OVERCOMING BARRIERS IN THE ENTREPRENEURIAL PROCESS OF YOUTH: THE IMPORTANCE OF SUPPORT PROGRAMS Lucio Cassia1, Giuseppe Criaco2, Tommaso Minola1

INTRODUCTION Promoting entrepreneurship and enterprise creation is high on the policy agenda of almost all countries in the world, as successful enterprises generate additional employment (Haftendorn and Salzano, 2003). Even though youth (under 24 years) unemployment contributes up to almost 50% of the total worldwide unemployment3, young people (aged between 25 and 34 years) are recorded for having higher values of entrepreneurial activity and higher levels of ambition (Bosma and Levie, 2010). Thus, youth entrepreneurship is increasingly accepted as an important career pathway and a useful alternative for income generation in young people (Ryan, 2003). Indeed, today’ s youth are capable of triggering regional innovation processes and technological advances (Frosch, 2011), they tend to be more socially active and they are internationally oriented and generally endowed with creativity (Kazmi, 1999) and capabilities that allow them to exploit entrepreneurial opportunities. Nevertheless, also according to GEM 2009, although 25.3% of worldwide youth population (aged between18 and 29 years) is expecting to start a new business within the next three years, only 7.2% is actively involved in a start-up effort, 6.1% manage and owns a business that is younger than 48

1 Center for Young and Family Enterprise and Department of Economics and Technology Management, University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy. 2 Business Economics Department, Faculty of Economics, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallés, Barcelona, Spain. 3 During the first quarter of 2009, the number of European Union unemployed youth has reached 5 million (International Labour Office, 2010; United Nations, 2011)

Young Entrepreneur

months while 3.0% of the youth population is currently owning and managing a business older than 48 months. Why is there such a drastic drop from intention rate to entrepreneurial action? That is, young entrepreneurs face many obstacles during the entrepreneurial process. Such barriers are lack of finance (Schoof, 2006; Atieno, 2009), unawareness of the availability of government programs specifically designed to support them and help them in launching their new venture (Maas and Herrington, 2006) and lack of education and training reducing the managerial and entrepreneurial ability (Orford et al., 2003). Shortages of education and training may be a result of low early exposure to entrepreneurial education (Schoof, 2006). Indeed, it has been empirically assessed that youth entrepreneurship programs enhance both entrepreneurial intention and engagement (Kourilsky and Walstad, 1998; Peterman and Kennedy, 2003; Souitaris et al., 2007). Many programs have been developed and successful executed in different countries with the aim of enforcing entrepreneurial education and activities (Jones-Evans et al., 2000; Lewis and Massey, 2003; Jones and English, 2004). Such strong engagement in youth entrepreneurship policies has also been witnessed recently in Hofer and Delaney (2010). Nevertheless, few countries have created clear and comprehensive policy frameworks to promote youth entrepreneurship and self-employment (Haftendorn and Salzano, 2003). Thus, besides some punctual efforts (Hytti and O’ Gorman, 2004) there exists a lack of an integrated approach to policy in this field of study (Lewis and Massey 2003), which also leads to the absence of regular and robust tools for strategic orientation and assessment as well as a lack of replicability (Henry et al., 2005; Schoof, 2006). Such lack of integrated framework should be explained by the lack of a coherent theoretical approach to the phenomenon of youth entrepreneurship. Indeed, there exists a gap in entrepreneurship literature concerning the development of theories that apply to specific groups, in this case to youth (Lewis and Massey, 2003). Regardless the acknowledgments that young entrepreneurs are different from older entrepreneurs (Kautonen, 2008; Kautonen et al., 2010), young entrepreneurs are still treated alike generic entrepreneurs (Lewis and Massey, 2003). The main objective of this paper is to highlight those peculiar aspects that have to be considered when fostering entrepreneurship specifically in young people, taking into account the need of a longitudinal approach for programs’ output and outcomes. In order to do so, this paper retrieves those determinants of entrepreneurship in youth from a systematic literature review of empirical studies and projected such dimensions onto the progress in the entrepreneurial process, building thus a theoretical framework. Following Reynolds et al. (2004), Grilo and Thurik (2008) and van der Zwan et al. (2010), we refer to the entrepreneurial process as a dynamic process based on stages and transition points. 648

Overcoming barriers in the entrepreneurial process of youth: the importance of support programs

The research contributes by shedding light, at both a theoretical and practical point of view, on the specificities of youth entrepreneurship phenomenon. From an academic point of view, this paper helps to arrange existing contribution in literature in such way that consulting and comparison become an easy task. On the other hands, practitioners are provided with an easy tool for beginning and implementing entrepreneurship programs and policies addressed to young people.

