Description
On this description related to impact of entrepreneurship education a comparative study of the u.s. and korea.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 1, 27–43, 2005
c 2005 Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. Manufactured in The United States.
Impact of Entrepreneurship Education:
A Comparative Study of the U.S. and Korea
SANG M. LEE [email protected]
University Eminent Scholar and Chair, Department of Management, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 209 CBA,
Lincoln, NE 68588-0491
DAESUNG CHANG [email protected]
Professor, School of Business Administration, Kyonggi University, Korea
SEONG-BAE LIM [email protected]
Assistant Professor, Jones School of Business, SUNY-Geneseo
Abstract. Over the last two decades, entrepreneurship has emerged as a mainstream business discipline in
the United States. Even after the collapse of the dotcomphenomenon, the global explosion of e-business and
new business opportunities created by advances in information and telecommunication technologies (ICT)
have widely popularized entrepreneurship for new venture creation. But while entrepreneurship is becoming
more prevalent throughout the world, its education by country differs according to cultural context. This
paper presents the results of a study on the impact of entrepreneurship education in the U.S. and Korea.
Keywords: entrepreneurship education, venture creation, culture, competitiveness
Entrepreneurship education provides students motivation, knowledge, and skills essen-
tial for launching a successful venture company (Cho, 1998). Nevertheless, the extent
of entrepreneurship education by country differs according to each country’s unique
cultural context (Lee and Peterson, 2000). For example, high school students in the
U.S. are already quite familiar with entrepreneurship. On the other hand, the city
government of Tokyo, Japan of?cially announced its plan to launch entrepreneurship
education for the ?rst time to high school students in January, 2001 (Chosun Daily
Newspaper, November 29, 2000). Also in Korea, only a few colleges have developed
entrepreneurship as a business ?eld of study. Most Korean colleges have introduced
entrepreneurship-related courses as part of the requirements for ful?lling general edu-
cation rather than a specialization area.
American entrepreneurs, great cultivators of entrepreneurial sprit, have greatly con-
tributed to economic growth within the U.S. by creating and successfully managing
countless venture companies. On the other hand, lack of entrepreneurship education
in Korea has resulted in de?ciency of entrepreneurial culture in Korea—which may be
Corresponding author. Sang M. Lee University Eminent Scholar and Chair, Department of Management,
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 209 CBA, Lincoln, NE 68588-0491
28 LEE, CHANG AND LIM
one of the reasons that South Korea is still struggling to overcome the ?nancial crisis
that began in 1997.
It is meaningful to conduct a comparative study of the impact of entrepreneurship
education between the U.S. and Korea for the following reasons: (1) It can identify
the mediating role of cultural differences between entrepreneurship education and its
effects; (2) It could suggest a meaningful new direction for entrepreneurship education
both in the U.S. and Korea; and (3) The results of this study may be broadly applied to
other countries where strong entrepreneurship can contribute to building a more solid
economy. This is an empirical study conducted in the U.S., where there exists strong
entrepreneurship tradition, and in Korea, where entrepreneurship is just beginning to
emerge as an important business discipline.
Theoretical framework
Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs
There is no universal de?nition of entrepreneurship and scholars’ viewof the topic has
changed considerably since Schumpeter (1934) de?ned it for the ?rst time. Drucker
(1985) called entrepreneurship an “innovative act, which includes endowing existing
resources for new wealth-producing capacity.” Gartner (1985) described it as the “cre-
ation of a new organization.” It is important to note, however, that entrepreneurship,
a primary source of innovation, may involve the development of new visions and busi-
ness methods for established companies as well as the creation of new organizations
(Carnier, 1996). Therefore, entrepreneurshipcanbe appliedtoall kinds of organizations
including non-pro?t institutions.
Although many studies assert that entrepreneurs are different from non–entrepre-
neurs, there is no uni?ed de?nition description of entrepreneurs. Instead, scholars have
developed various de?nitions of entrepreneurs (Brockhaus, 1980a, 1980b). Gartner
(1985) attemptedto?nddifferences inpersonalityandbackgroundbetweenentreprene-
urs and non-entrepreneurs—namely, that entrepreneurs are cultivated by cultural, eco-
nomic, social, political, and educational backgrounds that are fundamentally different
from those of non-entrepreneurs and that each entrepreneur has his/her unique moti-
vation, goals, and talents for venture creation according to his/her unique background.
More recently, Watson, Hogarth-Scott, and Wilson (1998) cited personal back-
ground, motivation for start-up, and growth orientation as factors for successful ven-
ture creation. According to Morrison’s (1999) study, the pro?le of an entrepreneur is
one who: (1) is intelligent and analytical, (2) is an effective risk manager and a net-
worker, (3) possesses a strong set of moral, social and business ethics, (4) exhibits a basic
trader’s instinct, and (5) is dedicated to life-long learning in many forms. The talents
included in Morrison’s de?nition are important requirements for becoming successful
entrepreneurs in the knowledge era.
Lee and Peterson (2000) state that even those individuals who are motivated by
such factors as ?nancial rewards, achievement, social, career, and individual ful?ll-
ment need a national culture that supports and encourages entrepreneurial activity.
Impact of Entrepreneurship Education 29
Watson, Hogarth-Scott andWilson’s (1998) andMorrison’s (1999) studies alsocontend
that entrepreneurial spirit needs appropriate social and cultural background to initiate
motives for venture creation and aspiration for excellence in various academic areas
in order to create successful venture. Watson et al. (1998), Morrison (1999), and Lee
and Peterson (2000) agree that great entrepreneurs do not growby themselves, but that
they are products of entrepreneurship-oriented societies and cultures.
Entrepreneurship education and entrepreneur
As Watsonet al. (1998) pointedout, entrepreneurs are different fromnon-entrepreneurs
in many aspects. Many previous studies have tried to prove this. Furthermore, as
Gartner (1985) assumed when he developed his own conceptual framework for describ-
ing the phenomenon of new venture creation based on previous studies, the difference
among entrepreneurs or newventures is more considerable than between entrepreneurs
and non-entrepreneurs in terms of personality and background. These facts strongly
imply that entrepreneurial talents can be “matured-up” by postnatal education since:
(1) inborn nature is not suf?cient to explain the difference and (2) most factors identi-
?ed in previous studies were achievable through proper education. So an individual’s
personality and ability can be uniquely developed according to the context of his or
her education and willpower, and motivation can be differentiated according to post-
natal environment where an individual grows. Thus, great diversity exists among en-
trepreneurs based on their “growing background” of social, cultural, and educational
environments (Mckelvy, 1982).
Gartner (1989) suggested job satisfaction, previous work experiences, entrepr–
eneurial parents, age, and education as the factors which differentiate entrepreneurs
from non-entrepreneurs. According to previous studies, education in particular is one
of the critical factors in distinguishing entrepreneurs fromnon-entrepreneurs. Based on
the point that home-education fromparents has a signi?cant impact on an individual’s
life, entrepreneurial parents should also be included in the education category. In ad-
dition, many organizations allocate a great deal of resources to training their members
through external as well as internal education opportunities. Thus, previous work ex-
periences can be included in the category of education in a broad sense. Consequently,
we can generalize that the relative importance of education is very high.
Cho (1998) also maintained that if entrepreneurial talent were innate and could
not be built up postnatally, entrepreneurship education would lose its signi?cance and
that entrepreneurial talent should therefore not be perceived as innate. Furthermore,
Cho’s (1998) study reveals that entrepreneurship education promotes the intention of
venture creation because entrepreneurship-related knowledge and skills stimulate an
individual’s motivation to create a new venture.
Timmons (1999) stated that team-based venture creation is more common than
individual venture creation. Since it is dif?cult for everyentrepreneur tohave all required
managerial knowledge, individuals with complementary backgrounds make effective
teams for creating new venture companies. He also emphasized the importance of
30 LEE, CHANG AND LIM
entrepreneurship education by maintaining that skills required for successful venture
creation are gained through postnatal learning such as teamwork experiences.
Entrepreneurship education in the U.S.
In the U.S., the number of universities and colleges with entrepreneurship curricula
has increased dramatically since the late 1960s. Many schools offer entrepreneurship-
related courses such as “Entrepreneurship &Venture Creation,” “Small Business Man-
agement,” “Enterprise Development,” etc. as an important part of their curricula. A
greater number of colleges and graduate schools are establishing entrepreneurship as
a major ?eld (Solomon, Fernald and Weaver, 1993; Timmons, 1999).
The following are some examples of entrepreneurship-related curricula in the U.S.:
• Babson College undergraduate, MBA, and executive education programs in en-
trepreneurship. The undergraduate program offers twelve elective entrepreneurship
courses, while its MBA program has ?fteen independent entrepreneurship courses
that fall into three broad categories including “Foundations Classes (fundamental
and holistic entrepreneurship skills),” “Specialty Classes (speci?c discipline within
entrepreneurship),” and “Support Classes (deep knowledge in one speci?c area
study).” Its MBA program focuses on “educating creative leaders capable of ini-
tiating, managing, and implementing change.” The executive program is designed
to promote opportunity recognition, team development, and resource leveraging
(http://www3.babson.edu/ESHIP/academics).
• The Sloan School of Management at MIT “New Product and Venture Develop-
ment” MBA program track. The track offers about seventeen entrepreneurship-
related subjects that address marketing, sales, strategy, ?nance, new product devel-
opment, and other disciplines required to guide the creation and growth of new
high-tech ventures. Its emphases are “(1) How to take an idea or an invention and
turn it into an innovation, that is, manage it to market; and (2) How to develop the
hands-on leadership skills required in this multi-functional implementation process”
(http://entrepreneurship.mit.edu).
