Next Article in Journal
High-Value Utilization of Corn Straw: From Waste to Wealth
Previous Article in Journal
How the Digital Economy Empowers the Structural Upgrading of Cultural Industries—An Analysis Based on the Spatial Durbin Model
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 19
10.3390/su151914616
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Performance Model of Youth Entrepreneurship Platform in the Context of Common Wealth Returning to Hometown

by
Ailing Liu
1,2,†,
Xiaojun Ma
1,†,
Meimei Zhou
1,*,
Lichen Zeng
3 and
Jijian Lu
1,4,*
1
Jinghengyi School of Education, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 310030, China
2
Youth League Committee, Ningbo University of Technology, Ningbo 315211, China
3
School of Economics, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 310030, China
4
Chinese Education Modernization Research Institute, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 310030, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Sustainability 2023, 15(19), 14616; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914616
Submission received: 28 August 2023 / Revised: 13 September 2023 / Accepted: 26 September 2023 / Published: 9 October 2023
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The construction of business incubator platforms to assist young people who return to their hometowns to launch their own enterprises is urgently needed because youth entrepreneurship is seen as a crucial component of rural revitalization. Based on this, the authors of this study distributed surveys to 468 returning youths in rural startup spaces to gather data, built a structural model, and conducted interviews with 13 entrepreneurial youths to examine the relationship between government policies, services, and the design of rural startup spaces, as well as the self-efficacy of returning entrepreneurial youths and the innovation performance of businesses. The results demonstrate how important government policies are in encouraging youth entrepreneurship in their local communities. It has the potential to enhance both the development of rural crowdsourcing spaces and the self-efficacy of young entrepreneurs, thereby enhancing the innovative capabilities of local entrepreneurial businesses. Therefore, in order to encourage economic development in rural areas, the government should improve pertinent support measures, enhance the development of business incubation platforms, and encourage young people moving back to their hometowns to start their own businesses.

1. Introduction

The loss of population—especially of young people—has a significant impact on the economic, social, and environmental sustainability of rural areas [1], and the continued decline and aging of the rural population poses new risks to rural revitalization [2]. Youth entrepreneurship is recognized as a key component of rural revitalization. Even though there will be more than 11 million entrepreneurs returning to their hometowns and moving to the countryside in China by April 2022, some data indicate that the proportion of young people aged 15 to 39 who live there permanently is currently less than 30%. Further research reveals that the majority of these entrepreneurs only stay for a brief time before quickly moving back to the city [3].
Global attention has been drawn to the rapidly expanding number of rural entrepreneurial incubation platforms in China in this context [4]. The role of incubation platforms for entrepreneurship is consistent with the claim made by Thorton, Flynne [5], and Saxenian [6] that entrepreneurial environments are characterized by thriving supportive networks that provide institutional structures connecting individual entrepreneurs to organized sources of learning and resources. Numerous studies have looked at the goals [7], obstacles [8], motivation [9], supports [10,11], entrepreneurial skills [12], mentoring [13], and social networks [14] that influence young people’s decision to return to entrepreneurship. Less research has been conducted on company incubation platforms, though. Therefore, the three issues that our study seeks to address are as follows: What effect do rural business incubator platforms have on young people who go back to their hometowns to start businesses? And what part does policy play in the government? What will the long-term impact be on how well businesses innovate?
A total of 2210 rural entrepreneurship parks (bases) have been chosen nationwide, of which 69 have been chosen in Zhejiang, according to the National Catalogue of Rural Entrepreneurship Parks (Bases) (2021) published by the General Office of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs [15]. Therefore, in the setting of Zhejiang, China, this study examines the relationship between governmental policies, services and designs for rural entrepreneurial spaces, the self-efficacy of returning young entrepreneurs, and the performance of businesses in terms of creativity. Zhejiang offers a crucial case study for examining the relationship between the growth of business incubation platforms and enterprises’ performance in terms of innovation.
We review the pertinent literature and present the test hypotheses in the next section. The study methods, dataset, and specification of the regression model are then discussed. The outcomes are then presented and talked about. The results are summarized in the concluding part, which also discusses any limitations and unresolved issues as well as theoretical and practical consequences.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

2.1. The Impact of Returning Entrepreneurship Support Policies on the Service and Design of Rural Crowdsourcing Spaces

Many academics have attempted to describe homecoming entrepreneurship, which is a phenomenon of population mobility and employment with Chinese characteristics. Han Jun’s suggestion [16] that “farmers return to their hometowns after a period of time working outside and use the capital, skills, information, and other resources accumulated from their work to set up enterprises, develop service industries, and invest in commercial agriculture in villages, small towns, or counties” is the one that has received the most recognition among them. Starting a business in one’s hometown is a perfect example of the entrepreneurial spirit in action. According to Schumpeter, the so-called entrepreneurial spirit employs new technologies and new business models to “shock” the products, companies, and services that are already available in the original market [17]. Additionally, excellent entrepreneurs will disrupt the market through innovation, make excessive profits, defeat the established businesses, get rid of the established production technology or organizational structure, and foster economic growth. Entrepreneurs who pursue rural entrepreneurship use their innovative spirit to address issues with rural development. As demonstrated by Audretsch et al. [18], entrepreneurship is influenced by a variety of forces and causes, including governmental, institutional, and social ones. As a result, the factors influencing young people to start their own businesses can be divided into endogenous and exogenous factors. Endogenous factors include the entrepreneur’s own entrepreneurial ability, age, education, and poverty status, while exogenous factors include local resources, economic conditions, and cultural norms.
One of the most significant exogenous elements influencing the resurgence of young entrepreneurs is the service and design of rural crowdsourcing spaces, which is why this study adopts the perspective of an entrepreneurial incubation platform. Crowdspaces are creative cross-boundary network effect platforms with a high level of participation that are focused on giving consumers or enterprises access to resources, services, and expertise for innovation and entrepreneurship. Rural crowdspaces’ ability to offer platform organizations and veteran entrepreneurs dual value-added innovation and entrepreneurship service network resources will determine how successfully they flourish. Three categories in particular make up the services provided by rural crowdspaces: technical support, financial support, and social support [19]. Technical support is the supply of office space, equipment, supplies, and training to assist businesses in achieving their objectives [20]. In order to cut the expenses of innovation, financial support refers to the provision of resources at reduced prices and assistance in securing funding from the government, pertinent organizations, and institutions [21]. Crowdspaces establish learning and communication platforms for businesses, facilitate group debates, and encourage inter-firm communication and collaboration for innovation prospects. This is referred to as social support. These numerous resources can increase business owners’ competitive edge and sense of efficacy while providing them with more opportunities. Although rural crowdsourcing spaces can offer these services, they have limited resources and capacity to offer high-level services, including mentoring, guidance on science and technology policy, entrepreneurship training, and improving business management.
As a result, it is crucial to draw attention to another significant exogenous element that encourages young people to start businesses in their hometowns and is examined in this study: governmental policy assistance. To promote entrepreneurship among migrant workers, the Chinese government has implemented a number of preferential policies, such as the “Strategic Plan for Rural Revitalisation (2018–2022)”. These policies have helped a growing number of migratory employees establish their own enterprises when they relocate back to their hometowns. By the end of 2021, 11.2 million people will have returned to their hometowns to launch enterprises and innovate in rural areas, with 70% of those people being rural migrant workers who are starting firms in their hometowns [22]. The government has emerged as a key tool for improving the service capacity of rural crowdsourcing spaces through the establishment of legislation to act moderatingly and appropriately due to the limited service resources and service behaviors of rural crowdsourcing spaces. Rural crowdsourcing spaces have gradually enhanced their service functions, enlarged their service regions, and boosted the competitiveness of their platforms thanks to the support and incentives from government resources. The government must fill the roles of “manager”, “supervisor”, and “guide”, as well as make up for the shortcomings of the various services provided by the rural crowdspring space, because moving back to the country to start a business involves high risk and uncertainty. In order to address the shortcomings of various services provided by rural crowd creation spaces through appropriate interventions and to indirectly increase the platform’s competitiveness, such as the space’s capacity for providing services and its capacity to incubate creators’ innovations, the government must assume the roles of “manager”, “supervisor”, and “guide”.

