Entrepreneurship Education in Fragile Contexts: Bridging the Intention–Action Gap Through Psychological and Contextual Pathways

Abstract

In fragile and unstable regions, entrepreneurship education is increasingly viewed as the path to economic resilience and youth empowerment. However, research indicates that there is relatively little empirical evidence on how entrepreneurial education promotes entrepreneurial intention and behavior, especially in situations of uncertainty and a lack of resources. This study explores this relationship based on a sample of 402 Palestinian university students and graduates, applying the Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). The study concludes that entrepreneurial education has a positive influence on students’ self-efficacy, attitudes toward entrepreneurship, and their perception of the entrepreneurial environment. Self-efficacy was found to be the most potent mediating factor of entrepreneurial intent, closely followed by attitude. Although intention is a good predictor of action, the relationship is modest, which illustrates a clear intention-action gap. The study also reports that entrepreneurial education indirectly affects actions by shaping environmental perception, and that its total influence on entrepreneurial action operates primarily through these psychological and contextual pathways. Furthermore, the availability of resources has a significant moderating effect, as students having strong intentions are more likely to act when there is a strong perception that sufficient support and resources are available to them. The research builds on the Theory of Planned Behavior and complements related work on the intention–action gap, by considering a combination of psychological and contextual influences. Additionally, it offers actionable recommendations for policy-makers, educators, and development practitioners working to realize youth aspiration in fragile economies through integrated, context-appropriate entrepreneurship interventions.

1. Introduction

Entrepreneurship is a matter of survival in many fragile and conflict-affected areas. Due to scarce employment and insecurity in the formal sector, self-employment is unlikely to be motivated by ambition, but rather by means of survival and respect [1]. Entrepreneurship education (EE) in this sense has emerged as a strategic means of empowering youth, for economic resilience and sustainable social cohesion [2]. However, even though EE has received substantial attention from academia and policy, its effect in terms of creating entrepreneurship action in the real world, especially in the more constrained contexts, is uncertain [3].

A sound body of literature documents that EE can influence EI through the promotion of self-efficacy, attitudes, and opportunity identification [4,5,6]. But in most studies, they do not go all the way to see what happens after an intention is formed. The assumption that intention naturally leads to behavior has been increasingly questioned [7,8]. This intention–action gap is particularly pronounced in fragile contexts, where external constraints often outweigh internal motivation. In such settings, characterized by weak institutions, political instability, restricted mobility, and limited access to entrepreneurial resources, the feasibility of acting on entrepreneurial intentions becomes deeply uncertain [9,10]. Palestine represents a compelling case of this fragility, according to Amorós [11], where youth face prolonged economic hardship, high unemployment, and fragmented support systems. These conditions not only shape how EE is received but also influence whether it can truly lead to entrepreneurial action.

Although EE programs have expanded across universities and Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) institutions, youth are confronted with low employment opportunities, mobility constraints, and disjointed support mechanisms [12,13]. In such a landscape, even well prepared and motivated students may hesitate to engage in entrepreneurial actions. Research findings indicate that while entrepreneurial action (EAct) is affected by intention, it is also influenced by how actors view and experience the environment around them and whether or not it feels conducive (or not) to them [14,15].

This study investigates the impact of EE on entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial behavior in the least developed contexts. It includes psychological (entrepreneurial self-efficacy and attitudes towards EE) and situational/ context-based (entrepreneurial environment and resource availability), as main mechanisms that influence individuals’ behaviors and actions. The study is based on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) [16] and Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) [17], thereby allowing individual agency and contextual framing to be considered.

Unlike many studies in the literature, this study does not consider EI as the endpoint, but rather tracks the entire behavioral process, from education to action. It also examines the moderation effect of resource availability, which is an easily ignored but critical determinant of feasibility in fragile economies [18,19]. This holistic approach responds to recent demands for more integrated models of entrepreneurial behavior, particularly in high-threat environments [14,20].

The research makes several contributions to talent development and training. Firstly, it empirically illustrates the process of translating entrepreneurial intention into action, which has been an under-researched topic in EE studies. Secondly, it combines psychological and perceived contextual factors in one framework, providing a more comprehensive picture of how entrepreneurial behavior develops. Thirdly, it presents a genuine piece of evidence from Palestine, a setting shaped by extended political instability, institutional fragmentation, and chronic uncertainty [13]. These features distinguish it from other conflict-affected regions and present a unique opportunity to test how widely used theories such as TPB and SCT function under prolonged constraint. Finally, it is consistent with the recent literature that does not consider entrepreneurial ecosystems as universally supportive, but rather as contested arenas in which success rests on both ability and context interpretation [20].