In the U.S., more than 1500 colleges and universities offer entrepreneurship-related
training and more than 100 active university-based entrepreneurship centers (Charney
and Libecap, 2000). Small Business Management, Entrepreneurship, and NewVenture
Creation are the most frequently offered classes in two- and four-year colleges in the
U.S., and Small Business Management is predominantly taught by colleges (Solomon,
Duffy and Tarabishy, 2002). Not surprisingly then, graduates from entrepreneurship
programs are three times more likely to be involved in new venture creation than non-
entrepreneurship business graduates (Chaney and Libecap, 2000).
Entrepreneurship-oriented education and culture in the U.S. have been the founda-
tion of strong infrastructures for creating many world-class organizations such as: Mi-
crosoft, Oracle, Dell, and Wal-Mart—as well as 36 million new jobs (Timmons, 1999).
Impact of Entrepreneurship Education 31
These successful venture companies have additionally increased the wealth of the na-
tion and strengthened competitive advantage of U.S. ?rms by creating innovative new
products and services (Zahra, 1999).
Entrepreneurship education in Korea
The entrepreneurial education history of Korea is very short compared to that of the
U.S. Currently, an increasing number of colleges and graduate schools are developing
entrepreneurship-related courses to meet students’ growing interests (JoongAng Daily
Newspaper, March 2, 1999) and the job market for students majoring in Entrepreneur-
ship is expected to grow due to increasing demand for entrepreneurial talents (Han
and Lee, 1998). Concurrently, the Korean government has strongly supported ven-
ture creation by enacting the “Special Law for Venture Companies.” The Ministry of
Educationhas alsocreated$150 milliontosupport entrepreneurial activities incolleges.
Colleges may apply for these loans from the government by submitting well-prepared
supporting plans for “On-Campus Venture Creations,” where additional loans may be
obtained once on-campus ventures have successfully paid off the loans. The paid loan is
then re-loaned to the same university to support new “On-Campus Venture Creation”
(MunHwa Daily Newspaper, March 13,1999).
As mentioned earlier, venture creation is encouraged for all individuals regardless of
age or the education level in the U.S. Meanwhile, though many Korean colleges began
venture creation education after the Asian ?nancial crisis in 1997, only two universities
(SungSil and Hoseo Universities) established the venture creation management major
in1999, withHoseoUniversityestablishinga“Professional Graduate School of Venture
Creation.” Currently, there are just a few entrepreneurship-related courses available
at the junior college level. Thus, Korean education systems should more proactively
provide opportunities to students who are interested in venture creation.
Theoretical background related to the research
Entrepreneurship, along with strong intent, are the two basic requirements for success-
ful venture creation. Launching ventures without relevant knowledge is reckless even
when there is strong intention for venture creation. Thus, appropriate entrepreneurship
education is a precondition for bringing up the right perception and intention about
entrepreneurship.
According to Schumpeter (1934), Timmons (1999) and Carnier (1996), corporate
entrepreneurs who plan new start-ups within their organizations or participate in the
process of creative destruction can be classi?ed as entrepreneurs alongside their indi-
vidual business counterparts. Thus, college students who hope to work in established
companies and non-pro?t organizations as well as those who plan to launch their own
ventures may be categorized as potential entrepreneurs. Consequently, entrepreneur-
ship education should be available to all college students regardless of major to enhance
competitive advantage, not only for students but the societies and nations where they
are involved.
32 LEE, CHANG AND LIM
There have been just a fewempirical studies on entrepreneurship education in Korea
(Chang, 2000; Chang and Hong, 2001). These studies focused on the need for en-
trepreneurship education (Park, 1993), curriculum, course content and development
of the major (Cho, 1998). In addition, Han and Lee (1998) emphasized continuous
improvement in the quality of entrepreneurship-related courses and urged that the
long-term effect of entrepreneurship education should be evaluated with results re-
?ected in new program development. Continuous evaluation and systematic program
development are essential for improving entrepreneurship education programs.
So while Korean students’ interest and intention of venture creation have increased
dramatically since the Asian ?nancial crisis of 1997, they have been cultivated for
relatively short period of time compared to their U.S. counterparts. It is therefore
meaningful to conduct a comparative study on the impact of entrepreneurship educa-
tion in terms of interest, intention, and con?dence in venture creation between college
students in the U.S. and Korea.
This study will identify differences in terms of interest and intention for venture
creation between student groups of heterogeneous cultural backgrounds and between
students who have taken entrepreneurship-related courses (takers) and those who have
not taken them(non-takers). The result of this study will contribute to the understand-
ing of global entrepreneurshipculture bydiscerningthat students withdifferent cultural
backgrounds have different characteristics and levels of entrepreneurship according to
their cultural context.
Research method
Sample groups
The main purpose of this study is to identify the differences in the impact of en-
trepreneurship education between the U.S. and Korea by focusing on students’ interest
and intention for venture creation. To conduct this study, the following four groups
were formed.
Group A: American students who took entrepreneurship/venture creation course(s)
Group B: American students who did not take any entrepreneurship/venture creation
course(s)
Group C: Korean students who took entrepreneurship/venture creation course(s)
Group D: Korean students who did not take any entrepreneurship/venture creation
course(s)
We collected data for group A (60 students) and group B (102 students) from the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln in the U.S., and those for group C (102 students) and
group D (115 students) from Kyonggi University in South Korea.
Since the difference between the two universities in terms of curricula could have
some effect on students’ entrepreneurial interest, we compared the contents of the U.S.
Impact of Entrepreneurship Education 33
curriculumwith those of two Korean universities. We then concluded that the contents
of curriculum would not make signi?cant difference between the two universities as
their curricula are quite similar.
Selected Universities
The University of Nebraska-Lincoln. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) is
the ?agship campus of the University of Nebraska system with more than 24,000 stu-
dents and 5,000 faculty and professional staff. The programs of the UNL College of
Business Administration are fully accredited by the Association to Advance Collegiate
Schools of Business (AACSB). The business school has been a charter member of
AACSB since 1916 and is ranked 62nd in the U.S. by the U.S. News & World Re-
port in 2003 (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/business). The
UNL Business College’s entrepreneurship program was rated 30th among all colle-
giate entrepreneurship programs in the U.S. by Money Magazine in 2001. Thus, we
can assume that students of UNL’s business school represent typical American college
students majoring in business administration.
Kyonggi University Located in the Seoul metropolitan area, Kyonggi University has
13,000 students. The average college entrance exam score, SAT of Korea, is more than
85 percentile of all candidates in Korea (http://www.kice.re.kr/NEW/index.html).
The KoreanUniversity EducationAssociationevaluatedKyonggi University’s business
school as excellent in 1996. Thus, we can assume that students of Kyonggi University’s
business school represent typical Korean college students majoring in management.
Distribution of questionnaires
Questionnaires with the same contents were simultaneously distributed in both coun-
tries. Questionnaires used in Korea were in Korean and those used in the U.S. were in
English. To ensure that questions written in Korean measure the same construct, the
Korean questionnaire was translated back into English and compared with the origi-
nal one written in English. There was no signi?cant difference. Because questionnaires
were administered during the regular class time, all of them were collected.
Data analysis method
All of the questionnaires collected were properly answered, and thus all were used
for data analysis. First, factor analysis was conducted to check construct validity of
each question and to identify meaningful factors. Then, using factors identi?ed in the
previous step, MANOVAwas performed to identify whether any signi?cant differences
exit among the four groups.
34 LEE, CHANG AND LIM
Variables related to the effects of entrepreneurship education
According to Watson et al. (1998), motivation for venture creation is one of the criti-
cal factors for successful entrepreneurship and Clark, Davis and Harnish (1984) and
Cho (1998) stated entrepreneurship education could provide motivation for venture
creation. Therefore, effective entrepreneurship education and a good concept of ven-
ture creation will enhance entrepreneurship, and strengthened entrepreneurship will
result in increased intention and desire for venture creation. Finally, students with in-
creased intention of venture creation will pursue more knowledge of entrepreneurship
and realize the importance of teamwork (Timmons, 1999). Concurrently, con?dence
and ability in venture creation will also increase (Han and Lee, 1998).
Based on previous studies, this study developed the questionnaire with 16 questions
on: (1) intention and desire for venture creation, (2) knowledge of venture creation, (3)
desire for taking entrepreneurship education, (4) con?dence in venture creation, and
(5) intention of overseas venture creation with teamwork. A?ve point Likert type scale
was used (1. strongly disagree, 2. disagree, 3. neither agree nor disagree, 4. agree, and
5. strongly agree) for each question.
As a result of factor analysis (see Table 1), four meaningful factors were extractedand
usedtomeasure the entrepreneurshipvariables relatedtothe effects of entrepreneurship
education. Operational de?nitions of the four factors are as follows:
Table 1. Result of factor analysis.
Eigen Factor
Factor values Variable name loading Operational de?nition
1 5.10 Venture creation before graduation .76 Intention of
Con?dence in getting funding for venture creation .58 venture creation and
Preference of venture creation over getting a job .80 con?dence in it
Intention of changing major to entrepreneurship .73
Con?dence in successful venture creation .66
Lifelong commitment to venture creation .72
Intention to overcome opposition of .59
venture creation from other people
2 2.06 Knowledge about entrepreneurship .82 Knowledge and ability
Ability for independent venture creation .68 of venture creation
Ability for choosing business with opportunity .49
Superior talents .78
3 1.67 Preference of team-based venture .46 Intention of
creation to individual one. overseas venture
Overseas venture creation .89 creation with teamwork
Targeting overseas markets .77
4 1.04 Entrepreneurship education in high school .70 Recognition of the
Effectiveness of entrepreneurship importance of
education on venture creation .61 Entrepreneurship
education
Impact of Entrepreneurship Education 35
(1) Intention of venture creation and con?dence in it. The results of previous studies
(Cho, 1998; Clark et al., 1984) showthat entrepreneurship education often triggers
motivation for venture creation. They supported that intention of venture creation
can be increased by entrepreneurship education. According to Han and Lee (1998),
increased con?dence in venture creation is the main effect of entrepreneurship
education.
