SOCIO-CULTURAL FACTORS IN ENTREPRENEURIAL EVENT FORMATION: A STUDY OF NIGERIAN ENTREPRENEURS.

BYOLUREMI HEZEKIAH ABIMBOLA

A THESIS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY OF COVENANT UNIVERSITY

SEPTEMBER, 2007

1

DEDICATIONTo the Almighty God, the Ancient of Days, the Alpha and Omega, the Source of all good

things, for making this work a reality.

To my wife, Wumi Aderonke Abimbola, for being there for me, while the work lasted.

To my children, Oluwafikunmi, Oluwafisayo and Oluwaferanmi, for showing so much

understanding

and

To the Authority of the University, for seeing what I did not see in the Staff Development

Programme.

2

CERTIFICATION

I certify that this work was carried out by Mr Oluremi Hezekiah Abimbola in the

Department of Sociology, Covenant University.

_____________________________Professor Charles OgbulogoDean, College of Human DevelopmentCovenant University, OtaOgun State

_____________________________(Supervisor)Dr P. A. Edewor, B.Sc, M.Sc, Ph.D (Ibadan)Department of SociologyCollege of Human DevelopmentCovenant University, Ota,Ogun State, Nigeria.

__________________________(Co-Supervisor)Dr I. P. OnyeonoruDepartment of SociologyUniversity of Ibadan, Ibadan

SEPTEMBER, 2007

3

ABSTRACT

Entrepreneurship has been found to be a factor in socio-economic and human

development. Its study has, however, been largely viewed from economic perspective in

Nigeria. This work was an attempt to approach the issue of entrepreneurial event among

Nigerian entrepreneurs from socio-cultural perspective.

This study was conducted in three selected organized associations of entrepreneurs

in Lagos, Nigeria. The study covered the interactions between some socio-cultural factors

such as, social capital, dissatisfaction/displacement experience, social status, and

perceived instrumentality of wealth, on the one hand, and predictor variables (ethnic

group, gender, age and level of education), on the other. The main objective of the study

was to understand how considerations of social capital, dissatisfaction/displacement

experience, social status and perceived instrumentality of wealth for engaging in

entrepreneurial event were functions of some socio-demographic and background factors

among Nigerian entrepreneurs. It also attempted to determine the abilities of the

independent variables in predicting the degree to which individuals are motivated by the

identified socio-cultural constructs to embark on entrepreneurial event.

Cross-sectional survey design was used with questionnaire as the major tool of

data collection. Questionnaire was administered to 717 randomly selected respondents. A

number of statistical techniques were employed. They include frequency count, mean

comparison, simple regression analysis, multiple regression analysis, independent

samples tests and path analysis.

The result shows that ethnic group of origin has the capacity in predicting

variation in how individuals consider social capital for entrepreneurial event formation. It

is clear that all the ethnic categories show significant determining explanation for

consideration of social capital for engaging in entrepreneurial event. In other words,

ethnic group of origin has predictive capacity in explaining variations in consideration of

social capital forces for engaging in entrepreneurial event. However, while North 1

(Hausa) and South 2 (Igbo) show significant determining force, North 2 (mini groups)

and South 3 (mini groups) show significant negative determinants. All the ethnic

4

variables that were regressed against social capital forces show significant determining

power. The result of multiple regression analysis also supports this position. Three of the

four ethnic variables in the analysis show strong significant coefficients. In a similar vein,

the result of path analysis for model 1 (5a) as supported by the data confirms that the

paths were valid for explaining the relationship under study.

Independent Samples t-test of gender against the dependent variable (social

capital influence), with the result showing value of t at -2.736 and the degree of freedom

at 715 and significant at p<.05, clearly indicates that there is a significant difference in

social capital influence on entrepreneurial event formation between our female

respondents and their male counterparts. The result of path analysis shows that education

has no direct causal relationship with any of the dependent variables. The result of the

analysis for model 3 as presented in the study shows a significant relationship between

age category 21-30 and the propensity to regard social status as a precursor of

entrepreneurial event formation. Looking at the path analysis result as shown in the

report, one could see a strong causal connection between age and social status as reason

for embarking on entrepreneurial event. There are gender differences in consideration of

perceived instrumentality of wealth before engaging in entrepreneurial event formation.

The female gender scored higher than their male counterpart did in this criterion variable.

Of all the predictors studied, ethnic group was found to be most significant in predictive

power. The import of this is the need to appreciate diversity while working for common

goal. It must therefore be understood that needs and aspirations answer to particularities

of situations and contexts.

The implication of these results for policy practitioners is that programmes should

be designed to conform to characteristics and uniqueness of the setting rather than a

blanket design and application. Effort should be made to emphasize a socio-cultural

approach to the curriculum of entrepreneurship education in the nation’s education

system.

5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I have come across people in my life, without whose inputs my hope of getting a

Ph.D degree would have remained at the level of a dream.

I must first thank the Almighty God, for making my dream of having a Ph.D

become a reality and for blessing me with good people, who are genuinely committed to

my progress. I thank Dr David Oyedepo, the Chancellor of Covenant University for

giving the vision of Covenant University a practical expression and for his passion for the

Staff Development Programme of the University. I wish to express my gratitude to the

University Authority for instituting the Staff Development Programme and for providing

the enabling environment for its operation.

To Professor Aize Obayan, Vice Chancellor, Covenant University, I say thank

you Ma, for initiating me into the trade. You paid for my application form and put me on

my toes not only for a timely completion of the work but also for a good job. You are

such a wonderful mentor and role model. Deacon Yemi Nathaniel, Registrar, Covenant

University, never ceased in providing positive honking that spurred the work. Thank you

sir.

How do I describe my supervisor, Dr P. A. Edewor? He is such a wonderful

mentor; he admonished if that was the best approach, he chided if that would work, he

threatened if that was the only option left. I sincerely say thank you sir for the interest and

for a thorough supervision. Your commitment toward my success as an academic is

highly appreciated. My appreciation also goes to Dr I. P. Onyeonoru for his belief that I

can do a Ph.D. Thank you for all your support.

I will not forget Engineer Adetokunbo Obayan for intellectual engagements and

for encouraging me to consider this area of study.

I am grateful to my parents – Pa David Abimbola and Mrs. Rachael Abimbola –

for teaching me early in life the virtue of hard work through example. I also wish to

appreciate my parent-in-laws, Mr. Lawrence Atanda of blessed memory and Mrs. Folake

6

Atanda. Thank you for your prayers. I wish to thank Professor S. A. Adebagbo for his

interest and support Thank you daddy.

I want to acknowledge the support and encouragement of Professor Charles

Ogbulogo, Dean, College of Human Development, towards timely completion of the

work. I am grateful to Professor Olusola Ojo, Dean, School of Postgraduate Studies for

his forthright approach and his words of encouragement. I also thank Dr Roy Ndom for

his inputs. I appreciate the contributions of members of faculty of the College. It has been

interesting being in the same College with you. My sincere thanks also go to Dr Adenrele

Adedayo and Mr Owolabi for assisting with the analysis.

I also wish to acknowledge the inputs of my colleagues in the Department of

Sociology, Covenant University – Dr Alaba Simpson, Dr Alex Asakitikpi, Mr Charles

Iruonagbe, Mr Matthew Egharevba, Mr Fred Ahmadu, Mrs Tayo George, Mr Ajibade

Jegede and Mrs Foluke Ajayi.

I am grateful to Dr Ranti Ogunrinola and Dr John Ayam for their words of advice

in the course of this work. Dr and Mrs Banwo deserve a mention; they have been so

wonderful. The following people also deserve a mention for their contributions in one

way or the other in the course of this work: Dr O. E. Agboje, Mr A. Akande, Bankole

Ogundeji, Wole Akinsola, Mr Faniyi and others too numerous to mention.

I say thank you to Kemi Onabanjo and Awele Ugbede for the computer software.

I must not forget the inputs of Soji Abimbola, Adewumi Abimbola, Soji Aromolaran,

Gbenga Olasunkanmi, Mr Williams of NACCIMA, Mr Gagan Goyal of Phoenix Steel

Mills, Mr Ajose of NASME and Engineer Ogunrayi of NASSI. Thank you all. Dr

Ausbeth Ajagu surprised me in the way he attended to me; you are really wonderful. I

also want to thank Bimpe Abodunde for assisting with candour and Nene Uzowulu for

always asking “how far with your work sir?”

I am grateful to my uncle, Paul Abimbola for his role in the larger Abimbola

family. You have done well. To Barrister O. O. Ojo and family, I say thank you, for

words of encouragement and support. I must not forget my friends: Sola, Pius, Seye,

Wale, Samanja, Festus, Moruf and Rauf, for being who they are in my life.

I wish to acknowledge the financial support of the University through the School

of Postgraduate Studies towards the fieldwork.

7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication …………………………………………………………………….. ii

Certification …………………………………………………………………… iii

Abstract ……………………………………………………………………….. iv

Acknowledgement ……………………………………………………………... vi

Table of Contents ………………………………………………………….. ... viii

List of Tables …………………………………………………………………... x

List of Figures ……………………………………………………………….... xiii

List of Appendices ……………………………………………………..……… xiv

CHAPTER ONE 1. Background to the study1.1 Introduction……………………………………………………..……………. 11.2 Statement of problem. ………………………………………………..…….... 51.3 Research questions …………………………………………………..………. 71.4 Objectives of study ……………………………………………….…………. 71.5 Justification of study. …………………………………………………….…. 71.6 Scope of the research ……………………………………………….…….…. 81.7 Research implications …………………………………………………….…. 9

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK.2.1 Literature Review …………………………………………………..…….… 102.1.1 Introduction …………………………………………………………….… 102.1.2 Entrepreneur/entrepreneurship …………………………………………… 102.1.3 Culture, ethnicity and entrepreneurship ……………………………..…… 222.1.4 Social capital and entrepreneurship ………………………….…………… 302.1.5 Social status and entrepreneurship …………………………..…………… 322.2 Theoretical Framework………………………………………..…..………… 352.2.1 Introduction………………………… ……………………….…………… 352.2.2 Entrepreneurial Event Formation Theory ………………….…………… 352.2.3 Social Learning Theory ……………………………………..…………… 412.3 Hypotheses …………………………………………………..………………45

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY.3.1 Research setting …………………………………………………………….….463.2 Methodological procedures ……………………………………………………50

CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF RESULT AND DATA ANALYSIS.Introduction. ……………………………………………………………………… 554.1 Demographic, background and socio-cultural attributes of respondents………56

8

4.2 Data analysis … ………………………………………………………………… 914.3 Hypotheses testing ………………………………………………………………1494.4 Discussion of findings……………………………………………………………152

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.5.1 Summary ………………………………………………………………………..1555.2 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………….. 1575.3 Recommendations ……………………………………………………………….158

REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………160

APPENDIX I: Questionnaire schedule ………….…………………………………. 172

APPENDIX II: Letters of request ………..…………………………………………177

9

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: Selected macro policy programmes put in place by the Nigerian government …………………………………………………………… 3

Table 1.2: Unemployment rate in Nigeria ……………………………………….. 4

Table 2.2.1: Entrepreneurial event formation ………………………………………37

Table 2.2.2: Findings on the influence of family in entrepreneurial action ……….. 41in a number of cultures

Table 4.1.1: Frequency distribution by socio-demographic attributes …………… 59

Table 4.1.2: Distribution of responses on social capital items by ethnic group …… 68 Table 4.1.3: Distribution of responses on dissatisfaction/displacement experience

factors by ethnic group of origin ………………………………………76

Table 4.1.4: Distribution of responses on social status factors by ethnic group …… 81

Table 4.1.5: Distribution of responses on perceived instrumentality of wealth factors by ethnic group …………………………………………………87

Table 4.2.1: Mean scores on social capital factors by ethnic group of origin ……….94

Table 4.2.2: Mean scores on dissatisfaction/displacement experience factors by ethnic group of origin ……... ……………………………………………… . .97

Table 4.2.3: Mean scores on social status factors by ethnic group …………………100

Table 4.2.4: Mean scores on perceived instrumentality of wealth factors by ethnic group ………………………………………………………….. 103

Table 4.2.5: Mean scores on social capital factors by gender ………………………105

Table 4.2.6: Mean scores on dissatisfaction/displacement experience factors by gender ………………………………………………………106

Table 4.2.7: Mean scores on social status factors by gender ………………………. 107

Table 4.2.8: Mean scores on perceived instrumentality of wealth factors by gender …………………………………………… 108

Table 4.2.9: Mean scores on social capital by age ……………………………… 111

10

Table 4.2.10: Mean scores on dissatisfaction/displacement experience by age ……………………………………………………………...... 113

Table 4.2.11: Mean scores on social status by age ………………………………… 115 Table 4.2.12: Mean scores on perceived instrumentality of wealth by age …………117

Table 4.2.13: Mean scores on social capital by education ………………………….119

Table 4.2.14: Mean scores on dissatisfaction/displacement experience by Education …………………………………………………………… 120

Table 4.2.15: Mean scores on social status by education …………………………. 121

Table 4.2.16: Mean scores on perceived instrumentality of wealth by education …123 Table 4.2.17: Simple regression of model 1, model 2, model 3 and model 4

by ethnic group ………………………………………………………126

Table 4.2.18: Simple regression of model 1, model 2, model 3 and model 4 by level of education …………………………………………………….127

Table 4.2.19: Simple regression of model 1, model 2, model 3 and model 4 by age………………………………………………………………….…128

Table 4.2.20: Group statistics of independent samples tests of models 1, 2, 3

and 4 by gender ………………………………………………………130

Table 4.2.21: Independent samples tests of models 1, 2, 3 and 4 by gender ……….130

Table 4.2.22: Multiple regression of model 1, model 2, model 3 and model 4 by ethnic group, gender, age and level of education……………………………132

Table 4.2.23: Paths and zero order correlation coefficient for the five variablesfor 5a………………………………………………………………….134

Table 4.2.24: Paths and zero order correlation coefficient for the five variables for 5b…………………………………………………………………134

Table 4.2.25: Paths and zero order correlation coefficient for the five variables for 5c……………………………………………………………….. 135

Table 4.2.26: Paths and zero order correlation coefficient for the five variables for 5d…………………………………………………………………135

11

Table 4.2.27: Original and reproduced correlated matrix for the five variables for 5a………………………………………………………………… 141

Table 4.2.28: Discrepancies between the original and the reproduced correlation values for 5a………………………………………………………….141

Table 4.2.29: Original and reproduced correlated matrix for the five variables for 5b …………………………………………………………………141

Table 4.2.30: Discrepancies between the original and the reproduced correlation

values for 5b………………………………………………………… 142

Table 4.2.31: Original and reproduced correlated matrix for the five variables for 5c………………………………………………………………… 142

Table 4.2.32: Discrepancies between the original and the reproduced correlation values for 5c…………………………………………………………. 142

Table 4.2.33: Original and reproduced correlated matrix for the five variables for 5d…………………………………………………………………143

Table 4.2.34: Discrepancies between the original and the reproduced correlation values for 5d………………………………………………………….143

12

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1a: The Hypothesized Causal Model of the five Variable Systems showing Path and Zero Order Correlation Coefficients 5a ……………………… 136

Figure 4.1b: The Hypothesized Causal Model of the five Variable Systems showing Path and Zero Order Correlation Coefficients 5b ………………………137

Figure 4.1c: The Hypothesized Causal Model of the five Variable Systems showing Path and Zero Order Correlation Coefficients 5c ……………………….138

Figure 4.1d: The Hypothesized Causal Model of the five Variable Systems showing Path and Zero Order Correlation Coefficients 5d ……………………….139

Figure 4.2a: The Validated Causal Model of the five variable Systems showing Path and Zero Order Correlation Coefficients 5a ……………………………145

Figure 4.2b: The Validated Causal Model of the five variable Systems showing Path and Zero Order Correlation Coefficients 5b……………………………146

Figure 4.2c: The Validated Causal Model of the five variable Systems showing Path and Zero Order Correlation Coefficients 5c ……………………………147

Figure 4.2d: The Validated Causal Model of the five variable Systems showing Path and Zero Order Correlation Coefficients 5d ……………………………148

13

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix I: Questionnaire schedule ……………………………………………….172

Appendix II: Letters of request……………………………………………………..177

14

CHAPTER ONE

BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Entrepreneurship occupies an important place in the process of development. It

has become a key concept in social and human development discourse; researchers have

considered it a factor in economic and human development (Weber, 1904; Morris and

Lewis, 1991). In his famous work The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,

Weber (1904) posits that the great development experienced in the Western world was a

result of entrepreneurial features present in those societies.

The contemporary study of entrepreneurship and the importance of social

embeddedness can be traced to the works of Max Weber (1904) and Joseph Schumpeter

(1934); both have argued that the source of entrepreneurial behaviour lay in the social

structure of societies and the value structures they produce. Cultural and social norms are

emphasized as the major strength of entrepreneurial orientation and seem to be the

differentiating factor for higher levels of entrepreneurial activity (Minniti and Bygrave,

2003). Akeredolu-Ale (1974) also writes on the importance of socio-cultural imperatives

in entrepreneurial event.

Conceptual arguments for the link between culture and entrepreneurship have

existed for decades (Schumpeter, 1934; Weber, 1904; McClelland, 1961), with more

recent empirical research (Hayton, George, and Zahra, 2002; Marino, Strandholm,

Steensma and Weaver, 2002) providing mixed findings on these links. Some studies

suggest entrepreneurs share a common set of values regardless of culture (McGrath,

Macmillan, Yang and Tsai, 1992), while other studies support the notion that culture will

affect entrepreneurship (Busenitz and Lau, 1996; Shane, 1994). Studies in Africa

generally conclude that psychological variables (Frese, 2000), and race and ethnicity

(Ramachandran and Shah, 1999) are important predictors of entrepreneurial activity.

Research among countries in transition (Luthans, Stajkovic & Ibrayeva, 2000). underlines

15

the point that entrepreneurship exists in every country. This entrepreneurial spirit can be

fostered with an appropriate cultural orientation and framework.

Entrepreneurial activities have been found to be functioning differently in

different levels of socio-economic development. For example, in advanced industrialized

nations, increased entrepreneurial activity serves to reposition dying industries; provides

new jobs to compensate for employment problems created by corporate restructuring and

downsizing; and to generally enhance economic flexibility and growth (Thomas and

Mueller, 1999). It is also a catalyst for technological progress (Reynolds, 1987). Shapero

(1981) describes entrepreneurship as key to self-renewing economies.

In less developed countries, on the other hand, entrepreneurship functions in the

following areas: stimulation of economic growth (Harper, 1991); replacement of

crumbling state-owned enterprises, some of which are legacies of colonial rule; a means

of employment generation (Abumere, Arimah and Jerome, 1998); and an avenue for

empowering the disadvantaged portion of the population.

This reality has led various levels of government in Nigeria, international

agencies such as UNDP, UNIDO, and ILO amongst others and non-governmental

organizations in Nigeria and abroad to institute measures that are meant to enhance

entrepreneurial activities. Such measures are categorized into two:

1. entrepreneurship development programmes and institutions; and

2. finance and micro-credit programmes and institutions.

The first category comprises policies and programmes aimed at stimulating, developing

and enhancing the productive capacities of entrepreneurs, while the second category

consists of measures aimed at providing stress-free credit facilities for entrepreneurs as

shown in table 1.1.

16

Table 1.1: Selected Macro Policy Programmes Put in Place in Nigeria to Encourage Entrepreneurship.

Programme Objective1 Agricultural

Development Project (ADP)

The main purpose of the ADP is to stimulate increased food production and enhance the income of the rural population.

2 National Directorates of Employment (NDE)

Responsible for vocational skills development and small scale enterprises programmes designed to combat unemployment

3 National Economic Reconstruction Fund (NERFUND)

Provides long-term loans at concessionaire interest rates to promote small and medium scale industrial projects.

4 Family Economic Advancement Programme (FEAP)

Established to provide micro facilities for entrepreneurs.

5 People’s Bank and Community Bank Programmes

Designed to make banking services more accessible and extend credit to the poor.

6 Better Life Programmes/Family Support Programme (BLP/FSP)

Aimed at providing micro-credit facilities for women entrepreneurs.

7 National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP)

Aimed at providing vocational skills development and small scale enterprises programmes designed to combat unemployment

8 National Empowerment and Economic Development Strategy (NEEDS)

To eradicate poverty and unemployment.

9 SMEDAN To promote small and medium scale enterprises. 10 SMIES To provide finance for small and medium enterprises.

On the whole, the aggregate goals of these policies and programmes include,

among others, stimulation of economic development, empowerment of the disadvantaged

portion of the population, employment generation and invariably, poverty reduction.

One will, however, observe that entrepreneurship has not fared well in meeting

some of the key functions it should serve in Nigeria. In the area of employment

generation, unemployment situation is worrisome. Any useful analysis of Nigeria’s

unemployment data is very difficult, if not impossible. The difficulty arises from the

17

highly unreliable data sourcing process in the country. Between 1990 and 1999,

unemployment rate averaged 2.92%, with the highest being 3.5% for 1990 and the lowest

1.8% for 1995. Fairly realistic estimates have been collected since 2000 through 2002.

The average for the period is 14.67%, with 2000 rate being 18.1% (FOS, 2003).

Table 1.2: Unemployment Rate in Nigeria

Year Composite % Urban % Rural %

1990 3.5 5.9 3.0

1991 3.4 4.9 2.7

1992 3.4 4.8 3.2

1993 2.7 3.8 2.5

1994 2.0 3.2 1.7

1995 1.8 3.9 1.6

1996 2.9 4.6 2.5

1997 3.2 6.0 2.6

1998 3.2 4.8 2.8

1999 3.1 5.8 2.5

2000 18.1 14.2 19.8

2001 13.7 10.3 15.1

2002 12.2 19.5 13.3

Source: Federal Office of Statistics, Nigeria (2003).

To put the unemployment situation in the country in proper perspective, other

reliable statistical indices could serve as guides. Between 1970 and 1990, average

capacity utilization in the manufacturing sector fell from 85.2% to 40.3%. The rate

further fell to 39.6% in 2001 from 42% in 1991. Though employment rose in the

manufacturing sector from 129,032 in 1970 to 335,179 employees in 1985, by 1992, it

has declined to 20,153. Between 1994 and 1998, job vacancies declared dropped

significantly from 9,893 to 8,291 for the lower grade workers and from 3,731 to 3,670 for

workers of the professional and executive categories (Abstract of Statistics, 2001:345).

Though there was a decrease in the number of registered unemployed people from 96,121

18

in 1994 to 89,759 in 1998, the fall can be explained by the fact that sustained

unemployment discourages the unemployed from doing fresh registration. Otherwise,

such a fall is incompatible with shrinking number of job vacancies.

GDP grew by an average of 3.6% between 1999 and 2002 (CBN Annual Report,

2003:35), while the population growth was projected to be 2.83%. That growth rate can

certainly not bring about significant reduction in the unemployment level. Though the

activities of the informal sector have not been brought into focus due to data problem, the

mere fact that about 70% of the population live below the poverty line (UNDP, 2003)

indicates that the informal sector may not be growing at a rate that will allow it absorb a

significant number of the unemployed in productive ventures.

The above picture implies that the policies and programmes meant to encourage

entrepreneurship have not fared well in terms of socio-economic and human development

in Nigeria. This may not be unconnected with the neglect of the study of entrepreneurial

event from a socio-cultural perspective.

1.2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Empirical investigations into entrepreneurial event formation and its importance

to socio-economic development of a nation have primarily focused on the role of

economic factors (Noorderhaven, Thurik, Wennekers and Van Stel, 2004). Socio-cultural

variables have been given only limited attention (Hayton et al, 2002). Even where they

are given attention, they tend to gloss over local peculiarities and character. That is, they

ignore the importance of different contexts. For example, Weber (1904), Schumpeter

(1934), Cole (1946) and McClelland (1961) whose works on entrepreneurship remain

reference materials in entrepreneurship research, all present a universal approach to the

understanding of entrepreneurial event.

Weber (1904) in his work The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,

reports that the abundance of individuals with traits that precipitate and enhance

entrepreneurship accounts for the level of development of western societies. McClelland

(1961) was influenced by Weber. He posits that the presence of quite a number of

entrepreneurs is key supply condition, which precipitates economic success in societies

characterized by achievement orientation. Most works on entrepreneurship are overt or

19

subtle reflections of the underlying assumptions of the protestant work ethic, which was

based on Calvinism (Mueller & Thomas, 2000). However, this does not hold for all

contexts. This tendency goes on to inform the design and application of programmes,

policies and intervention strategies to stimulate the practice of entrepreneurship.

The universalistic trend in entrepreneurship research also reflects in the work of

Schumpeter (1934), which investigates the demand conditions that stimulate

entrepreneurship growth and the impact of entrepreneurs on a nation’s economic growth

and development. Subsequent entrepreneurship researches have tended to use the

assumptions embedded in the works by Weber, Schumpeter, and McClelland to form the

framework for their works. A subtle agreement with universal explanations is also

noticed in Akeredolu-Ale’s (1975) work, The Underdevelopment of Indigenous

Entrepreneurship.

Studies on the interaction between socio-cultural factors and entrepreneurial

events have, of late, not been given much vent in Nigeria. Recent studies on the subject

of entrepreneurship have mainly focused on government policies, the impact of these

policies, and the role of financial institutions amongst others (Salako, 2004), without

recourse to the socio-cultural milieu in which entrepreneurship takes place. The lack of

research in different contexts has been a persistent problem in the application of

entrepreneurship principle. Most researchers on entrepreneurship have focused their

attention on the Western world and some Asian countries. Socio-cultural factors are

important components in the lives of a people and given the deep-rooted and

pervasiveness of these in the Nigerian societies, they must, therefore, feature as

contextual variables in entrepreneurial research. It is, therefore, the focus of this work to

subject the topic of entrepreneurship to sociological analysis in the Nigerian context.

Particular reference will be made to the direction of interactions of ethnic grouping,

gender, age and education with such socio-cultural factors as social capital,

dissatisfaction/displacement experience, social status and instrumentality of wealth.

20

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This study is an effort at understanding the socio-cultural factors that bear on

entrepreneurial event among entrepreneurs in the Nigerian context. In the light of the

above, the study is hinged on the following questions:

1. Are socio-cultural factors relevant to entrepreneurial event formation?

2. Do the identified socio-cultural variables, that is, social capital,

dissatisfaction/displacement experience, social status and perceived

instrumentality of wealth depend on ethnic group, gender, age and level of

education for direction?

3. What are the abilities of the independent variables (ethnic group, gender, age

and level of education) in predicting the degree to which individuals are

motivated by the identified socio-cultural constructs to embark on

entrepreneurial event?

1.4 OBJECTIVES OF STUDY

The main objectives of this work include the following:

1. To place in socio-cultural context, the concept of entrepreneurial event.

2. To understand how social capital, dissatisfaction/displacement experience,

social status and perceived instrumentality of wealth are functions of some

socio-demographic and background factors among Nigerian entrepreneurs.

3. To examine the abilities of the independent variables in predicting the degree

to which individuals are motivated by the identified socio-cultural constructs

to embark on entrepreneurial event

4. To make recommendations for policy based on the findings.

1.5 JUSTIFICATION OF STUDY

Entrepreneurship is found to be a veritable factor in economic development

(Schumpeter, 1934; Adejumo, 2001). With the current effort at social and economic

development by Third World countries, a study like this is not out of place, as it is

capable of contributing to the present knowledge in the area of interaction between socio-

21

cultural factors and entrepreneurial event, which may be in terms of consequences for

policy issues and development programmes.

Also, developing a better understanding of socio-cultural factors in

entrepreneurial activities among Nigerian entrepreneurs can lead to more appropriate,

culturally sensitive entrepreneurial education and training, which take into account, the

peculiarities of the Nigerian context.

1.6 SCOPE OF STUDY

This work centres on an examination of the interaction of socio-cultural factors in

entrepreneurial event formation among Nigerian entrepreneurs. This study, however,

limits its scope to the study of entrepreneurs who are members of organized associations.

This is occasioned by the difficulty in generating a national list of all entrepreneurs in

Nigeria. The study specifically focuses on members of Nigerian Association of Chambers

of Commerce, Industry, Mines and Agriculture (NACCIMA), Nigerian Association of

Small and Medium Enterprises (NASME) and Nigerian Association of Small Scale

Industrialists (NASSI). These associations are selected because they conform to the

different descriptions to which entrepreneurship has been subjected. For example, most

members of NACCIMA are large scale entrepreneurs, which makes it fit the definition

given by Carland et al. They define an entrepreneur as one who establishes and manages

a business for the purpose of profit and growth while a small business owner is seen as an

individual whose principal purpose of establishing a business is to further personal goals,

which may not be in tandem with growth orientation. We, however, agree with the

description of entrepreneurship posited by Greenfield and Strickon (1981). They argue

that there is no difference between an entrepreneur and a small business owner. They

operationally define entrepreneurs as owners and operators of business enterprises. We,

therefore, believe that the three associations are capable of being representative of the

features of the different descriptions, which has the potentials of making the work robust.

22

1.7 RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS AND DIRECTIONS

This research work is a step toward developing a socio-cultural entrepreneurship

model, accounting for differences among Nigerian entrepreneurs. Nigerian entrepreneurs

compose of different groups and interests. This work, therefore, is a step toward

understanding the peculiarities of each group, and how these uniqueness inform decisions

that bother on entrepreneurial event formation. From a practical perspective, an

understanding of the differences and characteristics of the groups will enhance informed

decisions about programmes and policies that are meant to encourage entrepreneurial

development.

In a similar vein, intervention strategies (western oriented) adopted to encourage

entrepreneurship in the Nigerian society, will give way to more context-dependent

strategies.

23

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND THEORETICAL ORIENTATION

2.1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1.1 Introduction

The contemporary study of socio-cultural dimensions of entrepreneurship and the

importance of social embeddedness can be traced to the works of Max Weber (1904) and

Joseph Schumpeter (1934). Both have argued that the source of entrepreneurial behaviour

lay in the social structure of societies and the value structures they produce. Cultural and

social factors are emphasized as the major strength of entrepreneurial orientation and

seem to be the differentiating factor for higher levels of entrepreneurial activity (Minniti

and Bygrave, 2003). This review of literature has been sectionalized along the different

variables that feature in the study – entrepreneurship, culture and ethnicity, social status,

and social capital. In the section devoted to entrepreneurship/entrepreneur, the different

descriptions of the concepts are considered so as to give focus to our study. In the first

section, the descriptions of entrepreneur and entrepreneurship are reviewed in a bid to

provide background for the study. In the section on social status, literature on social

status and its implications for entrepreneurial event are reviewed. Studies in the area of

social capital and its different nodes and entrepreneurial event are reviewed to serve as a

framework for this study.

2.1.2 Entrepreneurship/Entrepreneur

Placing the concepts of entrepreneurship and entrepreneur within a universal

definitional and descriptive framework is synonymous with contentions about the colour

of elephant viewed from different sides by different people. Each gives his own view to

the exclusion of others’ views. The quest to carving a clear, universal focus, purpose,

interest and methodology for entrepreneurship as a subject of study has been bedeviled

by different scholars trying to tackle it from a unidisciplinary approach.

24

Spring and McDade (1998) contend that “various authors…take on the

conundrum and give their own specificity to the definition of entrepreneurship. Most do

so by developing a checklist of attributes and conditions that identify the entrepreneur as

a distinctive actor in an economic system.” In other words, various scholars have tried to

attempt a definition of entrepreneurship based on their own cultures, times and

experience. Brockhaus and Horwitz (1985) conclude that the literature appears to support

the argument that there is no generic definition of the entrepreneur. Other scholars have

concurred that a common definition of the entrepreneur remains elusive (Carsrud et al,

1985; Sexton and Smilor, 1985; Wortman, 1985).

Entrepreneur is derived from the French verb “entrependre” which means to

undertake, to attempt, to try in hand, to contract for, or to adventure, to try (Girard, 1962).

Schumpeter (1934) credits Mill (1848) with bringing the term into general use among

economists, but the word was used much earlier than that. For example, Kilby (1971)

claims that Cantillon had in the 16th century described an entrepreneur as a rational

decision maker who assumes the risk and provides management for the firm.

The traditional perspective was to describe entrepreneurship in purely economic

terms. For example, Cole (1946) defines it as “the utilization by one productive factor of

the other productive factors for the creation of economic goods.” This definition puts the

entrepreneur as one of the factors in the productive process. Kirzner (1983), has listed

some of the conceptions with which economists describe entrepreneurship. They include

the following: (i) merely a kind of labour service; (ii) assumption of risk; (iii) initiation of

discontinuous change; (iv) mediation between different markets; (v) coordination,

planning and gap-filling; and (vi) pure speculation.

Various authors have attributed different explanatory variables to entrepreneurial

activity, e.g., personality, culture, marginality, ethnicity, amongst others. In each

instance, the explanation proposed by a theoretical approach does correspond well to

some entrepreneurs, but not necessarily to all.

The more contemporary approach is more encompassing of all the dimensions

that have bearing on entrepreneurship. This approach holds entrepreneurship as a process

that occurs in a context (Morris & Lewis, 1991). Here, contextual variables are

recognized in the process of entrepreneurial event.

25

McClelland (1961) posits that entrepreneurs are those who have a strong need for

achievement. He contends that development found in achieving societies is a corollary of

the preponderance of individuals with a strong drive for achievement. He characterizes

individuals with a high nAch as having a strong desire to be successful. He identifies the

following attributes as being characteristic of entrepreneurs (those who are high in nAch):

preference for personal responsibility for decisions; moderate in risk taking, which is

dependent on skills; and interest in concrete knowledge of the results of decisions.

Another attribute by which entrepreneurs are distinguished is internal locus of

control (Amit, MacCrimmon, Zietsma and Oesch, 1993; Chukwumaeze and Imanyi,

1992)). This is demonstrated in individual’s belief in his/her capabilities to control his or

her environment and events through his or her own actions. Rotter’s (1966) work in this

direction is instructive; he defines two categories of locus of control: one attributes cause

to the individual actor while the other attributes cause to entity external to the individual.