REVIEW ON YOUTH ENTREPRENEURSHIP POLICIES & PROGRAMS Literature on entrepreneurship education and support is very extended. Gorman et al. (1997) analyzed 29 articles with a conceptual or theoretical focus on entrepreneurship education, enterprise education or education for small business management, published during the 10-year period, between 1985 and 1994. Authors grouped such studies by target market (students enrolled in the formal education system, out-of-school potential entrepreneurs, existing business owners, and others), and by content (entrepreneurial propensity, pre-startup, post-startup, and articles about educational process and structure). The authors concludes that the “components of the ideal structure include the following: a focus on attributes and skills as well as tasks, an element of concrete experience derived from active participation through projects and the like, and content directed to stage of venture development and emphasizing functional integration” (pg. 69). Dynamism in entrepreneurship programs was acknowledged by realizing that education and training programs should vary according to the nature of the target audience (Gorman et al., 1997) and to the particular stage of development of the individual or his/her business within the start-up process (McMullan and Long, 1987). An example is given by Garavan and O’ Cinneide (1994) who divide small-business owner training programs into three categories, i.e. small business awareness education, education and training for small business ownership, and continuing small business education, each one relating specifically to different stages of entrepreneurial development in people. A reference point in Europe for the settings of entrepreneurship policy is the Small Business Act (European Community, 2008). It suggests main institutional and economic pillars to promote effective entrepreneurship policies, and in particular, it highlights the importance of young people as a relevant target of such programs and policies by stating that “…they need to care for future entrepreneurs better, in particular by fostering entrepreneurial interest and talent, particularly among young people and women, and by simplifying the conditions for business transfers” (p. 5) and they should aim at stimulating “innovative and entrepreneurial mindsets among young people by introducing entrepreneurship as 649

Young Entrepreneur

a key competence in school curricula, particularly in general secondary education, and ensure that it is correctly reflected in teaching material” (p. 6). Henderson and Robertson (1999) proposed a typology of education and training programs for young entrepreneurs classified as: programs for small business start-ups, continuing (adult) small business education, and small business education. While the first typology of programs should aim at covering functional areas such as raising finance, basic accounts, employment issues, and marketing in those persons wishing to enter self-employment, the second typology consists on short courses providing training in specific skills development or updating. Finally, small business education is addressed to secondary or tertiary-level students and it relates to general educational courses whose objective is to raise awareness, e.g. considering entrepreneurship as a career option, and providing information in new business establishment. On the other hand, Greene (2002) highlights three periods in the last 35 years that characterized the public effort in supporting youth entrepreneurship. The first period called ‘free enterprise’ occurred between 1975 and 1981. During this period, characterized by a reaction to the social problems of the 70s, there was very limited public support to businesses created by young people. In the second period called ‘enterprise culture’ (1981-1991), there was a direct intervention of both public and private sector to support youth entrepreneurship. The article also identifies a third stage, namely ‘enterprising people’ (from 1992 onwards), that has seen an increased focus on improving the entrepreneurial skills of young people in particular. As a consequence of this growing emphasis, Hofer and Delaney (2010) stress the importance of dedicated policy program tailored for young’ s engagement in entrepreneurship, and detail how entrepreneurial education and start-up support are essential for good practice in youth entrepreneurship support. They present a set of evaluation criteria that collects evidence from academics and practitioners along three main dimensions: opportunity creation, entrepreneurship education and start-up support.

PROGESS IN THE ENTREPRENEURIAL PROCESS AS A COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOME OF ENTREPRENERIAL SUPPORT Although youth entrepreneurship education and support programs are recognized to be important tools for fostering entrepreneurship, few studies focus on a holistic approach able not only to identify the outcomes and characteristics of such programs, but that it also encompass the structure and design of each program. An exception is made by Bronte-Tinkew and Redd (2001) who provided an extended review of youth entrepreneurship program and qualify them according to a process logic based on: inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes. Inputs include the resources that are injected 650

