Review of Economics and Development Studies, Vol. 7 (2) 2021, 257-266

257

Culture and Entrepreneurial Self Efficacy: Comparative Analysis at Provincial Level
in Pakistan

Muhammad Mansoor Ali

a
, Hajra Ihsan

b
, Afia Mushtaq

a
Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, NUML, Islamabad, Pakistan

Email: mmali@numl.edu.pk
b
Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, IIUI, Islamabad, Pakistan

Email: Hajra.ihsan@iiu.edu.pk
c
Assistant Professor, University of Management and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan

Email: Mushtaque.afia64@gmail.com

ARTICLE DETAILS ABSTRACT
History:
Accepted 10 May 2021

Available Online June 2021

The debate about embeddedness of entrepreneurship in cultural
dimensions has not found any conclusive theory but still there is ample

evidence that culture has impact on intention of entrepreneurial activity.
The culturally legitimate vocational choices affect the efficacy to make an
entrepreneurial startup. This is directly linked with not only the

economic activity but also for creating businesses with the available
local resources. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy reflects the personal beliefs
of individuals in their own abilities and regarding opportunity
recognition and risk propensity. The study conducted the analysis by

comparing entrepreneurs in four provinces of Pakistan (Punjab, Khyber

Pakhtunkhwa, Sindh and Balochistan) and found significant differences
in factors describing self-efficacy. MGCFA revealed the stability of the
research instrument across the provinces thus factor loadings for
different provinces can be compared. Entrepreneurs in Punjab have

relatively stronger entrepreneurial self-efficacy in contrast with other
provinces. The policy intervention should be reflective of the situation of
each province, and public policy related to business environment should
be more liberal while in other provinces supportive of entrepreneurs
through institutional support to new business developers.

© 2021 The authors. Published by SPCRD Global Publishing. This is an
open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution-

NonCommercial 4.0

Keywords:
Entrepreneurship, Role and
Effects of Psychological,
Emotional, Social and Cognitive
Factors on Decision Making,
Public Policy

JEL Classification:
L26, D91, J18

DOI: 10.47067/reads.v7i2.356

Corresponding author’s email address: mmali@numl.edu.pk

1. Introduction

The experience of the nations during the recessions has revealed that small businesses with their
innovations in products and services emerging with newer strategies to survive and thrive always lead
the way to economic recovery. It is ability of any society to create enabling circumstances for
entrepreneurial actions as effectuation of entrepreneurial expertise is to logically think for new
business startup with ability to survive and thrive in an unpredictable future. In the recent past most

Review of Economics and Development Studies, Vol. 7 (2) 2021, 257-266

258

remarkable business ventures have emerged for those innovative businesses that were built in an
unknown and unknowable future market situation (Fritsch & Wyrwich, 2018). It is entrepreneurial
efficacy that enables entrepreneurs to shape this unpredictable future and create organizations that
delve upon ways to continuously embrace newness and creativity. When stock market is down and

generating signals of stress in the economy, entrepreneurial startups endeavors do not add to it instead
become a source of generating new jobs. Hayes and Malone (2009) acknowledged this fact and
indicated that only entrepreneurs rather any governmental action could lead the US out of financial
crisis. Therefore, the entrepreneurial activity has become a source of sustainable growth for any
economy not only for efficient use of available scarce resources but also for social harmony and
prosperity. The natural, agricultural and human resources are at the disposal of entrepreneur to create
value for creating new enterprises. Thus, the entrepreneurial literature comprehends the individual
attributes of an entrepreneur, the organizational setting it creates for success, and the macroeconomics
environment (industry, legal, national and global) (Farah & Ali, 2018).

Among factor driven economies Pakistan not only has lowest number of established firms and

economic policy makers continue to ignore and neglect the role of entrepreneurship (GEM Pakistan
Report, 2011). Chemin (2008) cited that annual new firms entry rate in Pakistan was 7% as compared

to 10.2% in industrialized countries found in entrepreneurship survey of 84 developing and industrial
countries for the period 2003–2005 by The World Bank Group. But when it comes to size of the firms,
business landscape in Pakistan is dominated by relatively smaller firms. Small and Medium Enterprise
Development Authority (SMEDA) reported that in 2015 there were about 3.5 million private firms
(registered and non-registered) employing 80% of the non-agricultural labor force but 90% of these
firms have less than 100 employees. The share of small and medium sized firms in exports is 25% with

40% contribution in GDP (Economic Census of Pakistan, 2016).

