Resilient Entrepreneurship among European Higher Education Graduates
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Entrepreneurial Resilience
2.1. Youth Entrepreneurship
2.2. Perspectives on Resilient Entrepreneurship
2.3. Factors Shaping Entrepreneurial Resilience
3. Data and Methods
4. Results
4.1. Incidence of Self-Employment among Higher Education Graduates
4.2. Profile of Higher Education Graduates Entering, Remaining and Returning in Self-Employment
4.3. Factors Influencing Retention in Self-Employment
5. Discussion and Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Variables Label | Variable Group | Variable Type |
---|---|---|
Self-employed at first job | Dependent variable (M1) | Dummy variable, taking value 1 for being self-employed at first job after graduation and 0 for other situation |
Remaining self-employed in current job | Dependent variable (M2) | Dummy variable, taking value 1 for being self-employed both at first job and current job (moment of the survey) and 0 for other situation |
Returning to self-employment after leaving the first job | Dependent variable (M3) | Dummy variable, taking value 1 for being self-employed both at first job, leaving it and returning to self-employed at current job (moment of the survey) and 0 for other situation |
Retention in self-employment at first job | Dependent variable (M4) | Continuous variable, number of months spent as self-employed in current job, calculated from the beginning of the first job till the end of it or till the moment of the survey |
Country | Independent | Nominal variable, taking values from 1 to 17, according to country code (1 = Italy, 2 = Spain, 3 = France, 4 = Austria, 5 = Germany, 6 = Netherlands, 7 = United Kingdom, 8 = Finland, 10 = Norway, 11 = Czech Republic, 15 = Portugal, 16 = Belgium, 17 = Estonia) |
Field of study (broad field) | Independent | Nominal variable, taking values from 1 to 8 (1 = Education, 2 = Humanities and arts, 3 = Social sciences, Business and Law, 4 = Science. Mathematics, Computing, 5 = Engineering, Manufacturing, Construction, 6 = Agriculture and Veterinary, 7 = Health and Welfare, 8 = Services) |
Field of education and training | Independent | Dummy variable, taking value 1 for graduating a field of education and training related to environment protection and 0 for other situation |
Grade compared to other students grades | Independent | Dummy variable, taking value 1 for graduating with a grade higher than average 0 for other situation |
Situation in the last 1–2 years of study | Independent | Nominal variable, taking values from 1 for being fulltime student and 2 for being part-time student. All other values were treated as missing |
Study program demanding | Independent | Dummy variable, taking value 1 for graduating a study program generally regarded as demanding (values 4 and 5 on a scale from 1 = not at all to 5 = to a very high extent) and 0 for other situation |
Freedom in composing the own study program | Independent | Dummy variable, taking value 1 for graduating a study program generally regarded as providing freedom in organizing the study program (values 4 and 5 on a scale from 1 = not at all to 5 = to a very high extent) and 0 for other situation |
Study program with a broad focus | Independent | Dummy variable, taking value 1 for graduating a study program generally regarded as having a broad focus (values 4 and 5 on a scale from 1 = not at all to 5 = to a very high extent) and 0 for other situation |
Study program vocationally oriented | Independent | Dummy variable, taking value 1 for graduating a study program generally regarded as vocationally oriented (values 4 and 5 on a scale from 1 = not at all to 5 = to a very high extent) and 0 for other situation |
Study program academically prestigious | Independent | Dummy variable, taking value 1 for graduating a study program generally regarded as academically prestigious (values 4 and 5 on a scale from 1 = not at all to 5 = to a very high extent) and 0 for other situation |
Participation in research projects | Independent | Dummy variable, taking value 1 for graduating a study program where participation in research projects was used as teaching and learning method (values 4 and 5 on a scale from 1 = not at all to 5 = to a very high extent) and 0 for other situation |
Project/problem-based learning | Independent | Dummy variable, taking value 1 for graduating a study program where project and/or problem-based learning was used as teaching and learning method (values 4 and 5 on a scale from 1 = not at all to 5 = to a very high extent) and 0 for other situation |
Internship, work placement | Independent | Dummy variable, taking value 1 for graduating a study program where taking part to internships or different work placements was used as teaching and learning method (values 4 and 5 on a scale from 1 = not at all to 5 = to a very high extent) and 0 for other situation |
Looking for work | Independent | Dummy variable, taking value 1 for having a job searching behavior prior or after graduation and 0 for nether searching for a job |
Primary sector | Independent | Dummy variable, taking value 1 for working in agriculture, forestry, hunting, fishery and mining and quarrying and 0 for other situation |
Secondary sector | Independent | Dummy variable, taking value 1 for working in industry and constructions and 0 for other situation |
Tertiary sector | Independent | Dummy variable, taking value 1 for working in public or private services sectors and 0 for other situation |
Need of training courses | Independent | Dummy variable, taking value 1 for working in a job needing initial formal training period and 0 for other situation |