2.2. The Effect of the Support Policies for Returning Entrepreneurs on the Self-Efficacy of Returning Entrepreneurs

This study’s main internal factor is entrepreneurial self-efficacy. A person’s self-perception of their own skills and abilities is known as self-efficacy. It reflects people’s internal reflections on whether they possess the competencies that are important for task performance as well as their belief that they can convert these competencies into desired outcomes [23]. The profession-related literature has extensively employed self-efficacy to explain phenomena, like profession choice, career preferences, and eventually career behavior [24]. The entrepreneurial career also has a place for entrepreneurial self-efficacy. An individual’s confidence in their ability to carry out entrepreneurial operations successfully defines entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is crucial for entrepreneurial success due to the complexity and uncertainty of the entrepreneurial process, which involves identifying opportunities, integrating resources, developing a business, and making it profitable [25].
Self-efficacy is significantly influenced by social context plasticity. Entrepreneurs’ perspectives of their careers and desire to select can be significantly and positively influenced by the external environment, which includes entrepreneurship education [26], policy assistance, and family support. It can also have an impact on entrepreneurs’ self-efficacy. Governments should support an environment that fosters successful entrepreneurship through legislation as they are essential for entrepreneurial activities [27]. Policies that encourage entrepreneurship can enhance the effect of entrepreneurial zeal on the accumulation of psychological capital [28]. As a result, entrepreneurial policies can improve the environment for business, lower risk, boost inclination for entrepreneurship, and motivate business owners to continue operating their businesses. This increases self-efficacy.

2.3. The Impact of Rural Crowdsourcing Space Services and Design on the Self-Efficacy of Returning Entrepreneurs

Because the physical environment in which a person lives has an impact on that person’s behavior, the design of crowdsourcing spaces can also affect the creative activities of creators. Crowdfunding emphasizes the “social” aspect of the place in addition to the physical area’s design [19,29]. Therefore, offices and communication spaces in crowdspring places must be reasonably separate. Through open design, creators congregate in the area to exchange knowledge and materials, promoting the exchange of creative ideas [30]. Good spatial design creates opportunities for accidental communication and the collision of creative ideas, which promotes creator engagement, information overflow, and the emergence of new ideas, increasing the self-efficacy of entrepreneurs [31]. This is in line with the knowledge spillover hypothesis of entrepreneurship, according to which knowledge-rich contexts produce more possibilities for entrepreneurship while knowledge-poor environments produce less of it.
According to the knowledge spillover hypothesis of entrepreneurship, new information and concepts are one source of business opportunities [32,33,34]. This theory holds that knowledge and ideas produced in organizational settings such as businesses, academic research labs, etc., which cannot be commercialized because of the inherent uncertainty of the knowledge, become a source of knowledge for entrepreneurial opportunities, which Audretsch describes as a source of knowledge that is only partially commercialized in existing organizations [35]. This study makes the case that effective design and customer service in rural crowdsourcing venues can also serve as a knowledge base for business potential.

2.4. The Effects of Entrepreneurial Platform Services and Design, Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy, and Entrepreneurial Support Policies on Corporate Entrepreneurial Performance

In terms of result orientation, the combined effect of internal and external factors, such as entrepreneurial platform services and design, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial support policies, will encourage young people’s willingness to return to their hometowns to start their own businesses, which will ultimately improve the innovative and entrepreneurial performance of enterprises.
The physical environment is an outside influence that inevitably affects how people behave. The design of the physical environment has an impact on people’s emotions and behavior, according to environmental psychology studies, demonstrating that humans and the physical environment interact. Platform design empowerment emphasizes the need for people to interact in settings where they can increase their knowledge, resources, and opportunities [36]. The physical design of the office has a big impact on how productive employees are, which affects how well an organization performs.
Entrepreneurs who have higher levels of self-efficacy are better equipped to guide their businesses to higher rates of revenue growth and employment growth [37]. Entrepreneurs with higher levels of self-efficacy will be better able to boost their chances of success by properly identifying knowledge gaps in both their networks and themselves, developing a broad range of problem-solving abilities and competencies, and developing the ability to put up with conflict. Self-efficacy is crucial for the creation and maintenance of competitive advantage in new enterprises, and among business owners, high self-efficacy in innovation encourages taking calculated risks and maintaining financial management, which boosts corporate success [38].
In order to increase economic prosperity, Leyden contends that government policies may change an environment in which there is little entrepreneurial activity into one that supports individual creativity and entrepreneurship in both the public and private sectors [39]. This is in line with the new growth theory, which emphasizes the importance of government policy in economic development and gives institutional and technological variables a high priority as growth-promoting factors. In addition, the new growth theory views the interaction over time between institutional frameworks and technical advancement as a prerequisite for long-term, sustainable economic growth. For instance, Thatcherism in the United Kingdom and the Reagan economic reforms in the United States both significantly increased private sector entrepreneurship.

2.5. The Mediating Role of Entrepreneurship Platform Services and Design on Entrepreneurship Support Policies and Firm Entrepreneurial Performance

Government policies play an extremely important guiding role in the process of resource and service-driven operational performance improvement. Chen et al. showed that the implementation of government policies plays an extremely important role in guiding and facilitating the daily operation and performance evaluation of crowdspaces and that more reasonable financial subsidies and tax incentives can significantly improve the operational efficiency of crowdspaces [40]. The study by Pieterse and Rese et al. also confirmed the facilitating relationship between entrepreneurial platform services and design on business entrepreneurial performance. The results indicate that other elements such as the design of crowdsourcing spaces, arranged activities, and provided resources can be targeted to meet firms’ needs, provide a creative environment, and facilitate the generation of innovative activities, ultimately contributing to the improvement in tenants’ innovation performance [41]. Thus, government policy-supported entrepreneurial platform services and design have the potential to contribute to the growth of the entrepreneurial performance of firms.