(2) Knowledge and ability for venture creation. Timmons (1999) suggested that if an
individual hadappropriate knowledge of entrepreneurshipandintentionof venture
creation, he/she could create a venture and succeed in it. If effective education is
provided including topics on launching a company and expanding it, resource and
team management, business plan, marketing, etc. to individuals with interest in
venture creation but who do not have con?dence in it, their con?dence and ability
will be increased simultaneously. In short, increased knowledge of venture creation
results in increased ability for venture creation.
(3) Intention of overseas venture creation with teamwork. Timmons (1999) asserted that
entrepreneurship education is very important since various talents required for
venture creation could be obtained through postnatal education. Since overseas
venture creationis dif?cult tobe achievedbyanindividual entrepreneur but requires
teamwork and an open paradigm, this study introduced “intention of overseas
venture creation with teamwork” as an operational de?nition.
(4) Recognition of the importance of entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship ed-
ucation increases knowledge about venture creation. Thus, individuals who took
entrepreneurship education should recognize that it is important for successful ven-
ture creation. Moreover, this perception will accelerate the effect of entrepreneur-
ship education as time passes.
Results and dicussion
Correlation among factors
Before conducting MANOVA using the four factors to discern the differences in
entrepreneurship-related perceptions and impact of entrepreneurship education be-
tween the American and Korean student groups, correlation analysis was performed
among the factors to check whether MANOVA was the proper analytical method.
As seen in Table 2, MANOVA can be used as three factors, except “the intention of
overseas venture creation with teamwork,” showed signi?cant interrelations among
them. T-test was conducted to compare the intention of overseas venture creation with
teamwork between the U.S. and Korean groups.
Differences in entrepreneurship and pedagogical impact
Differences in entrepreneurship between course takers and non-takers: USA (Groups
A and B) Before conducting MANOVA, Box’s M test was employed to test the
36 LEE, CHANG AND LIM
Table 2. Correlation among factors.
Intention of Knowledge and Intention of Recognition of the
venture creation ability of overseas venture importance of
and con?dence venture creation with entrepreneurship
in it creation teamwork education
Intention of 1.00 0.46
?
?0.00 0.31
??
venture creation
and con?dence in it
Knowledge and 1.00 ?0.09 0.41
??
ability of venture
creation
Intention of 1.00 0.04
overseas venture
creation with teamwork
Recognition of 1.00
the importance of
entrepreneurship education
?
p < .05.
??
p < .01.
???
p < .001.
homogeneity of variance between the two groups. As seen in Table 3, the result was not
signi?cant. Thus, we can conclude that MONOVA could be used.
As shown in Table 3, there is a signi?cant difference between American students who
took entrepreneurship-related course and those who did not. The students who took
the class improved both “the intention of venture creation and con?dence in it” and
“knowledge and ability of venture creation.” Thus, it can be concluded that there is
de?nite pedagogical impact of venture education on the U.S. students.
According to Table 4, a statistically signi?cant difference is shown in entrepreneur-
shipinterms of “the intentionof venture creationandcon?dence init” and“knowledge
and ability of venture creation” between groups A and B at the ? level of .1. Table 4
shows that “the intention of venture creation and con?dence in it” and “knowledge and
ability of venture creation” are variables that contribute todifferentiating entrepreneur-
ship between the two groups.
Difference in entrepreneurship between course takers and non-takers: Korea (Groups
C and D). Table 3 shows that Korean students who took entrepreneurship-related
courses achieved higher levels of improvement in all three factors than the other group
of students. As seen in Table 5, there was a statistically signi?cant difference in en-
trepreneurship in terms of “the intention of venture creation and con?dence in it,”
“knowledge and ability of venture creation,” and “the recognition of importance of
entrepreneurship education” between groups C and D at the ? level of .05. Table 5
shows all three factors contribute to the differentiating entrepreneurship between the
two groups. This means there is a statistically signi?cant difference in entrepreneurship
between Korean students who took the entrepreneurial course and those who did not.
Impact of Entrepreneurship Education 37
Table 3. Result of MANOVA analyses.
Group A (The U.S. Takers): Group C (Korea takers):
Group B (The U.S. Non-takers): Group D (Korea Non-takers):
Box’s M: 4.238 Box’s M: 22.738
Sig : .659 Sig : .001
Mean values Mean values
Factors Group Mean Factors Group Mean
Intention of V. C. U.S. Takers (>) 2.99 Intention of V. C. Korea Takers (>) 3.29
U.S. Non-takers 2.63 Korea Non-takers 2.71
Knowledge and Ability U.S. Taker (>) 4.00 Knowledge and Ability of V. C Korea Takers (>) 3.43
of V. C. U.S. Non-takers 3.82 Korea Non-takers 2.89
Recognition of the U.S. Taker (=) 4.00 Recognition of the Importance Korea Takers (>) 4.02
Importance of EE U.S. Non-takers 4.00 of EE Korea Non-takers 3.27
Hotellings Trace: F: 2.87 Hotellings Trace F: 28.09
Sig: .03
?
Sig: .00
???
Group A (The U.S. Taker): Group B: (The U.S. Non-takers)
Group C (Korean Taker): Group D: (Korean Non-takers)
Box’s M: 11.936 Box’s M: 26.637
Sig : .070 Sig : .000
Factors Group Mean Factors Group Mean
Intention of V. C. U.S. Takers () 4.00 Knowledge and Ability of V. C. U.S. Non-takers (>) 3.82
of V. C. Korea Takers 3.42 Korea Non-takers 2.89
Recognition of the U.S. Takers (=) 4.00 Recognition of the Importance U.S. Non-takers (>) 4.00
Importance of EE Korean Takers 4.02 of EE Korea Non-takers 3.27
Hotellings Trace: F: 26.92 Hotellings Trace F: 82.09
Sig: .00
???
Sig: .00
???
?
p < .05.
??
p < .01.
???
p < .001.
Table 4. Test of between subject effects (U.S. course takers and non-takers).
Type III
sum of squares Df Mean square F Sig
The intention of venture creation and 4.42 1 4.42 8.09 .00
??
con?dence in it
Knowledge and ability 1.07 1 1.07 3.21 .075
?
of venture creation
Recognition of the importance 0.00 1 .00 0.00 1.00
of entrepreneurship education
?
p < .05.
??
p < .01.
???
p < .001.
38 LEE, CHANG AND LIM
Table 5. Test of between subject effects (Korean course takers and non-takers).
Type III
sum of squares Df Mean square F Sig
The intention of venture 17.66 1 17.66 39.41 .00
???
creation and con?dence in it
Knowledge and ability 14.72 1 14.72 41.50 .00
???
of venture creation
Recognition of the importance 29.61 1 29.61 61.78 .00
???
of entrepreneurship education
?
p < .05.
??
p < .01.
???
p < .001.
The result shows that the level of difference inentrepreneurshipbetweengroups Cand
Dis much greater than that between U.S. groups Aand B. The variable “recognition of
the importance of entrepreneurship education” especially differentiates the two Korean
groups, while this variable did not differentiate the two American groups. This result
implies that regardless of whether American students take the class or not, they already
are quite familiar with entrepreneurial culture; thus, students from both American
groups equally recognized the importance of entrepreneurship education. However, in
Korea, only the entrepreneurship-educated group appears to recognize its importance,
perhaps because Korean people generally began to recognize the importance of venture
creation only after the 1997 Asian ?nancial crisis. In short, as expected, the impact of
entrepreneurship education in Korea is much greater than in the U.S.
Difference in pedagogical impact between the U.S. and Korean course takers (Groups A
and C). As seen in Table 3, American students have a higher level of “knowledge and
ability of venture creation” than Korean students after taking an entrepreneurship-
related course. This could mean that entrepreneurship-oriented culture in the U.S. may
have helped American students possess knowledge and ability of venture creation.
However, group C showed a higher score than group A in terms of “the intention
of venture creation and con?dence in it.” This result could be interpreted as Korean
students having a higher sense of achievement after taking the entrepreneurship class
than American students at the end of the semester since Korean students had much less
knowledge about venture creation before the course due to younger entrepreneurship-
oriented culture in Korea. Thus, their sense of achievement in the entrepreneurship
class and the social environment encouraging venture creation resulted in a higher
level of intention of venture creation and con?dence than American students. Before
taking the courses, recognition of the importance of entrepreneurship education of
American students was higher than that of Korean students, but the recognition of the
importance of entrepreneurship education of the two groups was about the same after
the course. Thus, we can conclude that the impact of entrepreneurship education in
Korea is greater than in the U.S.
Impact of Entrepreneurship Education 39
Table 6. Test of between subject effects (U.S. and Korean course taker groups).
Type III Mean
sum of squares Df square F Sig
The intention of venture creation 3.16 1 3.16 6.44 .012
?
and con?dence in it
Knowledge and ability 11.71 1 11.71 36.79 .00
???
of venture creation
Recognition of the importance 2.293E?02 1 2.293E?02 0.06 .80
of entrepreneurship education
?
p < .05.
??
p < .01.
???
p < .001.
Table 4 shows that “the intention of venture creation and con?dence in it” and
“knowledge and ability of venture creation” are variables that differentiate the effects
of entrepreneurship education between the two groups. As previous results of analysis
showed, Americanstudents still have a higher level of “knowledge andability of venture
creation” than their Korean counterparts even after taking an entrepreneurship-related
course, by virtue of a deeper and more mature foundation of entrepreneurship-oriented
culture in the U.S.
Differences in entrepreneurship between the U.S. and Korean course non-taker groups
(Groups B and D). As shown in Table 3, group B has a higher level of “knowledge
andability of venture creation” and“recognitionof the importance of entrepreneurship
education” than group D. This result shows strong in?uence of the entrepreneurship-
oriented culture in the U.S. on American students. Thus, it is evident that there is some
difference in entrepreneurship knowledge between the American and Korean students
even before taking the entrepreneurship courses.