Overcoming barriers in the entrepreneurial process of youth: the importance of support programs

in the program, such as funding, tangible and intangible resources, infrastructure (e.g. buildings) and mentors; authors highlight that Inputs also include constraints such as laws and regulations. Activities represent the actions taken and methodologies adopted by the program to make use of inputs; example can be entrepreneurial training, apprenticeships and competence assessment prior to program. Outputs indicate the direct and measurable result of the program, clearly and unambiguously identifiable through indicators such as number of participants, number of youth served, and so on. Outcomes are the broader effect on the extended population that has received the services and training of the program, and is suggested by authors to be divided into three categories: initial (changes in knowledge, attitudes, or skills that can for instance lead to increase knowledge and confidence with the venture creation process), Intermediate (changes in behavior that result from the acquisition of new knowledge, such as the engagement in an actual venture creation) and longerterm (changes in participants’ condition or status, e.g. becoming economically independent). Hytti and O’Gorman (2004) propose a conceptual schema in order to catch the objectives of entrepreneurship programs and initiatives around Europe. According to the authors, in order for interventions to be successful implemented, both policy makers and educators should have a deep understanding of different and alternative aims, objectives, and forms by which such operations should be delivered. Conversely, Henry et al. (2005) argue that little uniformity can be found in educative and practice programs due to existing difficulties associated with program evaluation. Additionally, similarly to Hytti and O’Gorman, the authors highlight the importance of educators and trainers to have a fuller understanding of what they wish to achieve from their program from the outset in order to ensure a more accurate assessment of the outcomes. In the other hands, other authors (Jones-Evans et al., 2000; Lewis and Massey, 2003; Jones and English, 2004) analyzed single programs, namely Postgraduate Diploma in Entrepreneurial Practice (DEP), Young Enterprise Scheme (YES) and an Entrepreneurship major at the University of Tanzania respectively, with the aim of highlighting the unique and effective model of leaning developed by each programs. Additionally, Owualah (1999) found that loan scheme served as a co-operant factor in achieving self-employment in Nigeria. In the other hand, Sobel and King (2008) found that counties with voucher programs, i.e. private k-12 schools with higher entrepreneurial engagement, have significantly higher rates of youth entrepreneurship. All programs have in common the view that entrepreneurial education should be conducted in different learning environments with an action-oriented project-based teaching style where program peer evaluation becomes a central issue for further programs assessments. Nevertheless, the innovative issue in this research is not only about detecting the distinct output or outcome of a certain program or policy, but rather how such program 651

Young Entrepreneur

or policy can guarantee the advancement of youths among the entrepreneurial process. In this way, we acknowledge the importance of a dynamic approach to outcomes evaluation. According to Reynolds et al. (2004) the entrepreneurial process has three stages with two transition points (figure 1). As shown on the left side of the model, the first stage of the start-up process involves all the population coming from two potential sources: all those involved in the labor force and those that are employees of existing businesses. The first transition point in the entrepreneurial process is conception when individuals from these two sources choose to pursue a new business startup. The second stage is called gestation and studies those factors that affect nascent entrepreneurs’ efforts to take their businesses into reality. The second transition point in the model, birth, happens if entrepreneurs’ activities turn into an infant firm. If firm birth occurs, then the new business is in its infancy stage: during this period, three types of trajectories are possible: growth, persistent but stable survival, or termination. Similarly, Grilo and Thurik (2008) acknowledge a dynamic view of the entrepreneurial process by considering entrepreneurship as a process someone becomes involved in and where different engagement levels can be distinguished. Indeed, the authors introduce the concept of engagement levels to distinguish between the different stages of setting up or closing down a business. Finally, van der Zwan et al. (2010) extend Grilo and Thurik’s model by describing entrepreneurial decision as a process as an ordered sequence of engagement levels, having “(potential) entrepreneurs climb the entrepreneurial ladder” (p. 2181).

Figure 1 – Reynolds’ et al. entrepreneurial process Source: Reynolds, Carter, Gartner, and Greene (2004)

652

Overcoming barriers in the entrepreneurial process of youth: the importance of support programs

For this research we assume a slightly different, but still very similar, view of the entrepreneurial process Indeed, we consider the entrepreneurial process to start when an individual shows the intention to be an entrepreneur/start a new business. The first transition point includes different steps individuals are undertaking in order to translate such intention to action. The second stage, i.e. start-up activity, happens when the individual becomes an entrepreneur and starts his/her own company4. Finally, the last stage is called entrepreneurial performance. Such stage is, indeed, alike to Reynolds’ et al. (2004) infancy phase. Figure 2 resumes the entrepreneurial process to which we refer in this study.