2.6. The Mediating Role of Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy on Entrepreneurial Support Policies and Business Startup Performance

North’s theory on the role of institutions in growth analysis contends that institutions influence people’s goals to advance in every civilization [42]. Additionally, he made the argument that both formal and informal institutions have a role in the development of crucial factors that promote economic progress. According to Acemoglu et al. [43], Baumol [44], and Rodrik [45], institutions may have an indirect effect on economic growth as opposed to direct consequences. Leibenstein additionally adds to Schumpeter’s theories by arguing that entrepreneurship has a substantial influence on economic cycles and economic progress [17,46]. On the basis of this, scholars have suggested that the higher the level and quality of entrepreneurship, which eventually results in higher development, the better the institutions. In other words, entrepreneurship can connect institutions to economic progress [47]. The significance of institutions is more understood in China because of its centralized government.
In order to complete this paper, according to the social cognitive perspective, self-efficacy is influenced by three factors: the individual’s analysis of the task, the attribution of past success or failure, and the individual’s evaluation of the environment in which they find themself [48]. For example, a study by Wu et al. demonstrated that external environmental factors such as policies directly affect the development of self-efficacy and that entrepreneurial self-efficacy is higher when entrepreneurs perceive a better entrepreneurial environment [49]. Also, entrepreneurs who have greater confidence in the tasks to be accomplished and the roles to be performed in the entrepreneurial process gain more advantages. This is because entrepreneurs with high self-efficacy set higher entrepreneurial goals for themselves and their ventures in the entrepreneurial process, and high goal consistency makes them work harder to achieve their goals and show more perseverance and persistent behavior in the face of difficulties and setbacks, thus better contributing to entrepreneurial performance [50]. Thus, the self-efficacy developed by entrepreneurs due to government policy support is likely to contribute to the growth of the entrepreneurial performance of firms.

2.7. Research Hypotheses

This leads to the following hypotheses:
H 1 .  Support policies for hometown entrepreneurship can significantly and positively affect the self-efficacy of returning entrepreneurs.
H 2 .  Support policies for hometown entrepreneurship can significantly and positively influence the service and design of rural crowdsourcing spaces.
H 3 .  Rural crowdsourcing space services and design can significantly and positively influence the self-efficacy of returning entrepreneurs.
H 4 .  Entrepreneurial support policies, entrepreneurial platform services and design, and entrepreneurial self-efficacy all significantly and positively influence business entrepreneurial performance.
H 5 .  Entrepreneurial platform services and design mediate the significant impact of entrepreneurship support policies on firm entrepreneurial performance.
H 6 .  Entrepreneurial self-efficacy mediates the significant impact of entrepreneurial support policies on business startup performance.

3. Research Methods

3.1. Data Analysis

In order to ensure the sustainability of youngsters returning to entrepreneurship, PLS-SEM was used to test the development of a platform. A collection of multivariate approaches known as PLS-SEM, a statistical tool for structural equation modeling, were used to validate rather than exploratively evaluate if the model fits the data. For analyzing complex interactions between observable variables, it combines the advantages of structural equation modeling (SEM) and partial least squares regression (PLS). When there is a non-linear relationship between several latent variables or when the sample size is small, PLS-SEM is appropriate. Small sample sizes or non-linear connections between several latent variables are good candidates for PLS-SEM analysis. PLS-SEM is more adaptable and requires less data than the conventional CB-SEM (covariance-based structural equation modeling). In PLS-SEM, the weights of the path coefficients are determined by minimizing the residuals, and the model is built based on the path coefficients between potential variables. This method can assist researchers in comprehending the links between variables, testing hypotheses, and elucidating the impacts of latent variables. It is appropriate for investigations that take into account both predictive and structural models. To sum up, PLS-SEM is a frequently employed statistical technique for analyzing intricate structural equation models. Market research, social sciences, and management all make extensive use of it. While multiple regression has long been the instrument of choice for entrepreneurship academics for data analysis, partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) has been one of the most promising approaches in the last ten years [51].
Using Stata, we created six testable hypotheses. The links between return-to-work entrepreneurship assistance policies, youth self-efficacy in their entrepreneurial endeavors, rural crowdsourcing services and design, and business innovation performance are depicted in Figure 1.
We evaluated reflexive measurement model criteria, such as internal consistency (Cronbach’s α and composite reliability) and convergent validity (mean extracted variance and indicator reliability). In this regard, indicator reliability should be higher than 0.5. Cronbach’s alpha should be greater than 0.7. The mean variance of the extracts should be greater than 0.5. The composite reliability should be greater than 0.7. In this study, the goodness-of-fit (GoF) index was also used as model appropriateness.

3.2. Population and Sample

This study was conducted by means of a questionnaire using a five-point Likert scale, and the questions were mainly adopted from the scales used in published academic papers at home and abroad. With 11 cities participating and 51,000 individuals covered, the study on rural crowdsourcing areas in Zhejiang Province was conducted in 2022. Of the 612 questionnaires issued, 529 were recovered, yielding an effective recovery rate of 86.4%.
Additionally, this study used semi-structured interviews with entrepreneurial youth in crowdsourcing spaces in order to better understand the relationship between governmental policies, services and design of rural crowdsourcing spaces, self-efficacy of returning entrepreneurial youth, and innovation performance of enterprises. Prior to the distribution of questionnaires and formal interviews, the research team contacted the director of the crowdsourcing space to explain the main content of the study and to obtain permission and support to enter the space.

3.3. Latent Variables and Indicators

In the concept manipulation, we give the definition of each concept. As shown in Table 1, the analysis uses the following metrics in the latent variables.
The measurement of variables was carried out using a theoretical construct framework in which the variable or the structure called definition should have a definition which consists of the genus approximation and be variance specific. The generic approximation as a general term determines the metric (nominal, ordinal, and interval and ratio), while the specific difference determines the empirical indicator. The expected empirical metrics adequately reflect the constructs that achieve the isomorphic conditions.
The indicators of the support policies for returning home to entrepreneurship were obtained from the performance evaluation index system of the support policies for returning home to entrepreneurship by Fang Ming et al. [52], the indicators of the self-efficacy of returning home to entrepreneurship youth were obtained from the entrepreneurial self-efficacy measurement questionnaire by Huihui Li and Yongchun Huang et al. [53,54], and the indicators of the service and design of rural crowdsourcing spaces and the indicators of enterprise innovation performance were obtained from the crowdsourcing space design, service, and enterprise innovation performance constructed by Ying Han et al.’s empirical model [55].
Table 1. Latent variables and indicators.
Table 1. Latent variables and indicators.
Latent VariablesDefinitionIndications
Support policies for hometown entrepreneurshipPolicies and laws enacted and implemented by the government that have a critical impact on the motivation and home-based entrepreneurial activities of returning entrepreneurs [56]ZFZC1: Support policy promotion efforts
ZFZC2: Support policy benefit degree
ZFZC3: Financial support efforts
ZFZC4: Degree of implementation of entrepreneurship training
ZFZC5: Satisfaction with economic conditions
ZFZC6: Support policy satisfaction
ZFZC7: Satisfaction with production and operation conditions
ZFZC8: Business Development Satisfaction
ZFZC9: Satisfaction with training effectiveness
Self-efficacy of returning young entrepreneursEntrepreneurial self-efficacy is a belief that an individual can effectively accomplish entrepreneurial activities and succeedZWXN1: Confident to start a company and keep working
ZWXN2: Confidence in controlling the creation process of a new company
ZWXN3: Know the practical details necessary when starting a business
ZWXN4: Know how to develop a startup project
ZWXN5: Believe that you can succeed if you want to start a company
Rural crowdsourcing service and designThe innovation and entrepreneurship service network resources unique to the rural crowdsourcing platform that can bring double value added to the platform organization and returning entrepreneursFWYSJ1: The design of rural crowdsourcing spaces can stimulate creative thinking
FWYSJ2: The design of rural crowdsourcing space is interesting
FWYSJ3: The design of rural crowdsourcing spaces can improve the quality of ideas
FWYSJ4: The services of rural crowdsourcing spaces are conducive to building internal networks
FWYSJ5: Rural crowdsourcing services facilitate access to external resources
FWYSJ6: Rural crowdsourcing services provide access to capital
FWYSJ7: The services of Village Crowdspace include some training and activities
Corporate entrepreneurial performanceThe extent to which a task is completed or a goal is reached in the course of entrepreneurshipCXJX1: You can produce new products (services) in rural crowdsourcing spaces in priority to your competitors
CXJX2: New products (services) can be produced in rural crowdsourcing spaces that are as good as those of competitors
CXJX3: Improved products can be developed in rural crowdsourcing spaces
CXJX4: New markets can be opened in rural crowdsourcing spaces
CXJX5: New profit points can be generated in the rural crowdsourcing space
CXJX6: Market share can be increased in the rural crowdsourcing space
CXJX7: In the village crowdsourcing can increase production and reduce labor costs

