Spot the differences in traditional and social entrepreneurial intention : highlighting the role of human and social capital

There is general agreement in the scientific community that entrepreneurship plays a central role in the growth and development of an economy in rapidly changing environments (Acs & Virgill 2010). In particular, when business activities are regarded as a vehicle for sustainable growth at large, that goes beyond mere economic returns of singular entities, encompassing also social problems and heavily relying on collaborative actions, then we more precisely fall into the domain of ‘social entrepreneurship’(Robinson et al. 2009). In the entrepreneurship literature, prior studies demonstrated the role of intentionality as the best predictor of planned behavior (Ajzen 1991), and assumed that the intention to start a business derives from the perception of desirability and feasibility and from a propensity to act upon an opportunity (Fishbein & Ajzen 1975). Recognizing that starting a business is an intentional act (Krueger et al. 2000) and entrepreneurship is a planned behaviour (Katz & Gartner 1988), models of entrepreneurial intentions have substantial implications for intentionality research in entrepreneurship. The purpose of this paper is to explore the emerging practice of social entrepreneurship by comparing the determinants of entrepreneurial intention in general versus those leading to startups with a social mission. Social entrepreneurial intentions clearly merit to be investigated given that the opportunity identification process is an intentional process not only typical of for profit start-ups, and yet there is a lack of research examining opportunity recognition in social entrepreneurship (Haugh 2005). The key argument is that intentionality in both traditional and social entrepreneurs during the decision-making process of new venture creation is influenced by an individual's perceptions toward opportunities (Fishbein & Ajzen 1975). Besides opportunity recognition, at least two other aspects can substantially influence intentionality: human and social capital (Davidsson, 2003). This paper is set to establish if and to what extent the social intentions of potential entrepreneurs, at the cognitive level, are influenced by opportunities recognition, human capital, and social capital. By applying established theoretical constructs, the paper draws comparisons between ‘for-profit’ and ‘social’ intentionality using two samples of students enrolled in Economy and Business Administration at the University G. d’Annunzio in Pescara, Italy. A questionnaire was submitted to 310 potential entrepreneurs to test the robustness of the model. The collected data were used to measure the theoretical constructs of the paper. Reliability of the multi-item scale for each dimension was measured using Cronbach alpha, and for all the dimensions measures of reliability are above 0.70. We empirically tested the model using structural equation modeling with AMOS. The results allow us to empirically contribute to the argument regarding the influence of human and social cognitive capital on social and non-social entrepreneurial intentions. Moreover, we highlight the importance for further researchers to look deeper into the determinants of traditional and social entrepreneurial intention so that governments can one day define better polices and regulations that promote sustainable businesses with a social imprint, rather than inhibit their formation and growth.

Social and traditional entrepreneurial intention : what is the difference?

The concept of entrepreneurship has developed during the past decades and has a long history in the business sector. Miller et al. (2009) refer that entrepreneurship is an important part of the economic scenery, providing opportunities and jobs for substantial numbers of people. Audresch et al. (2002) clarify how the positive and statistically robust link between entrepreneurship and economic growth has been indisputably verified across a wide spectrum of units and observation, spanning the establishment, the enterprise, the industry, the region and the country. In the literature there has been an evolution and intense debate about the role of entrepreneurship as a field of research and about the creation of a conceptual framework for the entrepreneurship field as a whole. Shane and Venkataraman (2000) define the field of entrepreneurship as the scholarly examination of how, by whom, and with what effects opportunities to create future goods and services are discovered, evaluated, and exploited. For this reason the field involves the study of sources of opportunities; the processes of discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities; and the set of individuals who discover, evaluate, and exploit them.

Genetic relationship between five psychiatric disorders estimated from genome-wide SNPs

Most psychiatric disorders are moderately to highly heritable. The degree to which genetic variation is unique to individual disorders or shared across disorders is unclear. To examine shared genetic etiology, we use genome-wide genotype data from the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (PGC) for cases and controls in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We apply univariate and bivariate methods for the estimation of genetic variation within and covariation between disorders. SNPs explained 17-29% of the variance in liability. The genetic correlation calculated using common SNPs was high between schizophrenia and bipolar disorder (0.68 +/- 0.04 s.e.), moderate between schizophrenia and major depressive disorder (0.43 +/- 0.06 s.e.), bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder (0.47 +/- 0.06 s.e.), and ADHD and major depressive disorder (0.32 +/- 0.07 s.e.), low between schizophrenia and ASD (0.16 +/- 0.06 s.e.) and non-significant for other pairs of disorders as well as between psychiatric disorders and the negative control of Crohn's disease. This empirical evidence of shared genetic etiology for psychiatric disorders can inform nosology and encourages the investigation of common pathophysiologies for related disorders.