Instead of focusing on whether EE makes entrepreneurship more attractive, this study poses the question “What does it take for a young person in a fragile situation to create and seize opportunities, and how can education support such a journey in a robust and realistic stance?”

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

2.1. Theoretical Framework

This research is based on two theoretical underpinnings, such as TPB and SCT. Jointly, they provide an organized framework to understand how EE affects both intention and action, particularly for tenuous environments, where motivation is not always matched with feasibility.

According to TPB, behavior is directly influenced by knowledge, values, social structural variables, and skills; however, attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control are better determinants of intentions, which predict behavior. This model has been used to explain students’ intention formation for entrepreneurship in entrepreneurial research, more notably, the intention to start a business [8,21]. In our context, TPB informs the exercise of EE, in light of attitudes towards EE, perceived entrepreneurial environment, and the importance of the EI in transforming education into action.

In addition, the SCT is concerned with the development of the individual’s belief that s/he can produce the required actions via learning and self-regulation processes. Its central concept is that self-efficacy has been found continuously to be related to entrepreneurial behavior and mediates the impact of EE on intention [6,22]. SCT also suggests that environmental interpretation is key, and thus, perceived resource availability can be a moderating variable.

While many studies have examined the impact of EE on EI, largely based on the TPB, few extend this inquiry to actual entrepreneurial behavior by integrating both psychological and contextual mechanisms. For instance, Gao and Qin [23] found that entrepreneurial self-efficacy serves as a partial mediator between EE and EI among college students in China. Bahaw et al. [24] conducted a two-wave longitudinal study among vocational students, confirming that entrepreneurship education significantly boosts intention, attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control in TVET settings. A meta-analytic review by Bae et al. [25] reported a modest overall effect of EE on intention across 73 studies, with cultural and educational moderators influencing outcomes.

By combining TPB and SCT, this research can account for not only why, but also whether people believe they are capable and are supported in initiating a given action. The structure is compatible with a model of EE affecting behavior via psychological (attitudes, self-efficacy) and contextual (environment, resources) drivers and enablers, providing a more comprehensive view of how educational interventions influence behavior in complicated settings.

However, empirical investigations that combine TPB, SCT, and contextual moderators in fragile or resource-limited environments remain rare. The current study contributes to this gap by examining how EE influences not only intention but also action, while accounting for mediating effects of attitude and self-efficacy, and moderating effects of perceived environment and resource availability. This integrated framework offers a novel contribution to the entrepreneurship education literature, especially in under-researched fragile settings. This integrated model may also be relevant for other fragile or resource-constrained settings, providing a framework for understanding how education shapes entrepreneurial action when institutional and material barriers exist.

2.2. Entrepreneurship Education

Entrepreneurship education (EE) is widely advocated as a means for building the employability and economic resilience of young people, especially in fragile and resource-limited settings. This includes formal, non-formal, and informal learning to foster entrepreneurial knowledge, attitudes, and skills [4,26]. EE programs commonly combine theoretical learning with experiential exercises, such as simulation, case studies, or mentoring, in order to develop individual capabilities and confidence [27].

The importance of EE lies not only in what it teaches, but in how it shapes learners’ readiness to act. Previous research has found that EE can have an impact on increasing the students’ self-efficacy [22], attitudes [15] and their perceptions in relation to the entrepreneurial environment [14]. Nevertheless, empirical support for the effect of intention on behavior in real-life situations is less convincing, especially in situations where the intention–behavior gap is prominent [10,13].

This study approaches EE not as a direct determinant of behavior, but as a trigger that operates via certain psychological and contextual mechanisms. These mediating pathways are addressed in the following section.

2.3. Attitude Toward Entrepreneurship Education as a Mediator

Attitudes toward entrepreneurship education (EEA) show how students perceive the learning process, what their beliefs are on how useful, motivating, and relevant the learning has been. These emotions are usually classified in three dimensions: cognitive (perceived value), affective (emotional engagement), and behavioral (readiness to act) or intention to start a venture [15,28]. Effective EE programs do so by bridging experiential learning, interactive teaching, and relevance in the real world [2,6]. However, in this study, EEA will be treated as a single-layer contrast [29] as the aim is to focus on the holistic picture and the overall relationship between EE and EAct rather than examining the interrelations between EEA and its dimensions, as suggested by Amofah and Saladrigues [30].

