Huub Mudde1

This dissertation is about universities in developing countries. It is about how universities contribute to the region in which they operate, and in particular on how they prepare students for (self-)employment through among others entrepreneurship development.

I am very much interested in other cultures: the further away, the more I seem to be fascinated. I also want to understand how people interact with each other, because I believe that we can achieve more through cooperation. In my life and work, I try to bring people together and to empower them. I am inspired by questions on how organisations could contribute to social development and be managed in such a way that everyone performs best to his or her abilities and interests. This all comes together in my work at MSM as manager of several projects in support of higher education institutes in developing countries and emerging economies. Central to these projects is strengthening the relevance of the respective universities for the socio-economic development of their countries. This is where the notion of entrepreneurial university comes in and this study started.

The major research question that this study meant to answer, was ‘How entrepreneurial are universities in developing countries?’ and the secondary research questions were (i) ‘How can we measure the entrepreneurial intent and activities of universities in developing countries?’ (ii) ‘Which factors influence how entrepreneurial a university is?’ and (iii) ‘What have been the implications of becoming a more entrepreneurial university on society?’.

Entrepreneurial university is defined as an academic organisation designed for staff and students to become entrepreneurial, innovative, and creative, and - in partnership with many stakeholders - create public value, operating in a dynamic context (Gibb, 2013).

In a multiple-case study, I have assessed 14 universities: one in Indonesia, nine in Ethiopia and four in Palestine. In addition, 14 entrepreneurs who graduated from a university in Ethiopia or Indonesia were interviewed to explore whether they attributed their entrepreneurial behaviour to characteristics of their universities. The findings of these four empirical studies (on Indonesia, Ethiopia, Palestine, and on nascent entrepreneurs) are described in four research chapters.

The overall conclusion is that at all 14 universities assessed, entrepreneurial activities were taking place, in particular entrepreneurship education. However, only the Indonesian university (the Agricultural University Bogor, IPB, see chapter two), situated in a middle-income country, could be categorised as entrepreneurial, because of its strategically embedded research-based technology transfer and innovation. This development was triggered by the granting of the autonomy status of the university by the government of Indonesia in combination with a serious threat of drastically reduced government funding. The institutional leadership consistently worked towards becoming a research-based entrepreneurial university, stimulating technology transfer and innovation.

Nine Ethiopian universities have been assessed (chapter three) showing little variation. All were operating in a top-down, central government-led context, in which the Ministry of Education among others had instructed the universities to strengthen entrepreneurial mindsets of the students. The universities faced limited discretion: university leaders had to obey the instructions from the central government and staff had the inclination to act on command. Entrepreneurship education was being set up, but in general, there was a lack of an entrepreneurial vision, mission, and strategy. Partnering with external stakeholders was limited. Some of the universities showed more entrepreneurial activities than other universities, which coincided with a positive orientation of institutional leadership towards entrepreneurial initiatives. The study concluded that it is questionable whether the universities were effectively contributing to creating young, entrepreneurial Ethiopians with the right skillset to find (self-)employment and help boosting the economy.

In Palestine, more specifically in the West Bank, the four universities assessed demonstrated an entrepreneurial zeal (chapter four). In their diversity, they all set-up activities to strengthen entrepreneurial attributes of their students and to link education with industry. A strong push factor identified in this research was the prominent influence of international donor agencies that made funds available for conquering the huge problem of youth employment in the country: the unemployment rate is above 40 per cent (ILO, 2016). This study concluded that the Palestinian universities were good examples of socially and culturally engaged universities (Goddard and Kempton, 2016) more than being entrepreneurial. Furthermore, it concluded that the notion of an entrepreneurial university as an important contributor to innovation through research often does not apply in a developing context.

The final research chapter of this dissertation (chapter five), on university-graduated nascent entrepreneurs in Ethiopia and Indonesia, resulted in the indicative conclusion that entrepreneurial universities may play a supportive and accelerating role in entrepreneurship development of their students. They could do so through support by entrepreneurial teaching staff, mentoring, and by helping to give access to finance and alumni. However, this study also pointed to the limitations of the role of universities: the relation between entrepreneurial education and entrepreneurial behaviour of graduates seems to be limited and in most of the cases, university-educated entrepreneurs only started a business after several years of work experience after their graduation.

The four research studies combined lead to the crosscutting observations that all universities assessed are strongly engaged with society, have a growing but limited cooperation with the formal private sector, and that entrepreneurship education is on the rise. Furthermore, all universities assessed in which more entrepreneurial activities were taken place were administered by a university leadership at the top of the institution that demonstrated a positive attitude and active support towards entrepreneurship development and new initiatives.

Summarising the answers on the three research questions leads to the following conclusions:

• Becoming a more entrepreneurial university is influenced by a multitude of internal and external and factors. The most important internal factors mentioned were: strategic intent, (exemplary) leadership, coordination and communication, research capabilities, and strength of social network. The external factors that were relevant for all the universities assessed are: institutional autonomy, funding, availability and maturity of formal private sector, and policy attention for youth (un)employment.

• From all these factors, a more entrepreneurial strategic intent, entrepreneurial leadership at the helmet of the institution, and institutional and individual autonomy went hand in hand. With these three enablers in place, a university seems to have the potential to engage in a process towards becoming more entrepreneurial.

• The more entrepreneurial universities were those in which exemplary leadership of the university president was able to sense and seize an external opportunity for the benefit of the university.

• The national economic situation seems to affect on how entrepreneurial a university is. The more entrepreneurial universities are located in countries with a higher national income.

• The older universities assessed seem to be more fit to become entrepreneurial than the younger universities, because of a more conducive working and learning environment, more experienced staff, more research capabilities, and a stronger and larger social network, including alumni.

• The more entrepreneurial universities seem to ‘create’ more entrepreneurial graduates who are better able to create a job or to find a job than graduates from less entrepreneurial universities: the universities assessed integrate entrepreneurial, twenty-first-century competencies and skills in the curriculum and offer a more conducive environment for students who want to start a business.

• Universities seem to play a supportive and accelerating role in entrepreneurship development of their students through support by entrepreneurial teaching staff, mentoring, and by giving access to finance and alumni.

• In the universities assessed, guiding students entrepreneurially is mainly dependent on a few individual teachers instead of purposefully organised by the university.

• Universities in developing countries are important socially, culturally, politically and economically. They can be considered pivotal formal institutions on which others can build, in particular when located further away from capital.

• All the universities assessed are strongly engaged with society, but are weak in partnerships with private sector.

• Many universities in developing countries are probably not ready for effective participation in a Triple Helix, because they lack research capacities and resourceful networks, and have limited options for engaging with the formal private sector.

HEInnovate
In this study, I tested the applicability of HEInnovate. This self-assessment framework developed by the OECD and the European Commission (European Commission and OECD, 2013) was proven to be valid as framework for assessing the entrepreneurial intent and activities of universities in developing countries. It would however be important to add explicit attention for the conduciveness of the university campus for teaching and learning. In addition, it should look more into the non-economic societal role of the university and into relations with the informal private sector. Furthermore, I conclude that HEInnovate is less conducive for measuring entrepreneurial characteristics in a quantifiable, comparative manner, capturing a transformation process or relating developments within the university to the ecosystem in which it operates. Last, I suggest that HEInnovate should be complimented by a model that would link inputs, throughput, outputs and impacts of an entrepreneurial university.

Academic contributions
The findings of this study corroborate with the attention in literature for the role of entrepreneurial universities in stimulating entrepreneurial skills and – behaviour of students (Krabel, 2018; Marcondes de Moraes, Iizuka, and Pwedro, 2018), among others through entrepreneurship education. Evenmore, this study extends the body of literature with a cross-country analysis of the entrepreneurial status of universities in a developing country context. In particular in such a context, employability of graduates appears to be an important imperative for a university to become more entrepreneurial.

In addition, this study has demonstrated that the concept of entrepreneurial university is multi-dimensional. One cannot sharply distinguish between entrepreneurial and non-entrepreneurial universities. Being entrepreneurial is a gradual process. Important dimensions are: leadership and strategy; organisation, coordination and communication; institutional and individual autonomy; staff capacities; entrepreneurship education; joint research; cooperation with private sector; and networking activities.

Furthermore, this study has demonstrated the importance of entrepreneurial teachers, mentors, social networking, and alumni for enterprise development. In this study I found that although these entrepreneurial interactions are amplified by a university-wide entrepreneurial strategy and entrepreneurial leadership, it is not a condition for individuals and entities to act entrepreneurially. Thus, entrepreneurial staff may operate in an institution that is not entrepreneurial.

Another contribution to the academic debate is that this study demonstrates that the main characteristics of entrepreneurial universities in high-income countries as typified by Clark and Etzkowitz (Etzkowitz et al., 2017) seem to apply to universities in developing countries as well. However, instead of a focus on relations with businesses (Etzkowitz, 2004), the non-economic engaging role of the university is demonstrated to be more prominent.

This study thus supports the societal role of entrepreneurial universities as stressed in literature (Subotzky, 1999; Saeed, Muffato and Yousaf, 2014; Sooampon and Igel, 2014; Amadi, Philips, Chodokufa and Visser, 2016; Grobbelaar and De Wet, 2016; Ceptureanu, 2017). Even more, the research findings have indicated the pivotal role universities in developing countries can play in the development of the environment in which they operate. I suggest that other concepts than ‘entrepreneurial university’ may be more appropriate in a developing country context, in particular ‘anchor institution’ (Work Foundation, 2010), ‘development university’ (Grobbelaar and De Wet, 2016) or ‘engaged university’ (ACEEU, 2016b; Goddard and Kempton 2016).

Universities not only impact on the society in which they operate, but the other way round is true as well. This study confirms that a university is part of a bigger system, in which external factors impact on internal university developments. A more entrepreneurial university supporting students to become more entrepreneurial needs an enabling environment (Naudé, Szirmai and Goedhuys, 2011; Alves et al. 2019).

Last, I argue to critically assess the applicability of the innovation-geared Triple Helix model in a developing country context. The interrelation with industry and government, which is an intrinsic characteristic of entrepreneurial universities (Etzkowitz, 2004), is in developing countries hampered by many factors. Acknowledging the influencing role of international donors, I suggest introducing ‘donor-pushed’ as typology explaining stakeholder cooperation for economic development and innovation in a context in which government institutions are often weak, private sector is small, universities are young, under-resourced and focusing on teaching with weak research capabilities.

Policy contributions
This dissertation concludes with several policy recommendations. First, I have demonstrated that universities increasingly seek to contribute to entrepreneurial behaviour of their students and graduates through entrepreneurship education. Universities may support the initiation of start-ups through investing in entrepreneurial staff, mentoring, involving alumni and giving access to finance. In countries with high youth unemployment, any start-up created is worthwhile from the perspective of self-employment, and as such important to be supported.

In addition, I recommend to give more attention to strengthening entrepreneurial skills in a broader sense. These skills are relevant for all citizens, enabling them to create value whether self-employed or acting as an employee. Universities need to invest in staff development, in particular on entrepreneurial teaching, and to facilitate staff time and capacities to act as mentor. I recommend to move away from incentivising staff to become entrepreneur themselves towards incentivising staff to be able to teach and demonstrate entrepreneurial, twenty-first century skills to their students.

Furthermore, initiatives aiming at countering labour market mismatches of university graduates should have a broad, institutional approach. Initiatives by universities to stimulate entrepreneurial teaching and learning and support to entrepreneurs are expected to be more succesful when embedded in an entrepreneurial university strategy, supported by (exemplary) leadership, good internal coordination and communication, stronger research capabilities that open opportunities for partnering with private sector, and a strong social network.

Another policy conclusion relates to the interaction of universities with government and industry. I propose to increase capacities of university leadership and staff to partner with a multitude of stakeholders. This will strengthen the foundation for economic development in the locality in which the university operates and will benefit students and graduates in their search for (self) employment.

This study has made clear that it is an uphill battle for many universities in developing countries, characterised by a large informal economy, to partake in a well-functioning Triple Helix and to become entrepreneurial in the sense of commercialisation of innovative academic research. I recommend to support young teaching universities to intensify their efforts on entrepreneurship education and to create a learning environment that is conducive for experimentation and creativity. In addition, they could be developing applied research capacities on frugal innovation in support of small and medium sized entrepreneurship. Whilst those universities located in the proximity of a stronger economic cluster with a stronger (emerging) private sector, could be supported to generate and commercialise innovative research through among others strengthening Triple Helix partnerships. In many developing countries, these universities are the oldest universities, often located in capital.

In many developing countries, international donor agencies play an important role in setting or influencing policy agendas. I recommend that the donor community undertakes a coordinated effort to stimulate the integration of entrepreneurial, twenty-first-century competencies and skills in the curriculum, to strengthen the entrepreneurial and partnership capacities of teaching staff, to continue with their support to management and leadership of universities, and to stimulate partnerships between universities and the formal private sector.

Last, this dissertation has demonstrated that universities in a developing context are often the strongest formal institutions in an entrepreneurial ecosystem. They are relatively well-resourced and stable institutions that play a significant role in local development as sources of knowledge, skilled workforce, networks and business opportunities. They are in the midst of society, trying their best to contribute to entrepreneurship development and youth employment.

This bring me to the end of this summary. Years ago, when studying sociology, I was learning about social interactions. Now, 30 years later, this PhD study brings me back to the importance of social relations. This study about universities was in fact about people: about students, graduates, teachers, university administration. About people who in their own way try to make the best out of their lives: for themselves, for others, and – whether consciously or not – for the development of their country. It is important for the leadership of universities, staff and students to create, strengthen and utilise social networks. This is a fruitful foundation for the development of entrepreneurship and employment in Ethiopia, Indonesia and Palestine.