Rotter’s study suggests a correlation between need for achievement and internal

locus of control. Although Siropolis (1977) observed that any person who operates a

commercial enterprise might be referred to as an entrepreneur, there are, nevertheless,

several types of entrepreneurs. As explained by Kets de Vries (1985), "entrepreneurs are

not a homogeneous group." Although it would be a fallacy to speak in terms of discrete,

non-problematic categories, it is useful to have functional groups as a basis by which

empirical findings may be organized for future analysis.

There have been numerous attempts to create taxonomies of entrepreneurs.

Danhof (1949) was among the first, identifying four types of entrepreneurs: the drone, the

fabian, the imitative, and the innovative. Cole (1959) identified three types of firms: the

imitative, the innovative, and the repetitive. Collins, Moore, and Darab (1964) and later

Collins and Moore (1970) distinguished between administrative entrepreneurs and

independent entrepreneurs. In contrast, Smith (1967) distinguished between the craftsman

entrepreneur and the opportunistic entrepreneur. Hornaday and Bunker (1970) found that

craftsman entrepreneurs were limited in cultural background and low in social

involvement, while opportunitistic entrepreneurs were broader in education and social

involvement and more aggressive in the development and long-term expansion of their

firms.

26

More taxonomies emerged during the 1980s. These included those by Scase and

Goffee (1980), Scrollhammer (1980), and Vesper (1980). Dana’s (1995) typology that is

considered fit for this work is presented below:

The Traditional Self-Employed

Economic uncertainty is one of the distinguishing characteristics of this classic

entrepreneur. According to Cantilion (1755), an entrepreneur is any individual who is

self-employed, thereby actively taking the risk of economic uncertainty. Cantilion

included beggars and thieves in his definition of entrepreneurs, as these were not working

for an employer and therefore faced economic uncertainty.

Mill (1848), another early economist to refer to the entrepreneur, considered

entrepreneurship to be direction, supervision, control, and risk taking, with risk being the

main distinguishing feature between the manager and the owner-manager. Knight (1921)

and Oxenfeldt (1943) also recognized the centrality of risk in the entrepreneurial

undertakings of the traditional self-employed. There is no reference to Schumpeterian

innovation (Schumpeter, 1934) or technology in this school of thought.

The Cultural Entrepreneur

Weber (1904), seeing the entrepreneur as the ultimate source of formal authority

in an organization, analyzed the presumed relationship between the "Spirit of Capitalism"

and the "Protestant Work Ethic." According to his thesis, the success of the entrepreneur

could be traced to cultural values such as asceticism, deferred gratification, frugality, and

thrift, which were fundamentals of Protestant culture (but not exclusive to it). Culture

was the explanatory variable that predisposed some peoples towards being culturally

pushed to entrepreneurial activity while other peoples tended to refrain from new venture

creation. This explained why the Protestants in France, for example, were often

entrepreneurs. Thus, the Weberian approach argued that entrepreneurial behaviour is

culturally influenced by values and beliefs.

Weber (1904) elaborated on how religion, the caste system, and the family system

affected the emergence of entrepreneurship in India. He noted that the Jains (an ascetic

religious sect) became a trading sect for purely ritualistic reasons, as only in trading could

27

one practice ahimsa, the absolute prohibition of the killing of live things. Along the same

theme, Gadgil (1959) showed that Muslims, Christians, and Jews were the chief traders

of Kerala, in South India, and Jenkins (1984) showed that Protestants in Northern Ireland

manipulated ethnicity in the realm of economic transactions and thus dominated the

country.

Shapero (1984) concluded that culture was an explanatory variable for

entrepreneurial activity or the lack of it. He also noted that some cultures value

entrepreneurship more than do others. "Some cultures that value entrepreneurship are:

Ibos in Africa, Gujeratis, Jains, and Parsis in India, overseas Chinese in southeast Asia,

Antioquerios in Colombia, Jews, Lebanese, Mennonites and Mormons in the United

States."

Numerous empirical studies report some cultures as being more represented than

others in the small business sector. Among them, Lasry (1982) noted the percentage of

entrepreneurs among Sephardi immigrants in Montreal as being significantly higher (38

percent) than among immigrants in general.

Other cultures, in contrast, do not value entrepreneurial behaviour. Becker (1956)

suggested that some societies, because of their non-entrepreneurial culture, welcome

outsiders to perform entrepreneurial functions. In effect, some groups with

entrepreneurial values do become the predominant entrepreneurs of host societies. Sayigh

(1952), for instance, found Christians and Jews to be the prominent entrepreneurs of

Lebanon. Kong, Soon, and Hwa (1991) showed how Singaporean Chinese are active

entrepreneurs in Malaysia.

It can, therefore, be said that the Weberian entrepreneur is not attracted to

entrepreneurship because of its risk; instead, such a person is pulled to entrepreneurial

activity because it is compatible with the cultural values to which the individual was

previously conditioned.

The Personality-Determined Achiever

Certain individuals are pulled to entrepreneurship because of a predisposition in

their personality. In contrast to a focus on the creation of an opportunity (Schumpeterian

28

innovator) or the identification of existing opportunity (Kirznerian identifier), American

psychologist, McClelland (1961) found a positive correlation between entrepreneurial

behaviour and a psychological trait, the "need for achievement" which he termed "n-ach."

Doing research in the US, Italy, and Poland, he attributed the individual entrepreneur's

need for achievement as the variable influencing behaviour. He interpreted his results to

suggest that individuals with a high need for achievement would be influenced by that

need and consequently pursue entrepreneurial activity.

McClelland's research also influenced numerous other studies which established a

link between high need for achievement and belief in internal locus-of-control. Although

Brockhaus (1982), did not find a causal link between ownership of a business and a high

n-ach and Begley and Boyd (1987) contended that entrepreneurs generally have a more

internally oriented locus of control than do managers. Sexton and Bowman (1985),

however, did not find a significant difference in locus of control between managers and

entrepreneurs.

Other significant contributions among many dealing with the theme of

psychological traits include Gasse (1977), Kets de Vries (1977), Brockhaus and Horwitz

(1986), and Sexton and Upton (1990). In summary, this school of thought views

entrepreneurship as a function of personality-determined characteristics. Certain

psychological traits enable entrepreneurs to achieve entrepreneurial goals. However, it is

worth noting that some of the researchers in this category differ among themselves.

The Barthian Agent

The personality-determined achiever school of thought distinguished between

entrepreneurial growth-oriented achievers and less ambitious owner-managers of small

businesses. Carland, et al (1984) define an entrepreneur as an individual who establishes

and manages a business for the principal purpose of profit and growth. The entrepreneur

is characterized principally by innovative behaviour and will employ strategic

management practices in the business. On the other hand, they describe a small business

owner as an individual who establishes and manages a business for the principal purpose

of furthering personal goals. The business must be the primary source of income and will

29

consume the majority of one's time and resources. The owner perceives the business as an

extension of his or her personality, intricately bound with family needs and desires.

Loucks, Meredith, and Ray (1991) summarized: “while both are important in the

development process, small business founders tend to divide an existing economic pie

into smaller pieces, while innovative entrepreneurs expand the size of the economic pie.”

The anthropological perspective, however, does not distinguish between

entrepreneurs and owner-managers of small firms; in anthropology, entrepreneurs are

defined operationally as owners and operators of business enterprises (Greenfield &

Strickon, 1981). Barth (1963), a Norwegian anthropologist, viewed the entrepreneur as an

individual whose activity has an impact on a community, causing social changes therein.

He explained that entrepreneurship often involves the relationship of persons and

institutions in one society with those of another economically more advanced one. He

then described the entrepreneur as being an essential broker in this situation of contacts

between cultures.

The Hagenian Displacee

According to Hagen (1962), the basic cause of entrepreneurial change "is the

perception on the part of the members of some social group that their purpose and values

in life are not respected by groups in the society whom they respect and whose esteem

they value." Hagen continued to explain the importance of having intrinsic satisfaction

from one's status and occupation. "The satisfaction derived by an individual from his

activity in life depends in part on the status associated with it." He also noted that "great

traders are often aliens - Chinese, Indians, persons from the Near East, Jews, etc.” He

explained their entrepreneurial activity in terms of a subdominant group seeking to

overcome social grievance via achievement in the economic realm. In each case, Hagen

believed that the marginal group had a sense of separateness from the rest of the host

society.

Aware of oppression and/or deprivation, the entrepreneurs from marginal groups

construct their own adaptive mechanism through entrepreneurship. In Hagen’s (1962)

words, “The channel in which creative energies will flow depends in part on the degree to

which other possible channels are blocked." Hence, minorities would find compensation

30

for diminished social status in entrepreneurial achievement. Hagen's approach is thus

consistent with McClelland's notion that "n-ach" and social status can be reached through

entrepreneurship. For Hagen, marginality is the source of entrepreneurial energy.

Hagen elaborated, "It is specifically the social recognition accorded to economic

prowess that is favorable to economic progress." He noticed that the Puritan ethic was

prevalent among Antioquenos in Columbia. Seeing their propensity for entrepreneurship,

he traced this partly to their history and social status. Their ancestors were people of

Basque provinces who had been looked down upon. Entrepreneurship, in contrast, could,

and often did provide social recognition.

Furthermore, Hagen found a causal link between entrepreneurship and withdrawal

of status respect. This is supported by Geertz (1963), presenting a case study comparing

an Islamic bazaar economy of Islamic Java with a firm-type economy controlled by

displaced Hinduized aristocracy in Bali. The entrepreneurial spirit of the obsolete

aristocracy was traced to the withdrawal of their political status. In other words, simple

lack of status does not lead to entrepreneurship; otherwise women and children would be

the entrepreneurs of the world, along with native people, aboriginal groups, unemployed

people, and other marginals. Instead, it is specifically withdrawal of status respect,

resulting in a loss of prestige, which in turn triggers an entrepreneurial response.

Along the same lines, Young (1971) found that entrepreneurship occurs when a

group has a low status, and has been denied access to mainstream society but still has

more resources than other marginal groups. Shapero (1975) generalized that most

entrepreneurs are displaced persons who have been dislodged from their familiar niche.

Shapero and Sokol (1982) found that refugees are more likely to start new ventures in

their host societies than they would in their countries of origin. This suggests that in times

of transition, individuals may become entrepreneurs, although entrepreneurship was not

originally their intended goal. To Shapero (1984), the entrepreneurial event is innovative,

the result of one's decision to change one's life path, and to start a new business. Often,

this is prompted by negative forces, such as frustration or the loss of a job. Changing

country of residence may sometimes be the cause of such displacement.

Aldrich, et al (1984) stated that the will to succeed is reinforced by exclusion

from other possible outlets for talent and energy. "Discrimination by majority society

31

restricts access to political power and social status, so group members turn to the business

sphere as a means of furthering personal ambitions." However, they do not agree that

self-employment changes the marginal status of the ethnic entrepreneur. According to

them, he simply moves horizontally from marginal worker to marginal proprietor.

Brenner (1987) analyzed specific cases, noting that entrepreneurship is often a

way to fight adverse circumstances. He suggested that innovation does not rise randomly,

but because of a perception by the innovators that they have an unequal position relative

to some key reference group. Entrepreneurship is thus sometimes an adaptive-response

behaviour to marginality. It may also be a means to social integration when other paths

are closed. Ladbury (1984) provided further empirical evidence to support this approach.

He found that Turkish Cypriots became entrepreneurs as a function of marginalization.

Min (1984) also found such disadvantage to be a motivating factor of entrepreneurship, in

a study of Korean immigrants. Min (1986) elaborated on the same theme, explaining that

his Korean sample was more entrepreneurial than his Filipino sample because the

Koreans perceived disadvantages to a greater degree.

In summary, while Weber saw entrepreneurship as something desirable to which

some cultures were predisposed, Hagen saw entrepreneurship almost as a consolation for

marginal cultures in the absence of being accepted into society at large. Yet, Hagen's

model has been argued to have major flaws (Kasdan, 1965). Weaknesses of this approach

include the fact that Hagen does not explain the case where the marginals are not

entrepreneurs of a society. In Argentina, for example, the Mendocinos are the dominant

entrepreneurs. Yet they are not marginal; they are the elite. Furthermore, at times the

minority is not entrepreneurial. Jenkins (1984) pointed out that in Northern Ireland it is

the majority Protestants who dominate the entrepreneurship sector. Hagen's approach

does not explain such cases.

The Kirznerian Identifier of Existing Opportunity for Profit

In economics, traditional theory assumed that markets move toward equilibrium

and it is entrepreneurs who cause a disequilibrium when they innovate and create profit

opportunities. According to this classical school of thought, the profit opportunities

32

created by entrepreneurs are the cause of the disequilibrium, and it is this that improves

the incomes of all affected.

In contrast, to Kirzner (1973), it is not the entrepreneur who causes a

disequilibrium. To him, entrepreneurship has to do with the identification of market

opportunities. The entrepreneur is the one who correctly anticipates where the next

imperfection will be. Entrepreneurship thus corrects socio-economic "waste" or

inefficiencies. Kirzner explained that entrepreneurship is unlikely to come from the

government or planned sector, because even when there is innovation, entrepreneurship

will depend on profit motive. He thus equated profits with arbitrage. He discussed the

entrepreneur in the context of opportunities, alertness, and economic processes. He did so

using the approach of the Austrian school of economics. Unlike the Schumpeterian

entrepreneur who innovates and thus disturbs an equilibrium by introducing something

new into the marketplace, according to Kirzner, the entrepreneur profits from alertness in

existing disequilibrium, i.e., market imperfections give the entrepreneur something to do.

Rather than limiting entrepreneurship to the innovator, Kirzner sees that an imitator can

also profit from disequilibrium.

Whereas the Schumpeterian innovator creates opportunity, the Kirznerian

identifier reacts to an existing opportunity for profit. While the Hagenian displacee reacts

to displacement, self-employment of the Kirznerian identifier is a reaction to an existing

opportunity for profit.

In order to escape the controversies surrounding providing a definition of

entrepreneurship that will be generally acceptable to all, Shapero and Sokol (1982) opt

for an embracing conceptualization - entrepreneurial event - which encompasses “a large

variety of activities without being tied to particular kind of activities.” They denote

entrepreneurship by the following activities: initiative-taking; consolidation of resources;

management of the organization; relative autonomy; and risk-taking. Defined in this

mode, they believe that every entrepreneurial event is encapsulated in the characteristics

stated above.

Describing the six schools of entrepreneurship posited by Cunningham and

Lischeron (1994) will offer an insight into the major approaches into which the concepts

of entrepreneurship and entrepreneur have been delineated. These schools include the

33

following: the great person’s school of entrepreneurship; the psychological characteristics

school of entrepreneurship; the classical school of entrepreneurship; the leadership

school of entrepreneurship; the management school of entrepreneurship; and the

intrapreneurship school of entrepreneurship.

Each of these schools can be understood according to the indices by which it

describes entrepreneurship/entrepreneur - personal characteristics, opportunities,

management or the need for adapting an existing venture. For example, the great person

school emphasizes the ‘inborn’ intuitive faculty of the great person to recognize an

opportunity and make the appropriate decision. This approach holds that without this

intuitive faculty, the individual would lack the entrepreneurial makeup. The great person

has an exceptional confidence in himself and his abilities. He is also endowed with high

levels of vigour, persistence, vision, single-mindedness and self-esteem (Cunningham

and Lischeron, 1994).

The psychological school of entrepreneurship undertakes the analysis of

entrepreneurship at the level of individuals. In other words, individuals are the units of

analysis. This approach believes that entrepreneurs have values, needs and attitude that

are unique to them. It is held that a combination of these stands to distinguish

entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs. Those with characteristics identifiable with

entrepreneurs will have a higher propensity to function in entrepreneurial realms

(Lachman, 1980). Three personality characteristics have featured prominently in

entrepreneurship literature: risk-taking propensity; personal values (responsibility, duty

etc.); and the need for achievement (nAch). This school contends that entrepreneurship is

a trend that develops over time in an individual through the process of socialization.

The classical school, on the other hand, is woven around the “notion of

undertaking a venture, which has an element of risk and requires some creativity or

innovativeness.” The main ingredients of entrepreneurship, according to this school, are

innovation and creativity. Thus, entrepreneurship is defined within the framework of this

approach as “the opportunity-seeking style of management that sparks innovation.”

The management school suggests that an entrepreneur is “a person who organizes

or manages a business undertaking, assuming the risk for the sake of profit” (Webster,

1966). Within this perspective, it is believed that entrepreneurship can be developed

34

through conscious learning. In most cases, failure in entrepreneurial activities is

attributed to poor management tactics. It is, therefore, averred that training in

management functions can help reduce business failure substantially.

The leadership school of entrepreneurship sees an entrepreneur as someone who

relies on those he believes can help him achieve his purposes and objectives. This school

proposes that a successful entrepreneur must be a ‘people manager’, an effective leader, a

mentor who motivates, directs and leads others to accomplish set tasks. In the words of

Kao (1989), “the entrepreneur must be a leader, able to define a vision of what is

possible, and attract people to rally around that vision and transform it into reality.” The

two major elements in this approach are: getting the task accomplished and responding to

the needs of those involved in task accomplishment.

Intrapreneurship school is a response to lack of innovativeness and

competitiveness within organizations. Intrapreneurs, though with limited power within

organizations, act as entrepreneurs and implement their ideas without necessarily

becoming owners. Longenecker, J. G, Moore, C. W and Petty, J. W (1997) describe

entrepreneurship in terms of the functions it performs: provision of jobs, introduction of

innovations and stimulation of economic development. Some researchers have defined it

using what they consider entrepreneurial traits. For example, Roscoe (1973) describes

entrepreneurship as involving traits such as strong drives for independence and success,

high levels of vigour, perseverance and energy. It is also defined as the process of value

creation through a combination of resources to exploit an opportunity (Stevenson,

Roberts & Grousbeck, 1989).

As regards the functions of an entrepreneur, it presents a long list. McClelland

(1961) believes that the entrepreneur is someone who exercises some control over the

means of production and produces more than he can consume in order to sell it for

individual income. Palmer (1971) stated that the entrepreneurial function involves

primary risk measurement and risk taking within a business organization. Furthermore,

the successful entrepreneur is that individual who can correctly interpret the risk situation

and then determine polices which will minimize the risk involved. Say (1816) opines that

the entrepreneur is the agent who unites all means of production, determines the value of

35

the wages, the interest and the rent which he pays as well as the profits belonging to

himself and also risk bearing.

Schumpeter (1911) postulates the first dynamic concept of entrepreneurial

function. He is the first major scholar to put the human agent at the centre of economic

development (Kilby, 1971). He argues that entrepreneurial function can be defined in

terms of a single constitutive function, which he calls ‘innovation’. To him innovation is

not mere improvements in technology; it encompasses the following five cases:

(1) The introduction of a new good - that is one with which consumers are not yet familiar - or of a new quality of a good. (2) The introduction of a new method of production, that is one not yet tested by experience in the branch of manufacture concerned, which need by no means be founded upon a discovery scientifically new, and can also exist in a new way of handling a commodity commercially. (3) The opening of a new market, that is a market into which the particular branch of manufacture of the country in question has not previously entered, whether or not this market has existed before. (4) The conquest of a new source of supply of raw materials or half-manufactured goods, again irrespective of whether this source already exists or whether it has first to be created. (5) The carrying out of the new organization of any industry, like the creation of a monopoly position (for example through trustification) or the breaking up of a monopoly position (Schumpeter, 1934, pp. 66).

In differentiating an entrepreneur from a small business owner or manager,

Brockhaus and Horwitz (1985) argue that there are no significant differentiating features

between an entrepreneur and small business owners or managers, but Hartman (1959)

suggests that the distinction between manager and entrepreneur is in terms of their

relationship to formal authority in industrial organizations. Within the organization, the

entrepreneur is the source of all formal authority. The management, on the other hand, is

defined residually as not being the source of all formal authority. Litzinger (1965) also

suggests the distinction is drawn between entrepreneurs who are goal and action oriented

as contrasted to managers who carry out policies and procedures in achieving the goals.

2.1.3 Culture, ethnicity and entrepreneurship

Petersen (1980) describes ‘ethnic’ as an adjective that refers to differences

between categories of people. These differences must be strong enough to mark one

group off the other. Yinger (1985) elaborates on the import of linking ‘ethnic’ to ‘group’,

36

the implication of which is the awareness by membership of the group of a common

origin and culture, or that others think of them as having these attributes. An ethnic group

is also conceived as consisting of those who regard themselves as being alike by virtual

descent, real or fictitious, and who are so regarded by others (Horowitz, 2004). Weber

(1978) defines ethnic groups as “human groups characterized by a subjective belief in

their common descent given their real or perceived similarities in one or more

characteristics: physical types or race, customs, language, religion and in perceptible

differences in the conduct of everyday life.”

Barth (1969) explains that as long as there exists a marked difference in

behaviour, then the ethnic group persists as a significant unit. He also discussed the

traditional definition of an ethnic group which was generally understood in

anthropological literature as referring to a population which:

1. is largely biologically self-perpetuating;

2. shares fundamental cultural values, realized in overt unity in cultural forms;

3. makes up a field of communication and interaction;

4. has a membership which identifies itself, and is identified by others, as

constituting a category distinguishable from other categories of the same order.

Individual ethnicity affects attitude and behaviour (Baskerville, 2003) and culture

reflects particular ethnic, social, economic, ecological, and political complexities in

individuals (Mitchell et al., 2002). Thus, cultural environments can produce attitude

differences (Baskerville, 2003) as well as entrepreneurial behaviour differences (North,

1990; Shane, 1994).

How is culture relevant in the discussion of entrepreneurial activity? This

question is motivated by the observations of economists (e.g., Schumpeter, 1934),

sociologists (e.g., Weber, 1904), and psychologist (e.g., McClelland, 1961) that countries

differ in levels of entrepreneurial activity. Entrepreneurial activities are considered an

important source of technological innovation (Schumpeter, 1934) and economic growth

(Birley, 1987). Therefore, understanding the influence of culture on entrepreneurship is

of considerable theoretical and practical value.

Culture is defined as set of shared values, beliefs, and expected behaviours (e.g.,

Herbig, 1994). Hofstede (1989) defines culture as the collective programming of the

37

mind that distinguishes people included in one category from another. Category of people

is defined widely and may include an ethnic group. Culture, in this sense, includes

systems of values; and values are among the building blocks of culture (Adler,

1997). Culture can also be viewed as a collective mental knowledge developed by a

group of people exposed to a similar context (Geertz, 1973; Reckwitz, 2000; Schatzki

and Natter, 1996). The collective mental knowledge concerns the way societies or

communities organize knowledge and social behaviour (Kroeber and Kluckhohn, 1952).

Some researchers believe that certain perceptions and beliefs among entrepreneurs

transcend cultures while other beliefs and values may be more culture or ethnic specific

(Busenitz and Lau, 1996). McGrath, et al (1992), for example, identified a predictable set

of values among entrepreneurs from across eight countries.

The influence of culture on economic activities of different societies has been

investigated since the beginning of the 20th century. The argument in sociology that

individuals affect and are affected by the social structure have been taken to bear on the

study of entrepreneurship. Reynolds (1991), for example, defines entrepreneurship as the

creation of new organizations, which is context-dependent. This position places the

practice of entrepreneurship within values and attitude in a social context. Etuk (1985)

delineates Nigeria into four cultural categories in which the practice of entrepreneurial

event can be situated. These categories are (i) the Moslem-Sudanic culture of the northern

states, (ii) the individualistic culture of the eastern states, (iii) the kingdom culture of the

western states and (iv) the metropolitan culture of Lagos, Calabar and Portharcourt. He

contends that these cultural categorizations present difference in practice of

entrepreneurship among the people.

Weber (1904) posits that the high rate of development recorded in the Western

societies relative to other cultures was a corollary of the presence of values such as

individualism, an ascetic self-denial, which discourages extravagant lifestyles, positive

attitude towards work, savings and investment. In his comparative study of societies,

Weber (1904) reports in his famous work, ‘the protestant ethic and the spirit of

capitalism’, that the great accumulation of wealth that led to the emergence of capitalism

in Europe and North America and which accounted for the level of development

witnessed in those societies was a result of protestant ethic. The ethic encouraged

38

abstinence from life’s pleasures, an austere lifestyle and rigorous self-discipline.

Frugality, savings and investment were encouraged. Writing on the ethic, Haralambos et

al, (2000) report that:

These riches could not be spent on luxuries, fine clothes, lavish houses and frivolous entertainment, but in the glory of God. In effect, this meant being even more successful in terms of one’s calling, which in practice meant reinvesting profits in the business (Haralambos et al, 2000 Pg. 449).

Contrary to Weber’s position on the value of individualism and its contribution to

entrepreneurial development in Western societies, Redding (1980) reports on Asian

entrepreneurship that thrives on collectivism, thus repudiating the universal position

advanced by Weber.

Inglehart (2000) investigated influence of the numerous factors that shape the

world value system on the sample of the 65 societies. He found evidence that economic

differences are linked with large and pervasive cultural differences, and that cultural

zones are persistent and long lasting.   

The main point derived from the studies mentioned above is that culture has a

profound impact upon society’s welfare. The cultural orientation of a society reflects the

complex interaction of values, attitudes and behaviours displayed by its members (Adler,

1997). These values, in turn, affect the attitudes of individuals, which again form their

behaviour choices in any given situation. The continually changing patterns of individual

and group behaviour eventually influence the society's culture, and the cycle begins

again.

More specifically, other studies support the notion that culture has a profound

influence on the entrepreneurial capacity of a society, and that societies usually do not

have homogeneous cultural setting. Loucks (1981) suggests that entrepreneurship is

culture embedded and, therefore, researchers on entrepreneurship should be more

interested in the cultural distinctions of entrepreneurship phenomena, and differences in

how values, beliefs, attitudes, shared norms and particularity of conditions, influence

what they do. 

Davidsson and Wiklund (1997) suggested that the most obvious source of the

variations in the levels of entrepreneurship, are cultural values and cultural context. 

Morrison (1998) has found that there is a significant relationship between

39

entrepreneurship and cultural specificity, and if the discipline of entrepreneurship has to

flourish, researchers should search more about the differences, rather than concentrating

on similarities.  

Shapero and Sokol (1982) present a model of the larger–scale precursors to

starting a business that remains the reference point for subsequent studies on the topic.  In

their model, the usual inducement to forming a business is a displacement, for example,

being fired, leaving school or the armed services, getting divorced, or moving to another

country.   According to Shapero and Sokol, the first question asked after a displacement

is whether it is desirable to start a business.  They identify socio–cultural dimensions as

being of primary importance as inducements to answer the desirability question in the

affirmative.  The next question is whether starting a business is feasible.  Primary in

answering this question positively are factors in the environment such as the availability

of financial and other support and the existence of models for success.  A person who can

answer both the desirability and feasibility questions positively has a high likelihood of

taking the steps necessary to start a business.

Regarding socio–cultural dimensions, several of them have been suggested,

including placing a high value on innovation, risk taking, and independence (Kolvereid &

Obloj, 1994; Shapero & Sokol, 1982), personal values (Huisman, 1985; Shapero &

Sokol, 1982), high social status for entrepreneurs (Davidsson, 1995; Ray & Turpin, 1987;

Shane et al, 1991), the importance placed on work in a society (McGrath et al, 1992) and

failure, meaning loss of face (McGrath et al, 1992).

In a cross–country comparison of entrepreneurs with nonentrepreneurs, McGrath,

McMillan, and Sheinberg (1992) found that entrepreneurs were less likely to agree that

failure is associated with a loss of respect.  Ray (1994), on the other hand, argued that

fear of failure drove Singaporean entrepreneurs to strive harder to avoid insolvency.  In a

study of regions within Sweden, Davidsson and Wiklund (1995) concluded that a diverse

set of entrepreneurial values differentiated in small but meaningful ways between regions

in predicting the rates of new business start–ups.

Several studies have also examined entrepreneurial characteristics such as

motives, values and beliefs across cultures (Mitchell et al, 2000; Mueller & Thomas,

2000; Scheinberg & MacMillan, 1988; Mitchell, Smith, Seawright and Morse, 1991;

40

Thomas & Mueller 2000). Scheinberg and MacMillan (1988), for example, report the

results of a survey of entrepreneurs in 11 countries. These authors found that

entrepreneurial motives factor into six dimensions: need for approval, perceived

instrumentality of wealth, communitarianism, need for personal development, need for

independence, and need for escape. They found also that entrepreneurs from each country

emphasize each dimension differently. When grouped by the motives of “money as

means” and communitarianism, three distinct clusters of countries were apparent. Scoring

high on money as means and low on the communitarian motives were respondents from

Australia, Great Britain, the United States, and Finland. Scoring high on both dimensions

were China, Italy, Puerto Rico, and Portugal.

Shane et al. (1991) also studied the reasons given for start-ups across samples of

entrepreneurs from three countries. This research identified four factors (need for

independence, recognition, learning, and roles) that were consistent with those reported

by Scheinberg and MacMillan (1988). Also, Shane et al. (1991) reported significant

national differences for the first three of these motives. In both of these studies, the

reported motives appeared to be consistent with other conceptualizations of national

cultural values. For example, the motives reported by Scheinberg and MacMillan (1988)

have conceptual overlaps with Hofstede’s dimensions of masculinity and collectivism.

Rather than examining motives for starting a business, Thomas and Mueller (2000) asked

whether traits associated with entrepreneurship differ systematically with cultural

distance from United States. The participants in this study were students of business

economics, and engineering across nine countries. The traits examined were

innovativeness, locus of control, risk propensity, and energy level. Thomas and Mueller

(2000) found that as cultural distance increased, internal locus control, risk taking and

energy levels decreased

In a second study, Mueller and Thomas (2000) explored the association between

two entrepreneurial traits (locus of control and innovativeness) and Hofstede’s

dimensions of individualism and uncertainty avoidance. They found that internal locus of

control was dominant in individualistic cultures and that innovativeness and internal

locus of control were prevalent in cultures high in individualism and low in uncertainty

41

avoidance. These findings led Mueller and Thomas (2000) to conclude that cultures high

in individualism and uncertainty avoidance are supportive of entrepreneurship.

Mitchell et al. (2000) examined whether cognitive scripts associated with venture

creation decisions vary across cultures. The cognitive scripts included knowledge

arrangements (e.g., knowledge concerning protectable ideas and access to resources),

willingness (e.g., tolerance for commitment and motivation), and ability (e.g., situational

knowledge, opportunity recognition), and were associated with venture-creation decision

both individually and in interaction with one another. Furthermore, Mitchell et al (2000)

provided preliminary evidence that these scripts were themselves associated with cultural

values of individualism and power-distance. The direction of association, however, was

not consistent across specific scripts. For example, Mitchell et al, 2000 reported that a

script describing knowledge of appropriable ideas was negatively associated with

individualism and positively associated with power-distance. In contrast, a script

describing knowledge of access to resources was positively associated with individualism

and negatively associated with power-distance. Both findings represented cognitive

scripts that were supportive of entrepreneurship.

Overall, these studies identify a number of entrepreneurial characteristics that

appear to be influenced consistently by culture. In particular, there is strong evidence that

self-reported reasons for starting a business vary systematically with variations in culture

along dimensions of individualism, power-distance, and masculinity (Scheinberg &

MacMillan, 1988; Shane et al, 1991). Some evidence exists that cultural values such as

individualism and uncertainty avoidance are significantly related to traits such as internal

locus of control, risk taking, and innovativeness, which are associated with

entrepreneurship (Mueller & Thomas, 2000; Thomas & Mueller, 2000). Finally, evidence

exists that cognitive scripts that are related to entrepreneurship are also associated with

individualism and power-distance (Mitchell et al., 2000), suggesting a complex

interaction between cognition and cultural values.

A number of surveys of entrepreneurs provide insight into the motivational

aspects of the entrepreneurial experience. Kuratko, Homsby and Naffziger (1997) and

Robichaud, McGraw and Roger (2001) surveyed North American entrepreneurs to

determine why they start their own businesses. According to these two studies, the

42

motivational reasons for entrepreneurship fall into four general groupings: (1) extrinsic

rewards; (2) independence/autonomy; (3) intrinsic rewards and (4) family security.

Results of the surveys conducted by these two studies differed slightly. Entrepreneurs in

Kuratko et al's (1997) study cited motives such as: 'To enjoy the excitement", "To

increase my income opportunities","Acquire personal wealth" and "To control my own

employment destiny". In contrast, in Robichaud et al's study, entrepreneurs mentioned:

"To be closer to my family", 'To build up equity for retirement", "To do something I

enjoy", "To acquire a comfortable living", "To maximize business growth" and “To make

my own decisions".

Although the motives were not exactly the same, a factor analysis of Robichaud et

al.'s responses supported the same four factor approach hypothesized by Kuratko et al

(1997). Pistnii, Huang, Oksoy, Zhao and Welsch, (1999) studied 56 Chinese

entrepreneurs and found the highest scoring motivations were "having fun" and

"achieving a personal sense of accomplishment" which are both examples of intrinsic

rewards.

In a study of motivation among Vietnamese entrepreneurs, Swierczek and Ha

(2003) examined 18 motivations related to achievement, challenge, necessity, and

security. Because Vietnamese culture attaches higher value to collectivism rather than

individualism, and the economy is characterized by a high level of uncertainty, the

authors hypothesized that SME owners in Vietnam would be more motivated by security

than challenge. The results, however, led to the opposite conclusion. Swierczek and Ha

(2003) concluded that challenge and achievement were significantly more important

motivators than necessity and security, perhaps indicating that an entrepreneurial

orientation and culture is emerging in Vietnam that includes greater risk-taking and

proactive behaviours.

An important methodological issue is the difficulty of determining to what extent

statements of motives are simply restatements of cultural values; that is, studies that

investigate broad motivational needs are likely to find cultural differences because these

are closely related to the underlying cultural values (Baum et al., 1993; Scheinberg &

MacMillan, 1988; Shane et al., 1991). Needs, such as communitarianism, independence,

and autonomy all reflect the dimension of individualism-collectivism. Similarly,

43

achievement, recognition, and the instrumentality of wealth reflect the dimension of

masculinity-feminity. This reflects a considerable methodological difficulty of making

empirical distinctions between culture and individual behaviour. As Davidson and

Wiklund (1997) note, from some perspectives, culture is behaviour.