The study is generally concerned with assessing the potential of individuals to try to attempt

establishing an entrepreneurial business. It requires understanding of personal internal strengths,

efficient financial and market management, and awareness of ecological factor. All these factors
determine the rate of success of these attempts in agriculture and non-agriculture based businesses. But
study will be confined to entrepreneurial startups that are based on agriculture factor inputs due to the
fact that still around 70% of population of Pakistan is directly or indirectly employed in agriculture
sector. Furthermore, the data collection will not only be restricted to few of the important cities, but
also within those cities in which entrepreneurs will be available. The instruments of the study will be
refined on the basis of preliminary data collected from entrepreneurial startups located in Rawalpindi
and Hattar. The quality of data will depend largely on the time preferences of the respondents. As the
study is to determine the efficacy of the individuals, therefore, the conclusions drawn will be limited to
individuals and not the corporate entities as a whole.

2. Literature Review
Aggregate entrepreneurial behavior is strongly rational deliberately indulged to create a synergy

for systematic transformation of existing ways to produce goods and services with the use of
knowledge, technology and capital. The ‘Four Key Factors’ constituting entrepreneurial process are:
talent, technology, know-how, and capital (Gibson, 1991). Each factor represents a separate entity but is
interdependent and together creates synergy for creating a new organization. Effectuation enables a
person to use these factors effectively to create entrepreneurial intentions and new uses of available
resources in the face of uncertain and unpredictable future.

‘Excellence in asking more of yourself than what others do’ describes the concept of self-efficacy.

Review of Economics and Development Studies, Vol. 7 (2) 2021, 257-266

259

Self-efficacy measures a person’s competence within a specific framework, focusing on the self-
assessment of abilities to perform specific tasks aligned with goals and standard rather than in
comparison with capabilities of others (Fritsch & Wyrwich, 2018). Self-efficacy is closely linked to
important entrepreneurial outcomes like start-up intentions (Kruger et.al. 2000), new venture growth

and personal success of entrepreneur (Markman et.al. 2002). Therefore, the entrepreneurial self-
efficacy is central to long-run growth of any economy. The entrepreneurial self-efficacy is reflected in
the creation of new organizations like corporations, social services delivery, and innovative initiatives
(Fuller et al., 2018).

They understand the importance of enacting systems for business management i.e. financial

management, planning cash flows, marketing, human resources development, and strategic planning,
etc. (Chen, Greene & Crick, 1998). These varying insights into the entrepreneurial behavior can lead us
to conclusion that an entrepreneur has a distinctive persona, approach towards life, enthusiasm, vision
and commitment to transform plans into reality through a well thought out business plan and to cease
every opportunity of innovation (Linan & Chen, 2009). Therefore, entrepreneur needs to have very

strong personality traits that are shaped by the personal background, experience, education, training,
and environment. Such personality traits make many scholars to say that entrepreneurs are born rather

made (Flora, 2006).

Entrepreneurs are differentiated from non-entrepreneurs generally on the basis of individual

level factors (Shane, 2003). At this level, certain attributes differentiate individuals on the basis of the
way they discover, evaluate, and take advantage of entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrepreneurs are
more achievement-orientated than their peers (Collins, Hannon & Smith 2004). The motive of self-

realization and independence drives an entrepreneur to think out of the ordinary and come up with
ideas that can be translated into new goods and services (Carter et al. 2003; Douglas and Shepherd
2002). Self-efficacy and having belief in one’s competence to pursue a new venture is important for
every entrepreneur (Chen, Greene & Crick, 1998; McGee et al., 2009; Townsend, Busenitz & Arthurs,

2010).

This self-belief makes them to stand for relatively more risk, therefore, manifesting higher risk

propensity for their projects. Entrepreneurs also face risk of carrying the ‘stigma’ in case of failure of
their project (Stewart & Roth, 2004). Schumpeter (1934) went on to say that entrepreneur is the person
who breaks the existing economic order down to create new products and services, create new
opportunities and create new firms. Therefore, an entrepreneur is more creative than non-
entrepreneurs (Lee & Wong, 2004). If the project thrives, entrepreneur fulfills the dream of financial
success but more than this, the contended feeling of success as a social norm enables him to earn and
create the social network that is enabling for entrepreneurial culture (Elster, 1989; Turker & Selcuk,
2009).

3. Data & Methodology

The research in theory of entrepreneurial self-efficacy has not yet developed one-factor
construct that can describe the entrepreneurial competence. In a similar effort Sarasvathy (2001)
described four principles of effectuation enabling a person to take up risk prone business decision in an
unknowable future: bird in hand; affordable loss; pre-commitments, and flexibility. On the contrary,
causation is measured with single construct especially by Chandler et al. (2011) to explain the
entrepreneurial actions. Another strand of thinking in this perspective is entrepreneurial bricolage that
describes the behavior of entrepreneur in terms of making the best use of available resources and
creating value for the business by innovation facing a resources constraint (Baker & Nelson, 2005).

Review of Economics and Development Studies, Vol. 7 (2) 2021, 257-266

260

Researchers like McGee et.al. (2009) used the principles of self-efficacy to develop scales for
entrepreneurial startups. They adjusted the principles of self-efficacy for entrepreneurial startups by
creating these dimensions: searching (3 items); planning (4 items); marshalling (3 items);
implementing-people (6 items); implementing-financial (3 items), and; attitude towards venturing (3

items). The study used these measures of effectuation to generate data of entrepreneurial startups from
agricultural sector of Pakistan.

Table 1: Measurement Scales of Entrepreneurial Efficacy

Scale Number of Factors
Number of

Items
Reference

DeNoble-scale

5
Developing new product or market opportunities;
building an innovative environment; initiating
investor relationships; defining core purpose;

coping with unexpected challenges, and;

developing critical human resources

25
De Noble, Jung,
& Ehrlich, 1999

Chen-scale

Marketing; innovation; management; risk-taking,
and; financial control.

20
Chen, Greene, &

Crick, 1998

McGee-scale

6
Searching; planning; marshalling; implementing
people; implementing financial, and; attitude

towards venturing.

McGee,
Peterson,
Mueller, &

Sequeira, 2009

The McGee-scale used the factors identified by other researchers (e.g. Cox et al., 2002; Mueller &
Goic, 2003) to develop their linear phase-based measure: searching, planning, marshalling, and
implementing. The McGee-scale of Entrepreneurial Efficacy has-items measure consisting of six distinct
factors specifically related to: searching, planning, marshalling, implementing people, implementing

financial, and attitude towards venturing (McGee, Peterson, Mueller, & Sequeira, 2009): searching - (3
items), planning - (4 items), marshalling - (3 items), implementing People - (6 items), implementing
Financial - (3 items), and attitude towards Venturing - (3 items). Therefore, study used McGee-scale for
assessing entrepreneurial efficacy.

The analysis of pilot study revealed some of the items did not comply with the minimum

statistical requirements to be considered consistent with construct of effectuation. As the study in using

standardized scales of measurement, therefore, study did not modify the instruments instead tried to
identify the respondents on the basis of general self-efficacy (GSE). The study identified the responses
that were showing homogeneous or non-responses and those were either discarded or re-interviewed.
The study then had to select those respondents that gave reliable responses for empirical analysis and
scored high on the scale of GSE.

Review of Economics and Development Studies, Vol. 7 (2) 2021, 257-266

261

Table 2: Detail of Sample and Sub-Sample

Sample Size in

Pilot Study
Proportion in

Pilot Study
Sample

Size
Missing
Values

Admissible for
Analysis

Punjab 97 37% 296 63 233

KPK 68 29% 232 25 207

Sindh 21 16% 128 29 99

Balochistan 26 18% 144 23 121

Total 212 100% 800 140 660

The data was collected from all four provinces of the country and the instruments used were
validated through EFA. The study also conducted the multi grout confirmatory factor analysis to
ascertain the stability of the research instrument.

