CHAPTER ONE 1.

0 INTRODUCTION
This chapter entails the introduction to the research work. It consists of the background of the study, the statement of research problems, objectives of the study, research questions and research hypotheses. It also includes the significance and scope of the study, and the definition of some important terms used in the research work.

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

As at the end of 2011, the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) stated the unemployment rate in Nigeria at 23.9%, in the year 2010 it was 21% while in 2009 it was placed at 19.6%. It can obviously be seen that the rate of unemployment in Nigeria is experiencing a steady increase. In 2009 unemployment was highest among youths between the ages of 15 and 24, with an average unemployment rate of 35.9%. It is no surprise then, that entrepreneurship is being aggressively encouraged among youths in the country. The Nigerian Government is actively aimed at checking the increasing number of unemployed youths, as they increase every year with fresh university graduates being added to the labour market. The government is constantly implementing initiatives to support entrepreneurship. In October 2011, the "You WIN!" project was launched, a youth empowerment and entrepreneurship drive anchored by the Federal Ministry of Finance in conjunction with the Federal Ministry of Communication and Technology, the Federal Ministry of Youth Development, private sector companies and the World Bank. The main objective of the project

was to generate jobs by encouraging and supporting aspiring entrepreneurial youth in Nigeria to develop and execute business ideas that will lead to job creation. Research has theorized that the supply of entrepreneurs can be increased by developing a positive perception about the feasibility and desirability of entrepreneurship through educational preparation at an early age (Kourilsky, 1980). Institutions of higher learning are acknowledging the dire situation their graduates are destined to face and are inculcating entrepreneurial trainings into their curricula. Covenant University, which has been recognised by the National Universities Commission (NUC) as the leading University driving entrepreneurship, operates a compulsory entrepreneurship course for all undergraduates. The course known as Entrepreneurial Development Studies (EDS) has both theoretical and practical sections. The objective of the university in operating this program is to produce graduates that will create employment for others rather than be job seekers. According to J.A. Schumpter entrepreneurship is the central figure of the development process because the entrepreneur in the modern complex economic world, can create opportunities for production technology, by expanding or discovering new market, new product, new source of resources, etc. All these activities will embrace risk and uncertainties and at the same time will increase the demand for higher or increased investment in the economy. In other words, in totality, the net result of expansion in the volume of economic activities will lead to growth in national economy and if a proper and equitable distribution policy can be formulated by the state to suit the real development in the economy will take place (Saha, 1989). It is therefore disheartening that with all the efforts of both the government and educational bodies on entrepreneurship development, no real effect has been felt on the economy. This

situation shows that emphasis is majorly being laid on the creation of these entrepreneurial ventures and less on the survival and profitability of these ventures. According to the Manpower Board and the Federal Bureau of Statistics, Nigeria has a youth population of 80 million, representing 60% of the total population of the country. Also, 64 million of them are unemployed. It is only logical to concluded that a significant amount of them are uneducated while some of those that are educated cannot access the various government incentives, such as the "You WIN!" project which at the end of the three-year period, has as its target to have 3, 600 entrepreneurs supported to start or expand their business concepts over three years; an additional 1,800-2,000 business started or expanded by youth trained by the programme; 40,000 to 50,000 sustainable new jobs for currently unemployed Nigerian youth over three years; at least 6,000 aspiring youth entrepreneurs trained in business planning and management and at least 3,600 entrepreneurs linked with mentors in the business community. This barely offsets the enormous figure of unemployed youths. Therefore there shall be youths that would venture into entrepreneurship by acquiring funds from various sources other than grants from the government. It is therefore obvious that young entrepreneurs either those supported by government or those venturing individually, face a number of challenges in the operation of their businesses. This study seeks to evaluate the business performance of young entrepreneurs, focusing on undergraduate entrepreneurs at Covenant University.

1.2 STATEMENT OF RESEARCH PROBLEM

There are four ways of generating funds for entrepreneurship, which include Personal Financing, Debt Financing and Equity Financing (Bruce, 2008). The various forms of generating funds have

different consequences. Private sources of funds are ideal for intending entrepreneurs, but they produce limited sources of funds, bank loans are disadvantageous to small scale businesses due to high interest rates charged by banks (Ausbeth, 2005). It is very important therefore to locate a source of finance that is favourable. This study seeks to identify the extent to which the appropriate method of generating fund affects the business performance. The UN considers individuals under the age group of 15 24 as youths. In Uganda, for example, youth is from 12 to 30 years, while in Nigeria, it is between 18 and 28 years (ILO publication, 2005). In the Nigerian business environment, level of expertise and experience are often measured by age of the individual (Salami, 2011). Young entrepreneurs are in constant interaction with this business environment, therefore, this study seeks to identify a relationship between ages of entrepreneurs and business performance. Lack of entrepreneurial education leads to low level of entrepreneurial intentions of students (Franke & Luthje, 2004).Tertiary institutions therefore are integrating entrepreneurship into students academics. When rooted in solid learning theory, entrepreneurial education develops entrepreneurs, by increasing business knowledge and promoting psychological attributes associated with entrepreneurs (Kruegar & Brazeal, 1994; Kourilsky & Walstad, 1998; Walstad & Kourilsky, 1999). However, undergraduate entrepreneurs are faced with the challenge of balancing their business with their academics. Students spend more time working than participating in their academics, mainly due to the fact that they needed their jobs to fund their education (Sarath et al, 2006). This study seeks to investigate the extent to which academic work of undergraduate entrepreneurs affects business performance.

Majority of entrepreneurs are faced with the challenge of availability of funding and the possibility of having access to fund to finance businesses (Awogbenle & Iwuamadi, 2010). A shortage of funding almost always results in the halt of business activities (Andrew, 2000). This study seeks to determine what levels of funds are regarded as adequate for undergraduate entrepreneurs and its relationship with business performance.

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The overall aim of the study is to evaluate the business performance of young entrepreneurs at Covenant University. The main objectives of the study are 1. To investigate the appropriate methods of generating adequate funds for undergraduate entrepreneurship and how it affects business performance. 2. To determine the extent to which the ages of young entrepreneurs affects business performance. 3. To ascertain the relationship between academic work of undergraduate entrepreneurs and business performance. 4. To determine the relationship between availability of adequate funds and profitability.

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTION

These are the research question that we intend to answer during the course of this study 1. Does the appropriate method of generating funds for undergraduate entrepreneurship affect business performance? 2. Do the ages of young entrepreneurs affect business performance?

3. Is there a relationship between academic work of undergraduate entrepreneurs and business performance? 4. Is there a relationship between availability of adequate funds and profitability?

1.5 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

Hypothesis is a tentative statement of truth put forward and used as a basis for further investigation by which they may be approved or disapproved. Hence for the purpose of this research to be achieved, the following hypothesis will help in verifying the research statement. HYPOTHESIS 1 H0: Available sources of funds for undergraduate entrepreneurship do not affect business performance. H1: Available sources of funds for undergraduate entrepreneurship affect business performance.

HYPOTHESIS 2 H0: Age of young entrepreneurs does not affect business performance. H1: Age of young entrepreneurs affects business performance.

HYPOTHESIS 3 H0: There is no relationship between academic work of undergraduate entrepreneurs and business performance. H1: There is a relationship between academic work of undergraduate entrepreneurs and business performance.

HYPOTHESIS 4 H0: There is no relationship between availability of adequate funds and profitability. H1: There is a relationship between availability of adequate funds and profitability.

1.6 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

This study uses undergraduate entrepreneurs in Covenant University. Covenant University is considered as the foremost university in driving entrepreneurship, this makes it convenient for the pursuance of this study. The rationale behind the choice of Covenant University undergraduate entrepreneurs is to have a reasonable amount of respondent and to enable ease in administering the questionnaire.

1.7 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This study is relevant to intending entrepreneurs as it will inform them of the benefits and challenges of entrepreneurship, and assist their decision making to overcome these challenges. It

shall also be relevant to existing entrepreneurs, by showing them where they must of gone wrong and guiding their decisions to correct their mistakes or to improve their operations. The study shall also be relevant to management of universities, as it will inform them of ways to further assist their undergraduates who are entrepreneurs. The government can also benefit from this study as it will inform them that assisting in the start-up of businesses is not everything. It will show the government areas in which it can continue to assist entrepreneurs after start-up. This study will contribute to the expansion of existing knowledge on this area of study. It would also provide useful starting/reference points for future researchers and a sound basis for intellectual exercise and researches.

1.8 OUTLINE OF CHAPTERS

This study is divided into five chapters: Chapter one is centered on general introduction. Here, the research problems were discussed; the objectives of the study were stated, as well as the research questions, research hypothesis, and the significance of the study and operational definitions of terms used in the study. Chapter two is focused on review of relevant literature of the work. Chapter three shows the details of the research methodology. Chapter four of this study centers on the presentation and analysis of data. Chapter five is the conclusive chapter of the study. This research study concludes with recommendation of the study conducted.

1.9 OPERATIONAL TERMS

Entrepreneurship: A process in which individuals pursue opportunities, fulfilling needs and wants through innovation together with the attendant risks (Gumperts, 2002) Entrepreneur: One who chooses or assumes risks, identifies business opportunity, gathers resources, initiates actions and establishes an organization or enterprise to meet such demand or market opportunity (Anayakoha, 2006) Performance: The accomplishment of a given task measured against preset known standards of accuracy, completeness, cost, and speed. Profitability: The state or condition of yielding a financial profit or gain. It is often measured by price to earnings ratio. Social Entrepreneur: They run innovative not-for-profit ventures and look for the most effective methods of serving their social missions (Dees, 1998). Business Entrepreneur: They are driven solely by profit making, and are constantly looking for an immediate monetary return on investment. With business entrepreneurs, wealth creation is a way of measuring value creation (Dees, 1998).

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 2.0 INTRODUCTION

This chapter reviews previous works of other researchers that is related to the area of the research being conducted. It consists of the conceptual framework which includes definitions, concepts and terminologies related to the research study, the theoretical framework which reviews the various theories related to the research study, and the empirical framework which includes the conclusions researchers in the area of interest have drawn concerning the research study.

2.1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK. 2.1.1. ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEFINED

The definition of entrepreneurship has been debated among scholars and researchers since the concept was first established. Steinfioff and Burgers (1993) view entrepreneurship as the ability to develop a new venture or apply a new approach to an old business. Stevenson (2002) defines entrepreneurship as the pursuit of opportunity through innovative leverage of resources that for the most part are not controlled internally. Allawadi (2010) tied entrepreneurship to the creation of five basic new combinations, introduction of a new product, a new method of production, opening a new market, conquest of new source of supply and creating a new organization. Frequently, entrepreneurship is thought to apply only to the management of small businesses but businesses that started small can grow into conglomerates if given an enabling environment. Drucker (1998) proposes that entrepreneurship is a practice. What this means is that

10

entrepreneurship is not a state of being nor is it characterized by making plans that are not acted upon. Regardless of the outcomes, when an individual creates a new organization, he has entered the entrepreneurship paradigm. Others tend to confuse managing a small business with entrepreneurship, but Stevenson argued that not all small business managers are entrepreneurs because they dont innovate. Creativity and entrepreneurship promote the birth of new firms which is critical to economic development efforts. Stevenson and Gumperts (2002) defined it as a process in which individuals pursue opportunities, fulfilling needs and wants through innovation together with the attendant risks. Salami C.G.E, (2011) in his study concluded that entrepreneurship is the process of carefully determining and analyzing unmet needs through creatively satisfying those needs by bearing the related risks.