Empirical research findings have also established a positive relationship between attitude toward EE and entrepreneurial intention [5,31]. This connection is particularly important in fragile settings, where formal employment is scarce and entrepreneurship offers both opportunity and risk. Under these circumstances, internalizing the value of EE might appear as one of the few tools in the hands of students to help them project their future [13].

In this study, EEA is placed as a direct consequence of EE (as well as a mediating route through which EE has an effect on intention).

H1. 

Entrepreneurial education positively influences attitudes toward entrepreneurship education (behavioral, cognitive, and affective).

H2. 

Attitudes toward entrepreneurship education positively influence entrepreneurial intentions.

2.4. Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy as a Mediator

Entrepreneurial self-efficacy (SE) is defined as an individual’s confidence in their capabilities to effectively execute activities associated with starting and operating a business [17,22]. It is assumed to have a major influence on the formation of entrepreneurial intentions.

EE has been widely reported to improve SE by instilling learners’ faith through real-world challenges, problem-solving, and exposure to entrepreneurial role models [5,31]. While students interact with entrepreneurial content, they are learning, not just about knowledge, but also about their ability to act on that knowledge.

A number of studies have revealed that SE is a powerful predictor of EI, as it diminishes perceived barriers and enhances inclination to engage in entrepreneurship [1,6]. In insecure contexts, with reduced external assistance, SE can emerge as an important internal resource for action.

This research places SE as both a direct consequence of EE as well as an intervening process by which EE influences intention. As such, the following two hypotheses are tested:

H3. 

Entrepreneurial education has a positive effect on entrepreneurial self-efficacy.

H4. 

Entrepreneurial self-efficacy positively influences entrepreneurial intention.

2.5. Entrepreneurial Environment as a Mediator

The entrepreneurial environment (En) reflects the perception of the availability of institutional, financial, social, and infrastructural support to set up a business [14,15]. These perceptions influence how people judge the practicability of starting a business. There may be a perception effect of entrepreneurship education as it helps students identify resources that are available to them and how to access them, how to negotiate the realm of bureaucracy, or how to connect with entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial networks [2]. Although the physical environment may remain constant, education has the power to change what students make of it [32].

A higher perceived supportive environment is related to more entrepreneurial action, since it lowers the perceived barriers and increases self-confidence in pursuing entrepreneurship [7,10]. This relationship is particularly pertinent in a setting, such as Palestine, where existing institutional voids hinder new venture development [13].

Accordingly, in the study, En is regarded as the result of EE and also as the intermediary that affects the relationship between education and entrepreneurial behavior and action.

H5. 

Entrepreneurial education positively impacts the entrepreneurial environment.

H6. 

The entrepreneurial environment positively affects entrepreneurial actions.

2.6. Entrepreneurial Intention and Action

Entrepreneurial intention (EI) is considered a direct precursor of entrepreneurial action [21]. This is in the spirit of the SE-based approach to the study of entrepreneurship. However, the so-called intention-action gap, where individuals hold high entrepreneurial intentions but do not apply them, continues to plague entrepreneurship literature. Botha [10] highlights that this gap is particularly pronounced in fragile environments with institutional and individual risk factors, which prevent putting thought into actions.

Though EE, SE, and EEA influence intention, their real influence is only felt when intention is transformed into the pursuit of actual entrepreneurial activity (EAct). Entrepreneurial behavior has been used to refer to concrete actions channeled into the past year, such as sales registration, product development, and financial investment [10]. Al-Qadasi et al. [1] claim that the course of action must be anchored in psychological or cognitive readiness and structural conditions. Thus, H7 links EI and EAct.

H7. 

Entrepreneurial intention positively influences entrepreneurial actions.

2.7. Moderating Role of Resource Availability

Entrepreneurial intention is the driving force that inspires one to act, yet access to resources is a constraint to the realization of the intended behavior [19]. Resource availability (RA) refers to the extent to which the access to critical inputs, such as funding, space, networks, and institutional support [18,33]. Research has shown that even when people have strong business start-up intentions, they may still be reluctant to take action if the environment is perceived as not providing the necessary support [10,14]. On the other hand, according to Xinlin et al. [19], when resources are perceived to be available, intentions will be more likely to proceed to implementation.

In the current research, the relationship between EI and EA is moderated by RA. It postulates that even firm intentions depend on possible conditions in order to translate into action.

H8. 

Resource availability moderates the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial action.