Need of informal learning | Independent | Dummy variable, taking value 1 for working in a job needing initial informal training period and 0 for other situation |
Perceived under-education relative to study program | Independent | Dummy variable, taking value 1 for working undereducated in first job and 0 for other situation |
Need for more knowledge and skills compared with what the individual posses | Independent | Dummy variable, taking value 1 for working in a job that demands more knowledge and skills that the graduate possess (values 4 and 5 on a scale from 1 = not at all to 5 = to a very high extent) and 0 for other situation |
Usefulness of social network—Very useful | Independent | Dummy variable, taking value 1 for those considering social network (friends, relatives, colleagues, former teachers, etc.) as useful in setting up the business (values 4 and 5 on a scale from 1 = not very useful to 5 = very useful) and 0 for other situation |
Very strong competition in the field | Independent | Dummy variable, taking value 1 for those considering the competition in the market they operate as strong and very strong (values 4 and 5 on a scale from 1 = very weak to 5 = very strong) and 0 for other situation |
Competition driven mainly by quality | Independent | Dummy variable, taking value 1 for those considering their organization as operating mainly by quality (values 4 and 5 on a scale from 1 = mainly price to 5 = mainly quality) and 0 for other situation |
Highly stable market | Independent | Dummy variable, taking value 1 for those considering the demand in the market they operate as stable and highly stable (values 4 and 5 on a scale from 1 = highly stable to 5 = highly unstable) and 0 for other situation |
Study program good basis for entrepreneurial skills | Independent | Dummy variable, taking value 1 for those considering their study program as a good basis for development of entrepreneurial skills (values 4 and 5 on a scale from 1 = not at all to 5 = to a very high extent) and 0 for other situation |
Work autonomy | Independent | Dummy variable, taking value 1 for those valuing work autonomy as a job characteristic (values 4 and 5 on a scale from 1 = not at all to 5 = very important) and 0 for other situation |
Opportunity to learn new things | Independent | Dummy variable, taking value 1 for those valuing opportunities to learn new things as a job characteristic (values 4 and 5 on a scale from 1 = not at all to 5 = very important) and 0 for other situation |
New challenges | Independent | Dummy variable, taking value 1 for those valuing new challenges as a job characteristic (values 4 and 5 on a scale from 1 = not at all to 5 = very important) and 0 for other situation |
Gender | Independent | Nominal variable, taking value 1 for male and 2 for female. All other values were treated as missing |
Age | Independent | Continuous variable, number of years at the moment of the survey |
Father with higher education | Independent | Dummy variable, taking value 1 for those mentioning their father’s level of education being ISCED 5 + 6 and 0 for other situation |
Country | Total Number of Self-Employed at First Job | Total Number of Those Remaining Self-Employed in Current Job | Total Number of Those Returning to Self-Employment |
---|---|---|---|
N = 2209 | N = 1321 | N = 327 | |
Italy | 14.9 | 20.2 | 6.7 |
Spain | 9.5 | 7.7 | 12.2 |
France | 2.6 | 2.9 | 2.1 |
Austria | 8.0 | 7.4 | 6.7 |
Germany | 5.5 | 5.5 | 3.7 |
Netherlands | 7.2 | 6.4 | 7.0 |
United Kingdom | 2.2 | 2.0 | 1.5 |
Finland | 3.5 | 3.6 | 3.1 |
Norway | 2.4 | 2.3 | 2.8 |
Czech Republic | 33.9 | 32.9 | 43.4 |
Portugal | 2.6 | 2.0 | 3.4 |
Belgium | 5.7 | 5.9 | 5.5 |
Estonia | 1.9 | 1.4 | 1.8 |
Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Field of Study (Broad Field) | Total Number of Self-Employed at First Job | Total Number of Those Remaining Self-Employed in Current Job | Total Number of Those Returning to Self-Employment |
---|---|---|---|
N = 2209 | N = 1321 | N = 327 | |
Education | 12.4 | 11.3 | 15.0 |
Humanities and Arts | 15.1 | 15.4 | 13.1 |
Social sciences, Business and Law | 29.0 | 30.1 | 22.9 |
Science, Mathematics and Computing | 5.7 | 5.0 | 4.6 |
Engineering, Manufacturing and Construction | 18.2 | 19.0 | 19.6 |
Agriculture and Veterinary | 4.7 | 5.1 | 3.4 |
Health and Welfare | 11.3 | 10.8 | 14.4 |
Services | 2.4 | 2.1 | 4.6 |
DNA | 1.3 | 1.3 | 2.4 |
Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Situation in the Last 1–2 Years of Study | Total Number of Self-Employed at First Job | Total Number of Those Remaining Self-Employed in Current Job | Total Number of Those Returning to Self-Employment |
---|---|---|---|
N = 2209 | N = 1321 | N = 327 | |
Fulltime student | 67.2 | 66.6 | 65.7 |
Part-time student | 32.1 | 32.9 | 32.7 |
No answer | 0.7 | 0.5 | 1.5 |
Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Description of Study Program | Total Number of Self-Employed at First Job | Total Number of Those Remaining Self-Employed in Current Job | Total Number of Those Returning to Self-Employment |
---|---|---|---|
N = 2209 | N = 1321 | N = 327 | |
Perceived as demanding | 60.0 | 63.0 | 59.9 |
Perceived as academically prestigious | 38.3 | 40.1 | 40.1 |
Description of Methods of Teaching and Learning Used | Total Number of Self-Employed at First Job | Total Number of Those Remaining Self-Employed in Current Job | Total Number of Those Returning to Self-Employment |
---|---|---|---|
N = 2209 | N = 1321 | N = 327 | |
Project/problem-based learning | 26.7 | 28.0 | 27.5 |