Davidson (1995) examined six regions in Sweden with distinct structural

characteristics, reporting systematic variation in values and beliefs as well as

entrepreneurial intentions and new firm-formation rates. A complex interaction appears

to exist among structural characteristics, entrepreneurial values, new firm-formation

rates, entrepreneurial intentions, and beliefs concerning entrepreneurship.

The preceding discussion shows that some evidence exists that broad cultural

characteristics are associated with national levels of entrepreneurship. Specifically, high

individualism, low uncertainty avoidance and high power-distance have all been found to

be associated with rates of innovation. These relationships are not consistent over time,

however (Shane, 1993), and have not been systematically found with aggregate indicators

of entrepreneurship (Davidson & Wiklund, 1997).

It is reasonable to expect that countries can be segregated into culturally

homogenous regions. It is unclear, however, whether broad cultural characterizations

such as Hofstede’s (1980) can sufficiently capture the variance in culturally

heterogeneous regions in a single country.

Thus, culture is important because it influences the motives, values, and beliefs of

individuals. The studies reviewed in this section provide two key insights into the role of

culture. The first implication is that in the context of entrepreneurship, theories of

motivation are culture bound in that different cultures emphasize different motivational

needs. The second implication is that culture is likely to influence national or regional

rates of entrepreneurship by creating a larger supply of potential entrepreneurs.

2.1.4 Social capital and entrepreneurial event

Entrepreneurs require information, capital, skills, and labour to start business

activities. While they may hold some of these resources themselves, they often

complement their resources by accessing their contacts (Aldrich & Zimmer, 1986;

Aldrich, et al., 1991; Cooper, et al, 1995; Hansen, 1995). The contacts that lead to

44

successful outcomes are their social capital and they are a key component of

entrepreneurial networks (Burt, 1992). Gabbay & Leenders (1999) define social capital as

the set of tangible or virtual resources that accrue to actors through the social structure,

facilitating the attainment of the actors’goals (Lin, 1999; Portes, 1999). By this they

include contacts that help them getting things done. These are people the actor knows, or

who are known by others that the actor knows.

When the entrepreneurs’ contacts contribute to their entrepreneurial goals, these

social contacts are their social capital (Burt, 1992). The contacts are often informal work

and non-work connections. These relations may extend across professional net-works,

reaching friends, and colleagues from earlier jobs. Entrepreneurial networks span

relations to organizations, clusters of firms, as well as to other people that help them set

up the firm (Hansen, 1995).

Networks have several useful properties for entrepreneurs. The first is size.

Entrepreneurs can enlarge their networks to get crucial information and other resources

from knowledgeable others. The next is positioning. Entrepreneurs position themselves

within a social network to shorten the path to knowledgeable others to get what they need

(Blau, 1977; Burt, 1992; Granovetter, 1973).

Finally is relationship structure. Social contacts may be related to the entrepreneur

or to each other through several types of relations or interactions. In single stranded

relations, each person performs only one activity with the entrepreneur and is related to

that person through only one type of relation. Multiplex ties, in contrast, have several

layers of different content or types of relationships (Scott, 1991). They may play

numerous roles in the entrepreneur’s support group. Researchers pay special attention to

the contribution of multiplex ties to entrepreneurship. They especially note that social

network members can contact and organize themselves, expanding the opportunities they

make available to the entrepreneur (Burt, 1992; Hansen, 2001).

Over time, entrepreneurs accumulate social capital, which is crucial for starting a

new business (Hansen, 2001). Census data from the US find that entrepreneurs are older

and slightly more educated than employed workers. Immigrant entrepreneurs have lived a

long time in their new country before starting an enterprise (Portes and Zhou, 1996,

1999). Age and length of residence help them accumulate social capital for new firms.

45

The social network approach suggests that a person's behaviour is contingent on the

nature and structure of his social relationships, which also provides the resources and

support required for entrepreneurship. Sociologists, social psychologists, anthropologists,

and organizational theorists have used the social network approach to study the

relationship between people and organizations.

Limited research has been carried out in the field of entrepreneurship using the

social network approach to explain entrepreneurship. Aldrich and Zimmer (1985) stressed

the importance of community-wide networks in encouraging and supporting

entrepreneurship. Johannisson (1986) emphasized the role of informal ties in

entrepreneurs' personal networks in achieving entrepreneurship.

In the studies of Chinese business, network has been viewed as one of the key

factors contributing to the enormous success of Chinese business in Hong Kong and other

Asian countries. Hamilton (1991) compares Chinese family firms to their Western

counterparts. Unlike Western families, the Chinese families represented networks of

people joined together by specific sets of familial relationships. The closer the kinship,

the more binding the obligation. Redding (1990) viewed the Chinese as collectivist and

group-dominated, their need for a networked society rooted in the insecurity that emerged

in a close-to-subsistence-level society, and the lack of trust in the forces of

modernization. References to both family and external networks were important. Wong

(1992) attributed the growth and the internationalization of Hong Kong and Singapore

companies to the strength of the Chinese business networks.

Social status and entrepreneurship

Over seventy years ago, Schumpeter (1934) depicted the motives of the

entrepreneur as follows:

First of all there is the dream and the will to found a private kingdom, usually, though not necessarily, also a dynasty.… Then there is the will to conquer: the impulse to fight, to prove oneself superior to others, to succeed for the sake, not of the fruits of success, but of success itself. From this aspect, economic action becomes akin to sport…. The financial result is a secondary consideration, or, at all events, mainly valued as an index of success and as a symptom of victory, the displaying of which very often is more important as a motive of large expenditure than the wish for the consumers’ goods themselves.… Finally, there is the joy of

46

creating, of getting things done, or simply of exercising one’s energy and ingenuity.... Our type seeks out difficulties, changes in order to change, delights in ventures.

Romantic as it may seem at first glance, Schumpeter’s portrait of entrepreneurial

motives captures essential facets of entrepreneurship that mainstream economics still

grapples with. Schumpeter’s core contention, that entrepreneurs do not seek greater

wealth for the sake of increasing consumption seems at odds with conventional

depictions of economic agents. This seeming contradiction is all the more evident when

one considers the alleged motives of ‘the joy of creating… delights in venturing’, which,

one should bear in mind, are related to economic activity in the market, not recreation

and leisure. Recent evidence suggests, however, that Schumpeter might be right.

Hamilton (2000) finds that in the United States, median entrepreneurs earnings

after 10 years in business are 35 percent less than the predicted alternative wage on a paid

job of the same duration. Hamilton’s use of a self-selection model shows that it is not the

case that low-ability workers become entrepreneurs; if anything, the evidence shows that

higher-ability workers are more likely to enter into self-employment. Therefore, large-

sample evidence amassed by Hamilton strongly suggests that self-employment offers

substantial nonpecuniary benefits, such as ‘being your own boss.’

Muscovite and Vissing-Jørgensen (2002) similarly find that entrepreneurs are

willing to concentrate their investments in their own businesses despite the fact that they

present a far worse risk-return tradeoff than investing in public equity. Smith and Smith

(2004), moreover, provide evidence on the very high cost-of-capital levels that

entrepreneurs and venture capitalists are willing to bear to engage in entrepreneurial

activity. The leading explanation for these results is based on nonpecuniary benefits from

entrepreneurial activity. A further sociologically-based explanation is that high-ability

individuals are culturally encouraged to start firms where family members can be

employed and share directly in the profits. Further work is needed to test this hypothesis.

Using Swedish data, Giannetti and Simonov (2003) contend that social norms

may drive people into entrepreneurship notwithstanding lower individual profits. Amit et

al. (2001) compared Canadian entrepreneurs with senior managers who decided not to

start ventures in the high-technology sector. They found that for entrepreneurs' decision

47

to start a new venture wealth attainment was significantly less important relative to an

aggregate of ten other decision dimensions (specifically: vision, stability, power, lifestyle,

leadership, innovation, independence, ego, contribution, and challenge). Several other

studies maintain that entrepreneurs are more over-confident than regular people are and

appear to be driven by wishful thinking (Bernardo and Welch, 1998; Arabsheibani, et al,

2000; Cooper, et al, 1988). However, one would be wrong to interpret either Schumpeter

or the evidence mentioned above as suggesting that entrepreneurs are agnostic or

oblivious to financial considerations. Studies conducted in several countries show that

individuals are sensitive to capital constraints in their decision to take entrepreneurial

positions – in particular, self-employment. Several studies hold that entrepreneurs find

special importance in their independence (Blanchflower and Oswald, 1998; Blanchflower

2000; and Hundley, 2001).

Using survey data from the United Kingdom, Germany, and Switzerland, Benz

and Frey (2004) argue that the greater independence and autonomy of self-employed

persons is largely responsible for their particular job satisfaction. A series of recent

studies on OECD-member nations further shows that people most often move into self-

employment when they are dissatisfied with their life, and that the very act of creating

their own business tends to make them more satisfied than the average person in their

country (Hofstede, 1998; Noorderhaven et al., 1999; Noorderhaven et al., 2003; Hofstede

et al., 2004).

Falter (2002) holds that the greater job satisfaction exhibited by the self-employed

in Switzerland stems rather from their job characteristics than from income. Falter notes

that this may be due to individual over-optimism in addition to greater freedom. Taken

together, the above evidence suggests that entrepreneurs are relatively more willing to

forgo income and to bear costs, including increased risk levels, in order to engage in

independent ventures. Compared with non-entrepreneurs, entrepreneurs behave as if they

understand the present fairly well but have rather special views regarding the future. Yet

the image of the entrepreneur reflected in these works is still very fragmented. A richer

picture emerges when one considers insights from a psychological perspective. While the

literature on entrepreneurship and individual-level psychology is voluminous and lies

beyond the present scope, here we briefly note that entrepreneurs’ risk propensity has

48

been found to be non-distinguishable from that of non-entrepreneurs. Rather,

entrepreneurs differ in their risk (under-)assessment, consistent with their general over-

optimism (Palich and Babgy, 1995; Sarasvathy, Simon and Lave, 1998).

2.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.2.1 Introduction

A theory is a statement of how and why specific facts are related. One or more

general frameworks, or theoretical paradigms guide sociologists in their quest to know

how and why of a phenomenon. According to Macionis (2001), “a theoretical paradigm

provides a basic image of society that guides thinking and research.” Two theories will

serve as the framework for this study: Entrepreneurial Event Formation Theory; and

Social Learning Theory.

2.2.2 Entrepreneurial event formation theory (EEFT)

This theory by Shapero and Sokol (1982) seeks an explanation of how group

membership and socio-cultural environment affect the choice of an entrepreneurial path.

The theory sets out with two questions concerning each entrepreneurial event:

1. What brought about the action that led to a change in the entrepreneur’s former

life path?

2. Why this path, the generation of an entrepreneurial event, and not one of the

myriad other actions available?

These questions are designed to provide answers to how the choice of

entrepreneurial path is a function of social context of an individual or a group. The most

demonstrable aspect of entrepreneurial event is company formation. However, this is

chosen out of many feasible alternatives. According to Shapero and Sokol (1982),

“seldom can we find a case where starting a new company was the only possible

alternative; no psychological framework suggests that there is a particular need or drive

for company formation even though company formation may be linked to more

generalized needs for achievement or expression.”

49

The perspective holds that EEF process is not reducible to a monocausal analysis.

Rather, a number of factors are needed in understanding the process. That is, “no single

variable or factor can account for the outcome of the process. A number of factors are

necessary, but no one is sufficient.”

The precipitators of EEF

The question is asked; what brings an individual, or a group, to take any action?

At one extreme are persons driven by overwhelming events like war, persecution or loss

of employment. At the other extreme are individuals with no evident reason for change

who opt to make a major shift in life path. The process of change in an individual’s life

path can be understood in terms of vectors. Vectors are described as “directed forces that

keep the individual moving in a given direction at any given time.” Most members of a

collectivity are held down in a particular path by the sum of vectors in their lives. These

vectors could be a job, family situations, the powerful force of inertia and the daily

pushes and pulls in an individual’s life.

50

TABLE 2.2.1 ENTREPRENEURIAL EVENT FORMATION

Life path changes

Negative Displacements:

Forcefully emigrated

Fired

Insulted

Angered

Bored Perceptions of Desirability Perceptions of

Feasibility

Reaching middle age Culture Financial support

51

Divorced or widowed Family Other support Company

Between Things: Peers Demonstration effect Formation

Out of army Colleagues Models

Out of school Mentor Mentors

Out of jail Partners

Positive Pull:

From partner

From mentor

From investor

From customer

Source: Shapero and Sokol (1982)

More specifically, in a social system that places a high value on the formation of

new ventures; more individuals will choose that path in times of transition. More

diffusely, a social system that places a high value on innovation, risk-taking, and

independence is more likely to produce entrepreneurial events than a system with

contrasting values. To examine concepts of the desirable as they influence company

formation, Shapero and Sokol use data on the families, peer groups, ethnic groups,

educational and professional contexts of entrepreneurs.

Family

The family, particularly the father or mother, plays the most powerful role in

establishing the desirability and credibility of entrepreneurial action for an individual.

Fifty to 58 percent of company founders in the United States had parents who were

company owners, free professionals, independent artisans or farmers, yet a census from

the same period revealed that less than 12 percent of the U. S. population was self-

employed. In a Northern Italian study conducted by Shapero in 1973, 56 percent of

entrepreneurs had parents who were self-employed. In Carroll’s study of Filipino

manufacturing entrepreneurs, the percentage was 74: in Marris and Somerest’s study of

entrepreneurs, almost 89 percent (Marris and Somerset, 1971; Harris, 1970).

52

The data follow the same pattern in study after study and in culture after culture.

Of Lipman’s (1969) Bogotan entrepreneurs, 61 percent had independent fathers; of

Sayigh’s (1962) Lebanese, 74 percent; Hammeed’s (1974) Sudanese, 70 percent.

Finney’s (1973) Gorokan entrepreneurs of New Guinea show a high incidence of fathers

who are relatively independent in terms of tribal position. Borland (1974) found that the

variable most commonly associated with a business student’s declared entrepreneurial

expectations was the professional independence of the student’s father. Only one of 75

girls in Borland’s sample expected to start a company.

The credible model is not necessarily consciously followed. Susbauer (1969)

asked technical entrepreneurs whose fathers had been self-employed if their fathers had

been models or had encouraged them to start a company. Most often, their fathers had

told them never to start a company or their fathers had themselves been unsuccessful.

Peers

Though parents stand out as the major credible examples of entrepreneurship,

there are many other potential examples. The larger the number and variety of

entrepreneurs in a particular culture, the greater the probability that the individuals in that

culture will form companies. This may well explain differences in the proportionate role

of the parental example in different countries such as 50 -58 percent in the United States

and 80-89 percent in African countries.

Other credible examples include relatives, colleagues, and classmates. When a

corporate vice president breaks away to form a new company, this does not necessarily

affect his many subordinates. However, when a group of engineers, far down in the

organizational line, breaks away to form a company, their colleagues are much likely to

follow the example (Draheim et al., 1966).

Previous work experience

In Cooper’s study of technical company formations in the San Francisco area

(Cooper 1972), he found that new companies were more likely to originate from small

corporate divisions than from large ones. Cooper calls the small divisions “incubators”.

A small firm provides a close view of the man who formed or heads it, a man who in

53

many cases is very much like his employees. It becomes possible for the potential

entrepreneur to envision a comparable role for himself.

Cooper found that many of the entrepreneurs he studied had formed more than

one company, and many had experienced previous business failures. Failures apparently

do not shake the credibility of the company formation act, but may even reinforce its

credibility and serve as a learning experience.

Ethnic groups

Shapero and Sokol contend that it is no accident that entrepreneurship is highly

identified with certain ethnic groups: Jews, Lebanese, Ibos in Nigeria, Jains and Parisis in

India, Gujeratis in East Africa. Each of these ethnic groups contains a large number of

examples to establish the credibility of company formation. In the case of the Jews, 2000

years of refugee status and large numbers of credible examples make the entrepreneurial

act almost an expected role.

Approximately 40 percent of the Chinese-Americans are in business for

themselves, as are a similarly high percentage of the Japanese-Americans. Overseas

Chinese are heavily engaged in business wherever they are found; this is considered a

political problem in Indochina, Malaysia, and the Philippines. Strong feelings against

Chinese merchants have created a similar issue in some developing countries

Classmates, colleagues, mentors

In their study of entrepreneurs in South Africa, Italy, Brazil, and the United

States, Shapero and Sokol (1982) report that entrepreneurs have often commented about

others like themselves, “if he could do it, I knew I could too!” “I saw the boss every day.

I did everything he did but take home the profits. If he could do it ….” “I had this

classmate in high school who has a prosperous company. While he was stupid! If he

could do it ….” The same was heard with regard to work peers, relatives, and observed

strangers. It would seem that it helps to see someone lesser than oneself establish the

credibility of the act. Another powerful influence on perceptions of the nascent

entrepreneur is that of a mentor. The mentor plays the part of convincing, assuring, and

54

instructing. Unlike the person whom one can look down on, the mentor is respected and

looked up to.

This theory proposes that the shift from a life path to another can be accounted for

by socio-cultural factors embedded in social context. In the words of Shapero and Sokol

“the particular action taken by an individual in a major shift from one life path to another

is a product of the situation and of socially and culturally implanted predispositions.”

Two major constructs are identified as accounting for the process of entrepreneurial

event: perceptions of desirability; and perceptions of feasibility.

The above constructs are interwoven and interrelated; if an action is perceived as

unfeasible, one may conclude it is undesirable. Also, if one perceives an act as

undesirable, one may never consider its feasibility.

Perceptions of desirability

The theory holds that perceptions of desirability are embedded in such institutions

as culture, the family, peers, colleagues and mentors. Data from various researches are

used in support of this assumption. For example, in studies carried out in different

countries, the family was found to be playing the most powerful role in establishing the

desirability and credibility of entrepreneurial action for an individual.

Ethnicity is another socio-cultural factor found to influence entrepreneurial

behaviour. Some ethnic groups were found to contain a large number of examples to

establish the credibility of entrepreneurial event. According to Shapero and Sokol (1982),

“it is no accident that entrepreneurship is highly identified with certain ethnic groups:

Jews, Lebanese, Ibos in Nigeria, Jains and Parsis in India, Gujeratis in East Africa.” All

of these ethnic groups have credible examples to make entrepreneurial act an expected

role.

Table 2.2.2 Findings on the influence of family in entrepreneurial action in a number of cultures.Society % of Entrepreneurs influenced by

familyThe United States Entrepreneurs 50-58

Northern Italian 56

55

Filipinos 74

Kenyans 80

Nigerians 89

Bogotans 61

Quebecois 68

Lebanese 74

Sudanese 70

Adapted from Shapero and Sokol, (1982).

Perceptions of feasibility

Perceptions of feasibility are anchored on the following: financial support, other

support, demonstration effect, models, mentors and partners (Shapero and Sokol, 1982).

The availability of the above influences the propensity to engage in entrepreneurial event.

2.2.3 Social learning theory

Social learning has multiple meanings across academic disciplines. The most

common use of the term social learning is in the field of social psychology and in the

development of social theories of learning that highlight the social context within which

individuals learn (Bandura, 1977). Social learning theory focuses on how personality

represents an interaction between the individual (i.e. life history of learning and

experience) and the environment (i.e. stimuli that the person is aware of and responding

to) (Rotter, 1954). The main idea in Julian Rotter's Social Learning Theory is that

personality represents an interaction of the individual with his or her environment. One

cannot speak of a personality, internal to the individual that is independent of the

environment. Neither can one focus on behaviour as being an automatic response to an

objective set of environmental stimuli. Rather, to understand behaviour, one must take

both the individual (i.e., his or her life history of learning and experiences) and the

environment (those stimuli that the person is aware of and responding to) into account.

Rotter describes personality as a relatively stable set of potentials for responding to

situations in a particular way.

56

Rotter sees personality, and therefore behaviour, as always changeable. Change

the way the person thinks, or change the environment the person is responding to, and

behaviour will change. He does not believe there is a critical period after which

personality is set. But, the more life experience you have building up certain sets of

beliefs, the more effort and intervention required for change to occur. Rotter conceives of

people in an optimistic way. He sees them as being drawn forward by their goals, seeking

to maximize their reinforcement, rather than just avoiding punishment.

Rotter has some components to his social learning theory model predicting

behaviour. These are behaviour potential, expectancy, and reinforcement value.

Behaviour Potential

Behaviour potential is the likelihood of engaging in a particular behaviour in a

specific situation. In other words, what is the probability that the person will exhibit a

particular behaviour in a situation? In any given situation, there are multiple behaviours

one can engage in. For each possible behaviour, there is behaviour potential. The

individual will exhibit whichever behaviour has the highest potential.

Expectancy

Expectancy is the subjective probability that a given behaviour will lead to a

particular outcome, or reinforcer. How likely is it that the behaviour will lead to the

outcome? Having "high" or "strong" expectancies means the individual is confident the

behaviour will result in the outcome. Having low expectancies means the individual

believes it is unlikely that his or her behaviour will result in reinforcement. If the

outcomes are equally desirable, we will engage in the behaviour that has the greatest

likelihood of paying off (i.e., has the highest expectancy). Expectancies are formed based

on past experience. The more often a behaviour has led to reinforcement in the past, the

stronger the person's expectancy that the behaviour will achieve that outcome now.

It is important to note that expectancy is a subjective probability, because one

common source of pathology is irrational expectancies. There may be no relationship

whatsoever between the person's subjective assessment of how likely a reinforcement

will be and the actual, objective probability of the reinforcer occurring. People can either

57

over- or underestimate this likelihood, and both distortions can potentially be

problematic.

Reinforcement Value

Reinforcement is another name for the outcomes of our behaviour. Reinforcement

value refers to the desirability of these outcomes. Things we want to happen, that we are

attracted to, have a high reinforcement value. Things we do not want to happen, that we

wish to avoid, have a low reinforcement value. If the likelihood of achieving

reinforcement is the same, we will exhibit the behaviour with the greatest reinforcement

value (i.e., the one directed toward the outcome we prefer most).

As with expectancy, reinforcement value is subjective, meaning that the same

event or experience can vastly differ in desirability, depending on the individual's life

experience. Punishment from a parent would be negatively reinforcing to most children,

and something to be avoided. However, children who get little positive attention from

parents can seek out parental punishment because it has a higher reinforcement value

than neglect.

Predictive Formula.

Behaviour Potential (BP), Expectancy (E) and Reinforcement Value (RV) can be

combined into a predictive formula for behaviour:

BP = f(E & RV)

This formula can be read as follows: behaviour potential is a function of

expectancy and reinforcement value. Or, in other words, the likelihood of a person

exhibiting a particular behaviour is a function of the probability that that behaviour will

lead to a given outcome and the desirability of that outcome. If expectancy and

reinforcement value are both high, then behaviour potential will be high. If either

expectancy or reinforcement value is low, then behaviour potential will be lower.

Lave and Wenger (1991) propose that learning requires involvement in

communities of practice where the learner participates in community frameworks and

adopts behaviours that fit the structure of that community. They focus on the ways in

which “learning is an evolving, continuously renewed set of relations” and how social

58

engagements provide the proper and facilitative context for learning to take place (Lave

and Wenger, 1991).

The perspective proposes that role models are important environmental dimension

in choosing a life path. Observation, identification with and appreciation of the behaviour

of others go a long way in making certain life path more preferable to others. According

to Butler and Herring (1991:79),

through a process of vicarious learning and emulation, people form cognitive evaluations of the overall attractiveness of specific career options. They are either encouraged or discouraged to enter a particular vocation. People are more likely to enter a particular career or profession if they have seen role models successfully performing the activities associated with that career.

Research has shown that over seventy percent of entrepreneurs are from homes

where parents or close relatives owned small enterprises or were independent

professionals like lawyers, farmers or accountants (Butler and Herring, 1991). In general,

social theories of learning embrace the notion that learning occurs both inside the human

mind and in social interaction. Bandura expands on Rotter's notion of expectancy by

arguing that our expectations about the outcome of situations are heavily influenced by

whether or not we think we will succeed at the things we attempt. Bandura introduced the

term self-efficacy for this concept, arguing that it has a high degree of influence not only

on our expectations but also on our performance itself.

Most recently, Mischel, building on the work of both Rotter and Bandura, has

framed the determinants of human behaviour in particular situations in terms of "person

variables." These include competencies (those things we know we can do); perceptions

(how we perceive our environment); expectations (what we expect will be the outcome of

our behaviour); subject values (our goals and ideals); and self-regulation and plans (our

standards for ourselves and plans for reaching our goals).

The two theories (entrepreneurial event formation theory (EEFT) and social

learning theory) serve as framework for this work. EEFT is used to anchor some of our

propositions on the socio-cultural factors that inform an individual considering

entrepreneurial event. These propositions revolve round social capital forces, social

status, displacement experience/dissatisfaction experience and perceived instrumentality

59

of wealth). On the other hand, social learning theory guides this work on the relationship

between family entrepreneurial tradition and an individual’s decision in starting

entrepreneurial activity.

HYPOTHESES

The following hypotheses were derived for the study:

1. Ethnic group is significantly related to consideration of social capital for

entrepreneurial event formation

2. There are significant male-female differences in considering social capital as a

reason for entrepreneurial event formation.

3. There is a significant relationship between age and consideration of social status

as a reason for embarking on entrepreneurial event.

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH SETTING AND METHOD OF STUDY

Introduction

This chapter is subdivided into two sections: the description of the research

setting and the method adopted for the study.

60

3:1 The Research Setting

This subdivision is devoted to the description of the research setting, which

covers the three organized trade associations stated below:

i. Nigerian Association of Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Mines and Agriculture

(NACCIMA);

ii. Nigerian Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (NASME); and

iii. Nigerian Association of Small Scale Industrialists (NASSI).

3.1.1 Nigerian Association of Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Mines and

Agriculture (NACCIMA)

The Nigerian Association of Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Mines and

Agriculture popularly referred to by its Acronym, NACCIMA, with headquarters in

Lagos, Nigeria, is the umbrella organization for all City/State and Bilateral Chambers of

Commerce within the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Objectives of NACCIMA

The primary objective of the association is to create a conducive atmosphere for

the pursuit of commerce, industry and all other forms of economic activities of interest to

the private sector. Other objectives include:

i. to promote, protect and develop all matters affecting business;

ii. to encourage an orderly expansion and development of all segments of the

community;

iii. to contribute to the overall economic stability of the community;

iv. to encourage and promote the nations private sector;

v. to provide a network of national and international business contacts and

opportunities;

vi. carry out training programmes for members and other relevant economic agents;

vii. create business services and information and attract inflow of investments and

tourists; and finally,

61

viii. to advocate for better business environment and create new opportunities and

industries.

Functions of NACCIMA

(a) Collection and dissemination of vital business information.

(b) Monitoring the performance of the economy and making representation to

government and its agencies with regard to the effects of various economic, fiscal and

monetary measures.

(c) Identification of obstacles to the establishment and profitable operations of

commercial, industrial and other enterprises, especially those arising from government

policies or the administration of such policies and the exertion of pressure for the removal

of such obstacles.

(d) Organizing seminars and workshops on various aspects of the economy, business and

management.

(e) Promoting commercial, industrial and in general economic cooperation between

Nigeria and other countries.

(f) Assisting to protect Nigeria's image and business interests abroad by mediating in

commercial disputes.

62

3.1.2 The Nigerian Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (NASME)

NASME is a private sector led business organization established for the

promotion of Micro and Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) in Nigeria. The

headquarters is located in Lagos. It has the following as its objectives:

i. promoting the growth of micro, small and medium enterprises and

ii. coordinating the activities of SMEs and related agencies in Nigeria.

The objectives are pursued through these activities: advocacy, exchange of

information, training, financial and technical advice, credit delivery, business-support

services, capacity building. The major sub-sectors of the association include food

processing, timber and furniture, wearing apparel, leather products, non-metallic mineral

products, cottage industry amongst others.

Services to Members and Public

Support services for existing enterprises:

The association serves existing enterprises in the following regards: local advice

and assistance; information on the production and marketing of products; managerial and

technological advice; training in the upgrading of managerial/technical skills; financial

advice and information on funding sources available; and forum for the exchange of

views among members.

Business start-up services:

Members and the public enjoy the following business start-up services: updated

information on available technologies; financial advice; and business plan preparation

services.

Promotion of self-help capacities:

Promotion of self-help capacities are organized around articulation of members’ needs

and promotion of business opportunities.

63

3.1.3 Nigerian Association of Small Scale Industrialists (NASSI)

Nigerian Association of Small Scale Industrialists (NASSI) was founded in 1978

under the Land Perpetual Succession Act as a non-profit making and non-governmental

organization. The present membership of NASSI is about 20,000 people. The association

has a National Secretariat, which is currently in Lagos, and four Zonal offices. There are

two broad industry groups in the association namely:

1. Manufacturing, mining and processing.

2. Service industries.

Aims and Objectives of NASSI

The aims and objectives of NASSI are:

1. To establish and maintain an association for the exchange of ideas and techniques

on issues relevant to the development of small scale industries.

2. To establish contact with government, it’s institutions and other non-

governmental organizations for the advancement and promotion of small scale

industries.

3. To contact, consult, confer, and co-operate with foreign agencies, institution and

organization within and outside Nigeria for the purpose of enhancing the growth

and development of small scale industries in Nigeria.

4. To develop a computer based information and documentation centre for accessing

reliable economic data for overall development of the small scale industries.

5. To source, provide and facilitate credit delivery to small scale as well as offer

library services for SMEs.

The choice of the three associations was meant to accommodate the different

shades of argument about what constitutes entrepreneurial activity; while some scholars

believed that only big business outfit qualifies to be described as entrepreneurial event,

others contended that every self-employment activity fits the description of

entrepreneurial event. In this work, therefore, NACCIMA represents the big

entrepreneurial outfit while NASME and NASSI represent medium and small scale

business respectively.

64

3.2 Methodological Procedures

This study used cross-sectional survey design. The following factors are the

independent variables: ethnic group, gender, age and level of education while the

dependent variables include the following: social status, displacement or dissatisfaction

with previous job, social capital, and perceived instrumentality of wealth.

Population

The target population for this study comprises all registered entrepreneurs with

Nigerian Association of Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Mines and Agriculture

(NACCIMA), Nigerian Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (NASME) and

Nigerian Association of Small Scale Industrialists (NASSI). These Associations were

purposively selected because each of them captured the different descriptions

entrepreneurship has been subjected, that is, large scale, medium scale and small scale. In

this study, NACCIMA, NASME and NASSI represented large scale, medium scale and

small scale industries respectively. The difficulties in defining the sample frame and in

getting accurate database of entrepreneurs in the country also make the selection of these

associations expedient.

Sample

The study was based on a survey of 717 respondents drawn from Nigerian

entrepreneurs, who are members of the three associations named above. It was difficult

sourcing accurate list of members, as some are corporate members who did not fall under

the definition of entrepreneurs, which we wanted to study. What we did was to disregard

such members and went for members who were owners and not managers from the list

made available to the researcher. From the list of identified owners, we randomly

selected those who would participate in the study and copies of questionnaire were sent

alongside notice of meeting. In another instance, after the respondents had been sampled,

using simple random sampling, copies of the questionnaire were taken to the venue of the

meeting, where the moderator impressed the importance of the work on members. In

other cases, questionnaire was personally administered on respondents. Because of high

65

literacy level and the manner of presentation of the instrument, we had no problem

convincing them to fill the questionnaire.

We also received some copies by mail from those who got theirs alongside notice

of meeting but who were not present at the meeting.

Instrument of Data Collection

The major instrument of data collection for this study was the survey

questionnaire. Informal interactions with respondents, especially at the initial stage of the

work, when the instrument was being prepared also took place.

A 38-item questionnaire divided into 5 sections was constructed. The first section

contained questions on socio-demographic and background information of respondents.

Questions on ethnic group of origin, gender, age, level of education, marital status,

membership of association, entrepreneurial sector, number of employees, father’s

occupation and religion were included in this section.

The second section dealt with social capital and entrepreneurial event formation.

Here, questions on different social capital nodes were included in the questionnaire. Such

questions revolved round different social influences as parents, friends, spouses, ethnic

group and religion. The questions were put in 5-point Likert scale. Respondents were to

select answers based on the degree of agreement with the statements provided in the

questionnaire. The third section of the questionnaire involved items that were meant to

elicit information on dissatisfaction/displacement experience from respondents.

Questions that bothered on dissatisfaction with paid job, discrimination, unemployment,

retirement from paid job and others composed of the section. A 5-point Likert scale was

also adopted.

The fourth section of the instrument focused on questions that examined social

status and entrepreneurial event formation. Various questions on reasons for

entrepreneurial event within the fulcrum of status, respect, prestige amongst others were

included in the instrument. The last section concentrated on perceived instrumentality of

wealth and entrepreneurial event formation and questions that tried to understand what

entrepreneurs perceived as the instrumentality into which entrepreneurial event could be

deployed, especially in the area of wealth. This section was also constructed following a

66

5-point Likert scale. In identifying the socio–cultural dimensions to include in the study

as possible variables, dimensions cited in the research literature were identified.  These

include the social status of entrepreneurs, displacement experience/dissatisfaction with

previous job, the influence of social capital, and the perceived instrumentality of wealth.

Data Collection

This section is subdivided into pilot testing and the survey.

Pilot testing

Before the actual survey, a pilot testing of the instrument was undertaken, this

was meant to spot any mistake that might present an obstacle to the actual survey.

Suggestions on questions that were considered sensitive were effected. Formal letters

were written to the associations to be allowed access to the bodies. Informal discussions

were also held with some staff members of the different associations on how best to

approach the survey.

The Survey

Seven hundred and seventeen copies of questionnaire out of 1050 that were given

out were considered usable after the process of editing. The distribution is as follows:

NACCIMA (225), NASME (288) and NASSI (198). Members of staff of the associations

were engaged in the survey. In some cases, copies of the questionnaire were sent out with

notice of meeting to members. The questionnaire was self-administered. We received

some copies through mail from those who did not fill them when the researcher or his

representative was around.