4. Analysis and Discussion

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 2 shows the demographic characteristics of the respondents to the questionnaire, totaling 468. Most respondents are young entrepreneurs aged 21–30, and interestingly, the ratio of men to women is balanced, indicating that more and more women are choosing to start their own businesses. Most of the entrepreneurs’ education is above college and university, reflecting the generally higher education level of entrepreneurs and the improved quality of returning entrepreneurs. Due to the fact that the majority of survey respondents are between the ages of 21 and 30, as well as the fact that the government, colleges, and universities are encouraging entrepreneurship, more and more recent graduates are choosing to launch their own businesses. As a result, more than half of the young people have been in business for less than two years.
The 13 interviewees, who are primarily university entrepreneurial team leaders, all have some level of experience with the entrepreneurial process and have firsthand knowledge of crowdsourcing platforms and entrepreneurial policies. Some have just begun, while others have already achieved certain results.

4.2. Scoring of Indicators

Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics of the empirical indicators. All the variables fall into the very high category, with the highest self-efficacy score (3.71) for returning youth entrepreneurs. This is because the survey respondents are returning entrepreneurs in rural crowdsourcing spaces, who themselves have relatively high willingness and confidence in returning to their hometown.
Among all the empirical indicators of the support policies for hometown entrepreneurship, people generally recognize the strength of government support policies in terms of publicity (3.73), but they are less satisfied in the aspects of government financial support, satisfaction with production and operation conditions, satisfaction with enterprise development, and satisfaction with government training effects, which indicates that entrepreneurs need more financial and training help from the government. The following is another comment made by a number of interviewees: “There is enough publicity, but it’s still not a very good understanding of how these processes work and then how these policies are going to be taken”. In one instance, one of the organizations’ founders believed that government policies are more formal than useful. This shows that even though the government has put forth a number of initiatives, the results of their actual implementation have been disappointing. Startups are having a difficult time obtaining government funding due to the complexity of the application procedure and the difficulty in applying for policy.
Among all the empirical indicators of rural crowdsourcing space services and design, it is believed that the design of rural crowdsourcing spaces still needs to be improved in terms of interestingness (3.64). The improvement in fun is conducive to expanding the innovative way of thinking of entrepreneurs, thus helping them to generate more high-quality business ideas. Thus, a low score for fun is consistent with the score that the design of rural crowdspaces can improve the quality of ideas (3.65). During the interviews, one of the interviewees gave a relatively positive evaluation of the crowdspace in his village, stating that it serves as an entrepreneurial incubation platform, offers an effective and shared working environment in terms of service and design, organizes a variety of entrepreneurial activities, and offers mentors and industry experts as resources and assistance. He also made some recommendations at the same time, saying that “it is also possible to further optimize the fairness of resource allocation, enhance the practicality of entrepreneurship training, and strengthen the communication and guidance between mentors and entrepreneurs, in order to better meet the needs of entrepreneurs and support them in succeeding on their entrepreneurial path”.
Among all the empirical indicators of enterprise innovation performance, entrepreneurs score low (3.63) on “market share can be increased in rural crowdsourcing spaces”, indicating their lack of confidence in the market competitiveness provided by rural crowdsourcing spaces. Market share refers to the proportion of the sales volume (or sales) of a product (or category) among similar products (or categories) in the market, which reflects the position of an enterprise in the market. The higher the market share, the stronger the competitiveness. The size of the market share directly affects the production scale and cost of the enterprise, so the indicator “We can increase production and reduce labor cost in the village crowdsourcing space” also scores relatively low.

4.3. Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis of Each Variable

The means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients of each variable are shown in Table 4. From the table, it can be seen that there is a significant positive correlation between the support policy for hometown entrepreneurship, the service and design of rural crowdsourcing space, the self-efficacy of hometown entrepreneurs, and the entrepreneurial performance of enterprises. There is a significant positive correlation between the support policy for hometown entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurial performance of enterprises (r = 0.957, p < 0.001); a significant positive correlation between the support policy for hometown entrepreneurship and the self-efficacy of hometown entrepreneurs (r = 0.943, p < 0.001); a significant positive correlation between the support policy for hometown entrepreneurship and the service and design of rural crowdsourcing spaces (r = 0.956, p < 0.001); a significant positive correlation between the self-efficacy of returning entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial performance of enterprises (r = 0.941, p < 0.001); and a significant positive correlation between the service and design of rural crowdsourcing spaces and the entrepreneurial performance of enterprises (r = 0.946, p < 0.001).

4.4. Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis among the Variables

In this study, a multiple stepwise regression analysis was conducted with corporate entrepreneurial performance as the dependent variable and the support policy for returning entrepreneurs, the service and design of rural crowdsourcing spaces, and the self-efficacy of returning entrepreneurs as the predictor variables. The results are shown in Table 5, and the corresponding regression equations are as follows:
Business startup performance = 0.492 × supporting policies for returning entrepreneurs + 0.243 × services and design of rural crowdsourcing spaces + 0.263 × self-efficacy of returning entrepreneurs − 0.014
In this case, the model explains 93.4% of the firm’s entrepreneurial performance.

4.5. A Test of the Moderating Role That Rural Crowdsourcing Venues’ Design and Customer Service Have on Returning Entrepreneurs’ Confidence in Their Ability to Launch