Figure 2 – The entrepreneurial process

TOWARDS A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK A systematic literature review has been conducted in order to see which are the determinants of youth entrepreneurship along the entrepreneurial process. In order for study to be included in our literature review had to fulfill all following requirements: 1) be empirical, 2) been explicitly based on a young sample (youth, students, teens), or having the variable age as moderating other determinants, 3) study one (or more) specific stage of the entrepreneurial process, 4) be published in ABS ranked journals. A keyword search5 was performed to find such studies. Table 1 summarizes the results obtained from the literature review.

4 For the purposes of this article we define as being an entrepreneur someone who created a business. Although, we acknowledge that people can identify themselves as entrepreneurs in any of the stage of the entrepreneurial ladder (van der Zwan et al., 2010). 5

Keywords used for finding source were: youth, young, entrepreneur/s/ship, intention, performance

653

Young Entrepreneur

Individuals’ age is indeed an important variable, as its cohorts define our group of interest, i.e. young entrepreneurs. Despite recent attention to the role of age in entrepreneurial activities (Levesque and Minniti, 2006; Zissimopoulos and Karoly, 2007; Kautonen, 2008; Gielnik et al., 2012), our current understanding is still too fragmented. Moreover, while other demographic characteristics such as gender and ethnicity have been widely studied in entrepreneurship literature (Light, 1984; Fischer, et al., 1993 among others), very few researchers have focused on age as a predicting demographic characteristic of entrepreneurship (Lewis and Massey, 2003). One of the exception is given by Levesque and Minniti (2006), who, based on Becker’ s (1965) time allocation theory, show that younger individuals are more likely to start a new firm than older individuals since the so called “age effect” reduces the relative return to entrepreneurship as individuals become older. Furthermore, there exists a gap in entrepreneurship literature concerning the development of theories that apply to specific groups, in this case to youth (Lewis and Massey, 2003). Regardless the acknowledgments that prime age entrepreneurs (20-49 years) are different from third age entrepreneurs (50+ years) (Kautonen, 2008; Kautonen et al., 2010), general theories of entrepreneurship are still applied to young (Lewis and Massey, 2003). The literature review confirms that youth involved in entrepreneurship possesses distinctive characteristics and attributes compared to those that are not. Thus, it becomes important to consider the specificity of young entrepreneurs in any of the stages, and transitions, of the entrepreneurial process. Proposition 1: Based on literature review on youth entrepreneurship, there is a need to consider the peculiarity of youth entrepreneurs to be supported on the whole entrepreneurial process.

654

Overcoming barriers in the entrepreneurial process of youth: the importance of support programs

Table 1 – Youth entrepreneurship determinants

Demographic Characteristics

Personality Traits

Human Capital / Social Capital

Financial Capital

Entrepreneurial Intention Gender (Kourilsky & Walstad, 1998; Wilson et al., 2007), Race (Athayde, 2009) Risk and Independence (Douglas & Shepherd, 2002), Need for achievement (Dohse & Walter, 2011) Perceived behavior control Desirability Self-efficacy Entrepreneurship Education (Souitaris et al., 2007), Strong ties (Sequeira et al., 2007) Social Norms

Start-Up Activity Gender (Kolvereid Moen, 1997)

Entrepreneurial Performance & Gender 2007)

(Coleman,

Entrepreneurship Education (Kolvereid & Moen, Working Experience 1997), Self-Employment (van Praag, 2003) Experience (van Praag & van Ophem 1995) Inheritance or Gift (Blanchflower & Oswald, 1998), Assets (van Praag & van Ophem, 1995)

Support (Carr & Sequeira, 2007), Role Model Role Model (Chlosta et Family Exposure to (Dohse & Walter, 2011), al., 2012; Mungai & VelaEntrepreneurship Experience (Athayde, muri, 2011) 2009)

Several theoretical approaches have been developed to explain why some people eventually become entrepreneurs. Among these, entrepreneurial intention has been adopted as a solid stream of research. In fact, the intention to start a business is thought to be the best predictor of actual venture creation (Audet, 2004). There exist two seminal theory-based models that assess both general intention, namely theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) and entrepreneurial intention, called entrepreneurial event theory (Shapero and Sokol, 1982). The theory of planned behavior is a theory about the relationship between attitudes and behavior where intentions are formed as a result of three factors: attitude toward performing the behavior, i.e. the degree to which an individual has a desirable or undesirable consideration of performing that behavior, subjective norms, i.e. perceived social pressure and consideration, and perceived behavioral control, i.e. an individual’s personal judgment of the ability of performing a potential behavior. Finally, the entrepreneurial event theory (Shapero and Sokol, 1982) relates intention to become self-employed and form a new venture (an entrepreneurial event) to individuals’ perceptions of desirability and feasibility 655

