The Significance of Social Welfare Attitudes in Young People’s Entrepreneurial Intentions
Abstract
The present study analyses young people’s entrepreneurial intentions in Finland and Poland. Previous surveys have shown that the desire to become an entrepreneur is stronger in between Polish people than in between Finnish people.
By exploring the social psychological factors that explain young people’s entrepreneurial intentions, the study particularly sought to determine whether the differences in entrepreneurial intention can be explained by social welfare attitudes. Survey respondents were 725 Finnish and 887 Polish students.
Finnish and Polish young people approach entrepreneurship in quite different ways. Finnish young people appreciate entrepreneurs at a general level, but do not consider becoming entrepreneurs themselves, while the Poles think about entrepreneurship in the opposite manner. Furthermore, the results show that Finnish people’s trust in society is much stronger than that of their Polish counterparts.
Influencing young people’s confidence in their abilities and skills is more important than trying to influence general attitudes about entrepreneurship. Thus, entrepreneurship education has a key role in supporting young people’s entrepreneurship. National differences in intentions and in appreciation of entrepreneurship can be explained by societal and historical factors.
Entrepreneurial intention is typically explained by psychological, economic, and cultural factors, and by social capital. Study results show that social political factors are also important in explaining entrepreneurial intentions.
Keywords
entrepreneurial intention; Theory of Planned Behaviour; social attitudes; social welfare
References
Aidukaite, J. (2009). Old welfare states and new welfare regimes in Eastern Europe: Challenges or implications? Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 42, 23-39.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory planned behaviour. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 50, 179-211.
Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Reviews Psychology, 52, 27-58.
Alestalo, M., & Kuhnle, S. (1987). The Scandinavian route: economic, social and political developments in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. In R. Erikson, J. E. Hansen, S. Ringen, & H. Uusitalo (Eds.), The Scandinavian Model. Welfare States and Welfare Research (pp. 3–38). New York and London: M.E. Sharpe.
Alestalo, M., Hort, S., & Kuhnle, S. (2009). The Nordic model: Conditions, origins, outcomes, lessons. Hertie School of Governance, Working Papers 41.
Andreotti, A., Mingione, E., & Polizzi, E. (2011). Local welfare systems: a challenge for social cohesion. DOI://www.socialpolis.eu/uploads/tx_sp/EF01_Paper.pdf
Antikainen, A. (2010). The capitalist state and education: The case of restructuring the Nordic model. Current Sociology, 58(4), 530-550.
Anttonen, A., & Sipilä, J. (2012). Universalism in the British and Scandinavian social policy debates. In A. Anttonen, L. Häikiö, & K. Stefánsson (Eds.), Welfare state, universalism and diversity (pp. 16-41). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Armitage, C.J., & Conner, M. (2001) Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471-499.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122 147.
Bergh, A., & Bjørnskov, C. (2011). Historical trust levels predict the current size of the welfare state. KYKLOS, 64(1), 1-19.
Blomberg, H., Kallio, J., & Kroll, C. (2010). Sosiaalityöntekijöiden mielipiteet köyhyyden syistä Pohjoismaissa. Yhteiskuntapolitiikka, 75(6), 589-602.
Chuluunbaatar, E., Ottavia, D.B.L., & Kung, S.-F. (2011). The entrepreneurial start-Up Process: The role of social capital and the social economic condition. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 16(1), 43-71.
City of Helsinki (2009). Nuorten koulutus Helsingissä. Tilastoja 38, Helsinki.
Draxler, J., & Van Vliet. O. (2010). European social model: No convergence from the East. Journal of European Integration, 32(1), 115-135.
Eagly, A.H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fitzpatrick, T. (2011). Welfare theory. An introduction to the theoretical debates in social policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fitzsimmons, J., & Douglas, E. (2005). Entrepreneurial Attitudes and Entrepreneurial Intentions: A Cross-Cultural Study of Potential Entrepreneurs in India, China, Thailand and Australia. Babson-Kauffman Entrepreneurial Research Conference, Wellesley, MA. June 2005.
Freytag, A., & Thurik, R. (2007). Entrepreneurship and its determinants in a cross-country setting. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 17, 117-131.
Goethner, M., Obschonka, M., Silbereisen, R.K., & Cantner, U. (2012). Scientists’ transition to academic entrepreneurship: Economic and psychological determinants. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33, 628-64.