Participation to research projects | 41.7 | 40.6 | 47.1 |
Job Searching Behavior | Total Number of Self-Employed at First Job | Total Number of Those Remaining Self-Employed in Current Job | Total Number of Those Returning to Self-Employment |
---|---|---|---|
N = 2209 | N = 1321 | N = 327 | |
Looked for a job | 44.7 | 39.5 | 52.3 |
Never looked for a job | 55.3 | 60.5 | 47.7 |
Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Main Economic Sector of Activity | Total Number of Self-Employed at First Job | Total Number of Those Remaining Self-Employed in Current Job | Total Number of Those Returning to Self-Employment |
---|---|---|---|
N = 2209 | N = 1321 | N = 327 | |
Primary sector | 3.3 | 3.8 | 1.8 |
Secondary sector | 11.7 | 11.4 | 12.8 |
Tertiary sector | 75.9 | 75.8 | 77.4 |
Need for Initial Training | Total Number of Self-Employed at First Job | Total Number of Those Remaining Self-Employed in Current Job | Total Number of Those Returning to Self-Employment |
---|---|---|---|
N = 2209 | N = 1321 | N = 327 | |
Need of training courses | 12.4 | 13.4 | 9.8 |
Need of informal learning | 26.2 | 24.4 | 29.7 |
Under-Education at First Job | Total Number of Self-Employed at First Job | Total Number of Those Remaining Self-Employed in Current Job | Total Number of Those Returning to Self-Employment |
---|---|---|---|
N = 2209 | N = 1321 | N = 327 | |
Relative to study program | 9.7 | 11.5 | 9.2 |
Need for more knowledge and skills | 30.6 | 32.1 | 30.6 |
Usefulness of Social Network | Total Number of Self-Employed at First Job | Total Number of Those Remaining Self-Employed in Current Job | Total Number of Those Returning to Self-Employment |
---|---|---|---|
N = 2209 | N = 1321 | N = 327 | |
Useful and very useful | 42.3 | 44.2 | 44.6 |
Other situation | 57.7 | 55.8 | 55.4 |
Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Economic Context | Total Number of Self-Employed at First Job | Total Number of Those Remaining Self-Employed in Current Job | Total Number of Those Returning to Self-Employment |
---|---|---|---|
N = 2209 | N = 1321 | N = 327 | |
Very strong competition | 57.9 | 63.0 | 64.2 |
Competition driven by quality | 43.0 | 46.9 | 47.4 |
Highly stable market | 30.0 | 28.9 | 38.5 |
Usefulness of Study Program for Entrepreneurial Skills | Total Number of Self-Employed at First Job | Total Number of Those Remaining Self-Employed in Current Job | Total Number of Those Returning to Self-Employment |
---|---|---|---|
N = 2209 | N = 1321 | N = 327 | |
Useful and very useful | 7.4 | 7.9 | 8.9 |
Other situation | 92.6 | 92.1 | 91.1 |
Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Valuing Job Characteristics | Total Number of Self-Employed at First Job | Total Number of Those Remaining Self-Employed in Current Job | Total Number of Those Returning to Self-Employment |
---|---|---|---|
N = 2209 | N = 1321 | N = 327 | |
Work autonomy | 54.7 | 56.5 | 62.1 |
Opportunity to learn new things | 51.1 | 47.8 | 60.9 |
New challenges | 36.6 | 34.1 | 45.6 |
Gender | Total Number of Self-Employed at First Job | Total Number of Those Remaining Self-Employed in Current Job | Total Number of Those Returning to Self-Employment |
---|---|---|---|
N = 2209 | N = 1321 | N = 327 | |
Male | 44.3 | 48.4 | 43.7 |
Female | 52.7 | 48.3 | 53.5 |
DNA | 3.0 | 3.3 | 2.8 |
Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Father’s Level of Education | Total Number of Self-Employed at First Job | Total Number of Those Remaining Self-Employed in Current Job | Total Number of Those Returning to Self-Employment |
---|---|---|---|
N = 2209 | N = 1321 | N = 327 | |
Having higher education or more | 31.0 | 31.0 | 32.7 |
Having less that higher education | 69.0 | 69.0 | 67.3 |
Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Age | Total Number of Self-Employed at First Job | Total Number of Those Remaining Self-Employed in Current Job | Total Number of Those Returning to Self-Employment |
---|---|---|---|
N = 2209 | N = 1321 | N = 327 | |
Valid values | 2125 | 1263 | 315 |
Mean | 32.21 | 32.84 | 31.37 |
Median | 30.00 | 31.00 | 30.00 |
References
- Neenan, M. Developing Resilience; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; ISBN 9781351745338. [Google Scholar]
- Zautra, A.J.; Hall, J.S.; Murray, K.E. Resilience: A New Definition of Health for People and Communities. In Handbook of Adult Resilience; Reich, J.W., Zautra, A.J., Hall, J.S., Eds.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 3–30. ISBN 978-1-60623-488-4. [Google Scholar]
- Rutter, M. Developing Concepts in Developmental Psychopathology. In Developmental Psychopathology and Wellness: Genetic and Environmental Influences; Hudziak, J.J., Ed.; American Psychiatric Publishing: Washington, DC, USA, 2008; pp. 3–22. ISBN 978-1585622795. [Google Scholar]
- Hedner, T.; Abouzeedan, A.; Klofsten, M. Entrepreneurial resilience. Ann. Innov. Entrep. 2011, 2, 7986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masten, A.S. Resilience in Individual Development: Successful Adaptation Despite Risk and Adversity. In Risk and Resilience in Inner City America: Challenges and Prospects; Wang, M., Gordon, E., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associated: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1994; pp. 3–27. ISBN 978-0805813258. [Google Scholar]
- Bigos, M.; Qaran, W.; Fenger, M.; Koster, F.; Mascini, P.; van der Veen, R. Review Essay on Labour Market Resilience. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Menno_Fenger/publication/258568715_Review_Essay_on_Labour_Market_Resilience/links/00b49528b2fe842f5e000000/Review-Essay-on-Labour-Market-Resilience.pdf (accessed on 21 May 2018).
