Youth Entrepreneur Ecosystem

Abstract

Chapter 2 established that the mind uses various brain processes when thinking, feeling, and choosing responses to life experiences. Youth entrepreneurs gain said life experiences through being and interacting within ecosystems. This chapter, therefore, proposes the establishment of an ecosystem to promote youth entrepreneurship. This proposed theoretical ecosystem model has been practically created and applied to youth entrepreneurs as a means to test their entrepreneurial mindset and discover the enablers and barriers that youth entrepreneurs come into contact within relation to their ecosystems.

1 Introduction

The previous chapter established that the mind uses various brain processes when thinking, feeling, and choosing responses to life experiences. Youth entrepreneurs gain said life experiences through being and interacting within ecosystems. This chapter, therefore, proposes the establishment of an ecosystem to promote youth entrepreneurship. This proposed theoretical ecosystem model has been practically created and applied to youth entrepreneurs as a means to test their entrepreneurial mindset and discover the enablers and barriers that youth entrepreneurs come into contact with in relation to their ecosystems. The application and findings related to this model are discussed further in Part II of this book.

1.1 Context

The SHAPE ecosystem, which has been created to promote youth entrepreneurship strategies, fundamentally starts with education, training, skills development, and mentorship within the microsystem. Since youths are central to this ecosystem, they form both the recipients of stimuli and, in return, offer shared experiences and insights to the various role-players operating within their ecosystem. The process of this model is, thus, dynamic, interactive, and reflective, with the facilitating agent of this ecosystem being the education institute that drives the system’s creation and evolution.

In order for higher education institutions in South Africa to effectively provide the necessary skills and learning for entrepreneurial development in our emerging economy, a radical change in intellectual and educational priorities is needed.¹ Higher-order thinking or a deeper dimension to and towards entrepreneurship learning is especially necessary to address the current socio-economic crisis and rising youth unemployment rates.² Similar to other living-theory approaches (e.g., Theory U, systemic action learning and action research [SALAR]), SHAPE-activated learning experiences are proposed to have the potential to enable a paradigm shift amongst youth entrepreneurs and their intermediaries that can help to advance socio-economic development in pursuit of macro- and mundo-system visions.³

With pedagogy in the field of entrepreneurship shifting the emphasis from classroom teaching to action learning, ‘static’ or ‘content-orientated’ teaching, which has been common practice for more than two decades, is now frequently criticised as it is no longer appropriate in or for South Africa’s complex and change-driven society.⁴ Such traditional educational methods, focusing on theory and information, are now regarded as inappropriate for content and pedagogy.⁵ Rather, entrepreneurship curriculum pedagogies based on discovery and creation theories now provide a basis for shifting from static classroom approaches to an action learning methodology.

Most current undergraduate curricula in South African higher education have adopted principles from discovery theory, where the emphasis is on creativity, scanning, shaping ideas, and developing business plans.⁶ Developing and presenting an entrepreneurship programme needs a suitable programme process to help aspirant entrepreneurs assimilate entrepreneurial practice. This process should be action-orientated and include appealing themes that promote student-centredness and encourage reflective thinking.⁷

While the discovery approach is prominent in the complex and continually evolving South African context, there are also cases for adopting pedagogic approaches that draw on principles from creation theory. In such an approach, the emphasis is on overall programme processes and how ideas transform over time. Programme participants, in this instance, have the opportunity to practice entrepreneurship skills by adapting initial ideas in response to new knowledge and information.

One key benefit of the creative entrepreneurship programme approach is how it can help students to problem-solve through the creation of a challenging environment where students have to face relevant challenges and learn to overcome these through taking action (learning-by-doing). This approach is, thus, also referred to as experiential learning or action learning. By promoting action, such a programme helps to promote self-direction and adaptability in its participants, which, in turn, makes it easier to assess the overall impact of an entrepreneurship endeavour. By comparison, more traditional programme participants would merely be allocated a ‘pass’ or ‘fail’ with little to no consideration of the broader implications. The cyclical approach of the experiential or action learning process thus shapes students into lifelong learners.⁸

Despite this move towards less traditional teaching and learning approaches, entrepreneurship programmes in South Africa currently still face a number of challenges, including:

• Making students aware of (the need for) socio-economic change. Otto Scharmer and Peter Senge believe that society has a ‘blind spot’ in respect to deeper dimensions of systemic change. This blind spot can be related to the systems thinking paradigm, where systems are seen only as interconnected and interrelated and, as such, might imply fragmentation of systems.⁹ Our current era, however, calls for new levels of cognition processes that adopt a nondual perspective.¹⁰ This more holistic and unified understanding could potentially allow youths to create a future filled with greater opportunities.¹¹

• Enhancing levels of self-efficacy, individual entrepreneurial orientation (IEO), and entrepreneurial intent (EI) among programme participants. Young people often lack commitment, work ethic, and motivation, and South Africa has the third-lowest level of youth entrepreneurship globally.¹²

• Developing problem-solving thought processes and generating new ideas to solve existing problems. Strategy-making processes in both public and private sector organisations can provide a basis for entrepreneurial initiatives and create opportunities for young people to be involved in decisions and actions.¹³

• Developing a support network for youth entrepreneurs. In South Africa, it is difficult for youth entrepreneurs to engage with an entrepreneurial ecosystem, as not enough private sector organisations or small-and-medium-sized enterprise (SME) owners are willing to form ‘business friendships’ with youth entrepreneurs to harness their entrepreneurial drive and help them develop sustainable entrepreneurial skills.¹⁴

These common challenges facing entrepreneurship programmes call for the reframing of their focus on enhancing programme participants’ levels of self-confidence and motivation. Thus, entrepreneurship programmes presented at higher education institutes should embrace active learning that includes practices aimed at teaching both for entrepreneurship (e.g., by offering case studies, guest speakers, group projects, business plans, student oral presentations, survey-participation) and about entrepreneurship (e.g., lecturers, set tests, individual assignments and written exams).¹⁵ These programmes should also aim to develop students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE) and individual entrepreneurial orientation (IEO) so that they make the pursuit of entrepreneurship a primary goal.

A further consideration is that youths require comprehensive facilitation and mentorship in order to develop a deeper cognitive perception of the challenges and issues faced both by young entrepreneurs and the broader socio-economic context. Such understanding could help students to develop their own internal domains.

The challenge is to develop an innovative action model—a kind of ‘living theory’—that truly inspires youths on a much deeper level and brings about the needed attitude change at an ontological level.

Shepherd Dhliwayo, who wrote this book’s preface, previously indicated that ‘to ensure effective sustainability of youth entrepreneurial endeavours’, it is necessary to link youth entrepreneurs’ gained life experiences to an interrelated ecosystem (a support structure). Several support structures¹⁶ aimed at developing and aiding youth entrepreneurs already exist. However, youth entrepreneurs frequently experience barriers caused by these very intermediaries who, at times, may obstruct rather than promote entrepreneurial growth.

2 The SHAPE Ecosystem Strategy for Youth Entrepreneurship

The concept of youth entrepreneur ecosystems is relatively new to the body of knowledge on youth entrepreneurship but has begun gaining in popularity over the past few years. Entrepreneurial systems, on the other hand, have been discussed in the literature for more than 30 years.¹⁷ In terms of the newer youth entrepreneur ecosystem literature, special attention is currently paid to policy circles, as the Government seeks ways to address the crisis of high national youth unemployment in South Africa. There are still several empirical shortcomings within the literature surrounding youth entrepreneur ecosystems:

• 1. There remains a need for a clear analytical framework to explicitly demonstrate what causes and effects such ecosystems currently lack. Due to the varied locations and culture-specific nature of youth entrepreneurial ecosystems, it might not be possible to create a ‘one-solution-fits-all’ framework; multiple frameworks are necessary to effectively address the complex adaptive nature of these systems.

• 2. Although it is a systemic concept, the (youth) entrepreneur ecosystem still needs to incorporate insights from network theory to further exploit the co-initiation of the ecosystem. The interconnectivity and integrativeness of relationships between various internal and external domains are not currently clear.

• 3. Institutions or agents’ impact and special scale on the structure and performance of youth entrepreneur ecosystems remains unclear.

• 4. Studies have often focused on the (youth) entrepreneur ecosystem in a single region or cluster. Thus, the literature lacks a comparative and collective perspective.

• 5. The literature on (youth) entrepreneur ecosystems tends to provide a static framework that does not consider these systems’ evolution over time.¹⁸

As a longitudinal intervention, the SHAPE ecosystem model has been created to support youth entrepreneurs’ thinking, feelings, and decisions surrounding entrepreneurial behaviours and actions. The model aims to facilitate entrepreneurial ‘heartset’ by promoting an entrepreneurial mindset and ‘handset’. The facilitating agents of this model have built on Shepherd Dhliwayo’s model for experiential learning in entrepreneurship education, which proposes a prospective model for South African tertiary institutions. SHAPE is also grounded within Theory U’s premise that a process of shifting from reactive to generative thought is necessary for deep transformative socio-economic development. In Theory U, the pinnacle of an ‘aha moment’ is referred to as ‘presencing’ (synonymous with ‘co-inspiring’ or ‘innovative thought’). The presencing process occurs through youth entrepreneurs and role-players who, as Theory U states, co-initiate, co-sense, co-inspire, co-create, and co-evolve.

The occurrence of Shifting Hope, Activating Potential Entrepreneurship is seen as essential to addressing the deep-rooted socio-economic crisis faced by various systems in this country (Chapter 1). Therefore, theSHAPE YES (Youth Entrepreneur Support) Network (Fig. 3.1) was put into practice, and the related ecosystem was created, applied, and facilitated for the purposes of this research. The SHAPE ecosystem model was also validated through a series of assessments over seven years.

Fig. 3.1

(Source Van der Westhuizen, 2022)

The SHAPE YES Network for youth entrepreneurs—Personality traitsFootnote

*The Shape Youth Entrepreneur Support (YES) Network. First submitted for publication consideration to the International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research.

In a biological ecosystem (see Chapter 1), the heterogeneous concept of ‘home’ interrelates and interacts in an interdependent and complex relationship (non-dually). The youth entrepreneur ecosystem is similarly positioned within systemic levels, as described in Chapter 1 (micro-, meso-, macro-, and mundo-systems). Therefore, from a non-dualistic perspective, the youth entrepreneur ecosystem and its systemic levels cannot be separated due to the interrelatedness common to the source of origin (see Chapter 5).²⁰ Powerful centripetal forces, thus, bring youth entrepreneurs’ internal and external domains together into a single ecosystem.²¹

One starting point in creating the youth entrepreneur ecosystem may be to look into the entomological origin of the word ‘home’; and how it relates to connecting components forming the youth entrepreneur environment. The facilitating agent from a given education institute, who is responsible for co-initiating the architecture of the proposed model, could start by bringing together a support network from within the same geographical location. These parties would, and should, be mutually dependent on one another for their own existence, as these location-specific characteristics make up a youth entrepreneur ecosystem (a ‘home’).

Since this support network and the youth entrepreneurs in the area share a common location, it is assumed that they can easily reach out to one another and draw support from one another. Of further note is that while technology could further broaden the scope and reach of the network role-players, a deeper understanding is still needed with respect to the physical location of ‘home’. There is a need to better understand the location-specific problems and opportunities that youth entrepreneurs encounter in order to find the best niche market for value creation. There is also the understanding that, due to the location-specific nature of the microsystem, the architecture of bringing together different role-players will be different for each location.

Besides location-specific aspects, the youth entrepreneur ecosystem can also be industry-specific, depending on the youths’ needs and available value creation opportunities. The youth entrepreneurial ecosystem can, therefore, be a highly variegated, multi-actor, and multi-scalar phenomenon that requires bespoke policy interventions.²² The SHAPE strategy could allow for better adaptation and movement across different geographical locations as well as within the understanding of the nature of ‘home’.

One common denominator within the youth entrepreneurial ecosystem is the commitment to sustainable socio-economic development. This means that the contribution(s) from each actor must add value to systemic development. All parties must also share a vision to address multiple systemic crises (see Chapter 1).

The centripetal forces in the youth entrepreneurial ecosystem’s complex environment demand competitive advantage and innovation for existence, survival, and growth. The competition around resources within this ecosystem is, however, extremely high, as the same actors within the same ecosystem require access to the same resources. Despite this competitive nature, there still exists co-creation and co-evolvement amongst actors, which enables a conducive environment. According to Theory U, it is necessary for like-minded, like-hearted, and like-willed individuals to engage in the process of social emergence (‘economies of creation’), as, without cooperation, a continuation of systemic disconnect and social pathology (‘economies of destruction’) will occur.²³

Since the nature and scope of the youth entrepreneur ecosystem, along with its centripetal forces linked to location and industry, differ, Table 3.1 provides only a basic taxonomy of youth entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Table 3.1 Basic taxonomy of a youth entrepreneurial ecosystem

Theory U implies that for socio-economic development to occur—as in the development of (youth) entrepreneurship—on different systemic levels, the co-growth of all role-players is necessary. Five stages are proposed in this regard.²⁵

2.1 Co-initiating

Co-initiating entails working with others from the outset, as there exists a strong connection between people who share common ground. In the case of entrepreneurs, having similar connections helps to build long-lasting relationships with like-minded individuals. When there is a shared vision for a country, there is also greater synergy because people have similar goals. The SHAPE social technology focuses on building common intent through macrosystemic initiatives similar to those set out in South Africa’s National Development Plan (NDP) 2030.

2.2 Co-sensing

Co-sensing, in the South African context, connects entrepreneurs and key stakeholders through an in-depth understanding of all relevant interconnected systems. Understanding the dynamics can provide entrepreneurs and key stakeholders greater clarity and increase the likelihood of achieving mutual benefits. This is not necessarily a simple matter, and all parties need to understand clearly the challenges involved.

2.3 Co-inspiring

Co-inspiring (also referred to as ‘presencing’) is the ability to focus on new thought processes while removing inhibiting ideologies and pre-existing theories. This practice relates to developing the ability to react appropriately in new, unexperienced situations. Developing this ability gives entrepreneurs a competitive edge in unpredictable and difficult scenarios, as well as greater confidence in tackling difficult problems and making difficult decisions.

2.4 Co-creating

Co-creating relates to ‘exploring the future by doing’ and focusing on the needs of entrepreneurs’ projected businesses in order to remove obstacles that prevent them from achieving their objectives.

2.5 Co-evolving

Finally, co-evolving occurs after the formulation of a prototype solution. In this stage, the focus is on the impact of the given solution on the entire system. Co-evolving can also pertain to creating initiatives based on the interacting meso- and macro-fields involved.

3 Educational Institutions

An educational institute is, in essence, a business. The SHAPE youth entrepreneurial ecosystem strategy positions higher education institutes (universities) as key centripetal forces and facilitators for co-initiating, co-sensing, co-inspiring, co-creating, and co-evolving the support network for, and of, youth entrepreneurs. Indeed, entrepreneurial-orientated institutions can provide would-be entrepreneurs with the necessary foundation to start a business through providing necessary formal and/or informal training and skills development that increase entrepreneurial self-confidence (Fig. 3.2).

Fig. 3.2

The SHAPE YES Network for youth entrepreneurs—Educational institutions

In The University of the Future, edited by Dan Remenyi, Kenneth A. Grant, and Shawren Singh, there is an emphasis on how educational institutes, especially universities, are under considerable pressure to change towards producing work-ready graduates. Specifically, the work argues:

Universities reflect society and thus they are always a work-in-progress, continually in need of reinventing themselves.²⁶

They have been criticised for their intense focus on research which has sometimes been said to have been at the cost [of] their mandate to educate.²⁷

There are also ongoing debates between scholars as to whether universities should expand their focus towards becoming entrepreneurial in nature and, thereby, facilitate the entrepreneurship of students. Scholars from developing countries, which are generally faced with high graduate unemployment rates, tend to be more eager to support the new direction of universities becoming entrepreneurial, as this could provide greater scope for developing individuals’ internal entrepreneurial domains. Developing these inner domains towards entrepreneurial inclinations should occur both inter-disciplinarily and cross-disciplinarily, where all programmes and modules incorporate elements of entrepreneurship. Developing the initial entrepreneurial heart- and mindset before tackling the entrepreneurial skillset could also take place both in formal academic programmes as well as through support or supplementary programmes and initiatives.²⁸

The South African Department of Higher Education and Training’s (DHET) university education branch established the Entrepreneurship Development in Higher Education programme (EDHE) in 2016. The vision was for universities to enable (a) every student and graduate to be fully equipped to participate in the economy, aside from traditional employment; and (b) teaching, research, innovation, entrepreneurship, and commercialisation pipelines that are supported within universities.²⁹ The EDHE focuses on developing entrepreneurial universities, entrepreneurship in academia, and student entrepreneurship. The role of the EDHE is discussed in more detail in the next section.

It should be noted at this point, however, that the creation of the EDHE aligns with global trends towards increasingly recognising entrepreneurship as a vital part of a university’s role.³⁰ Development of entrepreneurship should, thus, be executed by academics in the form of academic entrepreneurship, by students in the form of student or graduate entrepreneurship, and by leadership in the form of creating entrepreneurial universities.³¹

3.1 The Entrepreneurial University

The concept of an entrepreneurial education institute gained popularity towards the end of the twentieth century due to the socio-economic need for universities, and educational institutes in general, to relook at their business model and sources of income. The entrepreneurial university creates, facilitates, and maintains an ecosystem for the youth, which impacts systemic development on micro-, meso-, macro-, and mundo-systemic levels.

Both education and research, as an industry, hold scope for entrepreneurial behaviour and approaches like providing services and products to clients. The concept of an entrepreneurial university, thus, adopts both a linear and a reverse linear model, thereby enabling entrepreneurship in universities. The linear model relates to teaching and research, knowledge, skills, and technology transfer. The reverse linear model occurs as these aspects are adapted from the place of research into active use. This transfer is aided by interface capabilities, such as activation and transfer officers. The university’s incubator or accelerator facilitators and mentors to youths, whose responsibilities would be to manage and market knowledge as a product and as protected intellectual property, can also aid in this process.

Based on this joint model, it is understood that the entrepreneurial university’s primary characteristics include:

• 1. the university itself, which, as an organisation, becomes entrepreneurial

• 2. the members of the university who turn themselves into entrepreneurs; and

• 3. the interaction of the university with the environment.³²

Key factors influencing the effective practice of an entrepreneurial university relate to entrepreneurial-orientated inner domains-based leadership, which can enable an entrepreneurial and value-adding environment. The entrepreneurial-orientated staff, as well as learning and teaching, exist in this environment. The entrepreneurial university’s success is, furthermore, associated with the presence of leadership with a vision towards addressing various systemic crises and inspiring both staff and youths to generate problem-solving ideas and possible inventions that support spin-off creation.³³

At many education institutes, working towards such a vision might not be possible through the academic programme alone. In this sense, institutions may require support programmes, initiatives, or units to collate these universities’ total entrepreneurial actions (EA). Such collation may take the form of an economic activation unit, which functions as a central institutional point.

Currently, many universities do have incubation, acceleration, and technology transfer offices in place that hold the potential to co-initiate the broader sense of the youth entrepreneurial ecosystem. Since students eventually graduate from these education institutes, hopefully with an entrepreneurial concept in place to enable initial career steps, it is the responsibility of the entrepreneurial university to educate and train role-players in students’ external support networks to provide effective mentorship and support after graduation. Through support from Government agencies, private sector agencies, communities, corporates and large businesses, and SME owners in their direct environment, graduates may be better able to further develop themselves as youth entrepreneurs. These alumni, in return, become part of the future youth entrepreneurial ecosystem through continuous cycles of providing support and mentorship, passing on knowledge and skills, and introducing new role-players to the network. Through this cycle, students graduating from entrepreneurial universities begin to contribute to future interconnected local systems where co-beneficial support structures occur and co-develop.

3.2 Academic Entrepreneurship

Value creation is widely recognised as the common core of both academic entrepreneurship and how different stakeholders in society create value for each other. It can, therefore, be reasoned that value co-creation is essential for an effective youth entrepreneur ecosystem. The development of entrepreneurship, as part of a university’s role, should, thus, be executed by academics in the form of ‘academic’ entrepreneurship. University academics, generally through research conducted at universities, are a significant source of entrepreneurial activity, and their role in stimulating economic activity has become more pronounced over the past 30 years.

Initially, academic entrepreneurship was described as involving academics who attempt to generate funds from external agencies as a means of pursuing research at a university. This developing entrepreneurial activity has since manifested in increasing numbers of patents, licencing income, numbers of academic spinouts and start-ups, and applied research conducted with partners and consultancy engagements.³⁴ Through such developments, more extended research-led community engagements now take place, and the entrepreneurial ecosystem of the university has become a natural outflow of co-engagement, co-creation, and co-evolvement processes with the larger external community of the university.

The South African national agenda, through the EDHE goal on academic entrepreneurship, is to

[…] support (university) academics in instilling an entrepreneurial mindset within all students and graduates through the offering of relevant knowledge, transferral of practical skills and the application of business principles, not only to a specific discipline, but across disciplines.³⁵

The idea of infusing elements of entrepreneurship into education has gained great traction in many educational institutes around the world as a response to addressing socio-economic problems and facilitating graduate employment. However, putting this idea into practice poses significant challenges. The initial co-initiating, co-sensing, co-inspiring, co-creating, and (eventually) co-evolving of the youth entrepreneur ecosystem is complex and time-consuming for individuals at these education institutes who facilitate the process. Despite these challenges, the positive long-term effects (systemic transformation and value creation) make it necessary to expand this ecosystem as much as possible in a responsible and sustainable manner.

The main problem that educational institutes might initially encounter when establishing a youth entrepreneurship environment is related to the capacity and ability to change. This issue includes, but is not limited to, a lack of time and various resources; academic staff’s trepidation towards commercialism; educational structures that are currently not able to promote entrepreneurialism; and a lack of clarity,³⁶ as locations, institutional architecture, programme offerings, and staff abilities differ both within and across institutions.³⁷

A further issue is that what is meant by ‘entrepreneurship in education’ (or entrepreneurship education) differs significantly across existing literature reviews. Some perspectives view the concept as a process involving various academic and non-academic programmes to encourage students to start up their own enterprises. Other perspectives include that this concept is, instead, about making students more creative, opportunities-orientated, proactive, and/or innovative towards problem-solving. Furthermore, regarding promoting entrepreneurship education in developing countries with high unemployment: the emphasis and common denominator tend to fall on value creation (training students to create value for other people). Indeed, value creation is at the core of systemic development and a key factor in and for addressing different socio-economic crises on and across various systemic levels (see Chapter 1). As such, value creation is a key competency required by all staff and students, no matter what career is being pursued or whether activities take place internally or externally from an educational institute. Creating new and innovative enterprises could, thus, be viewed as one of many different means for creating value.³⁸

In addition, while why entrepreneurship education is relevant is mostly viewed from a socio-economic development perspective, it can by no means be seen as a ‘save-all’ solution for high youth unemployment. This is because as much as entrepreneurship education can work as a formal academic programme, with elective courses or components of entrepreneurship being incorporated into general modules or course learning outcomes within higher education, it can still be problematic when infused into the primary or secondary levels of education. At these lower levels, it can, however, still be impactful to trigger students’ entrepreneurial heartsets and mindsets, which could result in deeper learning over time.³⁹

Effective youth entrepreneurship is, furthermore, linked to students’ resilience within their inner domains. Through resilience, students can become motivated to engage in creating value in their environment based on the knowledge they acquire through entrepreneurial education. Thus, both academic and non-academic entrepreneurship education programmes have certain implications for planning, executing, assessing, and co-initiating the youth entrepreneur ecosystem within their respective programme or module offerings.

In comparison to what and why, when to infuse entrepreneurship into education tends to be clearer in its theory (Fig. 3.3). Yet, its practical application is often difficult and will vary between educational institutes, locations, and students. The theory ambitiously proposes that entrepreneurship education should be embedded into curricula that are relevant to all students, preferably as early as pre-primary and primary school. Some countries (e.g., in the Middle East) have managed to do so. These countries’ success in this endeavour may be related to how their education systems are relatively new and specifically created in response to the need to add value to extreme national problems (e.g., to address the over-extraction of oil and gas and its related potential to reduce income gained from this resource).

Fig. 3.3

(Source Lackéus, 2015)

Overview of entrepreneurial education

At a later stage in the educational system, both academic and non-academic programmes can be complemented by offering youths voluntary enabling opportunities for entrepreneurship practice. Currently, on both the secondary and tertiary levels, most initiatives, besides curricula offerings, focus on business start-ups. This focus is problematic, as it often lacks embeddedness in other teaching subjects. A possible way to better infuse theory and practice could be through the adoption of SALAR. However, effective implementation requires academic staff, support staff, and mentors from institutes’ external environments to collaborate. Furthermore, an action takes time to co-initiate and sustain, as maintaining relationships is complex, and coordinating the various role-players can be time-consuming for facilitators. In vocational education and training, youths’ EA is also generally associated with the actualisation of learning outcomes and value creation; however, gaps still exist in connecting youths to tools, methods, and processes for sustaining actions and the value creation process.

It is necessary, therefore, to determine how to develop staff and students with enhanced entrepreneurial heartsets and mindsets in order to address complex situations. While determining this ‘how’ may be a difficult endeavour, it is still vital, as successfully answering this question could translate into significant reductions in the currently high levels of graduate and youth unemployment.

One popular approach to developing youth entrepreneurial abilities is ‘learning-by-doing’. Indeed, there is increasing consensus in the body of knowledge that students working in interdisciplinary teams and interacting with people outside the educational institute can be a particularly powerful way to develop entrepreneurial competencies. However, in order to effectively adopt this approach, the what (what needs to be learnt by doing?) needs to be properly answered.

If experiential and action learning, similar to learning-by-doing, is based on EA as an outcome, then it could be argued that value creation should occur within the extended youth entrepreneurial ecosystem. By employing such an approach, it may be that role-players outside of educational institutes could significantly benefit from the youths’ value creation, both indirectly and directly. While this value creation might not be immediately visible or tangible, there is a vision that the ecosystem could coherently move towards a common ‘big picture’ vision. For this to occur, however, the facilitating agent within the educational institute needs to draw from other institutional resources to support the scope of activities serving as a node by bringing together total youth EA. Traditionally, acting as a node was not associated with the role, function, and/or mandate of education institute staff.⁴⁰

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) created a model to provide an overview of different concepts within entrepreneurship education (Fig. 3.3). The model illustrates youth entrepreneurial progression in the education system and could be a starting point for facilitators when planning to co-initiate the youth entrepreneurial ecosystem.⁴¹ It details the development of the entrepreneurial heartset and mindset from pre-youth years through to higher education conclusion.

According to the model, four approaches⁴² can be considered:

• 1. teaching about entrepreneurship, which pays attention to theoretical concepts⁴³;

• 2. education related to entrepreneurial competencies, behaviours, and hard and soft skills;

• 3. education for entrepreneurship, which creates a platform for training or practice sessions and may demand a form of informal course structure; and

• 4. education in entrepreneurship for youths or staff who have existing enterprise concepts and demonstrate existing EA.

Entrepreneurship education can offer a way for societies to progress based on problem-solving competencies, innovation, and innovative and creative thinking.

3.3 Studentpreneurship

Studentpreneurship is a term used to describe youths with an open heart, open will, and open mind to connect to their entrepreneurial ecosystem en route to EA. The term refers to youths who are learning to be entrepreneurial or who have, in some cases, initiated a start-up. Studentpreneurs develop their heartset, handset, and mindsets with support from an educational institute or participate in development or mentorship initiatives from other agents. These studentpreneurs have a responsibility to co-initiate, co-sense, co-inspire, co-create, and co-evolve with other people in their youth entrepreneurial ecosystem and to maintain positive interpersonal relationships so as to hopefully gain sustained EA and create value.

Some educational institutes, especially in higher education, enable an environment of entrepreneurial support and allow studentpreneurs to engage in business activities on and off-campus, with or without the support of the educational institute. These institutions do so by offering their students incubation, acceleration, shop-space, patenting, and licencing opportunities. Such activities often take place extra-curricularly and are not linked to academic assessment. Oftentimes, educational institutes provide formal studentpreneur policies or agreements that stipulate rules for doing business with, or to the external environment of, the educational institute with support of the educational institute itself.

The EDHE programme of DHET envisions South African universities mobilising national student and graduate resources to create successful enterprises that will eventually lead to both wealth and job creation. Graduates, under this vision, would continue to add value to the ecosystem and, in return, offer support to the new generation of youth entrepreneurs moving into the education system cycle. In this context, wealth refers more to national value creation than the accumulation of money.

4 Government Agencies

The SHAPE strategy for developing an effective youth entrepreneurial ecosystem underlines the need for robust links between governmental agencies, educational institutes, and the full range of entrepreneurial factors in the ecosystem. In terms of (youth) entrepreneurial development, Government plays two important roles. The first is regulatory, which is related to creating and providing conducive policies and responsibly and ethically ensuring justice. The second is developmental, which aligns to initiating various programmes and offering financial and other forms of assistance (e.g., policy creation that enables entrepreneurial ventures and safeguards its interest, including conflict resolution mechanisms, patent policies, taxation laws, and other business-related regulations)⁴⁴ (Fig. 3.4).

Fig. 3.4

The SHAPE YES Network for youth entrepreneurs—Government agencies

In South Africa, Sector Education Training Authorities (SETAs) are responsible for initiating and sponsoring internships or learnership programmes. In 2005, 22 different economic sector-related organisations were re-established by the South African Minister of Labour. They had since been allocated responsibility for educating and training individuals to develop skills in relation to each specific economic sector (e.g., one for the banking sector, one for information technology, etc.) as a means to implement the global National Skills Development Strategy.⁴⁵ A sector is made up of economic activities that are linked and related to macrosystemic socio-economic development. These SETAs provide experiential learning to individuals, with 60% of the training taking place outside the classroom (in a workplace-related milieu). There are currently, however, no SETAs specifically allocated to youth entrepreneurship, nor is there any track record of sustainable job creation for youths who undergo SETA-based programmes.⁴⁶

Government bodies, such as local municipalities, also provide business support to youth entrepreneurs and have programmes to boost entrepreneurship. One example of a local municipality in South Africa that has implemented such initiatives is the eThekwini Municipality (in which central Durban is located). In this municipality, 15 types of business support offerings and programmes exist to support individuals and enhance entrepreneurship (Table 3.2).⁴⁷

Table 3.2 Example of local government support for youth entrepreneurship

One problem with these kinds of municipality-based business support programmes is a lack of reliable data on their successes or sustainability in the long term. The focus of these programmes also tends to be on the most basic level, with no core focus on innovation, creativity, or sustainable mentorship post-completion of such a programme.

4.1 Entrepreneurship Development in Higher Education

The EDHE, as a government agency, offers a platform primarily aimed at addressing the issues of graduate unemployment and the need for universities to become more entrepreneurial. It was created in 2016 within the South African DHET and is part of the University Capacity Development Programme (UCDP). The EDHE intends to co-initiate, co-sense, co-inspire, co-create, and co-evolve with South African public universities to create a national impact. This intended impact is to (a) equip every student for economic participation through economic activity, with an emphasis on student women; (b) support academics and professionals to develop entrepreneurship through learning, teaching, and research across all disciplines; and (c) support universities as entrepreneurial and innovative ecosystems, which include relevant policy development.

This government agency further describes its approach as propelling the economic participation of students and graduates by leveraging strong and existing networks in and through its community of practice (CoPs—detailed a bit later in this section). The EDHE also champions relationships by utilising existing university structures and resources to capacitate each South African university in a lean, scalable way.

It should be noted, however, that the mandate of this agency does not include entrepreneurship in basic education or general entrepreneurship in the community but rather has a specific focus on universities. The vision, thus, needs to mobilise resources across the nation and different universities to promote the desired facilitation of entrepreneurship programmes aimed at improving the systemic crises faced at the macrosystems level. A primary strategy to mobilise these noted resources is to create different CoPs by bringing together university staff and students from various public universities into a central node. Such national CoPs currently include the following:

• EDHE CoP for Student Entrepreneurship (CoP for SE)

• EDHE CoP for Entrepreneurship Learning and Teaching (CoP for ELT)

• EDHE CoP for Entrepreneurship Research (CoP for ER)

• EDHE CoP for Entrepreneurial Universities (CoP for EU)

• EDHE Studentpreneurs (CoP for SPs); and

• Upcoming in 2022, EDHE CoP for Entrepreneurial Alumni (CoP for EA).

The national entrepreneurship/entrepreneurial CoP structure enables the youth entrepreneurial ecosystem to develop between educational institutes, governmental agencies, and private sectors (Fig. 3.5).

Fig. 3.5

(Source EDHE, 2021)

The EDHE CoP landscape (2021–2023)

4.1.1 The EDHE CoP Landscape

The EDHE further envisions replicating the national CoP structure of general government agencies within South African universities. This, in turn, could boost the concept of entrepreneurial universities where universities actively collaborate with governmental agencies through establishing an economic activation office as a central internal node (e.g., an existing incubator or accelerator), which would be responsible for facilitating the internal co-creation of the CoP structure. This node would also leverage existing university support structures (Fig. 3.6).

Fig. 3.6

(Source EDHE, 2021)

Model of university structures conducive to entrepreneurship and economic activation

4.2 Other Government Agencies

Aside from the EDHE, there are a number of other government agencies responsible for promoting (youth) entrepreneurship. For example, the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) is a national development finance institute mandated to promote economic growth and industrial development and improve domestic industrial capacity.⁴⁸ This agency is capacitated to develop opportunities for youth entrepreneurs in alignment with development policies and develop programmes and functions in collaboration with educational institutes.

The IDC also promotes entrepreneurial development through its subsidiary, namely the Small Enterprise Finance Agency (SEFA). SEFA is responsible for supporting the establishment and developing and growing SMEs with the aim of reducing poverty and creating jobs.⁴⁹ When youth entrepreneurs receive funds from this agency for the establishment of their businesses, such ventures can employ other youths. SEFA also partners with financial intermediaries to foster the support of entrepreneurs and creates an avenue for monitoring allocated funds.

Of further note is the South African Institute for Entrepreneurship (SAIE), which is aimed at impacting South Africa’s entrepreneurial culture to foster job creation and promote entrepreneurial behaviour, which should result in reducing the currently high levels of unemployment, poverty, and inequality.⁵⁰ With a focus primarily on agriculture, education, information technology, and enterprise development sectors, SAIE is enabled to develop relevant initiative programmes and methodologies.

Similarly, the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA) was established by an act of parliament (Act 54 of 2008) to address matters relating to youth development at the national, provincial, and local government levels.⁵¹ NYDA ensures that stakeholders, such as Government, the private sector, and civil society, give attention to the development of youths by offering programmes to solve challenges and improve their lives. At the micro-level, NYDA provides training, mentorship, and entrepreneurial support to youths, while at the macro-level, it facilitates the contribution of the youth to policy development, partnership, and research.

The Chemical Industries Education and Training Authority (CHIETA) was established by the Skills Development Act in 1998⁵² and is responsible for the identification of skills needed to be developed to promote growth in the chemical industries sector. Such growth is achieved through training and development initiatives.

Furthermore, the Umbsombuvu Youth Fund⁵³ has been equipped to attract investment partnerships to fund youth entrepreneurs. This Fund helps youth entrepreneurs to grow their ventures by teaching them the required skills and offering programmes, such as franchises, fund-a-loan, and the voucher financing system. The Fund also supports entrepreneurship education and training, co-operative training, graduate development training, and business consulting service vouchers.

As a macrosystem role-player, governmental agencies set out to support youth entrepreneurship through various programmes and initiatives. These initiatives can be presented on a national, provincial, or local municipal level. The support provided by these agencies can also be through various avenues, including mentorship, resource exchange, leverage, and/or possible financial support.

5 Private-Sector Agencies

Private-sector agencies are community, regional, national, or international-based agents operating for the collective promotion of private sector organisations. These agencies have the potential to support youth entrepreneurs by enabling networking opportunities with other entrepreneurs and business friends. The agencies also assist with forming further business friendships, possible collaboration opportunities in the value chain, possible financing schemes, and other support platforms to enable youth entrepreneurs over time (Fig. 3.7).

Fig. 3.7

The SHAPE YES Network for youth entrepreneurs—Private sector agencies

Networks within private-sector agencies are necessary because youth entrepreneurs access intangible resources (e.g., access to new markets, information, trust, and knowledge) and tangible resources (e.g., facilities and finances) through these avenues. In the SHAPE ecosystem, specifically, the collaboration between educational institutes and private sector agencies is necessary to facilitate⁵⁴ the sharing of resources such as capital, knowledge, expertise, and technologies. Private-sector agencies can also serve as incubators by providing business support and physical spaces for youth entrepreneurs through or within their physical proximity or online platforms. Furthermore, many private-sector agencies operate on a membership system, where members benefit from various organised services offered by respective private sector agencies.⁵⁵ The following paragraphs offer more details regarding these kinds of agencies.

The South Africa Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SACCI)⁵⁶ represents the interest of businesses by engaging with the government and regulators on matters that pertain to ensuring a conducive business environment for business owners, thereby protecting the interest of the business sector. SACCI’s responsibility to entrepreneurs is to promote and lobby potential investors (e.g., the Government and other businesses) for conditions that enable the development of start-ups for youth entrepreneurs.⁵⁷

The National African Federated Chamber of Commerce and Industry (NAFCOC),^58,59 in turn, is aimed at developing and promoting inclusive economic growth amongst existing and new businesses with memberships of about 5 million SMEs. NAFCOC has existing partnerships with various institutions, including governmental and educational institutions, and builds business relations with international business chambers.

The African Development Bank (AfDB),⁶⁰ in conjunction with the European Investment Bank,⁶¹ has instituted an initiative referred to as Boost Africa Empowering Young Entrepreneurs. This initiative assesses possible funding for youth entrepreneurs at the earliest stages of their EA.

6 Communities

The concept of ‘communities’ refers to the context in which youth entrepreneurs are embedded.⁶² Communities can be both enabling and barrier factors within and for the youth entrepreneurial ecosystem. The notion of ‘embeddedness’ indicated earlier relates to both contextual and community influences that critically contribute to the formation of youth entrepreneurs’ mental models (thinking and feeling). In other words, the spirit and culture of the embedded community can impact youths’ shared values and norms, receptivity to education and mentorship, leadership and governance, and infrastructure. All these factors, in turn, impact the youths’ EI (Fig. 3.8).

Fig. 3.8

The SHAPE YES Network for youth entrepreneurs—Communities

The embeddedness of community is also important for youth entrepreneurs in terms of how communities can provide an ‘anchoring’ that supports the healthy development of young people’s inner domains. Indeed, an enabling community is most likely to contribute to shaping the youths’ EA and encourage trust between role-players when co-initiating entrepreneurial ideas. The growth-effectiveness of youth entrepreneurship depends on a shared heart, mind, and will; hence, the need for positive community embeddedness.

While such embeddedness can be structural, cultural, political, and/or cognitive, cultural embeddedness most commonly impact youth entrepreneurs. Cultural embeddedness consists of the beliefs, values, ideologies, and norms that exist and develop within a given community (wherein a youth entrepreneur exists) and most often begins within the immediate family. General culture also influences the choice of a young person to become an entrepreneur and his or her response to information.⁶³

With this understanding, it can be asserted that current embeddedness and culture run counter to the traditional South African notion of ubuntu (an African philosophy that values moral practice and the intention to act in a manner that is respectful and honest). In South Africa, ubuntu culture seeks to benefit society rather than just the individual. However, the practice of ubuntu is not widespread, and more effort is required for communities to benefit from this concept. South Africa, thus, needs to develop a pervading culture of ubuntu to provide collective benefits to and for all entrepreneurs, as such assistance could be crucial in bridging the current disconnect between existing individualistic and collectivist points of view.⁶⁴

As the community spirit often starts with the immediate family, role-players can consist of parents, guardians, or siblings who form the primary support system and become the greatest influencers of youth entrepreneurs. Mentors in the broader community (adult allies) or peers are also great social influencers for youth entrepreneurs and can either create an enabling or a disabling environment. That is, youths often perceive especially their peers as trustworthy and relatable, which can create emotional support for youth entrepreneurs, particularly when those peers encourage their pursuits. Other community enabling aspects can include community organisations (e.g., social, sport, or cultural clubs), religious institutions, infrastructure, or facilities, and other public or private organisations located in direct geographical access to the community wherein a youth entrepreneur exists.⁶⁵ Conversely, many barriers to youth entrepreneurship occur as a result of a lack of (positive) community support. Without community support, many youths are left feeling hopeless and helpless in creating an entrepreneurial future for themselves.

When a facilitator in an educational institute co-initiates SHAPE, engagements will naturally occur with youths in the local community wherein they are pursuing their entrepreneurial education. Often, local communities consist of both community-based organisations and NGOs with whom local youth entrepreneurs interact. Local communities are also the principal consumers of the products and services rendered by youth entrepreneurs and form their infrastructure ‘business friends’. In this way, local communities both receive value from and create value for youth entrepreneurs. Since these communities also tend to be the same as from where the youth entrepreneur hails, they also add pertinence to the link between ‘community’ and ‘entrepreneurial development’. This link is particularly true in respect to how most South African youths are well-acquainted with the social ills (e.g., crime, corruption, violence, and the mismanagement of unemployment) that exist within their own communities⁶⁶ and, therefore, aim to address these ills practically through entrepreneurship.

Youth entrepreneurial ability should, thus, begin at home and then proceed to higher education and training.⁶⁷ At the tertiary level, partnerships with local communities and SMEs can also better provide opportunities for youth entrepreneurs to form business friendships, thereby widening the scope for beneficial consultation and creating the potential for youth entrepreneurs and their business friends to move forward together in entrepreneurial activity.

The local communities act as support networks between youth entrepreneurs and the broader entrepreneurial process, thus, become an important supportive pillar in the SHAPE youth entrepreneurial ecosystem.

7 Small-and-Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs)

The terms ‘entrepreneur’ and ‘SME owner’ can be used synonymously in relation to their potential for serving as business friends to youth entrepreneurs, as most often, an SME owner is also an entrepreneur.⁶⁸ In the SHAPE strategy for youth entrepreneurial ecosystems, the emphasis is on youth entrepreneurs having an initial opportunity to try out social skills with existing entrepreneurs or business owner-managers through the processes of co-initiating, co-sensing, and co-inspiring. Further EA might result from these interactions by co-creating and co-evolving business ideas that occur together or individually (Fig. 3.9).

Fig. 3.9

The SHAPE YES Network for youth entrepreneurs—The entrepreneur & S/M business

Normative, cognitive, and regulatory pillars are associated with the co-initiation phase between youth entrepreneurs and possible business friends, as facilitated through the education institute.⁶⁹ The normative pillar underpins social values, norms, and beliefs that govern individual and organisation behaviour. The cognitive pillar constitutes the ‘shared logics of action’ among youths and their ecosystem(s). These, in turn, can be used to interpret available information and formulate youths’ expectations about the outcome of their entrepreneurial interactions. The regulatory pillar comprises regulations, laws, and other aspects that define the ‘rules of co-value creation’ and legal boundaries.⁷⁰

Building on these three pillars, interactions of skills transfer, mentorship, and industry training from SME owners or existing entrepreneurs to youth entrepreneurs who are just beginning their EA are necessary to build an effective ecosystem and add value to socio-economic development. Possibly some of the most productive learning environments for youth entrepreneurs and their business friends occur when actions closely match the day-to-day realities of small-business leadership and networking.⁷¹ Hands-on experience in actual business and industry environments for youths who would otherwise have little sense of the competitive pressures that face new entrants in a business field is also a crucial enabler aspect. The emphasis in these interactions between youth entrepreneurs and SME owners should, thus, primarily be on ‘learning the business’ by ‘experiencing the business’. This process best occurs through the active performance of business operations in the course of an entrepreneurship initiative undertaken at an educational institute.

As part of the ‘co’ strategy, the possible collaboration between business friendship structures, youth entrepreneurs, and SME owner-managers is encouraged by facilitators of an educational institute. Possible emerging business friendships that can result from such collaboration include:

• Youth entrepreneurs who wish to co-create and co-evolve on their own and with their own business ideas become their own business friends.

• Business professionals (non-youth) who wish to draw on their participation in the youth entrepreneurial ecosystem to co-create and co-evolve on their own and with their own business ideas.

• Youth entrepreneurs who wish to co-create and co-evolve together with other youth entrepreneurs and with their own and/or joint business ideas.

• Youth entrepreneurs who wish to co-create and co-evolve together with other youth entrepreneurs and business professionals with their own or joint business ideas.

• Business professionals who wish to co-create and co-evolve together with other business professionals; professionals remain part of value creation within the youth entrepreneurial ecosystem.

Youth entrepreneurs who engage with initial EA benefit from their inner and external domain development through business friendships with SMEs that provide possible spin-off new ventures and creation opportunities. Business friendships also strengthen both the individual and the enterprise, especially in challenging business times.⁷² Networks that youth entrepreneurs can access through business friendships include.

• 1. information networks, through which opportunities are identified, and resources are acquired (e.g., embracing information communication technology [ICT]);

• 2. networks for value-adding exchange (embracing competition and strengthening value chains); and

• 3. networks of social influence or status.

This last network type is especially important because youth entrepreneurs can boost their ESE to confidently overcome emotions associated with feeling helpless and/or hopeless about the future when they have social support. The ability of youth entrepreneurs to use existing networks within the ecosystem allows them to leverage over their competitors, both within the ecosystem and across other communities.

A possible way for a facilitator at an educational institute to bring youth entrepreneurs together with various potential business friends is to allocate industry mentors to youths. These mentors can provide guidance to their mentees, and the youth entrepreneurs can learn from these mentors’ experiences and success stories. Industry mentorship between business friends and youth entrepreneurs can also enhance the collective learning capacity necessary to propel youths’ creativity and innovativeness.⁷³

8 Corporations and Large Businesses

Corporations and large businesses perform important functions in the development of the youth entrepreneurial ecosystem. These organisations generally specialise in attracting a pool of highly skilled individuals, many of whom are graduates with higher education qualifications from various disciplines.⁷⁴ In terms of contributing and adding value to the youth entrepreneurial ecosystem, educational institutes and corporations or large businesses can collaborate through both formal and informal agreements to support youth entrepreneurial development. A vibrant, value-adding youth entrepreneurial ecosystem essentially includes major businesses that help to cultivate said ecosystem (purposefully or otherwise).⁷⁵ Large businesses rooted locally instead of internationally are also likely to be the most successful in strengthening this ecosystem, as angel investors tend to be indigenous. Top management roles within local-based, larger organisations also tend to be more plentiful, ensuring that the company is generally well-connected within the community (Fig. 3.10).

Fig. 3.10

The SHAPE YES Network for youth entrepreneurs—Corporations and large businesses

Fewer and fewer jobs are available in the industrial sector due to technological advancements, which calls for new models of social innovation to facilitate youth entrepreneurship, along with new skills development for the new economy and opportunities for transforming resources and skills into value-creating endeavours.⁷⁶ Current wicked problems (also referred to as long-term unaddressed systemic problems that cause systemic crises), however, indicate that existing institutional arrangements are insufficient for adding value to socio-economic problem-solving, making innovations imperative.⁷⁷ An open innovation approach towards purposefully blending grassroots ideas, youth entrepreneurial innovations, and frugal innovations are still far from being actioned by most large businesses and corporations in South Africa. It is, therefore, essential for a systemic disconnect to be overcome in order to effectively address wicked problems.

The youth entrepreneurial ecosystem could be a significant avenue for overcoming this disconnect, particularly if it is supported to create value through social, open innovations that connect corporations, communities, and educational institutes. Social innovation is a creative and connected solution that can be used to address unmet social needs, as it includes adding value and innovation by grassroots and youths for grassroots and youths. Through this approach, it becomes easier to co-create a healthy youth entrepreneurial ecosystem.⁷⁸

Corporations and large businesses can further benefit youth entrepreneurs through mechanisms rooted in regulatory obligation. Corporate social investment (CSI), for instance, can provide skills development and mentorship to youth entrepreneurs. It is also crucial that corporations undertake talent recruitment programmes aimed at university graduates that assist with development. These larger businesses can also provide exhibitions to foster youth entrepreneurship and attract graduates. Similarly, skills development and training initiatives (e.g., the South African Skills Development Levy) can be promoted. Since most large businesses and corporations pay a tax towards the SETA to which they are registered, such funding can enable youth entrepreneurs to undergo industrial training and promote academic-industry collaboration with existing large businesses. In this way, youth entrepreneurs can be provided with valuable industry-specific skills.

Such vocational initiatives currently include 40% classroom training and 60% on-the-job training (also referred to as ‘learnerships’) when linked to obtaining a full accredited qualification. The regulatory pillar of learnership training and skills development similarly includes tri-party agreements between the youth, educational institutes, and large businesses or corporations. In these kinds of agreements, the corporation pays a skills development levy as tax to the industry-affiliated SETA.

CSI refers to business practices involving programmes that benefit the community, including youth development.⁷⁹ At both the mundo- (United Nations) and macrosystem levels (national government), CSI (also referred to as corporate social responsibility) can help with youth development and the training of youths in entrepreneurial activities. A business’s CSI can encompass a wide variety of operations (e.g., assisting the broader socio-economic environment and/or helping people in the community grow through development programmes).

As part of CSI, a business should assess its compliance with ethical and international norms and ensure that all its policies are in alignment. Sometimes, companies communicate these policies to better ensure that local communities benefit from these operations. It should be noted, however, that although these initiatives are usually perceived to be effective, they often lack necessary support and strategic management. The criteria for measuring their success also tend to be unclear and subjective, and one possible reason for companies to claim that they implement CSI programmes is to gain credibility and loyalty in the community, without much further substantiation to such a claim being required.

In case-study research, two South African retail banks were investigated to identify whether employees involved in CSI initiatives were supported by the programmes. These studies showed that the banks in question did not, in fact, support employees through CSI programmes and the programmes were, therefore, not effective. There, thus, needs to be better management of CSI programmes to improve their effectiveness and optimise their value for recipients.⁸⁰

Similarly, work-integrated learning provides youths with the opportunity to learn within an industry. This approach can greatly increase EA within the youth by improving their skills and enabling them to gain experience. Inflexible and restrictive regulatory pillars for youths moving into work-integrated learning can, however, cause barriers. Therefore, there is a need to leave scope for flexibility. For example, the eligibility criteria imposed byeducational institutions when selecting youths for their programmes often do not include corporate representatives in reviewing the selection process. Corporations and large businesses must be more involved in work-integrated learning if they are to make a significant contribution to the entrepreneurial development of youths, address skills shortages, and promote graduate employability.⁸¹

The importance and effectiveness of educational institutes collaborating with industry to improve work-integrated learning are worth considering, as the investment of resources in this endeavour can learn to provide youths with skills and experiences that make them more entrepreneurial. Shared resources (e.g., facilities, equipment, and specialist expertise) enable all-round strength. Indeed, various case studies from developed countries show evidence that if major universities are supported by 10,000 companies, there are strong contributions from both universities and businesses. Studies from developing countries, conversely, show weak business contributions to work-integrated learning, which is problematic as youths are not provided with valuable work experience.

Despite the current lack of business contribution to work-integrated learning, there are some positive signs found within, particularly, the engineering sector of South Africa. Specifically, commitment and engagement appear to be higher for the work-integrated learning process when industries are financially invested in the process. South Africa could, thus, greatly improve work-integrated learning progress by partnering with both the community and industry to increase commitment from industry.⁸²

Apprenticeships (also referred to as the internship method) are another way to link youths, large businesses, and educational institutes in a formal manner. To activate effective apprenticeships, designated representatives from large businesses and corporations should match interns with mentors who can manage their development and be accountable for internship outcomes. The interns’ educational institutes, in turn, should assess these internship programmes to evaluate their effectiveness and ascertain whether tax incentives are providing a worthwhile return to the economy. Such monitoring could also ensure that when companies abuse these programmes, penalties can be enforced to ensure compliance.⁸³

A wide-ranging study conducted in South Africa examined more than 20 South African tertiary education institutes and gathered data on whether the current education programmes include internships. This study found that there were positive outcomes for internships for ESE, IEO, and EI.⁸⁴

One further example of the importance of a strong partnership between government, industry, and educational institutes is illustrated in a one-year internship programme created by the Department of Science and Technology. Two hundred students from across five provinces studying mechanical, electrical, industrial, and civil engineering were provided with an opportunity to gain work experience in the industry. Along with the benefit to the youths who took part in this programme, the companies also benefitted by gaining an opportunity to boost their competitiveness by the acquisition of new talent, through the youth who completed the one-year internship and then went on to become permanent employees.⁸⁵

Although many educational institutes in South Africa have educational programmes connected to industry, these programmes often lack resources and financial input from industry. Indeed, while institutions that provide work experience opportunities usually also offer to fund students in these programmes, the South African industry must show more commitment when financially investing in a work-experience programme. Since these programmes give students practical experience, youths who complete them tend to be more employable than youths who have not had work exposure.⁸⁶ Another possibility would be, therefore, to enable youths is to gain trade accreditation and incubation, facilitated by their educational institute and offered by relevant large businesses or corporations. Such accreditation could provide youths with the necessary knowledge to pursue entrepreneurial activities.⁸⁷

The co-initiation between youth entrepreneurs, educational institutes, and corporations or large businesses is generally viewed through the lenses of two relevant tensions that underscore a systemic paradox, namely: the development tension (the inconsistent relationship between the youth entrepreneurial ecosystem and economic performance), and the policy tension (the unclear role of youth entrepreneurial ecosystem policies in respect to improving and adding value to socio-economic outcomes).⁸⁸ Radical social innovation is, therefore, necessary to bridge the current systemic disconnect and enable a future of possibilities for youth entrepreneurs.

9 Internationalisation

Internationalisation in Higher Education as a concept and strategic agenda in developing youth entrepreneurs is a relatively new, broad, and varied phenomenon driven by a dynamic combination of political, economic, sociocultural, and academic rationales and stakeholders. Its impact on regions, countries, and institutions varies according to their particular contexts⁸⁹ (Fig. 3.11).

Fig. 3.11

The SHAPE YES Network for youth entrepreneurs—Internationalisation

One of the key reasons for the significance of internationalisation in Higher Education to support a YES Network is its role in promoting cultural exchange and global understanding. South African universities that embrace internationalisation create an environment that encourages interaction between local and international youth entrepreneurs. This enables the sharing of diverse cultural experiences, languages, and perspectives, enhancing intercultural competence and global awareness among these youth entrepreneurs. Such exposure nurtures open-mindedness, tolerance, and respect for different cultures, preparing youth to thrive in an interconnected and diverse world.⁹⁰

Developing countries like South Africa need to rethink and reimagine its socio-economic development-orientated problem-solving strategy when responding to developing an enabling environment to maximise the benefits of internationalisation in the context of the ‘Knowledge Society’ while serving its direct ecosystemic Youth Entrepreneur Support Network, while being part of the global community.⁹¹ The Knowledge Society serves to facilitate the process where information translates into resources to enable youth entrepreneurs taking effective actions (it differs from the information society that only creates and disseminates raw data). Therefore, translating output into outcomes.⁹²

Internationalisation plays a central role in the Future World-of-Work strategy of higher education institutions in South Africa. It aims to ‘Africanize’ the purposes, functions, and curricula of universities, thereby creating a unique YES Network specifically tailored to the local ecosystem. However, young entrepreneurs require stronger support to establish these essential international relationships, which can contribute to their entrepreneurial journey and potentially facilitate the scaling-up of their initiatives. Traditionally, mobility was a key barrier to youth within the African context in internationalisation, where access to funds to enable mobility played a pivotal role. However, the digital transformation of the ‘Knowledge Society’ enables youth to access global networks, international funding opportunities, and cutting-edge technologies to support their entrepreneurial actions.⁹³

In summary, internationalisation plays a multifaceted role in South African universities and beyond. It facilitates cultural exchange, broadens mental models of youth entrepreneurs, drives innovation and economic development, and elevates global competitiveness. Embracing internationalisation is vital for youth South African universities to provide youth entrepreneurs with an opportunity to remain competitive, foster global citizenship, and contribute to the socio-economic growth of the nation.

10 Synthesis

The key constructs outlined in this chapter translate into the different sections of the empirical investigation discussed in the following chapters. Furthermore, the identified key aspects were translated into factors for empirical investigation in each section of the investigation tool. Table 3.3 presents a summary of the youth entrepreneurship nexus.

Table 3.3 Summary of the SHAPE youth entrepreneurship ecosystem

11 Conclusion

This chapter also proposed the theoretical conceptualisation of the SHAPE ecosystem model for effective youth entrepreneurship. In this model, youth entrepreneurs feature as central agents, with their internal and external domain factors either enabling or hindering EA. A systematic literature review identified educational institutes as facilitating agents in the youth entrepreneurial ecosystem, with emphasis on higher education institutes and especially universities. Findings from the literature also emphasised that there is a current systemic disconnect and lack of frugal social innovation to address wicked grassroots problems, which has created key barriers to the value chain and value creation aimed towards socio-economic development.

Since the microsystem is key for improving systems holistically and runs parallel with heartset, handset, and mindset development, involvement by youths and other role-players in their ecosystem is essential. The systematic literature review presented in this chapter also provided new insights into the role of educational institutes as facilitating agents responsible for co-initiating, co-sensing, co-creating, and co-evolving the youth entrepreneurial ecosystem. A limitation of the review was, however, that there is not much information available regarding the practical co-incorporation of youth entrepreneurs who are not affiliated with an educational institute in the ecosystem. Further research on this inclusivity is, therefore, still needed.

Of further note is that the proposed model is generic and flexible, thereby allowing for location-specific adaptation and movement in creating the architecture of the youth entrepreneurial ecosystem. The theoretical model was implemented in practice at a selected South African university over a period of time, and findings of the practical application are discussed in Chapters 4–8.

This chapter builds on the SHAPE project-supported research supported in part by the National Research Foundation of South Africa (Grant Number: 122002-Shape). These works include: Adelakun and Van der Westhuizen (2021), Awotunde and Van der Westhuizen (2021a), Awotunde and Van der Westhuizen (2021b), Nhleko and van der Westhuizen (2022), Ruba et al. (2021), Van der Westhuizen (2017a), Van der Westhuizen (2017b), Van der Westhuizen (2018a), Van der Westhuizen (2018b), Van der Westhuizen (2019), Van der Westhuizen, (2021).