Description
This report presents the results of a survey, which explored Russian students perceptions of entrepreneurship as a career option and their views of the current status and development needs in the entrepreneurial education provided in their home universities.
N-83
Russian students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship development –project 2
Results of a survey in three St. Petersburg universities
Päivi Karhunen
Svetlana Ledyaeva
Anne Gustafsson-Pesonen
Elena Mochnikova
Dmitry Vasilenko
N-83
Mikkeli Business Campus
Päivi Karhunen – Svetlana Ledyaeva – Anne Gustafsson-Pesonen
Elena Mochnikova – Dmitry Vasilenko
Russian students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship
Results of a survey in three St. Petersburg universities
Entrepreneurship development –project 2
HELSINKI SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS
MIKKELI BUSINESS CAMPUS
PUBLICATIONS
N-83
© Päivi Karhunen, Svetlana Ledyaeva, Anne Gustafsson-Pesonen,
Elena Mochnikova, Dmitry Vasilenko ja
Helsingin kauppakorkeakoulu, Pienyrityskeskus
ISSN 1458-5383
ISBN 978-952-488-180-4
Helsinki School of Economics -
HSE Print 2008
HELSINGIN KAUPPAKORKEAKOULU
HELSINKI SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS
PIENYRITYSKESKUS
LÖNNROTINKATU 7
50100 MIKKELI
FINLAND
2
Foreword
Entrepreneurship and small business creation are cornerstones of economic development in
Northwest Russia. In particular, the high quality of education in innovative fields, such as
information technology, provides a great potential for the establishment of new, knowledge-
based entrepreneurship and small businesses in St. Petersburg. However, this potential is not
exploited to its full extent. University graduates do not often see entrepreneurship as an
attractive career option. This is in part due to insufficient emphasis on entrepreneurial skills in
university curricula.
The above-illustrated problem has been identified also in Finland, where the interest of
university graduates in entrepreneurship has traditionally been low. In the recent years,
however, the situation has started to change. Tailored support measures, such as training
programs in entrepreneurship targeted to university students and graduates, have contributed to
this change. Such programs have proved successful as means to promote knowledge-based
entrepreneurship and to improve the survival of new start-ups. Hence, the Finnish experience
might be valuable for Russia as well. However, training concepts can seldom be successfully
transferred as such to different institutional context but have to be adapted to the local
environment. When identifying the aspects calling for adaptation, the identification of the needs
of the target group (i.e. university students) is essential.
This publication reports the results of a survey on Russian students’ perceptions on
entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial education, conducted with the grant 0610012 of the
Southeast Finland –Russia Neighbourhood Programme / TACIS funding. The project is
implemented jointly by Helsinki School of Economics (HSE) Small Business Center and the St.
Petersburg State University of Economics and Finance (FinEc). The survey results will be
applied in the development of concrete education and training measures promoting knowledge-
intensive entrepreneurship in Northwest Russia and cross-border cooperation between
entrepreneurs in Southeast Finland and Northwest Russia.
The survey was implemented jointly by the two partners and the HSE research unit Center for
Markets in Transition (CEMAT). Anne Gustafsson-Pesonen and Elena Mochnikova at HSE
Small Business Center were responsible for the administration of the project. Päivi Karhunen
from CEMAT acted as a scientific supervisor for the study. The survey instrument was prepared
jointly by the partners with the contribution of Dmitry Vasilenko (FinEc), Elmira Sharafutdinova
(HSE) and Rami-Samuli Räsänen (HSE). Dmitry Vasilenko was responsible for the collection of
the survey data. Svetlana Ledyaeva (HSE) carried out the statistical analysis of the survey data
and reported its results.
We thank the members of the research team for their good work.
Mikkeli 21.8.2008
Director Pentti Mustalampi, HSE Small Business Center
Director Riitta Kosonen, HSE Center for Markets in Transition
Rector Igor A. Maximtsev, St. Petersburg State University of Economics and Finance
3
Table of Contents
1 Introduction........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background for the study............................................................................................... 1
1.2 Objectives of the survey, data and methodology........................................................... 3
2 Background characteristics of respondents and their relationship to entrepreneurship .... 5
3 Entrepreneurial motivation of respondents...................................................................... 11
3.1 General attractiveness of entrepreneurship................................................................. 11
3.2 Motivational factors for entrepreneurship .................................................................... 14
4 Barriers for entrepreneurship........................................................................................... 17
4.1 Endogenous barriers for entrepreneurship.................................................................. 17
4.2 Exogenous barriers for entrepreneurship .................................................................... 19
5 Attitudes towards entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship .................................................. 23
6 Assessment of entrepreneurial education in universities ................................................ 25
6.1 Interest in entrepreneurial training............................................................................... 27
6.2 Preferred components of entrepreneurial training ....................................................... 30
7 Comparison of Russian and Finnish students................................................................. 32
8 Summary and conclusions .............................................................................................. 40
References.................................................................................................................................. 47
Annex 1: The Questionnaire........................................................................................................ 48
Annex 2: Factor analysis on attitudes towards entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship ................. 54
Annex 3: Finnish summary.......................................................................................................... 56
Annex 4: Russian summary ........................................................................................................ 61
List of Tables
Table 1 General characteristics of the respondents, total number and %................................ 5
Table 2 Respondents with entrepreneurs among family or friends, % of total sample............. 6
Table 3 Career plans of respondents, % of respondents agreeing with the statement ............ 7
Table 4 Sectoral distribution of male and female respondents’ potential enterprises, %....... 10
Table 5 Motivational factors for entrepreneurship, mean values............................................ 14
Table 6 Additional motivational factors given by respondents................................................ 15
Table 7 Endogenous barriers for entrepreneurship................................................................ 18
Table 8 Exogenous barriers for entrepreneurship .................................................................. 20
Table 9 Additional barriers mentioned by respondents .......................................................... 21
Table 10 Attitudes towards entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship, % of respondents............... 23
Table 11 Students’ views of entrepreneurial education in their universities ............................. 26
Table 12 Reasons for not having interest in entrepreneurial training ....................................... 29
Table 13 Results of assessment of the components of the program........................................ 30
Table 14 Suggested additional components of entrepreneurial training program.................... 31
Table 15 Russian and Finnish students’ attitudes towards entrepreneurship .......................... 39
Table 16 Results of factor analysis........................................................................................... 54
Table 17 Results of summations of variables within factors..................................................... 55
4
List of Figures
Figure 1 Sectors of respondents’ potential future enterprises, number of respondents............ 9
Figure 2 Attractiveness of entrepreneurship, % of total sample.............................................. 12
Figure 3 Attractiveness of entrepreneurship by category of respondents, %* ........................ 13
Figure 4 Interest in participating in entrepreneurial training .................................................... 27
Figure 5 Willingness to pay for the participation in entrepreneurship training......................... 28
Figure 6 Attractiveness of entrepreneurship for Russian versus Finnish students ................. 33
Figure 7 Gender differences in interest to entrepreneurship, Finnish and Russian students.. 34
Figure 8 Factors motivating Russian and Finnish students to become an entrepreneur ........ 35
Figure 9 Factors decreasing Finnish and Russian students` interest in entrepreneurship ..... 37
1
1 Introduction
This report presents the results of a survey, which explored Russian students’
perceptions of entrepreneurship as a career option and their views of the current status
and development needs in the entrepreneurial education provided in their home
universities. In addition, it mirrors the results of the survey against earlier research
results on Finnish students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship.
1.1 Background for the study
Entrepreneurship and small business creation are cornerstones of economic
development in Northwest Russia. In particular, the high quality of education in
innovative fields, such as information technology, provides a great potential for the
establishment of new, knowledge-based entrepreneurship and small businesses in St.
Petersburg. However, this potential is not exploited to its full extent. Entrepreneurial
activity in Russia is in general relatively low in international comparison (Verkhovskaya
et al., 2007; Chepurenko, 2008). Furthermore, although Russian entrepreneurs have in
general higher education level than their counterparts in for example Finland (Karhunen
et al., 2008a), majority of Russian entrepreneurs start their businesses in traditional
sectors of the economy such as consumer services and construction (Verkhovskaya et
al., 2007). Correspondingly, the share of innovative and knowledge-intensive enterprises
is low (ibid). This raises the question, how people with higher education could be
attracted to exploit their intellectual capital in full by transforming their knowledge into a
business idea. Here, the development of entrepreneurial skills and capabilities of
university students as potential entrepreneurs of the future is in key role. Owing to the
short history of entrepreneurship and private business in Russia, entrepreneurial
education in Russian universities is, however, still at its development stage (Karhunen et
al., 2008a). Hence, the promotion of entrepreneurial education in Russian universities is
a task of key importance.
2
The question of how to encourage young people to start knowledge-intensive
enterprises intrigues not only Russia. It has puzzled policy-makers and academicians
also in Finland, where the general framework for entrepreneurship is well-developed.
However, the interest of university graduates in entrepreneurship has traditionally been
low (Tonttila, 2001). In the recent years, however, the situation has started to change.
This is on the one hand due to the rise in information technology sector, which provides
business opportunities for small innovative enterprises. On the other hand, tailored
support measures such as training programs in entrepreneurship have been developed
for university students and graduates. Here, Helsinki School of Economics (HSE) has
been doing a pioneer work with its Academic Entrepreneur Program, which has been
implemented for several years. The program has proved successful as means to
promote knowledge-based entrepreneurship and improve the survival of new start-ups.
Therefore, the Finnish experience is worth of studying when planning entrepreneurial
education in Russia as well. However, one should keep in mind that training concepts
can seldom be successfully transferred as such to different institutional context, but
must be adapted to the local environment. This is due to cross-national differences in
business environment, academic tradition and students’ attitudes and knowledge.
Consequently, measures targeted towards development of entrepreneurial education in
Russia should be based on thorough analysis of all these aspects.
This report results from the project “Entrepreneurship Development (EntDev)”,
implemented with the grant 0610012 of the Southeast Finland –Russia Neighbourhood
Programme / TACIS funding. The project aims at developing entrepreneurial education
in Russia by using the Finnish experience as a benchmark. More specifically, the goal of
the project is to adapt the Academic Entrepreneurial Program of HSE to the Russian
context. This is done jointly by the project partners HSE Small Business Center and St.
Petersburg State University of Economics and Finance (FinEc). The latter will integrate
the program to its academic curriculum. The launch of the program is preceded by a
thorough analysis of needs for adaptation of the training program. In 2007 a feasibility
study focusing on differences in the business environment and entrepreneurial
education between Finland and Russia was conducted (for the results see Karhunen et
3
al., 2008a). It was followed by a survey of Russian students’ perceptions of
entrepreneurship and views of the current state of entrepreneurial education in their
home universities, which was undertaken in spring 2008. The current publication reports
the key findings of the survey.
1.2 Objectives of the survey, data and methodology
The purpose of the survey was to examine Russian students’ attitudes towards
entrepreneurship, as well as their views of entrepreneurship as career option and
interest in entrepreneurial training. The survey was conducted among students of three
universities located in the Russian city of St. Petersburg, one of which represented
economics and business (The St. Petersburg State University of Economics and
Finance FinEc) and two technical and engineering disciplines (St. Petersburg
Electrotechnical University LETI and St. Petersburg State University of Information
Technologies, Mechanics and Optics ITMO).
The survey was implemented in April-May, 2008 as a web-based survey in Russian
language. The survey software used was Finnish Webropol. The survey sampling was
administered by the Russian partner of the project FinEc, which gathered the responses
from students. Due to the applied purpose of the survey it was preliminary agreed to
have not a random sample among a larger population, but to use nonprobability
sampling instead. The sampling method was nonproportional quota sampling (Trochim,
2006), where 200 responses were defined as the total sample, consisting of a minimum
number of sampled units in the two main categories of the sample: 100 students from
FinEc and 50 students from each technical university (LETI and ITMO). Moreover, the
criterion that the year of studies must be no less than 3rd was set. The final number of
registered respondents was 204. We, however, included also incomplete questionnaires
in the analysis. Therefore, the total number of respondents per question may be lower
than 204.
The survey questionnaire (Annex 1) was adapted from an existing survey instrument,
which had been used in a number of studies conducted at the HSE Small Business
4
Center among Finnish students (see e.g. Piipponen, 2006). This was done in view of
Finnish-Russian comparison of the results. The questionnaire consisted of four blocks of
questions, majority of which were multiple choice questions. The first block of questions
covered background variables such as age, gender, year of studies and major discipline,
as well as questions addressing whether there are entrepreneurs among the
respondent’s family or friends. Moreover, the respondents were asked about their career
plans to figure out how they perceive entrepreneurship as a career option. The second
block consisted of statements measuring the respondents’ perceptions about
motivational factors and obstacles associated with entrepreneurship. These covered
both personal traits and factors of the competitive and institutional environments for
entrepreneurship. The third block focused on general views about entrepreneurs and the
role of small businesses in the society and economy. Finally, for the purposes of the
project it was asked about the students’ interest to participate in entrepreneurial
education in their university and their views how entrepreneurship is promoted in their
studies.
Our analysis of the data combines descriptive, analytical and statistical methods. First,
we used cross-tabulations and their qualitative analysis. We also computed relevant
statistics to determine the statistical significance of relationships found in cross-
tabulations, i.e. performed several chi-square tests. Second, we utilized analysis of
variance (ANOVA) to compare the means of different subsamples. The software used in
the analysis includes Excel, SAS enterprise guide and Stata. Due to the applied nature
of this report we, however, focus on the key findings without describing the results of our
statistical analysis in detail. Descriptive statistics are available from the authors of this
report by request.
The analysis of the survey results is structured around the thematic blocks of the
questionnaire. Chapter 2 presents the background characteristics of respondents and
their relationship to entrepreneurship. Chapter 3 illustrates the entrepreneurial
motivations of the respondents and Chapter 4 obstacles for entrepreneurship. In
Chapter 5 the focus is on the respondents’ general attitudes on entrepreneurs and
5
entrepreneurship, whereas Chapter 6 is devoted to their views of entrepreneurial
education in their home university and interest in entrepreneurial training. Chapter 7
gives a comparison of the survey results with previous research on Finnish students’
perceptions of entrepreneurship. Chapter 8 concludes the analysis and gives
recommendations for training measures.
2 Background characteristics of respondents and their relationship
to entrepreneurship
We start our description of the survey results by giving an overview of the general
characteristics of the respondents, as summarized in Table 1.
Table 1 General characteristics of the respondents, total number and %
Gender N % Year of
studies
N % Major
discipline
N %
Male 95 47.5 3 or lower 24 12.7 Economic 115 63.2
Female 105 52.8 4 110 58.5 Technical 67 36.8
5 54 28.7
Total 200 100 Total 188 100 Total 182 100
As shown in the table, the sample was relatively evenly divided among male and female
respondents. Moreover, almost 90% of respondents were near of completing their
studies, i.e. on 4th or 5th course. Hence, the question of career plans is more concrete
for them than students in the lower courses. Moreover, the median age of respondents
is 21 years (not shown in the table), illustrating the relatively young age of Russian
university graduates in comparison to many European countries. This is explained by
the structure of the Russian education system, where one can apply to university after
completing the 11-year primary and secondary education, being usually 17 years old.
Consequently, a general graduation age is 22 years - the same as the average age for
first year students in some Finnish universities.
6
When analyzing by major discipline
1
(spetsial’nost’), students representing economic
disciplines somewhat dominated in the sample. This is explained by the fact that
economic disciplines are taught also in technical universities. The most popular major
subject (spetsializatsiya) was management of organization, which was mentioned by 51
respondents. It was followed by management (24 respondents). Among technical
subjects, most often were mentioned applied informatics and mathematics, and
information-measuring technologies (11 respondents each). Furthermore, 53
respondents mentioned that they have or are studying for another (a second one)
university or college degree. The second education was usually technical (programming,
information technologies) or juridical for students in economic or related fields, and
economic (management, accounting, business administration) for the students of
technical specialties. Finally, more than half of the respondents in the sample
announced that they have working experience in their major subject. In average, the
students had 10 months of such experience.
Respondents’ relationship to entrepreneurship
In addition to basic background variables such as age and major discipline, we posed
the respondents a number of questions addressing their relationship to
entrepreneurship. First we asked, whether there are entrepreneurs among the
respondent’s family or friends. Table 2 summarizes the results in this respect.
Table 2 Respondents with entrepreneurs among family or friends, %*
N %
My father is an entrepreneur 58 30%
My mother is an entrepreneur 29 15%
My sister or brother is an entrepreneur 14 7%
My spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend is an entrepreneur 18 9%
I have entrepreneurs among my close friends 128 65%
*of respondents answering this question
1
In FinEc students select their major discipline (spetsial’nost’) in the third study year, and the major subject
(spetsializatsiya) after the forth study year.
7
The table reveals two interesting aspects. First, entrepreneurship seems to be more
common among men than among women among the generation of the students’
parents. It was twice as common to have father as an entrepreneur than mother.
Second, two thirds of respondents announced that some of their friends are or have
been entrepreneurs. Assuming that the friends of the students are approximately the
same age with them, this is an encouraging result in view of entrepreneurial activity
among the Russian youth. The low entrepreneurial activity among sisters/brothers and
spouses/boyfriends/girlfriends was partly explained by the fact that a third of
respondents reported being the only child in the family, and ca. half of respondents was
single.
The following question addressed the future career plans of the respondents in general,
where being an entrepreneur was presented as one of the alternatives (Table 3).
Table 3 Career plans of respondents, % of respondents agreeing with the
statement
Statement %
I will be employed by a private firm 60.6
I will be employed by the public sector 18.7
I will have my own business in the future 82.7
I already have my own business and I will continue to work in it 5.7
I will continue my studies for a post-graduate degree 49.5
The table illustrates that the respondents consider own business as the most attractive
career option in the future. 11 respondents announced that they already have their own
business and will continue to work in it after graduation. All except one of them were
students of economic specialties. The fields in which the students’ companies operate
include advertising and marketing, trade, construction, information technologies,
mechanical engineering, services and Internet - technologies. Furthermore, private
sector is viewed as a more likely employer than the public sector. One natural
explanation for this is the disciplinary orientation of the students in the sample,
dominated by economic and business subjects. When cross-tabulating the data across
8
gender we also found some differences. The female respondents were not as eager to
establishing one’s own enterprise as male students. Moreover, ten male respondents
announced that they are already having their own business, whereas there was only one
such respondent in the female sample. Interestingly, the public sector as an employer
was considered as more attractive by male than female respondents. Finally, the
likelihood of continuing studies for a post-graduate degree was considerably higher
among male than female students. A natural explanation for this result is the Russian
system, where males pursuing post-graduate studies are exempted from military
service.
Moreover, we asked the respondents to describe, which field their potential enterprise
would operate in. Figure 1 presents the branches in which respondents would like to
have own company. Branches, in which two or less respondents would like to have a
company, are not presented in the figure.
9
Figure 1 Sectors of respondents’ potential future enterprises, number of
respondents
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
T
r
a
d
e
A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
i
n
g
A
u
d
i
t
,
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
R
e
a
l
e
s
t
a
t
e
M
a
c
h
i
n
e
-
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Altogether 157 respondents named a branch in which they would prefer to have own
company. The most frequently mentioned field was information technology, which was
mentioned by 40 respondents. Interestingly, only 7 of them are students of non-technical
specialties and on the other hand, 50% of students of technical specialties would like to
have a company in information technologies. The preferences of industry of students of
economic and related specialties were more diverse.
In addition to economic and technical specialization, we qualitatively analyzed the data
against gender. Here, we wanted to find out whether the traditional division of Russian
businesses into male and female sectors (see e.g. Izyumov and Razumnova, 2000)
reflects in the students’ responses. Table 4 shows the results of our analysis.
10
Table 4 Sectoral distribution of male and female respondents’ potential
enterprises, %
Sector Male* Female**
Consumer services
1.5 26.5
Business to business services, incl. real estate
7.6 29.4
Trade
4.5 7.4
Manufacturing of goods
15.2 11.8
Construction
13.6 8.8
Information technology, communication and transportation
54.5 13.2
Other
3.0 2.9
Total 100.0
100.0
*Total number of respondents with valid answers for this question 71
**Total number of respondents with valid answers for this question 68
The distribution of sectors, in which the respondents view their possible enterprise
operating in the future, illustrates clear differences between male and female
respondents. First, more than half (55.9%) of female respondents named a business,
which can be classified into the category of services. For male respondents services
were viewed as a potential field of future business for less than 10% of respondents.
However, the most popular field for them was information technology (IT), which
comprises both services and equipment manufacturing. In addition to gender, a likely
explanation for these results is the major discipline of the respondents, which for
majority of the male respondents was IT.
Second, a more detailed analysis of the concrete businesses that the respondents
mentioned confirms the male-female division. Female respondents frequently mentioned
businesses that can be viewed as “fancy” (Salmenniemi et al., n.d.). These include
public relations (PR), marketing, and advertising. In addition, traditional consumer
service fields such as hotel and restaurant business were mentioned. Interestingly, a
“female dimension” was identifiable also in those responses, which considered trade or
production. Here, businesses such as fashion retail and clothing manufacturing were
mentioned by the female respondents.
11
The hypothetical business ideas of male respondents were clearly linked to their own
area of expertise, which for the majority of respondents was technological. As
mentioned above, IT was the most frequently mentioned business field. In addition, the
male respondents used terms such as automation and diagnostics to illustrate the field
of their potential future businesses. The different nature of female and male businesses
was further confirmed by the answers to the question, whether the students are planning
to establish a company in a knowledge-intensive field. Approximately a third (36.4%) of
male respondents gave a positive answer to this question, whereas the respective share
for female respondents was 15.5%.
3 Entrepreneurial motivation of respondents
After presenting the general characteristics of the respondents we now move on to
analyze their entrepreneurial motivation in more detail. We illustrate how attractive the
respondents view entrepreneurship in general, and what are the factors that are
perceived as most important motivators for starting one’s own business.
3.1 General attractiveness of entrepreneurship
First, the respondents were asked to assess their general attitude to entrepreneurship
using five-point scale ranging from not at all attractive (1) to very attractive (5) (Figure 2).
12
Figure 2 Attractiveness of entrepreneurship, % of total sample
31,6 % 51 % 7,7 %
7,7 %
2 %
0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %
1
Attractiveness of entrepreneurship
Very attractive Rather attractive Don`t know Not very attractive Not attractive at all
The results of this question confirm the strong entrepreneurial orientation of the
respondents illustrated in the previous chapter. As shown in the figure, over 80% of
respondents find entrepreneurship as rather or very attractive career perspective. To
shed more light on this issue we analyzed the data against the key background
variables: gender, specialization (economic or technical) and presence of entrepreneurs
in the family. Figure 3 summarizes the results of the analysis.
13
Figure 3 Attractiveness of entrepreneurship by category of respondents, %*
40
60
53
48 47
53
41
20
37
25
45
23
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
M
a
l
e
F
e
m
a
l
e
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
i
n
f
a
m
i
l
y
N
o
e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
i
n
f
a
m
i
l
y
%
Very attractive
Rather attractive
* of total respondents answering the particular question per category
First, when comparing male and female students we found that both of them had a very
positive view of entrepreneurial activity in general. Approximately 80% of both groups
viewed entrepreneurial activity as rather or very attractive. The share of male students
perceiving entrepreneurial activity as very attractive was, however, considerably higher
(40%) than for their female counterparts most of whom selected the option “rather
attractive” instead. Second, we found that the attractiveness of entrepreneurship was
higher for students from economic disciplines, 90% of whom viewed it as rather or very
attractive. For students with technical background the corresponding figure was 73%.
This difference was also statistically significant. Finally, we explored whether the
presence of entrepreneurs in the respondent’s family has an impact on attractiveness of
entrepreneurship. Here we also found a clear difference, which was also statistically
significant. 92% of students with at least one entrepreneur in the family found
entrepreneurship as rather or very attractive, whereas 76% of students with no
entrepreneurs in the family shared this opinion.
14
3.2 Motivational factors for entrepreneurship
After discussing the general attractiveness of entrepreneurship among the respondents
we next analyze more in detail the motivational factors, which increase the respondents’
desire to become an entrepreneur. The respondents were asked to assess factors,
which might increase their desire to become an entrepreneur according to a five-point
scale from not at all (1) to very much (5). Table 5 summarizes the results for the total
sample.
Table 5 Motivational factors for entrepreneurship, mean values
Statement Average rank
Result-based income 4.3
Achieving an appropriate goal in life in accordance with one’s own abilities 4.3
Opportunity to meet interesting people 4.2
Interesting and varying tasks and duties 4.1
Liberty in determining one’s tasks and duties 4.0
Opportunity to get rich 3.8
Liberty of being one’s own boss 3.7
General appreciation of entrepreneurship 3.7
Liberty of choosing one’s working hours 3.5
Entrepreneurship suits my character 3.5
My skills and abilities point to entrepreneurship 3.5
Opportunity to work as a superior 3.2
Entrepreneurship unifies the entire family 2.6
As shown in the table the key motivational factors relate to the opportunity to affect on
one’s “destiny” in terms on financial income and exploitation of one’s potential and
abilities. However, the opportunity to get rich as such was ranked not as high. In
contrast, the respondents emphasized more entrepreneurship as an interesting way of
life, both as regards to social interaction and the content of tasks and duties.
15
In addition to the closed statements we gave the students the opportunity to name other
motivational factors they consider as important. These were given by 55 respondents.
Consistent with existing literature on entrepreneurial motivations (see, e.g. Moy et al.,
2003), the answers can be broadly classified into intrinsic rewards, financial factors and
social factors. Here, the first category was clearly dominant, whereas the two latter were
represented only by a couple of answers (Table 6).
Table 6 Additional motivational factors given by respondents
Category N
Intrinsic rewards 46
Financial factors 3
Social factors 6
Total 55
The respondents’ comments regarding intrinsic rewards were mainly characterized by
the opportunity for personal growth on the one hand, and by independency and
decision-making freedom on the other. As it was formulated by one of the respondents:
“[Entrepreneurship gives] the opportunity for self-realization, independency from
superiors, income pending on just your own skills and persistence.” The most frequently
mentioned individual motivational factor by the respondents was “self-realization”
(samorealizatsiya). Entrepreneurship was viewed as providing the opportunity to realize
one’s innovative ideas and life goals, as well as one’s creativity. One of the respondents
summarized this view as “Being an entrepreneur, you can realize your competencies,
orientation and creative potential in full”. Moreover, some respondents emphasized the
financial aspects of entrepreneurship alongside with intrinsic rewards. The comment
“Entrepreneurship gives me the possibility to do those things that I like and which I
consider as most profitable in financial terms” illustrates this.
Moreover, there were six students, who mentioned social aspects as motivational
factors for entrepreneurship. Two of them emphasized one’s social position, whereas
the remaining four addressed the role of entrepreneurs in contributing to social welfare
16
on the one hand “[Entrepreneurship allows me to] bring something new, contribute to the
sector that the people need”, and to economic development on the other hand
“Entrepreneurship promotes economic development and formation of new ideas in the
business sector, being a driving force of progress”.
In addition to analyzing the total sample, we analyzed it against the key background
variables (gender, discipline and presence of entrepreneurs in the family). Regarding
gender, we did not reveal major differences in entrepreneurial motivations. The biggest
difference was in assessing the factor “Opportunity to meet interesting people”. This
factor had greater importance for female students than male students. The similarity of
male and female respondents was somewhat surprising for us in view of existing
research on Finnish students. This question will be discussed more in detail in Chapter
7. Moreover, when comparing the respondents against their educational background, we
conclude that most factors have greater positive importance for students of economic
specialties than for students of technical specialties. However, the difference of mean
values of these factors is statistically significant only for two factors, namely,
“Entrepreneurship suits my character” and “My skills and capabilities point to
entrepreneurship”. A likely explanation is that the curricula in economic education
emphasize more entrepreneurial skills than curricula in technical education. In addition,
the “entrepreneurially-oriented” youth can be expected to select economic and business
education rather than technical.
Finally, we examined the presence of entrepreneurs in the family as a potential
background factor affecting entrepreneurial motivation. We found that all the factors
have greater positive importance for those students who have at least one entrepreneur
among their close relatives than for those who do not have any. The five factors for
which this difference was statistically significant were the liberty of being one’s own
boss, entrepreneurship suits my character, my skills and capabilities point to
entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship unifies the entire family, the liberty in determining
ones’ tasks and duties, and the opportunity to get rich. This indicates on the one hand
that respondents with no “role models” in the family may not have a clear view of the
reality of entrepreneur’s life. Therefore, they may for example grade their entrepreneurial
17
skills lower than those respondents with entrepreneurs in the family. On the other hand,
the existence of entrepreneur(s) in the family may be seen as a social safety net for the
respondent when (s)he thinks of becoming entrepreneur him or herself. This is indicated
by the relative importance of the statement “entrepreneurship unifies the entire family”
for those respondents who actually have experience from entrepreneurship in the family.
4 Barriers for entrepreneurship
The previous chapter described the factors, which motivate Russian students to view
entrepreneurship as an attractive career option. This chapter focuses on the factors,
which the respondents view as decreasing their desire to become an entrepreneur.
These include both endogenous and exogenous factors. The former include personal
characteristics and skills, whereas the latter comprise factors related to the operating
environment of entrepreneurs. (Moy et al., 2003) In addition, endogenous factors are
such that the person can control and influence, whereas exogenous factors are more or
less taken as given (ibid).
4.1 Endogenous barriers for entrepreneurship
The students were first given a number of statements that are generally viewed as
endogenous obstacles for entrepreneurship and asked to which degree they perceive
them as preventing their decision to become an entrepreneur. The 5-point scale used
ranged from not at all (1) to very much (5). Results of the assessment are presented in
Table 7.
18
Table 7 Endogenous barriers for entrepreneurship
Factor Average rank
Fear of debt 3.3
Entrepreneurship is excessively binding and time-consuming 3.2
Fear of losing one’s property 3.2
Insecure income 3.1
My current life situation 3.1
Lack of personal skills and competence 3.0
Entrepreneurs are excessively at the mercy of their investors 2.9
Society provides no safety net for entrepreneurs 2.9
Fear of tough competition 2.8
Loss of free time 2.8
My personal competence is difficult to commercialize 2.7
Lack of business idea 2.7
Adverse effect on social relations 2.4
Unwillingness or incompetence to market one’s personal skills and competence 2.4
Entrepreneurship does not suit my character 2.4
Excessively irregular working hours 2.2
General lack of appreciation of entrepreneurship 1.9
As shown in the table, the respondents viewed financial risks as the biggest
endogenous obstacles for entrepreneurship, fearing of getting indebted and even losing
one’s property. In addition, entrepreneurship was viewed as binding and time-
consuming at the same time as it would provide insecure income. Moreover,
respondents viewed that entrepreneurship does not suit very well their current life
situation as students. In contrast, personal characteristics and skills were viewed by the
respondents as not particularly big obstacles for entrepreneurship.
Moreover, we analyzed again the results across subsamples (gender, educational
background and presence of entrepreneurs in the family). Regarding gender, we found a
number of differences in addition that female respondents tend to assess the obstacles
19
for entrepreneurship in general as higher than the male ones. First, the results present
female students as more risk-averse. The financial risks associated with
entrepreneurship were rated by female respondents as more severe obstacles as by
male ones. In addition, female students were considerably more concerned by
competition and evaluated their entrepreneurial skills and know-how as weaker than
their male counterparts. As it comes to the impact of educational background on
perceived obstacles for entrepreneurship, the pattern was very similar for students of
economic and technical backgrounds. The only factor, for which the difference of mean
values was statistically significant is “Entrepreneurship does not suit my character”,
which was perceived as a greater obstacle by students with technical specialization. In
addition, students from technical background viewed more often that their personal
competence is difficult to commercialize, indicating a lack of perception of opportunities
for knowledge-intensive business. Finally, we examined the role of entrepreneurs in the
family in perceived obstacles for entrepreneurship. In average students with no
entrepreneur in the family assigned greater negative importance to all statements than
those students, who have at least one entrepreneur in the family. This difference was
statistically significant as regards whether entrepreneurship suits the respondents’
current life situation or personal character. In addition, respondents with no
entrepreneurs in the family viewed more often that their professional skills are hard to
commercialize and that entrepreneurs are excessively at the mercy of their investors.
4.2 Exogenous barriers for entrepreneurship
The respondents were next asked to assess factors of the local business environment
(i.e. exogenous factors), which might decrease their desire to become an entrepreneur,
using the same five-point scale as in the previous two questions. Results of assessment
are presented in Table 8.
20
Table 8 Exogenous barriers for entrepreneurship
Factors Average rank
Lack of own financial resources 4.0
Corruption 3.6
Bureaucracy (e.g. difficulties to obtain licenses and certificates) 3.6
Frequently changing or unclear legislation 3.5
Difficulties in getting external financing 3.5
Crime 3.3
Russian taxation 3.3
Tough competition 3.0
Difficulties in finding customers 3.0
Procedure of registration of the company 2.9
Difficulties in hiring labor 2.9
Local infrastructure (e.g. availability of business premises) 2.9
Overall, the figure illustrates that the students’ views are well in line with Russian
entrepreneurs’ opinions about obstacles for entrepreneurship and small business
development in Russia (see for example Heininen et al., 2008; Karhunen et al., 2008a;
2008b). The obstacles assessed as most serious include institutional factors such as
access to financing, corruption, bureaucracy, and complex and frequently changing
legislation. In contrast, factors related to the task environment (relationship to other
members of the production system), were perceived as less challenging.
When comparing different types of respondents in this regard, in general female
respondents perceived the features of business environment as more serious obstacles
than their male counterparts. Moreover, the financial issues were emphasized also here.
The difference between males and females was the biggest when considering
statements related to availability of own or external financing. Also, the difference was
notable in the views concerning tough competition, which female students viewed as a
more serious obstacle. Similarly, we found that students with technical specialization
tended to value obstacles for entrepreneurship slightly more serious than those with
21
economic background. Interestingly, the biggest differences considered factors of task
environment, most notably recruiting labor, whereas features of institutional environment
were ranked relatively similarly by both groups of students. Finally, the results
considering the role of having entrepreneurs in one’s own family confirmed that it
reflects in more positive views of entrepreneurship. Those students who have at least
one entrepreneur in the family assigned less negative importance to all presented
statements, except the factor “Russian taxation” for which the mean values of the
groups were almost equal. The difference was at largest for statements regarding the
lack of own financial resources, corruption and crime. This result can be interpreted in
two ways. On the one hand, the respondents may view that the other entrepreneur in
the family with his or her established networks may assist them in getting financing and
protects them from corruption and crime. On the other hand, those respondents with no
personal experience of entrepreneurship may view the risk of corruption and crime
higher than it is faced by entrepreneurs in the reality.
In addition to the pre-defined statements considering obstacles for entrepreneurship, we
gave the students the opportunity to select the option “other” and to define it more in
detail. 71 respondents commented this question, 45 of them being female and 26 male.
We analyzed the results qualitatively by classifying the answers into 8 categories. Some
of them overlap with the given statements, whereas others bring some additional
aspects. Table 9 summarizes the results in this respect.
Table 9 Additional barriers mentioned by respondents
Category N
Financial issues, risk 29
Stress, fear of responsibility, time-consuming 11
Bureaucracy and corruption, state policy 6
Personal characteristics, lack of experience, own principles 14
Competition, lack of business idea, market situation 8
Negative attitudes towards entrepreneurs 3
Total 71
22
As shown in the table, the financial issues dominated the answers also as regards the
open answers. The respondents emphasized equally the lack of own financial resources
and low availability of external funding. The female respondents mentioned more often
the financial risks associated with entrepreneurship, such as the risk of losing one’s
property, whereas male respondents viewed the issue from more practical viewpoint: “I
have neither capital nor time to find it”. Some respondents also mentioned psychological
factors associated with the life as an entrepreneur, such as mental stress. As a female
respondent put it: “Entrepreneurship is continuous worrying about your future, it gets on
your nerves”. In addition, some respondents viewed the big responsibility as a negative
factor: “You need to solve all problematic situations personally, there are a lot of
negative things”. Moreover, a couple of respondents emphasized the time-consuming
character of entrepreneurship. Finally, bureaucracy, corruption and the state policy
towards entrepreneurship and small businesses were mentioned in open answers as
well. A female respondent summarized the negative views regarding the public sector as
follows: “The state does not support small business at all, it is difficult to develop and to
get on your feet. Plus difficulties of getting [external] financing emerge, and to make
profit yourself in an honest way is IMPOSSIBLE in our country”.
In addition to exogenous factors, also endogenous factors were mentioned by the
respondents. Interestingly, the lack of experience and insufficient skills and knowledge
related to entrepreneurial activity were emphasized more by male than female
respondents. As one of the male respondents expressed it: “[I have] no working
experience, no entrepreneurial education. I don’t have a clear idea, what I should do to
start my own business and what are the consequences”. In addition, some respondents
underlined that entrepreneurship does not just suit their character. In contrast, female
respondents mentioned more often factors related to competition and situation on the
market. The lack of a business idea and unclear perception of business opportunities in
the field the respondent would be interested working in were mentioned: “I’m afraid of
harsh competition and I don’t have practical information on the field, which prevents me
to become an entrepreneur.” Finally, some respondents (all female) mentioned attitudes
in the society as an obstacle for entrepreneurship. However, none of them mentioned
23
the gender (i.e. being female) as the reason for discrimination. Rather, they perceived
that attitudes towards small businesses in general and to young entrepreneurs in
particular are not favorable: “Young entrepreneurs are not taken seriously”.
5 Attitudes towards entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship
The third thematic block of questions in our questionnaire focused on the respondents’
attitudes towards entrepreneurship. The students were asked at what degree they agree
or disagree with different statements which characterize general opinion on
entrepreneurship, social importance of entrepreneurship, state support of
entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial ethics and entrepreneurship’s role in creating work
places. The students assessed these statements using a five-point scale from disagree
completely (1) to agree completely (5). The results are summarized in Table 10.
Table 10 Attitudes towards entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship, % of
respondents
Statement
Wholly or
partly
disagree
Wholly or
partly
agree
Don’t
know
Entrepreneurs must be appreciated because they provide work for others 8.4 % 75.6 % 16.1%
Entrepreneurial activities provide society with more benefits than
disadvantages
9.4 % 68.6 % 22.0%
Entrepreneurship is the future form of employment 15.2 % 53.4 % 31.4%
Society must support young, beginning entrepreneurs 3.1 % 87.9 % 8.9%
Society provides excessive support for entrepreneurs 81.7 % 6.3 % 12.0%
Entrepreneurs can exploit the personal skills and competences more
effectively in their own businesses than in salaried employment
9.4 % 71.2 % 19.4%
Entrepreneurship requires more intellectual than financial capital 23.0 % 45.5 % 31.4%
Entrepreneurship is for people who have courage and ideas 6.3 % 87.0 % 6.8%
Entrepreneurs take excessive risks 10.5 % 64.8 % 24.7%
Entrepreneurs get rich on other people’s work 40.6 % 33.4 % 26.0%
People who cannot adapt to conventional jobs end up as entrepreneurs 59.6 % 19.4 % 20.9%
Entrepreneurs often stretch their consciences 25.5 % 38.6 % 35.9%
24
Entrepreneurs do not care about environmental issues to a sufficient extent 25.6 % 46.6 % 27.7%
Entrepreneurs are unscrupulous and pursue their own self-interest 38.2 % 29.3 % 32.5%
Small enterprises are good employers 20.9 % 41.9 % 37.2%
Small enterprises exploit their workers to the maximum 24.2 % 39.5 % 36.3%
Small enterprises create new jobs 7.9 % 75.2 % 16.8%
Small enterprises do not provide adequate opportunities for genuine
professionals
41.0 % 30.0 % 28.9%
As illustrated in the table, the statements can be broadly classified into two groups on
the basis of distribution of answers. First, there were a number of statements, about
which the respondents were relatively unanimous (i.e. majority of them either agreed or
disagreed). These concerned before all the role of entrepreneurs and small enterprises
in the society and economy, which was viewed as beneficial by the majority of the
respondents. Correspondingly, most respondents perceived that the society must
support entrepreneurship. In addition, majority of respondents considered that
entrepreneurship includes excessive risk, but at the same time provides opportunities to
exploit one’s own potential in full. Hence, a consensus was found in support to the
statement “entrepreneurship is for people who have courage and ideas”.
Second, there were statements, which respondents clearly had difficulties in
commenting. This is reflected by the distribution of answers across all categories,
including a relatively large share of them falling in the “I don’t know” category. Such
statements addressed first, entrepreneur’s ethics such as whether entrepreneurs pursue
their self-interest or often stretch their consciences. Second, respondents did not have a
clear opinion about small enterprises as employers, i.e. whether they are exploiting their
workers or providing opportunities for genuine professionals.
In addition to qualitative analysis described above, we utilized R factor analysis to trace
differences between the sub-samples of respondents (male/female, economic/technical
education, entrepreneurs in the family or not). We summed the statements into the
following five factors (for details of the analysis see Annex 2):
25
F1: Social importance of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs
F2: Entrepreneur’s moral
F3: Small business as employers
F4: Society support for entrepreneurs
F4: Riskiness of entrepreneurship
Regarding gender, we did not find any significant differences between male and female
students. In contrast, when comparing students with economic versus technical
background, we found that the former tend to attribute greater positive social importance
to entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs than the latter. The same concerns the
presence of entrepreneurs in the family: Those students who have at least one
entrepreneur in the family tend to attribute greater positive social importance to
entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs than those students who do not have any
entrepreneur in the family.
6 Assessment of entrepreneurial education in universities
The final block of our questionnaire concentrated on the students’ perceptions of the
status of entrepreneurial education in their home universities, and on their interest to
participate in an entrepreneurial training program. First, the respondents were asked to
assess several statements on how much their university education promotes
entrepreneurial skills, using a five-point scale from completely disagree (1) to completely
agree (5). Table 11 summarizes the results.
26
Table 11 Students’ views of entrepreneurial education in their universities
Statement Completely
or partly
disagree
Completely
or partly
agree
Don’t
know
At my university students appreciate entrepreneurship as a
career alternative
18.7% 54.1% 27.1%
At my faculty students appreciate entrepreneurship as a
career alternative
31.2% 40.6% 28.1%
My university has an atmosphere that inspires and
encourages entrepreneurship
38./% 40.3% 20.9%
My university studies highlight entrepreneurship to an
adequate degree as a career alternative
36.4% 41.1% 22.6%
My university studies have provided me with good tools for
entrepreneurship
37.4% 37.4% 25.3%
As seen in the table, the respondents have no clear view about the role of
entrepreneurship in their universities. This is reflected by the high share of “I don’t know”
answers. In addition, the answers of those respondents who took a stance were
distributed relatively evenly between agreement and disagreement. The first statement
in the table was an exception here, confirming the general positive attitude towards
entrepreneurship among students. In addition to personally viewing entrepreneurship as
an attractive career option as demonstrated earlier in this report, over half of the
respondents perceived that their fellow students share this view.
When mirroring the results against background variables we found that there was no
clear difference between male and female students. Moreover, students with economic
background agreed with the designated statements at much greater degree than
students of technical subjects, which is hardly surprising. In addition, the presence of at
least one entrepreneur in the family resulted in more positive assessment of all the
statements except the first one, where no clear difference was found.
In addition to assessing the role of entrepreneurship in their universities’ curricula the
students were asked about their personal interest to participate in entrepreneurial
training and about their preferences what components such training program should
include.
27
6.1 Interest in entrepreneurial training
When asked about the interest in participating in an entrepreneurial training program as
a part of their university education, the majority of the respondents (77.2 %) gave a
positive answer. Figure 4 summarizes the results of this question by sub-sample.
Figure 4 Interest in participating in entrepreneurial training
77
71
82
85
68
86
71
23
29
18
15
32
14
29
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
T
o
t
a
l
s
a
m
p
l
e
M
a
l
e
F
e
m
a
l
e
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
i
n
f
a
m
i
l
y
N
o
e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
i
n
f
a
m
i
l
y
%
No
Yes
As seen in the figure, female respondents were keener to participate in entrepreneurial
training than male ones. A likely explanation for this is that majority of female
respondents were students of economic disciplines, who as a group were more
interested in training than students of economic disciplines. Furthermore, the presence
of at least one entrepreneur in the family had an impact also regarding this statement.
Students having entrepreneur(s) in the family were clearly more interested in
entrepreneurial training than those who have not.
Moreover, those respondents that gave a positive answer to the previous question were
asked whether they would be ready to pay for the participation in such program.
28
Approximately 40% of the respondents gave a positive answer. Figure 5 summarizes
the results of this question by sub-sample.
Figure 5 Willingness to pay for the participation in entrepreneurship training
41 41 41
53
36
53
46
59 59 59
47
64
47
54
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
T
o
t
a
l
s
a
m
p
l
e
M
a
l
e
F
e
m
a
l
e
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
i
n
f
a
m
i
l
y
N
o
e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
i
n
f
a
m
i
l
y
%
No
Yes
As shown in the figure, there was no difference among male and female respondents in
this respect. In contrast, students of economic disciplines in general were not only more
interested in training but also more willing to pay for the participation. The same was
observed for students with entrepreneur(s) in the family, although the difference was not
as notable.
Furthermore, those respondents, who had answered that they are not interested in
participating in entrepreneurial training were asked to justify their position by an open
question. 71 respondents commented this question. The answers followed a clear
pattern allowing us to group them into four main categories (Table 12).
29
Table 12 Reasons for not having interest in entrepreneurial training
Category N
Financial reasons 36
Entrepreneurship is not actual for one’s current life situation 15
Lack of confidence that such training’s added value and benefits 15
Frustration with the state policy concerning small businesses 5
Total 71
As indicated in the table, financial factors were the key reason by which the respondents
justified their lack of interest in entrepreneurial training. Here, some respondents may
have interpreted the question as regarding their interest to pay for training rather than
the interest to participate in training. On the other hand, it is fairly common in Russian
universities that students pay for their education. Consequently, the respondents may
have implicitly assumed that such entrepreneurial training would be provided for fee as
well. The financial issues were addresses both in terms of absolute lack of funds “I don’t
have extra financial resources at the moment” and in relative terms “Depends on the
price of the training”.
In addition, 15 respondents justified their lack of interest by their current life situation.
Part of respondents stated that they are not at all interested in entrepreneurship,
whereas others said that they might in principle be interested but not at the moment.
The comment “Time for it [entrepreneurial training] will come a bit later. Now I prefer to
develop my professional skills.” well illustrates this. Moreover, there were 15
respondents who took a critical approach on the general benefits of entrepreneurial
training. Some respondents viewed that entrepreneurship is something that cannot be
taught in universities, whereas others were skeptical whether entrepreneurial training
would provide them personally with skills that they might use in practice. Financial
aspects were addressed also in this respect “I’m not sure that the received knowledge is
worth of the money invested”. The lengthy comment of one student well summarizes
the skepticism towards entrepreneurial training among respondents: “Such program
30
hardly can capture the narrow field where I’m working at the moment. I have practical
experience for the development of the business that I already have. If I have questions, I
consult experienced businessmen, not theoreticians, especially Finnish ones who have
little knowledge about doing business in Russia. Tempting programs with the possibility
for a traineeship abroad just blind you and get you waste your time, but make little
sense. I’m fed up with such programs.“ Finally, in addition to being skeptical towards
the benefits of entrepreneurial training, some respondents expressed their frustration
with the Russian business environment and state policy. “I don’t need training, I just
want the state to put the legislation in order and take a grip on the corruption in the
taxation and other authorities!” In other words, it was viewed that as long as basic
conditions for entrepreneurship and small business are not provided, the learning of
entrepreneurial skills is useless. In addition, some respondents saw that the state itself
should be responsible for organizing such training.
6.2 Preferred components of entrepreneurial training
The respondents were also asked to assess the importance of various components that
such training program could include, using a five-point scale from not at all important (1)
to very important (5). The results for the whole sample are presented in Table 13.
Table 13 Results of assessment of the components of the program
The component of program Average rank
Marketing skills 4.4
Opportunities on financing enterprise activity 4.3
Skills of accounting and management of the finance of enterprise 4.2
Skills of commercialization of innovations 4.2
The practical information on entrepreneurship (bureaucracy, etc.) 4.1
Internationalization of business (in particular development of contacts with Finnish
businessmen/firms)
4.0
As a whole, respondents considered all the offered components of the program to be
important, the average rank being at least 4 (corresponding the statement relatively
important) for each of them. Marketing skills and information on financing opportunities
were viewed as most important. When examining different groups of respondents,
31
female respondents assessed all components as more important than male ones.
However, there were do differences in the relative weight of the statements against each
other. When looking at educational background, students of economic specialties
weighed all statements expect one as more important than students with technical
specialties. The importance of “skills of commercialization of innovations” was viewed as
higher by technical students, which is somewhat expected result. The biggest difference
regarded the component “accounting and financing of enterprise”, which students in
economic specialties weighed as clearly more important. Finally, the comparison of
students with or without entrepreneur(s) in the family did not reveal major differences.
However, students with entrepreneur(s) in the family emphasized slightly more specified
components such as accounting skills on the one hand, and internationalization aspects
on the other. Those students with no entrepreneur(s) in the family perceived the
importance of general components such as information on sources for financing and
state bureaucracy as more important.
In addition to the closed questions the students were invited to name additional
components that they see as important for entrepreneurial training. 44 respondents used
this opportunity. Some of them mentioned several components. The answers were
rather heterogeneous but some key themes rose up (Table 14). Part of them overlapped
with the closed alternatives but also new themes emerged.
Table 14 Suggested additional components of entrepreneurial training program
Component N
Concrete examples, cases, practical exercises 12
Human resource management 10
Business communication, negotiation skills, foreign languages 7
International entrepreneurship, international networking 5
Change management 4
Information on legislation and taxation 3
Other (psychology, ethics, information technologies) 7
Total 48
32
As seen in the table, the students emphasized the “real-life” aspects in the training,
calling for “cases and business-briefs, many practical exercises”. In particular, students
were interested in hearing practical examples of enterprise strategies and meeting with
successful businessmen. Moreover, the students’ answers interestingly reflected the
current key challenge area of enterprises in Russia: the personnel. Ten respondents
mentioned aspects related to human resource management, including both recruitment
of personnel and its management: “Human resource management skills (search and
motivation of staff)”. These were particularly emphasized by female respondents.
Moreover, students were calling for education in business communication, negotiation
skills and also in foreign languages. Taken the context of the survey, some respondents
were eager to learn Finnish. In addition, respondents were interested in having
information on how businesses are run abroad and networking with foreign enterprises:
“[The program] must include regular meetings with Finnish entrepreneurs!” Furthermore,
the complexity of the Russian business environment reflected in the open answers well.
Some respondents underlined the need to get information on legislation and taxation,
whereas others were calling for knowledge in change and crisis management. Finally,
occasional topics such as business ethics, psychological aspects of entrepreneurship
and information technologies were mentioned.
7 Comparison of Russian and Finnish students
After presenting the results of our survey on Russian students we compare them with
existing research on Finnish students. We use the data collected in a survey of Master’s
students at Helsinki School of Economics in 2004
2
, the questionnaire of which was used
as a template for our present survey. The sample of the Finnish survey included 525
students. In this chapter we highlight the key similarities and differences among the
Russian and Finnish students. We structure our comparison according to the key
themes in the questionnaire
3
: attractiveness of entrepreneurship as career option,
2
For detailed description of the results see Piipponen (2006)
3
The Finnish questionnaire did not include the block of questions assessing students’ interest in entrepreneurial
training
33
motivational factors for entrepreneurship, obstacles for entrepreneurship, and attitudes
towards entrepreneurship.
Interest in entrepreneurship
The comparison of Russian and Finnish students revealed that the former are clearly
more interested in entrepreneurship as career option, as illustrated in Figure 6.
Figure 6 Attractiveness of entrepreneurship for Russian versus Finnish students
31,6 % 51 %
7,7 %
7,7 %
2 %
17,3 % 34 % 1,5 % 40,0 % 7 %
0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %
Russian students
Finnish students
Attractiveness of entrepreneurship (% of total)
Very attractive Rather attractive Don`t know Not very attractive Not attractive at all
As presented in the figure, more than 80% of Russian students viewed entrepreneurship
as rather or very attractive career option, whereas this opinion was shared by only ca.
50% of Finnish students. This result may in part be explained by cultural differences –
we suggest that Russians are inclined to emphasize the positive sides of
entrepreneurship when assessing it as career option. Finns in contrast may be even too
strongly realistic and weigh the negative aspects of entrepreneurship as heavier.
34
Moreover, the difference was particularly striking among female students, as shown in
Figure 7.
Figure 7 Gender differences in interest to entrepreneurship, Finnish and Russian
students
40 40
30
61
26
41
10
23
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Finnish
Male
Russian
Male
Finnish
Female
Russian
Female
%
Very attractive
Rather attractive
As shown in the figure the intra-national gender differences in interest to
entrepreneurship are notable in Finland but much less so in Russia. Moreover, Finnish
female students seem to be the least entrepreneurially oriented sub-group in the
sample. Only 10% of them perceive entrepreneurship as a very attractive career option.
Russian female students, in contrast, view entrepreneurship as almost equally attractive
as Finnish male students. It is, however, the Russian male students who most frequently
view entrepreneurship as a very attractive career option.
35
Motivational factors for entrepreneurship
We next analyze more in detail the factors that students in the two countries view as
increasing their desire to become an entrepreneur. Figure 8 shows an overview of our
comparison.
Figure 8 Factors motivating Russian and Finnish students to become an
entrepreneur
How the following factors increase your desire to become entrepreneur (rather and very
much, % from total)
83 %
81 %
81 %
79 %
77 %
66 %
66 %
64 %
54 %
53 %
49 %
45 %
25 %
29 %
59 %
35 %
79 %
78 %
82 %
48 %
9 %
70 %
27 %
39 %
25 %
8 %
0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 %
Achieving an appropriate goal in life in accordance with one`s own abilities
Result-based income
Opportunity to meet interesting people
Liberty in determining one`s tasks and duties
Interesting and variying tasks and duties
Liberty of being one`s own boss
Opportunity to get rich
General appreciation of entrepreneurship
Liberty of choosing one`s working hours
My skills and abilities point to entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship suits my character
Opportunity to work as a superior
Entrepreneurship unifies the entire family
%
Russian students Finnish students
The figure reveals both similarities and differences among the two groups of students.
First, both Russian and Finnish respondents heavily emphasize factors related to the
content of work as an entrepreneur, i.e. the liberty of determining one’s tasks, duties and
working hours, interesting and varying tasks and duties, as well as the liberty of being
one’s own boss. These were also the only factors that the Finnish respondents
perceived as more important than their Russian counterparts. Second, there were
factors that had much greater importance for Russian students than for Finnish
36
students, including the opportunities to meet interesting people, achieving an
appropriate goal in life in accordance with one’s abilities and general appreciation of
entrepreneurship. This indicates that Russian students view entrepreneurship more as
an instrument to gain certain position in life and society.
The comparison of male and female students provided some interesting results. First,
Finnish male students valued clearly more the opportunity to get rich provided by
entrepreneurship than Finnish female students. In the Russian data such difference was
not found. For Finnish male respondents the liberty of being one’s own boss was,
however, the most important motivational factor followed by financial aspects. Russian
males in contrast appreciated most the opportunity to achieve an appropriate goal in life
in accordance with one’s abilities alongside with result-based income. Moreover, the
motivational factors of Russian and Finnish female students differed as well. First of all,
the Russian female respondents emphasized less some factors over others, whereas
Finnish female respondents clearly highlighted aspects related to the opportunity to
determine the content of one’s work, being one’s own boss and determining one’s own
working hours. In contrast, Finnish female respondents emphasized clearly less the
opportunity to get rich and the general appreciation of entrepreneurship than their
Russian counterparts.
Obstacles for entrepreneurship
We next compare the Russian and Finnish students’ perceptions of the obstacles for
entrepreneurship. Here we consider only endogenous factors as exogenous factors (i.e.
features of business environment) were not touched upon in the Finnish survey. Figure
9 summarizes the results of the comparison.
37
Figure 9 Factors decreasing Finnish and Russian students` interest in
entrepreneurship
How the following factors decrease your desire to become an
entrepreneur? (rather and very strong, % from total responses)
48 %
48 %
47 %
36 %
40 %
39 %
34 %
35 %
28 %
32 %
30 %
36 %
23 %
16 %
18 %
16 %
7 %
67 %
65 %
55 %
81 %
41 %
19 %
20 %
27 %
43 %
56 %
36 %
60 %
26 %
26 %
35 %
25 %
17 %
0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 %
Fear of debt
Entrepreneurship is excessively binding and time-consuming
Fear of losing one`s property
Insecure income
My current life situation
Lack of personal skills and competence
Entrepreneurs are excessively at the mercy of their investors
Society provides no safety net for entrepreneurs
Fear of tough competition
Loss of free time
My personal competence is difficult to commercialize
Lack of business idea
Adverse effect on social relations
Unwillingness or incompetence to market one`s personal skills ...
Entrepreneurship does not suit my character
Excessively irregular working hours
General lack of appreciation of entrepreneurship
%
Russian students Finnish students
The figure provides support to our previous suggestion that the Russian students are
inclined to be more optimistic and to focus on the positive sides of entrepreneurship than
the Finnish ones. The Finnish students namely assessed all factors except two more
negatively than their Russian counterparts. There were factors, where the difference
was notable and factors, where the views of the two groups of respondents were
relatively close to each other. First, the Finnish respondents viewed the financial risks
related to entrepreneurship as clearly bigger obstacles than the Russian ones.
Furthermore, Finnish students perceived more negatively entrepreneurship as binding,
time-consuming and taking away one’s free time. Secondly, the aspects of
entrepreneurship where the respondents’ views were closest to each other were the
respondent’s current life situation, which was perceived as an obstacle by ca. 40% of
38
both Finnish and Russian students, and the adverse effect on social relations which was
considered as an obstacle only by ca. fourth of students in both groups. Finally, the two
factors, which were assessed as bigger obstacles by Russian than Finnish students
were the lack of social safety net, and too strong dependency on investors.
We also compared the male and female respondents from the two countries in this
respect. The Finnish male students clearly viewed majority of factors as more serious
obstacles than the Russian male respondents, before all insecure income and the lack
of a business idea. In contrast, Russian male students were more concerned by their
lack of professional abilities, too strong dependency on investors and lack of social
safety net than their Finnish counterparts. Regarding female students, the largest
differences were observed for unstable income, lack of business idea and unsuitability of
entrepreneurship to one’s character. These were perceived as clearly bigger obstacles
by Finnish female respondents. Finally, Russian female students were more concerned
by their lack of professional abilities than Finnish female respondents.
Attitudes towards entrepreneurship
We conclude our comparison of Russian and Finnish students with the analysis of the
respondents’ attitudes towards entrepreneurship. Table 15 summarizes the results in
this respect.
39
Table 15 Russian and Finnish students’ attitudes towards entrepreneurship
Completely or partly
disagree
Completely or partly
agree
Finnish
students
Russian
students
Finnish
students
Russian
students
Entrepreneurs must be appreciated because they provide
work for other people
2.0 % 8.4 % 94.0 % 75.6 %
Entrepreneurial activities provide society with more benefits
than disadvantages
1.0 % 9.4 % 97.0 % 68.6 %
Entrepreneurship is the future form of employment
15.0 % 15.2 % 51.0 % 53.4 %
Society must support young, beginning entrepreneurs
2.0 % 3.1 % 92.0 % 87.9 %
Society provides excessive support for entrepreneurs 78.0 % 81.7 % 2.0 % 6.3 %
Entrepreneurs can exploit the professional skills and
competences more effectively in their own businesses than
in salaried employment
19.0 % 9.4 % 47.0 % 71.2 %
Entrepreneurship requires more intellectual than financial
capital
14.0 % 23.0 % 66.0 % 45.5 %
Entrepreneurship is for people who have courage and ideas
16.0 % 6.3 % 69.0 % 87.0 %
Entrepreneurs take excessive risks 52.0 % 10.5 % 13.0 % 64.8 %
Entrepreneurs get rich on other people’s work 86.0 % 40.6 % 4.0 % 33.4 %
People who cannot adapt to conventional jobs end up as
entrepreneurs
78.0 % 59.6 % 8.0 % 19.4 %
Entrepreneurs often stretch their consciences 50.0 % 25.5 % 15.0 % 38.6 %
Entrepreneurs do not care about environmental issues to a
sufficient extent
51.0 % 25.6 % 13.0 % 46.6 %
Entrepreneurs are unscrupulous and pursue their own self-
interest
80.0 % 38.2 % 6.0 % 29.3 %
Small enterprises are good employers 12.0 % 20.9 % 60.0 % 41.9 %
Small enterprises exploit their workers to the maximum
43.0 % 24.2 % 25.0 % 39.5 %
Small enterprises create new jobs 5.0 % 7.9 % 87.0 % 75.2 %
Small enterprises do not provide adequate opportunities for
genuine professionals
66.0 % 41.0 % 11.0 % 30.0 %
Note: The absolute difference between corresponding percentages of the groups:
The absolute difference is more than 40%
The absolute difference is less than 5%
The absolute difference is between 20% and 40%
40
Qualitative analysis of Table 15 enables us to draw the following conclusions. First, the
answers (on average) differ between Russian and Finnish students quite notably
regarding the statement “Entrepreneurs take excessive risks”: 52% of Finnish students
tend to disagree with this statement while 64.8% of Russian students agree with it.
Finnish and Russian students also have quite a different point of view on the statement
“Entrepreneurs are unscrupulous and pursue their own self-interest”: 80% of Finnish
students tend to disagree with this statement while for Russian students this percentage
is only 38.2%. Moreover, there are two statements, on which the opinion differs
considerably between the investigated groups but without being completely opposite.
They are “Entrepreneurs often stretch their consciences” and “Entrepreneurs do not
care about environmental issues to a sufficient extent”. Finnish students tend to
disagree with these statements at notably greater degree than Russian students. This
indicates that the Finnish students have a generally higher opinion about the
entrepreneurs’ morality. Finally, there are four statements for which the answers of both
groups are very similar. Both groups agree that entrepreneurs and small enterprises
contribute to the economy and society and thus should be supported more by the state
than nowadays is the situation.
8 Summary and conclusions
This report presented the results of a survey, which was conducted among students of
three St. Petersburg-based universities in spring 2008 as a part of the TACIS-funded
project “Entrepreneurship Development”. The project partners are Helsinki School of
Economics’ Small Business Center and the State University of Economics and Finance,
St. Petersburg. The survey sample of 204 respondents included students of economic
and technical disciplines. The survey questionnaire was adapted from an existing survey
instrument, which had been used in a number of studies conducted at the Small
Business Center among Finnish students. This was done in view of Finnish-Russian
comparison of the results. The questionnaire consisted of four blocks of questions,
majority of which were multiple choice questions. The first block of questions covered
41
background variables such as age, gender, year of studies and major discipline, as well
as questions addressing whether there are entrepreneurs among the respondent’s
family or friends. Moreover, the respondents were asked about their career plans to
figure out how they perceive entrepreneurship as a career option. The second block
consisted of statements measuring the respondents’ perceptions about motivational
factors and obstacles associated with entrepreneurship. These covered both personal
traits and factors of the competitive and institutional environment for entrepreneurship.
The third block focused on general views about entrepreneurs and the role of small
businesses in the society and economy. Finally, for the purposes of the project it was
asked about the students’ interest to participate in entrepreneurial education in their
university and their views how entrepreneurship is promoted in their university.
The key results of the survey can be summarized as follows. First, we conclude that
Russian students consider entrepreneurship as a very attractive career alternative.
Moreover, for Russian students to be an entrepreneur is more attractive than for Finnish
students. In contrast to Finnish students, there are no notable differences in the attitude
toward entrepreneurship between Russian male and female students. However, when
asking the students about the sectors in which they might consider to operating as an
entrepreneur, the answers of male and female students diverged. Male students saw
most often their future firm operating in the field of information technologies, whereas
female students mentioned traditional “female” businesses such as consumer services.
This is, though, in part explained by the fact that female respondents were more often
students of economic specialties and thus with less specific area of expertise than
students of technical specialties. Finally, according to our data those Russian students
who have entrepreneurs in the family and/or are students of economic specialties tend
to be most interested in the career as an entrepreneur.
Second, we found both differences and similarities between Russian and Finnish
students regarding motivational factors. In general Russian students emphasized most
motivational factors as more important than their Finnish counterparts, supporting the
view of Russian students being more entrepreneurially oriented. The key motivational
42
factors for Russian students relate to the opportunity to affect one’s “destiny” in terms on
financial income and exploitation of one’s potential and abilities. However, the
opportunity to get rich as such was ranked not as high. Here, the Russian students (both
male and female) differed from Finnish male students, who heavily emphasized this
factor. In contrast, the Russian respondents emphasized more the entrepreneurship as
an interesting way of life, both as regards to social interaction and content of tasks and
duties. The importance of factors that can be classified as intrinsic rewards was further
emphasized in the open comments of Russian students, where the most frequently
mentioned individual motivational factors was “self-realization”. A key difference in
motivational factors between Russian and Finnish respondents was that there was no
such clear male-female difference in the Russian data as in the Finnish data.
Third, the analysis of perceived endogenous (i.e. personal) obstacles for
entrepreneurship confirmed our suggestion that the Russian students are inclined to be
more optimistic and to focus more on the positive sides of entrepreneurship than the
Finnish ones. The Finnish students namely assessed all factors except two more
negatively than their Russian counterparts. There were factors, where the difference
was notable and factors, where the views of the two groups of respondents were
relatively close to each other. First, the Finnish respondents viewed the financial risks
related to entrepreneurship as clearly bigger obstacles than the Russian ones.
Furthermore, Finnish students perceived more negatively entrepreneurship as binding,
time-consuming and taking away one’s free time. Secondly, the aspects of
entrepreneurship where the respondents’ views were closest to each other were the
respondent’s current life situation, which was perceived as an obstacle by ca. 40% of
both Finnish and Russian students, and the adverse effect on social relations which was
considered as an obstacle only by ca. fourth of students in both groups. Finally, the two
factors, which were assessed as bigger obstacles by Russian than Finnish students
were the lack of social safety net, and too strong dependency on investors.
In addition to endogenous factors we asked the Russian students to assess factors
related to the business environment as potential obstacles for entrepreneurship. Overall,
43
our results illustrate that the students’ views are well in line with Russian entrepreneurs’
opinions about obstacles for entrepreneurship and small business development in
Russia. The obstacles assessed as most serious included institutional factors such as
access to financing, corruption, bureaucracy and complex and frequently changing
legislation. In contrast, factors related to the task environment (relationship to other
members of the production system), were perceived as less challenging. The availability
of financing dominated also in the open answers given by the students as regards to
perceived obstacles for entrepreneurship (endogenous and exogenous). In addition,
psychological factors associated with entrepreneurship, such as mental stress and big
responsibility were mentioned especially by female respondents.
Fourth, from the qualitative analysis of the responses to statements about Russian
students’ general attitude towards entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs we conclude the
statements can be broadly classified into two groups on the basis of distribution of
answers. First, there were a number of statements, about which the respondents were
relatively unanimous (i.e. majority of them either agreed or disagreed). These concerned
before all the role of entrepreneurs and small enterprises in the society and economy,
which was viewed as beneficial by majority of respondents. Correspondingly, these
respondents perceived that the society must support entrepreneurship. In addition,
majority of respondents considered that entrepreneurship includes excessive risk, but at
the same time provides opportunities to exploit one’s own potential in full. Hence, a
consensus was found in support to the statement “entrepreneurship is for people who
have courage and ideas”. Second, there were statements, which Russian students
clearly had difficulties in commenting. This is reflected by the distribution of answers
across all categories, including a relatively large share of them falling in the “I don’t
know” option. Such statements addressed first, entrepreneurs’ morals such as whether
entrepreneurs pursue their self-interest or often stretch their consciences. Second,
respondents did not have a clear opinion about small enterprises as employers, i.e.
whether they are exploiting their workers or providing opportunities for professionals.
When compared Russian respondents to Finnish students, the largest disagreement
was found regarding the riskiness of entrepreneurship, which the Russian respondents
44
perceived as higher. In addition, Russian respondents had somewhat lower opinion on
entrepreneurs’ morality. In particular, they viewed more often entrepreneurs as
unscrupulous and pursuing their self-interest than their Finnish counterparts. In contrast,
both groups of respondents were unanimous that entrepreneurs and small businesses
positively contribute to the economy and society and should thus be supported more by
the state than nowadays is the situation.
Moreover, from the analysis of Russian students’ responses regarding how university
education helps to increase the respondents` desire to become an entrepreneur, we
conclude that students who have at least one entrepreneur in the family and students of
economic specialties tend to be surer that their university education helps to develop
entrepreneurial skills and promotes their desire to become an entrepreneur. However,
the respondents clearly had difficulties in answering this question. This is reflected by
the high share of “I don’t know” answers. In addition, the answers of those respondents
who took a stance were distributed relatively evenly between agreement and
disagreement. The statement “at my university students appreciate entrepreneurship as
a career option” was an exception here, confirming the general positive attitude towards
entrepreneurship among students. In addition to personally viewing entrepreneurship as
an attractive career option, over half of the respondents believe that their fellow students
share this view.
Finally, our results show that there is great interest to entrepreneurial training among
Russian students. Majority of respondents would be interested in participating such
training and ca. 40% of them would be ready to pay for it. The students from economic
specialties were the keenest to take part in entrepreneurial training. In addition, those
students who have entrepreneurs in the family were more eager to participate than
those students who have not. Moreover, the key reason for not being interested in
entrepreneurial training was financial – the participants implicitly expected that such
training would not be provided for free and announced that they do not have financial
resources to participate. Furthermore, some students were skeptical about the practical
benefits of such training and its value for money. Interestingly, there were also
45
respondents who viewed that they would be perfectly capable of starting own business if
only the state would provide basic conditions for it by for example restraining public
sector corruption.
Regarding the components of entrepreneurial training, marketing skills and information
on opportunities for financing were viewed as most important. In addition, the open
answers highlighted that the students value “real-life” aspects in such training. The
respondents were interested in having company cases and other practical exercises, as
well as hearing presentations by successful businessmen. Moreover, particularly female
students emphasized the need for training in human resource management. Finally,
networking with Finnish entrepreneurs was considered important.
Training implications
The results of our survey provide important insights that need to be taken into account
when planning entrepreneurial training in Russian universities. First, although the
respondents in general viewed entrepreneurship as a very attractive career option,
many of them had difficulties in taking a stand to statements concerning for example
entrepreneurs’ morals. Here, the legacy of the Soviet era where private business was
viewed as negative and even criminal seems to have an impact still today.
Consequently, entrepreneurial training should include discussion on entrepreneurial
ethics alongside with other aspects of entrepreneurship. Second, the results confirmed
the results of our feasibility study regarding the importance of practical information on
entrepreneurship. The complexity of the Russian business environment emphasizes the
need to provide the participants of the training with information, which in mature market
economies is easily available from other sources. This concerns before all sources for
financing and state regulation. Third, our investigation highlights the importance of ‘real
life’ components of entrepreneurial training. This includes both practical exercises such
as case studies and presentations by successful entrepreneurs on how they have
navigated through the complexities of the Russian business environment. Finally, the
comments of the respondents revealed that Russian students are used to pay for their
46
education. At the same time, they carefully weigh whether for-fee education gives
enough value for money. This is reflected in certain skepticism towards new training
initiatives. Consequently, before launching a new entrepreneurial training program in the
Russian university context one needs to make sure that the potential participants have
enough information on the program in order to weigh its benefits for them.
47
References
Chepurenko, A. (2008) Entrepreneurship in Russia. Lecture in the Summer Academy
“The Art of Start-Up”, Higher School of Economics, Moscow, 21 July, 2008.
Heininen, P., Mashkina, O., Karhunen, P. & Kosonen, R. (2008) Leningradin lääni
yritysten toimintaympäristönä: Pk-sektorin näkökulma. Helsingin
kauppakorkeakoulun julkaisuja B-88. (in Finnish)
Karhunen, P., Kettunen, E., Sivonen, T. & Miettinen, V. (2008a) Determinants of
knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship in Southeast Finland and Northwest Russia.
Helsinki School of Economics, Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-77.
Karhunen, P., Kosonen, R., Logrén, J. & Ovaska, K. (2008b) Suomalaisyritysten
strategiat Venäjän muuttuvassa toimintaympäristössä. Helsingin
kauppakorkeakoulun julkaisuja B-84. (in Finnish)
Moy, J.W.H. & Luk, V.W.M. & Wright, P.C. (2003) Perceptions of entrepreneurship as a
career: Views of young people in Hong Kong. Equal Opportunities International, 22,
4: 16-40.
Piipponen, Rami, 2006. Helsingin kauppakorkeakoulun opiskelijoiden ja sieltä vuonna
2000 valmistuneiden maistereiden yrittäjyysasenteet vuonna 2004. Helsinki School
of Economics. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications, N-49. (in Finnish)
Salmenniemi, S. & Karhunen, P. & Kosonen, R. (n.d.) Between business and byt:
Experiences of women entrepreneurs in contemporary Russia. Unpublished article
manuscript.
Tonttila, K. (2001) Mitä mieltä yrittäjyydestä? Yliopistosta valmistuvien nuorten asenteet
yrittäjyyteen ja itsensä työllistämiseen. Helsingin yliopiston tutkimus- ja
koulutuskeskus Palmenia. Raportteja ja selvityksiä 36. (in Finnish)
Trochim, W.M.K. (2006) Nonprobability sampling. Research methods knowledge base,http://www.socialresearcgmethods.net/kb/sampnon.php
Verkhovskaya, O.R., Dermanov, V.K., Dorohina, M.V. & Katkalo, V.S. (2006) Globalnyi
monitoring predprinimatelstva. Global Entrepreneurship Monitoring, Country report
on Russia 2006. St. Petersburg State University, Higher School of Management. (in
Russian)
48
Annex 1: The Questionnaire
1. Background variables
1. Year of birth
2. Sex (male, female)
3. Year of course (1,2,3,4,5)
4. Specialty (major subject)
Specialization (more precise major subject)
5. Second education, which one?
6. Work experience in major subject (months)
Entrepreneurship in the family (Yes or No)
7. My father is currently an entrepreneur
8. My mother is currently an entrepreneur
9. My brother/sister is currently an entrepreneur
10. I have no brothers/sisters
11. My spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend is currently an entrepreneur
12. I have no spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend
Entrepreneurship among friends (Yes or No)
13. Some of my friends are or have been entrepreneurs
14. None of my friends have been entrepreneurs
When you think about your future upon graduation from the university, which of the
following alternatives describes this best:
15. I will be employed by an enterprise (Yes, No)
16. I will be employed by the public sector (Yes, No)
17. Some day in the future I will have my own company (Yes, No)
If yes, which industry you would like to have your own company in? (Open answer)
18. I already have my own company I will continue to work in it (Yes, No)
If yes, which industry do you have your company in? (Open answer)
19. I plan to create my own company in knowledge-intensive business (Yes, No)
20. I will continue my education upon graduation from Master’s program (e.g. in post-
graduate school) (Yes, No)
49
2. Attraction to entrepreneurship
21. How attractive do you find entrepreneurship:
1 – Not attractive at all
2 – Not very attractive
3 – Don’t know
4 – Rather attractive
5 – Very attractive
Next, a few statements on entrepreneurship. Please indicate how much the following
factors increase your desire to become an entrepreneur? While answering, use the
following five-point scale:
1 – Completely not
2 – Not much
3 – Don’t know
4 – Rather strongly
5 – Very strongly
22. The liberty of being one’s own ‘boss’
23. The liberty in choosing one’s tasks and duties
24. The liberty of choosing one’s working hours
25. Interesting tasks and duties, and their variety
26. Result-based income
27. Opportunities to meet interesting people
28. Achieving an appropriate target in life in accordance with one’s abilities
29. Entrepreneurship suits my character
30. My skills and capabilities point to entrepreneurship
31. The opportunity to get rich
32. Entrepreneurship unifies the entire family
33. The opportunity to work as a superior
34. General appreciation of entrepreneurship
35. Other: please, specify
Assess this open statement using the same five-point scale
To what degree the following factors prevent you from becoming an entrepreneur? Use
the following five-point scale:
1 – Completely not
2 – Not much
3 – Don’t know
4 – Rather strongly
5 – Very strongly
50
36. Insecure income
37. Fear of debt
38. Entrepreneurship is excessively binding and time-consuming
39. Fear of tough competition
40. Fear of losing one’s property
41. My current life situation
42. Loss of free time
43. Entrepreneurs are excessively at the mercy of their investors
44. Society provides no safety net for entrepreneurs
45. My professional skills are difficult to commercialize
46. Lack of a business idea
47. Adverse effect on social relations
48. Unwillingness or incompetence to market one’s professional skills and
competence
49. Does not suit my character
50. Excessively irregular working hours
51. Lack of professional skills and competence
52. General negative opinion on entrepreneurship
53. Other: please, specify
Assess this open statement using the same five-point scale
To what degree the following factors of local business environment prevent you from
becoming an entrepreneur? Use the following five-point scale:
1 – Completely not
2 – Not much
3 – Don’t know
4 – Rather strongly
5 – Very strongly
54. Tough competition
55. Procedure of registration of the company
56. Bureaucracy (e.g. difficulties to obtain licenses and certificates)
57. Difficulties in hiring labor
58. Frequently changing or unclear legislation
59. Lack of own financial resources
60. Difficulties in finding customers
61. Difficulties in getting external financing
62. Corruption
63. Crime
64. Russian taxation
65. Local infrastructure (e.g. availability of business premises)
66. Other: please specify
Assess this open statement using the same five-point scale.
51
3. Attitude towards entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship
Please take a stand to the following statements.
1- I disagree completely
2- I partly disagree
3- Don’t know
4- I partly agree
5- I agree completely
Importance of entrepreneurial activities
67. Entrepreneurs must be appreciated because they provide work for other people
68. Entrepreneurial activities provide society with more benefits than disadvantages
69. Entrepreneurship is the future form of employment
State support to entrepreneurship
70. State must support young, beginning entrepreneurs
71. State provides excessive support for entrepreneurs
Entrepreneurship in general
72. Entrepreneurs can exploit their professional skills and competences more
effectively in their own businesses than in salaried employment
73. Entrepreneurship requires more intellectual than financial capital
74. Entrepreneurship is for people who have courage and ideas
75. Entrepreneurs take excessive risks
76. Entrepreneurs get rich on other people’s work
77. People who cannot adapt to conventional jobs end up as entrepreneurs
Entrepreneurs’ morals
78. Entrepreneurs often stretch their consciences
79. Entrepreneurs do not care about environmental issues to a sufficient extent
80. Entrepreneurs are unscrupulous and pursue their own self-interest
81. --- missing (typing error in the questionnaire)
Small enterprises as employers
82. Small enterprises are good employers
83. Small enterprises exploit their employees to the maximum
84. Small enterprises create new jobs
85. Small enterprises do not provide adequate opportunities for genuine
professionals
52
4. Participation in the entrepreneurial training program, content of the program
Entrepreneurial training program, which has been developed in Finland, includes a
number of components: lectures giving practical information of enterprise foundation;
lectures on business and management, individual advice (e.g. development of a
concrete business idea and discussing it with experts). In addition, the program
provides opportunities to Finnish and Russian young entrepreneurs to establish
contacts with each other.
86. Would you be interested in participating in such training program? (Yes, No)
If yes, would you be ready to pay for the participation? (Yes, No)
If not, please specify why? (Open answer)
Assess the importance of the following components of such a program using the
following five-point scale:
1 - Not important at all
2 – Rather unimportant
3 – Don’t know
4 - Rather important;
5 - Very important
87. Practical information on entrepreneurship (bureaucracy, etc.)
88. Information on the opportunities for financing the enterprise activity
89. Marketing skills
90. Skills of accounting and financial management of the enterprise
91. Skills of commercialization of innovations
92. Internationalization of business (in particular development of contacts with
Finnish businessmen/firms)
The program must include something else, please specify.
5. Conclusion
Please, take a stand to the following statements using five-point scale:
1 - I disagree completely
2 - I partly disagree
3 – Don’t know
4 - I partly agree
5 - I agree completely
93. My university education has provided me with good tools for entrepreneurship
53
94. My university education highlights entrepreneurship to an adequate as a career
alternative
95. My university has an atmosphere that induces and encourages entrepreneurship
96. At my university students appreciate entrepreneurship as a career alternative
97. At my faculty students appreciate entrepreneurship as a career alternative
54
Annex 2: Factor analysis on attitudes towards entrepreneurs and
entrepreneurship
We utilized factor analysis to group interdependent 18 observed variables, which
measure the attitudes of respondents on entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship (Table 16)
into factors. We performed factor analysis for the total sample of respondents (204).
Before conducting factor analysis we performed two common pre-analysis tests, the
Kaiser measure of sample adequacy and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity, which
confirmed the adequacy of this method for our data. We retained the factors for further
analysis on the basis of their Eigenvalues, ending with 5 factors. Table x illustrates these
five factors and the variables (statements) they include. As factor loadings are generally
considered meaningful when they exceed 0.3, in Table 16 we report only those variables
(statements) which have loadings greater than 0.3 for a particular factor. Those factors
which directly reflect the content of each particular factor are marked in bold.
Table 16 Results of factor analysis
Factor Statement Factor
loadings
Entrepreneurs must be appreciated because they provide work for other
people
0.73
Entrepreneurial activities provide society with more benefits than
disadvantages
0.69
Entrepreneurship is the future form of employment 0.53
Society must support young, beginning entrepreneurs 0.33
F1
“Social importance of
entrepreneurship and
entrepreneurs”
Small enterprises create new jobs 0.33
Entrepreneurs do not care about environmental issues to a sufficient
extent
0.72
Entrepreneurs often stretch their consciences 0.68
Entrepreneurs are unscrupulous and pursue their own self-interest 0.54
Entrepreneurs get rich on other people’s work 0.3
F2
“Entrepreneurs`
morality”
Small businesses exploit their workers to the maximum 0.3
Small enterprisers are good employers 0.7
Small enterprises create new jobs 0.55
F3
“Small business as
employers”
Small enterprises do not provide adequate opportunities for genuine
professionals
-0.42
Society provides excessive support for entrepreneurs 0.59
People who cannot adapt to conventional jobs end up as entrepreneurs 0.42
Small enterprises do not give adequate opportunities for genuine professionals 0.3
F4
“Society support of
entrepreneurs”
State must support young, beginning entrepreneurs -0.29
Entrepreneurs take excessive risks 0.62
Entrepreneurship is for people who have courage and ideas 0.41
F5
“Riskiness of
entrepreneurship”
State must support young, beginning entrepreneurs 0.36
55
In the next step of our analysis we summed the variables on the basis of the factor
analysis. The sums corresponding to each factor include only variables in bold, i.e.
those variables that directly reflect the factor’s main meaning.
We also rescaled the variables in such a way that they reflect the same direction of
attitude, i.e. 1 and 2 reflect negative attitude and 4 and 5 reflect positive attitude. We did
not change 3 as it reflects neutral attitude (“Don’t know”). For example in Factor 3 in
Table 16 we have two variables, “Small enterprises are good employers” and “Small
enterprises do not provide adequate opportunities for genuine professionals”. For the
first variable value 5 means very positive attitude to small business as employer and for
the second variable, vice versa, value 5 reflects very negative attitude. Therefore to
rescale these two statements to be in one direction we replace 4 to 2, 5 to 1, 2 to 4 and
1 to 5 for the second statement. After such rescaling the attitude to small business as
employer for both variables “moves” in the same direction, i.e. from very negative (1) to
very positive (5). All the summations are rescaled in such a way. The reliability of
summations was tested by Cronbach alfa.
Table 17 Results of summations of variables within factors
Summations Variables within sums Mean
Std.
dev.
Cronbach
o
1. Entrepreneurs should be appreciated, as they create
workplaces for other people
2. Entrepreneurship brings to a society more advantage,
than harm
Sum 1
“Social importance of
entrepreneurship and
entrepreneurs”
3. Small enterprises create new workplaces
3,92
0,73
0,68
1.Entrepreneurs do not care about environment
2.Entrepreneurs often should renounce their conscience
3.Entrepreneurs are unscrupulous and are guided by
exclusively own benefit
Sum 2
“Entrepreneur’s
moral”
4.Entrepreneurs enrich using work of other people
2,98
0,86
0,73
1.Small enterprisers are good employers
Sum 3
“Small business as
employers”
2.Small enterprises do not give adequate opportunities for
real professionals
3,23 0,91 0,52
1.State already gives excessive support to entrepreneurs Sum 4
“Society support for
entrepreneurs”
2.State should support young beginning entrepreneurs
4,31
0,72 0,38
1.Entrepreneurs incur excessive risk Sum 5
“Riskiness of
entrepreneurship”
2.Entrepreneurship is for courageous people with ideas
4,03 0,78 0,52
The results of the factor analysis were utilized to analyze potential differences among
respondents across gender, educational background and presence of entrepreneurs in
the family, as reported in Chapter 5.
56
Annex 3: Finnish summary
Tässä raportissa analysoitiin venäläisten yliopisto-opiskelijoiden näkemyksiä
yrittäjyydestä keväällä 2008 Pietarissa toteutetun kyselytutkimuksen valossa. Kysely oli
osa TACIS-rahoitteista “Entrepreneurship Development” –hanketta, joka tähtää
yrittäjyyskoulutuksen kehittämiseen venäläisyliopistoissa. Hanke toteutetaan Helsingin
kauppakorkeakoulun Pienyrityskeskuksen ja Pietarin talous- ja finanssiyliopiston (FinEc)
yhteistyönä. Tutkimuksen kohteena olleet 204 opiskelijaa edustivat FinEcin lisäksi kahta
teknillistä yliopistoa. Kyselylomakkeen pohjana käytettiin lomaketta, jolla
Pienyrityskeskus on aiemmin kartoittanut suomalaisopiskelijoiden yrittäjyysasenteita.
Tämä tehtiin tulosten Venäjä-Suomi –vertailtavuutta silmälläpitäen.
Kyselylomake koostui neljästä osiosta, joiden kysymykset olivat pääosin
monivalintakysymyksiä. Ensimmäisessä osiossa kartoitettiin taustamuuttujia (sukupuoli,
ikä, vuosikurssi, pääaine) sekä sitä, onko vastaajan perheessä ja/tai ystävien joukossa
yrittäjiä. Lisäksi kysyttiin urasuunnitelmista valmistumisen jälkeen sekä yrittäjyyden
houkuttelevuudesta suhteessa muihin uravaihtoehtoihin. Toinen osio koostui väittämistä,
joilla mitattiin vastaajien näkemyksiä sekä yrittäjyyteen motivoivista tekijöistä, että
yrittäjäksi ryhtymisen esteistä. Esteitä lähestyttiin sekä yksilö- että toimintaympäristön
tasolla. Lomakkeen kolmannessa osiossa kartoitettiin vastaajien asenteita yrittäjiä ja
yrittäjyyttä kohtaan, kuten näkemyksiä yrittäjyyden roolista yhteiskunnassa. Viimeisessä
osiossa kysyttiin hankkeen jatkotoimia silmälläpitäen opiskelijoiden näkemyksiä
yrittäjyyden roolista heidän yliopisto-opinnoissaan sekä kartoitettiin heidän
kiinnostustaan osallistua yrittäjyyskoulutusohjelmaan ja toiveitaan koulutuksen sisällölle.
Kyselyn keskeisistä tuloksista ensimmäinen on se, että venäläisopiskelijat pitävät
yrittäjyyttä erittäin houkuttelevana uravaihtoehtona. Venäläiset vastaajat olivat
huomattavasti kiinnostuneempia ryhtymään tulevaisuudessa yrittäjäksi kuin
suomalaisopiskelijat. Venäläisten nais- ja miesopiskelijoiden välillä ei myöskään ollut
tässä suhteessa eroa, kun taas suomalaisten naisopiskelijoiden kiinnostus yrittäjyyteen
on huomattavasti alhaisempi kuin suomalaisilla miesopiskelijoilla. Sukupuolierot tulivat
57
kuitenkin näkyviin myös venäläisopiskelijoiden kohdalla kysyttäessä, millä alalla he
näkevät mahdollisen oman yrityksensä toimivan. Valtaosa miesopiskelijoista mainitsi
tietotekniikan, kun taas naisopiskelijoiden vastauksissa painottuivat perinteiset “naisten”
alat kuten kuluttajapalvelut. Tämä on osin selitettävissä sillä, että naispuoliset vastaajat
olivat miehiä useammin kaupallisten aineiden opiskelijoita, jolloin heillä ei ollut yhtä
selkeää erikoistumisalaa kuin teknillisten aineiden opiskelijoilla. Tutkimustulosten
mukaan kaikkien innostuneimpia yrittäjyydestä olivat venäläisopiskelijat, joiden
perheessä on yrittäjyyttä. Lisäksi kaupallisten aineiden opiskelijat näkivät itsensä
tulevana yrittäjänä useammin, kun teknisten aineiden opiskelijat.
Suomalais- ja venäläisopiskelijoiden vertailu yrittäjyyteen motivoivien tekijöiden osalta
nosti esiin sekä eroja että yhtäläisyyksiä näiden ryhmien välillä. Yleisesti ottaen
venäläisopiskelijat pitivät useimpia motivaatiotekijöitä tärkeämpinä kuin
suomalaisopiskelijat, mikä vahvistaa käsitystä venäläisopiskelijoiden suuremmasta
yrittäjyysmyönteisyydestä. Keskeisimmät venäläisopiskelijoita yrittäjyydessä motivoivat
tekijät liittyvät mahdollisuuteen hyödyntää omia kykyjään ja saavuttaa niitä vastaava
tulotaso. Rikastumisen mahdollisuutta sinänsä ei kuitenkaan pidetty erityisen tärkeänä.
Tässä suhteessa venäläisopiskelijat poikkeavat etenkin suomalaisista miesopiskelijoista,
joille rikastumisen mahdollisuus on keskeinen yrittäjyyteen motivoiva tekijä.
Venäläisopiskelijat näkivät pikemminkin yrittäjyyden kiinnostavana elämäntapana sekä
ihmissuhteiden että tehtävien sisällön osalta. Yrittäjyyden henkilökohtainen palkitsevuus
korostui myös avoimissa yrittäjyysmotivaatiota koskevissa kommenteissa. Useimmin
mainittu yksittäinen motivaatiotekijä oli “itsensä toteuttaminen”. Keskeinen ero
suomalaisvastaajin oli se, että venäläisten mies- ja naisopiskelijoiden välillä ei ollut
selkeää eroa motivaatiotekijöissä.
Tutkimuksen tulokset koskien yrittäjyyden yksilötason esteitä tukevat sitä näkemystä,
että venäläisopiskelijat ovat suomalaisopiskelijoita optimistisempia ja korostavat
arvioissaan enemmän yrittäjyyden positiivisia puolia. Suomalaisopiskelijat puolestaan
arvioivat yrittäjyyden esteet pääsääntöisesti suuremmiksi kuin venäläisvastaajat.
Osassa tapauksista ero oli huomattava, kun taas osa esteistä arvioitiin jokseenkin yhtä
58
suuriksi. Suomalaisvastaajat näkivät ensinnäkin yrittäjyyteen liittyvät taloudelliset riskit
huomattavasti suurempina esteinä yrittäjyydelle kuin venäläisvastaajat.
Suomalaisopiskelijat suhtautuivat kielteisemmin myös yrittäjyyden sitovuuteen ja vapaa-
ajan menetykseen. Toisaalta suomalais- ja venäläisopiskelijoiden näkemykset olivat
lähimpänä toisiaan koskien vastaajien nykyistä elämäntilannetta, jonka näki esteeksi
yrittäjyydelle noin 40% molempien ryhmien vastaajista. Yhtä mieltä oltiin myös siitä, että
yrittäjyys ei vaikuta kielteisesti ihmissuhteisiin. Ainoat tekijät, jotka venäläisvastaajat
arvioivat suomalaisvastaajia suuremmiksi yrittäjyyden esteiksi, olivat yrittäjien
sosiaaliturvan heikkous ja liiallinen riippuvuus rahoittajista.
Venäläisvastaajia pyydettiin myös arvioimaan toimintaympäristön asettamia esteitä
yrittäjyydelle, mikä oli lisäys alkuperäiseen kyselylomakkeeseen. Tulosten perusteella
voidaan todeta, että opiskelijoilla on varsin realistinen kuva yrittäjyyden
toimintaympäristöstä Venäjällä. Suurimmat esiin nostetut esteet ovat samoja, jotka
toistuvat pienyritysten toimintaedellytyksiä Venäjällä koskevissa aiemmissa
tutkimuksissa. Suurimmiksi esteiksi koettiin institutionaaliset tekijät, kuten rahoituksen
saatavuus, korruptio, byrokratia sekä monimutkainen ja usein muuttuva lainsäädäntö.
Yrityksen liiketoimintasuhteisiin liittyviä haasteita, kuten asiakkaiden löytämistä, ei sen
sijaan pidetty yhtä suurina. Rahoituksen saatavuus nousi esille myös vastaajien
avoimissa kommenteissa koskien yrittäjyyden esteitä. Lisäksi erityisesti naisopiskelijat
nostivat esiin psykologisia tekijöitä, kuten yrittäjyyden henkisen kuormittavuuden ja
liiallisen vastuullisuuden.
Venäläisopiskelijoiden vastaukset yrittäjyysasenteita koskeviin väittämiin voidaan jakaa
kahteen pääryhmään vastausten jakautumisen perusteella. Ensinnäkin osa väittämistä
oli sellaisia, joiden suhteen vastaajien näkemykset olivat jokseenkin yhteneväiset, eli
suurin osa vastaajista oli joko samaa tai eri mieltä. Nämä väittämät koskivat etenkin
yrittäjyyden ja pienyritysten merkitystä yhteiskunnalle ja kansantaloudelle, jonka
valtaosa vastaajista näki positiivisena. Vastaavasti nähtiin, että yhteiskunnan tulisi tukea
yrittäjyyttä nykyistä enemmän. Enemmistö vastaajista oli myös sitä mieltä, että yrittäjyys
on erittäin riskialtista, mutta tarjoaa samaan aikaan mahdollisuuden hyödyntää täysillä
59
omaa osaamistaan. Näin ollen luonnollista on, että vastaajat yhtyivät väittämään
”yrittäminen on rohkeiden ja idearikkaiden ihmisten työtä”. Toiseksi, osa
yrittäjyysasenteita valottavista väittämistä oli sellaisia, joihin venäläisopiskelijoiden oli
selvästi vaikea ottaa kantaa. Tämä heijastui vastausten hajaantumisena eri
vaihtoehtojen välille, mukaan lukien “en osaa sanoa” –vaihtoehdon valinneiden suuren
osuuden. Kyseiset väittämät koskivat ensinnäkin yrittäjän moraalia, kuten mahdollista
oman edun tavoittelua ja venyvää omaatuntoa. Vastaajilla ei myöskään ollut selkeää
näkemystä pienyrityksistä työnantajina, eli puristavatko ne työntekijöistään kaiken irti vai
nouseeko niissä todellinen asiantuntijuus esiin.
Verrattaessa venäläisopiskelijoita suomalaisopiskelijoihin yrittäjyysasenteiden osalta,
suurin näkemysero koski yrittäjyyden riskejä, joita venäläisvastaajat pitivät suurempina.
Lisäksi venäläisvastaajilla oli keskimäärin negatiivisempi näkemys yrittäjän moraalista.
Venäläisvastaajat etenkin näkivät suomalaisia useammin yrittäjät häikäilemättöminä
oman edun tavoittelijoina. Sitä vastoin molemmat ryhmät olivat yksimielisiä siitä, että
yrittäjyys ja pienyritystoiminta vaikuttavat myönteisesti yhteiskuntaan ja talouteen.
Yrittäjyyttä pitäisi näin ollen tukea yhteiskunnan taholta nykyistä enemmän.
Tutkimustulosten pohjalta voidaan todeta, että venäläisopiskelijoilla on vaikeuksia
arvioida yrittäjyyden roolia omassa yliopistossaan, mikä heijastui “en osaa sanoa” –
vastausten suurena osuutena ao. aihetta koskeviin väittämiin. Myönteisimmin oman
yliopistokoulutuksensa antamia yrittäjyysvalmiuksia arvioivat ne opiskelijat, joiden
perheessä on yrittäjyyttä. Kaupallisten aineiden opiskelijat näkivät myös koulutuksensa
yrittäjyysvalmiuksia edistävänä teknillisten aineiden opiskelijoita useammin, mikä on
looginen tulos. Sen sijaan vastaajien kannat väittämään “yliopistoni opiskelijat
arvostavat yrittäjyyttä uravaihtoehtona” vahvistavat kuvaa venäläisopiskelijoiden
yrittäjyysmyönteisyydestä. Sen lisäksi, että opiskelijat pitävät henkilökohtaisesti
yrittäjyyttä houkuttelevana uravaihtoehtona, yli puolet vastaajista uskoi yliopistonsa
muiden opiskelijoiden jakavan tämän mielipiteen.
60
Kyselyn perusteella venäläisopiskelijat ovat myös erittäin kiinnostuneita
yrittäjyyskoulutuksesta. Valtaosa vastaajista ilmoitti olevansa kiinnostunut osallistumaan
koulutukseen ja noin 40% olisi valmis myös maksamaan siitä. Kiinnostuneimpia olivat
kaupallisten aineiden opiskelijat sekä ne opiskelijat, joiden perheessä on yrittäjyyttä.
Suurin syy siihen, miksi yrittäjyyskoulutus ei kiinnosta oli taloudellinen. Opiskelijat
tuntuivat automaattisesti olettavan, että koulutus olisi maksullinen ja ilmoittivat, että
heillä ei ole varaa maksaa siitä. Osa opiskelijoista suhtautui myös varauksella
yrittäjyyskoulutuksen käytännön hyötyihin. Erityisesti epäiltiin, antaisiko maksullinen
koulutus täyden vastineen siihen sijoitetuille rahoille. Joukossa oli myös opiskelijoita,
jotka katsoivat omaavansa täydet yrittäjyysvalmiudet kunhan vain yhteiskunta tarjoaisi
yritystoiminnalle normaalit olosuhteet esimerkiksi kitkemällä korruption valtion
virastoista.
Yrittäjyyskoulutuksen sisällöstä voidaan todeta, että markkinointiosaaminen ja
rahoituslähteitä koskeva tieto koettiin kaikkein tärkeimmiksi. Vastaajien vapaissa
kommenteissa koskien koulutuksen sisältöä korostui toive sen nivomisesta käytännön
yritystoimintaan. Vastaajat toivoivat koulutusohjelman sisältävän yrityscaseja ja muita
käytännön tehtäviä, sekä olivat kiinnostuneita kuulemaan yrittäjien menestystarinoita
yrittäjiltä itseltään. Erityisesti naispuoliset vastaajat korostivat lisäksi
henkilöstöjohtamistaitojen merkitystä koulutuksen sisällössä. Mahdollisuutta verkottua
suomalaisiin yrittäjiin ja yrityksiin toivottiin myös.
Suosituksia yrittäjyyskoulutuksen kehittämiseen Venäjällä
Kyselytulosten perusteella voidaan nostaa esiin muutamia tekijöitä, jotka on hyvä
huomioida suunnitellessa yrittäjyyskoulutusta venäläisyliopistoissa. Ensinnäkin, vaikka
venäläisopiskelijat ovat erittäin kiinnostuneita yrittäjyydestä uravaihtoehtona, monilla on
vaikeuksia määritellä yleistä asennettaan yrittäjyyteen. Tämä koskee esimerkiksi
yrittäjän moraalin arviointia, mikä heijastaa edelleen neuvostoaikaista suhtautumista
yrittäjyyteen kielteisenä ja jopa rikollisena toimintana. Näin ollen yrittäjyyden etiikkaa
olisi tarpeen käsitellä koulutuksessa muiden yrittäjyyteen liittyvien kysymysten ohella.
61
Toiseksi, kyselyvastaukset vahvistivat aiempaa näkemystämme käytännön tiedon
tärkeydestä osana koulutusohjelmaa. Venäläisen toimintaympäristön
kehittymättömyydestä johtuen osallistujille on tarpeen saada koulutuksen kautta tietoa,
joka on Suomen kaltaisissa kehittyneissä talouksissa helposti saatavilla muista lähteistä.
Tämä koskee ennen kaikkea tietoa rahoituslähteistä ja yritystoiminnan säätelystä.
Kolmanneksi, tutkimustulokset korostavat tarvetta nivoa koulutus käytännön
yritystoimintaan. Ohjelmaan tulisi sisällyttää sekä tehtäviä, joissa ratkotaan
yritystoiminnan ongelmia, että menestyneiden yrittäjien kertomuksia siitä, miten he ovat
onnistuneet luovimaan Venäjän vaikeassa toimintaympäristössä. Lopuksi voidaan
todeta, että kyselyn perusteella venäläisopiskelijat ovat tottuneet maksulliseen
koulutukseen. Samanaikaisesti he kuitenkin punnitsevat huolellisesti, antaako koulutus
vastinetta rahoille. Tämä heijastuu tiettynä epäluulona uusia koulutusohjelmia kohtaan.
Ennen kuin lähdetään käynnistämään uutta yrittäjyyskoulutusohjelmaa venäläisessä
yliopistomaailmassa tulisikin varmistaa, että osallistujilla on tarpeeksi tietoa ohjelmasta.
Tämä auttaa heitä arvioimaan koulutuksen hyötyjä omalta kannaltaan.
Annex 4: Russian summary
Kpa1kuú oõsop pesynu1a1on uccneponauun
B pauuor of¬ëfe npepcfaeneuu pesynufafu uay¬uoro auanusa aukefupoeauun,
npoeopuroro cpepu poccuùckux cfypeufoe fpëx yuueepcufefoe Caukf-Refepõypra
eecuoù 2008 ropa e parkax npoekfa "Paseufue npepnpuuurafenucfea",
quuaucupyeroro nporparroù TACHC. Rapfuëpu npoekfa - Ueufp Manoro Eusueca
Xenucuuckoù Lkonu Skouoruku u Caukf-Refepõyprckuù Focypapcfeeuuuù
Yuueepcufef Skouoruku u 4uuaucoe. B aukefupoeauuu npuunnu y¬acfue 204
cfypeufa skouoru¬eckux u fexuu¬eckux cneuuanuuocfeù. µnn npoeepeuun
aukefupoeauun õuna apanfupoeaua aukefa Ueufpa Manoro Eusueca Xenucuuckoù
Lkonu Skouoruku, y»e ucnonusyeran pauee pnn aukefupoeauun quuckux
cfypeufoe. Hacfonµuù of¬ëf copep»uf cpaeuufenuuuù auanus pesynufafoe
aukefupoeauun poccuùckux u quuckux cfypeufoe. Aukefa cocfouf us ¬efupëx õnokoe
62
eonpocoe, õonuuuucfeo us kofopux eonpocu ruo»ecfeeuuoro euõopa. Repeuù õnok
eonpocoe nocenµëu ucxopuur xapakfepucfukar pecnoupeufoe, eknk¬an eospacf,
non, rop oõy¬euun, cneuuanuuocfu, uanu¬ue npepnpuuurafeneù e cerue
pecnoupeufoe u cpepu ux ppyseù. Tak»e sfof õnok copep»uf eonpocu, kacakµuecn
kapuepuux nnauoe pecnoupeufoe. Ocuoeuan uenu sfux eonpocoe cocfouf e
euneneuuu ofuoueuun pecnoupeufoe k npepnpuuurafenucfey kak k kapuepuoù
anufepuafuee. Bfopoù õnok aukefu copep»uf yfeep»peuun, npuseauuue
onpepenufu rueuue pecnoupeufoe o rofueauuouuux qakfopax
npepnpuuurafenucfea u npennfcfeunx pnn saunfun npepnpuuurafenuckoù
penfenuuocfuk. Sfu yfeep»peuun ofpa»akf kak nepcouanuuue xapakfepucfuku
pecnoupeufoe, fak u qakfopu koukypeufuoù u uucfufyuuouanuuoù cpepu pnn
npepnpuuurafenucfea. Tpefuù õnok nocenµëu oõµery rueuuk o
npepnpuuurafennx u ponu ranoro õusueca e oõµecfee u skouoruke. Hakoueu, e
saknk¬ufenuuux peyx õnokax aukefu copep»afcn eonpocu, kofopue urekf uenuk
euneufu uufepec cfypeufoe k y¬acfuk e oõpasoeafenuuoù nporparre no
npepnpuuurafenucfey u ux rueuue o for, uackonuko ux yuueepcufefckoe
oõpasoeauue cnocoõcfeyef paseufuk npepnpuuurafenuckux uaeukoe u cfurynupyef
k saunfuk npepnpuuurafenucfeor.
Hu»e npepcfaeneuo oõoõµeuue pesynufafoe aukefupoeauun. Bo-nepeux,
poccuùckue cfypeufu c¬ufakf npepnpuuurafenucfeo o¬euu npuenekafenuuoù
kapuepuoù anufepuafueoù. Eonee foro, poccuùckue cfypeufu e õonuueù repe xofnf
cfafu npepnpuuurafennru, ¬er quuckue cfypeufu. B ofnu¬ue of quuckux
cfypeufoe, pnn poccuùckux cfypeufoe ue uaõnkpaefcn cyµecfeeuuux reupepuux
pasnu¬uù e ofuoueuuu k npepnpuuurafenucfey. Opuako, ofeefu ua eonpoc "B kakor
cekfope skouoruku Bu xofenu õu urefu coõcfeeuuyk qupry?" pasnu¬akfcn pnn
cfypeufoe ry»ckoro u »euckoro nonoe. Eonuuuucfeo cfypeufoe ry»ckoro nona
xofenu õu urefu coõcfeeuuyk qupry e cqepe uuqoprauuouuux fexuonoruù, e fo
epern kak cfypeufu »euckoro nona e ocuoeuor ykasanu pasnu¬uue cqepu
nofpeõufenuckux ycnyr. -acfu¬uo sfo oõLncunefcn fer, ¬fo õonuuan ¬acfu
pecnoupeufoe »euckoro nona - cfypeufu skouoru¬eckux cneuuanuuocfeù, kofopue
63
coofeefcfeeuuo ue urekf uaeukoe e koukpefuoù cqepe npouseopcfea e ofnu¬ue of
cfypeufoe fexuu¬eckux cneuuanuuocfeù, õonuuuucfeo us kofopux cfypeufu
ry»ckoro nona. H, uakoueu, e coofeefcfeuu c pesynufafaru aukefupoeauun, fe
poccuùckue cfypeufu, y kofopux ecfu npepnpuuurafenu cpepu õnu»aùuux
popcfeeuuukoe u cfypeufu skouoru¬eckux cneuuanuuocfeù e õonuueù repe
sauufepecoeauu e kapuepe npepnpuuurafenn.
Bo-efopux, ru oõuapy»unu kak pasnu¬un, fak u oõµue ¬epfu re»py poccuùckuru u
quuckuru cfypeufaru e oueuke rofueauuouuux qakfopoe npepnpuuurafenucfea. B
uenor poccuùckue cfypeufu npupakf õonuuyk nono»ufenuuyk ea»uocfu
õonuuuucfey rofueauuouuux qakfopoe e cpaeueuuu c quuckuru cfypeufaru.
µauuuù qakf eµë pas nopfeep»paef, ¬fo poccuùckue cfypeufu õonee
opueufupoeauu ua npepnpuuurafenucfeo. Hauõonee ea»uue rofueauuouuue
qakfopu pnn poccuùckux cfypeufoe ofpa»akf eosro»uocfu enunfu ua coõcfeeuuyk
"cypuõy" e ofuoueuuu quuaucoeoro poxopa u peanusauuu coõcfeeuuoro nofeuuuana
u cnocoõuocfeù. Opuako fakoù qakfop kak eosro»uocfu cfafu õorafur, ue õun
oueueu kak o¬euu ea»uuù. H e sfor poccuùckue cfypeufu (u ry»ckoro u »euckoro
nonoe) ofnu¬akfcn of quuckux cfypeufoe ry»ckoro nona, kofopue npupakf sfory
qakfopy ocoõyk ea»uocfu e ycuneuuu ux rofueauuu cfafu npepnpuuurafener.
Eonee foro, poccuùckue pecnoupeufu e õonuueù cfeneuu akueufupykf euurauue ua
fakor qakfope npepnpuuurafenucfea kak uufepecuan »usuu, u e couuanuuor nnaue
u no copep»auuk sapa¬ u oõnsauuocfeù. Ba»uocfu qakfopa "euyfpeuuee
eosuarpa»peuue" cnepyef us ofkpufux ofeefoe poccuùckux cfypeufoe, rpe
uauõonee ¬acfo uasueaeruù rofueauuouuuù qakfop - "caropeanusauun". Ba»uur
ofnu¬uer e oueuke rofueauuouuux qakfopoe re»py poccuùckuru u quuckuru
cfypeufaru nennefcn ofcyfcfeue reupepuux pasnu¬uù y poccuùckux cfypeufoe, e fo
epern kak y quuckux cfypeufoe sfu ofnu¬un poeonuuo õonuuue.
B-fpefuux, auanus suporeuuux (f.e. nu¬uux) npennfcfeuù pnn npepnpuuurafenucfea
nopfeeppun uaue npepnono»euue o for, ¬fo poccuùckue cfypeufu õonee
onfurucfu¬uu u e õonuueù cfeneuu qokycupykfcn ua nono»ufenuuux cfopouax
64
npepnpuuurafenucfea, ¬er quuckue cfypeufu. 4uuckue cfypeufu oueuunu ece
qakfopu kpore peyx õonee uerafueuo, ¬er ux poccuùckue konneru. µnn pnpa
qakfopoe pasnu¬un e oueukax sua¬ufenuuu. 4uuckue cfypeufu pakf ropaspo õonee
uerafueuyk oueuky fakory qakfopy kak quuaucoeue pucku, censauuue c
npepnpuuurafenucfeor. Eonee foro, quuckue cfypeufu õonee uerafueuo ofuocnfcn
k fory, ¬fo npepnpuuurafenucfeo cnuukor ko ruorory oõnsueaef u fpeõyef ruoro
epereuu. Tak»e ecfu qakfopu, kofopue õunu oueueuu npurepuo opuuakoeo
oõeuru rpynnaru pecnoupeufoe. Rpuõnusufenuuo 40% u quuckux u poccuùckux
cfypeufoe c¬ufakf coõcfeeuuyk fekyµyk »usueuuyk cufyauuk npennfcfeuer pnn
foro, ¬foõu saunfucn npepnpuuurafenucfeor. Hanpofue, fonuko npuõnusufenuuo
opua ¬efeëpfan pecnoupeufoe e oõeux rpynnax c¬ufaef, ¬fo enunuue
npepnpuuurafenucfea ua nu¬uue ofuoueuun uerafueuo ckasueaefcn ua ux »enauuu
cfafu npepnpuuurafennru. Hakoueu, couuanuuan uesaµuµëuuocfu
npepnpuuurafenucfea u ¬pesrepuo cunuuan saeucurocfu of uueecfopoe - pea
qakfopa, kofopue poccuùckue cfypeufu c¬ufakf õonee sua¬ufenuuuru
npennfcfeunru pnn npepnpuuurafenucfea, ¬er quuckue cfypeufu.
Roruro suporeuuux qakfopoe, poccuùckur cfypeufar õuno npepno»euo oueuufu
qakfopu okpy»akµeù õusuec-cpepu kak nofeuuuanuuue npennfcfeun pnn
npepnpuuurafenucfea. Pesynufafu onpoca cfypeufoe nokasanu, ¬fo ux rueuue e
uenor coenapaef c rueuuer poccuùckux npepnpuuurafeneù kacafenuuo sksoreuuux
npennfcfeuù pnn paseufun npepnpuuurafenucfea u ranoro õusueca e Poccuu. K
qakfopar, uauõonee uerafueuo enunkµur ua »enauue pecnoupeufoe cfafu
npepnpuuurafennru, ofuocnfcn pocfyn k quuaucupoeauuk, koppynuun, õkpokpafun
u cno»uoe u sanyfauuoe sakouopafenucfeo. Hanpofue, qakfopu paõo¬eù cpepu (f.e.
esauroofuoueuuù c ocfanuuuru ¬neuaru npouseopcfeeuuoù cucferu) ue
paccrafpueakfcn poccuùckuru cfypeufaru kak sua¬urue npennfcfeun pnn
npepnpuuurafenucfea. µocfyn k quuaucupoeauuk kak ea»uoe npennfcfeue pnn
npepnpuuurafenucfea poruuupyef e ofkpufux ofeefax cfypeufoe. Eonee foro e
ofkpufux ofeefax õunu ynornuyfu fakue uerafueuue ncuxonoru¬eckue qakfopu
65
npepnpuuurafenucfea kak ncuxonoru¬eckuù cfpecc u õonuuan ofeefcfeeuuocfu (e
õonuueù repe pecnoupeufaru »euckoro nona).
B-¬efeepfux, konu¬ecfeeuuuù auanus oueuku poccuùckuru cfypeufaru
yfeep»peuuù oõ ux ofuoueuuu k npepnpuuurafenucfey u npepnpuuurafennr
noseonun paspenufu ux (yfeep»peuun) ua pee ofuocufenuuo opuopopuue (e
ofuoueuuu pacnpepeneuun ofeefoe) rpynnu. Bo-nepeux, e oueuke pnpa
yfeep»peuuù pecnoupeufu õunu ofuocufenuuo epuuopyuuu (f.e. õonuuuucfeo
nuõo cornacunucu, nuõo ue cornacunucu c yfeep»peuuer). Rpe»pe ecero, sfo
kacaefcn ponu npepnpuuurafeneù u ranoro õusueca pnn oõµecfea u skouoruku,
kofopan e uenor oueuueaefcn kak nono»ufenuuan õonuuuucfeor pecnoupeufoe.
Pecnoupeufu e uenor cornacuu u e for, ¬fo oõµecfeo pon»uo noppep»ueafu
npepnpuuurafenucfeo. Tak»e, c opuoù cfopouu, õonuuuucfeo pecnoupeufoe
c¬ufakf, ¬fo npepnpuuurafenu nopeeprakfcn ¬pesrepuory pucky, uo, c ppyroù
cfopouu, õonuuuucfeo cornacuo, ¬fo npepnpuuurafenucfeo npepocfaennef
eosro»uocfu nonuocfuk peanusoeafu ceoù coõcfeeuuuù nofeuuuan. Tak,
poccuùckue cfypeufu no¬fu epuuopyuuo cornacunucu c yfeep»peuuer, ¬fo
"npepnpuuurafenucfeo pnn crenux nkpeù c upenru". Bo-efopux, pecnoupeufu
uaunu safpypuufenuuur oueuufu uekofopue yfeep»peuun. Sfo ofpa»aefcn e
pacnpepeneuuu ofeefoe re»py kaferopunru, a ureuuo, e õonuuoù ponu ofeefa "H
ue suak (fpypuo ckasafu)". K fakur yfeep»peuunr e nepeyk o¬epepu ofuocnfcn
yfeep»peuun o ropanu npepnpuuurafeneù, a ureuuo, ¬fo npepnpuuurafenu
pykoeopcfeykfcn coõcfeeuuoù europoù u ¬acfo nocfynakfcn ceoeù coeecfuk. Tak»e
k sfoù rpynne ro»uo ofuecfu yfeep»peuun o ranux npepnpunfunx kak
paõofopafennx, f.e. skcnnyafupykf nu ouu ceoux paõofuukoe u oõecne¬ueakf nu
apekeafuue eosro»uocfu pnn npoqeccuouanoe.
Ecnu cpaeuueafu poccuùckux pecnoupeufoe c quuckuru, uauõonuuee ofnu¬ue õuno
oõuapy»euo e oueuke yfeep»peuun o puckoeauuocfu npepnpuuurafenucfea.
Poccuùckue cfypeufu c¬ufakf npepnpuuurafenucfeo õonee puckoeauuur
saunfuer, ¬er quuckue. Tak»e poccuùckue cfypeufu urekf õonee uerafueuoe
66
rueuue o ropanu npepnpuuurafeneù. B ¬acfuocfu, ouu õonee ¬acfo cornacuu c
yfeep»peuuer, ¬fo npepnpuuurafenu õecnpuuuunuu u pykoeopcfeykfcn
coõcfeeuuoù europoù, ¬er quuckue cfypeufu. Hanpofue, oõe rpynnu pecnoupeufoe
cxopnfcn eo rueuuu, ¬fo npepnpuuurafenu u ranuù õusuec nosufueuo enunkf ua
paseufue skouoruku u oõµecfea u, cnepoeafenuuo, ¬fo rocypapcfeo pon»uo
noppep»ueafu npepnpuuurafenucfeo u ranuù õusuec e õonuueù cfeneuu, ¬er ua
pauuuù roreuf.
Auanus ofeefoe poccuùckux cfypeufoe ua eonpocu o ponu ux yuueepcufefckoro
oõpasoeauun e peueuuu cfafu npepnpuuurafener, noseonun uar saknk¬ufu, ¬fo
cfypeufu, y kofopux ecfu xofn õu opuu npepnpuuurafenu cpepu õnu»aùuux
popcfeeuuukoe u cfypeufu skouoru¬eckux cneuuanuuocfeù e õonuueù cfeneuu
yeepeuu, ¬fo ux yuueepcufefckoe oõpasoeauue paseueaef e uux uaeuku
npepnpuuurafenucfea u cfurynupyef ux »enauue cfafu npepnpuuurafener. Ter ue
reuee, ponn cfypeufoe, ofeefueuux ua sfu eonpocu "H ue suak (fpypuo ckasafu)"
poeonuuo eucoka (of 21 po 27%). K fory »e ocfanuuue ofeefu no¬fu paeuorepuo
pacnpepeneuu re»py cornacuer u ue cornacuer sa ucknk¬euuer yfeep»peuun "B
roër yuueepcufefe cfypeufu paccrafpueakf npepnpuuurafenucfeo kak
npuenekafenuuyk kapuepuyk anufepuafuey". 54% pecnoupeufoe cornacunucu c
sfur yfeep»peuuer, ¬fo eµë pas nopfeep»paef nono»ufenuuoe ofuoueuue k
npepnpuuurafenucfey cpepu cfypeufoe.
Hakoueu, uauu pesynufafu nokasueakf, ¬fo poccuùckue cfypeufu o¬euu
sauufepecoeauu e pononuufenuuor oõpasoeauuu e oõnacfu npepnpuuurafenucfea.
Eonuuuucfeo cfypeufoe õunu õu sauufepecoeauu e y¬acfuu e oõpasoeafenuuoù
nporparre no npepnpuuurafenucfey u npuõnusufenuuo 40% us uux rofoeu
sannafufu sa y¬acfue. Cfypeufu skouoru¬eckux cneuuanuuocfeù e uauõonuueù
cfeneuu xofenu õu npuunfu y¬acfue e fakoù nporparre. Tak»e cfypeufu, y kofopux
ecfu xofn õu opuu npepnpuuurafenu cpepu õnu»aùuux popcfeeuuukoe, õonee
sauufepecoeauu e y¬acfuu, ¬er fe cfypeufu, y kofopux uef e cerue
npepnpuuurafeneù. Ocuoeuan npu¬uua ue»enauun y¬acfun e nporparre -
67
quuaucoean. Pecnoupeufu urnnuuufuo o»upanu, ¬fo fakoe oõy¬euue õypef
nnafuur u saneunu, ¬fo y uux uef quuaucoeux cpepcfe pnn y¬acfun. Eonee foro,
uekofopue cfypeufu eupasunu ckenfuuusr no noeopy foro, õypef nu ypoeeuu
oõy¬euun copasrepeu eno»euuur peuurar. Hufepecuur nennefcn u fo, ¬fo
uekofopue pecnoupeufu saneunu, ¬fo ouu y»e urekf pocfafo¬uo uaeukoe, ¬foõu
cfafu npepnpuuurafennru, ecnu fonuko rocypapcfeo oõecne¬uf õasoeue ycnoeun
pnn sforo, uanpurep, npuref ȑcfkue repu pnn ycfpaueuun koppynuuu e
rocypapcfeeuuor cekfope.
-fo kacaefcn kornoueufoe oõpasoeafenuuoù nporparru, fo uaeuku rapkefuura u
uuqoprauun o eosro»uocfnx quuaucupoeauun paccrafpueakfcn pecnoupeufaru
kak uauõonee ea»uue. Auanus ofkpufux ofeefoe nokasan, ¬fo cfypeufu o¬euu
sauufepecoeauu, ¬foõu fakan nporparra oceefuna acnekfu "peanuuoù »usuu" e
koufekcfe npepnpuuurafenuckoù penfenuuocfu: npurepu cfauoeneuun u
qyukuuouupoeauun peanuuux kornauuù, ecfpe¬u c ycneuuuru õusuecreuaru u f.n.
Eonee foro, ocoõeuuo cfypeufu »euckoro nona ofrefunu ueoõxopurocfu oõy¬euun
e oõnacfu ynpaeneuun ¬enoee¬eckuru pecypcaru. Hakoueu, oõµeuue c quuckuru
npepnpuuurafennru õuno ofre¬euo kak ea»uuù snereuf fakoù nporparru.
Bmnopm uccneponauun pnn nopro1onku oõyuammeú nporpauum no
npepnpuuuua1enuc1ny
Pesynufafu oõsopa noseonunu uar euneufu ea»uue acnekfu, kofopue ueoõxopuro
y¬ufueafu npu nnauupoeauuu oõpasoeafenuuoù nporparru no
npepnpuuurafenucfey e poccuùckux yuueepcufefax. Bo-nepeux, uecrofpn ua fo, ¬fo
e uenor pecnoupeufu paccrafpueakf npepnpuuurafenucfeo kak npuenekafenuuyk
kapuepuyk anufepuafuey, ruorue us uux uaunu safpypuufenuuur oueuufu
yfeep»peuun, kacakµuecn, uanpurep, ropanu npepnpuuurafeneù. B sfor
koufekcfe, uacnepue coeefckoro nepuopa, korpa ¬acfuuù õusuec paccrafpueancn
kak uerafueuoe neneuue, po cux nop ureef ceoë enunuue. Cnepoeafenuuo,
oõpasoeafenuuan nporparra pon»ua copep»afu puckyccuk o npepnpuuurafenuckoù
68
sfuke. Bo-efopux, pesynufafu nopfeep»pakf ea»uocfu npakfu¬eckoù uuqoprauuu e
fakor oõy¬euuu. Hs-sa cno»uoù (sanyfauuoù) poccuùckoù õusuec-cpepu, fakan
nporparra pon»ua fak»e copep»afu uuqoprauuk, kofopan e paseufux skouorukax
pocfynua us ppyrux ucfo¬uukoe. Rpe»pe ecero, sfo kacaefcn ucfo¬uukoe
quuaucupoeauun u rocypapcfeeuuoro perynupoeauun. B-fpefuux, uaue
uccnepoeauue ocoõo ofre¬aef ea»uocfu oceeµeuun acnekfoe "peanuuoù »usuu" e
koufekcfe npepnpuuurafenucfea. Sfo ro»ef eknk¬afu npakfu¬eckue saunfun e
qopre cufyauuouuux uccnepoeauuù (case-study) ofpenuuux kornauuù u
npeseufauuu ycneuuux õusuecreuoe o for, kak ur ypanocu npeoponefu cno»uocfu
poccuùckoù õusuec-cpepu. Hakoueu, korreufapuu pecnoupeufoe noseonunu
cpenafu eueop, ¬fo poccuùckue cfypeufu npueuknu nnafufu sa ceoë oõpasoeauue. B
fo »e epern, ouu fµafenuuo eseeuueakf, okynuf nu nony¬euuoe sa peuuru
oõpasoeauue eno»euuuù kanufan. Sfo ofpa»aefcn e uekofopor ckenfuuusre no
ofuoueuuk k uoeur oõpasoeafenuuur uuuuuafuear. Cnepoeafenuuo, npe»pe ¬er
sanyckafu uoeyk oõy¬akµyk nporparry no npepnpuuurafenucfey, ueoõxopuro
ypocfoeepufucn, ¬fo nofeuuuanuuue y¬acfuuku oõnapakf pocfafo¬uoù
uuqoprauueù o nporparre, ¬foõu oueuufu eë nonesuocfu.
PIENYRITYSKESKUKSEN N-SARJAJULKAISUJA
2006 – 2008
Selvitys lujitemuovikomposiittituotteiden mahdollisuuksista
rakennusteollisuudessa.
Saarikivi Mikko & Handelberg Jari & Holmberg Timo & Matilainen Ari. 2008.
Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-82.
Raportti suomalaisten ja brittiläisten pk-yritysten yhteistyön kehittämisestä
uusiutuvan energian sektorilla.
Saarikivi Mikko. 2008. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-81.
Johtamisen taidot – hankkeessa järjestettyjen koulutusohjelmien vaikuttavuus.
Kokkonen Vesa. 2008. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-80.
Kasva yrittäjäksi – koulutusohjelman vaikuttavuus.
Kokkonen Vesa. 2008. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-79.
Suomalais-venäläisen innovaatioyhteistyön haasteet toimijanäkökulmasta.
Panfilo Aleksander & Karhunen Päivi & Miettinen Visa. 2008. Mikkeli Business
Campus Publications N-78.
Determinants of knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship in Southeast Finland and
Northwest Russia.
Karhunen Päivi & Kettunen Erja & Miettinen Visa & Sivonen Tiinamari. 2008.
Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-77.
StuNet -Business Possibilities and Education - hankkeen arviointi.
Kehusmaa Laura & Kämä Jussi & Gustafsson-Pesonen Anne (ohjaaja). 2008.
Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-76.
Uutta naisjohtajuutta Delfoi Akatemiasta – hankkeen vaikuttavuus.
Tuutti Laura. 2008. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-75.
Pk-yritysten kansainvälistymisen sopimukset.
Saarikivi Mikko. 2008. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-74.
Katsaus K-päivittäistavarakauppaan ja sen merkitykseen Itä-Suomessa.
Mynttinen Sinikka. 2007. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-73.
Mikkelin seudun yrityspalvelujen henkilökunnan sekä alueen yrittäjien
näkemykset ja suhtautuminen mentorointiin.
Mynttinen Sinikka & Saarikivi Mikko & Hämäläinen Erkki. 2007.
Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-72.
(4) 2
Tutkimus Miktech yrityshautomon yritysten näkemyksistä ja kokemuksista
hautomon
toiminnasta ja sen edelleen kehittämisestä.
Handelberg Jari & Saarikivi Mikko. 2007.
Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-71.
Perusta oma yritys - koulutusohjelman vaikuttavuus.
Kokkonen Vesa. 2007. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-70.
Pietarin innovaatiojärjestelmä ja yhteistyöpotentiaali suomalaisille
innovaatiotoimijoille.
Panfilo Aleksander & Karhunen Päivi & Miettinen Visa. 2007.
Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-69.
Pietarin ja Leningradin läänin potentiaali kaakkoissuomalaisille metallialan
yrityksille.
Panfilo Alenksander & Karhunen Päivi. 2007.
Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-68.
Summary and declaration of the conference on public support systems of SME’s
in Russia and other North European countries.
Virtanen Markku. 2007. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-67.
Kaupallisten avustajien koulutusohjelmien vaikuttavuus.
Kokkonen Vesa & Logrén Johanna. 2007.
Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-66.
Kehity esimiehenä – koulutusohjelman vaikuttavuus.
Kokkonen Vesa. 2007. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-65.
Pietarissa toteutettujen yrittäjäkoulutusohjelmien vaikuttavuus.
Logrén Johanna & Kokkonen Vesa. 2007.
Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-64.
Oppilaitosten yrittäjyyskoulutuksen kehittämishanke 2004-2006 Etelä-Savon
alueella. Tavoitteiden, toimenpiteiden ja vaikuttavuuden arviointi.
Mustonen Soile & Gustafsson-Pesonen Anne. 2007. Mikkeli Business Campus
Publications N-63.
Yrittäjyysasenteet korkeakouluissa: Case-tutkimus Mikkelin ammattikorkeakoulun
opettajien ja opiskelijoiden yrittäjyysasenteista.
Mustonen Soile. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-62.
Startti!-yrittäjänä – koulutusohjelman vaikuttavuus.
Kokkonen Vesa. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-61.
(4) 3
Yrittäjyys ja innovaatioiden kaupallistaminen – opintokokonaisuuden
vaikuttavuus.
Granbacka Johanna & Kokkonen Vesa. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus
Publications N-60.
Liiketoimintaosaaminen Itä-Suomessa.
Heimonen, Tomi & Virtanen, Markku. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus
Publications N-59.
Pk-yrityksen johtajan rooli sosiaalisen pääoman edistäjänä.
Norén, Mirva. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-58.
Yrittäjyysmotivaatio ja yrittäjyysasenteet pääkaupunkiseudun ja Hämeen
ammattikorkeakouluissa vuonna 2005. Mukana HAMKin sisäinen tutkimus.
Saarikivi Mikko & Kokkonen Vesa. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus
Publications N-57.
Pääkaupunkiseudun ja Hämeen ammattikorkeakoulujen opetushenkilökunnan
yrittäjyysasenteet.
Saarikivi Mikko & Kokkonen Vesa. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus
Publications N-56.
Yrittäjyysmotivaatio ja yrittäjyysasenteet pääkaupunkiseudun ja Hämeen
ammattikorkeakouluissa vuonna 2005. Suomenkieliset opiskelijat.
Saarikivi Mikko & Kokkonen Vesa. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus
Publications N-55.
Yrittäjyysmotivaatio ja yrittäjyysasenteet ammattikorkeakouluissa vuonna 2005.
Kansainväliset opiskelijat.
Saarikivi Mikko & Kokkonen Vesa. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus
Publications N-54.
Pääkaupunkiseudun ja Hämeen ammattikorkeakoulujen alumnien
yrittäjyysmotivaatio ja yrittäjyysasenteet vuonna 2005.
Saarikivi Mikko & Kokkonen Vesa. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus
Publications N-53.
Asiantuntijayrittäjyyden erikoispiirteet.
Kokkonen Vesa. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-52.
Firma – koulutusohjelman vaikuttavuus.
Kokkonen Vesa. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-51.
Oma yritys – koulutusohjelman vaikuttavuus.
Kokkonen Vesa. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-50.
Helsingin kauppakorkeakoulun opiskelijoiden ja sieltä vuonna 2000
valmistuneiden maistereiden yrittäjyysasenteet vuonna 2004.
Piipponen Rami. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-49.
(4) 4
Vientiohjelmien vaikuttavuus.
Kokkonen Vesa. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-48.
Etelä-Savo ja näkökulmia e-työn kehittämiseen.
Piispa Riikka & Hänninen Asko. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus
Publications N-47.
Kaupallinen ystävällisyys – sosiaalinen vuorovaikutus päivittäistavarakaupan
lähimyymälän kilpailuetuna (Case-yritykset Mikkelistä ja Juvalta).
Rekola Sirkku. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-46.
N-83
Russian students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship development –project 2
Results of a survey in three St. Petersburg universities
Päivi Karhunen
Svetlana Ledyaeva
Anne Gustafsson-Pesonen
Elena Mochnikova
Dmitry Vasilenko
N-83
Mikkeli Business Campus
doc_616576933.pdf
This report presents the results of a survey, which explored Russian students perceptions of entrepreneurship as a career option and their views of the current status and development needs in the entrepreneurial education provided in their home universities.
N-83
Russian students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship development –project 2
Results of a survey in three St. Petersburg universities
Päivi Karhunen
Svetlana Ledyaeva
Anne Gustafsson-Pesonen
Elena Mochnikova
Dmitry Vasilenko
N-83
Mikkeli Business Campus
Päivi Karhunen – Svetlana Ledyaeva – Anne Gustafsson-Pesonen
Elena Mochnikova – Dmitry Vasilenko
Russian students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship
Results of a survey in three St. Petersburg universities
Entrepreneurship development –project 2
HELSINKI SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS
MIKKELI BUSINESS CAMPUS
PUBLICATIONS
N-83
© Päivi Karhunen, Svetlana Ledyaeva, Anne Gustafsson-Pesonen,
Elena Mochnikova, Dmitry Vasilenko ja
Helsingin kauppakorkeakoulu, Pienyrityskeskus
ISSN 1458-5383
ISBN 978-952-488-180-4
Helsinki School of Economics -
HSE Print 2008
HELSINGIN KAUPPAKORKEAKOULU
HELSINKI SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS
PIENYRITYSKESKUS
LÖNNROTINKATU 7
50100 MIKKELI
FINLAND
2
Foreword
Entrepreneurship and small business creation are cornerstones of economic development in
Northwest Russia. In particular, the high quality of education in innovative fields, such as
information technology, provides a great potential for the establishment of new, knowledge-
based entrepreneurship and small businesses in St. Petersburg. However, this potential is not
exploited to its full extent. University graduates do not often see entrepreneurship as an
attractive career option. This is in part due to insufficient emphasis on entrepreneurial skills in
university curricula.
The above-illustrated problem has been identified also in Finland, where the interest of
university graduates in entrepreneurship has traditionally been low. In the recent years,
however, the situation has started to change. Tailored support measures, such as training
programs in entrepreneurship targeted to university students and graduates, have contributed to
this change. Such programs have proved successful as means to promote knowledge-based
entrepreneurship and to improve the survival of new start-ups. Hence, the Finnish experience
might be valuable for Russia as well. However, training concepts can seldom be successfully
transferred as such to different institutional context but have to be adapted to the local
environment. When identifying the aspects calling for adaptation, the identification of the needs
of the target group (i.e. university students) is essential.
This publication reports the results of a survey on Russian students’ perceptions on
entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial education, conducted with the grant 0610012 of the
Southeast Finland –Russia Neighbourhood Programme / TACIS funding. The project is
implemented jointly by Helsinki School of Economics (HSE) Small Business Center and the St.
Petersburg State University of Economics and Finance (FinEc). The survey results will be
applied in the development of concrete education and training measures promoting knowledge-
intensive entrepreneurship in Northwest Russia and cross-border cooperation between
entrepreneurs in Southeast Finland and Northwest Russia.
The survey was implemented jointly by the two partners and the HSE research unit Center for
Markets in Transition (CEMAT). Anne Gustafsson-Pesonen and Elena Mochnikova at HSE
Small Business Center were responsible for the administration of the project. Päivi Karhunen
from CEMAT acted as a scientific supervisor for the study. The survey instrument was prepared
jointly by the partners with the contribution of Dmitry Vasilenko (FinEc), Elmira Sharafutdinova
(HSE) and Rami-Samuli Räsänen (HSE). Dmitry Vasilenko was responsible for the collection of
the survey data. Svetlana Ledyaeva (HSE) carried out the statistical analysis of the survey data
and reported its results.
We thank the members of the research team for their good work.
Mikkeli 21.8.2008
Director Pentti Mustalampi, HSE Small Business Center
Director Riitta Kosonen, HSE Center for Markets in Transition
Rector Igor A. Maximtsev, St. Petersburg State University of Economics and Finance
3
Table of Contents
1 Introduction........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background for the study............................................................................................... 1
1.2 Objectives of the survey, data and methodology........................................................... 3
2 Background characteristics of respondents and their relationship to entrepreneurship .... 5
3 Entrepreneurial motivation of respondents...................................................................... 11
3.1 General attractiveness of entrepreneurship................................................................. 11
3.2 Motivational factors for entrepreneurship .................................................................... 14
4 Barriers for entrepreneurship........................................................................................... 17
4.1 Endogenous barriers for entrepreneurship.................................................................. 17
4.2 Exogenous barriers for entrepreneurship .................................................................... 19
5 Attitudes towards entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship .................................................. 23
6 Assessment of entrepreneurial education in universities ................................................ 25
6.1 Interest in entrepreneurial training............................................................................... 27
6.2 Preferred components of entrepreneurial training ....................................................... 30
7 Comparison of Russian and Finnish students................................................................. 32
8 Summary and conclusions .............................................................................................. 40
References.................................................................................................................................. 47
Annex 1: The Questionnaire........................................................................................................ 48
Annex 2: Factor analysis on attitudes towards entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship ................. 54
Annex 3: Finnish summary.......................................................................................................... 56
Annex 4: Russian summary ........................................................................................................ 61
List of Tables
Table 1 General characteristics of the respondents, total number and %................................ 5
Table 2 Respondents with entrepreneurs among family or friends, % of total sample............. 6
Table 3 Career plans of respondents, % of respondents agreeing with the statement ............ 7
Table 4 Sectoral distribution of male and female respondents’ potential enterprises, %....... 10
Table 5 Motivational factors for entrepreneurship, mean values............................................ 14
Table 6 Additional motivational factors given by respondents................................................ 15
Table 7 Endogenous barriers for entrepreneurship................................................................ 18
Table 8 Exogenous barriers for entrepreneurship .................................................................. 20
Table 9 Additional barriers mentioned by respondents .......................................................... 21
Table 10 Attitudes towards entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship, % of respondents............... 23
Table 11 Students’ views of entrepreneurial education in their universities ............................. 26
Table 12 Reasons for not having interest in entrepreneurial training ....................................... 29
Table 13 Results of assessment of the components of the program........................................ 30
Table 14 Suggested additional components of entrepreneurial training program.................... 31
Table 15 Russian and Finnish students’ attitudes towards entrepreneurship .......................... 39
Table 16 Results of factor analysis........................................................................................... 54
Table 17 Results of summations of variables within factors..................................................... 55
4
List of Figures
Figure 1 Sectors of respondents’ potential future enterprises, number of respondents............ 9
Figure 2 Attractiveness of entrepreneurship, % of total sample.............................................. 12
Figure 3 Attractiveness of entrepreneurship by category of respondents, %* ........................ 13
Figure 4 Interest in participating in entrepreneurial training .................................................... 27
Figure 5 Willingness to pay for the participation in entrepreneurship training......................... 28
Figure 6 Attractiveness of entrepreneurship for Russian versus Finnish students ................. 33
Figure 7 Gender differences in interest to entrepreneurship, Finnish and Russian students.. 34
Figure 8 Factors motivating Russian and Finnish students to become an entrepreneur ........ 35
Figure 9 Factors decreasing Finnish and Russian students` interest in entrepreneurship ..... 37
1
1 Introduction
This report presents the results of a survey, which explored Russian students’
perceptions of entrepreneurship as a career option and their views of the current status
and development needs in the entrepreneurial education provided in their home
universities. In addition, it mirrors the results of the survey against earlier research
results on Finnish students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship.
1.1 Background for the study
Entrepreneurship and small business creation are cornerstones of economic
development in Northwest Russia. In particular, the high quality of education in
innovative fields, such as information technology, provides a great potential for the
establishment of new, knowledge-based entrepreneurship and small businesses in St.
Petersburg. However, this potential is not exploited to its full extent. Entrepreneurial
activity in Russia is in general relatively low in international comparison (Verkhovskaya
et al., 2007; Chepurenko, 2008). Furthermore, although Russian entrepreneurs have in
general higher education level than their counterparts in for example Finland (Karhunen
et al., 2008a), majority of Russian entrepreneurs start their businesses in traditional
sectors of the economy such as consumer services and construction (Verkhovskaya et
al., 2007). Correspondingly, the share of innovative and knowledge-intensive enterprises
is low (ibid). This raises the question, how people with higher education could be
attracted to exploit their intellectual capital in full by transforming their knowledge into a
business idea. Here, the development of entrepreneurial skills and capabilities of
university students as potential entrepreneurs of the future is in key role. Owing to the
short history of entrepreneurship and private business in Russia, entrepreneurial
education in Russian universities is, however, still at its development stage (Karhunen et
al., 2008a). Hence, the promotion of entrepreneurial education in Russian universities is
a task of key importance.
2
The question of how to encourage young people to start knowledge-intensive
enterprises intrigues not only Russia. It has puzzled policy-makers and academicians
also in Finland, where the general framework for entrepreneurship is well-developed.
However, the interest of university graduates in entrepreneurship has traditionally been
low (Tonttila, 2001). In the recent years, however, the situation has started to change.
This is on the one hand due to the rise in information technology sector, which provides
business opportunities for small innovative enterprises. On the other hand, tailored
support measures such as training programs in entrepreneurship have been developed
for university students and graduates. Here, Helsinki School of Economics (HSE) has
been doing a pioneer work with its Academic Entrepreneur Program, which has been
implemented for several years. The program has proved successful as means to
promote knowledge-based entrepreneurship and improve the survival of new start-ups.
Therefore, the Finnish experience is worth of studying when planning entrepreneurial
education in Russia as well. However, one should keep in mind that training concepts
can seldom be successfully transferred as such to different institutional context, but
must be adapted to the local environment. This is due to cross-national differences in
business environment, academic tradition and students’ attitudes and knowledge.
Consequently, measures targeted towards development of entrepreneurial education in
Russia should be based on thorough analysis of all these aspects.
This report results from the project “Entrepreneurship Development (EntDev)”,
implemented with the grant 0610012 of the Southeast Finland –Russia Neighbourhood
Programme / TACIS funding. The project aims at developing entrepreneurial education
in Russia by using the Finnish experience as a benchmark. More specifically, the goal of
the project is to adapt the Academic Entrepreneurial Program of HSE to the Russian
context. This is done jointly by the project partners HSE Small Business Center and St.
Petersburg State University of Economics and Finance (FinEc). The latter will integrate
the program to its academic curriculum. The launch of the program is preceded by a
thorough analysis of needs for adaptation of the training program. In 2007 a feasibility
study focusing on differences in the business environment and entrepreneurial
education between Finland and Russia was conducted (for the results see Karhunen et
3
al., 2008a). It was followed by a survey of Russian students’ perceptions of
entrepreneurship and views of the current state of entrepreneurial education in their
home universities, which was undertaken in spring 2008. The current publication reports
the key findings of the survey.
1.2 Objectives of the survey, data and methodology
The purpose of the survey was to examine Russian students’ attitudes towards
entrepreneurship, as well as their views of entrepreneurship as career option and
interest in entrepreneurial training. The survey was conducted among students of three
universities located in the Russian city of St. Petersburg, one of which represented
economics and business (The St. Petersburg State University of Economics and
Finance FinEc) and two technical and engineering disciplines (St. Petersburg
Electrotechnical University LETI and St. Petersburg State University of Information
Technologies, Mechanics and Optics ITMO).
The survey was implemented in April-May, 2008 as a web-based survey in Russian
language. The survey software used was Finnish Webropol. The survey sampling was
administered by the Russian partner of the project FinEc, which gathered the responses
from students. Due to the applied purpose of the survey it was preliminary agreed to
have not a random sample among a larger population, but to use nonprobability
sampling instead. The sampling method was nonproportional quota sampling (Trochim,
2006), where 200 responses were defined as the total sample, consisting of a minimum
number of sampled units in the two main categories of the sample: 100 students from
FinEc and 50 students from each technical university (LETI and ITMO). Moreover, the
criterion that the year of studies must be no less than 3rd was set. The final number of
registered respondents was 204. We, however, included also incomplete questionnaires
in the analysis. Therefore, the total number of respondents per question may be lower
than 204.
The survey questionnaire (Annex 1) was adapted from an existing survey instrument,
which had been used in a number of studies conducted at the HSE Small Business
4
Center among Finnish students (see e.g. Piipponen, 2006). This was done in view of
Finnish-Russian comparison of the results. The questionnaire consisted of four blocks of
questions, majority of which were multiple choice questions. The first block of questions
covered background variables such as age, gender, year of studies and major discipline,
as well as questions addressing whether there are entrepreneurs among the
respondent’s family or friends. Moreover, the respondents were asked about their career
plans to figure out how they perceive entrepreneurship as a career option. The second
block consisted of statements measuring the respondents’ perceptions about
motivational factors and obstacles associated with entrepreneurship. These covered
both personal traits and factors of the competitive and institutional environments for
entrepreneurship. The third block focused on general views about entrepreneurs and the
role of small businesses in the society and economy. Finally, for the purposes of the
project it was asked about the students’ interest to participate in entrepreneurial
education in their university and their views how entrepreneurship is promoted in their
studies.
Our analysis of the data combines descriptive, analytical and statistical methods. First,
we used cross-tabulations and their qualitative analysis. We also computed relevant
statistics to determine the statistical significance of relationships found in cross-
tabulations, i.e. performed several chi-square tests. Second, we utilized analysis of
variance (ANOVA) to compare the means of different subsamples. The software used in
the analysis includes Excel, SAS enterprise guide and Stata. Due to the applied nature
of this report we, however, focus on the key findings without describing the results of our
statistical analysis in detail. Descriptive statistics are available from the authors of this
report by request.
The analysis of the survey results is structured around the thematic blocks of the
questionnaire. Chapter 2 presents the background characteristics of respondents and
their relationship to entrepreneurship. Chapter 3 illustrates the entrepreneurial
motivations of the respondents and Chapter 4 obstacles for entrepreneurship. In
Chapter 5 the focus is on the respondents’ general attitudes on entrepreneurs and
5
entrepreneurship, whereas Chapter 6 is devoted to their views of entrepreneurial
education in their home university and interest in entrepreneurial training. Chapter 7
gives a comparison of the survey results with previous research on Finnish students’
perceptions of entrepreneurship. Chapter 8 concludes the analysis and gives
recommendations for training measures.
2 Background characteristics of respondents and their relationship
to entrepreneurship
We start our description of the survey results by giving an overview of the general
characteristics of the respondents, as summarized in Table 1.
Table 1 General characteristics of the respondents, total number and %
Gender N % Year of
studies
N % Major
discipline
N %
Male 95 47.5 3 or lower 24 12.7 Economic 115 63.2
Female 105 52.8 4 110 58.5 Technical 67 36.8
5 54 28.7
Total 200 100 Total 188 100 Total 182 100
As shown in the table, the sample was relatively evenly divided among male and female
respondents. Moreover, almost 90% of respondents were near of completing their
studies, i.e. on 4th or 5th course. Hence, the question of career plans is more concrete
for them than students in the lower courses. Moreover, the median age of respondents
is 21 years (not shown in the table), illustrating the relatively young age of Russian
university graduates in comparison to many European countries. This is explained by
the structure of the Russian education system, where one can apply to university after
completing the 11-year primary and secondary education, being usually 17 years old.
Consequently, a general graduation age is 22 years - the same as the average age for
first year students in some Finnish universities.
6
When analyzing by major discipline
1
(spetsial’nost’), students representing economic
disciplines somewhat dominated in the sample. This is explained by the fact that
economic disciplines are taught also in technical universities. The most popular major
subject (spetsializatsiya) was management of organization, which was mentioned by 51
respondents. It was followed by management (24 respondents). Among technical
subjects, most often were mentioned applied informatics and mathematics, and
information-measuring technologies (11 respondents each). Furthermore, 53
respondents mentioned that they have or are studying for another (a second one)
university or college degree. The second education was usually technical (programming,
information technologies) or juridical for students in economic or related fields, and
economic (management, accounting, business administration) for the students of
technical specialties. Finally, more than half of the respondents in the sample
announced that they have working experience in their major subject. In average, the
students had 10 months of such experience.
Respondents’ relationship to entrepreneurship
In addition to basic background variables such as age and major discipline, we posed
the respondents a number of questions addressing their relationship to
entrepreneurship. First we asked, whether there are entrepreneurs among the
respondent’s family or friends. Table 2 summarizes the results in this respect.
Table 2 Respondents with entrepreneurs among family or friends, %*
N %
My father is an entrepreneur 58 30%
My mother is an entrepreneur 29 15%
My sister or brother is an entrepreneur 14 7%
My spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend is an entrepreneur 18 9%
I have entrepreneurs among my close friends 128 65%
*of respondents answering this question
1
In FinEc students select their major discipline (spetsial’nost’) in the third study year, and the major subject
(spetsializatsiya) after the forth study year.
7
The table reveals two interesting aspects. First, entrepreneurship seems to be more
common among men than among women among the generation of the students’
parents. It was twice as common to have father as an entrepreneur than mother.
Second, two thirds of respondents announced that some of their friends are or have
been entrepreneurs. Assuming that the friends of the students are approximately the
same age with them, this is an encouraging result in view of entrepreneurial activity
among the Russian youth. The low entrepreneurial activity among sisters/brothers and
spouses/boyfriends/girlfriends was partly explained by the fact that a third of
respondents reported being the only child in the family, and ca. half of respondents was
single.
The following question addressed the future career plans of the respondents in general,
where being an entrepreneur was presented as one of the alternatives (Table 3).
Table 3 Career plans of respondents, % of respondents agreeing with the
statement
Statement %
I will be employed by a private firm 60.6
I will be employed by the public sector 18.7
I will have my own business in the future 82.7
I already have my own business and I will continue to work in it 5.7
I will continue my studies for a post-graduate degree 49.5
The table illustrates that the respondents consider own business as the most attractive
career option in the future. 11 respondents announced that they already have their own
business and will continue to work in it after graduation. All except one of them were
students of economic specialties. The fields in which the students’ companies operate
include advertising and marketing, trade, construction, information technologies,
mechanical engineering, services and Internet - technologies. Furthermore, private
sector is viewed as a more likely employer than the public sector. One natural
explanation for this is the disciplinary orientation of the students in the sample,
dominated by economic and business subjects. When cross-tabulating the data across
8
gender we also found some differences. The female respondents were not as eager to
establishing one’s own enterprise as male students. Moreover, ten male respondents
announced that they are already having their own business, whereas there was only one
such respondent in the female sample. Interestingly, the public sector as an employer
was considered as more attractive by male than female respondents. Finally, the
likelihood of continuing studies for a post-graduate degree was considerably higher
among male than female students. A natural explanation for this result is the Russian
system, where males pursuing post-graduate studies are exempted from military
service.
Moreover, we asked the respondents to describe, which field their potential enterprise
would operate in. Figure 1 presents the branches in which respondents would like to
have own company. Branches, in which two or less respondents would like to have a
company, are not presented in the figure.
9
Figure 1 Sectors of respondents’ potential future enterprises, number of
respondents
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
T
r
a
d
e
A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
i
n
g
A
u
d
i
t
,
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
R
e
a
l
e
s
t
a
t
e
M
a
c
h
i
n
e
-
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Altogether 157 respondents named a branch in which they would prefer to have own
company. The most frequently mentioned field was information technology, which was
mentioned by 40 respondents. Interestingly, only 7 of them are students of non-technical
specialties and on the other hand, 50% of students of technical specialties would like to
have a company in information technologies. The preferences of industry of students of
economic and related specialties were more diverse.
In addition to economic and technical specialization, we qualitatively analyzed the data
against gender. Here, we wanted to find out whether the traditional division of Russian
businesses into male and female sectors (see e.g. Izyumov and Razumnova, 2000)
reflects in the students’ responses. Table 4 shows the results of our analysis.
10
Table 4 Sectoral distribution of male and female respondents’ potential
enterprises, %
Sector Male* Female**
Consumer services
1.5 26.5
Business to business services, incl. real estate
7.6 29.4
Trade
4.5 7.4
Manufacturing of goods
15.2 11.8
Construction
13.6 8.8
Information technology, communication and transportation
54.5 13.2
Other
3.0 2.9
Total 100.0
100.0
*Total number of respondents with valid answers for this question 71
**Total number of respondents with valid answers for this question 68
The distribution of sectors, in which the respondents view their possible enterprise
operating in the future, illustrates clear differences between male and female
respondents. First, more than half (55.9%) of female respondents named a business,
which can be classified into the category of services. For male respondents services
were viewed as a potential field of future business for less than 10% of respondents.
However, the most popular field for them was information technology (IT), which
comprises both services and equipment manufacturing. In addition to gender, a likely
explanation for these results is the major discipline of the respondents, which for
majority of the male respondents was IT.
Second, a more detailed analysis of the concrete businesses that the respondents
mentioned confirms the male-female division. Female respondents frequently mentioned
businesses that can be viewed as “fancy” (Salmenniemi et al., n.d.). These include
public relations (PR), marketing, and advertising. In addition, traditional consumer
service fields such as hotel and restaurant business were mentioned. Interestingly, a
“female dimension” was identifiable also in those responses, which considered trade or
production. Here, businesses such as fashion retail and clothing manufacturing were
mentioned by the female respondents.
11
The hypothetical business ideas of male respondents were clearly linked to their own
area of expertise, which for the majority of respondents was technological. As
mentioned above, IT was the most frequently mentioned business field. In addition, the
male respondents used terms such as automation and diagnostics to illustrate the field
of their potential future businesses. The different nature of female and male businesses
was further confirmed by the answers to the question, whether the students are planning
to establish a company in a knowledge-intensive field. Approximately a third (36.4%) of
male respondents gave a positive answer to this question, whereas the respective share
for female respondents was 15.5%.
3 Entrepreneurial motivation of respondents
After presenting the general characteristics of the respondents we now move on to
analyze their entrepreneurial motivation in more detail. We illustrate how attractive the
respondents view entrepreneurship in general, and what are the factors that are
perceived as most important motivators for starting one’s own business.
3.1 General attractiveness of entrepreneurship
First, the respondents were asked to assess their general attitude to entrepreneurship
using five-point scale ranging from not at all attractive (1) to very attractive (5) (Figure 2).
12
Figure 2 Attractiveness of entrepreneurship, % of total sample
31,6 % 51 % 7,7 %
7,7 %
2 %
0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %
1
Attractiveness of entrepreneurship
Very attractive Rather attractive Don`t know Not very attractive Not attractive at all
The results of this question confirm the strong entrepreneurial orientation of the
respondents illustrated in the previous chapter. As shown in the figure, over 80% of
respondents find entrepreneurship as rather or very attractive career perspective. To
shed more light on this issue we analyzed the data against the key background
variables: gender, specialization (economic or technical) and presence of entrepreneurs
in the family. Figure 3 summarizes the results of the analysis.
13
Figure 3 Attractiveness of entrepreneurship by category of respondents, %*
40
60
53
48 47
53
41
20
37
25
45
23
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
M
a
l
e
F
e
m
a
l
e
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
i
n
f
a
m
i
l
y
N
o
e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
i
n
f
a
m
i
l
y
%
Very attractive
Rather attractive
* of total respondents answering the particular question per category
First, when comparing male and female students we found that both of them had a very
positive view of entrepreneurial activity in general. Approximately 80% of both groups
viewed entrepreneurial activity as rather or very attractive. The share of male students
perceiving entrepreneurial activity as very attractive was, however, considerably higher
(40%) than for their female counterparts most of whom selected the option “rather
attractive” instead. Second, we found that the attractiveness of entrepreneurship was
higher for students from economic disciplines, 90% of whom viewed it as rather or very
attractive. For students with technical background the corresponding figure was 73%.
This difference was also statistically significant. Finally, we explored whether the
presence of entrepreneurs in the respondent’s family has an impact on attractiveness of
entrepreneurship. Here we also found a clear difference, which was also statistically
significant. 92% of students with at least one entrepreneur in the family found
entrepreneurship as rather or very attractive, whereas 76% of students with no
entrepreneurs in the family shared this opinion.
14
3.2 Motivational factors for entrepreneurship
After discussing the general attractiveness of entrepreneurship among the respondents
we next analyze more in detail the motivational factors, which increase the respondents’
desire to become an entrepreneur. The respondents were asked to assess factors,
which might increase their desire to become an entrepreneur according to a five-point
scale from not at all (1) to very much (5). Table 5 summarizes the results for the total
sample.
Table 5 Motivational factors for entrepreneurship, mean values
Statement Average rank
Result-based income 4.3
Achieving an appropriate goal in life in accordance with one’s own abilities 4.3
Opportunity to meet interesting people 4.2
Interesting and varying tasks and duties 4.1
Liberty in determining one’s tasks and duties 4.0
Opportunity to get rich 3.8
Liberty of being one’s own boss 3.7
General appreciation of entrepreneurship 3.7
Liberty of choosing one’s working hours 3.5
Entrepreneurship suits my character 3.5
My skills and abilities point to entrepreneurship 3.5
Opportunity to work as a superior 3.2
Entrepreneurship unifies the entire family 2.6
As shown in the table the key motivational factors relate to the opportunity to affect on
one’s “destiny” in terms on financial income and exploitation of one’s potential and
abilities. However, the opportunity to get rich as such was ranked not as high. In
contrast, the respondents emphasized more entrepreneurship as an interesting way of
life, both as regards to social interaction and the content of tasks and duties.
15
In addition to the closed statements we gave the students the opportunity to name other
motivational factors they consider as important. These were given by 55 respondents.
Consistent with existing literature on entrepreneurial motivations (see, e.g. Moy et al.,
2003), the answers can be broadly classified into intrinsic rewards, financial factors and
social factors. Here, the first category was clearly dominant, whereas the two latter were
represented only by a couple of answers (Table 6).
Table 6 Additional motivational factors given by respondents
Category N
Intrinsic rewards 46
Financial factors 3
Social factors 6
Total 55
The respondents’ comments regarding intrinsic rewards were mainly characterized by
the opportunity for personal growth on the one hand, and by independency and
decision-making freedom on the other. As it was formulated by one of the respondents:
“[Entrepreneurship gives] the opportunity for self-realization, independency from
superiors, income pending on just your own skills and persistence.” The most frequently
mentioned individual motivational factor by the respondents was “self-realization”
(samorealizatsiya). Entrepreneurship was viewed as providing the opportunity to realize
one’s innovative ideas and life goals, as well as one’s creativity. One of the respondents
summarized this view as “Being an entrepreneur, you can realize your competencies,
orientation and creative potential in full”. Moreover, some respondents emphasized the
financial aspects of entrepreneurship alongside with intrinsic rewards. The comment
“Entrepreneurship gives me the possibility to do those things that I like and which I
consider as most profitable in financial terms” illustrates this.
Moreover, there were six students, who mentioned social aspects as motivational
factors for entrepreneurship. Two of them emphasized one’s social position, whereas
the remaining four addressed the role of entrepreneurs in contributing to social welfare
16
on the one hand “[Entrepreneurship allows me to] bring something new, contribute to the
sector that the people need”, and to economic development on the other hand
“Entrepreneurship promotes economic development and formation of new ideas in the
business sector, being a driving force of progress”.
In addition to analyzing the total sample, we analyzed it against the key background
variables (gender, discipline and presence of entrepreneurs in the family). Regarding
gender, we did not reveal major differences in entrepreneurial motivations. The biggest
difference was in assessing the factor “Opportunity to meet interesting people”. This
factor had greater importance for female students than male students. The similarity of
male and female respondents was somewhat surprising for us in view of existing
research on Finnish students. This question will be discussed more in detail in Chapter
7. Moreover, when comparing the respondents against their educational background, we
conclude that most factors have greater positive importance for students of economic
specialties than for students of technical specialties. However, the difference of mean
values of these factors is statistically significant only for two factors, namely,
“Entrepreneurship suits my character” and “My skills and capabilities point to
entrepreneurship”. A likely explanation is that the curricula in economic education
emphasize more entrepreneurial skills than curricula in technical education. In addition,
the “entrepreneurially-oriented” youth can be expected to select economic and business
education rather than technical.
Finally, we examined the presence of entrepreneurs in the family as a potential
background factor affecting entrepreneurial motivation. We found that all the factors
have greater positive importance for those students who have at least one entrepreneur
among their close relatives than for those who do not have any. The five factors for
which this difference was statistically significant were the liberty of being one’s own
boss, entrepreneurship suits my character, my skills and capabilities point to
entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship unifies the entire family, the liberty in determining
ones’ tasks and duties, and the opportunity to get rich. This indicates on the one hand
that respondents with no “role models” in the family may not have a clear view of the
reality of entrepreneur’s life. Therefore, they may for example grade their entrepreneurial
17
skills lower than those respondents with entrepreneurs in the family. On the other hand,
the existence of entrepreneur(s) in the family may be seen as a social safety net for the
respondent when (s)he thinks of becoming entrepreneur him or herself. This is indicated
by the relative importance of the statement “entrepreneurship unifies the entire family”
for those respondents who actually have experience from entrepreneurship in the family.
4 Barriers for entrepreneurship
The previous chapter described the factors, which motivate Russian students to view
entrepreneurship as an attractive career option. This chapter focuses on the factors,
which the respondents view as decreasing their desire to become an entrepreneur.
These include both endogenous and exogenous factors. The former include personal
characteristics and skills, whereas the latter comprise factors related to the operating
environment of entrepreneurs. (Moy et al., 2003) In addition, endogenous factors are
such that the person can control and influence, whereas exogenous factors are more or
less taken as given (ibid).
4.1 Endogenous barriers for entrepreneurship
The students were first given a number of statements that are generally viewed as
endogenous obstacles for entrepreneurship and asked to which degree they perceive
them as preventing their decision to become an entrepreneur. The 5-point scale used
ranged from not at all (1) to very much (5). Results of the assessment are presented in
Table 7.
18
Table 7 Endogenous barriers for entrepreneurship
Factor Average rank
Fear of debt 3.3
Entrepreneurship is excessively binding and time-consuming 3.2
Fear of losing one’s property 3.2
Insecure income 3.1
My current life situation 3.1
Lack of personal skills and competence 3.0
Entrepreneurs are excessively at the mercy of their investors 2.9
Society provides no safety net for entrepreneurs 2.9
Fear of tough competition 2.8
Loss of free time 2.8
My personal competence is difficult to commercialize 2.7
Lack of business idea 2.7
Adverse effect on social relations 2.4
Unwillingness or incompetence to market one’s personal skills and competence 2.4
Entrepreneurship does not suit my character 2.4
Excessively irregular working hours 2.2
General lack of appreciation of entrepreneurship 1.9
As shown in the table, the respondents viewed financial risks as the biggest
endogenous obstacles for entrepreneurship, fearing of getting indebted and even losing
one’s property. In addition, entrepreneurship was viewed as binding and time-
consuming at the same time as it would provide insecure income. Moreover,
respondents viewed that entrepreneurship does not suit very well their current life
situation as students. In contrast, personal characteristics and skills were viewed by the
respondents as not particularly big obstacles for entrepreneurship.
Moreover, we analyzed again the results across subsamples (gender, educational
background and presence of entrepreneurs in the family). Regarding gender, we found a
number of differences in addition that female respondents tend to assess the obstacles
19
for entrepreneurship in general as higher than the male ones. First, the results present
female students as more risk-averse. The financial risks associated with
entrepreneurship were rated by female respondents as more severe obstacles as by
male ones. In addition, female students were considerably more concerned by
competition and evaluated their entrepreneurial skills and know-how as weaker than
their male counterparts. As it comes to the impact of educational background on
perceived obstacles for entrepreneurship, the pattern was very similar for students of
economic and technical backgrounds. The only factor, for which the difference of mean
values was statistically significant is “Entrepreneurship does not suit my character”,
which was perceived as a greater obstacle by students with technical specialization. In
addition, students from technical background viewed more often that their personal
competence is difficult to commercialize, indicating a lack of perception of opportunities
for knowledge-intensive business. Finally, we examined the role of entrepreneurs in the
family in perceived obstacles for entrepreneurship. In average students with no
entrepreneur in the family assigned greater negative importance to all statements than
those students, who have at least one entrepreneur in the family. This difference was
statistically significant as regards whether entrepreneurship suits the respondents’
current life situation or personal character. In addition, respondents with no
entrepreneurs in the family viewed more often that their professional skills are hard to
commercialize and that entrepreneurs are excessively at the mercy of their investors.
4.2 Exogenous barriers for entrepreneurship
The respondents were next asked to assess factors of the local business environment
(i.e. exogenous factors), which might decrease their desire to become an entrepreneur,
using the same five-point scale as in the previous two questions. Results of assessment
are presented in Table 8.
20
Table 8 Exogenous barriers for entrepreneurship
Factors Average rank
Lack of own financial resources 4.0
Corruption 3.6
Bureaucracy (e.g. difficulties to obtain licenses and certificates) 3.6
Frequently changing or unclear legislation 3.5
Difficulties in getting external financing 3.5
Crime 3.3
Russian taxation 3.3
Tough competition 3.0
Difficulties in finding customers 3.0
Procedure of registration of the company 2.9
Difficulties in hiring labor 2.9
Local infrastructure (e.g. availability of business premises) 2.9
Overall, the figure illustrates that the students’ views are well in line with Russian
entrepreneurs’ opinions about obstacles for entrepreneurship and small business
development in Russia (see for example Heininen et al., 2008; Karhunen et al., 2008a;
2008b). The obstacles assessed as most serious include institutional factors such as
access to financing, corruption, bureaucracy, and complex and frequently changing
legislation. In contrast, factors related to the task environment (relationship to other
members of the production system), were perceived as less challenging.
When comparing different types of respondents in this regard, in general female
respondents perceived the features of business environment as more serious obstacles
than their male counterparts. Moreover, the financial issues were emphasized also here.
The difference between males and females was the biggest when considering
statements related to availability of own or external financing. Also, the difference was
notable in the views concerning tough competition, which female students viewed as a
more serious obstacle. Similarly, we found that students with technical specialization
tended to value obstacles for entrepreneurship slightly more serious than those with
21
economic background. Interestingly, the biggest differences considered factors of task
environment, most notably recruiting labor, whereas features of institutional environment
were ranked relatively similarly by both groups of students. Finally, the results
considering the role of having entrepreneurs in one’s own family confirmed that it
reflects in more positive views of entrepreneurship. Those students who have at least
one entrepreneur in the family assigned less negative importance to all presented
statements, except the factor “Russian taxation” for which the mean values of the
groups were almost equal. The difference was at largest for statements regarding the
lack of own financial resources, corruption and crime. This result can be interpreted in
two ways. On the one hand, the respondents may view that the other entrepreneur in
the family with his or her established networks may assist them in getting financing and
protects them from corruption and crime. On the other hand, those respondents with no
personal experience of entrepreneurship may view the risk of corruption and crime
higher than it is faced by entrepreneurs in the reality.
In addition to the pre-defined statements considering obstacles for entrepreneurship, we
gave the students the opportunity to select the option “other” and to define it more in
detail. 71 respondents commented this question, 45 of them being female and 26 male.
We analyzed the results qualitatively by classifying the answers into 8 categories. Some
of them overlap with the given statements, whereas others bring some additional
aspects. Table 9 summarizes the results in this respect.
Table 9 Additional barriers mentioned by respondents
Category N
Financial issues, risk 29
Stress, fear of responsibility, time-consuming 11
Bureaucracy and corruption, state policy 6
Personal characteristics, lack of experience, own principles 14
Competition, lack of business idea, market situation 8
Negative attitudes towards entrepreneurs 3
Total 71
22
As shown in the table, the financial issues dominated the answers also as regards the
open answers. The respondents emphasized equally the lack of own financial resources
and low availability of external funding. The female respondents mentioned more often
the financial risks associated with entrepreneurship, such as the risk of losing one’s
property, whereas male respondents viewed the issue from more practical viewpoint: “I
have neither capital nor time to find it”. Some respondents also mentioned psychological
factors associated with the life as an entrepreneur, such as mental stress. As a female
respondent put it: “Entrepreneurship is continuous worrying about your future, it gets on
your nerves”. In addition, some respondents viewed the big responsibility as a negative
factor: “You need to solve all problematic situations personally, there are a lot of
negative things”. Moreover, a couple of respondents emphasized the time-consuming
character of entrepreneurship. Finally, bureaucracy, corruption and the state policy
towards entrepreneurship and small businesses were mentioned in open answers as
well. A female respondent summarized the negative views regarding the public sector as
follows: “The state does not support small business at all, it is difficult to develop and to
get on your feet. Plus difficulties of getting [external] financing emerge, and to make
profit yourself in an honest way is IMPOSSIBLE in our country”.
In addition to exogenous factors, also endogenous factors were mentioned by the
respondents. Interestingly, the lack of experience and insufficient skills and knowledge
related to entrepreneurial activity were emphasized more by male than female
respondents. As one of the male respondents expressed it: “[I have] no working
experience, no entrepreneurial education. I don’t have a clear idea, what I should do to
start my own business and what are the consequences”. In addition, some respondents
underlined that entrepreneurship does not just suit their character. In contrast, female
respondents mentioned more often factors related to competition and situation on the
market. The lack of a business idea and unclear perception of business opportunities in
the field the respondent would be interested working in were mentioned: “I’m afraid of
harsh competition and I don’t have practical information on the field, which prevents me
to become an entrepreneur.” Finally, some respondents (all female) mentioned attitudes
in the society as an obstacle for entrepreneurship. However, none of them mentioned
23
the gender (i.e. being female) as the reason for discrimination. Rather, they perceived
that attitudes towards small businesses in general and to young entrepreneurs in
particular are not favorable: “Young entrepreneurs are not taken seriously”.
5 Attitudes towards entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship
The third thematic block of questions in our questionnaire focused on the respondents’
attitudes towards entrepreneurship. The students were asked at what degree they agree
or disagree with different statements which characterize general opinion on
entrepreneurship, social importance of entrepreneurship, state support of
entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial ethics and entrepreneurship’s role in creating work
places. The students assessed these statements using a five-point scale from disagree
completely (1) to agree completely (5). The results are summarized in Table 10.
Table 10 Attitudes towards entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship, % of
respondents
Statement
Wholly or
partly
disagree
Wholly or
partly
agree
Don’t
know
Entrepreneurs must be appreciated because they provide work for others 8.4 % 75.6 % 16.1%
Entrepreneurial activities provide society with more benefits than
disadvantages
9.4 % 68.6 % 22.0%
Entrepreneurship is the future form of employment 15.2 % 53.4 % 31.4%
Society must support young, beginning entrepreneurs 3.1 % 87.9 % 8.9%
Society provides excessive support for entrepreneurs 81.7 % 6.3 % 12.0%
Entrepreneurs can exploit the personal skills and competences more
effectively in their own businesses than in salaried employment
9.4 % 71.2 % 19.4%
Entrepreneurship requires more intellectual than financial capital 23.0 % 45.5 % 31.4%
Entrepreneurship is for people who have courage and ideas 6.3 % 87.0 % 6.8%
Entrepreneurs take excessive risks 10.5 % 64.8 % 24.7%
Entrepreneurs get rich on other people’s work 40.6 % 33.4 % 26.0%
People who cannot adapt to conventional jobs end up as entrepreneurs 59.6 % 19.4 % 20.9%
Entrepreneurs often stretch their consciences 25.5 % 38.6 % 35.9%
24
Entrepreneurs do not care about environmental issues to a sufficient extent 25.6 % 46.6 % 27.7%
Entrepreneurs are unscrupulous and pursue their own self-interest 38.2 % 29.3 % 32.5%
Small enterprises are good employers 20.9 % 41.9 % 37.2%
Small enterprises exploit their workers to the maximum 24.2 % 39.5 % 36.3%
Small enterprises create new jobs 7.9 % 75.2 % 16.8%
Small enterprises do not provide adequate opportunities for genuine
professionals
41.0 % 30.0 % 28.9%
As illustrated in the table, the statements can be broadly classified into two groups on
the basis of distribution of answers. First, there were a number of statements, about
which the respondents were relatively unanimous (i.e. majority of them either agreed or
disagreed). These concerned before all the role of entrepreneurs and small enterprises
in the society and economy, which was viewed as beneficial by the majority of the
respondents. Correspondingly, most respondents perceived that the society must
support entrepreneurship. In addition, majority of respondents considered that
entrepreneurship includes excessive risk, but at the same time provides opportunities to
exploit one’s own potential in full. Hence, a consensus was found in support to the
statement “entrepreneurship is for people who have courage and ideas”.
Second, there were statements, which respondents clearly had difficulties in
commenting. This is reflected by the distribution of answers across all categories,
including a relatively large share of them falling in the “I don’t know” category. Such
statements addressed first, entrepreneur’s ethics such as whether entrepreneurs pursue
their self-interest or often stretch their consciences. Second, respondents did not have a
clear opinion about small enterprises as employers, i.e. whether they are exploiting their
workers or providing opportunities for genuine professionals.
In addition to qualitative analysis described above, we utilized R factor analysis to trace
differences between the sub-samples of respondents (male/female, economic/technical
education, entrepreneurs in the family or not). We summed the statements into the
following five factors (for details of the analysis see Annex 2):
25
F1: Social importance of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs
F2: Entrepreneur’s moral
F3: Small business as employers
F4: Society support for entrepreneurs
F4: Riskiness of entrepreneurship
Regarding gender, we did not find any significant differences between male and female
students. In contrast, when comparing students with economic versus technical
background, we found that the former tend to attribute greater positive social importance
to entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs than the latter. The same concerns the
presence of entrepreneurs in the family: Those students who have at least one
entrepreneur in the family tend to attribute greater positive social importance to
entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs than those students who do not have any
entrepreneur in the family.
6 Assessment of entrepreneurial education in universities
The final block of our questionnaire concentrated on the students’ perceptions of the
status of entrepreneurial education in their home universities, and on their interest to
participate in an entrepreneurial training program. First, the respondents were asked to
assess several statements on how much their university education promotes
entrepreneurial skills, using a five-point scale from completely disagree (1) to completely
agree (5). Table 11 summarizes the results.
26
Table 11 Students’ views of entrepreneurial education in their universities
Statement Completely
or partly
disagree
Completely
or partly
agree
Don’t
know
At my university students appreciate entrepreneurship as a
career alternative
18.7% 54.1% 27.1%
At my faculty students appreciate entrepreneurship as a
career alternative
31.2% 40.6% 28.1%
My university has an atmosphere that inspires and
encourages entrepreneurship
38./% 40.3% 20.9%
My university studies highlight entrepreneurship to an
adequate degree as a career alternative
36.4% 41.1% 22.6%
My university studies have provided me with good tools for
entrepreneurship
37.4% 37.4% 25.3%
As seen in the table, the respondents have no clear view about the role of
entrepreneurship in their universities. This is reflected by the high share of “I don’t know”
answers. In addition, the answers of those respondents who took a stance were
distributed relatively evenly between agreement and disagreement. The first statement
in the table was an exception here, confirming the general positive attitude towards
entrepreneurship among students. In addition to personally viewing entrepreneurship as
an attractive career option as demonstrated earlier in this report, over half of the
respondents perceived that their fellow students share this view.
When mirroring the results against background variables we found that there was no
clear difference between male and female students. Moreover, students with economic
background agreed with the designated statements at much greater degree than
students of technical subjects, which is hardly surprising. In addition, the presence of at
least one entrepreneur in the family resulted in more positive assessment of all the
statements except the first one, where no clear difference was found.
In addition to assessing the role of entrepreneurship in their universities’ curricula the
students were asked about their personal interest to participate in entrepreneurial
training and about their preferences what components such training program should
include.
27
6.1 Interest in entrepreneurial training
When asked about the interest in participating in an entrepreneurial training program as
a part of their university education, the majority of the respondents (77.2 %) gave a
positive answer. Figure 4 summarizes the results of this question by sub-sample.
Figure 4 Interest in participating in entrepreneurial training
77
71
82
85
68
86
71
23
29
18
15
32
14
29
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
T
o
t
a
l
s
a
m
p
l
e
M
a
l
e
F
e
m
a
l
e
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
i
n
f
a
m
i
l
y
N
o
e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
i
n
f
a
m
i
l
y
%
No
Yes
As seen in the figure, female respondents were keener to participate in entrepreneurial
training than male ones. A likely explanation for this is that majority of female
respondents were students of economic disciplines, who as a group were more
interested in training than students of economic disciplines. Furthermore, the presence
of at least one entrepreneur in the family had an impact also regarding this statement.
Students having entrepreneur(s) in the family were clearly more interested in
entrepreneurial training than those who have not.
Moreover, those respondents that gave a positive answer to the previous question were
asked whether they would be ready to pay for the participation in such program.
28
Approximately 40% of the respondents gave a positive answer. Figure 5 summarizes
the results of this question by sub-sample.
Figure 5 Willingness to pay for the participation in entrepreneurship training
41 41 41
53
36
53
46
59 59 59
47
64
47
54
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
T
o
t
a
l
s
a
m
p
l
e
M
a
l
e
F
e
m
a
l
e
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
E
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
i
n
f
a
m
i
l
y
N
o
e
n
t
r
e
p
r
e
n
e
u
r
i
n
f
a
m
i
l
y
%
No
Yes
As shown in the figure, there was no difference among male and female respondents in
this respect. In contrast, students of economic disciplines in general were not only more
interested in training but also more willing to pay for the participation. The same was
observed for students with entrepreneur(s) in the family, although the difference was not
as notable.
Furthermore, those respondents, who had answered that they are not interested in
participating in entrepreneurial training were asked to justify their position by an open
question. 71 respondents commented this question. The answers followed a clear
pattern allowing us to group them into four main categories (Table 12).
29
Table 12 Reasons for not having interest in entrepreneurial training
Category N
Financial reasons 36
Entrepreneurship is not actual for one’s current life situation 15
Lack of confidence that such training’s added value and benefits 15
Frustration with the state policy concerning small businesses 5
Total 71
As indicated in the table, financial factors were the key reason by which the respondents
justified their lack of interest in entrepreneurial training. Here, some respondents may
have interpreted the question as regarding their interest to pay for training rather than
the interest to participate in training. On the other hand, it is fairly common in Russian
universities that students pay for their education. Consequently, the respondents may
have implicitly assumed that such entrepreneurial training would be provided for fee as
well. The financial issues were addresses both in terms of absolute lack of funds “I don’t
have extra financial resources at the moment” and in relative terms “Depends on the
price of the training”.
In addition, 15 respondents justified their lack of interest by their current life situation.
Part of respondents stated that they are not at all interested in entrepreneurship,
whereas others said that they might in principle be interested but not at the moment.
The comment “Time for it [entrepreneurial training] will come a bit later. Now I prefer to
develop my professional skills.” well illustrates this. Moreover, there were 15
respondents who took a critical approach on the general benefits of entrepreneurial
training. Some respondents viewed that entrepreneurship is something that cannot be
taught in universities, whereas others were skeptical whether entrepreneurial training
would provide them personally with skills that they might use in practice. Financial
aspects were addressed also in this respect “I’m not sure that the received knowledge is
worth of the money invested”. The lengthy comment of one student well summarizes
the skepticism towards entrepreneurial training among respondents: “Such program
30
hardly can capture the narrow field where I’m working at the moment. I have practical
experience for the development of the business that I already have. If I have questions, I
consult experienced businessmen, not theoreticians, especially Finnish ones who have
little knowledge about doing business in Russia. Tempting programs with the possibility
for a traineeship abroad just blind you and get you waste your time, but make little
sense. I’m fed up with such programs.“ Finally, in addition to being skeptical towards
the benefits of entrepreneurial training, some respondents expressed their frustration
with the Russian business environment and state policy. “I don’t need training, I just
want the state to put the legislation in order and take a grip on the corruption in the
taxation and other authorities!” In other words, it was viewed that as long as basic
conditions for entrepreneurship and small business are not provided, the learning of
entrepreneurial skills is useless. In addition, some respondents saw that the state itself
should be responsible for organizing such training.
6.2 Preferred components of entrepreneurial training
The respondents were also asked to assess the importance of various components that
such training program could include, using a five-point scale from not at all important (1)
to very important (5). The results for the whole sample are presented in Table 13.
Table 13 Results of assessment of the components of the program
The component of program Average rank
Marketing skills 4.4
Opportunities on financing enterprise activity 4.3
Skills of accounting and management of the finance of enterprise 4.2
Skills of commercialization of innovations 4.2
The practical information on entrepreneurship (bureaucracy, etc.) 4.1
Internationalization of business (in particular development of contacts with Finnish
businessmen/firms)
4.0
As a whole, respondents considered all the offered components of the program to be
important, the average rank being at least 4 (corresponding the statement relatively
important) for each of them. Marketing skills and information on financing opportunities
were viewed as most important. When examining different groups of respondents,
31
female respondents assessed all components as more important than male ones.
However, there were do differences in the relative weight of the statements against each
other. When looking at educational background, students of economic specialties
weighed all statements expect one as more important than students with technical
specialties. The importance of “skills of commercialization of innovations” was viewed as
higher by technical students, which is somewhat expected result. The biggest difference
regarded the component “accounting and financing of enterprise”, which students in
economic specialties weighed as clearly more important. Finally, the comparison of
students with or without entrepreneur(s) in the family did not reveal major differences.
However, students with entrepreneur(s) in the family emphasized slightly more specified
components such as accounting skills on the one hand, and internationalization aspects
on the other. Those students with no entrepreneur(s) in the family perceived the
importance of general components such as information on sources for financing and
state bureaucracy as more important.
In addition to the closed questions the students were invited to name additional
components that they see as important for entrepreneurial training. 44 respondents used
this opportunity. Some of them mentioned several components. The answers were
rather heterogeneous but some key themes rose up (Table 14). Part of them overlapped
with the closed alternatives but also new themes emerged.
Table 14 Suggested additional components of entrepreneurial training program
Component N
Concrete examples, cases, practical exercises 12
Human resource management 10
Business communication, negotiation skills, foreign languages 7
International entrepreneurship, international networking 5
Change management 4
Information on legislation and taxation 3
Other (psychology, ethics, information technologies) 7
Total 48
32
As seen in the table, the students emphasized the “real-life” aspects in the training,
calling for “cases and business-briefs, many practical exercises”. In particular, students
were interested in hearing practical examples of enterprise strategies and meeting with
successful businessmen. Moreover, the students’ answers interestingly reflected the
current key challenge area of enterprises in Russia: the personnel. Ten respondents
mentioned aspects related to human resource management, including both recruitment
of personnel and its management: “Human resource management skills (search and
motivation of staff)”. These were particularly emphasized by female respondents.
Moreover, students were calling for education in business communication, negotiation
skills and also in foreign languages. Taken the context of the survey, some respondents
were eager to learn Finnish. In addition, respondents were interested in having
information on how businesses are run abroad and networking with foreign enterprises:
“[The program] must include regular meetings with Finnish entrepreneurs!” Furthermore,
the complexity of the Russian business environment reflected in the open answers well.
Some respondents underlined the need to get information on legislation and taxation,
whereas others were calling for knowledge in change and crisis management. Finally,
occasional topics such as business ethics, psychological aspects of entrepreneurship
and information technologies were mentioned.
7 Comparison of Russian and Finnish students
After presenting the results of our survey on Russian students we compare them with
existing research on Finnish students. We use the data collected in a survey of Master’s
students at Helsinki School of Economics in 2004
2
, the questionnaire of which was used
as a template for our present survey. The sample of the Finnish survey included 525
students. In this chapter we highlight the key similarities and differences among the
Russian and Finnish students. We structure our comparison according to the key
themes in the questionnaire
3
: attractiveness of entrepreneurship as career option,
2
For detailed description of the results see Piipponen (2006)
3
The Finnish questionnaire did not include the block of questions assessing students’ interest in entrepreneurial
training
33
motivational factors for entrepreneurship, obstacles for entrepreneurship, and attitudes
towards entrepreneurship.
Interest in entrepreneurship
The comparison of Russian and Finnish students revealed that the former are clearly
more interested in entrepreneurship as career option, as illustrated in Figure 6.
Figure 6 Attractiveness of entrepreneurship for Russian versus Finnish students
31,6 % 51 %
7,7 %
7,7 %
2 %
17,3 % 34 % 1,5 % 40,0 % 7 %
0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %
Russian students
Finnish students
Attractiveness of entrepreneurship (% of total)
Very attractive Rather attractive Don`t know Not very attractive Not attractive at all
As presented in the figure, more than 80% of Russian students viewed entrepreneurship
as rather or very attractive career option, whereas this opinion was shared by only ca.
50% of Finnish students. This result may in part be explained by cultural differences –
we suggest that Russians are inclined to emphasize the positive sides of
entrepreneurship when assessing it as career option. Finns in contrast may be even too
strongly realistic and weigh the negative aspects of entrepreneurship as heavier.
34
Moreover, the difference was particularly striking among female students, as shown in
Figure 7.
Figure 7 Gender differences in interest to entrepreneurship, Finnish and Russian
students
40 40
30
61
26
41
10
23
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Finnish
Male
Russian
Male
Finnish
Female
Russian
Female
%
Very attractive
Rather attractive
As shown in the figure the intra-national gender differences in interest to
entrepreneurship are notable in Finland but much less so in Russia. Moreover, Finnish
female students seem to be the least entrepreneurially oriented sub-group in the
sample. Only 10% of them perceive entrepreneurship as a very attractive career option.
Russian female students, in contrast, view entrepreneurship as almost equally attractive
as Finnish male students. It is, however, the Russian male students who most frequently
view entrepreneurship as a very attractive career option.
35
Motivational factors for entrepreneurship
We next analyze more in detail the factors that students in the two countries view as
increasing their desire to become an entrepreneur. Figure 8 shows an overview of our
comparison.
Figure 8 Factors motivating Russian and Finnish students to become an
entrepreneur
How the following factors increase your desire to become entrepreneur (rather and very
much, % from total)
83 %
81 %
81 %
79 %
77 %
66 %
66 %
64 %
54 %
53 %
49 %
45 %
25 %
29 %
59 %
35 %
79 %
78 %
82 %
48 %
9 %
70 %
27 %
39 %
25 %
8 %
0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 %
Achieving an appropriate goal in life in accordance with one`s own abilities
Result-based income
Opportunity to meet interesting people
Liberty in determining one`s tasks and duties
Interesting and variying tasks and duties
Liberty of being one`s own boss
Opportunity to get rich
General appreciation of entrepreneurship
Liberty of choosing one`s working hours
My skills and abilities point to entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship suits my character
Opportunity to work as a superior
Entrepreneurship unifies the entire family
%
Russian students Finnish students
The figure reveals both similarities and differences among the two groups of students.
First, both Russian and Finnish respondents heavily emphasize factors related to the
content of work as an entrepreneur, i.e. the liberty of determining one’s tasks, duties and
working hours, interesting and varying tasks and duties, as well as the liberty of being
one’s own boss. These were also the only factors that the Finnish respondents
perceived as more important than their Russian counterparts. Second, there were
factors that had much greater importance for Russian students than for Finnish
36
students, including the opportunities to meet interesting people, achieving an
appropriate goal in life in accordance with one’s abilities and general appreciation of
entrepreneurship. This indicates that Russian students view entrepreneurship more as
an instrument to gain certain position in life and society.
The comparison of male and female students provided some interesting results. First,
Finnish male students valued clearly more the opportunity to get rich provided by
entrepreneurship than Finnish female students. In the Russian data such difference was
not found. For Finnish male respondents the liberty of being one’s own boss was,
however, the most important motivational factor followed by financial aspects. Russian
males in contrast appreciated most the opportunity to achieve an appropriate goal in life
in accordance with one’s abilities alongside with result-based income. Moreover, the
motivational factors of Russian and Finnish female students differed as well. First of all,
the Russian female respondents emphasized less some factors over others, whereas
Finnish female respondents clearly highlighted aspects related to the opportunity to
determine the content of one’s work, being one’s own boss and determining one’s own
working hours. In contrast, Finnish female respondents emphasized clearly less the
opportunity to get rich and the general appreciation of entrepreneurship than their
Russian counterparts.
Obstacles for entrepreneurship
We next compare the Russian and Finnish students’ perceptions of the obstacles for
entrepreneurship. Here we consider only endogenous factors as exogenous factors (i.e.
features of business environment) were not touched upon in the Finnish survey. Figure
9 summarizes the results of the comparison.
37
Figure 9 Factors decreasing Finnish and Russian students` interest in
entrepreneurship
How the following factors decrease your desire to become an
entrepreneur? (rather and very strong, % from total responses)
48 %
48 %
47 %
36 %
40 %
39 %
34 %
35 %
28 %
32 %
30 %
36 %
23 %
16 %
18 %
16 %
7 %
67 %
65 %
55 %
81 %
41 %
19 %
20 %
27 %
43 %
56 %
36 %
60 %
26 %
26 %
35 %
25 %
17 %
0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 %
Fear of debt
Entrepreneurship is excessively binding and time-consuming
Fear of losing one`s property
Insecure income
My current life situation
Lack of personal skills and competence
Entrepreneurs are excessively at the mercy of their investors
Society provides no safety net for entrepreneurs
Fear of tough competition
Loss of free time
My personal competence is difficult to commercialize
Lack of business idea
Adverse effect on social relations
Unwillingness or incompetence to market one`s personal skills ...
Entrepreneurship does not suit my character
Excessively irregular working hours
General lack of appreciation of entrepreneurship
%
Russian students Finnish students
The figure provides support to our previous suggestion that the Russian students are
inclined to be more optimistic and to focus on the positive sides of entrepreneurship than
the Finnish ones. The Finnish students namely assessed all factors except two more
negatively than their Russian counterparts. There were factors, where the difference
was notable and factors, where the views of the two groups of respondents were
relatively close to each other. First, the Finnish respondents viewed the financial risks
related to entrepreneurship as clearly bigger obstacles than the Russian ones.
Furthermore, Finnish students perceived more negatively entrepreneurship as binding,
time-consuming and taking away one’s free time. Secondly, the aspects of
entrepreneurship where the respondents’ views were closest to each other were the
respondent’s current life situation, which was perceived as an obstacle by ca. 40% of
38
both Finnish and Russian students, and the adverse effect on social relations which was
considered as an obstacle only by ca. fourth of students in both groups. Finally, the two
factors, which were assessed as bigger obstacles by Russian than Finnish students
were the lack of social safety net, and too strong dependency on investors.
We also compared the male and female respondents from the two countries in this
respect. The Finnish male students clearly viewed majority of factors as more serious
obstacles than the Russian male respondents, before all insecure income and the lack
of a business idea. In contrast, Russian male students were more concerned by their
lack of professional abilities, too strong dependency on investors and lack of social
safety net than their Finnish counterparts. Regarding female students, the largest
differences were observed for unstable income, lack of business idea and unsuitability of
entrepreneurship to one’s character. These were perceived as clearly bigger obstacles
by Finnish female respondents. Finally, Russian female students were more concerned
by their lack of professional abilities than Finnish female respondents.
Attitudes towards entrepreneurship
We conclude our comparison of Russian and Finnish students with the analysis of the
respondents’ attitudes towards entrepreneurship. Table 15 summarizes the results in
this respect.
39
Table 15 Russian and Finnish students’ attitudes towards entrepreneurship
Completely or partly
disagree
Completely or partly
agree
Finnish
students
Russian
students
Finnish
students
Russian
students
Entrepreneurs must be appreciated because they provide
work for other people
2.0 % 8.4 % 94.0 % 75.6 %
Entrepreneurial activities provide society with more benefits
than disadvantages
1.0 % 9.4 % 97.0 % 68.6 %
Entrepreneurship is the future form of employment
15.0 % 15.2 % 51.0 % 53.4 %
Society must support young, beginning entrepreneurs
2.0 % 3.1 % 92.0 % 87.9 %
Society provides excessive support for entrepreneurs 78.0 % 81.7 % 2.0 % 6.3 %
Entrepreneurs can exploit the professional skills and
competences more effectively in their own businesses than
in salaried employment
19.0 % 9.4 % 47.0 % 71.2 %
Entrepreneurship requires more intellectual than financial
capital
14.0 % 23.0 % 66.0 % 45.5 %
Entrepreneurship is for people who have courage and ideas
16.0 % 6.3 % 69.0 % 87.0 %
Entrepreneurs take excessive risks 52.0 % 10.5 % 13.0 % 64.8 %
Entrepreneurs get rich on other people’s work 86.0 % 40.6 % 4.0 % 33.4 %
People who cannot adapt to conventional jobs end up as
entrepreneurs
78.0 % 59.6 % 8.0 % 19.4 %
Entrepreneurs often stretch their consciences 50.0 % 25.5 % 15.0 % 38.6 %
Entrepreneurs do not care about environmental issues to a
sufficient extent
51.0 % 25.6 % 13.0 % 46.6 %
Entrepreneurs are unscrupulous and pursue their own self-
interest
80.0 % 38.2 % 6.0 % 29.3 %
Small enterprises are good employers 12.0 % 20.9 % 60.0 % 41.9 %
Small enterprises exploit their workers to the maximum
43.0 % 24.2 % 25.0 % 39.5 %
Small enterprises create new jobs 5.0 % 7.9 % 87.0 % 75.2 %
Small enterprises do not provide adequate opportunities for
genuine professionals
66.0 % 41.0 % 11.0 % 30.0 %
Note: The absolute difference between corresponding percentages of the groups:
The absolute difference is more than 40%
The absolute difference is less than 5%
The absolute difference is between 20% and 40%
40
Qualitative analysis of Table 15 enables us to draw the following conclusions. First, the
answers (on average) differ between Russian and Finnish students quite notably
regarding the statement “Entrepreneurs take excessive risks”: 52% of Finnish students
tend to disagree with this statement while 64.8% of Russian students agree with it.
Finnish and Russian students also have quite a different point of view on the statement
“Entrepreneurs are unscrupulous and pursue their own self-interest”: 80% of Finnish
students tend to disagree with this statement while for Russian students this percentage
is only 38.2%. Moreover, there are two statements, on which the opinion differs
considerably between the investigated groups but without being completely opposite.
They are “Entrepreneurs often stretch their consciences” and “Entrepreneurs do not
care about environmental issues to a sufficient extent”. Finnish students tend to
disagree with these statements at notably greater degree than Russian students. This
indicates that the Finnish students have a generally higher opinion about the
entrepreneurs’ morality. Finally, there are four statements for which the answers of both
groups are very similar. Both groups agree that entrepreneurs and small enterprises
contribute to the economy and society and thus should be supported more by the state
than nowadays is the situation.
8 Summary and conclusions
This report presented the results of a survey, which was conducted among students of
three St. Petersburg-based universities in spring 2008 as a part of the TACIS-funded
project “Entrepreneurship Development”. The project partners are Helsinki School of
Economics’ Small Business Center and the State University of Economics and Finance,
St. Petersburg. The survey sample of 204 respondents included students of economic
and technical disciplines. The survey questionnaire was adapted from an existing survey
instrument, which had been used in a number of studies conducted at the Small
Business Center among Finnish students. This was done in view of Finnish-Russian
comparison of the results. The questionnaire consisted of four blocks of questions,
majority of which were multiple choice questions. The first block of questions covered
41
background variables such as age, gender, year of studies and major discipline, as well
as questions addressing whether there are entrepreneurs among the respondent’s
family or friends. Moreover, the respondents were asked about their career plans to
figure out how they perceive entrepreneurship as a career option. The second block
consisted of statements measuring the respondents’ perceptions about motivational
factors and obstacles associated with entrepreneurship. These covered both personal
traits and factors of the competitive and institutional environment for entrepreneurship.
The third block focused on general views about entrepreneurs and the role of small
businesses in the society and economy. Finally, for the purposes of the project it was
asked about the students’ interest to participate in entrepreneurial education in their
university and their views how entrepreneurship is promoted in their university.
The key results of the survey can be summarized as follows. First, we conclude that
Russian students consider entrepreneurship as a very attractive career alternative.
Moreover, for Russian students to be an entrepreneur is more attractive than for Finnish
students. In contrast to Finnish students, there are no notable differences in the attitude
toward entrepreneurship between Russian male and female students. However, when
asking the students about the sectors in which they might consider to operating as an
entrepreneur, the answers of male and female students diverged. Male students saw
most often their future firm operating in the field of information technologies, whereas
female students mentioned traditional “female” businesses such as consumer services.
This is, though, in part explained by the fact that female respondents were more often
students of economic specialties and thus with less specific area of expertise than
students of technical specialties. Finally, according to our data those Russian students
who have entrepreneurs in the family and/or are students of economic specialties tend
to be most interested in the career as an entrepreneur.
Second, we found both differences and similarities between Russian and Finnish
students regarding motivational factors. In general Russian students emphasized most
motivational factors as more important than their Finnish counterparts, supporting the
view of Russian students being more entrepreneurially oriented. The key motivational
42
factors for Russian students relate to the opportunity to affect one’s “destiny” in terms on
financial income and exploitation of one’s potential and abilities. However, the
opportunity to get rich as such was ranked not as high. Here, the Russian students (both
male and female) differed from Finnish male students, who heavily emphasized this
factor. In contrast, the Russian respondents emphasized more the entrepreneurship as
an interesting way of life, both as regards to social interaction and content of tasks and
duties. The importance of factors that can be classified as intrinsic rewards was further
emphasized in the open comments of Russian students, where the most frequently
mentioned individual motivational factors was “self-realization”. A key difference in
motivational factors between Russian and Finnish respondents was that there was no
such clear male-female difference in the Russian data as in the Finnish data.
Third, the analysis of perceived endogenous (i.e. personal) obstacles for
entrepreneurship confirmed our suggestion that the Russian students are inclined to be
more optimistic and to focus more on the positive sides of entrepreneurship than the
Finnish ones. The Finnish students namely assessed all factors except two more
negatively than their Russian counterparts. There were factors, where the difference
was notable and factors, where the views of the two groups of respondents were
relatively close to each other. First, the Finnish respondents viewed the financial risks
related to entrepreneurship as clearly bigger obstacles than the Russian ones.
Furthermore, Finnish students perceived more negatively entrepreneurship as binding,
time-consuming and taking away one’s free time. Secondly, the aspects of
entrepreneurship where the respondents’ views were closest to each other were the
respondent’s current life situation, which was perceived as an obstacle by ca. 40% of
both Finnish and Russian students, and the adverse effect on social relations which was
considered as an obstacle only by ca. fourth of students in both groups. Finally, the two
factors, which were assessed as bigger obstacles by Russian than Finnish students
were the lack of social safety net, and too strong dependency on investors.
In addition to endogenous factors we asked the Russian students to assess factors
related to the business environment as potential obstacles for entrepreneurship. Overall,
43
our results illustrate that the students’ views are well in line with Russian entrepreneurs’
opinions about obstacles for entrepreneurship and small business development in
Russia. The obstacles assessed as most serious included institutional factors such as
access to financing, corruption, bureaucracy and complex and frequently changing
legislation. In contrast, factors related to the task environment (relationship to other
members of the production system), were perceived as less challenging. The availability
of financing dominated also in the open answers given by the students as regards to
perceived obstacles for entrepreneurship (endogenous and exogenous). In addition,
psychological factors associated with entrepreneurship, such as mental stress and big
responsibility were mentioned especially by female respondents.
Fourth, from the qualitative analysis of the responses to statements about Russian
students’ general attitude towards entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs we conclude the
statements can be broadly classified into two groups on the basis of distribution of
answers. First, there were a number of statements, about which the respondents were
relatively unanimous (i.e. majority of them either agreed or disagreed). These concerned
before all the role of entrepreneurs and small enterprises in the society and economy,
which was viewed as beneficial by majority of respondents. Correspondingly, these
respondents perceived that the society must support entrepreneurship. In addition,
majority of respondents considered that entrepreneurship includes excessive risk, but at
the same time provides opportunities to exploit one’s own potential in full. Hence, a
consensus was found in support to the statement “entrepreneurship is for people who
have courage and ideas”. Second, there were statements, which Russian students
clearly had difficulties in commenting. This is reflected by the distribution of answers
across all categories, including a relatively large share of them falling in the “I don’t
know” option. Such statements addressed first, entrepreneurs’ morals such as whether
entrepreneurs pursue their self-interest or often stretch their consciences. Second,
respondents did not have a clear opinion about small enterprises as employers, i.e.
whether they are exploiting their workers or providing opportunities for professionals.
When compared Russian respondents to Finnish students, the largest disagreement
was found regarding the riskiness of entrepreneurship, which the Russian respondents
44
perceived as higher. In addition, Russian respondents had somewhat lower opinion on
entrepreneurs’ morality. In particular, they viewed more often entrepreneurs as
unscrupulous and pursuing their self-interest than their Finnish counterparts. In contrast,
both groups of respondents were unanimous that entrepreneurs and small businesses
positively contribute to the economy and society and should thus be supported more by
the state than nowadays is the situation.
Moreover, from the analysis of Russian students’ responses regarding how university
education helps to increase the respondents` desire to become an entrepreneur, we
conclude that students who have at least one entrepreneur in the family and students of
economic specialties tend to be surer that their university education helps to develop
entrepreneurial skills and promotes their desire to become an entrepreneur. However,
the respondents clearly had difficulties in answering this question. This is reflected by
the high share of “I don’t know” answers. In addition, the answers of those respondents
who took a stance were distributed relatively evenly between agreement and
disagreement. The statement “at my university students appreciate entrepreneurship as
a career option” was an exception here, confirming the general positive attitude towards
entrepreneurship among students. In addition to personally viewing entrepreneurship as
an attractive career option, over half of the respondents believe that their fellow students
share this view.
Finally, our results show that there is great interest to entrepreneurial training among
Russian students. Majority of respondents would be interested in participating such
training and ca. 40% of them would be ready to pay for it. The students from economic
specialties were the keenest to take part in entrepreneurial training. In addition, those
students who have entrepreneurs in the family were more eager to participate than
those students who have not. Moreover, the key reason for not being interested in
entrepreneurial training was financial – the participants implicitly expected that such
training would not be provided for free and announced that they do not have financial
resources to participate. Furthermore, some students were skeptical about the practical
benefits of such training and its value for money. Interestingly, there were also
45
respondents who viewed that they would be perfectly capable of starting own business if
only the state would provide basic conditions for it by for example restraining public
sector corruption.
Regarding the components of entrepreneurial training, marketing skills and information
on opportunities for financing were viewed as most important. In addition, the open
answers highlighted that the students value “real-life” aspects in such training. The
respondents were interested in having company cases and other practical exercises, as
well as hearing presentations by successful businessmen. Moreover, particularly female
students emphasized the need for training in human resource management. Finally,
networking with Finnish entrepreneurs was considered important.
Training implications
The results of our survey provide important insights that need to be taken into account
when planning entrepreneurial training in Russian universities. First, although the
respondents in general viewed entrepreneurship as a very attractive career option,
many of them had difficulties in taking a stand to statements concerning for example
entrepreneurs’ morals. Here, the legacy of the Soviet era where private business was
viewed as negative and even criminal seems to have an impact still today.
Consequently, entrepreneurial training should include discussion on entrepreneurial
ethics alongside with other aspects of entrepreneurship. Second, the results confirmed
the results of our feasibility study regarding the importance of practical information on
entrepreneurship. The complexity of the Russian business environment emphasizes the
need to provide the participants of the training with information, which in mature market
economies is easily available from other sources. This concerns before all sources for
financing and state regulation. Third, our investigation highlights the importance of ‘real
life’ components of entrepreneurial training. This includes both practical exercises such
as case studies and presentations by successful entrepreneurs on how they have
navigated through the complexities of the Russian business environment. Finally, the
comments of the respondents revealed that Russian students are used to pay for their
46
education. At the same time, they carefully weigh whether for-fee education gives
enough value for money. This is reflected in certain skepticism towards new training
initiatives. Consequently, before launching a new entrepreneurial training program in the
Russian university context one needs to make sure that the potential participants have
enough information on the program in order to weigh its benefits for them.
47
References
Chepurenko, A. (2008) Entrepreneurship in Russia. Lecture in the Summer Academy
“The Art of Start-Up”, Higher School of Economics, Moscow, 21 July, 2008.
Heininen, P., Mashkina, O., Karhunen, P. & Kosonen, R. (2008) Leningradin lääni
yritysten toimintaympäristönä: Pk-sektorin näkökulma. Helsingin
kauppakorkeakoulun julkaisuja B-88. (in Finnish)
Karhunen, P., Kettunen, E., Sivonen, T. & Miettinen, V. (2008a) Determinants of
knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship in Southeast Finland and Northwest Russia.
Helsinki School of Economics, Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-77.
Karhunen, P., Kosonen, R., Logrén, J. & Ovaska, K. (2008b) Suomalaisyritysten
strategiat Venäjän muuttuvassa toimintaympäristössä. Helsingin
kauppakorkeakoulun julkaisuja B-84. (in Finnish)
Moy, J.W.H. & Luk, V.W.M. & Wright, P.C. (2003) Perceptions of entrepreneurship as a
career: Views of young people in Hong Kong. Equal Opportunities International, 22,
4: 16-40.
Piipponen, Rami, 2006. Helsingin kauppakorkeakoulun opiskelijoiden ja sieltä vuonna
2000 valmistuneiden maistereiden yrittäjyysasenteet vuonna 2004. Helsinki School
of Economics. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications, N-49. (in Finnish)
Salmenniemi, S. & Karhunen, P. & Kosonen, R. (n.d.) Between business and byt:
Experiences of women entrepreneurs in contemporary Russia. Unpublished article
manuscript.
Tonttila, K. (2001) Mitä mieltä yrittäjyydestä? Yliopistosta valmistuvien nuorten asenteet
yrittäjyyteen ja itsensä työllistämiseen. Helsingin yliopiston tutkimus- ja
koulutuskeskus Palmenia. Raportteja ja selvityksiä 36. (in Finnish)
Trochim, W.M.K. (2006) Nonprobability sampling. Research methods knowledge base,http://www.socialresearcgmethods.net/kb/sampnon.php
Verkhovskaya, O.R., Dermanov, V.K., Dorohina, M.V. & Katkalo, V.S. (2006) Globalnyi
monitoring predprinimatelstva. Global Entrepreneurship Monitoring, Country report
on Russia 2006. St. Petersburg State University, Higher School of Management. (in
Russian)
48
Annex 1: The Questionnaire
1. Background variables
1. Year of birth
2. Sex (male, female)
3. Year of course (1,2,3,4,5)
4. Specialty (major subject)
Specialization (more precise major subject)
5. Second education, which one?
6. Work experience in major subject (months)
Entrepreneurship in the family (Yes or No)
7. My father is currently an entrepreneur
8. My mother is currently an entrepreneur
9. My brother/sister is currently an entrepreneur
10. I have no brothers/sisters
11. My spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend is currently an entrepreneur
12. I have no spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend
Entrepreneurship among friends (Yes or No)
13. Some of my friends are or have been entrepreneurs
14. None of my friends have been entrepreneurs
When you think about your future upon graduation from the university, which of the
following alternatives describes this best:
15. I will be employed by an enterprise (Yes, No)
16. I will be employed by the public sector (Yes, No)
17. Some day in the future I will have my own company (Yes, No)
If yes, which industry you would like to have your own company in? (Open answer)
18. I already have my own company I will continue to work in it (Yes, No)
If yes, which industry do you have your company in? (Open answer)
19. I plan to create my own company in knowledge-intensive business (Yes, No)
20. I will continue my education upon graduation from Master’s program (e.g. in post-
graduate school) (Yes, No)
49
2. Attraction to entrepreneurship
21. How attractive do you find entrepreneurship:
1 – Not attractive at all
2 – Not very attractive
3 – Don’t know
4 – Rather attractive
5 – Very attractive
Next, a few statements on entrepreneurship. Please indicate how much the following
factors increase your desire to become an entrepreneur? While answering, use the
following five-point scale:
1 – Completely not
2 – Not much
3 – Don’t know
4 – Rather strongly
5 – Very strongly
22. The liberty of being one’s own ‘boss’
23. The liberty in choosing one’s tasks and duties
24. The liberty of choosing one’s working hours
25. Interesting tasks and duties, and their variety
26. Result-based income
27. Opportunities to meet interesting people
28. Achieving an appropriate target in life in accordance with one’s abilities
29. Entrepreneurship suits my character
30. My skills and capabilities point to entrepreneurship
31. The opportunity to get rich
32. Entrepreneurship unifies the entire family
33. The opportunity to work as a superior
34. General appreciation of entrepreneurship
35. Other: please, specify
Assess this open statement using the same five-point scale
To what degree the following factors prevent you from becoming an entrepreneur? Use
the following five-point scale:
1 – Completely not
2 – Not much
3 – Don’t know
4 – Rather strongly
5 – Very strongly
50
36. Insecure income
37. Fear of debt
38. Entrepreneurship is excessively binding and time-consuming
39. Fear of tough competition
40. Fear of losing one’s property
41. My current life situation
42. Loss of free time
43. Entrepreneurs are excessively at the mercy of their investors
44. Society provides no safety net for entrepreneurs
45. My professional skills are difficult to commercialize
46. Lack of a business idea
47. Adverse effect on social relations
48. Unwillingness or incompetence to market one’s professional skills and
competence
49. Does not suit my character
50. Excessively irregular working hours
51. Lack of professional skills and competence
52. General negative opinion on entrepreneurship
53. Other: please, specify
Assess this open statement using the same five-point scale
To what degree the following factors of local business environment prevent you from
becoming an entrepreneur? Use the following five-point scale:
1 – Completely not
2 – Not much
3 – Don’t know
4 – Rather strongly
5 – Very strongly
54. Tough competition
55. Procedure of registration of the company
56. Bureaucracy (e.g. difficulties to obtain licenses and certificates)
57. Difficulties in hiring labor
58. Frequently changing or unclear legislation
59. Lack of own financial resources
60. Difficulties in finding customers
61. Difficulties in getting external financing
62. Corruption
63. Crime
64. Russian taxation
65. Local infrastructure (e.g. availability of business premises)
66. Other: please specify
Assess this open statement using the same five-point scale.
51
3. Attitude towards entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship
Please take a stand to the following statements.
1- I disagree completely
2- I partly disagree
3- Don’t know
4- I partly agree
5- I agree completely
Importance of entrepreneurial activities
67. Entrepreneurs must be appreciated because they provide work for other people
68. Entrepreneurial activities provide society with more benefits than disadvantages
69. Entrepreneurship is the future form of employment
State support to entrepreneurship
70. State must support young, beginning entrepreneurs
71. State provides excessive support for entrepreneurs
Entrepreneurship in general
72. Entrepreneurs can exploit their professional skills and competences more
effectively in their own businesses than in salaried employment
73. Entrepreneurship requires more intellectual than financial capital
74. Entrepreneurship is for people who have courage and ideas
75. Entrepreneurs take excessive risks
76. Entrepreneurs get rich on other people’s work
77. People who cannot adapt to conventional jobs end up as entrepreneurs
Entrepreneurs’ morals
78. Entrepreneurs often stretch their consciences
79. Entrepreneurs do not care about environmental issues to a sufficient extent
80. Entrepreneurs are unscrupulous and pursue their own self-interest
81. --- missing (typing error in the questionnaire)
Small enterprises as employers
82. Small enterprises are good employers
83. Small enterprises exploit their employees to the maximum
84. Small enterprises create new jobs
85. Small enterprises do not provide adequate opportunities for genuine
professionals
52
4. Participation in the entrepreneurial training program, content of the program
Entrepreneurial training program, which has been developed in Finland, includes a
number of components: lectures giving practical information of enterprise foundation;
lectures on business and management, individual advice (e.g. development of a
concrete business idea and discussing it with experts). In addition, the program
provides opportunities to Finnish and Russian young entrepreneurs to establish
contacts with each other.
86. Would you be interested in participating in such training program? (Yes, No)
If yes, would you be ready to pay for the participation? (Yes, No)
If not, please specify why? (Open answer)
Assess the importance of the following components of such a program using the
following five-point scale:
1 - Not important at all
2 – Rather unimportant
3 – Don’t know
4 - Rather important;
5 - Very important
87. Practical information on entrepreneurship (bureaucracy, etc.)
88. Information on the opportunities for financing the enterprise activity
89. Marketing skills
90. Skills of accounting and financial management of the enterprise
91. Skills of commercialization of innovations
92. Internationalization of business (in particular development of contacts with
Finnish businessmen/firms)
The program must include something else, please specify.
5. Conclusion
Please, take a stand to the following statements using five-point scale:
1 - I disagree completely
2 - I partly disagree
3 – Don’t know
4 - I partly agree
5 - I agree completely
93. My university education has provided me with good tools for entrepreneurship
53
94. My university education highlights entrepreneurship to an adequate as a career
alternative
95. My university has an atmosphere that induces and encourages entrepreneurship
96. At my university students appreciate entrepreneurship as a career alternative
97. At my faculty students appreciate entrepreneurship as a career alternative
54
Annex 2: Factor analysis on attitudes towards entrepreneurs and
entrepreneurship
We utilized factor analysis to group interdependent 18 observed variables, which
measure the attitudes of respondents on entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship (Table 16)
into factors. We performed factor analysis for the total sample of respondents (204).
Before conducting factor analysis we performed two common pre-analysis tests, the
Kaiser measure of sample adequacy and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity, which
confirmed the adequacy of this method for our data. We retained the factors for further
analysis on the basis of their Eigenvalues, ending with 5 factors. Table x illustrates these
five factors and the variables (statements) they include. As factor loadings are generally
considered meaningful when they exceed 0.3, in Table 16 we report only those variables
(statements) which have loadings greater than 0.3 for a particular factor. Those factors
which directly reflect the content of each particular factor are marked in bold.
Table 16 Results of factor analysis
Factor Statement Factor
loadings
Entrepreneurs must be appreciated because they provide work for other
people
0.73
Entrepreneurial activities provide society with more benefits than
disadvantages
0.69
Entrepreneurship is the future form of employment 0.53
Society must support young, beginning entrepreneurs 0.33
F1
“Social importance of
entrepreneurship and
entrepreneurs”
Small enterprises create new jobs 0.33
Entrepreneurs do not care about environmental issues to a sufficient
extent
0.72
Entrepreneurs often stretch their consciences 0.68
Entrepreneurs are unscrupulous and pursue their own self-interest 0.54
Entrepreneurs get rich on other people’s work 0.3
F2
“Entrepreneurs`
morality”
Small businesses exploit their workers to the maximum 0.3
Small enterprisers are good employers 0.7
Small enterprises create new jobs 0.55
F3
“Small business as
employers”
Small enterprises do not provide adequate opportunities for genuine
professionals
-0.42
Society provides excessive support for entrepreneurs 0.59
People who cannot adapt to conventional jobs end up as entrepreneurs 0.42
Small enterprises do not give adequate opportunities for genuine professionals 0.3
F4
“Society support of
entrepreneurs”
State must support young, beginning entrepreneurs -0.29
Entrepreneurs take excessive risks 0.62
Entrepreneurship is for people who have courage and ideas 0.41
F5
“Riskiness of
entrepreneurship”
State must support young, beginning entrepreneurs 0.36
55
In the next step of our analysis we summed the variables on the basis of the factor
analysis. The sums corresponding to each factor include only variables in bold, i.e.
those variables that directly reflect the factor’s main meaning.
We also rescaled the variables in such a way that they reflect the same direction of
attitude, i.e. 1 and 2 reflect negative attitude and 4 and 5 reflect positive attitude. We did
not change 3 as it reflects neutral attitude (“Don’t know”). For example in Factor 3 in
Table 16 we have two variables, “Small enterprises are good employers” and “Small
enterprises do not provide adequate opportunities for genuine professionals”. For the
first variable value 5 means very positive attitude to small business as employer and for
the second variable, vice versa, value 5 reflects very negative attitude. Therefore to
rescale these two statements to be in one direction we replace 4 to 2, 5 to 1, 2 to 4 and
1 to 5 for the second statement. After such rescaling the attitude to small business as
employer for both variables “moves” in the same direction, i.e. from very negative (1) to
very positive (5). All the summations are rescaled in such a way. The reliability of
summations was tested by Cronbach alfa.
Table 17 Results of summations of variables within factors
Summations Variables within sums Mean
Std.
dev.
Cronbach
o
1. Entrepreneurs should be appreciated, as they create
workplaces for other people
2. Entrepreneurship brings to a society more advantage,
than harm
Sum 1
“Social importance of
entrepreneurship and
entrepreneurs”
3. Small enterprises create new workplaces
3,92
0,73
0,68
1.Entrepreneurs do not care about environment
2.Entrepreneurs often should renounce their conscience
3.Entrepreneurs are unscrupulous and are guided by
exclusively own benefit
Sum 2
“Entrepreneur’s
moral”
4.Entrepreneurs enrich using work of other people
2,98
0,86
0,73
1.Small enterprisers are good employers
Sum 3
“Small business as
employers”
2.Small enterprises do not give adequate opportunities for
real professionals
3,23 0,91 0,52
1.State already gives excessive support to entrepreneurs Sum 4
“Society support for
entrepreneurs”
2.State should support young beginning entrepreneurs
4,31
0,72 0,38
1.Entrepreneurs incur excessive risk Sum 5
“Riskiness of
entrepreneurship”
2.Entrepreneurship is for courageous people with ideas
4,03 0,78 0,52
The results of the factor analysis were utilized to analyze potential differences among
respondents across gender, educational background and presence of entrepreneurs in
the family, as reported in Chapter 5.
56
Annex 3: Finnish summary
Tässä raportissa analysoitiin venäläisten yliopisto-opiskelijoiden näkemyksiä
yrittäjyydestä keväällä 2008 Pietarissa toteutetun kyselytutkimuksen valossa. Kysely oli
osa TACIS-rahoitteista “Entrepreneurship Development” –hanketta, joka tähtää
yrittäjyyskoulutuksen kehittämiseen venäläisyliopistoissa. Hanke toteutetaan Helsingin
kauppakorkeakoulun Pienyrityskeskuksen ja Pietarin talous- ja finanssiyliopiston (FinEc)
yhteistyönä. Tutkimuksen kohteena olleet 204 opiskelijaa edustivat FinEcin lisäksi kahta
teknillistä yliopistoa. Kyselylomakkeen pohjana käytettiin lomaketta, jolla
Pienyrityskeskus on aiemmin kartoittanut suomalaisopiskelijoiden yrittäjyysasenteita.
Tämä tehtiin tulosten Venäjä-Suomi –vertailtavuutta silmälläpitäen.
Kyselylomake koostui neljästä osiosta, joiden kysymykset olivat pääosin
monivalintakysymyksiä. Ensimmäisessä osiossa kartoitettiin taustamuuttujia (sukupuoli,
ikä, vuosikurssi, pääaine) sekä sitä, onko vastaajan perheessä ja/tai ystävien joukossa
yrittäjiä. Lisäksi kysyttiin urasuunnitelmista valmistumisen jälkeen sekä yrittäjyyden
houkuttelevuudesta suhteessa muihin uravaihtoehtoihin. Toinen osio koostui väittämistä,
joilla mitattiin vastaajien näkemyksiä sekä yrittäjyyteen motivoivista tekijöistä, että
yrittäjäksi ryhtymisen esteistä. Esteitä lähestyttiin sekä yksilö- että toimintaympäristön
tasolla. Lomakkeen kolmannessa osiossa kartoitettiin vastaajien asenteita yrittäjiä ja
yrittäjyyttä kohtaan, kuten näkemyksiä yrittäjyyden roolista yhteiskunnassa. Viimeisessä
osiossa kysyttiin hankkeen jatkotoimia silmälläpitäen opiskelijoiden näkemyksiä
yrittäjyyden roolista heidän yliopisto-opinnoissaan sekä kartoitettiin heidän
kiinnostustaan osallistua yrittäjyyskoulutusohjelmaan ja toiveitaan koulutuksen sisällölle.
Kyselyn keskeisistä tuloksista ensimmäinen on se, että venäläisopiskelijat pitävät
yrittäjyyttä erittäin houkuttelevana uravaihtoehtona. Venäläiset vastaajat olivat
huomattavasti kiinnostuneempia ryhtymään tulevaisuudessa yrittäjäksi kuin
suomalaisopiskelijat. Venäläisten nais- ja miesopiskelijoiden välillä ei myöskään ollut
tässä suhteessa eroa, kun taas suomalaisten naisopiskelijoiden kiinnostus yrittäjyyteen
on huomattavasti alhaisempi kuin suomalaisilla miesopiskelijoilla. Sukupuolierot tulivat
57
kuitenkin näkyviin myös venäläisopiskelijoiden kohdalla kysyttäessä, millä alalla he
näkevät mahdollisen oman yrityksensä toimivan. Valtaosa miesopiskelijoista mainitsi
tietotekniikan, kun taas naisopiskelijoiden vastauksissa painottuivat perinteiset “naisten”
alat kuten kuluttajapalvelut. Tämä on osin selitettävissä sillä, että naispuoliset vastaajat
olivat miehiä useammin kaupallisten aineiden opiskelijoita, jolloin heillä ei ollut yhtä
selkeää erikoistumisalaa kuin teknillisten aineiden opiskelijoilla. Tutkimustulosten
mukaan kaikkien innostuneimpia yrittäjyydestä olivat venäläisopiskelijat, joiden
perheessä on yrittäjyyttä. Lisäksi kaupallisten aineiden opiskelijat näkivät itsensä
tulevana yrittäjänä useammin, kun teknisten aineiden opiskelijat.
Suomalais- ja venäläisopiskelijoiden vertailu yrittäjyyteen motivoivien tekijöiden osalta
nosti esiin sekä eroja että yhtäläisyyksiä näiden ryhmien välillä. Yleisesti ottaen
venäläisopiskelijat pitivät useimpia motivaatiotekijöitä tärkeämpinä kuin
suomalaisopiskelijat, mikä vahvistaa käsitystä venäläisopiskelijoiden suuremmasta
yrittäjyysmyönteisyydestä. Keskeisimmät venäläisopiskelijoita yrittäjyydessä motivoivat
tekijät liittyvät mahdollisuuteen hyödyntää omia kykyjään ja saavuttaa niitä vastaava
tulotaso. Rikastumisen mahdollisuutta sinänsä ei kuitenkaan pidetty erityisen tärkeänä.
Tässä suhteessa venäläisopiskelijat poikkeavat etenkin suomalaisista miesopiskelijoista,
joille rikastumisen mahdollisuus on keskeinen yrittäjyyteen motivoiva tekijä.
Venäläisopiskelijat näkivät pikemminkin yrittäjyyden kiinnostavana elämäntapana sekä
ihmissuhteiden että tehtävien sisällön osalta. Yrittäjyyden henkilökohtainen palkitsevuus
korostui myös avoimissa yrittäjyysmotivaatiota koskevissa kommenteissa. Useimmin
mainittu yksittäinen motivaatiotekijä oli “itsensä toteuttaminen”. Keskeinen ero
suomalaisvastaajin oli se, että venäläisten mies- ja naisopiskelijoiden välillä ei ollut
selkeää eroa motivaatiotekijöissä.
Tutkimuksen tulokset koskien yrittäjyyden yksilötason esteitä tukevat sitä näkemystä,
että venäläisopiskelijat ovat suomalaisopiskelijoita optimistisempia ja korostavat
arvioissaan enemmän yrittäjyyden positiivisia puolia. Suomalaisopiskelijat puolestaan
arvioivat yrittäjyyden esteet pääsääntöisesti suuremmiksi kuin venäläisvastaajat.
Osassa tapauksista ero oli huomattava, kun taas osa esteistä arvioitiin jokseenkin yhtä
58
suuriksi. Suomalaisvastaajat näkivät ensinnäkin yrittäjyyteen liittyvät taloudelliset riskit
huomattavasti suurempina esteinä yrittäjyydelle kuin venäläisvastaajat.
Suomalaisopiskelijat suhtautuivat kielteisemmin myös yrittäjyyden sitovuuteen ja vapaa-
ajan menetykseen. Toisaalta suomalais- ja venäläisopiskelijoiden näkemykset olivat
lähimpänä toisiaan koskien vastaajien nykyistä elämäntilannetta, jonka näki esteeksi
yrittäjyydelle noin 40% molempien ryhmien vastaajista. Yhtä mieltä oltiin myös siitä, että
yrittäjyys ei vaikuta kielteisesti ihmissuhteisiin. Ainoat tekijät, jotka venäläisvastaajat
arvioivat suomalaisvastaajia suuremmiksi yrittäjyyden esteiksi, olivat yrittäjien
sosiaaliturvan heikkous ja liiallinen riippuvuus rahoittajista.
Venäläisvastaajia pyydettiin myös arvioimaan toimintaympäristön asettamia esteitä
yrittäjyydelle, mikä oli lisäys alkuperäiseen kyselylomakkeeseen. Tulosten perusteella
voidaan todeta, että opiskelijoilla on varsin realistinen kuva yrittäjyyden
toimintaympäristöstä Venäjällä. Suurimmat esiin nostetut esteet ovat samoja, jotka
toistuvat pienyritysten toimintaedellytyksiä Venäjällä koskevissa aiemmissa
tutkimuksissa. Suurimmiksi esteiksi koettiin institutionaaliset tekijät, kuten rahoituksen
saatavuus, korruptio, byrokratia sekä monimutkainen ja usein muuttuva lainsäädäntö.
Yrityksen liiketoimintasuhteisiin liittyviä haasteita, kuten asiakkaiden löytämistä, ei sen
sijaan pidetty yhtä suurina. Rahoituksen saatavuus nousi esille myös vastaajien
avoimissa kommenteissa koskien yrittäjyyden esteitä. Lisäksi erityisesti naisopiskelijat
nostivat esiin psykologisia tekijöitä, kuten yrittäjyyden henkisen kuormittavuuden ja
liiallisen vastuullisuuden.
Venäläisopiskelijoiden vastaukset yrittäjyysasenteita koskeviin väittämiin voidaan jakaa
kahteen pääryhmään vastausten jakautumisen perusteella. Ensinnäkin osa väittämistä
oli sellaisia, joiden suhteen vastaajien näkemykset olivat jokseenkin yhteneväiset, eli
suurin osa vastaajista oli joko samaa tai eri mieltä. Nämä väittämät koskivat etenkin
yrittäjyyden ja pienyritysten merkitystä yhteiskunnalle ja kansantaloudelle, jonka
valtaosa vastaajista näki positiivisena. Vastaavasti nähtiin, että yhteiskunnan tulisi tukea
yrittäjyyttä nykyistä enemmän. Enemmistö vastaajista oli myös sitä mieltä, että yrittäjyys
on erittäin riskialtista, mutta tarjoaa samaan aikaan mahdollisuuden hyödyntää täysillä
59
omaa osaamistaan. Näin ollen luonnollista on, että vastaajat yhtyivät väittämään
”yrittäminen on rohkeiden ja idearikkaiden ihmisten työtä”. Toiseksi, osa
yrittäjyysasenteita valottavista väittämistä oli sellaisia, joihin venäläisopiskelijoiden oli
selvästi vaikea ottaa kantaa. Tämä heijastui vastausten hajaantumisena eri
vaihtoehtojen välille, mukaan lukien “en osaa sanoa” –vaihtoehdon valinneiden suuren
osuuden. Kyseiset väittämät koskivat ensinnäkin yrittäjän moraalia, kuten mahdollista
oman edun tavoittelua ja venyvää omaatuntoa. Vastaajilla ei myöskään ollut selkeää
näkemystä pienyrityksistä työnantajina, eli puristavatko ne työntekijöistään kaiken irti vai
nouseeko niissä todellinen asiantuntijuus esiin.
Verrattaessa venäläisopiskelijoita suomalaisopiskelijoihin yrittäjyysasenteiden osalta,
suurin näkemysero koski yrittäjyyden riskejä, joita venäläisvastaajat pitivät suurempina.
Lisäksi venäläisvastaajilla oli keskimäärin negatiivisempi näkemys yrittäjän moraalista.
Venäläisvastaajat etenkin näkivät suomalaisia useammin yrittäjät häikäilemättöminä
oman edun tavoittelijoina. Sitä vastoin molemmat ryhmät olivat yksimielisiä siitä, että
yrittäjyys ja pienyritystoiminta vaikuttavat myönteisesti yhteiskuntaan ja talouteen.
Yrittäjyyttä pitäisi näin ollen tukea yhteiskunnan taholta nykyistä enemmän.
Tutkimustulosten pohjalta voidaan todeta, että venäläisopiskelijoilla on vaikeuksia
arvioida yrittäjyyden roolia omassa yliopistossaan, mikä heijastui “en osaa sanoa” –
vastausten suurena osuutena ao. aihetta koskeviin väittämiin. Myönteisimmin oman
yliopistokoulutuksensa antamia yrittäjyysvalmiuksia arvioivat ne opiskelijat, joiden
perheessä on yrittäjyyttä. Kaupallisten aineiden opiskelijat näkivät myös koulutuksensa
yrittäjyysvalmiuksia edistävänä teknillisten aineiden opiskelijoita useammin, mikä on
looginen tulos. Sen sijaan vastaajien kannat väittämään “yliopistoni opiskelijat
arvostavat yrittäjyyttä uravaihtoehtona” vahvistavat kuvaa venäläisopiskelijoiden
yrittäjyysmyönteisyydestä. Sen lisäksi, että opiskelijat pitävät henkilökohtaisesti
yrittäjyyttä houkuttelevana uravaihtoehtona, yli puolet vastaajista uskoi yliopistonsa
muiden opiskelijoiden jakavan tämän mielipiteen.
60
Kyselyn perusteella venäläisopiskelijat ovat myös erittäin kiinnostuneita
yrittäjyyskoulutuksesta. Valtaosa vastaajista ilmoitti olevansa kiinnostunut osallistumaan
koulutukseen ja noin 40% olisi valmis myös maksamaan siitä. Kiinnostuneimpia olivat
kaupallisten aineiden opiskelijat sekä ne opiskelijat, joiden perheessä on yrittäjyyttä.
Suurin syy siihen, miksi yrittäjyyskoulutus ei kiinnosta oli taloudellinen. Opiskelijat
tuntuivat automaattisesti olettavan, että koulutus olisi maksullinen ja ilmoittivat, että
heillä ei ole varaa maksaa siitä. Osa opiskelijoista suhtautui myös varauksella
yrittäjyyskoulutuksen käytännön hyötyihin. Erityisesti epäiltiin, antaisiko maksullinen
koulutus täyden vastineen siihen sijoitetuille rahoille. Joukossa oli myös opiskelijoita,
jotka katsoivat omaavansa täydet yrittäjyysvalmiudet kunhan vain yhteiskunta tarjoaisi
yritystoiminnalle normaalit olosuhteet esimerkiksi kitkemällä korruption valtion
virastoista.
Yrittäjyyskoulutuksen sisällöstä voidaan todeta, että markkinointiosaaminen ja
rahoituslähteitä koskeva tieto koettiin kaikkein tärkeimmiksi. Vastaajien vapaissa
kommenteissa koskien koulutuksen sisältöä korostui toive sen nivomisesta käytännön
yritystoimintaan. Vastaajat toivoivat koulutusohjelman sisältävän yrityscaseja ja muita
käytännön tehtäviä, sekä olivat kiinnostuneita kuulemaan yrittäjien menestystarinoita
yrittäjiltä itseltään. Erityisesti naispuoliset vastaajat korostivat lisäksi
henkilöstöjohtamistaitojen merkitystä koulutuksen sisällössä. Mahdollisuutta verkottua
suomalaisiin yrittäjiin ja yrityksiin toivottiin myös.
Suosituksia yrittäjyyskoulutuksen kehittämiseen Venäjällä
Kyselytulosten perusteella voidaan nostaa esiin muutamia tekijöitä, jotka on hyvä
huomioida suunnitellessa yrittäjyyskoulutusta venäläisyliopistoissa. Ensinnäkin, vaikka
venäläisopiskelijat ovat erittäin kiinnostuneita yrittäjyydestä uravaihtoehtona, monilla on
vaikeuksia määritellä yleistä asennettaan yrittäjyyteen. Tämä koskee esimerkiksi
yrittäjän moraalin arviointia, mikä heijastaa edelleen neuvostoaikaista suhtautumista
yrittäjyyteen kielteisenä ja jopa rikollisena toimintana. Näin ollen yrittäjyyden etiikkaa
olisi tarpeen käsitellä koulutuksessa muiden yrittäjyyteen liittyvien kysymysten ohella.
61
Toiseksi, kyselyvastaukset vahvistivat aiempaa näkemystämme käytännön tiedon
tärkeydestä osana koulutusohjelmaa. Venäläisen toimintaympäristön
kehittymättömyydestä johtuen osallistujille on tarpeen saada koulutuksen kautta tietoa,
joka on Suomen kaltaisissa kehittyneissä talouksissa helposti saatavilla muista lähteistä.
Tämä koskee ennen kaikkea tietoa rahoituslähteistä ja yritystoiminnan säätelystä.
Kolmanneksi, tutkimustulokset korostavat tarvetta nivoa koulutus käytännön
yritystoimintaan. Ohjelmaan tulisi sisällyttää sekä tehtäviä, joissa ratkotaan
yritystoiminnan ongelmia, että menestyneiden yrittäjien kertomuksia siitä, miten he ovat
onnistuneet luovimaan Venäjän vaikeassa toimintaympäristössä. Lopuksi voidaan
todeta, että kyselyn perusteella venäläisopiskelijat ovat tottuneet maksulliseen
koulutukseen. Samanaikaisesti he kuitenkin punnitsevat huolellisesti, antaako koulutus
vastinetta rahoille. Tämä heijastuu tiettynä epäluulona uusia koulutusohjelmia kohtaan.
Ennen kuin lähdetään käynnistämään uutta yrittäjyyskoulutusohjelmaa venäläisessä
yliopistomaailmassa tulisikin varmistaa, että osallistujilla on tarpeeksi tietoa ohjelmasta.
Tämä auttaa heitä arvioimaan koulutuksen hyötyjä omalta kannaltaan.
Annex 4: Russian summary
Kpa1kuú oõsop pesynu1a1on uccneponauun
B pauuor of¬ëfe npepcfaeneuu pesynufafu uay¬uoro auanusa aukefupoeauun,
npoeopuroro cpepu poccuùckux cfypeufoe fpëx yuueepcufefoe Caukf-Refepõypra
eecuoù 2008 ropa e parkax npoekfa "Paseufue npepnpuuurafenucfea",
quuaucupyeroro nporparroù TACHC. Rapfuëpu npoekfa - Ueufp Manoro Eusueca
Xenucuuckoù Lkonu Skouoruku u Caukf-Refepõyprckuù Focypapcfeeuuuù
Yuueepcufef Skouoruku u 4uuaucoe. B aukefupoeauuu npuunnu y¬acfue 204
cfypeufa skouoru¬eckux u fexuu¬eckux cneuuanuuocfeù. µnn npoeepeuun
aukefupoeauun õuna apanfupoeaua aukefa Ueufpa Manoro Eusueca Xenucuuckoù
Lkonu Skouoruku, y»e ucnonusyeran pauee pnn aukefupoeauun quuckux
cfypeufoe. Hacfonµuù of¬ëf copep»uf cpaeuufenuuuù auanus pesynufafoe
aukefupoeauun poccuùckux u quuckux cfypeufoe. Aukefa cocfouf us ¬efupëx õnokoe
62
eonpocoe, õonuuuucfeo us kofopux eonpocu ruo»ecfeeuuoro euõopa. Repeuù õnok
eonpocoe nocenµëu ucxopuur xapakfepucfukar pecnoupeufoe, eknk¬an eospacf,
non, rop oõy¬euun, cneuuanuuocfu, uanu¬ue npepnpuuurafeneù e cerue
pecnoupeufoe u cpepu ux ppyseù. Tak»e sfof õnok copep»uf eonpocu, kacakµuecn
kapuepuux nnauoe pecnoupeufoe. Ocuoeuan uenu sfux eonpocoe cocfouf e
euneneuuu ofuoueuun pecnoupeufoe k npepnpuuurafenucfey kak k kapuepuoù
anufepuafuee. Bfopoù õnok aukefu copep»uf yfeep»peuun, npuseauuue
onpepenufu rueuue pecnoupeufoe o rofueauuouuux qakfopax
npepnpuuurafenucfea u npennfcfeunx pnn saunfun npepnpuuurafenuckoù
penfenuuocfuk. Sfu yfeep»peuun ofpa»akf kak nepcouanuuue xapakfepucfuku
pecnoupeufoe, fak u qakfopu koukypeufuoù u uucfufyuuouanuuoù cpepu pnn
npepnpuuurafenucfea. Tpefuù õnok nocenµëu oõµery rueuuk o
npepnpuuurafennx u ponu ranoro õusueca e oõµecfee u skouoruke. Hakoueu, e
saknk¬ufenuuux peyx õnokax aukefu copep»afcn eonpocu, kofopue urekf uenuk
euneufu uufepec cfypeufoe k y¬acfuk e oõpasoeafenuuoù nporparre no
npepnpuuurafenucfey u ux rueuue o for, uackonuko ux yuueepcufefckoe
oõpasoeauue cnocoõcfeyef paseufuk npepnpuuurafenuckux uaeukoe u cfurynupyef
k saunfuk npepnpuuurafenucfeor.
Hu»e npepcfaeneuo oõoõµeuue pesynufafoe aukefupoeauun. Bo-nepeux,
poccuùckue cfypeufu c¬ufakf npepnpuuurafenucfeo o¬euu npuenekafenuuoù
kapuepuoù anufepuafueoù. Eonee foro, poccuùckue cfypeufu e õonuueù repe xofnf
cfafu npepnpuuurafennru, ¬er quuckue cfypeufu. B ofnu¬ue of quuckux
cfypeufoe, pnn poccuùckux cfypeufoe ue uaõnkpaefcn cyµecfeeuuux reupepuux
pasnu¬uù e ofuoueuuu k npepnpuuurafenucfey. Opuako, ofeefu ua eonpoc "B kakor
cekfope skouoruku Bu xofenu õu urefu coõcfeeuuyk qupry?" pasnu¬akfcn pnn
cfypeufoe ry»ckoro u »euckoro nonoe. Eonuuuucfeo cfypeufoe ry»ckoro nona
xofenu õu urefu coõcfeeuuyk qupry e cqepe uuqoprauuouuux fexuonoruù, e fo
epern kak cfypeufu »euckoro nona e ocuoeuor ykasanu pasnu¬uue cqepu
nofpeõufenuckux ycnyr. -acfu¬uo sfo oõLncunefcn fer, ¬fo õonuuan ¬acfu
pecnoupeufoe »euckoro nona - cfypeufu skouoru¬eckux cneuuanuuocfeù, kofopue
63
coofeefcfeeuuo ue urekf uaeukoe e koukpefuoù cqepe npouseopcfea e ofnu¬ue of
cfypeufoe fexuu¬eckux cneuuanuuocfeù, õonuuuucfeo us kofopux cfypeufu
ry»ckoro nona. H, uakoueu, e coofeefcfeuu c pesynufafaru aukefupoeauun, fe
poccuùckue cfypeufu, y kofopux ecfu npepnpuuurafenu cpepu õnu»aùuux
popcfeeuuukoe u cfypeufu skouoru¬eckux cneuuanuuocfeù e õonuueù repe
sauufepecoeauu e kapuepe npepnpuuurafenn.
Bo-efopux, ru oõuapy»unu kak pasnu¬un, fak u oõµue ¬epfu re»py poccuùckuru u
quuckuru cfypeufaru e oueuke rofueauuouuux qakfopoe npepnpuuurafenucfea. B
uenor poccuùckue cfypeufu npupakf õonuuyk nono»ufenuuyk ea»uocfu
õonuuuucfey rofueauuouuux qakfopoe e cpaeueuuu c quuckuru cfypeufaru.
µauuuù qakf eµë pas nopfeep»paef, ¬fo poccuùckue cfypeufu õonee
opueufupoeauu ua npepnpuuurafenucfeo. Hauõonee ea»uue rofueauuouuue
qakfopu pnn poccuùckux cfypeufoe ofpa»akf eosro»uocfu enunfu ua coõcfeeuuyk
"cypuõy" e ofuoueuuu quuaucoeoro poxopa u peanusauuu coõcfeeuuoro nofeuuuana
u cnocoõuocfeù. Opuako fakoù qakfop kak eosro»uocfu cfafu õorafur, ue õun
oueueu kak o¬euu ea»uuù. H e sfor poccuùckue cfypeufu (u ry»ckoro u »euckoro
nonoe) ofnu¬akfcn of quuckux cfypeufoe ry»ckoro nona, kofopue npupakf sfory
qakfopy ocoõyk ea»uocfu e ycuneuuu ux rofueauuu cfafu npepnpuuurafener.
Eonee foro, poccuùckue pecnoupeufu e õonuueù cfeneuu akueufupykf euurauue ua
fakor qakfope npepnpuuurafenucfea kak uufepecuan »usuu, u e couuanuuor nnaue
u no copep»auuk sapa¬ u oõnsauuocfeù. Ba»uocfu qakfopa "euyfpeuuee
eosuarpa»peuue" cnepyef us ofkpufux ofeefoe poccuùckux cfypeufoe, rpe
uauõonee ¬acfo uasueaeruù rofueauuouuuù qakfop - "caropeanusauun". Ba»uur
ofnu¬uer e oueuke rofueauuouuux qakfopoe re»py poccuùckuru u quuckuru
cfypeufaru nennefcn ofcyfcfeue reupepuux pasnu¬uù y poccuùckux cfypeufoe, e fo
epern kak y quuckux cfypeufoe sfu ofnu¬un poeonuuo õonuuue.
B-fpefuux, auanus suporeuuux (f.e. nu¬uux) npennfcfeuù pnn npepnpuuurafenucfea
nopfeeppun uaue npepnono»euue o for, ¬fo poccuùckue cfypeufu õonee
onfurucfu¬uu u e õonuueù cfeneuu qokycupykfcn ua nono»ufenuuux cfopouax
64
npepnpuuurafenucfea, ¬er quuckue cfypeufu. 4uuckue cfypeufu oueuunu ece
qakfopu kpore peyx õonee uerafueuo, ¬er ux poccuùckue konneru. µnn pnpa
qakfopoe pasnu¬un e oueukax sua¬ufenuuu. 4uuckue cfypeufu pakf ropaspo õonee
uerafueuyk oueuky fakory qakfopy kak quuaucoeue pucku, censauuue c
npepnpuuurafenucfeor. Eonee foro, quuckue cfypeufu õonee uerafueuo ofuocnfcn
k fory, ¬fo npepnpuuurafenucfeo cnuukor ko ruorory oõnsueaef u fpeõyef ruoro
epereuu. Tak»e ecfu qakfopu, kofopue õunu oueueuu npurepuo opuuakoeo
oõeuru rpynnaru pecnoupeufoe. Rpuõnusufenuuo 40% u quuckux u poccuùckux
cfypeufoe c¬ufakf coõcfeeuuyk fekyµyk »usueuuyk cufyauuk npennfcfeuer pnn
foro, ¬foõu saunfucn npepnpuuurafenucfeor. Hanpofue, fonuko npuõnusufenuuo
opua ¬efeëpfan pecnoupeufoe e oõeux rpynnax c¬ufaef, ¬fo enunuue
npepnpuuurafenucfea ua nu¬uue ofuoueuun uerafueuo ckasueaefcn ua ux »enauuu
cfafu npepnpuuurafennru. Hakoueu, couuanuuan uesaµuµëuuocfu
npepnpuuurafenucfea u ¬pesrepuo cunuuan saeucurocfu of uueecfopoe - pea
qakfopa, kofopue poccuùckue cfypeufu c¬ufakf õonee sua¬ufenuuuru
npennfcfeunru pnn npepnpuuurafenucfea, ¬er quuckue cfypeufu.
Roruro suporeuuux qakfopoe, poccuùckur cfypeufar õuno npepno»euo oueuufu
qakfopu okpy»akµeù õusuec-cpepu kak nofeuuuanuuue npennfcfeun pnn
npepnpuuurafenucfea. Pesynufafu onpoca cfypeufoe nokasanu, ¬fo ux rueuue e
uenor coenapaef c rueuuer poccuùckux npepnpuuurafeneù kacafenuuo sksoreuuux
npennfcfeuù pnn paseufun npepnpuuurafenucfea u ranoro õusueca e Poccuu. K
qakfopar, uauõonee uerafueuo enunkµur ua »enauue pecnoupeufoe cfafu
npepnpuuurafennru, ofuocnfcn pocfyn k quuaucupoeauuk, koppynuun, õkpokpafun
u cno»uoe u sanyfauuoe sakouopafenucfeo. Hanpofue, qakfopu paõo¬eù cpepu (f.e.
esauroofuoueuuù c ocfanuuuru ¬neuaru npouseopcfeeuuoù cucferu) ue
paccrafpueakfcn poccuùckuru cfypeufaru kak sua¬urue npennfcfeun pnn
npepnpuuurafenucfea. µocfyn k quuaucupoeauuk kak ea»uoe npennfcfeue pnn
npepnpuuurafenucfea poruuupyef e ofkpufux ofeefax cfypeufoe. Eonee foro e
ofkpufux ofeefax õunu ynornuyfu fakue uerafueuue ncuxonoru¬eckue qakfopu
65
npepnpuuurafenucfea kak ncuxonoru¬eckuù cfpecc u õonuuan ofeefcfeeuuocfu (e
õonuueù repe pecnoupeufaru »euckoro nona).
B-¬efeepfux, konu¬ecfeeuuuù auanus oueuku poccuùckuru cfypeufaru
yfeep»peuuù oõ ux ofuoueuuu k npepnpuuurafenucfey u npepnpuuurafennr
noseonun paspenufu ux (yfeep»peuun) ua pee ofuocufenuuo opuopopuue (e
ofuoueuuu pacnpepeneuun ofeefoe) rpynnu. Bo-nepeux, e oueuke pnpa
yfeep»peuuù pecnoupeufu õunu ofuocufenuuo epuuopyuuu (f.e. õonuuuucfeo
nuõo cornacunucu, nuõo ue cornacunucu c yfeep»peuuer). Rpe»pe ecero, sfo
kacaefcn ponu npepnpuuurafeneù u ranoro õusueca pnn oõµecfea u skouoruku,
kofopan e uenor oueuueaefcn kak nono»ufenuuan õonuuuucfeor pecnoupeufoe.
Pecnoupeufu e uenor cornacuu u e for, ¬fo oõµecfeo pon»uo noppep»ueafu
npepnpuuurafenucfeo. Tak»e, c opuoù cfopouu, õonuuuucfeo pecnoupeufoe
c¬ufakf, ¬fo npepnpuuurafenu nopeeprakfcn ¬pesrepuory pucky, uo, c ppyroù
cfopouu, õonuuuucfeo cornacuo, ¬fo npepnpuuurafenucfeo npepocfaennef
eosro»uocfu nonuocfuk peanusoeafu ceoù coõcfeeuuuù nofeuuuan. Tak,
poccuùckue cfypeufu no¬fu epuuopyuuo cornacunucu c yfeep»peuuer, ¬fo
"npepnpuuurafenucfeo pnn crenux nkpeù c upenru". Bo-efopux, pecnoupeufu
uaunu safpypuufenuuur oueuufu uekofopue yfeep»peuun. Sfo ofpa»aefcn e
pacnpepeneuuu ofeefoe re»py kaferopunru, a ureuuo, e õonuuoù ponu ofeefa "H
ue suak (fpypuo ckasafu)". K fakur yfeep»peuunr e nepeyk o¬epepu ofuocnfcn
yfeep»peuun o ropanu npepnpuuurafeneù, a ureuuo, ¬fo npepnpuuurafenu
pykoeopcfeykfcn coõcfeeuuoù europoù u ¬acfo nocfynakfcn ceoeù coeecfuk. Tak»e
k sfoù rpynne ro»uo ofuecfu yfeep»peuun o ranux npepnpunfunx kak
paõofopafennx, f.e. skcnnyafupykf nu ouu ceoux paõofuukoe u oõecne¬ueakf nu
apekeafuue eosro»uocfu pnn npoqeccuouanoe.
Ecnu cpaeuueafu poccuùckux pecnoupeufoe c quuckuru, uauõonuuee ofnu¬ue õuno
oõuapy»euo e oueuke yfeep»peuun o puckoeauuocfu npepnpuuurafenucfea.
Poccuùckue cfypeufu c¬ufakf npepnpuuurafenucfeo õonee puckoeauuur
saunfuer, ¬er quuckue. Tak»e poccuùckue cfypeufu urekf õonee uerafueuoe
66
rueuue o ropanu npepnpuuurafeneù. B ¬acfuocfu, ouu õonee ¬acfo cornacuu c
yfeep»peuuer, ¬fo npepnpuuurafenu õecnpuuuunuu u pykoeopcfeykfcn
coõcfeeuuoù europoù, ¬er quuckue cfypeufu. Hanpofue, oõe rpynnu pecnoupeufoe
cxopnfcn eo rueuuu, ¬fo npepnpuuurafenu u ranuù õusuec nosufueuo enunkf ua
paseufue skouoruku u oõµecfea u, cnepoeafenuuo, ¬fo rocypapcfeo pon»uo
noppep»ueafu npepnpuuurafenucfeo u ranuù õusuec e õonuueù cfeneuu, ¬er ua
pauuuù roreuf.
Auanus ofeefoe poccuùckux cfypeufoe ua eonpocu o ponu ux yuueepcufefckoro
oõpasoeauun e peueuuu cfafu npepnpuuurafener, noseonun uar saknk¬ufu, ¬fo
cfypeufu, y kofopux ecfu xofn õu opuu npepnpuuurafenu cpepu õnu»aùuux
popcfeeuuukoe u cfypeufu skouoru¬eckux cneuuanuuocfeù e õonuueù cfeneuu
yeepeuu, ¬fo ux yuueepcufefckoe oõpasoeauue paseueaef e uux uaeuku
npepnpuuurafenucfea u cfurynupyef ux »enauue cfafu npepnpuuurafener. Ter ue
reuee, ponn cfypeufoe, ofeefueuux ua sfu eonpocu "H ue suak (fpypuo ckasafu)"
poeonuuo eucoka (of 21 po 27%). K fory »e ocfanuuue ofeefu no¬fu paeuorepuo
pacnpepeneuu re»py cornacuer u ue cornacuer sa ucknk¬euuer yfeep»peuun "B
roër yuueepcufefe cfypeufu paccrafpueakf npepnpuuurafenucfeo kak
npuenekafenuuyk kapuepuyk anufepuafuey". 54% pecnoupeufoe cornacunucu c
sfur yfeep»peuuer, ¬fo eµë pas nopfeep»paef nono»ufenuuoe ofuoueuue k
npepnpuuurafenucfey cpepu cfypeufoe.
Hakoueu, uauu pesynufafu nokasueakf, ¬fo poccuùckue cfypeufu o¬euu
sauufepecoeauu e pononuufenuuor oõpasoeauuu e oõnacfu npepnpuuurafenucfea.
Eonuuuucfeo cfypeufoe õunu õu sauufepecoeauu e y¬acfuu e oõpasoeafenuuoù
nporparre no npepnpuuurafenucfey u npuõnusufenuuo 40% us uux rofoeu
sannafufu sa y¬acfue. Cfypeufu skouoru¬eckux cneuuanuuocfeù e uauõonuueù
cfeneuu xofenu õu npuunfu y¬acfue e fakoù nporparre. Tak»e cfypeufu, y kofopux
ecfu xofn õu opuu npepnpuuurafenu cpepu õnu»aùuux popcfeeuuukoe, õonee
sauufepecoeauu e y¬acfuu, ¬er fe cfypeufu, y kofopux uef e cerue
npepnpuuurafeneù. Ocuoeuan npu¬uua ue»enauun y¬acfun e nporparre -
67
quuaucoean. Pecnoupeufu urnnuuufuo o»upanu, ¬fo fakoe oõy¬euue õypef
nnafuur u saneunu, ¬fo y uux uef quuaucoeux cpepcfe pnn y¬acfun. Eonee foro,
uekofopue cfypeufu eupasunu ckenfuuusr no noeopy foro, õypef nu ypoeeuu
oõy¬euun copasrepeu eno»euuur peuurar. Hufepecuur nennefcn u fo, ¬fo
uekofopue pecnoupeufu saneunu, ¬fo ouu y»e urekf pocfafo¬uo uaeukoe, ¬foõu
cfafu npepnpuuurafennru, ecnu fonuko rocypapcfeo oõecne¬uf õasoeue ycnoeun
pnn sforo, uanpurep, npuref ȑcfkue repu pnn ycfpaueuun koppynuuu e
rocypapcfeeuuor cekfope.
-fo kacaefcn kornoueufoe oõpasoeafenuuoù nporparru, fo uaeuku rapkefuura u
uuqoprauun o eosro»uocfnx quuaucupoeauun paccrafpueakfcn pecnoupeufaru
kak uauõonee ea»uue. Auanus ofkpufux ofeefoe nokasan, ¬fo cfypeufu o¬euu
sauufepecoeauu, ¬foõu fakan nporparra oceefuna acnekfu "peanuuoù »usuu" e
koufekcfe npepnpuuurafenuckoù penfenuuocfu: npurepu cfauoeneuun u
qyukuuouupoeauun peanuuux kornauuù, ecfpe¬u c ycneuuuru õusuecreuaru u f.n.
Eonee foro, ocoõeuuo cfypeufu »euckoro nona ofrefunu ueoõxopurocfu oõy¬euun
e oõnacfu ynpaeneuun ¬enoee¬eckuru pecypcaru. Hakoueu, oõµeuue c quuckuru
npepnpuuurafennru õuno ofre¬euo kak ea»uuù snereuf fakoù nporparru.
Bmnopm uccneponauun pnn nopro1onku oõyuammeú nporpauum no
npepnpuuuua1enuc1ny
Pesynufafu oõsopa noseonunu uar euneufu ea»uue acnekfu, kofopue ueoõxopuro
y¬ufueafu npu nnauupoeauuu oõpasoeafenuuoù nporparru no
npepnpuuurafenucfey e poccuùckux yuueepcufefax. Bo-nepeux, uecrofpn ua fo, ¬fo
e uenor pecnoupeufu paccrafpueakf npepnpuuurafenucfeo kak npuenekafenuuyk
kapuepuyk anufepuafuey, ruorue us uux uaunu safpypuufenuuur oueuufu
yfeep»peuun, kacakµuecn, uanpurep, ropanu npepnpuuurafeneù. B sfor
koufekcfe, uacnepue coeefckoro nepuopa, korpa ¬acfuuù õusuec paccrafpueancn
kak uerafueuoe neneuue, po cux nop ureef ceoë enunuue. Cnepoeafenuuo,
oõpasoeafenuuan nporparra pon»ua copep»afu puckyccuk o npepnpuuurafenuckoù
68
sfuke. Bo-efopux, pesynufafu nopfeep»pakf ea»uocfu npakfu¬eckoù uuqoprauuu e
fakor oõy¬euuu. Hs-sa cno»uoù (sanyfauuoù) poccuùckoù õusuec-cpepu, fakan
nporparra pon»ua fak»e copep»afu uuqoprauuk, kofopan e paseufux skouorukax
pocfynua us ppyrux ucfo¬uukoe. Rpe»pe ecero, sfo kacaefcn ucfo¬uukoe
quuaucupoeauun u rocypapcfeeuuoro perynupoeauun. B-fpefuux, uaue
uccnepoeauue ocoõo ofre¬aef ea»uocfu oceeµeuun acnekfoe "peanuuoù »usuu" e
koufekcfe npepnpuuurafenucfea. Sfo ro»ef eknk¬afu npakfu¬eckue saunfun e
qopre cufyauuouuux uccnepoeauuù (case-study) ofpenuuux kornauuù u
npeseufauuu ycneuuux õusuecreuoe o for, kak ur ypanocu npeoponefu cno»uocfu
poccuùckoù õusuec-cpepu. Hakoueu, korreufapuu pecnoupeufoe noseonunu
cpenafu eueop, ¬fo poccuùckue cfypeufu npueuknu nnafufu sa ceoë oõpasoeauue. B
fo »e epern, ouu fµafenuuo eseeuueakf, okynuf nu nony¬euuoe sa peuuru
oõpasoeauue eno»euuuù kanufan. Sfo ofpa»aefcn e uekofopor ckenfuuusre no
ofuoueuuk k uoeur oõpasoeafenuuur uuuuuafuear. Cnepoeafenuuo, npe»pe ¬er
sanyckafu uoeyk oõy¬akµyk nporparry no npepnpuuurafenucfey, ueoõxopuro
ypocfoeepufucn, ¬fo nofeuuuanuuue y¬acfuuku oõnapakf pocfafo¬uoù
uuqoprauueù o nporparre, ¬foõu oueuufu eë nonesuocfu.
PIENYRITYSKESKUKSEN N-SARJAJULKAISUJA
2006 – 2008
Selvitys lujitemuovikomposiittituotteiden mahdollisuuksista
rakennusteollisuudessa.
Saarikivi Mikko & Handelberg Jari & Holmberg Timo & Matilainen Ari. 2008.
Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-82.
Raportti suomalaisten ja brittiläisten pk-yritysten yhteistyön kehittämisestä
uusiutuvan energian sektorilla.
Saarikivi Mikko. 2008. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-81.
Johtamisen taidot – hankkeessa järjestettyjen koulutusohjelmien vaikuttavuus.
Kokkonen Vesa. 2008. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-80.
Kasva yrittäjäksi – koulutusohjelman vaikuttavuus.
Kokkonen Vesa. 2008. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-79.
Suomalais-venäläisen innovaatioyhteistyön haasteet toimijanäkökulmasta.
Panfilo Aleksander & Karhunen Päivi & Miettinen Visa. 2008. Mikkeli Business
Campus Publications N-78.
Determinants of knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship in Southeast Finland and
Northwest Russia.
Karhunen Päivi & Kettunen Erja & Miettinen Visa & Sivonen Tiinamari. 2008.
Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-77.
StuNet -Business Possibilities and Education - hankkeen arviointi.
Kehusmaa Laura & Kämä Jussi & Gustafsson-Pesonen Anne (ohjaaja). 2008.
Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-76.
Uutta naisjohtajuutta Delfoi Akatemiasta – hankkeen vaikuttavuus.
Tuutti Laura. 2008. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-75.
Pk-yritysten kansainvälistymisen sopimukset.
Saarikivi Mikko. 2008. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-74.
Katsaus K-päivittäistavarakauppaan ja sen merkitykseen Itä-Suomessa.
Mynttinen Sinikka. 2007. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-73.
Mikkelin seudun yrityspalvelujen henkilökunnan sekä alueen yrittäjien
näkemykset ja suhtautuminen mentorointiin.
Mynttinen Sinikka & Saarikivi Mikko & Hämäläinen Erkki. 2007.
Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-72.
(4) 2
Tutkimus Miktech yrityshautomon yritysten näkemyksistä ja kokemuksista
hautomon
toiminnasta ja sen edelleen kehittämisestä.
Handelberg Jari & Saarikivi Mikko. 2007.
Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-71.
Perusta oma yritys - koulutusohjelman vaikuttavuus.
Kokkonen Vesa. 2007. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-70.
Pietarin innovaatiojärjestelmä ja yhteistyöpotentiaali suomalaisille
innovaatiotoimijoille.
Panfilo Aleksander & Karhunen Päivi & Miettinen Visa. 2007.
Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-69.
Pietarin ja Leningradin läänin potentiaali kaakkoissuomalaisille metallialan
yrityksille.
Panfilo Alenksander & Karhunen Päivi. 2007.
Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-68.
Summary and declaration of the conference on public support systems of SME’s
in Russia and other North European countries.
Virtanen Markku. 2007. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-67.
Kaupallisten avustajien koulutusohjelmien vaikuttavuus.
Kokkonen Vesa & Logrén Johanna. 2007.
Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-66.
Kehity esimiehenä – koulutusohjelman vaikuttavuus.
Kokkonen Vesa. 2007. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-65.
Pietarissa toteutettujen yrittäjäkoulutusohjelmien vaikuttavuus.
Logrén Johanna & Kokkonen Vesa. 2007.
Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-64.
Oppilaitosten yrittäjyyskoulutuksen kehittämishanke 2004-2006 Etelä-Savon
alueella. Tavoitteiden, toimenpiteiden ja vaikuttavuuden arviointi.
Mustonen Soile & Gustafsson-Pesonen Anne. 2007. Mikkeli Business Campus
Publications N-63.
Yrittäjyysasenteet korkeakouluissa: Case-tutkimus Mikkelin ammattikorkeakoulun
opettajien ja opiskelijoiden yrittäjyysasenteista.
Mustonen Soile. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-62.
Startti!-yrittäjänä – koulutusohjelman vaikuttavuus.
Kokkonen Vesa. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-61.
(4) 3
Yrittäjyys ja innovaatioiden kaupallistaminen – opintokokonaisuuden
vaikuttavuus.
Granbacka Johanna & Kokkonen Vesa. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus
Publications N-60.
Liiketoimintaosaaminen Itä-Suomessa.
Heimonen, Tomi & Virtanen, Markku. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus
Publications N-59.
Pk-yrityksen johtajan rooli sosiaalisen pääoman edistäjänä.
Norén, Mirva. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-58.
Yrittäjyysmotivaatio ja yrittäjyysasenteet pääkaupunkiseudun ja Hämeen
ammattikorkeakouluissa vuonna 2005. Mukana HAMKin sisäinen tutkimus.
Saarikivi Mikko & Kokkonen Vesa. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus
Publications N-57.
Pääkaupunkiseudun ja Hämeen ammattikorkeakoulujen opetushenkilökunnan
yrittäjyysasenteet.
Saarikivi Mikko & Kokkonen Vesa. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus
Publications N-56.
Yrittäjyysmotivaatio ja yrittäjyysasenteet pääkaupunkiseudun ja Hämeen
ammattikorkeakouluissa vuonna 2005. Suomenkieliset opiskelijat.
Saarikivi Mikko & Kokkonen Vesa. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus
Publications N-55.
Yrittäjyysmotivaatio ja yrittäjyysasenteet ammattikorkeakouluissa vuonna 2005.
Kansainväliset opiskelijat.
Saarikivi Mikko & Kokkonen Vesa. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus
Publications N-54.
Pääkaupunkiseudun ja Hämeen ammattikorkeakoulujen alumnien
yrittäjyysmotivaatio ja yrittäjyysasenteet vuonna 2005.
Saarikivi Mikko & Kokkonen Vesa. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus
Publications N-53.
Asiantuntijayrittäjyyden erikoispiirteet.
Kokkonen Vesa. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-52.
Firma – koulutusohjelman vaikuttavuus.
Kokkonen Vesa. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-51.
Oma yritys – koulutusohjelman vaikuttavuus.
Kokkonen Vesa. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-50.
Helsingin kauppakorkeakoulun opiskelijoiden ja sieltä vuonna 2000
valmistuneiden maistereiden yrittäjyysasenteet vuonna 2004.
Piipponen Rami. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-49.
(4) 4
Vientiohjelmien vaikuttavuus.
Kokkonen Vesa. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-48.
Etelä-Savo ja näkökulmia e-työn kehittämiseen.
Piispa Riikka & Hänninen Asko. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus
Publications N-47.
Kaupallinen ystävällisyys – sosiaalinen vuorovaikutus päivittäistavarakaupan
lähimyymälän kilpailuetuna (Case-yritykset Mikkelistä ja Juvalta).
Rekola Sirkku. 2006. Mikkeli Business Campus Publications N-46.
N-83
Russian students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurship development –project 2
Results of a survey in three St. Petersburg universities
Päivi Karhunen
Svetlana Ledyaeva
Anne Gustafsson-Pesonen
Elena Mochnikova
Dmitry Vasilenko
N-83
Mikkeli Business Campus
doc_616576933.pdf