Gorodnichenko, Y., & Roland, G. (2012). Understanding the Individualism-Collectivism Cleavage and its Effects: Lessons from Cultural Psychology. In M. Aoki, T. Kuran, & G. Roland, (Eds.), Institutions and Comparative Economic Development (pp. 213-236). International Economics Association, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership and organization: Do American theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamic, 9(1), 42-63.
Ikonen, R. (2006). Yrittäjyyskasvatus, Kansalaisen taloudellista autonomiaa etsimässä, SoPhi 102, Jyväskylä, Minerva.
Krueger, N.F. Jr., Reilly, M.D., & Carsrud, A.L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 411-432.
Kumlin, S., & Rothstein, B. (2005). Making and breaking social capital: the impact of welfare state institutions. Comparative Political Studies, 38, 339-365.
Le Grand, J. (2003). Motivation, Agency, and Public Policy of Knights, Knaves, Pawns and Queens. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Le Grand, J. (2010). Knights and knaves return: public service motivation and the delivery of public services. International Public Management Journal, 13(1), 56-71.
Lee, C.S. (2013). Welfare states and social trust. Comparative Political Studies, 46(5), 603-630.
Lee, S.M., & Peterson, S. (2000). Culture, entrepreneurial orientation, and global competitiveness. Journal of World Business, 35(4), 401-416.
Liñán, F. (2008). Skill and value perceptions: how do they affect entrepreneurial intentions? International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4, 257-272.
Liñán, F., & Chen, Y.W. (2009). Development and cross-cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 593 617.
Liñán, F., & Santos, F.J. (2007). Does social capital affect entrepreneurial intentions? International Advances in Economic Research, 13, 443-453.
Mishler, W., & Rose, R. (2001). What are the origins of political trust? Testing institutional and cultural theories in post-communist societies. Comparative Political Studies, 34(1), 30-63.
Mitchell, R.K., Smith, B., Seawright, K., & Morse, E.A. (2000). Cross-cultural cognitions and venture creation: decision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 974-993.
Moreno, L. (2010). Welfare mix, CSR and social citizenship. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 30, 683-696.
Moriano, J.A., Gorgievski, M., Laguna, M., Stephan, U., & Zarafshani, K. (2012). A cross-cultural approach to understanding entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Career Development, 39(2), 162-185.
Mueller, S.L. (2004), Gender Gaps in Potential for Entrepreneurship A cross Countries and Cultures. Journal of developmental entrepreneurship, 9(3), 199-220.
Mueller, S.L. & Thomas, A.S. (2001) Culture and entrepreneurial potential: A nine country study of locus of control and innovativeness. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(1), 51-75.
Nannestad, P. (2008). New work on trust: what have we learnt, if anything? Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 413-436.
Neace, M.B. (1999) Entrepreneurs in emerging economies. Creating trust, social capital and civil society. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 565(1), 148-161.
Noorderhaven, N., Thurik, R., Wennekers, S., & van Stel, A. (2004). The Role of Dissatisfaction and per Capita Income in Explaining Self-Employment across 15 European Countries. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28, 447-466.
Rantanen, T., & Toikko, T. (2013). Scandinavian Social values, attitudes and young people’s entrepreneurial intention: a Finnish contribution. China-USA Business Review, 12(4), 349 360.
Rothsten, B. (2005). Social traps and the problem of trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Siu, W.S., & Lo, E.S.C. (2013). Cultural contingency in the cognitive model of entrepreneurial intention. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(2), 147-173.
Tiessen, J.H. (1997). Individualism, collectivism, and entrepreneurship: A framework for international comparative research. Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 367-384.
Uslaner, E.M. (1999). Democracy and social capital. In M.E. Warren (Ed.), Democracy & trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 121-150.
Valdimarsdóttir, M. (2010) Welfare state attitudes. Characteristics associated with individual support for governmental redistribution. Rannsóknir í félagsvísindum XI. Erindi flutt á ráðstefnu í október 2010, Ritrýnd grein, Reykjavík: Félagsvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands.
Walker, J.K., Jeger, M., & Kopecki, D. (2013). The role of perceived abilities, subjective norm and intentions in entrepreneurial activity. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 22(2), 181-202.
Xavier, S., Roland, D.K., Jacqui K., Herrington, M., & Vorderwulbecke, A. (2013). Global entrepreneurship monitor 2012 Global Report. Babson, Universidad del Desarrollo & University Tun Abdul Razak. GEM.
Laurea University of Applied Sciences Finland
Poznań University of Economics Poland
University of Jyväskylä Finland
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a CC BY-ND licence that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are asked to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) only the final version of the article, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access). We advise using any of the following research society portals:
