and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), which includes attitude, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norm, in relation to public welfare in Timor-Leste. Utilizing a Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) approach with AMOS 24.0, the research examines the interconnections among constructs relevant to entrepreneurship, focusing on educational, economic, and socio-cultural capabilities alongside TPB dimensions. The findings reveal that socio-cultural capabilities significantly influence entrepreneurial growth and public welfare, with behavioral mediation and entrepreneurial intention playing key roles in clarifying these relationships. These insights suggest that entrepreneurship is vital for enhancing public welfare in Timor-Leste, guided by the capability model and TPB approach. The results can inform the development of more effective policies to support entrepreneurship as a means of improving public welfare. Ultimately, this study enriches the literature on the interplay between entrepreneurship, capability factors, and public welfare in Timor-Leste, providing a foundation for development strategies in similar contexts. Keywords: Entrepreneurship; Public welfare; Sen's capability; Theory of planned behavior. 1. Introduction Entrepreneurship plays a vital role in creating new opportunities for economic growth by generating employment and providing solutions to social problems [1] [2] [3]. Moreover, numerous studies across various disciplines indicate the positive impacts of entrepreneurship on macroeconomics [4] [5] .[6] assert that entrepreneurship, as an intermediary factor between institutions and economic performance (GDP, national income, total factor productivity, labor productivity, regional economic growth, etc.), is influenced by three groups: formal, informal, and institutional dimensions. The informal group involves socio-cultural norms, cognitive dimensions, belief systems, and others. However, several empirical studies suggest that the macroeconomic effects of entrepreneurship can also be negative under certain conditions [7] [5] . Potential explanations for these contradictory results can be found in the complex relationship between entrepreneurship and economic growth. [8] research, reviewing 102 publications, reveals that the literature generally lacks studies that go beyond general measures of economic welfare, do not investigate the long-term impacts of entrepreneurship, and only focus on developing and emerging countries, while newly independent countries such as Timor Leste have not been researched. Understanding how factors such as educational, economic, and socio-cultural aspects (Entrepreneur Capability) as well as TPB dimensions (attitude, behavioral control, and subjective norm) specifically influence individual actions and their impact on public welfare remains limited. Therefore, a 1945 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 1944-1970, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2364 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate deeper understanding of the factors affecting entrepreneurial intention and behavior is needed. Previous studies have found that socio-cultural capability has the greatest influence on entrepreneurial growth, surpassing educational and economic capabilities [9] [10] The influence of TPB dimensions (attitude, behavioral control, and subjective norm) on entrepreneurial intention also yields varied results, as found by [11] and [12], indicating a positive impact of TPB (attitude, behavioral control, and subjective norm) on entrepreneurial intention. [13] emphasize the importance of accessing the role of social factors, including family background and cultural factors, contextual (situation-based) factors to understand what drives individuals to become entrepreneurs. However, to date, there has been no comprehensive research investigating how specific factors, such as educational, economic, and socio-cultural capabilities (Entrepreneur Capability), influence public welfare mediated by entrepreneurial behavior and intention. This research seeks to bridge this gap by exploring the mediating role of entrepreneurial behavior and intention in clarifying the relationship between the capabilities approach (education, economic, and socio-cultural) and the TPB approach (attitude, behavioral control, and subjective norm) with Public Welfare. Although there have been previous studies that have discussed these factors separately [14] [9] [15] in public welfare, this study aims to fill this gap by investigating the mediating roles of entrepreneurial behavior and intention in elucidating the interplay between these factors and public welfare. By addressing this gap, we can gain deeper insights into ways to improve economic conditions and welfare. The analysis focuses on entrepreneurs in Timor Leste, and we deem this context appropriate considering the urgent need for entrepreneurs in Timor Leste to boost the country's economy. This is because the number of entrepreneurs in Timor Leste currently stands at only 0.3 percent of the total population of 1.3 million, which is lower compared to entrepreneurs in several other countries with high economic growth rates, such as the United States at 11%, Singapore at 7%, and Malaysia at 5% [16] Meanwhile, the minimum threshold for entrepreneurs in a country is 2% of the total population to have a significant impact on the economic growth of a country. Thus, entrepreneurship in Timor Leste remains at a very minimal level and needs to be investigated further to identify the driving factors for entrepreneurship in Timor Leste in order to reduce poverty rates. Additionally, there is still limited research on the role of entrepreneurship in poverty alleviation [10], especially in Timor-Leste. I formulate the research question as follows: What is the influence of the capabilities approach (education, economy, and socio-cultural) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) approach (attitude, behavioral control, and subjective norm) on Public Welfare in Timor-Leste, considering the mediating role of entrepreneurial behavior and intention? The organization of this article is as follows: it commences with an introduction, which encompasses the significance of the topic, the novelty, the objective of the article, and the research questions. Following the introduction is the literature review and hypothesis development section, which summarizes previous research. Subsequently, the research methodology is presented, followed by the results and discussion section, which presents the findings of the SEM AMOS modeling. Finally, the article concludes with a conclusion section. 2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development The capabilities approach, first developed by Indian economist and Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, has had a significant impact in reinvigorating global discussions on inequality and poverty [17] [18] and [19] [20]. This approach has formed the basis for the United Nations Development Programme and the Human Development Index (UNDP), as well as the recent Poverty and Wealth Report by the Government of Germany [21] . Although initially directed towards developing countries, the capabilities approach is now used to address various issues in post-industrial countries, including gender issues [22] [23], education [24] [21], and poverty [21] [25] [26] [21]. 1946 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 1944-1970, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2364 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate In the past decade, this approach has also been expanded to consider the impact of farmers' economic, educational, and socio-cultural capabilities on agricultural entrepreneurship growth and poverty reduction efforts [14] [10]. Research findings indicate that socio-cultural capabilities have the greatest positive impact on attitudes and agricultural entrepreneurship growth, while educational capabilities and knowledge also have positive effects. However, economic capabilities tend to have a negative impact on attitudes towards agricultural entrepreneurship growth. Additionally, the research also found that qualitative agricultural entrepreneurship growth is more effective in reducing rural poverty compared to merely focusing on attitudes towards agricultural entrepreneurship growth [10]. Nevertheless, Sen's capabilities approach has not been fully explored in the literature concerning the impact of these three capabilities on entrepreneurial behavior and intention. In this study, the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) is also employed to investigate factors related to entrepreneurial intention among entrepreneurs in Timor-Leste. We adapted three factors (attitude towards business development, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control) from the TPB theory. The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) provides a general framework for analyzing an individual's entrepreneurial intention [27], and several researchers such as [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]; [15] [33] have utilized this framework. In TPB, intention is understood as the result of three preceding factors: attitude towards behavior, Subjective Norm (SN), and perceived behavioral control (PBC). These theoretical factors should be sufficient to predict intention. The relative roles of these three factors in predicting intention are expected to vary depending on behavior, situation, and context [27] (According to TPB, attitude towards behavior (ATB) reflects an individual's assessment of the expected consequences of behavior (whether good or bad, beneficial or harmful). SN, on the other hand, reflects the views of significant social groups to the individual (as social pressure) about performing the desired behavior [27]. Lastly, PBC encompasses an individual's perception of how easy or difficult it is to perform the desired behavior [27]. TPB posits that generally, the more favorable the ATB and SN towards behavior, and the greater the PBC, the stronger the individual's intention to perform the intended behavior [27]. Entrepreneurship is considered a crucial element in economic growth and public development [34] As a significant indicator for economic growth and national progress, entrepreneurship plays a role in creating more job opportunities [32]. Therefore, understanding the factors influencing entrepreneurial intention and behavior, especially educational capabilities, is crucial in the development of education and training policies. Educational capability refers to the availability of educational institutions, access to educational institutions, and the involvement of entrepreneurs in providing public services such as schools in their communities. Education aids in the accumulation of human capital for development also encourages increased entrepreneurial activities by individuals [35] A high level of educational capability can enhance an individual's intention to pursue a career as an entrepreneur. Several studies indicate the value of education in shaping entrepreneurial intentions [36] [37] From previous research, it is known that educational capability affects the growth of agricultural entrepreneurship [14] while [10] found that the impact of educational capability and knowledge on agricultural entrepreneurship growth is not very significant. In another context, [38] demonstrated that educational support significantly influences the entrepreneurial intentions of students in Turkey. Other studies also indicate a positive relationship between entrepreneurship education and students' entrepreneurial intentions [39][40]. Although there are positive indications, there is still uncertainty in understanding the extent to which and how educational capability specifically influences entrepreneurial intention and behavior. Unanswered questions may involve mechanisms or mediating factors that explain the relationship between educational capability and entrepreneurship, as well as the variability of outcomes in different contexts. This research has the potential to make a significant contribution to the entrepreneurship 1947 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 1944-1970, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2364 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate literature and highlight directions for further research by addressing gaps in understanding the role of educational capability in shaping entrepreneurial intentions and behavior. Based on the above framework, this study proposes two hypotheses: H1: The educational capability has a significant influence on entrepreneurial intention. H2: Educational capability significantly influences entrepreneurial behavior. The study by [10] highlights the importance of economic capability in the context of agricultural entrepreneurship, with factors such as income levels, market access, agricultural technology, and access to higher education for children. This economic capability has a direct impact on household welfare and encourages more productive agricultural activities [41]. Additionally, [42] indicate that financial capability plays a crucial role in improving financial well-being for entrepreneurs with low incomes. Other research, as conveyed by [43] emphasizes that individuals' perceptions of economic conditions, security, and educational opportunities also influence overall well-being. On the other hand, [44] notes that having family members involved in business provides examples and financial support that can encourage individuals with limited resources to engage in entrepreneurship. [45] demonstrate a positive correlation between financial capability and business scale, profitability, and sustainability. However, its effects vary depending on the entrepreneur's context and can be mediated by variables such as technology, labor, and land. Although economic capability influences entrepreneurial growth, studies have found that socio-cultural capability has a more significant impact. Although the relationship between economic capability and entrepreneurship has been acknowledged, there is still a need to better understand the specific impact of economic capability on entrepreneurial intentions and behaviors. Previous research has affirmed this relationship, but the detailed influence of economic capability on entrepreneurial intentions and behaviors remains unclear. Therefore, the proposed hypothesis is: H3: Economic capability significantly influences entrepreneurial intentions. H4: Economic capability significantly influences entrepreneurial behavior. Social and cultural competencies are interrelated, forming an integral part of individuals' capabilities in achieving higher business goals. The orientation towards social and cultural capital has the potential to influence poverty alleviation strategies within society [46]. Culture, as an entity, encompasses knowledge, experiences, beliefs, values, attitudes, meanings, hierarchies, religions, concepts of time, roles, spatial relations, cosmologies, as well as material aspirations and possessions acquired by a group of people over several generations through individual and collective efforts [47]. Culture is a dynamic entity that shapes interaction patterns within society, both in collective and individual contexts, and has a significant impact on poverty alleviation contexts. Social skills refer to the network of relationships and interactions among individuals [48]. Social and cultural relationships are crucial aspects in the business decision-making process [49]. This concept encompasses trust in relationships with family, friends, government, public, as well as business partners in efforts to acquire resources, information, and support that facilitate individual business growth [50] The influence of a nation's culture is a fundamental factor affecting entrepreneurial intentions [51]. According to [52] considering the role of culture in the context of entrepreneurial motivation, skills, and knowledge is crucial. Although many factors influence entrepreneurial intentions, such as desire, perceptions of survival, and entrepreneurial experience [53] it is important to recognize that culture plays a highly significant role, although it may vary from one country to another. However, the impact of culture on entrepreneurial intentions still requires further research. To shape entrepreneurial intentions, the influence of perceived norms by individuals on expected behavior can strengthen or weaken entrepreneurial intentions [54] [55] The social and cultural capabilities of an entrepreneur encompass social interactions, networks, cultural enrichment, and available opportunities [56]. [56] found that social and cultural attributes positively influence 1948 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 1944-1970, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2364 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate entrepreneurial activities. In American and South Korean companies, employees' emotional social competencies were evaluated using regression models, indicating that employees tend to seek a balance between social and cultural competencies, which in turn enhances their performance in the organization. A study on the relationship between organizational justice and outcomes in India found that trust is partially mediated by improved performance [57] Thus, the social and cultural capabilities of an entrepreneur potentially influence entrepreneurial growth. Based on this understanding, we can formulate the following hypothesis: H5: Social and cultural capabilities significantly influence entrepreneurial intentions. H6: Social and cultural capabilities significantly influence entrepreneurial behavior. Attitude is considered one of the determinants of intention. [58] defines it as "the extent to which a person has a favorable or unfavorable evaluation or appraisal of the behavior in question." Attitude has been proven to be a crucial factor in explaining entrepreneurial intentions, where there is a significant relationship between attitude and entrepreneurial intention [59] [60] ;[61] Specifically, [62] al. identified that attitude, among other factors, actually plays the most important role in explaining entrepreneurial intention. To further elucidate, [63] conducted a study to investigate the influence of attitude on students' entrepreneurial intentions and found that attitudes toward change, money, and entrepreneurship are indeed some of the good predictors of entrepreneurial intention. In another study, [64] explained that individual aspects of attitude, such as the need for financial security, the importance of wealth, avoidance of workload, and autonomy, all significantly explain entrepreneurial intention. Therefore, the following hypothesis is developed: H7: Attitude significantly influences entrepreneurial intention. [58] defines perceived behavioral control as "the ease or difficulty perceived in performing a behavior." Many researchers have referred to perceived behavioral control as "self-efficacy," for example, Shook and Bratianu (2010), [65] [66], [64] just to name a few. Specifically, [67] found that perceived behavioral control is the strongest predictor of entrepreneurial intention, where they refer to perceived behavioral control as important entrepreneurial resources in the entrepreneurial process. Furthermore, Shook and Bratianu (2008) also concluded that self-efficacy (alias perceived behavioral control) is positively related to entrepreneurial intention, where students are more likely to start a business when they believe they can perform tasks related to entrepreneurship. The positive influence of perceived behavioral control on entrepreneurial intention has also been demonstrated in [62] Moriano et al. (2011), and [59] Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed: H8: Perceived behavioral control significantly influences entrepreneurial intention. Another antecedent of intention is a social factor called subjective norm, which refers to "the perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform a behavior" [54][58]. Past literature has shown controversial results regarding the relationship between subjective norm and entrepreneurial intention. For instance, [65] confirmed that subjective norm is a significant predictor of entrepreneurial intention. Additionally, [64] also found that subjective norm is important in explaining entrepreneurial intention; they further discussed that students who have family members and friends who are entrepreneurs have a positive subjective norm associated with entrepreneurship. Similarly, [68] and [60] also obtained a positive relationship between subjective norm and entrepreneurial intention in their research. However, on the contrary, [62] concluded that subjective norm traditionally plays a weak role in predicting entrepreneurial intention and hence is not significant in influencing entrepreneurial intention. Consistent with this, [69] also asserted that subjective norm is not positively related to entrepreneurial intention. Other studies supporting that subjective norm is not significant in predicting entrepreneurial intention include Fini et al. (2009) and Sommer and Haug (2011). The contradictory results regarding the predictability of subjective norm on entrepreneurial intention make this variable require further investigation. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed: H9: Subjective norm significantly influences entrepreneurial intention. 1949 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 1944-1970, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2364 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate [58] posits that intentions should remain stable between the assessment and observation of behavior. Over time, several factors can influence the stability of intentions; for instance, intervening events or new information can alter intentions. Additionally, with the passage of time, actual behavioral approaches, habitual behavior patterns may lead to unintended outcomes. Kiriakidis (2015) argues that the practical utility of the intention-behavior model is significant when the intention-behavior relationship is stable. However, [27] suggests that the predictive accuracy of the model can hold for long-term predictions as well, if the predictions are at the aggregate level rather than at the individual level. Aggregate intentions are assumed to be more stable over time than individual intentions. Despite these limitations, it is interesting to test the predictive value of entrepreneurial intentions during the learning period on entrepreneurial behavior in post-graduation. [70] demonstrate the relevance of TPB in predicting intention and behavior initiation (intentions and PBC explaining 31% of the behavior variance), although their research only covers a one-year period. [52] also show a relationship between intentions and actual initiation in a three-year study, although the fact that the level of variance explained by EI is limited (12.8 percent). Thus, the hypothesis of this study is as follows: H10: Entrepreneurial intention significantly influences entrepreneurial behavior. The relationship between entrepreneurship and welfare has been previously studied and has garnered strong evidence that entrepreneurship can influence poverty alleviation in developing countries [8]. [71] investigated the relationship between rural household economic wealth and firewood consumption and found that household economic wealth negatively impacts firewood consumption. [72] analyzed poverty profiles and livelihoods in post-conflict rural Rwanda and found that poverty alleviation can be approached through combined factors of natural, physical, human, financial, and social resources/skills of farmer household groups to enhance their livelihoods. The quality of farmer entrepreneurship growth, therefore, is associated with the types of services provided to the public by entrepreneurs. When entrepreneurs give back to their communities, it helps to improve the living conditions of the entire public. They realized that through public-based business practices, rural living conditions significantly improved. Based on the above, this research hypothesizes as follows: H11: Entrepreneurial behavior significantly influences public welfare. 1950 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 1944-1970, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2364 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Figure 1. Conceptual model. 