- Holling, C.S. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1973, 4, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin-Breen, P.; Anderies, J.M. Resilience: A Literature Review. Background Paper, Bellagio Initiative; IDS: Brighton, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Berkes, F.; Folke, C. Linking Sociological and Ecological Systems for Resilience and Sustainability. In Linking Sociological and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience; Berkes, F., Folke, C., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1998; pp. 1–25. ISBN 9780521785624. [Google Scholar]
- Simmie, J.; Martin, R.L. The economic resilience of regions: Towards an evolutionary approach. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 2010, 3, 27–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pendell, R.; Foster, K.A.; Cowell, M. Resilience and Regions: Building Understanding of the Metaphor. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 2010, 3, 71–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hassink, R. Regional Resilience: A promising Concept to Explain Differences in Regional Economic Adaptability? Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 2010, 3, 45–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pike, A.; Dawley, S.; Tomaney, J. Resilience, Adaptation and Adaptability. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 2010, 3, 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Probst, H.; Boylan, M.; Martin, R. Early Career Resilience: Interdisciplinary Insights to Support Professional Education of Radiation Therapists. J. Med. Imaging Radiat. Sci. 2014, 45, 390–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, B.; Down, B.; Le Cornu, R.; Peters, J.; Sullivan, A.; Pearce, J.; Hunter, J. Promoting early career teacher resilience: A framework for understanding and acting. Teach. Teach. 2014, 20, 530–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kolar, C.; von Treuer, K.; Koh, C. Resilience in early-career psychologists. Aust. Psychol. 2017, 52, 198–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, B.; Down, B.; Le Cornu, R.; Peters, J.; Sullivan, A.; Pearce, J.; Hunter, J. Early Career Teachers. Stories of Resilience; Springer: Singapore, 2015; ISBN 978-981-287-173-2. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, L.; Tao, H.; Bowers, B.J.; Brown, R.; Zhang, Y. Influence of Social Support and Self-Efficacy on Resilience of Early Career Registered Nurses. West. J. Nurs. Res. 2018, 40, 648–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mansfield, C.; Beltman, S.; Price, A. ‘I’m coming back again!’ The resilience process of early career teachers. Teach. Teach. 2014, 20, 547–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strat, V.A.; Davidescu, A.A.M.; Grosu, R.M.; Zgură, I.D. Regional Development Fueled by Entrepreneurial Ventures Providing KIBS—Case Study on Romania. Amfiteatru Econ. 2016, 18, 55–72. [Google Scholar]
- Lévesque, M.; Minniti, M. The effect of aging on entrepreneurial behavior. J. Bus. Ventur. 2006, 21, 177–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bosma, N.; Levie, J. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2009—Executive Report. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. 2010. Available online: https://www.babson.edu/Academics/centers/blank-center/global-research/gem/Documents/gem-2009-global-report.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2018).
- Minola, T.; Criaco, G.; Cassia, L. Are youth really different? New beliefs for old practices in entrepreneurship. Int. J. Entrep. Innov. Manag. 2014, 18, 233–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dvouletý, O.; Mühlböck, M.; Warmuth, J.; Kittel, B. ‘Scarred’ young entrepreneurs. Exploring young adults’ transition from former unemployment to self-employment. J. Youth Stud. 2018, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kautonen, T.; Luoto, S.; Tornikoski, E.T. Influence of work history on entrepreneurial intentions in ‘prime age’ and ‘third age’: A preliminary study. Int. Small Bus. J. 2010, 28, 583–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schoof, U. Stimulating Youth Entrepreneurship: Barriers and Incentives to Enterprise Start-Ups by Young People; International Labour Office: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006; Available online: http://www.ilo.org/public/libdoc/ilo/2006/106B09_94_engl.pdf (accessed on 5 May 2018).