Based on the above exploration, Figure 1: Research Model shows the hypotheses that are under investigation.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Design

A quantitative, cross-sectional research design was used based on the fact that this study sought to describe the impact of entrepreneurship education on youth, as far as their entrepreneurship intention and action. The design was appropriate to the research purpose, which was to examine a theoretically based structural model that incorporates both mediating and moderating terms. To examine relationships among latent constructs, the study employed Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) with the use of Smart PLS 4.1. This approach was adopted based on its suitability for theory testing in a complex model setting and on its applicability in the context of non-normal data [1,2,34].

This study targeted higher education students, including the TVET stream, and recent graduates in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in Palestine to provide some insights about their education-to-work transition experiences. Consideration of this population is of interest, given persistent levels of youth unemployment and limited opportunities in the region, in which entrepreneurship is positioned as a viable alternative to formal employment [13,35]. A random sampling was used to increase representativeness and minimize selection bias.

The data were gathered in April 2025 through a structured online survey shared via Google Forms. The questionnaire was delivered in collaboration with the universities’ management, especially the student affairs departments, which enabled the researcher to cover a wide range of different educational institutions. An online option was utilized to make the method available in an area hampered by political and practical limitations. A total of 402 valid responses remained after preliminary exclusion based on questionnaire completeness and consistency. The sample includes 51% female and 49% male respondents, with 85% aged between 19 and 29, and 15% aged 30 or above. A total of 63% were enrolled in academic universities, and 37% came from the TVET stream. The geographical coverage focused on West Bank and East Jerusalem, reflecting a cross-section of youth in a fragile context.

To assess univariate normality, skewness values were calculated in Excel for all observed variables. The values ranged from −1.51 to +1.79, which falls within the commonly accepted threshold of ±2 for approximate normality [36]. These results suggest that the data do not exhibit severe non-normality, supporting the use of bootstrapping in PLS-SEM for robust significance testing. Furthermore, to address potential Common Method Bias, the full collinearity assessment method [37] was used. All inner VIF values were below 3.3, specifically between 1.000 and 1.457, indicating no substantial CMB.

The study complied with the ethics standards of social science research as it was approved by the Girne American University Ethics Committee. Electronic informed consent was collected at the start of the survey. Participants were briefed on the academic nature of the study and its purpose, and reassured about its anonymity, confidentiality, and allowing for voluntary withdrawal. No potentially identifying information was retained and all data was accessed and analyzed in a secure environment for research purposes only.

3.2. Research Instruments

Data was collected using a structured questionnaire that was adapted from validated instruments used in prior peer-reviewed studies.

Table 1. Constructs and Measurement Source.

Construct	No. of Items	Source
Entrepreneurship Education (EE)	5	Munawar et al. [2]
Attitude Toward EE (EEA)	15	Jena [15]
Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy (SE)	7	Liñán & Chen [21]
Entrepreneurial Intention (EI)	6	Liñán & Chen [21]
Entrepreneurial Environment (En)	5	Jena [15]
Entrepreneurial Action (EAct)	17	Botha [10]
Resource Availability (RA)	3	Xinlin et al. [19]

presents the constructs scale and their sources. All these items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 7 (“strongly agree”), but entrepreneurial action was measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Never”) to (“Always”). 7-point scales are well suited for capturing subtle differences in respondent perceptions and are widely used in social science research for their reliability and robustness in structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) [38].

4. Results

4.1. Measurement Model Assessment

The measurement model was validated to confirm indicator reliability, internal consistency, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. As part of the model refinement process, some indicators with outer loadings below the threshold of 0.70 were removed, consistent with established guidelines for PLS-SEM [39]. This process improved the psychometric properties of the constructs while preserving theoretical integrity. The final retained indicators for each construct all demonstrated sufficient outer loadings (≥0.70) as shown in Figure 2. Additionally, construct-level reliability was confirmed through Composite Reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s alpha, both of which exceeded the acceptable cutoff of 0.70. Furthermore, convergent validity was established via Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values above 0.50.

Table 2. Construct Reliability.

	Cronbach’s Alpha	Composite Reliability (rho_a)	Composite Reliability (rho_c)	Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
EAct	0.945	0.953	0.952	0.603
EE	0.817	0.818	0.891	0.732
EEA	0.921	0.923	0.934	0.586
EI	0.860	0.866	0.895	0.587
En	0.793	0.795	0.865	0.617
RA	0.833	0.967	0.892	0.734
SE	0.898	0.901	0.921	0.662

summarizes these findings.