Variables

There were four predictor variables – ethnic group, gender, age and level of

education. Relative predictive values of these variables on our dependent variables were

examined using different analytical techniques.

There were four dependent variables: social capital, dissatisfaction/displacement

experience, social status and perceived instrumentality of wealth. The predictor variables

67

were individually and jointly tested against the dependent variables to assess the relative

predictive power of each.

Measure of variables

Instrument used in measuring our dependent variables, that is, social capital,

dissatisfaction/displacement experience, social status and perceived instrumentality of

wealth, was adapted from the works of Shapero and Sokol (1982), Scheinberg and

MacMillan (1988) and Shane et al (1991). They were found suitable because of their

successful previous use in both western and non western contexts. Questions on ethnic

group, family, friends, peers, models and mentors were used in measuring the different

dimensions of social capital with a view to ascertaining their influence on the choice of

entrepreneurial path by individuals.

Displacing factors such as dissatisfaction with paid job, job loss, retirement,

discrimination in paid job and unemployment were used in measuring

dissatisfaction/displacement experience. Such social status indicators such as prestige,

recognition by others, and respect from others were used in measuring social status as a

reason for entrepreneurial event formation. On our last dependent variable, questions on

perception of respondent on the ability of entrepreneurial event to engender wealth and

the different areas into which the wealth is deployed were used in measuring perceived

instrumentality of wealth.

Description of Models

Four models were designed for the study. They included (i) the interactions of the

predictor variables and social capital factors on entrepreneurial event formation, (ii) the

interface between dissatisfaction/displacement experience and the predictor variables (iii)

the influence of the predictors on social status for entrepreneurial event formation and

(iv) the interactions between the predictor variables and perceived instrumentality of

wealth.

68

Analytical Techniques

A number of statistical tools were used for the analysis. The first was frequency

distribution for all variables. We then proceeded to compute means of the dependent

variables against the predictor variables. Simple regression analyses were also run to

determine the effect of each independent variable on our dependent variables. We ran

independent samples t-test for gender and the dependent variables to assess the

differences in significant level of our samples.

Multiple regression analysis was also conducted to assess the relative predictive

power of the independent variables on the dependent variables. In addition to the above,

path analysis was used to determine causal directions of the variables that were studied.

Hypotheses were tested with the results of simple regression analysis, independent

samples t-test, and multiple regression analysis. Path analysis was used in order to

specify how much effect each variable has on the different dependent variables. Results

of simple regression analysis, multiple regression analysis, independent sample t-test and

path analysis were used in testing the research hypotheses. In running the regression

analysis, our independent variables, which were categorical variables, were converted to

dummy variables in order to ensure compliance with the assumptions of regression as a

tool of analysis. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was employed in the

different analyses that were conducted.

69

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Introduction

This chapter covers the presentation and analysis of data. The chapter is divided

into two major sections – data presentation as well as analysis of data. The first section

covers the demographic and background characteristics of respondents and the

presentation of data on the socio-cultural factors covered in this study. In the first section,

data on demographic characteristics such as ethnic group of respondent, age, education,

marital status, gender and religion are presented. Also presented in the first section are

data on membership of association, sector of entrepreneurial event, number of employees

and father’s occupation, which form the background information of respondents. The

second part of the first section of this chapter is on socio-cultural factors, which is

broadly categorized into social capital, dissatisfaction/displacement experience, social

status and perceived instrumentality of wealth.

The second section covers presentation of mean scores on the dependent variables

calculated along the four predictor variables. Also presented in the second section are the

results of simple regression analysis, multiple regression analysis, independent samples t-

test and path analysis. Hypotheses testing also come under this section of the work.

70

4.1 DEMOGRAPHIC, BACKGROUND AND SOCIO-CULTURAL ATTRIBUTES

OF RESPONDENTS

4.1.1 Demographic and background characteristics of respondents

Introduction

Attributes that were within the purview of demographic and background

characteristics of respondents were discussed in this section of data presentation.

Demographic and background attributes such as ethnic group, gender, age, marital status,

education, entrepreneurial sectoral involvement, parent’s occupation, membership of

association and religious affiliation were discussed under different sub headings. Four of

these demographic and background attributes – ethnic group, gender, age and level of

education – served as our predictor variables.

Ethnic Group

Ethnic group of respondents was categorized into five. This was meant to

enhance readability and management of data. The five categories were North 1 (Hausa),

North 2 (minority groups in the north), South 1 (Yoruba), South 2 (Igbo) and South 3

(mini groups). As shown in table 4.1.1, South 1 (Yoruba) had the largest percentage of

the sample (44.6) relative to others. This situation might not be unconnected with the fact

that the study was based in Lagos, though a metropolitan, but originally inhabited by the

Yoruba of Southwest Nigeria. Following South 1 (Yoruba) was South 2 (Igbo) with a

percentage of 33.1. Other ethnic categories had the following percentages: North 1

(Hausa) (7.9%), North 2 (mini groups) (4.9%) and South 3 (mini groups) (8.9%).

Gender

Of the total sample, the male gender had 68.3% while the female gender had

31.7%. It must, however, be emphasized that the reason for preponderance of male

respondents in the sample was not farfetched from the membership of the different

associations that had more male than female members.

71

Age

The modal age category was 31-40, which was 33.3%. This was followed by age

category 41-50, with 27.8%. Respondents who fell between ages 51 and 60 years

accounted for 19.2% while 8.6% and 11% were for age categories 21 – 30 and 61+

respectively. One would observe from the table that most of our respondents were in age

bracket 31 and 60 years. This trend might suggest that those who are at their physical best

would be found in entrepreneurial practice.

Education

Likely responses on item on the level of education of respondents were in three

categories: primary education; secondary and tertiary. About 60% of the respondents had

tertiary education while secondary level of education had 37.7%. Respondents with

primary education had 2.5%. One thing that is observable among the respondents is high

level of education. This result conformed to Akeredolu-Ale’s (1975) finding on high

literacy level of entrepreneurs compared to non-entrepreneurs.

Marital Status

About 91% of the respondents were married. The breakdown of the responses

shows that 90.9% of the respondents were married, 5.9% were single while the other

category, which encompassed the divorced, the separated and the widowed had 3.3%.

The observation shows that majority of the respondents were married. Considering the

age of our respondents, it is not surprising that most of them were married, as 91.4% of

the respondents were above 30 years of age.

Association

The Nigerian Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (NASME) had 40.5%

of the respondents. This was followed by the Nigerian Association of Chamber of

Commerce, Industry, Mines and Agriculture (NACCIMA) (32.2%) while the Nigerian

Association of Small Scale Industrialists had 27.6% of the respondents.

72

Entrepreneurial sectors

Responses for entrepreneurial sectors to which people belong were broadly

categorized into five classes: agriculture, mining, manufacturing, construction, and

services. Respondents in the manufacturing sector constituted 37.2%. This was closely

followed by agriculture with 28.9%. Services had 19.9%, while construction and mining

had 9.6% and 4.3% of the respondents respectively.

Father’s Occupation

Respondents were asked to state their father’s occupation. However, in order to

make the data readable and amenable to the statistical tools employed, different

occupations were grouped in broad categories. Thus, we had farming; crafts and artisan;

occupations such as medicine, law, pharmacy, accounting, etc. categorized under

professionals; self-employment put under business; government work classed under civil

servant; and job bothering on religion under clergy. In all, we had six categories. Of all

the categories, respondents whose fathers were civil servants constituted 38.4% of the

total sample. This was closely followed by those whose fathers were businesspersons,

with 30.1%. Farming and professionals accounted for 14.8% and 14.2% respectively

while artisan category had 1.1% of the respondents and clergy, 0.4% of the entire sample.

Religion

There were three categories in which religious affiliation was delineated:

Christianity, Islam and other. The pattern of response was as follows: Christians

(71.8%), Islam (27.8%) and other had 0.2%. One thing to note here is that the

preponderance of Christians in the sample might be a result of the fact that the Igbo

ethnic category, which had a bulk in the sample, is predominantly Christian.

73

Table 4.1.1: Frequency distribution by socio-demographic attributes

Variable Frequency Percent

1 Ethnic Group of Origin

North 1(Hausa) 57 7.9

North 2 (mini groups) 35 4.9

South 1(Yoruba) 320 44.6

South 2 (Igbo) 237 33.1

South 3 (Mini groups) 64 8.9

Other 4 .6

Total 717 100.0

2 Gender

Male 488 68.3

Female 226 31.7

Total 714 100.0

3 Age

21-30 62 8.6

31-40 239 33.3

41-50 199 27.8

51-60 138 19.2

61+ 79 11

Total 717 100.0

4 Level of Education

Primary Education 18 2.5

Secondary 270 37.7

Tertiary 429 59.8

Total 717 100.0

5 Marital Status

Married 651 90.9

Single 42 5.9

Other 23 3.3

Total 716 100.0

74

Table 4.1.1 ContdVariable Frequency Percent

6 Association

NACCIMA 231 32.2

NASME 288 40.5

NASSI 198 27.8

Total 717 100.0

7 Entrepreneurial Sector

Agriculture 207 28.9

Mining 31 4.3

Manufacturing 267 37.2

Construction 69 9.6

Services 143 19.9

Total 717 100.0

8 Father’s Occupation

Farming 106 14.9

Business 216 30.4

Civil servant 275 38.7

Professionals 102 14.4

Other 11 1.5

Total 710 100.0

9 Religion

Christianity 515 71.9

Islam 199 27.8

Other 2 .2

Total 716 100.0

4.1.2: Socio-cultural variables and entrepreneurial event formation

75

Introduction

Socio-cultural variables discussed in this study were broadly categorized into

four: social capital factors; dissatisfaction/displacement experience factors; social status

factors; and perceived instrumentality of wealth factors. The first category had eight

factors discussed under; the factors bothered on social capital nodes such as family,

parent, friend, spouse, and religion amongst others. The second broad category

encompassed dissatisfaction and/or negative displacement experience an individual might

encounter. They included dissatisfaction with paid job, job loss, inability to get job,

discrimination, retirement and the desire to be free from the encumbrances of paid job.

Factors that comprised social status variable included prestige, higher position in

society, the need for respect, and high social status amongst others. Lastly, the likelihood

of entrepreneurship engendering wealth and the uses to which wealth is put were

considered under perceived instrumentality of wealth.

There were five response categories for each of the factors, namely: ‘to no

extent’, ‘to little extent’, ‘to some extent’, ‘to great extent’ and ‘to very great extent’. The

manner of presentation was such that frequencies of the first two response categories

were added and taken to mean that the factor in question was not important. On the other

hand, the frequencies of the other three categories were added to signify that the factor

under consideration was important. This was done to afford readability and unambiguity

in the presentation.

Social capital factors

Family tradition and entrepreneurial event

As shown in table 4.1.2, 31.6% of the respondents from North 1 (Hausa) were of

the view that consideration of family tradition was not in any way a reason for venturing

into entrepreneurship. In a not too different manner, another 54.4% believed that the

importance of family tradition as a reason for entrepreneurial event formation was only

minimal. Four respondents, however, contended that family tradition was to some extent

important and two agreed to the fact of family tradition being an important consideration

76

when they started business. The modal response among the Hausa respondents was, “to

little extent’, with 31 occurrences.

In North 2 (minority groups) category, more than half of the respondents

considered family tradition as having no effect in predicting entrepreneurial event

formation. Of the 35 respondents in this group, 54.3% believed that family tradition was

not at all important to them when they started business. Following a similar pattern of

response were 34.3% in the group, who affirmed that family tradition was of little

importance as a precursor of entrepreneurial event formation. Four respondents,

however, agreed in varying degrees that family tradition was an important reason for

engaging in entrepreneurial event.

South 1 (Yoruba) had 83% of the respondents who accorded no or little

importance to family tradition as a reason for starting business. It is noteworthy that very

few respondents (17%) believed in the importance of family tradition as a reason for

entrepreneurial event. The breakdown shows that 9.5% agreed that it was only important

to some extent and 5.1% of the respondents contended that it was important to a large

extent while the remaining 2.5% of South 1 (Yoruba) category conceded that the reason

was very important to them as a predictor of entrepreneurial event formation.

A different trend of response was observed in South 2 (Igbo) category. Unlike in

the other categories, fewer respondents (27%) agreed in varying degrees that family

tradition was not an important consideration for engaging in entrepreneurial event.

However, 73% of the respondents attested, though in varying dimensions, to the

importance of family tradition in entrepreneurial event formation. One thing that is

glaring as shown in the table is that a larger number of respondents in South 2 (Igbo)

category asserted the importance of family tradition as a predictor of entrepreneurial

event formation.

Most respondents in South 3 (minority groups) category attributed less

importance to family tradition as a reason for entrepreneurial event formation. Out of 64

respondents in this group, 78.2% of them were of the view that family tradition had little

or no influence in predisposing them to entrepreneurial event formation. The rest 21.8%

affirmed the importance of the factor as a reason for entrepreneurial event formation.

77

Support by parents and entrepreneurial event

The data presented in table 4.1.2 shows that 29.8% of the respondents from North

1 (Hausa) confirmed that support from one or both parents was of little or no importance

as a predisposing factor for entrepreneurial event formation. However, 69.2% were of the

opinion that parental support was an important reason in varying levels. North 2

(minority groups) had 22.9% who believed that parental support was non-efficacious in

predicting entrepreneurial event formation while 77.1% were on the other side of the

divide. In other words, this category of respondents believed that parental support was at

different levels of importance in predicting entrepreneurial event formation.

Among South 1 (Yoruba) category, more than two third of the respondents

attested to the importance of parental support in being a reason for entrepreneurial event

formation while the rest claimed that the factor was not important in any way or just of

insignificant influence. Among South 2 (Igbo) respondents, 22.9% of the respondents

attributed little or no importance to parental support for entrepreneurial event

engagement. Far larger number of respondents (77.1%) in this ethnic category, however,

considered support from one or both parents as an important reason, though in varying

degrees of importance. South 3 (minority groups) had 46.9% who were of the opinion

that parental support as a reason for engaging in entrepreneurial activity was not

important at all or only to a little extent. However, a different pattern of response was

noticed among 53.1%, who affirmed the different significant degrees of importance of the

factor as a precursor of entrepreneurial event. One thing that is observable in the pattern

of responses is that most respondents attested to the importance of parental support when

they started entrepreneurial event across all the ethnic categories.

Parental influence and entrepreneurial path

About 40.5%of the respondents from North 1 (Hausa) considered parents’

influence in the choice of entrepreneurial path as having no or little influence. On the

other hand, 59.7% affirmed different levels of positive influence of the factor on their

entrepreneurial engagements. Attachment of little or no importance to parental influence

was higher in occurrence in North 2 (minority groups) category, as 55.9% contended that

the factor was not an important consideration when they started business. Forty-four

78

percent, nonetheless, were of the belief that the factor was important to them when they

started business.

In South 1 (Yoruba) 67.6% posited that their parents did not influence them in the

choice of entrepreneurial path in any way or only in a marginally insignificant manner. It

is clear as shown on table 4.1.2, that this factor was not an important reason among our

Yoruba respondents as less than one-third of the respondents believed in the efficacy of

parental influence before engaging in entrepreneurial event. South 2 (Igbo) ethnic

category presented a different scenario from what obtained in South 1 (Yoruba), as

almost equal percent was found on the two divides. While 50.2% believed in non-

efficacy of the factor as a predictor of entrepreneurial event, 49.8% believed to the

contrary.

Most respondents (60.3%) in South 3 (mini groups) category were of the view

that parents had less influence on their choice of entrepreneurial path. However, 39.7%

contended that the factor was potent in predisposing them to considering entrepreneurial

event.

Parental entrepreneurial achievement as influence for entrepreneurial event

In North 1 (Hausa) 71.9% attributed less importance to parental achievement in

entrepreneurial field as a precursor of entrepreneurial event formation. On the other hand,

28.1% respondents agreed in varying degrees that they were encouraged by parents’

achievement in entrepreneurial field. Also in North 2 (mini groups) category, almost two-

thirds of the respondents contended that parental achievement in entrepreneurial field was

not a strong factor considered for entrepreneurial event while the remaining 37.2% of the

respondents attested to the potency of parental achievement in entrepreneurship in

predicting entrepreneurial event.

As indicated in table 4.1.2, a larger number of the respondents in South 1

(Yoruba) did not consider parental achievement in entrepreneurship as of any

significance in their entrepreneurial engagement. In all, 60.2% believed that parental

achievement was not important in considering entrepreneurial event while 39.8% of the

respondents believed to the contrary, that is, they affirmed the importance of the factor in

predicting individual’s entrepreneurial involvement.

79

The same pattern of response as above was observed among the South 2 (Igbo)

respondents, 53.5%, which constituted the larger percent in the ethnic category contended

that the factor was not important or only marginally relevant in entrepreneurial event

formation whereas 46.5% confirmed that the factor under consideration was important to

them when they started business.

The case was not different among South 3 (mini groups) respondents where

64.1% of the respondents attributed little or no importance to parental achievement in

their entrepreneurial aspirations and 35.9% appreciated the importance of the factor as in

precursing entrepreneurial event formation.

Influence of friend in entrepreneurial event formation

Fifty-six percent of respondents from North 1 (Hausa) did not believe that friends

had any substantial influence on their aspirations as entrepreneurs. However, the case was

different for 44% of them who contended that friends had some levels of influence on

them before engaging in entrepreneurial event. Quite a number of respondents in North 2

(mini groups) category were of the view that friends influenced their entrepreneurial

venture. Twenty-one respondents (61.8%) attributed little or no importance to the factor

as a precursor of entrepreneurial event while on the other hand, 38.2% of the respondents

held that friends exerted some degrees of influence on them in their engagement as

entrepreneurs. A preponderance of respondents in South 1 (Yoruba) group did not see

any connection between the influence of friends and entrepreneurial event formation;

over two-thirds of the respondents (71.2%) in this ethnic category subscribed to this

position. The rest, however, argued that friends had varying levels of positive influence in

their entrepreneurial endeavours.

The same trend applied in South 2 (Igbo) category, where 68.5% posited that

friends had little or no influence on them when they started business. On the other hand,

74 (31.5%) of the respondents claimed varying degrees of influence of friends on their

entrepreneurial engagement. A similar pattern of response presented itself in South 3

(mini groups) category; close to three-quarters (72.3%) of the respondents were of the

view that friends had no influence on their choice of entrepreneurial path. Only few of the

respondents contended that the factor was important to them when they started business.

80

Spousal influence in entrepreneurial event formation

About fifty-four percent of our North 1 (Hausa) respondents did not believe that

their spouses influenced them in entrepreneurial event formation. However, 45.5%

attested to the potency of this factor in predicting business formation. Of the respondents

in North 2 (mini groups) category, 20 contended that spousal influence was not a reason

at all or only an insignificant reason when they began business while the rest of the

respondents attributed varying levels of importance to spousal influence in their

entrepreneurial engagement.

Among South 1 (Yoruba) category, 76% of the respondents were of the view that

spousal influence was not a serious factor of consideration when they began business.

Twenty-four percent, however, believed to the contrary; they affirmed the varying

degrees of spousal influence when they ventured into business. South 2 (Igbo) category

had 72.8% of the respondents claiming that spousal influence was not a strong influence

in their entrepreneurial event formation bid. Other respondents in the group (27.2%)

agreed in varying dimensions to the reality of spousal influence when they began

business. The same pattern was observed in South 3 (mini groups), where close to 66%

attributed little or no importance to spousal influence. About 34%, however, attested to

the positive influence of the factor in predisposing them into entrepreneurial event.

Ethnic influence in entrepreneurial event formation

            About 88% of the respondents in North 1 (Hausa) category viewed ethnic group

as having little or no bearing with entrepreneurial event formation. The very high score

suggested that the factor was very weak in predicting business formation. The rest (about

12%) were of the view that the factor was efficacious. Among respondents of North 2

(mini groups) category, almost all the respondents considered this reason as of no or at

best little influence on their entrepreneurial bid. The pattern of response showed that

ethnic group, as a predictor of entrepreneurial event, was weakest in this group. In South

1 (Yoruba) category 77.7% contended that ethnic membership did not hold any

importance to their engagement in entrepreneurial activities while 22.3% believed that

81

ethnic membership was a propelling factor for their involvement in entrepreneurial

practice.

A marked difference was observed among South 2 (Igbo) respondents; most of

the respondents were of the view that ethnic membership had influence on their

entrepreneurial aspirations. For example, while 82% of the respondents agreed that ethnic

membership had positive influence on the involvement as entrepreneurs, only 18% were

of contrary opinion. In  South 3 (mini groups) category, more than two-third of the

respondents did not see any correspondence between ethnic origin and entrepreneurial

event formation while the remaining believed that ethnic group of origin was a potent

factor in their consideration of entrepreneurial event formation.

Religious affiliation and influence on entrepreneurial event formation

       Religious affiliation did not show any serious influence on entrepreneurial event

formation across all the groups. The breakdown of the pattern of response shows that

about 89% of the respondents in North 1 (Hausa) category held that religion was of little

or no effect in their business venturing while about 11% were of contrary view. The

outcome in North 2 (mini group) category was not different as 94% of the respondents

contended that religion was not a serious influence on them to engage in entrepreneurial

event while six percent agreed that religion influenced them in their decision to consider

entrepreneurial event. Eighty percent of the respondents in South 1 (Yoruba) category

believed that religion was not an important reason considered before they started

business, while 20 % attributed varying degrees of influence to religion as a reason for

embarking in entrepreneurial event. The case was not different among South 2 (Igbo)

respondents; 82.5% of the respondents attached little or no importance to religion while

the remaining 17.5% were of the opinion that religion was an important reason to them in

entrepreneurial event formation.  Most respondents of the South 3 (mini groups) category

held that religion was not an influence on their business undertaking as 98% of the

respondents subscribed to this position and two percent believed that religion had some

influence in entrepreneurial event formation.

82

Table 4.1.2: Distribution by social capital items according to ethnic group of origin

   North 1 (Hausa)

North 2 (Mini

groups)South 1

(Yoruba)South 2 (Igbo)

South 3 (Mini

groups) Total

I want to continue a family tradition   No % No % No % No % No % No %

 to no extent 18 31.6 19 54.3 147 46.4 32 13.5 25 39.1 241 33.7

 

to little extent 31 54.4 12 34.3 116 36.6 32 13.5 25 39.1 216 30.2to some extent 4 7 3 8.6 30 9.5 75 31.7 7 10.9 119 16.7

 

to great extent 2 3.5     16 5.1 44 18.6 1 1.6 63 9

 

to very great extent 2 3.5 1 2.9 8 2.5 54 22.8 6 9.4 71 10.4

Total   57 100 35 100 317 100 237 100 64 100 710 100

I was supported by one or both parents                          

 to no extent 6 10.5 8 22.9 26 8.3 21 8.9 14 21.9 75 10.6

 

to little extent 11 19.3 5 14.3 36 11.5 33 14 16 25 101 14.2

 

to some extent 14 24.5 6 17.1 67 21.3 67 28.5 12 18.8 166 23.4

 

to great extent 13 22.8 5 14.3 98 31.2 40 17 10 15.6 166 23.6

 

to very great extent 13 22.8 11 31.4 87 27.7 74 31.5 12 18.8 197 28.2

Total   57 100 35 100 314 100 235 100 64 100 705 100

83

Table 4.1.2 Contd.

North 1 (Hausa)

North 2 (Mini

groups)South 1

(Yoruba)South 2 (Igbo)

South 3 (Mini

groups) TotalMy parents influenced me in the choice of entrepreneurial path   No % No % No % No % No % No %

 to no extent 10 17.5 12 35.3 141 44.3 54 23 24 38.1 241 34

 

to little extent 13 22.8 7 20.6 74 23.3 64 27.2 14 22.2 172 24.1

 

to some extent 19 33.3 8 23.5 55 17.3 60 25.2 10 15.9 152 21.6

 

to great extent 9 15.8 5 14.7 27 8.5 29 12.3 11 17.5 81 11.5

 

to very great extent 6 10.5 2 5.9 21 6.6 28 11.9 4 6.4 61 8.5

Total   57 100 34 100 318 100 235 100 63 100 707 100

I was encouraged by the achievement of one or both parents in entrepreneurial field                          

 to no extent 17 33.3 10 28.6 112 35.1 53 22.9 19 29.7 211 29.5

 

to little extent 22 38.6 12 34.3 80 25.1 71 30.6 22 34.4 207 30

 

to some extent 8 14 9 25.7 54 16.9 44 19 10 15.6 125 17.7

 

to great extent 6 10.5 3 8.6 46 14.4 33 14.2 10 15.6 98 13.9

84

Table 4.1.2 Contd.

North 1 (Hausa)

North 2 (Mini

groups)South 1

(Yoruba)South 2 (Igbo)

South 3 (Mini

groups) Total

No % No % No % No % No % No %

 

to very great extent 4 7 1 2.9 27 8.5 31 13.4 3 4.7 66 9.6

Total   57 100 35 100 319 100 232 100 64 100 707 100

I was influenced by a friend                          

 to no extent 14 24.5 14 41.2 162 50.8 100 42.6 24 39.4 314 44.5

 

to little extent 18 31.5 7 20.6 65 20.4 61 26 20 32.8 171 23.9

 

to some extent 7 12.3 7 20.6 43 13.5 44 18.7 6 9.8 107 15

 

to great extent 9 15.8 2 5.9 34 10.7 18 7.7 8 13.1 71 9.9

 

to very great extent 9 15.8 4 11.8 15 4.7 12 5.11 3 4.9 43 6.1

Total   57 100 34 100 319 100 235 100 61 100 706 89.5

I was influenced by my spouse                          

 to no extent 12 22.9 16 47.1 141 46.5 85 37.4 25 41.8 279 42.5

 

to little extent 18 32.8 4 11.8 92 30.4 81 35.6 17 28.4 212 31.8

 

to some extent 15 27.3 4 11.8 31 10.2 29 12.8 8 13.4 87 13.1

85

Table 4.1.2 Contd.

North 1 (Hausa)

North 2 (Mini

groups)South 1

(Yoruba)South 2 (Igbo)

South 3 (Mini

groups) Total

No % No % No % No % No % No %

 

to great extent 6 10.9 6 17.7 28 9.2 14 6.2 6 10 60 9

 

to very great extent 4 7.3 4   13 4.3 19 8.3 4 6.7 44 6.4

Total   55 100 34 88.4 305 100 228 100 60 100 682 100Entrepreneurship was a common practice among the people of my ethnic origin                          

 to no extent 16 28.6 17 48.6 154 49.3 21 9 21 32.8 229 32.1

 

to little extent 34 60.9 18 51.4 90 28.8 21 9 32 49.9 195 27.3

 

to some extent 5 9     31 9.9 61 26.3 6 9.4 103 14.6

 

to great extent 1 1.79     22 7 66 28.5 4 6.2 93 13.2

 

to very great extent         17 5.4 63 27.2 1 1.6 81 11.8

Total   56 100 35 100 314 100 232 100 64 99.9 701 100I was influenced by the teaching of my religion.                          

 to no extent 29 50.9 27 79.4 145 45.7 106 45.6 33 52.5 340 47.9

 

to little extent 22 38.5 6 17.6 110 34.7 87 37.4 27 42.9 251 35.3

86

Table 4.1.2 Contd.

North 1 (Hausa)

North 2 (Mini

groups)South 1

(Yoruba)South 2 (Igbo)

South 3 (Mini

groups) Total

No % No % No % No % No % No %

 

to some extent 4 7 1 2.94 23 7.3 8 3.4 1 1.59 37 5.5

 

to great extent 2 3.5     19 6 13 5.6     34 4.8

 

to very great extent         21 6.6 20 8.6 2 3.17 43 6.1

Total   57 100 34 100 318 100 234 100 63 100 706 100

I was influenced by my religious leader                          

 to no extent 25 43.8 25 71.5 121 38 119 50 37 58.8 327 46

 

to little extent 26 45.5 8 22.9 92 28.9 72 30.2 19 30.2 217 30.5

 

to some extent 2 3.5     40 12.6 17 7.14 6 9.54 65 9.2

 

to great extent 2 3.5 2 5.72 41 12.9 12 5.04 1 1.59 58 8.1

 

to very great extent 2 3.5     25 7.8 17 7.14     44 6.2

Total   57 100 35 100 319 100 237 100 63 100 711 100

87

4.1.3: Dissatisfaction/displacement experience factors

Dissatisfaction with paid job and entrepreneurial event formation.

            About 38% from North 1 (Hausa) argued that experience of dissatisfaction with

paid job was not relevant to their entrepreneurial aspirations. However, a larger

percentage (about 62%) was of the view that dissatisfaction with paid job had varying

degrees of influence on them before they started business. The same trend presented itself

in North 2 (mini groups) category; 42.8% of the respondents attached little or no

influence to the question of dissatisfaction with paid job. On the other hand, 57.2% of our

respondents affirmed that dissatisfaction with paid job was potent in predisposing them to

entrepreneurial event formation.      

Of the respondents in South 1 (Yoruba), 35.2% believed that dissatisfaction with

paid job was not a serious predictor of entrepreneurial event. The larger percentage of the

respondents, however, believed that the factor was an important consideration for

venturing into entrepreneurial event. Forty-one percent of South 2 (Igbo) respondents

claimed that dissatisfaction with paid job was of little or no effect in causing

entrepreneurial motivation. Fifty-nine respondents, however, contended that the factor

could be implicated in their involvement in entrepreneurial event. South 3 (mini groups)

category had a total of 64 respondents out of which 34% were of the view that

dissatisfaction with paid job had little or no influence on them in their decision to embark

on entrepreneurial event. However, 66% of the respondents attributed varying levels of

positive influence of dissatisfaction on entrepreneurial event formation.

Dismissal from paid job and entrepreneurial event formation             In North 1 (Hausa) category, 82.5% posited that dismissal from paid job was

weak in predicting entrepreneurial event; however, 17.5% expressed varying degrees of

influence of dismissal from paid job on venture formation. Among North 2 (mini groups)

respondents, the same trend in response was observed as 88.6% believed that being fired

from paid job was of little or no relevance to entrepreneurial motivation.

More than half of the respondents did not consider the reason under consideration

as important before they started their entrepreneurial venture; 89.3% considered the

reason as having little or no correspondence with business formation. A little above 10%,

88

however, believed that the reason was efficacious in triggering entrepreneurial event

formation. South 2 (Igbo) category had 84.7% of the respondents believing that being

fired from paid job had no efficacy in bringing about entrepreneurial event formation

while 15.3% agreed to the contrary.

From South 3 (mini groups) category, we had 89.1% who saw no connection

between the reason of dismissal and entrepreneurial event formation and 10.9% believed

that dismissal from paid job was an important reason for entrepreneurial event.

Retirement from paid job and entrepreneurial event formation

Retirement from paid job was a very weak reason among North 1 (Hausa)

respondents, corroborating this assertion was the high percentage of respondents (82.5%)

who were of the view that the factor of retirement did not trigger venture creation among

them. The remaining 17.5%, however, claimed that the reason was strong in provoking

entrepreneurial event.

            Majority of respondents in North 2 (mini groups) was of the view that retirement

from paid job was not an important consideration for entrepreneurial venture as only two

percent believed to the contrary. Among South 1 (Yoruba) category, more than two-third

of the respondents were of the view that the influence of retirement on business formation

was not important while the rest claimed that it was important to them. About 80.7% of

the respondents agreed that retirement from paid job influenced entrepreneurial venture

creation while 19.3% held that the factor was a precursor of entrepreneurial event. Most

of the respondents of South 3 (mini groups) category (87.5%) attributed less importance

to retirement from paid job as an important reason for entrepreneurial event formation.

Less than 13%, however, believed that the factor was an important consideration.

Unemployment and entrepreneurial event formation

As shown in table 4.1.3, 91% of the respondents in North 1 (Hausa), believed that

inability to get job was of no importance when they started business. In other words,

unemployment was not strong enough among members of this goup for it to trigger

entrepreneurial event. An insignificant nine percent, however, was of the view that

unemployment was potent enough and was an important reason to their entrepreneurial

89

engagement. North 2 (minority groups) had all respondents in the category holding that

unemployment was not a precursor of entrepreneurial event as far as they were

concerned.

In a similar pattern, most respondents (95%) in South 1 (Yoruba) category

contended that inability to get job was not strong to predict entrepreneurial event. Five

percent of the respondents, however, believed that the reason was a strong factor and an

influence in their entrepreneurial involvement.

The same pattern of response reflected among respondents in South 2 (Igbo), 95%

of respondents in this category de-emphasized the importance of unemployment as a

predictor of entrepreneurial event formation; they believed that the factor was of little or

no importance when they started business. However, five percent of the respondents

believed that the factor was important in predicting entrepreneurial event formation.

Among our respondents who were in South 3 (mini groups) category, the same trend was

observed. Of all respondents in this category (64), 93.8% of them claimed that

unemployment was not a good reason when they started business while 6.2% of the

respondents believed that the importance of the factor when they started business was of

some degree of importance.

Independence and entrepreneurial event formation

In North 1 (Hausa) category, 37.5% altogether regarded being bossed around as

having little or no bearing when they started business. On the other hand, 62.5% held that

getting tired of being bossed around was an important reason when they started business.

North 2 (mini groups) had 20% respondents who were of the opinion that that

independence was not an important consideration in their entrepreneurial engagement.

Eighty percent believed to the contrary.

Table 4.1.3 shows that among South 1 (Yoruba) respondents, 21.5% of the

respondents held that the factor was of less importance. Presenting a contrary view was

78.9%, which claimed that the reason was strong, though in varying degrees. The same

trend featured among South 2 (Igbo) respondents; 29.4% of them believed that getting

tired of being bossed around was not an important reason for engaging in business

formation. Thus, it is observed that a larger percentage of responses, though in different

90

degrees, attested to the potency of independence in predisposing individuals to

entrepreneurial event formation. In South 3 (mini groups), the table shows a similar

dimension in response pattern; 14.1% responses occurred, affirming that independence

was not relevant in engendering entrepreneurial event while 85.9% of the respondents

was of the view that the reason had great potency in bringing about entrepreneurial event

formation.