3. Research Methodology This study is based on [73] recommendations regarding the minimum sample size in research using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), which suggests a minimum of five to ten times the number of observed indicators in the model or at least 100 respondents. However, it is also necessary to consider the complexity of the model, research objectives, and other factors such as the expected small effects and the desired level of confidence in determining the appropriate sample size. Convenience sampling method was chosen for sample selection because it allows researchers to select respondents based on their availability and accessibility, which are often necessary in studies with time constraints, resource limitations, or limited access to reach a broader population. Data were collected through the use of self- administered questionnaires in a survey. This study focuses on small, medium, and large-scale entrepreneurs, with statistical data recording approximately 300 large-scale entrepreneurs and around 52,000 medium and small-scale entrepreneurs in Timor-Leste. These entrepreneurs have annual incomes exceeding $6,000, as well as valid business permits and tax payments. Informal businesses with incomes less than $6,000 per year are exempt from tax obligations. Although there is no accurate data available regarding the number of informal small- scale entrepreneurs, this study utilizes convenience sampling method. Data collection was conducted through self-administered questionnaires during the survey. A quantitative survey-based approach was used to analyze the relationships between variables in this study. In this research, primary data were obtained through an online survey using Google Form as an intermediary. The survey was conducted with a closed-ended questionnaire containing statements and 1951 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 1944-1970, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2364 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate questions about respondent characteristics and the variables under investigation. Respondents were asked to provide answers using a Likert scale. This data collection technique was chosen due to its practicality in reaching a sufficiently large number of respondents and ease of data analysis. The dissemination and collection of questionnaires from the selected research sample respondents were conducted using Google Form. The researcher distributed the questionnaire online via social media platforms such as WhatsApp to respondents who were deemed to meet the research criteria. A total of 171 respondents completed the questionnaire and will subsequently be analyzed using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis with the assistance of AMOS 24 software. Table 1. Respondent characteristics. Quantity Percentage (%) Gender Man 94 54.97 Women 77 45.03 Age 15-25 28 16.37 26-35 63 36.84 36-45 48 28.07 46-55 26 15.20 56-65 6 3.51 Education SMA/SMK 102 59.65 Diploma 3 (D3) 14 8.19 Bachelor degree 55 32.16 Income < $ 100.00 61 35.67 $ 101.00- $ 200.00 30 17.54 $ 201.00- $ 300.00 18 10.53 $ 301.00- $ 400.00 17 9.94 $ 401.00-$500.00 9 5.26 As presented in Table 1, the respondent data based on gender indicates that out of 171 individuals surveyed, the majority of respondents, 94 individuals (54.97%), are male. Meanwhile, the respondent data based on age shows that out of 171 individuals surveyed, the majority of respondents, 63 individuals (36.84%), are aged between 26-35 years old. Regarding respondents' education, the majority of respondents, 102 individuals (59.65%), have a high school diploma (SMA/SMK) as their highest education level, while respondents' income data indicates that the majority of respondents, 61 individuals (35.67%), have an income of less than $100.00. There are 9 (nine) variables to be tested, consisting of 6 (six) exogenous variables and 3 (three) endogenous variables, namely: educational capability, economic capability, socio-cultural capability, attitude, behavioral control, subjective norm, entrepreneurial intention, entrepreneurial behavior, and public welfare. To conduct this research, we adapted measurement strategies from several scholars. Variables originating from the capability approach consist of 3 variables. First is educational capability adapted from [10], having three indicators indicating that access to education, either through school attendance, good educational conditions, or higher education, is a key factor in enhancing individual capabilities in the field of education. Second is economic capability adapted from [74], having three 1952 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 1944-1970, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2364 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate indicators including access to market information, technology knowledge, and management knowledge to improve economic capabilities. Third is socio-cultural capability adapted from Ieva (2015), this indicator includes teamwork skills, interpretation of social roles, adaptation to new environments, cross- cultural communication, tolerance for differences, and business organization skills as important factors in the development of social and professional capabilities. Meanwhile, the variables under the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) umbrella are as follows: Attitude, adapted from [75] with five indicators including having opportunities and resources to become an entrepreneur, finding entrepreneurship attractive, willingness to start a business if given the opportunity, perceived happiness when being a business owner, and having passion and career orientation as an entrepreneur/business owner are important aspects influencing individual interest and tendency in entrepreneurship. Perceived behavioral control, adapted from [75], with four indicators including individuals' perceptions of difficulty in starting and running a company, capability to control the business establishment process, belief in success when starting their own company, and understanding of the steps required to develop the business. Subjective norm, adapted from [75], consisting of three indicators: social support from friends, family, and people around the individual in starting a business. Entrepreneurial intention, adapted from [75], consisting of six indicators including readiness to do whatever it takes to become an entrepreneur, maximum effort to start and run a business, confidence in starting one's own business, decision to start a company in the future, career goals oriented towards entrepreneurship, and serious consideration to start a private company. Entrepreneurial behavior, adapted from Shirokova et al. (2016), consisting of ten indicators covering initial steps in starting a business, such as discussing with potential customers about products or business ideas, gathering market and competitor information, writing a business plan, starting product/service development, initiating marketing/promotional efforts, purchasing equipment/materials/machinery for the business, attempting to secure external funding, applying for patents/copyrights/trademarks, registering the company, and initiating sales of products or services. As for Public Welfare, adapted from Gandhiadi et al. (2015), it consists of five indicators including individual satisfaction with living standards, health, life achievements, personal security, and future life security as outcomes of involvement in business or entrepreneurship activities. All items were measured with a five-point Likert scale. All the questionnaire items can be seen in Table 2. Table 2. Characteristics of respondents. Construct Items Definition Source Educational capability X1.1 Have the capability to go to school Naminse et al. (2018) X1.2 Have good educational conditions X1.3 Have higher education Economic capability X2.1 Have more access to market information Nussbaum (2011) X2.2 Have access to more knowledge in the field of technology X2.3 Have access to more knowledge in management Socio-cultural capability X3.1 Have teamwork skills. [10] X3.2 Have social role interpretation skills X3.3 Have the capability to adapt to new environments X3.4 Have the capability to communicate with people from different socio-cultural backgrounds 1953 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 1944-1970, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2364 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate X3.5 Have the capability to accept the beliefs and attitudes of others X3.6 Have the capability to organize business Attitude X4.1 There are many possibilities to become an entrepreneur/Business owner [75] X4.2 Being a business person is interesting X4.3 If there are opportunities and resources, will set up a business X4.4 Being a business owner will make you very happy X4.5 Being a businessman/Business owner has always been a passion and career orientation Perceived behavioral control X5.1 Opening and running a company is easy/not difficult for me [75] X5.2 I can control the process of setting up a new business X5.3 If I start my own company, I will most likely be successful X5.4 I know what to do to grow a business Subjective norms X6.1 My friends will support my decision to start a business [75] X6.2 My family will support my decision to start a business X6.3 The people around me will support my decision to start a business Entrepreneurial intentions Y1.1 Willing to do anything to become an entrepreneur [75] Y1.2 Try your best to start and run a business Y1.3 Confident to start your own business Y1.4 Decided to set up a company in the future Y1.5 Career goal is to become an entrepreneur Y1.6 Seriously thinking about starting a private company Entrepreneurial behavior Y2.1 Discuss products or business ideas with potential customers [76] Y2.2 Gather information about the market or competitors Y2.3 Write a business plan Y2.4 Start product/Service development Y2.5 Initiate marketing or promotional efforts Y2.6 Purchasing material equipment or machinery for business Y2.7 Try to get external funding Y2.8 Apply for a patent, copyright or trademark Y2.9 Register the company Y2.10 Start selling products or services Public welfare Y3.1 Satisfaction with the standard of living [77] 1954 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 1944-1970, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2364 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Y3.2 Satisfaction with health Y3.3 Satisfaction with life achievements Y3.4 Satisfaction with personal security Y3.5 Satisfaction with life security in the future Source: [10] [74], [10] [75], [76] [77]. Table 3. Descriptive variables. Construct Items Statement frequency Mean Standard deviation 5 % 4 % 3 % 2 % 1 % Educational capability X1.1 67 39.2 90 52.6 10 5.8 3 1.8 1 0.6 4.2807 0.70513 X1.2 59 34.5 92 53.8 15 8.8 3 1.8 2 1.2 4.1871 0.75930 X1.3 49 28.7 76 44.4 30 17.5 11 6.4 5 2.9 3.8947 0.98848 4.1209 0.8176 Economic capability X2.1 53 31.0 85 49.7 28 16.4 3 1.8 2 1.2 4.0760 0.80444 X2.2 48 28.1 80 46.8 33 19.3 9 5.3 1 0.6 3.9649 0.86020 X2.3 47 27.5 96 56.1 26 15.2 1 0.6 1 0.6 4.0936 0.70504 4.0448 0.7899 Socio-cultural capability X3.1 68 39.8 77 45.0 23 13.5 2 1.2 1 0.6 4.2222 0.76526 X3.2 66 38.6 81 47.4 21 12.3 1 0.6 2 1.2 4.2164 0.77077 X3.3 55 32.2 88 51.5 24 14.0 1 0.6 3 1.8 4.1170 0.79580 X3.4 48 28.1 103 60.2 16 9.4 3 1.8 1 0.6 4.1345 0.69412 X3.5 68 39.8 77 45.0 23 13.5 2 1.2 1 0.6 4.1725 0.7565 4.2222 0.76526 Attitude X4.1 63 36.8 86 50.3 18 10.5 2 1.2 2 1.2 4.2047 0.76634 X4.2 63 36.8 93 54.4 12 7.0 1 0.6 2 1.2 4.2515 0.71203 X4.3 69 40.4 90 52.6 10 5.8 0 0.0 2 1.2 4.3099 0.68845 X4.4 70 40.9 87 50.9 10 5.8 1 0.6 3 1.8 4.2865 0.75521 X4.5 57 33.3 88 51.5 20 11.7 3 1.8 3 1.8 4.1287 0.81591 4.2363 0.7476 Perceived behavioral control X5.1 39 22.8 82 48.0 39 22.8 8 4.7 3 1.8 3.8538 0.88565 X5.2 46 26.9 89 52.0 30 17.5 2 1.2 4 2.3 4.0000 0.84017 X5.3 64 37.4 79 46.2 22 12.9 4 2.3 2 1.2 4.1637 0.82396 X5.4 41 24.0 102 59.6 24 14.0 1 0.6 3 1.8 4.0351 0.75064 4.0132 0.8251 Subjective norms X6.1 60 35.1 89 52.0 18 10.5 2 1.2 2 1.2 4.1871 0.75930 X6.2 75 43.9 78 45.6 14 8.2 2 1.2 2 1.2 4.2982 0.76616 X6.3 51 29.8 85 49.7 27 15.8 4 2.3 4 2.3 4.0234 0.87416 4.1696 0.7999 Entrepreneurial intentions Y1.1 55 32.2 94 55.0 20 11.7 0 0.0 2 1.2 4.1696 0.71981 Y1.2 64 37.4 89 52.0 15 8.8 1 0.6 2 1.2 4.2398 0.73232 Y1.3 70 40.9 84 49.1 15 8.8 0 0.0 2 1.2 4.2865 0.72339 Y1.4 57 33.3 89 52.0 17 9.9 5 2.9 3 1.8 4.1228 0.83462 Y1.5 62 36.3 81 47.4 24 14.0 3 1.8 1 0.6 4.1696 0.77491 Y1.6 50 29.2 83 48.5 34 19.9 3 1.8 1 0.6 4.0409 0.78483 4.1715 0.7616 Entrepreneurial Y2.1 46 26.9 91 53.2 28 16.4 4 2.3 2 1.2 4.0234 0.79671 1955 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 1944-1970, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2364 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate behavior Y2.2 44 25.7 95 55.6 26 15.2 5 2.9 1 0.6 4.0292 0.76256 Y2.3 46 26.9 92 53.8 26 15.2 6 3.5 1 0.6 4.0292 0.78536 Y2.4 45 26.3 92 53.8 31 18.1 2 1.2 1 0.6 4.0409 0.73849 Y2.5 52 30.4 92 53.8 22 12.9 3 1.8 2 1.2 4.1053 0.77500 Y2.6 42 24.6 96 56.1 24 14.0 8 4.7 1 0.6 3.9942 0.79333 Y2.7 39 22.8 98 57.3 27 15.8 6 3.5 1 0.6 3.9825 0.76292 Y2.8 34 19.9 90 52.6 36 21.1 10 5.8 1 0.6 3.8538 0.82371 Y2.9 35 20.5 97 56.7 24 14.0 12 7.0 3 1.8 3.8713 0.87840 Y2.10 43 25.1 92 53.8 29 17.0 5 2.9 2 1.2 3.9883 0.80431 3.9918 0.7921 Public welfare Y3.1 77 45.0 76 44.4 16 9.4 1 0.6 1 0.6 4.3275 0.71809 Y3.2 77 45.0 83 48.5 9 5.3 1 0.6 1 0.6 4.3684 0.66770 Y3.3 62 36.3 89 52.0 19 11.1 1 0.6 0 0.0 4.2398 0.66496 Y3.4 62 36.3 95 55.6 12 7.0 1 0.6 1 0.6 4.2632 0.66491 Y3.5 64 37.4 90 52.6 16 9.4 0 0.0 1 0.6 4.2632 0.67370 4.2924 0.6779 4. Results and Discussion 4.1. Variable Descriptive Statistics In the context of this research, descriptive statistical analysis was conducted on various variables related to entrepreneurship and public welfare. The observed variables include educational capability, economic capability, socio-cultural capability, attitude, perceived behavioral control, subjective norm, entrepreneurial intention, entrepreneurial behavior, and public welfare. The analysis results show that each variable has different mean and standard deviation values. For example, the educational capability variable has a mean of 4.1209 with a standard deviation of 0.8176, while the economic capability variable has a mean of 4.0448 with a standard deviation of 0.7899. This indicates that there is variation in the levels of educational and economic capability among respondents, with most values clustering relatively close to the mean, but with some values deviating significantly from the central tendency. (See Table 3). 