Skip to main content

Universities, local partnerships and the promotion of youth entrepreneurship

International Review of Education volume 63, pages 703–724 (2017)Cite this article

Abstract

Youth entrepreneurship has gained prominence in recent years, but there are few studies which investigate the characteristics of companies created by students in the university environment (also known as “student spin-off companies”) or the “ecosystem” in which these companies are incubated and “hatched”. In parallel, there is a call for more research investigating the role universities play in the local development of these companies. In practice, there is an increasing demand for universities to interact with and engage in the local context beyond their institutional “walls”. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to understand how universities bring together local partners in support of young entrepreneurs. To this end, the authors conducted a multiple case study which identified the processes, characteristics and actors involved in the formation of these networks. As a theoretical contribution to the development of local entrepreneurship, this article analyses student spin-off companies incubated in universities – a type of business as well as a context still little explored in the literature. On a practical level, it offers insights into potential strategies for improving policies to support youth and student entrepreneurship.

Résumé

Universités, partenariats locaux et promotion des jeunes entrepreneurs – Les jeunes entrepreneurs ont gagné en notoriété ces dernières années, mais rares sont les études qui examinent les particularités des sociétés créées par des étudiants en milieu universitaire (appelées également entreprises dérivées, créées par essaimage ou issues du progrès technologique), ou encore « l’écosystème » dans lequel elles sont incubées et amenées « à éclosion » . Il existe parallèlement une demande d’études supplémentaires sur le rôle des universités dans le développement local de ces entreprises. Dans la pratique se fait sentir la demande croissante d’une interaction et d’un engagement de la part des universités dans le contexte local au-delà de leurs « murs » institutionnels. Cet article poursuit par conséquent l’objectif de cerner la manière dont les universités rassemblent des partenaires locaux pour soutenir les jeunes entrepreneurs. Les auteurs ont mené dans ce but une étude de cas multiples qui a identifié les processus, les caractéristiques et les auteurs impliqués dans l’apparition de ces réseaux. À titre de contribution théorique au développement de l’entrepreneuriat local, ils analysent des entreprises créées par des étudiants et incubées en milieu universitaire – type d’activité et contexte encore peu étudiés. À un niveau pratique, ils fournissent des renseignements sur les stratégies pouvant améliorer les politiques de soutien aux jeunes entrepreneurs.

Resumen

Universidades, socios locales y la promoción de el emprendedurismo joven – El emprededurismo joven ha ganado protagonismo en los últimos años, pero existen pocos estudios que investiguen las características de las empresas creadas por los estudiantes en el ámbito universitario (también conocidas como empresas spin-off de estudiantes) o el “ecosistema” en el que estas empresas se incuban y “eclosionan”. Paralelamente, se hace un llamamiento a más investigación sobre el papel que juegan las universidades en el desarrollo local de estas empresas. En la práctica, existe una creciente demanda para que las universidades actúen y participen en el contexto local más allá de sus “muros” institucionales. Por lo tanto, el propósito de este artículo es entender cómo las universidades reúnen a los socios locales en apoyo a los jóvenes empresarios. Para tanto, los autores realizaron un estudio de casos múltiples que identificó los procesos, características y actores participantes en la formación de estas redes. Como contribución teórica al desarrollo del emprendedurismo local, este artículo analiza las empresas spin-off estudiantiles incubadas en las universidades – un tipo de negocio y un contexto todavía poco explorado en la literatura. En el plano práctico, ofrece una visión de las posibles estrategias para mejorar las políticas de apoyo a la iniciativa empresarial de los jóvenes y estudiantes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

  1. 1.

    First mentioned in the report of the International Commission on the Development of Education to UNESCO (Faure et al. 1972), the concept of a “learning society offers many and varied opportunities for learning, both at school and in economic, social and cultural life … In order to build a learning society and make lifelong learning a reality, it is important to embrace and connect all learning stages, types and places” (Osborne et al. 2013, p. 410).

  2. 2.

    “The notion of a learning city can be traced back to ancient Greece some 2,500 years ago, although it was not labelled as such until the late 20th century. The modern concept of a learning city/region originated from that of a ‘learning society’” (Osborne et al. 2013, p. 509).

  3. 3.

    The two universities involved in the study were the Universidade Federal de Sergipe (UFS) and the Universidade Tiradentes (UNIT).

  4. 4.

    Technology or sience parks are “property-based organizations with identifiable administrative centers focused on the mission of business acceleration through knowledge agglomeration and resource sharing” (Phan et al. 2005).

  5. 5.

    NVivo is a software programme used to analyse qualitative data.

  6. 6.

    Equivalent to EUR 8.8 billion (November 2016).

  7. 7.

    AmBev stands for Companhia de Bebidas das Américas [America’s Beverage Company], a Brazilian brewing company. CHESF stands for Companhia Hidrelétrica do São Francisco [São Francisco’s Hydroelectric Company], a company partly owned by the government, which pioneered the building and operation of a large hydroelectric complex in the Northeast Region of Brazil.

  8. 8.

    All quotations in this article have been taken from the recorded and transcribed interviews; participants spoke in Portuguese, but the respondents’ statements were translated into English by the authors for the purposes of this article.

  9. 9.

    For more information about the Junior Achievement Young Enterprise student mini-company (SMC) programme and the updated Annual Report, see http://www.jaeurope.org//annual-report-2016 [accessed 4 September 2017].

  10. 10.

    SEBRAE is a nationwide organisation focused on reducing the bureaucracy pertaining to the formalisation of micro and small businesses and promoting their entrepreneurial activities, through partnership programmes between public and private sector organisations, including universities. For more information, see http://www.sebrae.com.br [accessed 4 September 2017].

  11. 11.

    CNPq stands for Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico [National Council for Scientific and Technological Development]. FINEP stands for Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos [Funding Authority for Studies and Projects].

  12. 12.

    FAPITEC stands for Fundação de Apoio à Pesquisa e à Inovação Tecnológica do Estado de Sergipe [State of Sergipe’s Foundation for Research and Technological Innovation Support].

  13. 13.

    Equivalent to EUR 136,000 (November 2016).

References

  1. Ács, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014). National systems of entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy, 43(3), 476–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aernoudt, R. (2004). Incubators: Tool for entrepreneurship? Small Business Economics, 23(2), 127–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Aladekomo, F. O. (2004). Nigeria educational policy and entrepreneurship. Journal of Social Science, 9(2), 75–83.

    Google Scholar 

  4. ANPROTEC (Associação Nacional de Entidades Promotoras de Empreendimentos Inovadores; National Association of Entities Promoting Innovative Enterprises) (2011). O desafio de construir territórios mais competitivos [The challenge of building more competitive territories]. Locus, XVII, 63/64. ANPROTEC, Brasilia, Brazil. Retrieved 26 July 2017 from http://www.anprotec.org.br/ArquivosDin/Locus_63_e_64_Completa_pdf_37.pdf.

  5. Arshed, N., Carter, S., & Mason, C. (2014). The ineffectiveness of entrepreneurship policy: Is policy formulation to blame? Small Business Economics, 43(3), 639–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Åstebro, T., Bazzazian, N., & Braguinsky, S. (2012). Startups by recent university graduates and their faculty: Implications for university entrepreneurship policy. Research Policy, 41(4), 663–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Audretsch, D. B. (2014). From the entrepreneurial university to the university for the entrepreneurial society. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 313–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bailetti, T. (2011). Fostering Student Entrepreneurship and University Spinoff Companies. Technology Innovation Management Review, 1(1), 7–12.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Batsleer, J. R. (2008). Informal learning in youth work. London, England: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bergmann, H., Hundt, C., & Sternberg, R. (2016). What makes student entrepreneurs? On the relevance (and irrelevance) of the university and the regional context for student start-ups. Small Business Economics, 47(1), 53–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bernstein, A. T., & Carayannis, E. G. (2012). Exploring the value proposition of the undergraduate entrepreneurship major and elective based on student self-efficacy and outcome expectations. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3(3), 265–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Borges, C., & Filion, L. J. (2012). Evolução do capital social empreendedor dos spin-offs universitários [Evolution of entrepreneurial social capital of university spin-offs]. Revista de Empreendedorismo e Gestão de Pequenas Empresas, 1(1), 3–31.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Borges, C., Filion, L. J., & Simard, G. (2008). Jovens empreendedores e o processo de criação de empresas [Young entrepreneurs and the business creation process]. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 9(8), 39–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bruton, G. D., Ketchen, D. J., & Ireland, R. D. (2013). Entrepreneurship as a solution to poverty. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(6), 683–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Buchert, L. (2014). Learning needs and life skills for youth: An introduction. International Review of Education, 60(2), 163–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Campanella, F., Della Peruta, M. R., & Del Giudice, M. (2013). The role of sociocultural background on the characteristics and the financing of youth entrepreneurship. An exploratory study of university graduates in Italy. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4(3), 244–259.

  18. Campbell, T. (2009). Learning cities: Knowledge, capacity and competitiveness. Habitat International, 33(2), 195–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Carayannis, E. G., Evans, D., & Hanson, M. (2003). A cross-cultural learning strategy for entrepreneurship education: Outline of key concepts and lessons learned from a comparative study of entrepreneurship students in France and the US. Technovation, 23(9), 757–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Carneiro, R. (2013). Living by learning, learning by living: The quest for meaning. International Review of Education, 59(3), 353–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Clarysse, B., & Moray, N. (2004). A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: the case of a research-based spin-off. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(1), 55–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Van de Velde, E., & Vohora, A. (2005). Spinning out new ventures: A typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 183–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Dash, M., & Kaur, K. (2012). Youth entrepreneurship as a way of boosting Indian economic competitiveness: A study of Orissa. International Review of Management and Marketing, 2(1), 10–21.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as “quasi-firms”: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32(1), 109–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Etzkowitz, H., & Dzisah, J. (2007). The triple helix of innovation: TOWARDS a university-led development strategy for Africa. ATDF Journal, 4(2), 3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Etzkowitz, H., de Mello, J. M. C., & Almeida, M. (2005). Towards “meta-innovation” in Brazil: The evolution of the incubator and the emergence of a triple helix. Research Policy, 34(4), 411–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Faure, E., Herrera, F., Kaddoura, A.-R., Lopes, H., Petrovsky, A. V., Rahnema, M. & Ward, F. C. (1972). Learning to be: The world of education today and tomorrow. The report to UNESCO of the International Commission on the Development of Education. Paris/London: UNESCO/Harrap. Retrieved 18 August 2017 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0000/000018/001801e.pdf.

  29. Fretschner, M., & Weber, S. (2013). Measuring and understanding the effects of entrepreneurial awareness education. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(3), 410–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Fryges, H., & Wright, M. (2014). The origin of spin-offs: A typology of corporate and academic spin-offs. Small Business Economics, 43(2), 245–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Greene, F. J. (2002). An investigation into enterprise support for younger people, 1975–2000. International Small Business Journal, 20(3), 315–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Harkema, S. J., & Schout, H. (2008). Incorporating student-centred learning in innovation and entrepreneurship education. European Journal of Education, 43(4), 513–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Higgins, J., & Porcaro, G. (2013). From crisis to credibility: The need for quality jobs for young people. European View, 12(2), 189–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. IBGE (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística; Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics) (2013). Contas Regionais do Brasil – 2010–2013 [Regional accounts of Brazil – 2010–2013] [online resource]. Retrieved 26 July 2017 from http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/economia/contasregionais/2013/.

  35. IBGE (2016). Estados@ [States@] [Brazilian statistics by region; online resource]. Retrieved 26 July 2017 from http://www.ibge.gov.br/estadosat/.

  36. Jansen, S., Van de Zande, T., Brinkkemper, S., Stam, E., & Varma, V. (2015). How education, stimulation, and incubation encourage student entrepreneurship: Observations from MIT, IIIT, and Utrecht University. The International Journal of Management Education, 13(2), 170–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Jennings, L., Shore, D., Strohminger, N., & Allison, B. (2015). Entrepreneurial development for US minority homeless and unstably housed youth: A qualitative inquiry on value, barriers, and impact on health. Children and Youth Services Review, 49, 39–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kersh, N. (2015). Rethinking the learning space at work and beyond: The achievement of agency across the boundaries of work-related spaces and environments. International Review of Education, 61(6), 835–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. König, A. (2015). Changing requisites to universities in the 21st century: Organizing for transformative sustainability science for systemic change. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 16, 105–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Langley, A., & Abdallah, C. (2011). Templates and turns in qualitative studies of strategy and management. Research Methodology in Strategy and Management, 6, 201–235.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Lee, W. O. (2014). Lifelong learning and learning to learn: An enabler of new voices for the new times. International Review of Education, 60(4), 463–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lindh, I. (2017). Entrepreneurial development and the different aspects of reflection. The International Journal of Management Education, 15(1), 26–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Löfsten, H. (2016). New technology-based firms and their survival: The importance of business networks, and entrepreneurial business behaviour and competition. Local Economy, 31(3), 393–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Lundstrom, A., & Stevenson, L. A. (2005). Entrepreneurship policy: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. United States: SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Mosey, S., Wright, M., & Clarysse, B. (2012). Transforming traditional university structures for the knowledge economy through multidisciplinary institutes. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36, 587–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Mueller, S. (2011). Increasing entrepreneurial intention: Effective entrepreneurship course characteristics. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 13(1), 55–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Mustar, P., Renault, M., Colombo, M. G., Piva, E., Fontes, M., Lockett, A., et al. (2006). Conceptualising the heterogeneity of research-based spin-offs: A multi-dimensional taxonomy. Research Policy, 35(2), 289–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Nasser, M. E., Du Preez, J., & Herrmann, K. (2003). Flight of the young flamingoes: alternative futures for young entrepreneurs in South Africa. Futures, 35(4), 393–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Ndonzuau, F. N., Pirnay, F., & Surlemont, B. (2002). A stage model of academic spin-off creation. Technovation, 22(5), 281–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Oosterbeek, H., Van Praag, M., & Ijsselstein, A. (2010). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurship skills and motivation. European Economic Review, 54(3), 442–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Osborne, M., Kearns, P., & Yang, J. (2013). Learning cities: Developing inclusive, prosperous and sustainable urban communities. International Review of Education, 59(4), 409–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Overwien, B. (2000). Informal learning and the role of social movements. International Review of Education, 46(6), 621–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Phan, P. H., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2005). Science parks and incubators: Observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 165–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Pirnay, F., Surlemont, B., & Nlemvo, F. (2003). Toward a typology of university spin-offs. Small Business Economics, 21(4), 355–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Rasmussen, E., & Borch, O. J. (2010). University capabilities in facilitating entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study of spin-off ventures at mid-range universities. Research Policy, 39(5), 602–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2011). The evolution of entrepreneurial competencies: A longitudinal study of university spin-off venture emergence. Journal of Management Studies, 48(6), 1314–1345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Raupp, F. M., & Beuren, I. M. (2009). Programas oferecidos pelas incubadoras brasileiras às empresas incubadas [Programmes offered by Brazilian incubators to incubated companies]. Revista de Administração e Inovação, 6(1), 83–107.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Roberts, E. B. (1991). The technological base of the new enterprise. Research Policy, 20(4), 283–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Roche, S. (2015). Of integration and disintegration: The “hows” and “whys” of lifelong learning in a rapidly changing world. International Review of Education, 61(5), 577–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Ruskovaara, E., Pihkala, T., Seikkula-Leino, J., & Järvinen, M. R. (2015). Broadening the resource base for entrepreneurship education through teachers’ networking activities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 62–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Sánchez-Escobedo, M. C., Díaz-Casero, J. C., Hernández-Mogollón, R., & Postigo-Jiménez, M. V. (2011). Perceptions and attitudes towards entrepreneurship. An analysis of gender among university students. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(4), 443–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Turker, D., & Selcuk, S. S. (2009). Which factors affect entrepreneurial intention of university students? Journal of European Industrial Training, 33(2), 142–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Veen, R. V. D., & Preece, J. (2005). Poverty reduction and adult education: Beyond basic education. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 24(5), 381–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Vohora, A., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Research Policy, 33(1), 147–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Wallin, M. W. (2012). The bibliometric structure of spin-off literature. Innovation, 14(2), 162–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Wright, E., & Lee, M. (2014). Developing skills for youth in the 21st century: The role of elite International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme schools in China. International Review of Education, 60(2), 199–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Wright, M., Siegel, D. S., & Mustar, P. (2017). An emerging ecosystem for student start-ups. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(4), 909–922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Ye, F. Y., Yu, S. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2013). The triple helix of university-industry-government relations at the country level and its dynamic evolution under the pressures of globalization. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(11), 2317–2325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Yin, R. K. (2004). Estudo de Caso: Planejamento e Métodos [Case study: Planning and methods]. Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil: Bookman.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Fundação Getulio Vargas, Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo (FGV/EAESP), São Paulo, Brazil

    Éder D. Bezerra & Tales Andreassi

  2. Universidade Federal de Goiás, Faculdade de Administração, Ciências Contábeis e Ciências Econômicas (FACE/UFG), Goiânia, Brazil

    Cândido Borges

Authors
  1. Éder D. Bezerra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cândido Borges
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tales Andreassi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Éder D. Bezerra.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bezerra, É.D., Borges, C. & Andreassi, T. Universities, local partnerships and the promotion of youth entrepreneurship. Int Rev Educ 63, 703–724 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-017-9665-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • University
  • Youth
  • Entrepreneurship – Business incubator
  • Local development
  • Student spin-off companies