ISSN : 2288-4645(Online)
DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2018.vol5.no1.63
The Relationship between Perceived Access to Finance and Social Entrepreneurship Intentions among University Students in Vietnam
Abstract
JEL Classification Code: D9, L26, L31.
초록
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Social Entrepreneurship
2.2. Social Entrepreneurship Intention
2.3. Intention Models in Social Entrepreneurship
2.4. Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)
H2. Subjective norms are positively associated with social entrepreneurship intention.
H3. Perceived behavioral control is positively associated with social entrepreneurship intention.
2.5. Perceived Access to Finance
Consequently, perceived access to finance indirectly influences social entrepreneurial intention (see Figure 1).
3. Data and Methodology
3.1. Sample Characteristics and Procedure
3.2. Constructs
3.3. Measurement Model
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to determine the measurement model fit by using SPSS AMOS. PBC6, PA5 and SEI6 was eliminated from the model because the standardized regression weights are less than 0.5. Five indices were used with the result presented in Table 2. These indices are sufficient to evaluate the measurement model. The results show a good measurement model fit, which is critical to perform further analysis of relationships among latent constructs (see Figure 2).
Table 2. CFA measurement model fit indices
Figure 2. Results of confirmatory factor analysis
4. Results
The final results of the model are presented in Figure 3. Only significant relationships between constructs are reported. The structural model also offers a good model fit, where CFI is 0.92, TLI is 0.98, Cmin/df is 1.875 and RMSEA is reported at 0.068. The result of the SEM analysis suggests that the latent construct of attitude towards behavior is significantly associated with the construct of social entrepreneurship intention (0.226, p=0.002). The construct of perceived behavioral control also has a significant and positive effect on social entrepreneurship intention as well (0.276, p=0.000). The dimension of subjective norms has a positive effect on social entrepreneurship intention, but it is not significant. Overall, there is a evidence suggesting attitude towards the behavior, the perceived behavioral control and subjective norms are positively associated with social entrepreneurship intention.
H1 and H3 are accepted and H2 is rejected. H4 examines a direct relationship between perceived access to finance and social entrepreneurship intention. The result shows that the direct impact is not significant. H4 is rejected. H5 examines the mediating effect between perceived access to finance and social entrepreneurship intention.
The first mediator is attitude towards behavior. The relationship between perceived access to finance and attitude towards behavior is significant (0.636, p=0.000), and the relationship between attitude towards behavior and social entrepreneurship intention is also significant and positive (0.226, p=0.002). The result suggests that attitude towards behavior significantly mediates the relationship between perceived access to finance and social entrepreneurship intention.
The second mediator is subjective norms. Perceived access to finance significantly and positively increases subjective norms at 1.05 (p=0.000), which, at the same time, there is no significant relationship between subjective norms and social entrepreneurship intention (p=0.863). Subjective norms as the mediator between perceived access to finance and entrepreneurial intention do not receive support. Perceived behavioral control is the last mediator. Perceived access to finance significantly and positively increases perceived behavioral control at 0.708 (p=0.000), which, at the same time which, at the same time, significantly and positively enhances social entrepreneurship intention at 0.276 (p=0.000)
Notes: CMIN/DF =1.875, CFI=0.92, RMSEA=0.068 and TLI=0.98. ***p<0.001
Figure 3. Direct and mediator effects on entrepreneurial intention
When establishing mediation effect, it is necessary to evaluate the direct link between perceived access to finance and social entrepreneurship intention without mediators (Baron & Kenny, 1986). A simple regression analysis between perceived access to finance and social entrepreneurship intention was thus conducted. The result shows perceived access to finance significantly increases social entrepreneurship intention, where the standardized coefficient is 0.658 with p= 0.000. However, the significant impact disappears when mediators are included in the model. This result is also reflected in the structural model (see Figure 3).
Therefore, there is evidence suggestion the effect between perceived access to finance and social entrepreneurship intention has been mediated through determinants of planned behavior. It is also important to evaluate the model fit without perceived access to finance. Although the integrated model combining three planned behavior and perceived access to finance, where the CMIN/DF =1.875, CFI=0.92, RMSEA=0.068 and TLI=0.98, it is prudent to investigate the additional model without it. A follow-up test is being conducted, which examines planned behavior model alone. The fit indexes of the planned behavior model show that RMSEA is 0.109, CMIN/df is 3.292, CFI is 0.839 and TLI is 0.808. The indexes present a poorer fit than the integrated model. The integrated model thus provides a better analysis than planned behavior model. Perceived access to finance is an important part of the analysis of entrepreneurial intention.