Successful Businesses

Multiple mediation models were developed according to the mediation effects test procedure [57], and the fit of the models and the significance of the coefficients of each path were tested in the bias-corrected nonparametric percentile Bootstrap method using 5000 replicate samples in the SPSS 26.0 macro PROCESS of Hayes [58].
In order to explore the indirect influence of the support policy for hometown entrepreneurship on the entrepreneurial performance of enterprises through the service and design of rural crowdsourcing spaces and the self-efficacy of hometown entrepreneurs, and to clarify the internal mechanism of the service and design of rural crowdsourcing spaces and the self-efficacy of hometown entrepreneurs between them, this study uses the support policy for hometown entrepreneurship and its indicators as the independent variables, the entrepreneurial performance of enterprises and its indicators as the dependent variables, and the service and design of rural crowdsourcing spaces and the self-efficacy of hometown entrepreneurs as the mediating variables. The structural equation model M is constructed with the support policy and its indicators as the independent variables, the enterprise entrepreneurship performance and its indicators as the dependent variables, and the service and design of rural crowdsourcing space and the self-efficacy of hometown entrepreneurs as the mediating variables. The fit index of model M is 0.724, and the relevant model fit assessment indexes are within the standard reference value, indicating that the fit index of model M is excellent, which provides a good basis for further testing.
As shown in Figure 2, the correctness of hypothesis 2 is confirmed by the model’s results, which show that the path coefficient between the policy of assistance for returning entrepreneurs and the service and design of rural creative space is 0.956 ***. The interview with an entrepreneur from Ningbo who said that the government’s support is one of the most significant motivations for the team to persevere so far revealed that the path coefficient between the homecoming entrepreneurship support policy and the self-efficacy of homecoming entrepreneurs is 0.52 ***, which indicates that the implementation of the homecoming entrepreneurship support policy will improve the self-efficacy of homecoming entrepreneurship. The enterprise’s entrepreneurial performance and the support policy for returning home and entrepreneurship have a relatively high link, as evidenced by the path coefficient of 0.981 ***. The interviews’ findings show that one respondent supported the government’s help, saying “because of a series of support from the government, our team has had a better income generation”, while another interviewee said the contrary. The relationship between government assistance and business performance was also corroborated by another interviewee, who claimed that the city’s present laws were impeding his team’s growth and that he really hoped the government would change the applicable regulations.
Table 6 displays the findings of a more thorough analysis of the mediating effects. Table 6 shows that none of the three mediating routes’ confidence intervals contain 0 and that they all reach a significant level. The two mediating variables of the service and design of rural crowdsourcing spaces and the self-efficacy of return entrepreneurs both play a chain-mediating role in it and are found to mediate 49.16% of the effect of the return entrepreneurship support policy on the entrepreneurial performance of enterprises.
In summary, it can be concluded from the data results that return-to-home entrepreneurship support policies, as a macro environment, positively influence the construction of rural entrepreneurship platforms and the self-efficacy of youth returning to their hometowns and thus directly and indirectly positively influence business entrepreneurial performance. The results of this study emphasize the importance of hometown entrepreneurship policies in increasing the willingness of youth to return to their hometowns and promoting the construction of rural entrepreneurship platforms, and it can be seen that the hometown entrepreneurship policies in Zhejiang Province are worthy of recognition and have gained the approval of many hometown entrepreneurial youth.
The direct and mediating roles of the service and design of rural crowdsourcing spaces are evident, which can directly affect entrepreneurial performance, on the one hand, and entrepreneurial self-efficacy, on the other. This study provides empirical evidence for the direct and mediating relationships between government policies and entrepreneurial performance by improving the services and design of rural crowdsourcing spaces and fostering the self-efficacy of returning youth.
Self-efficacy is an important factor in promoting entrepreneurial performance. The return home entrepreneurship policies and rural crowdspace services and design all directly or indirectly affect entrepreneurial performance through entrepreneurs’ self-efficacy, i.e., the role of the external environment on entrepreneurial performance is generated through self-efficacy, while self-efficacy directly affects entrepreneurial performance. Therefore, to improve the entrepreneurial performance, retain the youth who return to their hometowns, and realize the sustainability of youth returning to their hometowns, it is an effective way to improve the self-efficacy of the youth who return to their hometowns by introducing relevant supporting policies, promoting the construction of rural crowdsourcing spaces, and improving the self-efficacy of the youth who return to their hometowns.

5. Discussion

Past research has shown that many entrepreneurs pay particular attention to political market dynamics as well as business markets because of the broad influence of government or politics on business activities in emerging economies [59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67]. In particular, the rapid changes in government policies in the political arena provide a constant stream of opportunities for entrepreneurs [68,69,70]. Entrepreneurs who actively follow these changes in government policies may identify more opportunities and take advantage of them by engaging in entrepreneurial activities, ultimately creating value for their businesses [71]. The results of this study build on this foundation and validate the positive impact of entrepreneurship policies on entrepreneurial performance.
It has been shown that some macro-level public policy factors can influence the impact of entrepreneurship platforms on entrepreneurship. Therefore, many scholars propose to promote the construction and development of entrepreneurship platforms through policies. For example, Shen Xiaochun summarizes the active role of the government in the development of crowdsourcing spaces: first, to take crowdsourcing spaces as an important grip of regional dual innovation; second, to introduce preferential policies to support the development of crowdsourcing spaces to stimulate the vitality of “dual innovation”; and third, to strengthen the classification and guidance of crowdsourcing spaces to strengthen demonstration and leadership [72]. Liu classifies China’s crowdspaces into government-led and market-led according to the differences in the behaviors of investment subjects and makes policy suggestions: first, the government needs to dynamically adjust its governance strategies to support the development of crowdspaces according to the evolution of the industrial environment; second, the government needs to strengthen the supervision of crowdspaces to prevent the market-crowding effect; and third, attention should be paid to the “government hand” and the “market” when formulating policies to support crowdspaces. Finally, when formulating policies to support crowdsourcing spaces, attention should be paid to the difference in regulation between the “government hand” and the “market hand” to prevent institutional dependence and subsidy dependence [73].
Our findings show that policies have positive and significant effects on entrepreneurial platforms, the self-efficacy of entrepreneurs, and enterprise innovation performance. In addition, it is clear from the route coefficient value that policies have a significant link with the other three variables. A factual foundation for the claim that “policies promote home-based entrepreneurship” may be found in our research.
The third hypothesis examines how rural mass maker spaces affect the self-efficacy of young entrepreneurs. The organizational environment, which includes things like organizational culture, organizational innovation atmosphere, organizational rewards, leadership style, promotion system, team atmosphere, etc., is seen from the design of the mass maker space as the setting in which employees work. Damanpour et al. found that the establishment of an innovation climate within an organization and the stimulation of employees’ innovation can be influenced by the organizational culture established by the top and senior management in the organization [74], and crowdsourcing spaces are no exception. For example, Van Holma argued that maker spaces influence innovative entrepreneurial activities by stimulating creators’ creativity, building social networks, and reducing startup costs [75]. The many tools offered by the business incubation platform, such as entrepreneurship education, can help boost the self-efficacy of entrepreneurs from the standpoint of the mass maker space’s service. According to Giang Hoang et al.’s study and research, learning orientation and self-efficacy play a role in mediating the relationship between entrepreneurial education and entrepreneurial intention [26]. Our findings provide additional support for this research.
The fourth hypothesis predicts the effects of policies, platforms, and the entrepreneurs themselves on entrepreneurial performance, and this hypothesis is supported empirically. Our findings support the view of Shaosheng Huang et al. They concluded that platform digital empowerment significantly enhanced entrepreneurial performance, entrepreneurial psychological capital played a partial role in the digital pathway of platform digital empowerment to enhance entrepreneurial performance, and entrepreneurial policy orientation positively moderated the impact of platform digital empowerment on entrepreneurial performance [76].
According to Yingyan Wang’s research, the development and value realization of maker spaces are closely related to the development policy of maker spaces [77]. This study documents the indirect (intermediary) influence of entrepreneurial platform services and design on the relationship between entrepreneurial support policies and entrepreneurial performance. This study also demonstrates how entrepreneurs’ self-efficacy has an indirect (intermediary) impact on the link between entrepreneurial support policies and performance. This discovery is consistent with those of Xianyue Liu et al. [78,79], and it serves as a concrete illustration of Schumpeter’s creative destruction hypothesis. In summary, empirical data have validated the critical roles that entrepreneurs’ self-efficacy, service, and platform design play in the relationship between entrepreneurial support policies and entrepreneurial performance.