As seen in Table 7, there was a statistically signi?cant difference in entrepreneurship
interms of knowledge andability of venture creationandrecognitionof the importance
Table 7. Test of between subject effects (U.S. and Korean course non-taker groups).
Type III Mean
sum of squares Df square F Sig
The intention of venture .31 1 .31 .65 .42
creation and con?dence in It
Knowledge and ability of 43.18 1 43.18 117.08 .00
???
venture creation
Recognition of the importance 26.38 1 26.38 56.17 .00
???
of entrepreneurship education
?
p < .05.
??
p < .01.
???
p < .001.
40 LEE, CHANG AND LIM
of entrepreneurship education between groups B and D at the ? level of .05. The table
also shows that “knowledge and ability of venture creation” and “recognition of the im-
portance of entrepreneurship education” are factors which differentiate the two groups.
According to a survey by The Small and MediumBusiness Administration (SMBA)
of Korean Government, since the 1997 ?nancial crisis the number of start-up ventures
of?cially certi?ed by SMBAincreased dramatically: 1998—2,042; 1999—4,934; 2000—
8,798; June, 2001—10,762. These statistics show a growing interest in venture creation
in Korea to overcome the ?nancial crisis. This social environment and limited job
opportunities in Korea since 1997 may have provided a strong stimulus to Korean
students’ intention for venture creation. While they had been in?uenced by a mature
entrepreneurial culture, American students showed relatively weak intention of venture
creationas a result of a prosperous economy withwide-ranging jobopportunities. Thus,
no signi?cant difference was found between the two groups in terms of “the intention
of venture creation and con?dence in it.”
Intention of overseas venture creation with teamwork
As seen in the result of t-test in Table 8 and that of mean score analysis in Table 9,
Korean students’ intention of overseas venture creation with teamwork is higher than
that of American students regardless of their entrepreneurial education. However, no
signi?cant difference was found between the U.S. takers (A) and the U.S. non-takers
(B), and between Korean takers (C) and Korean non-takers (D). This result strongly
Table 8. Teamwork and overseas venture creation between groups.
A and B C and D B and D A and C
F Sig F Sig F Sig F Sig
3.60 .70 1.26 .112 5.74 .017 8.54 .00
??
?
p < .05.
??
p < .01.
???
p < .001.
Table 9. Mean score of intention of overseas venture creation with teamwork.
Groups Mean St. D. No of samples
U.S. Takers 3.38 .84 55
U.S. Non-takers 3.43 .66 90
Korean Takers 3.79 .60 98
Korean Non-takers 3.66 .55 112
U.S. Non-takers 3.43 .66 90
Korean Non-takers 3.66 .55 112
U.S. Takers 3.38 .84 55
Korean Takers 3.79 .60 98
Impact of Entrepreneurship Education 41
indicates that entrepreneurship education does not have any impact on “intention of
overseas venture creation with teamwork.”
Export has been very important for the growth of Korean economy. The Korean
government has encouraged export through ?nancial incentives and public education
since President Park’s administration in the early 1960s. Because of this unique context
of Korea, Koran students have very strong intention of overseas venture creation.
Conclusion
Previous studies maintain that entrepreneurs are cultivated during their lifetime, and
that social and cultural environment, personal experience, and education are very im-
portant to building entrepreneurship. This study analyzed the impact of entrepreneur-
ship education between American and Korean college students. The results of this
study imply that unique cultural context has differentiated American students from
their Korean counterparts in terms of “the intention of venture creation and con?dence
in it,” “knowledge and ability of venture creation,” “recognition of the importance of
entrepreneurship education” and “intention of overseas venture creation with team-
work.” Moreover, the impact of entrepreneurship education in each country is different
because of each country’s unique culture in regards to entrepreneurship.
The results of this study showthat Korean students, who have a lower level of “the in-
tention of venture creation and con?dence in it,” “knowledge and ability of venture cre-
ation,” and “recognition of the importance of entrepreneurship education” than their
American counterparts, can reach about the same levels after taking entrepreneurship-
related courses. Although the level of “knowledge and ability of venture creation” of
Korean students was still lower than that of American students even after taking the
course, it became much higher after entrepreneurial education. American students who
took the course did not show any signi?cant improvement in terms of “recognition of
the importance of entrepreneurship education,” but Korean students who took the
class showed a signi?cant improvement.
Korean students who have grown up in a unique environment where export has been
the catalyst for economic development showed a higher level of “the intention of over-
seas venture creation with teamwork” than American students. But entrepreneurship
education did not in?uence this variable in both the U.S. and Korea.
Based on the result of this study, we can conclude that the impact of entrepreneurship
education in Korea is much greater than that in the U.S. This result strongly suggests
that the impact of entrepreneurship education in countries where entrepreneurship-
oriented culture is poor or still in the embryonic stage of development will be greater
than that in countries with a strong entrepreneurship-oriented culture.
Appendix: Five preliminary constructs and 16 questions
Intention and Desire for Venture Creation
(1) I want to launch a new venture company of my own before graduation.
42 LEE, CHANG AND LIM
(2) I am more interested in establishing my own venture company than getting a job.
(3) I think that founding a new venture company is the only way to succeed in life.
(4) I would dedicate my life to establishing a newventure company even if my parents
were strongly against it.
(5) Even if I launch new ventures and fail many times, I will keep on trying until I
succeed.
Knowledge of Venture Creation
(6) I have some knowledge about entrepreneurship.
(7) I am very intelligent and capable of accomplishing whatever I set out to do.
Desire for Taking Entrepreneurship Education
(8) If a major in entrepreneurship were available, I would change my major to it.
(9) Entrepreneurship should be taught in high school.
(10) I think that a class entitled “Entrepreneurship” would be very helpful for those
interested in starting their own venture companies.
Con?dence in Venture Creation
(11) If I launch a new venture company, I can provide my own funds and human
resources
(12) I am con?dent that I can successfully launch a new venture company on my own.
(13) I am con?dent that I can select a business with good potential if I launch a new
venture company of my own.
Intention of Overseas Venture Creation with Teamwork
(14) Aventure company should be launched individually rather than in a partnership,
because many negative things can happen between partners.
(15) If I launch a new venture company, I will limit its area of operation to my own
country.
(16) If I launch a newventure company, I will expand its business to all over the world.
References
Brockaus, R.H. 1980a. The effect of job dissatisfaction on the decision to start a business. Journal of Small
Business Management, 18(1): 37–43.
Brockaus, R.H. 1980b. Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Journal, 23: 509–
520.
Carrier, C. 1996. Intrapreneurship in small business: An exploratory study. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 21(1): 5–20.
Chang, D. 2000. Impact of venture education on entrepreneurship: Focusing on comparison between
university students and junior college students. Journal of the Korean Of?ce Automation Society, 5(3):
171–182.
Impact of Entrepreneurship Education 43
Chang, D. & Hong, S. 2001. An empirical study on venture education effects between Korean female and
male university students. Journal of Korean Association of Business Administration, 14(1): 105–124.
Charney, A. &Libecap, G. 2000. Impact of entrepreneurship education, insight. AKauffman Research Series.
1–8.
Cho, B. 1998. Study of the effective entrepreneurship education method and its process. Business Education
Research, 2(1):27–47.
Clark, B.W., Davis, C. & Harnish, V. 1984. Do courses in entrepreneurship aid in new venture creation?
Journal of Small Business Management, 22(2): 26–31.
Drucker, P. F. 1985. Innovation and entrepreneurship. New York: Haper & Row.
Gartner, W.B. 1985. A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation.
Academy of Management Review, 10: 696–706.
Gartner, W.B. 1989. Who is an entrepreneur? is the wrong question. American Journal of Small Business,
12(4): 11–22.
Han, J. & Lee, M. 1998. A study on the status of entrepreneurship education in Korea and its direction.
Business Education Research, 2(2): 5–26.
Lee, S.M. & Peterson, S. 2000. Culture, entrepreneurial orientation, and global competitiveness. Journal of
World Business, 35: 401–416.
McKelvey, B. 1982. Organizational systematics—Taxonomy, evolution, classi?cation. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Morrison, A. 1999. Entrepreneurship: What triggers it? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior &
Research, 6(2): 59–71.
Park, C. 1993. A study on the status of entrepreneurship education in Korean college—Focusing on the
contents of instruction. Small- and Medium- Size Companies Research, 15(2): 79–114.
Schumpeter, J.A. 1934. The theory of economic development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Solomon, G..T., Duffy, S. &Tarabishy, A. 2002. The state of entrepreneurship education in the United States:
A nationwide survey and analysis. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education. 1: 1–22,
Solomon, G..T., Fernald, Jr. L. & Weaver, L. 1993. Trends in small business management and entrepreneur-
ship in the United States: An update. International Council for Small Business, Proceedings, 38th World
Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S.A., pp. 230–242.
Timmons, J.A. 1999. New venture creation: Entrepreneurship for 21st century (5th ed.). Homewood, Illinois:
Irwin- McGraw-Hill.
Watson, K., Hogarth-Scott, S. & Wilson, N. 1998. Small business start-ups: Success factors and support
implications. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 4: 217–238.
Zahra, S.A. 1999. The challenging rules of global competitiveness in the 21st century. Academy of Manage-
ment Executive, 13: 36–42.http://entrepreneurship.mit.eduhttp://www.kice.re.kr/english/eindex.htmhttp://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/business/topprogs.htmhttp://www3.babson.edu/ESHIP/academics
Chosun Daily Newspaper, November 29, 2000
JoongAng Daily Newspaper, March 2, 1999
MunHwa Daily Newspaper, March 13, 1999
doc_555129259.pdf
On this description related to impact of entrepreneurship education a comparative study of the u.s. and korea.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 1, 27–43, 2005
c 2005 Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. Manufactured in The United States.