Table 4.1.3: Distribution by dissatisfaction/displacement experience factors according to ethnic group of origin

   North 1 (Hausa)

North 2 (Mini

groups)South 1

(Yoruba)South 2 (Igbo)

South 3 (Mini

groups) TotalI experienced dissatisfaction with paid job   No % No % No % No % No % No %

 to no extent 11 19.6 8 22.9 63 19.8 50 21.2 6 7.1 138 19.9

 to little extent 10 17.9 7 20 49 15.4 46 19.5 16 25 128 18

 

to some extent 22 39.3 10 28.6 92 28.9 66 28 21 32.8 211 29.5

 

to great extent 5 8.9 2 5.7 65 20.4 31 13.1 7 10.9 110 15.4

 

to very great extent 8 14.3 8 22.9 49 15.4 43 18.2 14 21.9 122 17.1

Total   56 100 35 100 318 100 236 100 64 100 709 100

I was fired from paid job                          

 to no extent 23 41.1 26 74.3 238 74.6 145 61.4 37 57.8 469 66.2

 to little extent 23 41.1 5 14.3 47 14.7 55 23.3 20 31.3 150 21

 

to some extent 5 8.9 3 8.6 14 4.4 22 9.3 5 7.8 49 6.9

91

Table 4.1.3 Contd.

North 1 (Hausa)

North 2 (Mini

groups)South 1

(Yoruba)South 2 (Igbo)

South 3 (Mini

groups) TotalNo % No % No % No % No % No %

  to great extent

3 5.6     12 3.8 10 4.2 2 3.1 27 3.8

  to very great extent

2 3.6 1 2.9 8 2.5 4 1.7     15 2.1

Total   56 100 35 100 319 100 236 100 64 100 710 100I retired from paid job                          

 to no extent 39 68.4 33 97.1 222 71.4 150 64.4 48 76.2 492 70.7

 to little extent 8 14     33 10.6 38 16.3 8 12.7 87 12.4

  to some extent

6 10.5 1 2.9 17 5.5 23 9.9 1 1.6 48 6.8

  to great extent

3 5.3     22 7.1 9 3.9 1 1.6 35 5

  to very great extent

1 1.8     17 5.5 13 5.6 5 7.9 36 5.1

Total   57 100 34 100 311 100 233 100 63 100 698 100I faced discrimination in my former place of work                          

 to no extent 9 16.4 5 14.3 84 26.4 75 32 14 22.6 187 27

 to little extent 11 20 9 25.7 49 15.4 37 15.8 10 16.1  116 16.4

  to some extent

15 27.3 10 28.6 106 33.3 52 22.2 23 37.1  206 29.1

  to great extent

13 23.6 7 20 48 15.1 43 18.4 9 14.5  120 17

92

Table 4.1.3 Contd.

North 1 (Hausa)

North 2 (Mini

groups)South 1

(Yoruba)South 2 (Igbo)

South 3 (Mini

groups) Total

No % No % No % No % No % No %

 

to very great extent 7 12.7 4 11.4 31 9.8 27 11.5 6 9.7  75 10.6

Total   55 100 35 100 318 100 234 100 62 100 704 100I could not get job.                          

 to no extent 50 87.7 33 97.1 272 85.3 204 86.4 57 89.1 616 86.8

 to little extent 2 3.5 1 2.9 32 10 20 8.5 3 4.7 58 8.1

 

to some extent 1 1.8     6 1.9 7 3 4 6.3 18 2.5

 

to great extent 3 5.3     3 0.9 4 1.7     10 1.4

 

to very great extent 1 1.8     6 1.9 1 0.4     8 1.1

Total   57 100 34 100 319 100 236 100 64 100 710 100I got tired of being bossed around.                          

 to no extent 7 12.5 4 11.4 42 13.3 35 14.9 3 4.7 91 13.4

 to little extent 14 25 3 8.6 26 8.2 34 14.5 6 9.4 83 11.7

 

to some extent 14 25 7 20 61 19.3 51 21.7 13 20.3 146 20.6

 

to great extent 9 16.1 8 22.9 105 33.2 40 17 26 40.6 188 26.5

 

to very great extent 12 21.4 13 37.1 82 26 75 31.9 16 25 198 27.9

Total   56 100 35 100 316 100 235 100 64 100 706 100

93

4.1.4: Social status factors and entrepreneurial event

Self-employment and high social status

As shown in table 4.1.4, 8.8% of our respondents attached little or no significance

to social status as a reason for starting business in North 1(Hausa) category. However,

91.2% of the respondents believed that the reason of social status was important and a

consideration when they started business. Among North 2 (mini groups), 5.7% believed

that social status was not an important reason in venturing into entrepreneurial event.

However, a larger percentage of respondents in the category believed that social status

was an important reason when they ventured into entrepreneurial event as evidenced by

their responses.

South 1 (Yoruba) responses presented a similar pattern; 2.5% of the respondents

were of the view that social status was not an important reason when they started their

current business. Most respondents (97.5%), however, attested to the efficacy of social

status as an important reason when they started business. South 2 (Igbo) responses

presented a tendency towards the importance of social status as a reason for

entrepreneurial event as 96.2% of our respondents attested in varying degrees to social

status being an important reason when they started business. Only 3.8% believed it was

not efficacious in predisposing individuals into entrepreneurial event formation.

The case is not different among South 3 (mini groups) respondents as 3.1% felt

that social status was not an important consideration. On the other hand, 96.9% believed

that the reason was important in varying degrees.

The self-employed as models

As shown in the table, very few respondents believed that this variable was not

important to them when they started their business. Specifically, 3.2% of all respondents

in the study were of the view that the factor was not important enough as to provoke

entrepreneurial event formation. Quite a number of respondents agreed that the variable

was important to them, though in varying degrees, when they started business. Of the

total respondents, 96.8% opined that the variable was important and a good reason for

94

involvement in entrepreneurial event. The result presented on the table showed that all

the ethnic categories regarded the factor as a precursor of entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurial event formation and respect.

The table shows that a preponderance of responses tended toward a positive

importance of the variable to respondents while starting their business. While only 8.1%

of our respondents were of the view that the variable was not an important reason when

they started business, 91.9% held that they considered the variable to be an important

reason for their involvement in entrepreneurship. The table clearly indicates that respect

from society, as a reason, had higher occurrence across all the ethnic categories. This is to

suggest that the factor is efficacious in predicting entrepreneurial event formation among

the population of study.

Achieving a high position in society and entrepreneurial event formation

Just like in the panel above, most respondents believed that achieving high

position for themselves was an important reason for engaging in entrepreneurial event.

Six hundred and sixty-four (93%) respondents across the groups believed in varying

degrees that the variable under consideration was seen as important when they started

their current entrepreneurial event. The remaining 49 (7%) believed to the contrary. The

distribution among the categories showed that the variable showed significant importance

irrespective of category, that is, all categories regarded it as a potent factor in provoking

entrepreneurial event.

Prestige and entrepreneurial event formation

Fourteen percent of respondents from North 1 (Hausa) claimed that prestige was

not important to them when they started business. Also responding in the same vein were

6.9% of respondents from South 1 (Yoruba) and 13.7% of respondents from South 2

(Igbo). Nine percent of respondents across all the categories were of the view that

prestige had no predisposing power on entrepreneurial event formation. The larger

percent agreed that the influence of prestige was important and a precursor of

95

entrepreneurship. It must be stated that there was no variation on how the different ethnic

categories considered prestige as a predictor of entrepreneurial event formation.

Table 4.1.4: Distribution by social status factors according to ethnic group of origin

   North 1 (Hausa)

North 2 (Mini

groups)South 1

(Yoruba)South 2 (Igbo)

South 3 (Mini

groups) TotalRunning your own firm gives you high social status.   No % No % No % No % No % No %

 to no extent 2 3.5 1 2.9 3 0.9   6 0.8

 to little extent 3 5.3 1 2.9 5 1.6 8 3.4 2 3.1 19 2.7

 

to some extent 21 36.8 12 34.3 92 28.8 88 37.3 28 43.8 241 33.9

 to great extent 18 31.6 9 25.7 129 40.4 76 32.2 20 31.3 252 35.5

 

to very great extent 13 22.8 12 34.3 90 28.2 64 27.1 14 21.9 193 27.1

Total   57 100 35 100 319 100 236 100 64 100 711 100People look up to those who own their firms                          

 to no extent 4 7.02     11 3.5 6 2.6 2 3.1 23 3.2

 to little extent 4 7.02 2 5.9 20 6.3 17 7.2 7 10.9 50 7

 

to some extent 19 33.3 14 41.2 142 44.5 85 36.2 25 39.1 285 40.3

 to great extent 19 33.3 8 23.5 87 27.3 56 23.8 13 20.3 183 25.8

 

to very great extent 11 19.3 10 29.4 59 18.5 71 30.2 17 26.6 168 23.7

Total   57 100 34 100 319 100 235 100 64 100 709 100

96

Table 4.1.4 Contd.

North 1 (Hausa)

North 2 (Mini

groups)South 1

(Yoruba)South 2 (Igbo)

South 3 (Mini

groups) TotalStarting business generates a lot of respect.   No % No % No % No % No % No %

 to no extent 1 1.8     5 1.6 2 0.9     8 1.1

 to little extent 3 5.3 1 2.9 31 9.8 11 4.7 4 6.25 50 7.01

 

to some extent 19 33.3 14 40 118 37.1 89 37.9 22 34.4 262 37.2

 to great extent 12 21.1 7 20 74 23.3 52 22.1 12 18.7 157 22.2

 

to very great extent 22 38.6 13 37.1 90 28.3 81 34.5 26 40.6 232 32.5

Total   57 100 35 100 318 100 235 100 64 100 709 100I wanted to achieve a higher position for myself in society.                          

 to no extent 3 5.3     6 1.9 4 1.7 1 1.6 14 2

 to little extent 2 3.5     9 2.8 23 9.7 2 3.1 36 5

 

to some extent 18 31.6 16 45.7 65 20.4 66 28 22 34.4 187 26.5

 to great extent 11 19.3 3 8.6 98 30.8 48 20.4 15 23.4 175 24.8

 

to very great extent 23 40.4 16 45.7 140 44 95 40.3 24 37.5 298 41.7

Total   57 100 35 100 318 100 236 100 64 100 710 100

I wanted to earn prestige.                          

97

 to no extent 2 3.5     8 2.5 6 2.5     16 2.2

Table 4.1.4 Contd.

North 1 (Hausa)

North 2 (Mini

groups)South 1

(Yoruba)South 2 (Igbo)

South 3 (Mini

groups) Total

No % No % No % No % No % No %

 to little extent 6 10.5     14 4.4 26 11 3 4.7 49 6.8

 

to some extent 20 35.1 9 25.7 98 30.6 75 31.8 17 26.6 219 30.9

 to great extent 13 22.8 13 37.1 98 30.6 55 23.3 21 32.8 200 28.2

 

to very great extent 16 28.1 13 37.1 102 31.9 74 31.4 23 35.9 228 31.8

Total   57 100 35 100 320 100 236 100 64 100 712 100

4.1.5: Perceived instrumentality of wealth factors and entrepreneurial event formation

Salary issues and entrepreneurial event formation

The breakdown of responses across groups shows that 43.9% of respondents from

North 1 (Hausa) claim that circumstance of salary in their former place of work was not

an important factor when they started their current business. A higher number, however,

believed in the positive influence of the variable; 56.1% of the respondents fell into this

category. Among North 2 (mini groups) respondents, 48.5% held that poor salary was not

a strong reason that saw them into entrepreneurial event formation while 51.5% argued

on the contrary. Thirty-four percent from South 1 (Yoruba) were of the believe that the

issue of salary in their places of work was not important to them when they started their

current business. On the other hand, 66% of them believed that poor salary in their

former places of work was an important reason to them when they ventured into their

current business.

98

Among our respondents in South 2 (Igbo) category, 37.6% opined that poor salary

in their former places of work was not important and not a potent reason for them to

venture into business. Believing to the contrary were 62.4% of the respondents in this

category. The pattern was not different among South 3 (mini groups) respondents; 40.7%

of our respondents in this group held that poor salary was not an important reason for

them when they commenced entrepreneurial event. A greater number, however, believed

that poor salary in paid job propelled them into considering entrepreneurial event

formation.

Entrepreneurship as a means to wealth and entrepreneurial event formation

Most respondents believed that the consideration of entrepreneurship as a means

to wealth was important to them before they ventured into entrepreneurial event. Above

91% of responses attested to this. Presenting the distribution along different groups, it

was observed that the variable was not important to 5.4% of respondents in North 1

(Hausa) category, while 94.6% were of the view that the factor was important, though in

varying degrees. North 2 (mini groups) had 5.9% of respondents holding that the fact of

entrepreneurship being a precursor of wealth was not a consideration when they started

business, 94.1% were of the view that they ventured into business because of their belief

that it would engender wealth. In South 1 (Yoruba) group, 14.2% respondents attached no

importance to the variable in question when they started business. On the other hand,

85.8% held that the variable was important and a potent reason for their involvement in

entrepreneurial event.

The following response pattern was recorded for South (Igbo) group as shown on

the table: 4.2% attributed no importance to the variable; and 95.8% held that the variable

was efficacious in predicting entrepreneurial event. Only 3.1% of respondents in South 3

(mini groups) group attributed little importance to the variable under consideration when

they started business. Other respondents believed that the variable was a credible reason

for their engagement in entrepreneurial event.

99

Desire for high earnings and entrepreneurial event formation

We observed from the table that only 4.6% of respondents in all ethnic categories

did not consider the desire for high earnings as a reason for their engagement in business.

The break down along ethnic categories indicate that 1.8%, 8.2%, 2.1% and 1.6% for

North 1 (Hausa), South 1 (Yoruba), South 2 (Igbo) and South 3 (Mini groups)

respectively relegated to the background, the need for high earnings. A preponderance of

respondents, however, considered the factor as having positive influence in their

entrepreneurial journey. For example, 98.2%, 100%, 91.8%, 97.9% and 98.4% from

North 1 (Hausa), North 2 (Mini groups), South 1 (Yoruba), South 2 (Igbo) and South 3

(Mini groups) respectively were of the view that the need to have high earnings prompted

their engagement in entrepreneurial event.

Economic security and entrepreneurial event formation.

The data on the table presented a situation where almost every respondent

believed that the need for economic security for both themselves and their families was

an important reason when they started business. Only 2.5% opined that economic security

for self and family was not a predictor of their entrepreneurial action. Differing from the

above is 97.5% of respondents. They were of the opinion that economic security was a

good reason to start business.

The distribution across the categories indicated that North 1 (Hausa) had 1.6% of

respondents who were of the view that economic security was insignificant in making

them consider entrepreneurial path while 98.4% believed to the contrary. The same

pattern occurred in other categories, for example, South 1 (Yoruba) had 2.8%, South 2

(Igbo) had 2.1%, and South 3 (Mini groups) had 1.6% of respondents who did not believe

that economic security was an important reason for entrepreneurial event.

Welfare of relatives and entrepreneurial event formation

The data from the table showed that 5.4%, 2.9%, 15.4%, 10.4% and 9.6% of

respondents from North 1 (Hausa), North 2 (Mini groups), South 1 (Yoruba), South 2

(Igbo) and South 3 (Mini groups) respectively contended that the quest to contribute to

the welfare of relatives was not a credible reason for their involvement in entrepreneurial

100

event. The larger percentage of respondents claimed that the need to affect their relatives

was paramount and a reason they were involved in entrepreneurial event. The distribution

along ethnic categories showed that 94.6%, 97.1%, 84.6%, 89.6% and 90.6% of

respondents from North 1 (Hausa), North 2 (Mini groups), South 1 (Yoruba), South 2

(Igbo) and South 3 (Mini groups) respectively conformed to the above statement. The

reason for this result may not be farfetched from the context (collectivism) in which the

study took place.

Societal respect and entrepreneurial event

Those who attached little or no importance to respect from members of society

when they started business were altogether 89 (12.5%). The table showed that 5.4%,

5.8%, 16.3%, 10.2% and 12.5% of respondents distributed along North 1, North 2, South

1, South 2 and South 3 respectively believed that the desire to curry respect from

members of society was not important to them when they started business. Those who

believed that the factor was important far outnumbered those who were of contrary

opinion. North 1 (Hausa) had 94.6% of respondents who agreed that the variable was

important while 94.2%, 83.7%, 89.8% and 87.5% from North 2 (Mini groups), South 1

(Yoruba), South 2 (Igbo) and South 3 (Mini groups) respectively held that the variable

was an important reason for their involvement in entrepreneurial event.

Influence and entrepreneurial event formation

Most respondents across the groups that comprised the study believed that the

desire to be influential in society was an important reason for entrepreneurial event

formation. In other words, there was no variation in the manner in which this variable

occurred for the population of this study, as all the categories showed the same trend in

the pattern of response. Only 12.4% of respondents were of the view that they did not

consider the need to have influence in society as a reason for business formation. Others

(87.6), however, differed as they contended that the need for influence was potent and a

credible reason for the engagement in entrepreneurial event. The breakdown showed that

3.6%, 2.9%, 15.1%, 12.8% and 10.9% of respondents from North 1(Hausa), North 2

(Mini groups), South 1 (Yoruba), South 2 (Igbo) and South 3 (Mini groups) were in the

101

category of respondents who regarded the need for influence as efficacious in their

entrepreneurial venture.

Societal impact and entrepreneurial event formation

The result as shown on the table presented the following observations: 5.6% of

respondents believed that the variable under consideration was important in no or only in

a little way; and 94.4% emphasized the importance of this factor as being a credible

predictor of entrepreneurial event formation. There was no difference in the way this

variable operated in the categories; the result showed the same trend for all groups.

Table 4.1.5: Distribution by perceived instrumentality of wealth factors according to ethnic group of origin

   North 1 (Hausa)

North 2 (Mini

groups)South 1

(Yoruba)South 2 (Igbo)

South 3 (Mini

groups) TotalMy salary in my former place of work was too meagre.   No % No % No % No % No % No %

 to no extent 14 24.6 4 11.4 42 13.2 49 20.9 9 14.1 118 17.1

 

to little extent 11 19.3 13 37.1 66 20.8 39 16.7 17 26.6 146 20.5

 

to some extent 15 26.3 10 28.6 98 30.8 70 29.9 18 28.1 211 29.6

 

to great extent 9 15.8 3 8.6 72 22.6 45 19.2 13 20.3 142 19.9

 

to very great extent 8 14 5 14.3 40 12.6 31 13.3 7 10.9 91 12.8

Total   57 100 35 100 318 100 234 100 64 100 708 100

102

Table 4.1.5 Contd.

North 1 (Hausa)

North 2 (Mini

groups)South 1

(Yoruba)South 2 (Igbo)

South 3 (Mini

groups) TotalEmtrepreneurship is a means to wealth.   No % No % No % No % No % No %

 to no extent 1 1.8     13 4.1 1 0.43     15 2.1

 

to little extent 2 3.6 2 5.9 32 10.1 9 3.8 2 3.1 47 6.6

 

to some extent 21 37.5 6 17.7 124 39.1 60 25.5 24 37.5 235 33.2

 

to great extent 20 35.7 10 29.4 94 29.7 90 38.3 22 34.4 236 33.5

  to very great extent

12 21.4 16 47.1 54 17 75 31.9 16 25 173 24.5

Total   56 100 34 100 317 100 235 100 64 100 706 100

I desire to have high earnings.                          

 to no extent         4 1.3 1 0.4     5 0.7

 

to little extent 1 1.8     22 6.9 4 1.7 1 1.6 28 3.9

 

to some extent 17 29.8 13 37.1 67 21 37 15.8 23 35.9 157 22.1

 

to great extent 18 31.6 9 25.7 109 34.2 67 28.5 17 26.6 220 31.1

  to very great extent

21 36.8 13 37.1 117 36.7 126 53.6 23 35.9 300 42.2

Total   57 100 35 100 319 100 235 100 64 100 710 100

103

Table 4.1.5 Contd.

North 1 (Hausa)

North 2 (Mini

groups)South 1

(Yoruba)South 2 (Igbo)

South 3 (Mini

groups) TotalI want to give myself and family economic security.   No % No % No % No % No % No %

 to no extent 3 1.6 3 0.9 2 0.8     8 1.1

 

to little extent         6 1.9 8 1.3 1 1.6 10 1.4

 

to some extent 12 6.5 6 17.1 46 14.5 57 24.3 13 20.3 132 18.8

 

to great extent 13 7.1 15 42.9 66 20.8 56 23.8 13 20.3 163 23.2

 

to very great extent 29 15.8 14 40 196 61.8 117 49.8 37 57.8 395 55.5

Total   57 31 35 100 317 99.9 240 100 64 100 708 100To contribute to the welfare of my relatives.                          

 to no extent       6 1.9 5 2.2 2 3.2 13 1.8

 

to little extent 3 5.4 1 2.9 43 13.5 19 8.2 4 6.4 70 9.9

 

to some extent 18 32.1 13 37.1 118 37.1 66 28.3 21 33.3 236 33.3

 

to great extent 16 28.6 6 17.1 73 22.9 70 30 16 25.4 181 25.8

 

to very great extent 19 33.9 15 42.9 78 24.5 73 31.3 20 31.8 205 29.2

Total   56 100 35 100 318 100 233 100 63 100 705 100Table 4.1.5 Contd.

104

North 1 (Hausa)

North 2 (Mini

groups)South 1

(Yoruba)South 2 (Igbo)

South 3 (Mini

groups) TotalI wanted respect from members of society.   No % No % No % No % No % No %

 to no extent 2 3.6 1 2.9 15 4.7 1 0.4 1 1.6 20 2.8

 

to little extent 1 1.8 1 2.9 37 11.6 23 9.8 7 10.9 69 9.7

 

to some extent 19 33.9 12 34.3 98 30.7 81 34.5 26 40.6 236 33.5

 

to great extent 11 19.6 9 25.7 91 28.5 46 19.6 12 18.8 169 23.8

 

to very great extent 23 41.1 12 34.3 78 24.5 84 35.8 18 28.1 215 30.2

Total   56 100 35 100 319 100 235 100 64 100 709 100I wanted to have more influence in society.                          

 to no extent 1 1.8 1 2.9 28 8.8 2 0.9     32 45

 

to little extent 1 1.8     20 6.3 28 11.9 7 10.9 56 7.9

 

to some extent 21 36.8 11 31.4 90 28.4 85 36 29 45.3 236 33.1

 

to great extent 18 31.6 13 37.1 99 31.2 53 22.5 16 25 199 28.2

 

to very great extent 16 28.1 10 28.6 80 25.2 68 28.8 12 18.8 186 26.4

Total   57 100 35 100 317 100 236 100 64 100 709 141

Table 4.1.5 Contd.

105

North 1 (Hausa)

North 2 (Mini

groups)South 1

(Yoruba)South 2 (Igbo)

South 3 (Mini

groups) TotalTo impact positively on my society.   No % No % No % No % No % No %

 to no extent         4 1.3 5 2.1 2 3.1 11 1.5

 

to little extent 2 3.5     5 1.6 19 8.1 3 4.7 29 4.1

 

to some extent 16 28.1 6 17.1 39 12.3 40 17 15 23.4 116 16.2

 

to great extent 16 28.1 4 11.4 47 14.8 42 17.8 7 10.9 116 16.5

 

to very great extent 23 40.4 25 71.4 223 70.1 130 55.1 37 57.8 438 61.6

Total   57 100 35 100 318 100 236 100 64 100 710 100

4.2 Mean comparison of socio-cultural variables with criterion variables

4.2.1: Mean comparison by social capital items according to ethnic group of origin

Nine items were meant to elicit information on social capital forces and

entrepreneurial event as shown in table 4.2.1. These items revolve round the different

nodes that comprise social capital forces, which include family, relatives, friend, spouse,

ethnic group and religion. Items were drawn to bring out the contributions of these nodes

to entrepreneurial aspirations of respondents.

Continuing a family tradition was a stronger reason among South 2 (Igbo)

respondents; the group had a mean of 3.28. Whereas in other ethnic categories, the mean

scores were significantly lower – North 1 (Hausa) scored 1.93, North 2 (mini groups)

scored 1.63, South 1 (Yoruba) had a mean score of 1.79 while South 3 (mini group) had a

106

score of 2.03. This result shows that where we have significant high mean scores, there is

strong familial tradition in entrepreneurial events.

Support from one or both parents was stronger for all groups in the study;

however, it was stronger in South 1 (Yoruba) group with a mean of 3.52. This was

followed by 3.45 among South 2 (Igbo) respondents, 3.28 for North 1 (Hausa), 3.17 for

North 2 (mini groups) and 2.84 for South 3 (mini groups).

One can see from the table that parental influence in the choice of entrepreneurial

path was stronger in North 1 (Hausa) and South 2 (Igbo) groups with mean scores of 2.79

and 2.61 respectively. These scores contrasted with scores that came up for North 2 (Mini

groups), 2.29; South 1 (Yoruba), 2.08; and South 3 (Mini groups), 2.29. In other words,

parent’s influence is more likely to predict entrepreneurial event among the groups who

scored highly in the factor. Where there is strong entrepreneurial tradition, there is the

likelihood of support from parents and significant others.

Achievement of one or both parents in entrepreneurial event is stronger among

respondents in South 2 (Igbo) group; the mean was 2.59. Meanwhile, other groups had

lower than average scores in this factor. In specific terms, North 1 (Hausa), North 2

(Mini groups), South 1 (Yoruba) and South 3 (Mini groups) had 2.26, 2.23, 2.35 and 2.31

respectively. This result suggests that parental achievement in entrepreneurial field was

not strong enough among these groups.

Influence from friend was only strong in North 1 group with a mean score of 2.67.

In other groups, the scores were 2.20, 1.98, 2.05 and 2.02 for North 2 (mini groups),

South 1 (Yoruba), South 2 (Igbo) and South 3 (mini groups) respectively. Influence of

spouse as a reason for business start up was not strong across all the groups. The mean

scores in the table indicate that less than average scores were recorded in all the groups.

The total mean score is 1.97. The distribution of this score shows that North 1 (Hausa)

had 2.40, North 2 (mini groups) had 2.29, South 1 (Yoruba) had 1.86, South 2 (Igbo) had

2.05 and South 3 (mini groups) had 2.02.

South 2 (Igbo) group scored higher on item that measured the preponderance of

entrepreneurial practice in particular ethnic group as a reason for entrepreneurial event.

The mean score was 3.48. However, the above reason was not a strong factor for

entrepreneurial event formation for other groups as they scored less than average in this

107

factor. For example, North 1 (Hausa) scored 1.81, North 2 (Mini groups) scored 1.51,

South 1 (Yoruba) had a mean score of 1.88 and South 3 (Mini groups) scored 1.94.

The influence of religion, as a reason for entrepreneurial event formation, was

very low among our respondents. The table shows that the different groups that comprise

our sample scored far below average. The scores range between 1.5 and 2.0. North 1

(Hausa) had 1.63, North 2 (mini groups) scored 1.2, South 1 (Yoruba) scored 1.92, South

2 (Igbo) also had 1.92 and South 3 (mini groups) scored 1.56. The same trend could also

be said of the influence of religious leaders. The table indicates 1.77, 1.40, 2.23, 1.89, and

1.75 for North 1 (Hausa), North 2 (mini groups), South 1 (Yoruba), South 2 (Igbo) and

South 3 (mini groups) respectively. Therefore, the influence of religious leader on

entrepreneurial event formation was significantly low for all the groups.

108

Table 4.2.1: Mean scores by social capital factors according to ethnic group

North1(Hausa) North2 (mini groups)

South1 (Yoruba)

South 2 (Igbo)

South 3 (mini groups)

Total

Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean NI wanted to continue family tradition

1.93 57 1.63 35 1.79 320 3.24 237 2.03 64 2.31 713

I was supported by one or both parents

3.28 57 3.17 35 3.52 320 3.45 237 2.84 64 3.41 713

My parents influenced my choice of entrepreneurial path

2.79 57 2.29 35 2.08 320 2.61 237 2.28 64 2.34 713

I was encouraged by the achievement of one or both parents in entrepreneurship

2.26 57 2.23 35 2.35 320 2.59 237 2.31 64 2.43 713

I was influenced by a friend

2.67 57 2.20 35 1.98 320 2.05 237 2.02 64 2.06 713

I was influenced by my spouse

2.40 57 2.29 35 1.86 320 2.05 237 1.98 64 1.99 713

Entrepreneurship was a common practice in my ethnic group

1.81 57 1.51 35 1.88 320 3.48 237 1.94 64 2.40 713

I was influenced by my religion

1.63 57 1.20 35 1.92 320 1.92 237 1.56 64 1.83 713

I was influenced by my religious leader

1.77 57 1.40 35 2.23 320 1.89 237 1.52 64 1.97 713

109

110

4.2.2: Mean scores by dissatisfaction/displacement factors according to ethnic group of origin

As shown in table 4.2.2, dissatisfaction with paid job was a strong reason for

entrepreneurial event formation for all groups. The groups had scores ranging from 2.75

to 3.11. The reason was, however, strongest in South 3 (mini groups) category (3.11),

followed by South 1 (Yoruba) with a score of 2.94, South 2 (Igbo) – 2.86, North 2 (mini

groups) with a mean score of 2.86, and North 1 (Hausa) with a score of 2.75.

Being fired from paid job was not a strong reason to predicting entrepreneurial

event among all the groups in the study. A mean score of 1.86, which was the highest,

was reported for North 1 (Hausa), 1.43 score was recorded by North 2 (mini groups).

1.44 mean score was reported for South 1 (Yoruba), 1.61 was reported for South 2 (Igbo),

and South 3 (mini groups) had a score of 1.56.

Retirement from paid job was also considered not to be a significant factor for

entrepreneurial event formation across the different groups that formed our study. Mean

scores of 1.58, 1.03, 1.60, 1.67 and 1.50 were recorded for North 1 (Hausa), North 2

(mini groups), South 1 (Yoruba), South 2 (Igbo) and South 3 (mini groups) respectively.

Discrimination in paid job was considered a factor for entrepreneurial event

formation. In all the groups in this study, the factor scored above average. The factor had

mean scores of 2.86, 2.89, 2.65, 2.58 and 2.64 for the following respective groups: North

1 (Hausa), North 2 (mini groups), South 1 (Yoruba), South 2 (Igbo) and South 3 (mini

groups).

Inability to get job was considered unimportant by all the groups as a factor in

entrepreneurial event formation. The lowest mean score was recorded in North 2 (mini

groups) group, with a mean of 1.0. Other mean scores under this factor were 1.30 for

North 1 (Hausa), 1.24 for South 1 (Yoruba), 1.21 for South 2 (Igbo) and 1.17 for South 3

(mini groups).

111

Getting tired of being bossed around was reported to be important in

consideration of entrepreneurial event formation in all the groups. North 1 (Hausa group)

had a mean score of 3.66, South 1 (Yoruba) recorded a score of 3.46, South 2 (Igbo)

reported a score of 3.34 and South 3 (mini groups) recorded the highest mean score of

3.72.

112

Table 4.2.2: Mean scores by dissatisfaction/displacement factors according to ethnic group of origin

North1(Hausa) North2 (mini groups)

South1 (Yoruba)

South 2 (Igbo)

South 3 (mini groups)

Total

Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean NI experienced dissatisfaction with paid job

2.75 57 2.86 35 2.94 320 2.86 237 3.11 64 2.90 713

I was fired from paid job

1.86 57 1.43 35 1.44 320 1.61 237 1.56 64 1.54 713

I retired from paid job

1.58 57 1.03 35 1.60 320 1.67 237 1.50 64 1.58 713

I faced discrimination in paid job

2.86 57 2.89 35 2.65 320 2.58 237 2.64 64 2.64 713

I could not get job

1.30 57 1.0 35 1.24 320 1.21 237 1.17 64 1.21 713

I got tired of being bossed

3.04 57 3.66 35 3.46 320 3.34 237 3.72 64 3.40 713

113

4.2.3: Mean scores by social status factors according to ethnic group of origin

The factor of social status as a predictor of entrepreneurial event formation was

very strong in all groups that composed the study. The highest mean score of 3.92 was

however, recorded by South1 (Yoruba). North 2 (mini groups) had the next higher score

of 3.81, closely followed by South 2 (Igbo) with a score of 3.81. South 3 (mini groups)

and North 1 (Hausa) had 3.72 and 3.65 respectively.

People looking up to those who own their firms as a factor was strong in the

groups that formed this study. None of the groups scored below a mean score of 3.5. It

must, however, be noted that the factor was strongest in South 2 (Igbo) group, with a

mean score of 3.69. Scores for other groups are: 3.51 for North 1 (Hausa), 3.66 for North

2 (Mini groups), 3.50 for South 1 (Yoruba) and 3.56 for South 3 (Mini groups). The total

score for all the groups was 3.58.

Respect that accompanies entrepreneurial event formation was also a strong factor

considered as of great importance by groups in this study. All the groups have a total

mean score of 3.76. The distribution of the score along group lines indicates that North 1

had 3.89, North 2 scored 3.91, South 1 scored 3.65, South 2 had a mean score of 3.81 and

South 3 scored 3.94. It is thus observed that the factor was a strong predictor of

entrepreneurial event formation in all the groups, though in slightly varying dimensions.

The quest for a higher position also occurred as a strong factor in entrepreneurial

event formation in all the groups. A grand total of 3.98 score was recorded. Of this total

mean score, North 1 (Hausa) had 3.86, North 2 (mini groups) had 4.0, South 1 (Yoruba)

had the highest score of 4.1, South 2 (Igbo) had a score of 3.86 and South 3 (mini groups)

scored 3.92.

Prestige was another factor to which all the groups in our study attached strong

importance as a reason for considering entrepreneurial event formation. A total mean

score of 3.80 was recorded by the groups. In breaking down the score as recorded by each

group, one observes that this factor was strongest in North 2 (mini groups) group with a

score of 4.11. Closely following was South 3 (mini groups) group, which scored 4.0.