2.1.2. ENTREPRENEURS DEFINED

In the middle ages, the term entrepreneur was used to describe both an actor and a person who managed large production projects. The individual did not take risks, but barely managed the project using resources provided, usually by the government of the country (Robert et al, 2002). The term entrepreneur originated in French economics as early as the 17th and 18th centuries. In French, it means someone who undertakes, not an undertaker in the sense of a funeral director, but someone who undertakes a significant project or activity. More specifically, it came to be used to identify the venturesome individuals who stimulated economic progress by finding new and better ways of doing things. The French economist most commonly credited with giving the term this particular meaning is Jean Baptiste Say. He defined the entrepreneur as an individual who shifts economic resources out of an area of lower and into an area of higher productivity and greater yield. In the 20th century, the economist Joseph Schumpeter described entrepreneurs as the innovators who drive the creative-destructive process of capitalism. In his words, the

11

function of entrepreneurs is to reform or revolutionize the pattern of production. They can do this in many ways: by exploiting an invention or, more generally, an untried technological possibility for producing a new commodity or producing an old one in a new way, by opening up a new source of supply of materials or a new outlet for products, by reorganizing an industry and so on. Schumpeters entrepreneurs are the change agents in the economy. By serving new markets or creating new ways of doing things, they move the economy forward. The Say-Schumpeter tradition that identifies entrepreneurs as the catalysts and innovators behind economic progress has served as the foundation for the contemporary use of this concept. A modern synthesis of the entrepreneur is someone who specializes in taking judgmental decisions about the coordination of scarce resources (Lazear, 2005). In this definition, the term someone emphasizes that the entrepreneur is an individual. Anayakoha (2006) sees the entrepreneur as one who chooses or assumes risks, identifies business opportunity, gathers resources, initiates actions and establishes an organization or enterprise to meet such demand or market opportunity. Allawadi (2010) describes the carryout of new combinations as enterprise and the individual whose function it is to carry them out as entrepreneur. Stoner et.al. (2000) note that the function that is specific to entrepreneurs is the ability to take the factors of production land, labour and capital and use them to produce new goods and services. However, they argue that entrepreneurs perceive opportunities that other business executives do not see or care about. By combining the above thoughts, it can be argued that entrepreneurs are risk bearers, coordinators, organizers, gap-fillers, leaders and innovators.

12

2.1.3. CHARACTERISTICS OF ENTREPRENEURS

The literature on entrepreneurial characteristics has included a number of variables that address psychological attributes, personality, attitudes, and behaviour. Prior research has debated whether entrepreneurial characteristics are innate, findings however support the idea that psychological attributes associated with entrepreneurship can be culturally and experientially acquired (Gorman et al., 1997). Individuals can be predisposed to entrepreneurial intentions based on a combination of personal and contextual factors (Boyd & Vozikis, 1994). Personal factors such as prior experience as an entrepreneur and contextual factors such as job displacement have limited applicability to entrepreneurial propensity among youth. Other personal and contextual factors attributable to entrepreneurs have generally been categorized as demographic characteristics and psychological attributes. According to Robinson, Stimpson, Huefner, & Hunt (1991) demographic circumstances do not enhance ability to predict entrepreneurial tendencies. Psychological attributes, on the other hand, have produced good results for predicting whether a person will pursue entrepreneurship (Stewart, Watson, Carland, & Carland, 1999). Kourilsky (1980) suggested the following psychological attributes as the most relevant: need for achievement; creativity and initiative; risk-taking; self-confidence and internal locus of control; need for independence and autonomy; motivation, energy and commitment; and persistence. According to Gorman et al. (1997) propensity toward entrepreneurship is associated with several personal characteristics: values and attitudes, personal goals, creativity, risk-taking propensity, and locus of control. According to McClelland (1961) concerning personal characteristics, he proposed achievement motivation, risk taking and locus of control as important characteristics. However, Robinson, Stimpson, Huefner, and Hunts (1991) argued that self esteem and innovation are more prominent in entrepreneurs than the need for achievement.

13

Sexton and Bowman (1983) concurred with Brockhaus (1980) that risk-taking propensities are not good predictors of entrepreneurial behavior. In subsequent work Stewart, et al. (1999) disagreed, finding that entrepreneurs had higher achievement motivation, risk-taking propensity, and preference for innovation than corporate managers and small business owners. Risk-taking may not apply to youth who have not undertaken significant economic risk and opportunity cost due to the loss of wages, or wealth risk associated with business failure.

2.1.4. ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION

Entrepreneurship education is the process of providing individuals with the ability to recognize commercial opportunities and insight, self esteem, knowledge and skills to act on them. It includes instruction in opportunity recognition, commercializing a concept, marshalling resources in the face of risk and initiating a business venture. It also includes instruction in business disciplines such as management, marketing, information systems and finance (Jones and English, 2004). Prior research suggests that identifying and nurturing potential entrepreneurs throughout the education process could produce many long-term economic benefits (McClelland & Winter, 1969; Hatten & Ruhland, 1995 & Hansemark, 1998). As a study carried out shows at least the growth of the economy is related to innovation and the creation of new products (Porter, Ketel Delago, 2007). Specifically, a venture support system based on entrepreneurship education designed to stimulate and facilitate entrepreneurial activities, could result in a lower unemployment rate, increased establishment of new companies, and fewer failures of existing businesses. Entrepreneurship education can also be an important component of economic strategies for fostering job creation (McMullan, Long, & Graham, 1986). More specifically,

14

effective youth entrepreneurship education prepares young people to be responsible, enterprising individuals who become entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial thinkers and contribute to economic development and sustainable communities (Rasheed H.S. 2002). Entrepreneurship education generally refers to programs that promote entrepreneurship awareness for career purposes and provide skill training for business creation and development (Vesper, 1990; Bechard & Toulouse, 1998). It is distinguishable from other forms of business education when its purpose is creating a new product or service that results in higher economic value (Hanesmark, 1998). An inherent assumption in entrepreneurial education is that entrepreneurship characteristics and skills can be developed. Research suggests that the propensity towards entrepreneurship has been associated with several personal characteristics that can be influenced by a formal program of education (Gorman, Hanlon, & King, 1997; Bechard & Toulouse, 1998). Education can prepare for new venture initiation by transferring knowledge and developing relevant skills that improve the self-efficacy and effectiveness of the potential entrepreneur (Gorman et al., 1997). Studies by Hanesmark (1998), Hatten & Ruhland (1995), and Ede, Panigrahi, & Calcich (1998) support the value of formal entrepreneurial education at the university level, but only in terms of affecting the attitude toward entrepreneurship as a career alternative. Gasse (1985) recommended that entrepreneurial potential should be identified and developed at the secondary school level, when the possibility of self-employment as a career option is still open. Kourilsky and Walstad (1998) suggested that stimulating entrepreneurial attitudes through education at the pre-collegiate level could encourage entrepreneurship as a career choice. Entrepreneurial education based on solid learning theory can develop entrepreneurs by increasing business knowledge, and promoting characteristics associated with entrepreneurs (Krueger & Brazeal, 1994; Kourilsky & Walstad, 1998; Walstad & Kourilsky, 1998). Learning styles that include active experimentation, balanced

15

with concrete experience and abstract conceptualization, enhance entrepreneurial propensity (Gorman et al., 1997). Stumpf, Dunbar, and Mullen (1991) also argued for the benefits of behavioral simulations in teaching entrepreneurship. McMullan and Long (1986) proposed that entrepreneurship education should include skill-building components such as negotiation, leadership and creative thinking, exposure to technological innovation and new product development. McConnell (2003) explained that the training will be more effective if the training needs analysis was carried out comprehensively in advance. Study by Wertenbroch and Pietri (2005) on training needs analysis for the entrepreneur seeks to identify the profile, training and development needs, training methods and skills and competencies needed by entrepreneurs, especially in the face of challenges such as globalization, changing work envirotiment, dealing with risk and the importance of building teamwork.

2.1.5. TYPES OF ENTREPRENEURS

Various scholars have identified two major types of entrepreneurs based on their entrepreneurial motives. These are Social Entrepreneurs and Business Entrepreneurs also referred to as Economic or Commercial Entrepreneurs. SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURS: According to J. Gregory Dees (1998), in his article The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship, it implies a blurring of sector boundaries. In addition to innovative not-for-profit ventures, social entrepreneurship can include social purpose business ventures, such as for-profit community development banks, and hybrid organizations mixing not-for-profit and for-profit elements, such

16

as homeless shelters that start businesses to train and employ their residents. Social entrepreneurs look for the most effective methods of serving their social missions. Social entrepreneurs play the role of change agents in the social sector, by: Adopting a mission to create and sustain social value (not just private value) Recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities that serve that mission, Engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning, Acting boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand, and Exhibiting heightened accountability to the constituencies served and for the outcomes created (Dees 1998). Social enterprises require the application of management skills within the non-profit, for-profit, and public sectors and contribute to the creation of social value. Some examples are: An organization dedicated to social impact. An organization or venture that advances its social mission through entrepreneurial earned income strategies. A business with primarily social objectives whose surpluses are principally reinvested for that purpose in the business or in the community, rather than being driven by the need to maximize profit for shareholders and owners. BUSINESS ENTREPRENEURS: Business entrepreneurship is simply entrepreneurship practiced in business. Business entrepreneurs are driven solely by profit making. Business entrepreneurs look for a immediate

17

monetary return on investment. With business entrepreneurs, wealth creation is a way of measuring value creation. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BUSINESS AND SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURS: According to J. Gregory Dees (1998), the ideas of Say, Schumpeter, Drucker, and Stevenson are attractive because they can be as easily applied in the social sector as the business sector. Social entrepreneurs are one species in the genus entrepreneur. They are entrepreneurs with a social mission. However, because of this mission, they face some distinctive challenges and any definition ought to reflect this. For social entrepreneurs, the social mission is explicit and central. This obviously affects how social entrepreneurs perceive and assess opportunities. Missionrelated impact becomes the central criterion, not wealth creation. Wealth is just a means to an end for social entrepreneurs. With business entrepreneurs, wealth creation is a way of measuring value creation. This is because business entrepreneurs are subject to market discipline, which determines in large part whether they are creating value. If they do not shift resources to more economically productive uses, they tend to be driven out of business. Markets are not perfect, but over the long haul, they work reasonably well as a test of private value creation, specifically the creation of value for customers who are willing and able to pay. An entrepreneurs ability to attract resources (capital, labor, equipment, etc.) in a competitive marketplace is a reasonably good indication that the venture represents a more productive use of these resources than the alternatives it is competing against. The logic is simple. Entrepreneurs who can pay the most for resources are typically the ones who can put the resources to higher valued uses, as determined in the marketplace. Value is created in business when customers are willing to pay more than it costs to produce the good or service being sold. The profit (revenue minus costs) that a venture generates is a reasonably good indicator of the value it has created. If an entrepreneur cannot

18

convince a sufficient number of customers to pay an adequate price to generate a profit, this is a strong indication that insufficient value is being created to justify this use of resources. A redeployment of the resources happens naturally because firms that fail to create value cannot purchase sufficient resources or raise capital. They go out of business. Firms that create the most economic value have the cash to attract the resources needed to grow. Markets do not work as well for social entrepreneurs. In particular, markets do not do a good job of valuing social improvements, public goods and harms, and benefits for people who cannot afford to pay. These elements are often essential to social entrepreneurship. That is what makes it social entrepreneurship. As a result, it is much harder to determine whether a social entrepreneur is creating sufficient social value to justify the resources used in creating that value. The survival or growth of a social enterprise is not proof of its efficiency or effectiveness in improving social conditions. It is only a weak indicator, at best. Social entrepreneurs operate in markets, but these markets often do not provide the right discipline. Many social-purpose organizations charge fees for some of their services. They also compete for donations, volunteers, and other kinds of support. But the discipline of these markets is frequently not closely aligned with the social entrepreneurs mission. It depends on who is paying the fees or providing the resources, what their motivations are, and how well they can assess the social value created by the venture. It is inherently difficult to measure social value creation. How much social value is created by reducing pollution in a given stream, by saving the spotted owl, or by providing companionship to the elderly? The calculations are not only hard but also contentious. Even when improvements can be measured, it is often difficult to attribute them to a specific intervention. Even when improvements can be measured and attributed to a given intervention, social entrepreneurs often cannot capture the value they have created in an economic form to pay for the resources they use.

19

To offset this value-capture problem, social entrepreneurs rely on subsidies, donations, and volunteers, but this further muddies the waters of market discipline. The ability to attract these philanthropic resources may provide some indication of value creation in the eyes of the resource providers, but it is not a very reliable indicator. The psychic income people get from giving or volunteering is likely to be only loosely connected with actual social impact, if it is connected at all.

2.1.6. SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL ENTREPRENEURS

According to Kayode O.F. (2006), the following factors determine the success or otherwise, of the entrepreneur: 1. A good knowledge of the business venture and the environment. 2. It is expected that the entrepreneur has a business plan on which research has been done. 3. Availability of relevant managerial skills. In developing countries, the reason for failure of most business is not funds, but lack of managerial skills. 4. Good human relations attitude to customers. 5. Product marketing ability. 6. Cordial relationship with employees. This is needed for proper planning, control, organising, staffing, motivation and public relation. 7. Availability of raw materials inputs and manpower. 8. Ability for the identification of sources of funds. Some may have to get from family and friends, but the fund to continue with the business is also needed. Therefore, the knowledge of where to get funds is essential for growth and expansion.

20

9. Availability of infrastructures. For companies engaged in manufacturing, there should be solid power supply, water supply and other social amenities. 10. Good location of the business and nearness to market is a salient factor. The marketing system should consider the accessibility of customers to the products. 11. Compliance with legal requirement, for example: paying of taxes and obeying other legal issues, in order not to allow the risk to be a waste. 12. Good leadership. Leaders are essential while managers are necessary.

2.1.7. FACTORS WHICH HINDER ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN NIGERIA

According to Salami C.G.E (2011), entrepreneurship has been hindered by three major factors: structural, cultural and the lack of political will by policy makers. STRUCTURAL FACTORS Structural inhibitors in the growth of entrepreneurship have its origin in the Nigerian education policies since independence in 1960. Between then and now Nigeria has introduced and implemented not less than three policies: the 7:5:2:3, 6:3:3:4 and now the 9:3:3:4 (elementary, secondary and university). There is now a clamour for a reintroduction of Higher school Certifictae (HSC) program which was a two-year postsecondary program that prepared students for university education. One of the major problems of past education policies stems from the fact that new policies are not allowed to run their full course before they are changed. What this means is that some of the past policies were not well thought out before introduction. Another related structural problem is the low budgetary allocation to the education sector, particularly the

21

vocational and technical education sub-sector. Poor leadership, corruption and mismanagement of resource have contributed to the gross under-finding of education. One possible explanation for low budgetary allocation is the perception by some policy makers that education does not provide immediate return on investment (ROI) compared to the real sectors like oil, telecommunication etc. Because of the low sectoral budgetary allocation, educational institutions are characterized by frequent strikes which those in government dont consider as priority in terms of resolving the issues that led to the strikes. As Salami (2010) has argued elsewhere, strike by workers in oil and gas (NUPENG) industry are usually resolved with three days of the strike action. Apart from the possible social and political implication of a delayed resolution any NUPENG strike, it is believed that the real motivation for the usual quick response by government may be the need to safeguard the economic interest of those in authority. In other countries, products of vocational and technical education constitute the middle class which no longer exist in Nigeria. Another related structural problem seem to be the general bias of educational curricula towards science and liberal arts education with little regard to vocational and technical education. This is attributed largely to the belief that the educated stand a better chance of occupying top positions in the economy. It is a known secret that top government officials have the hidden agenda to position their children for succession in government. This is achieved by clandestinely ensuring that their children attend the best schools abroad, and walk into lucratic jobs in Nigeria when they graduate, while their mates that schooled in Nigeria are yet to graduate due to incessant strikes university lecturers. In Nigeria, graduates of polytechnics with Higher National Diploma (HND) are discriminated against. Apart from pay disparity between a B.Sc./BA degree holder and HND, the latter cannot rise beyond Grade level 14, while their counterparts with B.Sc./BA can rise to the position of Permanent

22

Secretary in the Civil Service. Additionally, the Nigerian educational curricula appear to be designed as a factory for producing graduates who are made to believe that the only employer of labour is government federal, state and local government. Consequently, many of the graduates of Nigerian tertiary institutions tend to limit their job search to government establishments CULTURAL FACTORS Culturally, it can be argued that entrepreneurship has been hindered by two major factors: societys perception about the socioeconomic status of artisanship and the value system which is fast being eroded. There is the general perception that artisans and technicians are never-dowells, dropouts, societal rejects or even failures who should perpetually remain at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. This is reflected in a lack of respect in the part of the public for manual labour (Asby, 1960) Another related factor is the general Nigerian value system which appear to have cultivated a new value system just like the larger society in their quest for making fast money as well as generally living on the fast lane. For example, the apprenticeship systems of the olden days are fast disappearing. Gone are the days when a master automechanic would have about three to five apprentices under his tutelage. One implication is that in a few years time Nigeria will begin to experience an acute shortage of artisans. Youths are not motivated to choose vocational and technical education. LACK OF POLITICAL WILL The neglect of vocational/technical education has been robbing the nation of the potential contributions of its graduates to national growth and economic development. The inability of policy makers to make both rational and educated decisions continue to affect the rate of

23

progress of the Nigerian nation. As Dike (2009) has noted, the under-development status of Nigeria could be linked to the neglect of its educational institutions. Although science and technology has been a part of Nigerias National Policy on Primary Education (NPE) since 1981 (Moja, 2000), like every other public policy, implementation have always been the major problem.

2.1.8. GENERATION OF FUNDS

Ausbeth N.A. (2005) identified the following ways of financing a new venture: 1. Private sources: Prospective entrepreneurs expectedly, would begin the gathering of funds for business from Personal funds. These include personal savings, funds from sale of land , shares e.t.c. Private sources of funds also include funds raised from relatives, friends and acquaintances, provided that the terms of the financial support are well spelt out to avoid future imbroglio. 2. Terms loans and Overdrafts: These can be classified into short, medium and long terms. The commercial banks are veritable sources of short term overdrafts and loans. These loans, of course, may not be useful to the entrepreneur except for an urgent working capital need because of the high interests charged by the banks. Medium and long term loans can be sourced from the Bank of Industry and other financial institutions. To borrow from these institutions i.e. banks, the short, medium and long term, the entrepreneur must be able to satisfy the proverbial 5Cs of credit namely: Character, Capacity, Capital, Condition and Collateral. These summarise the purpose, amount demanded, period of facility, experience in the business, repayment plans, applicants

24

credit/ banking records, mandate, profitability of proposed or expanding business and what security the applicant is offering. 3. Leasing and Hire Purchase: This is another means of financing available to the entrepreneur, especially when machines and solid assets for business need to be acquired. The equipment chosen is usually procured/financed by the leasing company for an interest spread over a period of 2 to 6 years depending on the agreement terms. This form of finance does not require collateral from the entrepreneur as the financed equipment serves as lean collateral. 4. Equity: This involves investors being part owners of the enterprise, thus partaking in the success or failure of the business. Funds gotten from equity windows are usually interest free. The three most popular equity windows are: the Small and Medium Enterprise Equity Investment Scheme (SMEEIS), the capital market and other private equity fund managers.

2.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2.2.1 NEED FOR ACHIEVEMENT THEORY

David McClelland (1961) is a famous contributor to the theory of entrepreneurship. In his own contribution, he argued that entrepreneurial behaviour in business is motivated by the individual need for achievement. Although his position is psychological, which he demonstrated by using Maslows Hierarchy of needs referred to as n achievement, David McClelland (1961) in his studies opined that, apart from need for achievement, need for power and need for affiliation can spur an individual into entrepreneurship.

25

David McClellands theory on need for achievement is the most important one of the various psychological theories on entrepreneurship. In his theory McClelland emphasized the relationship of achievement motivation or need for achievement (symbolically written as n Ach) to economic development via entrepreneurial activities. He wrote the presumed mechanism by which n Ach level translate itself into economic growth is the entrepreneurial class. If the n Ach level is high, there will presumable be more people who behave like entrepreneurs-----" (Islam, 1989). In the early 1960s, McClelland postulated that a causal relationship exists between a strong desire for achievement and business activity. In plotting data for a 300-year time span in England, McClelland (1961) found two waves of economic growth, a small one around 1600 and a larger one around 1800. Each wave was preceded by a wave of concern for achievement as reflected in popular literature. McClelland (1965) concluded that the need for achievement was an essential ingredient for entrepreneurial success and that the need for achievement could be taught to stimulate economic growth. According to McClelland, one would expect a relatively greater amount of entrepreneurship in a society if the average level of need achievement in a society is relatively high. Because having a high n Ach encourages an individual to set challenging goals, work hard to achieve the goals and uses the skills and abilities needed to accomplish them (Islam 1989). Moreover, it is the inner drive of individuals that propels them to work more and to achieve something for their own interest by taking personal risk (Islam and Mamun, 2000). Need for achievement then, reflects a strong goal orientation, an obsession with job or task to be done. So, entrepreneurship becomes the link or intervening variable between need achievement and economic growth. Consequently, McClelland advocates increasing level of need-achievement in a society in order to stimulate

26

entrepreneurship and economic growth (Islam, 1989). Finally, according to McClelland, entrepreneurs are activated by the high extent of achievement motivation and he also stated a desire to do well, not so much for the sake of social recognition or prestige, but for an inner feeling of personal accomplishment, induce people to be an entrepreneur (Islam and Mamun, 2000). He also suggests that the n Ach level can be increased in an individual through training and by creating appropriate culture. McClelland also believed that the need for achievement exist in every individual; that a particular training, emotional practices and value orientation cannot produce the disposition, which favours the rational pursuit of economic gains. It is pertinent to note that McClelland failed to prove the sense of frustration that drives men to become entrepreneurs (Chinonye, 2002)

2.2.2. DISCOVERY THEORY AND CREATION THEORY

Both Discovery Theory and Creation Theory are examples of teleological theory and thus have much in common. For example, they both seek to explain the same dependent variable entrepreneurial action. In this context, entrepreneurial action is defined as any activity entrepreneurs might takefrom initially identifying opportunities (Gaglio & Katz, 2001; Kirzner, 1979; McMullen & Shepherd, 2006), to assembling resources to exploit opportunities (Schumpeter, 1939), to generating and appropriating the economic profits created by exploiting opportunities (Alvarez and Barney, 2005)to produce new products or services (Shane and Venkatraman, 2000: 211; Shane, 2003: 4) Moreover, as teleological theories, both Discovery and Creation seek to explain these entrepreneurial actions in terms of their impact on the ability of entrepreneurs to produce new products or services.

27

DISCOVERY THEORY The three critical assumptions of Discovery Theory are examined in detail below. Discovery Objectives As suggested earlier, both Discovery Theory and Creation Theory assume that the goal of entrepreneurs is to produce new products or services (Shane and Venkatraman, 2000: 211; Shane, 2003: 4). These two theories also agree about the definition of what constitutes an opportunity to produce new products or servicesin both theories, an opportunity exists whenever competitive imperfections in an industry or market exist (Barney, 1986; Kirzner, 1997; Porter, 1980). However, these two theories differ in their analysis of where these competitive imperfections come from. In Discovery Theory, competitive imperfections are assumed to arise exogenously, from changes in technology, consumer preferences, or some other attributes of the context within which an industry or market exists (Kirzner, 1973: 10). Shane (2003: 23) cites technological changes, political and regulatory changes, and social and demographic changes as examples of the kinds of events that can disrupt the competitive equilibrium that exists in a market or industry, thereby creating opportunities to produce new products or services. This emphasis on exogenous shocks creating opportunities to produce new products or services has several important implications for Discovery Theory. For example, this theory assumes that opportunities to produce new products or services evolve out of pre-existing industries or markets (Kirzner, 1973). Even when shocks to a pre-existing industry or market alter its fundamental nature, creating what for all intents and purposes is a new competitive landscape (Levinthal, 1997) for that industry or market, that new landscape is still assumed to evolve out of an existing industry or market. Second, with respect to the creation of new opportunities,

28

Discovery Theory assumes that entrepreneurs play a passive and responsive role. Such opportunities are created by exogenous shocks to an industry or market and are not created by entrepreneurs themselves. In Discovery Theory, entrepreneurs only become proactive when they begin to exploit an opportunity by bringing agency to opportunity (Shane, 2003: 7). Third, opportunities, in Discovery Theory, are assumed to have an existence independent of the entrepreneurs seeking to exploit them. That is, they exist, whether or not particular individuals, inside or outside an industry or market, are aware of them. In this sense, opportunities in Discovery Theory are like lost luggage at a train station. This luggage exists, whether or not it is claimed. The task of the entrepreneur is to become aware that this luggage exists and then claim it. Finally, Discovery Theory suggests that entrepreneurship is predominantly about search systematically scanning the environment to discover opportunities to produce new products or services. In this search process, entrepreneurs must consider both its direction and duration, and must also guard against confusing local optimawhere modest opportunities to produce new products or services existwith more global optimawhere much more substantial opportunities exist (Levinthal, 1997). CREATION THEORY Creation Theory is a theoretical alternative to Discovery Theory for explaining the relationship between entrepreneurial action and the production of new products or services (Gartner, 1985; Venkataraman, 2003). Aspects of Creation Theory have been described by a variety of authors (Alvarez & Barney, 2005; Baker et al., 2005; Casson, 1982; Gartner, 1985; Langlois & Cosgel, 1993; Loasby, 2002; Sarasvathy, 2001; Schumpeter, 1934). Creation Objectives

29

In Creation Theory, entrepreneurs are still assumed to be engaging in activities the purpose of which is to produce new products or services. However, in Creation Theory, opportunities are not assumed to be objective phenomena created by exogenous shocks to an industry or market. Rather, they are created, endogenously, by the actions of individuals exploring ways to produce new products or services (Baker et al., 2005; Gartner, 1985; Sarasvathy, 2001). This endogenous view of opportunities has a variety of implications for Creation Theory. First, in Creation Theory, opportunities do not necessarily evolve out of pre-existing industries or markets. While, after an opportunity has been exploited, it will always be possible to show how that opportunity evolved out of a prior industry or market, Creation Theory suggests that, before an opportunity is created, its links with prior industries or markets are unknown. That is, Creation Theory suggests that the seeds of opportunities to produce new products or services do not necessarily lie in previously existing industries or markets. Second, rather than being passive with respect to the creation of new opportunities, Creation Theory assumes that entrepreneurs actions are the essential source of these opportunities. In this model, entrepreneurs do not wait for exogenous shocks to create opportunities and then provide agency to those opportunities, they act (Bhide, 1999). And in acting, they create opportunities that could not have been known without the actions taken by these entrepreneurs. Of course, if entrepreneurs are unable to fully realize their goal of producing new products or services through the first actions they take, they may decide to engage in subsequent actions that modify and change their initial actions. This action/revision process may occur several times until entrepreneurs end up engaging in activities that create an opportunity. This inductive learning processwhere entrepreneurs learn after they actis different than the learning that Discovery Theory assumes occurs, learning that takes place before an entrepreneur acts (Gagne & Glaser,

30

1987). Third, in Creation Theory, bringing agency to opportunities is without meaning since opportunities do not exist independently of the actions taken by entrepreneurs to create them. Instead, opportunities only exist because of the actions of entrepreneurs to exploit them. In this sense, opportunities begin as beliefs in the minds of entrepreneurs. As entrepreneurs begin to take action to create opportunities, these beliefs can become social constructs that guide subsequent actions of entrepreneurs and others associated with an industry or marketincluding customers and suppliers (Berger & Luckmann, 1967; Weick, 1979). Using the landscape metaphor introduced earlier, Creation Theory suggests that entrepreneurship is not about climbing mountains of opportunities, but rather, about building mountains of opportunities that are recognized, only after they have been exploited. Finally, in Creation Theory, the term search also has little or no meaning. Search implies entrepreneurs attempting to discover opportunities that already exist. In Creation Theory, entrepreneurs do not search; they act, and observe how consumers and markets respond to their actions.

2.3 EMPIRICAL FRAMEWORK 2.3.1 ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION AND ENTREPRENEURIAL INTENTIONS.

Entrepreneurship Education and Entrepreneurial Intentions Basu and Virick (n.d.) found that education can affect students attitudes toward entrepreneurship and their entrepreneurial selfefficacy. Lack of entrepreneurial education leads to low level of entrepreneurial intentions of students (Franke & Luthje, 2004). Entrepreneur with entrepreneurial education and experience can create higher profits from entrepreneurial businesses (Jo & Lee, 1996). Dyer (1994) has suggested that entrepreneurship courses, or training regarding start of new business, contributes

31

towards starting a new business and it gives confidence and courage to them. Krueger and Brazeal (1994) recommended that education in entrepreneurship can improve the perceived feasibility for entrepreneurial business through increased knowledge base of students, confidence building and promoting self-efficacy. Shepherd & DeTienne (2005) identified a relationship between entrepreneurial knowledge and identification of entrepreneurial opportunities. Venkataraman (1997) related entrepreneurial opportunities to an individual's distinct information regarding a particular area of study, while Gimeno et al. (1997) suggested that it may be the result of work experience as well. Entrepreneurial education program are source of entrepreneurial attitude and overall intentions to become future entrepreneur (Souitaris et al.2007). Ishfaq A., Muhammad M.N., Zafar A., Muhammad Z.S., Ahmad U., Wasim-ulRehman & Naveed A. (2010) found that students with entrepreneurial experience, whether their self experience or their family experience, are more inclined towards entrepreneurial career that might be due to vigilance with the market and business and their knowledge regarding changing trends of market. Previous studies have linked entrepreneurship education to intentions of individuals to become entrepreneurs, but have failed to identify its impact on the performance of the business after commencement. This study seeks to determine the relationship between entrepreneurship education in the university and the business performance of undergraduate entrepreneurs.

2.3.2. ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

According to Depo Oyedokun (2010) Chair of the House Committee on Youth and Social Development, of the over 40 million unemployed youths in the country, 23 million are

32

unemployable and therefore susceptible to crime, hence the need to articulate what could be done to salvage the situation. He therefore, suggests creating the enabling legislative framework that would ensure the total emancipation of the Nigerian youths. Eshiobo S.S. (2010) found that the increasing entrepreneurship activities since 2000, is partly caused by the increasing rate of unemployment. It is obvious that entrepreneurship is the number one avenue for both government and individuals to curb the rising number of unemployed youths. Salami C.G.E, (2011) suggested the following ways for government to assist youths; government should embrace external competition to promote innovation, state governments should develop its own innovative strategies to promote entrepreneurial activity in its area and government should recognize and reward innovation. In a study carried out by Oghojafor B. E. A., Aduloju S. A. and Olowokudejo F. F. (2011) it was ascertained that social entrepreneurial activities have helped significantly to reduce the level of unemployment among the teeming youths, and by that has contributed positively to the reduction of criminal activities of youths. Previous studies have shown that entrepreneurship is the solution to youth unemployment, this study however seeks to determine how these youths fair in their entrepreneurial endeavours.

33

CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.0 INTRODUCTION

The aim of this chapter is to discuss and explain the procedures followed in collecting analyzing the data relevant to this study. Some other issues which are addressed in this chapter include the research instrument used, its structure and method of administration as well as the procedure for processing data collected, the determination and identification of methodology, the population, the sample frame, sample size, the validity and the reliability of the instrument used for the study. and

3.1 RESEARCH METHOD

The survey method was used in the conducting of this research work. This is because questionnaires were used to collect responses from the population. This data collection method also collects the opinion, views and perspective of respondents regarding a particular issue of research interest.

3.2. RESEARCH DESIGN

Research designs are used by researchers as a scheme or blueprint for data collection prior to actual data. It is a useful guide in generating primary data. Research design is concerned with the structuring of an investigation for the purpose of identifying the relevant variables and their relationship to one another. It is a necessary step in a research process if research problems and hypothesis are to be adequately addressed. It is also a useful tool, which serves as a guide during the data collection and analysis process. (Ojo, 2003)

34

Research design means the structuring of investigation aimed at identifying variables and their relationships to one another (Asika 1991).

3.3 POPULATION OF THE STUDY

The population of a study is a census of all item or subject that possess the characteristics or that have knowledge of the phenomenon being studied. (Asika, 1999). The population identified for this study was 102 undergraduate entrepreneurs at Covenant University Ota, Ogun State.

3.4 SAMPLE SIZE DETERMINATION

Sample is a subset of a population observed or selected for the purpose of making scientific statement about the study population (Bisira et al, 2002). The sample size for this study would be 80 Undergraduate Entrepreneurs at Covenant University Ota, Ogun State. To determine the sample size for Undergraduate entrepreneurs in Covenant University the researcher identified the amount of students that participated in entrepreneurial activities organized in the university last year, which included the Redefinition Fashion Show and Trade fairs. An estimated population of 102 students was determined. In this research, yards formula was used to determine sample size. The formula is given as follows; n= N 1+ 2N N= Population

35

n= Sample Size = Level of significant n= N 1+ Therefore 102 1+102 (0.05)2 n= 102 1+ 0.26 = = 102 1+ 102 (0.0025) 102 1.26 = 80 respondents Substituting from above.

3.5 SAMPLING TECHNIQUE AND PROCEDURE

Simple Random Sampling Technique was adopted for the selection of the respondents. A simple random procedure was chosen so as to guarantee randomness and for the sample of this study to be adequate and representative of the study population.

3.6 SAMPLE FRAME

The sampling frame for this study constituted the undergraduates at Covenant University Ota, Ogun State, who are entrepreneurs.

36

3.7 SOURCES OF DATA AND COLLECTION TECHNIQUES

This research made use of both primary and secondary sources of data. The primary source of data was through questionnaire and the secondary source of data was the use of textbooks and journals.

3.8 RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS

The research instrument adopted was questionnaire; this was used to generate information from the respondents regarding the study. The questionnaire was divided into close ended and open ended which gave respondents the opportunity to express their views about the research work.

3.9VALIDITY OF RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

In testing for the validity of the research instrument, construct validity was employed. The questionnaire was designed in such a way that information from them was adequate to provide answers to the research questions and research hypotheses.

3.10 RELIABILITY OF RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

The reliability of the research instrument was tested using The Kruder Richardson or Cronbach alpha reliability test. TABLE 3.10.1 Reliability Statistics
Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha .792

N of Items 26

Source: Field Survey, 2012

37

From the above table, Cronbach Alpha coefficient is .792 for the 26 items analyzed together. This shows that these items are highly reliable as it is more than the widely accepted score of 0.7 which is an indication that the research instrument is reliable.

3.11 METHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS

The data generated through the questionnaires was analyzed through the aid of a computer system and the application SPSS( Statistical Packages For Social Sciences). In specific terms, frequency distribution simple percentage and the mean would be deployed in data analysis.

38

CHAPTER FOUR DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

4.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the business performance of young entrepreneurs, using undergraduates at Covenant University as a case. The data collected from the participants through questionnaire were classified, organized and analyzed. The purpose of the data analysis is that it arranges and interprets the data in such a way that they enable one to confirm or reject proposed relationships among variables. For the purpose of this study, data will however be analyzed under the following sub-themes: 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents 2. Major questionnaire questions. 3. Test of hypotheses.

4.1 DATA PRESENTATION.

The data gathered in this section covered the personal information of the respondents. This section of the questionnaire sought information on the respondents` bio data and questions from the questionnaire. A simple analysis of the data collected is presented.

39

Number of respondents Table 4.1.1 Number of Respondents.

Questionnaires Frequencies Percentage% Cumulative percentage

Number returned

76

95

95

Number not returned

100

Total

80

100

Source: Researchers field Summary Result (2012). In the table above, 76 (95%) of the respondent filled and returned the questionnaire administered, while 4 (5%) of the respondents did not return the questionnaire. This resulted to the analysis of 76. SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS Table 4.1.2 Gender distribution of the respondents
Sex of the respondent Cumulative Percent 61.8 100.0

Frequency Valid Male Female Total 47 29 76

Percent 61.8 38.2 100.0

Valid Percent 61.8 38.2 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012 The table above shows that 61.8% of the respondents were male, while 38.2% were female. The majority of the respondents were male.

40

Table 4.1.3 Age distribution of the respondents

Age group of the respondent Cumulative Percent 7.9 94.7 100.0

Frequency Valid 15-18 19-22 23-26 Total 6 66 4 76

Percent 7.9 86.8 5.3 100.0

Valid Percent 7.9 86.8 5.3 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012 The table above reveals that 86.8% of the respondents were between the ages of 19 and 20, 7.9% of the respondents were within the age group 15-18 years and 5.3% were within the ages of 2326 years. From this it can be deduced that majority of undergraduate entrepreneurs are youths. Table 4.1.4 Distribution by course of Study of the respondents
Course of study of the respondent Cumulative Percent 36.8 100.0

Valid

CST CDS Total

Frequency 28 48 76

Percent 36.8 63.2 100.0

Valid Percent 36.8 63.2 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012 The table above reveals that 63.2% of the respondents study courses in the College of Developmental Studies, while 36.8% are from the College of Science and Technology. This shows that the majority of undergraduate entrepreneurs are from the college of developmental studies.

41

Table 4.1.5 Distribution by level of respondents

Level of the respondent Cumulative Percent 2.6 9.2 31.6 93.4 100.0

Frequency Valid 100 200 300 400 500 Total 2 5 17 47 5 76

Percent 2.6 6.6 22.4 61.8 6.6 100.0

Valid Percent 2.6 6.6 22.4 61.8 6.6 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012 The above table shows that 61.8% of the respondents are in 400level, 22.4% are in 300level, 6.6% are in 200level, 6.6% are also in 500level and 2.6% are in 100level. The majority of entrepreneurs are in 400 level.

4.2 ANALYSIS OF MAJOR QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTIONS

Table 4.2.1 Form of business respondent is engaged in.
Form of business engaged in Cumulative Percent 15.8 43.4 48.7 92.1 100.0

Frequency Valid Trading Service manufacturing Retailing Others Total 12 21 4 33 6 76

Percent 15.8 27.6 5.3 43.4 7.9 100.0

Valid Percent 15.8 27.6 5.3 43.4 7.9 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012 The table above shows that 43.4% of the respondents are into retailing, 27.6% are into service providing, 15.8% are into trading, 7.9% are into other unspecified forms of business and 5.3% are into manufacturing. Majority of entrepreneurs are into retailing.

42

Table 4.2.2 Type of entrepreneur

What type of entrepreneur are you? Cumulative Percent 9.2 100.0

Frequency Valid social entrepreneur (i.e. motivated by profit) business entrepreneur (i.e. motivated by profit) Total 7 69 76

Percent 9.2 90.8 100.0

Valid Percent 9.2 90.8 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012 The above table shows that 90.8% of respondents are business entrepreneurs and 9.2% of them are social entrepreneurs. The majority of undergraduate entrepreneurs are business entrepreneurs. Table 4.2.3 Prior job experience.
Before your business, did you have any job experience Cumulative Percent 14.5 100.0

Valid

Yes No Total

Frequency 11 65 76

Percent 14.5 85.5 100.0

Valid Percent 14.5 85.5 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012 The above table shows that 85.5% of the respondents had no prior job experience and 14.5% of them had prior job experience. This shows that majority of undergraduate entrepreneurs had no job experience before starting their businesses.

43

Table 4.2.4 Motivation from family business

Were you motivated by your family's business to start your own business Cumulative Percent 21.3 100.0

Frequency Valid Yes No Total Missing Total System 16 59 75 1 76

Percent 21.1 77.6 98.7 1.3 100.0

Valid Percent 21.3 78.7 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012 The above table shows that 77.6% of the respondents disagree to being motivated their familys business in starting up their own business, while 21.1% agree. 1 respondent failed to answer the question. This shows that majority of undergraduate entrepreneurs were not motivated by their familys business to start their own businesses. Table 4.2.5 Relating hobbies with business start-up
Is that (hobby) the reason for starting your business? Cumulative Percent 18.4 100.0

Valid

Yes No Total

Frequency 14 62 76

Percent 18.4 81.6 100.0

Valid Percent 18.4 81.6 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012 The table above shows that 81.6% of the respondents do not agree that their hobbies are the reasons for starting-up their business, while 18.4% of the respondents agree. From this, it can be deduced that majority of undergraduate entrepreneurs do not place any relationship between their hobbies and their stating-up of a business.

44

Table 4.2.6 Carrying out feasibility study and drawing up business plan.
Did you carry out a feasibility study and draw up a business plan before starting your business? Cumulative Percent 23.7 100.0

Frequency Valid Yes No Total 18 58 76

Percent 23.7 76.3 100.0

Valid Percent 23.7 76.3 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012 The table above shows that 76.3% of the respondents did not carry out feasibility study or draw up business plan before starting their businesses, while 23.7% of the respondents did. This shows that majority of undergraduate entrepreneurs did not engage in feasibility study or business plan before starting up their businesses. Table 4.2.7 Appropriate method of generating funds
In your opinion, which of the following is the appropriate method of generating fund for undergraduate entrepreneurship? Cumulative Percent 56.6 94.7 96.1 100.0

Frequency Valid personal savings friends and relatives bank loan cooperative society Total 43 29 1 3 76

Percent 56.6 38.2 1.3 3.9 100.0

Valid Percent 56.6 38.2 1.3 3.9 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012 The above table shows that 56.6% of respondents believe personal savings is the appropriate method of generating funds, 38.2% believe its friends and relatives, 3.9% believe its cooperative society and 1.3% believe its bank loans. It can be determined that majority of undergraduate entrepreneurs are of the opinion that personal savings is the appropriate method of generating funds.

45

Table 4.2.8 Reason why method of fund generation is appropriate

Why do you think the answer in the answer above is the most appropriate method? Cumulative Percent 52.6 57.9 64.5 97.4 100.0

Frequency Valid easy for access the available usually large fund is 40 4 5 25 2 76

Percent 52.6 5.3 6.6 32.9 2.6 100.0

Valid Percent 52.6 5.3 6.6 32.9 2.6 100.0

low level of interest in sourcing low level of risk involved high returns Total

Source: Field Survey, 2012 The above table shows that 52.6% of respondents believe their fund generation method is appropriate because it is easy for access, 32.9% believe it is appropriate because there is low level of risk involved, 6.6% believe it is appropriate because there is low level of interest in sourcing, 5.3% believe it is appropriate because the available funds are usually large and 2.6% believe its appropriate because there are high returns. This shows that majority of undergraduate entrepreneurs are of the opinion that whatever method of generating fund can be said to be appropriate as long as it is easy to access. Table 4.2.9 Method of generating funds affects business operations
Method of generating funds affects business operations Cumulative Percent 2.6 6.6 72.4 100.0

Valid

Disagree Undecided Agree strongly agree Total

Frequency 2 3 50 21 76

Percent 2.6 3.9 65.8 27.6 100.0

Valid Percent 2.6 3.9 65.8 27.6 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012 The above table shows that 65.8% of respondents agree that the various methods of generating funds affects business operations, 27.6% of respondents strongly agree, 3.9% of respondents are

46

undecided and 2.6% of respondents disagree. This shows that majority of undergraduate entrepreneurs agree that the method of generating funds affects business operations. Table 4.2.10 Appropriate method of generating funds increases the level of sales
The appropriate method of generating funds increases the level of sales Cumulative Percent 1.3 3.9 13.2 72.4 100.0

Frequency Valid strongly disagree Disagree Undecided Agree strongly agree Total 1 2 7 45 21 76

Percent 1.3 2.6 9.2 59.2 27.6 100.0

Valid Percent 1.3 2.6 9.2 59.2 27.6 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012 The above table shows that 59.2% of respondents agree that the appropriate method of generating funds increases the level of sales, 27.6% of respondents strongly agree, 9.2% of respondents are undecided, 2.6% of respondents disagree and 1.3% of respondents strongly disagree. This shows that majority of undergraduate entrepreneurs agree that the appropriate method of generating funds increases level of sales. Table 4.2.11 Appropriate method of generating funds for business growth is a mix.
The appropriate method of generating fund for business growth and expansion is a mix of several methods stated in the question above Cumulative Percent 2.6 5.3 10.5 28.9 100.0

Valid

strongly disagree Disagree Undecided Agree strongly agree Total

Frequency 2 2 4 14 54 76

Percent 2.6 2.6 5.3 18.4 71.1 100.0

Valid Percent 2.6 2.6 5.3 18.4 71.1 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012

47

The above table shows that 71.1% of respondents strongly agree that the appropriate method of generating funds for business growth and expansion is a mix of several methods, 18.4% of respondents agree, 5.3% of respondents are undecided, 2.6% of respondents disagree and also 2.6% of respondents strongly disagree. This shows that majority of undergraduate entrepreneurs agree that the appropriate method of generating funds for business growth and expansion is a mix of several methods. Table 4.2.12 Age at commencement of business activity
At what age did you commence your business activity? Cumulative Percent 29.3 100.0

Frequency Valid 15-18 19-22 Total Missing Total System 22 53 75 1 76

Percent 28.9 69.7 98.7 1.3 100.0

Valid Percent 29.3 70.7 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012 The above table shows that 69.7% of respondents started their business within the ages of 19-22, 28.9% of respondents were within the ages of 15-18 and 1.3% of respondents failed to answer the question. It can be seen that majority of undergraduate entrepreneurs started their businesses between the ages of 19 and 22 years. Table 4.2.13 Age limited funds at your disposal
Age limited the amount of funds at your disposal when starting your business Cumulative Percent 5.3 11.8 13.2 53.9 100.0

Valid

strongly disagree Disagree undecided Agree strongly agree Total

Frequency 4 5 1 31 35 76

Percent 5.3 6.6 1.3 40.8 46.1 100.0

Valid Percent 5.3 6.6 1.3 40.8 46.1 100.0

48

Source: Field Survey, 2012 The above table shows that 46.1% of respondents strongly agree that their ages limited the amount of funds at their disposal when they started their businesses, 40.8% of respondents agreed, 6.6% of respondents disagree, 5.3% of respondents strongly disagree and 1.3% of respondents are undecided. Majority of undergraduate entrepreneurs suffered from limited amount of funds for their business start-up because of their ages. Table 4.2.14 Age and inexperience
Due to your age, you are often regarded as inexperienced Cumulative Percent 5.3 23.7 38.2 73.7 100.0

Valid

strongly disagree Disagree undecided Agree strongly agree Total

Frequency 4 14 11 27 20 76

Percent 5.3 18.4 14.5 35.5 26.3 100.0

Valid Percent 5.3 18.4 14.5 35.5 26.3 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012 The above table shows that 35.5% of respondents agree that they are regarded as inexperienced because of their ages, 26.6% of respondents strongly agree, 18.4% of respondents disagree, 14.5% of respondents are undecided and 5.3% of respondents strongly disagree. This shows that majority of undergraduate entrepreneurs are regarded as inexperienced because of their ages.

49

Table 4.2.15 Age has cost business expansion opportunities

Your age has cost you business expansion opportunities Cumulative Percent 6.6 18.4 35.5 75.0 100.0

Frequency Valid strongly disagree Disagree undecided Agree strongly agree Total 5 9 13 30 19 76

Percent 6.6 11.8 17.1 39.5 25.0 100.0

Valid Percent 6.6 11.8 17.1 39.5 25.0 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012 The above table shows that 39.5% of respondents agree that their age has cost them business expansion opportunities, 25% of respondents strongly agree, 17.1% are undecided, 11.8% disagree and 6.6% strongly disagree. This shows that majority of undergraduate entrepreneurs agree to missing out on business expansion opportunities due to their ages. Table 4.2.16 Relation between EDS practical and businesses
Do any of the EDS practical available, relate to business? Cumulative Percent 55.3 100.0

Frequency Valid Yes No Total 42 34 76

Percent 55.3 44.7 100.0

Valid Percent 55.3 44.7 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012 The above table shows that 55.3% of respondents admit that their businesses relate to the available EDS practicals and 44.7% of respondents businesses do not. This shows that a majority of undergraduate entrepreneurs are into businesses that are offered in the EDS practical program, giving them opportunities to benefit directly from these practicals.

50

Table 4.2.17 Years of schooling before business start-up

How many years into schooling did you start your business? Cumulative Percent 14.5 39.5 82.9 100.0

Frequency Valid 1 2 3 4 Total 11 19 33 13 76

Percent 14.5 25.0 43.4 17.1 100.0

Valid Percent 14.5 25.0 43.4 17.1 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012 The above table shows that 43.4% of respondents started their businesses in their 3rd year of schooling, 25% started in their 2nd year, 17.1% started in their 4th year and 14.5% started in their 1st year. This shows that majority of undergraduates started their businesses at 2 to 3 years of schooling. Table 4.2.18 EDS is the reason for business start-up
EDS is responsible for the starting of your business Cumulative Percent 9.2 67.1 86.8 98.7 100.0

Valid

strongly disagree Disagree undecided Agree strongly agree Total

Frequency 7 44 15 9 1 76

Percent 9.2 57.9 19.7 11.8 1.3 100.0

Valid Percent 9.2 57.9 19.7 11.8 1.3 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012 The above table shows that 57.9% of respondents disagree that EDS is responsible for the startup of their businesses, 19.7% are undecided, 11.8% agree, 9.2% strongly disagree and 1.3% strongly agree. This shows that a minor amount of undergraduate entrepreneurs started their businesses from the influence of the EDS program but a majority of them did not start-up their businesses because of the EDS program.

51

Table 4.2.19 EDS helps in the increase of business performance

EDS has helped in the increase of business performance Cumulative Percent 5.3 6.6 15.8 89.5 100.0

Frequency Valid strongly disagree Disagree undecided Agree strongly agree Total 4 1 7 56 8 76

Percent 5.3 1.3 9.2 73.7 10.5 100.0

Valid Percent 5.3 1.3 9.2 73.7 10.5 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012 The above table shows that 73.7% of respondents agree that EDS increases business performance, 10.5% strongly agree, 9.2% are undecided, 5.3% strongly disagree and 1.3% disagree. This shows that a majority of undergraduate entrepreneurs benefit from the EDS program in the form of increased business performance. Table 4.2.20 Commitment to academic work
You are committed to your academic work Frequency Valid strongly disagree Disagree undecided Agree strongly agree Total 5 1 4 52 14 76 Percent 6.6 1.3 5.3 68.4 18.4 100.0 Valid Percent 6.6 1.3 5.3 68.4 18.4 100.0 Cumulative Percent 6.6 7.9 13.2 81.6 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012 The above table shows that 68.4% of respondents agree that they are committed to their academic work, 18.4% strongly agree, 6.6% strongly disagree, 5.3% are undecided and 1.3% disagree. This shows that a majority of undergraduate entrepreneurs are committed to their academic work.

52

Table 4.2.21 Business suffers neglect due to academic demands

Your business is neglected due to the demands of your academic work Cumulative Percent 5.3 7.9 17.1 80.3 100.0

Frequency Valid strongly disagree disagree undecided Agree strongly agree Total 4 2 7 48 15 76

Percent 5.3 2.6 9.2 63.2 19.7 100.0

Valid Percent 5.3 2.6 9.2 63.2 19.7 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012 The above table shows that 63.2% of respondents agree that their businesses are neglected due to the demands of their academics. 19.7% strongly agree, 9.2% are undecided, 5.3% strongly disagree and 2.6% disagree. This shows that a majority of undergraduate entrepreneurs have no choice but to neglect their businesses at one time or the other to attend to the demands of their academics. Table 4.2.22 Start-up capital
What is your start up capital? Cumulative Percent 25.0 51.3 73.7 81.6 100.0

Frequency Valid Less than 20,000 21,000 - 40,000 41,000 - 60,000 61,000 - 80,000 81,000 and above Total 19 20 17 6 14 76

Percent 25.0 26.3 22.4 7.9 18.4 100.0

Valid Percent 25.0 26.3 22.4 7.9 18.4 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012 The above table shows that 26.3% of respondents had start-up capitals in the range of 21,00040,000, 25% had less than 20,000, 22.4% were in the range of 41,000-60,000, 18.4% had 81,000 and above and 7.9% were in the range of 61,000-80,000. This shows that a majority of undergraduate entrepreneurs started their business with N60,000 or less.

53

Table 4.2.23 Adequacy of start-up capital

Do you consider this amount as adequate? Cumulative Percent 69.3 100.0

Frequency Valid Yes No Total Missing Total System 52 23 75 1 76

Percent 68.4 30.3 98.7 1.3 100.0

Valid Percent 69.3 30.7 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012 The above table shows that 68.4% of respondents are of the opinion that their start-up capitals were adequate while 30.3% do not think it was adequate. 1.3% failed to give a response. This shows that a majority of undergraduate entrepreneurs started their businesses with adequate funds for whatever form of business they started. Table 4.2.24 Adequate funds increases profitability
Availability of adequate funds increases profitability Cumulative Percent 2.6 3.9 75.0 100.0

Valid

strongly disagree undecided Agree strongly agree Total

Frequency 2 1 54 19 76

Percent 2.6 1.3 71.1 25.0 100.0

Valid Percent 2.6 1.3 71.1 25.0 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012 The above table shows that 71.1% of respondents agree that the availability of adequate funds increases profitability, 25% strongly agree, 2.6% strongly disagree and 1.3% is undecided. This shows that a majority of undergraduate entrepreneurs agree that availability of adequate funding is an important factor for increasing profitability.

54

Table 4.2.25 Adequate funds results in business growth and expansion

Availability of adequate funds brings about business growth and expansion Cumulative Percent 2.6 3.9 75.0 100.0

Frequency Valid disagree undecided Agree strongly agree Total 2 1 54 19 76

Percent 2.6 1.3 71.1 25.0 100.0

Valid Percent 2.6 1.3 71.1 25.0 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012 The above table shows that 71.1% of respondents agree that availability of adequate funds brings about business growth and expansion, 25% strongly agree, 2.6% disagree and 1.3% is undecided. This shows that majority of undergraduate entrepreneurs believe that business growth and expansion is possible with the availability of adequate funding. Table 4.2.26 Level of profit determines business performance
Your level of profit determined business performance Cumulative Percent 2.6 10.5 72.4 100.0

Valid

strongly disagree undecided Agree strongly agree Total

Frequency 2 6 47 21 76

Percent 2.6 7.9 61.8 27.6 100.0

Valid Percent 2.6 7.9 61.8 27.6 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012 The above table shows that 61.8% of respondents agree that their levels of profit determines business performance, 27.6% strongly agree, 7.9% of them are undecided and 2.6% strongly disagree. This shows that a majority of undergraduate entrepreneurs agree that their respective levels of profit, determines their business performance.

55

Table 4.2.27 Returns on investment determines business performance

Your returns on investment determines business performance Cumulative Percent 2.6 3.9 77.6 100.0

Frequency Valid strongly disagree undecided Agree strongly agree Total 2 1 56 17 76

Percent 2.6 1.3 73.7 22.4 100.0

Valid Percent 2.6 1.3 73.7 22.4 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012 The above table shows that 73.7% of respondents agree that their returns on investment determines business performance, 22.4% strongly agree, 2.6% of them strongly disagree and 1.3% are undecided. This shows that a majority of undergraduate entrepreneurs are of the opinion that their returns on investments would determine their businesses performance. Table 4.2.28 Limitations, excluding finance, faced in business
What limitations, apart from finances, have you faced from starting your business, till now? Cumulative Percent 11.8 18.4 22.4 47.4 56.6 61.8 63.2 82.9 86.8 100.0

Valid

Academic work Awareness Communication constraints Covenant University restrictions on trade Covenant University rules and regulations Distance between my business and school Identifying market Inadequate time Manpower Others Total

Frequency 9 5 3 19 7 4 1 15 3 10 76

Percent 11.8 6.6 3.9 25.0 9.2 5.3 1.3 19.7 3.9 13.2 100.0

Valid Percent 11.8 6.6 3.9 25.0 9.2 5.3 1.3 19.7 3.9 13.2 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012

56

The above table shows that 25% of undergraduate entrepreneurs believe that Covenant Universitys restrictions on trade limit their businesses, 19.7% of them believe that inadequate time is a major limitation, 11.8% of them are limited in their businesses by their academic work, 9.2% of them view Covenant University rules and regulations as a limitation, 6.6% are limited by improper awareness, 5.3% are limited by the distance between the school and their place of business, 3.9% face communication constraints, another 3.9% face issues with manpower, 1.3% of them face limitations in identifying markets and 13.2% face unspecified limitations. This shows that a majority of these entrepreneurs are limited in their businesses due to the universities restrictive rules on trading activities. Table 4.2.29 EDS impact on entrepreneur
How has the EDS helped you and your business Cumulative Percent 26.3 30.3 34.2 57.9 89.5 100.0

Frequency Valid Having a basic foundation of entrepreneurship Increased business insight Increased skills entrepreneurial of 20 3 3 18 24 8 76

Percent 26.3 3.9 3.9 23.7 31.6 10.5 100.0

Valid Percent 26.3 3.9 3.9 23.7 31.6 10.5 100.0

Increased knowledge entrepreneurship No response

Provides success tips in entrepreneurship Total

Source: Field Survey, 2012 The above table shows that 26.3% of undergraduate entrepreneurs have been provided with a basic foundation of entrepreneurship through EDS, 23.7% of them benefitted from EDS by getting increased knowledge of entrepreneurship, 10.5% of them were provided with success tips in entrepreneurship from EDS, 3.9% of them acquired increased business insight and 3.9% of them acquired increased entrepreneurial skills.

57

Table 4.2.30 Thoughts on adequacy of funds

What further thoughts (if any) do you have concerning adequate funds? Cumulative Percent 9.2 57.9 65.8 100.0

Frequency Valid Borrow from relatives only increases opportunities No amount is too small to start your business No response Total 7 37 6 26 76

Percent 9.2 48.7 7.9 34.2 100.0

Valid Percent 9.2 48.7 7.9 34.2 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2012 The above table shows that 48.7% of the undergraduate entrepreneurs think that adequate funds grant them increased avenues of opportunities, 9.2% of them believe that loans should only be gotten from relatives and 7.9% of them believe that no amount of money is too small to start-up a business.

4.3 TESTING OF HYPOTHESIS

A hypothesis is a tentative proposition proffered by a researcher at the commencement of the research work which represents his beliefs or assumption about the relationship that exist within the research variables. There are two major types of hypothesis which are; Null Hypothesis H0, Alternative Hypothesis H1. Pearson Correlation was used to measure the significance of the relationships between the variables. According to Cohen (1988), the strength of relationship can be interpreted with the following guidelines: r=.10 to .29 or r=-.10 to -.29: small

58

r=.30 to .49 or r=-.30 to -.49: Medium r= .50 to 1.0 or r=-.50 to -1.0: Large Hypothesis One H0: Available sources of funds for undergraduate entrepreneurship do not affect business performance. H1: Available sources of funds for undergraduate entrepreneurship affect business performance. Table 4.3.1 Correlation
Method of generating funds affects business operations. The appropriate method of generating funds increases business performance. .546(**) .000 76 .546(**) .000 76 76 76 1

Method of generating funds affects business operations. The appropriate method of generating funds increases business performance.

Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Source: Field Survey, 2012 Interpretation: The table above shows that there is a large positive correlation between the variables Sources of generating funds and Business Performance (r = 0.546**, n = 76, p< 0.01) Decision: Since the correlation is significant at the 0.01 level, thus we reject the null hypothesis (H0) and accept the alternate hypothesis (H1). This implies that available sources of funds for undergraduate entrepreneurship affect business performance.

59

Hypothesis Two H0: Age of young entrepreneurs does not affect business performance. H1: Age of young entrepreneurs affects business performance. Table 4.3.2 Correlation

Age at start-up of business activity Age at start-up of business activity Your age has cost you business expansion opportunities Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 75 .328(**) .004 75 1

Your age has cost you business expansion opportunities .328(**) .004 75 1

76

Source: Field Survey, 2012 Interpretation: From the table above, there is a medium positive correlation between the variables Age at start-up of business activity and Your age has cost you business expansion opportunities (r = 0.328**, n = 76, p< 0.01). Decision: Since the correlation is significant at the 0.01 level, thus we reject the null hypothesis (H0) and accept the alternate hypothesis (H1). This implies that age of young entrepreneurs affects business performance.

60

Hypothesis Three H0: There is no relationship between academic work of undergraduate entrepreneurs and business performance. H1: There is a relationship between academic work of undergraduate entrepreneurs and business performance. Table 4.3.3 Correlation

You are committed to your academic work You are committed to your academic work EDS has helped in the increase of your business performance Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 76 .554(**) .000 76 1

EDS has helped in the increase of your business performance .554(**) .000 76 1

76

Source: Field Survey, 2012 Interpretation: The table above shows that there is a large positive correlation between the variables Academic work and Business performance (r = 0.554**, n = 76, p< 0.01). Decision: Since the correlation is significant at the 0.01 level, thus we reject the null hypothesis (H0) and accept the alternate hypothesis (H1). This implies that there is a relationship between academic work of undergraduate entrepreneurs and business performance.

61

Hypothesis Four H0: There is no relationship between availability of adequate funds and profitability. H1: There is a relationship between availability of adequate funds and profitability. Table 4.3.4 Correlation

Availability of adequate funds Availability of adequate funds Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Level of Profitability Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 76 .851(**) .000 76 1

Level of Profitability .851(**) .000 76 1

76

Source: Field Survey, 2012 Interpretation: The table above shows that there is a large positive correlation between the variables Availability of adequate funds and Profitability (r = 0.851**, n = 76, p< 0.01). Decision: Since the correlation is significant at the 0.01 level, thus we reject the null hypothesis (H0) and accept the alternate hypothesis (H1). This implies that there is a relationship between availability of adequate funds and profitability.

62

CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 5.0 INTRODUCTION

This research project titled Evaluating Business Performance of Young Entrepreneurs derived data through the use of primary data (questionnaire) and secondary data which was through journals and articles. The questionnaires were used to generate data via administration to undergraduate entrepreneurs at Covenant University in order to evaluate their business performance in terms of methods of fund generation, age, academics and adequacy of funds.

5.1 SUMMARY OF WORK

The first chapter entails introduction to the topic, background of the study and the research problems, objectives and hypotheses. It also included the significance and scope of the study, and the definition of some important terms used in the research work. For emphasis, the research objectives are re-stated below; 1. To investigate the appropriate methods of generating adequate funds for undergraduate entrepreneurship and how it affects business performance. 2. To find out the extent to which the ages of young entrepreneurs affects business performance. 3. To ascertain the relationship between academic work of undergraduate entrepreneurs and business performance. 4. To determine the relationship between availability of adequate funds and profitability.

63

Chapter two was centred on the review of related and relevant literature. This is basically a discussion of past works related to the area of research study, literatures that have been published and written previously relating to the topic. It consisted of the conceptual framework. That is definitions, concepts and terminologies related to the topic, the theoretical framework; which consists theories related to the research study, and then the empirical framework which basically includes the conclusions of people who had carried out works on related topics. Chapter three covers the research methods used in the research project. It comprises of the research methodology, the research design, population, sampling procedures, instruments used in generating data as well as reliability and validity tests. Chapter four solely concerns the analysis and interpretation of data obtained from the field; it entails the frequencies of response to each question and also the test of the null hypotheses. Finally, chapter five will consider the summary of findings, conclusion of the research and recommendation based on findings and also suggestions for further study.

5.2 FINDINGS
The findings of this study are divided into 2: theoretical findings and empirical findings. The theoretical findings are drawn basically from the literature reviewed in chapter two and other existing literature, while the empirical findings are derived from data generated from the field survey.

5.2.1 THEORETICAL FINDINGS

1. McClellands need for achievement theory shows that increasing level of need for achievement in a society would stimulate entrepreneurship and economic growth.

64

2. The need for achievement level can be increased in an individual through training and by creating appropriate culture. 3. Entrepreneurs are motivated to succeed, not so much for the sake of social recognition or prestige but for an inner feeling of personal accomplishment. 4. Discovery Theory suggests that entrepreneurship is predominantly about search, systematically scanning the environment to discover opportunities to produce new products or services. 5. Discovery Theory assumes that entrepreneurs play a passive and responsive role. Opportunities are created by exogenous shocks to an industry or market and are not created by entrepreneurs themselves. In Discovery Theory, entrepreneurs only become proactive when they begin to exploit an opportunity. 6. In Creation Theory, entrepreneurs do not search; they act, and observe how consumers and markets respond to their actions. 7. Creation Theory assumes that entrepreneurs are not passive and their actions are the essential source of opportunities.

5.2.2 EMPIRICAL FINDINGS

These findings were gotten from data analyzed from the different sections apart from the bio data. These findings are itemized below as the following: 1. Available sources of funds for undergraduate entrepreneurship affect business performance. The data collected from respondents were analysed and the result stated that Available sources of funds for undergraduate entrepreneurship affect business performance.

65

2. Age of young entrepreneurs affects business performance. The data collected from respondents were analysed and the result stated that Age of young entrepreneurs affects business performance. 3. There is a relationship between academic work of undergraduate entrepreneurs and business performance. The data collected from respondents were analysed and the result stated that There is a relationship between academic work of undergraduate entrepreneurs and business performance. 4. There is a relationship between availability of adequate funds and profitability. The data collected from respondents were analysed and the result stated that There is a relationship between availability of adequate funds and profitability. 5. Undergraduate entrepreneurs are business entrepreneurs, in essence they are motivated by profit making, as can be seen from the responses in table 4.2.3.2. 6. As shown in Table 4.2.3.6, majority of undergraduate entrepreneurs fail to carry out feasibility studies or draw up business plans when starting their businesses, this has been identified as one of the reasons for difficulties faced by the businesses. 7. Majority of undergraduate entrepreneurs, as shown in table 4.2.3.27, face limitations in their businesses from restrictive rules on trade that have been laid down by Covenant University management.

5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
The findings of this research have provoked the following recommendations to existing or intending undergraduate entrepreneurs, and also the Covenant University management as a way to enhance entrepreneurship.

66

The results from the research implies that it is pertinent for

intending undergraduate

entrepreneurs to consider sourcing funds from their personal savings or family and relatives, due to easy access and low level of risk involved, as opposed to bank loans. Also, undergraduate entrepreneurs should endeavour to gain as much as possible from the EDS program as it assist greatly in the success of a businesses, they should also endeavour to carry out feasibility studies and draw up business plans before starting their businesses, the knowledge of this can be acquired from the EDS program. Furthermore, intending entrepreneurs of young ages should endeavour to work for existing businesses in their industry of interest, before starting up their own businesses, so as to gain experience. Finally, the Covenant University management should be more accommodating with its restrictive rules on trade, and also additions should be made to the practicals being offered in the EDS program.

5.4 CONCLUSION
The research has added to the knowledge on the business performance of young entrepreneurs. The outcome of the study shows that there is a significant relationship between methods of fund generation, age, academics and adequate funding with business performance of young entrepreneurs. The implication from the findings indicates that government should strive to develop alternate sources of funding for young entrepreneurs that provides adequate amount of funds, as opposed to the use of their personal savings, and entails low interest rates.Young entrepreneurs should

67

take up internships or jobs in order to gain experience before starting up their businesses. Tertiary institutions should also strive to create enabling environment for undergraduates to engage in business activity as they satisfy their academic obligations.

5.5 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

The foremost delimitation is the constraint of time. Most of the respondents were reluctant to fill the questionnaires completely and some failed to return the questionnaires. The researcher also faced hostility from respondents who perceived him to be a competitor trying to gather information from them.

5.6 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Entrepreneurship has been identified as an important factor to the economic growth of a nation. It is therefore very crucial to determine the extent to which this various entrepreneurial ventures owned by youths are performing and how they can be assisted. The following suggestions for further studies are provided; The scope of the research variables were limited, it is relevant for further studies to consider variables like entrepreneurs creativity and government entrepreneurship development programmes. Also, there should be an increase in sample size for future research. The scope of the research was limited to study of undergraduate entrepreneurs at Covenant University, future researchers can carry out comparative studies on business performance of young entrepreneurs at public and private tertiary institutions.

68

REFERENCES
Allawadi, S.C. (2010) Entrepreneurship Challenges in 21st Century, Indian Institute of Materials Management, Mumbai. Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. (2005). How entrepreneurs organize firms under conditions of uncertainty. Journal of Management, 31(5): 776-793. Andrew J. P. (2000). Cash Flow--The Oil that Keeps the Small and Family Business Organization Running Smoothly. Journal of Business Venturing, 11(5), 224-256. Arthur, W. B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Economic Journal, 99(394): 116. Asby, E. (1960). Investment in Education: The Report of the Commission on Post School Certificate and Higher Education in Nigeria, Lagos: Federal Ministry of Education, p. 18. Asika, N. (2008). Research Methodology in the Behavioral Sciences. Lagos: Longman Publication Ausbeth N.A. (2005). The Entrepreneur. Lagos-Nigeria Betcy Media. Awogbenle A. C. & Iwuamadi K. C. (2010). Youth unemployment: Entrepreneurship development programme as an intervention mechanism. African Journal of Business Management, 4(6): 831-835. Baker, T., & Nelson, R. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 329-366. Barney, J. B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science, 32(10): 1231-1241. Basu, A, & Virick M. (n.d.), Assessing Entrepreneurial Intentions Amongst Students: A Comparative Study, Retrieved from http://nciia.org/conf08/assets/pub/basu2.pdf. Bechard, J.P. & Toulouse, J.M. (1998). Validation of a didactic model for the analysis of training objectives in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), 317-332. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The Social Construction of Reality. A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books Doubleday and Company, Inc. Bhide, A. (1999). How Entrepreneurs Craft Strategies That Work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Boyd, N.G. & Vozikis, G.S. (1994). The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice Brockhaus, R.H., (1980). Risk-taking propensity of entrepreneurs, Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), 509-520.