Young Entrepreneur

in relation to that activity. Moreover, it studies life path changes and their impact on the individual’s perceptions of desirability and perceptions of feasibility of new firm creation, claiming that such changes (displacement) provoke a change in entrepreneurial intention and subsequent behavior. Along with intention theories, there exist career choice theories. Among the large extent of career theories, Dyer (1994) developed a comprehensive theory of entrepreneurial careers. In particular, he focus on the fact that such theory should explain the reason why someone would choose a particular occupation and which kinds of socialization experiences would prepare someone to undertake entrepreneurial position. Concerning youth, our review shows that demographic factors are determinants of entrepreneurial intentions. There indeed exist significant gender differences on entrepreneurial intentions such that young girls will have lower intentions than young boys (Kourilsky and Walstad, 1998; Wilson et al., 2007). Concerning ethnic, Athayde (2009) found black pupils in the London area to be more likely to consider self-employment in the future than either Asian or White ones. Personality traits have also shown to be important predictors of entrepreneurial intentions in youth. For instance, higher scores of risk propensity, need for independence and need for achievement lead to higher scores in self-employment intention (Douglas and Shepherd, 2002; Dohse and Walter, 2011). Human capital, i.e. education and experience (Becker, 1975), and social capital are key determinant of entrepreneurship. In this specific context, i.e. youth, there exist studies (Souitaris et al., 2007) that prove how the participation of entrepreneurship education programs raises participants’ entrepreneurial intention. Thus, specific education in entrepreneurship is to be considered as a determinant of entrepreneurial intention. Concerning social capital, Sequeira et al. (2007) found that the higher the perceived strong ties (family and closed friends) an individual has, the higher his/her entrepreneurial intention. Finally, family exposure to entrepreneurship was also found to be relevant for entrepreneurial intentions in youth. Family positively influences young individuals’ entrepreneurial intention through role models (Dohse and Walter, 2011), e.g. growing up in an entrepreneurial environment allows to learn from the self-employed person serving as a role model and getting a realistic preview of self-employment (Chlosta et al., 2010). Perceive family support also increases entrepreneurial intention among youth (Carr and Sequeira, 2007). Thus, based on such findings we can develop the following proposition: Proposition 2: There exist a well-defined set of peculiar dimension that a program aimed at fostering entrepreneurial intention in youth should consider. Concerning characteristics of youth entrepreneurs, demographic attributes differentiate entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs. For instance, male students are more likely to be entrepreneurs than female ones (Kolvereid and Moen, 1997). 656

Overcoming barriers in the entrepreneurial process of youth: the importance of support programs

Entrepreneurship specific human capital, i.e. entrepreneurial education and experience, has also been shown to be a determinant of entrepreneurial behavior. Indeed, van Praag and van Ophem (1995) found that having start-up experience stimulates youth to switch into self-employment. On the other hand, Kolvereid and Moen (1997) found those students who had entrepreneurship education background being more likely to engage start their own firm (Kolvereid and Moen, 1997). Unlikely the previous one, in this step financial capital plays an important role in new firm creation. Indeed, Blanchflower and Oswald (1998) found that the receipt of an inheritance or gift increases a typical individuals’ probability of being self-employed. Van Praag and van Ophem (1995) obtained a similar result, since they discovered that the more the assets owned by a young person (or family), the higher the probability of being self-employed. Finally, parental role models have been found to positively affect entrepreneurial engagement (Chlosta et al., 2012; Mungai and Velamuri, 2011). Thus, on behalf of such findings reviews by the literature on youth entrepreneurship, we develop the following proposition: Proposition 3: There exist a well-defined set of peculiar dimension that a program aimed at fostering start-up activity in youth should consider. Few studies have related age of the entrepreneur with measures of entrepreneurial performance (Cooper, 1993). Cooper (1993) states that older entrepreneurs may be less likely to invest (and risk) the time and money needed to grow. However, they may be less disposed to close down marginal businesses because they perceive fewer employment alternatives. Similar hypothesis has been developed by Gimeno et al. (1997) who stated that older people should have less time to recoup the costs associated with switching jobs and thus are likely to perceive lower benefits from switching. According to Sapienza and Grimm (1997) older founders may benefit from greater experience while younger founders benefit from higher levels of energy and stamina. Nevertheless, if controlling for experience, younger founders should be more successful in achieving goals because of their stamina. According to Coleman (2007) older firms’ owners should have gained a greater amount of life experience, judgment, and maturity, as well accumulating greater amounts of the financial capital that would enable them to start and operate a firm and to sustain it through periods of financial difficulty. Similarly, Weber and Schaper (2004) give an overview of the different factors influencing the likelihood of success of older entrepreneurs. Success factors include experience levels, superior networks, a stronger financial situation and higher self-efficacy levels. Factors possibly negatively affecting performance of older entrepreneurs include lower energy levels, part-time involvement and the lower inclination to pursue firm growth. 657