To assess multicollinearity, variance inflation factor (VIF) values were examined and found to fall between 1 and 4.050, which are below the conservative threshold of 5 [40], indicating no collinearity concerns. Discriminant validity was verified using the HTMT ratio as shown in

Table 3. Heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT) –Matrix.

	EAct	EE	EEA	EI	En	RA	SE	RA × EI
EAct
EE	0.074
EEA	0.137	0.712
EI	0.258	0.239	0.417
En	0.363	0.499	0.495	0.258
RA	0.168	0.579	0.749	0.649	0.405
SE	0.407	0.405	0.474	0.589	0.460	0.504
RA × EI	0.050	0.036	0.152	0.315	0.160	0.198	0.112

, where all values remained below 0.85 [41], confirming that constructs were conceptually and statistically distinct. Moreover, cross-loadings were also reviewed to ensure item specificity, and no problematic overlaps were detected.

Furthermore, model fit indices confirmed an acceptable level of measurement model fit, with SRMR = 0.077 and NFI = 0.831 for the saturated model. Predictive relevance was supported by Q² values exceeding zero for endogenous constructs [42], with particularly strong predictive power for EEA (Q² = 0.379) and lower values indicating weak predictive power for EI and EAct and moderate power for En and SE. Additionally, according to [43], f² effect sizes showed large magnitude for EEA, and small to moderate magnitudes for several key relationships. All significant paths were further validated through bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals, ensuring statistical robustness.

4.2. Structural Model Assessment

4.2.1. Hypotheses Assessment

To assess the hypothesized relationships, path coefficients, t-values, and p-values were estimated using the bootstrapping method with 5000 subsamples.

Table 4. Paths and Hypotheses Result.

Hypothesis	Path	β (Path Coefficient)	Sample Mean (M)	STDEV	t-Value	p-Value	Result
H1	EE → EEA	0.622	0.624	0.034	18.035	0.000	Supported
H2	EEA → EI	0.167	0.167	0.058	2.882	0.004	Supported
H3	EE → SE	0.351	0.353	0.053	6.653	0.000	Supported
H4	SE → EI	0.459	0.462	0.053	8.722	0.000	Supported
H5	EE → EN	0.402	0.405	0.043	9.356	0.000	Supported
H6	EN → EAct	0.303	0.302	0.056	5.426	0.000	Supported
H7	EI → EAct	0.212	0.209	0.057	3.700	0.000	Supported
H8	EI × RA → EAct	0.089	0.087	0.039	2.307	0.021	Supported

presents the standardized path coefficients and their statistical significance.

4.2.2. Indirect Effects Assessment

Table 5. The Indirect Effects Analysis.

Path	β	t-Value	p-Value	Result
EE → SE → EI	0.161	5.385	0.001	Significant mediation
EE → EEA → EI	0.104	2.919	0.004	Significant mediation
EE → En → EAct	0.122	4.616	0.001	Significant mediation
EE → SE → EI → EAct	0.034	2.888	0.004	Significant serial mediation
EE → EEA → EI → EAct	0.022	2.449	0.014	Significant serial mediation
SE → EI → EAct	0.098	3.042	0.002	Significant mediation
EEA → EI → EAct	0.036	2.422	0.015	Significant mediation

shows the findings of the mediating pathways through which entrepreneurship education (EE) influences entrepreneurial intention (EI) and entrepreneurial action (EAct). The results revealed several statistically significant indirect effects, indicating the presence of both psychological and contextual mediation mechanisms.

4.2.3. Coefficient of Determination (R²)

The R² values reflect the explanatory power of the model for dependent variables. The values are low to moderate based on guidelines by Hair et al. [38] suggesting that the model explains a meaningful portion of variance in key outcomes. Specifically, the R² values are 0.123 (low) for Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy (SE), 0.387 (moderate) for Attitude toward EE (EEA), 0.161 (low) for Entrepreneurial Environment (En), 0.305 (moderate) for Entrepreneurial Intention (EI), and 0.146 (low) for Entrepreneurial Action (EAct).

These results indicate that while the model explains a moderate proportion of the variance in EI and EEA, its explanatory power is more limited for behavior-related outcomes such as entrepreneurial action. This pattern supports the idea that psychological readiness (SE, EEA) is more directly influenced by EE, whereas action-related constructs may depend more heavily on external or unobserved factors.