North 1 (Hausa), South 1 Yoruba) and South 2 (Igbo) had the following respective

scores: 3.61, 3.85 and 3.68.

114

It is observed that all items under social status and entrepreneurial event

formation were significantly strong reasons across the various groups that comprised this

study. In other words, there is no appreciable variation among the groups in the way

social status predicts entrepreneurial event formation.

115

Table 4.2.3: Mean scores by social status factors according to ethnic group of originNorth1(Hausa) North2 (mini

groups)South1 (Yoruba)

South 2 (Igbo) South 3 (mini groups)

Total

Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean NRunning own business gives high social status

3.65 57 3.86 35 3.92 320 3.81 237 3.72 64 3.84 713

People look up to those who own their firms

3.51 57 3.66 35 3.50 320 3.69 237 3.56 64 3.58 713

Starting business generates a lot of respect

3.89 57 3.91 35 3.65 320 3.81 237 3.94 64 3.76 713

I wanted a higher position for myself in society

3.86 57 4.0 35 4.1 320 3.86 237 3.92 64 3.98 713

I wanted to earn prestige

3.61 57 4.11 35 3.85 320 3.68 237 4.0 64 3.80 713

116

4.2.4: Mean scores by perceived instrumentality of wealth factors according to ethnic group of origin

Eight items were slated to elicit information on perceived instrumentality of

wealth and entrepreneurial event formation across the different ethnic categories in our

study. These items are as shown in table 4.2.4.

The ethnic categories in the study scored fairly high on the factor. A mean score

of 2.75 was observed for North 1 (Hausa). North 2 (mini group) scored 2.77 on this

factor, South 1 (Yoruba) scored 2.99, and South 2 (Igbo) had 2.84 while South 3 (mini

groups) had a mean score of 2.88. This result shows that too meager salary was an

important factor in these groups as demonstrated by their mean scores.

Consideration of entrepreneurship as a means to wealth was strong across all the

groups in this study. The importance attached to this factor as a reason for entrepreneurial

event formation by the different groups was in this order: North 2 (mini groups) scored

4.06, this is followed by South 2 (Igbo) with a mean of 3.94, South 3 (mini groups)

scored 3.81 and North 1(Hausa) scored 3.65 while South 1 (Yoruba) had a mean score of

3.42.

The desire to have high earnings was very strong in all the groups that were

studied. The grand mean score for all the groups was 4.08. The scores for the groups

were as follows: North 1 (Hausa), 4.04; North 2 (mini groups), 4.0; South 1 (Yoruba),

3.97; South 2 (Igbo), 4.3; and South 3 (mini groups), 3.81. South 2 (Igbo) group recorded

the highest score of 4.3. This suggests that the desire to have high earnings was strongest

in this group.

Economic security for self and family was very strong in all the groups we

studied. It was strongest in South 1 (Yoruba) group with a mean score of 4.37. High

scores were also observed for other groups: South 3 scored 4.34, North 2 had 4.23, South

2 scored 4.17 and North 1 recorded 4.14. The indication of this result is pointing to very

great importance attached to economic security for self and family by all the groups.

The quest to contribute to the welfare of relatives was also very strong across the

groups in the study. A grand mean score of 3.67 was recorded for all the groups. The

break down of the score shows that North 2 (mini groups) group had the highest mean

score of 4.0. North 1, South 1, South 2, and South 3 had the following respective mean

117

scores: 3.84, 3.53, 3.74 and 3.7. These scores clearly indicate a significant consideration

for entrepreneurial event formation based on the need to contribute to the welfare of

relatives.

The need for respect from members of society was strong in all the groups in this

study. However, it was strongest among North 1(Hausa) and North 2 (mini groups) with

mean scores of 3.86 each. South 1(Yoruba) group had a mean score of 3.55, South 2

(Igbo) group scored 3.77, and South 3 (mini groups) scored 3.61. The factor of influence

in society was important to all the groups in the study. The different groups that

comprised the study believe that the need to have more influence in society was a

significant consideration for entrepreneurial event formation. The highest mean score of

3.89 was recorded in North 2 (mini groups) while the least score of 3.52 was recorded in

South 3 (mini group). North 1 (Hausa), South 1 (Yoruba), and South 2 (Igbo) had the

following respective scores: 3.82, 3.54 and 3.65.

All groups that comprised this study believed that the need to impact positively on

society was a strong reason in considering entrepreneurial event formation. The following

total mean scores were obtained: 4.05, 4.54, 4.48 and 4.16 by these respective groups,

North 1(Hausa), North 2 (mini groups), South 1(Yoruba), South 2 (Igbo) and South 3

(mini groups).

118

Table 4.2.4: Mean scores by perceived instrumentality of wealth factors according to ethnic group of originNorth1(Hausa) North2

(mini groups)

South1 (Yoruba)

South 2 (Igbo)

South 3 (mini groups)

Total

Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean NMy salary in my former place of work was too meagre

2.75 57 2.77 35 2.99 320 2.84 237 2.88 64 2.89 713

Entrepreneurship is a means to wealth

3.65 57 4.06 35 3.42 320 3.94 237 3.81 64 3.68 713

I desired to have high earnings

4.04 57 4.0 35 3.97 320 4.3 237 3.81 64 4.08 713

I wanted economic security for my family

4.14 57 4.23 35 4.37 320 4.17 237 4.34 64 4.27 713

I wanted to contribute to the welfare of my relatives

3.84 57 4.0 35 3.53 320 3.74 237 3.7 64 3.67 713

I wanted respect from members of society

3.86 57 3.86 35 3.55 320 3.77 237 3.61 64 3.67 713

I wanted to have more influence in society

3.82 57 3.89 35 3.54 320 3.65 237 3.52 64 3.62 713

I wanted to impact positively on my society

4.05 57 4.54 35 4.48 320 4.14 237 4.16 64 4.31 713

119

4.2.5: Mean scores by social capital factors according to gender

Continuing family tradition can be seen to hold almost the same value to both

male and female respondents because mean scores are almost the same where males have

a score of 2.31 and the females, 2.32. Support from one or both parents was stronger for

females than males. However, they are still within the same range because the mean

scores are both high. Males scored 3.37 mean while females had a mean score of 3.48.

The influence of parents on the choice of entrepreneurial path was higher for females

than males where females scored 2.50 while males scored 2.27. One can see that,

generally, parents have more influence on their female children than male children or the

tendency of the female children to want to seek out the opinion or approval of their

parents before taking any step.

Parental achievement in entrepreneurial event encouraged females more than

males. Females scored a mean of 2.58 while males scored 2.35. Influence of a friend was

stronger among female respondents than among male respondents with a mean score of

2.22 for females and 1.99 for males. Just as noticed in the above, women are found to

crave need for affiliation than men. This may be implicated as to the direction of the

finding.

Spousal influence as a reason to embark on an entrepreneurial venture was

stronger among females than males. Females scored a mean of 2.06 while males scored

1.96. The patriarchal system, which is the context of the study may necessitate females

dependence on men for support. Females scored higher than males when measuring the

influence of the preponderance of entrepreneurial practice in respondents’ ethnic groups.

Female scored 2.59, which was stronger than male mean score of 2.32.

The influence of religion as a reason for entrepreneurial event formation was

stronger among females than males, though the scores are both low. The mean scores for

females was 2.07 while for males, it was 1.72. For the influence of religious leader on

entrepreneurial event, it was about the same degree or mean for both males and females.

While the females scored 1.98, males scored 1.97.

120

Table 4.2.5: Mean scores by social capital factors according to gender

Male Female Total

Mean N Mean N Mean N

I wanted to continue family

tradition

2.31 488 2.32 226 2.31 714

I was supported by one or

both parents

3.37 488 3.48 226 3.40 714

My parents influenced my

choice of entrepreneurial

path

2.27 488 2.50 226 2.34 714

I was encouraged by the

achievement of one or both

parents in entrepreneurship

2.35 488 2.58 226 2.42 714

I was influenced by a friend 1.99 488 2.22 226 2.07 714

I was influenced by my

spouse

1.96 488 2.06 226 1.99 714

Entrepreneurship was a

common practice in my

ethnic group

2.32 488 2.59 226 2.40 714

I was influenced by the

teaching of my religion

1.72 488 2.07 226 1.83 714

I was influenced by my

religious leader

1.97 488 1.98 226 1.97 714

4.2.6: Mean scores by dissatisfaction/displacement experience factors according to

gender

The reason of dissatisfaction with paid job for entrepreneurial event was stronger

for females than males. The mean score for males was 2.86 while it was 2.99 for the

females. More females embarked on entrepreneurial venture than males because they

121

were fired from paid job. Although, the scores are both low and within the same range,

female scored 1.56 while males scored 1.53. Retirement from job as a reason for

entrepreneurial event was stronger among females than male respondents, while females

scored 1.60, males scored 1.57. Discrimination on paid job as a reason for entrepreneurial

event formation was stronger among female respondents than male respondents. Females

scored 2.66 while males scored 2.64.

Unemployment as a reason for seeking entrepreneurship was stronger in females

than males with 1.25 mean for females and 1.19 mean for males. However, on the

average, it was not strong enough for both categories. Both females and males had almost

the same mean score when it came to being one’s own boss. The scores are both high,

which shows that both males and females who embraced entrepreneurial venture got tired

of being bossed around and wanted to be on their own; males scored 3.40 while females

scored 3.41.

Table 4.2.6: Mean scores by dissatisfaction/displacement experience factors according to gender

Male Female Total

Mean N Mean N Mean N

I experienced dissatisfaction

with paid job

2.86 488 2.99 226 2.90 714

I was fired from paid job 1.53 488 1.56 226 1.54 714

I retired from paid job 1.57 488 1.60 226 1.58 714

I faced discrimination in paid

job

2.64 488 2.66 226 2.64 714

I could not get job 1.19 488 1.25 226 1.21 714

I got tired of being bossed 3.40 488 3.41 226 3.40 714

4.2.7: Mean scores by social status factors according tos gender

Running own business gives high status, as a reason for entrepreneurial event

formation, was stronger for females who scored 3.93 than males who scored 3.80. The

122

question of people looking up to those who own their firms as a reason for

entrepreneurial event was almost equal for both male and female respondents. Though,

both mean scores were high, it was still higher for males than females. While males

scored 3.58, females scored 3.51.

Respect and prestige earned as a result of starting own business as a reason was

stronger for females than males. Females scored a mean of 3.91 and males scored 3.69.

Wanting a higher position in society as a reason for starting a business was stronger for

males than females. Males scored 3.99 while females scored 3.94. This shows that males

crave for respect and power through their economic or business status more than their

female counterparts. Wanting prestige in society as a reason for business venture was

stronger among male respondents than female respondents. Males scored 3.82 while

females scored 3.75.

.

Table 4.2.7: Mean scores by social status factors according to gender

Male Female Total

Mean N Mean N Mean N

Running own business gives

high social status

3.80 488 3.93 226 3.84 714

People look up to those who

own their firms

3.58 488 3.57 226 3.57 714

Starting business generates a lot

of respect

3.69 488 3.91 226 3.76 714

I wanted a higher position for

myself in society

3.99 488 3.94 226 3.98 714

I wanted to earn prestige 3.82 488 3.75 226 3.80 714

4.2.8: Mean scores by perceived instrumentality of wealth factors according to gender

Starting their own business because the salary was too meager in the former place

of work had the same mean score for both males and females. The mean score was 2.88.

This result shows that there is no male-female difference in the way salary influences

123

entrepreneurial behaviour. The belief that entrepreneurship is a means to wealth was

stronger among females than among males. Females scored 3.72 and males scored 3.66.

The desire to have high earnings as a reason for entrepreneurial event was far stronger

among females than males. The mean score for females was 4.28 while it was 3.99 for

males.

The desire to secure economic security for family as a reason was stronger among

males than females. While males scored 4.29, females scored 4.23. The direction of the

finding may be related to societal expectations that men take up the responsibility of

family upkeep. Wanting to contribute to the welfare of relatives, as a reason for

embarking on a business venture was stronger among females than males. While males

scored 3.60, females scored 3.81.

The belief that entrepreneurship will earn an individual respect from members of

society was stronger among females than males. More females wanted respect as a result

of entrepreneurship than male respondents. As such, females scored 3.79 while males

scored 3.61.

Wanting to have more influence in society as a reason for entrepreneurial event

was stronger and higher among female respondents. Females had a mean score of 3.83

while males scored 3.52. Wanting to impact positively on the society as a reason for

embarking on entrepreneurship was stronger among the females than males. While

females scored 4.38, males scored 4.28.

Table 4.2.8: Mean scores by perceived instrumentality of wealth factors according to gender

Male Female Total

Mean N Mean N Mean N

My salary in my

former place of work

was too meager

2.88 488 2.88 226 2.88 714

Entrepreneurship is a

means to wealth

3.66 488 3.72 226 3.68 714

124

I desired to have high

earnings

3.99 488 4.28 226 4.08 714

Table 4.2.8 Contd.Male Female Total

Mean N Mean N Mean N

I wanted economic

security for my

family

4.29 488 4.23 226 4.27 714

I wanted to

contribute to the

welfare of my

relatives

3.60 488 3.81 226 3.67 714

I wanted respect

from members of

society

3.61 488 3.79 226 3.67 714

I wanted to have

more influence in

society

3.52 488 3.83 226 3.62 714

I wanted to impact

positively on my

society

4.28 488 4.38 226 4.31 714

4.2.9: Mean scores by social capital factors according to age

Continuing family tradition as a reason for embarking in entrepreneurial event

was strongest among people of ages 21 – 30 with a mean of 2.60. Respondents ages 31 –

40 came next with 2.43, 41 – 50 age group scored 2.28, 51 – 60 age group scored 2.17

while 61+ age group scored the least. Support from one or both parents was strong for all

age groups but stronger in age group 31 – 40 with mean score of 3.53, age groups 21 – 30

125

and 41 – 50 scored the same mean of 3.47 while age group 51 – 60 scored 3.22. It is

obvious from this result that as age advances, reliance on parental support wanes.

Parental influence in the choice of entrepreneurial venture was stronger among

respondents of age group 21 – 30 with mean score of 2.82, followed by 31 – 40 age

group, which scored 2.78, 41 – 50 age group scored 2.11, 51 – 60 scored 2.01.

Respondents in age category 61+ had the lowest mean. We can see that as respondents

grew older, parental influence became less. Achievement of one or both parents in

entrepreneurial event was strongest among respondents of ages 21 – 30 with mean score

2.85. Those in 31 – 40 age group scored 2.60, 41 – 50 scored 2.29, and 51 – 60 scored

2.28.

Influence of a friend was strongest among respondents between ages 61+,

followed by respondents of age category 21 – 30 that had a mean of 2.21, 31 – 40 scored

2.10, 51 – 60 age group scored 1.91 while 41 – 50 age group scored 1.90. Spousal

influence was generally low but strongest among respondents between ages 21 – 30 with

mean score of 2.21. This is followed by respondents of ages between 31 – 40 with 2.14,

41 – 50 scored 1.95, 51 – 60 scored 1.84, while respondents of ages 61 and above had the

lowest mean.

Entrepreneurial event as a result of its preponderance in respondents ethnic

groups was strongest among respondents of age group 31 – 40 with mean score of 2.69,

followed by 21 – 30 age group, which scored 2.39, those ages 41 – 50 scored 2.21, age

group 51 – 60 scored 2.33, 61 – 70 age group scored 2.26 while age group 71 and above

scored 1.00. The influence of religion as a reason for entrepreneurial event was generally

low though stronger among respondents of age group 21 – 30 with mean score of 2.19.

This is followed by 31 – 40 age group, which scored 2.07, 41 – 50 and 51 – 60 age

groups scored 1.59. This shows that religious teaching had less influence on respondents’

entrepreneurial aspirations.

In the same vein, the influence of religious leader was stronger among age group

31 – 40 with mean score of 2.18 followed by age group 21 – 30 with score of 2.11, age

group 41 – 50 scored 1.87 while those ages 51 – 60 scored 1.75.

126

Table 4.2.9: Mean scores by social capital according to age 21 - 30 31 - 40 41 - 50 51 – 60 61+ Total

Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean NI wanted to continue family tradition

2.60 62 2.43 239 2.28 199 2.17 138 1.84 79 2.31 717

I was supported by one or both parents

3.47 62 3.53 239 3.47 199 3.22 138 3.00 79 3.41 717

My parents influenced my choice of entrepreneurial path

2.82 62 2.78 239 2.11 199 2.01 138 1.45 79 2.34 717

I was encouraged by the achievement of one or both parents in entrepreneurship

2.85 62 2.60 239 2.29 199 2.28 138 2.46 79 2.43 717

I was influenced by a friend

2.21 62 2.10 239 1.90 199 1.91 138 2.37 79 2.06 717

I was influenced by my spouse

2.21 62 2.14 239 1.95 199 1.84 138 1.68 79 1.99 717

Entrepreneurship was a common practice in my ethnic group

2.39 62 2.69 239 2.21 199 2.33 138 1.63 79 2.40 717

I was influenced by the teaching of my religion

2.19 62 2.07 239 1.68 199 1.59 138 1.54 79 1.83 717

I was influenced by my religious leader

2.11 62 2.18 239 1.87 199 1.75 138 1.66 79 1.97 717

127

4.2.10: Mean scores by dissatisfaction/displacement experience according to age

Dissatisfaction with paid job was stronger among respondents in the 21 – 30 age

group with mean score of 3.29, followed by 31 – 40 and 41 – 50,age groups which scored

the same 2.85, 51 – 60 age groups scored 3.01, 61 – 70 age groups scored 2.74 while 71

and above scored 2.00. Being fired from paid job as a reason for entrepreneurial event

was generally low. However, 21 – 30 age group scored 1.44, 31 – 40 age groups scored

1.53 and 41 – 50 age groups scored 1.61 while those ages 51 – 60 scored 1.56.

Retirement from paid job as a reason for entrepreneurial event was strongest

among the older age groups. Age group 61+ had the highest mean of 3.60, 51 – 60 age

group scored 1.61, 41 – 50 age group scored 1.52, 21 – 30 age group scored 1.45 while

those ages 31 – 40 scored the least mean of 1.33. Discrimination in paid job as a reason

was strongest among respondents between age group 31 – 40 with mean score of 2.79.

Those ages 41 – 50 and 51 – 60 scored the same mean of 2.64 while 21 – 30 age group

scored 2.44.

Unemployment as a reason was generally low. However, 31 – 40 age group

scored 1.27, 41 – 50 age group scored 1.21, 51 – 60 age group scored 1.20 while those

ages 21 – 30 scored 1.11. This shows that respondents in the lowest age group might have

not sought paid employment before starting their current business. Being tired of being

bossed around as a reason was relatively high as respondents in age category 51 – 60 had

the strongest mean score of 3.56 followed by 21 – 30 age group with mean score of 3.45.

Those ages 41 – 50 and 31 – 40 scored 3.43 and 3.30 respectively.

128

Table 4.2.10: Mean scores by dissatisfaction/displacement experience according to age 21 – 30 31 – 40 41 – 50 51 – 60 61+ Total

Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N

I experienced

dissatisfaction

with paid job

3.29 62 2.85 239 2.85 199 3.01 138 2.37 79 2.90 717

I was fired from

paid job

1.44 62 1.53 239 1.61 199 1.56 138 1.23 79 1.54 717

I retired from

paid job

1.45 62 1.33 239 1.52 199 1.61 138 3.60 79 1.58 717

I faced

discrimination in

paid job

2.44 62 2.79 239 2.64 199 2.64 138 2.21 79 2.64 717

I could not get job 1.11 62 1.27 239 1.21 199 1.20 138 1.18 79 1.21 717

I got tired of being

bossed around

3.45 62 3.30 239 3.43 199 3.56 138 3.28 79 3.40 717

129

4.2.11: Mean scores by social status according to age

Running own business gives social status as a reason for entrepreneurial event

formation was generally high. Age group 21 – 30 had 4.02 mean score, 41 – 50 age group

scored 3.92, 61 – 70 age group scored 3.91, 51 – 60 age group scored 3.81 while those

ages 31 – 40 scored 3.72. This shows that people increasingly want to be independent as

they age.

Respect that entrepreneurship generates as a reason for embarking on it has 21 –

30 age group scoring the highest with mean score of 4.11, followed by age group 31-40,

with a mean score of 3.86 age group 51 – 60 scored 3.66 while age group 41 – 50 scored

3.62. Wanting a high position in society as a reason was more prominent among age

group 31 – 40 with mean score of 4.07. Forty-one to fifty age group scored 3.97. Age

group 51 – 60 scored 3.88 while age group 21 – 30 scored the least with mean of 3.82.

The need to earn prestige as a reason for entrepreneurial venture was very strong

among the respondents but strongest among respondents of age group 21-30 with mean

score of 4.13, 31 – 40 age group scored 3.80, 51 – 60 age group scored 3.77 while 41 –

50 age group scored 3.73.

130

Table 4.2.11: Mean scores by social status according to age 21 – 30 31 – 40 41 – 50 51 – 60 61+ Total

Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean NRunning own business gives high social status

4.02 62 3.72 239 3.92 199 3.81 138 4.26 79 3.84 717

People look up to those who own their firms

3.84 62 3.69 239 3.46 199 3.60 138 3.53 79 3.58 717

Starting business generates a lot of respect

4.11 62 3.86 239 3.62 199 3.66 138 3.75 79 3.76 717

I wanted a higher position for myself in society

3.82 62 4.07 239 3.97 199 3.88 138 4.19 79 3.98 717

I wanted to earn prestige

4.13 62 3.80 239 3.73 199 3.77 138 4.07 79 3.80 717

131

4.2.12: Mean scores by perceived instrumentality of wealth according to age

As Table 4.2.12 shows, meagre salary in former place of work, as a reason for

entrepreneurial event, was the same among respondents of age groups 21 – 30 and 41 –

50 with 3.03 mean score each. Age group 31 – 40 scored 2.86,age group 51 – 60 scored

2.78 while those 61+ scored 2.47. That entrepreneurship leads to wealth, as a reason, was

strongest among age group 21 – 30 with mean score 3.97. Thirty-one to forty and 51 – 60

age groups scored 3.67 each, 41 – 50 age group scored 3.65 while those 61+ had a mean

of 3.59.

The desire to have high earnings had relatively high mean scores. This means that

respondents of all age groups desired to have high earnings and improve their economic

status; 21 – 30 age group scored 4.31, 31 – 40 age group scored 4.13, 51 – 60 age group

scored 4.12, those ages 61+ scored 4.00 while those ages 41-50 scored 3.98. Wanting to

contribute to the welfare of relatives as a reason for entrepreneurial venture was strongest

among respondents of age group 21 – 30 with mean score of 3.7, Those ages 31 – 40 and

51 – 60 scored 3.69 each while those ages 41 – 50 scored 3.61.

Wanting respect from members of society, as a reason, was strongest among

respondents in the 21 – 30 age group with mean score of 3.97. This is followed by 31 –

40 age group which scored 3.85. Fifty-one to sixty and 61+ scored 3.59 and 3.45

respectively while 41-50 age group scored 3.58. Wanting to have more influence, as a

reason, was strongest among respondents ages 21 – 30 with a mean score of 3.92, those

ages 31 – 40 scored 3.67, 51 – 60 age group scored 3.65 while those ages 61+ scored

3.57. Age group 41 – 50 had the least score of 3.47.

Impacting positively on society as a reason for entrepreneurial event formation

was generally high as most respondents of the different age groups wanted to impact

positively on their society. Age groups twenty-one to thirty, 31 – 40 and 41 – 50 scored

4.29, 4.18 and 4.32 respectively. Age category 61+ scored 4.54 while 51 – 60 age group

scored 4.42.

132

Table 4.2.12: Mean scores by perceived instrumentality of wealth according to age 21 – 30 31 – 40 41 – 50 51 – 60 61+ Total

Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean NMy salary in my former place of work was too meagre

3.03 62 2.86 239 3.03 199 2.78 138 2.47 79 2.89 717

Entrepreneurship is a means to wealth

3.97 62 3.67 239 3.65 199 3.67 138 3.59 79 3.68 717

I desired to have high earnings

4.31 62 4.13 239 3.98 199 4.12 138 4.00 79 4.08 717

I wanted economic security for my family

4.35 62 4.21 239 4.24 199 4.38 138 4.65 79 4.27 717

I wanted to contribute to the welfare of my relatives

3.74 62 3.69 239 3.61 199 3.69 138 3.61 79 3.67 717

I wanted respect from members of society

3.97 62 3.85 239 3.48 199 3.59 138 3.45 79 3.67 717

I wanted to have more influence in society

3.92 62 3.67 239 3.47 199 3.65 138 3.57 79 3.62 717

I wanted to impact positively on my society

4.29 62 4.18 239 4.32 199 4.42 138 4.54 79 4.31 717

133

4.2.13: Mean scores by social capital items according to education

Table 4.2.13 shows that the reason of family tradition for entrepreneurial event

was strongest among respondents with tertiary education and lowest among respondents

with primary education. Support by one or both parents as a reason was lowest among

respondents with primary education having a mean score of 2.68. Those with tertiary

education scored 3.50, while those with secondary education scored 3.26.

Influence of parents on the choice entrepreneurial event was generally low among

the groups, with persons who have primary education scoring 1.85, those with secondary

education scored 2.29 while those with tertiary education scored 2.39. Achievement of

one or both parents in entrepreneurship, as a reason for embarking on entrepreneurship

venture was strongest among respondents with primary education with mean score of

2.61. Those with secondary education scored 2.27 while those with tertiary education

scored 2.52.

Friend’s influence as a reason for entrepreneurial event formation was strongest

among respondents with primary education with a mean of 2.58; following is those with

secondary education with a mean score of 2.17. Those with tertiary education scored

1.99. Spousal influence as a reason for entrepreneurial event had mean score of 1.94 in

the primary category 1.90 among respondents with secondary education while it was 2.05

among respondents with tertiary education.

Entrepreneurship being a common practice in ethnic group, as a reason, shows

that respondents with primary education had a mean of 2.79. Those with tertiary

education scored 2.40, while those with secondary education scored 2.30 in the mean

comparison.

Influence of religion on respondents with primary education was below average

with a mean of 2.07 while respondents with tertiary and those with secondary education

had mean scores of 1.95 and 1.62 respectively. In the same vein, the influence of

religious leaders was strongest with respondents who have primary education with a

mean of 2.32, followed by those with tertiary education with a mean score of 2.10.

Respondents with secondary education had the lowest mean of 1.73.

134

Table 4.2.13: Mean scores by social capital according to educationPrimary Secondary Tertiary Total

Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean NI wanted to continue family tradition

2.04 18 2.16 270 2.39 429 2.31 717

I was supported by one or both parents

2.68 18 3.26 270 3.50 429 3.41 717

My parents influenced my choice of entrepreneurial path

1.85 18 2.29 270 2.39 429 2.34 717

I was encouraged by the achievement of one or both parents in entrepreneurship

2.61 18 2.27 270 2.52 429 2.43 717

I was influenced by a friend

2.58 18 2.17 270 1.99 429 2.06 717

I was influenced by my spouse

1.94 18 1.90 270 2.05 429 1.99 717

Entrepreneurship was a common practice in my ethnic group

2.79 18 2.30 270 2.46 429 2.40 717

I was influenced by the teaching of my religion

2.07 18 1.62 270 1.95 429 1.83 717

I was influenced by my religious leader

2.32 18 1.73 270 2.10 429 1.97 717

4.2.14: Mean scores by dissatisfaction/displacement experience according to education

Table 4.2.14 below shows that dissatisfaction with paid job was a strong reason

for entrepreneurial event formation among the category of respondents with primary

education with a mean score of 3.49. Respondents with tertiary education have a mean of

2.95 while those with secondary education scored 2.82. Being fired from paid job as a

135

reason for venturing into entrepreneurial event was strongest among respondents with

primary education with a mean score of 1.72. Respondents with secondary education

scored 1.59 while those with tertiary education scored 1.50.

Retirement from paid job has respondents with low education recording the

highest mean score of 1.93. Category of tertiary education scored 1.49 while those with

secondary education had a mean score of 1.70. Discrimination in paid job as a reason for

entrepreneurial event formation was strongest among respondents with secondary

education with 2.70 mean score, persons with tertiary and primary education scored 2.62

and 2.65 respectively.

Not being able to get a job, as a reason for entrepreneurial event formation has

individuals with primary education scoring the highest mean (1.77). Respondents with

tertiary and secondary education scored 1.18 and 1.23 respectively. Being tired of being

bossed around, as a reason for entrepreneurial event scores relatively high as respondents

with primary education had a mean of 3.36 while those with tertiary education scored

3.40 and those with secondary education scored 3.34.

Table 4.2.14: Mean scores by dissatisfaction/displacement experience according to education

Primary Education

Secondary Tertiary Total

Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean NI experienced dissatisfaction with paid job

3.49 18 2.82 270 2.95 429 2.90 717

I was fired from paid job

1.72 18 1.59 270 1.50 429 1.54 717

I retired from paid job

1.93 18 1.70 270 1.49 429 1.58 717

I faced discrimination in paid job

2.65 18 2.70 270 2.62 429 2.64 717

I could not get job

1.77 18 1.23 270 1.18 429 1.21 717

I got tired of being bossed

3.36 18 3.34 270 3.46 429 3.40 717

136

4.2.15: Mean scores by social status according to education

Running own business gives social status, as a reason for entrepreneurial event

formation had high responses across the different categories that composed the study.

Respondents with primary education scored the highest with mean of 4.02. Persons with

secondary education had 3.72 mean while those with tertiary education had 3.91.

Respect that business generates as impetus for starting entrepreneurial event was

very strong among respondents with primary education with a mean of 3.97. Those with

secondary education scored 3.72 while respondents with tertiary education scored 3.78.

The quest for a higher position in society shows that those with primary education had

the highest mean (4.33). Respondents with secondary education and tertiary education

scored 3.75 and 4.11 respectively. The desire to earn prestige was strongest among

individuals in our study with primary education while those with tertiary and secondary

education 3.82 and 3.75 respectively.

This analysis shows that respondents with primary education wanted to earn

prestige, high position and respect among others, which may be a way of compensating

for their low education.

Table 4.2.15: Mean scores by social status according to educationPrimary Secondary Tertiary Total

Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean NRunning own business gives high social status

4.02 18 3.72 270 3.91 429 3.84 717

People look up to those who own their firms

3.76 18 3.60 270 3.57 429 3.58 717

Starting business

3.97 18 3.72 270 3.78 429 3.76 717

137

generates a lot of respect

Table 4.2.15 Contd.Primary Secondary Tertiary Total

Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean NI wanted a higher position for myself in society

4.33 18 3.75 270 4.11 429 3.98 717

I wanted to earn prestige

4.18 18 3.75 270 3.82 429 3.80 717

4.2.16: Mean scores by perceived instrumentality of wealth according to education

Entrepreneurial event formation as a result of meagre salary in paid job was

strongest among respondents with tertiary education who had a mean score of 2.99.

Respondents with primary education and secondary education scored 2.94 and 2.72

respectively. Entrepreneurship as a means to wealth being a reason for engaging in

entrepreneurial event was strongest among respondents with primary education with a

mean score of 3.90. Respondents with tertiary education scored 3.69 while those with

secondary education scored a mean of 3.68.

The desire to have high earnings as a reason for entrepreneurial event formation

shows that such desire was strongest among people with primary education with 4.39

mean while 4.09 and 4.04 were mean scores for tertiary education and secondary

education respectively. Wanting economic security for family as a reason had

respondents with primary education having 4.67 mean score. Respondents with tertiary

and secondary education scored 4.31 and 4.20 respectively.

The desire to contribute to the welfare of relatives, as a reason for starting a

business had respondents with tertiary education having the highest mean score of 3.68

138

while those with primary education and secondary education had 3.67 each. The need for

respect from members of society as a precursor of entrepreneurial event shows that those

with tertiary education had highest mean while closely following were those with primary

and secondary education with mean scores of 3.00 and 3.63 respectively.

With regard to the desire for more influence in society, persons with primary

education had a mean of 3.31 while those with secondary and tertiary education scored

3.50 and 3.69 respectively. The quest to impact positively on society, as a reason, was

strongest among respondents in the category of primary education, having a mean of

4.65. Those with tertiary education scored 4.37 while persons with secondary education

scored 4.21.

Table 4.2.16: Mean scores by perceived instrumentality of wealth according to education

Primary Secondary Tertiary Total

Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean NMy salary in my former place of work was too meager

2.94 18 2.72 270 2.99 429 2.89 717

Entrepreneurship is a means to wealth

3.90 18 3.68 270 3.69 429 3.68 717

I desired to have high earnings

4.39 18 4.04 270 4.09 429 4.08 717

I wanted economic security for my family

4.67 18 4.20 270 4.31 429 4.27 717

I wanted to contribute to the welfare of my relatives

3.67 18 3.62 270 3.68 429 3.67 717

I wanted respect from members of society

3.00 18 3.63 270 3.68 429 3.67 717

I wanted to have more influence in society

3.31 18 3.50 270 3.69 429 3.62 717

139

I wanted to impact positively on my society

4.65 18 4.21 270 4.37 429 4.31 717

140

4.2.17: Simple regression of model 1, model 2, model 3 and model 4 by ethnic group

The results of the simple regression analyses of ethnic group of origin against

social capital (model 1), dissatisfaction/displacement experience (model 2), social status

(model 3) and perceived instrumentality of wealth (model 4) are presented in this

segment of the report. In this case, ethnic group of origin is our predictor variable while

the criterion variables are: social capital, dissatisfaction/displacement experience, social

status and perceived instrumentality of wealth. Ethnic group of origin was used to

explain the four models albeit independently. This is necessary in order to assess the

contribution of ethnic group in the explanation of our models to the exclusion of other

predictor variables like gender, age and level of education.