Young Entrepreneur

Demographic characteristics are also important. Coleman (2007) found that firms owned by younger men were significantly more likely to be profitable. Thus, based on such literature, we can state that entrepreneurs’ age affects entrepreneurial performance, at least for some performance dimension. If we strictly refer to studies that use youth entrepreneurs’ sample, only specific human capital seems to be a determinant of performance. Indeed, working experience in the same industry and in the same position positively is positively related to the survival of the firm (van Praag, 2003). Finally, we can introduce the last proposition: Proposition 4: There exist a well-defined set of peculiar dimension that a program aimed at fostering entrepreneurial performance in youth should consider.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA Drawing from the results obtained from the review of the literature, we have formulated a framework that encompasses the determinants of youth entrepreneurship along the entrepreneurial process. Such framework merges the entrepreneurial process described in the previous chapter with the relevant dimensions revealed by the literature review. The proposed theoretical framework highlights the direction that youth entrepreneurship support policies and programs should undertake in order to sustain and enhance entrepreneurship, and the contextual dimension to be considered in all the three different stages and two gates within of the entrepreneurial process. For instance, if we considered demographic dimensions, programs and policies should augment entrepreneurial intention in young women as they witness a lower level than male (Kourilsky and Walstad, 1998; Wilson et al., 2007). As shown in figure 3, none only the determinants significant when referring to a young sample, but also the moderating effect of individuals’ age on such determinants become relevant. Indeed, yet referring to gender, programs should account the mediating effect of founder’ s age on firm performance. Indeed, they ought to stimulate younger male to start-up a firm earlier within their life as firms created by younger men outperform those run by older ones (Coleman, 2007).

658

Overcoming barriers in the entrepreneurial process of youth: the importance of support programs

Figure 3 – Theoretical Framework

Analysis within this study has resulted in a description of key factors that can influence the success of initiatives and school programs encouraging youth entrepreneurship. Empirical evidence gathered from real initiative or program worldwide (such those quoted by Hofer and Delaney, 2010) could represent an insightful validation of our framework, especially when associated with programs effectiveness and heterogeneity.

REFERENCES Ajzen, I. (1991), The Theory of Planned Behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 50, pp. 179-211. Athayde, R. (2009), Measuring enterprise potential in young people, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 33, n. 2, pp. 481-500. 659

Young Entrepreneur

Atieno, R. (2009), Linkages, access to finance and the performance of small-scale enterprises in Kenya, Journal of Accounting and Business Research, vol. 3, n. 1, pp. 33-48. Audet, J. (2004), A Longitudinal Study Of The Entrepreneurial Intentions Of University Students, Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, vol. 10, n. 1, pp. 3-15. Becker, G. S. (1965), A Theory of the Allocation of Time, The Economic Journal, vol. 75, n. 299, pp. 493-517. Becker, G. S. (1975), Human Capital, National Bureau of Economic Research, New York. Blanchflower, D. and Oswald, A.J. (1998), What makes an entrepreneur? Evidence on inheritance and capital constraints, Journal of Labor Economics, vol. 16, n. 1, pp. 26-60. Bosma, N. and Levie, J. (2010), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2009 – Executive Report, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Bronte-Tinkew, J. and Redd, Z. (2001), Logic Models and Outcomes for Youth Entrepreneurship Programs, Washington DC, Child Trends. Carr, J.C. and Sequeira, J.M. (2007), Prior family business exposure as intergenerational influence and entrepreneurial intent: A Theory of Planned Behavior approach, Journal of Business Research, vol. 60, n. 10, pp. 1090-1098. Chlosta, S., Patzelt, H., Klein, S. and Dormann, C. (2012), Parental role models and the decision to become self-employed: The moderating effect of personality, Small Business Economics, vol. 38, n. 1, pp. 121-138. Coleman, S. (2007), The Role of Human and Financial Capital in the Profitability and Growth of Women-Owned Small Firms, Journal of Small Business Management, vol. 45, n. 3, pp. 303-319. Cooper, A. C. (1993), Challenges in predicting new firm performance, Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 8, pp. 241-253. Dohse, D. and Walter, S.G. (2011), Knowledge context and entrepreneurial intentions, Small Business Economics, DOI: 10.1007/s11187-011-9324-9. Douglas, E.J. and Shepherd, D.A. (2002), Self-employment as a career choice: attitudes, entrepreneurial intentions, and utility maximization, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 26, n. 3, pp. 81-90. Dyer, W.G. (1994), Toward a theory of entrepreneurial careers, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 19, n. 2, pp. 7-21. 660

