GUESSS 2016 INT Report Final

Student Entrepreneurship 2016:
Insights From 50 Countries

International Report of the GUESSS Project 2016
Philipp Sieger / Urs Fueglistaller / Thomas Zellweger
International GUESSS Report 2016
Preface
Entrepreneurship is one of the most powerful economic forces in modern societies. Our future
well-being thus critically depends on current and future entrepreneurial activities.
Young individuals, and particularly students, represent the entrepreneurs of tomorrow. It is
thus imperative to know how many students intend to pursue an entrepreneurial career, why,
why not, and how many are in the founding process or have already created a business.
The GUESSS Project (Global University Entrepreneurial Spirit Students' Survey) is dedicated
to investigate this topic since 2003. This report provides detailed insights into the
corresponding findings from the 7th data collection wave in the history of GUESSS. It was
conducted in Spring/Summer 2016 in 50 countries, at more than 1000 universities, and
generated more than 122000 completed responses.
The 2016 edition of GUESSS would not have been possible without the invaluable effort and
support of all country teams, university partners, EY as the international project partner, and
of course the students who responded to our survey invitation. Thank you!
We are already looking forward to the next GUESSS edition in 2018!
Yours sincerely,
Prof. Philipp Sieger
University of Bern / GUESSS Project Manager
Prof. Urs Fueglistaller
Prof. Thomas Zellweger
University of St.Gallen (KMU-HSG / CFB-HSG)
Members of the GUESSS Supervisory Board
Citation:
Sieger, P., Fueglistaller, U., & Zellweger, T. (2016). Student Entrepreneurship 2016: Insights
From 50 Countries. St.Gallen/Bern: KMU-HSG/IMU.
Table of Content
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 3
1 Students Career Choice Intentions ..................................................................................... 4
1.1
1.2
Specific Intentions and Career Groups ......................................................................... 4

Across Countries ........................................................................................................... 5
2 Influencing Factors .............................................................................................................. 7

2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
Field of Study................................................................................................................ 7
Gender ........................................................................................................................... 9
The University Context ............................................................................................... 12
Personal Skills............................................................................................................. 13
The Family Context .................................................................................................... 13
3 Entrepreneurial Intentions Across Time ............................................................................ 15

4 Nascent Entrepreneurs ....................................................................................................... 17
4.1
4.2
4.3
Prevalence ................................................................................................................... 17
The Planned New Ventures ........................................................................................ 18
The Founder Social Identities of Nascent Entrepreneurs ........................................... 20
5 Active Entrepreneurs ......................................................................................................... 23

5.1
5.2
5.3
Prevalence ................................................................................................................... 23
The Existing Businesses ............................................................................................. 24
The Founder Social Identities of Active Entrepreneurs.............................................. 26
6 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 28
7 GUESSS: Further Information .......................................................................................... 29
7.1
7.2
7.3
The Project .................................................................................................................. 29

Country Teams of the 2016 Edition ............................................................................ 30
Sample and Participants .............................................................................................. 31
7.3.1
7.3.2
Countries, Universities, and Respondents ....................................................................... 31

Student Demographics..................................................................................................... 32
8 References ......................................................................................................................... 32
Executive Summary
What are students entrepreneurial intentions across the globe, how many students are in the
process of creating a business, and how many do already have an own business? And what are
the drivers and characteristics of students entrepreneurial intentions and activities?
The international report of the GUESSS Project 2016 provides answers to these questions
based more than 122000 completed responses from 50 countries and more than 1000
universities.
Selected key findings are:
80.3% of all students intend to become employees directly after studies.

8.8% of all students intend to work in their own business directly after studies.
38.2% intend to work in their own business 5 years after completion of their studies.
The share of intentional founders in developing countries is considerably higher than in
developed countries.
There is a gender gap: females have weaker entrepreneurial intentions than males.
o The relative gender gap is 36.6% directly after studies but only 10.8% 5 years later.
o The gender gap varies across field of study and countries.
55.4% of all students have not attended any entrepreneurship offerings at university so far.
Students with entrepreneurial parents are more likely to intend to become entrepreneurs than
students without entrepreneurial parents.
o The relative difference is 33.6% directly after studies and 17.6% 5 years later.
o This effect depends on the parents entrepreneurial performance.
In the 18 countries that took part in the GUESSS editions 2011, 2013/2014, and 2016, the share
of intentional founders (5 years after studies) dropped from 34.8% in 2011 to 29.0% in
2013/2014 and raised to 30.1% again in 2016. This is a decrease by 16.7% followed by an
increase of 3.7%.
21.9% of all students are in the process of creating their own business.
o 34.9% of them plan to complete the business creation process within 1 year.
o 18.6% intend to create the business alone; all others plan to have co-founders.
o The founder social identities of nascent entrepreneurs (Darwinians, Communitarians,
Missionaries) vary considerably across countries. Pure Darwinians seem to be
particularly prevalent in Eastern Europe.
8.8% of all students already run their own business.
o 28.7% of them have created the business alone, all others with at least one co-founder.
o On average, these businesses employ 6.3 employees (full-time equivalents).
o The entrepreneurs seem quite happy with their life as an entrepreneur (5.28 satisfaction
on a 1-7 scale); 18.4% exhibit the highest possible level of satisfaction.
Taken together, the 2016 edition of GUESSS provides novel and unique insights into various
important aspects of student entrepreneurship for numerous stakeholders.
1 Students Career Choice Intentions

1.1 Specific Intentions and Career Groups
All students were asked which career path they intend to pursue directly after completion of
their studies and 5 years later.
Taking a detailed look at all the specific career options, we see that seeking organizational
employment in small, medium-sized, or large businesses are the most preferred options right
after studies.
Entrepreneurial intentions (meaning the intention to create a new business)1 increase more
than fourfold between the two points in time. Almost 40% of all students that took part in the
survey want to be an entrepreneur 5 years after completion of studies.
3.4
An employee in a small business (1-49 employees)
14.9
7
An employee in a medium-sized business (50-249

employees)
20.3
17.6
An employee in a large business (250 or more

employees)
23.8
3
3.5
An employee in a non-profit organization
6.1
6.9
An employee in Academia (academic career path)
9.5
10.9
An employee in public service
38.2
A founder (entrepreneur) working in my own business

8.8
A successor in my parents' / family's business
2.4
1.9
A successor in a business currently not controlled by my

family
2.5
0.7
10.3
8.2
Other / do not know yet

0
5 years after completion of studies
10
15
%
20
25
30
35
40
45
Directly after studies
Figure 1: Career choice intentions in detail
We use the terms entrepreneurial intentions and founding intentions synonymously. Strictly speaking, also
becoming a successor in the parents firm or in another firm represents a type of entrepreneurial career; we
do not refer to these options unless noted otherwise.
4
For a more general picture, we form three main career groups. Obviously, most students
prefer organizational employment directly after studies, and many then plan to swing to an
entrepreneurial career path within the next 5 years.
Direct
80.3
5 years later
8.8
46.6
0%
10%
20%
Employee
38.2
30%
Founder
40%
50%
Successor
60%
70%
2.7
4.8
80%
90%
8.2
10.3
100%
Other / Do not know yet
Figure 2: Career groups directly and 5 years after studies
1.2 Across Countries

Below, we look at the share of intentional founders (i.e., students who want to work in their
own business) in the 50 countries of GUESSS 2016.2
While one has to be careful in interpreting these numbers because the country subsamples
differ in terms of size, number and types of participating universities, and student
demographics, we nevertheless conclude that intentional founders are particularly prominent
in developing countries (and in particular, in Latin American countries).
Developed industrial countries tend to appear at the bottom of the list, which is a phenomenon
already revealed in previous GUESSS editions (Sieger, Fueglistaller and Zellweger 2014).
The general pattern of first employee, then entrepreneur, however, appears in all countries
independent of the level of economic development.
For the meanings of the different nationality codes please refer to section 7.2.
5
PER
COL
MEX
ECU
PAN
UKR
ARG
ESA
URY
BLR
IND
KAZ
CHI
RUS
SVK
LIE
MKD
POL
AVERAGE
MAR
LUX
LTU
EST
BRA
FRA
HRV
CAN
MYS
SLO
HUN
AUS
GRE
PAK
FIN
ITA
ESP
BEL
POR
ENG
CZE
USA
IRL
KOR
AUT
SWE
NOR
ALB
SUI
CHN
GER
JPN
69.3
67.4
65.9
64.2
61.7
61.6
61.6
13.6
17.8
12.1
23.6
17.6
8.2
21.0
57.8
56.9
56.8
56.8
53.8
52.3
51.3
21.0
10.4
8.9
24.3
15.0
8.2
10.7
46.1
45.6
45.2
9.1
17.7
14.5
40.2
38.2
38.0
37.8
37.8
37.5
37.4
36.1
36.1
35.1
34.3
33.2
33.0
32.8
32.7
32.1
30.8
30.3
29.8
29.6
29.2
29.0
28.1
27.8
27.4
6.6
8.8
6.9
7.3
7.3
9.1
9.8
5.0
7.3
5.7
9.5
7.1
3.8
5.4
4.0
11.4
9.8
3.8
5.0
3.9
5.4
6.5
6.4
6.5
4.2
22.9
22.5
22.4
22.0
21.4
21.1
7.4
4.4
5.3
0.0
5.7
3.4
17.2
17.0
9.0
2.0
0.0
11.7
0.9
10.0
20.0
30.0
Intentional founders 5 years later
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Intentional founders directly after studies
Figure 3: Share of intentional founders across countries

6
80.0
2 Influencing Factors
2.1 Field of Study
Entrepreneurial intentions clearly differ depending on field of study. Interestingly, science of
art students have the strongest ones, which might be due to the specific job profiles in this
field (e.g., working as an independent freelancer).
45.6
Science of art (e.g., art, design, dramatics, music)
15.3
44.6
Law & Economics (incl. business sciences)
10.5
Engineering (incl. computer sciences and

architecture)
41.6
9.1
38.2
AVERAGE
8.8
37.8
Other
9.5
31.6
Human medicine / health sciences
6.2
Social sciences (e.g., psychology, politics,

educational science)
29.3
6.2
Arts / Humanities (e.g., linguistics, cultural

studies, religion, philosophy, history)
25.4
6.8
23.6
Mathematics and natural sciences
4.8
0.0
Intentional founders 5 years later
5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
Intentional founders directly after studies
Figure 4: Entrepreneurial intentions depending on field of study
To compare countries without a potential field of study-related bias we now only look at
Law & Economics (incl. business sciences) students (labeled LEBS) because they
constitute the largest student group in our sample. We find obvious differences between
countries when assessing the share of intentional founders 5 years after completion of studies.
The pattern found above is largely confirmed: the share of intentional founders is highest in
developing countries (especially in Latin American countries), whereby industrialized
countries tend to exhibit the lowest shares.
COL
PER
MEX
ECU
PAN
UKR
ARG
KAZ
ESA
BLR
URY
EST
CHI
RUS
SVK
IND
LIE
MKD
LUX
HRV
LTU
Average
POL
USA
FIN
MAR
SLO
CAN
BRA
BEL
AUS
HUN
PAK
ESP
FRA
GRE
MYS
IRL
ENG
ITA
POR
KOR
CZE
SWE
ALB
NOR
SUI
AUT
CHN
GER
JPN
71.1
70.8
69.2
68.7
68.0
66.1
64.1
63.4
61.5
60.0
58.9
58.2
57.6
55.5
54.9
54.5
48.3
45.7
45.5
44.9
44.6
44.6
44.5
41.6
39.4
39.2
38.9
38.8
38.5
37.5
37.3
37.2
37.1
35.8
35.7
35.2
35.0
34.9
33.9
32.1
31.4
30.2
29.7
29.1
28.6
25.0
24.3
22.7
19.9
18.7
11.9
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Figure 5: Intentional founders (LEBS students) 5 years after studies across countries
8
70.0
80.0
2.2 Gender
Both directly after studies and 5 years later, the share of intentional founders is considerably
smaller among females than among males. Interestingly, the relative difference directly after
studies is 36.6%; referring to 5 years later, it decreases to 10.8%.
40.8
Intentional founders (5 years later)
36.4
11.2
Intentional founders (directly)

5
10
Female
7.1
0
Male
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Figure 6: Gender differences in entrepreneurial intentions
Splitting the analysis by field of study and time horizon reveals that the share of intentional
founders is always lower among females; however, the gender gap varies considerably.
Social sciences (e.g., psychology, politics,

educational science)
5.1
32.4
28.3
9.6
Science of art (e.g., art, design, dramatics,

music)
46.6
45.5
21.8
12.6

3.1
25.9
21.9
6.9
Law & Economics (incl. business

sciences)
46.8
43.3
14.2
Engineering (incl. computer sciences and

architecture)
Females (directly)
35.1
30.3
9.0
5.1
41.8
41.4
9.6
8.3
Arts / Humanities (e.g., linguistics, cultural

studies, religion, philosophy, history)
25.5
25.4
9.8
5.7
0.0
10.0
Females (5 years later)

Males (directly)
8.2
Males (5 years later)
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
Figure 7: Gender differences in entrepreneurial intentions across fields of study and time
Comparing the shares of intentional female and male founders (5 years after studies) among
LEBS students across countries reveals important differences. Interestingly, females exhibit
higher values than males in some countries.3
3
India, Malaysia, and Norway have been excluded because there were less than 10 cases per gender.
9
UKR
BLR
COL
MEX
ARG
PAN
EST
PER
ECU
KAZ
SVK
URY
RUS
CHI
ESA
LUX
LIE
CAN
MKD
POL
HRV
Average
CZE
ALB
HUN
BEL
ESP
IRL
BRA
ENG
USA
ITA
FIN
MAR
AUS
LTU
SLO
KOR
FRA
PAK
GRE
POR
AUT
SUI
SWE
GER
CHN
JPN
75.0
64.0
71.6
56.5
70.4
71.5
68.8
69.5
68.7
61.0
67.9
68.1
67.6
55.1
66.9
73.5
66.0
70.2
64.3
63.2
61.9
51.8
60.1
58.0
59.5
54.1
57.6
57.4
56.9
65.0
53.8
40.0
52.8
40.9
51.4
27.9
50.0
44.0
49.8
42.2
49.0
43.7
46.8
43.3
46.7
24.0
45.5
18.8
45.2
33.9
43.5
32.9
42.0
31.6
41.8
30.5
40.7
37.1
40.5
30.3
40.4
42.6
40.1
26.5
40.0
38.8
39.6
38.9
39.0
36.0
38.1
46.2
38.1
39.4
37.8
20.9
36.8
34.9
35.4
40.0
35.2
35.4
34.7
29.6
33.0
16.9
29.8
18.9
26.5
30.3
14.2
16.5
13.7
9.2
0.0
10.0
25.8
24.7
%
20.0
30.0
Males
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Females
Figure 8: Gender gap among LEBS intentional founders across countries (5 years after studies)
10
80.0
Next, we sort the countries by size and type of the gender gap. A systematic pattern is rather
difficult to detect, however. Positive numbers mean that the share of intentional founders is
higher among males; negative numbers indicate the share is higher among females.
ALB
CAN
CZE
KOR
AUT
BLR
LUX
ITA
EST
LIE
GER
HUN
IRL
UKR
SUI
BEL
ESP
ENG
SVK
CHN
ARG
POL
MKD
RUS
HRV
POR
JPN
Average
BRA
AUS
URY
FRA
FIN
KAZ
MAR
CHI
-0.2 PAN
-0.2 GRE
-0.7 MEX
-1.0 COL
-1.4 SLO
USA
-2.2
SWE
-3.8
ECU
-4.2
PAK
-4.6
PER
-6.5
LTU
-8.1
ESA
-8.1
-10.0
-5.0
26.7
23.4
22.6
16.9
16.1
15.1
13.8
13.6
12.5
11.9
11.6
11.3
11.3
11.0
11.0
10.6
10.4
10.1
10.1
8.2
7.7
7.5
6.0
5.4
5.3
5.1
4.5
3.6
3.6
3.1
2.2
1.9
1.3
1.1
0.7
0.2
%
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
Figure 9: Countries sorted by gender gap among LEBS intentional founders (5 years after studies)
11
30.0
2.3 The University Context

How is student entrepreneurship affected by universities? To start with, more than half of all
students in our sample have not attended any course on entrepreneurship yet. The others,
however, seem to be quite intensively involved in entrepreneurship-related university
offerings.
I am studying in a specific program on entrepreneurship.
7.2
I have attended at least one entrepreneurship course as

compulsory part of my studies.
22.4

elective.
23.2
I have not attended a course on entrepreneurship so far.
55.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Figure 10: Attendance of entrepreneurship offerings
To check for the effect of entrepreneurship education, we calculated the share of intentional
founders (5 years after studies) among students who ticked the respective options (multiple
answers were possible).
The more intensive students involvement in entrepreneurship classes and offerings, the
stronger their entrepreneurial intentions. While we cannot exclude reverse causality (meaning
that students with entrepreneurial intentions decide to attend entrepreneurship classes), this
nevertheless points to the positive and important role of universities in forming students
entrepreneurial intentions.
I am studying in a specific program on

entrepreneurship.
49.4

compulsory part of my studies.
44.6

elective.
45.8
I have not attended a course on entrepreneurship so far.
32.3
0
10
20
30
%
40
50
60
Figure 11: Share of intentional founders (5 years after studies) depending on entrepreneurship education
12
2.4 Personal Skills

Students were asked to indicate their level of competence in performing several different
entrepreneurship-related tasks (1=very low competence, 7=very high competence).
Comparing intentional founders and intentional employees reveals that intentional founders
indeed feel more confident in performing all of these tasks, in particular when it comes to
identifying new opportunities and successfully managing a firm. Thus, building up these skills
seems to be an appropriate way to enhance students entrepreneurial intentions.
5.6
Being a leader and communicator
4.84
5.36
Successfully managing a business

4.28
5.17
Commercializing a new idea or development

4.26
5.13
Managing innovation within a firm

4.18
5.11
Building up a professional network
4.37
5.06
Identifying new business opportunities
4
4.91
Creating new products and services
3.99
0
1
Founder
Employee
Figure 12: Skills among intentional founders and intentional employees (1-7 scale)
2.5 The Family Context

Scholars have long been interested in the question whether children of entrepreneurs have a
higher propensity to become entrepreneurs themselves. 28.4% of all students have
entrepreneurial parents (34640), meaning that they indicated that at least one parent (father or
mother) is self-employed and is a majority owner of a private business.4
Comparing the shares of intentional founders among children with and without
entrepreneurial parents leads us to confirm the notion that there is a positive relationship
between parents and childrens entrepreneurship (see the figure below).
The relative difference in entrepreneurial intentions is 17.6% (5 years after studies) and 33.6%
(directly after studies). This means that the positive effect of parents entrepreneurship is
stronger in the shorter than in the longer run.
We use both of these criteria to exclude cases where parents are self-employed but not business owners per se
(e.g., independent journalists, artists, doctors, lawyers, etc.).
13
36.1
5 years after studies
43.8
7.7
Directly after studies
11.6
%
0
10
15
20
25
No entrepreneurial parents
30
35
40
45
50
Entrepreneurial parents
Figure 13: Share of intentional founders depending on parents entrepreneurship
How does this effect depend on the parents performance as entrepreneurs? Students with
entrepreneurial parents were asked to assess their parents firms performance compared to its
competitors over the last three years regarding sales growth, market share growth, profit
growth, job creation, and innovativeness (from 1=much worse to 7=much better).
We took the average of the five indicated values and compared the share of intentional
founders in different performance groups. Entrepreneurial intentions increase significantly
when the performance of the parents firm is assessed with better than 4 (i.e., better than equal
to competitors). Interestingly, it does not make too much of a difference for entrepreneurial
intentions whether the performance is only slightly or considerably below 4.
As a whole, these findings demonstrate the crucial relevance of parents as entrepreneurial role
models.
>6-7
52.4
>5-6
50.0
>4-5
43.4
>3-4
38.8
>2-3
38.4
1-2
37.8
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
Figure 14: Share of intentional founders and parents entrepreneurial performance (in ranges)
14
60.0
3 Entrepreneurial Intentions Across Time

How have entrepreneurial intentions developed over time? We compared data from the three
previous GUESSS editions in 2011, 2013/2014, and 2016 by using only those 18 countries
which participated in all three data collection waves.5
We see that entrepreneurial intentions (5 years after studies) have decreased quite
considerably between 2011 and 2013/2014 (from 34.8% to 29.0%, which corresponds to a
relative decrease by 16.7%). Afterwards, a slight increase can be observed (to 30.1%, a
relative increase by 3.7%). However, the level of 2011 has not been reached again yet.
34.8
37.6
2011
9.2
18.4
Founder
29.0
52.6
2013
Employee
4.2
Successor
14.2
Other / Do not know yet

30.1
54.0
2016
3.8
12.2
0.0
10.0
%
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Figure 15: Career choice intentions in groups across time
A reason for the decline between 2011 and 2013/2014 could be that the overall economic
environment in many countries has been more favorable in 2013/2014 (Sieger et al. 2014). It
has thus been easier for students in 2013/2014 to find attractive job opportunities in the
regular job market. Also, more and better entrepreneurship education offerings might have led
to less quantity but more quality: students get better insights into what it actually means to
become an entrepreneur, and some might then consciously choose not to create a new
business; those who do intend to do so, however, are better prepared and motivated.
The slight increase between 2013/2014 and 2016, in turn, might be due to various factors like
again changing economic conditions, raising awareness and appreciation of entrepreneurship
in many countries, and so forth. Clearly, more research is necessary here.
In the 18 investigated countries, there are very different patterns of increasing and decreasing
shares of intentional founders that call for further in-depth investigation on the country level.
Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, England, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Japan,
Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Mexico, Portugal, Russia, and Switzerland. 2011: 73442 cases; 2013/2014:
54394 cases; 2016: 54204 cases. The number and types of participating universities within each country
may vary, as does the number of responding students per university and country. However, the GUESSS
country teams remained stable, so we do not assume that there is a systematic variation with regard to the
data collection procedure and in particular with regard to the university recruitment strategy. Thus, we believe
that our longitudinal findings are reliable and valid. Nevertheless, they have to be interpreted with great care.
15
53.5
ARG
63.2
61.6
28.6
AUT
18.4
22.5
33.0
33.3
BEL
29.6
39.1
BRA
33.5
37.4
39.7
ENG
33.5
29.0
36.1
36.2
37.5
EST
30.3
FIN
24.7
30.8
36.7
FRA
27.7
36.1
24.7
GER
17.6
17.0
2011
2013
27.1
27.0
GRE
2016
32.7
37.5
35.4
33.0
HUN
30.7
JPN
10.4
11.7
41.4
41.4
LIE
45.6
28.2
28.8
LUX
37.8
60.4
MEX
66.6
65.9
32.1
POR
35.7
29.2
47.1
RUS
52.6
51.3
27.2
SUI
17.7
21.1
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Figure 16: Shares of intentional founders (5 years after studies) across countries and time
16
70.0
4 Nascent Entrepreneurs
4.1 Prevalence
GUESSS is also interested in students who are already in the process of creating a business
(nascent entrepreneurs). To identify them, all students were asked: Are you currently trying
to start your own business / to become self-employed? 26807 students answered with yes
(21.9%). The share of nascent entrepreneurs per country is shown below.6
IND
MYS
CHN
PAK
MEX
COL
ALB
ESA
ARG
KAZ
PER
KOR
ECU
POL
MAR
BRA
PAN
LIE
RUS
UKR
MKD
BLR
URY
EST
Average
SLO
HUN
CZE
CHI
FIN
AUS
LUX
CAN
USA
SVK
GRE
ENG
FRA
LTU
JPN
IRL
POR
HRV
ESP
BEL
ITA
AUT
SUI
GER
SWE
59.5
56.9
56.1
42.8
39.7
38.2
37.1
37.1
36.6
36.4
34.5
33.6
33.3
32.1
32.0
30.1
29.1
27.7
27.1
26.0
25.8
22.9
22.6
22.2
21.9
20.9
20.8
20.5
20.1
19.0
18.6
18.3
17.5
17.0
16.9
16.2
15.1
13.3
12.9
12.8
10.5
10.5
10.2
9.9
9.6
8.7
8.1
7.1
6.9
6.3
0.0
10.0
20.0
%
30.0
40.0
50.0
Figure 17: Share of nascent entrepreneurs per country
Norway has been excluded due to a too small number of nascent entrepreneurs (<10).
17
60.0
70.0
As with entrepreneurial intentions, developing countries tend to be found at the top of the list;
developed countries rather at the bottom.
4.2 The Planned New Ventures

Only around every sixth nascent entrepreneur wants to complete business creation within the
next 1-6 months. Slightly more than half of all nascent entrepreneurs plan to do so within the
next 18 months.
63.8% of the nascent entrepreneurs indicated that their business is planned to be their main
occupation after completion of studies. 86% have not created a business before.
15.3
1-6
46.4
7-12
19.6
13-18
19-24 or more
18.7
%
Figure 18: Time horizon of completing business creation (in months)
Looking at the industries where the new ventures will be active in, we see a very fragmented
picture. Wholesale/ retail trade seems to be most attractive, with several others following
closely.
Trade (wholesale/retail)
2.8
Other
3.8
13.7
5.1
Advertising / Design / Marketing

Information technology (IT) and
communication (incl. software & IT services)
Tourism and leisure
5.8
11.4
6.2
Consulting (HR, law, management, tax)

Architecture and Engineering
6.5
Manufacturing
11.3
7.1
Human health and social work activities

Education and training
7.5
Financial services (incl. banking, insurance,

investment, real estate)
Other services (e.g., transportation)
10.2
8.5
Figure 19: Industry sectors of planned new ventures

18
Construction
To assess how far the nascent entrepreneurs have already progressed in the founding process,
they were asked to indicate which so-called gestation activities they had already executed
(multiple answers possible). As shown below, most nascent entrepreneurs seem to be in quite
early stages of the founding process.
Collected information about markets or competitors
51.3
Discussed product or business idea with potential customers
35.4
Written a business plan
30.5
Started product/service development
25.2
Nothing of the above done so far
20.1
Attempted to obtain external funding
15.5
Started marketing or promotion efforts
14.4
Purchased material, equipment or machinery for the business
14.2
Sold product or service
10.8
Registered the business
6.6
Applied for a patent, copyright or trademark
5.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Figure 20: Gestation activities of nascent entrepreneurs
New venture creation more and more happens in teams; this is also visible in our sample
where not even every fifth nascent entrepreneur indicated that he or she will create the
business alone. Most common are one or two co-founders.
9.6
18.6
0 co-founders
15.9
1 co-founder
2 co-founders
3 co-founders
27.8
>3 co-founders
28
Figure 21: Number of planned co-founders
Where do the nascent entrepreneurs have their business idea from? Good news for
universities is that in most cases, the idea was developed in the university context. Taken
together, university studies, discussions with other students, and university-related projects
are frequently mentioned (multiple answers possible).
19
University studies
36.9
Hobby or recreational pastime
31.5
Work activity outside the university
25.7
Family members
22.2
Discussion with other students
18.3
Friends outside the university
16.9
Media (television, internet, etc.)
13.8
Research project at the university
13.2
Other
13.0
Other / previous self-employment
9.3
0.0
5.0
10.0
%
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
Figure 22: Origins of ideas of nascent entrepreneurs
4.3 The Founder Social Identities of Nascent Entrepreneurs

What are the motives and goals of the nascent entrepreneurs, meaning why and for what
purpose do they create their business? This will crucially affect the new ventures behavior
for instance in terms of products and services offered, customer segments served,
innovativeness, growth, and performance.
To assess this, we refer to three main types of founders that have been identified according to
their respective social identity (Fauchart and Gruber 2011; Sieger, Gruber, Fauchart and
Zellweger 2016): Darwinians, Communitarians, and Missionaries.
Darwinians are generally motivated by self-interest, want to be evaluated in terms of being a
competent professional, and see competitors as the primary frame of reference. Their firms
thus resemble a classic profit-maximizing and performance-oriented business.
Communitarians create a business out of mutual concern for the interests of known others,
they want to be true to similar others, and see a specific group as frame of reference. An
example is an entrepreneur whose business develops new skiing technology to enhance the
skiing experience of fellow ski drivers.
Missionaries, in turn, want the business to advance a cause for unknown others, they want to
contribute to make the world a better place, and see society-at-large as frame of reference.
These firms often follow a political or ideological mission such as curing hunger or helping
immigrants to find jobs.
In addition, hybrid identities may exist, meaning that founders exhibit two or more
identities at the same time. We analyzed the share of Darwinians, Communitarians,
Missionaries, and hybrids among the nascent entrepreneurs in the different countries by using
a recently established 15-item measurement instrument (Sieger et al. 2016).7
7
For the main identity types we used pure identities. Respondents were regarded as having a pure identity
when their agreement to all five items that measure one specific identity was at 5 or higher (on a 1-7 scale),
with no such agreement to other identity types. Hybrids are respondents who exhibit the corresponding >5
agreement for all items that belong to the same identity type for at least two different identity types. This
logic has been adopted from Fauchart and Gruber (2011); see also Sieger et al. (2016). The gap to 100 percent
is due to founders who neither exhibit a pure identity nor a hybrid identity.
20
We excluded countries with less than 50 nascent entrepreneurs to improve the validity and
reliability of our findings.8 The two figures below show the results sorted by the total
percentage of identified identities.
SLO
12.5
PAK
2.5
6.9 1.2 6.0
HUN
3.6
12.0
POL
10.0
8.1
HRV
8.9
ITA
8.5
6.0
3.2
6.3
3.2
1.4
14.9
AUS
5.0
3.9 4.8
ESP
7.7
3.6
IRL
7.1
4.7
7.7
KAZ
4.3 3.3
PAN
3.8
USA
FRA
9.5
CHI
BLR
8.5
MAR
5.8
GRE
7.6
AVERAGE
6.8
0.0
3.4
5.7
10.0
5.5
26.9
9.4
17.6
12.1
2.5
28.4
7.1
8.8
12.0
18.9
7.6
20.7
4.8
30.8
1.7 3.3 5.0

1.1
3.4
2.3
6.3
10.4
9.5
20.6
6.1
16.5
5.0
4.8
7.2
15.8
7.1
11.5
20.0
23.3
10.5
9.1
2.4
2.4 5.4 3.1
18.9
7.1
10.5
7.0
5.4
7.1
3.9
9.1
6.8
18.7
8.3
0.6
22.4
8.4
7.2
6.1 2.1 6.2
20.9
7.6
6.3
1.1
26.0
6.9
4.1
3.6
19.7
33.8
6.4
5.9
6.7
2.8
10.8
8.7
8.1
7.6 1.1
6.7
7.6
19.8
5.8
9.8
3.0 0.9 4.9 3.7
9.7
5.0
10.2
7.1
4.7
5.9
4.3
4.4 2.3 4.8 3.3
POR
7.2
4.6
BEL
25.8
35.5
12.3
8.7
12.3
7.5
1.9 5.0 3.2
7.6
2.3
5.8
8.1
4.8
PER 2.90.4 4.7 2.0
MEX
8.1
19.1
BRA
5.8
18.3
7.6
8.6
4.8
9.5
22.4
30.0
40.0
50.0
Pure Darwinians
Pure Communitarians Pure Missionaries
DM Hybrids
CM Hybrids
60.0
70.0
80.0
DC Hybrids
DCM Hybrids
Figure 23: Founder social identities among nascent entrepreneurs (part 1)
Interestingly, most of the countries where the share of Pure Darwinians is higher than 10
percent are Eastern European countries (Slovenia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia).
A double-digit share of Pure Communitarians can only be found in Japan; for Pure
Missionaries, this applies to Slovenia, France, Switzerland, and South Korea.
8
Excluded: Albania, India, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Norway, Sweden, and Ukraine.
21
Generally, the share of DCM Hybrids (meaning founders who exhibit all three identities at the
same time) is relatively high. In some countries, around half of all founders where any
identity can be identified exhibit a DCM Hybrid identity (e.g., Peru, Panama, and Colombia):
In others, the clear majority of all founders are DCM Hybrids (e.g., Ecuador, El Salvador,
Canada, China, and Malaysia). Hence, DCM Hybrids seem to be particularly prevalent in
Latin American and Asian countries (with Canada as the exception).
Clearly, these insights just scratch the surface of potentially unique and novel insights. More
in-depth research is necessary here.
AVERAGE
6.8
2.4
5.4
ECU
2.4 0.8 2.4 1.8 4.8
URY
10.4
SUI
4.9 1.4 3.1 2.6
ENG
5.6
4.9
6.1
ESA
2.4 0.6 2.9 2.0
6.5
1.9
JPN
4.7
RUS
SVK
2.3
12.5
AUT
6.9
KOR
5.7
FIN
5.9
LTU
5.2
2.5
7.6
2.4
5.4
3.6
2.1 3.9
MYS 0.0 2.6 3.8
6.7
14.1
2.0
6.5
4.4
5.8
5.4
5.3
7.9
9.7
28.8
11.5
3.0
0.0
3.7
9.1
3.9
5.4
5.6
2.4
6.2
3.6 1.8 3.6
12.8
4.7
3.7
4.1
2.9
4.0 1.0
CHN 0.9
1.1 1.0 1.8 1.0 1.1
CZE
3.7
8.4
6.2
9.1
21.0
29.8
6.7
2.2
8.2
24.6
8.0
2.0
6.2
11.4
9.1
3.1
10.0
8.0
5.8
1.9 1.9
2.8
2.5
3.8
8.9
7.5
9.6
8.5
3.4
3.7 1.9 3.7
8.2
8.3
22.4
4.4
9.0
GER
EST
9.8
13.0
COL
CAN 1.9 1.9 0.0
4.8
35.0
3.8
7.1
7.2
3.1
2.8
6.7
ARG
3.1
7.9
16.6
3.6
13.9
7.8
5.3
5.9
7.5
9.6
11.9
3.6
9.1
26.0
3.4
3.9
4.3
9.0
23.1
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
Pure Darwinians
DM Hybrids
CM Hybrids
DCM Hybrids
Figure 24: Founder social identities among nascent entrepreneurs (part 2)

22
50.0
DC Hybrids
60.0
5 Active Entrepreneurs
5.1 Prevalence
Active entrepreneurs are students who have completed firm creation and are actually running
their own business. We identified them with the question Are you already running your own
business / are you already self-employed?. 10820 students answered with yes (8.8%).
Also here, their prevalence varies across countries, with the same developed versus
developing country" pattern as with nascent and intentional founders.9
MYS
CHN
ALB
ARG
COL
ESA
ECU
MEX
LIE
FIN
PER
MKD
EST
PAN
URY
CAN
KOR
CZE
USA
AVERAGE
BRA
KAZ
CHI
RUS
AUS
LTU
PAK
MAR
BLR
SVK
SLO
ENG
GRE
AUT
SWE
HUN
ITA
POR
FRA
GER
POL
IRL
SUI
ESP
HRV
BEL
JPN
35.0
30.5
25.7
20.0
19.2
18.1
17.5
16.7
15.7
14.3
13.0
12.9
12.7
11.3
11.0
10.4
10.3
10.1
9.6
8.8
8.6
8.3
8.3
8.0
7.8
7.7
7.2
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.6
6.2
5.8
5.8
5.6
4.9
4.8
4.6
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.0
1.3
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Figure 25: Share of active entrepreneurs across countries
Due to a too low number of cases (<10), Luxembourg, Norway, India, and Ukraine were excluded.
23
40.0
5.2 The Existing Businesses

The average age of the existing ventures is around 4 years. Most of the businesses have been
created in 2016 (see below). 55% of the active entrepreneurs plan that their firm will be their
main occupation after graduation, which signals that these firms are not fun or pet
projects in the majority of cases.
1.2
Earlier
2.8
7.1
2008
4.1
2009
24.8
2010
2011
6.2
2012
2013
8.3
23.3
2014
14.2
2015
2016
Figure 26: Year of foundation of the existing firms
While 18.6% of the nascent entrepreneurs indicated that they want to create their business
without partners, 28.7% of the active entrepreneurs have actually created the firm without cofounders. Thus, some potential co-founders tend to drop out during the founding process.
9.3
0 co-founders
12.8
28.7
1 co-founder
2 co-founders
3 co-founders
24.7
24.5
>3 co-founders
Figure 27: Number of co-founders among active entrepreneurs
On average, the firms have 6.3 employees (full-time equivalents); only 26.9% do not have
any employees at all. These numbers illustrate the economic and also social impact that
students new ventures are obviously making.
24
1.0
0 employees
1 employee
8.3
2 employees
26.9
12.6
3 employees
4.6
4 employees
8.2
5-10 employees
23.2
15.2
11-50 employees
>50 employees
Figure 28: Number of employees of active firms
Regarding industry sector, we see a similar picture as with the nascent entrepreneurs. The
industry sector distribution is quite fragmented, interestingly with the Other category
receiving most responses.
Other
Trade (wholesale/retail)
4.0
3.8
Advertising / Design / Marketing
18.7
4.0
Information technology (IT) and communication (incl.

software & IT services)
Consulting (HR, law, management, tax)
4.5
4.6
Education and training
4.7
Manufacturing
17.8
5.5
Architecture and Engineering

Tourism and leisure
5.8
Other services (e.g., transportation)
6.3
Human health and social work activities
12.0
8.3
Construction
Financial services (incl. banking, insurance, investment,
real estate)
Figure 29: Industry sectors of active firms
How satisfied are the entrepreneurs with their life as an entrepreneur? They were asked to
indicate their level of agreement with the following statements (1=not at all, 7=very much):
I am satisfied with my entrepreneurial career.
Overall, I am very satisfied with my business.
I would be willing to start the same business again.
All things considered, I am satisfied with my life as an entrepreneur.
The average value is 5.28, which indicates a considerable level of satisfaction. Having a
closer look at the value range distribution reveals that only 22.6% of all entrepreneurs are
satisfied with 4 or less (with 4 indicating medium satisfaction). Almost 20% of the
25
entrepreneurs exhibit the highest possible level of satisfaction. As a whole, we regard this as
good news and encouragement for potential entrepreneurs.
3.6 5.2
Range 1-2
18.4
Range >2-3
13.8
Range >3-4
Range >4-5
13.3
Range >5-6
19.5
Range >6-<7
26.1
Exactly 7
Figure 30: Satisfaction of active entrepreneurs in ranges
5.3 The Founder Social Identities of Active Entrepreneurs

Also for the active entrepreneurs we assessed the prevalence of the different social identities
of their founders. As we have much less active entrepreneurs than nascent entrepreneurs,
more countries had to be excluded due to having less than 50 valid cases.10
We see that the seven countries with the highest total share of identified identities are all Latin
American countries. In most of them, the share of DCM Hybrids is relatively high.
While double-digit shares of Pure Darwinians can be found in many countries, double-digit
Pure Communitarians can only be observed in Hungary and Switzerland. Pure
Missionaries with more than 10% share can be found in several countries (e.g., Argentina,
Portugal, Italy, and Uruguay). China exhibits an interesting identity profile because the vast
majority of all active entrepreneurs where an identity can be identified are DCM Hybrids.
Also here, there is a pressing need for further research about the determinants and outcomes
of founder social identity across countries and cultures.
10
The excluded countries are Belgium, Canada, France, Greece, India, Ireland, Japan, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malaysia, Norway, Pakistan, Slovenia, Sweden, Ukraine, and the US.
26
COL
11.4
2.3 4.5 4.6
MEX
8.4 0.0 5.9
7.9
ECU
5.2 1.3 3.5 4.0
8.5
PER
6.5 1.8 5.4
PAN
5.7 1.6 5.4 3.8
ARG
11.6
ESA
11.8
BRA
11.0
5.3
CHI
11.6
3.8
ESP
11.9
Average
POR
3.5
12.9
AUS
SVK
3.4
4.2
12.1
URY
11.0
2.6
7.5
10.3
11.9
SUI
9.6
RUS
9.6
ENG
7.0
BLR
2.8 3.5 4.2
10.1
EST
8.7
CZE
6.0
FIN
7.0
0.0
16.2
14.3
12.7
6.6
9.0
16.8
0.0 3.8 2.9 4.8
9.9
16.9
12.0
0.0 10.0
7.4 0.5 0.5 9.7
5.2
13.2
GER
2.8
8.7 1.9 2.9 2.9
14.8
11.0
1.6
6.3
3.3 5.4 3.0
6.0
3.9
9.0
3.4 3.4 5.2
2.8 4.2 4.2 2.8 4.2
AUT
10.6
7.1
8.2
12.5
7.8
14.0
4.4 4.4
8.3
6.5
7.0
12.5
4.8
22.7
6.6
3.7
13.4
43.3
17.6
MAR
5.8
5.3
4.5
13.4
14.7
8.6
CHN 1.50.8 2.9 1.7 2.9 2.9

HUN
7.6
2.3 5.6
11.0
4.9
8.7
25.9
3.6
6.9
10.6
18.9
5.1
3.5 5.3
10.6
18.7
6.8
8.7
7.2
17.6
6.0
8.4
3.6
3.7
3.9
9.1
4.3 1.1 7.0
ITA
KOR
11.8
4.8
7.1
20.4
19.1
37.7
4.4
8.8
23.0
POL
8.8
4.0
9.1
7.6
9.7
7.8
4.5
8.1
36.9
3.4
9.8
6.3
41.1
6.0
10.0
7.1
9.0
36.6
5.4
10.1
2.0
3.5
46.6
10.3
6.0 1.3 4.6 2.3
37.7
4.2
7.7
4.0
6.5
10.9
5.4
HRV
12.2
4.6
7.8
6.1 3.5 3.5 1.7 1.7
3.9 5.3 2.6 2.6 0.0 3.9
7.5 6.0 1.3 0.8 4.1 2.6

10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Pure Darwinians
DM Hybrids
CM Hybrids
DCM Hybrids
Figure 31: Shares of founder social identities among active entrepreneurs
27
70.0
DC Hybrids
80.0
90.0
6 Recommendations
Based on the above findings, we derive a few key recommendations for different
stakeholders.
Public and private institutions should further enhance and improve entrepreneurship
education offerings. The overall aim should be to sensitize as many students as possible for
entrepreneurship. These students should then make a conscious decision whether to become
entrepreneurs or not. Entrepreneurship education has to provide them with the tools, skills, and
capabilities not only to become entrepreneurs but to become successful entrepreneurs.
Many students want to gain professional experience before creating a business. This can be a
challenge as they might become locked in in the corporate world. Thus, becoming an
entrepreneur should be facilitated as good as possible by policy makers and regulatory
authorities, such as by reducing administrative and legal barriers, facilitating access to financial
resources, and supporting networking opportunities in general. Otherwise the opportunity costs
of leaving organizational employment will become too high.
Gender is an important issue. Policy makers should focus even more on enabling women to
start entrepreneurial careers, be it through tailored offerings like networking events, specific
mentoring and counseling, or facilitating the combination of family and entrepreneurship.
Parents, and particularly entrepreneurial parents, have to be aware that they are important
role models. They should not paint a too rosy or too bad picture of being an entrepreneur
(particularly when the business is not running well). A realistic picture is most helpful so that
offspring can decide themselves whether they want to become entrepreneurs or not.
Most of the students intend to or have already created a business with partners. Finding the
right co-founders is a key to success. Thus, it is imperative to help with this endeavor, for
instance by providing co-founder matching platforms by universities or other institutions.
Universities in general play an essential and extremely important role. Their tasks are manifold,
such as providing high-quality entrepreneurship courses, events like start-up evenings or
business plan contests, and creating an entrepreneurial atmosphere. This is to sensitize students
for entrepreneurship, to provide them with the necessary tools and skills, and to support them
in their entrepreneurial activities also in the longer run. Universities should be aware of this role
and should try to fulfill all the high expectations in these regards.
A truly important question is why or for what purpose a business is actually created. Students
should be aware of their underlying motivational drivers (e.g., in terms of their founder social
identity), and think and act accordingly.
Lastly, students should be aware that becoming an entrepreneur is not a must; but it is a very
attractive and viable option that is worth considering. In addition, there are many ways of being
an entrepreneur; examples are creating a business, taking over one (e.g., the parents one), or
being a corporate entrepreneur inside an existing business.
To conclude, student entrepreneurship is an important and fascinating field that deserves

further attention of scholars, practitioners, and policy makers in order to enhance and foster
the creation of successful new ventures.
28
7 GUESSS: Further Information

7.1 The Project
GUESSS (Global University Entrepreneurial Spirit Students Survey) has been founded at the
Swiss Research Institute of Small Business and Entrepreneurship at the University of
St.Gallen (KMU-HSG) in 2003. Its research focus is on students entrepreneurial intentions
and activities.
Since 2016, the GUESSS project is jointly organized by the University of St.Gallen
(Switzerland, KMU-HSG/CFB-HSG) and the University of Bern (Switzerland, IMU).
The GUESSS Project Manager is Prof. Dr. Philipp Sieger (University of Bern). The
supervisory board consists of Prof. Urs Fueglistaller (University of St.Gallen), Prof. Thomas
Zellweger (University of St.Gallen), Prof. Norris Krueger, and Dr. Frank Halter (University
of St.Gallen).
GUESSS is one of the largest entrepreneurship research projects in the world. With every data
collection wave, GUESSS has grown and has become more internationally, culminating in the
7th edition in 2016 with 50 participating countries.
For every data collection wave, the GUESSS core team develops a comprehensive survey that
meets the highest academic standards. The link to the online survey is then sent out to the
different country teams (every participating country is represented by one responsible country
team). These country teams then forward the survey invitation to their own students and to the
university partners they have recruited (who then also forward it to their respective students).
GUESSS data have been used for numerous studies, reports, practitioner-oriented articles, and
academic publications (e.g., in renowned journals such as JBV, ETP, SBE, and JSBM).
For more information about GUESSS, please visit http://www.guesssurvey.org or follow
GUESSS on Research Gate (http://www.researchgate.net). Both on the GUESSS website and
on Research Gate, we will regularly post updates, news, reports, and other publications.
If you are interested in participating in the next GUESSS edition in 2018 or if you have any
general questions, please contact Prof. Dr. Philipp Sieger directly
(philipp.sieger@imu.unibe.ch).
GUESSS 2016 was generously supported by Ernst & Young (EY) as the international project partner. We
cordially thank EY for their support. Without it, GUESSS in the current form would not have been possible.
29
7.2 Country Teams of the 2016 Edition

#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Country
Albania / Kosovo (ALB)
Argentina (ARG)
Australia (AUS)
Austria (AUT)
Belgium (BEL)
Belarus (BLR)
Brazil (BRA)
Canada (CAN)
Chile (CHI)
China (CHN)
Colombia (COL)
Croatia (CRO)
Czech Republic (CZE)
Ecuador (ECU)
England (ENG)
El Salvador
Estonia (EST)
Finland (FIN)
France (FRA)
20
Germany (GER)
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Greece (GRE)
Hungary (HUN)
India (IND)
Ireland (IRL)
Italy (ITA)
Japan (JAP)
Kazakhstan (KAZ)
Korea (KOR)
Liechtenstein (LIE)
Lithuania (LTU)
Luxembourg (LUX)
Malaysia (MAL)
Macedonia (MAC)
Mexico (MEX)
Morocco (MAR)
Norway (NOR)
Pakistan (PAK)
University
AAB College
Austral University / IAE Business School
Curtin University of Technology
Johannes Kepler University Linz
Antwerp Management School
Belarusian State University
UNINOVE - Universidade Nove de Julho
Concordia University
Universidad Catolica del Norte
Shanghai Finance University
Universidad EAFIT
University of Zadar
Technical University of Liberec
Universidad Catolica de Santiago de Guayaouil
Kingston University
Universidad Dr. Jose Matias Delgado
Tallinn University of Technology
Lappeenranta University of Technology
EM Lyon Business School
University of St.Gallen (CH)
FH Fulda
University of Macedonia
University of Miskolc
The Entrepreneurship School
Dublin City University
University of Bergamo
Hosei University
Turan University
Korea Entrepreneurship Foundation (KEF)
University of Liechtenstein
Aleksandras Stulginskis University
Institut Universitaire International Luxembourg
Universiti Malaysia Kelantan
University American College Skopje
EGADE Business School
Abdelmalek Essadi University
Stord/Haugesund University College
Sukkur Institute of Business Administration
38
Panama (PAN)
Universidad de Panama
39
40
41
42
43
44
Peru (PER)
Poland (POL)
Portugal (POR)
Russia (RUS)
Slovakia (SVK)
Slovenia (SLO)
Universidad Esan
Family Business Institute Poland
Universidade de Lisboa
St.Petersburg University - GSOM
Comenius University Bratislava
GEA College
45
Spain (ESP)
ESADE Business School
46
Sweden (SWE)
47
Switzerland (SUI)
48
49
Ukraine (UKR)
Uruguay (URY)
50
USA
University of Skvde
University of Bern
University of St.Gallen
HEG Fribourg
Stord/Haugesund University College
Universidad Catolica del Uruguay
Stetson University
University of Vermont (UVM)
Table 1: List of country teams
30
Team Leader(s)
Malush Tullumi
Prof. Silvia Carbonell
Prof. Paull Weber
Prof. Norbert Kailer
Prof. Eddy Laveren
Dr. Radzivon Marozau
Prof. Edmilson Lima
Prof. Alexandra Dawson
Prof. Gianni Chocce
Su Jing
Prof. Claudia Alvarez
Gabrijela Vidic
Prof. Klara Antlova
Mariella Ortega
Prof. Robert Blackburn
Prof. Manuel Sifontes
Prof. Urve Venesaar
Prof. Timo Pihkala
Prof. Alain Fayolle
Dr. Heiko Bergmann
Prof. Stephan Golla
Prof. Katerina Sarri
Dr. Szilveszter Farkas
Sanjeeva Shivesh
Dr. Eric Clinton
Prof. Tommaso Minola
Prof. Noriko Taji
Prof. Olga Sudibor
Kim Jong Sung
Prof. Dr. Urs Baldegger
Virginija Kargyte
Prof. Pol Wagner
Prof. Raja Suzana Kasim
Dr. Makedonka Dimitrova
Prof. Jos Ernesto Amors
Prof. Hassan Ezbalehe
Prof. Marina Solesvik
Dr. Altaf Hussain Samo
Omaris Vergara
Dr. Maria Angeles Frende
Prof. Jaime Serida
Prof. Adrianna Lewandowska
Prof. Miguel Amaral
Prof. Galina Shirokova
Dr. Marian Holienka
Prof. Katja Kraskovic
Dr. Joan Batista-Foguet
Dr. Maika Valencia
Prof. Susanne Durst
Prof. Philipp Sieger
Prof. Rico Baldegger
Prof. Marina Solesvik
Prof. Catherine Krauss
Prof. Isabel Botero
Prof. Erik Monsen
7.3 Sample and Participants

7.3.1 Countries, Universities, and Respondents
Number
Country (code)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Albania (ALB)
Argentina (ARG)
Australia (AUS)
Austria (AUT)
Belarus (BLR)
Belgium (BEL)
Brazil (BRA)
Canada (CAN)
Chile (CHI)
China (CHN)
Colombia (COL)
Croatia (HRV)
Czech Republic (CZE)
Ecuador (ECU)
El Salvador (ESA)
England (ENG)
Estonia (EST)
Finland (FIN)
France (FRA)
Germany (GER)
Greece (GRE)
Hungary (HUN)
India (IND)
Ireland (IRL)
Italy (ITA)
Japan (JPN)
Kazakhstan (KAZ)
Korea (KOR)
Liechtenstein (LIE)
Lithuania (LTU)
Luxembourg (LUX)
Macedonia (MKD)
Malaysia (MYS)
Mexico (MEX)
Morocco (MAR)
Norway (NOR)
Pakistan (PAK)
Panama (PAN)
Peru (PER)
Poland (POL)
Portugal (POR)
Russia (RUS)
Slovakia (SVK)
Slovenia (SLO)
Spain (ESP)
Sweden (SWE)
Switzerland (SUI)
Ukraine (UKR)
Uruguay (URY)
USA (USA)
TOTAL
Number of universities
Completed responses
Valid percent
6
45
18
51
16
6
83
2
32
97
13
26
10
5
14
16
25
16
16
50
12
23
11
17
39
25
22
52
2
36
5
3
20
4
11
4
12
5
12
58
11
34
17
5
19
10
40
4
7
15
1082
70
2625
2359
3755
716
771
7417
297
6077
3274
3832
1555
1135
8211
4653
1074
811
532
714
15984
649
5182
37
807
4446
1490
253
2603
159
426
82
124
137
1207
2044
41
580
3273
1297
6388
4685
4152
3266
575
7373
606
2943
73
1396
353
122509
0.1
2.1
1.9
3.1
0.6
0.6
6.1
0.2
5.0
2.7
3.1
1.3
0.9
6.7
3.8
0.9
0.7
0.4
0.6
13.0
0.5
4.2
0.0
0.7
3.6
1.2
0.2
2.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.0
1.7
0.0
0.5
2.7
1.1
5.2
3.8
3.4
2.7
0.5
6.0
0.5
2.4
0.1
1.1
0.3
100
Table 2: Countries, universities, and respondents11
11
It is becoming more difficult with every edition to calculate a reliable response rate because it is extremely hard to know how many students
actually received a personal invitation to participate. This is because students are less and less often contacted via university email
(which is also not always used regularly). Rather, the GUESSS survey is increasingly announced on Facebook pages, websites, learning
portals, newsletters, blogs, and so on. Using the number of enrolled students at each university is also not appropriate as participating
universities often did not contact the whole student population but only subgroups (students of specific faculties, departments, study
fields, or classes). Using reliable data of a subset of the total university population in the 2016 GUESSS sample, our calculations show
a response rate of 5%. This is in the same range as in previous GUESSS editions in 2011 and 2013/2014 (Sieger, Fueglistaller and
Zellweger 2011; Sieger et al. 2014) and constitutes the most accurate possible estimation. Still, it is very conservative and thus likely an
underestimation.
31
7.3.2 Student Demographics

The average age of the students in our sample is 24 years. The majority of students (52.4%) is
between 21 and 25 years old. 58.5% are female. 79.2% are undergraduate (Bachelor) students.
These numbers are very similar to those in previous GUESSS editions.
The main study fields are shown in the figure below. The distribution is again similar to the
GUESSS editions in 2013/14 and 2011.12
4.9
1.8
7.5
Law & Economics (incl. business sciences)

Engineering (incl. computer sciences and architecture)
Other
32.8
8.4
Social sciences (e.g., psychology, politics, educational science)
8.9

Arts / Humanities (e.g., linguistics, cultural studies, religion, philosophy, history)
10.3
25.4
Science of art (e.g., art, design, dramatics, music)
Figure 32: Main study fields of the respondents
8 References
Fauchart, E., & Gruber, M. (2011). Darwinians, Communitarians, and Missionaries: The Role
of Founder Identity in Entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 935957.
Sieger, P., Fueglistaller, U., & Zellweger, T. (2011). Entrepreneurial Intentions and Activities
of Students across the World: International Report of GUESSS 2011. KMU-HSG:
St.Gallen.
Sieger, P., Fueglistaller, U., & Zellweger, T. (2014). Student Entrepreneurship Across the
Globe: A Look at Intentions and Activities. KMU-HSG: St.Gallen.
Sieger, P., Gruber, M., Fauchart, E., & Zellweger, T. (2016). Measuring the Social Identity of
Entrepreneurs: Scale Development and International Validation. Journal of Business
Venturing, 31(5), 542-572.
12
The Law & Economics (incl. business sciences) category corresponds to the BECL category that has been
used in previous editions.
32

GUESSS 2016 INT Report Final

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

GUESSS 2016 INT Report Final

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Student Entrepreneurship 2016:

Insights From 50 Countries

International GUESSS Report 2016

International GUESSS Report 2016

Specific Intentions and Career Groups ......................................................................... 4

2 Influencing Factors .............................................................................................................. 7

3 Entrepreneurial Intentions Across Time ............................................................................ 15

5 Active Entrepreneurs ......................................................................................................... 23

The Project .................................................................................................................. 29

Countries, Universities, and Respondents ....................................................................... 31

International GUESSS Report 2016

80.3% of all students intend to become employees directly after studies.

International GUESSS Report 2016

1 Students Career Choice Intentions

An employee in a small business (1-49 employees)

An employee in a medium-sized business (50-249

An employee in a large business (250 or more

An employee in a non-profit organization

An employee in Academia (academic career path)

An employee in public service

A founder (entrepreneur) working in my own business

A successor in a business currently not controlled by my

Other / do not know yet

5 years after completion of studies

Directly after studies

Figure 1: Career choice intentions in detail

International GUESSS Report 2016

Other / Do not know yet

Figure 2: Career groups directly and 5 years after studies

1.2 Across Countries

International GUESSS Report 2016

Intentional founders 5 years later

Intentional founders directly after studies

Figure 3: Share of intentional founders across countries

International GUESSS Report 2016

Science of art (e.g., art, design, dramatics, music)

Law & Economics (incl. business sciences)

Engineering (incl. computer sciences and

Human medicine / health sciences

Social sciences (e.g., psychology, politics,

Arts / Humanities (e.g., linguistics, cultural

Mathematics and natural sciences

Figure 4: Entrepreneurial intentions depending on field of study

International GUESSS Report 2016

International GUESSS Report 2016

Intentional founders (5 years later)

Intentional founders (directly)

Figure 6: Gender differences in entrepreneurial intentions

Social sciences (e.g., psychology, politics,

Science of art (e.g., art, design, dramatics,

Mathematics and natural sciences

Law & Economics (incl. business

Engineering (incl. computer sciences and

Arts / Humanities (e.g., linguistics, cultural

Females (5 years later)

Males (5 years later)

International GUESSS Report 2016

International GUESSS Report 2016

International GUESSS Report 2016

2.3 The University Context

I am studying in a specific program on entrepreneurship.

I have attended at least one entrepreneurship course as

I have attended at least one entrepreneurship course as