Overall, there is evidence suggesting that determinants of planned behavior model mediate the relationship between perceived access to finance and social entrepreneurial intention. H5 receives support. To sum up, the results support H1, H3 and H4 with the significant relationships presented in Table 3. That is, determinants of planned behavior predict social entrepreneurship intention.
Table 3. Results of the integrating mode
5. Discussion
In the field of entrepreneurial intention, determinants of planned behavior and perceived access to finance are both powerful predictors of the intention to start a venture. This paper addresses this issue by developing and integrating model in field of social entrepreneurial intention. The model states that the determinants of planned behavior model are positively associated with social entrepreneurial intention, and at the same time, perceived access to finance directly increases social entrepreneurial intention and indirectly does so through the three determinants. SEM technique was used to examine survey data collected from graduate business school students. There are two important findings.
First, the study fails to support a direct link between perceived access to finance and social entrepreneurial intention. The absence of a direct impact of perceived access to finance on social entrepreneurial intention suggests that perceived access to finance may not be a fixed dispositional feature. Identifying behavioral factors mediating the effect of a perceived access to finance on social entrepreneurial intention will be more effective than considering the direct relationship between perceived access to finance and the social entrepreneurial intention. This study demonstrates that determinants of theory planned behavior play an important role in shaping entrepreneurial intentions in general and social entrepreneurial intentions in particular Second, the role of dimensions in theory of planned behavior. Perceived behavioral control reflects ease or difficulty of behavior and whether behavior is controlled or restricted (Ajzen, 1991). This shows that perceived access to finance have the greatest impact on Perceived behavioral control. In order to form a social entrepreneurial intention, financial resources play a very important role. Through the perception of financial access, the students will feel the start of social business is easy or difficult before the formation of social business intentions. By creating reliable capital, Perceived behavioral control leads to a sense of social entrepreneurship that will be easy and highly feasible to help shape business intentions. The study also had similar results to that of Liñán and Chen (2009), showing that behavioral control is the strongest influence on business intent. Perceived access to finance affects social entrepreneurial intention through attitude towards behavior. For the sake of solving social problems, social entrepreneurship is a form of business that is meaningful and highly valued by society. Being able to access financial resources when starting a social business will positively impact a student's desire to become a social entrepreneur. However, this can only be done if the understanding of social enterprises of students is enhanced through academic programs and extracurricular activities. Unlike normal forms of business, social enterprises are those enterprises that operate not for profit but their purposes therefore are social entrepreneurs need special characteristics. These characteristics are completely different from normal entrepreneurs, so the impact from family, friends and colleagues does not seem to affect their social entrepreneurial intentions. That is also the reason that in this study perceived access to finance only affects subjective norms whereas subjective norms does not affect the social entrepreneurial intention.
6. Limitations and Future Research
The purpose of this study was to find out whether increased perceived access to finance could increase the social entrepreneurial intentions of students in Binh Duong Province. The results of the analysis of data from 193 students show that the perceived access to finance is closely related to social entrepreneurial intentions. The results of the study also clarify the direct and indirect relationships of perceived access to finance with factor’s in planned behavioral theory. Based on the theory of planned behavior, these intentions can link intention to action. Of the three elements of planned behavioral theory, perceived access to finance has the strongest impact on social entrepreneurial intentions through Perceived behavioral control, followed by Attitude towards behavior and subjective norms.
In addition, research has some limitations. Firstly, this study conducted a survey of university students in Binh Duong Province with interviews of 193 questionnaires, so the analysis results may not be representative of the overall situation. Secondly, this study focuses on the perceptual factor of financial access that affects entrepreneurial intentions. Other factors will not be taken into consideration, so it may not fully reflect all the aspects affecting the social entrepreneurial intentions. The study does not cover other in-depth issues of social entrepreneurship such as decision making, leadership, personality traits, social capital, human capital.
7. Conclusion
Figure
Table
Reference
- Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
- Ajzen, I. (1996). The social psychology of decision making. Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, 297-325.
- Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665-683.
- Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour.
- Alvord, S. H., Brown, L. D., & Letts, C. W. (2004). Social entrepreneurship and societal transformation: An exploratory study. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(3), 260-282.
- Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A metaanalytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471-499.
- Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator– mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173.
- Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 442-453.
- Blanchflower, D., & Oswald, A. J. (1990). What makes an entrepreneur? Evidence on inheritance and capital constraints: National Bureau of Economic Research.
- Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 17(3), 303-316.