- Minola, T.; Giorgino, M. Who’s going to provide the funding for high tech start-ups? A model for the analysis of determinants with a fuzzy approach. R & D Manag. 2008, 38, 335–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carmona, M.; Congregado, E.; Golpe, A.A.; Iglesias, J. Self-employment and Business Cycles: Searching for Asymmetries in a Panel of 23 OECD Countries. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2016, 17, 1155–1171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dvouletý, O. Does the Self-employment Policy Reduce Unemployment and Increase Employment? Empirical Evidence from the Czech Regions. Cent. Eur. J. Public Policy 2017, 11, 11–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arulampalam, W.; Gregg, P.; Gregory, M. Introduction: Unemployment Scarring. Econ. J. 2001, 111, 577–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eilam-Shamir, G.; Yaakobi, E. Effects of Early Employment Experiences on Anticipated Psychological Contracts. Pers. Rev. 2014, 43, 553–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Røed, K.; Skogstrøm, J.F. Job Loss and Entrepreneurship. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 2014, 76, 727–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wennberg, K.; Pathak, S.; Autio, E. How Culture Moulds the Effects of Self-efficacy and Fear of Failure on Entrepreneurship. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2013, 25, 756–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aldrich, H.E.; Martinez, M.A. Many are called, but few are chosen: An evolutionary perspective for the study of entrepreneurship. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2001, 25, 41–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maer Matei, M.M.; Lungu, E. What determines you to be an entrepreneur? SEA–Pract. Appl. Sci. 2014, 2, 310–318. [Google Scholar]
- Sheffi, Y. The Resilient Enterprise: Overcoming Vulnerability for Competitive Enterprise; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2005; ISBN 9780262195379. [Google Scholar]
- Fiksel, J. Sustainability and resilience: Toward a systems approach. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2006, 2, 14–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernard, M.-J.; Barbosa, S.D. Resilience and entrepreneurship: A dynamic and biographical approach to the entrepreneurial act. Management 2016, 19, 89–121. [Google Scholar]
- Ayala, J.-C.; Manzano, G. The resilience of the entrepreneur. Influence on the success of the business. A longitudinal analysis. J. Econ. Psychol. 2014, 42, 126–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bullough, A.; Renko, M.; Myatt, T. Danger zone entrepreneurs: The importance of resilience and self-efficacy for entrepreneurial intentions. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2014, 38, 473–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McInnis-Bowers, C.; Parris, D.L.; Galperin, B.L. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Exploring the relationship between entrepreneurship and resilience among the Boruca Indians of Costa Rica. JEC 2017, 11, 39–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, J. Entrepreneurial Failures: Key Challenges and Future Directions. In Entrepreneurship: The Way Ahead; Welsch, H.P., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2004; pp. 133–150. ISBN 0-415-32394-0. [Google Scholar]
- Corner, P.D.; Singh, S.; Pavlovich, K. Entrepreneurial resilience and venture failure. ISBJ 2017, 35, 687–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cope, J. Entrepreneurial learning from failure: An interpretive phenomenological analysis. J. Bus. Ventur. 2011, 26, 604–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeTienne, D.R.; McKelvie, A.; Chandler, G.N. Making sense of entrepreneurial exit strategies: A typology and test. J. Bus. Ventur. 2015, 30, 255–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Tienne, D.R.; Wennberg, K. Studying exit from entrepreneurship: New directions and insights. ISBJ 2016, 34, 151–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bates, T. Analysis of young, small firms that have closed: Delineating successful from unsuccessful closures. J. Bus. Ventur. 2005, 20, 343–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Headd, B. Redefining business success: Distinguishing between closure and failure. Small Bus. Econ. 2003, 21, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coad, A. Death is not a success: Reflections on business exit. ISBJ 2014, 32, 721–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cefis, E.; Marsili, O. Survivor: The role of innovation in firms’ survival. Res. Policy 2006, 35, 626–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coad, A.; Frankish, J.; Roberts, R. Growth paths and survival chances: An application of gambler’s ruin theory. J. Bus. Ventur. 2013, 28, 615–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larsson, M.; Milestad, R.; Hahn, T.; von Oelreich, J. The Resilience of a Sustainability Entrepreneur in the Swedish Food System. Sustainability 2016, 8, 550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Korber, S.; McNaughton, R.B. Resilience and entrepreneurship: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Afshar Jahanshahi, A.; Brem, A.; Shahabinezhad, M. Does Thinking Style Make a Difference in Environmental Perception and Orientation? Evidence from Entrepreneurs in Post-Sanction Iran. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghența, M.; Matei, A. SMEs and the Circular Economy: From Policy to Difficulties Encountered During Implementation. Amfiteatru Econ. 2018, 20, 294–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davidson, R.J. Affective style, psychopathology and resilience: Brain mechanisms and plasticity. Am. Psychol. 2000, 55, 1196–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Leadbeater, B.; Dodgen, D.; Solarz, A. The Resilience Revolution: A Paradigm Shift for Research and Policy. In Resilience in Children, Families, and Communities: Linking Context to Practice and Policy; Peters, R.D., Leadbeater, B., McMahon, R.J., Eds.; Kluwer: New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 47–61. ISBN 978-0-306-48655-5. [Google Scholar]
- Pollack, J.M.; Vanepps, E.M.; Hayes, A.F. The moderating role of social ties on entrepreneurs’ depressed affect and withdrawal intentions in response to economic stress. J. Organ. Behav. 2012, 33, 789–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bullougha, A.; Renko, M. Entrepreneurial resilience during challenging times. Bus. Horiz. 2013, 56, 343–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baum, J.R.; Frese, M.; Baron, R.A. The Psychology of Entrepreneurship; Taylor & Francis Group: New York, NY, USA, 2007; ISBN 9780805850628. [Google Scholar]
- Al Mamun, A.; Ibrahim, M.D.; Yusoff, M.N.; Fazal, S.A. Entrepreneurial Leadership, Performance, and Sustainability of Micro-Enterprises in Malaysia. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.; Danes, S.M. Resiliency and resilience process of entrepreneurs in new venture creation. Entrep. Res. J. 2015, 5, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Windapo, A. Entrepreneurial Factors Affecting the Sustainable Growth and Success of a South African Construction Company. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duchek, S. Entrepreneurial resilience: A biographical analysis of successful entrepreneurs. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2018, 14, 429–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bates, T. Entrepreneur human capital inputs and small business longevity. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1990, 72, 551–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wennberg, K.; Wiklund, J.; Detienne, D.R. Reconceptualizing entrepreneurial exit: Divergent exit routes and their drivers. J. Bus. Ventur. 2010, 25, 361–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oosterbeek, H.; Van Praag, M.; Ijsselstein, A. The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurship skills and motivation. Eur. Econ. Rev. 2010, 54, 442–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hussain, A.; Hashim, N. Impact of Entrepreneurial Education on Entrepreneurial Intentions of Pakistani Students. J. Entrep. Bus. Innov. 2015, 2, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pirciog, S.; Ciuca, V.; Popescu, M.E. The Net Impact of Training Measures from Active Labour Market Programs in Romania—Subjective and Objective Evaluation. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2015, 26, 339–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, W.M.; Levinthal, D.A. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. ASQ 1990, 35, 128–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Acs, Z.J. Entrepreneurship and economic development: The valley of backwardness. Ann. Innov. Entrep. 2010, 1, 5641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bulmash, B. Entrepreneurial Resilience: Locus of Control and Well-being of Entrepreneurs. J. Entrep. Organ. Manag. 2016, 5, 171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Markman, G.D.; Baron, R.A. Person-entrepreneurship fit: Why some people are more successful as entrepreneurs than others. HRMR 2003, 13, 281–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popescu, G.H.; Sima, V.; Nica, E.; Gheorghe, I.G. Measuring Sustainable Competitiveness in Contemporary Economies—Insights from European Economy. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, B.; Winn, M. Market Imperfections, Opportunity and Sustainable Entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur. 2007, 22, 29–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Block, J.; Sandner, P. Necessity and Opportunity Entrepreneurs and Their Duration in Self-employment: Evidence from German Micro Data. J. Ind. Compet. Trade 2009, 9, 117–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cox, D.R. Regression Models and Life-Tables. J. R. Stat. Soc. 1972, 34, 187–220. [Google Scholar]
- Margolis, D.N. By choice and by necessity: Entrepreneurship and self-employment in the developing world. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 2014, 26, 419–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Block, J.H.; Kohn, K.; Miller, D.; Ullrich, K. Necessity entrepreneurship and competitive strategy. Small Bus. Econ. 2015, 44, 37–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avram, S.; Militaru, E. Interactions between policy effects, population characteristics and the tax-benefit system: An illustration using child poverty and child related policies in Romania and the Czech Republic. Soc. Indic. Res. 2016, 128, 1365–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Personal Characteristics | Education Background | Business Environment | Education-Job Match |