4.2. Reliability and Validity The reliability results in this study were calculated using composite construct reliability with a minimum cut-off value of 0.6, and the results for all variables showed values above 0.6. The results of the reliability test indicated that all the variables attained Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient above 0.7, as recommended by Nunnally (1978). Meanwhile, based on the SEM analysis on the validity test, it was found that all indicators met the validity requirements (Loading factor > 0.5). Additionally, all constructs passed the reliability test with a cut-off value greater than 0.6. (See Table 4). Table 4. Validity and reliability test. Construct Indicator p Loading factor Information Construct reliability Information Educational capability X1.1 *** 0.760 Valid 0.787 Reliabel X1.2 *** 0.787 Valid X1.3 *** 0.727 Valid Economic capability X2.1 *** 0.702 Valid 0.771 Reliabel X2.2 *** 0.654 Valid X2.3 *** 0.742 Valid 1956 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 1944-1970, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2364 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Socio-cultural capability X3.1 *** 0.630 Valid 0.848 Reliabel X3.2 *** 0.692 Valid X3.3 *** 0.691 Valid X3.4 *** 0.694 Valid Attitude X4.1 *** 0.677 Valid 0.854 Reliabel X4.2 *** 0.730 Valid X4.3 *** 0.849 Valid X4.4 *** 0.789 Valid X4.5 *** 630 Valid Perceived behavioral control X5.1 *** 0.662 Valid 0.792 Reliabel X5.2 *** 0.796 Valid X5.3 *** 0.841 Valid X5.4 *** 0.795 Valid Subjective norms X6.1 *** 0.786 Valid 0.889 Reliabel X6.2 *** 0.692 Valid X6.3 *** 0.788 Valid Entrepreneurial intentions Y1.1 *** 0.814 Valid 0.927 Reliabel Y1.2 *** 0.849 Valid Y1.3 *** 0.784 Valid Y1.4 *** 0.788 Valid Y1.5 *** 0.652 Valid Y1.6 *** 0.650 Valid Entrepreneurial behavior Y2.1 *** 0.806 Valid 0.735 Reliabel Y2.2 *** 0.764 Valid Y2.3 *** 0.616 Valid Y2.4 *** 0.779 Valid Y2.5 *** 0.830 Valid Y2.6 *** 0.783 Valid Y2.7 *** 0.775 Valid Y2.8 *** 0.720 Valid Y2.9 *** 0.706 Valid Y2.10 *** 0.739 Valid Public welfare Y3.1 *** 0.812 Valid 0.884 Reliabel Y3.2 *** 0.771 Valid Y3.3 *** 0.720 Valid Y3.4 *** 0.827 Valid Y3.5 *** 0.763 Valid 4.3. Model Fit Test The results of the model fit test from AMOS 24.0 yielded a CMIN/DF value of 1.361. This value is below the recommended threshold of <2, indicating relatively good model fit. The probability (Sig. Probability) has a value of 0.061. This value is slightly above the significance threshold of 0.05, suggesting that there is a possibility that the model does not fit the data, although not statistically significant. The RMSEA has a value of 0.046, which is below the recommended threshold of <0.08. This indicates that the model fits the data well. The GFI has a value of 0.912, exceeding the minimum recommended threshold of >0.90, indicating good model fit with the data. The RMR has a value of 1957 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 1944-1970, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2364 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 0.033, which is below the recommended threshold of <0.05, indicating good model fit with the data. The TLI has a value of 0.966, exceeding the minimum recommended threshold of >0.95, indicating good model fit with the data. The CFI has a value of 0.957, exceeding the minimum recommended threshold of >0.95, indicating good model fit with the data. Overall, the analysis results indicate that the model fits the observed data well, with values supporting the interpretation that the model can explain the relationships between variables effectively. Although the probability of CMIN/DF is slightly above the significance threshold, other results show strong correspondence between the model and the data. (See Table 5) Table 5. Model fit test. Criteria Nilai cut off Test result Information CMIN/DF < 2 1.361 Fit Sig. Probability > 0.05 0.061 Fit RMSEA < 0.08 0.046 Fit GFI > 0.90 0.912 Fit RMR < 0.05 0.033 Fit TLI > 0.95 0.966 Fit CFI > 0.95 0.957 Fit Table 6. Hypothesis testing. Estimate S.E. C.R. P Information Y1 <--- X1 0.048 0.038 1.248 0.212 Hypothesis rejected Y1 <--- X2 0.358 0.104 3.455 *** Hypothesis accepted Y1 <--- X3 -0.164 0.072 -2.274 0.023 Hypothesis accepted Y1 <--- X4 0.594 0.107 5.542 *** Hypothesis accepted Y1 <--- X5 0.103 0.066 1.548 0.122 Hypothesis rejected Y1 <--- X6 0.359 0.061 5.894 *** Hypothesis accepted Y2 <--- X1 0.131 0.065 2.013 0.044 Hypothesis accepted Y2 <--- X2 1.442 0.229 6.283 *** Hypothesis accepted Y2 <--- X3 -0.348 0.125 -2.796 0.005 Hypothesis accepted Y2 <--- Y1 0.313 0.104 3.016 0.003 Hypothesis accepted Y3 <--- Y2 0.718 0.083 8.612 *** Hypothesis accepted 1958 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 1944-1970, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2364 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Figure 2. The finalized SEM models. 4.4. Hypothesis Testing 4.4.1. The Influence of Educational Capability on Entrepreneurial Intentions The variable Education Capability was found to have a non-significant effect on entrepreneurial intention. This is evidenced by the C.R value of 1.248 and obtained significance probability (p) of 0.212, which is greater than the required significance level of 0.05. The path coefficient is positively valued at 0.048, indicating that as educational capability increases, entrepreneurial intention also increases, and conversely, if the perception of educational capability within the public is low, it will decrease entrepreneurial intention. The analysis results reject the first research hypothesis. Data analysis results indicate that the Education Capability variable has a non-significant effect on entrepreneurial intention in the context of public welfare. This means that the first hypothesis, stating that Education Capability influences entrepreneurial intention, has been rejected. In this context, the positive coefficient value indicates that the higher the educational capability possessed by the public, the higher the intention to engage in entrepreneurship. Education capability may have a non-significant effect on entrepreneurial intention in the context of public welfare because other factors such as economic conditions, access to business capital, social support, and risk perceptions also play crucial roles in shaping the intention to engage in entrepreneurship. Although education can provide knowledge and skills useful for entrepreneurship, individuals may perceive that external factor such as initial capital or market opportunities have a greater impact on the success of their ventures than their level of education. Additionally, in some 1959 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 1944-1970, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2364 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate contexts, entrepreneurship may not be considered the primary option for achieving welfare, especially if there are perceived alternatives that are deemed more stable or financially rewarding. Therefore, education capability may not always be the dominant factor in determining the intention to engage in entrepreneurship in the pursuit of public welfare. Education capability refers to the availability of educational institutions, access to educational institutions, and entrepreneurs' willingness to contribute to the provision of public goods such as schools in their communities. Education facilitates the accumulation of human capital for development, and it can also lead to increased entrepreneurial exploitation by individuals [35]. Entrepreneurial education capability refers to the availability of educational institutions, access to educational institutions, and entrepreneurs' willingness to contribute to the provision of public goods such as schools in their communities. An individual's education is said to be a determinant of entrepreneurial intention [52] High educational capability can enhance someone's intention to start a career as an entrepreneur, but in this study, no significant influence was found, thus contradicting various studies indicating the value of education for entrepreneurial intention [36] [37]. 4.4.2. The Influence of Educational Capability on Entrepreneurial Behavior Education capability was found to have a significant effect on entrepreneurial behavior. This was evidenced by the C.R value of 2.013, with a significant probability (p) of 0.044, which is smaller than the required significance level of 0.05. The path coefficient was positive at 0.131, indicating that an increase in education capability would increase entrepreneurial behavior. The analysis accepted the research hypothesis (H2). The data analysis showed that the variable "Education Capability" significantly influences "entrepreneurial behavior," thus, the second hypothesis stating that Education Capability significantly affects entrepreneurial behavior can be accepted. The positive coefficient value in this analysis indicates that the higher the education level of the public, the higher their intention to engage in entrepreneurial behavior. Several key factors contribute to this. Firstly, higher education often equips individuals with deeper knowledge of various business aspects, such as management, finance, and marketing, making them feel more prepared to start their own ventures. Secondly, higher education can provide access to a wider professional network and better funding opportunities, which are crucial in supporting entrepreneurial endeavors. Additionally, individuals with higher education tend to be more innovative and capable of identifying new business opportunities. Lastly, education can enhance individuals' confidence to take risks and face challenges in entrepreneurship. Therefore, there is a positive relationship between the level of education in the public and the intention to engage in entrepreneurship, with higher education often serving as a significant motivator in encouraging individuals to pursue their own ventures. According to [62], education is important because it can transform individuals' personal attitudes regarding competencies, skills, and cultural awareness. Entrepreneurship education has become the most widely used tool for enhancing business activities [78]. Educational and training activities specifically designed for entrepreneurship are usually aimed at enhancing the supply through different mechanisms, typically involving the transmission of instrumental skills necessary to start and grow new ventures [79] [80] examined gender gaps in entrepreneurship using data from Sub-Saharan Africa. They found that education has a positive relationship with higher productivity, which then affects poverty reduction. Furthermore, research on the relationship between education capability and entrepreneurial behavior has also been investigated previously and found to have a significant correlation [81] [10] 4.4.3. The Influence of Economic Capabilities on Entrepreneurial Intentions Economic capability was found to have a significant effect on entrepreneurial intention. This was evidenced by a C.R value of 3.455, with a significant probability (p) of 0.000, exceeding the required 1960 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 1944-1970, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2364 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate significance level of 0.05. The path coefficient was positively valued at 0.358, indicating that an increase in economic capability would lead to an increase in entrepreneurial intention. The analysis supported the research hypothesis (H3). The data analysis revealed that the variable "Economic Capability" significantly influenced consumers' "Entrepreneurial Intention," thus accepting the third hypothesis stating that Economic Capability affects Entrepreneurial Intention. The positive coefficient value in this analysis indicates that higher Economic Capability leads to a higher