As empirical analysis is based on structural equation modeling, the study conducted

confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for assessing validity and reliability of instruments to reach
pertinent decisions and analysis about entrepreneurs in agricultural sector of Pakistan. CFA retains
those factors that have standard factor weights from 0.5 to 0.7 for all items provided high degree of
reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha > 0.7), average variance extracted (AVE > 0.5) and construct reliability
(CR > 0.7) for all constructs (Hair, Jr., Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2017). As the comparison of different
categories is done in the study, the study used information of CFA instead of Chi-Square test for
assessing the significance of results. Chi-Square test works well for categories of same size, but is

affected largely because of difference in degrees of freedom. The study produced different sized
categories for comparison and CFA is used to make comparison as it is based mostly on average
measures (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

4. Results and Discussion

Societies with high supply of entrepreneurs have a favorable culture and personality orientation
that crates an entrepreneurial mindset (Minniti & Bygrave, 2003). Entrepreneurship is promoted in a
society that has a dynamic orientation exhibiting such cognition that encourages an overall adjustment
to change and support it within legal and economic framework (Foxcroft et al., 2002).

Review of Economics and Development Studies, Vol. 7 (2) 2021, 257-266

262

Table 3: Invariance of Entrepreneurial Efficacy

Model χ
2
Δ χ

2
Df Δ df CFI Δ CFI RMSEA

Model 1: Configural invariance 89.23 - 147 - 0.911 - 0.03

Model 2: Metric Invariance: first-
order factor loadings invariant

112.33 23.1 161 14 0.901 0.01 0.039

Model 3: Metric Invariance: first-
and second-order factor loadings
invariant

132.47 20.14 168 4 0.899 0.002 0.048

Model 4: Scalar Invariance: first-
and second-order factor loadings
and intercepts of first order

167.98 35.51 182 14 0.881 0.018 0.06

Model 5: Scalar Invariance: first-
and second-order factor loadings,
and intercepts of measured

variables and first-order factors

invariant

202.67 34.69 186 4 0.801 0.08 0.11

Individual and collective development of entrepreneurial culture is a reinforcing process that

transcends not just at the cultural level but also at sub cultural level. Therefore, ethnicity and race are
also differentiating factors that influence tendency of individuals and groups to indulge in creative and
innovation based business activity.

The results of invariance indicate that the second order scalar invariance could not be

established but still the first order metric and scalar invariance along with second order scalar
invariance is enough to establish that the research component is stable across the sub-sectors of

agricultural sector of Pakistan. As the instrument is stable across all the four categories, therefore, the
factor loadings of different items can be compared.

Table 9 Province wise Constructs and Comparison of Item Means for Entrepreneurial