5. Discussion

The current study aimed to explore the effect of EE on the development of entrepreneurship intention and practice among youth in Palestine, a fragile and conflict-affected environment. Through the inclusion of the psychological constructs (attitude and self-efficacy) and the contextual enablers (the entrepreneurial environment and resource availability), the research sheds light on the mechanism through which EE interventions ‘work’ for entrepreneurial action. The findings support the hypothesized connections and illuminate specific mediating and moderating pathways.

5.1. The Impact of EE on Psychological and Contextual Mediators

As shown above, this result provides further support to the argument that EE has a positive effect on attitudes toward EE (H1) and SE (H3) at a standardized path coefficient level, β = 0.622, t = 18.035, p < 0.001 for EE → EEA, and β = 0.351, t = 6.653, p < 0.001 for EE → SE. This adds to the existing literature that good quality EE programs may help to develop learners with entrepreneurial intention [5,6,22]. Especially in the research context, EE has a dual function: much more than just providing skills, it also builds the motivational readiness and the sense of self-efficacy [10].

Moreover, EE has an important and positive influence on En (H5) (β = 0.402, t = 9.356, p < 0.001), which shows that educational exposures could enable students to form a more positive interpretation of their context. This aligns with Fini et al. [32] and Jena [15] who reported that EE improves the ability to identify institutional opportunities, although with weak systemic support. As Gregori et al. [14] contend, the entrepreneurial environment is not objectively given but co-constructed by individual perceptions and systemic affordances, a line of reasoning that seems particularly applicable to complex ecosystems such as Palestine.

The findings thus substantiate that EE promotes both individual capabilities (EEA, SE) and the perception of the context (En), and enhance the role of EE as a transformative facilitator even under high-constraint conditions. This extends the classical use of TPB by embedding it in a socially and economically disorganized environment, adhering to the call of Rauch and Hulsink [18] to contextualize EE beyond the classroom inputs.

5.2. Mediating Effects on Entrepreneurial Intention

The second test shows that entrepreneurial self-efficacy (H4) and attitude towards entrepreneurship education (H2) have a significant effect on entrepreneurial intention (EI). SE has a strong impact on EI (β = 0.459, t = 8.722, p < 0.001), which supports previous research findings implying that SE is among the most powerful predictors of entrepreneurial intention [1,6,22]. SE is a motivational concept and an instrumental mechanism, especially in fragile contexts where resources are very limited and the risks are high.

In comparison, EEA on EI (H2) (β = 0.167, t = 2.882, p < 0.01) is weaker, but it also has a significant practical impact. This result is consistent with other research studies by Jena [15] and Otache et al. [31], which confirm that students’ emotional and cognitive engagement with EE content may have in their entrepreneurial identity and future aspirations. The weaker correlation in this study can be explained in view of the specific Palestinian context in which positive learning outcomes may not necessarily lead to strong intention, as in some restricted Palestinian conditions. Still, as reported by Munawar et al. [2], the importance of EEA is to develop a mindset even when there is a delay in action.

Beyond their direct effects, the mediation analysis confirms that both self-efficacy (SE) and attitude toward EE (EEA) partially mediate the relationship between entrepreneurship education (EE) and entrepreneurial intention (EI). The indirect effect through SE (β = 0.161, t = 5.385, p = 0.000) was stronger than the one through EEA (β = 0.104, t = 2.919, p = 0.004), suggesting that EE enhances intention not only by shaping how students perceive entrepreneurship but more importantly by building their confidence to pursue it. These findings are consistent with recent research, such as [10,31], and highlight the multi-layered role of EE, working through both cognitive and motivational pathways.

Taken together, these mediating constructs adhere to the TPB, which seeks to position both perceived behavioral control (through SE) and Attitude (through EEA) as key antecedents of the intention [16,21]. Accordingly, this finding shows that in challenging contexts, building confidence and perceived control (SE) is more impactful than simply improving attitudes for shaping EI.

5.3. Pathways to Entrepreneurial Action

This analysis verifies that the entrepreneurial intention of learners significantly predicts the entrepreneurial action (H7) (β = 0.212, t = 3.700, p < 0.001), which, in turn, supports the Theory of Planned Behavior. Yet the relative effect size underscores the documented intention–action gap, especially in fragile settings [7,10].

Significantly, the entrepreneurial environment is also a powerful predictor of behavior (H6) (β = 0.303, t = 5.426, p < 0.001). This echoes the finding that students who have a supportive environment, e.g., regarding networks, infrastructure, and institutional preparedness, can turn intention into behavior [14,15]. EE appears to not only teach learners skills but also to reframe their surroundings as more opportunity-rich. In addition to its direct effect, the entrepreneurial environment also serves as a significant mediator of the relationship between EE and entrepreneurial action (β = 0.122, t = 4.616, p < 0.001), indicating that EE indirectly fosters behavior by shaping how learners perceive and interact with their context. This confirms that students’ ability to act is not just driven by internal motivation but also by their evolving sense of what is possible within their environment.

