3.1.Entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship needs an entrepreneurial culture which refers the ability of people to be more creative, innovative, highly motivated, self-confident, willing to challenge, better communicators, decision-makers, leaders, negotiators, problem solvers, team players, systematic thinkers, less dependent, less risk averse, able to live with uncertainty, and capable of recognizing opportunities. Entrepreneurial qualities are difficult to indoctrinate in the new generation within a short periods of time. In our country unemployment is the most persistent and urgent development challenges. Surprisingly, the better educated peoples experience higher unemployment rate. Entrepreneurship is considered as a second work career while people are unable to enroll in large organizations.
Developing a business plan is also another quality of an entrepreneur by which the entrepreneurs will make profit by creating value for its customers, shareholders, partners, and other connected entities. Family background, education, previous work experience, risk attitude, over‐optimism, preference for independence and the norm and values of a society influence the choice of individuals life careers i.e. entrepreneurship or salaried employment (Sanditov & Verspagen, 2011: 2). Parents encourage or discourage them from entering in certain life careers. Parental influences also make a significant difference in individuals’ life chances both through the material advantages and psycho-social support of their respective family. Generally, all agents of socialization in the home and in the society have their own part in inculcating individuals with the life ways of the society. In addition to its role in evaluating life careers, culture also enable to suggest or judge which kinds of work is appropriate and inappropriate for different groups. Formal educational institutions serve as a socializing agent alongside to the general cultural and family socialization processes (Watson, 2008:233).
Subsequently, entrepreneurial culture is a backbone for entrepreneurship development, dealing with those factors affecting the entrepreneurial culture of young generation especially the educated part of the society, is a critical step in promoting entrepreneurial thinking and engagement of those parts of the society in such adaptive mechanisms.
3.2. Entrepreneurial Culture
Samli (2009: 56) characterized successful entrepreneurs as they are creative thinker and strongly aware of their environment to know and choose appropriate opportunities that leads to success. They are able to identify opportunities in improving the existing system. They have to understand and evaluate the opportunity options in their surroundings. European Commission (2008:26) also argued the character qualities of an entrepreneur as they are more creative, innovative, highly motivated, self-aware; self-confident, willing to challenge, better communicators, decision-makers, leaders, negotiators, networkers, problem solvers, team players, systematic thinkers, less dependent, less risk averse, able to live with uncertainty, and capable of recognizing opportunities.
3.3. The Power of Culture in Entrepreneurial Development
In their definition of culture Gorodnichenko & Roland (2011:1) argued that culture affects social norms as well as the economic behaviors such as the propensity to save or to innovate and many other economic decisions such as fertility choices, investment in education, charitable contributions or the willingness to contribute to public goods.
The probability of being self-employed affected with cultural backgrounds that shape the attitudes toward risk, which in turn influence the choice to become an entrepreneur. Cultural stereotyping, norms, and values affect the structure and intentions of organizations or/and institutions; educational policies, occupational decisions; international competitiveness; the access to financial institutions; entrepreneur supply and demand and, the expertise that may develop (Hoyos-Ruperto (2009:18).
3.4.Entrepreneurial Culture in Individualistic and Collectivist Culture
Individualistic cultures directly influence individual behavior with cognitive influences. Here, information is made available for the individual to make critical decisions, and individuals make their own decisions on the basis of the information they obtain. Oppositely, in collectivistic cultures groups and group leaders influence the behavior of individuals. In this culture, affective influences, traditions, and emotions are more critical in decision-making processes and individuals’ behavior (Samli, 1995 cited in Samli, 2009:48). Individuals in individualistic societies are sensitive to information. Individually acquired information is decisive in decision-making situations. Individuals in collectivistic cultures are sensitive to opinions of certain leaders and family elders (Samli, 2009:49).
3.5.Entrepreneurial Ecosystem
One of the key success factors for entrepreneurship development is effective development of the entrepreneurial ecosystem, in which multiple stakeholders play a role in facilitating entrepreneurship. It is a system of mutually beneficial and self-sustaining relationships involving institutions, people and processes that work together with the goal of creating entrepreneurial ventures. It includes business (large and small firms, as well as entrepreneurs), policymakers (at international, national, regional and local levels), and formal (primary, secondary and higher education) and informal educational institutions. In the establishment and development of entrepreneurial ecosystem the role of the government is crucial in creating the proper regulatory framework to catalyze the involvement of the private sector, education institutions, individuals and intermediaries within an entrepreneurial ecosystem (European Commission, 2008:3).