As can be observed from table 4.2.17, the R square, which measures the explained

variance in model 1, is 11.4 percent. From the table, it is clear that all the ethnic

categories show significant determining explanation for social capital forces as a reason

for entrepreneurial event formation. In other words, ethnic group of origin has predictive

capacity in explaining variations in consideration of social capital forces for engaging in

entrepreneurial event. However, while North 1 (Hausa) and South 2 (Igbo) show positive

significant determining force, North 2 (Mini groups) and South 3 (Mini groups) show

significant negative determinants relative to South 1. For example, North 1 (Hausa)

has .118 coefficient and South 2 (Igbo) has .412 coefficient. What this result suggests is

that those categories with positive coefficients vary from the reference group – South 1

(Yoruba) in a positive form, in explaining variation in consideration of social capital

forces before engaging in entrepreneurial event. On the other hand, categories with

negative coefficients – North 2 (mini groups) with -.290 and South 3 (mini groups) with

-.755 – portend negative association with consideration of social capital before engaging

in entrepreneurial event. As the result shows, ethnic group remains an important factor in

consideration of social capital forces before starting entrepreneurial event.

As shown in table 4.2.17, model 2 (dissatisfaction/displacement experience) has

only South 3 (mini groups) showing significant determining association with the criterion

variable. The association between the two variables was positive, with a coefficient of

1.13. Other categories do not show significant coefficients; North 1 (Hausa) shows

141

positive, though not significant coefficient of .042 while North 2 (mini groups) and South

2 (Igbo) record negative coefficients of -.041 and -.064 respectively.

The import of this result is that ethnic group (predictor variable) has the ability to

predict whether individuals will consider dissatisfaction/displacement experience as a

reason for embarking in entrepreneurial event among South 3 (mini groups) respondents.

As shown in Model 3 of table 4.2.17, ethnic group of origin does not show any

determining value in explaining variations on consideration of social status before

engaging in entrepreneurial event. Going by the result of mean comparisons of the

different ethnic groups on the criterion variable (social status), one observes that all the

ethnic categories in the study have high mean scores on this factor. In other words, social

status is considered an important reason by all groups without any significant variation.

This is underscored by very low R square of .004. The coefficients of the categories are

given as -.088, .073, -.044, and .181 for North 1 (Hausa), North 2 (mini groups), South 2

(Igbo) and South 3 (mini groups) respectively.

Model 4 does not show any significant determining power in explaining

variations in the occurrence of consideration of perceived instrumentality of wealth

among the different ethnic categories that comprise the study. This is evidenced by very

low R square figures of. 0.008 percent. This situation is made manifest by little or no

difference in the mean scores in the items that set to measure the criterion variable among

the ethnic categories. The coefficients of the categories are as follows: -.070, .059, .060

and -.029 for North 1 (Hausa), North 2 (mini groups), South 2 (Igbo) and South 3 (mini

groups) respectively.

142

Table 4.2.17: Simple regression of model 1, model 2, model 3 and model 4 by ethnic groupVariables Model 1

Coefficient t Model 2Coefficient t

Model 3Coefficient t

Model 4Coefficient t

North 1 .118** 2.2 .042 .733 -.088 -1.5 -.070 -1.2

North 2 -.290** -5.1 -.041 -.679 .073 1.2 .059 .967

South 2 .412** 6.2 -.064 -.916 -.044 -.632 .060 .860

South 3 -.755** -3.1 1.13** 4.45 .181 .704 -.029 -.112

South 1 ( r ) - - - - - - -

R Square .114 .028 .004 .008

r = reference group** =significant at p<0.05 Model 1 = Social capitalModel 2 = Dissatisfaction/displacement experienceModel 3 = Social statusModel 4 = Perceived instrumentality of wealth

4.2.18: Simple regression of model 1, model 2, model 3 and model 4 according to level of education

The results of the simple regression analyses for social capital forces,

dissatisfaction/displacement experience, social status and perceived instrumentality of

wealth for level of education are presented in table 4.2.18.

For model 1, only primary education shows a significant determinant with the

criterion variable, with coefficient of .086. Other categories do not have any form of

significant association with the criterion variable. For example, secondary level of

education has .403 coefficient relative to the reference category (tertiary education). The

R square that explains the capacity of the predictor variable in explaining variation in

how individuals consider social capital forces before embarking on entrepreneurial event

is .020.

As shown in table 4.2.18, model 2 (dissatisfaction/displacement experience) has

no category showing any significant determining association with the criterion variable.

The coefficients of the variables are as follows: primary education (-.014) and secondary

education (-.090), both showing negative coefficients. Apart from the fact that there is no

significant relationship between the predictor and the criterion, the R square that explains

143

the capacity of level of education (predictor variable) in explaining variation in how

individuals consider social capital forces before embarking on entrepreneurial event

is .008, which is too low to be able to give any predictive force.

Like in model 2 above, models 3 and 4 do not show any significant determinant

with respective R squares of .015 and .014, which do not have any predictive force owing

to their being too low. It is observed in the result of mean comparisons that there is no

marked variation in the way the different educational categories consider social status and

perceived instrumentality of wealth as reasons for embarking on entrepreneurial event.

These results suggest that social status and perceived instrumentality of wealth do not

operate any significant difference on the different educational categories in the study.

Table 4.2.18: Simple regression of model 1, model 2, model 3 and model 4 according to level of educationVariables Model 1

Coefficient t

Model 2

Coefficient t

Model 3

Coefficient t

Model 4

Coefficient t

Primary .086** 2.032 -.014 -.330 .047 1.125 .047 1.122

Secondary .403 .826 -.090 -.183 -.229 -.468 .064 .130

Tertiary ( r ) - - - - - - - -

R Square .020 .008 .015 .014

r = reference group** =significant at p<0.05Model 1 = Social capitalModel 2 = Dissatisfaction/displacement experienceModel 3 = Social statusModel 4 = Perceived instrumentality of wealth

4.2.19: Simple regression of model 1, model 2, model 3 and model 4 according to age

Table 4.2.19 presents the result of simple regression analysis of the criterion

variables and age (predictor). In model 1, the result shows a positive significant

determinant occurring in age category 21-30 with a positive coefficient of .150. This

result shows that this age category significantly predicts variations in the consideration of

social capital forces by individuals. The R square for this model is .073. Other age

144

categories have varying levels of coefficient; category 41-50 has a coefficient of .044, 51-

60 has -.033 coefficient, and 61+ has .287 coefficient.

Model 2 (dissatisfaction/displacement experience) does not show any significant

determinant across the categories. This result suggests that no variation exists in the way

dissatisfaction/displacement experience predisposes individuals to entrepreneurial event

across the various age groups in the study. Model 3 shows that those in age category 21-

30 are more likely than others to give consideration to social status before engaging in

entrepreneurial event. The result shows significant positive coefficient of .108 while

other age categories have the following coefficients: 41-50, -.001; 51-60, - .026 while

61+, -.370. The R square that measures the variance is .017.

In the same manner, model 4 shows a positive significant determinant in age

category 21-30. In other words, those in age category 21-30 are more predisposed to

considering perceived instrumentality of wealth and ability of entrepreneurial event to

bring wealth before venturing into it. The result shows a positive determining coefficient

of .111 in the aforementioned age category (21-30) whereas other categories have

varying levels of insignificant positive and negative coefficients.

Table 4.2.19: Simple regression of model 1, model 2, model 3 and model 4 according to ageVariables Model 1

Coefficient t

Model 2

Coefficient t

Model 3

Coefficient t

Model 4

Coefficient t

21-30 .150** 3.787 -.007 -.160 .108** 2.655 .111** 2.715

41-50 .044 .086 -.045 -.840 -.001 -.011 -.055 -

1.032

51-60 -.033 -.475 .005 .065 .026 .363 .061 .861

61+ .287 1.358 -.092 -.420 -.370 -1.70 -.028 -.128

31-40 (r ) - - - - - - - -

R Square .073 .004 .017 .011

r = reference group** =significant at p<0.05Model 1 = Social capitalModel 2 = Dissatisfaction/displacement experienceModel 3 = Social status

145

Model 4 = Perceived instrumentality of wealth

4.2.20: Independent samples tests of models 1, 2, 3 and 4 according to gender

The independent sample tests were carried out to ascertain the level of differences

between our male and female respondents in the consideration of the criterion variables

(social capital, dissatisfaction/displacement experience, social status and perceived

instrumentality of wealth) before embarking on entrepreneurial event. Under model 1 as

shown in table 4.2.20, the mean score for male is 3.0820 and female has a mean score of

3.3406 with the mean difference of -.2586. As can be observed in table 4.2.21, model 1,

the value of t is -2.736 and the degree of freedom is at 715 and significant at p<.05. In

other words, gender shows a significant difference for social capital in causing

entrepreneurial event formation among our female respondents.

In model 2, there is no significant difference in the mean of the two categories of

our sample; while the male has a mean score of 13.1865, the female has a slightly higher

score of 13.4934 with mean difference of -.3070. This figure does not show any

significant difference between the two categories in predicting consideration for

dissatisfaction/displacement experience before engaging in entrepreneurial event. With t

value of -1.129 and the degree of freedom at 715, is not significant at p<.05.

The same trend as observed in model 2 above holds for model 3. In model 3, there

is no significant difference between the two predictor variables (male and female) in

having consideration for social status as a reason for engaging in entrepreneurial event.

The male and the female have mean of 18.8852 and 19.1092 respectively with mean

difference of -.2239. The t value is too low (-.891) and therefore not significant at p<.05.

In model 4, as indicated in table 4.2.20, male category has a mean of 29.8361 and

female with mean score of 30.9389. The mean difference of -1.1028 is reported in table

4.2.21. There is significant difference between the two groups, with the t value of -3.019

and the degree of freedom at 715, the result is significant at p<.05. This result suggests

that women are more likely to consider perceived instrumentality of wealth before

starting business.

146

Table 4.2.20: Group statistics of independent samples tests of models 1, 2, 3 and 4 according to gender

Gender N Mean Standard

Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

Model 1 Male 488 3.0820 1.15238 .05217

Female 229 3.3406 1.23798 .08181

Model 2 Male 488 13.1865 3.40251 .15402

Female 229 13.4934 3.37382 .22295

Model 3 Male 488 18.8852 3.07256 .13909

Female 229 19.1092 3.27555 .21645

Model 4 Male 488 29.8361 4.62226 .20924

Female 229 30.9389 4.42637 .29250

Table 4.2.21: Independent samples tests of models 1, 2, 3 and 4 according to genderT df Sig.

(2-tailed)

Mean

Difference

Standard

Error

Difference

Model 1 -2.736 * 715 .006 -.2586 .09455

Model 2 -1.129 715 .259 -.3070 .27181

Model 3 -.891 715 .373 -.2239 .25141

Model 4 -3.019 * 715 .003 -1.1028 .36531

** = significant at p<0.05

Model 1 = Social capitalModel 2 = Dissatisfaction/displacement experienceModel 3 = Social statusModel 4 = Perceived instrumentality of wealth

147

4.2.22: Multiple regression of model 1, model 2, model 3 and model 4 by ethnic group, gender, age and level of education.

The results of multiple regression analyses show that model 1 has .198 R square

while models 2, 3 and 4 have 0.43, 0.35 and 0.44 respectively. These variations are

explained by differences in the predictor variables included in the analyses. In model 1,

ethnic variables show significant determining force more than any other predictor does.

For example, North 2 (mini groups) has a negative significant coefficient of -.270, South

2 (Igbo) has a positive determinant of .394 and South 3 (mini groups) has negative

significant determinant of -.873. Other variables that show significant determining

relationship include low education, age group 21-30, and female category, which shows a

positive determinant.

Model 2 has South 3 showing determining connection. South 3 group shows a

positive significant determinant in the analysis. In model 3, the only variable that shows

significant positive determinant is age category 21-30. Other variables in the model do

not show any significant relationship. Just like in model 3 where only age category shows

positive significant determinant, the same scenario presents itself in model 4 where only

age category 21-30 shows significant relationship.

148

Table 4.2.22: Multiple regression of model 1, model 2, model 3 and model 4 by ethnic group, gender, age and level of education.

MODEL 1 MODEL 2 MODEL 3 MODEL 4Variables Coefficient t Coefficient t Coefficient t Coefficient t

North 1(Hausa)

.102 1.904 .041 .709 -.103 -1.752 -.069 -1.187

North2(mini groups)

-.270** -4.899 -.041 -.682 .081 1.341 .070 1.166

South2 (Igbo) .394** 6.138 -.066 -.946 -.047 -.662 .041 .582South3 (mini groups)

-.873** -3.726 1.18** 4.600 .142 .551 -.029 -.112

South 1 ( r ) - - - - - - - -Primary .080** 2.114 -.012 -.300 .045 1.085 .046 1.117Secondary .425 .948 -.042 -.087 -.152 -.309 .132 .269Tertiary ( r ) - - - - - - - -21-30 .140** 3.737 -.009 -.214 .104** 2.536 .095** 2.33641-50 .028 .583 -.066 -1.229 .003 .056 -.057 -1.07451-60 -.041 -.635 .004 .061 .024 .341 .044 .61461+ .199 1.002 -.069 -.318 -.345 -1.582 -.036 -.16631-40 ( r ) - - - - - - - -Female .070** 2.022 .043 1.125 .017 .438 .112 2.948Male ( r ) - - - - - - - -Constant t Value 33.880 42.864 69.115 73.055R Square .198 .043 .035 .044r = reference group ** =significant at p<0.05 Model 1 = Social capitalModel 2 = Dissatisfaction/displacement experienceModel 3 = Social statusModel 4 = Perceived instrumentality of wealth

149

CAUSAL MODELLING OF MODEL 1, MODEL 2, MODEL 3 AND MODEL 4

We attempt to identify the paths of the hypothesized causal modeling on social capital

influence in entrepreneurial event formation by exploring all the hypothesized linkages.

Set of three structural equations were formed for each model. Each equation corresponds

to each dependent variable Xі (i=3, 4 and 5).

(1) X3 = P31X1 + P32X2 + e3

X4 = P41X1 + P42X2 + P43X3 + e4

X5 =P51x1 + P52x2 + P53X3+ P54X4 + e5

Where X1- Ethnic Group.

X2 - Gender

X3- Age

X4- Level of Education

X5a – Social capital, X5b – Dissatisfaction/displacement experience, X5c –

Social status and X5d – Perceived instrumentality of wealth.

The above equations therefore made it necessary to run three regression analyses in

order to compute values of the path coefficients for each of the hypothesized models. The

significance (at the pre-specified level of 0.05) of the path coefficients considered

meaningful was the basis for trimming the paths of the hypothesized models. This study

used two types of criteria to determine whether a path is significant or not. Usually, three

types of criteria may be used in path trimming, that is, statistical significance, or

meaningfulness or both. In this study, for meaningfulness, the absolute value of a path

coefficient is taken to be at least 0.05 as recommended by Land (1969). For the

significance criterion, the choice of the investigator is at 0.05. Based on the two criteria

selected, for this study, the term “significance”, therefore, connotes statistical

significance as well as meaningfulness. The paths found not to be significant were

dropped. Those units found to be significant causal factors were retained.

150

Research Question

What are the abilities of the independent variables in predicting the degree to which

individuals are motivated by the identified socio-cultural constructs to embark on

entrepreneurial event?

Table 4.2.23: Paths and Zero Order Correlation Coefficient for the Five Variables on Social Capital (5a) Path Path Coefficient Zero Order Decision

P3.1 0.045 0.041 NS

P4.1 0.072 0.081 S

P5.1 0.118 0.113 S

P3.2 -0.129 -0.127 S

P4.2 -0.006 0.014 NS

P5.2 0.066 0.102 S

P4.3 -0.133 -0.120 S

P5.3 -0.233 -0.236 S

P5.4 0.027 0.068 NS

Table 4.2.24: Paths and Zero Order Correlation Coefficient for the Five Variables

on Dissatisfaction/displacement Experience (5b)

Path Path Coefficient Zero Order Decision

P3.1 0.045 0.041 NS

P4.1 0.072 0.081 S

P5.1 -0.013 -0.014 NS

P3.2 -0.129 -0.127 S

P4.2 -0.006 0.014 NS

P5.2 0.047 0.039 NS

P4.3 -0.133 -0.120 S

P5.3 0.058 0.055 NS

P5.4 -0.031 -0.043 NS

151

Table 4.2.25: Paths and Zero Order Correlation Coefficient for the Five Variables

on Social Status (5c)

Path Path Coefficient Zero Order Decision

P3.1 0.045 0.041 NS

P4.1 0.072 0.081 NS

P5.1 0.009 0.008 NS

P3.2 -0.129 -0.127 S

P4.2 -0.006 0.014 NS

P5.2 0.022 0.033 NS

P4.3 -0.133 -0.120 S

P5.3 0.076 -0.086 S

P5.4 0.050 0.055 NS

Table 4.2.26: Paths and Zero Order Correlation Coefficient for the Five Variables

on Perceived Instrumentality of Wealth (5d)

Path Path Coefficient Zero Order Decision

P3.1 0.045 0.041 NS

P4.1 0.072 0.081 NS

P5.1 0.002 0.006 NS

P3.2 -0.129 -0.127 S

P4.2 -0.006 0.014 NS

P5.2 0.105 0.111 S

P4.3 -0.133 -0.120 S

P5.3 -0.044 -0.064 NS

P5.4 0.049 0.056 NS

152

153

154

155

156

The hypothesized models are shown in figure 4.1a, 4.1b, 4.1c and 4.1d

with the path and zero order correlation coefficients written on each path way (the

correlation coefficient in parenthesis). In trimming the paths in the model, paths

were considered significant at 0.05 alpha level and considered meaningful if the

absolute value of the path coefficient is at least 0.05 as recommended by Land

(1969). Based on these criteria new path models (figure 4:2a, 4:2b, 4:2c and 4:2d)

were obtained.

For the first model, six (6) out of nine (9) hypothesized paths survived the

trimming exercise. The survived paths are presented in figure 4.2a. Three out of

four units hypothesized to be predictive of social capital influence in

entrepreneurial event formation were confirmed valid. These units are X1- ethnic

group, X2- gender and X3- age, they were established to be direct causal factors

of X5a – social capital influence in entrepreneurial event formation while X4-

level of education has indirect causal effect on the criterion variable.

In the second model, only three hypothesized paths survived the trimming

as shown in figure 4.2b. None of the paths had direct causal effect on the criterion

variable; only indirect causal relationships were observed among paths P4.1, P3.2

and P4.3.

In model 3, four hypothesized paths were confirmed valid. These include

P4.1, P3.2, P4.3 and P5.3. This is depicted in figure 4:2c. Of the survived paths,

only one has direct causal relationship with the criterion variable. In other words,

age is the only causal model with direct influence on the criterion variable.

In model 4, four hypothesized paths were also confirmed valid. They are

P4.1, P3.2, P5.2 and P4.3. However, only P5.2 has direct link with the dependent

variable. Other paths are nonetheless indirectly causally related to it. This is

presented in figure 4:2d.

157

Table 4.2.27: Original and Reproduced Correlated Matrix for the Five Variables on Social Capital (5a)

V1 V2 V3 V4 V5a

V1 1 .049 .041 .081 .113

V2 .049 1 -.127 .014 .102

V3 .039 -.127 1 -.120 -.236

V4 .067 .014 -.129 1 .068

V5a .104 -.097 .032 .057 1

Table 4.2.28: Discrepancies between the Original and the Reproduced Correlation Values on Social Capital (5a)Correlation (r) Original Value Reproduced Value Difference

R1.3 0.041 0.039 0.002

R1.4 0.081 0.067 0.014

R1.5 0.113 0.104 0.009

R2.3 -0.127 -0.127 0

R2.4 0.014 0.014 0

R2.5 0.102 -0.097 0.199

R3.4 -0.120 -0.129 0.009

R3.5 -0.236 0.032 -0.268

R4.5 0.068 0.057 0.011

Total -0.064 -0.041 -0.024

Table 4.2.29: Original and Reproduced Correlated Matrix for the Five Variables on Dissatisfaction/displacement Experience (5b)

V1 V2 V3 V4 V5b

V1 1 .049 .041 .081 -.014

V2 .049 1 -.127 .014 .039

V3 .045 -.011 1 -.120 .055

V4 .066 .001 -.129 1 -.043

V5b -.010 .039 -.003 .007 1

158

Table 4.2.30: Discrepancies between the Original and the Reproduced Correlation Values on Dissatisfaction/displacement Experience (5b)Correlation (r) Original Value Reproduced Value Difference

R1.3 0.041 0.045 -0.004

R1.4 0.081 0.066 0.015

R1.5 -0.014 -0.010 0.024

R2.3 -0.127 -0.017 -0.116

R2.4 0.014 -0.013 0.015

R2.5 0.039 0.039 0

R3.4 -0.120 -0.129 0.009

R3.5 0.055 0.003 0.058

R4.5 -0.043 0.007 -0.05

Total -0.074 -0.031 -0.049

Table 4.2.31: Original and Reproduced Correlated Matrix for the Five Variables on Social Status (5c)

V1 V2 V3 V4 V5c

V1 1 .049 .041 .081 .008

V2 .049 1 -.127 .014 .033

V3 .039 -.127 1 -.120 -.086

V4 .067 .014 -.129 1 .055

V5c -.010 .039 -.003 .005 1

Table 4.2.32: Discrepancies between the Original and the Reproduced Correlation Values on Social Status (5c)Correlation (r) Original Value Reproduced Value Difference

R1.3 0.041 0.039 0.002

R1.4 0.081 0.067 0.014

R1.5 0.008 -0.010 0.018

R2.3 -0.127 -0.127 0

R2.4 0.014 0.014 0

R2.5 0.033 0.039 -0.006

159

Table 4.2.32 Contd.Correlation (r) Original Value Reproduced Value Difference

R3.4 -0.120 -0.129 0.009

R3.5 -0.086 -0.003 -0.083

R4.5 0.055 -0.005 0.06

Total -0.101 -0.117 0.146

Table 4.2.33: Original and Reproduced Correlated Matrix for the Five Variables on Perceived Instrumentality of Wealth (5d)

V1 V2 V3 V4 V5d

V1 1 .049 .041 .081 .006

V2 .049 1 -.127 .014 .111

V3 .039 -.127 1 -.120 -.064

V4 .067 .014 -.129 1 .050

V5d .009 .111 .006 .017 1

Table 4.2.34: Discrepancies between the Original and the Reproduced Correlation Values on Perceived Instrumentality of Wealth (5d)Correlation (r) Original Value Reproduced Value Difference

R1.3 0.041 0.039 0.002

R1.4 0.081 0.067 0.014

R1.5 0.006 0.009 -0.003

R2.3 -0.127 -0.127 0

R2.4 0.014 0.014 0

R2.5 0.111 0.111 0

R3.4 -0.120 -01.29 0.009

R3.5 -0.064 0.006 -0.07

R4.5 0.050 0.017 0.033

Total -0.008 0.007 -0.015

160

In order to verify the efficacy of the new models (fig 4.2a, 4.2b, 4.2c and 4.2d) the

reproduced correlation coefficients (based on the new path models) were compared with

the original correlation coefficients. Tables 4.2.27, 4.2.29, 4.2.31 and 4.2.33 show the

original and reproduced correlation matrix while tables 4.2.28, 4.2.30, 4.2.32 and 4.2.34

show the discrepancies between the original and the reproduced correlations. As shown

in tables 4.2.28 and 4.2.34, the discrepancies between the original and reproduced

correlation were found to be minimal. These minimal discrepancies thus indicate that the

pattern of correlation in the observed data is consistent with the new models. The new

path models are therefore considered to be tenable in explaining the causal interaction

between the predictor variables (social and background attributes - X1-X4) and the

criterion variables (social capital in EEF and perceived instrumentality of wealth in EEF).

Figures 4.2a, 4.2c and 4.2d thus show the most meaningful causal models involving

social capital and social background attributes excepting education; social status and age;

and perceived instrumentality of wealth and gender in entrepreneurial event formation.

Model 2 as presented in table 4.2.30 does not show significant discrepancies

between the original and reproduced correlation coefficients, thus the new path models

cannot be said to be adequately able to explain causal interactions between the predictor

variables (X1-X4) and the criterion variables, in this case, X5b –

dissatisfaction/displacement experience.

161

162

163

164

HYPOTHESES TESTING

165

The following hypotheses were tested in this study:

1. Ethnic group is significantly related to consideration of social capital for

entrepreneurial event formation

2. There are significant male-female differences in consideration of social capital as

a reason for entrepreneurial event formation.

3. There is a significant relationship between age and consideration of social status

as a reason for embarking on entrepreneurial event.

Hypothesis 1

Ethnic group is significantly related to consideration of social capital for

entrepreneurial event formation.

For this hypothesis, results of simple regression analysis, multiple regression

analysis and path analysis of model 1 were used. The result of simple regression analysis

of ethnic variables and social capital is shown in table 4.2.17. As can be observed from

the table, the R square, which measures the explained variance in the model, is 11.4

percent. From the table, it is clear that all the ethnic categories show significant

determining explanation for consideration of social capital for engaging in

entrepreneurial event. However, while North 1 (Hausa) and South 2 (Igbo) show

significant determining force, North 2 and South 3 show significant negative

determinants. All the ethnic variables that were regressed against social capital forces

show significant determining power. Going by this result, we hold that the hypothesis is

tenable.

The result of multiple regression analysis as shown in table 4.2.22 also supports

this position. Three of the four ethnic variables in the analysis show strong significant

coefficients. In a similar vein, the result of path analysis for model 1 (5a) as observed in

tables 4.2.23 and figure 4:2a confirmed that the paths were valid for explaining the

relationship under study. We therefore accept the hypothesis. Findings of this study in the

area of interface between ethnic group and consideration of social capital for

entrepreneurial event were derived from different analyses, which include calculation of

mean, simple regression, multiple regression and path analysis. The result of the mean

166

score for this section of the study as shown in table 4.2.1a shows that South 2 (Igbo) and

North 1(Hausa) had high mean scores on items that were used to measure social capital

as a consideration for entrepreneurial event formation, relative to other groups.

The result of simple regression analysis supported the direction of the mean

result. North 1 (Hausa) and South 2 (Igbo) positive determining coefficients. It is,

however, to be noted that the reason (social capital) was strongest in South 2 (Igbo), with

a coefficient of .412. This is followed by North 1 (Hausa), which has a positive

coefficient of .118. Other groups have negative significant coefficient against the

reference group. For example, North 2 (mini groups) has a coefficient of -.290 while

South 3 (mini groups) has a coefficient of -.755. Those groups with positive determining

coefficients considered social capital for engaging in entrepreneurial event formation

compared to South 1 (Yoruba), which is the reference group, while at the same time

social capital was more significant a reason for engaging in entrepreneurial event

formation than in those groups with negative significant coefficients.

The finding is further supported by the result of multiple regression analysis. The

result shows that ethnic group of origin is a potent factor in the consideration of social

capital for entrepreneurial event formation. South 2 (Igbo) has positive significant

determinant of .394.. On the other hand, North 2 (mini groups) and South 3 (mini groups)

have negative significant determinants of -.270 and -.873 respectively. What this result

indicates is that in groups where we have positive determining coefficients, ethnic group

of origin predicts consideration of social capital for entrepreneurial event formation,

while the opposite is the case where we have negative coefficients.

The path analysis result also indicates a positive determining relationship between

the predictor and the criterion variables. Of all the variables included in the analysis,

ethnic group has the highest positive beta coefficient figure (.118). Gender has beta

coefficient of .066 while age has a negative beta coefficient of -.233. In other words,

ethnic group has a direct causal relationship with social capital as a reason for

entrepreneurial event formation. This is in line with the results of other analyses.

Hypothesis 2

167

There are significant male-female differences in consideration of social capital as a

reason for entrepreneurial event formation.

The result of independent samples test on model 1 that was presented in table

4.2.21 was complemented by the result of path analysis for model 1 in testing this

hypothesis. Under model 1 as shown in table 4.2.20, the mean score for males was

3.0820 and females had a mean score of 3.3406 with the mean difference of -.2586. As

can be observed in table 4.2.21, model 1, with the value of t at -2.736 and the degree of

freedom at 715, the result is significant at p<.05. In other words, gender shows a

significant difference for social capital in causing entrepreneurial event formation among

our female respondents. The result of path analysis as shown in figure 4.2a indicates that

gender has direct causal link with consideration for social capital before engaging in

entrepreneurial event; the path coefficient and zero order correlation are .066 and .102

respectively. Based on this, we accept the hypothesis as stated.

The result of independent sample t-test shows that there is significant difference

between male and female in terms of their views of social capital as a reason for

entrepreneurial event formation. The result as presented in table 4.2.21 clearly shows a

significant difference between male and female. The mean difference as shown in table

4.2.20 is -.2586 with the value of t at -2.736 and the degree of freedom at 715. In other

words, the result indicates that women are more likely than men consider social capital

before initiating entrepreneurial event. A positive coefficient of .070 for female gender

from multiple regression analysis also shows a significant determining value that gender

has predictive power over whether social capital is considered before engaging in

entrepreneurial event.

Path analysis result clearly shows a direct causal link between gender and the

likelihood of considering social capital for engaging in entrepreneurial event. The result

as shown in table 4.2.23 and figure 4.2a indicates that the path coefficient for the causal

link between gender and social capital is .066 with zero order coefficient of .102. These

coefficients show positive significant determinant.

168

Hypothesis 3

There is a significant relationship between age and consideration of social status as a

reason for embarking on entrepreneurial event.

Model 3 shows that those in age category 21-30 are more likely than others to

give consideration to social status before engaging in entrepreneurial event. The result

shows significant positive coefficient of .108 while other age categories have the

following coefficients: 41-50, -.001; 51-60, .026; and 61+, .081. The R square that

measures the variance is .017. The result of the analysis for model 3 as presented in table

4.2.19 shows a significant relationship for age category 21-30. Looking at the path

analysis result as shown in tables 5:1c, 5:2c and 5:3c and figures 4:1c and 4.2c, age has

significant path coeffecient of .076 and zero order coefficient of -.086. These thus suggest

a strong causal connection between the predictor and the criterion variable as a

consideration for embarking on entrepreneurial event. These results thus support the

hypothesis, based on which we accept it as stated.

Discussion of findings

The result of the study shows that ethnic group of origin has predictive capacity in

explaining variations in consideration of social capital forces for engaging in

entrepreneurial event. This is evidenced by tables 4.2.17, 4.2.23 and figures 4.1a and

4.2a. Among the five ethnic categories that composed the study, two (North 1 (Hausa)

and South 2 (Igbo) show significant positive determinant with the criterion variable

against the reference group (South 1 (Yoruba). The other two, that is, North 2 (mini

groups) and South 3 (mini groups) record negative determinant with the dependent

variable.

What this result suggests is that people of North 1 (Hausa) and South 2 (Igbo) are

more likely than others to consider social capital forces for engaging in entrepreneurial

event formation. This finding conforms with the assertion of Shapero and Sokol (1982),

which contends that the presence of factors embedded in perceptions of desirability such

as family, friends, mentor and credible examples around; and perceptions of feasibility

comprising models, demonstration effect, financial support and other forms of support

are capable of precursing entrepreneurial event formation. In the two ethnic categories,

169

the finding confirms that the components of perceptions of desirability and perceptions of

feasibility are present in greater dimension in the two ethnic categories than in others. It

is, therefore, not surprising that social capital was given consideration by respondents in

these ethnic categories before embarking on entrepreneurial event. The importance of

social capital has long been emphasized in entrepreneurial event formation (see

Johannisson, 1986; Hamilton, 1991; Redding, 1990; Hansen, 2001).

A number of studies have emphasized social capital consideration as impetus for

entrepreneurial event formation among the Asian societies (Redding, 1980; MacGrath et

al, 1992; and Hofstede, 2001). Studies on entrepreneurial activities among the Igbo of

Nigeria have also attested to the strong input of social capital factors for engaging in

entrepreneurial event formation (Shapero and Sokol, 1982). In the two categories stated

above (North 1 (Hausa) and South 2 (Igbo)), there are many credible examples and other

sources of social capital support. Shapero and Sokol write about propensity of social

capital in predisposing individuals to entrepreneurial event formation thus: “the larger

the number and variety of entrepreneurs in a particular culture, the greater the probability

that individuals in that culture will form companies.… Other credible examples include

relatives, colleagues, and classmates.”

The finding of the study suggests that there is significant difference in

consideration of social capital for entrepreneurial event formation between our female

respondents and their male counterparts. Tables 4.2.20, 4.2.21 and figures 4.1a and 4.2a

support this result. The finding shows that females are more predisposed towards social

capital before starting business. This trend may not be unconnected with the fact that

females are more often than not guided by communal concerns, which emphasize

affiliation and harmonious relationships. A number of studies have found that female

gender craves for affiliation more than the male gender (Goldman, 1969; and Schultheiss,

2001).

The fact that the context of the research (Nigeria) is a patriarchy, a system of

gendered power relations through which men exercise power over women, may also

explain why the female gender scores higher on these items. Ntseane (2004) has also

written on the interface between patriarchy and women participation in business.

According to Martin (1990) “dominance, confidence, strength, competition and

170

rationality are seen as masculine, while submission, nurturing, caring, sensitivity and

emotionality are seen as feminine. Men are expected to exhibit masculine behaviour and

women to exhibit feminine behaviour, though in practice few people fit their gender

stereotypes in all ways and circumstances.” Patriarchy demands that females depend on

males for direction, especially if the male is a husband, a brother or a father.

Significant relationship between age category 21-30 and the propensity to regard

social capital, social status and perceived instrumentality of wealth as precursors of

entrepreneurial event formation (Table 4.2.19 and figures 4.2a and 4.2c). This result

clearly shows that those in age group 21-30 are more predisposed toward social capital,

social status and perceived instrumentality of wealth. This trend may not be unconnected

with the assumption of Shapero and Sokol that those who are ‘between things’ such as

‘out of army’, ‘out of school’ and ‘out of jail’ are likely to consider entrepreneurial event

as a credible option. Respondents in this age group are more likely than others to just be

‘out of school’, which may make entrepreneurial event an option worth considering. The

availability of credible examples like family, peers, friends and mentor may also be

sources of impetus to this category of people as advanced by Shapero and Sokol. What is,

however, new in our study is the dimension of age and social status and perceived

instrumentality of wealth. As stated above, age group 21-30 are more than others prone to

consideration of social status and perceived instrumentality of wealth before they engage

in entrepreneurial event.