---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Current Job (Moment of the Survey) | Total | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Self-Employed | Other Occ. Status | No Paid Work | No Answer | |||
First job after graduation | Self-employed | 64.0 | 27.3 | 7.5 | 1.3 | 100.0 |
Other occupational status | 5.8 | 84.7 | 8.1 | 1.3 | 100.0 | |
Had paid work before graduation | 14.8 | 84.7 | 0.5 | 100.0 | ||
No paid work | 0.2 | 2.1 | 95.2 | 2.4 | 100.0 | |
No answer | 6.7 | 50.1 | 9.0 | 34.2 | 100.0 |
Variables | M1 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Estimate | S.E. | Sig. | Exp (B) | |
Country (Estonia—reference) | ||||
Italy | 1.120 | 0.179 | 0.000 | 3.066 |
Spain | 0.726 | 0.185 | 0.000 | 2.066 |
France | 0.219 | 0.219 | 0.317 | 1.245 |
Austria | 0.862 | 0.188 | 0.000 | 2.367 |
Germany | 0.553 | 0.194 | 0.004 | 1.738 |
Netherlands | 0.215 | 0.186 | 0.248 | 1.240 |
United Kingdom | −0.146 | 0.227 | 0.520 | 0.864 |
Finland | −0.368 | 0.204 | 0.071 | 0.692 |
Norway | −0.527 | 0.222 | 0.018 | 0.590 |
Czech Republic | 1.367 | 0.171 | 0.000 | 3.925 |
Portugal | 0.737 | 0.221 | 0.001 | 2.089 |
Belgium | 1.243 | 0.192 | 0.000 | 3.467 |
Field of study (Education—reference) | ||||
Humanities and arts | 0.484 | 0.096 | 0.000 | 1.623 |
Social sciences, Business and Law | −0.147 | 0.085 | 0.083 | 0.863 |
Science. Mathematics, Computing | −0.557 | 0.124 | 0.000 | 0.573 |
Engineering, Manufacturing, Construction | −0.069 | 0.099 | 0.488 | 0.934 |
Agriculture and Veterinary | 0.320 | 0.147 | 0.029 | 1.377 |
Health and Welfare | −0.085 | 0.100 | 0.396 | 0.919 |
Services | 0.088 | 0.165 | 0.593 | 1.092 |
Situation in the last 1–2 years of study (Part-time student—reference) | ||||
Full-time student | −0.141 | 0.061 | 0.020 | 0.868 |
Description of study program (not perceived as such—reference) | ||||
Study program demanding | 0.158 | 0.051 | 0.002 | 1.172 |
Methods of teaching and learning (Low extent of project/problem-based learning—reference) | ||||
Project/problem-based learning | 0.208 | 0.056 | 0.000 | 1.231 |
Job searching behavior (not looking for work—reference) | ||||
Looking for work | −0.515 | 0.053 | 0.000 | 0.597 |
Economic sector (any other—reference) | ||||
Primary sector | 1.510 | 0.174 | 0.000 | 4.528 |
Secondary sector | 0.623 | 0.112 | 0.000 | 1.865 |
Tertiary sector | 1.025 | 0.089 | 0.000 | 2.787 |
Job needing initial training period (any other—reference) | ||||
Need of training courses | −0.230 | 0.072 | 0.002 | 0.795 |
Need of informal learning | −0.219 | 0.056 | 0.000 | 0.804 |
Under-education at first job (not mentioned—reference) | ||||
Perceived under-education relative to study program | 0.250 | 0.083 | 0.003 | 1.283 |
Need for more knowledge and skills compared with what the individual posses | 0.281 | 0.053 | 0.000 | 1.324 |
Usefulness of social network (not or low usefulness—reference) | ||||
Very useful | 0.381 | 0.050 | 0.000 | 1.464 |
Economic context (not mentioned—reference) | ||||
Very strong competition in the field | 0.389 | 0.053 | 0.000 | 1.476 |
Competition driven mainly by quality | 0.186 | 0.051 | 0.000 | 1.204 |
Highly stable market | −0.165 | 0.054 | 0.002 | 0.848 |
Study program useful for development of entrepreneurial skills (not or low extent—reference) | ||||
Study program good basis for entrepreneurial skills | −0.279 | 0.060 | 0.000 | 0.757 |
Job characteristics valued by respondents (no or low importance—reference) | ||||
Work autonomy | 0.219 | 0.071 | 0.002 | 1.245 |
Opportunity to learn new things | −0.326 | 0.073 | 0.000 | 0.722 |
Gender (female—reference) | ||||
Male | 0.159 | 0.052 | 0.002 | 1.173 |
Age | 0.038 | 0.005 | 0.000 | 1.039 |
Family background (father with upmost medium education—reference) | ||||
Father with high education | 0.137 | 0.055 | 0.013 | 1.147 |
Constant | −5.305 | 0.275 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
M2 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Estimate | S.E. | Sig. | Exp (B) | |
Country (Estonia—reference) | ||||
Italy | 1.305 | 0.359 | 0.000 | 3.687 |
Spain | 0.137 | 0.359 | 0.703 | 1.146 |
France | 0.915 | 0.448 | 0.041 | 2.497 |
Austria | 0.079 | 0.367 | 0.829 | 1.082 |
Germany | 0.203 | 0.381 | 0.595 | 1.225 |
Netherlands | 0.180 | 0.371 | 0.628 | 1.197 |
United Kingdom | −0.200 | 0.454 | 0.659 | 0.819 |
Finland | 0.333 | 0.407 | 0.413 | 1.396 |
Norway | 0.214 | 0.443 | 0.630 | 1.238 |
Czech Republic | 0.513 | 0.335 | 0.126 | 1.670 |
Portugal | −0.268 | 0.435 | 0.537 | 0.765 |
Belgium | 0.625 | 0.379 | 0.099 | 1.869 |
Description of study program (not perceived as such—reference) | ||||
Study program demanding | 0.201 | 0.099 | 0.042 | 1.222 |
Economic sector (any other—reference) | ||||
Primary sector | 0.477 | 0.280 | 0.088 | 1.611 |
Under-education at first job (not mentioned—reference) | ||||
Perceived under-education relative to study program | 0.510 | 0.173 | 0.003 | 1.666 |
Need for more knowledge and skills compared with what the individual posses | 0.231 | 0.105 | 0.028 | 1.260 |