Overcoming barriers in the entrepreneurial process of youth: the importance of support programs

European Community (2008), “Think small first”: A “Small Business Act” for Europe, communication from the commission to the council, the European parliament, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions, Brussels, European Community. Fischer, E. M., Reuber, R. A., & Dyke, L. S. (1993), A theoretical overview and extension of research on sex, gender, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 8, n. 2, pp. 151-168. Frosch, K. H. (2011), Workforce Age and Innovation: A Literature Survey, International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 13, pp. 414-430. Garavan, T. and O’ Cinneide, B. (1994), Entrepreneurship education and training programmes: a review and evaluation, Journal of European Industrial Training, Part I, vol. 18, n. 8, pp. 3-12. Gielnik, M. M., Zacher, H. and Frese, M. (2012), Focus on opportunities as a mediator of the relationships between business owners’ age and venture growth, Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 27, pp. 127-142. Gimeno, J., Folta, T. B., Cooper, A. C. and Woo, C. Y. (1997), Survival of the Fittest? Entrepreneurial Human Capital and the Persistence of Underperforming Firms, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 42, n. 4, pp. 750-783. Gorman, G., Hanlon, D. and King, W. (1997), Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship education, enterprise education and education for small business management: a ten-year literature review’ , International Small Business Journal, vol. 15, pp. 56-78. Greene, F. J. (2002), An Investigation into Enterprise Support For Younger People, 1975-2000, International Small Business Journal, vol. 20, n. 3, pp. 315-336. Grilo, I. and Thurik, A. R. (2008), Determinants of entrepreneurial engagement levels in Europe and the US, Industrial and Corporate Change, vol. 17, n. 6, pp. 1113-1145. Haftendorn, K. and Salzano, C. (2003), Facilitating youth entrepreneurship, part 1: An analysis of awareness and promotion programmes in formal and non-formal education programmes, Geneva, International Labour Office. Henderson, R. and Robertson, M. (1999), Who wants to be an entrepreneur? Young adult attitudes to entrepreneurship as a career, Education + Training, vol. 41, n. 5, pp. 236-245. Henry, C., Hill, F. and Leitch, C. (2005), Entrepreneurship education and training: can entrepreneurship be taught? Part I, Education + Training, vol. 47, n. 2, pp. 98-111. Hofer, A. and Delaney, A. (2010), Shooting for the Moon: Good Practices in Local Youth Entrepreneurship Support, OECD Local Economic and Employment 661

Young Entrepreneur

Development (LEED) Working Papers, 2010/11, OECD Publishing. DOI: 10.1787/5km7rq0k8h9q-en. Hytti, U. and O’ Gorman, C. (2004), What is “enterprise education”? An analysis of the objectives and methods of enterprise education programmes in four European countries, Education + Training, vol. 46, n. 1, pp. 11-23. International Labour Office (2010), Global employment trends for youth: August 2010: Special issue on the impact of the global economic crisis on youth, Geneva, International Labour Office. Jones, C. and English, J. (2004), A contemporary approach to entrepreneurship education, Education + Training, vol. 46, n. 8/9, pp. 416-423. Jones-Evans, D. Williams, W. and Deacon, J. (2000), Developing entrepreneurial graduates: an action-learning approach, Education + Training, vol. 42, n. 4/5, pp. 282-288. Kautonen, T. (2008), Understanding the older entrepreneur: Comparing third age and prime age entrepreneurs in Finland, International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, vol. 3, n. 3, pp. 3-13. Kautonen, T., Luoto, S. and Tornikoski, E. T. (2010), Influence of work history on entrepreneurial intentions in ‘prime age’ and ‘third age’ : A preliminary study, International Small Business Journal, vol. 28, n. 6, pp. 583-601. Kazmi, A. (1999), What Young Entrepreneurs Think and Do: A Study of SecondGeneration Business Entrepreneurs, Journal of Entrepreneurship, vol. 8, n. 1, pp. 67-77. Kolvereid, L. and Moen, Ø. (1997), Entrepreneurship among business graduates: does a major in entrepreneurship make a difference?, Journal of European Industrial Training, vol. 21, n. 4, pp. 154-60. Kourilsky, M. and Walstad, W.B. (1998), Entrepreneurship and female youth: knowledge, attitudes, gender differences, and educational practices, Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 13, n. 1, pp. 77-88. Levesque, M. and Minniti, M. (2005), The effect of aging on entrepreneurial behavior, Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 21, n. 2, pp. 177-194. Lewis, K. and Massey, C. (2003), Youth Entrepreneurship, in Entrepreneurship: New perspectives in a global age, edited by De Bruin, A. and Dupuis, A. (2003), Aldershot, Hamps Ashgate. Light, I. (1984), Immigrant and ethnic enterprise in North America, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 7, n. 2, pp. 195-216. 662