3.6. Empirical Reviews on Determinants of Entrepreneurial Culture
Positive approaches of the surrounding community concerning entrepreneurship are likely to upturn one’s desire to engage in entrepreneurial activities and more specifically, individuals who experience a positive view on entrepreneurship among their immediate contacts are more likely to have greater intention to become entrepreneurs. For instance, it is often recognized that among people of Chinese origin, entrepreneurial role models encourage people to go into business supported by close networks of family members and relatives (Kao, 1993; Siu and Martin, 1992). Moreover, the societies and cultures that value entrepreneurship tends to develop societal systems to encourage it (Vesper, 1983). In fact, Lui and Wong (1994) privilege that cultural value analysis is in tension with another conceptualization that emphasizes strategizing behavior. Generally, the strategizing behavior simply refers to using sets of tactical actions in achieving specific goals. This argument is supported by Stites (1985) study of industrial labors in Taiwan and the previous discussion shows that the Chinese entrepreneurial ethic are credible examples to illustrate this second paradigm and its tension with the cultural value analysis (Harrell, 1985). Cultural attitudes also one of the mechanism that contribute to the entrepreneurial success and it would positively related to motivating force for the business growth. In the Czech and Slovak Republics, negative public attitudes toward entrepreneurs disheartened entrepreneurs (Swanson and Webster, 1992). Another study of Mokry (1988) proposed that local communities can play an important role in developing an entrepreneurial environment. Authors such as Swanson and Webster (1992) propagated that with the development of social prejudice against business entities may result to small business become a victim of social justice. In fact, as pointed out by Gnyawali and Fogel (1994), they revealed that social factors may be equally important as availability of loans, technical assistance, physical facilities, and information. In the Czech and Slovak Republics, negative public attitudes toward entrepreneurs discouraged entrepreneurs (Swanson and Webster, 1992). Lui and Wong (1994) found Hong Kong’s economy is structurally conducive to Chinese entrepreneurs in Yusof et al/ International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 4(12) 2017, Pages: 287-297 291 two ways; first, the expansion of the economy in the past few decades “has given rise to many new forms of economic activities which are open to entrepreneurial ventures” and second, the structure of the economy “encourages people to appropriate opportunities opened up in the process of economic development in the forms of small businesses and self-employment”. This entrepreneurship may not prosper if most members of the society view it with suspicion. Consequently, a constructive approach of the general public toward entrepreneurship and an extensive public support for entrepreneurial behavior are both needed to encourage people to start a new business. Proposition 3: The cultural attitudes towards entrepreneurship would be positively related to the success in entrepreneurship 2.5. Proximity of entrepreneurial universities In the literature, Zhou and Peng (2008) define the entrepreneurial university as the university that strongly influences the regional development of industries as well as economic growth through high-tech entrepreneurship based on strong research, technology transfer and entrepreneurship capability. The entrepreneurial university is thus related not only to the university mission and tasks, but also to the organizational form, the deeply embedded activities and procedures, and the working practices and goals of individuals and research groups. It thus implies entrepreneurial action, structures and attitudes within the university (Rinne and Koivula, 2005). Similarly as Varga (2000), university graduates may be one of the most important channels for disseminating knowledge from academia to the local high-technology industry. Analyzing patent citations, Jaffe et al. (1993) found that knowledge spillovers from academic research to private industries have a strong regional component for the importance of proximity for the use of public science). Without a doubt, we believe that universities ought to take steps to encourage entrepreneurial movement in their environments. Therefore, the dual role of the modern academic mission now requires universities to not only serve society by educating students, but also to foster research that can be developed into commercially viable products and technologies (Kirby, 2006). A low level of education and exposure could prevent motivated entrepreneurial movement in their surroundings. Research evidence by Clark (1998) has shown that there are the relation with the concept to universities attempts to reform them and to become more entrepreneurial by strengthening their steering core, enhancing the development periphery, widening the funding base, stimulating the academic heartland and promoting an entrepreneurial belief. While Saxenian (1994) points out, one of the important mechanisms facilitating knowledge spillovers involves the mobility of human capital, embodied in graduating students as they move from the university to a firm. This could be perceived as an institutional characteristic-an institution aiming to foster enterprising individuals (Gibb, 2006) and to change and take risks (Barnett, 2005), its faculties and staff operating as academic entrepreneurs within the university and capable of innovating and sustaining technology transfer beyond it (Shattock, 2005).