Economic context (not mentioned—reference) | ||||
Very strong competition in the field | 0.477 | 0.101 | 0.000 | 1.611 |
Competition driven mainly by quality | 0.369 | 0.103 | 0.000 | 1.447 |
Highly stable market | −0.217 | 0.108 | 0.044 | 0.805 |
Job characteristics valued by respondents (no or low importance—reference) | ||||
Work autonomy | 0.256 | 0.145 | 0.079 | 1.291 |
Opportunity to learn new things | −0.351 | 0.161 | 0.029 | 0.704 |
New challenges | −0.287 | 0.127 | 0.024 | 0.751 |
Gender (female—reference) | ||||
Male | 0.347 | 0.097 | 0.000 | 1.414 |
Age | 0.052 | 0.010 | 0.000 | 1.054 |
Constant | −2.207 | 0.492 | 0.000 | 0.110 |
Variables | M3 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Estimate | S.E. | Sig. | Exp (B) | |
Field of study (Education—reference) | ||||
Humanities and arts | −0.575 | 0.290 | 0.048 | 0.563 |
Social sciences, Business and Law | −0.767 | 0.261 | 0.003 | 0.464 |
Science. Mathematics, Computing | −1.020 | 0.395 | 0.010 | 0.361 |
Engineering, Manufacturing, Construction | −0.325 | 0.286 | 0.256 | 0.723 |
Agriculture and Veterinary | −0.711 | 0.448 | 0.112 | 0.491 |
Health and Welfare | 0.129 | 0.295 | 0.661 | 1.138 |
Services | 0.777 | 0.488 | 0.111 | 2.175 |
Description of study program (not perceived as such—reference) | ||||
Study program academically prestigious | 0.330 | 0.163 | 0.043 | 1.391 |
Methods of teaching and learning (Low extent of project/problem-based learning—reference) | ||||
Participation to research projects | 0.350 | 0.157 | 0.026 | 1.420 |
Usefulness of social network (not or low usefulness—reference) | ||||
Very useful | 0.285 | 0.158 | 0.072 | 1.330 |
Economic context (not mentioned—reference) | ||||
Very strong competition in the field | 0.828 | 0.165 | 0.000 | 2.288 |
Competition driven mainly by quality | 0.395 | 0.164 | 0.016 | 1.484 |
Study program useful for development of entrepreneurial skills (not or low extent—reference) | ||||
Study program good basis for entrepreneurial skills | −0.527 | 0.191 | 0.006 | 0.590 |
Gender (female—reference) | ||||
Male | 0.400 | 0.170 | 0.019 | 1.492 |
Constant | −0.927 | 0.298 | 0.002 | 0.396 |
Variables | Model 4 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Estimate | S.E. | Sig. | Exp (B) | |
Country (Estonia—reference) | ||||
Italy | −1.053 | 0.346 | 0.002 | 0.349 |
Spain | −0.198 | 0.324 | 0.542 | 0.821 |
France | −1.106 | 0.486 | 0.023 | 0.331 |
Austria | −0.588 | 0.353 | 0.096 | 0.555 |
Germany | −0.286 | 0.369 | 0.439 | 0.752 |
Netherlands | −0.388 | 0.346 | 0.263 | 0.678 |
United Kingdom | 0.267 | 0.405 | 0.510 | 1.306 |
Finland | −0.225 | 0.399 | 0.573 | 0.799 |
Norway | −0.188 | 0.394 | 0.634 | 0.829 |
Czech Republic | −0.941 | 0.321 | 0.003 | 0.390 |
Portugal | −0.428 | 0.394 | 0.277 | 0.652 |
Belgium | −0.796 | 0.347 | 0.022 | 0.451 |
Grades during study time (average and below—reference) | ||||
Grades higher than the average | −0.193 | 0.108 | 0.075 | 0.825 |
Situation in the last 1–2 years of study (Part-time student—reference) | ||||
Full-time student | 0.643 | 0.152 | 0.000 | 1.902 |
Methods of teaching and learning used: research projects (Low extent—reference) | ||||
Participation to research projects (high extent) | −0.112 | 0.055 | 0.043 | 0.894 |
Under-education at first job (not mentioned—reference) | ||||
Perceived under-education relative to study program | −0.415 | 0.230 | 0.071 | 0.660 |
Need for more knowledge and skills compared with what the individual posses | −0.201 | 0.045 | 0.000 | 0.818 |
Study program useful for development of entrepreneurial skills (not or low extent—reference) | ||||
Study program good basis for entrepreneurial skills | −0.123 | 0.046 | 0.007 | 0.884 |
Economic sector (any other—reference) | ||||
Secondary sector | 0.392 | 0.217 | 0.071 | 1.480 |
Tertiary sector | 0.334 | 0.172 | 0.052 | 1.397 |
Usefulness of social networkfor setting up own business (not or low usefulness—reference) | ||||
Very useful | −0.071 | 0.040 | 0.073 | 0.931 |
Job characteristics valued (no or low importance—reference) | ||||
Opportunity to learn new things (high importance) | 0.181 | 0.088 | 0.040 | 1.198 |
New challenges (high importance) | 0.161 | 0.074 | 0.030 | 1.174 |
Gender (male—reference) | ||||
Female | 0.272 | 0.109 | 0.013 | 1.313 |
Age | −0.055 | 0.014 | 0.000 | 0.946 |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zamfir, A.-M.; Mocanu, C.; Grigorescu, A. Resilient Entrepreneurship among European Higher Education Graduates. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2594. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082594
Zamfir A-M, Mocanu C, Grigorescu A. Resilient Entrepreneurship among European Higher Education Graduates. Sustainability. 2018; 10(8):2594. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082594
Chicago/Turabian StyleZamfir, Ana-Maria, Cristina Mocanu, and Adriana Grigorescu. 2018. "Resilient Entrepreneurship among European Higher Education Graduates" Sustainability 10, no. 8: 2594. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082594
APA StyleZamfir, A.-M., Mocanu, C., & Grigorescu, A. (2018). Resilient Entrepreneurship among European Higher Education Graduates. Sustainability, 10(8), 2594. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082594