Impact of Entrepreneurship Education:
A Comparative Study of the U.S. and Korea
SANG M. LEE [email protected]
University Eminent Scholar and Chair, Department of Management, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 209 CBA,
Lincoln, NE 68588-0491
DAESUNG CHANG [email protected]
Professor, School of Business Administration, Kyonggi University, Korea
SEONG-BAE LIM [email protected]
Assistant Professor, Jones School of Business, SUNY-Geneseo
Abstract. Over the last two decades, entrepreneurship has emerged as a mainstream business discipline in
the United States. Even after the collapse of the dotcomphenomenon, the global explosion of e-business and
new business opportunities created by advances in information and telecommunication technologies (ICT)
have widely popularized entrepreneurship for new venture creation. But while entrepreneurship is becoming
more prevalent throughout the world, its education by country differs according to cultural context. This
paper presents the results of a study on the impact of entrepreneurship education in the U.S. and Korea.
Keywords: entrepreneurship education, venture creation, culture, competitiveness
Entrepreneurship education provides students motivation, knowledge, and skills essen-
tial for launching a successful venture company (Cho, 1998). Nevertheless, the extent
of entrepreneurship education by country differs according to each country’s unique
cultural context (Lee and Peterson, 2000). For example, high school students in the
U.S. are already quite familiar with entrepreneurship. On the other hand, the city
government of Tokyo, Japan of?cially announced its plan to launch entrepreneurship
education for the ?rst time to high school students in January, 2001 (Chosun Daily
Newspaper, November 29, 2000). Also in Korea, only a few colleges have developed
entrepreneurship as a business ?eld of study. Most Korean colleges have introduced
entrepreneurship-related courses as part of the requirements for ful?lling general edu-
cation rather than a specialization area.
American entrepreneurs, great cultivators of entrepreneurial sprit, have greatly con-
tributed to economic growth within the U.S. by creating and successfully managing
countless venture companies. On the other hand, lack of entrepreneurship education
in Korea has resulted in de?ciency of entrepreneurial culture in Korea—which may be
Corresponding author. Sang M. Lee University Eminent Scholar and Chair, Department of Management,
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 209 CBA, Lincoln, NE 68588-0491
28 LEE, CHANG AND LIM
one of the reasons that South Korea is still struggling to overcome the ?nancial crisis
that began in 1997.
It is meaningful to conduct a comparative study of the impact of entrepreneurship
education between the U.S. and Korea for the following reasons: (1) It can identify
the mediating role of cultural differences between entrepreneurship education and its
effects; (2) It could suggest a meaningful new direction for entrepreneurship education
both in the U.S. and Korea; and (3) The results of this study may be broadly applied to
other countries where strong entrepreneurship can contribute to building a more solid
economy. This is an empirical study conducted in the U.S., where there exists strong
entrepreneurship tradition, and in Korea, where entrepreneurship is just beginning to
emerge as an important business discipline.
Theoretical framework
Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs
There is no universal de?nition of entrepreneurship and scholars’ viewof the topic has
changed considerably since Schumpeter (1934) de?ned it for the ?rst time. Drucker
(1985) called entrepreneurship an “innovative act, which includes endowing existing
resources for new wealth-producing capacity.” Gartner (1985) described it as the “cre-
ation of a new organization.” It is important to note, however, that entrepreneurship,
a primary source of innovation, may involve the development of new visions and busi-
ness methods for established companies as well as the creation of new organizations
(Carnier, 1996). Therefore, entrepreneurshipcanbe appliedtoall kinds of organizations
including non-pro?t institutions.
Although many studies assert that entrepreneurs are different from non–entrepre-
neurs, there is no uni?ed de?nition description of entrepreneurs. Instead, scholars have
developed various de?nitions of entrepreneurs (Brockhaus, 1980a, 1980b). Gartner
(1985) attemptedto?nddifferences inpersonalityandbackgroundbetweenentreprene-
urs and non-entrepreneurs—namely, that entrepreneurs are cultivated by cultural, eco-
nomic, social, political, and educational backgrounds that are fundamentally different
from those of non-entrepreneurs and that each entrepreneur has his/her unique moti-
vation, goals, and talents for venture creation according to his/her unique background.
More recently, Watson, Hogarth-Scott, and Wilson (1998) cited personal back-
ground, motivation for start-up, and growth orientation as factors for successful ven-
ture creation. According to Morrison’s (1999) study, the pro?le of an entrepreneur is
one who: (1) is intelligent and analytical, (2) is an effective risk manager and a net-
worker, (3) possesses a strong set of moral, social and business ethics, (4) exhibits a basic
trader’s instinct, and (5) is dedicated to life-long learning in many forms. The talents
included in Morrison’s de?nition are important requirements for becoming successful
entrepreneurs in the knowledge era.
Lee and Peterson (2000) state that even those individuals who are motivated by
such factors as ?nancial rewards, achievement, social, career, and individual ful?ll-
ment need a national culture that supports and encourages entrepreneurial activity.
Impact of Entrepreneurship Education 29
Watson, Hogarth-Scott andWilson’s (1998) andMorrison’s (1999) studies alsocontend
that entrepreneurial spirit needs appropriate social and cultural background to initiate
motives for venture creation and aspiration for excellence in various academic areas
in order to create successful venture. Watson et al. (1998), Morrison (1999), and Lee
and Peterson (2000) agree that great entrepreneurs do not growby themselves, but that
they are products of entrepreneurship-oriented societies and cultures.
Entrepreneurship education and entrepreneur
As Watsonet al. (1998) pointedout, entrepreneurs are different fromnon-entrepreneurs
in many aspects. Many previous studies have tried to prove this. Furthermore, as
Gartner (1985) assumed when he developed his own conceptual framework for describ-
ing the phenomenon of new venture creation based on previous studies, the difference
among entrepreneurs or newventures is more considerable than between entrepreneurs
and non-entrepreneurs in terms of personality and background. These facts strongly
imply that entrepreneurial talents can be “matured-up” by postnatal education since:
(1) inborn nature is not suf?cient to explain the difference and (2) most factors identi-
?ed in previous studies were achievable through proper education. So an individual’s
personality and ability can be uniquely developed according to the context of his or
her education and willpower, and motivation can be differentiated according to post-
natal environment where an individual grows. Thus, great diversity exists among en-
trepreneurs based on their “growing background” of social, cultural, and educational
environments (Mckelvy, 1982).
Gartner (1989) suggested job satisfaction, previous work experiences, entrepr–
eneurial parents, age, and education as the factors which differentiate entrepreneurs
from non-entrepreneurs. According to previous studies, education in particular is one
of the critical factors in distinguishing entrepreneurs fromnon-entrepreneurs. Based on
the point that home-education fromparents has a signi?cant impact on an individual’s
life, entrepreneurial parents should also be included in the education category. In ad-
dition, many organizations allocate a great deal of resources to training their members
through external as well as internal education opportunities. Thus, previous work ex-
periences can be included in the category of education in a broad sense. Consequently,
we can generalize that the relative importance of education is very high.
Cho (1998) also maintained that if entrepreneurial talent were innate and could
not be built up postnatally, entrepreneurship education would lose its signi?cance and
that entrepreneurial talent should therefore not be perceived as innate. Furthermore,
Cho’s (1998) study reveals that entrepreneurship education promotes the intention of
venture creation because entrepreneurship-related knowledge and skills stimulate an
individual’s motivation to create a new venture.
Timmons (1999) stated that team-based venture creation is more common than
individual venture creation. Since it is dif?cult for everyentrepreneur tohave all required
managerial knowledge, individuals with complementary backgrounds make effective
teams for creating new venture companies. He also emphasized the importance of
30 LEE, CHANG AND LIM
entrepreneurship education by maintaining that skills required for successful venture
creation are gained through postnatal learning such as teamwork experiences.
Entrepreneurship education in the U.S.
In the U.S., the number of universities and colleges with entrepreneurship curricula
has increased dramatically since the late 1960s. Many schools offer entrepreneurship-
related courses such as “Entrepreneurship &Venture Creation,” “Small Business Man-
agement,” “Enterprise Development,” etc. as an important part of their curricula. A
greater number of colleges and graduate schools are establishing entrepreneurship as
a major ?eld (Solomon, Fernald and Weaver, 1993; Timmons, 1999).
The following are some examples of entrepreneurship-related curricula in the U.S.:
• Babson College undergraduate, MBA, and executive education programs in en-
trepreneurship. The undergraduate program offers twelve elective entrepreneurship
courses, while its MBA program has ?fteen independent entrepreneurship courses
that fall into three broad categories including “Foundations Classes (fundamental
and holistic entrepreneurship skills),” “Specialty Classes (speci?c discipline within
entrepreneurship),” and “Support Classes (deep knowledge in one speci?c area
study).” Its MBA program focuses on “educating creative leaders capable of ini-
tiating, managing, and implementing change.” The executive program is designed
to promote opportunity recognition, team development, and resource leveraging
(http://www3.babson.edu/ESHIP/academics).
• The Sloan School of Management at MIT “New Product and Venture Develop-
ment” MBA program track. The track offers about seventeen entrepreneurship-
related subjects that address marketing, sales, strategy, ?nance, new product devel-
opment, and other disciplines required to guide the creation and growth of new
high-tech ventures. Its emphases are “(1) How to take an idea or an invention and
turn it into an innovation, that is, manage it to market; and (2) How to develop the
hands-on leadership skills required in this multi-functional implementation process”
(http://entrepreneurship.mit.edu).