In addition, the research also verifies the moderating effect of resource availability (RA) (H8) (β = 0.089, t = 2.307, p < 0.05), indicating that entrepreneurial action is more probable when individuals perceive that resources are available. This result is consistent with McMullen and Shepherd’s [33] model of entrepreneurial activity under uncertainty and as recently evidenced by Xinlin et al. [19], who cautioned that psychological preparation is not enough to trigger action.

However, while the effect is statistically significant, its small magnitude suggests a limited but meaningful contribution to narrowing the intention–action gap. In fragile contexts, where resource constraints are critical, even incremental improvements in access to funding, mentorship, or institutional support can help translate intention into behavior. This confirms that resource facilitation should be treated as a necessary complement to, rather than a substitute for, confidence-building and mindset development within entrepreneurship education. This finding is aligned with the suggestion of [44,45] that the enabling conditions matter most when psychological readiness already exists. As such, integrated EE interventions should not only strengthen internal drivers but also foster enabling conditions that reduce perceived external barriers.

The modest effect of resource availability may reflect the reality that, in fragile contexts like Palestine, access to resources often takes a back seat to more urgent concerns such as political instability or personal safety. In such settings, entrepreneurial action is shaped more by perceived risk, trust in institutions, and informal social support than by formal resources. As such, resource availability may only become influential once a certain threshold is reached or when paired with stronger enabling conditions. This interpretation aligns with the findings of Shane and Venkataraman [46] and Davidsson and Honig [47] who emphasize that factors like opportunity recognition, social networks, and risk management strategies are essential for resource mobilization to be effective. These dynamics highlight the need to better understand how local constraints and perceptions shape the pathway from intention to action.

In sum, entrepreneurial intention is derived from the joint effect of intention, perception of the environment, and perceived behavioral control. In fragile contexts such as Palestine, this would mean that effective entrepreneurship education has to be complemented with ecosystem-level mechanisms, connecting the learning with not only the know-how but also with relevant tools, networking, and supporting elements.

5.4. Contextual Comparison: Fragile vs. Stable Settings

While many studies on entrepreneurship education are conducted in stable, institutionally supportive environments, this study provides a contrasting perspective from a fragile context. In more mature contexts, a significant correlation, and even linear relationships, has been found between entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurship activity (e.g., Liu et al. [5]; Wardana et al. [6]). However, the study found that the relationship between intention and behavior was weaker in Palestine, where the effects of self-efficacy and attitudes were high. This disconnect implies that a well-designed EE program may fail to catalyze action if the dynamics of the larger ecosystem do not already include some combination of trust, reliability, and accessibility of resources.

These differences confirm that fragility is not only a backdrop; it fundamentally alters how EE operates. In fragile contexts, entrepreneurial behavior is not just a function of intention, but also of feasibility, shaped by how learners interpret and navigate institutional voids, risk, and limited resource access [9,10]. This contrasts with studies in more stable economies (e.g., [48,49]), where intention is often considered sufficient to activate behavior. A similar pattern is observed in entrepreneurial responses to personal and organizational disruption, where contextual adaptation becomes central [50].

Moreover, this study reinforces the need for context-sensitive models of EE. While the TPB assumes that intention is the key driver of behavior, our findings support calls by [18] and [14] to adapt such models to fragile contexts, where environmental and resource-related constraints may override internal motivation. The relatively strong effects of self-efficacy and the significant role of resource availability in moderating behavior further highlight that action in these settings depends not only on psychological readiness, but also on ecosystem enablers. Therefore, EE interventions in fragile environments must be both pedagogically sound and ecosystem-aware, ensuring that youth are not only inspired to act, but also supported to do so.

Evidence from similar fragile or resource-constrained contexts also supports these findings. Even though they observed that EE can raise awareness and intention among youth, Rashid [51] noted that this alone has limited impact and needs to be accompanied by support mechanisms such as mentoring and access to finance. Similarly, Heilbrunn and Iannone [52] figured out that institutional barriers generally make it difficult for refugee entrepreneurs to translate intentions into actual behavior.