Overcoming barriers in the entrepreneurial process of youth: the importance of support programs

Maas, G. and Herrington, M. (2006), The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) South African Report, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor.

McMullan, W.E. and Long, W. A. (1987), Entrepreneurship education in the nineties, Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 2, n. 3, pp. 61-275. Mungai, E. and Velamuri, S. (2011), Parental entrepreneurial role model influence on male offspring: is it always positive and when does it occur?, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 35, n. 2, pp. 337-357. Orford, J., Herrington, M. and Wood, E. (2003), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, South African Report, GEM, http://www.gsb.uct.ac.za/files/GEM2004.pdf. Owualah, S. L. (1999), Tackling Youth Unemployment through Entrepreneurship, International Small Business Journal, vol. 17, n. 3, pp. 49-59. Peterman, N. and Kennedy, J. (2003), Enterprise education: influencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28 (2), 129-144. Reynolds, P. D., Carter, N. M., Gartner, W. B. and Greene, P. (2004), The Prevalence of Nascent Entrepreneurs in the United States: Evidence from the Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics, Small Business Economics, vol. 23, pp. 263-284. Ryan, C. (2003), Programme Priorities 2003-2006 Youth Enterprise Development, London, Commonwealth Secretariat. Sapienza, H. J., & Grimm, C. M. (1997), Founder Characteristics, Start-Up Process, and Strategy Structure Variables as Predictors of Shortline Railroad Performance, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 22, n. 1, pp. 5-24. Schoof, U. (2006), Stimulating Youth Entrepreneurship: Barriers and Incentives to Enterprise Start-Ups by Young People, ILO, Geneva, International Labour Office. Sequeira, J., Mueller, S. L. and McGee, J. E. (2007), The influence of social ties and self-efficacy in forming entrepreneurial intention and motivating nascent behavior, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, vol. 12, n.3 , pp. 275-293. Shapero, A. and Sokol, L. (1982), The Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship, In Kent, D. and Vesper, K., The Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship (pp. 72-90), Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall. Sobel, R.S. and King, K.A. (2008), Does school choice increase the rate of youth entrepreneurship?, Economics of Education Review, vol. 27, n. 4, pp. 429-438. Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S. and Al-Laham, A. (2007), Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources, Journal of Business Venturing, vol. 22, n. 4, pp. 566-591. 663

Young Entrepreneur

United Nations (2011), World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision, New York, United Nations. van der Zwan P., Thurik A.R. and Grilo I. (2010), The entrepreneurial ladder and its determinants, Applied Economics, vol. 42, n. 17, pp. 2183-2191 Van Praag, C. M. and van Ophem, H. (1995), Determinants of willingness and opportunity to start as an entrepreneur, Kyklos, vol. 48, n. 4, pp. 513-540. van Praag, C.M. (2003), Business survival and success of young small business owners, Small Business Economics, vol. 21, n. 1, pp. 1-17. Weber, P., and Schaper, M. (2004). Understanding the Grey Entrepreneur, Journal of Enterprising Culture, vol. 2, n. 2, pp. 147-164. Wilson, F., Kickul, J. and Marlino, D. (2007), Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial career intentions: Implications for entrepreneurship education, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. 31, n. 3, pp. 387-406. Zissimopoulos, J. and Karoly, L. (2007), Transitions to self-employment at older ages: The role of wealth, health, health insurance and other factors, Labor Economics, vol. 14, pp. 269-295.

664