In the U.S., more than 1500 colleges and universities offer entrepreneurship-related
training and more than 100 active university-based entrepreneurship centers (Charney
and Libecap, 2000). Small Business Management, Entrepreneurship, and NewVenture
Creation are the most frequently offered classes in two- and four-year colleges in the
U.S., and Small Business Management is predominantly taught by colleges (Solomon,
Duffy and Tarabishy, 2002). Not surprisingly then, graduates from entrepreneurship
programs are three times more likely to be involved in new venture creation than non-
entrepreneurship business graduates (Chaney and Libecap, 2000).
Entrepreneurship-oriented education and culture in the U.S. have been the founda-
tion of strong infrastructures for creating many world-class organizations such as: Mi-
crosoft, Oracle, Dell, and Wal-Mart—as well as 36 million new jobs (Timmons, 1999).
Impact of Entrepreneurship Education 31
These successful venture companies have additionally increased the wealth of the na-
tion and strengthened competitive advantage of U.S. ?rms by creating innovative new
products and services (Zahra, 1999).
Entrepreneurship education in Korea
The entrepreneurial education history of Korea is very short compared to that of the
U.S. Currently, an increasing number of colleges and graduate schools are developing
entrepreneurship-related courses to meet students’ growing interests (JoongAng Daily
Newspaper, March 2, 1999) and the job market for students majoring in Entrepreneur-
ship is expected to grow due to increasing demand for entrepreneurial talents (Han
and Lee, 1998). Concurrently, the Korean government has strongly supported ven-
ture creation by enacting the “Special Law for Venture Companies.” The Ministry of
Educationhas alsocreated$150 milliontosupport entrepreneurial activities incolleges.
Colleges may apply for these loans from the government by submitting well-prepared
supporting plans for “On-Campus Venture Creations,” where additional loans may be
obtained once on-campus ventures have successfully paid off the loans. The paid loan is
then re-loaned to the same university to support new “On-Campus Venture Creation”
(MunHwa Daily Newspaper, March 13,1999).
As mentioned earlier, venture creation is encouraged for all individuals regardless of
age or the education level in the U.S. Meanwhile, though many Korean colleges began
venture creation education after the Asian ?nancial crisis in 1997, only two universities
(SungSil and Hoseo Universities) established the venture creation management major
in1999, withHoseoUniversityestablishinga“Professional Graduate School of Venture
Creation.” Currently, there are just a few entrepreneurship-related courses available
at the junior college level. Thus, Korean education systems should more proactively
provide opportunities to students who are interested in venture creation.
Theoretical background related to the research
Entrepreneurship, along with strong intent, are the two basic requirements for success-
ful venture creation. Launching ventures without relevant knowledge is reckless even
when there is strong intention for venture creation. Thus, appropriate entrepreneurship
education is a precondition for bringing up the right perception and intention about
entrepreneurship.
According to Schumpeter (1934), Timmons (1999) and Carnier (1996), corporate
entrepreneurs who plan new start-ups within their organizations or participate in the
process of creative destruction can be classi?ed as entrepreneurs alongside their indi-
vidual business counterparts. Thus, college students who hope to work in established
companies and non-pro?t organizations as well as those who plan to launch their own
ventures may be categorized as potential entrepreneurs. Consequently, entrepreneur-
ship education should be available to all college students regardless of major to enhance
competitive advantage, not only for students but the societies and nations where they
are involved.
32 LEE, CHANG AND LIM
There have been just a fewempirical studies on entrepreneurship education in Korea
(Chang, 2000; Chang and Hong, 2001). These studies focused on the need for en-
trepreneurship education (Park, 1993), curriculum, course content and development
of the major (Cho, 1998). In addition, Han and Lee (1998) emphasized continuous
improvement in the quality of entrepreneurship-related courses and urged that the
long-term effect of entrepreneurship education should be evaluated with results re-
?ected in new program development. Continuous evaluation and systematic program
development are essential for improving entrepreneurship education programs.
So while Korean students’ interest and intention of venture creation have increased
dramatically since the Asian ?nancial crisis of 1997, they have been cultivated for
relatively short period of time compared to their U.S. counterparts. It is therefore
meaningful to conduct a comparative study on the impact of entrepreneurship educa-
tion in terms of interest, intention, and con?dence in venture creation between college
students in the U.S. and Korea.
This study will identify differences in terms of interest and intention for venture
creation between student groups of heterogeneous cultural backgrounds and between
students who have taken entrepreneurship-related courses (takers) and those who have
not taken them(non-takers). The result of this study will contribute to the understand-
ing of global entrepreneurshipculture bydiscerningthat students withdifferent cultural
backgrounds have different characteristics and levels of entrepreneurship according to
their cultural context.
Research method
Sample groups
The main purpose of this study is to identify the differences in the impact of en-
trepreneurship education between the U.S. and Korea by focusing on students’ interest
and intention for venture creation. To conduct this study, the following four groups
were formed.
Group A: American students who took entrepreneurship/venture creation course(s)
Group B: American students who did not take any entrepreneurship/venture creation
course(s)
Group C: Korean students who took entrepreneurship/venture creation course(s)
Group D: Korean students who did not take any entrepreneurship/venture creation
course(s)
We collected data for group A (60 students) and group B (102 students) from the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln in the U.S., and those for group C (102 students) and
group D (115 students) from Kyonggi University in South Korea.
Since the difference between the two universities in terms of curricula could have
some effect on students’ entrepreneurial interest, we compared the contents of the U.S.
Impact of Entrepreneurship Education 33
curriculumwith those of two Korean universities. We then concluded that the contents
of curriculum would not make signi?cant difference between the two universities as
their curricula are quite similar.
Selected Universities
The University of Nebraska-Lincoln. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) is
the ?agship campus of the University of Nebraska system with more than 24,000 stu-
dents and 5,000 faculty and professional staff. The programs of the UNL College of
Business Administration are fully accredited by the Association to Advance Collegiate
Schools of Business (AACSB). The business school has been a charter member of
AACSB since 1916 and is ranked 62nd in the U.S. by the U.S. News & World Re-
port in 2003 (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/business). The
UNL Business College’s entrepreneurship program was rated 30th among all colle-
giate entrepreneurship programs in the U.S. by Money Magazine in 2001. Thus, we
can assume that students of UNL’s business school represent typical American college
students majoring in business administration.
Kyonggi University Located in the Seoul metropolitan area, Kyonggi University has
13,000 students. The average college entrance exam score, SAT of Korea, is more than
85 percentile of all candidates in Korea (http://www.kice.re.kr/NEW/index.html).
The KoreanUniversity EducationAssociationevaluatedKyonggi University’s business
school as excellent in 1996. Thus, we can assume that students of Kyonggi University’s
business school represent typical Korean college students majoring in management.
Distribution of questionnaires
Questionnaires with the same contents were simultaneously distributed in both coun-
tries. Questionnaires used in Korea were in Korean and those used in the U.S. were in
English. To ensure that questions written in Korean measure the same construct, the
Korean questionnaire was translated back into English and compared with the origi-
nal one written in English. There was no signi?cant difference. Because questionnaires
were administered during the regular class time, all of them were collected.
Data analysis method
All of the questionnaires collected were properly answered, and thus all were used
for data analysis. First, factor analysis was conducted to check construct validity of
each question and to identify meaningful factors. Then, using factors identi?ed in the
previous step, MANOVAwas performed to identify whether any signi?cant differences
exit among the four groups.
34 LEE, CHANG AND LIM
Variables related to the effects of entrepreneurship education
According to Watson et al. (1998), motivation for venture creation is one of the criti-
cal factors for successful entrepreneurship and Clark, Davis and Harnish (1984) and
Cho (1998) stated entrepreneurship education could provide motivation for venture
creation. Therefore, effective entrepreneurship education and a good concept of ven-
ture creation will enhance entrepreneurship, and strengthened entrepreneurship will
result in increased intention and desire for venture creation. Finally, students with in-
creased intention of venture creation will pursue more knowledge of entrepreneurship
and realize the importance of teamwork (Timmons, 1999). Concurrently, con?dence
and ability in venture creation will also increase (Han and Lee, 1998).
Based on previous studies, this study developed the questionnaire with 16 questions
on: (1) intention and desire for venture creation, (2) knowledge of venture creation, (3)
desire for taking entrepreneurship education, (4) con?dence in venture creation, and
(5) intention of overseas venture creation with teamwork. A?ve point Likert type scale
was used (1. strongly disagree, 2. disagree, 3. neither agree nor disagree, 4. agree, and
5. strongly agree) for each question.
As a result of factor analysis (see Table 1), four meaningful factors were extractedand
usedtomeasure the entrepreneurshipvariables relatedtothe effects of entrepreneurship
education. Operational de?nitions of the four factors are as follows:
Table 1. Result of factor analysis.
Eigen Factor
Factor values Variable name loading Operational de?nition
1 5.10 Venture creation before graduation .76 Intention of
Con?dence in getting funding for venture creation .58 venture creation and
Preference of venture creation over getting a job .80 con?dence in it
Intention of changing major to entrepreneurship .73
Con?dence in successful venture creation .66
Lifelong commitment to venture creation .72
Intention to overcome opposition of .59
venture creation from other people
2 2.06 Knowledge about entrepreneurship .82 Knowledge and ability
Ability for independent venture creation .68 of venture creation
Ability for choosing business with opportunity .49
Superior talents .78
3 1.67 Preference of team-based venture .46 Intention of
creation to individual one. overseas venture
Overseas venture creation .89 creation with teamwork
Targeting overseas markets .77
4 1.04 Entrepreneurship education in high school .70 Recognition of the
Effectiveness of entrepreneurship importance of
education on venture creation .61 Entrepreneurship
education
Impact of Entrepreneurship Education 35
(1) Intention of venture creation and con?dence in it. The results of previous studies
(Cho, 1998; Clark et al., 1984) showthat entrepreneurship education often triggers
motivation for venture creation. They supported that intention of venture creation
can be increased by entrepreneurship education. According to Han and Lee (1998),
increased con?dence in venture creation is the main effect of entrepreneurship
education.
(2) Knowledge and ability for venture creation. Timmons (1999) suggested that if an
individual hadappropriate knowledge of entrepreneurshipandintentionof venture
creation, he/she could create a venture and succeed in it. If effective education is
provided including topics on launching a company and expanding it, resource and
team management, business plan, marketing, etc. to individuals with interest in
venture creation but who do not have con?dence in it, their con?dence and ability
will be increased simultaneously. In short, increased knowledge of venture creation
results in increased ability for venture creation.
(3) Intention of overseas venture creation with teamwork. Timmons (1999) asserted that
entrepreneurship education is very important since various talents required for
venture creation could be obtained through postnatal education. Since overseas
venture creationis dif?cult tobe achievedbyanindividual entrepreneur but requires
teamwork and an open paradigm, this study introduced “intention of overseas
venture creation with teamwork” as an operational de?nition.
(4) Recognition of the importance of entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship ed-
ucation increases knowledge about venture creation. Thus, individuals who took
entrepreneurship education should recognize that it is important for successful ven-
ture creation. Moreover, this perception will accelerate the effect of entrepreneur-
ship education as time passes.
Results and dicussion
Correlation among factors
Before conducting MANOVA using the four factors to discern the differences in
entrepreneurship-related perceptions and impact of entrepreneurship education be-
tween the American and Korean student groups, correlation analysis was performed
among the factors to check whether MANOVA was the proper analytical method.
As seen in Table 2, MANOVA can be used as three factors, except “the intention of
overseas venture creation with teamwork,” showed signi?cant interrelations among
them. T-test was conducted to compare the intention of overseas venture creation with
teamwork between the U.S. and Korean groups.
Differences in entrepreneurship and pedagogical impact
Differences in entrepreneurship between course takers and non-takers: USA (Groups
A and B) Before conducting MANOVA, Box’s M test was employed to test the
36 LEE, CHANG AND LIM
Table 2. Correlation among factors.
Intention of Knowledge and Intention of Recognition of the
venture creation ability of overseas venture importance of
and con?dence venture creation with entrepreneurship
in it creation teamwork education
Intention of 1.00 0.46
?
?0.00 0.31
??
venture creation
and con?dence in it
Knowledge and 1.00 ?0.09 0.41
??
ability of venture
creation
Intention of 1.00 0.04
overseas venture
creation with teamwork
Recognition of 1.00
the importance of
entrepreneurship education
?
p < .05.
??
p < .01.
???
p < .001.
homogeneity of variance between the two groups. As seen in Table 3, the result was not
signi?cant. Thus, we can conclude that MONOVA could be used.
As shown in Table 3, there is a signi?cant difference between American students who
took entrepreneurship-related course and those who did not. The students who took
the class improved both “the intention of venture creation and con?dence in it” and
“knowledge and ability of venture creation.” Thus, it can be concluded that there is
de?nite pedagogical impact of venture education on the U.S. students.
According to Table 4, a statistically signi?cant difference is shown in entrepreneur-
shipinterms of “the intentionof venture creationandcon?dence init” and“knowledge
and ability of venture creation” between groups A and B at the ? level of .1. Table 4
shows that “the intention of venture creation and con?dence in it” and “knowledge and
ability of venture creation” are variables that contribute todifferentiating entrepreneur-
ship between the two groups.
Difference in entrepreneurship between course takers and non-takers: Korea (Groups
C and D). Table 3 shows that Korean students who took entrepreneurship-related
courses achieved higher levels of improvement in all three factors than the other group
of students. As seen in Table 5, there was a statistically signi?cant difference in en-
trepreneurship in terms of “the intention of venture creation and con?dence in it,”
“knowledge and ability of venture creation,” and “the recognition of importance of
entrepreneurship education” between groups C and D at the ? level of .05. Table 5
shows all three factors contribute to the differentiating entrepreneurship between the
two groups. This means there is a statistically signi?cant difference in entrepreneurship
between Korean students who took the entrepreneurial course and those who did not.
Impact of Entrepreneurship Education 37
Table 3. Result of MANOVA analyses.
Group A (The U.S. Takers): Group C (Korea takers):
Group B (The U.S. Non-takers): Group D (Korea Non-takers):
Box’s M: 4.238 Box’s M: 22.738
Sig : .659 Sig : .001
Mean values Mean values
Factors Group Mean Factors Group Mean
Intention of V. C. U.S. Takers (>) 2.99 Intention of V. C. Korea Takers (>) 3.29
U.S. Non-takers 2.63 Korea Non-takers 2.71
Knowledge and Ability U.S. Taker (>) 4.00 Knowledge and Ability of V. C Korea Takers (>) 3.43
of V. C. U.S. Non-takers 3.82 Korea Non-takers 2.89
Recognition of the U.S. Taker (=) 4.00 Recognition of the Importance Korea Takers (>) 4.02
Importance of EE U.S. Non-takers 4.00 of EE Korea Non-takers 3.27
Hotellings Trace: F: 2.87 Hotellings Trace F: 28.09
Sig: .03
?
Sig: .00
???
Group A (The U.S. Taker): Group B: (The U.S. Non-takers)
Group C (Korean Taker): Group D: (Korean Non-takers)
Box’s M: 11.936 Box’s M: 26.637
Sig : .070 Sig : .000
Factors Group Mean Factors Group Mean
Intention of V. C. U.S. Takers () 4.00 Knowledge and Ability of V. C. U.S. Non-takers (>) 3.82
of V. C. Korea Takers 3.42 Korea Non-takers 2.89
Recognition of the U.S. Takers (=) 4.00 Recognition of the Importance U.S. Non-takers (>) 4.00
Importance of EE Korean Takers 4.02 of EE Korea Non-takers 3.27
Hotellings Trace: F: 26.92 Hotellings Trace F: 82.09
Sig: .00
???
Sig: .00
???
?
p < .05.
??
p < .01.
???
p < .001.
Table 4. Test of between subject effects (U.S. course takers and non-takers).
Type III
sum of squares Df Mean square F Sig
The intention of venture creation and 4.42 1 4.42 8.09 .00
??
con?dence in it
Knowledge and ability 1.07 1 1.07 3.21 .075
?
of venture creation
Recognition of the importance 0.00 1 .00 0.00 1.00
of entrepreneurship education
?
p < .05.
??
p < .01.
???
p < .001.
38 LEE, CHANG AND LIM
Table 5. Test of between subject effects (Korean course takers and non-takers).
Type III
sum of squares Df Mean square F Sig
The intention of venture 17.66 1 17.66 39.41 .00
???
creation and con?dence in it
Knowledge and ability 14.72 1 14.72 41.50 .00
???
of venture creation
Recognition of the importance 29.61 1 29.61 61.78 .00
???
of entrepreneurship education
?
p < .05.
??
p < .01.
???
p < .001.
The result shows that the level of difference inentrepreneurshipbetweengroups Cand
Dis much greater than that between U.S. groups Aand B. The variable “recognition of
the importance of entrepreneurship education” especially differentiates the two Korean
groups, while this variable did not differentiate the two American groups. This result
implies that regardless of whether American students take the class or not, they already
are quite familiar with entrepreneurial culture; thus, students from both American
groups equally recognized the importance of entrepreneurship education. However, in
Korea, only the entrepreneurship-educated group appears to recognize its importance,
perhaps because Korean people generally began to recognize the importance of venture
creation only after the 1997 Asian ?nancial crisis. In short, as expected, the impact of
entrepreneurship education in Korea is much greater than in the U.S.
Difference in pedagogical impact between the U.S. and Korean course takers (Groups A
and C). As seen in Table 3, American students have a higher level of “knowledge and
ability of venture creation” than Korean students after taking an entrepreneurship-
related course. This could mean that entrepreneurship-oriented culture in the U.S. may
have helped American students possess knowledge and ability of venture creation.
However, group C showed a higher score than group A in terms of “the intention
of venture creation and con?dence in it.” This result could be interpreted as Korean
students having a higher sense of achievement after taking the entrepreneurship class
than American students at the end of the semester since Korean students had much less
knowledge about venture creation before the course due to younger entrepreneurship-
oriented culture in Korea. Thus, their sense of achievement in the entrepreneurship
class and the social environment encouraging venture creation resulted in a higher
level of intention of venture creation and con?dence than American students. Before
taking the courses, recognition of the importance of entrepreneurship education of
American students was higher than that of Korean students, but the recognition of the
importance of entrepreneurship education of the two groups was about the same after
the course. Thus, we can conclude that the impact of entrepreneurship education in
Korea is greater than in the U.S.
Impact of Entrepreneurship Education 39
Table 6. Test of between subject effects (U.S. and Korean course taker groups).
Type III Mean
sum of squares Df square F Sig
The intention of venture creation 3.16 1 3.16 6.44 .012
?
and con?dence in it
Knowledge and ability 11.71 1 11.71 36.79 .00
???
of venture creation
Recognition of the importance 2.293E?02 1 2.293E?02 0.06 .80
of entrepreneurship education
?
p < .05.
??
p < .01.
???
p < .001.
Table 4 shows that “the intention of venture creation and con?dence in it” and
“knowledge and ability of venture creation” are variables that differentiate the effects
of entrepreneurship education between the two groups. As previous results of analysis
showed, Americanstudents still have a higher level of “knowledge andability of venture
creation” than their Korean counterparts even after taking an entrepreneurship-related
course, by virtue of a deeper and more mature foundation of entrepreneurship-oriented
culture in the U.S.
Differences in entrepreneurship between the U.S. and Korean course non-taker groups
(Groups B and D). As shown in Table 3, group B has a higher level of “knowledge
andability of venture creation” and“recognitionof the importance of entrepreneurship
education” than group D. This result shows strong in?uence of the entrepreneurship-
oriented culture in the U.S. on American students. Thus, it is evident that there is some
difference in entrepreneurship knowledge between the American and Korean students
even before taking the entrepreneurship courses.
