Attitudes Of Higher Education Students To New Venture Creation A Preliminary Approach

Description
In this such a brief elucidation concerning attitudes of higher education students to new venture creation a preliminary approach.

Affifuors 6r Hicirv Fouctfi6× Affifuors 6r Hicirv Fouctfi6× Affifuors 6r Hicirv Fouctfi6× Affifuors 6r Hicirv Fouctfi6× Affifuors 6r Hicirv Fouctfi6× Affifuors 6r Hicirv Fouctfi6× Affifuors 6r Hicirv Fouctfi6× Affifuors 6r Hicirv Fouctfi6×
sfuor×fs f6 ×rw vr×fuvr cvrtfi6×: t sfuor×fs f6 ×rw vr×fuvr cvrtfi6×: t sfuor×fs f6 ×rw vr×fuvr cvrtfi6×: t sfuor×fs f6 ×rw vr×fuvr cvrtfi6×: t sfuor×fs f6 ×rw vr×fuvr cvrtfi6×: t sfuor×fs f6 ×rw vr×fuvr cvrtfi6×: t sfuor×fs f6 ×rw vr×fuvr cvrtfi6×: t sfuor×fs f6 ×rw vr×fuvr cvrtfi6×: t
vvriiui×tvv tvvv6tci f6 fir vvriiui×tvv tvvv6tci f6 fir vvriiui×tvv tvvv6tci f6 fir vvriiui×tvv tvvv6tci f6 fir vvriiui×tvv tvvv6tci f6 fir vvriiui×tvv tvvv6tci f6 fir vvriiui×tvv tvvv6tci f6 fir vvriiui×tvv tvvv6tci f6 fir
P6vfucursr ctsr P6vfucursr ctsr P6vfucursr ctsr P6vfucursr ctsr P6vfucursr ctsr P6vfucursr ctsr P6vfucursr ctsr P6vfucursr ctsr
Auv6vt A.C. 1rixrivt ` Auv6vt A.C. 1rixrivt ` Auv6vt A.C. 1rixrivt ` Auv6vt A.C. 1rixrivt `
16oo 16oo 16oo 16oo Dtvrv Dtvrv Dtvrv Dtvrv `` `` `` ``
` ` ` ` INFSC INFSC INFSC INFSC P6vf6, P6vf6, P6vf6, P6vf6, CFMPRF CFMPRF CFMPRF CFMPRF, Ftcuiotor or Fc6×6uit, , Ftcuiotor or Fc6×6uit, , Ftcuiotor or Fc6×6uit, , Ftcuiotor or Fc6×6uit,
U×ivrvsiotor o6 P6vf6 U×ivrvsiotor o6 P6vf6 U×ivrvsiotor o6 P6vf6 U×ivrvsiotor o6 P6vf6
`` `` `` `` Mur×sfrv U×ivrvsifv 6r Avviiro Scir×crs Mur×sfrv U×ivrvsifv 6r Avviiro Scir×crs Mur×sfrv U×ivrvsifv 6r Avviiro Scir×crs Mur×sfrv U×ivrvsifv 6r Avviiro Scir×crs
FEP wORkINC PAPERS FEP wORkINC PAPERS FEP wORkINC PAPERS FEP wORkINC PAPERS
FEP wORkINC PAPERS FEP wORkINC PAPERS FEP wORkINC PAPERS FEP wORkINC PAPERS
Rrsrtvci Rrsrtvci Rrsrtvci Rrsrtvci
v6vx v6vx v6vx v6vx i× i× i× i×
Pv6cvrss Pv6cvrss Pv6cvrss Pv6cvrss
FEP wORkINC PAPERS FEP wORkINC PAPERS FEP wORkINC PAPERS FEP wORkINC PAPERS
FEP wORkINC PAPERS FEP wORkINC PAPERS FEP wORkINC PAPERS FEP wORkINC PAPERS
×. 298, ×. 298, ×. 298, ×. 298, Ocf Ocf Ocf Ocf. 2008 . 2008 . 2008 . 2008

1
Attitudes of Higher Education students to new venture creation: a preliminary approach to
the Portuguese case
? ?? ?

Aurora A.C. Teixeira
? ?? ?

INESC Porto, CEMPRE, Faculdade de Economia,
Universidade do Porto; [email protected]
Todd Davey
Muenster University of Applied Sciences;
[email protected]

Abstract
Institutions of higher education have an important role in the generation of high tech ‘entrepreneurial
capacity’. Being entrepreneurship in Portugal an emergent phenomenon there is an urgent need to better
understand and develop this area not only by analysing the ‘supply side’ (i.e., the courses taught in this field)
but also the ‘demand side’, that is, the attitudes of students, future potential entrepreneurs, to new venture
creation. Based on 4413 responses of students enrolled in Portuguese higher education institutions, gathered
in June-July 2008, we found, using a multivariate model, that students who had already created a firm
although, on average, possess larger entrepreneurial experience and knowledge, they do not reveal high risk
propensity or creativity. Those students that have taken some steps to create new businesses and, to a larger
extent, those foreseeing their future career as owning their business have higher risk and creative profiles.
Students who live in an environment which ‘breeds’ entrepreneurship have stronger desire to become
entrepreneurs. This supports the contention that entrepreneurship is a learned process and that school,
teachers, and other institutions and individuals may encourage entrepreneurial behaviours. ‘Role models’
seem indeed to constitute a key factor fostering entrepreneurship among Portuguese higher education
students – in the Portuguese case, the entrepreneur and entrepreneurial company references are, respectively,
Belmiro de Azevedo and Sonae. Although in a descriptive analysis students enrolled in non-university (e.g.,
polytechnics) and private higher education institutions reveal higher effective and potential entrepreneurial
propensities, when we (simultaneously) control for a vast number of factors which are likely to affect
entrepreneurship propensity, such differences cease to be statistically relevant. Students’ personality (risk,
creativity) and demographic traits (gender and age), competencies and familiarity with entrepreneurship
(entrepreneurial experience, knowledge, awareness, interest), and contextual factors (professional
experience, role models) are important determinants of entrepreneurial propensity, whereas the type of
higher education institutions (public vs private, non-university vs university), and, to some extent, the degree
(postgraduate vs undergraduate), and the scientific area, fail to emerge as key determinants.
Keywords: students; entrepreneurship; attitudes

?
Our most sincere acknowledgments to all students who kindly collaborated in the survey. We are also deeply in debt
to the valuable collaboration of all Rectors and Directors of higher education institutions in Portugal. The help and
assistance of José Mergulhão Mendonça (Computing Services, Faculdade de Economia da Universidade do Porto) and
Rita Pacheco (INESC Porto) were also extremely valuable and appreciated.
?
Author for correspondence. Adress: Aurora A.C. Teixeira, Faculdade de Economia do Porto, Rua Dr Roberto Frias,
4200-464 Porto, Portugal; Ph: +351 22 5571100, Fax: +351 22 5505050, [email protected].

2
Entrepreneurship is a dynamic process of vision, change, and creation. It requires an
application of energy and passion towards the creation and implementation of new
ideas and creative solutions. Essential ingredients include the willingness to take
calculated risks—in terms of time, equity, or career; the ability to formulate an
effective venture team; the creative skill to marshall needed resources; and
fundamental skill of building solid business plan; and finally, the vision to recognize
opportunity where others see chaos, contradiction, and confusion. (Kuratko and
Hodgetts, 2004: 30)

1. Introduction
The continued uncertainty about the economy, corporate and government downsizing, and a
declining number of corporate recruiters on the education system have been fostering the
appeal of self-employment and new business launching (Moore, 2002; Klapper and Léger-
Jarniou, 2006).
Entrepreneurship, through the creation of new ventures or taking place within existing firms,
has been identified as one of the major engines of economic growth (Wennekers and Thurik,
1999; Carree and Thurik, 2003; Rasmussena and Sørheim, 2006). Back in the nineties,
Malecki (1997) pointed that there was an intimate relation between entrepreneurship and
regional and local development, while Reynolds et al. (1994) found that high start-up rates
were a necessary (although not sufficient) condition for economic growth. Indeed,
entrepreneurial firms make two indispensable contributions to the market economies
(Kuratko, 2005): first, they are an integral part of the renewal process that pervades and
defines market economies, playing a crucial role in the innovations that lead to technological
change and productivity growth; second, entrepreneurial firms are the essential mechanism by
which millions of individuals (namely disadvantaged groups – women, minorities) access the
pursuit of economic success.
As a consequence of the entrepreneurial trend and widespread lay beliefs of the collective and
economic efficacy of entrepreneurship, there was an explosion in terms of public and private
initiatives to promote entrepreneurial activity, propelled by the hope to accelerate innovation,
technology development and job creation (Reynolds et al., 2001). Moreover, in terms of
academic and scientific research, the field has acquired a higher profile, more status and more
resources than previously (Laukkanen, 2000).
Traditional specialized majors within business schools were frequently designed from the
perspective that graduating students would seek employment in specialized departments
within large established firms (Levenburg et al., 2006). Increasingly, however, students had

3
been choosing, or at least desiring to start their own businesses both before and during their
undergraduate studies, as well as post graduation (Oakey et al., 2002). Thus, students who are
interested in creating new businesses (i.e., entrepreneurship) need to develop an array of skills
(McMullan and Long, 1987) that will support their new ventures (e.g., planning, risk taking,
market analysis, problem solving and creativity). In fact, successfully launching a new
venture requires the mastery and blending of skills that are different from those required to
maintain an established business. Higher education courses have their limitations but they can
play a role in providing a useful insight to the challenges involved in being an entrepreneur
and also in encouraging skill development and self-reliance (Henderson and Robertson,
2000). Impelled by such context, majors and minors in entrepreneurship have emerged on
numerous higher education institutions in order to fuel students’ entrepreneurial ambitions.
In Portugal, education in entrepreneurship is quite a novelty in the curriculum of higher
education institutions, with the majority of the current courses emerging in 2002 and
afterwards (Redford, 2006; Redford and Trigo, 2007). At the macroeconomic level, the most
recent report from de Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM, 2008) concluded that there
was a substantial improvement in the entrepreneurial structural conditions in Portugal
between 2004 and 2007, namely as far as access to physical infrastructures and the increasing
degree of social and cultural openness to innovation and change are concerned. Data from
GEM indicate that Portugal is at the top of the ranking among the 18 participant countries
from the EU with 9 out 100 individuals involved in new business formation, which reflects
that the Portuguese ‘entrepreneurial capacity’ has doubled between 2004 and 2007.
Notwithstanding the apparent swift change, some business and former policy makers cast
serious doubts that this entrepreneurial trend is sustainable. For instance, Mira Amaral, former
(1987-95) Minister for Industry and Energy, member of the EC Competitiveness Advisory
Group and President of the Forum for Competitiveness, recognizes that Portugal is still
behind in terms of investment in new ideas and entrepreneurial projects, identifying a deficit
of public policies in this domain. According to him, Portuguese government has to make a
higher investment in entrepreneurship and risk capital, especially in technological projects
that foster exports.
1

Higher education institutions (universities and polytechnic) play an important role in the
generation of high tech ‘entrepreneurial capacity’, more specifically, the entrepreneurial
human capital, that is, the creation of skills, incentives and a cultural environment favorable

1
Source: Lusa, 18 June 2008.

4
to the provision of instruments for the commercialization of R&D outcomes by researchers,
teachers and students in general. Since entrepreneurship in general, and entrepreneurship
education in particular are an emergent phenomenon in Portugal, there is an urgent need to
better understand and develop this area, not only by analyzing the supply side (i.e., the
courses taught in this field) (in the line of Redford, 2006), but also the ‘demand side’, that is,
the attitudes of students, future potential entrepreneurs, to new venture creation.
The impact of entrepreneurship education has been recognized as one of the crucial factors
that help youths understand and foster an entrepreneurial attitude (Gorman et al., 1997;
Kourilsky and Walstad, 1998). Due to the influence that education could have on the attitudes
and aspirations of the youth, there is a need to understand how to develop and nurture
potential entrepreneurs even while they are still students in school. Few empirical studies
have examined the entrepreneurial propensity of university students as a source of future
entrepreneurs (Wang and Wong, 2004). Their attitude and knowledge of entrepreneurship are
likely to shape their inclination to start their own businesses in the future. This type of study
will also help universities and other higher education institutions develop suitable educational
programs to promote entrepreneurship. Obviously, findings from such a study will have
certain policy implications in inducing more higher education graduates to start their own
businesses.
Thus, the present paper aims at carrying out research on the attitudes of higher education
Portuguese students towards new venture creation. In concrete, it seeks to understand what is
the students’ perceived image of entrepreneurs/entrepreneurship; how familiar are the
students with entrepreneurship and where does the familiarity come from; which factors
influence the students’ decision between becoming an entrepreneur or employee; and how can
universities foster the students’ interest in entrepreneurship.
The paper is organized as follows: in the following section, we briefly review the literature on
entrepreneurship, with particular emphasis on student entrepreneurship, highlighting the main
points of the existing research in this emergent field. Then, in Section 3, we describe the
methodology and data gathering; after that (Section 4), we present some descriptive results of
the current study, and in Section 5 we discuss the determinants of Portuguese students’
entrepreneurial intentions and propensity. Finally, in “Conclusions”, we discuss the results,
deriving recommendations on how to improve entrepreneurship education, and point some
potential avenues for further research.

5
Before there can be entrepreneurship there must be a potential for entrepreneurship.
For there to be entrepreneurial potential, there must be potential entrepreneurs
(Klapper and Léger-Jarniou, 2006: 97)
2. Literature review
For developed economies, entrepreneurial activity (new venture formation) is often a means
of revitalizing stagnated economies and of coping with unemployment problems by providing
new job opportunities (Gürol and Atsan, 2006). At the same time, it is a potential catalyst and
incubator for technological progress, product and market innovation (Jack and Anderson,
1999; Mueller and Thomas, 2000). For economies of developing countries, however, it has an
even more critical role since entrepreneurship is seen as an engine of economic progress, job
creation and social adjustment (Gürol and Atsan, 2006). Thus, small business growth/new
business formation is widely encouraged by national economic policies to stimulate economic
growth and wealth creation.
According to official data, in Europe around 23 million Small and Medium Enterprises
(SMEs) were responsible for the creation of more than 2/3 of employment in the private
sector, which corresponds to 75 million jobs (EC, 2006: 3).
2
In Portugal, during the period of
1991-2000, 93% of new firms were very small, with less than 10 workers (Baptista e Thurik,
2007).
In parallel with developing interest in entrepreneurship throughout the world, Portugal has
also witnessed an increasing interest in entrepreneurship fields both among academic
scholars, and amongst government policy makers and business leaders (GEM, 2008).
Historically, due to lack of qualified entrepreneurs and capital accumulation, during the
Estado Novo, a state-initiated economic policy was implemented with state-owned enterprises
playing a leading role, particularly in the industrial sector (Barreto, 1999). Since the mid
1970s, and in particular after the entry into the European Community in 1985, a major shift in
the economic development strategy has taken place in Portugal. The importance of
entrepreneurship and small business to the economy is now widely recognized and provided
with national incentives by prevailing governments. The meta-narrative concerning a lack of
entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial spirit has been translated into a variety of programs and

2
According to the Recommendation 96/280 of the European Commission, from 3 April 1996, medium firms are
those that employ between 50 and 250 workers and register a turnover that is lower than 40 million Euros; small
firms employ between 10 and 49 workers and have a turnover lower than 7 million Euros; very small/micro
firms employ less than 10 workers. In Portugal, the European Recommendation is followed. In the US, the
concepts are different, which makes it difficult to establish comparisons. Here, small firms may employ a
maximum of 40 workers, whereas medium-sized firms may employ a maximum of 500 workers (Storey, 2003:
474).