69

Busenitz, L. W., & Barney, J. B. (1997). Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(1): 9. Casson, M. (1982). The entrepreneur: An economic Theory (2nd ed.). Oxford: Edward Elgar. Chinonye L.E. (2002). Enterpreneurship; A conceptual approach. Lagos-Nigeria Concept Publications. Dees, G. (1998). The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship. The Kaufmann Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership and Ewing Marion Kaufmann Foundation. Dike, V.E. (2009, March 7). Technical and Vocational Education: Key To Nigerias Development (1) Daily Triumph. Drucker, P. (1998, May-June). The Discipline of Innovation. Harvard Business Review, 67-72. Dyer Jr., G.W., (1994). Toward a theory of entrepreneurial careers. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 19(2), 721. Ede, F.O., Panigrahi, B, & Calcich, S.E. (1998). African American students attitudes toward entrepreneurship education. Journal of Education for Business, 73(5), 291-296. Franke, N. & Luthje, C. (2004), Entrepreneurail intentions of business students: a benchmark study, International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 1(3), 269 -288. Gaglio, C. M., & Katz, J. A. (2001). The Psychological Basis of Opportunity Identification: Entrepreneurial Alertness. Small Business Economics, 16(2): 95. Gartner, W. B. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. Academy of Management Review, 10: 696. Gasse, Y. (1985). A strategy for the promotion and identification of potential entrepreneurs at the secondary level. Frontiers in Entrepreneurship Research, 538-554. Gimeno, J., Folta, T., Cooper, A., Woo, C., (1997). Survival of the fittest? Entrepreneurial human capital and the persistence of underperforming firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 750783. Gorman, G., Hanlon, D., & King, W. (1997). Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship education, enterprise education and education for small business management: a ten-year literature review, International Small Business Journal. 15(3), 56-79. Hansemark, O. (1998). The effects of an entrepreneurship programme on need for achievement and locus of control of reinforcement. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Behaviour and Research, 4(1), 28-50. Hatten, T. & Ruhland (1995). Student attitudes toward entrepreneurship as affected by participation in an SBI program. Journal of Education for Business, 7(4), 224-227. Hayward, M., Shepherd, D. A., & Griffin, D. (2005). A hubris theory of entrepreneurship. Management Science, forthcoming.

70

ILO publication (2005). Youth: Pathway to Decent Work (defining youth). Ishfaq A. (2010), Determinants of Students Entrepreneurial Career Intentions: Evidence from Business Graduates. European Journal of Social Sciences, 15(2). Islam N., & Mamun Z. M. (2000). Entrepreneurship Development An Operational Approach, Bangladesh, The University Press Limited. Islam M. M. (Eds.). (1989). Theories on Entrepreneurship. Bangladesh, University Grand Commission of Bangladesh. Jo, H., Lee, J. (1996), The relationship between an entrepreneurs background and performance in a new venture, Technovation, 16(4), 161-171. Jones, C, & English J. (2004). A contemporary approach to entrepreneurship education. Emerald Education and Training. 46(8) 416-423. Kayode O. F. (2006). Entrepreneurship; Theory, Strategy and Practice. Abuja-Nigeria, Bee Printing and Publishing. Kirzner, I. (1979). Perception, Opportunity, and Profit. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kirzner, I. (1973). Competition and Entrepeneurship. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Kirzner, I. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: an Austrian approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1): 60-85. Kourilsky, M.L. (1980). Predictors of entrepreneurship in a simulated economy. The Journal of Creative Behaviour, 14(3), 175-199. Kourilsky, M.L., & Walstad, W. B. (1998). Entrepreneurship and female youth: Knowledge, attitudes, gender differences, and educational practices. Journal of Business Venturing, 13(1), 77-88. Krueger, N. & Brazeal, D. (1994). Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 19(2), 91-104. Langlois, R. N., & Cosgel, M. M. (1993). Frank knight on risk, uncertainty, and the firm: A new interpretation. Economic Inquiry, 31(3): 456. Lazear, Edward. P. (2005). Entrepreneurship. Journal of Labor Economics, 23(4), 649-680. Levinthal, D. (1997). Adaptation on Rugged Landscapes. Management Science, 43(7): 934- 950. Loasby, B. J. (Eds.). (2002). The organizational basis of cognition and the cognitive basis of organization., The economics of choice, change and organization. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. McClelland, D. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, JH: Van Nostrand.

71

McClelland, D. C. & Winter, D.G. (1969). Motivating Economic Achievement. New York: the Free Press. McConnell, J. H. (2003). How to identify your organization's training needs. New York: Amazon Books. McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Managment Review, 31(1): 132-152. McMullan, W.E., Long, W.A., & Graham, J.B. (1986). Entrepreneurship education in the nineties. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(3), 261-275. Moja, T. (January 2000). Nigeria Education Sector Analysis: an Analytical Synthesis of Performance and Main Issues. Oghojafor, B. E. A., Aduloju. S. A., & Olowokudejo F. F. (2011), Social entrepreneurship as an instrument for curbing youth gangsterism: A study of the Nigerian Urban Communities. Journal of Economics and International Finance, 3(11), 616-623. Ojo, O (2003). Fundamentals of Research Method :Standard Publications Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy. New York: The Free Press. Porter, M. E., Ketels, C, & Delgado, M. (2007). The microeconotnic foundations of prosperity: findings from the business competitiveness index. The Global Competitiveness Report 2007-2008. Retrieved from http://www.forumdaliberdade.com.br/fi2009/apresentacao arquivos/Chapter2.pdf Rasheed HS (2002): Developing Entrepreneurial Characteristics in Youths: The Effect of Education and Enterprise Experience. Int. J. Entrepreneurship Education, 2 (1), 21-36. Robert D. & Michael P. (2002). Entrepreneurship 5th Edition. New York, McGraw Hill Robinson, P.B., Stimpson, D.V., Huefner, J.C., & Hunt, H.K. (1991), An attitude approach to the prediction of entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15(4), 13-31. Robinson, P.B., Stimpson, D.V., Huefner, J.C., & Hunt, H.K. (1991), An attitude approach to the prediction of entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15(4), 13-31. Saha K. S. (Eds.). (1989). Entrepreneurship and Economic Development. Bangladesh, University Grand Commission of Bangladesh. Salami, C.G.E. (2009). Assessment of Quality Assurance in Nigerian Universities. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 11(7). Salami C.G.E. (2011). Entrepreneurial Interventionism and Challenges of Youth Unemployment in Nigeria. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 11(7). Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2): 243.

72

Sarath A. N. & Gail I. H. (2006). Academic Performance of College Students: Influence of Time Spent Studying and Working. Journal of Education for Business, 4(6):151-158 Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). Theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest and the business cycle. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business Cycles. A Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process New York and London: McGraw-Hill. Sexton, D.L. & Bowman, N. (1983). Determining entrepreneurial potential of students. Academy of Management Proceedings, 408-411. Shane, S. (2003). A General Theory of Entrepreneurship. The individual-opportunity Nexus. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 217. Shepherd, D.A., DeTienne, D.R., (2005). Prior knowledge, potential financial reward, and opportunity identification. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(1), 91112. Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S. & Al-Laham Andreas (2007). Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intenion of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources, Journal of Business Venturing. 22, 566-591. Steinfioff, D. and Burgers, J. (1993). Small Business Fundamentals, New York: McGraw Hill International Stevenson, H. & Gumpert, D.E. (2002, June-July). The Heart of Entrepreneurship, Harvard Business Review, 77-85. Stewart, W.H., Watson, W.E., Carland, J.C., & Carland, J.W. (1999). A proclivity for entrepreneurship; a comparison of entrepreneurs, small business owners, and corporate managers. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(2), 189-214 Stoner, J.F.; Freeman, R.E. & Gilbert, D.R. (2000). Management, New Delhi, India: Prentice Hall Stumpf, S.S. Dunbar, R.L., & Mullen, T.P. (1991). Simulations in entrepreneurship education: Oxymoron or untapped opportunity?, Frontiers in Entrepreneurship Research, 681-694. Venkataraman, S. (Eds.). (1997). The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Venkataraman, S. (2003). Preface. In, Shane, A General Theory of Entrepreneurship. The individual-opportunity Nexus. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. Vesper, K.H. (1990). New Venture Strategies, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Walstad, W. & Kourilsy, M.L. (1998), Entrepreneurial Attitudes and knowledge of black youth, Entrepreneurhsip Theory & Practice, 23(2), 5-18.

73

Weick, K. E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, MA.: Addison-Wesley. Wertenbroch, A., & Pietri, J. (2005). Training needs analysis. Technological Toolkit for Entrepreneurs. Retrieved from http://www.tte40.net/images/tte40

74

APENDIX 1
Department of business studies, College of Sciences, Development and Social

Covenant University, Ota, Ogun State. April, 2012. QUESTIONNAIRE ON EVALUATING BUSINESS PERFORMANCE OF YOUNG ENTREPRENEURS: A STUDY OF UNDERGRADUATES AT COVENANT UNIVERSITY Dear Sir/Ma, I, Enechukwu Ifeanyi Raymond, a final year Business Administration student of Covenant University, I am writing a research project on Evaluating Business Performance of Young Entrepreneurs. The questionnaire attached is designed to obtain the relevant information needed. I assure you that your responses would be kept confidential, and the information obtained will be used for the purpose of this research only. Thank you for your assistance. Enechukwu Ifeanyi Raymond. SECTION A (PERSONAL DATA) 1. 2. a) 3. 4. a) 5. d) Sex: Male Female Age group 15-18 b) 19-22 c) 23-26 d) 27-30 e) 30 and above Course of study ..................................................................................... Levels 100 b) 200 c) 300 d) 400 e) 500 Form of business engaged in? Trading b) Service c) Manufacturing d) Retailing e) Others

SECTION B: BEING AN ENTREPRENEUR 6. 7. What type of entrepreneur are you? a) Social Entrepreneur (i.e. not motivated by profit) b) Business Entrepreneur (i.e. motivated by profit) If you are a social entrepreneur, how far have you been able to meet societal needs? .....................................

..................................................................................................................................................................................... ...... 8. 9. Before your business, did you have any Job experience? a) Yes b) No If yes, please specify what kind of experience ..................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................................................

75

Were you motivated by your familys business, to start your own business? a) Yes b) No What is your hobby? ......................................................................................................... Is that (hobby) the reason for starting your business? a) Yes b) No Did you carry out a feasibility study and draw up a business plan before starting your business? a) Yes b) No 14. What limitations, apart from finances, have you faced from starting your business, till now? ........................ 10. 11. 12. 13. ......................................................................................................................................................................................... SECTION C: METHODS OF GENERATING APPROPRIATE FUND 15. In your opinion which of the following is the appropriate method of generating fund for undergraduate entrepreneurship? a) Personal savings b) Friends & relatives c) Bank Loan d) Cooperative society e) Venture capitalist 16. Why do you think the answer in 1 above is the most appropriate method? a) Easy for access b) the available fund is usually large c) low level of interest in sourcing d) low level of risk involved e) high returns Please () tick the appropriate answer from the alternative given. Strongly Agree (5) Agree (4) Undecided (3) Disagree (2) Strongly Disagree (1)

No 17 18 19

Items Method of generating funds affects business operations. The appropriate method of generating funds increases business performance. The appropriate method of generating fund for business growth and expansion is a mix of several methods stated in 1 above.

20. What further thoughts (if any) do you have on methods of generating appropriate funds? .............................. ........................................................................................................................................................................................... SECTION D: AGE OF ENTREPRENEURS 21. At what age did you commence your business activity? a) 15-18 b) 19-22 c) 23-26 d) 27-30 e) 30 and above No 22 23 24 Items Age limited the amount of funds at your disposal when starting your business Due to your age, you are often regarded as inexperienced Your age has cost you business expansion opportunities 5 4 3 2 1

76

25. What further thoughts (if any) do you have on the issue of ages of entrepreneurs? ......................................... ...........................................................................................................................................................................................

SECTION E: UNIVERSITY EDUCATION - ENTREPRENEURSHIP 26. a) 27. a) No 28 29 30 31 Do any of the EDS practicals available, relate to your business? Yes b) No How many years into schooling did you start your business? 1 b) 2 c) 3 d) 4 e) 5 5 4 3 2 1

Items EDS is responsible for the starting of your business EDS has helped in the increase of your business performance You are committed to your academic work Your business is neglected due to the demands of your academic work

32. How has the EDS practical helped you and your business ............................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................... SECTION F: ADEQUATE FUNDS 33. What is your Start up capital? ................................. 34. Do you consider this amount as adequate? a) Yes b) No No 35 36 37 38 Items Availability of adequate funds increases profitability Availability of adequate funds brings about business growth and expansion Your level of profit determines business performance Your return on investment determines business performance 5 4 3 2 1

39. What further thoughts (if any) do you have concerning adequate funds? ......................................................... ...........................................................................................................................................................................................

77