6. Conclusions

This paper extends the research framework on the impact of home-based entrepreneurship policies on entrepreneurial performance with a sample of 468 young people returning to their hometown in rural crowdsourcing spaces, and it uses structural equation modeling under this framework to explore the relationships among home-based entrepreneurship policies, rural crowdsourcing space services and design, self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial performance. The study’s findings indicate that the return entrepreneurship policy, rural creative space service and design, and entrepreneurs’ self-efficacy significantly enhance the entrepreneurial performance of return entrepreneurship enterprises, which may encourage more people to settle back in their hometowns and launch their own businesses.
The new economic growth theory is applied in this essay to clarify the impact of government support policies on the encouragement of the entrepreneurial performance of businesses. Despite acknowledging the significance of institutional elements, the new economic growth theory, in our analysis of the literature, does not explicitly quantify the connection between institutional factors and economic growth. In order to investigate how institutions affect economic growth from a data perspective, this paper includes institutional elements in the model.
Additionally, this study provides valuable insights for policy makers and people in charge of crowdsourcing. Optimizing the service and design of rural crowdsourcing spaces can help improve entrepreneurs’ self-efficacy to enhance entrepreneurial performance. The entrepreneurial environment acts on entrepreneurial performance through self-efficacy; therefore, to be effective, policies to improve the service and design of rural crowdsourcing spaces need to seek paths to enhance entrepreneurs’ self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is a key factor in entrepreneurial performance. In terms of the management model and management capabilities, improving entrepreneurs’ overall operational capabilities, enhancing knowledge and experience through entrepreneurial learning, and expanding management skills through training and education programs are conducive to entrepreneurs’ continued success and thus enhanced self-efficacy.
There are four limitations to be further considered. First, there are not enough samples in the current study, which could cause the samples to be underrepresented. Only a few of the rural crowdsourcing areas in 11 cities in Zhejiang Province were selected for the survey. A modest number of people were interviewed as well. Therefore, to make the findings more persuasive, future research can broaden the study’s focus and interview additional people. Second, due to time restrictions, even though we adopted the rooted research approach, our rooted research was only carried out for one week. Future research could prolong the length of the rootedness study to better explain a phenomenon from the viewpoint of persons who are affected, based on the fact that past rootedness studies have been carried out for as little as a few months [80] or as long as a few years [81]. Third, rather than concentrating on a particular industry area, the present study suggests the performance model of returning entrepreneurship more broadly. Future study can try to adapt the approach to a particular sector, particularly to certain growing homecoming entrepreneurial ventures, like Linpin Bookstore’s childcare program and the network sale of agricultural goods. Last but not least, the findings of this study demonstrate the beneficial effects of rural crowdspace service and design, return entrepreneurship policy, and entrepreneurs’ self-efficacy on entrepreneurial performance. However, we should also take into account the interaction and endogenous relationship between the factors. For instance, entrepreneurs’ self-efficacy affects entrepreneurial performance, and similarly, the change in entrepreneurial performance affects entrepreneurs. Future study should therefore take into account the interactions and feedback processes between the components.
Furthermore, although moving back to the country to open a business has many benefits, including fostering rural economic development, creating jobs, and enhancing social conditions there, there are also some drawbacks. For instance, many returning business owners may struggle to find employment because of the relatively scarce resources in rural areas and the smaller market demand, which limits their options.