6
initiatives designed to create awareness about entrepreneurship and to foster entrepreneurial
activity.
3
This is a key element to motivate individuals, namely young people at higher
education, to start their own business. A range of organizations and institutions are involved
in the delivery of such programs, ranging from government agencies and local enterprise
agencies to Chambers of Commerce and professional associations to University business
schools.
A central premise of these programs is that entrepreneurship is a learned phenomenon. This
means that entrepreneurs are not born, but created by their experience as they grow and learn,
being influenced by teachers, parents, mentors and role models throughout their growth
process (Volery, 2004). Perhaps those individuals interested in entrepreneurship and current
entrepreneurs cannot be taught, but they can be encouraged, rather than discouraged. Thus,
entrepreneurship is conceived as learning and learned process, as depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Entrepreneurship as a learned process
Source: Adapted from Wennekers and Thurik (1999), and Portela (2008: 47)

3
At the European level, one can mention the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP)
(http://ec.europa.eu/cip/index_en.htm); at the National level, it is worth mentioning the set of programs managed
by IAPMEI, for instance, the FIVE Programme – Fostering Innovation and Entrepreneurial Value promoted by
IAPMEI during the period 2002-2005, and the set of programs currently ongoing described inhttp://www.iapmei.pt/iapmei-bimindex.php.

7
The idea of becoming an entrepreneur is more and more attractive to students because it is
seen as a valuable way of participating in the labor market without losing one’s independence
(Martínez et al., 2007). The most common values amongst graduates facing the new labor
market are linked to those of the self-employed: independence, challenge and self-realization
(Lüthje and Franke, 2003).
While there has been significant research on the causes of entrepreneurial propensity
(Greenberger and Sexton, 1988; Learned, 1992; Naffziger et al., 1994; Brandstatter, 1997),
only a limited number of studies have focused on the entrepreneurial intent among students.
Those that exist tend to focus on US and UK cases and are mainly restricted to small samples
of business related majors (cf. Table 1).
Table 1: Magnitude of entrepreneurial potential among students
Studies/authors Degree Courses Countries
Number of
students
Entrepreneurial potential
(starting business/self-
employment), %
Scott (1988) Undergraduate Business UK, US, Ireland 436 50.0
Hatten and Ruhland
(1995)
Undergraduate Business US 220 -
Kolvereid and
Moen (1997)
Master Business Norway 303 -
Ede, Panigrahi, and
Calcich (1998)
Undergraduate Business
US (African-
American
students)
171 24.5
Kourilsky and
Walstad (1998)
Youth: 14-19 years
old
Not specified US 917 66.9
Henderson and
Robertson (1999)
Undergraduate and
MSc
Business UK 138 23.2
Oakey, Mukhtar
and Kipling (2002)
Undergraduate and
MSc
Physics, Biology
and Mechanical
engineering
UK 247 17.0
Lena and Wong
(2003)
Undergraduate
Science,
Engineering,
Computing and
Business
Singapore 11660 6.0
(1)

Luthje and Franke
(2003)
Undergraduate Engineering US 524 54.6
Franke and Luthje
(2004)
Undergraduate Business
Austria
Germany
US
1313
36.0
25.0
50.0
Gurol and Atsan
(2006)
Undergraduate Business Turkey 400 18.0
Klapper and Léger-
Jarniou (2006)
Undergraduate
Business and
Engineering
France 538 25.0
Levenburg et al.
(2006)
Summer course
students
9 majors US 728 23.0
(2)
- 38.7
(3)

Teixeira and Forte
(2008)
Undergraduates
(final year)
60 majors Portugal 2430 10.6-45.8
Teixeira (2008a)
Undergraduates
(final year)
Chemistry (science
and engineering);
Pharmacy
Portugal 194 14.8-36.8
Teixeira (2008b)
Undergraduates
(final year)
Economics;
Business;
Engineering
Portugal 985 24.4-25.1
Note: (1) Effectively started a business; (2) starting a business; (3) self-employment
Despite the heterogeneity of sampling methods and target population, the existing studies on
the issue (see Table 1) report that, on average, one quarter of students surveyed claimed that

8
after their graduation they would like to become entrepreneurs (starting their own business or
being self-employed). There are nevertheless noticeable differences between US and non –
US students as far as this aspect is concerned. In general, we observe a higher entrepreneurial
intent among US students. For instance, Franke and Lüthje (2004), analyzing 1313 business
undergraduates from Austria, Germany, and the US, found that entrepreneurial intents of the
latter was the double of Germany’s (50% against 25%) and substantially above that of the
Austrian’s (36%). In Portugal, for a multiplicity (60) of courses in the largest Portuguese
university, Teixeira and Forte (2008) found that around 26% of final year students would see
starting a new venture as their future career. Notwithstanding, that percentage considerably
varied among majors/courses, from a lowest 11% in Psychology to a highest 47% in
Veterinary.
While new venture opportunities exist within nearly all academic disciplines (e.g., graphic
arts, nursing, computer science, chemistry and pharmacy), the majority of entrepreneurship
initiatives at universities are offered by business schools (Ede et al., 1998; Hisrich, 1988) and
for business students (e.g., Roebuck and Brawley, 1996). In fact, most studies that have been
conducted to explore entrepreneurial intent among university students have focused on
business students (e.g., DeMartino and Barbato, 2002; Ede et al., 1998; Hills and Barnaby,
1977; Hills and Welsch, 1986; Krueger et al., 2000; Lissy, 2000; Sagie and Elizur, 1999;
Sexton and Bowman, 1983). However, Hynes (1996) advocated that entrepreneurship
education can and should be promoted and fostered among non-business students as well as
business students.
Picker et al. (2005) refer that entrepreneurial led measures have been recently implemented,
through the establishment of new graduate programs, in the Cambridge-MIT Institute, the
Stockholm School of Entrepreneurship, and the International Graduate School of Chemistry
(Muenster, Germany). Consequently, if a goal in designing entrepreneurial programs is to
assist students within and outside the business school, it is also important to understand
students enrolled in other majors other than business.
The research effort implicit in the present paper extends existing research in the area of
students’ entrepreneurial intents in several ways: it encompasses both under and post graduate
students from all scientific areas, enrolled in every schooling years from all Portuguese higher
education institutions (universities and polytechnics, public and private). Such extensive
sample will allow us to gather a reasonable nation-wide view of the pervasion of the
entrepreneurship culture in Portugal. In the next section we further detail our sample.

9
3. Methodology and data gathering
The research described in the present paper is an extension of an international survey of 1st
year business students, involving eight universities from eight countries including the
University of Porto.
4
The extension was undertaken in several directions. The present
empirical contribution targeted all students in Portugal enrolled in schools from the higher
education institutions. Thus, it encompasses both undergraduate and postgraduate students,
regardless the schooling year, from public and private polytechnic and university schools
from all scientific areas (from medicine, sports, and humanities, to name but a few).
This empirical study intends therefore to be part of a wider research project aiming to
understand student attitudes towards new venture creation, and to derive recommendations on
how to improve entrepreneurship education.
Similarly to the international research project, the research questions for this research
component are as follows:
1. What is the student’s perceived image of entrepreneurs/entrepreneurship?
2. How familiar are the students with entrepreneurship and where does the familiarity
come from? What is the student’s level of interest in different entrepreneurship types?
Which competencies do the students (think to) have?
3. Which factors influence the student’s decision between becoming an entrepreneur or
employee?
4. How can universities foster the student’s interest in entrepreneurship?
In order to investigate the research questions presented above, a descriptive, quantitative
method was applied. While exploratory and causal research explores circumstances,
descriptive research pictures specific details of a situation, social setting or relationship.
Facing the challenge of illustrating the status quo of student attitudes to new venture creation,
a quantitative design was chosen. Reflecting the research questions as well as the multi-
school, multi-course approach, an online based survey was identified to be the most
appropriate research method.
5

4
The other seven universities are the following: Muenster University of Applied Sciences (Germany);
University of Adelaide (Australia); Lahti University of Applied Sciences (Finland); University of Maribor
(Slovenia); Coventry University (UK); Cracow University of Economics (Poland); Dubai Women's College
(UAE).
5
The questionnaire is available inhttp://www.fep.up.pt/inquerito/empreendedorismo/estudantes/index.php.

10
In June 2008, the Rectors and Directors of all Portuguese Higher Education Institutions were
contacted and asked to collaborate by sending an email to all their students (under and post
graduate) with a message describing the project and asking them to participate in the survey.
Some schools also publicized the research and the link to the survey in their home page.
By the end of September 2008, 4413 valid responses were gathered, which represent 1.2% of
all students enrolled in Portuguese higher education institutions. The gathered respondent
sample is reasonably representative of the whole population of the Portuguese higher
students, namely as far as degree (Figure 2) and gender (Figure 3) are concerned.
84,1
1,1
11,2
3,6
92,7
1,6
3,2 2,6
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
Licensees and Integrated
Masters
MBAs and similar Master PhD
Respondent students Students population

Figure 2: Students’ degree: respondent sample (n=4413) and population (N= 366729)
Note: The population corresponds to the Portuguese students enrolled in higher education in the academic year of 2006/07
52,4
54,0
47,6
46,0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Respondent students Students population
Male
Female

Figure 3: Students’ gender: respondent sample (n=4413) and population (N= 366729)
Note: The population corresponds to the Portuguese students enrolled in higher education in the academic year of 2006/07
However, the respondent sample presents a clear bias towards students enrolled in schools
located in the North and Centre regions at the expense of those located in the region of Lisbon

11
(Figure 4). Additionally, technology related areas (i.e., Engineering, Manufacturing and
Construction) are overrepresented, while health related scientific areas are underrepresented
(Figure 5).
47,4
30,2
9,3
3,6
5,0
1,7
2,9
31,0
21,5
38,0
4,8
2,9
0,9 0,9
0,0
5,0
10,0
15,0
20,0
25,0
30,0
35,0
40,0
45,0
50,0
North Centre Lisbon Alentejo Algarve R. A. Açores R. A. Madeira
Respondent Sample Population

Figure 4: Distribution of students by region: respondent sample (n=4413) and population (N= 366729)
3,7
5,8
9,8
8,4
34,3
37,7
7,3
7,3
32
22,3
0,8
1,9
12,1
16,5
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Respondent sample Population
Health and social protection
Agriculture
Engineering, Manufacturing,
Construction
Sciences, Mathematics,
Computing
Social sciences, business and
law
Arts and Humanities
Education

Figure 5: Distribution of students by scientific area: respondent sample (n=4413) and population (N=
366729)
Note: the classification in scientific areas considered here follows the D.L. 53, 16 March 2005. Notwithstanding, in the main text we will use
the classification that is considered by the Ministry for Science and Higher Education
(http://www.acessoensinosuperior.pt/indarea.asp?area=II)

12
4. Results
4.1. Students’ perceived image of entrepreneurs/entrepreneurship
According to the respondent students, entrepreneurship contributes to innovation,
technological progress, job creation and growth, being essential for economic
competitiveness. Notwithstanding, students do not identify entrepreneurship as a contributor
to more social goals, namely the increase in the wealth of the poor people (Figure 6).
Entrepreneurship ...
21,7
44,0
66,7
81,6
82,3
84,0
0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0 80,0 90,0
contributes to an increase in wealth of the poor
assists societal interests
unlocks personal potential
contributs to the innovation and technological progress of an economy
is ‘crucial for competitiveness’ for an economy
contributes to job creation and growth

Figure 6: Students that agree and strongly agree with the statements about entrepreneurship (% total)
Portuguese higher education students identify the entrepreneur (cf. Figure 7) as someone that
has passion, enthusiasm, initiative and persistence, someone with the ability to spot the
potential in an idea and who is willing to take big risks on a new idea. This new idea,
however, does not need to be radically new – less that half of the students (43%) agree or
strongly agree that the entrepreneur has a radically new idea for a new business.
This idea that students have regarding entrepreneurs is quite well reflected on a passionate
statement that Bill Gates, former Microsoft CEO, professed in a recent interview for
Newsweek (22 June 2008): “There's no year that I didn't love my job”.
Few students (around 8%) recognize superior intelligence in entrepreneurs and only a third
considers that entrepreneurs are willing to operate within the rules. Nevertheless, for more
than half of the surveyed students, entrepreneurs consider society’s interests in their decision-
making.

13
An entrepreneur is someone that...
7,8
13,2
28,7
39,0
42,2
43,0
54,3
67,3
86,6
92,0
0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0 80,0 90,0 100,0
has a high IQ
possesses their own capital
is willing to operate within the rules
is a respectable person
is willing to work within their current resources
has a radically new idea f or a new business
considers society’s interests in their decision-making
is willing to take big risks on a new idea
has an ability to spot the potential in an idea
has passion, enthusiasm, initiative and persistence

Figure 7: Students that agree and strongly agree with the statements about the entrepreneur (% total)

4.2. Familiarity of the students with entrepreneurship
For 1608 Portuguese students enrolled in higher education, around 36% of the total, when
they hear the word ‘entrepreneur’, they think of Belmiro de Azevedo (Figure 8), a well known
Portuguese entrepreneur who is currently the President of the Administrative Council of
Sonae SGPS, Sonae Indústria, and President and CEO of Sonae Capital.
6
In the second
position, but quite far apart (with 13% of total), emerges Bill Gates, former President and
CEO of Microsoft.
7

6
Belmiro Mendes de Azevedo (born February 17, 1938) is a Portuguese entrepreneur, ranked by Forbes as the
605th richest person in the world (2008), as well as the second richest in Portugal, with an estimated wealth of
$2.0 billion dollars. He owns Sonae SGPS (which he founded in 1959, with only 21 years of age), one of the
largest business groups in Portugal, which also operates in Spain, Greece, Germany, Italy and Brazil. Belmiro de
Azevedo, a carpenter and a tailor's son, has a degree in chemical engineering from the University of Porto and an
MBA from Harvard University.
7
William Henry Gates III (born October 28, 1955 in Seattle, Washington, USA), is an American business
magnate, philanthropist, the world's third richest person (as of 2008), and chairman of Microsoft, the software
company he founded (in 1976) with Paul Allen. At the age of 17, Gates formed a venture with Allen, called Traf-
O-Data, to make traffic counters based on the Intel 8008 processor. During his career at Microsoft, Gates held
the positions of CEO and chief software architect, and remains the largest individual shareholder with more than
8 percent of the common stock. Bill Gates (voluntarily) left his position at Microsoft in the end of June 2008, at
52 years of age. In the beginning of September 2008, the new focus of his life work will be the Bill & Melinda
Gates Foundation, the organization he began with his wife in 2000. With a current $37.3 billion endowment, it's
the world's richest philanthropic institution.