As seen in Table 7, there was a statistically signi?cant difference in entrepreneurship
interms of knowledge andability of venture creationandrecognitionof the importance
Table 7. Test of between subject effects (U.S. and Korean course non-taker groups).
Type III Mean
sum of squares Df square F Sig
The intention of venture .31 1 .31 .65 .42
creation and con?dence in It
Knowledge and ability of 43.18 1 43.18 117.08 .00
???
venture creation
Recognition of the importance 26.38 1 26.38 56.17 .00
???
of entrepreneurship education
?
p < .05.
??
p < .01.
???
p < .001.
40 LEE, CHANG AND LIM
of entrepreneurship education between groups B and D at the ? level of .05. The table
also shows that “knowledge and ability of venture creation” and “recognition of the im-
portance of entrepreneurship education” are factors which differentiate the two groups.
According to a survey by The Small and MediumBusiness Administration (SMBA)
of Korean Government, since the 1997 ?nancial crisis the number of start-up ventures
of?cially certi?ed by SMBAincreased dramatically: 1998—2,042; 1999—4,934; 2000—
8,798; June, 2001—10,762. These statistics show a growing interest in venture creation
in Korea to overcome the ?nancial crisis. This social environment and limited job
opportunities in Korea since 1997 may have provided a strong stimulus to Korean
students’ intention for venture creation. While they had been in?uenced by a mature
entrepreneurial culture, American students showed relatively weak intention of venture
creationas a result of a prosperous economy withwide-ranging jobopportunities. Thus,
no signi?cant difference was found between the two groups in terms of “the intention
of venture creation and con?dence in it.”
Intention of overseas venture creation with teamwork
As seen in the result of t-test in Table 8 and that of mean score analysis in Table 9,
Korean students’ intention of overseas venture creation with teamwork is higher than
that of American students regardless of their entrepreneurial education. However, no
signi?cant difference was found between the U.S. takers (A) and the U.S. non-takers
(B), and between Korean takers (C) and Korean non-takers (D). This result strongly
Table 8. Teamwork and overseas venture creation between groups.
A and B C and D B and D A and C
F Sig F Sig F Sig F Sig
3.60 .70 1.26 .112 5.74 .017 8.54 .00
??
?
p < .05.
??
p < .01.
???
p < .001.
Table 9. Mean score of intention of overseas venture creation with teamwork.
Groups Mean St. D. No of samples
U.S. Takers 3.38 .84 55
U.S. Non-takers 3.43 .66 90
Korean Takers 3.79 .60 98
Korean Non-takers 3.66 .55 112
U.S. Non-takers 3.43 .66 90
Korean Non-takers 3.66 .55 112
U.S. Takers 3.38 .84 55
Korean Takers 3.79 .60 98
Impact of Entrepreneurship Education 41
indicates that entrepreneurship education does not have any impact on “intention of
overseas venture creation with teamwork.”
Export has been very important for the growth of Korean economy. The Korean
government has encouraged export through ?nancial incentives and public education
since President Park’s administration in the early 1960s. Because of this unique context
of Korea, Koran students have very strong intention of overseas venture creation.
Conclusion
Previous studies maintain that entrepreneurs are cultivated during their lifetime, and
that social and cultural environment, personal experience, and education are very im-
portant to building entrepreneurship. This study analyzed the impact of entrepreneur-
ship education between American and Korean college students. The results of this
study imply that unique cultural context has differentiated American students from
their Korean counterparts in terms of “the intention of venture creation and con?dence
in it,” “knowledge and ability of venture creation,” “recognition of the importance of
entrepreneurship education” and “intention of overseas venture creation with team-
work.” Moreover, the impact of entrepreneurship education in each country is different
because of each country’s unique culture in regards to entrepreneurship.
The results of this study showthat Korean students, who have a lower level of “the in-
tention of venture creation and con?dence in it,” “knowledge and ability of venture cre-
ation,” and “recognition of the importance of entrepreneurship education” than their
American counterparts, can reach about the same levels after taking entrepreneurship-
related courses. Although the level of “knowledge and ability of venture creation” of
Korean students was still lower than that of American students even after taking the
course, it became much higher after entrepreneurial education. American students who
took the course did not show any signi?cant improvement in terms of “recognition of
the importance of entrepreneurship education,” but Korean students who took the
class showed a signi?cant improvement.
Korean students who have grown up in a unique environment where export has been
the catalyst for economic development showed a higher level of “the intention of over-
seas venture creation with teamwork” than American students. But entrepreneurship
education did not in?uence this variable in both the U.S. and Korea.
Based on the result of this study, we can conclude that the impact of entrepreneurship
education in Korea is much greater than that in the U.S. This result strongly suggests
that the impact of entrepreneurship education in countries where entrepreneurship-
oriented culture is poor or still in the embryonic stage of development will be greater
than that in countries with a strong entrepreneurship-oriented culture.
Appendix: Five preliminary constructs and 16 questions
Intention and Desire for Venture Creation
(1) I want to launch a new venture company of my own before graduation.
42 LEE, CHANG AND LIM
(2) I am more interested in establishing my own venture company than getting a job.
(3) I think that founding a new venture company is the only way to succeed in life.
(4) I would dedicate my life to establishing a newventure company even if my parents
were strongly against it.
(5) Even if I launch new ventures and fail many times, I will keep on trying until I
succeed.
Knowledge of Venture Creation
(6) I have some knowledge about entrepreneurship.
(7) I am very intelligent and capable of accomplishing whatever I set out to do.
Desire for Taking Entrepreneurship Education
(8) If a major in entrepreneurship were available, I would change my major to it.
(9) Entrepreneurship should be taught in high school.
(10) I think that a class entitled “Entrepreneurship” would be very helpful for those
interested in starting their own venture companies.
Con?dence in Venture Creation
(11) If I launch a new venture company, I can provide my own funds and human
resources
(12) I am con?dent that I can successfully launch a new venture company on my own.
(13) I am con?dent that I can select a business with good potential if I launch a new
venture company of my own.
Intention of Overseas Venture Creation with Teamwork
(14) Aventure company should be launched individually rather than in a partnership,
because many negative things can happen between partners.
(15) If I launch a new venture company, I will limit its area of operation to my own
country.
(16) If I launch a newventure company, I will expand its business to all over the world.
References
Brockaus, R.H. 1980a. The effect of job dissatisfaction on the decision to start a business. Journal of Small
Business Management, 18(1): 37–43.
Brockaus, R.H. 1980b. Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Journal, 23: 509–
520.
Carrier, C. 1996. Intrapreneurship in small business: An exploratory study. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 21(1): 5–20.
Chang, D. 2000. Impact of venture education on entrepreneurship: Focusing on comparison between
university students and junior college students. Journal of the Korean Of?ce Automation Society, 5(3):
171–182.
Impact of Entrepreneurship Education 43
Chang, D. & Hong, S. 2001. An empirical study on venture education effects between Korean female and
male university students. Journal of Korean Association of Business Administration, 14(1): 105–124.
Charney, A. &Libecap, G. 2000. Impact of entrepreneurship education, insight. AKauffman Research Series.
1–8.
Cho, B. 1998. Study of the effective entrepreneurship education method and its process. Business Education
Research, 2(1):27–47.
Clark, B.W., Davis, C. & Harnish, V. 1984. Do courses in entrepreneurship aid in new venture creation?
Journal of Small Business Management, 22(2): 26–31.
Drucker, P. F. 1985. Innovation and entrepreneurship. New York: Haper & Row.
Gartner, W.B. 1985. A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation.
Academy of Management Review, 10: 696–706.
Gartner, W.B. 1989. Who is an entrepreneur? is the wrong question. American Journal of Small Business,
12(4): 11–22.
Han, J. & Lee, M. 1998. A study on the status of entrepreneurship education in Korea and its direction.
Business Education Research, 2(2): 5–26.
Lee, S.M. & Peterson, S. 2000. Culture, entrepreneurial orientation, and global competitiveness. Journal of
World Business, 35: 401–416.
McKelvey, B. 1982. Organizational systematics—Taxonomy, evolution, classi?cation. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Morrison, A. 1999. Entrepreneurship: What triggers it? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior &
Research, 6(2): 59–71.
Park, C. 1993. A study on the status of entrepreneurship education in Korean college—Focusing on the
contents of instruction. Small- and Medium- Size Companies Research, 15(2): 79–114.
Schumpeter, J.A. 1934. The theory of economic development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Solomon, G..T., Duffy, S. &Tarabishy, A. 2002. The state of entrepreneurship education in the United States:
A nationwide survey and analysis. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education. 1: 1–22,
Solomon, G..T., Fernald, Jr. L. & Weaver, L. 1993. Trends in small business management and entrepreneur-
ship in the United States: An update. International Council for Small Business, Proceedings, 38th World
Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S.A., pp. 230–242.
Timmons, J.A. 1999. New venture creation: Entrepreneurship for 21st century (5th ed.). Homewood, Illinois:
Irwin- McGraw-Hill.
Watson, K., Hogarth-Scott, S. & Wilson, N. 1998. Small business start-ups: Success factors and support
implications. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 4: 217–238.
Zahra, S.A. 1999. The challenging rules of global competitiveness in the 21st century. Academy of Manage-
ment Executive, 13: 36–42.http://entrepreneurship.mit.eduhttp://www.kice.re.kr/english/eindex.htmhttp://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/business/topprogs.htmhttp://www3.babson.edu/ESHIP/academics
Chosun Daily Newspaper, November 29, 2000
JoongAng Daily Newspaper, March 2, 1999
MunHwa Daily Newspaper, March 13, 1999
doc_555129259.pdf