- Chell, E. (2007). Social enterprise and entrepreneurship: towards a convergent theory of the entrepreneurial process. International Small Business Journal, 25(1), 5-26.
- Douglas, E. J., & Shepherd, D. A. (2002). Self-employment as a career choice: Attitudes, entrepreneurial intentions, and utility maximization. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(3), 81-90.
- Ellis, T. (2010). The New Pioneers: Sustainable business success through social innovation and social entrepreneurship. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
- Engle, R. L., Dimitriadi, N., Gavidia, J. V., Schlaegel, C., Delanoe, S., Alvarado, I., Wolff, B. (2010). Entrepreneurial intent: A twelve-country evaluation of Ajzen's model of planned behavior. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 16(1), 35-57.
- Erikson, Y. T. (1998). A study of entrepreneurial intentions among a cohort MBAs—The extended Bird model. In 43rd ICSB world conference on “21st century entrepreneurship” in Singapore.
- Ernst, K. (2011). Heart over mind–An empirical analysis of social entrepreneurial intention formation on the basis of the theory of planned behaviour. Doctoral dissertation, Schumpeter School of Business and Economics, University of Wuppertal, Berlin, Germany.
- Evans, D. S., & Jovanovic, B. (1989). An estimated model of entrepreneurial choice under liquidity constraints. Journal of Political Economy, 97(4), 808-827.
- Evans, D. S., & Leighton, L. S. (1989). Some empirical aspects of entrepreneurship. The American Economic Review, 79(3), 519-535.
- Gentry, W. M., & Hubbard, R. G. (2004). Entrepreneurship and household saving. Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy, 4(1), 1-55.
- Hockerts, K. (2017). Determinants of social entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), 105-130.
- Jum, N. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw- Hill.
- Koçoğlu, M., & Hassan, M. U. (2013). Assessing entrepreneurial intentions of university Students: A comparative study of two different Cultures: Turkey and Pakistani. European Journal of Business and Management, 5(13), 243-252.
- Kolvereid, L., Iakovleva, T., & Kickul, J. (2006). An Integrated Model of Entrepreneurial Intentions (Summary). Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 26(8), 5.
- Kristiansen, S., & Indarti, N. (2004). Entrepreneurial intention among Indonesian and Norwegian students. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 12(01), 55-78.
- Krueger Jr, N. F. (2003). The cognitive psychology of entrepreneurship Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research (pp. 105-140). New York: Springer.
- Krueger, N. F., & Brazeal, D. V. (1994). Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18, 91-91.
- Lee, L., Wong, P. K., Der Foo, M., & Leung, A. (2011). Entrepreneurial intentions: The influence of organizational and individual factors. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 124-136.
- Liñán, F., & Chen, Y. W. (2009). Development and Cross Cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 593-617.
- Mair, J., & Noboa, E. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: How intentions to create a social venture are formed Social Entrepreneurship (pp.121-135). New York: Springer.
- Martin, R. L., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 5(2), 28-39.
- Peredo, A. M., & McLean, M. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 56-65.
- Peterman, N. E., & Kennedy, J. (2003). Enterprise education: Influencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(2), 129-144.
- Robinson, J. (2006). Navigating social and institutional barriers to markets: How social entrepreneurs identify and evaluate opportunities Social Entrepreneurship (pp. 95-120). New York: Springer.
- Shapero, A., & Sokol, L. (1982). The social dimensions of entrepreneurship. Encycl
- Siu, W. S., & Lo, E. S. c. (2013). Cultural contingency in the cognitive model of entrepreneurial intention. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(2), 147- 173.
- Steyaert, C. (2006). Introduction: What is social in social entrepreneurship?. MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
- Tiwari, P., Bhat, A. K., & Tikoria, J. (2017). Relationship between Entrepreneurship Education and Entrepreneurial Intentions: A Validation Study. Entrepreneurship Education: Experiments with Curriculum, Pedagogy and Target Groups, 171.
- Tran, A. T., Tran, A. T., Von Korflesch, H., & Von Korflesch, H. (2016). A conceptual model of social entrepreneurial intention based on the social cognitive career theory. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 10(1), 17-38.
- Veciana, J. M., Aponte, M., & Urbano, D. (2005). University students’ attitudes towards entrepreneurship: A two countries comparison. The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1(2), 165-182.
- Zahra, S. A., Rawhouser, H. N., Bhawe, N., Neubaum, D. O., & Hayton, J. C. (2008). Globalization of social entrepreneurship opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(2), 117-131.