1
4

1
8
,
7
1
6
,
6
0
,
3
0
,
3
0
,
3
0
,
5
0
,
5
0
,
5
0
,
6
0
,
6
0
,
7
0
,
7
0
,
8
0
,
8
0
,
9
1
,
2
1
,
3
1
,
5
1
,
5
2
,
0
1
3
,
2
3
6
,
4
0
,
0
5
,
0
1
0
,
0
1
5
,
0
2
0
,
0
2
5
,
0
3
0
,
0
3
5
,
0
4
0
,
0
O
t
h
e
r

(
f
r
e
q
<
3
)
D
o
e
s

n
o
t

k
n
o
w
/
C
a
n
n
o
t

i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
I
n
g
v
a
r

K
a
m
p
r
a
d

(
I
K
E
A
)
J
o
s
é

S
o
c
r
a
t
e
s

(
P
o
r
t
u
g
u
e
s
e

P
r
i
m
e

M
i
n
i
s
t
e
r
)
P
a
u
l
o

A
z
e
v
e
d
o

(
S
o
n
a
e

S
G
P
S
)
J
e
r
ó
n
i
m
o

M
a
r
t
i
n
s

(
J
e
r
ó
n
i
m
o

M
a
r
t
i
n
s

G
r
o
u
p
)
A
n
t
ó
n
i
o

C
â
m
a
r
a

(
Y
d
r
e
a
m
s
)
D
o
n
a
l
d

T
r
u
m
p

(
T
r
u
m
p

O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
)
A
n
t
ó
n
i
o

C
h
a
m
p
a
l
i
m
a
u
d

(
C
h
a
m
p
a
l
i
m
a
u
d

G
r
o
u
p
)
C
a
r
l
o
s

M
a
r
t
i
n
s

(
M
a
r
t
i
f
e
r
)
M
u
h
a
m
m
a
d

Y
u
n
u
s

(
M
i
c
r
o
c
r
e
d
i
t
)
H
i
m
/
h
e
r
s
e
l
f
R
u
i

N
a
b
e
i
r
o

(
D
e
l
t
a

C
a
f
é
s
)
L
a
r
r
y

P
a
g
e

e

S
e
r
g
e
y

B
r
i
n

(
G
o
o
g
l
e
)
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
s
R
i
c
h
a
r
d

B
r
a
n
s
o
n

(
V
i
r
g
i
n
)
P
i
n
t
o

B
a
l
s
e
m
ã
o

(
I
m
p
r
e
s
a
;

S
I
C
)
S
t
e
v
e

J
o
b
s

(
A
p
p
l
e
)
A
m
é
r
i
c
o

A
m
o
r
i
m

(
C
o
r
t
i
c
e
i
r
a

A
m
o
r
i
m
)
J
o
e

B
e
r
a
r
d
o

(
A
r
t

c
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
)
B
i
l
l

G
a
t
e
s

(
M
i
c
r
o
s
o
f
t
)
B
e
l
m
i
r
o

d
e

A
z
e
v
e
d
o

(
S
o
n
a
e
)
1
4
,
8
0
,
2
0
,
2
0
,
2
0
,
2
0
,
2
0
,
2
0
,
2
0
,
2
0
,
2
0
,
3
0
,
3
0
,
3
0
,
3
0
,
4
0
,
4
0
,
4
0
,
5
0
,
5
0
,
5
0
,
7
0
,
7
0
,
7
0
,
9
1
,
0 1
,
6
1
,
8
1
,
9
2
,
9
4
,
6
1
0
,
6
3
2
,
3
0
,
0
5
,
0
1
0
,
0
1
5
,
0
2
0
,
0
2
5
,
0
3
0
,
0
3
5
,
0
N
K
P
e
s
t
a
n
a
N
D
r
i
v
e
C
o
c
a
-
c
o
l
a
A
l
e
r
t

L
i
f
e

S
c
i
e
n
c
e
s

C
o
m
p
u
t
i
n
g
N
o
k
i
a
I
B
M
C
h
i
p
i
d
e
a
B
E
S
A

v
i
d
a

é

b
e
l
a
O
w
n

f
i
r
m
M
o
t
a

E
n
g
i
l
G
r
u
p
o

L
e
n
a
C
r
i
o
e
s
t
a
m
i
n
a
l
G
a
l
p
G
r
u
p
o

J
e
r
ó
n
i
m
o

M
a
r
t
i
n
s
M
c
D
o
n
a
l
d
's
V
o
d
a
f
o
n
e
V
i
s
a
b
e
i
r
a
D
e
l
t
a

C
a
f
é
s

-

G
r
u
p
o

N
a
b
e
i
r
o
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

s
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
V
i
r
g
i
n
I
K
E
A
C
o
r
t
i
c
e
i
r
a

A
m
o
r
i
m
E
D
P
A
p
p
l
e
Y
D
r
e
a
m
s
P
T

-

P
o
r
t
u
g
a
l

T
e
l
e
c
o
m
M
a
r
t
i
f
e
r
G
o
o
g
l
e
M
i
c
r
o
s
o
f
t
S
o
n
a
e

F
i
g
u
r
e

8
:

E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
i
a
l

‘
m
o
d
e
l
’

f
o
r

t
h
e

P
o
r
t
u
g
u
e
s
e

h
i
g
h
e
r

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

(
%

t
o
t
a
l
)

15
Among the students’ top ranked entrepreneurs stands the Portuguese born, Joe Berardo,
8

Américo Amorim,
9
and Pinto Balsemão,
10
with around of 2% of total responses, and the
foreign born, Steve Jobs,
11
Richard Branson,
12
Larry Page e Sergey Brin,
13
and Muhammad
Yunus.
14
Less than 20% of higher education Portuguese students were unable to identify an
entrepreneur/entrepreneurial firm, which reveals a reasonable familiarity with
entrepreneurship related issues.
Following the entrepreneurs’ results closely, the most frequently mentioned company names
that students indicate are Sonae (32.3%), Microsoft (10.6%), and Google (4.6%). Of the top-
30 companies mentioned, 20 are Portuguese, encompassing almost 46% of total responses.
The 2
nd
– 4
th
best ranked Portuguese companies (with around 2% of ‘votes’) are Martifer, PT -
Portugal Telecom, and YDreams. Currently, the Martifer Group holds a portfolio of
approximately 120 companies that are divided into four core business units: Metallic
Construction, Energy Equipment, Advanced fuels and Electricity Generation. Martifer was
founded earlier, in 1990, but it has recently experienced a huge dynamics, being one of the
fastest growing companies in Europe. Portugal Telecom (PT) is a global telecommunications
operator, whose activity covers every segment of the telecommunications sector: fixed,
mobile, multimedia, data and corporate solutions.
15
YDreams was founded by António
Câmara in 2000 and it “creates interactive experiences and products based on advanced
technology and design”. The company “has worked with multinationals such as Adidas,
Vodafone and Nokia”.
16

Both entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial companies identified by students enrolled in
Portuguese higher education reveal a reasonably high familiarity of the students with
entrepreneurship. Moreover, when asking about the chances for successfully starting a new

8
Businessman, stock investor and art collector; as of 2008 and according to Forbes, he has an estimate of 1.8
billion dollars, making him the third richest person Portugal.
9
Ranked by Forbes as the 132th richest person in the world (2008), as well as the richest in Portugal with an
estimated wealth of $7.0 billion dollars. He owns Corticeira Amorim, the world's largest producer of cork, with
$650 million (sales). Also has interests in real estate and tourism.
10
Currently serves as Chairman of the European Publishers Council and as CEO of the Grupo Impresa; in 1992,
e founded Sociedade Independente de Comunicação (SIC), the first Portuguese private network.
11
The co-founder, Chairman,and CEO of Apple Inc and former CEO of Pixar Animation Studios.
12
English business magnate, best known for his Virgin brand of over 360 companies.
13
Respectively, American and Soviet Union-born American entrepreneurs who founded the Google web search
engine, now Google Inc..
14
Bangladeshi banker and economist, famous for his successful application of microcredit, founder of Grameen
Bank.
15
Inhttp://www.telecom.pt/InternetResource/PTSite/UK/Canais/SobreaPT/.
16
Information gathered from YDreams web page,http://www.ydreams.com/ydreams_2005/index.php?page=39.

16
venture (i.e., surviving for >5 years), students respond 50.4% (mean value), which is not very
far from the IN+ (2008) figure of 60%.
17
However, Farinha (2005), based on a sample of
6485 Portuguese firms, estimated that 78% of firm exits occur in the first 5 years of business,
which reflects a quite low survival rate (beyond 5 years) of 22%. As we observe in Figure 9,
Portuguese students enrolled in higher education are much more optimistic, with almost 50%
answering that the chances for a new venture to survive for more than 5 years ranged between
50% and 75%.
[ 50%;75%[ ;
47,8
[ 25%;50%[ ;
22,2
[ 0%;25%[ ;
12,9
[ 75%;100%] ;
17,1

Figure 9: Students’ estimate of the chances (in per cent) for a new venture to survive for more than 5
years
Surveyed students reckon that entrepreneurs create their first business around the age of
thirty, which happens to underestimate the real age that an entrepreneur starts his/her business
in Portugal, which is around 37 years old, according to the Observatório de Criação de
Empresas 2006 (IAPMEI, 2007), and 38 years of age, according to IN+ (2008). Nevertheless,
the former data source (IAPMEI, 2007) indicates that youth is a trait of Portuguese
entrepreneurs – over half (52.5%) of the individuals who started a new venture in 2006 were
35 years old or younger. Recall that the most mediated cases of entrepreneurial ventures
involve quite young individual entrepreneurs – for instance, Belmiro de Azevedo started his
first venture at the age of 21 and Bill Gates at the age of 17 – and the real national figure (38
years old) is an average that encompasses first and non-first business ventures.

17
Real figures for the Portuguese economy on firm survival, entrepreneurs’ average age and entrepreneurs’
gender distribution were collected from the Observatório de Criação de Empresas 2006 (IAPMEI, 2007),
IN+(2008), and GEM (2008).

17
Age do you think the average entrepreneur starts their first new venture
1,4
4,1
27,7
41,5
18,8
5,1
1,4
0,0
5,0
10,0
15,0
20,0
25,0
30,0
35,0
40,0
45,0
[15;21] [22;24] [25;29] [30;34] [35;39] [40;44] [45;55]
Age group
%
t
o
ta
l

Percentage of entrepreneurs do you think are male
[ 50%;74%] ;
64,7
[ 25%;49%] ;
6,9
[ 0%;24%];
1,3
[ 75%;100%];
27,1
Figure 10: Students’ estimate of the age (years) and gender distribution (% of male) of an entrepreneur
According to IN+ (2008), around 3/4 of the entrepreneurs are male, whereas for the most
recent report of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM, 2008) on Portugal, that
percentage was lower (68%). Students’ estimate is quite close to that of the Observatório de
Criação de Empresas 2006 (IAPMEI, 2007), 65.6%. On average, students estimate that 65%
of entrepreneurs are male – as we can observe in Figure 10, 64.7% of students think male
entrepreneurs represent between 60% and 74% of total entrepreneurs. This evidence indicates
that Portuguese students are aware of the male dominance as far as new venture formation is
concerned.
Starting capital do you think the average entrepreneur needs to start a new venture (in €)
0,7
4,2
16,0
15,8
14,1
8,9
12,6
19,0
5,3
2,1
0,9
0,4
0,0
2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
10,0
12,0
14,0
16,0
18,0
20,0
Less than 1000€ [1000€; 5000€[ [5000€; 10000€[ [10000€; 20000€[ [20000€; 30000€[ [30000€; 40000€[ [40000€; 50000€[ [50000€; 100000€[ [100000€; 500000€[ [500000€; 1million€[ [1million€; 5million€[ 5 or more million€
%
t
o
t
a
l

Figure 11: Students’ estimate of the starting capital the average entrepreneur needs to start a new venture
Over seventy per cent of students think that one might start a new venture with less than 50
thousand Euros, the equivalent to five yearly average Portuguese salaries, or approximately 3
new Golf VI (basic line), which will be launched in the European market in October 2008.
According to data concerning new ventures created in Portugal in 2006 (IAPMEI, 2007), it

18
was found that entrepreneurs in their majority (77 per cent) start their business with the
minimum legally possible social capital, that is, 5 thousand Euros. Almost 20 per cent of new
ventures have a social capital of 10 thousand Euros or more and less than 3 per cent are
created with a social capital of 50 thousand Euros or more (the maximum value identified was
1 million Euros). The initial investments of new owner ventures are also relatively small – in
more than half of the ventures the investment did not overpass 25 thousand Euros, and in one
quarter of the cases, it is lower than five thousand Euros. Therefore, the similarity of the
students’ figure with the data from the Observatório de Criação de Empresas (IAPMEI,
2007) is quite striking.
The mode interval indicated by (19 per cent of) the students, 50000€-100000€, is closer to the
figure associated with a very recent high tech start-up, Tomorrow Options, which had its
genesis in the first edition of the Master in Innovation and Technological Entrepreneurship
(MIETE, FEUP, University of Porto). According to its CEO, Paulo Santos, the launching of
the new venture required 173 thousand Euros, the equivalent to one year expenses or
investment.
18

Although revealing a high risk propensity (only 15% agree or strongly agree with the
statement ‘One should not start a business when there is a risk it might fail’), and 14% claim
to have been a freelancer or self-employed, few students reveal reasonable experience with
new venture formation (Figure 12). Indeed, less than one third was self-employed as a
teenager (e.g. delivering papers, babysitting, mowing lawns etc.), or closely followed or
assisted family members, friends or acquaintances who have started companies. Given the
recent boom of entrepreneurship awareness at the level of higher education in Portugal
(Redfort and Trigo, 2007), the percentage of students who regularly read books/articles about
entrepreneurship/innovation (16%) seems surprisingly low, as well as the participation in
conferences/lectures/workshops on entrepreneurship and/or innovation (9%). What this
evidence does not uncover is whether this apparent lack of concern with entrepreneurial

18
We acknowledge and deeply thank the collaboration of Paulo Santos in providing this information. According
to the company history information available inhttp://www.tomorrow-options.com/, “Tomorrow Options
Microelectronics S.A. origin was the MSc in Innovation and Technological Entrepreneurship (MIETE), from the
Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto (FEUP). During this MSc two of the promoters - Catarina
Aroso Monteiro and Paulo Ferreira dos Santos – completed a valorization process and marketing strategy of a
business that involved a technology developed at the Faculty of Engineering (Department of Electrical and
Computer Sciences). Catarina and Paulo proposed to Miguel Velhote Correia and Sérgio Reis Cunha, the
original developers of this technology, to join them in the new venture. The result of this team work was
Tomorrow Options’ first product, WalkinSense, an electronic medical device to be used in diabetic foot (affects
approximately 15% of all diabetics) prevention and diagnosis”.

19
related information sources and events derives from pure lack of interest by students or from
an effective inexistence of guidelines and events in the schools where students are enrolled.
9,0
14,0
14,9
16,3
21,9
31,0
31,0
0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 30,0 35,0
I participate regularly in conferences/
lectures/workshops on
entrepreneurship and/or innovation
I have been a f reelancer or self
employed
‘One should not start a business
when there is a risk it might fail’
I regularly read books / articles about
entrepreneurship / innovation
I have closely followed or assisted
f riends or acquaintances who have
started companies
I have closely followed or assisted
f amily members who have started
companies
I worked f or myself as a teenager
eg. Delivering papers, babysitting,
mowing lawns etc

Figure 12: Sources of students’ familiarity with entrepreneurship – percentage of students who agree and
strongly agree with the statements
Figure 13 seems to indicate that students indeed reveal some reasonable interest in issues
related with entrepreneurship – around 60 per cent of the students claimed to be very or
extremely interested in the topics of ‘starting a new business from an idea’ and
‘entrepreneurship using research’, and the majority (54%) claimed to be very interested even
in the intraentrepreneurship topic (‘entrepreneurship within an existing company’). .
53,9
58,7
62,2
48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64
Entrepreneurship within an
existing company
Entrepreneurship using research
Starting a new business from an
idea

Figure 13: Students’ interest in entrepreneurship topics during their studies (% students who
agree/strongly agree)

20
Although a relatively low percentage of students have founded (6.4%) or have taken steps to
start a business (5.2%), over seventy per cent seem to be attracted to it. Only 9.1% do not
think of starting a business as their career option. Note that the Portuguese students’
‘effective’ entrepreneurial rate (6.4%) is very similar to the one (6.1%) Lena and Wong
(2004) found for 11660 undergraduate students enrolled in Science, Engineering, Computing
and Business courses in a University from Singapore, although below the most recent figure
for Portuguese early stage entrepreneurial rate (8.8%) found by GEM (2008).
19

9,7
49,9
16,4
12,4
5,2
6,4
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
No and I have
no interest to do
so
No, but I could
imagine starting
a company
No, but I have
an idea which I
believe could be
successful
I amcurrently
thinking about it
I have taken
steps to start a
business
Yes, I have
founded
company/ies

Figure 14: ‘Have you ever started your own company?’ (% total of students)
Even if less than 10% of students have started a new venture (effective entrepreneurship)
(Figure 14), the potential for entrepreneurship is quite important among Portuguese higher
education students (Figure 15). Around 35% of students surveyed regard having their own
business as a more plausible future career. This figure is equal to the one found by Franke and
Lüthje (2004) for Austrian undergraduate business students, slightly lower than the upper
bound range of the US summer course students (38.7%) surveyed by Levenbrug and Léger-
Jarniou (2006), but well below the propensity for entrepreneurship of US undergraduate
engineering (54.6%) and business (50.0%) students (Lüthje and Franke, 2003; Franke and
Lüthje, 2004).

19
The early stage entrepreneurial rate measures the proportion of adult population (18-64 years old) that were
involved in a nascent business (which did not yield money for a period of more than 3 months) or a new business
(which did not yield money for a period of more than 42 months). The GEM 2007 survey in Portugal involved
2023 individuals and it was found that 8.8% of those started a nascent or new business. In 2004, the
corresponding rate was as low as 4.0%.

21
2; 21,4 3; 35,2 4; 25,5
1 Being an employee...; 8,4
5 ...Having my own business; 9,5
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
%

Figure 15: Students’ prospects concerning their future career option (% total of students)
Although ‘potential’ entrepreneurship rate among Portuguese students enrolled in higher
education is considerable, data reveal that they have relatively low understanding of the
entrepreneurship process. Indeed, less than forty per cent recognize that they understand the
type of issues that an entrepreneur confronts when taking an idea to the market. When it
comes to knowledge about more specific issues, namely creation of business plans and
business concepts, techniques to find out what the market wants, and to know how to legally
finance a new business concept, the percentage of students who reckon to possess such
knowledge dramatically falls to respectively 30%, 22% and 20% (Figure 16).
19,8
21,7
29,1
37,3
0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 30,0 35,0 40,0
I know how to legally finance a new
business concept
I know techniques for finding out
what the market wants
I can create a business plan and a
business concept
I understand the type of issues that
confront an entrepreneur in taking an
idea to market

Figure 16: Students’ competencies on entrepreneurship (% students who agree/strongly agree)

22
4.3. Factors influencing students’ decision of becoming an entrepreneur/ employee
Although only 14% of students reckon that being an employee is the most suitable option for
their future profession, 61.1% claim that the lack of finances prevent self-employment and
almost 60% would prefer to be an employee rather than self-employed due to job security,
stability of employment, stable income, and due to the fact that it is not as risky as being self-
employed. Curiously, over half of the students declare to be more inclined to employment
rather than self-employment as the latter involves too much workload. Red tape /
administrative barriers are important factors for forty per cent of students to choose to be
employees. Lack of knowledge/familiarity with regards to self-employment and lack of an
entrepreneurial idea seems to be an impediment factor for self-employment only for one third
of the students surveyed.
Thus, we may conclude from the evidence that preference for being employees is to a larger
extent derived from lack of a risky behavior rather than lack of ideas and knowledge to create
a new venture.
The preference for self-employment is essentially attributed to the possibilities for self-
fulfilment, personal independence, and managing own time. A high percentage of students
also identify self-employment as a preferable career option as it involves a more interesting
work and it is more prestigious than being an employee. A reasonable percentage of students
see entrepreneurship as necessity driven, that is, as a way to prevent uncertainties related to
employment (i.e. being unemployed) (34.4%), an alternative given the lack of attractive
employment opportunities (45.5%), and the possibility to achieve better income prospects
(54.4%). Exploitation entrepreneurship is also recognized by half of the students surveyed as
they claim that being self-employed is preferable because they have an idea that can be a
business opportunity. Approximately half of the respondent students argue that being self-
employed is a ‘normal thing to do’ although a relatively lower percentage (28.3%) reckons
that having their own business is the most suitable option for their profession. The influence
of family and friends does not seem critical for students in their option for a future career
path.

2
3

9
,
5
1
4
,
5
2
3
,
9
2
8
,
4 3
0
,
1
3
5
,
1
4
0
,
5
5
3
,
1
5
7
,
2
5
7
,
6
6
0
,
8
0
,
0
1
0
,
0
2
0
,
0
3
0
,
0
4
0
,
0
5
0
,
0
6
0
,
0
7
0
,
0
H
a
v
in
g

c
o
lle
a
g
u
e
s

/

t
o
o

lo
n
e
ly

b
e
in
g
s
e
lf
-
e
m
p
lo
y
e
d
B
e
in
g

a
n

e
m
p
lo
y
e
e

is

t
h
e

m
o
s
t

s
u
it
a
b
le
o
p
t
io
n

f
o
r

m
y

f
u
t
u
r
e

p
r
o
f
e
s
s
io
n

S
e
v
e
r
it
y

a
n
d
/
o
r

ir
r
e
v
e
r
s
ib
ilit
y

o
f

t
h
e
d
e
c
is
io
n

L
a
c
k

o
f

a
n

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
ia
l
id
e
a

L
a
c
k

o
f

k
n
o
w
le
d
g
e

/

f
a
m
ilia
r
it
y

w
it
h
r
e
g
a
r
d
s

t
o

s
e
lf

e
m
p
lo
y
m
e
n
t
S
o
c
ia
l
s
e
c
u
r
it
y

a
n
d
/
o
r

in
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
s

R
e
d

t
a
p
e

/

a
d
m
in
is
t
r
a
t
iv
e

b
a
r
r
ie
r
s

T
o
o

m
u
c
h

w
o
r
k
lo
a
d

w
h
e
n

s
e
lf
-
e
m
p
lo
y
e
d

It

is

n
o
t

a
s

r
is
k
y

a
s

b
e
in
g

s
e
lf
-
e
m
p
lo
y
e
d

J
o
b

s
e
c
u
r
it
y

/

s
t
a
b
ilit
y

o
f

e
m
p
lo
y
m
e
n
t

/
S
t
a
b
le

in
c
o
m
e

L
a
c
k

o
f

f
in
a
n
c
e
s

f
o
r

s
e
lf
-
e
m
p
lo
y
m
e
n
t

b
e

a
n

e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e

r
a
t
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

s
e
l
f
-
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
d

1
4
,
4
1
9
,
2
2
8
,
3
3
4
,
4
4
5
,
5 4
7
,
7
4
9
,
4
5
4
,
4
5
4
,
5
5
9
,
1
7
5
,
1
8
5
,
0
0
,
0
1
0
,
0
2
0
,
0
3
0
,
0
4
0
,
0
5
0
,
0
6
0
,
0
7
0
,
0
8
0
,
0
9
0
,
0
F
a
m
ily

/

f
r
ie
n
d
s

a
r
e

s
e
lf
-

e
m
p
lo
y
e
d

N
o

n
e
e
d

t
o

a
d
a
p
t

t
o

a

b
u
s
in
e
s
s
e
n
v
ir
o
n
m
e
n
t

H
a
v
in
g

y
o
u
r

o
w
n

b
u
s
in
e
s
s

is

t
h
e

m
o
s
t
s
u
it
a
b
le

o
p
t
io
n

f
o
r

m
y

p
r
o
f
e
s
s
io
n
T
o

a
v
o
id

u
n
c
e
r
t
a
in
t
ie
s

r
e
la
t
e
d

t
o
e
m
p
lo
y
m
e
n
t

(
e
.
g
.
,

b
e
in
g

u
n
e
m
p
lo
y
e
d
)

L
a
c
k

o
f

a
t
t
r
a
c
t
iv
e

e
m
p
lo
y
m
e
n
t

o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
it
ie
s

It

is

a

‘n
o
r
m
a
l
t
h
in
g

t
o

d
o
’
I
h
a
v
e

a
n

id
e
a

t
h
a
t

c
a
n

b
e

a

b
u
s
in
e
s
s
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
it
y

B
e
t
t
e
r

in
c
o
m
e

p
r
o
s
p
e
c
t
s

M
o
r
e

p
r
e
s
t
ig
io
u
s

t
h
a
n

b
e
in
g

a
n

e
m
p
lo
y
e
e

M
o
r
e

in
t
e
r
e
s
t
in
g

w
o
r
k

P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
in
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
c
e

/

M
a
n
a
g
in
g

o
w
n
t
im
e

P
o
s
s
ib
ilit
ie
s

f
o
r

s
e
lf
-
f
u
lf
ilm
e
n
t

b
e

s
e
l
f
-
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
d

r
a
t
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

a
n

e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e

F
i
g
u
r
e

1
7
:

R
e
a
s
o
n
s

f
o
r

p
r
e
f
e
r
r
i
n
g

t
o

b
e

a
n

e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e

(
s
e
l
f
-
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
d
)

r
a
t
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

s
e
l
f
-
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
d

(
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
)

(
%

s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

w
h
o

a
g
r
e
e
/
s
t
r
o
n
g
l
y

a
g
r
e
e
)

24
4.3. How can universities foster the student’s interest in entrepreneurship?
According to Redfort and Trigo (2007), entrepreneurship education can have three key roles
in promoting ‘an entrepreneurial society’. It may act as a general advocate for the mindset and
type of creativity employed in entrepreneurial endeavors and presenting students with
entrepreneurship as a possible career choice. Moreover, it has a skill development role by
assisting students in developing the technical and business skill-set necessary to have a
successful entrepreneurial career. Finally, it may have a scientific development role by
contributing to advance the body of knowledge associated with the entrepreneurial
phenomenon.
Besides these abovementioned important jobs, entrepreneurship education in general and
higher education institutions in particular may, and advisably should, work as a hub, putting
different type of students in contact and helping in the establishment of bridges between
potential entrepreneurs and private business organizations, namely those acting as
entrepreneurship support organizations, such as incubators, business angels, property rights
offices, to name a few. These networking roles may be anchored and diffused through the
organization of hand-on seminars and workshops, similarly to what happens in IC2
(University of Texas at Austin)
20
or at the MIT Entrepreneurship Center,
21
by inviting
business practitioners and other professionals who, besides transmitting their knowledge, may
be the basis for an effective entrepreneurial network.
A very powerful mean for enhancing the strength of an entrepreneurial network would be the
formation of both physical and virtual entrepreneurial clubs, which involves students from
different schools within an institution and/or inter-institutions, and which could be a place to
post important information and contacts for entrepreneurial individuals. A recent exemple is
the Clube de Empreendedorismo da Universidade do Porto (CEdUP), the first portuguese
university entrepreneurship club.
22
Organizations, such as ANJE – Associação Nacional de
Jovens Empresários (National Association of Young Entrepreneurs), which organizes the
Academy of the Entrepreneurs
23
since 1997, COTEC Portugal, which attributes, jointly with

20
The IC2 Institute is an international, multi-disciplinary research and education institute at the University of
Texas at Austin that links technology, entrepreneurship and education to foster sustainable social and economic
development around the world (inhttp://www.ic2.utexas.edu/).
21
The MIT Entrepreneurship Center is committed to fostering and developing MIT's entrepreneurial activities
and interests in three primary areas: Education and Research; Alliances; and Community (Inhttp://entrepreneurship.mit.edu/).
22
http://www.cedup.up.pt/home_en.htm, accessed in 19 August 2008.
23
http://www.anje.pt/academia/default.asp?id=43&mnu=43, accessed in 19 August 2008.

25
Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian and Fundação Luso-Americana (FLAD), the National Prize
on Promotion of Entrepreneurship in Higher Education,
24
or students’ associations such as
BEST – Board of European Students of Engineering, AIESEC – Association for the
International Exchange Students in Economics and Commerce, JADE Portugal (Portuguese
Federation of Junior Enterprises), etc., are important contributors for the dissemination of an
entrepreneurship spirit among Portuguese individuals in general, and higher education
students, in particular. Also, websites such ashttp://www.empreendedorismo.pt/, are quite
important in this regard.
Over eighty per cent of the surveyed students recognized in fact that their interest in new
venture creation would be improved if their schools brought students in contact with the
network needed to start a new business and put entrepreneurial students in contact with each
other (Figure 18). Approximately seventy per cent of students claimed that offering project
work focused on entrepreneurship, arranging conferences/workshops on entrepreneurship,
allowing companies run by students to use university facilities, and creating more awareness
on entrepreneurship as a possible career choice would be important boosters. Idea generation
and financial means, although emerging as reasonably relevant for almost sixty per cent of the
surveyed students, stand as relatively minor factors. The ‘traditional’ way that universities in
particular have been providing in recent years - offering bachelor or master study on
entrepreneurship – does not seem particularly fundamental for the students in analysis.

24
This award aims at pushing Portuguese higher education institutions to develop projects and devising
innovative strategies to promote entrepreneurship among their students (inhttp://www.cotecportugal.pt/).

26
My interest in new venture creation would be improved if the University
51,4
56,8
61,8
66,9
67,8
69,6
70,7
79,1
84,7
0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0 80,0 90,0
Of f ered a bachelor or master study on
entrepreneurship
Provide students with the financial
means needed to start a new
business
Provided students with ideas to start a
new business
Created more awareness of
entrepreneurship as a possible career
choice
Allow companies run by students to
use university facilities
Arranged conf erences/workshops on
entrepreneurship
Of fered project work focused on
entrepreneurship
Brought entrepreneurial students in
contact with each other
Bring students in contact with the
network needed to start a new
business

Figure 18: Ways in which universities may foster the students’ interest in entrepreneurship (% students
that agree/strongly agree)
5. Determinants of students’ entrepreneurial intents and propensity
We share Krueger’s (2000) view that intentions are constructed, even where they appear to
arise spontaneously. As they establish key initial characteristics, entrepreneurial intentions are
crucial to understand the overall process of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial intentions are
directed towards either creating a new venture or creating new values in an existing venture
(Bird, 1988).
A relevant body of literature on entrepreneurial activities reveals that there is a consistent
interest in identifying the factors that lead an individual to become an entrepreneur (Martínez
et al., 2007). Several pieces of evidence show that these factors are similar, with the most
frequent analyzed being age, gender, professional background, work experience, and
educational and psychological profiles (Delmar and Davidsson, 2000). Broadly, three factors
have been used to measure entrepreneurial intents: demographic data, personality traits
(Robinson, 1987) and contextual factors (Naffziger et al., 1994). Demographic data (gender,
age) can be used to describe entrepreneurs, but most of these characteristics do not enhance
the ability to predict whether or not a person is likely to start a business (Hatten and Ruhland,
1995). The second method of assessing entrepreneurial intents is to examine personality traits
such as risk taking, creativity and achievement motive (Teixeira, 2008a). However, several

27
authors (e.g., Naffziger et al., 1994) argue that the decision to behave entrepreneurially is
based on more than personal characteristics and individual differences. Accordingly, the
interaction of personal characteristics (risk, creativity and need for achievement) with other
important perceptions of contextual factors (work/professional experience, region and role
model), competencies/familiarity with entrepreneurship (entrepreneurial experience,
knowledge, awareness and interest), formal education (schooling year, degree, type of higher
education institution), and type of course/area of studies, may be critical to assess the
students’ entrepreneurial potential.
In the present research we compute three measures of students’ entrepreneurial potential: two
that may be considered as measures of effective entrepreneurial propensity, and one of
entrepreneurial intent. The two measures of effective entrepreneurial propensity were
computed as dummy variables which, in one case, we assumed the value 1 in the event that
the student had already created firms (effective entrepreneurial propensity in stricto sensu)
and 0 otherwise; in other case we assumed the value 1, in the event that the student had
already created firms or taken some steps towards the creation of firms (effective
entrepreneurial propensity in lato sensu) and 0 otherwise. The variable of entrepreneurial
intent was directly assessed by asking students, on a scale of 1 – employee … 5 – having my
own business, which was the most likely option for their future career. If the student answered
4 or 5, the entrepreneurial intent variable assumed the value 1 and 0 otherwise.
Considering only the higher education institutions that are ranked in the top 30 (Figure 19),
ISLA - Instituto Superior de Linguas e Administração, Universidade Portucalense Infante D.
Henrique and ISEC - Instituto Superior de Educação e Ciências are the best positioned as far
as the effective entrepreneurial propensity is concerned. Of the total students surveyed, 6.4%
stated that they had created at least one firm (effective entrepreneurship in stricto sensu). The
corresponding percentage for students enrolled in ISLA is almost three times higher (18.0%),
whereas for the Universidade Portucalense it is more than double (16.7%). In Instituto
Superior de Educação e Ciências, Instituto Politécnico de Setúbal and Instituto Superior de
Entre Douro e Vouga, the effective entrepreneurial rate is twice the global mean (around
13%). Thus, at a first glance, we are inclined to conclude that students enrolled in non-
university institutions are more entrepreneurial led.

28
Effective entrepreneurship (created a firm)
0,0
0,0
2,2
2,3
2,7
3,0
3,3
3,7
4,1
4,1
4,5
4,8
4,8
5,0
5,0
5,1
5,4
5,7
5,8
6,3
6,4
7,1
7,9
8,3
8,8
9,4
11,1
11,4
12,4
12,8
12,9
13,2
16,7
18,0
0,0 2,0 4,0 6,0 8,0 10,0 12,0 14,0 16,0 18,0 20,0
Universidade da Beira Interior
Escola Superior Artística do Porto
Universidade dos Açores
Instituto Politécnico de Coimbra
Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa
Universidade Técnica de Lisboa
Universidade da Madeira
ARCA - Escola Universitária das Artes de Coimbra
Universidade de Lisboa
Universidade do Minho
Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro
Universidade Católica Portuguesa
Instituto Politécnico de Castelo Branco
Instituto Politécnico do Cávado e do Ave
Universidade de Aveiro
Universidade do Algarve
Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo
Universidade do Porto
Instituto Politécnico do Porto
Universidade de Évora
All (mean)
Instituto Politécnico de Leiria
Instituto Politécnico de Bragança
Universidade Fernando Pessoa
Instituto Politécnico da Guarda
ISPA - Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada - Lisboa
Instituto Politécnico de Santarém
Universidade Nova de Lisboa
Instituto Politécnico de Viseu
Instituto Politécnico de Setúbal
Instituto Superior de Entre Douro e Vouga
ISEC - Instituto Superior de Educação e Ciências
Universidade Portucalense Infante D. Henrique
ISLA - Instituto Superior de Linguas e Administração
%

Figure 19: Effective entrepreneurship (stricto sensu) of Portuguese higher education students, by schools
When we enlarge the concept of effective entrepreneurship including, not only the creation of
firms in stricto sensu, but also the action (having taken some steps) to create new ventures
(entrepreneurship in lato sensu), Universidade Nova de Lisboa enters into the top 3 best
ranked institutions (Figure 20), with 21% of its students claiming that they had already
created taken some steps to create a new business (well above the global average, 11.6%).

29
Ef fective entrepreneurship (created or took some steps to creat a f irm)
2,2
4,1
7,0
7,9
8,0
8,3
9,1
9,2
9,3
9,4
9,5
10,6
10,7
11,1
11,1
11,3
11,6
11,8
12,0
12,3
13,5
14,1
15,0
15,6
15,6
16,1
16,7
18,2
18,9
19,0
19,1
20,5
23,7
24,0
0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 30,0
Universidade dos Açores
Universidade de Lisboa
Instituto Politécnico de Coimbra
Instituto Politécnico de Bragança
Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa
Escola Superior Artística do Porto
Universidade Técnica de Lisboa
Universidade de Aveiro
Universidade do Minho
Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro
Universidade Católica Portuguesa
Universidade do Porto
Instituto Politécnico de Leiria
ARCA - Escola Universitária das Artes de Coimbra
Universidade da Beira Interior
Universidade do Algarve
All (mean)
Instituto Politécnico da Guarda
Universidade da Madeira
Instituto Politécnico do Porto
Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo
Universidade de Évora
Instituto Politécnico do Cávado e do Ave
Universidade Fernando Pessoa
ISPA - Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada - Lisboa
Instituto Superior de Entre Douro e Vouga
Instituto Politécnico de Santarém
Instituto Politécnico de Viseu
Universidade Portucalense Infante D. Henrique
Instituto Politécnico de Castelo Branco
Instituto Politécnico de Setúbal
Universidade Nova de Lisboa
ISEC - Instituto Superior de Educação e Ciências
ISLA - Instituto Superior de Linguas e Administração
%

Figure 20: Effective entrepreneurship (lato sensu) of Portuguese higher education students, by schools
ISLA and Instituto Superior de Educação e Ciências emerge again at the forefront in the
ranking with 25% of students having created or taken some steps to create a business.
When analyzing the entrepreneurial intents of students (Figure 21), that is, how much students
think that their future will pass for having their own business instead of being self-employed,
the ranking significantly changes. Although being the worst ranked in terms of effective
entrepreneurship (created firms), the Escola Superior Artística do Porto emerges as the first
in terms of entrepreneurial intents. A similar situation happens in the case of the Universidade
Técnica de Lisboa, Instituto Politécnico do Cávado e Ave, Instituto Politécnico de Castelo
Branco, and Universidade Portucalense, which stand within the top five with regard to
entrepreneurial intents.

30
Entrepreneurship Intents
20,3
25,0
26,7
27,2
27,5
28,6
30,6
31,1
32,0
32,6
34,1
34,4
35,0
36,0
36,1
36,2
36,6
39,1
39,5
39,6
40,6
41,2
42,0
45,0
45,2
45,3
47,4
48,1
48,6
50,0
57,6
61,9
62,5
63,9
0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0
Universidade de Lisboa
Universidade Nova de Lisboa
Universidade da Beira Interior
Universidade da Madeira
Universidade de Aveiro
Universidade Católica Portuguesa
Universidade do Minho
Universidade dos Açores
Universidade do Porto
Instituto Politécnico de Coimbra
Instituto Politécnico de Viseu
ISPA - Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada - Lisboa
All (mean)
Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa
Instituto Politécnico de Santarém
Instituto Politécnico de Setúbal
Instituto Politécnico de Leiria
Universidade do Algarve
Instituto Politécnico de Bragança
Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro
Universidade Fernando Pessoa
Instituto Politécnico da Guarda
ISLA - Instituto Superior de Linguas e Administração
Instituto Politécnico do Porto
Instituto Superior de Entre Douro e Vouga
Universidade de Évora
ISEC - Instituto Superior de Educação e Ciências
ARCA - Escola Universitária das Artes de Coimbra
Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo
Universidade Portucalense Inf ante D. Henrique
Universidade Técnica de Lisboa
Instituto Politécnico de Castelo Branco
Instituto Politécnico do Cávado e do Ave
Escola Superior Artística do Porto
%

Figure 21: Entrepreneurship intents of Portuguese higher education students, by schools

At a first glance, the previous analysis seems to point that public and private schools, as well
as university and non-university institutions, present a rather distinct picture as far as effective
entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship intents are concerned. This is clear in Figure 22.
Polytechnic and other schools and private higher education institutions systematically present
higher average values for potential and effective entrepreneurship when compared to
universities and public higher education institutions.

31
40,8
14,0
8,3
32,6
10,5
5,6
0,00
5,00
10,00
15,00
20,00
25,00
30,00
35,00
40,00
45,00
Entrepreneurship intents Ef ective entrepreneurship (created
f irms or took some steps)
Ef ective entrepreneurship (created
firms)
Polytechnics and other schools Universities

45,0
18,1
11,8
33,7
10,7
5,7
0,000
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
Entrepreneurship intents Ef ective entrepreneurship (created
f irms or took some steps)
Efective entrepreneurship (created
f irms)
Private school Public school

Figure 22: Entrepreneurship potential of Portuguese higher education students, by type of school
(polytechnics vs university; private vs public)

It is also interesting to analyse whether entrepreneurial attitudes differ among scientific areas.
As we can observe in Figure 23, on average, 10% of students enrolled in courses from the
‘Economics, Management and Accounting’ area have already created firms, and an additional
5% have already took some steps towards the creation of a new business. A rather surprising
result at a first glimpse is that students enrolled in courses from ‘Sciences of Education’,
‘Humanities’, and ‘Law’ present a rather high effective entrepreneurial propensity, and higher
than their counterparts who are enrolled in ‘Technologies’, who have a below average
effective entrepreneurship. Such results corroborate the evidence gathered by Teixeira
(2008b), and Teixeira and Forte (2008), regarding final year students of the University of
Porto.
Although presenting a noticeable potential entrepreneurship propensity, with almost 60% of
their students seeing the starting of their business as a future career, ‘Architecture, fine arts
and design’, and ‘Agriculture and natural resources’ present a rather low effective
entrepreneurial propensity. Given the insufficient entrepreneurship experience and awareness
and the fact that business skills and competencies might be in short supply, higher education
institutions could usefully take some measures to provide non business students with some
business and entrepreneurship related courses, information and networks, which could
transform potential into effective entrepreneurship propensity.

32
29,4
64,9
22,2
34,5
36,1
53,8
35,0
24,1
30,2
33,3
41,2
0,9
2,7
4,4
4,8
5,7
5,7
6,4
7,3
7,4
8,1
10,1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Health
Agriculture and natural resources
Sciences
Physical education, sports, perf orming
arts
Technologies
Architecture, fine arts and design
Average
Humanities, secretaries, translation
Sciences of education and teachers
training
Law, social sciences and services
Economics, management and
accounting
%
Entrepreneurship intents Efective entrepreneurship (created firms or took some steps) Efective entrepreneurship (created firms)

Figure 23: Entrepreneurship potential of Portuguese higher education students, by scientific areas
A curious result is that although PhD and Master students present the highest average
effective entrepreneurship propensities (cf. Figure 24) – the double and almost the treble of
licensees’ stricto and lato effective entrepreneurship, respectively – whereas the
entrepreneurship intents is considerable higher for people holding a degree (36%) compared
to that of those with a PhD (23%).
36,0
10,3
5,6
31,9
17,0
9,2
23,1
23,8
15,6
0,0
5,0
10,0
15,0
20,0
25,0
30,0
35,0
40,0
Entrepreneurship intents Ef ective entrepreneurship (created f irms or
took some steps)
Ef ective entrepreneurship (created f irms)
Licensee Master PhD

Figure 24: Entrepreneurship potential of Portuguese higher education students, by degree

33
The effective entrepreneurial propensity is higher in students with permanent address in
Lisbon, Alentejo and, to a small extent, those from the Center region. Alentejo’s students
present, in fact, the highest effective lato sensu entrepreneurship and the second highest
potential entrepreneurship propensity, right after the Algarve.
25

35,1
31,5
41,1
35,0
36,3
32,0
40,5
34,1
0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 30,0 35,0 40,0 45,0
Azores
Madeira
Algarve
Average
North
Centre
Alentejo
Lisboa
Entrepreneurship intents Efective entrepreneurship (created firms or took some steps) Efective entrepreneurship (created f irms)

Figure 25: Entrepreneurship potential of Portuguese higher education students, by regions

Focusing now on demographic characteristics of students, the gender gap widely observed in
other studies within the entrepreneurship literature is apparent (Strom, 2007). As we can
observe in Figure 26, the effective entrepreneurial propensity of male students is roughly the
double of their female counterparts. Stephan and El-Ganainy (2007), focusing also on the
academia, found that women are less likely to engage in an entrepreneurial activity or start a
company. They propose several explanations for accounting such as gender gap, referring that
women are generally more risk adverse than men, women dislike competition, they are less
likely to ask than men; women choose to work in “small” areas, with less commercial
possibilities and finally, women traditionally have more responsibilities outside the workplace
than men (Stephan and El-Ganainy, 2007).

25
It is important to be cautious in this regard as our sample is not statically representative at the regional level.

34
42,3
15,4
9,0
30,8
8,9
4,7
0,0
5,0
10,0
15,0
20,0
25,0
30,0
35,0
40,0
45,0
Entrepreneurship intents Ef ective entrepreneurship (created
f irms or took some steps)
Efective entrepreneurship (created
f irms)
Male Female

Figure 26: Entrepreneurship potential of Portuguese higher education students, by gender
All the variables analyzed above are likely to explain (in part) the effective and potential
entrepreneurship potential of higher education students. However, in order to rigorously
account for their net effect, we need to use a multivariable econometric model. This type of
model enables us to assess the individual sign and statistic significance of a given determinant
of entrepreneurial attitudes (e.g., risk), controlling all the other determinants (e.g., gender).
The empirical assessment of the students’ entrepreneurial propensity is based on the
estimation of the following general logistic regression, which in turn is based on the existing
literature on the determinants of students’ propensity to entrepreneurial ventures, surveyed in
Section 2:
i
n institutio tertiary of Type
factors Contextual traits c Demographi
Education Formal urship entreprene with y Familiarit es Competenci
traits y Personalit
Z
c Polytechni University ? ivate Public ?
Model Role Experience Work Age ? Gender ?
Interest Awareness Knowledge Experience
t Achievemen for Need ? Creativity ? Risk ? Z with
e
ur entreprene P
?
? ?
? ? ? ?
?
+ + + +
+ + + + + +
+ + + + + +
+ + + =
+
=
?
Course ?
Region ?
Degree ?
1
16 15 14
3 12 11 10 9
8
/
7 6 5 4
3 2 1 0
_ Pr _
;
1
1
) (
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 1
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 1 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 2 1
43 42 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 1
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 1

In order to have a more straightforward interpretation of the logistic coefficients, it is
convenient to consider a rearrangement of the equation for the logistic model in which the
logistic model is rewritten in terms of the odds of an event occurring. Writing the logistic
model in terms of the odds, we obtain the logit model

35
i
n institutio tertiary of Type
factors Contextual traits c Demographi
Education Formal urship entreprene with y Familiarit es Competenci
traits y Personalit
c Polytechni University ? ivate Public ?
Model Role Experience Work Age ? Gender ?
Interest Awareness Knowledge Experience
t Achievemen for Need ? Creativity ? Risk ?
ur entreprene Non ob
ur entreprene ob
?
? ?
? ? ? ?
?
+ + + +
+ + + + + +
+ + + + + +
+ + + =
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Course ?
Region ?
Degree ?
1
16 15 14
3 12 11 10 9
8
/
7 6 5 4
3 2 1 0
_ Pr _
) ( Pr
) ( Pr
log
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 1
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 1 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 2 1
43 42 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 1
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 1

The logistic coefficient can be interpreted as the change in the log odds associated with a one-
unit change in the independent variable.
Then, e raised to the power ?
i
is the factor by which the odds change when the i
th
independent
variable increases by one unit. If ?
i
is positive, this factor will be greater than 1, which means
that the odds are increased; if ?
i
is negative, the factor will be less than one, which means that
the odds are decreased. When ?
i
is 0, the factor equals 1, which leaves the odds unchanged. In
the case where the estimate of ?
9
emerges as positive and significant for the conventional
levels of statistical significance (that is, 1%, 5% or 10%), this means that, on average, all
other factors being held constant, female students would have higher (log) odds of
entrepreneurial potential.
The proxies for the variables used in the model and the matrix of correlation are detailed in
Table A1 and A2 in Appendix. The estimates of the ?s are given in Table 3 below. In this
table we present three different models, which correspond to effective entrepreneurship stricto
sensu (having created a firm) [Model 1], effective entrepreneurship lato sensu (having created
a firm or have taken some steps to create a new business) [Model 2], and entrepreneurial
intents (seeing self-employment/starting a business as the most likely future career option)
[Model 3].
Results schematically documented in Table 3 show that the determinants of effective
entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship intents do not match completely. By comparison to
their counterparts, Portuguese higher education students that had already created a (some)
firm(s) tend, on average, to possess larger entrepreneurial experience and knowledge. All
other factors remaining constant, males and older students tend to be more prone to create
new ventures than female and younger students, respectively. Controlling for all the potential
determinants of effective entrepreneurship propensity, results also evidence that students from
Lisbon and from the Islands created, on average, fewer new business than their colleagues
from the North region. Regarding the area of studies, we found that students enrolled in the

36
‘Economics and Business’ area tend to be more entrepreneurial than those enrolled in
‘Technologies’, whereas ‘Health’ students are less entrepreneurial led.
When we consider a more encompassing effective entrepreneurship indicator - created firms
or took steps to start a business – similar results to the above (effective entrepreneurship
propensity in stricter terms) are obtained concerning entrepreneurial experience,
entrepreneurial knowledge, gender, age, work experience and health area of studies.
Differently, personal characteristics, namely risk and creativity traits, emerge positively and
significantly related to entrepreneurial propensity. This evidence reveals that students who
have a higher risk behaviour – i.e., those who argue that they do not agree with the statement
‘One should not start a business when there is a risk it might fail’, those who tend to under
prefer job security/stability of employment/stable income to new venture creation, and do not
fear the risk associated with new ventures – are, all things remaining constant, much more
likely to have created or taken some steps to create new businesses. These students also reveal
higher levels of creativity in the sense they have ideas which are likely to become business
opportunities.
Personality traits (risk, creativity, need for achievement), competencies/ familiarity with
entrepreneurship (experience, knowledge, awareness and interest), formal education,
demographic traits (gender and age), and contextual factors (namely, work experience and
family and friends role models) are factors that explain students’ entrepreneurial intents.
Student s who foresee, to a larger extent, their future career as owning their business, are, on
average, more prone to risk, they show higher levels of creativity and familiarity with
entrepreneurship issues. As in effective entrepreneurship, male, older and more professionally
experienced students tend to reveal (other things remaining constant) higher entrepreneurial
intents. In contrast with effective entrepreneurship, the role model emerges as an important
factor influencing students’ entrepreneurial intents. Thus, students who live in an
environment which ‘breeds’ entrepreneurship – family and friends are entrepreneurs – tend,
on average, to have stronger desire to become an entrepreneur. This evidence is encouraging
in the sense that it goes in line with the central premise of entrepreneurship programs that
entrepreneurship is a learned phenomenon. Therefore, entrepreneurs can be created by their
experience as they grow and learn, being influenced by teachers, parents, mentors and role
models throughout their growth process (Volery, 2004; Van Auken et al., 2006). Following
these arguments, even when individuals interested in entrepreneurship and current
entrepreneurs cannot be taught in stricto senso, they can be encouraged and influenced.