This study highlights that the intention–action gap is not only shaped by psychological readiness but is more critically influenced by the presence of enabling environments. This supports the relevance and potential transferability of the proposed model, which integrates both internal and external drivers of entrepreneurial behavior in fragile settings.

6. Conclusions

The aim of this study was to explore how entrepreneurial education promotes entrepreneurial intention and action among young entrepreneurs in Palestine, a fragile and conflict-contested environment. Based on the TPB and SCT, the study combined psychological (self-efficacy and attitudes) and environmental (entrepreneurial climate and resource availability) factors.

The results demonstrate that entrepreneurial education has a positive effect on self-efficacy, attitudes toward entrepreneurial education, and the entrepreneurial environment. Additionally, the results indicate that these three factors have a significant impact on entrepreneurial intent. Intent also, and to a lesser extent, governs entrepreneurial behavior–pointing to the widely documented intention–behavior gap, particularly under uncertain circumstances.

Perceived environment mediated, and resource availability moderated, the relationship between intention and action. They demonstrate that entrepreneurship in a fragile context needs not only self-induced motivation but also external enabling systems [14,33].

Finally, this study adds to the literature by demonstrating that entrepreneurial education efficacy is not driven by curriculum only, but is also a function of students’ confidence, their reading of the ecosystem, and available real-world resources. To close the intention–action gap, entrepreneurial education must be situated within the supporting entrepreneurial ecosystem that translates potentiality into actuality.

7. Practical Implications

Finally, this study supports the fact that in fragile contexts such as Palestine, individual entrepreneurial behavior is influenced by the entrepreneurial environment and related resources, besides education and intention. A number of sector-specific recommendations can be formulated based on the study findings.

Policymakers need to remove structural barriers, such as poor access to finance, infrastructure, and mobility, that weaken the link between intention and action. The confirmed moderating role of resource availability underlines the need for targeted support schemes, especially for youth and women in marginalized areas. This may require enhancements to some legislation, specifically in areas such as access to finance, taxation, and licensing. It will also require fostering greater collaboration with the NGOs and entrepreneurship support organizations already active in Palestine.

Higher Education Institutions (HEI) are encouraged to establish partnerships with incubators, funders, and the community. Considering the entrepreneurial ecosystem as an important mediator in this study, the HEI should facilitate access to start-up services, to network, and to secure the necessary tools, such as business model canvases to allow the students to plan and validate their ideas. On the other hand, teachers need to provide a conducive environment that goes beyond content transmission and focuses on developing self-efficacy and positive attitudes, as both emerged as significant mediators in the model of intention. Integration of non-formal training, community-based learning, open design, small case-based studies, and mentoring can promote students’ psychological preparedness. These adaptable methods are crucial to the environment in which not all learners are well served or are within reach of formal systems.

Additionally, low-cost digital platforms and AI-powered tools such as virtual mentoring, online business simulation, and market access apps, can offer scalable support to overcome resource constraints faced by marginalized youth.

Ultimately, EE must be part of a broader system of support, combining knowledge, belief, opportunity, and access, to help young people act, not just aspire.

8. Limitations and Future Research

Although this research offers valuable insights into the relationship between entrepreneurship education, intention, and action in fragile settings, there are a few limitations that need to be considered:

First, the cross-sectional nature of the study precludes determining causality or monitoring behavior change over time. Entrepreneurial behavior is a dynamic process, and future studies may need to use longitudinal studies to investigate how intention leads to sustained entrepreneurship.

Another limitation is that the research was geographically limited to Palestine. The lack of representation of different regions and different kinds of instability contexts can limit the generalization of the research findings.

In addition, the model did not account for important psychological and contextual variables, such as entrepreneurial mindset, resilience, opportunity recognition, social support, digital readiness, and the effect of the AI revolution. Future research could consider these factors to better understand what motivates individuals to behave entrepreneurially in such high-risk contexts.

Moreover, the focus of this study was on formal education, which implies the need to explore the role of non-formal and informal learning in developing entrepreneurial capabilities, particularly among university non-attenders.

One important limitation worth noting is that, while all constructs in this study were measured through self-report, they differ in their underlying nature. Psychological factors like attitude and self-efficacy reflect individual-level beliefs, whereas contextual elements such as the perceived environment and resource availability relate to external conditions. Future research could consider using multilevel structural equation modeling (HSEM) to better account for these conceptual differences and to explore how individual perceptions interact with broader environmental factors.

Filling these gaps may provide a comprehensive and more situation-sensitive picture of the ways that education systems may promote entrepreneurship under constraint.