intention to engage in entrepreneurship. Several key factors explain this relationship. First, individuals with higher economic capabilities tend to have greater access to the initial capital required to start a business. They may possess sufficient financial resources to overcome the initial risks associated with entrepreneurship. Second, strong economic capabilities provide individuals with the flexibility to choose the business opportunities they wish to pursue, without relying too heavily on other jobs. This enables them to pursue their interests and passions in entrepreneurship. Finally, higher economic capabilities may also mean better access to additional education and training needed to become a successful entrepreneur. Therefore, there is a positive correlation between high economic capability and intention to engage in entrepreneurship, with strong economic capability often being a critical motivating factor for individuals to start their own businesses. Essentially, the economic capability of a public can be measured through several key factors, including the income levels of its residents or public members, their access to established market information, as well as their capability to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to manage available resources into goods and services that contribute to economic development. Research conducted by [82] and [83] indicates that income growth can effectively reduce poverty levels within a public, thereby significantly influencing the potential of entrepreneurs to increase their income. High- quality education also serves as a crucial indicator of an entrepreneur's economic capability, while in the context of agriculture, marketing skills, management strategies, and the use of modern technology play vital roles in enhancing sales and, consequently, household welfare. Other studies, such as those conducted by [84] demonstrate that socioeconomic capabilities can influence the adoption of management innovations within firms, which, in turn, can enhance company performance. Furthermore, the findings of this research support previous studies indicating that economic factors can also influence an individual's intention to engage in entrepreneurship, as found by [85] 4.4.4. The Influence of Economic Capability on Entrepreneurial Behavior The economic capability was found to significantly influence entrepreneurial behavior. This was evidenced by a C.R value of 6.283, with a significant probability (p) of 0.000, exceeding the required significance level of 0.05. The path coefficient was positively valued at 1.442, indicating that an increase in economic capability would enhance entrepreneurial behavior, while a decrease in economic capability would diminish entrepreneurial behavior. The analysis rejected the first research hypothesis (H4). The data analysis results indicate that the variable "Economic Capability" significantly influences "Entrepreneurial Behavior." Based on the analysis results, it can be concluded that the fourth hypothesis, stating that Economic Capability significantly affects Entrepreneurial Behavior, is accepted. The coefficient values show a positive trend, suggesting that higher Economic Capability enhances Entrepreneurial Behavior. This occurs because a strong economic capability provides individuals with the resources and flexibility needed to initiate, develop, and operate their own businesses. Individuals with higher economic capability have greater access to initial capital, enabling them to mitigate the initial risks associated with entrepreneurship. Additionally, they may have broader networks and access to mentors or other supportive resources that can assist them in their entrepreneurial journey. Good economic capability can also boost individuals' confidence to take risks and face challenges in the business world. Overall, high economic capability can be a primary driver for enhancing entrepreneurial behavior, as it enables individuals to pursue their business visions and ambitions more effectively. 1961 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 1944-1970, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2364 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate The findings of this study support previous research that also found a significant relationship between economic capability and entrepreneurial growth (Naminse et al., 2016; Naminse et al., 2018). Thus, individuals with a high level of economic capability, which includes marketing skills, management strategies, and the use of modern technology to boost sales, can influence their intentions and behaviors towards entrepreneurship. 4.4.5. The Influence of Socio-Cultural Capability on Entrepreneurial Intentions The socio-cultural capability was found to have a significant effect on Entrepreneurial Intentions. This was evidenced by a C.R. value of -2.274 and a significant probability (p) value of 0.023, which is smaller than the required significance level of 0.05. The path coefficient was negative at -0.164, indicating that an increase in socio-cultural capability would decrease Entrepreneurial Intentions. The analysis accepts the research hypothesis (H5). The data analysis results indicate that the socio-cultural capability variable has a significant effect on entrepreneurial intentions. Based on the analysis results, it can be concluded that the fifth hypothesis stating that socio-cultural capability significantly influences entrepreneurial intentions is accepted. The coefficient value shows a negative value, indicating that an increase in socio-cultural capability will decrease entrepreneurial intentions in the Timor Leste public. The higher socio-cultural capability of the public in Timor Leste, such as strong traditional values and social norms that value job stability and formal employment, may have a negative impact on the entrepreneurial intentions of the public. This is because in a culture that emphasizes job security and economic stability, individuals tend to prefer working in formal employment or seeking established jobs rather than starting their own businesses, which may be perceived as risky. Additionally, social norms that value loyalty to particular jobs can inhibit the willingness to pursue entrepreneurship, as it may be viewed as an unstable and uncertain endeavor. Therefore, despite having high socio-cultural capability, the entrepreneurial intentions of the public in Timor Leste may decrease due to these considerations and traditional, job-oriented values. Social and cultural competence are closely interconnected and constitute an important part of an individual's capability to achieve higher business goals. Both aspects play a role in influencing poverty alleviation strategies within society. Culture, as a heritage of knowledge, values, attitudes, and beliefs that evolve within groups of people over several generations, plays a significant role in shaping social interactions and how people communicate in society. Culture also influences how communities perceive poverty and efforts to alleviate it. On the other hand, social skills refer to the relationships and bonds between individuals, which include trust in relationships with various parties, including family, friends, government, public, and business partners. These social skills are crucial in the business decision- making process, as they involve interactions with various parties that can provide the resources, information, and support needed for individual business growth. Thus, social and cultural competence has a significant impact on poverty and how efforts to alleviate it can be successfully carried out within a society. The influence of a nation's culture is a fundamental condition that affects every business intention [86] According to [52] combining the role of culture with entrepreneurship motivation, skills, and knowledge is crucial. [53] state that to start a new business, many factors influence entrepreneurial intentions such as desire, survival, and entrepreneurial experience, but culture varies from one country to another, meaning research is still unclear about the impact of culture on entrepreneurs' intentions. Therefore, each country has its own culture, values, norms, and beliefs that influence entrepreneurial intentions. The findings of this research then support previous studies on the significant influence of cultural social Capability on entrepreneurial intentions [55] 1962 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 1944-1970, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2364 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 4.4.6. The Influence of Socio-Cultural Capabilities on Entrepreneurial Behavior Cultural social Capability are found to have a significant influence on entrepreneurial behavior. This is evidenced by the C.R value of -2.796 and a significant probability (p) of 0.005, which is lower than the required significant level of 0.05. The path coefficient is negative at -0.348, indicating that an increase in cultural social Capability will decrease entrepreneurial behavior. The analysis results support the research hypothesis (H6). Data analysis results show that the variable "Cultural Social Capability" has a significant influence on consumer entrepreneurial behavior, thus supporting the sixth hypothesis that Cultural Social Capability affect Entrepreneurial Behavior. The negative coefficient value in this analysis indicates that the higher the Cultural Social Capability of the East Timorese society, the lower their entrepreneurial behavior. This can occur if the cultural social Capability prioritize social norms that value job stability and formal sector employment over entrepreneurship. In a culture that emphasizes job security and dedication to specific work, individuals are reluctant to take risks in starting their own businesses, which are perceived as unstable. Additionally, strong social norms can pressure individuals to follow the mainstream and choose occupations considered more respected by society, such as government or large corporation jobs. Hence, despite having strong cultural social Capability, East Timorese society may be less inclined to entrepreneurship if their values and norms lean more towards formal employment and economic stability. These research findings further support a study on the relationship between organizational justice and outcomes in India, which found that trust partially mediates performance improvement [57] Therefore, cultural social Capability can influence entrepreneurial growth. Entrepreneurial cultural social Capability consist of social interactions, networking skills, cultural enhancement, and available opportunities. Chen et al. found that cultural social attributes positively influence entrepreneurial activities. The social-emotional competence of employees in American and South Korean companies was also evaluated using regression models, which showed that employees generally seek a balance between social competence and culture, tending to enhance their performance within the organization [56] 4.4.7. The Influence of Attitude on Entrepreneurial Intentions Attitude is found to have a significant influence on Entrepreneurial Intention. This is evidenced by a C.R value of 5.542 and a significant probability (p) of 0.000, which is lower than the required significant level of 0.05. The path coefficient is positive at 0.594, indicating that an increase in attitude will increase Entrepreneurial Intention, and conversely, if consumer perceptions of attitude decrease, it will decrease Entrepreneurial Intention. The analysis results accept the first research hypothesis (H7). The data analysis results indicate that the variable "Attitude" significantly affects entrepreneurial intention. Based on the analysis results, it can be concluded that the seventh hypothesis stating that attitude significantly influences entrepreneurial intention is accepted. The coefficient value shows a positive value, explaining that the higher an individual's attitude, the stronger their intention to engage in entrepreneurship. A positive attitude towards entrepreneurship, such as the courage to take risks, the drive to create opportunities, and belief in one's own Capability, can be a strong motivator for someone to have a high intention to engage in entrepreneurship. Individuals with a positive attitude towards entrepreneurship tend to see positive potential in entrepreneurship, such as opportunities for financial success, independence, and the development of innovative ideas. This positive attitude can also help them overcome obstacles and challenges they may face on their entrepreneurial journey. Therefore, the higher someone's positive attitude towards entrepreneurship, the greater their intention to start their own business and contribute to economic growth. Attitude is considered one of the determinants of intention. [87] defines it as "the extent to which a person has a favorable or unfavorable evaluation or appraisal of the behavior in question." This research 1963 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 1944-1970, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2364 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate shows that attitude has been proven to be an important factor in explaining entrepreneurial intention and supports previous research results where a significant relationship between attitude and entrepreneurial intention exists [59] [70] [61]. Specifically, Paço et al. (2011) identified that attitude, among other factors, actually plays the most important role in explaining entrepreneurial intention. To further explain, [66] conducted research to investigate the influence of attitude on student entrepreneurial intention and found that attitude towards change, money, and entrepreneurship are indeed good predictors of entrepreneurial intention. In another study, [64] explained that individual attitude aspects, such as the need for financial security, the importance of wealth, workload avoidance, and autonomy all significantly explain entrepreneurial intention. 4.4.8. The Influence of Perceived Behavioral Control on Entrepreneurial Intentions Perceived behavioral control was found to have an insignificant effect on Entrepreneurial Intention. This is proven by the C.R value of 1.548 and the significant probability (p) of 0.122 which is greater than the required significance level of 0.05. The path coefficient is positive at 0.103, which indicates that if perceived behavioral control increases, behavioral intentions will increase. The results of the analysis reject the research hypothesis (H8). The results of data analysis show that the Perceived Behavioral Control variable does not have a significant influence on Entrepreneurial Intentions. Based on the results of the analysis, it can be concluded that the eighth hypothesis which states that Perceived Behavioral Control has a significant effect on Entrepreneurial Intentions is rejected. The coefficient value shows a positive value, so it can be explained that the higher the Perception of Behavioral Control, the greater the intention to become an entrepreneur. The higher a person's perception of behavioral control, the greater his or her intention to become an entrepreneur. Perceived behavioral control refers to individuals' beliefs about the extent to which they can control their own actions and decisions in achieving goals. Individuals who believe they have control over their actions tend to be more motivated to take initiative, including starting their own business. They feel that they can overcome obstacles and face challenges in an effective way, which is important in entrepreneurship. When someone has a strong perception of control over entrepreneurial behavior, they are more likely to have a high intention to undertake an entrepreneurial role. They feel confident that they can manage their business well, make the right decisions, and achieve success in entrepreneurship. Therefore, a high perception of behavioral control can be an important factor that drives a person's intention to become an entrepreneur. Perceived behavioral control does not have a significant influence on entrepreneurial intentions, indicating that individuals' beliefs about their capability to control their actions and decisions do not have a major impact on their desire to engage in entrepreneurship. This may be caused by other factors that are more dominant in forming entrepreneurial intentions, such as environmental factors, intrinsic motivation, or economic factors. Individuals may feel that, regardless of the extent to which they feel they have control over their actions, there are external factors that are more influential in determining the decision to pursue entrepreneurship. In this context, perceived behavioral control is not the main factor influencing entrepreneurial intentions, and other factors may be more dominant in shaping an individual's desire to undertake an entrepreneurial role. [88] defines perceived behavioral control as "the perceived ease or difficulty in carrying out a behavior". Many researchers have referred perceived behavioral control to “self-efficacy”, for example, [69], [66] [65], [64] just to name a few. Specifically, Sommer and Haug (2011) found that perceived behavioral control is the strongest predictor of entrepreneurial intention, where they refer perceived behavioral control to an important entrepreneurial resource in the entrepreneurial process. Thus, the results of previous research conflict with the results of this study. 1964 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 1944-1970, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2364 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 4.4.9. The Influence of Subjective Norms on Entrepreneurial Intentions Subjective norms were found to have a significant effect on entrepreneurial intentions. This is proven by the C.R value of 5.894 and obtained a significant probability (p) of 0.000 which is greater than the required significance level of 0.05. The path coefficient is positive at 0.359, which indicates that if subjective norms increase, entrepreneurial intentions will increase. The results of the analysis accept the research hypothesis (H9). The results of data analysis show that the variable "Subjective Norms" has a significant influence on consumers' "Entrepreneurial Intentions", and thus, the ninth hypothesis which states that Subjective Norms influence Entrepreneurial Intentions can be accepted. The positive coefficient value in this analysis indicates that the higher the Subjective Norm, the higher the intention to become an entrepreneur. Subjective norms refer to individuals' perceptions of the extent to which important people in their lives (such as family, friends, or colleagues) support or encourage them to become entrepreneurs. When someone feels that their social environment provides support and approval for the idea of entrepreneurship, they tend to have a higher intention to take steps towards entrepreneurship. These positive feelings can motivate individuals to overcome the challenges and risks associated with entrepreneurship, because they feel supported by positive social norms towards such actions. Thus, strong subjective norms can be an important factor that increases a person's intention to become an entrepreneur, because they feel that this decision will receive support and acceptance from their social environment. Another antecedent of intention is a social factor called subjective norm, which refers to "perceived social pressure to perform or not perform a behavior"[88]. Past literature has shown supportive results on the influence between subjective norms and entrepreneurial intentions. For example, [61].confirmed that subjective norms are a significant predictor of entrepreneurial intention. Additionally, [64] also found that subjective norms are important in explaining entrepreneurial intentions. Similarly, [68] and [70] also obtained a positive relationship between subjective norms and entrepreneurial intention in their research. 4.4.10. The influence of entrepreneurial intentions on entrepreneurial behavior Entrepreneurial intentions were found to have a significant effect on entrepreneurial behavior. This is proven by the C.R value of 3.016 and the significant probability (p) of 0.003 is greater than the required significance level, namely 0.05. The path coefficient is positive at 0.313, which indicates that if entrepreneurial intentions increase, entrepreneurial behavior will increase. The results of the analysis accept the research hypothesis (H10). The results of data analysis show that the entrepreneurial intention variable has a significant influence on entrepreneurial behavior. Based on the results of the analysis, it can be concluded that the tenth hypothesis which states that entrepreneurial intentions have a significant effect on entrepreneurial behavior is accepted. The coefficient value shows a positive value, so it can be explained that the higher the entrepreneurial behavior of the people of Timor Leste, the more entrepreneurial behavior will increase. This is because high entrepreneurial behavior creates an environment that supports an entrepreneurial culture. When many individuals in society are involved in entrepreneurship and show real action in starting and developing their own businesses, this can be a positive example for others around them. People who have strong entrepreneurial behavior tend to have greater access to resources, business networks, and business opportunities that can help other individuals start their own businesses. In addition, the more individuals involved in entrepreneurship, the more diverse and stronger the local business ecosystem will be, which in turn can encourage economic growth and job creation. Thus, the high level of entrepreneurial behavior in Timor Leste society can be a strong driver to encourage more people to engage in entrepreneurship and contribute to the country's economic development. Ajzen (1991) says that intentions should remain stable in the interval between judgment and observation of behavior. Over time, several factors may influence the stability of intentions; for example, intervening events or new information can change intentions. Additionally, along with actual behavioral 1965 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 1944-1970, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2364 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate approaches, habitual behavioral patterns can lead to outcomes other than those intended. However, Ajzen (1985) suggested that the predictive accuracy of models can apply to long-term predictions as well, if predictions are at the aggregate level and not at the individual level. Aggregate intentions are assumed to be more stable over time than individual intentions. The results of this study support previous research which shows that entrepreneurial intentions have a significant influence on entrepreneurial behavior [70] ; [52] 4.4.11. The Influence of Entrepreneurial Behavior on Public Welfare Entrepreneurial behavior was found to have a significant effect on public welfare. This is proven by the C.R value of 8.612 and obtained a significant probability (p) of 0.000 which is greater than the required significance level of 0.05. The path coefficient is positive at 0.718, which indicates that if entrepreneurial behavior increases, it will improve public welfare. The results of the analysis accept the research hypothesis (H11). The results of data analysis show that the entrepreneurial behavior variable has a significant influence on public welfare. Based on the results of the analysis, it can be concluded that the eleventh hypothesis which states that entrepreneurial behavior has a significant effect on public welfare can be accepted. The coefficient value shows a positive value, so it can be explained that the higher the entrepreneurial behavior of the people of Timor Leste, the greater the welfare of the public. This happens because entrepreneurship has the potential to create new jobs, which in turn will reduce the unemployment rate in the country. With more employment opportunities, individuals' incomes increase, allowing them to meet their basic needs and improve their standard of living. Apart from that, entrepreneurship can also increase people's access to various necessary products and services, such as education, health and infrastructure. This can reduce social disparities and improve overall quality of life. Apart from the economic impact, entrepreneurship can also create innovation and renewal in various sectors, which can bring long-term benefits to society. Entrepreneurship can also motivate individuals to take initiative and responsibility for their own future, which can ultimately lead to improved psychological and social well-being. Thus, the higher the entrepreneurial behavior in Timor Leste society, the greater the potential for improving the welfare of society as a whole, both from an economic, social and psychological perspective. Entrepreneurship has been proven to have a significant role in improving public welfare in this research, as has been confirmed by previous research, including research by [8] A study by [71] revealed that the economic wealth of rural households can influence firewood consumption, with higher wealth having a negative impact on firewood consumption. The quality of farmer entrepreneurial growth is key in this context, because entrepreneurs play a role in providing services to the public. When entrepreneurs make positive contributions back to their communities, this can significantly improve the living conditions of entire communities, as highlighted by [89] which shows that public-based business practices can have a positive impact on improving living conditions in rural areas. Thus, entrepreneurship not only influences the individuals involved, but also has the potential to provide broad benefits to the public as a whole in improving societal welfare. 5. Conclusions This study leads to a deeper understanding of the relationship between cent capabilities (educational, economic, and socio-cultural), the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) approach (attitudes, behavioral control, and subjective norms), entrepreneurial intentions, entrepreneurial behavior, and self- public welfare in Timor-Leste. Findings show that economic capabilities and sociocultural capabilities have a significant influence on entrepreneurial intentions and behavior, with strong economic capabilities providing the resources and flexibility necessary to start and develop a business, while sociocultural factors such as norms that value job stability Formal practices can inhibit entrepreneurial behavior. In addition, the findings also show that entrepreneurial intentions have a positive influence on entrepreneurial behavior, which in turn can improve public welfare through the creation of new jobs and 1966 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 1944-1970, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2364 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate innovation. The theoretical implications of this study highlight the importance of considering the mediation of entrepreneurial behavior and intentions in understanding how factors such as sensibility and SDG approaches contribute to societal well-being, providing a foundation for the development of more holistic models in analyzing the phenomenon of entrepreneurship and development. -economic development in developing countries such as Timor-Leste The practical implication for the Timor Leste government from these findings is the need to adopt policies that support entrepreneurship development by strengthening the educational, economic and socio-cultural sectors. Governments can prioritize investment in education to improve the skills and knowledge of potential entrepreneurs and provide them with greater access to economic resources. In addition, the government can facilitate a conducive business environment by reducing bureaucracy, providing tax incentives, and expanding access to markets and capital. With these steps, the government can help drive sustainable economic growth, create new jobs, and improve the overall welfare of society This study makes an important contribution in explaining the factors that influence public welfare through an entrepreneurial perspective in Timor-Leste. The implications of the results of this research can be a valuable guide in formulating economic development and welfare policies, especially for countries with similar conditions. The research results can be used as a basis for designing more effective policies in improving public welfare through supporting entrepreneurship. This policy can focus on increasing educational, economic and socio-cultural aspects that contribute to entrepreneurial development. Next steps could involve further research across different sectors and contexts to understand the differences and similarities in the impact of entrepreneurial factors on societal well- being. Additional studies can open new and deeper insights into the complex dynamics behind this relationship by using people's welfare measured subjectively, namely subjective well-being. The practical implications of this study involve the development of more specific intervention strategies. Practitioners and policy makers can use these findings to design programs that can improve entrepreneurial Capability, attitudes and subjective norms to support the growth of public welfare. Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). References [1] J. Kimmitt, P. Muñoz, and R. Newbery, “Poverty and the varieties of entrepreneurship in the pursuit of prosperity,” J. Bus. Ventur., vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 1–18, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2019.05.003. [2] D. Urbano, S. Aparicio, and D. Audretsch, “Twenty-five years of research on institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic growth: what has been learned?,” Small Bus. Econ., vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 21–49, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s11187-018- 0038-0. [3] R. Rapina, M. Meythi, D. N. Rahmatika, and M. Mardiana, “The impact of financial literacy and financial behavior in entrepreneurial motivation–evidence from Indonesia,” Cogent Educ., vol. 10, no. 2, 2023, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2023.2282827. [4] B. Atems and G. Shand, “An empirical analysis of the relationship between entrepreneurship and income inequality,” Small Bus. Econ., vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 905–922, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s11187-017-9984-1. [5] M. Fritsch and P. Mueller, “The effect of new business formation on regional development over time: The case of Germany,” Small Bus. Econ., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 15–29, 2008, doi: 10.1007/s11187-007-9067-9. [6] I. S. Funko, B. Vlačić, and M. Dabić, “Corporate entrepreneurship in public sector: A systematic literature review and research agenda,” J. Innov. Knowl., vol. 8, no. 2, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jik.2023.100343. [7] M. Andersson and F. Noseleit, “Start-ups and employment dynamics within and across sectors,” Small Bus. Econ., vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 461–483, 2011, doi: 10.1007/s11187-009-9252-0. [8] T. Neumann, The impact of entrepreneurship on economic, social and environmental welfare and its determinants: a systematic review, vol. 71, no. 3. Springer International Publishing, 2021. doi: 10.1007/s11301-020-00193-7. [9] Y. Pan, S. Zhang, and M. Zhang, “The impact of entrepreneurship of farmers on agriculture and rural economic https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 1967 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 1944-1970, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2364 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate growth: Innovation-driven perspective,” Innov. Green Dev., vol. 3, no. 1, p. 100093, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.igd.2023.100093. [10] E. Y. Naminse and J. Zhuang, “Does farmer entrepreneurship alleviate rural poverty in China? Evidence from guangxi province,” PLoS One, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 1–18, 2018, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194912. [11] J. Chahal, V. Dagar, L. Dagher, A. Rao, and E. N. Udemba, “The crisis effect in TPB as a moderator for post- pandemic entrepreneurial intentions among higher education students: PLS-SEM and ANN approach,” Int. J. Manag. Educ., vol. 21, no. 3, p. 100878, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100878. [12] S. Karimi, “The role of entrepreneurial passion in the formation of students’ entrepreneurial intentions,” Appl. Econ., vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 331–344, 2020, doi: 10.1080/00036846.2019.1645287. [13] M. H. González-Serrano, I. Valantine, R. Matić, I. Milovanović, R. Sushko, and F. Calabuig, “Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions in European sports science students: Towards the development of future sports entrepreneurs,” Eur. Res. Manag. Bus. Econ., vol. 29, no. 3, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.iedeen.2023.100229. [14] E. Y. Naminse, J. Zhuang, and F. Zhu, “The relation between entrepreneurship and rural poverty alleviation in China,” Manag. Decis., vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 2593–2611, 2019, doi: 10.1108/MD-11-2017-1153. [15] A. T. Nguyen, T. H. H. Do, T. B. T. Vu, K. A. Dang, and H. L. Nguyen, “Factors affecting entrepreneurial intentions among youths in Vietnam,” Child. Youth Serv. Rev., vol. 99, no. November 2018, pp. 186–193, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.01.039. [16] A. J. F. Da Silva, “Wirausaha Muda dan Koperasi dalam kemajuan Ekonomi Bangsa Timor Leste,” jornalbisnistimor.com. [17] E. Klein, Amartya Sen’s Inequality Re-Examined. 2018. doi: 10.4324/9781912284856. [18] K. S. Kuhumba, “Amartya Sen’s capability approach as theoretical foundation of human development,” J. Sociol. Dev., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 127–145, 2017. [19] Z. Bajmócy, B. Mihók, and J. Gébert, “FURTHERING SOCIAL JUSTICE FOR DISABLED PEOPLE . A FRAMEWORK BASED ON AMARTYA SEN ’ S CAPABILITY APPROACH,” vol. 67, no. Lxvii, pp. 69–84, 2022, doi: 10.2478/subbs-2022-0003. [20] M. Dzingirai, “The role of entrepreneurship in reducing poverty inagricultural communities,” J. Enterprising Communities, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 665–683, 2021, doi: 10.1108/JEC-01-2021-0016. [21] D. Subramanian, J. Miquel Verd, J. Vero, and B. Zimmermann, “Bringing Sen’s capability approach to work and human resource practices,” Int. J. Manpow., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 292–304, 2013, doi: 10.1108/IJM-05-2013-0092. [22] P. Towfighi and A. Ramachandran, The quality of urban life., vol. 16, no. 2. 1984. [23] W. Kuklys and I. Robeyns, “Sen ’ s Capability Approach to Welfare Economics,” pp. 136–137. [24] J. A. Nukpezah and C. Blankson, “Microfinance Intervention in Poverty Reduction: A Study of Women Farmer- Entrepreneurs in Rural Ghana,” J. African Bus., vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 457–475, 2017, doi: 10.1080/15228916.2017.1336915. [25] C. C. Tseng, “Approach and Amartya Sen ’ S,” no. September, p. 316, 2011. [26] “The Measurement of Functionings Achievement: Structural Equation Models as an Alternative,” Amartya Sen’s Capab. Approach, pp. 31–57, 2005, doi: 10.1007/3-540-28083-9_3. [27] M. Fishbein and I. Ajzen, “Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An introduction to theory and research,” Philosophy and Rhetoric, vol. 5, no. 3. Addison Wesley Publihsing Company, Philippiines, pp. 1–519, 1975. [28] I. Al-Jubari, “College students’ entrepreneurial intention: Testing an integrated model of SDT and TPB,” SAGE Open, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1–15, 2019, doi: 10.1177/2158244019853467. [29] Y. H. Al-Mamary, A. A. Alfalah, A. Shamsuddin, and A. A. Abubakar, “Artificial intelligence powering education: ChatGPT’s impact on students’ academic performance through the lens of technology-to-performance chain theory,” J. Appl. Res. High. Educ., 2024, doi: 10.1108/JARHE-04-2024-0179. [30] W. J. Aloulou, “Predicting entrepreneurial intentions of final year Saudi university business students by applying the theory of planned behavior,” J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 1142–1164, 2016, doi: 10.1108/JSBED-02- 2016-0028. [31] H. Chahal and R. D. Sharma, “Implications of Corporate Social Responsibility on Marketing Performance: A Conceptual Framework,” Int. Manag., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 205–216, 2006. [32] G. Maheshwari, “Entrepreneurial intentions of university students in Vietnam: Integrated model of social learning, human motivation, and TPB,” Int. J. Manag. Educ., vol. 20, no. 3, p. 100714, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100714. [33] M. Wang, J. Cai, and H. Munir, “Promoting entrepreneurial intentions for academic scientists: combining the social cognition theory and theory of planned behaviour in broadly-defined academic entrepreneurship,” Eur. J. Innov. Manag., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 613–635, 2020, doi: 10.1108/EJIM-07-2020-0257. [34] S. V. Oğuz Kara, Levent Altinay, Mehmet Bağış, Mehmet Nurullah Kurutkan, “Management Decision,” Manag. Decis., vol. Vol. 62 No, no. 10 May 2024, pp. 1238–129, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2023-0490. [35] I. Verheul, J. Block, K. Burmeister-Lamp, R. Thurik, H. Tiemeier, and R. Turturea, “ADHD-like behavior and entrepreneurial intentions,” Small Bus. Econ., vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 85–101, 2015. 