CHAPTER FIVE

171

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

This study was on three selected organized associations of entrepreneurs in Lagos,

Nigeria. The study covered the interactions between some socio-cultural factors such as,

social capital, dissatisfaction/displacement experience, social status, and perceived

instrumentality of wealth on the one hand and predictor variables (ethnic group, gender,

age and level of education) on the other. The main objective of the study was to

understand how consideration of social capital, dissatisfaction/displacement experience,

social status and perceived instrumentality of wealth for engaging in entrepreneurial

event were functions of some socio-demographic and background factors among

Nigerian entrepreneurs.

Cross-sectional survey design was used with questionnaire as the major tool of

data collection. Questionnaire was administered to 717 randomly selected respondents.

It is clear that all the ethnic categories show significant determining explanation

for consideration of social capital for engaging in entrepreneurial event. This is shown in

the result of mean comparison, where two ethnic categories (South 2 (Igbo) and North 1

(Hausa)) have significantly higher mean scores than other groups that comprise the study.

The result of simple regression analysis also supports this trend; here, South 2 (Igbo) and

North 1 (Hausa) have significant positive determining coefficient whereas North 2 (mini

groups) and South 3 (mini groups) show significant negative determinants. All the ethnic

variables that were regressed against social capital forces show significant determining

coefficients.

The result of multiple regression analysis also supports this position. Three of the

four ethnic variables in the analysis show strong significant coefficients. In a similar vein,

the result of path analysis for model 1 (5a) as observed in table 4.2.23 and figure 4:2a

confirms that the paths are valid for explaining the relationship under study.

Independent Samples t-test of gender against the dependent variable (social

capital influence), which generates value of t at -2.736 and the degree of freedom at 715

is significant at p<.05. This shows a significant difference for social capital influence in

entrepreneurial event formation among our female respondents. No direct causal

172

relationship was established between education and the criterion variables. This is

evidenced by result of path analysis in tables 4.2.23, 4.2.24, 4.2.25, 4.2.26.

The result of the analysis for model 3 as presented in table 4.2.19 shows a

significant positive relationship between age category 21-30 and the propensity to

consider social status as a reason for engaging in entrepreneurial event formation.

Looking at the path analysis result as shown in tables 4.2.23, 4.2.25 and figures 4:2a and

4.2c, one would see a strong causal connection between age and social status as a reason

for embarking on entrepreneurial event. There are gender and age differences in

consideration of perceived instrumentality of wealth before engaging in entrepreneurial

event formation. The female respondents scored higher than their male counterparts did

in this criterion variable while age group 21-30 did show significant relationship with

perceived instrumentality of wealth. This is presented in tables 4.2.19, 4.2.21, 4.2.26, and

figure 4.2d.

This work has demonstrated that no universal principle can be advanced for the

practice of entrepreneurship. Local peculiarities arising from different experiences have

been found to be relevant in the explanation of entrepreneurial event formation. All the

predictors studied were found to have varying degrees of predictive power on the

criterion variables. The import of this is the need to appreciate diversity while working

for common goal. It must, therefore, be understood that needs and aspirations answer to

particularities of situations.

Conclusion

173

This study has demonstrated that no universal principle can be advanced for the

practice of entrepreneurship. Local peculiarities arising from different experiences have

been found to be relevant in the explanation of entrepreneurial event formation. This

becomes more needful in a society where there are many features that mark off groups

from one another.

Four predictor variables were studied against four criterion variables; all the

predictor variables were found to have different levels of predictive power on the

criterion variables. For example, ethnic group was found to be capable of predicting

variation in how individuals in the different ethnic categories in our study would consider

social capital influences before engaging in entrepreneurial event formation. It also has

some degree of variance in dissatisfaction/displacement experience. Gender on its own

has significant determining connection with social capital influences and perceived

instrumentality of wealth. In other words, gender is a factor in how individuals consider

social capital influences and perceived instrumentality of wealth before they engage in

entrepreneurial event.

Age also features as a significant factor in predicting considerations for social

capital influences, social status and perceived instrumentality of wealth while level of

education is significant in predicting social capital influences and

dissatisfaction/displacement experience as reasons for entrepreneurial event formation. In

other words, an individual’s level of education is a significant factor in how he considers

social capital influences and dissatisfaction/displacement experience before venturing

into entrepreneurial event.

The import of these findings is the need to appreciate diversity while working for

common goal from different directions. The need of the different groups that make up the

society may not necessarily be the same as has been confirmed by this study. It must,

therefore, be understood that needs and aspirations answer to particularities of situations.

The implications of these results for policy practitioners are: (i) needs are not the

same across groups in society, and (ii) policy should take into account the different

subgroups that make up the society for successful application of programmes.

Recommendations

174

This study has brought to the fore the imperatives of social and background

attributes in the process of entrepreneurial event formation. It has also demonstrated that

universal explanations may not be feasible in business formation process as a result of

obvious areas of diversity among members of society. This is evidenced by the result,

which show significant differences and variations in the operations of social and

background attributes on reasons for engaging in entrepreneurial event formation.

Based on the findings of this study, we hereby make recommendations that may

guide programmes, policy formulation and implementation for advancing entrepreneurial

event formation in the country.

Firstly, there is need for further studies on the interaction between age and social

status and perceived instrumentality of wealth. We have found that age dictates and

operates on the direction to which social status and perceived instrumentality of wealth

are considered by individuals before engaging in entrepreneurial event formation..

In addition, there is need to appreciate diversity in motivations and reasons for

entrepreneurial events among the different groups in the country. For example, the study

has found that there are variations in the way ethnic group of origin, gender and age

predict considerations of the different criterion variables for involvement in

entrepreneurship. Any programme designed without recourse to such diversity is bound

to fail. Therefore, design and implementation of programmes should account for these

differences in order to bring about positive outcomes for entrepreneurial event.

Also, conscious efforts must be made to carve a different area of academic

discipline for entrepreneurship, taking account of its multidisciplinary dimension.

Evidences from the past have shown that the subject is viewed more from economic and

business perspectives. Socio-cultural sub discipline needs be woven into the discipline to

make it context-relevant and outcome-oriented.

In addition, serious research efforts must be instituted to fill the void created by

absence of focus on socio-cultural dimensions of entrepreneurship in the Nigerian

context. If this is done, more knowledge that can be applied to the question of

entrepreneurial development will be generated, which will be in terms of positive

implications for entrepreneurial growth in the country.

175

Outlets for research outputs such as journals, seminars, workshops, and symposia

amongst others, which target this area of study, should be made available in local

parlance. This will enable outcomes of context-relevant research to be readily available to

the public and other relevant parties and interests.

Finally, where it becomes necessary to adopt programmes from abroad, they

should be adapted to local contexts, as contextual variables have been established to be

veritable factors in entrepreneurial event formation. Unwholesome adoption of

programmes will lead to programme failure, which ultimately is not in the interest of

individuals and nations.

176

REFERENCESAbumere, S. I., Arimah, B. C., and Jerome, T. A. (1998). The informal sector in Nigeria’s

development process. Development Policy Centre, Research report number 1.

Adejumo, G. (2001). Indigenous entrepreneurship development in Nigeria: characteristics, problems and prospects. Advances in Management: Journal of Department of Business Administration, University of Ilorin, Ilorin Nigeria, 2(1): 112-122.

Adler, N. A. (1997) International Dimensions of Organisational Behaviour. Cincinnati, Ohio: South Western College Publishing.

Aldrich, H., and Zimmer, C. (1986). Entrepreneurship through social networks. In D. Sexton & R. Smiler (eds.), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship,: 3-23. New York: Ballinger.

Aldrich, H. E., Jones, T. P., and McEvoy, D. (1984). Ethnic advantage and minority business development. In R. Ward, & R. Jenkins (Eds.), Ethnic communities in business: Strategies for economic survival. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Akeredolu-Ale, E. O. (1974). Reflections on business and society in Nigeria. Paper presented to the University of Ife, Department of Sociology Staff Seminar. University of Ife, November 26, 1974.

Akeredolu-Ale, E. O. (1975). The underdevelopment of indigenous entrepreneurship in Nigeria. Ibadan, Nigeria: Ibadan University Press.

Amit, R., Glosten, L. and Muller, E. (1993). Challenges to theory development in entrepreneurship research. Journal of Management Studies, 30(5), 815-833.

Amit, R. K., MacCrimmon, R., Zietsma, C., and Oesch, J. M. (2001). ‘Does money matter? Wealth attainment as the motive for initiating growth-oriented ventures’. Journal of Business Venturing 16: 119-143.

Arabsheibani, G, de Meza, Maloney, D. J., and Pearson, B. (2000). And a vision appeared unto them of a great profit: evidence of self-deception among the self-employed. Economics Letters, 67: 35-41.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Baskerville, R. F. 2003. "Hofstede never studied culture." Accounting, Organizations and Society 28(1):1-14.

177

Barth, F. (1963). The Role of the Entrepreneur and Social Change in Northern Norway, Bergen: Norwegian Universities Press.

Barth, F. (1969). Introduction. In F. Barth (Ed.), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference, pp. 9-38. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Begley, T. M., Tan, W., Larasati, A. B., Rab, A., Zamora, E. and Nanayakkara, G. (1997). The relationship between socio–cultural dimensions and interest in starting a business: a multi–country study. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research.

Bernardo, A., and Welch, I. (2001). ‘On the evolution of overconfidence of entrepreneurs’. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 10: 301-330.

Blanchflower, D. G, and Oswald, A. J. (1998). ‘What makes a entrepreneur’. Journal of Labour Economics, 16: 26-60.

Blanchflower, D. G., (2000). Self-employment in OECD countries. Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(5), pages 471-505, September.

Blanchflower, D. G, Oswald, A. J., and Stutzer, A. (2001). ‘Latent Entrepreneurship Across Nations’. European Economic Review, 45: 680-691.

Blau, P. M. (1977). A macrosociological theory of social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 83(1): 26-54.

Brenner, R. (1987). National policy and entrepreneurship: The statesman's dilemma. Journal of Business Venturing 2 (2), 95-101.

Brockhaus, R. (1980). Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Journal 23(3): 509-520

Brockhaus, R. H. and Horwitz, P. S. (1986). The psychology of the entrepreneur. In D.L. Sexton and R. W. Smilor (eds.), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship, pp. 25–48. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Brockhaus, R. and Dixon, B. (1986). The level of job satisfaction that New Zealand entrepreneurs had with their previous jobs. In Ronstadt, Hornaway, Peterson & Vesper, (eds.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 1986. Wellesley MA: Babson College

Busenitz, L.W. and Lau, C-M. (1996). A cross-cultural cognitive model of new venture creation. Entrepreneurship,Theory and Practice. Summer: 25-39.

178

Butler, J. S. and Herring, C. (1991). Ethnicity and entrepreneurship in America: toward an explanation of racial and ethnic group variations in self-employment. Sociological Perspectives 34(1): 79-94.

Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cantillon, R. (1755). Essai Sur La Nature Du Commerce En General, London and Paris: Fetcher Gyles; Edited and translated by Henry Higgs (1931). London: MacMillan

Carland, J., Hoy, F., Boulton, W., and Carland, J. C., (1984) Differentiating Entrepreneurs from Small Business Owners: A Conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9, No. 2.

Carsrud, A. L., K. W. Olm, and G. G. Eddy. (1986). Entrepreneurship: research in quest of a paradigm. In D. L. Sexton and R. W. Smilor, Eds., The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 367-3

Central Bank of Nigeria. (2003). Annual reports and statement of accounts. Lagos: CBN: 35.

Chulwumaeze, O. O. and Imanyi, G. U. (1992). The relationship between entrepreneurs’ values and entrepreneurs’ success. Centre for Management Development, Lagos, Nigeria.

Cole, A. H. (1946). An approach to the study of entrepreneurship: a tribute to Edwin F. Gay. The Tasks of Economic History (Supplement VI of the Journal of Economic History) 1-15.

Collins, O., Moore, D. G., and Unwalla, D. B. (1964). Enterprising man. East Lansing: Michigan State University.

Cooper, A. C. (1971). Spin-offs and technical entrepreneurship. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management EM 18(1): 2-6

Cooper, A. C., Folta, T. B., and Woo, C. (1995). Entrepreneurial information search. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(2): 107-120.

Cooper, A., Woo C., and Dunkelberg, W. (1988). ‘Entrepreneurs' perceived chances for success’. Journal of Business Venturing, 3: 97-108.

Covin, J. G., and Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(1): 7–24.

Cunningham, B and Lischeron, J. (1991). Defining entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management. 29 (1): 4578.

179

Dana, L. P. (1995). Entrepreneurship in a remote sub-Arctic community. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 20(1) 57-72

Danhof, C. H. (1949). Observation of entrepreneurship in agriculture. In Change and the Entrepreneur, Harvard University Research Center in Entrepreneurial, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Davidsson, P. and Wilkund, J. (1997). Values, beliefs and regional variations in new firm formation rates. Journal of Economic Psychology 18: 179-199.

Etuk, E. J. (1985). The Nigerian business environment. London: Macmillan Publishers.

Federal Office of Statistics. (2001). Annual Abstract of Statistics. Lagos: Federal Office Statistics: 345.

Folsom, B. (2003). Urban Capitalists: Entrepreneurs and City Growth in Pennsylvania’s Lakawanna and Lehigh Regions, 1800–1920. Scranton, Penn.: University of Scranton Press.

Frese, M (ed.) (2000). Success and Failure of Micro Business Owners in Africa: A Psychological Approach. Westport, CT: Quorum Books

Fukuyama, F. (1995). The Great Disruption: Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, New York:  The Free Press.

Gabbay, S. M., and Leenders, R. Th.A.J. (1999). CSC: The structure of advantage and disadvantage. In R. Th.A.J. Leenders and S. M. Gabbay, (eds.), Corporate Social Capital and Liability: 1-14. Boston: Kluwer Academic Press.

Gadgil, D. R. (1954). Origins of the modern Indian business class. New York: Institute of Pacific Relations.

Geertz, C. (1963). Peddlars and Princes: Social Development and Economic Change in Two Indonesian Towns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Culture: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books.

Giannetti, M., and Simonov, A. (2003). ‘Does prestige matter more than profits? evidence from entrepreneurial choice’. Working paper. Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics.

Girard, D. (1962). The New Casselli’s French Dictionary. New York: Funk and Wagnalls.

Goldman, H. (1969). Differential need patterns: implications for principals. The School Review, Vol. 77, No. 3/4. pp. 266-275

180

Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6): 1360-1380.

Greenfield, S. M. and Strickon, A. (1981). A New Paradigm for the Study of Entrepreneurs and Social Change. Economic Development and Cultural Change 29 (3), 467-500.

Hamilton, B. H. (2000). ‘Does entrepreneurship pay? An Empirical Analysis of the Returns to Self-Employment’. Journal of Political Economy, 108: 604-631.

Hagen, E. E. (1962). On the Theory of Social Change: How Economic Growth Begins. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.

Hansen, E. L. (1995). Entrepreneurial network and new organization growth. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 19(4): 7-19.

Haralambos, M. Holborn, M and Heald, R. (2000) Sociology: Themes and Perspectives, 5th Ed. London: HarperCollins Publishers Limited.

Harper, M. (1991). The role of enterprise in poor countries. Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, 15 (4): 7-11.

Hartman, H. (1959). Managers and entrepreneurs: a useful distinction? Administrative Science Quarterly, 3, 429-457.

Hayton, J. C., George, G., and Zahra, S. A. (2002). National culture and entrepreneurship: a review of behavioural research. Entrepreneurship,Theory and Practice, 26(4), 33-52.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences - International Differences in Work-related Values. London: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G (2001). Cultures Consequences, 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hornaday, J. and Tieken, N. (1983). Capturing twenty-one heffalumps. In Hornaway, Timmons and Vesper, Eds. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley MA: Babson College.

Hundley, G. (2001). Why and when are the self-Employed more satisfied with their work? Industrial Relations 40(2), 293-316.

181

Inglehart, R. (2000) Culture and democracy. In L. E. Harrison, and S. P. Huntington (Eds). Culture Matters, Basic Books pp.80-97.

Jenkins, R. (1984). Ethnicity and the rise of capitalism in ulster. In R. Ward, & R. Jenkins (Eds.), Ethnic Communities in Business: Strategies for Economic Survival. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johannisson, B. (1988). Business formation: A network approach. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 4(3-4): 83- 99.

Kao, R. W. Y. (1989). Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Limited.

Kasdan, L. (1965). Family structure, migration and the entrepreneur. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 7, 345-357.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1977), The entrepreneurial personality: A person at the crossroads, The Journal of Management Studies 14 (1), 34-57.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1985). The dark side of entrepreneurship. Harvard Business Review 63 (6), 160-167.

Kilby, P. (Ed), (1971). Entrepreneurship and Economic Development. New York: Free Press.

Kilby, P. (1971). Hunting the heffalump. In P. Kilby, (Ed). Entrepreneurship and Economic Development. New York: Free Press.

Kirzner, I. M. (1983). Entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial function: a commentary. In J. Ronen, (Ed). Entrepreneurship. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, D. C. Heath.

Knight, F. [1921). Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kolvereid, L. and Obloj, K. (1994). Entrepreneurship in emerging versus mature economies: An exploratory survey. International Small Business Journal, 12, 14–27.

Kong, W. W. W., Soon, J. F. K., and Hwa, L. C. (1991). Transnational investments inJohor: Opportunities and strategies for Singaporean entrepreneurs. In J. C. Oliga and T.B. Kim, Proceedings of the ENDEC World Conference on Entrepreneurship and Innovative Change, Nanyang Technological University-Peat Marwick Entrepreneurship Development Centre, Singapore

Kuratko, DF, JS Homsby and DW Naffziger (1997). An examination of owner's goals in sustaining entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 35(1), 24-33.

Kroeber, A. and F. Kluckhohn. (1952). Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum.

182

Lachman, R. (1980). Toward measurement of entrepreneurial tendencies. Management International Review, 20(2), 108-116.

Ladbury, S. (1984). Choice, chance or no alternative? Turkish Cypriots in business in London. In R. Ward and R. Jenkins (Eds.), Ethnic communities in business: Strategies for economic survival. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Land, K. C. (1969). Path Analysis, Causal Inferences, and the Measurement of Change Sociological Methodology, Vol. 1. (1969), pp. 3-37. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00811750%281969%291%3C3%3APOPA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3

Lasry, J. C. (1982). Une diaspora francophone au Quebec: les Juifs sepharades, Questions de culture, vol. 2, pp. 113-138. Quebec, PQ: Institut de Recherche sur la Culture.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.

Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Press.

Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1): 28-51.

Litzinger, W. D. (1965). The motel entrepreneur and the motel manager. Academy of Management Journal, 8, 268-281.

Longenecker, J. G, Moore, C. W and Petty, J. W. (1997). Small Business Management: An Entrepreneurial Emphasis. Cincinnati: South Western College Publishing.

Loucks, K. E. (1981) A Survey of research on small business management and entrepreneurship in Canada. In Vesper, K. (Ed). Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley, MA: Babson College, 111-129.

Lumpkin, G. and Dess, G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135-172.

Luthans, F, Stajkovic, A. D. and Ibrayeva, E. (2000). Environmental and psychological challenges facing entrepreneurial development in transitional economies. Journal of World Business, 35(1), 95-110.

Macionis, J. J. (2001) Sociology, 8th Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Marino, L, Strandholm, K. H., Steensma, H. K. and Weaver, M. K. (2002). The moderating effect of national culture on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and strategic alliance portfolio extensiveness. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Summer, 145-160.

Martin, B. (1990). Uprooting War. London: Freedom Press

183

McClelland, D. (1961). The Achieving Society. New Jersey: Van Nostrand

McGrath, R.G., Macmillan, I.C., Yang, E.A., and Tsai, W. (1992). Does culture endure, or is it malleable? Issues for entrepreneurial economic development. Journal of Business Venturing, 7: 441-458.

Mill, J. S. (1848). Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to Social Philosophy. London: J. W. Parker.

Miller, D. (1983). ‘The Correlates of Entrepreneurship in three types of firms’. Management Science, 29: 770-791.

Minniti, M and WD Bygrave (2003). National Entrepreneurship Assessment United States of America, GEM Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Babson College

Min, P. G. (1984). From white-collar occupation to small business: Korean immigrants' occupational adjustment. Sociological Quarterly 25 (3), 333-352.

Mitchell, R. K.; Smith, B., Seawright, K. W., and Morse, E. A. (2000). Cross-cultural cognitions and venture creation. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 974-993.

Morris, M. H. and Lewis, P. S. (1991). Entrepreneurship as a significant factor in social quality of life. Journal of Business Research, 23(1):21-36.

Morrison, A. (1998), Entrepreneurship and culture specificity, internationalizing entrepreneurship education and training, IntEnt 98; http://intent.ml.org

Mueller, S. L. and Thomas, A. S. (2000). A case for comparative entrepreneurship: assessing the relevance of culture. Journal of International Business Studies. 31(2): 287.

Ntseane, P. (2004).Being a female entrepreneur in Botswana: cultures, values, strategies for success. Gender and Development, Volume 12, Number 2, pp. 37-43.

Noorderhaven, N., Thurik, R., Wennekers, S., and Van Stel, A. (2004). The role of dissatisfaction and per capital income in explaining self-employment across 15 European countries. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(1) 447-466.

North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Oxenfeldt, A. R. (1943). New firms and free enterprise: Pre-war and post-war Aspects. Washington, DC: American Council on Public Affairs.

Palich, L. E., and Bagby, D. R. (1995). ‘Using cognitive theory to explain entrepreneurial risk taking: Challenging conventional wisdom’. Journal of Business Venturing, 10:425-438.

184

Palmer, M. (1971). The application of psychological testing to entrepreneurial potential. California Management Review, 13(3), 32-39.

Pistnii, D, W, Huang, D, Oksoy, J., Zhao and Welsch, H. (1999). The characteristics and attributes of new Chinese entrepreneurs and their emerging enterprises. Business Forum, 24(3-4), 31-39

Portes, A. (1999). Social capital: Its origins and the application in modern sociology. AnnualReview of Sociology, 24: 1-24.

Portes, A., and Zhou, M. (1996). Self employment and the earnings of immigrants. American Sociological Review, 61(2): 219-30.

Portes, A., and Zhou, M. (1999). Entrepreneurship and economic progress in the 1990s: A comparative analysis of immigrants and African Americans. In F. D. Bean and S. Bell-Rose (eds.) Immigration and Opportunity: Race, Ethnicity, and Employment in the United States: 143-171. New York: Russell Sage Foundation..

Ramachandran, V and Shah, M. J. (1999). Minority entrepreneurs and private sector growth in Sub-Saharan Africa. Discussion Paper No. 086, The World Bank.

Ray, D. M. and Turpin, D. (1987). Factors influencing entrepreneurial events in Japanese high technology venture business. In N. Churchill, J. Hornaday and B. Kirchhoff,

Ray, D. M. (1994). The role of risk taking in Singapore. Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 157–177.

Reckwitz, A. (2000). The status of mind in culturalist explanations of action. Zeitschrift-fur Soziologie 29:167-185.

Redding, S. G. (1980). Cognition as an aspect of culture and its relation to management processes: An exploratory view of the Chinese case. Journal of Management Studies 17(2): 127-147.

Redding, S. G. (1990). The spirit of Chinese capitalism. New York: Walter de Gruyter

Reynolds, P.D. (1987). New firm's societal contribution versus survival potential. Journal of Business Venturing 2: 231-246.

Robichaud, Y., McGraw, E. and Roger, A. (2001). Toward the development of a measuring instrument for entrepreneurial motivation. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 6(2), 189-202.

Rotter, J. B. (1954) Social Learning and Clinical Psychology. New York: Prentice-Hall.

185

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectations for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs 80, 609.

Roscoe, J. (1973). Can entrepreneurship be taught? MBA magazine (June-July).

Sarasvathy, D. K., Simon, H. A., and Lave, L. (1998). ‘Perceiving and managing business risks: differences between entrepreneurs and bankers’. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 33: 207-226.

Say, J. A. (1816). A Treatise on Political Economy. London: Sherwood, Neeley and Jones.

Sayigh, Y. A. (1952). Entrepreneurs of Lebanon. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Scase, R., and Goffee, R. (1980). The Real World of the Small Business Owner. London: Croom Helm.

Schollhammer, H. (1980). Analysis and assessment of internal corporate entrepreneurship strategies. Los Angeles: U.C.L.A. Graduate School of Management.

Schatzki, T. and W. Natter. (1996). Sociocultural bodies, bodies sociopolitical. In T. Schatzki and W. Natter, Eds. The Social and Political Body. New York: Guildford, 1-25.

Scheinberg, S. and MacMillan, I. (1988). An eleven country study of the motivations to start a business. In Kirchhoff, Long, MacMullan, Vesper and Wetzel, eds., Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 1988. Wellesley MA: Babson College

Schultheiss, O. C. (2001). Assessment of Implicit Motives with a Research Version of the TAT: Picture Profiles, Gender Differences, and Relations to Other Personality Measures. Journal of Personality Assessment 77(1): 71-86.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Scott, J. (1991).Social Network Analysis: A Handbook. London: Sage Publications.

Sexton, D. L. and. Smilor, R. W. Eds. (1985). The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger

Shane, S., Kolvereid, L., and Westhead, P. (1991). An exploratory examination of the reasons leading to new firm formation across country and gender. Journal of Business Venturing, 6, 431–446.

186

Shane S. (1994). Cultural values and the championing process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18: 25-41.

Shapero, A. C. (1975). The displaced, uncomfortable entrepreneur. Psychology Today, 83-88.

Shapero, A. C. (1981). Self-renewing economies. Economic Development Commentary, 5 (April), 19-22.

Shapero, A. C. and Sokol, L., (1982). The Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship, in C. Kent, D. Sexton, and K. H. Vesper (eds.) The Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 72-90.

Siropolis, N. C. (1977). Small business management. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Smith, N.R. (1967). The entrepreneur and his firm: The relationship between type of man and type of company. Bureau of Business and Economics Research, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Stevenson, H., Roberts, M. J. & Grousbeck, I. (1989). New Business Ventures and the Entrepreneur. Homewood: III Publishing.

Swierczek, F and Ha, T. T. (2003). Motivation, entrepreneurship and the performance of SMEs in Vietnam. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 11(1), 47-68.

Thornton, P. H. (1999). The sociology of entrepreneurship. Annual Review of Sociology, 19.

Timmons, J. A. (1978). Characteristics and role demands of entrepreneurship. American Journal of Small Business 3 (1), 5-17.

UNDP (2003) Nigeria Country Programme (2003-2007.

Weber, M. (1904). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Routledge.

Wong, S. L. (1992). Business networks, cultural values and the state in Hong Kong and Singapore. Paper presented at the meeting of the Third Soka University Pacific Basin Symposium, Singapore.

Wortman, M. S. (1985). A unified framework, research typologies, and research prospectuses for the interface between entrepreneurship and small business. In D.L.Sexton and R.W. Smilor, Eds. The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Yinger, J. M. (1985). Ethnicity. Annual Review of Sociology. 11:151-80.

187

Young, F. W. (1971). A Macrosociological Interpretation of Entrepreneurship. In P. Kilby (Ed.), Entrepreneurship and Economic Development, pp. 139-150. New York: The Free Press.

188

APPENDIX IQUESTIONNAIRE SCHEDULE

Department of SociologyCovenant UniversityP. M. B. 1023, Ota

Ogun State

Entrepreneurial Event Formation Questionnaire (EEFQ)

I am from Covenant University, Ota. I am currently researching into “socio-cultural factors in entrepreneurial event formation: a study of Nigerian entrepreneurs.”

I will be grateful if the questions in this questionnaire are answered correctly, as absolute confidentiality is assured.

Thank you.

Oluremi Abimbola

Part 1: Respondent’s Demographic and Background Information

1. Which of the following associations do you belong to?

Nigerian Association of Chambers of Commerce, Industry, mines and Agriculture

(NACCIMA) -------------------------

National Association of Small and Medium Scale Enterprises (NASME) ---------------

National Association of Small Scale Industrialists (NASSI) ---------------

Other ( ) {Please specify -------------------}

2. What is your ethnic group of origin? _______________________

3. What was your age on your last birthday? --------------------

4. What is your level of education?

No formal education ( )

Primary ( )

Secondary ( )

189

Tertiary ( )

Other ( ) {Please specify ------------------------}

5. What is your marital status?

Married ( )

Single ( )

Divorced ( )

Separated ( )

Widowed ( )

6. What is your gender?

Male ( )

Female ( )

7. Which sector of entrepreneurial event are you involved in? (You may tick as many as

apply to you).

Agriculture ( )

Mining ( )

Manufacturing ( )

Construction ( )

Services ( )

8. How many employees do you currently engage? ----------------------------------

9. What is your father’s occupation? -------------------------------

10. What is your religion?

Christianity ( )

Islam ( )

Indigenous religion ( )

Other ( ) {Please specify -----------------}

190

Part 2: To what extent were the following reasons important to you when you

started your current business? Tick as appropriate.

Section 1: Social Capital and Entrepreneurial Event Formation

1 2 3 4 5

To no

exten

t

To

little

exten

t

To

some

exten

t

To

great

exten

t

To

very

great

extent

1

1

I wanted to continue a family tradition

1

2

I was supported by one or both parents

1

3

My parents influenced me in the

choice of entrepreneurial path

1

4

I was encouraged by the achievement

of one or both parents in

entrepreneurial field

1

5

I was influenced by a friend

1

6

I was influenced by my spouse

1

7

Entrepreneurship was a common

practice among the people of my

ethnic origin

1

8

I was influenced by the teaching of my

religion

1

9

I was influenced by my religious

leader

191

Section 2: Dissatisfaction/displacement Experience and Entrepreneurial Event Formation

1 2 3 4 5

To no

exten

t

To

little

exten

t

To

some

exten

t

To

great

exten

t

To

very

great

extent

2

0

11. I experienced dissatisfaction with paid

job

2

1

I was fired from paid job

2

2

I retired from paid job

2

3

I faced discrimination in my former

place of work

2

4

I could not get job

2

5

I got tired of being bossed around

Section 3: Social Status and Entrepreneurial Event Formation

1 2 3 4 5

To no

extent

To little

extent

To some

extent

To great

extent

To very

great

extent

2

6

12. Running your own firm gives you high social status

213. People look up to those

192

7 who run their own firms

2

8

Starting business generates a lot of respect

2

9

I wanted to achieve a higher position for myself in society

3

0

I wanted to earn prestige

Section 4: Perceived Instrumentality of Wealth and Entrepreneurial Event Formation

1 2 3 4 5

To no

exten

t

To

little

exten

t

To

some

exten

t

To

great

exten

t

To

very

great

extent

3

1

My salary in my former place of work

was too meagre

3

2

Entrepreneurship is a means to wealth

3

3

24. I desired to have high earnings

3

4

25. I wanted to give myself and family

economic security

3

5

26. To contribute to the welfare of my

relatives

3

6

I wanted respect from members of

society

3

7

27. I wanted to have more influence in

society

193

3

8

28. To impact positively on my society

APPENDIX II

Department of SociologyCollege of Human DevelopmentCovenant UniversityP.M.B.1023, Ota, Ogun State

30 May 2006.

The Director GeneralNACCIMA15A Ikorodu RoadMaryland Bye-PassP. M. B. 12816 Lagos, Nigeria.

Dear Sir,

LETTER OF REQUEST

194

I wish to request for your assistance toward my study of entrepreneurs in Nigeria for my Ph.D programme. The study is titled “socio-cultural factors in entrepreneurial event formation: a study of Nigerian entrepreneurs.”

It is difficult defining the sample frame and getting accurate list of entrepreneurs in Nigeria and for the work to be credible, it must not rely on haphazard selection of sample. Sir, it is in this light that I will like you to help me with list of members for inclusion in the sample and other forms of assistance that will see to a successful effort at placing the study of entrepreneurship in Nigeria in socio-cultural context.

Thank you sir,

Yours faithfully,

Oluremi Hezekiah Abimbola

Department of SociologyCollege of Human DevelopmentCovenant UniversityP.M.B.1023, Ota, Ogun State

30 May 2006.

The SecretaryNigerian Association of Small Medium Enterprises5, Laide Tomori Street, Ikeja Lagos, Nigeria.

Dear Sir,

LETTER OF REQUEST

I wish to request for your assistance toward my study of entrepreneurs in Nigeria for my Ph.D programme. The study is titled “socio-cultural factors in entrepreneurial event formation: a study of Nigerian entrepreneurs.”

It is difficult defining the sample frame and getting accurate list of entrepreneurs in Nigeria and for the work to be credible, it must not rely on haphazard selection of sample.

195

Sir, it is in this light that I will like you to help me with list of members for inclusion in the sample and other forms of assistance that will see to a successful effort at placing the study of entrepreneurship in Nigeria in socio-cultural context.

Thank you sir,

Yours faithfully,

Oluremi Hezekiah Abimbola

Department of SociologyCollege of Human DevelopmentCovenant UniversityP.M.B.1023, Ota, Ogun State

30 May 2006.

The SecretaryNigerian Association of Small Scale IndustrialistsLagos State Small Scale Industrial EstateFatai Atere Way, Matori, MushinLagos, Nigeria.

Dear Sir,

LETTER OF REQUEST

I wish to request for your assistance toward my study of entrepreneurs in Nigeria for my Ph.D programme. The study is titled “socio-cultural factors in entrepreneurial event formation: a study of Nigerian entrepreneurs.”

It is difficult defining the sample frame and getting accurate list of entrepreneurs in Nigeria and for the work to be credible, it must not rely on haphazard selection of sample. Sir, it is in this light that I will like you to help me with list of members for inclusion in

196

the sample and other forms of assistance that will see to a successful effort at placing the study of entrepreneurship in Nigeria in socio-cultural context.

Thank you sir,

Yours faithfully,

Oluremi Hezekiah Abimbola

197