Effectuation

Cronbach’s 
AVE
CR

Factor
Loading

Punjab KPK Sindh Balochistan Punjab KPK Sindh Balochistan

Searching —
Brainstorm to

generate a new idea
Need for a new

product or service
Designing a

product or service
Planning —

Estimate customer
demand

Determine a
competitive price

0.88
0.57

0.80

0.82
0.79
0.83

0 .86
0.62

0.71
0.40

0.44

0.68
0.79
0.54

0.78
0.64

0.70
0.40

0.45

0.62
0.79
0.52

0 .66
0.32

0.64
0.38

0.42

0.67
0.79
0.51

0.88
0.74

.77

.76

.78

.87
.84
.82

.71

.81

.62

.57

.71

.67
.66
.62

.63

.77

.52

.67

.71

.57
.64
.72

.61

.48

.65

.55

.66

.51
.56
.72

.71

.77

Review of Economics and Development Studies, Vol. 7 (2) 2021, 257-266

263

Estimation of
start-up funds and

working capital
Designing

marketing campaign
Marshaling —

Shared Vision
Networking

outside
Clarity of

identifying business
needs and ideas

Implementing-people
—

Supervise

employees
Recruiting and

hiring
Delegating of work

and
responsibilities
Day-to-day

problems handling
Inspiring and

encouraging teams
Training

employees

Implementing-financial
—

Maintaining
financial records

Managing financial

assets
Assessing financial

statements
Attitude toward
venturing —

Worthless/worthw

hile
Disappointing/rew

arding
Negative/positive

0.76

0 .81

0.60
0.59

0.84
0.72
0.93

0 .82
0.72
0.93

0.77

0.79

0.75
0.61

0.88
0.71
0.95

0.84
0.72
0.92

0.56

0 .73

0.79
0.93

0.74
0.75
0.85

0.77
0.74
0.87

0.59

0.84

.081
0.89

0.69
0.77
0.79

0.71
0.75
0.83

.86

.71

.78

.77

.80

.84
.81
.74

.88
.86
.81

.91
.71
.91

.59

.65

.71

.72

.70

.72
.73
.64

.89
.87
.88

.91
.81
.78

.79

.36

.78

.77

.80

.77
.71
.74

.68
.78
.71

.88
.71
.68

.61

.71

.72

.70

.72
.63
.61

.72
.67
.58

.71
.61
.78

Punjab: χ
2

= 143.34, p

< .00; GFI = .94; CFI =
.88; RMSEA = .05

KPK: χ
2

116.18, p <
.00; GFI = .90;
NFI = .90;
RMSEA = .06

Sindh: χ
2

= 64.11, p < .00; GFI

= .91; CFI = .91; RMSEA = .05

Balochistan: χ
2

= 94.68, p

< .00; GFI = .92; CFI =
.90; RMSEA = .04

AVE=Average Variance Extracted; CR=Construct Reliability

Review of Economics and Development Studies, Vol. 7 (2) 2021, 257-266

264

There are few studies that have studied the impact of family and national culture on self-efficacy
of individual that intend to be entrepreneurs (Bandura, 2012). But Bandura (2012) asserts that people
do not spend life neither independent of the society not entirely accordingly to the wishes and
inspirations of others.

The interplay and interdependencies of individuals create reactive and harmonizing behaviors

shaping cooperation and conflict situation that have varying degree of manifestation depending upon
the social structure to diffuse or enforce them. Therefore, self-efficacy also has to develop within
individual self and the societal setting individual interacts with. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy is thus
related with likelihood of an individual to follow an entrepreneurial life style which is different from
successfully crating an entrepreneurial business startup (Farah & Ali, 2018). The respondents of the
study are form different regions of Pakistan, therefore, the study compared differences in
entrepreneurial self-efficacy due to belonging to different regions. This analysis does not address the
issue of difference in self-efficacy of entrepreneurs from different ethnic backgrounds working in a
common geographical region.

The results reveal that the entrepreneurs belonging to Punjab have highest level of

entrepreneurial self-efficacy while it is lowest in Balochistan. Entrepreneurs from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
and Sindh seem to be having almost similar entrepreneurial self-efficacy. The differentiating factor in
Punjab is the high degree of need to search for entrepreneurial opportunities as compared to other
provinces. Once the entrepreneurial opportunity is identified, then the entrepreneurs in Punjab put a
lot of effort to plan and make the startup a reality. The information about social and professional
networks is also easily available to them and there is relatively more developed markets that can help in

making better decisions about pricing and positioning. The factor markets are also more developed as
compared to other provinces and help the entrepreneur to decide upon the quality and level of
production at the inception of the firm. The relative size of cities is also larger in Punjab and it has more
agglomeration impact than rest of the country except Karachi. The organizational founding is also

subject to entrepreneurial potential of the region in particular and economy in general. Therefore, large
cities and information networks provide a conducive environment for new entrepreneurial activity.
Individual entrepreneurs generally in organized markets and highly agglomerated regions tend to start
modest which help them to attract investments for growth of their firms. Therefore, there is a
reinforcing impact of ecology and culture on entrepreneurial activity which is also seen in populous
regions of Pakistan. Possible reasons for relatively low level of entrepreneurial efficacy in Balochistan
may be due to less population density but in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is due to turbulent circumstances for
more than three decades. A large portion of Pashto speaking population is doing business in other
provinces outside Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The interviews with entrepreneurs revealed that instead of
expanding the business and launching big they prefer to expand the product lines. This fact can also be
verified by looking at the results of the analysis.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations
There exists a difference in entrepreneurial self-efficacy among the people belonging to different
provinces in Pakistan. Entrepreneurs in Pakistan are not in general well versed with letting the others
to share their vision due to paying less attention to marketing and image building of their business. It
can be inferred from the analysis that the effectual enterprise development in Pakistan has a limited
growth potential due to paying less attention to marketing and financial management. This may have
implications for entrepreneurs to have export outlook of their businesses especially when due to CPEC
and other international commitments economy of Pakistan is open to foreign competition. The policy
intervention should be reflective of the situation of each province, and public policy related to business

Review of Economics and Development Studies, Vol. 7 (2) 2021, 257-266

265

environment should be more liberal while in other provinces supportive of entrepreneurs through
institutional support to new business developers.

References

Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of
Management, 38(1), 9-44.

Carter, N. M., Gartner, W. B., Shaver, K. G., & Gatewood, E. J. (2003). The career reasons of
nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 13–39.

Chemin, M. (2008). Entrepreneurship in Pakistan: Government policy on SMEs. Environment for
entrepreneurship, Internationalisation of Entrepreneurs and SMEs. 18(1): 13–39.

Chen, C. C., P. G. Greene and A. Crick. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish
entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 97(2): 295–316.

Collins, L., Hannon, P. D., & Smith, A. (2004). Enacting entrepreneurial intent: The gaps between
student needs and higher education capability. Education Training, 46(8/9), 454–463.

Elster, J. (1989). Social norms and economic theory. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3(4), 99–
117.

Farah, S. A., & Ali, H. A. (2018). A Study on perception of business students on the future job
market: A case study of Umma University. International Journal of Scientific Research and
Management, 6(04), 274-281. https://doi.org/10.18535/ijsrm/v6i4.em06

Flora, Cornelia Butler. (2006). Are entrepreneurs born or made? Rural Development News, 4(28):
14-22.

Fritsch, M., & Wyrwich, M. (2018). Regional knowledge, entrepreneurial culture, and innovative
start-ups over time and space - an empirical investigation. Small Business and Economics,

2(51), 337–353. doi:10.1007/s11187-018-0016-6.
Fuller, J., Liu, Y., Bajaba, S., Marler, L., & Pratt, J. (2018). Examining how the personality, self-

efficacy, and anticipatory cognitions of potential entrepreneurs shape their entrepreneurial

intentions. Personality and Individual Differences. 125, 120-125.
Gibson, D. (1991). Technology Companies and Global Markets: Programs, Policies and Strategies

to Accelerate Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Rowman & Littlefield Publisher, Inc.,
Maryland. p. 43-50.

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. (2011). Report on Pakistan. International Council for Small
Business. p. 23-33.

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). California: Sage.

Hayes, T. and M. S. Malone. (2009). Entrepreneurs can lead us out of the crisis. Wall Street
Journal, 8(2): A.15.

Lee, S. H., & Wong. P. K. (2004). An Exploratory Study of technopreneurial intentions: a career

anchor perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 7–28.
McGee, J. E., Peterson, M. S., Mueller, L., & Sequeira, J. M. (2009). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy:

Refining the measure. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33, 965–988.
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2002). Entrepreneurship as economics with imagination. Ruffin Series in

Business Ethics, 26(3), 95-112.
Schumpeter, J. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.
Shane, S. (2003). A General Theory of Entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Stewart, W. H., & Roth, P. L. (2004). Data quality affects meta-analytic conclusions: A response to

entrepreneurial risk propensity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 14–21.

https://doi.org/10.18535/ijsrm/v6i4.em06

Review of Economics and Development Studies, Vol. 7 (2) 2021, 257-266

266

Townsend, D. M., Busenitz, L. W., & Arthurs J. D. (2010). To start or not to start: outcome and
ability expectations in the decision to start a new venture. Journal of Business Venturing,
25(2), 192–202.

Turker, D., & Selcuk, S. S. (2009). Which factors affect entrepreneurial intention of university

students? Journal of European Industrial Training, 33(2), 142–59.