1968 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 1944-1970, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2364 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate [36] T. Rantanen and T. Toikko, “Social values, societal entrepreneurship attitudes and entrepreneurial intention of young people in the Finnish welfare state,” Econ. Bus. Rev., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 7–25, 2013, doi: 10.18559/ebr.2013.1.812. [37] W. sum Siu and E. S. chung Lo, “Cultural contingency in the cognitive model of entrepreneurial intention,” Entrep. Theory Pract., vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 147–173, 2013, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00462.x. [38] D. Turker and S. S. Selcuk, “Which factors affect entrepreneurial intention of university students?,” J. Eur. Ind. Train., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 142–159, 2009, doi: 10.1108/03090590910939049. [39] H. W. Hattab, “Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurial Intentions of University Students in Egypt,” J. Entrep., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2014, doi: 10.1177/0971355713513346. [40] W. Nowiński, M. Y. Haddoud, D. Lančarič, D. Egerová, and C. Czeglédi, “The impact of entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and gender on entrepreneurial intentions of university students in the Visegrad countries,” Stud. High. Educ., vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 361–379, 2019, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2017.1365359. [41] S. L. Martin and R. R. G. Javalgi, “Entrepreneurial orientation, marketing capabilities and performance: The Moderating role of Competitive Intensity on Latin American International New Ventures,” J. Bus. Res., vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 2040–2051, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.149. [42] B. Guo and J. Huang, “Financial Well-Being and Financial Capability among Low-Income Entrepreneurs,” J. Risk Financ. Manag., vol. 16, no. 3, 2023, doi: 10.3390/jrfm16030181. [43] L. Casini, F. Boncinelli, F. Gerini, C. Romano, G. Scozzafava, and C. Contini, “Evaluating rural viability and well- being: Evidence from marginal areas in Tuscany,” J. Rural Stud., vol. 82, no. May 2020, pp. 64–75, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.002. [44] R. Raijman, “Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions: Mexican immigrants in Chicago,” J. Socio. Econ., vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 393–411, 2001, doi: 10.1016/S1053-5357(01)00101-9. [45] F. Yi, L. Yao, Y. Sun, and Y. Cai, “E-commerce participation, digital finance and farmers’ income,” China Agric. Econ. Rev., 2023, doi: 10.1108/CAER-03-2023-0053. [46] R. Gonzalez, J. Llopis, and J. Gasco, “Social networks in cultural industries,” J. Bus. Res., vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 823–828, 2015. [47] L. A. Samovar, R. E. Porter, E. R. McDaniel, and C. S. Roy, “Communication Between Cultures, Eighth Edition,” p. 426, 2013. [48] M. Granovetter, “Economic Action and Social Structure: the Problem of Embeddedness,” New Econ. Sociol. A Read., vol. 91, no. 3, pp. 245–273, 2021, doi: 10.4324/9780429494338-3. [49] Y. Zhang, L. Long, T. Wu, and X. Huang, “When is pay for performance related to employee creativity in the Chinese context? The role of guanxi HRM practice, trust in management, and intrinsic motivation,” J. Organ. Behav., vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 698–719, 2015. [50] J. David Nuñez-Gonzalez, M. Graña, and B. Apolloni, “Reputation features for trust prediction in social networks,” Neurocomputing, vol. 166, pp. 1–7, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2014.10.099. [51] J. Mueller, F. B. Zapkau, and C. Schwens, “Impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on entrepreneurial intention— cross-cultural evidence,” J. Enterprising Cult., vol. 22, no. 03, pp. 251–282, 2014. [52] F. Liñán, J. C. Rodríguez-Cohard, and J. Guzmán, “Temporal stability of entrepreneurial intentions: A longitudinal study,” Entrep. Res. Eur. Evol. Concepts Process., no. July, pp. 34–55, 2011, doi: 10.4337/9780857931757.00011. [53] R. K. Mitchell, J. B. Smith, E. A. Morse, and A. M. Peredo, “Are Entrepreneurial Cognitions Universal? Assessing Entrepreneurial Cognitions across Cultures.,” Entrep. Theory Pract., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 9–32, 2002, doi: doi:10.1177/104225870202600402. [54] A. Icek, “From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior,” Action Control, pp. 11–39, 1985. [55] C. Schlaegel and M. Koenig, “Determinants of Entrepreneurial Intent: A Meta-Analytic Test and Integration of Competing Models,” Entrep. Theory Pract., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 291–332, 2014, doi: 10.1111/etap.12087. [56] Y. Chen, Y. Wang, S. Nevo, J. Benitez-Amado, and G. Kou, “IT capabilities and product innovation performance: The roles of corporate entrepreneurship and competitive intensity,” Inf. Manag., vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 643–657, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.im.2015.05.003. [57] S. Aryee, P. S. Budhwar, and Z. X. Chen, “Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model,” J. Organ. Behav. Int. J. Ind. Occup. Organ. Psychol. Behav., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 267–285, 2002. [58] A. Icek, “The Theory of planned behavior.",” Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process., vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 179–211, 1991, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020. [59] R. Fini, R. Grimaldi, and M. Sobrero, “Factors fostering academics to start up new ventures: An assessment of Italian founders’ incentives,” J. Technol. Transf., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 380–402, 2009, doi: 10.1007/s10961-008-9093-z. [60] T. Kautonen, J. Palmroos, and P. Vainio, “‘Involuntary self-employment’ in Finland: A bleak future?,” Int. J. Public Pol., vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 533–548, 2009, doi: 10.1504/IJPP.2009.025261. [61] J. A. Moriano, M. Gorgievski, M. Laguna, U. Stephan, and K. Zarafshani, “A Cross-Cultural Approach to Understanding Entrepreneurial Intention,” J. Career Dev., vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 162–185, 2012, doi: 1969 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 1944-1970, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2364 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate 10.1177/0894845310384481. [62] A. M. F. do Paço, J. M. Ferreira, M. Raposo, R. G. Rodrigues, and A. Dinis, “Behaviours and entrepreneurial intention: Empirical findings about secondary students,” J. Int. Entrep., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 20–38, 2011, doi: 10.1007/s10843-010-0071-9. [63] N. Schwarz, D. Kahneman, and J. Xu, “Global and Episodic Reports of Hedonic Experience,” Cal. Time Diary, no. April 2009, pp. 156–174, 2011, doi: 10.4135/9781412990295.d15. [64] M. Van Gelderen, M. Brand, M. Van Praag, W. Bodewes, E. Poutsma, and A. Van Gils, “Explaining entrepreneurial intentions by means of the theory of planned behaviour,” Career Dev. Int., vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 538–559, 2008, doi: 10.1108/13620430810901688. [65] J. A. Moriano, M. Gorgievski, M. Laguna, U. Stephan, and K. Zarafshani, “A Cross-Cultural Approach to Understanding Entrepreneurial Intention,” J. Career Dev., vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 162–185, Apr. 2012, doi: 10.1177/0894845310384481. [66] E. J. Schwarz, M. A. Wdowiak, D. A. Almer-Jarz, and R. J. Breitenecker, “The effects of attitudes and perceived environment conditions on students’ entrepreneurial intent: An Austrian perspective,” Educ. Train., vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 272–291, 2009, doi: 10.1108/00400910910964566. [67] L. Sommer, “The Theory Of Planned Behaviour And The Impact Of Past Behaviour,” Int. Bus. Econ. Res. J., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 91–110, 2011, doi: 10.19030/iber.v10i1.930. [68] J. C. Carr and J. M. Sequeira, “Prior family business exposure as intergenerational influence and entrepreneurial intent: A Theory of Planned Behavior approach,” J. Bus. Res., vol. 60, no. 10, pp. 1090–1098, 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.12.016. [69] C. L. Shook and C. Bratianu, “Entrepreneurial intent in a transitional economy: an application of the theory of planned behavior to Romanian students,” Int. Entrep. Manag. J., vol. 6, pp. 231–247, 2010. [70] T. Kautonen, M. van Gelderen, and M. Fink, “Robustness of the theory of planned behavior in predicting entrepreneurial intentions and actions,” Entrep. Theory Pract., vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 655–674, 2015, doi: 10.1111/etap.12056. [71] S. Démurger and M. Fournier, “Poverty and firewood consumption: A case study of rural households in northern China,” China Econ. Rev., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 512–523, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.chieco.2010.09.009. [72] A. Ansoms and A. McKay, “A quantitative analysis of poverty and livelihood profiles: The case of rural Rwanda,” Food Policy, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 584–598, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.06.006. [73] J. F. Hair JR, W. C. Black, B. J.Babin, and R. E. Anderson, “Joseph F. Hair, William C. Black, Barry J. Babin, Rolph E. Anderson - Multivariate Data Analysis (7th Edition)-Prentice Hall (2009).pdf.” p. 161, 2009. [74] M. C. Nussbaum, Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. 2011. doi: 10.4159/harvard.9780674061200. [75] Y. Liñán, F., & Chen, “Development and Cross-Cultural Application of a Specific Instrument to Measure Entrepreneurial Intentions,” Entrep. Theory Pract., vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 593-617., 2009, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00318.x [76] C. Gieure, M. del M. Benavides-Espinosa, and S. Roig-Dobón, “The entrepreneurial process: The link between intentions and behavior,” J. Bus. Res., vol. 112, no. November 2019, pp. 541–548, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.088. [77] G. Gandhiadi, K. Dharmawan, and K. Sari, “Model Persamaan Struktural Untuk Mengkaji Pengaruh Modal Sosial Melalui Dimensi Orientasi Kewirausahaan Terhadap Kesejahteraan Masyarakat Di Kabupaten Jembrana, Bali,” Proc. Semin. Nas. FMIPA UNDIKSHA V, pp. 355–363, 2015. [78] S. . Teixeira, “Entrepreneurial intentions and entrepreneurship in European countries,” Int. J. Innov. Sci., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 22–42, 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-07-2017-0062. [79] B. Honig, “Entrepreneurship education: Toward a model of contingency-based business planning,” Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 258–273, 2004. [80] R. Aterido and M. Hallward-Driemeier, “Whose business is it anyway?: Closing the gender gap in entrepreneurship in Sub-Saharan Africa,” Small Bus. Econ., vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 443–464, 2011, doi: 10.1007/s11187-011-9375-y. [81] E. Naminse, J.-C. Zhuang, and J. Awuni, “Economic Growth, Farmer Entrepreneurship and Rural Poverty Alleviation in China: A Critical Review,” Asian J. Agric. Extension, Econ. Sociol., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 1–15, 2016, doi: 10.9734/ajaees/2016/26034. [82] A. N. Banerjee, N. Banik, and J. P. Mukhopadhyay, “The dynamics of income growth and poverty: Evidence from districts in India,” Dev. Policy Rev., vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 293–312, 2015. [83] S. Koch, “From poverty reduction to mutual interests? The debate on differentiation in EU development policy,” Dev. Policy Rev., vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 479–502, 2015. [84] R. R. Weaver, M. Lemonde, N. Payman, and W. M. Goodman, “Health capabilities and diabetes self-management: the impact of economic, social, and cultural resources,” Soc. Sci. Med., vol. 102, pp. 58–68, 2014. [85] K. Raman, R. N. Anantharaman, and S. Jayasingam, “Motivational factors affecting entrepreneurial decision: A comparison between Malaysian women entrepreneurs and women non entrepreneurs,” Commun. IBIMA, vol. 2, no. 12, 1970 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 8, No. 6: 1944-1970, 2024 DOI: 10.55214/25768484.v8i6.2364 © 2024 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate pp. 85–89, 2008. [86] M. Fritsch and P. Mueller, “Effects of new business formation on regional development over time,” Reg. Stud., vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 961–975, 2004, doi: 10.1080/0034340042000280965. [87] Ajzen, “Norma Subjektif,” http// Repos. Univ. Muhamadiyah Ponorogo, pp. 16–17, 1991, [Online]. Available: http://eprints.umpo.ac.id/3979/3/BAB II.pdf [88] I. Ajzen, “The theory of planned behavior,” Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process., vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 179–211, 1991. [89] Y. Lin and L. Y. Wu, “Exploring the role of dynamic capabilities in firm performance under the resource-based view framework,” J. Bus. Res., vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 407–413, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.12.019.