Author Contributions

J.L. conceptualized and supervised the study; A.L. collected and analyzed the data and prepared and finalized the manuscript; X.M. analyzed the data and prepared and finalized the manuscript; M.Z. supported the literature review and data collection; L.Z. supported the literature review and the data collection. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was conducted with the “Effect evaluation and optimization of innovation and entrepreneurship education in applied colleges and universities” (23NDJC317YB) provided by the “2023 Zhejiang Province philosophy and social science planning project” and the “Construction of evaluation index system of specialized innovation integration in applied universities based on OBE perspective” (2023SCG123) provided by the “Zhejiang Province Education Science planning project in 2022”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the editors and all reviewers for their invaluable comments and advice. We also thank the research participants for their participation in the survey. Finally, we would like to thank Hangzhou Normal University for the financial support from the seed project of the “Organised Research” national project cultivation project.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Geldhof, G.J.; Porter, T.; Weiner, M.B.; Malin, H.; Bronk, K.C.; Agans, J.P.; Mueller, M.; Damon, W.; Lerner, R.M. Fostering Youth Entrepreneurship: Preliminary Findings from the Young Entrepreneurs Study. J. Res. Adolesc. 2014, 24, 431–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Llorent-Bedmar, V.; Palma, V.C.C.-D.; Navarro-Granados, M. The rural exodus of young people from empty Spain. Socio-educational aspects. J. Rural. Stud. 2021, 82, 303–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Luo, Y. Enabling young people to return to their hometowns to “stay and start their own businesses”. Minsheng Weekly, 20 March 2023. Available online: https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1760860789466448315&wfr=spider&for=pc(accessed on 27 August 2023).
  4. Hong, J.; Chen, M.; Zhu, Y.H.; Song, G. Technology business incubators and regional economic convergence in China. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2017, 29, 569–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Thorton, P.H.; Flynne, K.H. Entrepreneurship, networks and geographies. In Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research; Acs, Z.J., Audretsch, D.B., Eds.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, MA, USA; Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  6. Saxenian, A. Regional Advantage; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bouichou, E.H.; Abdoulaye, T.; Allali, K.; Bouayad, A.; Fadlaoui, A. Entrepreneurial intention among rural youth in Moroccan agricultural cooperatives: The future of rural entrepreneurship. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Senou, M.M.; Manda, J. Access to finance and rural youth entrepreneurship in Benin: Is there a gender gap? Afr. Dev. Rev. 2022, 34, 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bednaříková, Z.; Bavorová, M.; Ponkina, E.V. Migration motivation of agriculturally educated rural youth: The case of Russian Siberia. J. Rural Stud. 2016, 45, 99–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Adeyanju, D.; Mburu, J.; Mignouna, D. Youth agricultural entrepreneurship: Assessing the impact of agricultural training programmes on performance. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Shi, X.; Wang, C.; Zhong, T. Can public medical insurance promote rural entrepreneurship? Evidence from China. Appl. Econ. 2021, 53, 4292–4309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ataei, P.; Karimi, H.; Ghadermarzi, H.; Norouzi, A. A conceptual model of entrepreneurial competencies and their impacts on rural youth’s intention to launch SMEs. J. Rural Stud. 2020, 75, 185–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Shittu, A.I. Promoting youth entrepreneurship: The role of mentoring. IDS Bull. Inst. Dev. Stud. 2017, 48, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Singh Sandhu, M.; Fahmi Sidique, S.; Riaz, S. Entrepreneurship barriers and entrepreneurial inclination among Malaysian postgraduate students. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2011, 17, 428–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs. Circular of the General Office of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs on the Publication of the Catalogue of National Rural Entrepreneurship Parks (Bases). Gaz. Minist. Agric. Rural. Aff. People's Repub. China 2021, 2021, 62. [Google Scholar]
  16. Jun, H. Strategic Research on China’s Migrant Workers; Shanghai Far East Publishers: Shanghai, China, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  17. Schumpeter, J.A. The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle; Transaction Books: New York, NY, USA, 1911. [Google Scholar]
  18. Audretsch, D.B.; Thurik, A.R.; Verheul, I.; Wennekers, A.R.M. (Eds.) Entrepreneurship: Determinants and Policy in a European—US Comparison; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, MA, USA; Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  19. Han, S.Y.; Yoo, J.; Zo, H.; Ciganek, A.P. Understanding makerspace continuance: A self-determination perspective. Telemat. Inform. 2017, 34, 184–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Seo, J.; Lysiankova, L.; Ock, Y.S.; Chun, D. Priorities of coworking space operation based on comparison of the hosts and users’ perspectives. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fontichiaro, K. Sustaining a Makerspace. Teach. Libr. 2016, 43, 39–41. [Google Scholar]
  22. Gu, Z.Y.; Chang, Q.; Xu, J.; Fang, Y. Gathering strength for comprehensive rural revitalisation. People’s Daily, 7 January 2023. [Google Scholar]
  23. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev. 1977, 84, 191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Betz, N.E.; Hackett, G. The relationship of career-related self-efficacy expectations to perceived career options in college women and men. J. Couns. Psychol. 1981, 28, 399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. De Noble, A.F.; Jung, D.; Ehrlich, S.B. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: The development of a measure and its relationship to entrepreneurial action. Front. Entrep. Res. 1999, 1999, 73–87. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hoang, G. Entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions of university students in Vietnam: The mediating roles of self-efficacy and learning orientation. Educ. Train. 2020, 63, 115–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Minniti, M. The role of government policy on entrepreneurial activity: Productive, unproductive, or destructive? Entrep. Theory Pract. 2008, 32, 779–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hu, W.; Xu, Y.; Zhao, F.; Chen, Y. Entrepreneurial passion and entrepreneurial success—The role of psychological capital and entrepreneurial policy support. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 792066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bechtel, C.; Ness, D.L. If you build it, will they come? Designing truly patient-centered health care. Health Aff. 2010, 29, 914–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Pieterse, A.N.; Van Knippenberg, D.; van Ginkel, W.P. Diversity in goal orientation, team reflexivity, and team performance. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2011, 114, 153–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sailer, K. Creativity as social and spatial process. Facilities 2011, 29, 6–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Acs, Z.J.; Armington, C. Entrepreneurship, Agglomeration and US Regional Growth; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  33. Acs, Z.J.; Audretsch, D.B.; Braunerhjelm, P.; Carlsson, B. The Missing Link: The Knowledge Filter and Entrepreneurship in Endogenous Growth; Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) Discussion Paper, Centre for Economic Policy Research, Knowledge Spillover Entrepreneurship: London, UK, 2004; p. 1253. [Google Scholar]
  34. Audretsch, D.B.; Keilbach, M.; Lehmann, E. Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  35. Audretsch, D.B.; Keilbach, M. The Theory of Knowledge Spillover Entrepreneurship. J. Manag. Stud. 2007, 44, 1242–1254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Luo, Z.; Li, X.; Song, X.; Li, Y. Evolution of Enterprise Organization Structure Based on the Hypothesis of Empower to Enable: Based on the Case Study of Handu Group’s Practice. China Ind. Econ. 2017, 9, 174–192. [Google Scholar]
  37. Baum, J.R.; Locke, E.A. The relationship of entrepreneurial traits, skill, and motivation to subsequent venture growth. J. Appl. Psychol. 2004, 89, 587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sweida, G.L.; Reichard, R.J. Gender stereotyping effects on entrepreneurial self-efficacy and high-growth entrepreneurial intention. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2013, 20, 296–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Leyden, D.P. Public-sector entrepreneurship and the creation of a tainable innovative economy. Small Bus. Econ. 2016, 46, 553–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Chen, C.; Xiang, L.; Yu, R. The entrepreneurial ecosystem of crowdsourcing space:characteristics, structure, mechanism and strategy—A case study of Hangzhou Dream Town. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2015, 11, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Rese, A.; Kopplin, C.S.; Nielebock, C. Factors influencing members’ knowledge sharing and creative performance in coworking spaces. J. Knowl. Manag. 2020, 24, 2327–2354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. North, D.C. Understanding the Process of Economic Change; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  43. Acemoglu, D.; Gallego, F.; Robinson, J.A. Institutions, human capital and development. The Annual Review of Twenty-five years of research on institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic growth: What has been learned? Annu. Rev. Econ. 2014, 6, 875–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Baumol, W.J. Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive. J. Political Econ. 1990, 98, 893–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Rodrik, D. (Ed.) Search of Prosperity: Analytic Narratives on Economic Growth; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  46. Leibenstein, H. Entrepreneurship and development. Am. Econ. Rev. 1968, 58, 72–83. [Google Scholar]
  47. Urbano, D.; Aparicio, S.; Audretsch, D. Twenty-five years of research on institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic growth: What has been learned? Small Bus. Econ. 2019, 53, 21–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gist, M.E.; Mitchell, T.R. Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1992, 17, 183–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wu, J.Z.; Li, Y.B. A study on the influence of perceived entrepreneurial environment on middle managers’ intrapreneurial behavior. J. Manag. 2015, 12, 111–117. [Google Scholar]