37
Although in the descriptive analysis (Section 4) students enrolled in private institutions and
polytechnic schools presented higher entrepreneurship propensities than their colleagues
enrolled in public institutions and universities, respectively, when we control a large number
of factors that are likely to influence entrepreneurial propensity (both effective and intents),
the type of higher education fails to constitute a statistically significant determinant. Students
enrolled in ‘Agriculture and Natural Resources’ and ‘Architecture, Arts and Design’ reveal
higher entrepreneurial intents than those enrolled in ‘Technologies’, whereas the opposite
happens for students enrolled in ‘Humanities’.
Table 3: Determinants of students’ entrepreneurial propensity/intents
Effective Entrepreneurial propensity

Created firms
Created firms or took
steps to start a
business
Entrepreneurial
intents
Risky ++ +++
Creativity +++ +++
Personality traits
Need for achievement +++
Entrepreneurial experience +++ +++ +++
Entrepreneurial knowledge +++ +++ +++
Entrepreneurial awareness +++
Competencies/
familiarity with
entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurial interest +++
Master+MBA ---
Formal education Degree
PhD ---
Gender (Female=1; Male=0) -- -- ---
Demographic traits
Age +++ +++ ++
Work experience +++ +++ +
Role model (family & friends) +++
Center ---
Lisbon -
Alentejo
Algarve -
Contextual factors
(default region:
North)
Region
Islands -- -
Public vs Private (public=1; private=0)
Type of Higher
Education
University vs Polytechnic (uni=1; poly=0)
Sciences -
Health -- ---
Agriculture and natural resources +++
Architecture, arts and design +++
Education
Law, and social sciences
Economics and business ++
Humanities -
Area of study
(default area:
Technologies)
Sports and performing arts

+++ (---) Statistically significant at 1%; ++ (--) 5%; + (-) 1%
Note: Blank cells mean that the relation is not statistically significant. In Appendix, Table A3, we detail the estimates for each model.

38
It is important to reflect on why risk and creativity emerge as important personality traits for
effective entrepreneurship in lato sensu (created firms or took steps to start a business) and
entrepreneurial intents (seeing him/her self as an entrepreneur after the end of his/her studies)
but failed to determine effective entrepreneurship in stricto sensu (created firms). In a rather
comprehensive and rich report on micro entrepreneurship in Portugal, Portela and his co-
authors (Portela, 2008) point to several situations that are likely to be particularly and that
might enlighten the ‘mystery’ of non significance of risk and creativity for effective
entrepreneurship propensity. Recall that students who created firms are in general
postgraduate students and/or relatively senior individuals. In this vein, entrepreneurial
ventures associated with these individuals are likely to suffer from the weaknesses pointed by
Portela (see Table 4), namely lack of innovation/creativity and risk aversion. This also might
potentially explain the lack of significance of variables, such as entrepreneurial awareness and
interest observed in Table 3 for effective entrepreneurship propensity.
Table 4: Typology of micro entrepreneurship in Portugal

Factors leading to
new business
venturing
Sectors of the
new venture Dangers/weaknesses
Naïve
entrepreneurship
Recent graduates
from higher
education or
individuals with
high levels of
(formal) education
Failure to find a job
Stimulus from
schools where they
graduated
Service sector
(activities related
with services to
firms, culture,
tourism,
environment or
ICTs)
Lack of experience and
knowledge of markets
Individuals with
professional
experience in
specialized
domains
Unemployment at an
advanced age
Sector of the
former
employment
Lack of
innovation/creativity
Individuals that
have substantial
difficulties in
finding a job
Council, mentoring,
and financial help
from employment
centers
-
Excessive dependency
on public institutions
Risk aversion
Transitory
entrepreneurship
People without
sufficient resources
Microcredit -
Reduced size of the
business
Lack of experience of
entrepreneurship
Personal
achievement
seeking
entrepreneurship
Individuals who
invest their
material and
relational capital in
a new business
Desire of
independence
Need for
achievement
-
Absence of market
feasibility studies
Source: Adapted from Portela (2008)

39
6. Conclusions
Regardless of how directly supportive universities are of the commercialization of research,
they offer access to a number of unique resources particularly helpful to nascent
entrepreneurs. Firstly, universities provide access to a large body of talented and skilled
individuals gathered in one location, so building a team within the university ‘ecosystem’
might be much easier than anywhere else. Indeed, the diversity of talent is very important for
start-ups. Moreover, bringing new ideas to market requires a large number of skills, including
a mix of business and technical expertise. Therefore, teams with members who possess a
number of different skills are very valuable.
Portuguese higher education students who responded the survey recognized in fact that their
interest in new venture creation would be improved if their schools brought students in
contact with the network needed to start a new business and put entrepreneurial students in
contact with each other. A vast percentage of these students claimed that arranging
conferences/workshops on entrepreneurship and creating more awareness on entrepreneurship
as a possible career choice would be important boosters. Additionally, our model estimates
revealed that students who live in an environment that ‘‘breeds’ entrepreneurship tend, on
average, to have stronger desire to become entrepreneurs. This corroborates the idea that
entrepreneurship is a learned phenomenon and, as such, entrepreneurs can be created by their
experience as they grow and learn, being influenced by teachers, parents, mentors and role
models throughout their growth process (Volery, 2004; Van Auken et al., 2006).
Thus, entrepreneurship education in general and higher education institutions in particular
may, and advisably should, work as a hub, putting different type of students in contact with
each other and helping in the establishment of bridges between potential entrepreneurs and
private business organizations, namely those acting as entrepreneurship support organizations,
such as incubators, business angels, property rights offices, to name a few. These networking
roles may be anchored and diffused through the organization of hand-on seminars and
workshops, similarly to what happens in IC2 (University of Texas at Austin) or at the MIT
Entrepreneurship Center, by inviting business practitioners and other professionals who,
besides transmitting their knowledge, may be the basis for an effective entrepreneurial
network.
A very powerful mean to enhance the strength of an entrepreneurial network would be the
formation of both physical and virtual entrepreneurial clubs, which involve students from

40
different schools within an institution and/or inter-institutions, and which could be a place to
post important information and contacts for entrepreneurial individuals. Audax (ISCTE), or a
more recent example, Clube de Empreendedorismo da Universidade do Porto (CEdUP), the
first Portuguese university entrepreneurship club, and initiatives as E-Day – Entrepreneurship
Day at Universidade Nova de Lisboa or GP.UPorto: Aprender a Empreender, are key booster
factors to encourage entrepreneurship among our youngest.
Although less than 10% of Portuguese higher education students have started a new venture
(effective entrepreneurship), entrepreneurship intents are quite important among these
students. Around 35% of students surveyed regard having their own business as a more
plausible future career, a similar figure to the one found for Austrian undergraduate business
students, but well below the propensity for entrepreneurship of US undergraduate engineering
(54.6%) and business (50.0%) students (Lüthje and Franke, 2003; Franke and Lüthje, 2004).
Notwithstanding the reasonable entrepreneurship intents among Portuguese students enrolled
in higher education, data reveal that these students have relatively low understanding of the
entrepreneurship process, failing to understand the type of issues that an entrepreneur
confronts when taking an idea to the market, and not possessing enough knowledge
concerning the creation of business plans and business concepts, techniques to find out what
the market wants, and how to legally finance a new business concept. Such evidence might in
part explain the below average entrepreneurial propensity of students enrolled in
‘Technology’ related areas.
Entrepreneurship club meetings, classes, or lectures by well-known entrepreneurs offer a way
of broadening knowledge about entrepreneurship - and connecting with others who are
interested in the subject. For instance, engineering students who are wondering how to
properly structure a business plan might be encouraged to visit a management and ask for
assistance. Those who do not yet have an idea for a venture might spend some time with
engineering students or talk to engineering faculty members about ideas that they think are
worth commercializing - there are many students and faculty members who might be looking
for others to bring an idea to the market. The key concept to bring new ideas to market is
collaboration. University resources can also help with access to valuable information for
market research. While the Internet is a good first stop, market predictions and trends usually
require access to additional reports focused on a target market and specific industry.

41
From building a team to winning start-up capital, universities offer many unique and valuable
resources to those within their community. Even if the venture is not successful, mobilizing
the resources within the community provides professional relationships, friendships,
knowledge and skills that will last a lifetime, well beyond the academia context.
The present work is rather exploratory attempting to uncover some patterns about Portuguese
higher education students’ attitudes towards entrepreneurship. It would be quite important and
valuable, providing an interesting path for future research, to analyze the measures that each
school has developed to foster entrepreneurship among their students and staff. This would
bring additional and illuminating evidence concerning the importance and ‘quality’ of the
context as a promoter of new business venturing.

References
Baptista, R., and Thurik, A. R. (2007), “The Relationship between Entrepreneurship e
Unemployment: is Portugal an Outliner?”, Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 74 (1): 75-89.
Barreto, A. (org.) (1999), A. Situação Social em Portugal, 1960-1995, Vol. I, Lisboa: ICS-UL
Baucus, D., and Human, S. (1995), “Second-career entrepreneurs: A multiple case study
analysis of entrepreneurial processes and antecedent variables”, Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 19(4), 41–72.
Bird, B. (1988), “Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for intentions”, Academy of
Management Review, 13: 442-554.
Brandstätter, H. (1997), “Becoming an entrepreneur - a question of personality structure?”,
Journal of Economic Psychology, 18: 157-177.
Carree, M.A. and Thurik, A.R. (2003), “The impact of entrepreneurship on economic
growth”, in Z.J. Acs and D.B. Audretsch (eds.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship
Research. Great Britain: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 437-471.
Carroll, G., and Mosakowski, E. (1987), “The career dynamics of self-employment”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 32: 570–589.

42
Delmar, F. and Davidsson, P. (2000), “Where do they come from? Prevalence and
characteristics of nascent entrepreneurs”, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,
12: 1–23.
DeMartino, R. and Barbato, R. (2002), “An Analysis of the Motivational Factors of Intending
Entrepreneurs”, Journal of Small Business Strategy, 13: 26–36.
Dyer, W.G. (1994), “Toward a theory of entrepreneurial careers”, Entrepreneurship, Theory
and Practice, 19 (2): 7-21.
EC (2006), Report on the implementation of the entrepreneurship action plan. Brussels:
Commission Staff Working Paper.
Ede, F. O., Panigrahi, B., and Calcich, S. E., (1998), “African American students' attitudes
toward entrepreneurship”, Journal of Education for Business, 73 (5): 291-96.
Farinha, L. (2005), “The survival of new firms: impact of idiosyncratic and environmental
factors”, Boletim do Banco de Portugal, Financial Stability Report 2005, pp. 101-113.
Franke, N. and Lüthje, C. (2004), “Entrepreneurial Intentions of Business Students: A
Benchmarking Study”, International Journal of Innovation and Technology
Management, 1(3): 269-288.
GEM (2008), Projecto GEM Portugal 2007. The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor.
Gorman, G., Hanlon, D., and King, W., (1997), “Some research perspectives on
entrepreneurship education and education for small business management: a ten-year
literature review”, International Small Business Journal 15 (3): 56–77.
Greenberger. D. B., and Sexton. D. L. (1988), “An interactive model of new venture
creation”, Journal of Small Business Management. 26(3): 1-7.
Gürol, Y. and Atsan, N. (2006), “Entrepreneurial characteristics amongst university students:
some insights for enterprise education and training in Turkey”, Education and
Training, 48(1): 25-39.
Hatten, T. S., and Ruhland, S. K. (1995), “Student attitude toward entrepreneurship as
affected by participation in an SBI program”, Journal of Education for Business,
70(4): 224-227.
Henderson, R., and Robertson, M. (1999), “Who wants to be an entrepreneur? Young adult
attitudes to entrepreneurship as a career”, Education & Training, 41: 236–245.

43
Hills, G. E., and Barnaby, D. J. (1977), “Future entrepreneurs from the business schools:
Innovation is not dead”, In Proceedings of the 22
nd
International Council for Small
Business (pp. 27–30). Washington, DC: International Council for Small Business.
Hills, G. E., and Welsch, H. (1986), “Entrepreneurship behavioral intentions and student
independence, characteristics and experiences”, In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship
Research: Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Babson College Entrepreneurship
Research Conference (pp. 173–186). Babson Park, MA: Babson College.
Hisrich, R. D. (1988) “Entrepreneurship: Past, present, and future”, Journal of Small Business
Management, 26(4), 1–4.
Hynes, B. (1996), “Entrepreneurship education and training: Introducing entrepreneurship
into non-business disciplines”, Journal of European Industrial Training, 20(8): 10–17.
IAPMEI (2007), Observatório da Criação de Empresas. Resultados do inquérito 2006,
Lisboa: IAPMEI.
IN+ (2008), “Inovação, Empreendedorismo e Desenvolvimento”, Preparar Portugal para um
Novo Ciclo de Fundos Estruturais 2007–2013.
Jack, S.L. and Anderson, A.R. (1999), “Entrepreneurship education within the enterprise
culture: Producing reflective practitioners”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behaviour & Research, 5(3): 11-12.
Klapper, R. and Léger-Jarniou, C. (2006), “Entrepreneurial intention among French Grande
École and university students: an application of Shapero’s model”, Industry & Higher
Education, 20(2): 97-110.
Kolvereid, L. and Moen, Ø., (1997),. “Entrepreneurship among business graduates: does a
major in entrepreneurship make a difference?”, Journal of European Industrial
Training, 21(4): 154-160.
Kourilsky, M. L. and Walstad, W. B. (1998), “Entrepreneurship and female youth:
Knowledge, attitudes, gender differences and educational practices”, Journal of
Business Venturing, 13: 77 - 88.
Krueger Jr, N.F. (2000), “The cognitive infrastructure of opportunity emergence”,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24 (3): 5-24.

44
Krueger, N., Reilly, M., and Carsrud, A. (2000) “Competing models of entrepreneurial
intentions”, Journal of Business Venturing, 15: 411–432.
Kuratko, D. (2005), “The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Education: Development, Trends,
And Challenges”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29: 577-597.
Kuratko, D.F. and Hodgetts, R.M. (2004). Entrepreneurship: Theory, process, practice.
Mason, OH: South-Western College Publishers.
Laukkanen, M., (2000), “Exploring alternative approaches in high-level entrepreneurship
education: creating micro-mechanisms for endogenous regional growth”,
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 12: 25–47.
Learned, K.E. (1992), “What happened before the organization? A model of organization
formation”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(1): 39–48
Lena, L. and Wong, P. K. (2003), “Attitude towards entrepreneurship education and new
venture creation”, Journal of Enterprising Culture, 11(4): 339-357.
Levenburg, N., Lane, P. and Schwarz, T. (2006), “Interdisciplinary Dimensions in
Entrepreneurship”, Journal of Education for Business, 81(5): 275-281.
Lissy, D. (2000), “Goodbye b-school”, Harvard Business Review, 78(2): 16–17.
Lüthje, C. and Franke, N. (2003), “The ‘Making’ of an Entrepreneur: Testing a Model of
Entrepreneurial Intent among Engineering Students at MIT”, R&D Management, 33:
135-147.
Malecki, E.J. (1997), “Entrepreneurs, networks, and economic development: a review of
recent research”, In: Katz, J.A., Borckhaus, R. (Eds.), Advances in Entrepreneurship,
Firm Emergence and Growth. JAI Press, Greenwich.
Martínez, D. Mora J.- G. and Vila, L. (2007), “Entrepreneurs, the Self-employed and
Employees amongst Young European Higher Education Graduates”, European
Journal of Education, 42(1): 92-117.
McMullan, W. E., and Long, W. A. (1987), “Entrepreneurship Education in the Nineties”,
Journal of Business Venturing, 2(3): 261-275.
Moore, B. L. (2002), “Changing classes: The entrepreneurial spirit hasn’t died on business-
school campuses; but it has changed”, Wall Street Journal, p. R8.

45
Mueller, S.L. and Thomas, A.S. (2000), “Culture and entrepreneurial potential: a nine country
study of locus of control and innovativeness”, Journal of Business Venturing, 16: 51-
75.
Naffziger, D.W., Hornsby, J.S., and Kurtako, D.F. (1994), “A proposed research model of
entrepreneurial motivation”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(3): 29-42.
Oakey, R., Mukhtar, S-M. and Kipling, M. (2002), “Student perspectives on entrepreneurship:
observations on their propensity for entrepreneurial behaviour”, 2 (4/5): 308-322.
Picker, V., H. and Vala, L. (2005) “Why are scientists not managers!?”, Journal of Business
Chemistry, 2 (1): 1-3.
Portela, J. (Coord.) (2008), Microempreendedorismo em Portugal. Experiências e
perspectivas, “POEFDS - Medida 4.2.2.1. - Estudos e Investigação Projecto n.º
87/2006”, Lisboa: INSCOOP – Instituto António Sérgio do Sector Cooperativo.
Rasmussena, E. and Sørheim, R. (2006), “Action-based entrepreneurship education”,
Technovation, 26: 185–194.
Redford, D. and Trigo, V. (2007), “The State of Portuguese Entrepreneurship Education: A
National Study of 2005/2006”, mimeo ISCTE.
Redford, D.T. (2006), “Entrepreneurship education in Portugal: 2004/2005 national survey”,
Comport. Organ. Gest., 12(1): 19-41.
Reynolds, P., Camp, S.M., Bygrave, W.D., Autio, E. and Hay, M. (2001), Global
entrepreneurship monitor: 2001. Executive Report. Kauffman Center for
Entrepreneurial Leadership.
Reynolds, P., Storey, D.J. and Westhead, P. (1994), “Cross national comparisons of the
variation in new firm formation rates”, Regional Studies 28: 443–456.
Robinson, P. B. (1987), Prediction of entrepreneurship based on attitude consistency model.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 48, 2807B.
Roebuck, D. B., and Brawley, D. E. (1996), “Forging links between the academic and
business communities”, Journal of Education for Business, 71: 125-128.
Sagie, A. and Elizur, D. (1999), “Achievement motive and entrepreneurial orientation: a
structural analysis”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(3): 375-87.

46
Scott, A. J. (1988), New Industrial Spaces, London: Pion
Sexton, D.L., and Bowman, N.B. (1983), "Comparative entrepreneurship characteristics of
students: preliminary results", in Hornaday, J., Timmons, J., Vesper, K. (Eds),
Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College, Wellesley, MA, pp.213-32.
Stephan, P. E. and El-Ganainy, A. (2007), “The Entrepreneurial Puzzle: Explaining the
Gender Gap”, Journal Technology Transfer, 32: 475-487.
Strom, R. D. (2007), “Fostering Research on Minority Entrepreneurship”, The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 613: 6-9.
Teixeira, A.A.C. and Forte, R. (2008), “Entrepreneurial intentions of final year university
students: a multi-course investigation”, mimeo, Faculdade de Economia, Universidade
do Porto.
Teixeira, A.A.C. (2008a), “Entrepreneurial potential in Chemistry and Pharmacy courses.
Results from a large survey”, Journal of Business Chemistry, 5 (2): 48-63
Teixeira, A.A.C. (2008b), "Entrepreneurial Potential in Engineering and Business Courses …
Why Worry Now? ", in Innovation in Manufacturing Networks, IFIP International
Federation for Information Processing, 266: 325-336
Van Auken, H., Stephens, P., Fry F. and Silva J. (2006), “Role model influences on
entrepreneurial intentions: a comparison between USA and Mexico”,
Entrepreneurship Management, 2: 325–336.
Volery, T. (2004), “Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Education in Europe: What Must Be
Learnt and What Can Be Taught”, EntreNews, Issue 2/2004, pp. 2.
Wang, C. and Wong, P-K. (2004), “Entrepreneurial interest of university students in
Singapore”, Technovation 24: 163–172.
Wennekers, A. R. M. and Thurik, A. R. (1999), “Linking entrepreneurship and economic
growth”, Small Business Economics, 13: 27-55.

47
Table A1: Definition of the proxies for the relevant variables
Variable Definition of the proxy
(1) Effective entrepreneurial
propensity - created firms
Dummy variables assumed the value 1 in the event the student had already created firms (effective
entrepreneurial propensity in strictu sense) and 0 otherwise.
(2) Effective entrepreneurial
propensity - taken steps to start a
business/ created firms
Dummy variables assumed the value 1, in the event the student had created firms or had taken some
steps to create firms (effective entrepreneurial propensity in latu sense) and 0 otherwise.
(3) Potential entrepreneurial
propensity
The variable of entrepreneurial intent was directly assessed by asking students, on a scale of 1 –
employee … 5 – having my own business, which was the most likely option for their future career.
If the student answered 4 or 5, the entrepreneurial intent variable assumed the value 1 and 0
otherwise.
(4) Risky (dummy=1)
The variable ‘risky’ is the sum of three dummy variables that were computed based on some
answers that students gave in the questionnaire. A first dummy assumed the value 1 when the
student answered 1 (strongly disagree) or 2 (disagree) to the statement ‘One should not start a
business when there is a risk it might fail’, and 0 otherwise. The second dummy assumed the value 1
when the student answered 1 (strongly disagree) or 2 (disagree) to the statement ‘b) Job security /
stability of employment / Stable income’ when questioned ‘Why would you prefer to be an
employee rather than self-employed?’. The third dummy assumed the value 1 when the student
answered 1 (strongly disagree) or 2 (disagree) to the statement ‘d) It is not as risky as being self-
employed’ when questioned ‘Why would you prefer to be an employee rather than self-employed?’.
Then we sum up the three dummy variables and re-computed a new dummy variable, which
assumed the value 1 when the sum variable assumed values 2 and 3 and 0 otherwise.
(5) Creativity (dummy=1)
The variable ‘creativity’ is a dummy variable that assumed the value 1 when the student answered 4
(agree) or 5 (strongly agree) to the statement ‘c) I have an idea that can be a business opportunity’.
(6) Need for achievement
(dummy=1)
The variable ‘need for achievement’ is the sum of two dummy variables which were computed
based on some answers that students gave in the questionnaire. A first dummy assumed the value 1
when the student answered 4 (agree) or 5 (strongly agree) to the statement ‘a) Personal
independence / Managing own time’, and 0 otherwise. The second dummy assumed the value 1
when the student answered 4 (agree) or 5 (strongly agree) to the statement ‘a) Personal
independence / Managing own time’ when questioned ‘Why would you prefer to be self-employed
rather than employee?’. Then we summed up the two dummy variables and re-computed a new
dummy variable that assumed the value 1 when the sum variable assumed values 2 and 0 otherwise.
(7) Entrepreurial experience (ln)
Entrepreneurship experience is a numeric variable, computed in logarithm that resulted from the
sum of the scores (1…5) obtained in the answers to the following statements: ‘c) I worked for
myself as a teenager eg. Delivering papers, babysitting, mowing lawns etc.’; ‘d) I have been a
freelancer or self-employed’; ‘e) I have closely followed or assisted family members who have
started companies’; ‘f) I have closely followed or assisted friends or acquaintances who have started
companies’.
(8) Entrepreneurial knowledge (ln)
Entrepreneurship knowledge is a numeric variable, computed in logarithm that resulted from the
sum of the scores (1…5) obtained in the answers to the following statements: ‘a) I know techniques
for finding out what the market wants’; ‘b) I understand the type of issues that confront an
entrepreneur in taking an idea to market’; ‘c) I can create a business plan and a business concept’;
‘d) I know how to legally finance a new business concept’.
(9) Entrepreneurial awareness (ln)
Entrepreneurship awareness is a numeric variable, computed in logarithm that resulted from the sum
of the scores (1…5) obtained in the answers to the following statements: ‘a) I regularly read books /
articles about entrepreneurship / innovation’; ‘b) I participate regularly in conferences / lectures
/workshops on entrepreneurship and/or innovation’.
(10) Entrepreneurial interest (ln)
Entrepreneurship interest is a numeric variable, computed in logarithm, that resulted from the sum
of the scores (1…5) obtained in the following statements: ‘a) Starting a new business from an idea’;
‘b) Entrepreneurship using research’; ‘c) Entrepreneurship within an existing company’, which
answered the following question: How interested are you in one of the following topics during your
studies?
(11) Schooling year (ln)
Numerical variable in logarithm of students’ schooling year (License and Integrated Master: 1
st
up
to 6
th
year of schooling; MBA: 7
th
year of schooling; Master: 8
th
-9
th
year of schooling ; PhD: 10
th
-
13
rd
year of schooling).
(12) Master+MBA
Dummy variable assuming value 1 in case the student is enrolled in a Master or MBA degree, 0
otherwise.
(13) PhD Dummy variable assuming value 1 in case the student is enrolled in a PhD degree, 0 otherwise.
(14) Gender (Female=1; Male=0) Dummy variable assuming value 1 in case the student is female, 0 otherwise.
(15) Age (ln) Numerical variable, in logarithm, of students’ age.
(16) Work experience (ln) Numerical variable, in logarithm, of students’ work experience.
(17) Role model (family & friends)
(18) Public vs Private (public=1;
private=0)
Dummy variable assuming value 1 in case the student is enrolled in a Public higher education
institution, 0 in case the student is enrolled in a private institution.
(19) University vs Polytechnic
(uni=1; poly=0)
Dummy variable assuming value 1 in case the student is enrolled in a University, 0 in case the
student is enrolled in a Polytechnic or other higher education school.

4
8

T
a
b
l
e

A
2
:

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
v
e

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s

a
n
d

c
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n

m
a
t
r
i
x

M
e
a
n

S
t
.

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

(
2
)

(
3
)

(
4
)

(
5
)

(
6
)

(
7
)

(
8
)

(
9
)

(
1
0
)

(
1
1
)

(
1
2
)

(
1
3
)

(
1
4
)

(
1
5
)

(
1
6
)

(
1
7
)

(
1
8
)

(
1
9
)

(
1
)

E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
i
a
l

p
r
o
p
e
n
s
i
t
y

-

c
r
e
a
t
e
d

f
i
r
m
s

0
,
0
6
4

0
,
2
4
4

0
,
7
2
3

0
,
1
3
7

0
,
0
3
9

0
,
0
9
3

0
,
0
2
3

0
,
2
3
4

0
,
2
0
1

0
,
1
1
6

0
,
0
6
7

0
,
0
2
6

0
,
0
4
5

0
,
0
7
4

-
0
,
0
8
2

0
,
3
4
8

0
,
1
8
4

0
,
0
1
5

-
0
,
0
8
1

-
0
,
0
5
1

(
2
)

E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
i
a
l

p
r
o
p
e
n
s
i
t
y

-

t
a
k
e
n

s
t
e
p
s

t
o

s
t
a
r
t

a

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
/

c
r
e
a
t
e
d

f
i
r
m
s

0
,
1
1
5

0
,
3
1
9

1
,
0
0
0

0
,
1
8
7

0
,
0
5
9

0
,
1
4
4

0
,
0
4
5

0
,
2
6
8

0
,
2
3
8

0
,
1
6
9

0
,
0
9
0

0
,
0
4
8

0
,
0
6
3

0
,
0
7
5

-
0
,
0
9
6

0
,
3
5
8

0
,
2
0
2

0
,
0
2
2

-
0
,
0
7
2

-
0
,
0
4
8

(
3
)

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
i
a
l

p
r
o
p
e
n
s
i
t
y

0
,
3
5
0

0
,
4
7
7

1
,
0
0
0

0
,
1
2
6

0
,
2
8
2

0
,
1
4
7

0
,
2
1
9

0
,
2
3
7

0
,
2
1
4

0
,
2
3
3

-
0
,
0
2
7

-
0
,
0
2
6

-
0
,
0
4
8

-
0
,
1
1
6

0
,
0
8
4

0
,
1
0
0

0
,
1
3
1

-
0
,
0
7
4

-
0
,
0
7
7

(
4
)

R
i
s
k
y

(
d
u
m
m
y
=
1
)

0
,
1
7
8

0
,
3
8
3

1
,
0
0
0

0
,
0
3
9

-
0
,
0
2
1

0
,
0
3
8

0
,
0
7
0

0
,
0
7
6

0
,
0
4
2

-
0
,
0
2
4

-
0
,
0
0
2

-
0
,
0
0
5

-
0
,
0
2
5

0
,
0
2
0

0
,
0
1
7

0
,
0
4
0

-
0
,
0
2
5

-
0
,
0
2
0

(
5
)

C
r
e
a
t
i
v
i
t
y

(
d
u
m
m
y
=
1
)

0
,
4
9
4

0
,
5
0
0

1
,
0
0
0

0
,
1
4
7

0
,
2
3
7

0
,
2
7
6

0
,
2
3
3

0
,
3
1
7

0
,
0
1
2

0
,
0
2
3

-
0
,
0
0
5

-
0
,
1
1
1

0
,
0
4
9

0
,
0
7
8

0
,
0
9
2

-
0
,
0
4
4

-
0
,
0
3
8

(
6
)

N
e
e
d

f
o
r

a
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t

(
d
u
m
m
y
=
1
)

0
,
6
7
7

0
,
4
6
8

1
,
0
0
0

0
,
0
9
5

0
,
1
2
3

0
,
0
8
3

0
,
1
9
4

0
,
0
3
2

0
,
0
2
7

-
0
,
0
0
9

0
,
0
0
1

0
,
0
0
6

0
,
0
2
4

0
,
0
8
8

-
0
,
0
2
9

0
,
0
0
0

(
7
)

E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
u
r
i
a
l

e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e

(
l
n
)

0
,
5
3
4

0
,
5
3
6

1
,
0
0
0

0
,
2
9
8

0
,
2
2
7

0
,
2
1
2

0
,
0
1
4

0
,
0
3
0

0
,
0
0
7

-
0
,
0
4
6

0
,
1
3
6

0
,
2
4
0

0
,
2
0
7

-
0
,
0
9
5

-
0
,
0
6
3

(
8
)

E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
i
a
l

k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

(
l
n
)

0
,
5
5
1

0
,
5
8
8

1
,
0
0
0

0
,
3
7
5

0
,
2
9
8

0
,
0
6
7

0
,
0
5
6

0
,
0
2
0

-
0
,
0
9
7

0
,
1
4
3

0
,
1
2
8

0
,
0
7
9

-
0
,
0
4
3

-
0
,
0
5
0

(
9
)

E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
i
a
l

a
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s

(
l
n
)

0
,
1
5
9

0
,
3
3
0

1
,
0
0
0

0
,
2
3
8

0
,
0
3
5

0
,
0
3
0

0
,
0
5
9

-
0
,
0
9
6

0
,
0
8
2

0
,
0
9
6

0
,
0
6
7

-
0
,
0
3
3

-
0
,
0
4
6

(
1
0
)

E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
i
a
l

i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t

(
l
n
)

0
,
9
1
1

0
,
4
8
2

1
,
0
0
0

0
,
0
1
7

0
,
0
2
1

-
0
,
0
0
9

-
0
,
0
8
5

0
,
0
3
0

0
,
0
9
3

0
,
0
7
0

-
0
,
0
2
6

-
0
,
0
1
7

(
1
1
)

S
c
h
o
o
l
i
n
g

y
e
a
r

(
l
n
)

1
,
1
0
3

0
,
6
9
2

1
,
0
0
0

0
,
5
4
9

0
,
3
6
7

0
,
0
5
2

0
,
2
8
0

0
,
1
1
3

-
0
,
0
2
2

-
0
,
0
0
4

0
,
2
2
6

(
1
2
)

M
a
s
t
e
r
+
M
B
A

0
,
1
2
2

0
,
3
2
8

1
,
0
0
0

-
0
,
0
7
3

0
,
0
5
8

0
,
2
1
3

0
,
1
6
0

-
0
,
0
2
1

-
0
,
0
4
0

0
,
1
4
2

(
1
3
)

P
h
D

0
,
0
3
6

0
,
1
8
7

1
,
0
0
0

0
,
0
3
4

0
,
1
9
6

0
,
1
2
8

-
0
,
0
2
1

0
,
0
4
6

0
,
1
1
9

(
1
4
)

G
e
n
d
e
r

(
F
e
m
a
l
e
=
1
;

M
a
l
e
=
0
)

0
,
5
2
5

0
,
4
9
9

1
,
0
0
0

-
0
,
1
1
0

-
0
,
0
7
7

0
,
0
3
4

-
0
,
0
3
4

0
,
0
5
6

(
1
5
)

A
g
e

(
l
n
)

3
,
1
9
3

0
,
2
2
6

1
,
0
0
0

0
,
4
6
5

-
0
,
0
5
6

-
0
,
1
6
5

-
0
,
1
2
8

(
1
6
)

W
o
r
k

e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e

(
l
n
)

0
,
9
0
0

0
,
5
7
3

1
,
0
0
0

-
0
,
0
1
1

-
0
,
1
2
9

-
0
,
1
4
7

(
1
7
)

R
o
l
e

m
o
d
e
l

(
f
a
m
i
l
y

&

f
r
i
e
n
d
s
)

0
,
1
4
5

0
,
3
5
2

1
,
0
0
0

-
0
,
0
3
3

-
0
,
0
0
7

(
1
8
)

P
u
b
l
i
c

v
s

P
r
i
v
a
t
e

(
p
u
b
l
i
c
=
1
;

p
r
i
v
a
t
e
=
0
)

0
,
8
8
7

0
,
3
1
7

1
,
0
0
0

0
,
2
2
3

(
1
9
)

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

v
s

P
o
l
y
t
e
c
h
n
i
c

(
u
n
i
=
1
;

p
o
l
y
=
0
)

0
,
7
1
7

0
,
4
5
1

1
,
0
0
0

N
o
t
e
:

s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l
l
y

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

a
t

*
*
*
1
%
;

*
*

5
%
;

*

1
0
%

49
Table A3: Determinants of students’ entrepreneurial propensity/intents
Efective Entrepreneurial propensity

Created firms
(Stricto sensu)
Took steps to start a
business/created firms
(Lato sensu)
Entrepreneurial
intents
(1) Risky (dummy=1) 0,163 0,304
**
0,625
***

(2) Creativity (dummy=1) 0,256 0,466
***
0,752
***
Personality traits
(3) Need for achievement (dummy=1) 0,071 0,194 0,443
***

(4) Entrepreurial experience (ln) 1,560
***
1,216
***
0,338
***

(5) Entrepreneurial knowledge (ln) 0,845
***
0,688
***
0,310
***

(6) Entrepreneurial awareness (ln) -0,290 0,179 0,510
***

Competencies/
familiarity with
entrepreneurship
(7) Entrepreneurial interest (ln) -0,013 -0,062 0,568
***

(8) Schooling year (ln) -0,252
*
-0,155 0,025
Master+MBA 0,068 0,088 -0,430
***

Formal
education
(9) Degree
PhD 0,699
*
0,351 -0,868
***

(10) Gender (Female=1; Male=0) -0,342
**
-0,236
**
-0,304
***

Demographic
traits
(11) Age (ln) 4,107
***
3,675
***
0,458
**

(12) Work experience (ln) 0,646
***
0,358
***
0,125
*

(13) Role model (family & friends) -0,168 -0,142 0,476
***

Center -0,084 -0,160 -0,273
***

Lisbon -0,439
*
-0,258 -0,182
Alentejo -0,337 0,136 0,090
Algarve -0,516 -0,433
*
-0,016
Contextual
factors
(14) Region
Islands -1,262
**
-0,457 -0,301
*

(15) Public vs Private (public=1; private=0) -0,200 -0,045 -0,105
Type of Higher
Education
(16) University vs Polytechnic (uni=1; poly=0) 0,086 0,125 -0,125
Sciences 0,331 0,307 -0,302
*

Health -1,118
**
-1,127
***
0,031
Agriculture and natural resources -0,154 -0,640 1,371
***

Arquitecture, arts and design -0,136 0,265 0,858
***

Education 0,058 -0,078 0,096
Law, and social sciences 0,224 -0,130 -0,056
Economics and business 0,384
**
0,019 0,147
Humanities 0,213 -0,418 -0,380
*

Area of study
Sports and performing arts -0,422 -0,106 0,011
Constant -18,517
***
-15,887
***
-3,675
***

N 4400 4400 4400
Entrepreneurs 4120 3894 2862
Others 280 506 1538
Goodness of fit statistics
% corrected 94,1 90,0 72,2
Hosmer and Lameshow test (p-value) 13,003 (0,111) 5,394 (0,715) 2,540 (0,960)
***
significant at 1%;
**
significant at 5%;
*
significant at 10%
Recent FEP Working Papers
Nº 297 Carlos Brito "Uma Abordagem Relacional ao Valor da Marca¨, October 2008
Nº 296
Pedro Rui M. Gil, Paulo Brito and Óscar Afonso "A Model of Quality Ladders with
Horizontal Entry¨, October 2008
Nº 295
Maria Manuel Pinho, "The political economy of public spending composition:
evidence from a panel of OECD countries¨, October 2008
Nº 294
Pedro Cosme da Costa Vieira, "O Subsídio de Desemprego e a Relação Negativa
entre Salário e Risco de Falência: Uma Teoria em Equilíbrio Parcial¨, October 2008
Nº 293
Cristina Santos, Alexandre Almeida and Aurora A.C. Teixeira, "Searching for
clusters in tourism. A quantitative methodological proposal¨, September 2008
Nº 292
Alexandre Almeida and Aurora A.C. Teixeira, "One size does not fit all. An
economic development perspective on the asymmetric impact of Patents on R&D¨,
September 2008
Nº 291
Paula Neto, António Brandão and António Cerqueira, "The Impact of FDI, Cross
Border Mergers and Acquisitions and Greenfield Investments on Economic
Growth¨, September 2008
Nº 290 Cosme, P., "Integrating fire risk into the management of forests¨, September 2008
Nº 289
Cosme, P., "A comment on efficiency gains and myopic antitrust authority in a
dynamic merger game¨, September 2008
Nº 288
Moreira, R., "Workart - A Gestão e a Arte¨ (1st Prize of the 2nd Edition of
FEP/AEFEP- Applied Research in Economics and Management), August 2008
Nº 287
Vasco Leite, Sofia B.S.D. Castro and João Correia-da-Silva, "The core periphery
model with asymmetric inter-regional and intra-regional trade costs¨, August 2008
Nº 286
Jorge M. S. Valente and Maria R. A. Moreira, "Greedy randomized dispatching
heuristics for the single machine scheduling problem with quadratic earliness and
tardiness penalties¨, August 2008
Nº 285
Patricia Teixeira Lopes and Rui Couto Viana, "The transition to IFRS: disclosures by
Portuguese listed companies¨, August 2008
Nº 284
Argentino Pessoa, "Educational Reform in Developing Countries: Private
Involvement and Partnerships¨, July 2008
Nº 283
Pedro Rui Mazeda Gil and Óscar Afonso, "Technological-Knowledge Dynamics in
Lab-Equipment Models of Quality Ladders¨, July 2008
Nº 282
Filipe J. Sousa and Luís M. de Castro, "How is the relationship significance brought
about? A critical realist approach¨, July 2008
Nº 281
Paula Neto; António Brandão and António Cerqueira, "The Macroeconomic
Determinants of Cross Border Mergers and Acquisitions and Greenfield
Investments¨, June 2008
Nº 280
Octávio Figueiredo, Paulo Guimarães and Douglas Woodward, "Vertical
Disintegration in Marshallian Industrial Districts¨, June 2008
Nº 279
Jorge M. S. Valente, "Beam search heuristics for quadratic earliness and tardiness
scheduling¨, June 2008
Nº 278
Nuno Torres and Óscar Afonso, "Re-evaluating the impact of natural resources on
economic growth¨, June 2008
Nº 277
Inês Drumond, "Bank Capital Requirements, Business Cycle Fluctuations and the
Basel Accords: A Synthesis¨, June 2008
Nº 276
Pedro Rui Mazeda Gil, "Stylized Facts and Other Empirical Evidence on Firm
Dynamics, Business Cycle and Growth¨, May 2008
Nº 275
Teresa Dieguez and Aurora A.C. Teixeira, "ICTs and Family Physicians Human
Capital Upgrading. Delightful Chimera or Harsh Reality?¨, May 2008
Nº 274
Teresa M. Fernandes, João F. Proença and P.K. Kannan, "The Relationships in
Marketing: Contribution of a Historical Perspective¨, May 2008
Nº 273
Paulo Guimarães, Octávio Figueiredo and Douglas Woodward, "Dartboard Tests for
the Location Quotient¨, April 2008
Nº 272
Rui Leite and Óscar Afonso, "Effects of learning-by-doing, technology-adoption
costs and wage inequality¨, April 2008
Nº 271
Aurora A.C. Teixeira, "National Systems of Innovation: a bibliometric appraisal¨,
April 2008
Nº 270
Tiago Mata, "An uncertain dollar: The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and
the monetary crisis of 1971 to 1973¨, April 2008
Nº 269
João Correia-da-Silva and Carlos Hervés-Beloso, "General equilibrium with private
state verification¨, March 2008
Nº 268
Carlos Brito, "Relationship Marketing: From Its Origins to the Current Streams of
Research¨, March 2008
Nº 267 Argentino Pessoa, "Kuznets´s Hypothesis And The Data Constraint¨, February 2008
Nº 266
Argentino Pessoa, "Public-Private Sector Partnerships In Developing Countries: Are
Infrastructures Responding To The New Oda Strategy¨, February 2008
Nº 265
Álvaro Aguiar and Ana Paula Ribeiro, "Why Do Central Banks Push for Structural
Reforms? The Case of a Reform in the Labor Market¨, February 2008
Nº 264
Jorge M. S. Valente and José Fernando Gonçalves, "A genetic algorithm approach
for the single machine scheduling problem with linear earliness and quadratic
tardiness penalties¨, January 2008
Nº 263
Ana Oliveira-Brochado and Francisco Vitorino Martins, ¨Determining the Number of
Market Segments Using an Experimental Design¨, January 2008
Nº 262
Ana Oliveira-Brochado and Francisco Vitorino Martins, ¨Segmentação de mercado e
modelos mistura de regressão para variáveis normais¨, January 2008
Nº 261
Ana Oliveira-Brochado and Francisco Vitorino Martins, ¨Aspectos Metodológicos da
Segmentação de Mercado: Base de Segmentação e Métodos de Classificação¨,
January 2008
Nº 260
João Correia-da-Silva, ¨Agreeing to disagree in a countable space of equiprobable
states¨, January 2008
Nº 259
Rui Cunha Marques and Ana Oliveira-Brochado, ¨Comparing Airport regulation in
Europe: Is there need for a European Regulator?¨, December 2007
Nº 258
Ana Oliveira-Brochado and Rui Cunha Marques, ¨Comparing alternative
instruments to measure service quality in higher education¨, December 2007
Nº 257
Sara C. Santos Cruz and Aurora A.C. Teixeira, ¨A new look into the evolution of
clusters literature. A bibliometric exercise¨, December 2007
Nº 256
Aurora A.C. Teixeira, ¨Entrepreneurial potential in Business and Engineering
courses . why worry now?¨, December 2007
Nº 255
Alexandre Almeida and Aurora A.C. Teixeira, ¨Does Patenting negatively impact on
R&D investment?An international panel data assessment¨, December 2007
Nº 254
Argentino Pessoa, ¨Innovation and Economic Growth: What is the actual
importance of R&D?¨, November 2007
Nº 253
Gabriel Leite Mota, ¨Why Should Happiness Have a Role in Welfare Economics?
Happiness versus Orthodoxy and Capabilities¨, November 2007
Nº 252
Manuel Mota Freitas Martins, ¨Terá a política monetária do Banco Central Europeu
sido adequada para Portugal (1999-2007)?¨, November 2007
Nº 251 Argentino Pessoa, ¨FDI and Host Country Productivity: A Review¨, October 2007
Nº 250
Jorge M. S. Valente, ¨Beam search heuristics for the single machine scheduling
problem with linear earliness and quadratic tardiness costs¨, October 2007

Editor: Sandra Silva ([email protected])
Download available at:http://www.fep.up.pt/investigacao/workingpapers/workingpapers.htm
also inhttp://ideas.repec.org/PaperSeries.html
w
w
w
.
F
e
p
.
u
p
.
p
t
w
w
w
.
F
e
p
.
u
p
.
p
t
w
w
w
.
F
e
p
.
u
p
.
p
t
w
w
w
.
F
e
p
.
u
p
.
p
t
w
w
w
.
F
e
p
.
u
p
.
p
t
w
w
w
.
F
e
p
.
u
p
.
p
t
w
w
w
.
F
e
p
.
u
p
.
p
t
w
w
w
.
F
e
p
.
u
p
.
p
t
Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, qzoo-q6q Porto | 1el. zz¸ ¸)· ·oo
Ftcuiotor or Fc6×6uit ot U×ivrvsiotor o6 P6vf6 Ftcuiotor or Fc6×6uit ot U×ivrvsiotor o6 P6vf6 Ftcuiotor or Fc6×6uit ot U×ivrvsiotor o6 P6vf6 Ftcuiotor or Fc6×6uit ot U×ivrvsiotor o6 P6vf6
1el. zz¸¸)··oo | www.Fep.up.pt

doc_352454335.pdf