  50. Weidong, Z.; Zhaoxin, H. An empirical study on the relationship between relationship strength, self-efficacy and entrepreneurial performance of entrepreneurs. China Sci. Technol. Forum 2012, 1, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Manley, S.C.; Hair, J.F.; Williams, R.I.; McDowell, W.C. Essential new PLS-SEM analysis methods for your entrepreneurship analytical toolbox. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2021, 17, 1805–1825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Fang, M.; Zhang, T.; Liu, M.-L. Performance evaluation and policy orientation of support policies for migrant workers returning to their hometowns for entrepreneurship—Based on the survey data of national enterprises returning to their hometowns for entrepreneurship. J. Anhui Univ. (Philos. Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2021, 45, 122–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Huihui, L.; Shasha, H.; Junhua, S.; Xiao, F. Social support, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial well-being. Foreign Econ. Manag. 2022, 44, 42–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Huang, Y.C.; Zhang, W.J.; Xu, J.H. The influence of service environment on entrepreneurial orientation of nascent entrepreneurs. Sci. Res. Manag. 2021, 42, 149–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ying, H.; Guohong, C. Crowdsourcing space design, services and firm innovation performance. Sci. Res. Manag. 2022, 43, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Fonseca, R.; Lopez-Garcia, P.; Pissarides, C.A. Entrepreneurship, start-up costs and employment. Eur. Econ. Rev. 2001, 45, 692–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Zhonglin, W.; Baojuan, Y. Mediation effect analysis:Methods and model development. Adv. Psychol. Sci. 2014, 22, 731–745. [Google Scholar]
  58. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  59. Dai, W.; Arndt, F.; Liao, M. Hear it straight from the horse's mouth: Recognizing policy-induced opportunities. In Entrepreneurship in China; Routledge: London, UK, 2021; pp. 56–76. [Google Scholar]
  60. Liu, Y.; Dai, W.; Liao, M.; Wei, J. Social status and corporate social responsibility: Evidence from Chinese privately owned firms. J. Bus. Ethics 2021, 169, 651–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Peng, M.W. Institutional transitions and strategic choices. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2003, 28, 275–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wu, J.; Vahlne, J.E. Dynamic capabilities of emerging market multinational enterprises and the Uppsala model. Asian Bus. Manag. 2020, 30, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Zhang, J.; Tan, J.; Wong, P.K. When does investment in political ties improve firm performance? The contingent effect of innovation activities. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2015, 32, 363–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Yang, K. Double entrepreneurship in China's economic reform: An analytical framework. J. Political Mil. Sociol. 2002, 30, 134–147. [Google Scholar]
  65. Yang, K. Institutional holes and entrepreneurship in China. Sociol. Rev. 2004, 52, 371–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Yang, K. Entrepreneurship in China; Routledge: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  67. Bruton, G.D.; Ahlstrom, D.; Obloj, K. Entrepreneurship in emerging economies: Where are we today and where should the research go in the future. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2008, 32, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Zhou, W. Regional deregulation and entrepreneurial growth in China's transition economy. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2011, 23, 853–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Dai, W.; Liu, Y.; Liao, M.; Lin, Q. How does entrepreneurs’ socialist imprinting shape their opportunity selection in transition economies? Evidence from China’s privately owned enterprises. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2018, 14, 823–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Dai, W.; Si, S. Government policies and firms' entrepreneurial orientation: Strategic choice and institutional perspectives. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 93, 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Qian, G.; Liu, B.; Wang, Q. Government subsidies, state ownership, regulatory infrastructure, and the import of strategic resources: Evidence from China. Multinatl. Bus. Rev. 2018, 26, 319–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Zhang, H.S.; Shen, X.C. Play the role of government in promoting the development of crowdsourcing space. Guangxi Econ. 2016, 1, 51–52. [Google Scholar]
  73. Liu, J. Ecological mechanisms of government and market participation in the creation of crowdsourcing spaces--Evidence based on 52 municipal administrative regions across China. East China Econ. Manag. 2018, 32, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Damanpour, F.; Schneider, M. Phases of the adoption of innovation in organizations: Effects of environment, organization and top managers 1. Br. J. Manag. 2006, 17, 215–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Van Holm, E.J. Makerspaces and contributions to entrepreneurship. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 195, 24–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Huang, S.S.; Yan, C. A study on the impact of platform digital empowerment on entrepreneurial performance—The role of entrepreneurial psychological capital and entrepreneurial policy orientation. Mod. Manag. Sci. 2022, 336, 90–97. [Google Scholar]
  77. Wang, Y.; Zeng, R. The Model of Makerspace Development Element and Performance Analysis Based on NVivo Classification. Sci. Program. 2021, 2021, 7123961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Liu, X.; Lin, C.; Zhao, G.; Zhao, D. Research on the Effects of Entrepreneurial Education and Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy on College Students’ Entrepreneurial Intention. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Lin, S.; Si, S. Factors affecting peasant entrepreneurs' intention in the Chinese context. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2014, 10, 803–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hoare, K.; Decker, E. The role of a sexual health promotion leaflet for 15–18 year olds in catalysing conversations: A constructivist grounded theory. Collegian 2015, 23, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Andrews, T.; Nathaniel, A. Awareness of dying remains relevant after fifty years. Grounded Theory Review. Int. J. 2015, 14, 3–10. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 15 14616 g001
Figure 1. Mediation framework.
Figure 1. Mediation framework.
Sustainability 15 14616 g001
Sustainability 15 14616 g002
Figure 2. PLS-SEM framework output. Note: *** represents p < 0.001.
Figure 2. PLS-SEM framework output. Note: *** represents p < 0.001.
Sustainability 15 14616 g002
Table 2. Respondents’ characteristics.
Table 2. Respondents’ characteristics.
Demographic Characteristic Freq.%Cum.%
GenderMale24552.452.4
Female22347.6100
Age ≤ 20 11023.523.5
21–3029462.886.3
31–40398.394.7
41–50163.498.1
≥ 51 91.8100
EducationPrimary school and below255.35.3
Junior high school198.313.6
Senior high school112.416
College degree or above39384100
Starting Moment<229061.961.9
2–415032.132.1
5–7163.43.4
>7122.62.6
Table 3. Scoring of indicators.
Table 3. Scoring of indicators.
IndicatorsMinimumMaximumMeanStandard Deviation
ZFZC1153.731.272
ZFZC2153.701.312
ZFZC3153.681.280
ZFZC4153.671.312
ZFZC5153.711.294
ZFZC6153.721.258
ZFZC7153.681.315
ZFZC8153.671.332
ZFZC9153.681.298
Average 3.69
Category High
ZWXN1153.701.299
ZWXN2153.721.288
ZWXN3153.701.316
ZWXN4153.721.304
ZWXN5153.711.301
Average 3.71
Category High
FWYSJ1153.741.322
FWYSJ2153.641.342
FWYSJ3153.651.310
FWYSJ4153.691.305
FWYSJ5153.711.245
FWYSJ6153.731.313
FWYSJ7153.731.299
Average 3.70
Category High
CXJX1153.691.318
CXJX2153.711.312
CXJX3153.691.321
CXJX4153.701.322
CXJX5153.681.294
CXJX6153.631.321
CXJX7153.661.318
Average 3.68
Category High
Table 4. Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients for each variable (n = 468).
Table 4. Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients for each variable (n = 468).
VariablesM ± SD123
1 Return to home to support entrepreneurial policies3.69 ± 1.22
2 Service and design of rural crowdsourcing space3.70 ± 1.140.956 **
3 Self-efficacy of returning entrepreneurs3.71 ± 1.140.943 **0.939 **
4 Business startup performance3.68 ± 1.150.957 **0.946 **0.941 **
Note: ** represents p < 0.01.
Table 5. Multiple stepwise regression analysis among variables.
Table 5. Multiple stepwise regression analysis among variables.
VariablesNon-Standardized CoefficientStandardization Factor BetatpR2∆R2
βStandard Error
Support policies for hometown entrepreneurship0.4920.0460.48110.6150.0000.9340.934
Service and design of rural crowdsourcing space0.2430.0440.245.456
Self-efficacy of returning entrepreneurs0.2630.0390.2626.762
Constant term−0.0140.048 −0.290.772
Table 6. Intermediary effect values and effect sizes.
Table 6. Intermediary effect values and effect sizes.
Intermediary PathwayIntermediary Effect ValueBootstrap SEBoot CI LowerBoot CI UpperRelative Effect Size (%)
ZFZC→FWYSJ→CXJX0.2720.0540.4540.66323.92
ZFZC→ZWXN→CXJX0.1600.0310.1010.22314.07
ZFZC→FWYSJ→ZWXN→CXJX0.1270.2340.0840.17611.17
Total indirect effect0.5590.0540.4540.66349.16
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Liu, A.; Ma, X.; Zhou, M.; Zeng, L.; Lu, J. Performance Model of Youth Entrepreneurship Platform in the Context of Common Wealth Returning to Hometown. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14616. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914616

AMA Style

Liu A, Ma X, Zhou M, Zeng L, Lu J. Performance Model of Youth Entrepreneurship Platform in the Context of Common Wealth Returning to Hometown. Sustainability. 2023; 15(19):14616. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914616

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liu, Ailing, Xiaojun Ma, Meimei Zhou, Lichen Zeng, and Jijian Lu. 2023. "Performance Model of Youth Entrepreneurship Platform in the Context of Common Wealth Returning to Hometown" Sustainability 15, no. 19: 14616. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914616

APA Style

Liu, A., Ma, X., Zhou, M., Zeng, L., & Lu, J. (2023). Performance Model of Youth Entrepreneurship Platform in the Context of Common Wealth Returning to Hometown. Sustainability, 15(19), 14616. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914616

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop